Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the

United States

September 1993

OTA-F-565

NTIS order #PB94-107679

GPO stock #052-003-01347-9
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Species

in the United States, OTA-F-565 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, September 1993).

ii

For Sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop, SSOP. Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN O-1 6-042075-X
Foreword

N

on-indigenous species (NIS)-----those species found beyond their natural

ranges—are part and parcel of the U.S. landscape. Many are highly

beneficial. Almost all U.S. crops and domesticated animals, many sport

fish and aquiculture species, numerous horticultural plants, and most

biological control organisms have origins outside the country. A large number

of NIS, however, cause significant economic, environmental, and health

damage. These harmful species are the focus of this study.

The total number of harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts are creating

a growing burden for the country. We cannot completely stop the tide of new

harmful introductions. Perfect screening, detection, and control are technically

impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the

Federal and State policies designed to protect us from the worst species are not

safeguarding our national interests in important areas.

These conclusions have a number of policy implications. First, the Nation

has no real national policy on harmful introductions; the current system is

piecemeal, lacking adequate rigor and comprehensiveness. Second, many

Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with

new and spreading non-indigenous pests. Third, better environmental education

and greater accountability for actions that cause harm could prevent some

problems. Finally, faster response and more adequate funding could limit the

impact of those that slip through.

This study was requested by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee; its Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the

Environment and the Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes; the

Subcommittee on Water Resources of the House Committee on Public Works

and 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 of

commissioned papers, workshop participants, survey respondents, and the many

additional people who reviewed material. Their timely and indepth assistance

enabled us to do the extensive study our requesters envisioned. As with all OTA

studies, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

Roger C. Herdman, Director

iii
Advisory Panel

Marion Cox

Chair

Resource Associates

Bethesda, MD

J. Baird Callicott

University of WisconsinStevens Point

Stevens Point, WI

Fait h Thompson Campbell

Natural Resources Defense

council

Washington, DC

James Carlton

Williams College-Mystic Seaport

Mystic, CT

Alfred Crosby

University of Texas

Austin, TX

Lester E. Ehler

University of California

Davis, CA

William Flemer, Ill

Wm. Flemer’s Sons, Inc.

t/a Princeton Nurseries

Princeton, NJ

John Grandy

Humane Society of the U.S.

Gaithersburg, MD

Lynn Greenwalt

National Wildlife Federation

Washington, DC

Robert P. Kahn

Consultant

Rockville, MD

William B. Kovalak

Detroit Edison Co.

Detroit, MI

John D. Lattin

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR

Joseph P. McCraren

National Aquiculture Association

Shepherdstown, WV

Marshall Meyers

Pet Industry Joint Advisory

council

Washington, DC

Robert E. Morris

Northcoast Mortgage

Eureka, CA

Philip J. Regal

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Rudolph A. Rosen1

Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department

Austin, TX

Don C. Schmitz

Florida Department of Natural

Resources

Tallahassee, FL

Jerry D. Scribner

Attorney-at-Law

Sacramento, CA

Howard M. Singletary, Jr.

North Carolina Department of

Agriculture

Raleigh, NC

Clifford W. Smith

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Honolulu, HI

Reggie Wyckoff

National Association of Wheat

Growers’ Associations

Genoa, CO

1Affiliatiion provided for identification only.

iv
EXECUTIVE BRANCH LIAISONS

Gary H. Johnston Robert Peoples William S. Wallace

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC Arlington, VA Washington, DC

Kenneth Knauer 2

Katherine H. Reichelderfer3 Melvyn J. Weiss4

U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC Washington, DC Washington, DC

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and though&d critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel

does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of

its contents.

2Until January 1992.

3Panel member August, 1991; liaison thereafter.

4After January 1992.
Preject Staff

Walter E. Parham Phyllis N. Windle

Program Manager Project Director

Food and Renewable Resources

Program

ANALYTICAL STAFF

Elizabeth Chornesky

Analyst

Peter T. Jenkins

Analyst

Steven Fondriest

Research Assistantl

Kathleen E. Bannon

Research Assistant2

Christine Mlot

Editor

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Nathaniel Lewis

Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond

Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm

Personal Computer Specialist

1Until January 8, 1993.

‘After April 12, 1993.

vi
contents

1 Summary, Issues and Options 1

Summary of Findings 1

Policy Issues and Options 15

Chapter Review 50

2 The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 51

What’s In and What’s Out: Focus and Definitions 51

Do We Know Enough To Assess the Situation? 54

Benefits of Introductions 56

When Non-Indigenous Species Cause Problems 57

Economic Costs 63

Health Costs 69

Environmental Costs 70

Relationship to Biological Diversity 74

Chapter Review 76

3 The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of

Introductions 7 7

Pathways: Humans Increase the Movement of Species 77

How Many Non-Indigenous Species Are There? 91

Factors Affecting Pathways and Rates 96

How Many Is Too Many? 97

Chapter Review 100

4 The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 107

Which Species Are Imported and Released? 108

Which Species Are Controlled or Eradicated? 110

Common Decisionmaking Approaches 111

Decisionmaking Protocols 125

Values in Decisionmaking 129

New Syntheses of Diverse Approaches 131

Chapter Review 136

5 Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 137

Technologies for Preventing Unintentional and Illegal Introductions 137

Technologies for Managing Established Harmful

Non-Indigenous Species 143

Related Issues 157

Chapter Review 162

vii
6 A Primer on Federal Policy 163

Lessons From the Primer 163

Current National Policy 166

Policies and Programs of Federal Agencies 170

Chapter Review 200

7 State and Local Approaches From a National

Perspective 201

The Relationship Between the Federal Government and the States 201

Relationships Among States 207

State Laws Regulating Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release 208

State Laws on Non-Indigenous Plants, Insects, and Other

Invertebrate Animals 221

Proposed Model State Laws 227

Local Approaches 229

Chapter Review 231

8 Two Case Studies: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii

and Florida 233

Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii 234

Non-Indigenous Species in Florida 254

Chapter Review 266

9 Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 267

Sources of Controveny 268

Federal Regulation of GEO Releases 272

Ecological Risk Assessment 279

Chapter Review 285

10 The Context of the Future: International Law

and Global Change 287

Increasing Global Trade and Other Socioeconomic Trends 287

Technological Changes 293

Treaties and the Movement of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 294

From Trends to Predictions 298

Wrap-up: The Choices Before Us 306

APPENDIXES

A List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 307

B Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey

Respondents 311

C References 319

SPECIES INDEX 371

INDEX 380

Vlli
Issues,

and

Options 1

T

he movement of plants, animals, and microbes beyond

their natural range is much like a game of biological

roulette. Once in a new environment, an organism may

simply die. Or it may take hold and reproduce, but with

little noticeable effect on its surroundings. But sometimes a new

species spreads unimpeded, with devastating ecological or

economic results. This latter category-including species like

the 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 the

assessment and spells out the policy issues and options for

Congress that emerged from the analysis.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The summary portion of this chapter compiles the mor e

detailed findings from the individual chapters that follow (box

1-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 dealing

with 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 detailed

case studies for two States with particularly severe NIS-related

problem-Hawaii and Florida. Chapter 10 discusses the future

and the international context in which NIS issues will evolve.

In each case, the pertinent chapter provides additional documentation.

0

00

0

0

0 “0 0

00

000

0

1
2 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box l-A—A Road Map to the Full Assessment

This assessment has three focal points: the status of harmful non-indigenous species (NIS) in the United

States; technological issues regarding decisionmaking and species management; and institutional and policy

frameworks. Each chapter elaborates on the findings summarized here and contains additional examples of

problem species and their locations.

Chapter

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Summary, Issues, and Options

chapter findings; 8 major issues; policy options; New Zealand’s approach

The Consequences of Harmful Non-indigenous Species

definitions and scope; benefits; economic, health, and environmental costs;extinctions and biological

diversity

The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of introductions

pathways into and within the country; numbers per taxonomic group, state, decade; new detections

since 1980

The Application of Decisionmaking Methods

uncertainty; ‘dean’ and ‘dirty’ lists; risk analysis; environmental impact assessment; benefit/cost

analysis; protocols; values; new approaches; Siberian timber

Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems

inspection and detection; databases; quarantine and containment; control methods; eradication;

environmental education; ecological restoration; FIFRA reregistration

A Primer on Federal Policy

summary lessons; President Carter’s Executive Order; Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; activities

of 21 agencies by type of activity and organisms affected

State and Local Approaches from a National Perspective

Federal/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 approaches

Two Case Studies: Non-indigenous Species In Hawaii and Florida

the States’ uniqueness; introduction rates; critical species; affected sectors; newprograms; fruit flies and

brown tree snakes in Hawaii; melaleuca and Hurricane Andrew in Florida

Genetically Engineered Organisms As a Special Case

technical and Policy controversies; Federal regulation since 1984; ecological rlsk assessment; scale-up

of releases; transgenic fish and squash; NIS vs. GEOs;

The Context of the Future: international Law and Global Change

treaties and trade agreements; CITES as a model; technological change; impacts of current trends;

future pests; climate change; worst and best case scenarios

Appendixes

list of boxes, figures, and tables; authors, workshop participants, reviewers, and survey respondents;

references

indexes

common and scientific names of species; general index
l-Summary, Issues, and Options 3

Table l-l—Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesa

Species with origins outside of the United States

Percentage of total species in

Category Number the United States in category

Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2,000 b

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 142 5=60/0

Insects and arachnids ... , . . . . . >2,000 =2%

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 = 8 %

Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . 91 =4%

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 b

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,542

Species of U.S. origin introduced beyond their natural ranges

Percentage of total species in

Category Number the United States in category

Plants ., . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 51 =2%

Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . . b b

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 =17YOC

Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . b b

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

a 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 are

calculated 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 Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, 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 of Technology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-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 Plant

Pathogens 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 the

United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Non-Indigenous Species Today:

Numbers, Pathways, Rates, and

Consequences

Many more NIS—those plants, animals, and

microbes found beyond their natural geographical

ranges—are in the United States today than there

were 100 years ago. At least 4,500 species of

foreign origin have established free-living populations in this country. These include several

thousand plant and insect species and several

hundred non-indigenous vertebrate, mollusk, fish,

and plant pathogen species (table l-l). Approximately 2 to 8 percent of each group of organisms

is non-indigenous to the United States.

Some NIS are clearly beneficial. Nonindigenous crops 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 pet

and nursery industries, fish and wildlife management, and biological control efforts. These and

other positive contributions of NIS are largely

beyond the scope of this study, however. OTA’s

work takes a comprehensive look at the damaging
4 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure l-l-State by State Distribution of Some High Impact Non-Indigenous Species

Purple Kiisestrufe (Lythrurm salicaria) 19851Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) 19862 European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) 19903

Russian Wheat Aphid (Diuraphis noxia) 19894

L -i O.% - .2 .Y

o

Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) 19937

../F’”’*O

Salt Cedar (Tamarix pendantra and T. gallica) 19655

y“-+ ... %

.-

./ u

Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) 19908

./

Imported Fire Ants (Solenopsis invicia and S .richter) 19926

.,’)’-~ ‘0 “@D

SOURCES:

1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosesttife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American

Wetlands” (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, Geological

Survey 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’Vera

Cohn, “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 5

Table 1-2—Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United States From Selected Harmful

Non-Indigenous Species, 1906-1991

Species analyzed Cumulative loss estimates Species not anaiyzeda

Category (number) (millions of dollars, 1991) (number)

Plantsb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 603 —

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 225 >39

insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 92,658 >330

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 467 >30

Aquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1,207 >35

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 867 >44

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . 4 917 —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 96,944 >478

a 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 one

year or a few years. Numerous accounting judgments were necessary to allow consistent comparison of the 96 different reports relied on; information

was 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 of

Technology Assessment, March 1992.

species: how they get here, their impacts, and

what can be done about them.

Distinguishing between “good” and “bad”

NIS is not easy. Some species produce both

positive and negative consequences, depending

on the location and the perceptions of the

observers. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),

for example, is an attractive nursery plant but a

major wetland weed. Approximately 15 percent

of the NIS in the United States cause severe harm,

High-impact species—such as the zebra mussel,

gypsy moth, or leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) (a

weed)----occur throughout the country (figure

l-l). Almost every part of the United States

confronts at least one highly damaging NIS today.

They affect many national interests: agriculture,

industry, human health, and the protection of

natural areas.

The number and impact of harmful NIS are

chronically underestimated, especially for species that do not damage agriculture, industry, or

human health. Harmful NIS cost millions to

perhaps billions of dollars annually. From 1906 to

1991, just 79 NIS caused documented losses of

$97 billion in harmful effects, for example (table

1-2). A worst-case scenario for 15 potential

high-impact NIS puts forth another $134 billion

in future economic losses (table 1-3). The figures

represent only a part of the total documented and

possible costs—that is, they do not include a large

number of species known to be costly but for

which little or no economic data were available,

e.g., non-indigenous agricultural weeds. Nor do

they account for intangible, nonmarket impacts.

Harmful NIS also have had profound environmental consequences, exacting a significant toll

on U.S. ecosystems. These range from wholesale

ecosystem changes and extinction of indigenous

species (especially on islands) to more subtle

ecological changes and increased biological sameness. The melaleuca tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) is rapidly degrading the Florida Everglades

wetlands system by outcompeting indigenous

plants and altering topography and soils. In

Hawaii, some NIS have led to the extinction of

indigenous species, and the brown tree snake

(Boiga irregularisis) may further this process.

Naturally occurring movements of species into

the United States are uncommon. Most new NIS

arrive in association with human activity, transport, or habitat modification that provides new

opportunities for species’ establishment. Numerous harmful species arrived as unintended byproducts of cultivation, commerce, tourism, or travel.
6 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 1-3-Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic Losses From 15 Selected Non-Indigenous Speciesa

Cumulative loss estimates

Group Species studied (in millions, $1991)b

Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . melaleuca, purple Ioosestrife, witchweed 4,588

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . African honey bee, Asian gypsy moth, boll weevil, 73,739

Mediterranean fruit fly, nun moth, spruce bark beetles

Aquatic invertebrates.. . . . . . . . . zebra mussel 3,372

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . annosus root disease, larch canker, soybean rust fungus 26,924

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foot and mouth disease, pine wood nematodes 25,617

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 species 134,240

a 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. Many

of the economic projections are not weighted by the probability that the invasions would actually occur. Thus, the figures represent worst case

scenarios. 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 of

Technology Assessment, March 1992.

For example, they arrived as contaminants of bulk

commodities, packing materials, shipping containers, or ships’ ballast. Weeds continue to enter

the country as contaminants in seed shipments;

both plant and fish pathogens have arrived with

diseased stocks. Some NIS stow away on cars and

other conveyances, including military equipment.

Other harmful NIS were intentionally imported

as crops, ornamental plants, livestock, pets, or

aquiculture species-and later escaped. Of the

300 weed species of the western United States, at

least 36 escaped from horticulture or agriculture.

A number of NIS were imported and released for

soil conservation, fishing and hunting, or biological control and later turned out to be harmful. A

few illegal introductions also occur.

Different groups of organisms arrive by different pathways. Some fish are imported intentionally to enhance sport fisheries; others are illegally

released by aquarium dealers or owners or escape

from aquiculture facilities. Most foreign terrestrial vertebrates are intentional introductions.

Insects (except for biological control organisms)

and aquatic and terrestrial mollusks usually

hitchhike with plants, commercial shipments,

baggage, household goods, ships’ ballast water,

or aquarium and aquiculture shipments.

Far more unintentional introductions of insects

and plant pathogens have had harmful effects than

have intentional introductions. For terrestrial

vertebrates, fish, and mollusks, however, intentional introductions have caused harm approximately as often as have unintentional ones,

suggesting a history of poor species choices and

complacency regarding their potential harm.

Far more is known about pathways of foreign

NIS into the United States than the routes by

which NIS have spread beyond their natural

ranges within the country. Once here, NIS spread

both with and without human assistance. A few of

these pathways have no international counterpart,

e.g., the release of bait animals like the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates). Known

or potentially harmful NIS that are commercially

distributed or officially recommended for various

applications can spread especially quickly.

OTA found no clear evidence that the rate of

harmful NIS imports has climbed consistently

over the past 50 years. The ways and rates at

which species are added from abroad fluctuate

widely because of social, political, and technological factors, e.g., new trade patterns and innovations in transportation. Such factors have had

major significance in the past and will continue to

operate. For example, State and Federal plant

quarantine laws slowed rates of introduction of

insect pests and plant pathogens after 1912.

However, rates rarely reach zero and they have

been higher throughout the 20th century than in

the preceding one.
l-Summary, Issues, and Options 7

More than 205 NIS from foreign countries were

first introduced or detected in the Unites States

since 1980, and 59 of these are expected to cause

economic or environmental harm. There may be

limits to the acceptable total burden of harmful

NIS in the country. This consideration has yet to

be incorporated into policy decisions such as

setting tolerable annual levels of species entry.

OTA has carefully examined the best available

evidence on the numbers, rates, pathways, and

impacts of NIS. Six scientists prepared background papers on the pathways and consequences

of NIS within their area of expertise. Another 36

experts from industry, academia, and government

reviewed their work. OTA supplemented this

work with its own analysis of the science and

policy literature.

Based on this extensive review of the status

of NIS, OTA concludes that the total number

of harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts

are creating a growing economic and environmental burden for the country. This conclusion

leads to certain policy issues discussed later in

this chapter. These address:

●

●

the merits of prompt congressional action to

create a more stringent national policy (pp.

15-19), and

ways to provide funding for new or expanded efforts and to increase accountability

for actions that lead to damage (pp. 40-45).

Technological Issues: Decisionmaking About

NIS, Pest Management, and the Special Case

of Genetically Engineered Organisms

Some of the most harmful NIS-like kudzu

(Pueraria lobata), water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes), and feral goats (Capra hircus)---were

imported and released intentionally, with their

negative effects unanticipated or underestimated.

The central issues for MS and genetically engineered organisms (a special subset) are the same:

deciding which to keep out, which to release, and

how to control those that have unexpected harmful effects. Consequently, part of OTA’s study

Federal laws helped decrease the number of harmful

non-indigenous insect pests, plant pathogens, and

weeds imported with crop seeds and plants.

focused on the kinds of decisionmaking tools

available.

Uncertainty in predicting risks and impacts of

NIS remains a problem. Generally, the impact of

new species cannot be predicted confidently or

quantitatively. Risk can be reduced, or at least

made explicit, using methods such as risk analysis, benefit/cost analysis, environmental impact

assessment, and decisionmaking protocols. Expert judgment, however, is most broadly feasible.

By and large, three interrelated problems remain

largely unsolved:

1. determining levels of acceptable risk;

2. setting thresholds of risk or other variables

above which more formal and costly decisionmaking approaches are invoked; and
8 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 1-4-Lag Times Between Identification of Species’ Pathway and

implementation of Prevention Program.

Date pathway Date prevention

Species Pathway identified program implemented Remaining gaps

Mediterranean fruit fly Fruit shipped through first- mid 1930s 1990, mail traveling from First-class mail from

(Ceratitis capitata)

Aquatic vertebrates,

invertebrates, and

algae

Asian tiger mosquito

(Aedes albopictus)

Forest pests

class “domestic-mail

from Hawaii

Ship ballast water 1981

Imported used tires 1986

Unprocessed wood 1985

(including dunnage,

logs, wood chips, etc.)

Hawaii to California

inspected

1992, Coast Guard

proposes guidelines for

treating ballast water into

the Great Lakes

1988, protocols

established for imported

used tires

1991, first restrictions

imposed on log imports

from Siberia

elsewhere or other

potential pathways (e.g.,

Puerto Rico to California)

International shipping into

other U.S. ports; ship

ballast water from

domestic ports

Interstate used tire transport

Wood imports other than from

Siberia

SOURCES: Bio-environmental Services Ltd., The Presence and Implication of Foreign Organisms in Ship Ballast Waters Discharged into the Great

Lakes, 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 a

Potential Disease Vector,” Journal of theAmerican Mosquito Control Association, vol. 4, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 356-361; I.A. Siddiqui, Assistant

Director, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs, 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 the

face of uncertainty.

Federal methods and programs to identify risks

of potentially harmful NIS have many shortcomings-including long response times (table 1-4).

Procedures vary in stringency throughout the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) in the Department of Agriculture

(USDA), risks to nonagricultural areas are often

ignored, and generally, new imports are presumed

safe unless proven otherwise. Even with these

flaws, APHIS’s risk assessments are more rigorous than those conducted by the Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior.

Most regulatory approaches to MS importation

and release use variations of ‘clean’ (allowed) or

“dirty” (prohibited) lists of species or groups.

Combining both kinds of lists, with a ‘‘gray” list

of prohibited-until-analyzed species would reduce risks.

Nevertheless, preventing new introductions of

harmful species is the first line of defense.

Various methods can help decisionmakers avert

unintentional and poorly planned intentional

introductions that are likely to cause harm. Port

inspection and quarantine are imperfect tools,

though, so prevention is only part of the solution.

Some organisms are more easily controlled than

intercepted. Aiming for a standard of ‘‘zero

entry” has limited returns, especially when prevention efforts come at the expense of rapid

response or essential long-term control.

When prevention fails-for technical or political reasons—rapid response is essential. Then

managers can choose among a variety of methods

for eradication, containment, or suppression (table

1-5); these choices are not necessarily easy or

obvious. For example, the choice may be not to

control already widespread organisms, or those

for which control is likely to be too expensive

and/or ineffective. For any management program,
l-Summary, Issues, and Options 9

Table 1-5-Examples of Control Technologies for Non-indigenous Species

Physical control Chemical control Biological control

Aquatic plants Cutting or harvesting for

temporary control of

Eurasian watermilfoil

(Myriophylllum spicatum) in

waters

Terrestrial plants Fire and cutting to manage

populations of garlic

mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

in natural areas

Fencing used as a barrier along

with electroshock to control

non-indigenous fish in

streams

Fish

Terrestrial vertebrates Fencing and hunting to control

feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in

natural areas

Aquatic invertebrates Washing boats with hot water

or soap to control the

spread of zebra mussels

(Dreissena polymorpha) from

infested waters

Insects/mites Various agricultural practices,

including crop rotation,

alternation of planting dates,

and field sanitation

practices

Various glyphosate herbicides

(Rodeo is one brand

registered for use in aquatic

sites) for controlling purple

Ioosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria)

Paraquat for the control of

witchweed (Striga asiatica)

in corn fields

Application of the natural

chemical rotenone to

control various nonindigenous fish

Baiting with diphacinone to

control the Indian

mongoose (Herpestes

auropunctatus)

In industrial settings,

chlorinated water

treatments to kill attached

zebra mussels

Mathathion bait-sprays for

control of the

Mediterranean fruit fly

(Ceratitis capitatis)

Imported Klamathweed beetle

(Agasicles hygrophila) and

a moth (Vogtia ma//o/) to

control alligator weed

(Alternanthera

philoxeroides) in

southeastern United States

Introduction of a seed head

weevil (Rhinocyllus

conicus) to control musk

thistle (Carduus nutans)

Stocking predatory fish such

as northern pike (Esox

lucius) and walleye

(Stizostedion vitreum) to

control populations of the

ruffe (Gymnocephalus

cernuus)

Vaccinating female feral

horses (Equuscallus) with

the contraceptive PZP (porcine zona pellucida) to limit

population growth

No known examples of

successful biological

control of non-indigenous

aquatic invertebrates

(Target specificity is a major

concern)

A parasitic wasp (Encarsia

partenopea) and a beetle

(Clitostethus arcuatus) to

control ash whitefly

(Siphoninus phillyreae)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

accurate and timely species identification is

essential but sometimes not available.

Eradication of harmful NIS is often technically

feasible but complicated, costly, and subject to

public opposition (box l-B). Chemical pesticides

play the largest role now in management. They

will remain important for fast, effective, and

inexpensive control. In the future, an increased

number of biologically based technologies will

probably be available. Genetic engineering will

increase the efficacy of some. Development of

biological and chemical pesticides entail the same

difficulties, however-ensuring species specificity, slowing the buildup of pest resistance to the

pesticide, and preventing harm to nontarget

organisms. So there are no ‘‘silver bullets’ for

NIS control and some troublesome gaps may

appear in the next 10 years. Pests have already

developed resistance to some microbial pesticides, one alternative to chemical methods. A

number of chemical pesticides are being phased

out for regulatory or environmental reasons. And

new alternatives are slow to come online. Ecological restoration, by changing the conditions
10 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box l-B—Failure and Success: Lessons From the Fire Ant and

Boll Weevil Eradication Programs

Imported Fire Ant Eradication:

Two 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 and

had 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 an

eradication program.

Funding was provided to study the fire ants, but information on the biology of the species was lacking, and

the ant populations increased and spread. Various chemicals (heptachlor and mirex) were used to control and

eradicate the ants over a 30-year period. Although they did kill the ants, the chemicals caused more ecological

harm than good. Their widespread application, often by airplane, destroyed many non-target organisms, including

fire ants’ predators and competitors, leaving habitats suitable for recolonization by the ants.

The chemicals eventually lost registration by the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving few alternatives

avaliable. 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, from

Mexico, in the early 1890s and crossed the Mississippi River in 1907. By 1922, it infested the remainder of the

southeastern cotton area. Unlike t he imported fire ant eradication program, boll weevil eradication does not rely

solely on chemicals.

The eradication program centers around the weevil’s life cycle and uses many different techniques. Part of

the boll weevil population spends the winter in cotton fields. insecticides are used to suppress this late season

population. in spring and early summer, pheromone bait traps and chemical pesticides reduce populations before

they have a chance to reproduce. Still other control technologies (e.g., sterile male release or insect growth

regulators) limit the development of a new generation of boll weevils.

Boll weevil eradication trials were conducted from 1971=1973 (in southern Mississippi, Alabama, and

Louisiana) and from 1978-1980 (in North Carolinaand Virginia). Although results of the trials were mixed, cotton

producers in the Carolinas voted in 1983 to support the boll weevil eradication program in their areaand to provide

70 percent of the funding. The USDA Animal and Plant Health inspection Service was charged with overall

management of the program.

By the mid-1980s, the boll weevil was eradicated from North Carolina and Virginia. This 1978-1987

eradication program achieved a very high rate of return, mainly from increased cotton yields and lower chemical

pesticide spending and use. in 1986, pesticide cost savings, additions to land value, and yield increases amounted

to a benefit of $76.65 per acre. The benefit was $78.32 per acre for the expansion area in southern North Carolina

and 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 Historical

Practice,” Entomological Society of America, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 73, November 19S9; E.P. Uoyd, “The Boll Weevil: Recent

Research Developments and Progress Towards Eradication in the USA,” Management and Contro/ of hwar?ebrate Crop 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 of

Imported Fire Ants,” Annual Retiew of Enforno/ogy vol. 30, pp. 1-30,1975,
l--Summary, Issues, and Options 11

that may make a habitat suitable for NIS, shows

promise for preventing or limiting the establishment or spread of some harmful NIS. Continued

research and development on new ways to manage harmful NIS remain essential.

OTA commissioned 3 papers on decisionmaking methods for this study, submitted those papers

to peer review by 20 experts, held a workshop for

the papers’ authors and several additional specialists, and added a staff review of control methods

and biotechnology policy, along with another

expert paper on genetic engineering-each with

extensive informal input from technical and

policy specialists.

Based on this work regarding technical

aspects, OTA concludes that some continued

unintentional introductions are inevitable, as

are illegal ones, and ones with unexpected

effects. Perfect screening, detection, and control are technically impossible and will remain

so for the foreseeable future. These results lead

to certain of the congressional policy issues

discussed later in this chapter. These include the

need for:

●

●

●

more effective screening for fish, wildlife,

and their diseases (pp. 22-24);

more stringent evaluations of new plant

introductions for their potential as weeds

(PP. 28-30); and

more rapid response to emergencies and

better means for setting priorities (pp. 36-

40).

Continued intentional introductions of certain

species are, of course, desirable. None of the

policy options are intended to stop them.

Institutional Issues: the Federal and State

Policy Patchwork

The current Federal effort is largely a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs.

Many only peripherally address NIS, while others

address the more narrowly drawn problems of the

past, not the broader emerging issues.

The need for a more restrictive national policy

on introductions and use is widely acknowledged.

Development of such a policy is impeded by

historical divisions among agencies, user groups,

and constituencies. Technical barriers also obstruct accurate and consistent Federal policy. For

example, terms and definitions differ greatly

among NIS-related statutes, regulations, policies,

and publications.

At least 20 Federal agencies work at researching, using, preventing, or controlling desirable

and harmful NIS (table 1-6), with APHIS playing

the largest role. Federal agencies manage about

30 percent of the Nation’s lands, some of which

have severe problems with NIS. Yet management

policies regarding harmful NIS range from being

nearly nonexistent to stringent. The National Park

Service has fairly strict policies. However, removal or control of unwanted NIS is not keeping

pace with invasions, and concerns are growing

that NIS threaten the very characteristics for

which the Parks were established.

Federal agencies do not uniformly evaluate the

effects of NIS before using them for federally

funded activities. However, a Federal interagency

group is planning to coordinate work on noxious

weeds. Another interagency task force is developing a major program on aquatic nuisance species.

Federal laws leave both obvious and subtle

gaps in the regulation of harmful MS. Most State

laws have similar shortcomings. Significant gaps

in Federal and State regulation exist for nonindigenous fish, wildlife, animal diseases, weeds,

species that affect nonagricultural areas, biological control agents, and vectors of human diseases.

Many of these gaps also apply to genetically

engineered organisms (GEOs), which are commonly regulated under the same laws. Commercial development is imminent for several such

categories of GEOs.

Pre-release evaluations for certain GEOs have

been more stringent than for NIS-reflecting past

underestimates of NIS risks. Some of these

stricter GEO-related methods might be used for

NIS. So far, APHIS has only evaluated proposals
Table 1-6—Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to NIS

Federal

Regulate

land management Fund or do research

Interstate

Control

Movement into U.S. product or Fund Prevent movement within U.S. Introduce Prevention

content or eradication or do eradication or control uses of Aquiculture Biocontrol

Agencya Restrict Enhance Restrict Enhance labeling programs introductions or control maintain eradication species development development

APHIS . . . . . .

AMS . . . . . . .

FAS . . . . . . . .

USFS . . . . . .

ARS . . . . . . .

SCS . . . . . . .

ASCS . . . . . .

CSRS . . . . . .

FWS . . . . . . .

NPS . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

BIA . . . . . . . .

BOR . . . . . . .

NOAA . . . . . .

DOD . . . . . . .

EPA . . . . . . . .

PHS . . . . . . .

Customs . . . .

USCG . . . . . .

DOE . . . . . . .

DEA . . . . . . .

J

b

J

J J J J J J

J J

J J

J J

J

J J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

4

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

-.

3

J J J

J

J J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J J

J

J

J

J

J

J

../

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

d

J

J J J

J

J

e e

J

a Acronyms 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 State

Research 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-Coast

Guard (USCG). Department of Energy (DOE). Department of Justice-Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

b Monitors animal diseases abroad.

c Monitors spread of human disease vectors within the United States.

d Regulates experimental releases of microbial pesticides.

e DOE lacks policies on NIS.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
1-Summary, Issues, and Options 1 3

for releasing low risk GEOs. Setting acceptable

risk levels for higher risk GEOs will be more

difficult, a problem the agency has not solved for

NIS. Experience with NIS shows overwhelmingly that organisms’ effects and ecological roles

can change in new environments. Thus, caution is

warranted when extrapolating from small to

large-scale GEO releases and when exporting

GEO’s to other countries.

State laws on NIS vary from lax to exacting and

use a variety of basic legal approaches (table 1-7).

They are relatively comprehensive for agricultural pests but only spotty for invertebrate and

plant pests of nonagricultural areas.

States play a larger role than the Federal

Government in the importation and release of fish

and wildlife. Several States present exemplary

approaches. Yet many State laws are weak and

their implementation inadequate. For example,

most State fish and wildlife agencies rate their

own resources for implementing and enforcing

their own NIS laws as “less” or ‘‘much less”

than adequate; they would need, on average, a

50-percent increase in resources to match their

responsibilities. States’ evaluations of new releases are not stringent: no States require the use

of scientific protocols for evaluating proposed

introductions, and about one-third do not even

require a general determination of potential negative impacts. States prohibit a median of only

eight potentially harmful fish and wildlife species

or groups; about one-third of the agency officials

OTA surveyed believe their own lists of prohibited species are too short. About one-fourth of the

States lack legal authority over the importation or

release of at least one major vertebrate group.

About 40 percent of the agency officials would

like additional regulatory authority from their

State legislatures.

Federal and State agencies cooperate on many

programs related to agricultural pests, but their

policies can also conflict, e.g., when agencies

manage adjacent lands for different purposes.

Sometimes Federal law preempts State law, more

often regarding agriculture than fish and wildlife.

Conflicts between States also occur, often without forums for resolving the disputes. Regional

approaches —used mostly to evaluate aquatic

releases-provide means for States to affect their

neighboring States’ actions. Such approaches are

promising but limited by the fact that participation is not mandatory.

For the section on institutional issues, OTA

commissioned 3 background papers, on the Department of Interior, USDA generally, and APHIS

in particular; 20 people took part in the papers’

external peer review. Also, OTA did extensive

internal research on the missions and activities of

Federal agencies. In addition, OTA compiled

State laws and regulations relating to NIS, with

assistance from an expert group, and surveyed the

heads of State fish and wildlife agencies.

Based on this institutional analysis, OTA

concludes that Federal and State efforts are

not protecting national interests in certain

important areas. Thus, OTA highlights congressional policy issues on:

●

●

●

●

●

needed changes to the Lacey Act for fish and

wildlife (pp. 19-24);

new roles for the States in fish and wildlife

management (pp. 24-25);

needed changes to the Federal Noxious

Weed Act (pp. 25-28); and

improved weed management on Federal

lands (pp. 30-31);

other gaps in legislation and regulation (pp.

45-50).

The Special Cases of Hawaii and Florida

Virtually all parts of the country face problems

related to harmful NIS, but Hawaii and Florida

have been particularly hard hit because of their

distinctive geography, climate, history, and economy. In both States, natural areas and agriculture

bear the brunt of harm and certain NIS threaten

the State’s uniqueness. As a set of islands, Hawaii

is particularly vulnerable to sometimes devastating ecological impacts. More than one-half of

Hawaii’s free-living species are non-indigenous.
14 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 1-7—Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release

Importationa b Release

Basic approach Number States Number States

All species are prohibited unless on

allowed (“clean”) list(s).

All species may be allowed except

those on prohibited (“dirty”) list(s).

Prohibited list(s) have 5 or more

identified species or groups.

Prohibited list(s) have fewer than 5

identified species or groups.

All species may be allowed; there is no

prohibited list.

2 + 1 ptc Hl, IDpt, VTd

20 + 3pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, IL, KS,

KY, Ml, MN, MTpt, NC, NE,

NY, OH, PA, SCpt, SD, TN,

TXpt, UT WA, WY

11 + 3pt AK, DE, IN, LApt, MD, ME,

MS, NH, NV, NJ, ORpt, RI,

VA, WVpt

11 + 7pt AZ, CA, GA, IDpt, 1A, LApt,

MA, MO, MTpt, ND, NH,

NM, OK, ORpt, SCpt, TXpt,

Wl, Wvpt

1 + 5pt AKpt, FLpt, GApt, Hl, IDpt,

KYpt

14+ 6pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FLpt, GApt,

IL, KS, KYpt, MN, NE, NY,

OHpt, PA, SCpt, TN, TXpt,

UT WA, WY

11 + 6pt AKpt, IN, LApt, NC, NDpt,

NJ, MD, MN, MS, NH, NV,

OR, Rlpt, SD, VA, VTpt,

Wvpt

12+ 9pt AZ, CA, DE, IDpt, 1A, LApt,

MA, ME, Ml, MO, MT, NDpt

NM, OHpt, OK, Rlpt, SCpt,

TXpt, VTpt, Wl, WVpt

a State regulation of “possession” of a group or groups is considered here as regulation of both “importation” and “release,” since neither act can

be done without having possession. For the few States that specifically regulate “importation with intention to release (or introduce),” it is not treated

here 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.

C 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 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 provisions

which 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 and

Analysis 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 past

extinctions of indigenous species and continue to

do so. In Florida, several non-indigenous aquatic

weeds and invasive trees seriously threaten the

Everglades wetlands system.

Hawaii’s isolation makes it most in need of a

comprehensive policy to address NIS. Differing

Federal and State priorities have made this

difficult to achieve, however. Cooperative efforts

have sprung up in both States among State and

Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations,

agricultural interests, and universities. Increasingly, these groups see harmful NIS as a unifying

threat and public education as an important tool to

address it. The situation in Hawaii and Florida,

while unusual in some ways, nevertheless heralds

what other States face as additional harmful NIS

enter and spread throughout the United States and

people become more aware of their damage.

For this chapter, OTA commissioned a background paper on each State and 12 experts

reviewed this work. Two contractors conducted

extensive interviews and site visits in Hawaii and

OTA staff did the same in Florida. Also, OTA

commissioned a survey and assessment of U.S.

environmental education programs.

Based on this work, OTA concludes that the

situation in Hawaii and Florida, while unusual

in some ways, nevertheless heralds what other

States face as additional harmful NIS enter

and spread throughout the United States and

people become more aware of their damage.

These results lead to the policy options discussed

later in this chapter on:
I-Summary, Issues, and Options 1 5

●

●

better protection for National Parks and

other natural areas throughout the country

(pp. 31-34), and

the role of information and environmental

education in preventing future problems in

these States and elsewhere (pp. 34-36).

The Look of the Future

Increasing international trade, including commerce in biological commodities, will open new

pathways for NIS. International regulation of NIS

has a poor track record and is not likely to stem

this flow. Technology is likely to open additional

pathways as well as provide better ways to detect,

eradicate, and manage harmful NIS. Many observers expect increasingly negative impacts

from NIS introductions-a world of increasing

biological sameness. Climate change is the wild

card: it would require re-thinking definitions of

indigeneity and could drastically change patterns

of species movement. These are forecasts, based

on analyzable and nearly irreversible trends

already underway. Visions, however, are about

the desirable and imagined. OTA’s Advisory

Panelists envisioned a future in which beneficial

NIS contributed a great deal to human well-being

and indigenous species were preserved (box 1-C).

Deciding this vision’s worthiness is not a question for science. Which species to import and

release and which to exclude are ultimately

cultural and political choices-choices about the

kind of world in which we want to live.

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

In this section, OTA sets out the major policy

issues that emerged from its analysis. Related

congressional options seem straightforward in

some cases, e.g., changes to the Lacey Actl or the

Federal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA).2 In other

cases, policy actions are not so apparent. Therefore, the policy options that follow vary in their

specificity and the degree to which OTA has

evaluated their implications and alternatives. Few

prior reports on NIS have addressed policy

changes. OTA’s work is, in effect, exploratory-a

frost step in highlighting policy needs and a few of

the means to fill them. The discussion is organized around these eight policy issues:

Issue 1:

Issue 2:

Issue 3:

Issue 4:

Issue 5:

Issue 6:

Issue 7:

Issue 8:

Congress and a More Stringent

National Policy

Managing Non-Indigenous Fish,

Wildlife, and Their Diseases

The Growing Problem of

Non-Indigenous Weeds

Damage to Natural Areas

Environmental Education as

Prevention

Emergencies and Other Priorities

Funding and Accountability

Other Gaps In Legislation and

Regulation

Issue 1: Congress and a More Stringent

National Policy

The most fundamental issue is whether the

United States needs a more stringent and comprehensive national policy on the introduction and

management of harmful NIS. General agreement

exists that the United States has no such policy

now. The United States has, through various

Federal and State laws and President Carter’s

Executive Order 11987, attempted to prevent and

manage the impacts of harmful NIS. However,

applicable legislation has significant gaps and the

Executive Order has not been implemented fully

(55,70) (ch. 6). Invasive NIS continue to enter,

spread, and cause economic and environmental

harm, despite governments’ collective efforts

(chs. 2, 3). In one of the most extensive State

studies to date, the Minnesota Interagency Exotic

Species 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 States

Box 1-C-OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the Future

OTA’s Advisory Panelists (p. iv) have been dealing with NIS for much of their professional Iives andare more

expert than most in assessing what the future might hold. Following are some of the fears and hopes they Identified

when 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 massive

alteration of natural habitats and natural flora and fauna . . . By the mid-21st Century, biological invasions become

one of the most prominent ecological issues on Earth . . . A few small isolated ecosystems have escaped the hand

of [humans] and in turn NIS. . . One place Iooks like the next and no one cares . . . The homogeneity may not

be aesthetically or practically displeasing, but inherently it diminishes the capacity of the biotic world to respond

to 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 the

late 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 . . . All

unwanted 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 accessible

knowledge 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 urban

landscaping, for ornamental in gardens, for biological control of pests, for added interest for increased

biodiversity, for new food and medicine-is appreciated. The overarching criterion for judging the value of a

species 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-indigenous Second, the lack of information on the origins,

species], changes in the laws that provide closer numbers, distribution, and potential impacts of

monitoring of new introductions, and coordina- many NIS hampers the design of appropriate

tion among all State and Federal agencies that responses (chs. 2, 4). Distinguishing indigenous control [non-indigenous] species. (70) species from NIS and beneficial NIS from harmGaps in the Federal, regional, and State system ful ones is difficult in some cases yet these are

arise from several sources. First, Federal and crucial distinctions for regulatory and control

many State agencies lack broad authority over

NIS as a whole, e.g., to protect against NIS’

negative effects on biological diversity, or to

ensure that environmental impact assessments

take potentially harmful NIS into account (box

l-D). In turn, the agencies have been reluctant to

exert authority where statutes are not clear.

Consequently, MS issues often receive governmental attention on a piecemeal basis after major

infestations, such as that of the zebra mussel.

Attention wanes between harmful episodes.

efforts. Some NIS escape detection at ports-ofentry and ordinary quarantines cannot contain

them because of inadequate scientific knowledge

and detection technologies.

Third, the U.S. system for dealing with harmful

NIS involves a complex interplay of Federal and

State authorities, with numerous Federal, State,

and regional coordinating bodies attempting to

enhance consistency and resolve conflicts. Sometimes the respective Federal and State roles are
l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 17

not adequately defined (l), especially for problems that cross State boundaries.

Certain trends specific to NIS are likely to

continue-trends that shape public policy. These

point to increased public and scientific awareness

of the damage some NIS cause and a concomitant

caution toward importing new ones (46). The U.S.

press is giving more attention to NIS-related

problems caused by single species, e.g., zebra

mussels, African honey bees (Apis mellifera

scutellata), or cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).

At the same time, many forces are elevating the

visibility of harmful NIS on a broader, ecosystem

basis. Some Federal and State agencies-e. g., the

National Park Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Illinois Department of

Conservation—are considering and in some cases

adopting, more stringent policies (chs. 6, 7). In

addition, the use of indigenous (native) plants and

animals is increasingly popular in public and

private landscaping, reforestation, fisheries management, wildlife enhancement, and other projects (96,130). These trends suggest that management of at least some harmful NIS is likely to

improve even without congressional action.

On the other hand, the current situation provides considerable cause for concern (ch, 2). A

status quo approach comes with certain, sizable

risks-for example, that important resources such

as the Everglades and Haleakala National Parks

will lose their uniqueness (ch. 8); that western

U.S. forests will be threatened by a more virulent

gypsy moth (ch. 4); and that, in the absence of

unifying Federal action, private firms importing

or shipping live organisms will face increasingly

inconsistent State and local regulations (ch. 7).

Environmental groups, professional organizations of scientists, and individual biologists are

among those urging far stronger efforts to restrict

the entry and spread of NIS. Participants in a

conference sponsored by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the

United States aim for no new introductions of

non-indigenous aquatic nuisances (132). One of

the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention

and Control Act’s several goals is similar: “to

prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal

of nonindigenous species into waters of the

United States through ballast water management

and other requirements. ’ The North American

Native Fishes Association recommends banning

all introductions of non-native fish (79). Some

credible scientific sources--specially those with

first-hand knowledge of the worst U.S. problems—

have recommended bans on biological control

introductions in natural areas or against indigenous pests; on the release of non-indigenous big

game animals into public natural areas; on

particularly risky types of imports such as unprocessed wood; or on all further intentional introductions for whatever purposes (25,61,69,100).

Usually, though, suggestions fall short of a ban

on all new NIS introductions because broad-brush

bans risk handicapping entry of desirable NIS that

cause no harm. The International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

(44) formulated a model national law on NIS and

suggested that:

●

●

●

●

release of NIS be considered only if clear and

well-defined benefits to humans or natural

communities can be foreseen;

release be considered only if no indigenous

species is suitable;

no NIS be deliberately released into any

natural area and releases into seminatural

areas not occur without exceptional reasons;

and

planned releases, including those for biological control, include rigorous assessment of

desirability, controlled experimental releases,

then careful post-release monitoring and

pre-arrangement for control or eradication, if

necessary.

3 Nonindigenous 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 States

Box l-D—The National Environmental Policy Act and Non-Indigenous Species

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates environmental impact assessment has

rarely been applied to decisions about introductions of non-indigenous species (NIS) (ch. 7). NEPA makes no

explicit 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 environmental

impact statement prepared regarding the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife’s proposal to introduce

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytasha) from the Pacific coast into the Delaware Bay. A number of

NIS-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 cooperatively

improved conservation plants, production of limited amounts of foundation seed and plants, and assisting

nurseries in plant production (Soil Conservation Service).

● the reintroduction (stocking) of native or established species into suitable habitat within their historic or

established 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. Various

measures are available. In the most rigorous application, Congress could declare that new, unanalyzed releases

of NIS are, per se, potentially significant environmental impacts that require analysis. Or Congress could require

that NIS concerns be specified in the checklists used for preliminary environmental assessments and for making

decisions 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 which

no environmental impact statement had been prepared. That decision has been appealed so NEPA’s application

remains 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 received

little consideration in free trade discussions so far.

A comprehensive environmental impact assessment would address, among other possible impacts, the

extent to which risks from harmful NIS would increase with any introduction and the capability of U.S. agencies

to respond to any such increase. In the past, these agencies often have lacked the institutional and financial

flexibility 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 impact

statement prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey DMsion of Fish, Game and Wildlife, July 25, 1891; 23 CFR

771.1 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 agriculture banning NIS and requiring the use of indigenous

industries have traditionally been strong advocates for further introductions of desirable NIS

and have noted the burdens of more timeconsuming and complex evaluations of their

potential risks. These groups can be expected to

be cautious about any congressional action that

would make U.S. policy more stringent. For

example, those in the nursery industry fear that

plants would create complex definitional problems regarding which species are indigenous;

outlaw the hardy non-indigenous plants most

suitable for urban landscapes; require using

indigenous plants that are less resistant to diseases and pests than their close foreign relatives;

and eliminate highly ornamental plants that many

people prefer to less showy indigenous ones (52).
l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 19

However, pressures on Congress and Federal

and State agencies to enact some partial measures

are likely to increase as NM-related issues receive

more attention. Florida has prohibited any releases of non-indigenous marine plants or animals

into State waters.4 The New Mexico State Legislature recently considered a bill that would have

led to the eradication of several “exotic” nonindigenous game animals and required the Department of Game and Fish to ban further game

introductions (101). (State game officials considered the legislation extreme and opposed it,

whereas hunting and environmental groups were

divided.) Several local ordinances require landscape architects, designers, and contractors to use

a percentage of indigenous plants in their projects

(52).

Bans are intended to slow the intentional

introduction of organisms into and within the

United States. Even the strictest ban could not

stop unintentional introductions. Nor could it

limit damage caused by the continuing spread of

harmful NIS already in the country. Therefore,

even the most restrictive policies regarding new

introductions would not solve all problems associated with harmful MS.

New Zealand, a small island nation with MS

problems as severe as Hawaii’s, is often cited as

the country that addresses MS most effectively

(77). Its approach merits consideration here (box

l-E). New Zealand’s recent policy changes illustrate an attempt to be comprehensive, forward

looking, fair to importers, and responsible, However, New Zealand is much smaller and less

diverse than the United States. In this country,

States play an important role in setting and

implementing U.S. national priorities. Therefore

only some of New Zealand’s approaches would

be feasible here.

Attempts to formulate a similarly comprehensive and more stringent national policy on harmful NIS would need to account for the following

seven issues. In most of these areas, OTA

suggests possible statutory changes. These should

be approached with one caution. The release of

MS and GEOs is regulated by many of the same

statutes. legislative changes intended to affect

harmful NIS could inadvertently apply to GEOs

if definitions are not crafted with care.

Issue 2: Managing Non-Indigenous Fish,

Wildlife, and Their Diseases

Federal and State governments presently divide responsibilities for introductions of fish,

wildlife, and their diseases. The Lacey Act is the

primary Federal vehicle for excluding harmful

imports. Under the Lacey Act, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) restricts importation into

the country of fish or wildlife that pose a threat

‘‘to humans, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or

to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United

States.’ Current regulations restrict only 2

taxonomic families of fish (1 to prevent entry of

2 fish pathogens), 13 genera of mammals and

shellfish, and 6 species of mammals, birds, and

reptiles.6 The USDA’s APHIS and the Public

Health Service prohibit entry of a several additional wildlife species (reptiles, birds, and mammals) to prevent entry of pathogens affecting

poultry or livestock or because they pose human

health threats.7

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 authorized FWS and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to issue regulations related to the

prevention of unintentional introductions of aquatic

nuisance species, like the zebra mussel.8 Al4

28 Fla. Stat. Annot, sec. 370.081(4)

5

18 U, S.C.A. 42(a)(1)

650 CFR 16 (Jan. 4, 1974)

7

9 CFR 92, as amended (Aug. 2, 1990)

g 6 U. S,C.A. 4722
20 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box I-E-How New Zealand Addresses Non-lndigenous Species

New Zealand’s Iegal and institutional framework and the nature of its programs are key to its current

successes managing harmful non-indigenous species (NIS). As in the United States, however, protecting

agriculture has received higher priority than safeguarding the indigenous flora and fauna. Sores aspects of New

Zealand’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 governnental services and through detailed annual reports.

● Detailed national standards for animal imports and strong authority to require bonds for potential costs of

escape and to impose other conditions.

. A “user pays” approach to cover most costs of inspection, surveillance, scientific analysis, and

enforcement against violators.

Programmatic Aspects:

● Intensive inspection of arriving passengers, baggage, and goods with random checks to evaluate

interception 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 subsidiary

regulations pertaining to agriculture needed consolidation and revamping. The new approach will regulate ail

potentially 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 governmental

proponents. Countervailing arguments will be presented by the Department of Conservation.The Iaw provides for

full economic and ecological consideration, public hearings, and opportunities for appeal. Known low-risk

organisms will receive less scrutiny. Decisions must balance “the benefits which may be obtained from . . . new

organisms against the risks and damage to the environment and to the health, safety and economic, social and

cultural well being of people and communities.” If this new approach succeeds, it could provide a broad model for

the 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 Report

No. 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, Offioe

of 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 of

regulations under the Act could impose additional the world’s fauna, excluding insects) potentially

restrictions on the importation of harmful aquatic could be legally imported into the United States

MS (30). (81). Well over 300 non-indigenous fish and

In practice, then, the Federal Government wildlife species of foreign origin have established

places only a few piecemeal constraints on the here already, approximately 122 of which are

importation of fish, wildlife, and their diseases. known to cause harm (ch. 2) (8,23,104).
l--Summary, Issues, and Options 21

The Federal Government currently plays a

small role in restricting interstate transfers of

non-indigenous fish and wildlife (ch, 6). FWS

does not impose regulations or quarantines to

prevent interstate transfers of harmful fish, wildlife, or fish diseases, since neither are authorized

under the Lacey Act. APHIS sometimes quarantines wildlife to prevent the spread of pathogens,

but only for those causing significant diseases of

poultry or livestock. Amendments to the Lacey

Act in 1981 authorized the FWS to enforce State

laws prohibiting transport of species into a State,9

but FWS enforcement is understaffed, underfunded, and has numerous other pressing responsibilities (74, 121). Future implementation of the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act could impose domestic regulations or

quarantines for aquatic species (30).

States play the prominent role in many areas

related to fish and wildlife. They vary in how

rigorously they guard their own borders or

prevent releases of harmful species. States prohibit relatively few injurious species; their standards of review for predicting harm are low; and

enforcement is weak (55) (ch. 7). The same

conditions apply to the States’ roles in releasing

fish and wildlife within their borders.

Taken together, these Federal and State gaps

constitute a serious threat to the Nation’s ability

to exclude, limit, and rapidly control harmful fish

and wildlife. For example, importation and transfer of zebra mussels within much of the United

States remained legal for approximately 2 years

after they had inadvertently entered the United

States and demonstrated their devastating potential. An opportunity to slow their spread was lost.

The potential for spread of pathogens of fish and

aquatic invertebrates is another example. Federal

regulations under the Lacey Act require accurate

labeling of shipping containers for species identity and numbers. Screening for contamination by

pathogens is not required. There is no Federal

quarantine of diseased fish stocks and in many

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 authorized new regulations and

programs for aquatic species like the costly zebra

mussel (Dreissenna polymorpha).

States diseased fish and invertebrates can be

legally imported and released.

Some observers have called for an increased

Federal presence to fill gaps like those above.

Julianne Kurdila (55), for example, suggested

either implementing President Carter’s 1977 Executive Order 11987 (box 6-B) or the passage of

new legislation to correct the Lacey Act’s deficiencies, recommendations passed along by the

Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task Force

(70). USDA officials see the need to screen fish

for diseases, like they do for livestock (56).

Proposals to expand the Federal role have

engendered considerable controversy in the past.

However, OTA’s survey of State fish and wildlife

agencies asked whether they would like to see the

Federal role “increase,” ‘‘decrease, ’ or “stay

about the same in the regulation of nonindigenous fish and wildlife (ch. 7). A clear

majority-63 percent—favored an increased Federal role; 23 percent favored keeping the role

about the same; only one State (Wisconsin)

preferred to see the Federal role decreased (3

percent were not sure and 8 percent did not

answer). Peter Schuyler conducted a separate

survey of 271 resource managers and others

916 U. S.C.A. 3372
22 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

involved with issues related to non-indigenous

animals. Of the 265 U.S. respondents, 65 percent

perceived the problem’s biological aspects to

have international significance (92, 93)-clearly

beyond local or State scope.

Two areas in which the Federal Government

might strengthen its role are in:

1.

2.

The

increasing the rigor of screening before

importation and release of fish and wildlife;

and

defining new State roles.

frost area arises from widespread criticism

that the Lacey Act is failing to protect the United

States from entry of harmful new MS; also, many

decisions to introduce NIS are made without

thorough risk assessment (ch. 4). The second area

regarding State roles emerges from OTA’s analysis of State laws and regulations regarding fish

and wildlife (ch. 7).

TIGHTENING FISH AND WILDLIFE SCREENING

Option: Congress could amend the Lacey Act to

lengthen its list of excluded injurious wildlife

and to speed the process by which new listings

are added.

Option: Congress could require that Federal

agencies and others using Federal funds to

introduce non-indigenous fish and wildlife

develop and adopt specific, rigorous

decisionmaking methods for screening species

prior to release.

A number of problems have been documented

with the Lacey Act and its implementation by

FWS (55,83). The most commonly acknowledged problem is that regulation and enforcement

hinge on a short and noncomprehensive list of

‘‘injurious wildlife and adding new species to

the list is time-consuming (1 16). The Lacey Act

is also criticized for not providing comprehensive

regulation of interstate transport of federally

listed species and for not being clear regarding its

application to hybrid and feral animals. FWS

enforcement of the Act’s sparse interstate transport provisions is limited and programs to control

or eradicate non-indigenous fish and wildlife are

piecemeal, lack emergency measures, and have

no proactive components to catch problems early.

Only five new species or taxonomic groups

were added over the 7-year period from 1966 to

1973, with one more addition over the next 15

years. Several potentially injurious species are

under consideration in 1993 for listing, on a

species by species basis. Efforts to list the mitten

crab (Eriocheir spp.) took at least 2 years, with

some evidence that they were successfully introduced during this time (83). This means that

organisms are unregulated when they are most

amenable to control and eradication, i.e., shortly

after entry when their populations are small.

The greatest potential for the Lacey Act is to

reduce problems related to NIS used in the pet and

aquarium trades, “exotic’ non-indigenous game

ranching, and aquiculture.l” The potential risks

of species in these groups are relatively well

known and most of these NIS can be readily

identified and detected at ports of entry. However,

greater use of the Lacey Act would require

aggressive efforts to expand the Act’s list of

injurious species (6). This has not been tried since

1977. The current FWS approach remains largely

reactive, with little outside pressure to change or

increase the list of species (83).

Congressional action to amend the Lacey Act

(box l-F) could address some concerns without

changing the basic, Federal “dirty list’ regulatory approach. The dirty list approach prohibits

certain unacceptable species and allows unlisted

species to be imported. This puts the burden on

10 me Feder~ hte~ency Aquatic Nuisance Task Force has concluded that the escape, accidental release, or improper disposal of

intentionally 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 Control

Act of 1990 would not apply, because it covers only unintentional introductions.
l-Summary, Issues, and Options 23

Box l-F–How To Improve the Lacey Act

The following changes to the Lacey Act would provide more comprehensive protection and management of

the Nation’s resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would need additional staff and other resources

to make these changes. The FWS currently spends approximately $3 million annually for port inspections for fish

and 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 comparable

budgets 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 the

purpose of this list and the specific criteria for adding species to it. Proposed amended criteria would be discussed

with outside experts and be as comprehensive as possible. One possibility would be to include harmful species

indigenous tot he United States, but established outside their range, as injurious. A quite different alternative would

be 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 most

time-consuming parts of the listing process (public notice and comment, etc.), 2) use emergency listing procedures

more often, or 3) give FWS authorit y to impose emergency control, with monitoring, while the usual listing process

takes 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 from

an already-limited group of decisionmakers. If Congress gave FWS emergency authority, reasonable time limits

could be set for study and reaching decisions on final listings. FWS and APHIS might together streamline their

listing 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 provide

FWS with authority for emergency quarantine and emergency actions. First, the respective Federal and State

responsibilities would need to be clarified. Then, Congress could take any of several steps: direct FWS to

strengthen its role; provide additional resources to States for enforcement; and/or amend t he Lacey Act to provide

for 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 for

the Off ice of Technology Assessment, November 1991; J. Kurdila, “The Introduction of Exotic Species into the United States: There Goes

the Neighborhood” Erwiromnenta/ Affaiis, vol. 16, 1988, pp. 95-1 18; R.A. Peoples, Jr., J.A. McCann, and L.B. Starnes, “Introduced

Organisms: 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 and

Wildlife Service, internal memorandum, 1987.

regulators to determine whether a species is

harmful. Commonly cited alternatives to dirty

lists are ‘‘clean lists” or combinations of clean

and dirty list approaches (ch. 4). The clean list

approach prohibits all species unless they are

determined to be acceptable, that is, unless they

merit being on the clean list, This puts the burden

on the importer to prove a species is not harmful.

States, such as Hawaii, that are most concerned

about NIS are moving from simple dirty list

regulatory approaches toward using both clean

and dirty lists.

Clean lists can only be used for certain kinds of

organisms. Many pathogens and invertebrates are

too little known to classify their impacts as

acceptable or not. Generally, though, clean lists

represent a more stringent, proactive policy,

especially when dirty lists are short and noncomprehensive. What is “clean’ in one part of the

United States is not necessarily so elsewhere,

however. Therefore, any new policy using clean

lists would need regional flexibility.

Some contend that any Federal clean list is

infeasible because of lingering opposition from

FWS’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 with

portions of the zoological and scientfic communities, spearheaded opposition in the 1970s (55).

Marshall Meyers, general counsel for the Pet

Industry Joint Advisory Council, articulates the

industry’s continuing opposition to regulations

viewed as overly restrictive, vague, or poorly

justified (14), as they found previous clean list

proposals. On the other hand, the pet industry

recently joined environmental groups in supporting tighter regulation of importation of wildcaught birds.11

Both clean and dirty lists require determining

whether species pose acceptable risks. Formal

decisionmaking protocols, risk analysis, costbenefit analysis, and other techniques attempt to

accomplish this goal (ch. 4). Each has advantages

and disadvantages. For example, protocols like

the American Fisheries Society’s for the release

of fish (51) represent a high level of decisionmaking rigor and best suit the most potentially risky

types of introductions. Typically, these methods

require large amounts of highly technical information and are therefore demanding in financial

and scientific terms. Also, these methods are

controversial because their usefulness has not

been established clearly.

No single method is ideal for assessing all

Federal and federally funded introductions of

non-indigenous fish and wildlife. However, formal decisionmaking methods designed to more

carefully assess and decrease risks are considered

to be prudent alternatives to banning all potentially risky introductions (83). Congress could

require that agencies develop and adopt either a

recognized decisionmaking protocol or another

formal and rigorous method suited to their

situations. This was the approach taken in the

proposed Species Introduction and Control Act of

1991 regarding non-indigenous fish and wildlife. 12

DEFINING NEW STATE ROLES IN FISH AND

WILDLIFE INTRODUCTION

Option: Congress could address weaknesses in

some States’ fish and wildlife laws by

implementing national minimum standards.

These standards would provide legal authority

to regulate harmful NIS and be linked to

funding for States to implement them.

Option: Alternately, Congress could encourage

wider adoption of a federally developed model

State law to make legal authority among States

more comprehensive.

The strength of the U.S. Federal system is that

the 50 States provide a testing ground for new

ideas. Such new ideas turn up in the exemplary

approaches discussed in chapter 7. On the other

hand, federalism leads to duplication of efforts

and highly variable, and sometimes conflicting,

regulations (72). This has been the case for

non-indigenous fish and wildlife.

States’ standards vary considerably regarding

which species and groups are regulated and how

carefully they are regulated; many State efforts to

regulate importation, possession, introduction,

and release are inadequate (ch. 7) (55). In some

cases, the weaknesses of State programs stem

from incomplete legal authority.

The Lacey Act leaves decisions on almost all

intentional introductions of fish and wildlife to

the States; only the relatively few organisms on

the list of injurious wildlife are prohibited. Thus,

correcting problems would entail full exercise of

State prerogatives (83). However, Federal programs support many State-sponsored introductions, so the Federal Government has a strong

interest in this area.

A variety of approaches could be used to

encourage improved State performance. Federal

pre-emption of State NIS laws is unlikely to be

justifiable or politically feasible. Two more

11 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 25

tenable and often-suggested methods are national

minimum standards and wider use of model State

laws. Either method could ensure that State fish

and wildlife laws provide adequate authority for

more comprehensive regulation.

Box 1-G illustrates a national minimum standards approach. Three elements would be needed:

1.

2.

3.

a process to determine whether State laws

are consistent with the new national minimum standards,

a program of incentives for States to adopt

or retain laws meeting the national minimum standards and to provide sanctions

against States that do not, and

a means to provide reliable sources of

revenue to fund these efforts.

Also, careful individual State review is needed

in several other areas: quarantine requirements;

containment specifications; responsibility for control of escapees; and regulation of live bait fish

and invertebrates affecting nonagricultural areas.

Incentives could include Federal grants or

matching funds to States for initial reviews of

their fish and wildlife laws. Also, Federal funds

could be made available for NIS control or

eradication for States whose NIS laws meet the

national minimum standard. Sanctions would

most reasonably include denial of Federal funds

for fish and wildlife restoration and/or other Federal aid-to-States programs. Sanctions could be

phased in over a suitable period, such as 5 years.

A national minimum standards program could

be administered by FWS, another existing agency,

or a new Federal office or commission. Its duties

would include: monitoring and reporting on State

compliance; processing requests for State funding; and maintaining up-to-date, publicly available compilations of States’ fish and wildlife

statutes, regulations, quarantines, and other important information.

An alternate approach would be to provide

incentives for States to adopt a federally developed, comprehensive model State law. Voluntary

examples already have been used to some extent

for fish and wildlife.

The Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Center’s

model law combined laws on endangered species,

injurious wildlife, disease control, public health,

wildlife management, humane care, and interstate

control. The model was reviewed by all States and

parts of it used by a few. Missouri used part of the

model, while Utah considered it but adopted their

own approach (ch. 7). This specific model State

law, however, received substantial criticism for

being overly broad and creating excessive administrative rules and paperwork (67).

Generally, voluntary approaches for environmental compliance are receiving increased attention for a number of problems. Industry groups

often support such initiatives, claiming that voluntary programs are more effective and cut costs

(99). Few environmental groups have endorsed

voluntary programs, however (88).

Issue 3: The Growing Problem of NonIndigenous Weeds

The continuing entry and spread of nonindigenous weeds in the United States raises

serious concerns in many quarters. State agriculture and natural resource officials, Federal land

managers, members of conservation organizations, and scientists have expressed their concern

that existing Federal weed laws are flawed, their

implementation incomplete, and too few resources have been directed toward weed problems (chs. 2, 3, 6). In some cases, listing

prohibited weeds under State noxious weed and

seed acts may reduce the interstate spread of

non-indigenous weeds otherwise allowed by Federal laws and regulations. However, the States can

only partially compensate for insufficient Federal

presence.

Three areas seem to call for a strengthened

Federal role:

1. improving the Federal Noxious Weed Act

(FNWA), by broadening its coverage and

simplifying its procedures;
26 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box l-G–National Minimum Standards for State Fish and Wildlife Laws

OTA finds in chapter 7 that States need the following types of legal authority and decisionmaking procedures

to 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-indigenous

hybrids). This authority could allow for appropriate exemptions. The authority over importation would apply

to NIS originating in foreign countries and to that from other parts of the United States. The authority over

introduction would apply to both public and private property.

2. State laws need to provide authority to regulate intrastate stocking of species where hybridization with

indigenous species or other harmful impacts may occur.

3. All States need legal authority to list potentially harmful NIS in all taxonomic groups as prohibited from

importation, possession, and/or release. Their lists would supplement the Lacey Act list. In this and other

listing processes, States would actively solicit expert technical advice and public comment. However,

under extraordinary circumstances States would also have emergency authority to prohibit species

without administrative delays.

4. States’ decisions regarding importation, possession, and release of NIS would be based on defined and

rigorous standards of review that comprehensively consider the new releases’ environmental impacts.

Detailed studies, equivalent to an environmental impact statement would be required in cases of

potentially significant impacts.

5. All decisions to approve new releases would be conditioned onthefollowing: a)notification and comment

given to other potentially affected States, the Federal Government, and Canada and Mexico if they are

potentially affected; b) stipulations for follow-up monitoring and review; and c) provisions governing public

and/or private responsibility for the costs of control or eradication and for damages if unanticipated

negative impacts occur.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

2. increasing weed management on public

lands; and

3. tightening screening before the release of

new, potentially weedy non-indigenous

plants.

The first area arises from concerns that FNWA

is an inadequate tool for preventing the problems

now facing resource managers. The second area

arises from existing massive and spreading weed

problems, especially on western public lands, and

the view that the Federal Government has not

fully met its responsibility here. Finally, those

responsible for introducing new plants for horticulture and soil conservation have been reluctant

to recognize the importance of rigorous screening

for weediness before a plant’s release.

THE FEDERAL NOXIOUS WEED ACT AND

FEDERAL SEED ACT

Option: Congress could amend and expand the

Federal Noxious Weed Act to rectify several

widely acknowledged problems regarding

definitions, interpretation, and its relationship

to the Federal Seed Act.

The Federal Noxious Weed Act and the Federal

Seed Act13 provide the main authority for APHIS

to restrict entry and spread of noxious weeds. The

FNWA prohibits importation of listed noxious

weeds and provides authority to quarantine species already in the country. The Act has been

criticized by the Weed Science Society of America, environmental groups, State and some industry representatives, 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 2 7

112, 113). Commonly cited shortcomings include:

problems with the definition of a “noxious

weed ; confusion between this Act and the

Federal Seed Act; the inadequacy of the list of

prohibited species and the cumbersome nature of

the listing process; and APHIS’ interpretation

limiting the restriction of interstate weed transfer

to only those species under quarantine (36,60,70,98).

A major shortcoming is that the Act is applied

to too few species. APHIS took 8 years to place

93 species on the current list of Federal noxious

weeds, yet at least 750 weeds meeting the Act’s

definition remain unlisted (98). Unlisted weeds

can continue to be legally imported, although

their potential for causing damage is known.

APHIS’ narrow interpretation of the definition of

a Federal noxious weed has kept it from regulating clearly harmful NIS with wider distributions,

including those meriting restriction to prevent

further spread (86). Purple loosestrife, Brazilian

pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and Eurasian

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) are prominent unlisted weeds. Moreover, the requirement

that a noxious weed be of foreign origin means

FNWA does not cover plants like the western

wetland invader smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), which originated in the eastern United

States. Difficulties make the listing process slow

(36,98), yet FNWA has no emergency mechanism

to allow rapid action on unlisted species causing

incipient problems.

APHIS has barely implemented FNWA’s Section 4, which requires a permit for moving listed

species between States. Under APHIS interpretation of the Act’s legislative history, this restriction only applies when the agency has imposed a

specific quarantine under Section 5, Yet in 18

years, APHIS has imposed only one quarantine

for a noxious weed. As a result, at least nine

Federal noxious weeds were sold in interstate

commerce as of 1990 (98), APHIS has maintained

this interpretation in the face of steady pressure

from some State officials to change it (49).

APHIS has traditionally emphasized insect and

disease problems and lacked professional weed

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is among the

prominant weeds not listed by the Federal Noxious

Weed Act.

scientists in key positions (128), contributing to

the low priority of weed management among its

various responsibilities (ch. 7). Then Administrator Glosser contended, however, that lack of

finding-not priority setting-limits APHIS’

weed control programs (36).

Some gaps in FIWVA might eventually be filled

under the recently enacted Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. NOAA and

the FWS could eventually move to regulate

importations or impose quarantines of aquatic or

wetland weeds, although no such regulations are

either in place or planned.

The Federal Seed Act provides for accurate

labeling and purity standards for seeds in commerce. Only 12 species have been listed under the

Federal Seed Act, with “tolerances” set for

contamination by small amounts of their seed.
28 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Just one of these species is listed among the 93

prohibited entry under FNWA (62). It has not

been clear whether species prohibited under

FNWA could be legally imported and transported

within the country as part of seed shipments. In

1988, APHIS initially allowed importation of

grass seed contaminated by serrated tussock

(Nassella trichotoma)—a weed listed under the

Federal Noxious Weed but not the Federal Seed

Act. In 1992, a Federal district court judge ruled

that the Federal Noxious Weed Act applied to

seed shipments; however, the case is on appeal at

this writing.14

A second limitation of the Federal Seed Act is

it only applies to agricultural and vegetable seed.

The Act’s requirements for truth in advertising do

not cover horticultural seeds, including “wildflower” and ‘‘native grass’ mixtures. Such

commercial mixtures are increasingly popular,

especially for use in suburban and seminatural

areas. The use of ‘‘wildflower’ and ‘‘native’

may be misleading, because the mixtures frequently contain plants that do not grow naturally

in the wild, either in the United States or in the

region for which they are promoted (62). Some

even contain Federal or State listed noxious

weeds. State laws on consumer protection and

accurate weights and measures could provide

States with general authority to address horticultural seed mixtures, but little indication exists that

they have done so (50).

Commonly suggested changes to improve FNWA

include those in box 1-H. Some of these are

included in amendments that Senator Byron

Dorgan anticipates introducing in fall, 1993.

In 1990, APHIS attempted to consolidate its

plant protection statutes into one piece of legislation. While that attempt failed, the Agency

expects to try again. Any such consolidation

could address the concerns raised here, without

amending FNWA and the Federal Seed Act. It

could also address the need for emergency and

proactive measures discussed in a later section.

Congress would need to ensure that no important

functions were dropped in the consolidation

process, however. Consolidated legislation would

include many additional complex and potentially

controversial issues. Its passage is not likely to be

straightforward or rapid.

TIGHTENING PLANT SCREENING

Option: Congress could require that all entities

introducing non-indigenous plant material

conduct pre-release evaluations of its

potential for invasiveness.

Option: Congress could require that APHIS

conduct periodic evaluations of its port and

seed inspection systems to test their adequacy

and provide feedback for improvements.

At a minimum, Congress could ensure that

current laws and regulations are adequately enforced. This requires that APHIS report on the

effectiveness of its inspection system and regularly seek improvements. Also, a minimal approach would ensure that all new, potentially

damaging introductions be screened for invasiveness. Past experiences show that releasing unscreened introductions is asking for trouble.

Specifying methods to use for such screening,

including review under NEPA (box l-D), would

require congressional intervention.

Intentional introductions of plants are almost

entirely unregulated, unlike certain other categories of potentially harmful NIS that require

permits or receive some Federal scrutiny. Yet

some of the worst U.S. weeds were intentionally

introduced by people who thought that they

would be beneficial: kudzu, water hyacinth, and

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) (60), and experts

express concern about the possible invasiveness

of 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 of

Columbia), on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 92-5179.
l-Summary, Issues, and Options 29

Box l-H-How to Improve the Federal Noxious Weed Act

Change the definition of a “noxious weed.” Redefine so that plant pests of nonagricultural areas and

weeds of U.S. origin-but outside their natural ranges-are clearly included. (These definitional weaknesses

commonly apply to State noxious weed laws, too.) The 1990 FNWA amendments directed Federal agencies to

undertake several actions against “undesirable plant species” on Federal lands. These were defined to include

noxious, 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 definitions

on U.S. ranges of plants.

Address weeds widespread within the United States. The lack of an approach to deal with widespread

weeds 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 determine

when 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. This

could be done by deleting the provision in Section 12 that prohibits the application of FNWA to seed shipments

regulated under the Seed Act; or by amending the Seed Act to make its list of excluded species identical to that

of FNWA, whichever is more extensive.

Provide for emergency listing of weeds. Streamline the listing process or grant APHIS emergency authority

to 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 create

inordinate delay when time is essential. Therefore, strengthening t he agency’s authority to take emergency action

before listing might be more desirable. APHIS and the Fish and Wildlife Service might develop emergency listing

processes 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: Make

planting, distributing, and possessing noxious weeds with intent to distribute them illegal under almost

all circumstances. This would make interstate distribution of Federally listed weeds clearly illegal regardless of

the existence of an APHIS quarantine. Minnesota recently took a stricter approach by prohibiting most instances

of transport, possession, sale, purchase, import propagation, or release of approximately 30 species of plants and

animals.

Increase resources for control programs, including those on Federal lands. APHIS allocates few

resources tot he control and eradication of noxious weeds and other Federal agencies face similar shortfalls. (See

issue 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 and

Plant 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, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL statement submitted at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural

Research 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, Statement

submitted before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry, Mar. 28,1990, pp. 354-356; Weed Science Society of America, “WSSA Position Statement on Changes In the Federal Noxious

Weed Act,” Davis, CA, May 8, 1990.

Current Federal restrictions on importation and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

interstate transport of plants (other than noxious annually imports large quantities of foreign plant

weeds listed under FNWA) relate to preventing material to develop new species or varieties for

transfers of plant pests and pathogens—not evalu- horticulture, soil conservation, or agriculture.

ating the plant itself for harmful qualities. The Neither the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) nor
30 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ARS specifically evaluates plants for invasiveness before their release for soil conservation or

horticulture. These plants undergo little or no

systematic evaluation for weediness and risk to

nonagricultural systems (ch. 3). Evaluation of

horticultural varieties developed abroad and imported for commercial sale is similarly lax.

More careful and consistent pre-release screening is needed. Some screening methods are

already in place. Usually these methods are

applied only to agricultural threats, however.

APHIS initially used an expert panel, the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds

(TCENW), to designate species for the Federal

list of noxious weeds.15 These or similar screening methods could serve as models for the ARS

Germplasm Resources Laboratory to evaluate

plant material. Possibilities include the use of risk

analysis, benefit/cost analysis, safe minimum

standards, and review under NEPA (ch. 4).

Harmful NIS commonly present insidious,

long-term, low-probability, but high-risk problems. Under these circumstances, many standard

decisionmaking methods fit only partially. For

example, eventual costs may be impossible to

predict, making economic projections of little

use. Any new screening methods should be

adopted on a test basis and evaluated before

broader implementation. Certain additional decisionmaking steps are fairly clear now, however:

●

●

●

increasing the role of technical advisory

groups (98);

expanding the scope of scientific and other

expertise available to these advisory groups

to include evolutionary and conservation

biologists and ecologists (46);

ensuring that decisionmaking processes are

documented, clear, open to public scrutiny,

and periodically evaluated;

●

●

guaranteeing input from industries, States,

other Federal agencies, and special interest

groups that may be affected by the decision

(49); and

ensuring that the final decision is implemented effectively (61).

WEED MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS

Option: Congress could monitor and evaluate

closely the weed control efforts undertaken by

Federal agencies as a result of FNWA

amendments to the 1990 Farm Bill.

Management of non-indigenous weeds is a

growing problem involving local, State, and

Federal agencies (1 13). Most land management

agencies now acknowledge the problems of

noxious weeds and are beginning to attempt

control. However, these programs generally are

small, underfunded, and need additional support

(chs. 6, 7). The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), for example, identified seven major

deficiencies in its programs: funds and staff;

policy guidance and awareness of the problem;

basic information on expansion of weed populations; attention to nonrangelands; active and

preventive programs; training beyond pesticide

application; and coordination with other Federal,

State, and county agencies (1 15). Many areas

with severe non-indigenous weed problems are

among the most protected categories of federally

managed lands. Their problems are distinct enough

to be discussed separately in the next section.

Congress gave weed control on Federal lands

an important stimulus in 1990. Amendments to

the Federal Noxious Weed Act16 included in the

1990 Farm Bi1117 require that each Federal land

management agency establish and fund an undesirable plant management program for lands

under its jurisdiction (6). Sustained congressional

IS me co~~ee was disb~ded in 1983 after suggesting an additional 750 Federal noxious weeds and developing 261 statements Of h

for the Federal Register. Its recommendations were not followed.

167 USC-A. 2814

17 me Food, /@c~~e,conservatio~ and Trade Act of 1990, Public biw 101-624
l--Summary, Issues, and Options I 31

interest is needed now, along with preparations

for a thorough evaluation of these amendments’

effectiveness within the next few years. Such an

evaluation might assess the degree to which each

program met its goals; the speed with which

agencies responded to new weed problems; the

extent and adequacy of interagency Federal-State

cooperation, and so on.

Many Federal lands with serious nonindigenous weed problems are vast, remote, and

have low economic value. These features make

chemical control costly and difficult and biological control an attractive alternative. Biological

control organisms are non-indigenous and also

capable of harm if not properly screened. Of the

Federal land management agencies, only BLM

has clearly defined policies for evaluating the

safety of non-indigenous biological control agents

before their release onto public lands. Comparable policies are needed by other agencies (see

biological control section below).

Managers complain that suitable biological

control agents are difficult to obtain. Similarly,

indigenous germplasm and products are in short

supply. The agencies or Congress could ease such

technical bottlenecks.

The use of non-indigenous plants for applications such as landscaping and erosion control

sometimes comes about because of the high cost

or unavailability of indigenous species. For example, farmers cut planting costs per acre by 17

percent when they chose non-indigenous rather

than indigenous grasses for acreage enrolled in

the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (20).

However, a cooperative State-Federal program in

Illinois demonstrated that propagation of indigenous plants for large-scale uses is economically

and technically feasible (39) (box 7-E).

An indigenous perennial clover (Trifolium

carolinianum) has been found to be a better and

less expensive ground cover than many newly

developed non-indigenous varieties (2). However, lack of commercial sources is a barrier to its

use in the Federal Conservation Reserve Program,

Managers of national parks similarly find that

indigenous plants are not readily available from

nurseries (33). Such problems stimulated a successful collaboration in which SCS propagates

indigenous plants for park restoration (1 18).

Wider availability of indigenous plants at

comparable costs, along with public education,

could go far towards increasing their use––

especially if combined with new requirements for

truthful reporting of plant origins for commercially sold seeds and plants. The Federal Government could play a significant role in encouraging

the use of indigenous plants. Current USDA

programs of ARS (the National Plant Germplasm

System) and SCS (Plant Materials for Conservation Program) collect plant germplasm and make

it widely available for use by plant breeders and

producers (ch. 7). Congress could require an

increased emphasis on the collection, development, and distribution of indigenous germplasm

by these programs.

Issue 4: Damage to Natural Areas

Option: Congress could assign broad and

explicit responsibility for the control of nonindigenous species that damage natural areas

to APHIS, the Forest Service, or another

agency and provide resources for its

implementation.

Option: Congress could require that the National

Park Service commit, in measurable ways, to

elevating the priority of natural resource

management.

Option: Congress could appropriate additional

funds for the Park Service to implement

large-scale control and eradication programs

for those natural areas most damaged by NIS.

Alternately, Congress could provide more

funds for these purposes by changing the

amount or structure of park entrance or user

fees.

A variety of Federal (and State and local)

agencies manage protected areas. Among the
32 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

most ‘‘natural’ of federally owned lands are the

National Parks and other areas managed by the

National Park Service (NPS). These represent a

small fraction (approximately 3 percent) of U.S.

land, but their significance in preserving and

protecting natural and cultural resources goes far

beyond their relatively small acreage. The U.S.

Forest Service, BLM, and FWS manage more

modified, yet largely undeveloped, lands-as

much as 23 percent of U.S. land.

These areas are significant for maintaining

indigenous animals and plants—the biological

diversity of the United States. Also, these lands

can harbor troublesome NIS that degrade resources and move to private land.

No Federal agency clearly sees its mission as

protecting natural areas from harmful NIS. Although some protection incidentally arises from

Federal coverage of other areas, it is noncomprehensive and misses many harmful species. State

coverage varies and is similarly incomplete. The

harmful effects of NIS in natural areas tends to be

poorly documented-a cause and a consequence

of the lack of focused Federal and State attention.

For example, the significance of harmful nonindigenous insects in natural areas can only be

guessed, since the U.S. fauna is so poorly known.

The effects of at least one-third of the nonindigenous insects in the country are undocumented (ch. 3) (48). Nevertheless, harmful NIS

clearly threaten nonagricultural areas like the

National Parks (chs. 2, 8).

State efforts do not compensate for the lack of

Federal attention (ch. 7). State regulation of fish

and wildlife is patchy. State coverage of invertebrates outside of agriculture varies from spotty to

nonexistent.

The Federal Government historically has had a

small and erratic role in assisting the States with

control programs. The recent Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

sought to remedy this with a program for Federal

funding of State programs to eradicate or control

harmful aquatic species that were unintentionally

introduced. In the 3 years since its authorization,

no funds have yet been appropriated. Moreover,

the rocky start of its Federal interagency Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force makes its future

potential uncertain.

Responsibility for studying, regulating, and

controlling harmful NIS in nonagricultural areas

such as parks and protected areas is a large

enough problem that it needs to be assigned

explicitly to some agency or institution. This

could be APHIS, although it lacks expertise in

this area. Such responsibility would entail a

substantial expansion of duties, which could

conflict with APHIS’ traditional mission to protect agriculture. APHIS, at least, should consider

the impact of NIS on natural areas when listing

weeds under FNWA (49), when restricting other

NIS, and if the agency begins to screen fish for

pathogens.

Alternately, the Forest Service might be able to

assume responsibility for non-indigenous weed

control in nonagricultural areas, with its approach

to forest pests serving as a model for nonforest

organisms. This would require developing authority for interagency cooperative programs to

act outside National Forest System lands.

Others have suggested that control of NIS on

nonagricultural lands be assigned to an agency

outside USDA, perhaps to BLM, EPA, or a new
I-Summary, Issues, and Options 3 3

institution that would take over a majority of

NIS-related functions. The efficiency, costsavings, effectiveness of government reorganizations is far from clear (105). Undoubtedly, NIS control on nonagricultural lands should

be the responsibility of an organization with an

interest in protecting biological diversity and

ecological expertise.

Of all Federal land management agencies, the

National Park Service (NPS) has the most restrictive and elaborate policies regarding NIS (ch. 6).

Despite these policies, harmful NIS are causing

fundamental changes inside and nearby some

National Parks. As early as 1980, a NPS report to

Congress cited encroachment of NIS as one of the

threats to the Parks (1 17). The changes prompted

by NIS are large enough now to jeopardize some

Parks’ abilities to meet the goals for which the

Parks were established (41,60). In a survey done

in 1986 and 1987, respondents rated nonindigenous plants as the most common threat to

park natural resources while non-indigenous animals ranked fourth (41).

Threats to Hawaii’s National Parks are probably worst, although many other Parks are damaged by MS, such as wild hogs (Sus scrofa) in

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a nonindigenous thistle (Cirsium vulgare) in Yosemite

National Park, and gypsy moths in Shenandoah

National Park (6); feral rabbits (Oryctolagus

cuniculus) in Channel Islands National Park, salt

cedar (Tamarix spp.) in Canyonlands and Big

Bend National Parks, and non-indigenous vines

on Theodore Roosevelt Island (59) (table 2-4).

Although the Parks face many threats, harmful

NIS are considered more pervasive, subtle, and

harder to rectify than other disturbances that

threaten biological diversity (27).

A growing recognition exists that NPS’ funding priorities will have to shift if it is to address

degradation of the Parks’ natural resources, including funding related to NIS (76, 102). Natural

resource management generally has low priority.

The Park Service allocates no more than 2 percent

of its annual budget to research, management, and

control of NIS and the backlog of unmet needs is

growing (6,45).

Ambiguity in the NPS Organic Act18 is partly

responsible for the lack of focus in NPS management; neither the 1970 nor 1978 amendments

defined or set priorities for use, versus preservation, of the Parks (94). Further amendments could

clarify these sometimes conflicting goals, but

disagreement exists as to their necessity. A major

recent report—prepared by an independent steering committee for the NPS Director drawing on a

700-participant symposium-recommended that

protection of Park resources from internal and

external impairment be NPS primary responsibility. The authors saw this choice as within the

current authority of NPS leaders (102).

Park Service officials seem less willing to

make such a choice without legislative change.

An internal NPS workshop on protecting biological diversity in the Parks, for example, recommended new legislation to make such protection

an explicit statutory responsibility and to secure

a mandate for restoration of extirpated or degraded ecosystems (27). Specifically, this group

called for reducing the densities of harmful NIS

within and around Parks to levels where their

influence is minimized or eliminated.

New NIS control and eradication efforts, along

with other priority resource management tasks,

would require additional funds. The steering

committee, in their 1992 report, suggested a

variety of funding mechanisms in addition to

regular congressional appropriations: funding the

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to the full

extent authorized; a ‘‘modest” gasoline tax;

returns from concessions and extractive operations; small levies on activities and equipment;

voluntary income tax check-offs; sale of tokens

and passes for admission; and returning 50

percent 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 States

The Park Service alone cannot solve its pressing resource management problems. Up to 70

percent of the external threats to Parks result from

actions by other Federal agencies or by State or

local governments (75). This suggests NPS must

work closely with adjacent land managers. Specifically, Congress could require that NPS initiate

agreements for managing those NIS that threaten

park lands from outside their boundaries. Those

projects that serve multiple goals, e.g., NIS

removal and recovery of endangered species, are

the best candidates for top priority (6).

A Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on biological diversity (47) suggested an agency-byagency approach to NIS on public lands. Participants recommended that each agency: prohibit

potentially harmful new releases of NIS, including any intended to control indigenous species;

identify, control, or replace already established

NIS; eliminate any newly discovered NIS; and

maintain those beneficial NIS that do not interfere

with biological diversity.

Congress’ 1990 amendments to the FNWA

took a similar approach, requiring each agency to

develop plans for weed control on lands under its

jurisdiction. The FNWA could further protect

natural areas if this function were more explicit

(98). The definition of a Federal noxious weed

includes species affecting ‘‘fish and wildlife

resources. Nevertheless, critics complain that

APHIS has been slow or failed to act on weeds of

natural areas such as melaleuca and Australian

pine (Casuarina equisetfolia) (ch. 8). At least

one State—Washington-has recently provided

more complete protection for natural areas from

weeds (box 7-D) (124).

Improved implementation of the Lacey Act and

future implementation of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

might go far towards protecting natural areas

from harmful, non-indigenous fish and wildlife

(including aquatic invertebrates). Today, however, protection of natural areas from these NIS is

almost nonexistent. For example, mollusks that

harm natural areas continue to arrive in the

country (ch. 3) (8). APHIS may screen out some

mollusks during inspection of plant imports, but

only if they are potential agricultural pests. Just

one species would be stopped due to a prohibition

under the Lacey Act—the well-known zebra

mussel, which was listed far too late to stop its

spread across the country.

Congress might delay further legislation on

harmful aquatic NIS until the 1990 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act is fully implemented, although the Federal

interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

has been slow to fulfill its required assignments

(table 6-l). Instead, Congress might evaluate the

Task Force program to date, urge faster implementation, and ensure that funds are provided for

State control in a timely manner.

Issue 5: Environmental Education

as Prevention

Option: Congress could require that the 20-some

Federal agencies involved with NIS develop

broadly based environmental education

programs to increase public awareness of

problems caused by damaging or

unpredictable NIS.

Option: Alternately, Congress could develop a

smaller scale initiative to take greater

advantage of current programs and

information.

Option: Congress could require that airlines,

port authorities, and importers intensify their

public educational efforts regarding harmful

NIS.

Although public appreciation of U.S. biological diversity is increasing (ch. 4), the difference

between indigenous and NIS in natural surroundings is not commonly perceived—thus the neglect of a coherent public policy regarding

harmful NIS.

Lack of awareness on the part of the public and

policymakers is mutually reinforcing. Many,
including OTA’s expert contractors and its Advisory Panelists, believe this cycle of ignorance

must be broken (22,46,49,60,104). Also, this

theme surfaces frequently in recommendations by

nongovernmental groups (46) and scientists and

managers (83,93),

Education on NIS ranks low in priority in most

State and Federal agencies and private organizations that are involved with natural resources,

receiving an estimated less than 1 percent of most

organizations’ budgets (96). Numerous activities

are under way, but efforts are fragmented, uncoordinated, with little formal institutional backup.

In 1989, a coalition of at least 100 environmental groups recommended a sweeping approach to environmental education, including

1.

2.

3.

re-establishing an Office of Environmental

Education in the U.S. Department of Education,

appointing a National Advisory Council on

Environmental Education within that Department, and

requiring that USDA, the Department of the

Interior, and EPA develop and distribute

environmental programs and materials (15).

The first two activities were estimated at an

additional $20 million annually. In part, they were

seen as fulfilling unmet goals of the 1970

Environmental Education Act, which expired in

1982.

The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) suggested a less

sweeping strategy, based on its survey for OTA of

current NIS-related programs. Previous education

campaigns have not been systematically evaluated, which made recommending definitive changes

difficult (96). NAAEE’s suggestions included:

cooperative government-private programs for

groups working on similar NIS; improved exchange of already-developed educational materials; designation of specialized “centers of excellence’ for particular species or approaches;

teacher training; and improved links between

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 35

, .+-

Agricultural items that can harbor foreign pests are

prohibited from entry but these banned items arrived

with international travelers on just one fight.

scientists (who often are charged with designing

education campaigns) and educators (who have

more expertise in programs’ effectiveness) (96).

Regardless of approach, program evaluations

should be incorporated from their beginning.

The public has the greatest need for education

related to non-indigenous animals, according to

survey responses of 271 U.S. resource managers

and others involved with these issues (93).

However, few environmental education campaigns are initiated for the general public for

logistical reasons; efforts are more realistically

focused on particular groups of people (96).

Education regarding harmful NIS will be more

effective if focused on people whose incentives

for harmful introductions or other actions are

weak and for whom the information is likely to tip
36 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

the balance of their behavior. Little research has

been done on why people bring plants and

animals into the United States illegally or why

they dump NIS outside their property. Also,

careful quantitative analysis of the pathways by

which NIS reach the United States and the rate at

which these pathways lead to serious problems

has not been linked to educational efforts for the

people using these pathways. Such an analysis

could be a highly effective way to set priorities for

educational programs.

Few NIS are introduced intentionally and

illegally (smuggled), with the exception of sport

fish (ch. 3). For smugglers, steep frees may be

more appropriate than education. On the other

hand, Ralph Elston, from the Battelle Marine

Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, WA, suggests

that commercial groups transporting aquatic NIS

can be expected to respond to education and

self-enforcement (31). For other vertebrates, people may intentionally release animals believing

they are doing the right thing, or at least not

understanding the possible harmful effects of

their actions. Educational efforts aimed at buyers

at the point of import or sale might effectively

change this behavior. Warnings on packages or

special forms describing dangers might alert

importers. Horticulturist Gary Keller (52) of the

Arnold Arboretum, for example, suggests that

plants like running bamboo species,19 which are

known to be highly invasive, be sold with

individual warning labels so that gardeners recognize their danger and prevent their spread.

International travelers’ baggage is often cited

as an important source of unintentional (but

illegal) introductions (1 1). This suggests that

airline crews, immigrants, and departing or returning residents should receive intensified education. Also, foreign travel might automatically

trigger certain steps: handouts from travel agents,

enclosures with airline tickets, visas or passports

(77), or videos on aircraft that graphically portray

the potential damage from NIS. Similar attempts

sometimes failed in the past because too little care

was taken in developing a clear message; the

support of the Advertising Council was not

secured for media saturation; travel agents and air

carriers were reluctant to distribute information;

and APHIS usually did not include other inspection agencies (64). These lessons need to be

heeded in the future.

Issue 6: Emergencies and Other Priorities

Option: Congress could ensure that all Federal

agencies conducting NIS control on public

lands have adequate authority-via existing or

new legislation-and funding to handle

emergency infestations of damaging NIS.

Option: Congress could set deadlines for APHIS’

completion and implementation of

comprehensive regulations for the importation

of unprocessed wood.

Option: Congress could specify that APHIS and

FWS conduct high-level, strategic reviews of

how the agencies balance resources directed

to excluding, detecting, and managing harmful

NIS.

For agricultural pests, Federal and State statutes are relatively comprehensive. Many problems in this area are due to slow or incomplete

implementation, difficulties coordinating Federal

and State roles, or a tendency to inadequately

address larger strategic questions.

In 1991 and 1992, APHIS allowed entry of

several shipments of timber or wood chips from

Chile, New Zealand, and Honduras without

careful analysis (57). Critics complained that

APHIS was ill-prepared and slow to recognize the

risks that such shipments could carry significant

new 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 are

Arundinaria spp., Phyllostachys spp., Pleioblastus spp., and Sasa spp. (53).
1-Summary, Issues, and Options 3 7

lumber, and certain other wood products” in

1992,20 these proposed regulations were incomplete, failing to address not only crates, pallets, or

packing material made from unprocessed wood

but also the control of ships and containers

coming to the United States from high-risk areas.

Also, an unwillingness by APHIS to see

localized problems as potential national concerns

has been a source of continuing tension between

the agency and State departments of agriculture

(chs. 7, 8). APHIS has several times failed to act

on significant pests because they were considered

local problems. For example, the agency ignored

Florida’s 1987 problems with infestations of

varroa mites (Varroa jacobsoni) in honey bee

(Apis mellifera) colonies (l)--only to see the pest

spread to at least 30 States by 1991 (73). Similar

situations have arisen regarding plant pests and

providing APHIS with emergency powers under

the Federal Noxious Weed Act could clarify

APHIS’ role and speed responses (86).

EMERGENCY RESPONSES

Rapid response requires: careful monitoring

for invasive or potentially invasive species to

ascertain incipient problems; quickly deciding

whether to attempt eradication, and, if so, being

willing to eliminate more species than might

eventually prove hazardous; and having the

resources to implement that or other control

decisions quickly.

The current situation contrasts sharply with the

ideal (ch. 6). APHIS systematically monitors for

a number of agricultural pests in various parts of

the country, e.g., African honey bees, Mediterranean fruit flies (Ceratifis capitata), cotton boll

weevils (Anthonomus grandis), and gypsy moths

(49). However, improvements to the U.S. detection system are recommended by many scientists

for plant pathogens (89), additional insects (48),

weeds (60), and mollusks and other aquatic

invertebrates (8). No centralized list of recently

detected or potential new pests exists (ch. 3, 10).

And databases that might provide such information have received sporadic support (ch. 5).

In contrast, New Zealand’s forest industries

conducted a detailed benefit/cost analysis of

different levels of pest detection surveys. Maximum benefits were achieved by aiming to detect

95 percent, not 100 percent, of new introductions

(13) (figure 4-3). Relatively few detailed economic studies of this kind are available to guide

U.S. NIS programs (ch. 4).

Federal and State agencies are capable of rapid

response after eradication decisions are made. A

cooperative Federal-State program to eradicate

chrysanthemum rust (Puccinia chrysanthemi) in

the early 1990s was rapid and successful (90).

Joint action in 1992 by APHIS and the Forest

Service with the Oregon and Washington Departments of Agriculture eradicated infestations of

the Asian gypsy moth. Forest Service expenditures for European gypsy moth suppression and

eradication on Federal, State, and private lands in

the eastern United States averaged $10,322,000

annually from 1987 to 1991 (126). Entomologists

are concerned that the Asian gypsy moth, if

established, could require a similar scale of effort.

On the other hand, Donald Kludy, a former

official of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, cites three cases where regulatory changes to

quarantines 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 was

less sanguine about the Federal-State partnership

and its effectiveness in responding quickly to

small infestations. He recommended that funds be

set aside for emergency pest problems and that

action plans be developed and continuously

updated for each serious potential pest and

disease, accompanied by cost-benefit analyses.

For fast response and eradication, safe and

effective chemical pesticides are needed. Classical biological control cannot take their place,

although it can be feasible for long-term control

2057 Federa[ Register 43628-43631 (Sept. 22, 1992)
38 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

of widespread infestations, e.g., noxious weeds

on western rangelands. By design, however,

classical biological control allows pest populations to persist at tolerable levels. This is counterproductive in a rapid response program aimed at

completely eradicating incipient pest populations.

Major concerns exist whether chemicals that

are considered safe and effective now are likely to

remain available because of regulatory changes

(ch. 5). Many registered chemical pesticides are

due for renewal under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).21 Most

herbicides for agricultural use are expected to be

re-registered. Manufacturers are not expected to

seek reregistration for many of the minor use

insecticides, rodenticides, avicides, and fungicides. Reregistration is time-consuming and expensive, especially for chemicals with small

markets. Chemicals used to control nonagricultural pests, including aquatic plants and large

vertebrates, fall into this group. Manufacturers’

decisions, as well as government policy, will have

important implications. For example, costs of

aquatic weed control could jump from $10 to at

least $100 per hectare if 2,4-D amine is not

reregistered; because many weed control budgets

are capped, higher herbicide costs will translate

into fewer areas controlled (34).

Section 18 of FIFRA does, however, provide

for emergency use of unregistered pesticides.

According to the General Accounting Office,

Section 18 exemptions were intended for several

situations, including the quarantine of pests not

previously known in the United States.

Two Federal programs might prove instructive

regarding policies on NIS-related minor use

pesticides. The Interregional Research Program

Number 4 (IR- 4), in USDA’s Cooperative State

Research Service, develops and synthesizes data

to clear existing pesticides for minor uses on food

and feed crops. However, it is heavily burdened

Although officials anticipated that the Asian gypsy

moth (Lymantria dispar) could accompany timber

imports, grain ships brought an early infestation and

State and Federal agencies cooperated to quickly

eradicate it,

and unlikely to meet reregistration deadlines (ch.

5) (110). Nor does it address problems of new

pesticide development. Congress used the Orphan Drug Act22 to address similar problems with

developing limited-use pharmaceutical products.

This Act provides pharmaceutical companies

with 7 years’ exclusive marketing rights and tax

credits for developing drugs for rare diseases. The

Act has successfully prompted new drug development (3), although controversy regarding several

drugs’ high profitability has prompted Congress

to consider modifications.

SETTlNG PRIORITIES

Decisions about which organisms to prevent,

eradicate, or control are not always made systematically or strategically, despite the large amounts

of money involved. This risks wasting money,

given the biology of invasions. The APHIS

line-item budget directs most NIS-related funds

to particular species and different programs

compete against each other for priority. Highly

visible programs with strong support of industry,

States, or the public receive highest priority. As a

21 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 39

result, potential new diseases and pests often lack

attention, although money could be well invested

at an early stage (49). State officials express

confusion as to how APHIS decides whether and

when to begin and end its programs,

James Glosser, former APHIS Administrator,

stated that: “Probably the greatest problem confronting us in noxious weed control is identifying

what constitutes a noxious weed and how to

establish priorities for control efforts” (36).

Managers tend to set priorities based on either

species’ impact or the likelihood of successful

control. USDA’s Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group suggested criteria based on potential

economic damage, size of infestation, and support

for a control or eradication program (80).

Ranking current and potential plant pests was

a major task of the Minnesota Interagency Exotic

Species Task Force (70). Florida’s Exotic Plant

Pest Council is also developing an extensive,

prioritized list of harmful non-indigenous plants

(26). The McGregor Report (64) was among the

Federal Government’s frost attempts to rank

agricultural pests and diseases, although it had

limited impact. The seven western States participating in BLM’s research plan for restoring

diversity on degraded rangelands listed four high

priority non-indigenous weeds23 (1 14).

Others would give highest priority to harmful

NIS in their earliest stages of invasion. Plant

invasions are typical of many NIS in that their

populations do not spread at steady rates. Weeds

are easiest to control or eradicate immediately

after detection, before their population growth

accelerates (71). Richard Mack, Professor of

Botany at Washington State University, suggests

that eradication aimed at already wellestablished, widespread weeds is likely to produce only temporary gains unless control is

permanently maintained. This is costly and difficult. The most aggressive plant pest control

program ever conducted in the United States

succeeded in restricting, but not eradicating,

barberry (Berberis vulgaris) (62). Nor, according

to Mack, could all possible weeds be prevented

from entering the United States at a tolerable cost:

society would not accept the expense and delays

involved in inspecting all arriving cargo, luggage,

and passengers. For these reasons, he would

increase resources for detecting newly established weeds, add species to the Federal Noxious

Weed Act, but keep quarantine, port inspection,

and control of widespread weeds near current

levels (62).

Richard Mack’s recommendations are a clear

strategic statement that could guide policy. However, those advocating higher priority for control

of widespread weeds would sharply disagree with

his approach and they can also make a strong case

(see preceding section on non-indigenous weeds).

A large proportion (39 percent) of those involved

in issues related to non-indigenous animals feel

that the length of time a population has existed

should bear little influence on the decision to

remove or control it (93). However, significantly

more administrators than other types of workers

supported using length of time in making decisions about non-indigenous animals (93). Such

fundamental disagreements on priorities highlight the lack of information, dialogue, and

consensus on managing harmful NIS.

Approaches to setting priorities may vary,

depending on the type of organisms involved and

the state of scientific knowledge. Containment of

non-indigenous fish and other aquatic species is

difficult. Once released, large aquatic invertebrates and fish spread easily within river systems,

and their larval, sub-adult and adult forms may

each be disruptive (44). Attempts to eradicate fish

after they have developed a substantial range are

often a waste of time and resources (22). Thus,

groups like the American Fisheries Society have

often focused on the need for stricter preintroduction screening.

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 States

For plant pathogens, overseas screening by

commodity, along with inspection at ports of exit,

might be most effective (91). USDA has focused

on identifying foreign pathogens likely to be

damaging in the United States (89). With a list of

potential pathogens running to 1,000 pages and

limited detection methods for micro-analysis,

complete exclusion at ports of entry is impossible.

Pathogens tend to be insidious-they may become apparent only after populations are beyond

what would amount to ‘‘early detection’ for

larger and less mobile NIS. Pathogen hosts must

be eradicated to eliminate diseases, but many

hosts are valuable commodities, and their destruction can be costly and controversial.

Others have recommended alternative criteria

for setting priorities. For example, Walter Westman, of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in

Berkeley, CA, suggested that priorities might be

based on severity of impact on indigenous biota,

with wilderness areas receiving higher priority

than urban recreation areas. Also, control might

be emphasized for more easily contained NIS

(e.g., those with slow rates of spread, localized

occurrence, and susceptibility to available methods) and/or those that threaten endangered species. Those NIS that play a role in ecosystem

function (e.g., controlling soil erosion control or

supporting wildlife) and cannot be readily replaced could be given lower priority (129).

Stanley Temple, a zoologist at the University of

Wisconsin, likewise suggests NIS that threaten

endemic species on remote islands deserve special, high-priority treatment (103). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (IUCN) took a similar approach. Its Species Survival Commission counseled that special efforts should be made to

eradicate harmful NIS in: islands with a high

percentage of endemic plants and animals, centers

of biological uniqueness, areas with high species

or ecological diversity, and in places where a NIS

jeopardizes a unique and threatened plant (44).

In the long-term, strategic decisionmaking, like

better detection and more rapid response, requires

solid databases (with information from foreign

sources) and substantial taxonomic expertise. The

inadequacy of the former and the dwindling of the

latter are common concerns in the scientific

community (ch. 5) (24,60,63).

Issue 7: Funding and Accountability

Option: Congress could increase user fees that

relate directly to the evaluation, use, and

management of potentially or actually harmful

NIS. Also, Congress could require that

recreational fees collected by Federal land

management agencies be made available for

management of harmful NIS on public lands.

Option: Congress could examine the adequacy of

Federal and State fines related to illegal and

poorly planned introductions. If necessary,

Congress could develop additional

mechanisms to recoup an increased

proportion of the costs for preventing and

minimizing damage from NIS that become

public nuisances.

Option: Congress could change the Aid-to-States

program to encourage projects that limit

damage from non-indigenous fish and wildlife.

Many small-scale efforts related to NIS could

be improved without large funding increases.

Some of the options suggested for issues above

fall into that category. However, some initiatives

are large enough to require additional money.

These needs are likely to grow as the number and

impact of harmful NIS also grows.

Options that give additional responsibilities to

Federal or State agencies-e. g., for more complex risk assessment or earlier pest detection—

need to be matched with increased funding if they

are to be effective. The problems faced by the

Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species

Task Force-delays in reporting to Congress,

lack of funding and staff-illustrate what happens

when new obligations are assigned without the

resources to implement them. Some Federal
officials find that funding is the primary factor in

agencies’ ability to proactively deal with harmful

NIS (17). In a survey of those working with issues

related to non-indigenous animals, for example,

respondents listed funding problems as the single

largest contributing factor to the lack of success

in control programs (93).

This problem is not confined to MS. Both

Federal and State environmental legislation has

multiplied during the 1980s and early 1990s

(32,84). At the same time, the funding available

to States and localities has been decreasing

(32,95). Clearly, questions of funding will be

crucial for new or improved efforts to succeed.

To date, the total costs of harmful NIS to the

national interest have not been tabulated. Quarantine containment can fail; a newly imported

species can become unexpectedly invasive; a

previously innocuous pathway can become a

conduit for a major new pest. However, little

explicit accountability exists for the damage

caused in such cases, especially as compared with

other areas of potential environmental harm.

Federal, State, and local governments have borne

significant costs that could be more appropriately

assigned to individuals and industries, e.g., for the

Asian gypsy moth and the zebra mussel.

Expensive and time-consuming lawsuits provide virtually the only avenue for assigning

liability and recovering control or eradication

costs. In part, this may be because many damaging NIS have been associated with agriculture and

agriculture has engendered less Federal intervention with respect to its environmental consequences than other industries (84).

Long lag times between the action of the

responsible party (if that party can be determined)

and the impacts of NIS are typical. For example,

witchweed (Striga asiatica) probably arrived in

North Carolina with military equipment from

Africa after World War II; it was detected some

I-Summary, Issues, and Options 4 1

20 years later. The APHIS eradication program in

North and South Carolina cost $5.2 million in

fiscal year 1991 (90). Often the effects, as well as

origin, of a given NIS will be uncertain and

undocumentable. And one area or economic

sector could be severely harmed by a NIS while

another might benefit. Relying solely on U.S.

courts to assign damages and to recoup costs is an

ineffective policy under these circumstances.

FEES AND OTHER FUNDING

Fees are a prevalent means of raising funds for

matters directly and indirectly related to NIS and

Federal and State governments are expanding

user fees. Typically, fees are structured to raise

revenue, not to recoup damages or to change

people’s behavior (85). As of the late- 1980s,

Evelyn Shields, in a report for the National

Governors’ Association, (95) found that 43 States

used fees to fund local, State, and Federal

environmental programs, generating roughly $240

million. In fiscal year 1991, State parks and

similar areas alone produced approximately $433

million from entrance and user fees (1 19).

However, the more public organizations rely

on funding that is independent of the appropriations process, the more independent they are of

congressional control (105). This has been a

common issue in the continuing debate in Congress regarding fees.

Relating user or other fees

24 directly to harmful

NIS or services associated with them has an

advantage since management of harmful NIS

otherwise suffers when finding drops and populations outstrip control. For example, 1993 funding cuts to the South Florida Water Management

District mean reduced melaleuca control in the

Everglades conservation areas; Donald Schmitz

(87), an aquatic weed specialist with the Florida

Department of Natural Resources, anticipates

some past gains in melaleuca control will be lost

M me definition of ~ < ‘user fee” v~es, depend~g on the author. Doyle (28) describes 4 general types of fees: impact fins, user fees! and

fees for services and discharges. The agencies discussed here distinguish user and entranee fees for reporting to Congress. GAO ( 109) appears

to have grouped all FWS fees as “user fees.
42 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Some funding for melaleuca (Melaleuca

quinquenervia) control is dropping while associated

problems are increasing-the type of situation that

user fees are intended to prevent.

and future efforts made more difficult as a result.

Ideally, NIS funding would be predictable and

increase if NIS-related problems do. User fees can

be tailored so that this occurs.

In 1991 and 1992, APHIS published regulations implementing the user fees for international

inspection services authorized in the 1990 Farm

Bill; 25 these range from $2.00 for air passengers

and commercial trucks, $7 for loaded commercial

railroad cars, to $544 for commercial vessels of at

least 100 tons (49). User fees for agricultural

inspection, issuance of plant health certificates,

animal quarantines and disease tests, and export

health certificates were also authorized and are

expected to be in place by the beg inning of fiscal

year 1994.26 In contrast, Congress struck down

APHIS’ attempt to institute a domestic quarantine

user fee between Hawaii and the mainland (ch. 8).

In fiscal year 1992, user fees provided 80.7

percent of program funding for APHIS’ Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program; this was

estimated at 78.6 percent for fiscal year 1993 (78).

Additional opportunities exist to more closely

match fees to MS use and the prevention and

minimization of NIS damage. For example,

private parties in New Zealand pay all costs

associated with risk analysis and port inspection

for imported NIS. In contrast, those commercial

interests advocating Siberian timber imports to

the United States spent about $200,000 to develop

Russian contacts and promote imports. The U.S.

Government spent approximately $500,000 more

to analyze associated risks. These were not

additional appropriations but came from U.S.

Forest Service contingency funds.

Seven Federal land management agencies27 

are

authorized by Congress to charge entrance or user

fees under the Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act of 1965 (LWCFA), as amended.28 Fees

generated by the LWCFA account for amounts

ranging from 1 percent (BLM) to 85 percent

(NPS) of the agencies’ total receipts from sale and

use of land and resources (4).

Congress has considered numerous amendments to the LWCFA since 1965 to prohibit,

authorize, or re-establish various agencies’ ability

to charge fees, to change the amount of different

fees, and to change the purposes to which fees can

be put (9,108). legislative changes generally

have expanded and increased fees to meet the

agencies’ growing needs for operating and maintenance funds. Making entrance or user fees

available for NIS-related programs would likely

require further changes in this legislation.

Changes to the LWCFA have been controversial, in part because of the tradition of free public

access to Federal recreational lands (9). Other

specific user fees, e.g., grazing permits on Federal

2356 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 Pwk

Service, and Tennesee Valley Authoriw.

2816 U. S.C.A. 4601-6.
1-Summary, Issues, and Options 43

lands, also have been highly controversial, as is

the general issue of charging full market value for

Federal services. However, sizable amounts of

potential revenue are involved. For five Federal

land management agencies, 80 to 99 percent of

recreational visits are to sites for which no fees are

charged; the National Park Service, on the other

hand, charges fees for about 65 percent of visits

(1 19). In some cases, agencies consider sites too

dispersed for ready fee collection; in other cases,

Congress or the agency has designated particular

units as nonfee areas. Internal audits estimated

that approximately $24 million could be collected

annually with new or increased fees by NPS,

BLM, FWS, and the Minerals and Management

Service (120). The Forest Service estimates that

charging full value for its recreational services

would generate $5 billion annually (85).

A variety of additional means—besides increases in fees-could fund various MS-related

activities. For up-front funding, Congress could

levy taxes on those who use the pathways by

which harmful NIS enter the United States and

move within the country. Such users include

importers, retailers, and consumers of foreign

seeds, nursery stock, and timber, exotic pets and

wildlife, and non-indigenous aquiculture and

aquarium stock. Similarly, a tax could appropriately be applied to international airline and train

tickets, docking fees, and gasoline. The Minnesota Exotic Species Task Force (70), focusing on

NIS pathways, suggested these sources of new

revenue:

establish a surcharge on boat trailer licenses;

establish a tax on the sale of non-indigenous

nursery products such as trees, shrubs, and

flowers;

establish a ballast tax on foreign ships;

require licenses and license fees for importers; and

. continue and expand the surcharge on boat

licenses.

State and Federal Governments use taxpolicy—

excise taxes,29 exclusions and other modifications to income taxes, and tax credits—to meet a

variety of environmental goals and provide funding for targeted programs (1 11). Most tax policies

have little relationship to NIS. However, sales

taxes are collected on pets and nursery plants and

excise taxes are imposed on airline tickets for the

Airport and Airway Trust Fund (67).

Also, the Federal Government collects a 10 to

11 percent manufacturers’ excise tax on firearms

and hunting and fishing supplies (1 11). These

funds are returned, in the next fiscal year, to States

for fish and wildlife management projects (ch. 6;

fig. 6-l). In fiscal year 1991, payments to States

totaled more than $320 million (107).

These funds are intended for projects that

benefit wildlife. They have been used to introduce

MS and for projects that indirectly affect wildlife,

e.g., restoration of wetlands. States could be

encouraged to fund projects that repair damage

from past introductions of harmful nonindigenous fish and wildlife. Alternately, Congress could amend the program to set aside funds

for eradication and control of harmful MS or

restoration of indigenous species’ habitats. Such

projects are already eligible for funding. A

set-aside, however, could further encourage

States to undertake such efforts without removing

State control of the program’s money. Attempts

to do so could provoke considerable State resistance. Currently, only State agencies qualify for

these funds. Some observers have suggested that

the program be changed so Federal projects might

be eligible for a portion of these funds.

INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY

Responsibility for the costs of harmful introductions could be shifted to those who benefit
44 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

from the relatively open U.S. system of importation. At the same time, the benefits of introductions could be preserved without unduly burdening private individuals or groups. Those engaged

in intentional introductions are most easily assigned certain costs—for example, fees for prerelease risk assessments and fines for illegal

releases. For unintentional introductions, all users

of high-risk pathways (e.g., shippers using ballast

water) could be charged for their pooled risk with

funds paid into a trust fund.

The Species Survival Commission of IUCN

recommended that each nation have legislation to

ensure that persons or organizations introducing

harmful NIS, not the public, bear costs for their

control. Further, the Commission stated that

parties responsible for illegal or negligent introductions should 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 similar

recommendation regarding non-indigenous big

game animals that spread onto public lands (25).

A number of States have programs to hold game

breeders, private owners, or importers liable for

controlling escapees and for damages (ch. 7).

A host of mechanisms is available to increase

accountability. Bonding and insurance, for example, could be required of importers, but have been

little used. Permits and frees are most commonly

used now.

The Federal Government imposes fines for

bringing foreign material into the United States

illegally, e.g., international, interstate, and intrastate violations of the Plant Pest Act,30 the Plant

Quarantine Act,31 and the Lacey Act.32 Both civil

and criminal sanctions are involved. The 1981

Lacey Act amendments increased maximum penalties and jail sentences for violations ($20,000,

imprisonment for up to 5 years) and provided for

forfeiture of wildlife;33 frees were further increased by the 1987 Omnibus Crime Control

Act

34 (55). Hawaii’s recently amended laws

provide some of the largest frees for violating its

importation permit laws—up to $10,000 for a first

offense and up to $25,000 for subsequent offenses

within 5 years of a prior offense (ch. 7).

Agricultural inspectors (APHIS) can fine violators up to $10,000 but most civil penalties are

under $1,000. Officials estimate about 30,000

actions per year, with almost all settled for less

than $100 immediately (40). In fiscal year 1990,

APHIS found 1,303,000 baggage violations and

assessed $723,345 in penalties for 23,676 of these

(37), for an average of approximately $30.

Release of organisms into National Parks is a

citable offense.35 The BLM has a policy to hold

people responsible for damages and control costs

for unauthorized introductions of “exotic wildlife;’ however, no law or regulation specifies

such liability beyond the common law, so the

policy’s implications are not clear (6).

For frees to be effective deterrents, enforcement must be a priority. A recent advisory

commission found that FWS law enforcement

division was seriously understaffed and underfunded, lacked clear priorities, provided inadequate staff supervision, and had insufficient

technical expertise to identify species (121). The

U.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 provisions

compensate for wealmesses in the authority of other Federal wildlife laws. FWS agents prefer the Lacey Act for these reasons and because its

allows 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 4 5

The Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated these

cockatoos under a treaty banning their import. The

agency’s efforts to enforce both international and

domestic laws may be inadequate to deter violators.

finding that the number of investigations is too

low to minimally deter crime, that FWS is

increasingly unable to assist States with investigations, and that FWS has no reliable direct

measures of their law enforcement’s effectiveness. Many States also lack adequate law enforcement resources (ch. 7). Thus, frees could only be

a larger source of revenue and a greater disincentive for illegal behavior if enforcement is improved. However, frees are just one means of

creating disincentives for wrong doing-and they

carry with them the potential for ‘‘fund raising

through harassment” (67). Generally, prosecutions for environmental crimes are climbing (54)

but critics charge that their deterrent potential is

far from clear (12).

Taxes, fees, frees, and other tools are designed

to achieve one of several aims, i.e., to increase the

benefits or decrease the costs of doing right, to

increase the costs or decrease the benefits of

doing wrong, or to increase the probability that

such benefits and costs will occur (72). The

overall trend in U.S. public policy is toward

greater use of incentives for doing right, according to Stuart Nagel, a political scientist at the

University of Illinois.

However, little attention has been directed

toward creating positive incentives regarding

harmful NIS, e.g., for encouraging adequate

containment of aquiculture species. In some

cases, bounties are paid for removing harmful

NIS, rewards are provided for tips leading to

successful prosecutions, and the Lacey Act’s

1981 amendments included provisions36 for rewarding those who provide information leading

to enforcement against or conviction of violators

(55). Increasing other types of incentives may

require new statutes and/or regulations.

Issue 8: Other Gaps in Legislation

and Regulation

As a result of the Federal and State patchwork

of laws, regulations, and programs, important

types of non-indigenous organisms remain potential sources of damaging introductions. The most

serious gaps are discussed above. Additional

organisms are not adequately covered by Federal

and/or State laws, however, and are the basis for

a second tier of possible options. In priority order,

these

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

gaps pertain to:

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; and

new strains of already established harmful

NIS.

Some of these gaps require legislative change

to fill; others need more adequate implementation

by Federal agencies.

SC 16 u, S.C.A. 1531-1543.
46 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

VECTORS OF HUMAN DISEASES

Option: Congress could lay groundwork by

investigating the adequacy of the Nation’s

response to NIS that pose significant threats to

human health. This might begin with a General

Accounting Office investigation of APHIS and

the Public Health Service’s respective roles.

Non-indigenous human health threats are largely

beyond the scope of this study. Two cases,

however, illustrate continuing, significant problems with Federal management.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Public Health Service (PHS) responded slowly to the threat posed by the Asian

tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), a potential

vector for several serious viral diseases. These

non-indigenous mosquitoes apparently entered

the United States in 1985 in used automobile tires

and 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 effectiveness

in dealing with MS new to the United States.

The African honey bee poses a public health

threat and a threat to U.S. agriculture. Because of

the latter, APHIS is responsible for developing

responses to control the bee’s spread from Mexico. However, APHIS cannot fully address the

human health issues.

Researching and preventing acute infectious

diseases, many of which have non-indigenous

mammal or insect vectors, have received a

reduced national commitment since the 1950s,

according to a recent report by the Institute of

Medicine (58). This report, on emerging microbial threats, recommends increased surveillance

for infectious diseases and their vectors. It also

calls for enhancing information data bases and

improving the structure of PHS and inter-agency

cooperation.

These seem to be matters of improving Federal

implementation, The frost step might be congressional oversight designed to provide increased

public scrutiny.

THE SALE AND RELEASE OF BIOLOGICAL

CONTROL ORGANISMS

Option: Congress could either create new

legislation or amend existing law to more

comprehensively regulate biological control

agents.

Option: Congress could increase the level of

environmental review required for

importations of biological control agents by

making them subject to NEPA.

Biological control agents used in the United

States include non-indigenous microbes, insects,

and other animals that damage, or eat, undesirable

plants or insects. Congress has never directly

addressed biological control. No single Federal

statute requires that biological control agents be

reviewed before introduction (69) or regulates

importation, movement, and release of biological

control agents (19). Instead, potential risks are

dealt with by existing regulations, supplemented

with a complex system of voluntary protocols or

guidelines (19).

Federal regulation of biological control agents—

like genetically engineered organisms-uses several laws designed for other purposes, e.g., laws

on quarantine, product registration, and environmental protection. EPA regulates the commercial

sale and release of pesticidal microbes under

FIFRA. Biological control agents that are not

microbes are exempt from FIFRA and fall under

APHIS’s jurisdiction, although the agency has

not yet promulgated regulations specifically for

such biological control agents. Instead, APHIS

requires researchers and producers to follow

procedures and permitting requirements developed for plant pests under authority of the Federal

Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act (10).

NEPA, along with the Endangered Species Act,

also affects importation and research on biological control organisms (19), although NEPA’s

application has been uneven and poorly defined.

Several aspects of commercial distribution and

sale of biological control agents are among the
1-Summary, Issues, and Options 47

topics not addressed by current statutes or regulations. No requirements exist for clear and accurate

labeling of insects or other animals (e.g., nematodes) used for biological control. No law specifically gives APHIS authority to regulate the

labeling, purity, or disease status of these insects

and animals. Nor are those who release improperly screened or tested agents accountable for any

resultant damage. It is unclear whether current

statutory authority covers all the categories of

biological control agents APHIS is seeking to

regulate. Specifically, it is questionable whether

beneficial insects that prey on insect pests fit

under the Federal Plant Pest Act’s definition of

“plant pest. ’

Opinion is divided regarding the suitability of

the current system and how its weaknesses should

be corrected. Peter Kareiva, an ecologist at the

University of Washington, expressed a particular

concern about APHIS lack of formal criteria for

approving releases of biological control agents

(46). Francis Howarth and Arthur Medeiros, from

the Bishop Museum in Honolulu and Haleakala

National Park, in Makawao, HI, respectively,

suggested requiring formal environmental impact

statements or environmental assessments to ensure the widest possible public review (42).

Ecologist Gregory Aplet and attorney Marc

Miller (69) contend that current laws do not—and

cannot be amended to-fill critical gaps. They

propose a Federal Biological Control Act that

would ensure public participation in decisionmaking and correct what they see as serious

shortcomings in the current review process:

. harm to noneconomic species and ecosystems is ignored;

. repeated introductions are allowed when a

given organism is approved, even into new

ecological settings with different, potentially damaging consequences;

●

●

transfers of biological controls within the

United State or within States are disregarded; and

no formal, enforceable requirements are

required for research and follow-up to determine whether detrimental impacts have occurred (69).

The Species Survival Commission of IUCN

(44) recommended that biological control organisms should be subject to the same care and

procedures as other NIS.

On the other hand, USDA biological control

experts such as J.R. Coulson and Richard Soper

prefer the current voluntary system for assessing

risks of new introductions, updated by biological

control and quarantine specialists (19). U.S.

biological control programs have excellent safety

and environmental records, they maintain, and

have accommodated needs to consider impacts on

nontarget species. Therefore, environmental impact statements are not only unnecessary but also

would demand superfluous or frivolous studies,

slowing or halting the use of many biological

control agents. Coulson and Soper hope that

further development of informal guidelines can

limit adverse effects on existing biological control programs and preempt stricter legislation or

regulations developed by nonspecialists. Miller,

Aplet, Coulson, Soper, and Howarth all agree that

more post-release evaluations are needed.

Federal and State protocols for introductions

protect only a limited part of the United States but

eventually need to address all of North America

(19). Miller and Aplet describe laws in seven

States that encourage the development and application of biological control. 37 They consider

Wisconsin’s provisions the most protective. An

earlier survey found just three States with particular laws addressing biological control species and

only one—North Carolina-addressed issues related to commercial sales (66).

37 fizom, c~~omia, COmecticU~ Flofi@ MfieSo~, New York, and was~gtcm enco~ge bi~ontro] generally, for speclflc Pt3sts, Or

as part of integrated pest management (69).
48 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Eventually, specific biological control legislation may be the vehicle to extend needed protection throughout the country. States could potentially deal with problems related to product

labeling and performance through their weights

and measures or consumer protection statutes,

although a complaint would be necessary to

trigger action (50). For example, the Pennsylvania State Bureau of Consumer Protection recently

brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of a

biological control product when it was discovered

that the product contained no trace of the active

pesticidal microbe (16).

Regardless of the approach Congress takes,

issues associated with biological control are

likely to be increasingly visible and controversial

as public interest grows. Biological control’s

popularity increases the risk of unwise introductions by amateurs (19). The potential danger of

biological control releases has been scrutinized

more closely in conjunction with proposals for

releases of genetically engineered organisms.

LIVE ORGANISMS MOVED BY FIRST CLASS MAIL,

SHIPPING SERVICES, AND CATALOGUE SALES

Since the time when Benjamin Franklin lived

in Europe, Americans have sent attractive or

promising NIS home (125). In the early part of

this century, the Commissioner of Patents used

congressional franking privileges to distribute

foreign seeds to farmers (125). Domestic and

international mail is also a known pathway for the

spread of harmful non-indigenous plants and prohibited agricultural pests however (49,61) (ch. 3).

Some introductions of Mediterranean fruit flies in

California are thought to have originated in tropical produce mailed first-class from Hawaii (97).

The Constitution and Federal laws protect

domestic first class private and commercial mail

against unreasonable searches. On the other hand,

most international mail is subject to unrestricted

searches, but finding and personnel to do this are

scarce.

Dwx

G

Many live organisms are shipped via international and

domestic mail; only limited searches are allowed for

domestic first-class mail.

In 1990, APHIS and the U.S. Postal Service

began a trial program in Hawaii using trained

dogs to identify outgoing packages containing

agricultural products. This evidence is then used

to obtain warrants to open the package to determine whether the products are illegal. The program reportedly has been quite successful (106).

It is cumbersome, however, which may justify

easing the warrant requirements.

Congress recently passed a law specific to

Hawaii, the Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act,38 which is to allow the same sort

of inspection for mail coming into Hawaii as for

outgoing mail (ch. 8). The Federal and State

agencies involved have fallen behind schedule in

38 Men Spwies ~evention and Enforcement Act (1992), Public hW 102-383, section 631.
1-Summary, Issues, and Options 4 9

setting up a cooperative agreement for the inspection, however, because of the agencies’ differing

regulatory authorities regarding inspections and

types of organisms.

Similar programs do not exist for other areas

where first-class mail poses pest risks, e.g., from

Puerto Rico into California (97). Donald Kludy

(49), a former official with the Virginia Department of Agriculture, suggests that mail shipments

are a serious enough problem to extend the

Hawaii U.S. Postal Service pilot program to items

mailed from Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories

or to pass new legislation for all mail originating

outside the contiguous 48 States. Congress might

evaluate the Hawaii inspection program and,

based on this information, consider whether its application to other areas is warranted and feasible.

Many live organisms now are available

through catalogue sales, including insects and

other animals for biological control, as well as a

wide variety of plants and seeds. Adherence to

Federal or State laws that limit areas to which

species may be shipped is largely voluntary.

Catalogue sales do not present the same inspection and regulatory opportunities that are available in the case of ordinary retail outlets. Nurseries and aquatic plant dealers sell several federally

listed noxious weeds through the mail, such as the

rooted water hyacinth (Eichhornia asurea), which

can clog waterways and cause a navigation hazard

(127). Packages sent via private delivery services

are not protected from inspection as is first-class

mail. However, they are unlikely to be inspected

unless the package is broken or leaking.

This opens the possibility that commercial

distribution may provide a pathway for spread of

potentially harmful NIS, including pathogens and

parasites. The wasp parasite (Perilitus coccinel-

/ae) of the indigenous convergent lady beetle

(Hippodamia convergent), for example, already

has been spread in this manner (43). The 16-

member expert Working Group on Non-Apis

Bees expressed similar concerns regarding the

movement of bumble bee (Bombus spp. ) colonies

between eastern and western North America.

Rental and sale of bee colonies has increased in

the past 5 years, along with the potential spread of

accompanying non-indigenous nematodes, mites,

diseases, and parasites (131).

HYBRID AND FERAL ANIMALS

Option: Congress could amend the Lacey Act so

that it clearly applies to harmful hybrid and

feral animals and they could be includedin any

new Federal initiatives for States’ roles.

Non-naturally occurring hybridization with

NIS can present a serious threat to indigenous

species by diluting gene pools (59) and causing

other genetic harm (38). Most Federal and State

laws that protect indigenous species, or prohibit

harmful NIS, lack clarity in their application to

hybrids. This can lead to controversy, such as the

dispute over a policy adopted by FWS, that

narrowly interpreted the protection of hybrids

offered by the Endangered Species Act (82).

Unclear or disputed taxonomy, particularly in the

delineation of subspecies, can contribute to the

ambiguity (35).

Non-indigenous hybrids require flexible policies, adaptable to each case. Hybrids can represent important genetic diversity to be preserved—

this applies to economically and ecologically

important species such as the endangered Florida

panther (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 only

dangerous to humans, they also obstruct recovery

of endangered wolves in the wild (5,7). They

often escape or are released by owners unable to

manage them. An international group of wolf

experts has called for governments to prohibit or

tightly restrict wolf-dog hybrid ownership and

breeding (65).

Most Federal laws are silent in their treatment

of feral animals-wild populations of formerly

domestic animals. Few State laws covering the accidental or intentional introduction of such animals or responsibility for damage they may cause.
50 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Yet feral animals continue to cause significant

damage. In a recent survey, managers of national

parks and other reserves named feral cats (Felis

cattus) and feral dogs to be two of the three most

common subjects of wildlife control efforts. The

other was wild pigs (Sus scrofa), many populations of which are feral (29). Feral cats kill large

numbers of small mammals and birds, dogs attack

livestock and indigenous wildlife, and pigs destroy indigenous plants and do other damage (123).

Federal or State laws could be amended to more

clearly apply to hybrid and feral animals.

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES USED IN RESEARCH

Scientific researchers initially introduced several very harmful NIS, including gypsy moths,

African honey bees (in South America), and peanut stripe virus (48,89). The rapid spread of the

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), a serious fouler

of power plant pipes, is thought to have been

assisted by inadvertent research releases (21).

Research organisms are not generally subject

to the same scrutiny as those for other applications. The Lacey Act allows certain organisms to

be imported or moved interstate for research and

many State laws allow research imports of

otherwise prohibited species. Microbes can be

freely imported for research if they do not pose a

risk to agriculture or human health.

Some Federal and federally funded research on

NIS is evaluated for the risk of species escape or

potential effects. ARS has extensive protocols

governing its research on biological control

agents (19). The Federal interagency Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force recently issued

protocols for research on harmful aquatic NIS.

These protocols will be mandatory for any

research funded under the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act and

have been voluntarily adopted by agencies on the

Task Force (18,122). However, most of the

research protocols developed by Federal agencies

do not apply to research funded by outside

sources (ch. 6).

NEW STRAINS OF ALREADY ESTABLISHED

HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

APHIS does not consistently prevent repeated

importation of pest species that are already

established here. New, different strains of some

species potentially may be imported, worsen

effects, and spread into areas where the pest is not

yet well-established. Regulating strains would

pose significant technical difficulties; rapid identification would be difficult, for example. Nevertheless, some pest experts express concerns that

new strains of widespread pests like the Russian

wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) and bromegrasses (Bromus spp.) are allowed continued

entry (48,60,68).

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter summarized what we know about

harmful NIS in the United States: their growing

numbers and impacts, their routes of entry and

movement, the methods by which they are

evaluated and managed, and related State and

Federal policies.

This chapter also presented policy options on 8

issues—those most in need of attention, according to OTA. Each issue allows for a range of

options, demanding greater or fewer resources. If

each area is not addressed in some form problems

are likely to worsen, with no assurance that the

biological resources of the United States will be

protected. Only Congress can decide how stringent national policy should be. Everyday management of non-indigenous fish, wildlife, and

weeds, though, falls to many Federal and State

agencies and they need better guidance and

support. Also, natural areas must be better safeguarded if they are to retain their unique character. Emergencies must be handled more quickly to

keep problems from snowballing. And the public

needs better education so their actions prevent,

rather than cause, problems.

To reach these conclusions, OTA gathered an

array of data. The next chapter lays out OTA’s

methods, then begins to present results.
I

The Consequences

of Harmful

Non-Indigenous

Species 2

c

hapters 2 and 3 examine basic aspects of non-indigenous

species (NIS )----their effects, how many there are, and

how they get here. Technologies to deal with harmful

NIS, including decisionmaking methods and techniques

for preventing and managing problem species, are covered in

chapters 4 and 5. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 assess what various

institutions at the Federal, State, and local levels do, or fail to do,

about NIS. Finally, chapters 9 and 10 place NIS in a broader

context by examining their relationships to genetically engineered organisms, to international relations, to other prominent

environmental issues, and to choices regarding the future of the

nation’s biological resources.

WHAT’S IN AND WHAT’S OUT:

FOCUS AND DEFINITIONS

Although considerable benefits accrue from the presence of

many NIS in the United States, others have caused significant

harm. This report’s goal is to identify where and how such

problems arise, and how these problems can be avoided or

minimized. This “problem-oriented” approach requires that

beneficial introductions get limited attention throughout the

assessment. They are summarized only briefly in this chapter.

The emphasis is on harmful NIS, encompassing terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems and also most types of organisms (figure

2-l). An important consideration is whether a species can

establish free-living populations beyond human cultivation and

control. Non-indigenous species within this category-those

living beyond human management--cause most harmful effects.

51
52 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure 2-l-Scope of Study

Species 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 weedy

bromegrasses)

• in the United States, but in a captive or managed

state (e.g., some tilapia in aquiculture)

Potentially or already harmful non-indigenous species

established 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 nonindigenous in another (e.g., certain salt marsh grasses

on the West Coast)

● feral species (e.g., wild hogs)

Species Not Central to the Assessment

(to be considered only when they raise

important 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 nonindigenous in another (e.g., Pacific salmon in the Great Lakes)

■ except those also having the potential to escape

and/or cause harm

Indigenous 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 hybirds

between 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 9

Structural 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 emphasis

is species-level issues first, then subspecies and variants in decreasing priority. See index for species’ scientific names.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Definitions

Finding:

Terms and definitions pertaining to NIS

differ greatly among various laws, regulations,

policies, and publications, making direct

comparisons misleading. A need exists for

uniform definitions to ensure accurate assessments of problems and consistent applications

of policies.

Movements of people and cargo across the

Earth provide routes by which species spread to

new locales. ‘‘Exotic, ’ ‘‘alien,” ‘‘introduced, ”

“immigrant, “ ‘‘non-native,’ and “non-indigenous’ have all been used to refer to these species.

No universally accepted or standard terminology

exists.

OTA has chosen “non-indigenous” as the

most neutral, inclusive, and unambiguous term.

OTA’s definition of non-indigenous (box 2-A)

avoids some common sources of confusion. It sets

spatial limits based on a species’ ecology rather

than on national or State boundaries. Other

definitions of non-indigenous and related terms,

like exotic, vary greatly as to whether they

include only species foreign to the United States,

or additionally incorporate species of U.S. origin
Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 153

Box 2-A–Terms Used by OTA

● Non-indigenous-The condition of a species being beyond its natural range or natural zone of potential

dispersal; includes all domesticated and feral species and all hybrids except for naturally occurring crosses

between 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 from

domesticated ancestors.

• Natural range-The geographic area a species inhabits or would inhabit in the absence of significant human

influence.

. •Natural zone of potential dispersal-The area a species would disperse to in the absence of significant human

influence.

● Introduction-All or part of the process by which a non-indigenous species is imported to a new locale and is

released or escapes into a free-living state.

 ŽEstablished-The condition of a species that has formed a self-sustaining, free-living population at a given

location.

OTA’s definitions of “indigenous” and “non-indigenous” are based on species’ ecology rather than on

national, State, or local political boundaries. Thus, if a species’ natural range is only in west Texas, it would be

non-indigenous when imported to east Texas. A species is indigenous to its entire natural range, even to areas

it previously but no longer occupies due to human influence.

The definition of “natural range” incorporates the idea of a “significant human influence.” This acknowledges

that species can have natural ranges even when affected by humans so long as humans are not a major

determinant oft he range. The concept of “natural zone of potential dispersal” incorporates naturally occurring

expansions and contractions of species ranges. For example, a shore bird that shifts naturally overtime from being

an “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 human

selection and lack natural ranges. For similar reasons, all hybrids except for naturally occurring crosses between

indigenous species are also non-indigenous.

OTA will explicitly indicate where this report’s discussion is limited to species non-indigenous to the United

States rather than to all non-indigenous species. Similarly, the terms “indigenous” and “non-indigenous” also can

apply to subspecies, recognized variants, and other biological subdivisions beneath the level of species. Uses in

these contexts also will be clearly identified.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

living beyond their natural ranges (48,92). OTA’s Several important categories of organisms are

definition also does not include arbitrary time comprised wholly or in part of NIS. Experts

limits. Some definitions classify as native or estimate that at least half of U.S. weeds are

indigenous all species established in the United non-indigenous to the country (19). A similarly

States by a certain date, commonly before Euro- large proportion of economically significant inpean settlement (53). Under other definitions, sect pests of agriculture and forestry is nonNIS eventually become ‘ ‘naturalized’ after a indigenous: 39 percent (67). Federal laws restrict

certain period has elapsed (97). or prohibit importation of plants and animals
54 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

considered to be “noxious weeds’ and “injurious wildlife’ ‘2—species that are all nonindigenous.

Other Efforts Under Way

Several efforts related to this assessment are

under way or were recently completed.3 Passage

of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 199@ created the

interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

This task force is required to develop a program

to prevent, monitor, and control unintentional

introductions of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance

species and to provide for related public education and research. A draft of the program was

released for public comment November 12, 1992,

and is expected to be presented to Congress in

1993 (14). The task force also is conducting a

review of policies related to the intentional

introduction of aquatic species. The task force’s

activities parallel, to some extent, portions of

OTA’s study.

DO WE KNOW ENOUGH TO ASSESS

THE SITUATION?

Finding:

The information on NIS is widely scattered

and often anecdotal. It emphasizes species

having negative effects on agriculture, industry, or human health. The numbers and impacts of harmful NIS in the United States are

chronically underestimated, especially for organisms lacking such economic or health

effects.

Information Gaps

Although 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 of

new NIS that enter or become established in the

country, unless they also are considered a potential pest to agriculture or forestry or a human

health threat, and even these databases are not

comprehensive. Summary lists of NIS do not

exist for most types of organisms (7,33,43,72,79).

This gap is especially large for non-indigenous

insect and plant species, which number in the

thousands in the United States (ch. 3) (33,43). It

also plagues attempts to quantify the numbers and

effects of plant pathogens, since the origin of

most is unknown (72). Even for known NIS, the

effects of many have never been studied, especially those without clear economic or human

health impacts. Information on effects is similarly

lacking for the numerous as-yet-undetected NIS

that many of OTA’s contractors and advisory

panelists believe are already established in the

country.

Because of the poor documentation, presently

available information provides an incomplete

picture of NIS in the United States. Consequently,

whatever we do know about harmful NIS surely

1 ~ ~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 foreign

origin+ is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock or poultry

or other interests of agriculture, including irrigation or navigation or the fish or wildlife resources of the United States or the public health. ”

z ~ ~~.~ous ~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 Such J

other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacean), amphibians, reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any of the

foregoing 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 Species

Invasion 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 Species

Task Force in April 1991 (53). In additio~ the National Research Council (NRC) approved the concept for a broad study of science and policy

issues 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 55

Table 2-l—Groups of Organisms Covered by OTA’s Contractors a

Percent of total known U.S.

Number of species analyzed for NIS analyzed per category

Category examined by contractor summary of NIS consequences by OTA’s contractors

Plants-free-living plants and algae dwelling on land —c —c

and in fresh water; excludes those under human

cultivation

Terrestrial/ vertebrates-free-living vertebrate 125 NIS of foreign or U.S. origin

animals dwelling on land (birds, reptiles,

amphibians, mammals); excludes strictly

domesticated species

Insects-insects and arachnids (ticks, mites, spiders) 1,059 NIS of foreign origin from

149 taxonomic families

Fish-free-living finfish that dwell for all or part of their 111 NIS of foreign or U.S. origin

lives in fresh water

Mollusks-snails, bivalves, and slugs living on land, in 88 NIS of foreign origin

fresh water, and in estuaries

Plant pathogens-viruses, bacteria, fungi, 54 NIS of foreign origin from

nematodes, and parasitic plants that cause selected host plants (potato,

diseases of plants rhododendron, citrus, wheat,

Douglas fir, kudzu, five-needled

pines, 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,

b See figures 2-2, 2-4, and 2-5.

C

contractor could not quantitatively analyze effects of non-indigenous plants because of the large numbers of species (>2,000)” and lack of previous

summary 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 of

Technology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Insects 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 ice

of Technology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Vertebrates 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 magnitude

of their effects. Even from this baseline estimate,

however, a picture emerges of current and impending problems that require action. OTA’s

approach is to provide such a baseline estimate.

OTA’s Approach for Chapters 2 and 3

To attempt a quantitative analysis, OTA asked

experts to assess the numbers of known NIS in the

country, what their effects have been, and how

they entered or spread within the nation. The OTA

contractors categorized impacts of established

NIS by type (harmful, beneficial, neutral, or

unknown); 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, and

plant pathogens (table 2-l). This selection, while

covering most important terrestrial and freshwater organisms, is not all-inclusive. It reflects a

balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility. For example, no identifiable expert could

summarize information on all aquatic invertebrate animals (e.g., mollusks, worms, crustaceans, etc.), in part because many groups are only

poorly known.

In preparing background reports, the contractors reviewed available publications, surveyed or
56 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

interviewed numerous other experts, and incorporated their own judgments. Their resulting summaries are the most complete and up-to-date

available. Chapters 2 and 3 draw on these

background summaries, additional published information, and additional expert opinions to

develop a broad overview of harmful NIS in the

United States. The effects of NIS-both beneficial and harmful are covered in this chapter.

Chapter 3 examines the pathways by which NIS

enter and spread in the United States, their rates

of arrival, and current numbers in the country.

BENEFITS OF INTRODUCTIONS

Finding:

Cultivation of non-indigenous crops and

livestock is the foundation of U.S. agriculture.

NIS also play a key role in other industries and

enterprises, many of which are based on the

U.S. market for biological novelty, e.g., ornamental plants and pets.

NIS are essential to many U.S. industries and

enterprises. Their benefits are great, and include

economic, recreational, and social effects.

Almost all economically important crops5 and

livestock in the United States are of foreign origin

(43). Non-indigenous plants have a similarly

important role in horticulture and include such

familiar horticultural mainstays as iris (Iris spp.),

forsythia (Forsythia spp.), and weeping willow

(Salix spp.) (26). Many plants used to prevent

erosion are also non-indigenous, such as Bermuda

grass (Cynodon dactylon) and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.) (93). Importation of new species

and strains continues for the development of new

varieties for agriculture, horticulture, and soil

conservation (65).

Non-indigenous insects also have important

functions in agriculture. The European honey bee

(Apis mellifera) forms the basis for the U.S.

apiculture industry, providing bees to pollinate

orchards and many other agricultural crops.

Non-indigenous organisms of many types have

beneficial uses as biological control agents,

frequently for control of non-indigenous pests.

Insects and pathogens of plants and animals are

most commonly used for control of weeds and

insect pests. For example, a rust fungus (Puccinia

chondrillina) was successfully introduced into

California to control skeletonweed (Chondrilla

juncea) in 1975 (72). Fish have been introduced

in some places to control aquatic weeds, mosquitoes, gnats, and midges (23). Some consider the

introduction of barn owls (Tyto alba) to Hawaii to

control mice and rats a success, although the use

of land-dwelling vertebrates for biological control has generally caused great environmental

damage (79).

A number of fish and shellfish cultured in the

growing aquiculture industry are non-indigenous. Virtually the entire West Coast oyster

industry is based on the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), originally from Japan. Fish species of

Tilapia, from Africa and the Middle East, are now

commonly grown throughout the United States

(10), and shrimp farmers in southeastern and

other regions of the country commonly raise

Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), a

shrimp originally from Asia.

Sport fishing often means fishing for nonindigenous fish. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and

varieties of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), although indigenous to the United

States, have been widely introduced beyond their

natural ranges for fisheries enhancement (10). A

frequently stocked sport fish, the brown trout

(Salmo trutta), originated in Europe. The Great

Lakes salmon fishery is based on species indigenous to the Pacific coast of North America.

Additional fish have been introduced to provide

forage for game fish. Sport fishing not only

provides recreational opportunities, but also stimulates the development of related businesses,

5 Crops originating in the United States include cranbeny (Vaccinium macroca~on), peean (Carya ilfinoensis), tobacco (Nicon”ana

rabucum), and sunflower (Heliumhus amuafs).
Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 57

such as boat rentals, charter fishing, and sales of

fishing 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 and

services for recreational hunting (79). Some

non-indigenous big-game animals, like Sika deer

(Cervus nippon) from Asia and South African

oryx (Oryx gazella gazella), are grown on private

ranches for hunting, and also to satisfy the

growing market for “exotic” game meats (81).

Non-indigenous fur-bearing animals support both

the trapping industry and fur-bearer farms (79).

Most pet and aquarium industries are based on

domesticated and other NIS, including cats, dogs,

hamsters, goldfish, snakes, turtles, and chameleons. These animals are valued by owners for

companionship, protection, and recreation. A

number of non-indigenous animals, such as the

African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), are used in

biomedical fields for experimental work or

testing (79).

Restoration of habitats degraded by pollution,

mining, and other human disruptions sometimes

includes planting stress-tolerant NIS. Several

trees, like the ginkgo from China (Ginkgo biloba),

are common in urban landscaping, where few

indigenous species can grow. Some nonindigenous sport fish serve a similar role in

reservoirs and other artificial habitats less hospitable to indigenous species. Efforts to remedy

environmental contamination from oil or other

substances sometimes involve the release of

non-indigenous microbes that accelerate contaminant degradation (88). Certain microbes help

make nutrients available to plants through nitrogen fixation. These microbes also have been

widely transferred and released around the world.

Paradoxically, introductions of NIS are increasingly seen by some conservationists as a

means to preserve certain endangered and threatened species that cannot be saved in their native

habitats (79). Some conservationists have even

suggested that introduction of large ungulates

from Africa onto the American plains may be

some species’ best chance at survival (74).

WHEN NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

CAUSE PROBLEMS

Despite the clear benefits of many NIS, numerous others continue to cause great harm in the

United States. Many are familiar. They range

from nuisances like crabgrass (Digitaria spp.),

dandelions (Taraxacum officinale), and German

cockroaches (Blattella germanica), to species

annually costing millions of dollars to agriculture

and forestry, such as the Mediterranean fruitfly, or

medfly (Ceratitis capitata), and the European

gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Some pose

human health risks, such as the African honeybee

(Apis mellifera scutellata) and the imported fire

ant (Solenopsis invicta, S. richteri). Still others,

like the paper bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha),

threaten widespread disruption of U.S. ecosystems and the displacement or loss of indigenous

plants and animals.

A Major Consideration: High Negative

Impacts Are Infrequent

Finding:

A minority of the total NIS cause severe

harm. However, such high-impact NIS occur

in almost all regions of the country. Individually and cumulatively, they have had extensive

negative impacts in the United States.

Relatively few NIS cause great harm. Estimates range from 4 to 19 percent of the NIS

analyzed by OTA’s contractors, depending on the

type of organism (figure 2-2). Included here are

NIS that are significant and difficult-to-control

pests of agriculture, rangelands, or forests; seriously foul waterways, irrigation systems, and

power plants; cause wide-scale disruption of

indigenous ecosystems; or threaten indigenous

species with extinction. At least 200 well-known,

high-impact NIS presently occur in the United
58 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

30 r

r-l L--

u

Figure 2-2—How Frequent Are High-Impact Non-Indigenous Species?a

22/1 25

-r

Terrestrial Insects

vertebrates

15188

4/1 11

Fishes

6/54

——- 1

$

I

Mollusks Plant pathogens

a Species judged by OTA’s contractors as causing severe economic or environmental harm. Numbers Of severely harmful and total species are listed

above each bar.

SOURCES: Summarized by OTA from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, 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 of Technology

Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and

Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. Schouities, “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens 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 the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

States (7,10,33,72). Even though relatively few

NIS are highly damaging, they occur in almost all

regions of the country (figure 2-3). Moreover, the

summed impacts of even one disastrous species

can be substantial. Estimated U.S. losses from

1987 to 1989 attributable to the Russian wheat

aphid (Diuraphis noxia) alone exceeded $600

million (1991 dollars) (8).

Time Lags and Unknown Effects

Are Common

Effects of many NIS remain undetected for

extended periods following their establishment.

Such time lags can reflect an initial period during

which a species’ population is too small to cause

noticeable impacts. Over time, changing environmental conditions cause some previously rare

NIS to become abundant and cause harmful

effects. Other previously benign NIS become

problems after additional NIS enter the country.

For example, an Asian fig plant (Ficus microcarpa) widely planted as an ornamental in Florida

only 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 between

establishment of the Asian clam (Corbicula

fluminea) and appearance of its harmful effects;

12 years for chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) (see ‘Forestry’ below); and 4 years for the

cereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus) (7,33,72).

Some harmful species are mistakenly thought

to have neutral consequences until other effects

are detected. Thus, in many cases, ‘‘neutral’ NIS

are better characterized as having unknown effects. Unknown effects and time lags are common

for NIS affecting non-agricultural areas, since

these tend to be poorly studied. OTA’s contractors found between 6 and 53 percent of the NIS

examined had neutral or unknown effects (figure

2-4). Given that time delays are common, some of

these eventually will cause harmful impacts.
Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 59

Figure 2-3—State by State Distribution of Some High-Impact

Asian Clam (Corbicu/a Numinea) 19862

Russian Wheat Aphd (Diuraphis noxia) 19894

Salt Cedar ( Tamarix pendantra and T. gallica) 19655

Non-Indigenous Species

European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispan 19903

Imported Fire Ants (.Solenopsis invicta and S. richteri 19926

‘:>.+ “’..

./ ~

African Honey Bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) 19929

y-i “-.

.-~

./ ~

1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria in North American

Wetlands” (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, Geological

Survey 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’Vera

Cohn, “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 States

Figure 2-4-Reported Effects of Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Terrestrial vertebrates (n=125) Insects (n=l,059)

8%

)

360/o

24% 35%

Fishes (n=111) Mollusks (n=88)

\

53%

30%

Plant pathogens (n=54)

60/0 4%

/“

3%

1%

43%

Percentagea of species analyzed causing

_ Benefits

n Harmful effects

~ Both benefits and harmful effects

Neutral or unknown effects

a percentages 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 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 of Technology

Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and

Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. Schoulties, “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens 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 the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.
Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 61

How Problems Arise

NIS problems have several origins. Some NIS

introduced for beneficial purposes unexpectedly

produce harmful consequences. Many other harmful species arrived or spread within the country

unintentionally. A complicating factor is that

numerous NIS cause both beneficial and harmful

effects.

POOR CHOICES: INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONS

THAT GO AWRY

Many harmful introductions probably would

not have occurred had the damage they caused

been anticipated in advance. But little advance

evaluation of potential harmful effects was performed for many NIS intentionally released in the

past. Even when advance evaluations have been

performed, however, they often have done a poor

job of anticipating effects. Scientists generally

agree that predicting the role and effects of a

species in a new environment is extremely

difficult (56). Each introduction creates a novel

combination of organism and environment. Detailed information about both is necessary to

anticipate the result, and such information usually

is lacking.

Nevertheless, some continue to use a simplistic

approach to evaluating introductions. An erroneous concept still widely applied by fisheries

managers is the ‘‘vacant niche. ’ This concept

holds that some ecological roles may not be filled

in a community, and species can be selectively

introduced to fill these voids. Application of this

approach to natural communities is inappropriate

both because few species can fit the narrow ecological vacancies identified by managers, and because it is virtually impossible to predetermine

the role a species will assume after it has been

released (28). Numerous examples exist where a

species’ ecological role was mistakenly understood before its release. For example, many insect

parasites and predators introduced to Hawaii

for biological control of pests unexpectedly

expanded their diets to include indigenous

species (29).

Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) was initially promoted by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture for erosion control

and forage, but it has overgrown other vegetation

throughout the southeastern United States.

Problems also arise when a species moves into

new habitats beyond the intended area of introduction. A recent example is the cactus moth

(Cactoblastis cactorum). Introduced to the West

Indies to control prickly pear cactus (Opuntia

spp.), the moth has since spread northward into

Florida. Conservationists fear it may eventually

threaten indigenous prickly pear cacti throughout

the United States, 16 species of which are rare and

under review for listing under the Endangered

Species Act (31). The seven-spotted ladybeetle

(Coccineila septempunctata), an aphid predator,

has dispersed throughout much of the United

States. It appears to be outcompeting the native

nine-spotted ladybeetle (C. novemnotata) and has

displaced that species in alfalfa fields (33).

Species that escape from human cultivation, in

a sense, also move beyond their anticipated

distributions. Feral populations of domesticated

mammals, such as goats (Capra hircus) and pigs

(Sus scrofa), cause great ecological damage and

erosion in natural areas by trampling, uprooting,

and consuming plants. Many weeds, such as

crabgrass, originally were cultivated for agriculture (26). Some ornamental plants also cause

harm when they escape and form free-living

populations. English ivy (Hedera helix) and
62 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure 2-5-How Often Do Intentional Versus Unintentional Introductions Have Harmful Effects?

100 49/50 —

%!S m intentionally introduced species %s

? 80- ““” D Unintentionally introduced species

.- n

o L

368/837

L

. . .

.

3/21 O

. . .

35/76

0/4

I

:—

Terrestrial vertebrates Insects Fishes Mollusks Plant pathogens

a lncludes 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 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 of Ttinology

Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and

Arachnids in the United states,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. %houlties, “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Tempfe and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Vertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) overgrow and eventually kill trees and understory

plants and have fundamentally altered the character and structure of some eastern forests (82).

Among the 300 non-indigenous weeds of the

western United States, at least 8 were formerly

cultivated as crops and 28 escaped from horticulture (100).

THE SURPRISE OF UNINTENTIONAL

INTRODUCTIONS

Many NIS currently in the United States

arrived and spread as unintended stowaways on

human transport. For example, in the past, many

weeds moved as contaminants of agricultural

seed, and many plant pathogens arrived in the soil

of potted plants (43,72) (see also ch. 3).

In contrast to most intentional introductions,

unintentionally introduced species have not been

chosen for any beneficial characteristics. Thus, a

logical expectation might be that unintentionally

introduced species are more likely to cause

harmful effects than intentionally introduced

species. Evaluation of the 1,483 NIS examined by

OTA’s contractors would seem to support this,

since only 12 percent of the intentionally introduced species had harmful effects compared to 44

percent of the unintentionally introduced species

(10,33,72,79). However, when specific groups of

organisms are examined separately, clear differences appear (figure 2-5). Far more unintentional

introductions of insects and plant pathogens have

had harmful effects than have intentional introductions of these organisms. For terrestrial vertebrates, fish, and mollusks, however, intentional

introductions have caused harm approximately as

often as have unintentional introductions, suggesting a history of poor choices of species for
Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 63

introduction and complacency regarding their

potential harm.

MANY SPECIES HAVE BOTH BENEFITS AND

HARMFUL EFFECTS

Finding:

Certain NIS have both positive and negative

consequences, especially species occurring across

several regions or States. In addition, perceived effects of NIS can vary in relation to the

observer’s perspective. Different constituencies can hold widely divergent and deep-seated

views of the potential effects and desirability of

even a single species.

Many NIS simultaneously have benefits as

well as harmful effects (figure 2-4). Even some

NIS known for their harmful effects can also have

some benefits. For example, imported fire ants,

which sting people and damage crops, also

suppress populations of agricultural pests and

enhance available soil nutrients (73). Some nonindigenous (’‘exotic’ game animals grown on

ranches have potential economic benefits. Ranching may also help preserve animals endangered in

their native ranges. Ranched non-indigenous

game, however, sometimes hybridize with and

dilute the gene pools of related indigenous

species, or carry and spread new animal diseases

(77).

The effects of some species also change as they

enter new environments—a factor making prediction of harm difficult. Predators, competitors,

parasites, and pathogens that keep a species’

population small in one locale may be absent in

another. Also, new environments may affect rates

of reproduction, susceptibility to disease, and

other features that affect a species’ success,

Consequently, a NIS that causes little damage to

agriculture or natural ecosystems in one area may

cause significant problems in another. Melaleuca,

the paper bark tree, is a harmless ornamental in

California, but causes great ecological harm in the

Florida Everglades. Non-indigenous cheatgrass

(Bromus tectorum) occurs in all 50 States, but is

only a serious weed in the Midwest and West (44).

Even garden flowers like baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata) can be difficult-to-control weeds

in some areas (100).

The perceived effects of a species can also vary

with the eye of the beholder (85). While many

State fish and wildlife managers firmly support

continued stocking with certain non-indigenous

fish, some experts consider the practice to be

detrimental (box 2-B). Similarly, managers of

natural areas view purple loosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria), originally from Eurasia, as a highly

damaging plant because it grows prolifically in

wetlands, displacing indigenous plants and providing lower quality habitat and food for wild

animals. In contrast, some horticulturists in the

nursery trade see purple loosestrife as a desirable

plant. It also is a source of nectar for honey

production.

The perceived desirability of certain NIS has

changed over time, as human values and popular

views have changed. The intentional introduction

of songbirds, like the English sparrow (Passer

domestics) in the mid-1800s probably would not

be allowed today, because a higher value is placed

on indigenous birds. Kudzu (Pueraria lobata)

was widely promoted for erosion control in the

1940s (89); yet the very characteristics considered beneficial then-rapid growth, ease of propagation, and wide adaptability--cause it to be

considered a pernicious weed today.

ECONOMIC COSTS

Finding:

Harmful NIS annually cost the Nation hundreds of millions to perhaps billions of dollars.

Economically significant species occur in all

groups of organisms examined by OTA and

affect numerous economic sectors. Available

accountings tend to underestimate losses attributable to NIS, since they omit many harmful species and inadequately account for intangible, nonmarket impacts.

A conservative estimate is harmful NIS

cause annual losses of hundreds of millions of
64 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 2-B–The Case of the Brown Trout: Opposing Views of Fish Introductions

In Favor . . .

by Bruce Schmidt, Chief of Fisheries

Utah Department of Natural Resources

Salt Lake City, Utah

The 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-pristine

environments. Given the human species’ penchant for modifying the environment it is unrealistic to set a standard

that 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 the

control of fisheries managers. Only four sport fish are indigenous to Utah, and none are adapted to most of these

altered systems, so providing sport fishing requires introductions.

The benefits are widespread. Many spades have produced excellent sport fishing when introduced into new

waters 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 indirectly

through 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 prized

sport fish in North America, supporting a massive recreational fishery. Brown trout have significant advantages

over indigenous trout species in some situations. They can tolerate somewhat degraded environments with

warmer temperatures and decreased water quality and are more resistant to intense angling pressure. Thus, they

are better suited to many of the actual conditions existing today. Although brown trout would be inappropriate

where they affect rare indigenous fishes, they play a major role in satisfying public demand for quality fishing

opportunities.

and Against . . .

by Walter Courtenay, Professor of Biology

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

The 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 standard

management tool. Negative impacts have rarely been considered before the introductions. Overall, very few

introductions 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 names

often contained the words “conservation” and, more recently, “natural resources” agendas are largely blind to

conserving natural resources. Agency biologists often are not practicing biology, but are forced into managing, and

the 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. The

positives can be counterbalanced, in part, by negatives. California, in concert with the U.S. Forest and National

Park Services, has spent almost $1 million since 1985 to eradicate brown trout from the Little Kern River to save

the 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 nature

without understanding it.
Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 65

dollars to U.S. agriculture, forests, rangelands,

and fisheries. Losses could reach as high as

several billion dollars, especially in high-impact

years. Massive expenditures on pesticides and

other control and prevention technologies prevent

potential additional losses of millions to billions

more. Rough estimates are that the United States

annually expends about $7.4 billion for pesticide

applications (box 2-C), a significant proportion of

which goes to control non-indigenous pests.

Weeds and insects are the most costly groups,

corresponding to their high numbers when compared with other MS groups (see ch. 3).

Types of Economic Impacts

Harmful NIS affect numerous economic sectors. These include agriculture, forestry, fisheries

and water use, utilities, buildings, and natural

areas.

AGRICULTURE

Non-indigenous weeds, insects, mollusks, birds,

and pathogens reduce crop and livestock production, increase production costs, and cause postharvest crop losses. Managing the array of

agricultural 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 cultivated

sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), producing worthless

‘‘shattercane’ (43). Some weeds are either poisonous or rejected as forage by livestock (100).

They reduce the value of rangelands (100); much

public land has been lost for grazing because of

weed infestations (43). For example, unpalatable

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) has spread to 1.5

million acres of rangeland in the northern Great

Plains. Direct livestock production losses together with indirect economic effects due to this

species alone approached $110 million in 1990

(2). Annual U.S. losses because of weeds amount

to billions of dollars (box 2-C).

The cotton boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) caused

estimated cumulative losses of at least $50 billion for

1909-1949.

Some weeds do not directly harm agriculture,

but instead are hosts for agricultural pests. Barberry (Berberis vulgaris) harbors the wheat rust

fungus (Puccinia recondite), and large losses of

wheat production can occur where the plant is

present (43). Wheat rust has caused approximately $100 million worth of crop losses annually over the last 20 years (37), and it caused even

more significant losses before barberry was

largely eradicated earlier in this century. Tumbleweed (Salsola spp.) similarly is a host for the

curly top virus, a pathogen of crops such as sugar

beets and tomatoes (102). Crested wheatgrass

(Agropyron desertorum), widely planted for soil

conservation, harbors the Russian wheat aphid

(Diuraphis noxia), itself a significant wheat pest.

Scores of non-indigenous insect species pose

serious threats to agriculture. The boll weevil

(Anthonomus grandis), a pest of cotton, historically has the highest documented impacts-at

least $50 billion (in 1991 dollars) of cumulative

losses estimated for the years 1909-1949 (8).

Repeated outbreaks of the medfly in California

necessitate costly control programs to avert projected annual losses of up to $897 million in

damaged produce, control, and reduced export

revenues (34). Some other estimates of annual
66 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 2-C-Economic Losses Caused by Non-Indigenous Weeds

The Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) recently published the report Crop Losses Due to

Weeds-1992, covering all States but Alaska. The report relies on crop loss estimates for 46 major crops (including

field crops, fruits, nuts, and vegetables) obtained through survey responses by cooperating weed seientists. The

scientists estimated the cumulative value of average losses to be $4.1 billion annually, undercurrent appropriate

herbicide 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; and

they include indigenous weeds. However, indigenous weeds are less important economically than NIS, which are

known to comprise the majority of weeds for most crops. For example, 23 of 37 major soybean weeds, or 62

percent, are NIS. Experts estimate that 50 percent to 75 percent of major crop weeds overall are NIS. Based on

these percentages, the portion of the$4.1 billion of annual crop losses attributable to non-indigenous weeds would

be approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. farm expenditures

on pesticides amount to about $5.1 billion annually, 60 percent of which is for herbicides. Thus, roughly $1.5 billion

to $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. The

environmental, human health, regulatory, and other indirect costs of using herbicides on non-indigenous weeds

have 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 Pesticide

Use,” Biosderm, vol. 41, No. 6, June 1991, pp. 402-9; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EFM’s Pestidde Programs,” Publication

No. 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 the FORESTRY

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of In the early 1900s, the chestnut blight, brought

USDA include: $500 million (in 1990) for the

alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica); $172.8 million

(in 1988) for the Russian wheat aphid; and $16.6

million (annual average for 1960-1988) for the

pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in

California (17).

The honey bee industry currently faces two

new pests, the tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi) and

the varroa mite (Varroa jacobsoni), which parasitize and kill honey bees. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture estimates potential annual losses of $160 million—

due to lost honey production, lost pollination fees,

and costs of replacing bees—should each pest

have nationwide effects similar to those reported

in Michigan (1990) and Washington (1989) (59).

in on diseased horticultural stock from China, all

but eliminated the American chestnut (Castanea

dentata), killing as many as a billion trees.

American chestnut had been the most economically important hardwood species in eastern

forests (91). It was widely used in urban plantings

and had been a significant food source for wild

animals (72). Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis

ulmi) also devastated vast numbers of shade trees

following its U.S. discovery in 1930-an aesthetic loss for many U.S. cities as well as an

expense to replace the 40 million elms estimated

to have died (91).

Several other NIS currently threaten U.S.

forests, including insects like the balsam wooly

adelgid (Adelges piceae) and pathogens such as

white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Pear
Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 67

thrips (Taeniothrips inconsequens) damaged 189,0(X)

hectares of Vermont sugar maple in 1988 and is

expected to spread throughout the Appalachians

(35). The European gypsy moth exacts the

greatest measurable losses and expenditures for

research, control, and eradication. The USDA

estimated losses of $764 million from the European gypsy moth in 1981 alone, although that

figure so far has been the all-time high (17). The

Asian strain of the moth recently necessitated a

$14 to $20 million eradication program in the

Pacific Northwest (see ch. 4, box 4-B).

FISHERIES AND WATERWAY USE

Both wild fisheries and aquiculture have been

damaged by harmful NIS. Some fisheries have

been decimated. In the mid-1900s, the eel-like,

parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) migrated via the newly constructed Welland Canal

from Lake Ontario to other Great Lakes. It caused

tremendous economic losses to commercial and

recreational Great Lakes fisheries. Today, about

$10 million is spent annually on control and

research to reduce its predation, plus roughly an

equal amount annually on fish stocking (86). If

control were terminated and populations of the

lamprey expanded again, the total value of the lost

fishing opportunities plus indirect economic impacts could exceed $500 million annually (75).

The European ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus),

a fish that entered the Great Lakes via expelled

ballast water in the early 1980s, poses a new

threat. Based on experience in Scotland and

Russia, and preliminary assessment of North

American impacts, experts predict the ruffe will

cause populations of commercially valuable fish

to decline, The Great Lakes Fishery Commission

estimates that annual losses of more than $90

million could occur if it is not controlled (24).

Several non-indigenous aquatic weed species

clog waterways. An estimated $100 million is

spent nationally each year to control aquatic

weeds, a majority of which are non-indigenous

(20). Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in the Southeast blocks irrigation and drainage canals, enhances sedimentation in flood control reservoirs,

interferes with public water supplies, impedes

navigation, and generally restricts public water

uses (32). At high densities, it also reduces

productivity of recreational fisheries (32).

UTILITIES

Fouling of water pipes by zebra mussels has

imposed large expenses on the electric power

industry and its customers. Costs have been

incurred for the development and implementation

of antifouling technologies, application of control

techniques to remove zebra mussels already

present, and plant shut-downs. Another mollusk,

the Asian clam, has had similar effects (box 2-D).

Zebra mussels and the Asian clam also clog water

pipes for municipal and irrigation water supplies.

BUILDING STRUCTURES

Non-indigenous pests damage commercial and

residential structures, threaten the health of occupants, and reduce property values. The full effects

of structural pests-cockroaches, rats, and others

that are non-indigenous-are beyond the scope of

this report. However, they contribute significantly to the national market for pest control

inside buildings, which totals roughly $6 billion

dollars in annual sales of extermination services,

retail products, and associated items (63).

NATURAL AREAS

Millions of dollars are spent annually to

address the harmful effects of NIS on natural

ecosystems, mostly by public agencies (see ch. 6).

Expenditures are required for the development

and application of control and eradication measures, as well as for ecological restoration. Indirect

economic effects result from reduced recreational

opportunities in areas invaded by harmful MS,

and the loss of indigenous species. Because of the

absence of clear financial incentives, such as exist

in agriculture, many NIS problems in natural

areas remain unaddressed. The cost of backlogged control or eradication projects is difficult

to estimate, but is very likely higher than for any
68 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 2-D-Case Study of an Affected Industry: The “One-Two Punch” of Asian Clams and

Zebra Mussels on the Power Industry

Two harmful non-indigenous species-the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, and the zebra mussel, Dreissena

polymorpha-have and will continue to have significant and lasting effects on the U.S. power industry and

electricity consumers.

The Asian clam entered North America some time before 1924. This small dam grows and reproduces

rapidly, producing massive numbers of shells shortly after entering new waterways. Its harmful effects received

little attention until the 1950s, when it was found dogging California irrigation systems as well as condensers of

the Shawnee Steam Electric Power Station at Paducah, Kentucky. Populations of Corbicula grew explosively

during the 1960s and 1970s. During that period it disrupted the operations of numerous steam and at least three

nuclear electric generating stations, with down-time, corrective actions, and maintenance costing millions of

dollars. In 1980, the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant was forced to shut down because of waterline clogging

by Asian dams, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a directive requiring the nuclear electric

industry to determine whether Corbicula fouling was a hazard at each nuclear facility in the nation. The estimated

cost of compliance with this directive was $4.5 million. One estimate put total losses at $1 billion annually in the

early 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 Lakes

by 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, enabling

populations to quickly reach large sizes. Zebra mussels adhere to water pipes by tough threads, dogging water

flow and increasing sedimentation and corrosion. One expert from the New York Sea Grant Extension Service

estimated costs for the power industry of up to $800 million for plant redesign and $60 million for annual

maintenance. Fouling by zebra mussels of cooling or other critical water systems in power plants can require

shut-down, costing as much as $5,000 per hour for a 200-megawatt system. Some experts expect total costs to

the power industry from zebra mussels to match those for the Asian dam, perhaps reaching $3.1 billion (1991

dollars) over a 10-year period.

SOURCES: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United

States,” oontraotor report prepared for the Offioe of Teohndogy Assessment, October 1991; M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Spedes in the

Unites 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 the $97 billion (1991 dollars) provides a minimum

damaging salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) infestations

bordering the lower Colorado River, and restoration of the indigenous vegetation, would cost an

estimated $45 million to $450 million (94).

Cumulative Losses

OTA summarized some of the estimated economic losses to the United States from introductions of 79 harmful NIS between 1906 and 1991

(table 2-2). The species range from the brown tree

snake (Boiga irregulars) (the costs of keeping it

out) to hog cholera virus. The estimated total of

benchmark for true losses during the 85 years.

This total is likely a fraction of the total costs

during the period. Only about 14 percent of NIS

known to be harmful are included, because

comparable estimates of economic effects for the

remaining 86 percent were unavailable; one of the

most costly groups-non-indigenous agricultural

weeds (see box 2-C)--is omitted.

Under-Counted Effects

The economic data on NIS are heavily weighted

toward direct market effects and government
Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 69

Table 2-2—Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United States From Selected Harmful

Non-Indigenous Species, 1906-1991

Species analyzed Cumulative loss estimates Species not analyzeda

Category (number) (millions of dollars, 1991) (number)

Plants b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 603 —

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 225 >39

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 92,658 >330

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 467 >30

Aquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1,207 >35

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 867 >44

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 917 —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 96,944 >478

aBased 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 one

year or a few years. Numerous accounting judgments were necessary to allow consistent comparison of the 96 different reports relied on; information

was 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 of

Technology Assessment, March 1992.

control costs. Past accountings generally incorporated little information on several other important

effects, such as research and private control costs

(8). The latter are especially significant in agriculture, where farmers bear much of the cost of

control, Even outside of farming, control costs

can be substantial; North Carolina homeowners

spent an estimated $11 million annually to protect

residential trees from the European gypsy moth

(12). Accounting for nonmarket effects may be

the only way to capture the fill economic impacts

of NIS affecting natural areas. Chapter 4 discusses such accounting difficulties and the disputed role of economics in NIS decisionmaking.

Harmful NIS have numerous other health and

environmental costs that are difficult to count in

dollars.

HEALTH COSTS

Non-indigenous diseases of humans are beyond the scope of this assessment (figure 2-l). A

number of other NIS directly affect human health,

however. African honey bees and imported fire

ants sting, and can also cause severe allergic

reactions in sensitive people (78,90). African

honey bees have in addition a propensity to sting

with little provocation and repeatedly, The Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), currently spreading throughout Florida, produces

allergens that cause respiratory difficulty in many

people and contact dermatitis in many more (43).

Approximately half of the poisonous plants found

in non-agricultural areas of eastern North America are 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 influenced by some NIS. For example, non-indigenous

aquatic weeds growing en masse provide a

sheltered habitat for mosquito larvae, which

spread human diseases when they mature (21).

Several NIS currently in the United States are

vectors for human diseases, although some of the

diseases are not yet present in this country. For

example, the snail Biomphalaria, presently in

Florida and Texas, can carry the blood fluke

(Schistosoma spp.) that causes schistosomiasis,

although the populations in the United States do

not yet harbor the flukes (7). The Asian tiger

mosquito (Aedes albopictus) entered the United
70 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Imported fire ants (Solenopsis spp.) probably reached the United States in dry ship ballast; they have negative

health 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 transmit

several human diseases not yet present in the

United States, including dengue and yellow fever,

as well as a virulent form of encephalitis already

present (55).

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

Finding:

Harmful NIS threaten indigenous species

and exact a significant toll on U.S. ecosystems.

Numerous declines in populations of indigenous species have been attributed to NIS, a

signal of their diverse and growing impacts

across the country. The worst NIS have caused

species extinctions and wholesale transformations of ecosystems.

Populations of many NIS expand rapidly

upon reaching new habitats where the competitors, predators, pathogens, and parasites that

formerly kept them in check are no longer present.

Some of these NIS become harmful by competing

with, preying upon, parasitizing, killing, or transmitting diseases to indigenous species. They may

also alter the physical environment, modifying or

destroying habitats of indigenous species. In

places, NIS that outcompete indigenous species

have, to some extent, replaced them. Abundant

evidence shows declines in indigenous species

resulting from NIS introductions, in some cases

causing or contributing to a species’ endangerment or extinction. At the worst, such processes

have caused fundamental-and perhaps irreversible-changes in the functioning of U.S. ecosystems (1 1).

The popular press and environmentalists frequently stress the role of NIS in species extinctions (1,16,40,46). However, much of the supporting evidence is anecdotal or equivocal, in part

because demonstrating the cause of an extinction

after the fact is difficult. Also, NIS introductions

in many cases may be just one of several factors

contributing to a species’ demise, and the exact

role of NIS is therefore hard to evaluate (42).

Overemphasizing the significance of extinction as a consequence of MS tends to divert

attention from their other very significant and

unambiguous environmental effects. Species extinctions do not have to occur for biological

communities to be radically and permanently

altered. Nor are extinctions necessary for the

United States to experience a significant decline

in the abundance, diversity, and aesthetic value of

its biological resources as populations of indigenous species shrink and numbers of NIS increase.
Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 71

 Decline of Indigenous Species

Many examples exist of declines in populations of indigenous species resulting from NIS

introductions. Such declines occur across abroad

array of ecosystems and as a result of diverse MS.

Some NIS displace indigenous species by

out-competing them. Throughout the American

West, several non-indigenous grasses, including

the widely planted crested wheatgrass, have been

shown to suppress the of seedlings of oaks, pines,

and other indigenous plants by reducing light,

water, and nutrients (1 1). At least 10 indigenous

plant species are less common in parts of Arizona

where African lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) occurs (1 1).

Competition from the introduced house sparrow and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)

caused dramatic declines in the numbers of

eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) and other indigenous birds (79). Presence of the mosquitofish

(Gambusia affinis) has been associated with

localized declines in populations of at least 15

indigenous fishes found in desert rivers and

springs (71), The non-indigenous crayfish Orconectes rusticus competes with the indigenous

O. virilis and caused its local disappearance from

several Wisconsin lakes during the 1980s (38).

Introduction of a periwinkle (the snail Littorina

littorea) to U.S. shores in the late 1800s pushed

the mud snail (Ilyanassa obsoleta) out of many

near shore habitats (6).

Non-indigenous diseases, parasites, and predators have driven down populations of some

indigenous species. The brown-headed cowbird

(Molo/hrus ater), a bird indigenous to the eastern

United States, parasitizes other birds by placing

its eggs in their nests, where young cowbirds

compete aggressively for food. Its range expansion following the growth of U.S. agriculture

contributed to a drop in populations of migratory

songbirds such as Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica

kirtlandia) (80). Predation by non-indigenous

fishes on young razorback suckers (Xyrauchen

texanus) has contributed to its decline in the

Colorado River basin (45). Introduced predatory

rosy snails (Euglandina rosea) have been observed decimating populations of indigenous tree

snails in Hawaii (25). The balsam woolly adelgid

has killed almost all of the adult fir trees in Great

Smoky Mountains National Park, formerly the

repository of about 74 percent of all spruce-fro

forest in the southern United States (35).

Some introduced NIS are not harmful themselves, but carry diseases or other organisms that

harm indigenous species. Widespread concerns

exist among State wildlife biologists that nonindigenous game raised on ranches can be a

source of diseases affecting indigenous wild

animals (36). Sika deer, for example, can harbor

meningeal worms (Pare laphostrongylos tenuis)

and numerous other parasites and pathogens that

can infect wild animals and livestock. The Asian

tapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis) was

inadvertently released in the United States via

infected grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

from China and now infects indigenous fishes in

North America (22).

Some NIS are closely enough related to indigenous species to hybridize with them. Hybridization results in a loss of successful reproduction

when the offspring are less viable. It can also

genetically “swamp” and eliminate an indigenous species when successive generations of

offspring become increasingly genetically similar

to the NIS, as has occurred with certain indigenous trout in western locales (13). Hybridization

with NIS can impair recovery of endangered

species. An international group of experts has

called for governments to prohibit or tightly

restrict ownership and breeding of wolf/dog

hybrids because they can interbreed with endangered wolves (52).

Species Extinction

The introduction of NIS has been closely

correlated with the disappearance of indigenous

species in Hawaii and other islands (29,79). Some

observers consider competition by non-indige-
72 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 2-3-Contribution of Non-Indigenous Species to Threatened and Endangered Species Listings

by t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicea

Category of impact on threatened and endangered species

Species where NIS Species where NIS

Total threatened and Species where NIS are a major are the major

endangered 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 41

c Includes spedes listed through June 1991.

b Includes 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 Office

of Technology Assessment, November 1991.

nous weeds and predation by non-indigenous

animal pests to be the single greatest threat to

Hawaii’s indigenous species (60). There, introduced biological control agents have been implicated in the extinction of 15 indigenous moth

species (29). Similarly, scientists believe predation by the introduced brown tree snake in Guam

has caused the extinction of 5 species or subspecies of birds and the decline of numerous others

(15,68).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers

NIS to have been a contributing factor in the

listing of 160 species as threatened or endangered

under the Endangered Species Act! (3). Of these,

approximately one-third are from island ecosystems in Hawaii or Puerto Rico. Non-indigenous

species are considered to have been the major

cause of listing for 41 species, of which 23 are

from Hawaii or Puerto Rico (table 2-3).

Direct evidence that a NIS has caused the

extinction of an indigenous species in the continental United States is lacking. However, even in

the continental United States, patchy environments like forest remnants, lakes, hot springs, and

artesian springs form habitat “islands.” Species

whose distributions are limited to such islands

tend to have small localized populations and

narrow ecological requirements. Consequently,

they are more vulnerable to extinction than are

widespread species. Effects of introductions under

such conditions can mirror those on true islands.

For example, the snail Elimia comalensis lives

only in several springs and spring-fed rivers in

Texas. Introduction of two non-indigenous snail

species in the late 1960s has caused populations

of E. comalensis to reach precariously low levels

several times (7).

NIS clearly have caused population declines of

indigenous species in mainland habitats. When

other stresses such as pollution and habitat

destruction adversely affect a population in concert with NIS, populations may be pushed to

dangerously low levels (57). The combination of

water projects and introductions of species better

adapted to altered habitats is considered to be the

major cause of declines in California’s indigenous fishes, 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 73

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), one of the

most costly recent accidental imports, clog intake

pipes, coat equipment, and are expected to

significantly after aquatic ecosystems.

Transformation of Ecological

Communities and Ecosystems

Some NIS transform ecosystems by modifying

basic physical and chemical features of the

environment. These NIS “don’t merely compete

with or consume native species, they change the

rules of the game by altering environmental

conditions or resource availability’ (1 1). Zebra

mussels, for example, rapidly filter water, decreasing the food available for other aquatic

animals and increasing light penetration. This,

coupled with the zebra mussel’s dense, bottomdwelling populations, is expected to cause major

changes in the biological communities found

within U.S. lakes, rivers, and streams-including

the possible extinction of part of the rich indigenous mussel fauna in the United States (7).

The Australian melaleuca tree is rapidly modifying large areas of the Florida Everglades by

changing soil characteristics and topography,

Dense, pure stands of melaleuca displace indigenous vegetation and provide poorer habitat and

forage for wildlife (70). Salt cedar, now abundant

along the lower Colorado River, was originally

introduced as an ornamental and for erosion

control (61 ). It forms thickets along waterways,

crowding out indigenous plants, banking up

sediments, and altering water flow (39). Certain

non-indigenous plants, like cheatgrass in northwestern States and bunchgrass (Schizachyrium

condensatum) and molasses grass (Melinis minu -

tiflora) in Hawaii, burn easily and recover rapidly

from fires, unlike indigenous plants of these

areas. Where abundant, they increase the frequency of brush fires, seriously offsetting the

normal ecological processes by which indigenous

plant communities become established. Bunchgrass and molasses grass now comprise 80

percent of the plant cover in parts of Hawaii

Volcanoes National Park (11),

Wild hogs, descended from animals that escaped from hunting enclosures in 1912, in Great

Smoky Mountains National Park now eat, uproot,

or trample at least 50 species of herbaceous plants

and can reduce the cover of understory plants in

forests by 95 percent (64). Their rooting displaces

animals like voles and shrews, which depend on

undisturbed leaf litter for habitat. It also increases

soil erosion and the resulting turbidity of small

streams. Hogs consume small animals, including

potentially threatened salamanders and snails,

and compete with several indigenous species for

food. Aquatic equivalents of hogs are the grass

(Ctenopharyngodon idella) and common carps

(Cyprinus carpio), widely introduced to control

aquatic weeds. These fishes indiscriminately

consume aquatic vegetation, destroying habitats

for young fish and increasing water turbidity (57).

Some NIS have major effects on ecosystems

because they affect indigenous species that play

a pivotal ecological role, Initial effects of the NIS

on one species then cascade throughout the

system, like a line of falling dominoes. Recent

introduction of the opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) into the Flathead River-Lake ecosystem of

Glacier National Park caused populations of

many other animals to drop. Because of feeding

by the shrimp, zooplankton became less numerous. This decline, in turn, contributed to a drop in

forage fish, ultimately driving away the area’s

fish predators—including eagles, otters, coyotes

and bears (76).
74 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Declines in indigenous plants can have important repercussions because they change the physical structure of the environment and reduce

available habitat for the insects, birds, or other

organisms that normally dwell in the vegetation.

Chestnut blight virtually eliminated stands of the

American chestnut in about 91 million hectares of

eastern U.S. forests, where, in places, it previously constituted up to 25 percent of the trees

(96). Loss of the American chestnut is thought to

have caused at least five indigenous insect species

to disappear and also to have contributed to an

increase in oak wilt disease (Ceratocystis fagacearum) because of subsequent changes in the

density and distribution of red oak (Quercus

rubra) (41). Several vines, including kudzu and

Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), overgrow and eventually pull down trees, and have

changed parts of some eastern forests from open

canopies to dense thickets (51, 82). The spread of

purple loosestrife to wetlands in 41 States has

been called an “ecological disaster” (83). In

some areas, it has displaced half of the previous

biomass of indigenous plants—many of which

are important sources of food for other species—

and has further contributed to the decline of bird

and turtle species by destroying their habitats

(83). European leafy spurge, now widespread on

U.S. rangelands, attracts few insect grazers, diminishing food supplies for insect-eating birds (4).

Special Consideration of NIS in the

National Parks

Finding:

Increasing numbers of NIS are causing

ecological disruption in the U.S. National

Parks. Removal or control of NIS is not

keeping pace with species’ invasions and

spread. Concerns are increasing that the ecological changes overtaking the parks may be so

severe that they will eliminate the very characteristics for which the parks were originally

established.

The conservation mandate of the U.S. National

Park Service has resulted in the development of

restrictive policies related to introductions of

NIS. Consequently, NIS seen as beneficial in

some locales are considered harmful in the

National Parks. For example, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout widely

stocked for sport fisheries are being eradicated in

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park because of their harmful effects on indigenous

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis (10).

National Parks in all areas of the United States

are experiencing problems with NIS in spite of the

restrictive policies and eradication efforts (table

2-4) (27,41). A backlog of unfunded NIS control

programs continues to expand (30). Increasing

concern exists among scientists, environmentalists, and others that the threats from NIS in some

National Parks are so severe that park ecosystems

will be permanently altered if large-scale control

and eradication efforts are not undertaken (43). In

the Everglades Conservation Areas near Everglades National Park, the spread of melaleuca is

rapidly changing the wetlands—known as a

‘‘river of grass’—into a stand of non-indigenous

trees. Unchecked, such changes eventually will

eliminate the National Parks’ role as a caretaker

of U.S. ecosystems and indigenous species.

These concerns are not confined to National

Parks. NIS threaten many State parks as well. In

Missouri’s Cuivre River State Park, one of the

State’s largest and most rustic parks, European

buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartic) has spread widely,

forming impenetrable thickets throughout the

forest understory (54). A 1991 Missouri study

concluded NIS are among the State’s parks’ 10

most serious and widespread threats (54).

RELATIONSHIP TO BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY

The preservation of biological diversity is

of growing concern among the public, Con-
Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 75

Table 2-4—Examples of Non-lndigeneous Species Problems in the National Parks

Park Impacts

Channel Islands Feral mammals, like the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), are thought to have caused

National Park, irreversible loss of topsoil by destroying vegetation and causing erosion. Introduced ice plant

California (Mesembranthemum crystallinum) accumulates salt, changes soil salt content, and excludes

indigenous vegetation.

Everglades National Park, Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) causes development of steeper shorelines thereby

Florida impairing nesting by loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta).

Canyonlands Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) replaces indigenous vegetation, banks up sediments, reduces

National Park, channel width, and increases overbank flooding. Non-indigenous grasses largely replace

Utah indigenous grasses and are thought to have increased the frequency of fire on grasslands.

Big Bend Salt cedar lowers the water table and dries up springs, contributing to the decline of desert

National Park, bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).

Texas

Theodore Roosevelt Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and English ivy (Hedera helix) inhibit growth of new

Island, trees and understory plants. They also overgrow and kill adult trees.

Washington, DC

Hawaii Volcanoes Non-indigenous plants (fire tree Myrica faya and leucaena Leucaena ieucocephala) elevate

National Park, nutrient levels on young lava flows, potentially enhancing invasion by other NIS. NonHawaii indigenous grasses, like crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), increase the frequency

and 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 biological

cal diversity8 encompasses the biological varia- diversity. Thus, each situation requires careful

tion 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 ●

level negatively affect biological diversity. Many

harmful MS clearly impair biological diversity

by causing population declines, species extinctions, or simplification of ecosystems. Moreover,

the very establishment of a NIS diminishes global

biological diversity: as NIS like starlings, grass

carp, and crabgrass spread to more places, these

places become more alike biologically.

The relationship between NIS and biological

diversity is not always straightforward, however.

Under certain circumstances, such as those listed

below, NIS may actually enhance biological ●

diversity although negative counter-examples

exist for each category. The same NIS, under

Where Indigenous Species Utilize or Depend on NIS--Certain indigenous birds

appear to reside almost exclusively in eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.>introduced to California over 135 years ago (99). Monarch

butterflies (Danaus plexippus) also prefer

eucalyptus to the native woodlands. In

Florida, heavy human use of beaches disturbs nesting by the American oystercatcher

(Haematopus palliatus). Some achieve greater

nesting success within stands of introduced

Australian pine (84).

Where Altered Environments Are Inhospitable to Indigenous Species—Nonindigenous fishes may be the only ones able

7 For example, U.S. Congress, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 585, proposed the National Biological Diversity Conservation and

Environmental Research Act (1991).

S A previous OIA study defiied biological diversity as “the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes

in which they occur” (87).
76 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

●

●

●

to live in the new reservoir habitats created

when rivers are dammed (69). Some introduced plants, like red bromegrass (Bromus

rubens) in southern California, may prove to

be more suited to heavily polluted areas than

indigenous ones (99). In such cases, ‘ ‘artificial diversity” may be the only feasible

option unless the underlying human disturbance is eliminated or modified.

Where NIS Hybridize with Certain Endangered Indigenous Species-Only 30 to

50 individuals remain of the Florida panther

(Felis concolor coryi), a critically endangered subspecies. Some carry genes from a

Central or South American subspecies, probably from captive animals released into the

Everglades decades ago (18). Commentators

have argued that this should not detract from

the panther’s protected status under the

Endangered Species Act (62). Similarly,

some endangered indigenous trout species in

the Southwest have heavily hybridized with

introduced cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki)

and rainbow trouts (13). Eradicating these

hybrids could destroy the only remaining

vestiges of the indigenous fish.

Where the NIS Itself Represents Valuable

Genetic Diversity—Feral hogs on Ossabaw

Island, Georgia (Sus scrofa domesticus) are

descendants of animals introduced by Spanish explorers in the 16th and 17th centuries.

They appear to have evolved certain unique

biochemical features (47). Eradication of the

hogs would mean a loss of this genetic

diversity.

Where a Species Must be Introduced at

New Locales to Ensure Its Survival—The

brown tree snake, now well established in

Guam, has driven the Guam rail (Rallus

owstoni) near extinction. Introduction of the

bird outside its natural range (e.g., in Hawaii) may be better than allowing it to

become extinct or to survive only in captivity (9).

● Where a NIS Removes Harvesting Pressure From Indigenous Species —The Washington State Department of Fisheries actively promotes the shad (Alosa sapidissima), which was introduced decades ago, to

reduce fishing pressure on the low numbers

of indigenous salmon (49).

Management decisions, under circumstances

like those listed above, may be controversial,

even among experts seeking to maximize biological diversity. They raise legitimate concerns

about whether short-term solutions (e.g., introducing pollution-tolerant plants) are acceptable or

counterproductive over the long term. Although

contentious cases are relatively uncommon, they

sometimes command the lion’s share of resources

and attention. For example, “hundreds of other

exotics and naturalized aliens go unattended in

California parks’ while much of the budget for

NIS control is devoted to the controversial fight

against eucalyptus (99).

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter is the first of two that, taken

together, paint a picture of harmful NIS in the

United States today, This chapter defined NIS and

described the impacts that distinguish beneficial

from harmful species, e.g., those that cut agricultural or other productivity, those with high control

and eradication costs, and those associated with

the decline of indigenous species or ecosystems.

Not all NIS cause damage; nor does each have the

same positive or negative impacts every place it

occurs. Yet harmful NIS generate substantial

economic, health, and environmental costs for the

Nation-costs often uncounted in the past. With

highly damaging species in virtually every State,

the sketch that emerges from this chapter is

worrisome.

Chapter 3 completes the picture. It traces the

various pathways by which NIS enter the United

States and spread from state to state and estimates

the numbers of species involved.
N

The Changing

Numbers,

Causes, and

Rates of

Introductions 3

on-indigenous species (NIS) arrive by way of two

general types of pathways (figure 3-l). First, species

having origins outside of the United States enter the

country and become established either as free-living

populations or under human cultivation—for example, as pets or

in agriculture, horticulture, or aquiculture. Some cultivated

species subsequently escape or are released and also become

established as free-living populations. Second, species already

within the United States, of U.S. or foreign origin, can spread to

new locales. Pathways of both types include intentional as well

as unintentional species transfers.

This chapter first identifies current pathways that either are

known or can be reasonably inferred to have been routes of

introduction for NIS since 1980. Included are routes for both

harmful and beneficial introductions; effects of NIS can change

over time or as they enter new environments, and some

introductions that appear benign today may eventually cause

harm (ch. 2). The chapter goes on to assess the growing numbers

of NIS in the United States, their geographical distribution, and

the various factors affecting rates and pathways of species

transfers.

PATHWAYS: HUMANS INCREASE THE

MOVEMENT OF SPECIES

Finding:

Naturally occurring movements of species into the United

States are uncommon. Most arrive in association with human

activities or transport. Species can be brought into the

country and released intentionally, or their movement and

77
78 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure 3-l-Generic Pathways of Species Entry and Spread

m

~

Outside of the United States I

\\\\\\\\\\\\\B\\R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\y\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Xssisxsisi

Inside the United States

Species from other

U.S. locations

/s

\~ /rCultivated

non-indigenous

species

v / ’

z“Free-living 4“ ,

non-indigenous L

 -

species

< Intentional pathway

< Unintentional pathway

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

release can be an unintentional byproduct of

cultivation, commerce, tourism, or travel. In

addition, human modification of natural habitats continues to provide new opportunities for

species establishment.

Geographic distributions of species naturally

expand or contract. However, over historical time

intervals (tens to hundreds of years), species’

ranges rarely expand thousands of miles or across

physical barriers like mountains or oceans

(12,26,53,63,82). Such large-scale movements

have become commonplace today, driven by

human transformations of natural environments

as well as the continual transport of people and

cargo around the globe. Resulting rates of species

movement dwarf natural rates in comparison.

The Role of Habitat Change

Habitat modification can create conditions

favorable to the establishment of NIS. Soil disturbed in construction and agriculture is open for

colonization by non-indigenous weeds. Non-indigenous plants, in turn, may provide habitats for the

non-indigenous insects

For example, European

that evolved with them.

viper’s bugloss (Echium

vulgare), a weed common along roads and

railroad tracks, provides a habitat for the Eurasian

lace bug (Dictyla echii). Non-indigenous plants

that would not tolerate dry conditions flourish in

newly irrigated parts of arid regions, such as the

American Southwest (63). Other human-generated changes in fire frequency, grazing intensity,

soil stability, and nutrient levels similarly facilitate the spread and establishment of nonindigenous plants (47).

Thermal effluents from power generating stations and industrial installations create suitable

environments for tropical non-indigenous fish

and snails (12). Gardens as well are common

habitats for non-indigenous snails and slugs (12).

Pollution and habitat degradation have made

some environments inhospitable to certain indigenous species. Such changes encourage fisheries

managers and others to introduce NIS more

tolerant of the degraded conditions (26).

When human changes to natural environments

span large geographical areas, they effectively
3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 79

create conduits for species movement between

previously isolated locales. Such modifications

have an important role in facilitating the spread of

NIS within the country. The rapid spread of the

Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) to 15

States in just 2 years following its 1986 arrival has

been attributed, in part, to the prevalence of

alternative host plants that are available when

wheat (Triticum spp. ) is not, Many of these are

non-indigenous grasses recommended for planting on the 40 million or more acres enrolled in the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation

Reserve Program (54) (see also ch. 6), Many

newly introduced weeds followed railway construction across the continent to the American

West because they can grow in disturbed land

beside the tracks (63). Roads and backcountry

trails have helped to spread non-indigenous

grasses within Glacier National Park, Montana

(98). The 1829 construction of the Welland Canal

in the Great Lakes provided a route for the sea

lamprey (Petromyson marinus), alewife (Alosa

pseudoharengus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus

mordax) to migrate upstream from Lake Ontario

(26). The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) expanded its range following irrigation and drinking

water canals in California and Arizona (12). The

growth of agriculture, urbanization, pollution,

and a host of other human habitat modifications

have enhanced the movement of many species

across the country.

Present Pathways Into the United States

More than 205 NIS were introduced or frost

detected in the United States since 1980. (See

table 3-1 at the end of this chapter.) Fifty-nine of

these are expected to cause economic or environmental harm. These NIS followed many different

pathways into the country.

A number of factors confound quantitative

evaluation of the relative importance of various

entry pathways. Time lags often occur between

NIS establishment and detection, and tracing the

pathway for a long-established species is difficult

(65). One expert estimates that non-indigenous

weeds usually have been in the country for 30

years or have spread to 10,000 acres before they

are detected (65). In addition, Federal port inspection is a major source of information on NIS

pathways, especially for agricultural pests. However, it provides data only on whether NIS enter

via scrutinized routes, not on whether and how

many NIS enter via as-yet-undetected pathways.

Finally, some comparisons between pathways

defy quantitative analysis-for example, which is

more ‘important’: the entry pathway of one very

harmful NIS or one by which many less harmful

NIS enter the country? For these reasons, OTA

has chosen not to rank the pathways according to

relative significance.

UNINTENTIONAL PATHWAYS

Many species enter the United States each year

as unintentional contaminants of commodities.

Agricultural produce, nursery stock, cut flowers,

and timber sometimes harbor insects, plant pathogens, slugs, and snails (12,53). Of 23 nonindigenous insect species that became established

in California since 1980, 20 arrived on imported

plants, 2 on fruit, and 1 on infested wood (35). At

least 45 percent of the snails and slugs intercepted

by agricultural inspectors between 1984 and 1991

were found on plants or plant products (12). Bulk

commodities like gravel, iron ore, sand, wool, and

cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) can contain hidden

weed seeds (63,106). Commodities were the

single greatest source (81 percent) of noxious

weed Federal interceptions from October 1987

through mid-July 1990 (106).

Weeds continue to enter the United States as

seed contaminants even though the content of

imported seed is regulated under the Federal Seed

Act (63,106 ).1 These weed seeds ultimately can

be widely distributed and then planted in favorable environments along with the desired agriculI Federal Seed Act (1939), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 1551 et seq.),
80 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

tural or other seed. For example, serrated tussock

(Nassella trichotoma)—a noxious weed that degrades rangelands and pastures-was repeatedly

found in 1988 in seed from Argentina of tall

fescue (Festuca arundinacea) a lawn and pasture

grass. Contaminated seed ultimately was distributed to at least five States and sold through such

popular retailers as K-Mart, Walmart, and Ace

Hardware. Over 58,000 pounds were sold before

the seed was recalled in 1989 (103).

Despite Federal requirements for inspection

and quarantine, plant pathogens sometimes arrive

as unintended contaminants of plant materials.

Importation of seeds and other plant germ plasm

for propagation and breeding was a pathway for

at least three plant pathogens entering the country

between 1982 and 1991 (82) (table 3-l).

A number of fish and shrimp pathogens and

parasites have similarly entered the country in

infected stock for aquiculture or fishery enhancement (42,60). The introduction of the Pacific

oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to the West Coast in

the 1920s brought with it a Japanese snail

(Ocenebra japonica) that preys on oysters, a

flatworm (Pseudostylochus ostreophagus), and

possibly also a copepod parasite (Mytilicola

orientalism) (104). The Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis) was found infecting

several indigenous fishes in North America during the 1970s; it entered the country earlier,

probably in infected grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (42,48).

Today, most imported freight is packed into

standardized, boxcar-sized containers for ease of

shipping and handling (70). Containerized freight

is difficult to inspect, requiring costly unloading

and reloading of the contents (61). Consequently,

inspections tend to occur only when there is good

cause to suspect illegal imports or contamination

by pests. Decreased inspection increases the

possibility that NIS will go undetected (82).

Freight containers can sit idle at ports for weeks

or longer before loading, during which time

organisms can board and become hidden (12,63).

Also, containers generally are not cleaned between shipments (70). Containerized freight is

thus thought to be a significant pathway for the

entry of insects, weed seed, slugs, and snails into

the country (12,53,63). Containerized shipments

of used tires were the source for introductions of

the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) from

1985 to 1988, until new U.S. Public Health

Service regulations required tires to be mosquito

free (30) (box 3-A). At least 15 percent of the

snails and slugs intercepted by Federal agriculture

inspectors between 1984 and 1991 were in freight

containers (12). Since containers frequently are

not unloaded until they reach their inland destinations, any species they contain are released within

the country rather than at a port of entry. This

reverses the historical pattern wherein species

generally first appeared at ports of entry (53).

Crates were the source of at least 11 percent of

the mollusks intercepted by Federal inspectors

from 1984 to mid-1991 (12). The crating and

packing material itself poses additional risks. A

threatening new bark beetle (Tomicus piniperda),

discovered near Cleveland, Ohio in 1992, is

believed to have entered the country in ship’s

dunnage (wood packing material) (78). Packing

material used to ship dishes from Greece is

suspected to have been the pathway for the new

weed early millet (Milium vernale) (65). Unprocessed wood and wood products have been a

source of forest pests and pathogens in the past

(1 1); current concerns center on their potential to

convey pests from Asia to forests in the Pacific

Northwest (101) (see also box 4-B). Wooden

crates carrying oysters have been suggested,

although not proven, as a possible source of

wood-boring aquatic animals as well (19).

Some NIS stow away on cars and other

conveyances. This is thought to be a pathway by

which weed seeds spread, including across national borders from Mexico and Canada into the

United States (63). Noxious weed seeds have

been intercepted in aircraft, automobiles, railway

cars, ships, tractor trailers, and other vehicles

entering 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 81

Box 3-A–The Unwelcome Arrival of the Asian Tiger Mosquito

On August 2, 1985, the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) was discovered in Houston, apparently

imported in containerized shipments of used tires. An aggressive biter and prolific breeder, this species is a vector

of 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. Experts

predict that rapid evolution of cold-tolerant and heat-tolerant strains may eventually allow the mosquito to occupy

an even broader range. The mosquito thrives in used tires-it breeds in the small, protected pools of water often

found inside. Unfortunately, more than 2 billion scrap tires are now piled up in the country, usually close to large

population 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 Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) of the Public Health Service impose regulations requiring that used tire imports be

dry and free of mosquito eggs or larvae. According to one expert, inspection to ensure compliance with the

regulations is minimal. Further, in early 1987, CDC rejected the recommendation of its own expert panel to develop

a $20 million research and control plan, citing fiscal constraints. The American Mosquito Control Association

officially censured CDC’s rejection of the control plan.

Although CDC has done significant research, formulating responses has been largely left to State and local

governments. Their uncoordinated, uneven control efforts have been no match for the problem. Meanwhile, at a

major Florida tire dump nine miles from Disney World, scientists recently isolated eastern equine encephalitis from

the 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 from

Asia,” 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 Eastern

Equine Encephalitis Virus From Aedes dbopictus In Florida,” Science, vol. 257, July 24, 1992, pp. 526-527,

tive forest pest, is thought to have recently found vide a pathway for non-indigenous pests—this

its way to the Pacific northwest on grain ships

(31). Cargo in planes and trucks are important

pathways for insects entering the country (53).

Military freight enters the United States continuously, periodically in high volume. The geographic origin depends on the location of recent

military action. Equipment and supplies sometimes are covered with dirt or mud from the field

(5). These can bean unintended source of insects

and plant pathogens if not properly washed.

Military cargo and equipment historically has

resulted in several introductions of harmful species, like the golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis). This process was vividly demonstrated

in the spread of the brown tree snake (Boiga

irregulars) across islands of the Pacific by

military cargo planes after World War II (41) (see

also box 8-B). In 1992, concerns again surfaced

that military transport of equipment might protime from Operation Desert Storm in the Middle

East (5).

Establishment of the harmful zebra mussel

(Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes

during the 1980s focused attention on ballast

water as an unintentional pathway by which

aquatic species enter the country. Ballast water is

taken on by large cargo ships when they are empty

to provide stability at sea. It is then dumped when

the ship is loaded at a different port. If environments at the two ports are similar, species taken

up in the water at one may become established at

the other, Since 1980, at least eight new NIS

entered U.S. waters by way of dumped ballast

water (71) (table 3-l). These include the potentially damaging European ruffe (Gymnocephalus

cernuus) and two non-indigenous clams newly

established in California bays (Theora lubrica

and Potamocorbula amurensis) (12,21). The po -
82 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

tential for species transfers by ballast water is

great; at least 367 distinctly identifiable taxonomic groups of plants and animals have been

found in the ballast water of ships arriving in

Oregon from Japan (22).

INTENTIONAL PATHWAYS

Large amounts of plant germ plasm arrive

annually for use in the breeding and development

of plants for agriculture, horticulture, and soil

conservation. Plants for pasture and range improvement and wildlife forage may be directly

planted in uncultivated areas. Some notable pests

have been introduced in the past for soil conservation including kudzu (Pueraria lobata) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) was introduced to California as an

ornamental plant, and also used by the U.S. Soil

Conservation Service for preventing erosion. It

now has spread to at least 500,000 acres in the

State, where it displaces indigenous flora and

fauna and is a serious weed of tree plantations

(10). Concerns continue today regarding the pest

potential of new species deliberately released for

preventing erosion (84).

Although most plant introductions are legal,

some do occur illegally. Often these involve

species for ornamental horticulture smuggled into

Hawaii (63). Some seeds are sent to plant breeders

in the United States through international firstclass mail to avoid inspection or quarantine at the

port of entry (8). Baggage accompanying individuals visiting or returning to the United States is a

common pathway for the illegal transport of NIS.

At least 82 percent of the plants or seeds of

noxious weeds intercepted at U.S. ports of entry

between October 1987 and mid-July 1990 occurred in baggage (106). The ultimate fate of

organisms entering in baggage is unknown, but it

is likely some have been grown or otherwise

released by their owners. For example, Asian

water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is a Federal

noxious weed and a prohibited aquatic weed

under Florida State regulations. Yet, from 1979

through 1990, Florida State officials recorded 20

cases of illegal possession of seeds or deliberate

plantings (83).

Intentional importation and release for biological control of pests has been a source of nonindigenous insects, snails, fish, plant pathogens,

and nematodes (12,26,53,82). Estimates are that

a total of 722 non-indigenous insect species have

been purposely introduced in the United States for

biological control of pests. Of these, 237 have

become established (44). Since 1980, at least 6

insect species have been newly introduced in the

country for biological control (table 3-l). Insects

also have been purposely released for plant

pollination; researchers from the U.S. Agricultural Research Service working in California

released several thousand mason bees (Osrnia

cornuta) from Spain in experimental tests from

1976 to 1984 (96).

During the late 1980s, two plant pathogens

were introduced for biological control: a nematode (Subanguina picridis) from Russia to control

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) and a rust

fungus (Puccinia carduorum) from Turkey to

control musk thistle (Carduus nutans) (82). Two

illegal introductions of plant pathogens in 1990

were a smut fungus (Ustilago esculenta), which is

grown on Manchuria rice (Zizania latifolia) to

produce edible galls, and the chrysanthemum

white rust (Puccinia horiana), which is used by

hobbyists to produce unusual flowers (82). In

both cases of illegal introduction the infected

plants were located by authorities and subsequently destroyed (82).

Although generally less common today than in

the past, State wildlife managers continue to

import and release non-indigenous birds for game

hunting. Between 1985 and 1988 the State of

Michigan imported 3,600 eggs of the Sichuan

pheasant from China-a subspecies of the already

established ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) (97). Like its predecessor, the bird is

expected to cause few problems; nevertheless, the

Sichuan’s broad habitat range and ‘‘unbelievable

adaptability” (97) suggest its introduction should

be carefully evaluated.
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 183

The advent of containerized freight allows direct

introduction of harmful non-indigenous species

throughout the country-instead of just at U.S.

ports of entry.

Intentional introductions of fishes from abroad

also are less common today, but continue still.

The State of Texas tried unsuccessfully to introduce the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and bigeye

lates (Lates mariae) in 1979 and 1983, respectively (26). North Dakota recently proposed to

introduce the European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca), which critics feared might transmit

diseases to or hybridize with indigenous fish like

the walleye (S. vitreum) (28).

Some non-indigenous clams and oysters have

been intentionally imported and released for

commercial exploitation (12). Among these is the

Pacific oyster, imported from Japan, which now

is successfully grown and harvested in West

Coast bays from Washington to California (46).

Recent proposals to transfer the Pacific oyster to

the East Coast have been controversial, and the

introduction has not occurred thus far (see ch. 7).

ESCAPE OR RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT

Species imported to be held in captivity sometimes subsequently escape or are released. Often,

determining which of the two has occurred is

difficult (i.e., whether the introduction is intentional or accidental). For example, the source of

bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobi!is) recently established in Mississippi is unclear. Some

contend it escaped from aquiculture facilities,

while others believe it was illegally released in

order to establish free-living populations (27).

Many plants and seeds of foreign origin are

directly marketed in the United States, especially

for ornamental horticulture. Quarantine of imported species primarily guards against unintentional importation of insects, pathogens, and

other pests, rather than the noxious qualities of the

plant itself. Thus, specialized nurseries can offer

‘‘ivies of the world’ (7), even though English ivy

(Hedera helix) is known to cause ecological

damage in deciduous forests of the eastern United

States.

Significant numbers of non-indigenous plants

have escaped from human cultivation. Among the

300 weed species of the western United States, at

least 28 escaped from horticulture and 8 from

agriculture (107). Baby’s breath (Gysophila elegans), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), and creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides) all are

horticultural species that become weeds outside

of gardens (107). Some 300 established nonindigenous plant species in California are escapees from ornamental horticulture (68). These

include a number of invasive weeds of native

vegetation, such as European gorse (Ulex europaeus), Andean pampas grass (Cortaderia

jubata), and Scotch broom (68). A new addition is

oleander (Nerium oleander), now well established along the Sacramento River and in the

northern Central Valley (14). The edible fig

(Ficus carica), has recently escaped from agriculture and become established in some riparian

woodlands (14).

Several NIS imported for medical diagnostic or

research purposes have escaped in the past. The

recent spread of African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) to the United States was set in

motion by escape of bees from a research facility

in Brazil in 1957 (52). The giant tiger shrimp

(Penaeus monodon), originally from the IndoPacific, escaped into South Carolina’s coastal

waters from the Waddell Research Facility in
84 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

1988 (19). The African clawed frog (Xenopus

laevis) was originally imported in the 1930s for

use in diagnostic pregnancy tests, but had established free-living populations in California by

1969 (69). The Asian Amur maple (Acer ginnala)-

a potential weed of Midwestern natural areashas now become common in woods and fields

surrounding the Lincoln, Missouri, plant testing

center of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, from

where it apparently escaped (36).

A different kind of research introduction involved peanut (Arachis hypogaea) germ plasm

imported from China in 1978 that was unknowingly contaminated with the peanut stripe virus

(82). In 1983, the virus was found in peanut

breeding lines at university experimental farms

from Texas to Virginia to Florida-it had inadvertently been introduced by distribution of the

diseased germ plasm to numerous researchers.

Throughout a number of States, ranchers have

introduced non-indigenous, big-game animals

onto private lands for ranching, to enhance

hunting opportunities, or for other purposes. The

more than 450 members of the Exotic Wildlife

Association combined own an estimated 200,000

head of some 125 NIS (92). Many of the game

animals are held in fenced enclosures, but some

eventually escape. Indeed, a committee from the

State of Wyoming considers such escapes ‘inevitable” (57). Texas has the highest numbers of

non-indigenous big-game animals; in 1989 the

State was home to l64,257 free-ranging animals

of 123 species (94). The State government,

however, treats these animals as livestock and not

as wildlife (94).

About 23 percent of the vertebrate species of

foreign origin that currently live in the wild were

originally imported as cage birds or other wildlife

pets (95). Given the high U.S. rates of pet

imports-estimated to be hundreds of thousands

to millions of wild birds, aquarium fish, and

reptiles annually (33,59)-the potential for pet

escapes and releases is great. Illegal imports

further expand the total numbers and types of

organisms brought into the country. In one recent

Snails commonly enter the United States

unintentionally on plants or agricultural produce

but the African giant snail (Achatina fulica) was

smuggled into the country and sold in Florida and

Virginia pet stores.

example, perhaps as many as hundreds of fistsized African giant snails (Achatina fulica) were

smuggled into the country from Nigeria and sold

in Florida and Virginia pet stores (3,4).

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and

Wildlife recently summarized the frequent reports of pet escapes in that State (16), Escaped or

recovered pets in that State from 1988 through

1992 included: a 20-pound crocodile (Caiman

crocodiles); 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 (Felis

rufus); and nine European fallow deer (Dama

dama). Escaped monk and black-hooded parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus and Nandayus nen -

day) are known to have established free-living

populations in the northeast (16). More anecdotal

accounts of escaped pets generally are common in

the popular press (2).

Fish and aquatic invertebrates such as shrimp

frequently escape from confinement. The peacock cichlid (Cichla ocellaris) was intentionally

stocked in Florida’s warm water canals during the

mid-1980s. It subsequently escaped (1 10), de-
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 8 5

spite detailed analysis by the State before stocking that concluded the fish would remain limited

to the canals (81),

The aquarium trade remains a significant

pathway by which snails enter the United States.

During the past few decades at least three snail

species entered U.S. waters when they were

discarded by aquarium dealers or their customers

(12). Some plants also are distributed for use in

aquaria. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), an aquatic

weed that causes a significant navigation hazard

and ecological harm, first entered U.S. waters

sometime after 1956, it is thought, when it was

released by aquarium dealers to create a domestic

source (11 1). Release from aquaria was the source

of at least 7 non-indigenous fish species that have

become established since 1980 (27). Some were

found in remote natural areas, like the green

swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) and zebra danio

(Brachydanio rerio), which were discovered in

the 1980s living in warm springs of Grand Teton

National Forest (26). The aquarium fish trade is

thought to be the source of at least 27 nonindigenous fish species now established in the

continental United States (29).

Pessimism about the ability to keep aquiculture species confined is so great that, according to

some, including the Federal interagency Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force, species maintained

for this purpose are virtually guaranteed of

eventually escaping to the wild (26,89,99). Potentially free-living non-indigenous shrimp are grown

in at least four coastal States (79), and the

commonly cultured Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) was captured in 1991 off the

coast of South Carolina (1). Escape from aquiculture facilities is thought to have been a major

source of the many tropical aquarium species now

found in Florida’s waters (29).

If an NIS imported into confinement harbors

any other species, these also may eventually

escape. Escape from a fish aquiculture facility is

thought to have been the source of the freshwater

snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) found in the

Snake River in 1987 and now threatening indigenous mollusks in the region (12). Numerous fish

pathogens and parasites have accompanied introductions for aquiculture and fishery enhancement

(42). Five non-indigenous shrimp viruses entered

the United States in contaminated shrimp stock

and have become widely distributed in the

aquiculture industry (60). Fish imported into the

aquarium trade commonly harbor parasites. One

1984 study of hundreds of fish shipped from

southeast Asia and South America found infestation rates of from 61 to 98 percent (90). Whether

and how many pathogens and parasites have

escaped from aquiculture facilities or aquaria is

unknown.

Present Pathways of Spread Within the

United States

Many NIS have continued to spread within the

United States long after they entered and became

established, sometimes even after the pathway by

which they entered the country was closed. This

is true for European gypsy moth (Lymantria

dispar) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), which continue to spread and cause harm

at new locations (figure 3-2). For such species, the

means of transport within the country is more

important from a management or regulatory

perspective than how they originally entered.

Pathways of species movement within the country also are significant for U.S. species that have

been transported beyond their natural ranges.

However, there is relatively little quantitative

information about the pathways and rates of

species movement within the country. Systematic

reporting of regional species transfers is virtually

non-existent, In part this results from a definitional inconsistency. Many resource managers do

not consider U.S. species moved outside of their

natural ranges to be non-indigenous. In some

cases, particularly in fisheries management, a

distinction is made between “exotic’ species

(i.e., non-indigenous to the United States) and

‘‘transplanted’ ones (i.e., species indigenous to

the United States but moved beyond their natural
86 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

40

Figure 3-2-State by State Spread of Four Harmful Non-Indigenous Species

Purple loosestrife (Lythrurm salicaria)1

Year

■ 1900

❑ 1940

❑ 1985

—

I I I I I I

I

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) 2

Year

■ 1939

196 0

198 3

y

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

SOURCES:

1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, and E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lyfhrurn sakada) in North American

Wetlands (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), American

Ma/aco/cgica/Bu//efin,Speciai Edition No. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39.
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 87

40 ,

30 ‘

5 {

Figure 3-2—State by State Spread of Four Harmful Non-Indigenous Species-Continued

1870

40 ,

30 !

a

>

I —

z 15

10

5 ’

o I

1870

SOURCES:

European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)3 

/

1890 1910 1930 1950

Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris)4

.— t-\

1970 1990

Year

■ 1969

% 1991

F---<-

1 ——~ I —

–T——-–

1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

3. P.W. Schaefer and R.W. Fuester, “Gypsy Moths: Thwarting Their Wandering Ways,” Agricultural Research, May 1991, pp. 4-11; M.L. McManus

and T, McIntyre, “Introduction, ” The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward /ntegrated Pest Management, C.C. Deane and M.L. McManus (eds.)

(Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service, Technical Bulletin no. 1584, 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. T.S. Prather et al., “Common Crupina: Biology, Management, and Eradication,” University of Idaho, Agricultural Experiment Station, Current

Information Series No. 680, 1991.
88 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ranges) (66). Introduction dates are largely unrecorded for most transplanted fish (26). Systematic

reporting also is lacking for continued restocking

of NIS already established in an area or of new

introductions of NIS in common use elsewhere in

the United States. Several generalizations can be

made despite these limitations.

UNASSISTED SPREAD

Once established, some NIS of foreign origin

disperse even in the absence of human activities.

Few geographic barriers block the transcontinental expansion of some NIS, like the African honey

bee and Asian tiger mosquito. The American elm

bark beetle (Hylurgopinus rufipes) can be a vector

of Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulmi) (56).

Plants like the Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus

terebinthifolius) in Florida have been spread by

wildlife that consume the tree’s seeds (1 11). The

range of certain fish parasites has expanded as

infected fish have migrated within and between

watersheds (42).

Natural disasters provide new opportunities for

the establishment of certain NIS. The 1992

passage of Hurricane Andrew through Florida

knocked down indigenous trees, spurring the

growth of non-indigenous vines in some natural

areas; State officials fear this ‘‘window of opportunity’ may result in permanent domination of

certain indigenous plant communities by NIS

(45). A similar situation exists in Hawaii, where

Hurricane Iniki in 1992 cleared the way for

expansion of several harmful plants like banana

poka (Passiflora mollissima) (37). A recent

aquatic example is the explosive population

growth by an Asian clam (Potamocorbula amurensis) in San Francisco Bay following a major flood

that eliminated other species more vulnerable to

reduced salinity (75).

UNINTENTIONAL AND INTENTIONAL PATHWAYS

In contrast to these unassisted types of spread,

a significant number of NIS expand throughout

the United States via pathways associated with

human activities. Some of these are the same

pathways that bring new species into the country,

like ballast water (71). Others are unique to the

domestic movement of species, such as the

releases of non-indigenous bait animals like the

sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) and

the Asian clam (12,26).

A number of these domestic pathways are

linked to national distribution systems that enable

a NIS to become widely disseminated and introduced many times throughout the country. Such

multiple introductions speed NIS dispersal and

have significant consequences for the choice of

appropriate management strategies (see ch. 5).

Species that are sold commercially, for example, have great potential to be transported throughout a broad geographic area. Commercial distribution in the 19th century seed trade aided the

spread of at least 28 non-indigenous weeds,

including several of the nation’s worst weeds, like

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), salt cedar

(Tamarix africana and T. gallica), water hyacinth

(Eichhornia spp.), and kudzu (62,64). Sales of

harmful non-indigenous plants continue today. At

least six non-indigenous plant species on the

Federal noxious weed list-hydrilla, for examplewere sold in interstate commerce in 1990 (105).

Of Illinois’s 35 weeds of natural areas, 21 are

legally sold in the nursery trade throughout the

State (85). Seed of both federally and State-listed

noxious weeds+. g., animated oats (Avena sterilis) and dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria-currently

can be bought at retail stores in Washington State

(65).

Species recommended for specific applications

can become widely distributed. Various agencies

and organizations currently recommend a number

of invasive plants. At least seven cultivars released by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service

since 1980 are potentially invasive, according to

one weed expert (65). Other examples of recommended species include: autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), a plant that displaces indigenous

vegetation in natural areas of the Midwest, by the

Army Corps of Engineers; sawtooth oak (Quercus serrata), an Asian tree currently invading
3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions! 89

southeastern forests, by the South Carolina Department of Fish and Game; and leuceana (Leucaena leucocephala), a rapidly growing tree from

Central America that invades disturbed lowlands

in Hawaii, by the Arbor Day Foundation (77).

Current popular interest in “wildflowers” for

ornamental uses and ‘‘native grasses” for livestock and wildlife forage (86) may inadvertently

be fueling widespread planting of NIS in natural

and semi-natural areas. In one 1992 “wildflower’ seed catalog, only about 60 percent of the

listed species were indigenous, and at least 80

percent of the NIS listed have escaped cultivation

in the United States—plants like cornflower

(Centaurea cyanus), crimson clover (Trifolium

incarnatum), and dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis), all originally from Europe ( 109). Plants

marketed as ‘‘native grasses’ in seed catalogs

sometimes are non-indigenous and may even be

known to be potentially invasive, like Bermuda

grass (Cynodon dactylon), Russian wild rye

(Psathyrostachys junceus), and Japanese millet

(Echinochloa crus-galli var.frumentacea) (65,87,108).

Non-indigenous plants, including both those

sold in the horticultural trade and known weeds,

find their way into natural areas through various

pathways. Rock Creek National Park in the

District of Columbia now has 33 invasive NIS,

some of which spread from adjacent gardens or

landscape plantings; rooted from discarded yard

refuse; entered as seed in topsoil, root balls,

riprap, and lawn-legume mixtures; or were carried in by animals (39). Garlic mustard (Alliaria

petiolata), a weed of natural areas, was frost

recorded in Illinois in 1918. It has since spread

throughout 42 counties in the State, carried by

flood waters; automobiles; trains; mowers; and

the boots, clothes, and hair of hikers (76).

Numerous highly damaging weeds, such as

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and spotted

knapweed (Centauraea maculosa), were spread

as contaminants of agricultural seed before the

enactment of seed purity laws early in this century

(9). The extent to which contamination of seed

currently not covered by these laws, such as

flower seed, is a pathway for harmful NIS is

unknown,

Shipments of live plants can also inadvertently

harbor NIS. A 1989 survey found that cabbage

(Brassica oleracea) seedlings transported to New

York from Georgia, Maryland, and Florida were

infested with an average of up to eight larvae of

the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) per

hundred plants (88). A tree frog (Hyla cinerea), an

anole (Anolis spp.), and a scarlet kingsnake

(Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides) were some

of the finds in recent plant shipments to Massachusetts (16). The high volume of traffic in

nursery stock and landscaping plants is thought to

play an important role in moving non-indigenous

insects throughout the United States (53). Between 1989 and 1992, three of the six nonindigenous insect species from elsewhere in the

United States that became established in California arrived on plants (35).

Inadvertent transfers of animals can occur

when plants are transplanted for restoration or

wildlife enhancement. In 1957, shoal grass (Diplanthera wightii) was shipped from Texas to the

California Salton Sea to provide waterfowl forage. The plants carried a number of aquatic

invertebrates (like the crustaceans Gammarus

mucronatus and Corophium louisianum), which

subsequently became established there (19).

Agricultural produce shipped interstate sometimes harbors non-indigenous pests. This is the

basis for many of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s domestic quarantines.2 Some of the costly

infestations of Mediterranean fiuit flies (Ceratitis

capitata) in California might have originated in

tropical produce sent via frost-class mail from

Hawaii (91). A recent cooperative warrant system

for inspection of first-class mail between Hawaii

and 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 States

States frequently stock non-indigenous fish to enhance

sport fisheries, and this has been an important

pathway for the entry and spread of non-indigenous

species historically.

Various animals are available through the mail

for wildlife enhancement nationwide, including

water fleas (Daphnia spp.), freshwater shrimp,

crayfish, fresh water clams, turtles, and bull frogs

(108); whether these species are non-indigenous

in some regions where they are marketed is

impossible to determine, since species names are

not always listed. The 1989 “Buyer’s Guide” in

Aquiculture Magazine lists 82 species of freshwater and marine fish, invertebrates, and algae

available for sale in the United States (20). Sales

of the European fish the rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) for use as bait eventually resulted in

its capture in eight States (13).

Interstate shipments of fish and wildlife sometimes harbor NIS other than the intended species.

Reported incidents include inadvertent introductions to California of the Texas big-scale logperch

(Percina macrolepida) and rainwater killifish

(Lucania parva) from New Mexico with shipments of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (73). The distribution of the sticklebacks

(Gasteosteus aculeatus) in regions of Southern

California where it is non-indigenous maybe due

to its unintended presence in trout stocks used to

enhance sport fisheries (73). Fish shipped interstate sometimes carry larvae of freshwater mussels (Anodonta spp.) (93). Containers of the

Pacific oyster from California to the East Coast in

1979 contained numerous stowaway mussels,

worms, and crustaceans (19). A fish parasite, the

Asian copepod Argulus japonicus, is thought to

have spread throughout the country via the

aquarium trade (71).

Indigenous and non-indigenous insects, snails,

and fish have been transferred within the United

States for biological control (12,53). Since the

1970s, the non-indigenous snail Rumina decollata has been raised, sold, and distributed throughout an estimated 50,000 acres of citrus groves in

California as a biological control for non-indigenous snail pests (38). The grass carp, originally

from Asia, has been widely propagated and sold

for biological control of aquatic weeds (26).

Although largely unmonitored today, interstate

shipments of biological control agents are a

potential source of insect pathogens and parasites; according to an expert on the species, the

wasp Perilitus coccinellae, a parasite of the

indigenous convergent lady beetle (Hippodamia

convergent) already is spread in this reamer (5 1).

In international transit, by contrast, such pests

would probably be intercepted through inspection

and quarantine.

Interstate transfers of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies inadvertently facilitated the rapid

spread of honey bee parasites (varroa mites—

Varroa jacobsoni—and tracheal mites—

Acarapis woodi) (74). According to a 1982

survey, about a quarter of all commercially

operated colonies (500,000) are moved south

each winter to prevent losses from the cold, and

about 2 million colonies are rented each year for

pollination. The result is large-scale movements

of colonies throughout the country that helped

spread the damaging varroa mite to 30 States in

just 4 years following its 1987 detection in

Florida and Wisconsin (74). The honey bee

industry has concerns that such interstate transfers may similarly enable rapid spread of the

African honey bee which recently arrived in

Texas (74).
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 91

Researchers working on NIS have been the

source of several introductions throughout the

country. The rapid spread of the Asian clam, a

serious fouler of pipes in power plants, is thought

to have been assisted by inadvertent research

releases (25). The California sea squirt (Botrlloides diegense, a marine animal) was released by a

scientist at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in 1972

and is now an abundant fouler of rocks, piers, and

boat hulls throughout southern New England

(19). Plant breeders regularly trade germ plasm

for breeding purposes-some from potentially

invasive species. One reported having acquired

the salt- and drought-tolerant ruby salt bush

(Enchylaeua tomentosa), originally from Australia) “from a nursery in Tucson who got it from

Soil Conservation Service, who decided not to

officially release it since it was such a potential

pest, which it is” (8).

Even shipments of inanimate objects and

vehicles can harbor NIS. The European gypsy

moth can travel long distances clinging to household articles, lawn furniture, firewood, lawn

mowers, and recreational vehicles such as motor

homes, campers, and boats (32). Since 1984,

California border inspectors have intercepted

imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta and S.

ritcheri) along State lines, in decreasing order of

frequency, in nonagricultural shipments (e.g.,

pallets, roofing materials, carpets); empty trucks;

agricultural shipments; automobiles; U-Hauls;

and nursery stock (58). At least 3,000 Japanese

beetles (Popillia japonica) were found in cargo

planes landing at Ontario, California, from the

eastern United States in 1986 (34). The Asian

cockroach (Blattella asahinai) has spread in

Florida mainly by hitching rides on cars leaving

infested areas (72). The tiny Argentine ant

(Iridomyrmex humilis)--an inadvertent 1906 introduction to New Orleans-has dispersed widely

by way of the dirt on truck mud flaps, among other

means (23).

Dumped ballast water, known to be a significant pathway for harmful introductions from

c

u) o

>

Several harmful non-indigenous species have

hitchhiked into the country with returning military

equipment, e.g., the brown tree snake (Boiga

irregulars), witchweed (Striga asiatica), and the

golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis).

Similarly, motor homes, automobiles, and boats help

spread harmful NIS within the United States.

abroad, has also provided a means for species

spread within the country. Since 1980, at least

three NIS entered the Great Lakes from other U.S.

locales in ballast water: the four-spine sticklebacks

fish (Apeltes quadracus), an aquatic worm (Ripistes parasitic), and a green alga (Nitellopsis

obtusa) (71). In the absence of effective control or

containment, the ruffe-a harmful Eurasian fish

(see ch. 2)--is expected to spread via ships’

ballast and other means perhaps are far as the

Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri River drainage

basins (43).

HOW MANY NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

ARE THERE?

Finding:

Estimated numbers of NIS in the United

States increased over the past 100 years for all

groups of organisms OTA examined. At least

several thousand non-indigenous insect and

plant species occur in this country, as do

several hundred non-indigenous vertebrate,

mollusk, fish, and plant pathogen species.
92 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-2-Estimated Numbers of Non-indigenous Species in the United Statesa

Species with origins outside of the United States

Percentage of total species in

Category Number the United States in category

Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2,000 b

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 142 =6%

Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . . >2,000 =2%

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 = 8 %

Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . 91 =40/0

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 - P

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,542

Species of U.S. origin introduced beyond their natural ranges

Percentage of total species in

Category Number the United States in category

Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 51 =2%

Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . . b

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 =17%c

Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . b b

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

a 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 are

calculated as the percent of the total U.S. flora or fauna in that category.

SOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessment from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, 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 of Technology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-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 Plant

Pathogens 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 the

United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Current Numbers

An estimated total of at least 4,500 NIS of

foreign origin presently are established in the

United States (table 3-2). This estimate is based

on analysis of six categories of organisms,

omitting several others such as animal pathogens

and crustaceans (see ch. 2, table 2-l). It also does

not capture most marine species, like the majority

of the 96 species of sponges, worms, crustaceans,

and other non-indigenous marine invertebrates

now found in San Francisco Bay (17). Also,

numbers shown in table 3-2 are minimum estimates for each category. For example, about half

of the U.S. insect fauna is unknown, suggesting

information on a similar proportion of nonindigenous insects may be lacking (53). Studies

of plant pathogens focus on species of economic

importance; species affecting only natural areas

are chronically under-reported (82). Newly established species that have not yet been detected also

do not figure in table 3-2.

Numbers of NIS vary among the categories.

Plants and insects total in the thousands, while

NIS in other categories range from tens to
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 93

hundreds (table 3-2). This is at least in part

because there simply are more plants and insects

than fish or terrestrial vertebrates. Despite these

differences in absolute numbers, the proportion of

NIS 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 to

the current U.S. total difficult (82). A survey of

six potential host plants (potato, rhododendron,

citrus, wheat, Douglas fir, kudzu) found that an

average of at least 13 percent of their pathogens

are non-indigenous (82). Non-indigenous pathogens are least common on indigenous or newly

introduced plant hosts (82).

Very little information exists on how many

species of U.S. origin have been transplanted

within the country beyond their natural ranges.

Estimates are approximately 2 percent of the U.S.

fauna for terrestrial vertebrates and 17 percent for

fish (table 3-2).

Past Numbers

The number of NIS of foreign origin has grown

in the United States over the past 200 years.

Figure 3-3 shows how the totals have expanded

for the six categories of organisms. The major

increase occurred during the past 100 years for all

categories.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Finding:

Non-indigenous species are unevenly distributed across the country. Higher concentrations occur around international ports of

entry, in areas of active commerce, and in

altered habitats. Nevertheless, NIS having

significant negative impacts can be found in

most regions of the country.

Non-indigenous species are more common in

some places than others. Differences occur both

among States (table 3-3), and also among regions

within individual States. Ports of entry often

harbor high numbers of NIS. This is especially

true for plants, insects, snails, and slugs that arrive

undetected in incoming ships and planes (12,53,63).

The type of material arriving at a port influences

the specific NIS that become established nearby.

For example, numerous European insects were

frost detected in Rochester, New York, when the

city supported an extensive nursery industry and

large numbers of plants were routinely unloaded

there (53).

Existing patterns of higher densities of NIS

surrounding port areas developed over the past

200 years during colonization of the United

States. The emergence of containerized freight

since the 1950s may change this pattern, since

freight containers often are not unloaded until

reaching their destination well away from a port.

Areas of frequent commerce away from ports

also tend to have higher numbers of NIS, For

example, extensive agriculture and related trade

and shipping in the Intermountain West (northern

Utah and the Columbia Plateau) over the past 100

years have provided abundant opportunities for

NIS associated with agriculture to enter and

spread within the region (63).

Certain NIS tend to cluster around human

population centers. High concentrations of escaped non-indigenous pets occur around Los

Angeles and Miami (95). Disproportionately high

numbers of non-indigenous snails and slugs

similarly occur in populous areas, reflecting their

association with greenhouses, gardens, and agricultural commerce (12). Areas, such as Hawaii,

supporting human populations with international

origins tend to have larger numbers of NIS,

because the species imported and released mirror

the human population’s diversity of tastes and

experience (63).

Urban centers often are an important site for the

discovery of non-indigenous insect pests. For

example, in California 85 percent of nonindigenous scale insects and whiteflies were first

reported in cities (40). However, in this case

proximity to ports of entry and the enhanced

detection potential may also have been factors.

Detection of NIS sometimes may be greater in
94 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure 3-3-Estimates of the Cumulative Numbers of Non-indigenous Species of Foreign Origin

in the United Statesa

~ Plants pathogens /

II Terrestrial vertebrates

1790 1840 1890 1940 1990

100

90

10

0

J D Mollusks I o Fish

I I I I I

1790 1840 1890 1940 1990

2)000

1,800 u-l

: 1,600

a)

% 1,400

z

~ 1,200

: 1,000

2 800

$ 600

7

E 400

8 200

.

■ Plants

❑ Insects

, -

0

1

I I I 1

1790 1840 1890 1940 1990

SOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessment

from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the

United States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1891; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathways and

Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the

United States, ’’contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and

Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack,

“Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared fortheoffice of

Technology Assessment, September 1991; Sailer, R. I., “History of

Insect Introductions,” Exotk Plant PesCs and North AmerkmAgdIxJlture, C.L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (New York, NY: Acdemic

Press, 1983), pp. 15-38; C.L. Schoulties, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens 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 the United States,” contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

a Figure 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 because

collection and observation intensity is higher

(12,63).

Regions naturally depauperate in fish and game

have been the sites of numerous intentional

introductions. A lack of indigenous game animals

in the arid State of Nevada prompted State

managers to introduce numerous species including the chukar partridge (Alectoris chukur), ringnecked pheasant, Himalayan snow cock (Tetraogallus himalayensis), and Rocky Mountain goat

(Oreamnos americanus) (102). State agencies

have released many non-indigenous fish in the

American West for similar reasons, where 28

percent of the current fish species are nonindigenous to the region (26).

Intrinsic vulnerability to the establishment of

NIS varies among regions in complex ways. The
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 95

Table 3-3—Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous Species in Selected Statesab

Terrestrial

State Plants vertebrates Mollusks

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 (12%)

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975 (16%

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =925 (27%)

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 (28%)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c

Massachusetts. ., . . . . . . . . . c

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 ( 6%)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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% )

c

c (2% )

c

c (2% )

c

c

0 (

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

)

c

c

aNumbers 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 species

non-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 Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States, ” contractor

report prepared for OTA, October 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-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.), Biogeography

ofkfediterrarrean h?vasiorw (Cambridge University Press); pp. 81-1 01; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and

Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for

OTA, October 1991. See also sources for tables 8-1, 8-5.

tropical and semi-tropical environments of Hawaii and Florida are favorable to greater numbers

of non-indigenous plants than climatically harsher

regions experiencing winter frost and freezing

(63). Escaped fish from aquiculture are more

likely to establish in the benign environment of

“sun-belt” States, where warm temperatures

allow outdoor aquiculture year-round (26).

Disturbed areas are particularly likely to have

large numbers of NIS, as are human modified

habitats. For example, livestock increase disturbance by trampling and grazing. In some rangelands, livestock create conditions unfavorable to

indigenous grasses, allowing colonization by

non-indigenous plants (63).

Combined effects of several of the above

factors especially favor NIS. In New England,

proximity to ports, extensive agriculture, and

removal of indigenous forests have created a

region where 29 percent of the plant species are

non-indigenous (63).

Are Rates of Movement and

Establishment Increasing?

Finding:

OTA found no clear evidence that the rates

at which NIS are added from abroad to the

Nation’s flora and fauna have consistently

increased over the past 50 years. Instead, rates

have fluctuated widely over time in response to

an array of social, political, and technological

factors.

A common assertion is that rates of species

movement into the United States are increasing

dramatically. OTA tested this by examining the

numbers of NIS added each decade over the past

50 years for terrestrial vertebrates, fish, mollusks,
96 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-4-Number of New Species of Foreign Origin Established Per Decadea

1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990

Terrestrial vertebrates. . 3 11 13 3 b

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 15 18 5 12

Mollusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 6 10 4

Plant pathogens . . . . . . 3 5 4 16 7

a Numbers should be considered minimum estimates. Experts believe many more NIS are established in the country, but have not yet been detected.

b Data unavailable.

SOURCES:J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarfne 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 of T~hnology

Assessment, September 1991; C.L. schoulties, “PathwaysandConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens 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 the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1991.

and plant pathogens. No consistent increase

occurred for any of the categories (table 3-4).

Instead, the rate of NIS addition fluctuated. The

greatest numbers of terrestrial vertebrates and fish

were added during the 1950s and 1960s. The

1970s saw the most mollusks and plant pathogens

arrive. A limitation of this analysis is that recently

established species may not yet be detected. Thus

numbers for the period 1980 to 1990 are likely

underestimates.

Suitable data for comparable analyses of plants

and insects are unavailable. However, a previous

study of agricultural pests (insects and other

invertebrates) in California showed the numbers

of species established each year similarly varied

greatly between 1955 and 1988 from zero to a

high of 17 (figure 3-4) (34).

Even though rates of species addition tend to

change over time, it is important to note that they

rarely reach zero. NIS are continually being added

to the nation’s flora and fauna, and the cumulative

numbers are climbing (figure 3-3). Also, rates

throughout the 20th century have been consistently higher than those during the preceding

century.

FACTORS AFFECTING PATHWAYS AND

RATES

Pathways and rates of species entry to the

United States vary because they are influenced by

many factors (table 3-5). Many pathways that

were significant sources of NIS in the past have

either declined in importance or ceased to operate.

Such pathways, nevertheless, frequently are mentioned in discussions of NIS and can confuse

attempts to identify present-day problems (boxes

3-B and 3-C).

Some technological innovations enhance introduction rates. For example, the advent of commercial air traffic in the 1930s greatly facilitated

the transport of small birds and fish that previously had been difficult to keep alive and healthy

on longer voyages (67,95). It had a similar effect

on the successful number of insect introductions

for biological control (44).

Other new technologies have slowed rates.

Many important weeds, such as tumbleweed

(Salsola iberica), entered and spread throughout

the United States as contaminants of agricultural

seed in the 1700s and 1800s (63). Improvements

in threshing and harvesting machinery beginning

in the 1800s decreased seed contamination (63).

Changing fashions in species preferences can

drive importation, especially of organisms valued

for their aesthetic qualities. Preferences for potted

plants in Hawaii support an active illicit commerce in NIS from other tropical and subtropical

areas (112). Rates of introduction of aquatic

snails accelerated during the 1970s, apparently

because of expansion of the aquarium trade and

renewed interest in freshwater aquiculture (12).

Some preferences relate to patterns of human
3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 97

Figure 3-4-Numbers of New Insect and Other Invertebrate Species Established in California 1955-1988

18

16- -+- Number new species

14-

12-

10-

8 - Aa

6-

A

4 -

2 -

0 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w 1 I m I 1

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

SOURCE: 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 California

from Asia since the 1970s has led to growing

importation of Asian foods and associated pests

(34).

Political and economic factors are also significant. The location and size of military actions

determine their potential for species transfer.

Several agricultural pests returned from Europe

with military cargo and supplies following World

War II. Several aquatic invertebrates from southeast Asia are thought to have entered lagoons and

bays of California during the Vietnam War (18).

State and Federal plant quarantine laws slowed

rates of introduction of insect pests and plant

pathogens after 1912 (80,82). A reversal of this

trend for plant pathogens after 1970 (figure 3-3;

table 3-4) may relate to globalization of agriculture and increased plant imports (82). The Federal

Seed Act, diminished the flow of weed species

into the United States that previously had entered

as seed contaminants.

Actions of interested constituencies can have

an effect insofar as they influence laws and

regulations restricting species flow. Conferences,

position statements, and other activities of the

American Fisheries Society since 1969 helped

motivate States to regulate releases of nonindigenous fish (26,55). Conversely, effective

lobbying by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory

Council helped halt Federal efforts to tighten

regulation of fish and wildlife imports during the

1970s (26) (see also box 4-A).

Finally, the “bias of opportunity” (63)-the

arbitrary aspect of where pathways happen to

appear-always plays a role. For the past 30 years

or more, the primary pathway for aquatic species

into the Great Lakes has been through shipping—

corresponding to the opening of the St. Lawrence

Seaway in 1959(71). As the shipping industry has

grown in this region, so too has the number of NIS

introductions; shipping was the pathway for 29

NIS introduced between 1960 and 1990 (71).

Construction of roads into new areas similarly

increased the opportunity for species movement.

Urbanization around Tucson, Arizona, contributed to an increase in the non-indigenous plants

established 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 of

harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts will

continue to grow. An important question is
98 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-5-Factors Affecting Species Movements

Illustrative Technological Innovations

Innovation Effect

Switch from dry to wet ballast in 1800s Changed from transport of insects, seeds, and plant

pathogens to transport of fish and invertebrates

Increased rate of transit via steam ships and airplanes Increased survival of insects, mammals, birds, and fish during

transfer; increased success of introductions

Improvements in threshing and harvesting machinery Decreased contamination of seed lots and entry and spread of

weeds

Styrofoam coolers increased number of fish species amenable to transfer and

their survival

Containerized shipping of freight Created new mechanism for unintentional transfer of plant,

insect, snail, and slug species; direct route to country interior

(i.e., away from shipping port)

Importation of used tires for retreading Created new pathway for entry of mosquitoes

Illustrative Social and Political Factors

Social or political factor Effect

New patterns of immigration and tourism Change pathways for spread of species

Wars and military movements Create new pathways for species spread

Globalization of trade Create new pathways for species spread

Free trade agreements Increase opportunity for species entry

Increased interest in exotic pets Affect kind and number of species imported in the pet trade

Continued interest in new ornamental plants Provide incentive for continued plant exploration and

importation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

whether there are limits to the acceptable total

burden of harmful species in the country. Such

long-term considerations need to be incorporated into shorter term regulatory decisions,

for example, in determining the annual level of

species entry that will be tolerated.

Even at current rates of species introduction,

the total number of NIS in the United States will

continue to grow. More than 205 NIS of foreign

origin have been introduced or first detected in the

United States since 1980, 59 of which are expected to cause economic or environmental harm

(table 3-l). Past and projected losses attributable

to just two of these are great. The Russian wheat

aphid caused losses of over $600 million (1991

dollars) during 1987 through 1989 (24). Projected

losses from the zebra mussel by the end of the

century are expected to be from $1.8 billion to

$3.4 billion (1991 dollars) (24). Both the zebra

mussel and the newly arrived snail Potamopyrgus

antipodarum from Europe are expected to seriously threaten the country’s unique indigenous

fauna of freshwater mussels (12).

Numbers of species new to the United States

give only a partial account of how many new NIS

a given State or area may need to deal with. For

example, between 1984 and 1986, an early

detection program identified 26 plant species new

to Idaho; 12 of these were new to the Pacific

Northwest, but only one was new to North

America (1 13). Of 208 invertebrate pests that

became established in California between 1955

and 1988,47 percent originated somewhere in the

mainland United States (34).

Even some harmful NIS long-established in the

country continue to spread (figure 3-2), taking

several decades or more to reach their full

geographic range and impact. Dutch elm disease

only reached Sacramento County, California, in
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 99

Box 3-B-importations for Fish and Wildlife Management Have Decreased

Spencer Fullerton Baird, the First Commissioner of the U.S. Fish Commission (a predecessor of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) strongly supported introductions of non-indigenous

species to enhance U.S. fishery resources. Numerous species were imported or transferred across the country

and released under his administration. However, introductions of new non-indigenous fish from abroad have lost

favor 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 North

Dakota to introduce the European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca) engendered considerable controversy among

other States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the potential for disease transmission and hybridization

with the indigenous walleye. As introductions of foreign origin decline, transfers of indigenous or established

non-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 of

species 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. Fish

and Wildlife Service’s program in foreign game investigations introduced at least 32 new game species from

abroad between 1948 and 1970.

The importation and release of new game species by State managers has declined over the past few

decades. This has resulted from a decrease in perceived need and greater awareness of potential risks, rather

than 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 in

the United States continue to be propagated and introduced at new locations, and interstate transfers of

indigenous 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 and

Coneequenc8s of the Introduction of Non-indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,’t contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1991.

1990, although it was first detected in the United Summed effects of a single harmful species can

States in 1930 (15). Imported fire ants became

established in Alabama between 1918 and 1945,

but only began being intercepted along California

borders in 1984-39 to 66 years later (58).

Moreover, the harmful impacts of a NIS in a

given State or region can also grow as its

distribution and abundance increase. The paper

bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), originally

introduced into Florida in 1906, has spread

explosively across the State since the 1960s (49).

The predicted range expansion of lea.& spurge

(Euphorbia esula) in Montana, Wyoming, and the

Dakotas between 1990 and 1995 is expected to

cost an additional $32 million due to diminished

grazing capacity (6).

be staggering over periods of decades. The

European gypsy moth has been defoliating trees

in a growing area of the eastern United States for

at least 120 years (50). In 1990, despite a

suppression program costing approximately $20

million, it defoliated an estimated 7.4 million

acres (100).

Affected sectors face not just newly introduced

species, but all those which arrived before and

proved impossible to eradicate. American agriculture alone must deal with at least 235 economically significant insect pests that are nonindigenous to the United States (80). Planning for

the future will require assessing not just how

many new introductions will be tolerated each
100 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 3-C-Dry Ballast Has Ceased to be a Pathway

Ships arriving in the United States used to carry dry ballast in the form of rocks, soil, and debris. The ballast

was 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 of

unintentional insect introductions until the 1880s. it also was the pathway for many plants, including purple

Ioosestrife (Lythfum salicaria) which now occurs throughout many northern and Midwestern States and causes

significant harm to natural areas. increasing commerce with South America after the Civil War, and consequent

ballast 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 ballast

pathway has closed. Fire ants discovered in Mobile, Ala-in 1941 are thought to be the last important pest

conveyed by this route. The switch from dry to wet ballast accounts, in part for the current prominence of the latter

as 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 Introduction

of 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 cumula- to flourish here. More than 205 NIS of foreign

tive burden of harmful NIS as well.

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter traced the pathways-foreign and

domestic, intentional and unintentional-by which

non-indigenous species arrive in U.S. locales.

Some pathways remain open at all times. The

nature and relative importance of other pathways

change with time and technology. Combined,

they allow sizable numbers of new ham-did NIS

origin were introduced or frost detected in the

United States since 1980, and 59 are expected to

cause economic or environmental harm. These

will join the more than 4,500 foreign NIS already

here, a number that is certainly an underestimate.

Given that the United States faces increasing

numbers and costs of harmful MS, OTA next

turns to the technical questions surrounding their

management and control.
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 101

Table 3-l-Some Species of Foreign Origin Introduced or First Detected In the United States

From 1980 to 1993

Common name Scientific name Pathwaya Harmfulb

Plants (9)

Corn brome

Early millet

Feather-head knapweed

Forked fern

Japanese dodder

Lepyrodiclis

Little lovegrass

Poverty grass

Serrated tussock

Insects and arachnldsc (158)

African honey bee

Ambrosia beetle

Ambrosia beetle

Ambrosia beetle

Anobiid beetle

Anobiid beetle

Ant

Ant

Ant

Aphid

Apple ermine moth

Apple pith moth

Apple sucker

Ash whitefly

Asian cockroach

Asian gypsy moth

Asian tiger mosquito (forest day

mosquito)

Avocado mite

Bahamian mosquito

Baileyana psyllid

Banana moth

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Bark beetle

Beach fly

Black parlatoria scale

Blow fly

Blue gum psyllid

Bostrichid beetle

Burrower bug

Cactus moth

Cactus moth

Carabid beetle

Bromus squarrous

Milium vernale

Centaurea trichocephala

Dicranopteris flexuosa

Cuscata japonica

Lepyrodiclis holosteoides

Eragrostis minor

Sporobolus vaginiglorus

Nassella trichotoma

Apis mellifera scutellatad

Xyleborus pelliculosus

Xyle/borus atratus

Ambrosbdmus Iewisi

Lasioderma haemorrhoidale

Priobium carpini

Pheidole tenetiffana

Technomyrmex albipes

Gnamptogenys aculeaticoxqe

Greenidia formosana

Ypnomeuta malinellus

Blastodacna atra

Psylla mali

Siphoninus phyllyreae

Blattella asahinai

Lymantra dispar d e

Aedes albopictus

Oligonychus persae

Aedes bahamensis

Acizzia acaciae-baileyanae

Opogona sacchari

Pityogenes bidentatus

Chramesus varius

Pseudothysanoes securigerus

Coccotrypes robustus

Coccotrypes vulgaris

Theoborus solitariceps

Araptus dentifrons

Procanace dianneae

Parlatona ziziphi

Chrysomya megacephala

Ctenarytaina eucalypti

Heterobosfrychus hamatipennis

Aethus nigritus

Cactobiastis cactorum

Ozamia Iucidalis

Trechus discus

Seed contaminant

Stowaway in packing

Escaped ornamental

packing material

Unassisted spread

Seed contaminant

Seed contaminant

or stowaway in

Seed contaminant material

Stowaway of commerce

Seed contaminant

Escape from research facility then

spread to U.S.

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on pIants

Stowaway on ship or plane

Stowaway on ship

Stowaway in used tires

Stowaway on plants

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

Nursery stock

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Introduced outside of U.S. then

spread into country

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

Yes

—

Yes

—

Yes

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

—

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

—

—

Yes

—

—

(continued on next page)
102 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-l-Continued

Common name Scientific name Pathwaya Harmfulb

Case-bearer moth

Case-bearer moth

Click beetle

Cockroach

Cockroach

Cockroach

Cockroach

Cockroach

Collembolan

Delphacid planthopper

Delphacid planthopper

Dermestid beetle

Dusky cockroach

European barberry fruit maggot

European violet gall midge

European yellow underwing moth

Eucalyptus longhorn borer

Eucalyptus psyllid

Eugenia psyllid

Eulophid wasp

Flea beetle

flea beetle

flower fly

Flower fly

Forest cockroach

Fuchsia mite

Green wattle psyllid

Ground beetle

Ground beetle

Ground beetle

Ground beetle

Ground beetle

Guava fruit fly

Hairy maggot blow fly

Honey bee mite

Honey bee varroa mite

Lady beetle

Lady beetle

Lady beetle

Lady beetle

Lady beetle

Lauxaniid fly

Ieaf beetle

Leafhopper

Leafhopper

Lichen moth

Longhorn beetle

Mealybug

Mediterranean mint aphid

Coleophora deauratella

Coleophora culutella

Anchastus augusti

lschnoptera bilunata

lschnoptera nox

Epilampra maya

Neoblattella detersa

Symplooe morsei

Xenylla affiniformis

Delphacodes fulvidorsum

Sogatella kolophon

Anthrenus pimpinellae

Ectobius Iapponicus

Rhagoletis meigenii

Dasineura affinis

Noctua pronuba

Phoracantha semipunctata

Ctenarytaina sp.

Trioza eugensae

Tetrastichus haitiensis

Longitarsus Iuridus

Chaetocnema concinna

Syritta flaviventris

Eristalinus taeniops

Ectobius sylvestris

Aculops fuchsiae

Acizzia nr. jucunda

Harpalus rubripes

Trechus quadristriata

Notiophilus biguttatus

Bembidion properans

Bembidion bruxellense

Bactrocera (=Dacus) correcta

Chrysomya rufifacles

Acarapis woodi

Varroa jaoobsoni

Decadiomus bahamicus

Harmonia quadripunctata

Harmonia axyridis

Stethorus nigripes

Scymnus suturalis

Lyciella rodda

Chrysolina fastuosa

Eupteryx atropunctata

Grypotes puncticollis

Lycomorphodes sordida

Tetrops praeusta

Allococcus SP.

Eucarazzia elegans

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants into Nova Scotia

then spread to U.S.

Stowaway in wood

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

—

—

Stowaway in fruit

Introduced outside of U.S. then

spread into country

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes
3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 103

Common name Scientific name Pathwaya Harmfulb

Megachilid bee

Megachilid bee

Mite

Moth

Moth

Moth

Moth

Nesting whitefly

Noctuid moth

Noctuid moth

Paper wasp

Peach fruit fly

Pepper tree psyllid

Pine shoot beetle

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Plant bug

Pirate bug

Poinsettia whitefly (sweetpotato

whitefly)

Potter wasp

Potter wasp

Privet sawfly

Pyralid moth

Red clover seed weevil

Rhizophagid beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Rove beetle

Russian wheat aphid

Sawfly

Sawfly

Scale predator

Seed bug

Seed bug

Chelostoma campanularum

Chelostoma fuliginosum

Melittiphis alveartus

Agonopterix alstroemenana

Grapholita delineana

Athrips mouffetella

Athrips rancidella

Paraleurodes minei

Noctua comes

Rhizedra Iutosa

Polistes domirrulus

Bactrocera (= Dacus) zonata

Caiophya schini

Tomicus piniperda

Ceratocapsus nigropiceus

Prepops cruciferus

Jobertus chrysolectrus

Psallus Iepidus

Orthocephalus saltator

Hyalopsallus diaphanus

Stheneridea vulgaris

Psallus variabilis

Psallus albipennis

Paracarnus cubanus

Proba hyalina

Rhinocloa pallidipes

Brachysteles parvicornis

Bemisia tabaci d f

Delta campaniforme rendalli

Zeta argillaceum

Macrophya punctumalbum

Hiieithia decostalis

Tychius stephensi

Rhizophagus parallelocollis

Gabrius astutoides

Sunius melanocephalus

Oxypoda opaca

Heterota plumbea

Coenonica puncticollis

Staphylinus brunnipes

Staphylinus similis

Tachinus rufipes

Diuraphis noxia

Liliacina diversipes

Pristiphora aquilegiae

Anthribus nebulosus

Plinthisus brevipennis

Chilacis typhae

Stowaway in transported twigs and

wood

Stowaway in transported twigs and

wood

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

—

—

—

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants into Canada then

spread to U.S.

Stowaway on plants

—

Stowaway in fruit

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on dunnage

—

—

—

Nursery stock

—

Stowaway in tropical fruit

Stowaway in tropical fruit

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway on plants

Stowaway in tropical fruit

Stowaway in tropical fruit

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Introduced outside of U.S. then

spread into country

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

—

—

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

—

Yes

—

—

—

(continued on next page)
104 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-l-Continued

Common name Scientific name Pathwaya Harmfulb

Shore 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 wasp

—

Auplopus carbonarius —

Spindletree ermine moth

—

Yponomeuta cagnagella Stowaway on plants Yes

Spruce bark beetle Ips typography Dunnage Yes

Stink bug Pellaea stictica — —

Tatarica honeysuckle aphid Hyadaphis tataticae Nursery stock Yes

Thrips Thrips palmi Stowaway on plants Yes

Tortoise beetle Aspidomorpha transparipennis Stowaway on plants —

Tortoise beetle Metriona tuberculata Stowaway on plants —

Tristania psyllid Ctenarytaina Iongicauda Stowaway on plants Yes

Weevil 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 — Yes

Waxflower 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. None

have yet been shown to have harmful effects.)

Fishes (13)

Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis

Blue-eyed cichlid Cichlasoma spilurum

European ruffe Gyrnnocephalus cernuus

Jaguar guapote Cichlasoma manaquense

Long tom Strongylura kreffti

Mayan cichlid Cichlasoma urophthalmus

Rainbow krib Pelviachromis pulcher

Redstriped eartheater Geophagus surinamensis

Round goby Neogobhis melanostomus

Tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmoratus

Zebra danio Danio redo

Yellowbelly cichlid Cichlasoma salvini

— Ancistrus sp.

Mollusks (7)

Clam Potamocorbula amurensis

Clam Theora fragilis

Snail Alcadia striata

Snail Potamopyrgus antipodanum

Snail Cernuella virgata

Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha

Zebra mussel Dreissena sp.g

Plant pathogens (9)

Blight (on chickpea) Aschochyta rabiei

Citrus canker Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri

Illegal biological cmtrol introduction

Aquarium release

Ballast water

Aquarium release

—

Aquarium release

Aquarium release

Escape from aquaculture

Ballast water

Ballast water

Aquarium release

Aquarium release

Aquarium release

Ballast water

Ballast water

—

Contaminant of aquaculture stock that

subsequently escaped

—

Ballast water

Ballast water

Stowaway in infected seed

—

—

—

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

—

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 105

Common name Scientific name Pathwaya Harmful b

Corn cyst nematode

Needle caste

Nematode

Potato virus y-necrotic strain (n)

Rust fungus

Rust fungus (on chrysanthemum)

Smut (on rice)

Other (9)

Aquatic worm

Aquatic worm

AsIan copepod

Chinese copepod

Giant tiger shrimp

Japanese crab

Japanese copepod

Pacific white shrimp

Spiny water flea

Heterodtera zeae

Mycospaerella Iaricina

Subanguina picridis

Potyviridae (Potyvirus)

Puccinia carduorum

Puccinia horiana

Ustilago esculenta

Phallodrilus aquaedulcis

Tenendrilus mastix

Pseudodiaptomus inopinus

Pseudodiaptomus forbesi

Penaeus monodon

Hemigrapsus sanguineous

Pseudodiaptomus marinus

Penaeus vannamei

Bythotrephes cederstroemi

—

Stowaway on infested larch (live or

wood?)

Biocontrol introduction

Infected potatoes

Biocontrol introduction

Smuggled on infected

chrysanthemum

Smuggled on infected rice

Ballast water

Ballast water

Ballast water

Ballast water

Escape from research facility

Ballast water

Ballast water

Escape from aquiculture

Ballast water

Yes

Yes

—

Yes

—

Yes

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Yes

a Listed pathways are according to expert opinions. Often, it is impossible to determine with 100 percent certainty the pathway an NIS followed after

the species has become established. A dash in this column indicates that the pathway by which the species entered the United States is unknown.

b Know to cause economic environmental, or other type of ham] (see ch, 2). A dash in this column indicates either there are no known harmful

effects or they have not yet been well documented.

C Where available, common names are those used officially by the Entomological Society of America,

d Thought t. be a new strain or subspecies of NIS already established in the United States.

e The exact origin of the Asian Gypsy moth is not yet known; some scientists believe it may be a different species than the established European

gypsy moth. The Asian gypsy moth has also been referred to as the “Siberian” gypsy moth in the popular press.

f The pointsettia whitefly that recently caused great crop losses in southern California is considered by many to be a new strain of the sweet potato

whitefly 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 taxonomy

remains unclear.

SOURCES: Compiled by the Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1991; J.T. Carlton, “Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems as Mediated by Aquiculture and Fisheries

Activities,” 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 Transport

of Nonindigenous Marine Organisms,” Science, vol. 261, July 2, 1993, pp. 78-82; W.R. Courtenay, Jr. “Pathways and Consequences of the

Introduction 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, Entomology

Circular No. 333, August 1990; E.R. Hoebeke and A.G. Wheeler, “Exotic Insects Reported New to Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada

Since 1970,” New York Entomo/ogica/ Society, vol. 91, No. 3,1983, pp. 193-222; E.R. Hoebeke, “Referenced List of Recently Detected Insects and

Arachnids,” 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 History

and Descriptions of Immature Stages (Hymenopteran: Tenthradinidae),” Proc. Entomo/. Soc. Wash., vol. 87, No. 1, 1985, pp. 25-33; K.C. Kim and

(continued on nexfpage)
106 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 3-l-Continued

A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; K.C. Kim, Professor of Entomology, Penn State University, personal

communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 17, 1993; R.N. Mack, “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants

in 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 et

al., “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 prepared

for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural

Development, and Related Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations for 7993, Part 3, Serial No. 54-8880, Mar. 18-30, 1992a; A.J. Wheeler, Adjunct Professor, Pennsylvania State University, personal

communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 6, 1993.
The

Application of

Decisionmaking

Methods 4

B

efore the early 1900s, private individuals usually made

decisions about whether to introduce non-indigenous

species (NIS) with little, if any, government oversight.

Even when government was involved, the decision

processes were informal and often lenient. Ad hoc judgments and

decisions based on precedent predominated. Since then, a trend

toward more formal methods has emerged, including risk

analysis, legally mandated environmental impact assessment,

and economic benefit/cost analysis (table 4-1 ). Still, these formal

approaches rely heavily on judgment and precedent, which in

turn are based on the values of the public and its governmental

representatives. Whatever the approach, factual gaps and uncertainty complicate the analysis of many existing and potential NIS

problems. This chapter examines the prominent decisionmaking

methods in use, the role of uncertainty, and the tradeoffs that

decisionmakers must face.

Decisions about MS are made at various levels in Federal and

State governments. The flexibility that agency personnel have in

making management level decisions depends on their governing

statutes, regulations, or policies. A National Park Service (NPS)

manager, for example, has very little discretion when deciding

whether to introduce a new plant species—in most situations it

is prohibited outright by current NPS policies, which seek to

preserve the indigenous flora. By contrast, most State and

Federal legislation gives broad discretion to managers in dealing

with NIS. Agency personnel face two kinds of decisions

regarding NIS: which species to allow to be imported and

released, and which species to control.

107
108 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 4-l—General Approaches to Making Decisions About Non-Indigenous Species

Approaches

Judgment Precedent Formal analysis

Features Based on relatively undefined Done according to previous Decisions made according to wellprocedures decisions defined procedures

Often undocumented Usually documented Contains explicit documentation

Examples Judgments by: Legal precedent Risk analysis

. General public Status quo Environmental assessment

. Policy makers Tradition Economic analysis

. Interest groups

. Experts

SOURCE: 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 AND

RELEASED?

Finding:

Most government regulatory approaches to

importation and release of NIS use variations

of “clean” (allowed) and “dirty” (prohibited)

lists of species or groups, with heavy reliance

on the dirty list approach. An effective way to

reduce risks of harmful invasions is to employ,

where practical, a system of both clean and

dirty lists, and a “gray” category of unanalyzed species that are prohibited until analyzed and approved.

“Clean” and “Dirty” Lists1

The use of ‘clean” and “dirty” lists reveals a

fundamental dichotomy in government decisionmaking on NIS importation and release. Generally, the clean list approach presumes that all

species should be prohibited unless they have

been officially listed as allowed, or ‘clean. ’ The

species on the list offer net positive consequences. The dirty list approach presumes that all

species may be allowed unless they have been

listed as prohibited. Listed species pose net

negative consequences. The dirty list method

dominates Federal and State decisiomnaking,

although several examples of clean lists exist

(table 4-2).

Numerous variations of the clean and dirty

approaches are employed. These include using a

different system for the two phases of introduction, i.e., importation versus release. Also, different methods are used for the major taxonomic

groups, e.g., plants, fish, and mammals. Regulators can use a variety of listing criteria, permit

requirements, and exemptions; some even adopt

total bans on importation or release of major

taxonomic groups. Neither clean nor dirty lists

per se eliminate the need for inspections and other

regulatory compliance measures (25).

Three main factors appear to influence the

selection and use of a clean or dirty list approach.

These are:

1.

2.

technical feasibility, that is, whether the

potentially threatening NIS in a large taxonomic group, such as non-indigenous

plants, are sufficiently limited in number,

scientifically understood, and capable of

detection so that a comprehensive and

accurate clean list can be constructed with

reasonable confidence (table 4-3) (25);

requirements for scientific expertise in

fields such as taxonomy, ecology, and risk

analysis; these needs are greater to imple1 The 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 number

of States as well (34).
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 109

Table 4-2—Examples of Clean and Dirty Lists in

Statutes or Regulations

Summary

Clean Ilst

USDA Allows import of only listed fruits

Quarantine 56 and vegetables from specified

(7 CFR 319.56) countries

Hawaii Revised Allows import of only animals and

Statutes microorganisms on

sec. 150A.6 “conditionally approved” list

Dirty Ilst

Lacey Act Restricts import of two taxonomic

families, 13 genera, and 6

species of fish and wildlife

Federal Noxious Prohibits import of 93 listed weeds

Weed Act

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

3.

ment a comprehensive clean list approach

and not always available; and

willingness to accept risks of unanticipated invasions by harmful NIS; a clean list

approach can reduce risks, however, decisionmakers may be willing to accept the

higher risks of a dirty list approach, especially if control or eradication is feasible.

Several experts have argued for treating NIS

under a clean list approach whenever practical;

that is, prohibiting all species that are not on a

clean list until they have been satisfactorily

analyzed and determined to offer net benefits

(26,74). This would be comparable to the Food

and Drug Administration’s general regulatory

system for approving a new drug for human use:

prohibited until proven net beneficial.

Moving to a clean list approach would require

substantial changes in the regulation of importation (that is, the act of bringing an NIS across a

border into the country or a particular State).

Allowing importation only of species on a clean

list would place greater restrictions on international trade.

For some groups of organisms, only release

into a free-living condition has been this strictly

regulated. However, importation of some NIS is

likely to lead eventually to their release, whether

intentional or by their escape. Imported aquarium

fish are a good example. Those that have established free-living populations after being discarded by their owners have often had negative

effects, especially in Florida and in the Southwest

(11). For such taxonomic groups composed of

organisms that readily escape, the regulation of

importation in effect is the regulation of release.

The more restrictive clean list approach would be

more effective in preventing harm although this

approach is more burdensome in the short run.

Even for those groups in table 4-3 for which

clean lists appear technically feasible, the political feasibility of such an approach is questionable. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

made three politically unsuccessful attempts in

the mid-1970s to change the Lacey Act2 

process

for regulating importation of ‘injurious’ fish and

wildlife from a dirty to a clean list, or to

substantially lengthen the dirty list (box 4-A). The

available information on environmental and economic consequences of harmful NIS was far less

complete than it is today (76,82). whether the

political obstacles remain is unclear.

The Lacey Act was interpreted by FWS to be

legally broad enough to allow for a clean list

approach without amendment (76). No court has

ruled on this interpretation. Apart from this legal

issue, the question remains of how to best regulate

potentially risky fish and wildlife. One method

being considered is a three-part system with an

intermediate ‘‘gray” category.

“Gray” Category

In any given’ jurisdiction (e.g., country, State,

or county) the vast majority of potentially introduced NIS belong to a “gray” category. This

consists of all species not already listed as clean

or dirty because decisionmakers lack detailed

analyses of the likely consequences should they

z 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 States

Table 4-3-Relative Technical Feasibility of Comprehensive Clean Lists for Regulating importation

of Major Groups of Non-indigenous Species

Group Clean list feasibility Reasons

Fish and other vertebrate animals High Well known; fewer species; moderate commercial trade; easily

detected

Plants Medium Well known; many species; high commercial trade; easily

detected

Insects Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; difficult

to detect

Other invertebrate animals Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; ease of

detection varies

Micro-organisms Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; very

difficult to detect

NOTE: These are general ratings. Taxonomic subgroups within each major group may justify different ratings. For example, within the major category

of 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 category with the clean and dirty list approaches

forms a classtification scheme that can be adjusted

to suit particular regulatory circumstances (26).

Hawaii, for example, recently amended its laws

on importing animals and micro-organisms, creating the most restrictive State laws on the subject

(ch. 7). This change responded to the perceived

urgency of Hawaii’s NIS problems (ch. 8). State

law now provides for three lists and a gray

category. 3 Species on the conditionally approved

list require a permit for importation, while those

on the restricted list require a permit for both

importation and possession. Those on the prohibited list may not be imported or possessed except

in very limited cases. Species not on any list (the

gray category) are prohibited without official

permission. The State now handles requests for

permission as follows (50):

If the request is for a species that is on an

animal or micro-organism list and has received

prior approval by BOA [Board of Agriculture] or

is a plant that has received such approval, PQ

[Plant Quarantine Branch] can issue the permit.

If, however, an applicant is requesting a permit

for a species that has not received prior BOA

approval, PQ will conduct a three-tiered review

process to bring the request before the board.

First, the application is submitted to the BOA’s

Technical Advisory Subcommittees. The five

subcommittees (Land Vertebrates, Invertebrates

and Aquatic Biota, Entomology, Microorganisms and Plants) are composed of researchers, industry representatives and government

officials. The subcommittees evaluate the application along technical/scientific lines, particularly for the organism’s potential impact. The

subcommittees then pass their analyses to the

Plant and Animals Advisory Committees which

considers the application and the subcommittee

findings from a broad perspective, weighing the

potential harmful impacts against the potential

benefits. BOA then reviews the Advisory Committees’ recommendation and issues the final

decision on the application.

Much of the rest of this chapter discusses

general methods for making the type of listing and

approval decisions referred to above, such as how

to weigh the potential harmful impacts against the

potential benefits.

WHICH SPECIES ARE CONTROLLED OR

ERADICATED?

Sometimes greater difficulty can arise in deciding which damaging NIS to control or eradicate,

3 Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 150A-6.
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 111

Box 4-A–History of Fish and Wildlife Service Attempts To Implement Clean Lists Under

the Lacey Act

The Lacey Act of 1900 and 50 CFR, part 16, enable the Secretary of Interior to restrict fish and wildlife imports

beyond those species listed as prohibited in the Act itself. Pursuant to this authority, in December 1973, FWS

proposed regulations that concluded all non-indigenous fish and wildlife species had the potential to be injurious

and should be prohibited, except for a list of several hundred species and larger taxonomic groups that were

believed to pose little risk. FWS prepared this “clean” list after soliciting input from user groups and scientific

experts, and it made provisions for future additions.

However, the more than 4,300 comments on the proposal were mostly negative, especially those from people

involved with the pet trade, zoos, game ranches, agriculture, and aquiculture. After preparing an environmental

impact statement and taking part in a congressional hearing, the agency published a revised proposal to lengthen

the dean list, in February 1975.2

That also received a negative reception, with nearly 1,200comments. Opponents

claimed evidence was insufficient that importation of any particular species would cause harm. The pet industry

claimed 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 list

proposal.

As a final effort, in 1977, FWS proposed a rule3 containing a much longer dirty list. This approach failed as

well, with the primary resistance from the hobby fish industry. No major constituency weighed in favoring the

concept 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 Wildlife

Service,” fXspersa/ of Living Oryaukrns MO Aquatk Ecosyshsrrrs, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (ede.) (College Pa~ MD: Maryfand Sea

Grant, 1992), pp. 325-352; J.G. Stanley, R.A. Peoples, Jr., and J.A. McCann, “Legislation and Responsibilities Related to Importation of

Exotic 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 species mainly ethical values. For both, costs of the

to allow to be imported or released. If a manager

has 10 existing problem species and a control

budget that allows elimination of only 3, which

ones should he or she choose? Should the goal be

complete eradication, or control at some point

less than 100 percent eradication? What methods

should the manager use?

To complicate matters, eradicating or controlling NIS with chemical pesticides often arouses

public opposition. So does killing popular nonindigenous animals, like feral horses (Equus

caballus), by any method. Both cases involve

weighing the potential damage caused by the NIS

against other factors. In the pesticide case, the

factors are potential human health and environmental impacts; the popular animal case involves

available methods may be a major factor. As with

decisions about importation and introduction, the

formal approaches discussed below may aid these

weighing processes.

COMMON DECISIONMAKING

APPROACHES

Decisionmakers commonly employ three tools

in analyzing NIS: risk analysis, environmental

impact assessment, and economic analysis.

Risk Analysis

Finding:

Scientists generally cannot make quantitative predictions of the invasiveness or impact
112 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

of a new, untested species with high degrees of

confidence. Nevertheless, useful qualitative

predictions often can be made. Expert judgment based on careful research and diverse

input is the most broadly feasible predictive

approach. Controlled, realistic-setting experimentation reduces uncertainty but requires

more resources.

THE ROLE OF RISK ANALYSIS

A strictly empirical, or after-the-fact, approach

to NIS introductions would be clearly inadequate.

Always waiting to see if a species causes harm

before deciding whether to prohibit it would lead

to multiple disasters and huge control costs.

Conversely, barming all importation and release

of NIS would be an effective, but obviously

impractical, risk reducer. The most realistic way

to prevent human-caused harmful invasions by

NIS is to develop better scientific methods to

accurately predict them and to act based on these

predictions. The field of risk analysis encompasses these predictive methods. Risk analysis

looks at the chances that an unwanted event will

occur and the consequences if it should occur.

Risk analysis can inform decisionmakers on

everything from building nuclear power plants to

anticipating oil spills to keeping zebra mussels

(Dreissena polymorpha) out of the Missouri

River. The subfields most relevant here are “pest

risk analysis, ” undertaken to protect agriculture

(including forestry) and “ecological risk analysis, ’ which looks at threats to non-agricultural

areas and their occupants. The goal is understanding and ordering different degrees of risk, from

those as obvious as introducing a mammal that

has rabies to those as subtle as introducing an

insect that slightly raises the probability that an

indigenous insect will go extinct (26).

The ideal risk analysis should specify the

likelihood of possible outcomes from a particular

activity, estimate the risks associated with the

various outcomes, and identify effective means to

mitigate the risks. Although much of this follows

common sense, as a discipline it forces analytical

accounting for uncertainty, that is, when the data

do not permit the ideal analysis. And the process

can make the tradeoffs between competing factors clear to the observer.

Clarity regarding tradeoffs in the face of

uncertainty is important. A hypothetical example:

if current scientific knowledge cannot predict

whether a potentially damaging Australian tree

fungus will invade valuable redwood stands in

northern California, then on what basis can a

decision be made to allow Australian logs into

northern California? How much would the decisionmaker be willing to spend to reduce that

scientific uncertainty? Given the uncertainty, and

thus the chance of deciding mistakenly, how does

one balance being too restrictive against being too

lenient? What numerical chance of being wrong

is acceptable? Risk analysis alone does not

answer these questions. Nevertheless, a risk

analysis process should display the potential

tradeoffs clearly, that is, it “must not cloak what

should be societal decisions in the mantle of

scientific objectivity when the determinations are

not purely scientific” (39).

Even the best risk analysis methods cannot

eliminate all uncertainty. With enough resources,

imperfect or incomplete knowledge and human

errors-two important sources of uncertainty—

can be reduced or eliminated. However, the

inherent randomness of the world adds uncertainty that cannot be reduced (71). Also, the

ability of NIS and their receiving ecosystems to

adapt and evolve means that risk analysis done at

the 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 fundamental

question of NIS policy: how much risk of damage

will we accept? No formulaic answer exists.

Hundreds of harmful NIS are already in the

country. Early warnings were available for several recent additions: the zebra mussel, the Asian

tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), and the Asian

gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). In each case, a
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 113

Controlled scientific studies, such as this study of a

biological control organism, can boost the reliability

of risk assessment.

fair degree of risk was tolerated. So far, at least,

most governmental decisionmakers have not been

highly risk averse where potentially damaging

NIS were concerned.

THE PROCESS OF RISK ANALYSIS

The frost step in risk analysis for planned

releases is predicting the likelihood that the

species to be released will survive and establish

one or more self-sustaining populations (27).

Then one must assess the probable resulting

impacts on the ecosystems and/or agricultural

systems involved. The combination of the characteristics of the new organism and the new

environment determines the risks associated with

the release.

Greater difficulty in prediction arises when one

considers unplanned introductions. These are

NIS that escape from confinement or are unknowingly released. Risk analysis in these cases

requires initial determination of the probability

that a release will, in fact, occur. The same

determination applies to NIS that are knowingly,

but illegally released, though some classify these

as planned releases (see ch. 3). Probability of

release must then be factored into the likelihood

of survival, establishment, and environmental

impact, as determined for planned releases, also.

The Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, formed to respond to the

invasion of the zebra mussel and other NIS in the

Great Lakes, has adopted a pathways-oriented

approach to risk analysis for unplanned releases

(75). The Task Force intends to assess all

potential pathways for harmful, unintentional

releases, ranging from cargo ships dumping their

ballast water to pathogens inadvertently transported with fishery stock.

Several models have been developed that

generalize about the risks of NIS invasions.

Current applications of these models are limited

because they do not quantitatively predict with

high degrees of confidence either the likelihood

that a new species will become established or its

impacts (26).

Useful generalities about risks can be drawn,

however, some of these lack clear scientific

validation. In general, the species most likely to

be successful invaders have large natural ranges,

a high intrinsic population growth rate, and a

large founding population in the new environment (12). The environments most likely to be

invaded are those with few species present, a high

degree of habitat disturbance, and an absence of

species closely related and morphologically similar to the potential invaders (48).

The risk analysis process has relied largely on

professional judgments based on “impressionistic syntheses of case studies and anecdotes”

(27) rather than rigorous statistical studies or

experimental analyses. Formal risk analysis methods for NIS have not been developed or applied

(70). This qualitative rather than quantitative

approach may be satisfactory in most cases,

particularly if a diverse panel of scientists and

other experts has input into the analysis. Some

expect that more reliable quantitative predictions

will be available as data accumulate and computer

models are refined (24,57).

The intense commercial interest in risk analysis for the controlled release of new genetically

engineered organisms (GEOs) (ch. 9) has helped

advance both theoretical and experimental ap-
114 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

preaches to NIS risks generally (26), as have the

research and testing of new biological control

agents (ch. 5). The standard paradigm for analyzing risks of these specialized releases relies much

more heavily on experimentation, including controlled, small-scale trial releases, than is normally

done for other proposed NIS releases.

Recent technological advances have made

some experimental releases safer. For certain

species, scientists can ensure that released NIS

are infertile through sterilization, birth control, or

other manipulations such that no more than one

generation will survive (ch. 5). Fisheries biologists have used these techniques to assess new

introductions of fish and shellfish (51). Some

advocate the use of these reproductive control

techniques as a precondition for all experimental

releases (67).

Experimentation can provide data critical for

linking mathematical models to ecosystem behavior, especially for generalized theories of

ecosystem response to stress (39). Experimentation also informs the optimal design of monitoring systems and the apportionment of containment or control efforts according to the risks

involved. In one facility in England, experiments

on invasions are conducted in a large laboratory

with 16 connecting microcosm chambers (38). It

allows the assembly of a wide variety of plant and

animal communities in computer-controlled environments. Still, organisms can behave quite

differently in the real world than they do in

experimental settings because of untested, often

unanticipated, influences. The possibility of chaos

in ecological systems suggests that making accurate predictions may be more complex than

anticipated (19,60) and not a matter necessarily

solved by accumulating more data for better

models.

Experimental analyses for NIS (other than

GEOs and biological control agents) are not

consistently done or required by Federal or State

laws. Despite difficulties in interpreting results

from small-scale trial releases, experts have

called for more use of these and other experimental approaches as providing better predictions

than the largely anecdotal “paper” studies that

dominate now (40). An experimental approach

would require more personnel, funding, and time.

RISK ANALYSIS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

Finding:

Within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA), there is great variation as

far as the stringency of its risk analysis

procedures for different types of NIS importation. Internal proposals to improve and standardize risk analysis procedures have not been

broadly implemented. Two existing policies

hamper the agency’s effectiveness at keeping

new, harmful NIS from entering the country:

its lack of explicit focus on risks to nonagricultural areas, and its general operation

under the presumption that unanalyzed imports will be admitted unless risks are proven.

Still, APHIS is more analytical than FWS.

FWS has implemented very little scientific risk

analysis for potentially harmful fish and wildlife.

The primary Federal responsibility for regulating NIS lies with USDA’s APHIS and the

Department of Interior’s FWS (see ch. 6). APHIS

can regulate both private and governmental actions that pose risks of introducing agricultural

and forestry pests, including weeds. FWS is

responsible for “injurious” fish and wildlife

under the Lacey Act, which, as applied, primarily

means species that threaten interests outside

agriculture.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Much of current APHIS risk analysis consists of preparing a “decision sheet, ’ which often

includes only a paragraph or two on the biology

of a prospective plant pest (80). Great variation

exists within APHIS as far as the stringency of

analysis (26). Comprehensive assessments of

probabilities and risks are rarely undertaken. The

agency is revising a number of its regulatory
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 115

quarantines and considering adoption of new

quarantines, and in the process has sought to

improve and standardize its procedures.

The main foundation for this standardization

with respect to plants and plant products is the

“Generic Pest Risk Assessment Process” developed by the Policy and Program Development

office (53). This process has not been finalized

yet4 or broadly adopted within the agency. Once

adopted, the process can be tailored to decisions

about particular types of proposed new commodity importations, such as cut flowers, nursery

stock, and logs (figure 4-l). Since a commodity

can carry more than one potential pest, conducting Individual Pest Risk Assessments on each

pest will be necessary in addition to the analysis

of the risk of the commodity itself (e.g., for its

potential weediness). An analyst will make qualitative ratings (low, medium, high) for various

factors and assign an uncertainty level. The

combination of these will result in an overall

Commodity Risk Potential rating and a recommendation by the analyst. APHIS regulatory and

operational personnel will make the final decision.

The Agricultural Research Service assists

APHIS on risk analysis questions requiring research. ARS conducts experiments on a few

potentially serious pests like soybean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) (87). This method, in which

a small number of samples are imported under

controlled conditions and tested in small-scale

trials, would be impractical for analyzing risks

from all potential pests.

While APHIS has kept thousands of potential

agricultural pests from becoming established, it

has done little explicit analysis of risks to natural

areas. Critics have also pointed to insufficient

scientific input, especially from the field of

ecology, in its analyses (25,26,36). Long-term

risks, such as the potential for pests to evolve

more harmful characteristics, are under-analyzed

because of lack of input from evolutionary

biologists (26).

APHIS lacks sufficient in-house expertise to

fully address the questions posed by the regular

flow of new potential pests (26). Outside experts

are sometimes consulted, but they often lack

training or experience in quarantine problems.

Further, in the past many risk analyses were not

adequately documented to be of use in future

decisions (26). The agency is considering several

proposals to implement more explicit procedures

that are sensitive to natural ecosystems, embrace

more diverse input, and provide useful data for the

future.

Implementation of these improvements is important. However, a basic policy hampers APHIS's

success at keeping out pests-that is, its Willingness to allow many types of imports that pose

unanalyzed, or incompletely analyzed, risks. Examples of this include virtually all unprocessed

wood and wood products, including packing and

shipping materials;5 and potential pests on or in

containers and ships that have been in high-risk

areas. The agency generally treats unregulated

imports under the presumption ‘‘that everything

is enterable until we [APHIS] determine it should

not be’ (53). Implicit in this is APHIS’s accepting the burden of proving a proposed new

import’s potential for harm, rather than putting

the burden on the importer to demonstrate its

safety. This policy relies on inspection at ports-ofentry to interdict potentially harmful organisms

despite the fact that many are very difficult to

detect or present unknown risks.

4 The 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 wood

products, 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, but

the Notice indicates that the agency may more proactively address risks from logs and wood products in the fiture. The Notice did not cover

wooden pacldng or shipping materials.
116 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Initiation

Figure 4-l—Application of the APHIS Generic Pest Risk Assessment Process

Request for new commodity

importation of plant/plant

part/plant product

1

v v

Create list of possible

4 Collect commodity data quarantine plant pests

Individual pest risk

assessments 4

Risk assessment

+

Commodity assessment <

assembled

v L

Recommendation

J

Risk management

v

Regulatory/operational

decision

1

SOURCE: R.L. Orr, Entomologist, and S.D. Cohen, Plant Pathologist, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

“Generic Pest Risk Assessment Proces*For Estimating the Pest Risk Assodated With Importation of Foreign Plants and Plant Products (draft),”

Nov. 20, 1991.
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 117

This “presumption of enterability” is not

mandated by the Plant Pest Act6 or by other

controlling legislation; it is apparently a policy

choice to favor unburdened trade. That choice

may itself be the result of weighing the overall

risks and benefits of a more restrictive presumption of exclusion. However, OTA has not discovered any evident national weighing of these risks

and benefits. The weighing process appears to

occur in difficult new cases, one at a time, at high

levels of the Department of Agriculture.

[I]n controversial trade matters, top management outside of APHIS may ‘weigh’ the biological position against the economic or other

positions, and the short-term decision made by

non-biologists may in some instances prevail

regardless of the probability of long-term adverse

consequences. (25)

The presumption of enterability has real consequences. In the recently proposed importation of

Siberian timber to West Coast sawmills (box

4-B), for example, several critics pointed out that

APHIS’s starting assumption was that the importation would occur. The agency initially stressed

the rights of the importers to proceed rather than

the biological issues (7). Indeed, it allowed them

to bring in a small shipment of logs, without a

formal pest risk analysis or environmental assessment, that was found later to carry pests. It took

pressure from academic scientists and members of Congress to stop APHIS from allowing

further shipments without a comprehensive risk

analysis (14).

For a proposed importation of pine (Pinus spp.)

wood chips from Honduras into Oregon, APHIS

did not require a formal assessment of the

potential risk, despite serious warnings from an

Oregon State University entomologist (37). The

agency would not delay the imports unless risk

was first proven; expert opinion was insufficient

to overcome the presumption of enterability (66).

The agency’s willingness to accept unanalyzed

risks is compounded by the low level of effort

USDA devotes to researching where risky species

are likely to come from and to proactively

regulate so as to prevent problems before they

arise. The relatively short list of foreign weeds

prohibited under the Federal Noxious Weed Act

represents one example (ch. 6) (41). Another is

the recent Asian gypsy moth infestation in Pacific

Northwest ports, which necessitated a $14 million

to $20 million emergency eradication program

(box 4-B). The moth arrived via cargo ships on

which eggs had been laid while in Far East ports.

Ships are one of the most obvious pathways for

new pest introductions because of their size and

frequency of arrival. Yet APHIS had not proactively analyzed the Asian gypsy moth risks nor

taken steps to prevent the infestations. In the

words of a former California Department of

Agriculture official discussing overall U.S. quarantine policy, ‘‘ignorance is viewed as a relatively low-level risk compared to the benefits of

open trade and other societal needs” (62).

For the items discussed above-unprocessed

wood, packing materials, containers from high

risk areas, etc.—APHIS lacks specific regulations. The agency assumes the items are suitable

for import unless agricultural port inspectors

detect a problem. APHIS treats all plants in a

similar manner, including nursery stock, seeds,

and bulbs, under regulations known as Quarantine 37. Such foreign plants are enterable with a

permit if they are no? listed in these regulations,

that is, on the ‘dirty’ list of plants known to carry

important pests or diseases in their countries of

origin. Quarantine 56, which covers imported

fruits and vegetables for consumption, is an

exception to APHIS’ overall assumption of enterability (25). Under this quarantine, pest risk

assessments have judged listed articles ‘‘clean’

and, thus, able to be imported with a permit.

6 Federal Plant Pest Act (1957), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 147a et seq.)
118 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 4-B--Siberian Timber Imports: A Potentially High-Risk Pathway

Siberia has almost half of the world’s softwood timber supply. Since the late 1980s a few U.S. timber brokers

and lumber companies, short on domestic supplies, have been negotiating for the Importation of raw logs from

Far East ports to West Coast sawmills. This may create a pathway for non-indigenous forest pests that are adapted

to many North American climate zones and tree types. In the past 100 years raw wood or nursery stock imports

have 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 Agriculture

that they would be shipping two containers of logs representing four Siberian tree spades into the northern

California port of Eureka. The logs were fumigated, handled, sawn, and disposed of pursuant to agreed upon

guidelines. The California officials had sought more time to develop the guidelines before shipment but were

unable to obtain a voluntary delay and lacked regulatory authority to require a delay. According to the program

supervisor of the Pest Exclusion Branch, APHIS’s California approach to the State’s biological concerns was to

stress the importers’ rights to proceed.

Dead insects were recovered off three of the tree species; the fourth carried a nematode. The agencies

concluded that no further shipments should come in until personnel could identify the species and do a pest risk

analysis. APHIS arranged a voluntary embargo with the importers. Two of the species were later identified as

potentially harmful new pests.

Participation by APHIS in the early phases (April through September 1990) was criticized as ’’chaotic” by the

California official in charge. The agency’s Preliminary Pest Risk Analysis was completed in September; it was

generally regarded as inadequate, failing to list many known Siberian pests and lacking investigation into the many

unresearched 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 were

Iikely to be introduced, even if the logs were fumigated.

Communication among these academics and the State officials in fall 1990 eventually led to congressional

pressure in the form of a letter from three members of the Oregon delegation to the Secretary of Agriculture

inquiring about APHIS’s handling of the matter and requesting a delay pending resolution of the pest issues. At

the 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 December

13. APHIS announced it had imposed a “temporary prohibition” on future imports. Without the congressional

pressure, 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 risk

assessment focusing on larch (Larix spp.) from Siberia The project cost of approximately $500,000 was paid out

of a Forest Service contingency fund. APHIS lacked a flexible fund to pay for the unanticipated, unbudgeted work

The assessment found serious risks posed by several pests. A worst-case scenario examined the economic

impacts should they successfully invade Northwest forests. it produced astoundingly high figures for the

cumulative 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, the

assessment did not resolve all the issues about mitigating the risks. Ultimately, APHIS put the burden back on the

importers to propose new pest treatment methods and protocols with “evidenced complete effectiveness”. some

experts said the logs would need sawing and kiln-drying to exterminate all risky species, which would probably

be prohibitively expensive. The assessment concluded: “if technical efficacy issues can be resolved, APHIS will

work with the timber industry to develop operationally feasible Import procedures.” To date the industry has

identified no feasible procedures that APHIS has deemed completely effective.

(continued next page)
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 119

Box 4-B-Continued

A 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 moth

arrived in the Pacific Northwest clinging to grain ships. The risk of this pathway had been overlooked.A$14 million

to $20 million program of broadcast biopesticide spraying, trapping, and monitoring has been implemented by

Federal and State officials to stop what the Deputy Director of the Washington Department of Agriculture said “has

the potential to be the most serious exotic insect ever to enter the U. S.” An information program was also initiated

to keep shippers that trade in high-risk Far Eastern ports from inadvertently transporting more moths. While officials

have found no more Asian gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest to date, their ultimate success in eradicating this

pest 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 personal

communication to P. Jenidns, office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 14, 1991; P. DeFazio, U.S. House of Representatives et al., letter

to C.K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Dec. 5, 1990; J.D. Lattin, Professor of Entomology, Oregon

State University, personai communication to P. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 31, 1991; J.D. Lattin, Professor of

Entomology, 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 of

Agriculture, 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 Entry

of Siberian Logs Because of Pests,” press release, Dec. 20,1990; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “An Efficacy Review of Controi Measures

for Potential Pests of Imported Soviet Timber,” Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496 (Hyattsvilie, MD: Animai and Plant Health Inspection

Service, September 1991 ); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servfce, “PestRiskAssessment of the Importation of Larch From Siberia

and 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 Forestry

et al., Sacramento, CA, Dec. 11, 1990.

Fish and Wildlife Service-FWS does far less area rests with State agencies, many of which lack

than APHIS in analyzing risks from injurious fish the necessary regulatory authority and/or reand wildlife (26). The current Lacey Act dirty list

is short (prohibiting 2 families, 13 genera, and 6

species), and FWS uses no checklist or other

standardized procedure to analyze risks from

other imported species. While APHIS inspects

incoming agricultural livestock for diseases, FWS

has no procedure for refusing entry to the

remaining unlisted and non-agricultural fish and

wildlife.

Service officials acknowledge the need for

better evaluation of risks from unlisted NIS: “it

would be desirable to improve internal Service

procedures for modifying the list of injurious

wildlife . . . by establishing listing criteria and

procedures’ (54). The Intentional Introductions

Policy Review conducted by the Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

represents one attempt to do so for aquatic species

(see ch. 6) (17). Much of the responsibility in this

sources to adequately address these risks (ch. 7).

ANALYSIS OF CONTROL OR ERADICATION

EFFORTS

Although risk analysis primarily focuses on

preventing harmful invasions, it also assists in

setting priorities for control of established, unwanted NIS. In agricultural applications this

tactical decisionmaking is part of Integrated Pest

Management programs (ch. 5). Farmers use a

variety of systems based on factors like pest

population size (determinedly sampling); weather;

and crop stage for efficient allocation of pesticides, cultivation practices, and other control

measures. Some systems have been developed for

area-wide agriculture and forestry control projects, These systems, in large part computerized,

guide responses to important pests such as the

European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar).
120 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Outside agriculture and forestry almost no

formal systems for pest control decisionmaking

existed until recently. Yet, like farmers and

foresters, natural area managers must evaluate

new NIS and respond if the risks are high, or they

may face a major infestation. Recently developed

models and ranking systems can help maximize

the impact of limited NIS control budgets for

natural areas. These models can help a manager

determine, for example, whether it is better to first

destroy large concentrated populations of an

invasive plant or the outlying “satellite” populations (usually the latter (47)).

Ronald Hiebert, Chief Scientist with the National Park Service, Midwest Region, developed

such a system for ranking control efforts for the

more than 250 non-indigenous plant species

growing at Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore

(23). The system uses a flexible point scale to

weigh the current impact of an introduced plant,

its potential for harm, control feasibility, and the

consequences of delay. The goal is to allow

trained ecologists to rank different NIS. New data

and theoretical advances may require continual

revision of the ranking system. It is undergoing

further testing for broader use and has been used

by the State of Minnesota Exotic Species Task

Force to classify benign, neutral, and threatening

plants (46). The Task Force also adapted it to rank

animals.

A simpler ranking system using four categories

was developed in 1989 for management of 221

species of non-indigenous plants in and around

Everglades National Park (85). The National Park

Service has also developed a Handbook for the

Removal of Non-Native Animals which lays out

criteria for ranking species for eradication or

control projects (15).

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental impact assessment refers to a

governmental decisionmaking process mandated

under the National Environmental Policy Act7

(NEPA) or under analogous State environmental

policy acts (SEPAs), adopted in 18 States (ch. 7).

The laws generally require assessments for both

government-initiated actions (including funding

of private actions) and issuing governmental

permits for private actions. Using a standardized

environmental assessment check list, the responsible agency makes a “threshold decision” as to

whether a particular action poses potentially

significant environmental impacts, which can

include impacts on both the natural and the

human-built environment. If so, the agency must

prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the potential impacts and

alternatives to the action before undertaking or

permitting it. The laws also provide opportunities

for public comment and for legal appeals on the

adequacy of these assessments, including the

threshold decision.

NEPA and SEPAs generally do not impose the

precise methods of analysis required either for the

threshold decision or the EIS, but they do provide

some standards.8 Environmental impact assessments tend to be more qualitative than formal risk

analyses (26), although some EISs include quantitative risk analysis.

NEPA has received broad recognition for

compelling more analytical decisionrnaking (although critics say many ways exist to make the

information generated more useful (21)). A recent

EIS evaluated the introduction of chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) into the Delaware

Bay. However, few detailed EISs have been

prepared on other decisions related to NIS except

7 National 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 the

integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental dwign arts in planning and in decisionmaking. ..; (B) identify and

develop methods and procedures. . . whichwill insure that presently unquantifkd environmental amenities and values maybe given appropriate

consideration in decisionrnakm“ g along with economic and technical considerations; . . . [and] (H) initiate and utilize ecological information

in the plarming and development of resource-oriented projects.”
Chapter &The

for control programs involving widespread pesticide spraying. For example, APHIS has never

required an EIS for any new plant or wood

imports (16). Some observers claim that NEPA is

an adequate mechanism to analyze these potential

impacts at the Federal level (65). However,

existing regulations lack a clear definition of

when NEPA should be triggered for government

approval of new imports. Thus, neither APHIS

nor any other agency has a clear obligation to

follow the NEPA process before allowing the

increase of agricultural, horticultural, or wood

imports from potentially risky sources such as

Mexico, South Africa, and Russia.

Various avenues exist to increase consideration

of NIS under environmental impact assessment

laws. These include:

Current NEPA regulations do not cover all

governmental actions likely to contribute to

NIS problems, such as approving major

trade agreements like the North American

Free Trade Agreement (this is being litigated; see ch. 10).

Agencies’ existing ‘‘categorical exclusions’

—regulations that excuse NEPA compliance

for certain activities--can result in unanalyzed importations or releases. An example

is the categorical exclusion for the landscaping of Federal highway projects, including

those either federally approved or funded,

which have historically involved extensive

use of non-indigenous plants.9

Detailed questions specific to NIS are not

required in the standardized check lists used

for preliminary environmental assessments

and for making threshold decisions as to

whether an EIS is called for (2).

Most agency regulations and internal policies do not mandate the integration of risk

Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 121

‘g

w

,1-

The potential for wood imports to carry nonindigenous pests has prompted reconsideration of risk

and environmental impact assessment procedures.

analysis or other formal decisionmaking

tools into the NEPA process.10

● The laws vary widely in the 18 States that

have SEPA review processes, and 32 States

lack them altogether (ch. 7, table 7-5) (18).

The most rigorous application of NEPA and

SEPAS would be to require an EIS for all new

releases that are not already on a clean list—in

other words to declare by law that new, unanalyzed releases are per se potentially significant

environmental impacts and require detailed analy -

$’ 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 FBill’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 States

sis. Montana already does this for all new fish

releases.11 However, biological control advocates

concerned about potential costs and delays caused

by NEPA have argued strongly against a proposal

to require an EIS for all releases of new biocontrol

agents (10).

Some concern exists that NEPA and SEPAS

can hinder the responsiveness of NIS regulation

and control (63). However, emergency control

measures can be excused from environmental

impact assessment requirements.12 For less urgent, broader control measures, such as long-term

weed management, Federal and State agencies

have already written many EISs. Little support is

evident for reducing the role of NEPA and SEPAs

in this regard because of the potential health and

environmental impacts of the pesticides used.

Environmental impact assessment laws could

affect the adoption of new clean and dirty lists for

regulating importation and release. FWS prepared

the only known EIS for a new listing approach

when the agency proposed its clean list regulation

under the Lacey Act, in 1974 (box 4-A). The EIS

was fairly basic and general, having been prepared in the early years of NEPA. Because FWS

withdrew the regulation, the adequacy of that EIS

remains untested.

An EIS for adopting a new regulatory clean list

of NIS would address the potential impacts of

allowing those listed species into the country, or

State. Conversely, an EIS for a new dirty list

regulation would need to focus on the potential

impacts of allowing in the unlisted species. Such

a task would be quite difficult to do because the

number of unlisted, and mostly unanalyzed,

species would presumably be quite large.

I Economic Analysis

Economic analysis of past introductions is

feasible through careful research, although relatively little has been done and the studies that

exist are of highly uneven quality (see economic

consequences section of ch. 2). Even less has been

done in the way of future projections that attempt

to predict economic scenarios with and without a

particular introduction. To date no “standard

accounting practice’ exists for NIS benefits and

costs, whether past or projected.

Projecting future economic effects necessarily

follows detailed scientific analysis, such as a pest

risk analysis or EIS. That is, economists are data

hungry-they cannot assess likely effects of a

particular NIS until they understand biological

baselines and the likely outcomes of an introduction. Projections of future economic effects are

available for about a dozen prominent damaging

NIS (ch. 10, table 10-2). In these projections

uncertainty about biological outcomes compounds

the uncertainty about economic outcomes.

Some question the validity of economic analysis as an aid to public policy decisionmaking

because of its heavy reliance on market effects—

based on things bought and sold in markets-and

lesser emphasis on hard-to-quantify non-market

effects. Since the mid-1970s, natural resource

economists have made major advances in both the

theory and methods of valuing non-market effects

(56). (Shadow pricing and contingent valuation

are the economic terms for this.) Still, a lively

debate continues as to whether these methods

adequately account for the way people develop

and hold different attitudes toward the value of

the natural world or its components (58), aspects

of which do not seem amenable to quantification

(figure 4-2).

Economic projections do not account well for

those future events that have a low probability of

occurring but will cause high impact if they do

occur (9,56). Unfortunately, many potential NIS

problems fit this description. Scientific ignorance, long time lags, and cumulative, sometimes

irreversible, effects confound the accounting. For

example, highly questionable analyses would

11 Mon~ Code Annotated 87-5-71 1(2).

1240 CFR 1506.11, as amended (Nov. 28, 1978).
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 123

Figure 4-2—Relative Extents to Which Effects of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Species are

Amenable to Economic Quantification

-— I

Biological

r--i

—

Raw materials Services Recreational

Harvested

iBiological : Ecological

resources diversity I processes Consumptive Non-consumptive

Amenable

to

quantification

1 . —. —. –~–—.

Psychological

Aesthetic

Scientific Artistic Religious

Cultural Symbolic

SOURCE: C. Prescmtt-Allen and R. Prescott-Allen, The First Hesour~HO/d~edesin the North American Ecortomy(New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.

Press, 1986).

derive from estimating the benefits and costs of

releasing a sport fish that could, but might not,

drive an indigenous, non-harvested fish species to

extinction several decades later. Some economists propose assigning rights or entitlements to

future generations as an additional way of valuing

uncertain future effects (52). However, this ‘‘intergenerational equity” has not received wide

acceptance in economic accounting to date (56).

Despite these limitations, economic analysis

provides a useful rigorous structure to guide

decisionmakers who might not otherwise consider all the relevant factors. If the analytical

process is accessible to the public and outside

experts, it can highlight the areas of debate and

uncertainty, making decisionmakers more accountable. This positive effect of economic analysis must be weighed against its costs: personnel,

funding, and time. Incurring these costs may only

be justified for cases above a certain threshold of

risk that cannot be resolved using other accepted

methods.

Economics has utility for broader aspects of

NIS decisionmaking than whether a particular

NIS should be imported, introduced, or controlled

(box 4-C). Well-documented economic analysis

can help in designing the most efficient regulatory

approaches as well as appropriate incentives (e.g.,

rewards, bounties) and disincentives (e.g., taxes)

to respond to existing problems (56). It can

determine effective levels of frees and penalties

for violations, that is, disincentives that will keep

importers and purchasers of potentially harmful

NIS from imposing externalized costs on society.

Economics also serves to ensure that both

private and government resources are expended
124 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 4-C-Macroeconomics and Non-indigenous Species

Macroeconomics 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 expressed

through international trade, illuminates the larger forces behind NIS problems. Some important trends:

. As developing countries pursue export markets for cash crops, traditional agroecosystems are increasingly

converted to large monoculture. Global homogenization of crops can reduce biological diversity and

increase 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 that

pose 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 and

the potential impact of more, or fewer, import restrictions. For example, to what extent do profits of the nursery

industry depend on continued infusion of new imported species or varieties? Could an indigenous plant industry

substitute for imports in a way that would satisfy consumer preferences and maintain industry profitability? Little

analysis of such questions has been done by either government or industry. They represent areas of fruitful inquiry

on 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 Tdnoiogy

Assessment, Oct. 4,1991; C. l%geibmgge, Director of ReguiatoryAffdrs, Amsrican Association of Nurserymen, personal communication

to Office of Tdnoiogy Assessment, Oct. 8,1991.

wisely on broad programs. For example, New costs. Benefit/cost analysis (BCA) is a method of

Zealand’s forest industries recently undertook a

detailed benefit/cost analysis on conducting forest pest detection surveys at various levels of

intensity (6). They found the maximum national

net benefit from these surveys resulted at levels

that detect 95 percent of new introductions (figure

4-3). The costs of detecting the last 5 percent

sharply exceed the marginal benefits. This exemplifies the case that seeking 100 percent success

is not always the optimal allocation of resources.

However, optimal resource allocation depends

entirely on the context, and relatively few detailed

studies exist for U.S. NIS programs. In other

environmental areas a clear trend exists toward

incorporating more economic analysis in designing new policies (13).

BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS

Where enough is known about the probabilities

of future effects from NIS, one can calculate the

different expected values of resulting benefits and

weighing particular decisions (box 4-D), such as

allowing an NIS to be imported or introduced, or

controlling or eradicating it if already present (9).

The resulting ratio compares the cumulative

potential economic benefits to the costs of the

decision, expressing them in 1991 dollars (present value).

Calculating a benefit/cost ratio does not automatically determine a decision. Even when the

benefits are greater, the magnitude of the costs

may be so high as to make the action unacceptable

or unfeasible. Costs and benefits that are unevenly distributed socially, geographically, or

generationally can present fairness questions. For

example, crop losses from pests can be highly

regional-some farmers may lose while others

profit from increased market prices (32). Excessive uncertainty or questionable valuation techniques may undercut the analysis. BCA is most

useful for ranking a comparable group of desira-
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 125

Figure 4-3-National Costs and Benefits of

Detecting Forest Pest Introductions in New Zealand

000 0.01 0.200.03 0.400.05 0.60 0.07 0.80 0.09 1.00

Proportion of Introductions detected

SOURCE: P,C.S. Carter, “Risk Assessment and Pest Detection

Surveys for Exotic Pests and Diseases which Threaten Commeraal

Forestry in New Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science,

VOI. 19, NOS. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-374.

ble actions when budget constraints prevent

undertaking them all (9).

In fact, benefit/cost ratios have been calculated

for only a few NIS decisions. Most existing

studies have focused on the economic justification for eradicating or controlling established

infestations. Benefit/cost ratios have been developed for past or potential effects of 12 prominent

NIS (table 4-4), In almost all the studies (of highly

variable rigor) the ratios are high (median 17.2/1;

range 0.23/1 to 1,666/1). That is, the management

actions are well justified economically because

the overall benefits of eradicating, controlling, or

preventing the potential infestations far exceed

the costs of the actions. However, these ratios do

not give detailed accounting for the uneven

distribution of the effects. Also, several of the

‘‘potential impacts’ represent worst-case scenarios. The analyses did not weigh the likelihood that

the worst potential impacts would actually occur.

Thus, those resulting ratios are probably too high.

As with risk analysis, future theoretical and

technical improvements are likely to make BCA’s

more comprehensive (56). BCA for NIS will

benefit from the development of standardized

practices, such as those proposed in box 4-D and

table 4-4, to make results more consistent and

comparable. The ability of economists to provide

useful analyses will depend to a large extent on

whether scientists can estimate probabilities of

future effects of NIS in a consistent, comparable

way. Economic models provide little assistance,

regardless of their sophistication, where they rest

on vague or equivocal predictions of biological

events (“garbage in, garbage out”).

DECISIONMAKING PROTOCOLS

Protocols are written codes used in diplomatic,

military, and scientific affairs to guide adherence

to a prescribed course of action. In the NIS

context, decisionmaking protocols consist of

criteria developed by experts to guide the determination of whether a proposed activity involving MS is appropriate. Some protocols also

prescribe precautions to minimize risks. They can

be focused narrowly, such as to guide procedures

for federally funded research on non-indigenous

aquatic species, or broadly on policy-level decisions, such as the model national approach

proposed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (box

4-E). The broader protocols have the distinctive

feature of going beyond scientific or risk-based

criteria to encompass value-based considerations

and to guide the weighing of benefits and costs.

Protocols lack enforceability except when adopted

by law, which has rarely happened (5,84). For

example, the American Fisheries Society protocol on new fish introductions has existed for more

than 20 years, but no Federal or State laws

mandate 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, a

bill 13 in 1991 requiring agencies to follow a

detailed protocol for aquatic introductions (77).

Several experts have supported greater use of

13 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 Species

Notes: 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 was

provided 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 ratios

given compare the benefits to the rests of eradicating, controlling, or preventing the NIS invasion under the circumstances that were studied. (Check index for scientific

names.)

costs

Direct effects Indirect effects Direct Distribution Year 1991 1991 Benefit/

Market Nonmarket Multiplier Related control Opportunity rests of total total cost

goods goods effects goods costs costs considered study benefits costs ratio

Past impacts-Plants

Hydrilla and water hyacintha

Hydrilla and water hyacintha

Hydrilla and water hyacintha

Hydrilla and water hyacintha

Hydrilla and water hyacintha

Melaleuca b

MelaleucaC

Leafy spurged

Pest impacts-Fish

Sea lampreye

Sea Iampreyf

Past impacts-insects

Alfalfa blotch leafminerg

Potential impacts--Plants

Purple Ioosestrifeh

Witchweed1 

Witchweed 1

Witchweed1 

Witchweed1 

Potential impacts-insects

Cotton boll weevil J

Cotton boll weevil J

Mediterranean fruit flyk

Mediterranean fruit flyk

Mediterranean fruit fly 1

Potential impacts-Pathogens

Foot and mouth diseasem

Foot and mouth disease”

Potential impacts-Other

Pests of:

Siberian log importsno

Siberian log importsn.o

0.497

8.4

13

6.54

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

1974

1977

1978

1979

1982

1991

1989

1984

0.016

0.100

0.003

0.019

0.089

12.31

15.2 145.0 15.0

1.260

0.047

1.075

1.514

0.641

1601

182.75

296.421

878.588

17.128

53.477

845.6

2,163.43

845.16

2,163.43

5.068

7.193

1,829.22

1,188.41

4,482.49

25,275.51

25,275.51

64,704.21

36.843.62

0.041

0.203

0.006

0.033

0.122

12.31

16.259

9.797

63.897

2.0864

1.982

124.53

124.53

113.03

113.03

0.279

0.418

93.21

93.21

91.40

1,013.19

1,497

38.94

31/1

0.23/1

179/1

45.9/1

5.25/1

13/1

11.241

10/12

30.25/1

13.7511

27/1

6.78/1

17.3711

7.47/1

19.1/1

18.1/1

17.2/1

19.62/1

12.75/1

49/1

24.95/1

16.88/1

1,661/1

0.023

0.567

0.869

0.468

1601

-.

8

-.

3

s

m

219,748

5503

42.898 8.681

40

N

N

1988

1980

1.1 N 1983 UJ

9)

z

w

39.32 0.100 1.6 N 1987

389.55

997.17

389.55

997.17

57.4

57.4

52.1

52.1

N

N

N

N

1976

1976

1976

1976

3.755

5.505

1,2566

816s

3,078

-0.84 0.16

-1.37 0.24

64

64

62.76

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

1979

1979

1981

1981

1981

11,6507

11,6507

467

690

N

N

1976

1976

62,1528

35,390.358

37.4 Y

37.4 Y

1990

1990 38.94 946/1
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 time

series.

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 boll

weevil 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 control

costs ($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 4-4

a 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,” North

American 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 Joint

Center 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 Commission

by 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%heryandAquatic

Science, 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 Northeastern

United States,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 15, No. 3, June 1986, pp. 448453.

h D.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 Research

and 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 States

Box 4-D-Outline of Steps for Benefit/Cost Analysis of Non-Indigenous Species

1. Effect estimation

A.

6.

c.

D.

E.

F.

Identify relevant input and output categories

1. Inputs-(e.g., wetland invasion by non-indigenous melaleuca)

2. Outputs-(e.g., tourism; honey production)

Define units of measurement for input and output categories

1. 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 NIS

Identify production process relating to introduction of the NIS to a series of outputs, expressed

probabilistically

1. Expected units of invasion-(e.g., acres of distinct environs where NIS would be established and

distributed)

Quantify expected magnitude of each output for the relevant magnitudes of each input category

Estimate changes in input and output categories for with introduction versus without introduction

scenarios

ii. Valuation of direct effects

A. Market goods

1. Marginal changes in production

a. Market price x change in output quantity

2. Non-marginal change in product in product

a. Identify market price changes

b. Measure consumer and producer surplus

B. Non-market goods

1. Contingent valuation

Ill. Calculate indirect effects

A. Multiplier income and employment effects

1. Opportunity costs

2. Unemployed resources

B. Related goods

1. Changes in production

2. Changes in market price

3. Calculate consumer and producer surplus

IV. Calculate annual benefits and costs

V. Accounting for time

A.

B.

c.

Select appropriate discount rate

1. 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 value

1. Present value of benefits = !!$

N Cn

2. Present value of costs = z—

n -O (1+r) n

n. number of the year in time series, N = last year of time series, r = discount rate, B = benefits, C = costs

SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species intheUnltedState$: Eoonomlo Cort8a quenoes,” oontraotormport prepared forthe Office

of Technology Assessment, March 1992.
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 129

Box 4-E-The IUCN Position Statement on Translocation of Living Organisms

A broad protocol covering the whole field of NIS releases was developed by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN), a body comprised of scientific experts and government

officials involved in conservation from around the world. The lengthy IUCN Position Statement on Translocation

of Living Organisms, approved in 1987, lays out many questions to answer and steps to follow when considering

future releases. In summary it provides that:

. Release of a NIS should be considered only if dear and well-defined benefits to humans or natural

communities 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 not

occur absent exceptional reasons.

. Planned releases, including those for biological control, entail three critical phases: rigorous assessment

of desirability; controlled experimental release; and extensive release accompanied by careful monitoring

and 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 position

statement calls on national governments to provide the “legal authority and administrative support” to implement

IUCN’s approach. This has not occurred. The statement did substantively influence the initial version of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, which was drafted by IUCN’s legal branch. However, by the time the convention

was opened for signing in Rio de Janeiro the negotiation process had greatly diluted the strong principles

summarized above (see ch. 10).

SOURCE: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission, ‘he IUCN Position

Statement on Translooation of Uvfng Organisms: Introductions, Reintroductions, and Restocking” (Gland, Switzerland, 1987).

protocols; some suggest that they be implemented comprehensive protocols: 1) to preempt overly

federally by grafting their use into NEPA when

agencies assess potential environment impacts of

proposed releases (74).

Adhering to a decisionmaking protocol can

require data that are more difficult or expensive to

obtain than the information traditionally considered by managers. Even so, protocols often do not

eliminate subjectivity and scientific uncertainty—

some of the needed data may be unobtainable.

Few protocols have been validated by way of

follow-up evaluations of decisions based on them

(83). Of course, if they are used more broadly

greater opportunities for evaluation will exist.

Some prominent decisionmaking protocols do

exist or have been proposed (box 4-F), Others

could be developed to cover additional NIS

groups and situations. Biological control specialists in particular have proposed codifying more

restrictive regulations constructed by non-experts

and 2) to protect the public from amateur introductions (10). Their emphasis is on flexibility

within a reasonable, non-regulatory framework:

“the protocols must be dynamic, i.e., capable of

being updated in response to ever increasing

knowledge and changing conditions’ (10). Fisheries specialists have also stressed voluntary

compliance with protocols or guidelines, especially combined with education regarding it

importance, as a way to avoid the litigation that

might accompany overly strict regulations (31).

VALUES IN DECISIONMAKING

Many NIS issues may not be resolvable using

risk analysis, environmental impact assessment,

or economic analysis, because of lack of necessary information or disagreement over the appro-
130 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 4-F-Prominent Decisionmaking Protocols

Codes of Practice and Manual of Procedures for Considration of Introductions and Tranfers of Marine and

Freshwater 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, Working

Group 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 Nature

and 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 Fisheries

Research Center, Gainesville, Florida, adopted by the Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

in 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 Control

of ~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 Introduction

of 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 be clearing the land of threatening or competing

compelled, to decide on the basis of fundamental

values. As used in this section, ‘‘values” has no

monetary connotation, rather, it refers to overarching criteria that people use to make decisions

(3). Values, although they are critical, often

receive little explicit acknowledgment in studies

of decisionmaking because of the focus on

science-based models.

For most non-native Americans, being of

relatively recent stock in North America and

Hawaii, little of their cultural identity revolves

around a relationship with indigenous species.

Indeed, much pioneer history is the story of

indigenous species in favor of tame, familiar,

introduced ones. Not surprisingly, preserving

indigeneity, both biological and cultural, has only

risen as a public value in the last few decades. The

Endangered Species Act14 represents the strongest national law embodying this biological preservation value. It is also reflected in native plant

societies and similar manifestations of a growing

emphasis on using indigenous species for landscaping and other applications (45).

Americans also place strong emphasis on

liberty as a value, here encompassing the liberty

to sell, purchase, catch, hunt, possess, and use

M ~~nger~ species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 1531 et w.)
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 131

NIS. Most people own pets and/or keep house or

garden plants, which are virtually all nonindigenous. This liberty value is so strong that at

the 1974 congressional hearing on the FWS

attempt to implement a clean list decisionmaking

approach (box 4-A, above), the successful opponents-largely the pet trade-argued that it usurped

their civil rights to import MS (76). This liberty

is not limited to dogs, cats, and poinsettias. Many

people want to own novel species because of their

novelty (4).

Values can conflict at social or personal levels.

The use of non-indigenous fish for recreational

fishing, such as hybrid bass (Morone chrysops x

M. saxatilis), represents a social conflict (59).

Anathema to fishing purists, these “put and take’

fisheries enjoy broad popularity-some have

clubs devoted to their furtherance. Preserving

indigeneity in U.S. waters conflicts with the

liberty to use the new fish. However, a limited

opinion poll (Arizona only) suggests that the

public opposes the release of non-indigenous fish

that threaten the existence of indigenous fish (22).

No broad public survey data exist on the

prevalence of concerns about NIS problems.

Surveys do show the public to be very concerned

about the health risks of pesticides, however (8).

A person who supports preservation of indigenous species may also oppose the use of chemical

pesticides because of their health risks. In situations where chemical pesticides offer the only

control for NIS that threaten indigenous species,

that person has a personal conflict. He or she must

decide which carries the most weight, the preservation or the health value.

Many NIS choices boil down to humane

values, rooted in basic moral principles. Monkeys

may be low-risk invaders, but many people object

to their being imported and possessed as pets for

ethical reasons. Feral horses and burros (Equus

asinus) have been successful and often damaging

invaders, but vocal citizen groups object to their

being killed on ethical grounds. However, few

object on ethical grounds to the killing of the less

attractive feral hog (Sus scrofa )-advocates for

their preservation are the hunters who want to

shoot them. (Indeed, a survey has shown that if a

decisionmaker is a hunter he or she is more likely

to view non-indigenous animals, like feral hogs,

as a beneficial resource than if he or she does not

hunt (61)). Almost no one objects on ethical

grounds to highly deleterious rats or sea lampreys

(Petromyzon marinus) being killed.

Clearly the attitudes of the public vary with the

perceived attractiveness and usefulness of the

species involved, indigenous or non-indigenous

(28). Nevertheless, most people would probably

support the following ethical position: regardless

of the species being controlled, if other factors

such as costs and risks are equal, managers should

use the most humane methods. When applied in

the field, though, “humane” methods of control

elude easy definition (69).

OTA makes no findings as to which values

deserve the greatest weight. Their role in past

decisions, however, has tended to lack clarity.

Future policy and management decisionmaking

would benefit from explicitly separating factual

questions from questions of values. Nevertheless,

cultural, religious, and historical factors will

inevitably color a decisionmaker’s perspective.

NEW SYNTHESES OF DIVERSE

APPROACHES

Difficulties abound in generalizing about NIS

decisionmaking. An approach that holds for one

taxonomic group may not hold for another-one

size does not fit all. Potential impacts (harmful

and beneficial) vary with the species and the

environments involved. Different areas of the

country often have different interests. A new NIS

may favor one group in society and burden

another.

Numerous interests can influence NIS decisionmaking (figure 4-4). Each interest is not

monolithic; as much contention can occur within

an identified group as between them. Not all these

interests are brought to bear in all cases nor do all

carry equivalent weight. For example, a large or
132 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

politically influential constituency that favors a

particular decision regarding NIS may far outweigh the positions of a small number of expert

scientists who caution against the decision (44).

Are methods available to reconcile these diverse interests and to resolve disputes that may

otherwise end in expensive and burdensome

litigation? If decisionmakers attempt to reconcile

these interests, which of the approaches discussed

above should they rely on—risk analysis, environmental impact assessment, economic analysis,

and/or protocols? None of them alone is currently

broadly applied to NIS. And how should diverse

values factor in?

Two proposals for synthesis allow incorporation of diverse societal interests and capitalize on

the strengths of the various decisionmaking

approaches without according any of them trump

status. These proposals are outlined here with the

caveat that their application in particular contexts

may require modifications.

Benefit/Cost Analysis Subject to a Safe

Minimum Standard

Economist Alan Randall of Ohio State University proposes that current natural resources economics theory justifies this rule: Decide on the

basis of maximizing net benefits to society

subject to the constraint of a Safe Minimum

Standard (56). A “safe minimum standard’ is a

level of environmental quality that society should

not go below, except in extraordinary cases. The

rule applies in deciding whether to prevent,

support, or take no action on a particular introduction, or whether an existing NIS should be

controlled or eradicated. It can be applied to

intentional releases and in preparing for or

responding to accidental releases. Generic application of the Randall approach by a manager

would follow six steps, with the underlying

premise that each step involves an open, pluralistic process (56):

Step 1: The manager obtains the judgment of

scientists who use risk analysis, experimentation, and/or other methods to predict the likely

spread and effects of a particular NIS. They

determine likely future scenarios of resulting

ecological situations under both baseline conditions, i.e., no introduction or further spread,

and ‘‘with introduction” (or further spread)

conditions. The scientists then determine whether

a real possibility exists of a harmful invasion.

If so, the manager proceeds to Step 2. If no such

possibility exists, then the introduction can

proceed, providing for further consideration if

and when new evidence arises.

Step 2: The manager obtains the judgment of

scientists as to whether a possibility exists of

ecologically disastrous-as opposed to harmful but manageable-consequences. If ecologically disastrous consequences are not a real

possibility, the manager proceeds to Step 3. If

ecologically disastrous consequences are a

real possibility, the manager omits Steps 3, 4,

and 5, and proceeds to Step 2a.

Step 2a: If a real possibility of ecologically

disastrous consequences exists, the manager

invokes a Safe Minimum Standard rule.

This is a presumption based on preservation

and other values that actions will not be

taken that cause ecologically disastrous

consequences even if substantially greater

potential benefits are lost. The introduction

would be prevented or reversed except for

extraordinary cases in which the value of

these foregone benefits would be intolerably

high. To make that decision, the manager

first obtains economic calculations of the

foregone benefits, then engages in a public

decision process to determine whether these

are socially intolerable. If the decision is

made to proceed, mitigation of the potentially disastrous consequences would be

pursued.
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 133

Figure 4-4-The Major Interests Involved in Shaping

Non-indigenous Species Policy

-,-=-

\

\

F

\

Advocacy groups < >

Non-indigenous species policy < > State legislatures

— —.

A

v

~ General public

J

Utilizmg public Resource-based Media 1 — ——— industry -J

SOURCE: 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 Managementr W.R. Mangun (cd.) (New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 1991), pp. 17-38.

Step 3: (from Step 2) Starting with the baseline

and “with introduction’ scenarios (predicted

in Step 1), the manager employs economists to

develop accounts of the resulting flows of

goods and services. They per-form benefit/cost

analyses based on these accounts, with appropriate market and non-market valuation methods to measure total value, including use and

‘‘existence’ values. The manager determines

whether the prospective introduction (or

spread) is expected to have a net benefit.

Step 4: If Step 3 reveals that the introduction (or

spread) will not have a net benefit, the manager

develops alternative scenarios to prevent it. If

Step 3 reveals positive net benefits, but also

significant harmful effects (ecological or economic), alternative scenarios to mitigate the

harmful effects are developed. Then the economists perform further benefit/cost analyses

based on accountings under these new scenarios that incorporate the prevention or mitigation alternatives. (If positive net benefits result

with no significant harmful effects, then no

further accounting is needed.)

Step 5: The manager gives full public consideration to the benefits and costs of the

alternatives resulting from Step 4. Absent

compelling input to the contrary, the alternative with the maximum net benefits is

chosen.

The Randall approach represents a compromise between the liberty value and the preservation and humane values discussed in the values

section, above. That is, traditional benefit/cost

analysis assumes the decisionmaker has the

freedom to choose the maximum net benefit

alternative, regardless of associated costs, whereas

the Safe Minimum Standard (Step 2a) constrains

that liberty based on a socially accepted higher

good. The constraint also acts as a check on the

problem, discussed above, of relying on economic analysis to value effects of low-probability

future events that may be irreversible (i.e.,

disastrous), like extinction.

Decision Analysis Combined With

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Professor Lynn Maguire of the Duke University School of the Environment proposes a

different way to synthesize decisionmaking approaches. It combines decision analysis with
134 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

alternative dispute resolution. This method has

more participation by ‘‘stakeholder’ groups than

does the Randall approach, but fewer pre-selected

analytical methods (42).

Decision analysis is a framework that ensures

that the components common to any decision are

recognized and addressed explicitly. Those decision components are: objectives, criteria, alternative actions, sources of uncertainty, and values

associated with possible outcomes. The concurrent use of alternative dispute resolution recognizes that leaving difficult decisions to government officials or experts can result in continued

conflict among the interest groups involved. The

process creates a forum for addressing the decision components, making tradeoffs, recognizing

common ground, and making the needed decision. A similar framework has been proposed for

decisionmaking for releases of genetically engineered organisms (20). The Maguire approach

proceeds through four steps:

Step 1: Identify and convene, in a neutral setting,

representatives of stakeholder interest groups

in a particular NIS decision (e.g., release,

control, eradication, or regulatory changes).

Step 2: Undertake preliminary negotiations to

achieve, where possible, joint acceptance of

major objectives and sub-objectives, and criteria for judging whether alternative outcomes

from the decision to be made meet the objectives (i.e., the ‘utility’ of the outcome). To the

extent possible, separate technical questions

from value-based questions and obtain technical expertise to address the former. When

agreed, engage in joint fact-finding efforts.

Step 3: The parties flesh out the sub-components

of their views of the probable effects of the

alternative outcomes, including factual and

value-based effects. These are graphically

represented on a “decision tree” in which the

parties, with expert assistance if needed, assign

perceived probabilities to different outcomes

(the “branches” of the tree), accounting for

uncertainties. The ‘‘utility” (identified in Step

2) of each identified outcome is weighted with

the perceived probability of the outcome occurring to calculate the “expected utility” of each

outcome for each party.

Step 4; All parties identify actions with “maximum expected utility. ” Other jointly accepted

rules, such as minimizing the largest costs, are

also possible. Identify and negotiate options to

reduce uncertainty by obtaining additional

information. If agreed, obtain this additional

information. Then discuss creative tradeoff

alternatives in view of the maximum expected

utilities of all parties or other accepted decision

rule. Attempt to negotiate tradeoffs with the

aim of achieving a consensus decision.

The Maguire approach, unlike the Randall

approach, neither makes presumptions based on

values nor prescribes analytical methods. It mandates less input from scientists and economists

than the Randall approach. Consequently, the

outcomes may reflect less ‘‘good science” and

rely more on the subjective probabilities assigned

by the participants. Indeed, the absence of scientific answers may be why the dispute among the

stakeholders exists in the first place. The approaches are not mutually exclusive, however.

Participants in the Maguire process could ‘jointly

accept” that benefit/cost analysis subject to a

Safe Minimum Standard embodies the appropriate Step 2 criteria to judge the utility of alternative

outcomes. They could choose to obtain more

“good science” to the extent possible.

OTA finds three common hurdles to implementing these two approaches:

1. Lack of clear guidance as to what should

trigger the significant commitment of personnel, expertise, and time necessary to

implement formal approaches. Various trigger options exist, however: for preparation

of any new clean or dirty list; pursuant to a

petition process (similar to listing decisions

under the Endangered Species Act); under
Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 135

2.

3.

NEPA for controversial environmental impact statements (21); and pursuant to the

Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act,15 discussed below.

Lack of convincing treatment of uncertainty, because of their emphases on negotiating, quantifying, or developing scenarios

based on unknowns. Admittedly, it is hard

to envision any convincing treatment of

uncertainty in a decisionmaking model.

Lack of evaluation of their adaptability to

NIS decisionmaking in the real world.

Randall’s Safe Minimum Standard very

roughly resembles the restrained benefit/

cost weighing allowed under the Endangered Species Act (55). (The act’s Safe

Minimum Standard is no further humancaused extinctions unless the ‘God Squad’

determines the costs to be intolerably high

in a particular case.) The Maguire approach

has been utilized successfully in other

natural resource contexts, such as reintroducing the endangered grizzly bear (Ursus

arctos horribilis) in the Northern Rockies,

which is comparable in some ways to

introducing potentially harmful NIS (43).

Obviously, neither model can be evaluated

in the NIS context unless a commitment is

made to try them.

As far as strengths, both models can incorporate the various decisionmaking approaches discussed in this chapter. In doing so, they organize

and structure information from diverse sources

but are not overly rigid. Both proposals also call

for full documentation of the process. They force

methods, assumptions, comparisons, and tradeoffs to be explicit, which facilitates their communication, review, and appraisal (20,68).

The question remains how these or comparable

decisionmaking approaches could be integrated

into a regulatory process. One existing avenue is

the Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act. It proAgencies’ implementation of decisions should be

evaluated if new decision making methods are tried.

Also, the quality of decisions reached must be

assessed, i.e., whether new approaches ultimately

improve management of harmful NIS.

vides a process whereby the head of a Federal

agency makes a threshold decision about whether

an issue would benefit from negotiations. He or

she bases this on the need for a new Federal

regulation and the feasibility of convening a

representative committee likely to achieve consensus. Public notice of the process is required.

The agency may hire professional facilitators to

run the negotiations. Under the act, the agency

commits to using the consensus agreement, if the

parties reach one, as the basis for the proposed

regulation “to the maximum extent possible

IS INegotiat~ Rtiemtig Act of 1990 (5 U. S.C.A. section 561 et seq.)
136 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

consistent with the legal obligations of the

agency. ‘‘16 Although it apparently has never been

applied before in the NIS context, negotiated

rulemaking has successfully resolved disputes in

other environmental areas.

Even if these model approaches are used, and

consensus achieved, positive improvements in

regulation and control of damaging NIS will not

necessarily follow. Regular feedback based on

monitoring of ultimate results would aid in

improving the models. Follow-up evaluation of

agency implementation of resulting decisions

should be an integral part of any changes in

decisionmaking processes (29).

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter has examined the means by which

decisions about potentially harmful NIS are

made: clean and dirty lists, risk analysis, environmental impact assessment, economic analysis,

values, and protocols. This chapter also looked at

two methods to synthesize the different approaches. Explicitly addressing three interrelated

issues would contribute to clearer decisions in the

future: 1) determining the level of risk that is

acceptable; 2) setting thresholds of risk at which

decisionmakers should invoke formal, more costly,

approaches; and 3) clarifying the tradeoffs when

deciding in the face of uncertainty. The benefits

of taking these issues seriously would be better

NIS decisions in many cases or, at least, decisions

that take better account of the diverse societal

interests involved.

Even under the best of circumstances, some

mistaken decisions will be made because of the

inherent unpredictability of NIS. Technology

provides the means to counter such mistakes.

Methods to prevent and control problems due to

NIS are the subject of the next chapter.

165 U. S.C.A. 583(a)(7).
.

T

Technologies

for Preventing

and

Managing

Problems

his chapter describes technologies and related issues for

preventing and managing harmful non-indigenous species (NIS) in the United States. Programs are discussed

in the order of their occurrence for dealing with NIS:

prevention, followed by eradication, containment, and suppression. Education is a key component within all of these

programs.

The adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’

holds true for many harmful NIS. However, prevention is not

always sufficient. Harmful NIS do enter the country, although it

is not possible to predict when or where the next harmful MS will

enter, or what its specific impact will be. Alternative programs

are required to prevent establishment of these MS or to manage

them.

Eradication is the first step in such reactive approaches.

Destroying a population when it is relatively small or before it

spreads can eliminate the need for long-term management

programs. Eradication is not always possible, however, or may

not be implemented. The next step is containment or development of a strategy to limit or slow the population’s spread.

Long-term management using specific control technologies is

the final phase. At this point the goal is to suppress the population

below acceptable thresholds.

5

TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTING t~--’:~ “1 ,!

*

-g-’.= --- “+ ,,–7+“. -’<

UNINTENTIONAL AND ILLEGAL INTRODUCTIONS

‘.--—~ . .-w

(:’ ‘ ~..::) .2.. .-

Finding:

Shortcomings exist in Federal prevention programs. The

high volume of people and goods in transit can overwhelm

137
138 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

inspectors, limiting thorough surveillance. Confusing regulatory authority can lead to delays

in applying known technologies. Lag times

often exist between the identification of a

harmful NIS and the implementation of an

effective prevention technology.

Inspection and Exclusion Activities at

U.S. Ports of Entry

Experts often consider prevention the most

economical, desirable, and effective management

strategy for harmful NIS. The manifestation of

this policy is government inspection and exclusion programs for NIS. The main factors involved

in successfully preventing the entry of NIS are:

the availability and efficacy of technologies for

known problems (e.g., fumigation for imported

fruits and nuts); the development of applicable

technologies and programs for new NIS (e.g.,

ballast water treatment for zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha); and applying these technologies effectively (e.g., matching availability of

inspectors to volume of passengers from international flights).

Preventing the introduction of harmful NIS

involves various Federal and, to a lesser degree,

State agencies, often working together. This

cooperation may include assuming inspection

duties or sharing of resources and information.

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 discuss the roles of the

different Federal agencies in NIS prevention

activities.

TRAVELERS AND BAGGAGE

A recognized pathway for NIS at U.S. ports of

entry is the traveling public and their baggage

(14). Under normal circumstances, insufficient

time and staffing and the numbers of international

travelers prevent 100 percent inspection of passengers and baggage. A profile system based on

country of origin and passenger descriptions

identifies high-risk flights and passengers.

Preferably, selective and efficient inspection

technologies are used to reduce NIS introduction.

Inspections-before imports are shipped, at U.S. ports

of entry, and after shipments are treated-are

important means of excluding agricultural pests from

the country.

The categorization of flights from areas of known

NIS of quarantine significance can allow inspectors to most effectively use their limited resources. Human ‘‘rovers’ also play an important

role in identifying passengers who might intentionally introduce damaging NIS.

X-ray machines and beagles are important

tools in detecting prohibited NIS in baggage.

Presently, dogs are used at nine major airports in

the United States. X-ray equipment is used at 42

major airports and land-border stations (43). Dogs

and xrays have various limitations. For example,

they cannot distinguish between permissible and

forbidden items of similar type. Their effective-
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 139

ness also depends on the quantity of goods in a

sample and the packaging of the items.

Some innovative approaches to detecting NIS

in baggage are being developed; these include

carbon dioxide ‘‘sniffers’ and other electronic or

mechanical probes (1 1).

INTERNATIONAL TRADE: AGRICULTURE AND

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

International commerce provides another avenue for the introduction of potentially harmful

NIS into the United States. Preventing their

introduction requires the establishment of regulatory quarantines. Such quarantines can require

that a commodity be treated with a specific

technology or that live organisms (e.g., large

game animals, plant germ plasm, or potential

biological control agents) be held in a quarantine

facility to test for the presence of restricted

pathogens, predators, or parasites.

Commodities (Fruits and Vegetables)—

Techniques for preventing unintended introductions of NIS with commodities include treatment

schedules and sampling programs. For example,

mangoes from Brazil are tested for the presence of

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata). Ideally, treatments should provide complete effectiveness (100 percent kill); cause little or no

damage to the commodity; cause only minor

delays in commercial transit; and have no human

health risks (69).

Procedures such as picking fruit and vegetables

early to minimize the chance of infestation or

using cultivars resistant to specific pests can be

implemented before a commodity leaves the

originating country. In addition, changing the

planting date to avoid pest outbreaks, rotating

crops, or using chemical pesticides to establish

pest-free zones can reduce the chances of infestation (69).

The goal of a pest-free zone is to remove the

pest problem in a specific part of a country.

Protocols for establishing such zones include:

surveys; required action if the survey detects the

target pest within the area; procedures for sampling, marketing, certifying, and safeguarding

exported products; and a documented history of

pest-free status. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has pest-free zone agreements with

Mexico, Chile, and other countries (105).

While a commodity is in transit, or after it has

arrived at a U.S. port of entry, specific treatments

such as the application of chemicals or holding

items at specific temperatures for designated time

periods are available (table 5-l). Several factors

limit the use of temperature or chemicals, including the biology of the NIS, the frailty of the

commodity, and the feasibility of application.

Some chemical treatments cause damage or

reduce the product’s shelf life (29). Temperature

treatments are nonchemical alternatives but require strict adherence to protocols for efficacy.

For example, a hot water dip for papayas was

discontinued because of difficulties in monitoring

the process (94).

By combining cultural and physical treatments

in the country of origin, some commodities can

receive pre-clearance before entering the United

States. Pre-cleared commodities are permitted

entry without further inspection. For example,

inspectors trained by USDA’s Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) working in

cooperation with local inspectors in Japan, can

monitor field production, storage, packaging, and

shipment of Satsuma oranges, which are inspected for the presence of citrus canker (Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri) (72). Pre-clearance

programs exist between the United States and 24

other countries, yet, with the exception of Canada, they remain relatively small (43,103).

Subset sampling is part of the pre-clearance

inspection for highly perishable commodities or

when known NIS potentially infest specific commodities. APHIS has established protocols for

subset sampling (93), which involves sampling

small portions of an imported commodity to

assess whether NIS are present. Limited resources, loading techniques, or large lots can
140 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 5-l—Examples of Treatment Technologies for Importing Commodities

Chemical 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 are

fumigated for 3 hours with methyl bromide for infestations of the chestnut weevil (Curculio

elephas),

Temperature treatment:

Freezing:

Fruits and vegetables are frozen at subzero temperatures with subsequent storage and transportation

handling 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) requires

refrigeration 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, tilling

eggs and larvae.

Examp/e:The temperature of grapefruit from Mexico is raised to 110 ‘F at the center of the fruit

in 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 for

65 minutes.

Combination treatment:

Combination of fumigation and cold treatment.

Example: Fruit infested with Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) is exposed to methyl

bromide 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 ionizing

radiation dose of 15 kilorads. (This treatment schedule has USDA approval but is not

commercially used at this time.)

SOURCES: 7CFRCh. 111 (1-1-91 Ed.) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Part 319- Foreign Quarantine Notices, Subpart- Fruits

and Vegetables, 319.56; 7 CFR Ch. 111 (1-1-92 Ed.) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Part 318- Hawaiian and Territorial

Quarantine Notices, Subpart - Hawaiian Fruits and Vegetables, 318.13.

reduce the randomness of samples, compromising

accuracy (91).

One technology with potential for treating

many commodities such as flowers, grain, and

fruits is irradiation (e.g., gamma radiation). Irradiation kills organisms directly or indirectly (e.g.,

causes sterility or other mutations in immature

life stages) so that new populations cannot be

established. This technology is currently used to

increase the shelf life of foods such as strawberries and for treating spices.

To become an effective tool, it is necessary to

establish dosage levels for specific pest species

and commodities. The doses required to directly

kill some non-indigenous pests can damage

commodities. For example, some flowers from

Hawaii cannot tolerate certain radiation levels

(29), but decreasing the doses potentially leaves

live (though nonfertile) pests. These present

problems for inspectors, because practical methods that distinguish nonfertile from fertile pests

are limited.

Public concern over health risks also affects the

use of irradiation. Although irradiated products

pose no known hazards to consumers, potential

occupational health risks exist (63).

Animals (Livestock, Zoos and the Pet Trade)---

NIS such as “exotic” game animals are recognized as sources of disease for domesticated and
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 141

wild indigenous animals (47). Therefore, various

non-indigenous animals being imported are temporarily held at quarantine stations, where they are

examined for general clinical signs of disease,

ectoparasites, and specific diseases based on the

species and country of origin. Categories of

vertebrate animals quarantined include domestic

livestock and swine, poultry, pet birds, and

various ‘‘exotic’ game animals. Other categories

of vertebrates have no or few restrictions. For

example, no Federal quarantine requirements

exist for non-indigenous fish, and few exist for

non-indigenous reptiles.

Animals are held either in USDA Veterinary

Services quarantine stations or in various private

facilities approved by the USDA at or near ports

of entry. Veterinary Services maintains quarantine stations in Newburg, New York; Miami,

Florida; and Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition, the

Harry S. Truman Animal Import Center at Fleming Key, Florida, quarantines imported animals

when highly contagious diseases (e.g., foot-andmouth disease) are a risk or where high security

is required.

Animal quarantine does not completely prevent the introduction of animal disease or disease

vectors, however. Some non-indigenous animals

circumvent quarantine when they are shipped to

approved zoos. While these animals are technically held in a permanent quarantine (i.e., the

zoo), the potential exists for diseases to escape via

other vectors such as insects. Importation of

animals such as red deer (Cervus elaphus) for

game and ostriches (Struthio camelus) for commercial purposes also provides a potential pathway for NIS. A gap in prevention occurs because

it is difficult to recognize diseases or their vectors

carried on these novel imports and to develop

appropriate tests quickly.

Plant Germ Plasm—High-risk plant germ

plasm is quarantined to check for the presence of

pests or pathogens such as viruses, bacteria,

insects and mites, or fungi. The National Plant

Germplasm Center in Beltsville, Maryland, conducts tests for detection methods. Present facilities and staffing are inadequate to process expected future volumes of incoming material (65),

and the Center is in the process of expansion.

Ongoing construction activities may extend into

1997 (92).

Some standard techniques for detecting pathogens in germ plasm include visually looking for

signs and symptoms of disease, and checking for

transmission to healthy plants (79). More specific

techniques involving electron microscopy, immunosorbent assays (ELISA, EIA), molecular

probes, and other tools have been developed or

improved for particular pathogens (38). These

tools, used alone or in combination, allow faster

and more precise pathogen detection, although

they also have limitations to their use. Research

is needed to detect other pathogens of quarantine

signtificance and to make these technologies more

practical at inspection stations (38).

Biological Control Agents-Certain groups

of non-indigenous biological control agents (e.g.,

insects and pathogens) are also quarantined upon

importation. The quarantine may screen for nontarget effects of control agents, for hyperparasites,

or for purity to guard against the inadvertent

introduction of additional NIS (43).

Biological control quarantine facilities exist in

Federal, State, and university laboratories. The

USDA provides guidelines for their development

and sets standards for features such as air intake

systems, drains, escape-proof containers, and

greenhouses. These standards vary depending on

the type of organisms being held. Quarantine

facilities in Frederick, Maryland, for example, are

designed to prevent plant pathogens from escaping (58).

Education at Ports of Entry

A portion of travelers carrying prohibited NIS

are unaware of Federal restrictions or have made

honest mistakes about possessing prohibited items.

These travelers would more likely comply with

restrictions if they were aware of the reasons for
142 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Attempts to educate travelers regarding the dangers

of importing non-indigenous species have relied on

posters and other written materials, with mixed

success.

regulatory actions, and the environmental and

economic risks involved (38). A well-organized,

active public education campaign could disseminate such information.

One example of a public education campaign

for travelers was a USDA program begun in the

early 1960s. It used the media to build general

awareness in order to deter entry of prohibited

products (54). The program included printed

information, radio and television advertisements,

films, foreign language fliers, and the development of the symbol “Pestina” (akin to the U.S.

Forest Service’s Smoky the Bear).

The program had mixed results. No formal

evaluation attempted to determine the program’s

effectiveness (52). The program did illustrate a

lack of cooperation and coordination between

Federal agencies and the private sector, as airlines, travel agencies, and port authorities were

indifferent about giving full support to the USDA

programs (54,91).

Although public education is considered an

essential element of prevention programs, OTA

could not identify a formal national education

program directed against NIS importation. Limited public education at ports of entry depends

primarily on printed materials (e.g., posters and

pamphlets). Showing videos on airplanes is an

interesting approach. Hawaiian, Northwest, and

Continental Airlines are sporadically involved in

such a program on flights to Hawaii.

Where, when, and how to educate the public

about NIS policy are important questions. Education before travelers depart (allowing them to

leave prohibited items behind) offers perhaps the

best way to prevent introductions. Educating after

departure but before

acting not so much as

trip, but as a method

future trips (54).

arrival also is beneficial,

a safeguard for the existing

for building awareness for

Evaluation of Prevention Programs and

Methods

Assessing the effectiveness of inspection and

quarantine programs is difficult. For example, the

number of reported interceptions at a port of entry

only provides the quantity and types of regulated

NIS discovered, This information provides little

data on the effectiveness of the prevention system

because it does not estimate the total pest entries.

OTA was only able to identify ad hoc programs

that evaluate the effectiveness of prevention

programs.

THE “BLITZ”

One approach to understanding how many

prohibited items enter the country is through

‘‘blitzes,’ or brief 100 percent inspection. During

one week in May 1990, USDA/APHIS, the

California Department of Food and Agriculture,

and some southern California counties conducted

a blitz at Los Angeles International Airport. Out

of a total of 490 flights, 100 percent of the

baggage of 153 targeted flights (from high-risk

countries of origin) and several non-targeted
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 1143

flights was inspected. The remainder underwent

standard USDA inspection.

The blitz showed that passenger baggage on

foreign flights is an important pathway for plant

and animal pests (7). Inspection involving 16,997

passengers (i.e., passengers and their baggage)

from the targeted flights intercepted 667 lots of

prohibited fruits and vegetables and 140 animal

products (equaling 2,828 pounds). Another 690

lots of prohibited fruits and vegetables and 185 of

animal products (2,969 pounds) were intercepted

from non-targeted flights. The results also demonstrated that at this airport considerable illegal

importation occurs. A study of the blitz concluded

that more resources are needed to close this

pathway and to more strongly deter common

illegal activity (8).

“Shutting the Door”—Blitzes can evaluate

the effectiveness of prevention programs already

underway, Assessing when and how new programs are established is another important issue.

Lag times often occur between the identification

of new pathways (and new NIS) and the implementation of new prevention programs (table

5-2). Eliminating such lags could help prevent the

establishment of new harmful NIS.

Both political and technical limitations cause

delays. For example, effective methods such as

xrays and dogs exist for identifying domestic

frost-class mail containing prohibited agricultural

products. But postal laws and lack of departmental interest have limited the control of this

pathway (7). And while many techniques are

available to treat ballast water, few are practical

for large-scale use (97).

Even when programs are established, gaps in

their implementation may continue to allow the

entry of NIS. The protocols to prevent introductions via ballast water apply only for the Great

Lakes (97). Ships entering other U.S. ports can

still introduce non-indigenous aquatic organisms.

The development of a domestic first-class mail inspection program between Hawaii and California

does not address the potential movement of harmful MS between Puerto Rico and California (77).

TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING

ESTABLISHED HARMFUL

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

Prevention programs are less than perfect at

keeping potentially damaging NIS out of the

United States. Programs to manage already introduced species are essential and use additional

technologies.

Finding:

Accurate and timely species-level identification is essential at all levels of a NIS management program. Applications of computer technologies provide new approaches to NIS monitoring and information acquisition. However,

these technologies are only tools. Their information output is only as good as what is put in.

Species Identification and Detection

As illustrated in chapter 3, information concerning the identity and number of NIS in the

United States is incomplete. Correct identification is vital for distinguishing NIS from indigenous ones and for establishing management

programs. For example, some scientists now

believe that the 1991 infestations of the sweet

potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in California

were in fact a different species (2). If true, the

search for control methods would require a

different focus because many technologies are

species specific (e.g., pheromone traps, classical

biological control). Improper species identification can lead to the failure of these speciesspecific management programs.

COLLECTIONS AND STAFFING

National, State, and university taxonomic collections provide reference material for comparing

and identifying species. They maintain records of

known species and their historical and presentday distribution. Plant and animal collections of

USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service are held
144 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 5-2—Lag Times Between Identification of Species’ Pathway and

Implementation of Prevention Program.

Date pathway Date prevention

Species Pathway identified program implemented Remaining gaps

Mediterranean fruit fly

(Ceratitis capitata)

Aquatic vertebrates,

invertebrates, and

algae

Asian tiger mosquito

(Aedes albopictus)

Forest pests

Fruit shipped through first- mid 1930s 1990, mail traveling from

class domestic mail Hawaii to California

from Hawaii inspected

Ship ballast water 1981 1992, Coast Guard

proposes guidelines for

treating ballast water into

the Great Lakes

Imported used tires 1986 1988, protocols

established for imported

used tires

Unprocessed wood 1985 1991, first restrictions

(including dunnage, imposed on log imports

logs, wood chips, etc.) from Siberia

First-class mail from

elsewhere or other

potential pathways (e.g.,

Puerto Rico to California)

International shipping into

other U.S. ports; ship

ballast water from

domestic ports

Interstate used tire transport

Wood imports other than from

Siberia

SOURCES: Bio-environmental Services Ltd., The Presence andlmplication of Foreign Ckganisrns in Ship Ballast Waters Discharged into the Great

Lakes, 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 a

Potential Disease Vector,” Journa/oftheArnerican Mosquito Contro/Ass=”ation, vol. 4, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 356-361; LA. Siddiqui, Assistant

Director, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs, 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 Museum of Natural History, the National Arboretum,

and taxonomic laboratories of the USDA Agricultural Research Service. In addition, the American

Type Culture Collection, a non-profit, privately

held organization, maintains reference and research material on microorganisms.

Some groups of organisms are better known

and easier to identify than others. Indigenous

birds and mammnals are thoroughly inventoried,

but experts believe more than half of the indigenous insects and arachnids in the United States

are unidentified (40). The lack of information on

indigenous species hampers the identification of

some NIS in the United States. The Clinton

Administration’s proposed national biological

survey, slated by the Department of Interior to

begin in October 1993, is an attempt to bolster

information on U.S. biological diversity (81).

Taxonomists (people who describe, identify,

and classify species) work at field locations,

museums, and universities across the country. A

shortage of trained taxonomists at all levels in the

United States (40,102) impedes rapid and accurate identification of intercepted species and the

collection of scientific information on NIS (40).

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY TECHNIQUES

Traditionally, taxonomists study variations in

anatomy, physiology, and morphology to distinguish between different species. For many NIS,

identification is hampered by the species’ small

size or because of taxonomic complexity or

ambiguity. Alternatively, methods of molecular

biology can provide effective options. Tools such

as gel electrophoresis can reveal enough genetic

variation to separate species (60). Molecular

biology methods can identify genetic strains, or

distinguish between hybrids and natural populations (27,36).

Molecular techniques may also provide faster

identifications, which is important for NIS like

the African honey bee. European (Apis mellifera)

and African (A.m. scutellata) honeybees can exist

at the same location, and quick identification of

the African type is important for management
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 145

programs. The morphological approach to identification measures variation of specific body parts,

while mitochondrial DNA testing works faster

and is more accurate (15).

Aside from species identification, molecular

testing is useful for determining geographic

origin of a NIS (56). For example, molecular

markers may in the future help identify the origin

of Californian populations of the Mediterranean

fruit fly (ch. 8, box 8-A). Understanding a

species’ origin can help identify routes of invasion or spread and aid in developing appropriate

prevention or management programs (39,74).

Species Surveys and Population

Monitoring

Planned detection systems are useful for identifying early infestations of NIS, monitoring populations after they are established, and documenting

effects. For example, monitoring water systems

for young zebra mussels can provide early warnings of an invasion (55).

DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES

Visual surveys, traps, and physical inspection

can locate infestations of NIS. Visual surveys are

used for such species as weeds, birds, and

mammals. Trapping locates organisms that are

more difficult to see, such as insects or aquatic

invertebrates. Physical inspection is especially

useful for diseases associated with livestock.

Surveys for known harmful NIS occur at the

local level, as part of pest management programs;

at the State level, as part of domestic quarantine

programs; and at regional or national levels.

Surveys to detect new introductions are generally

conducted by the Federal Government (California

is an exception), in part because surveys generally

have little or no immediate economic value and

can have significant long-term costs.

Traps can provide information on the presence

and geographical distribution of NIS. Further

information, such as the host, geographic origin,

age, and sex of a NIS are potentially obtainable

Fast and accurate species identification is essential for

designing detection methods and management plans

but distinguishing some species, e.g., European and

African honey bees, requires expertise that is in short

supply.

(9). The basic components of a monitoring system

are the attractant, the trap itself, and information

about the species’ biology (100). Desirable attributes of trapping systems are low cost, ready

availability, easy servicing and inspection, and

provision of specimens in good condition for

taxonomic identification (13).

Commercially available traps incorporating

behavior-modifying compounds (biorationals) such

as sex pheromones or other attractants are relatively inexpensive and effective tools for surveying NIS in certain situations. Most research

involving pheromones and other attractants in

traps is aimed at non-indigenous insects that are

agricultural pests. Such traps are potentially

useful 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 pheromone

monitoring programs include the high cost of the

active ingredients, inadequacies in synthetic pheromone formulation technologies, the lack of

commercial development, and shortcomings in

technology transfer to the marketplace (78).
146 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

REMOTE SENSING

Remote sensing shows promise in NIS detection programs. Remote sensing of habitats with

video and still-camera equipment can provide

information on the distribution and spread of

certain NIS, especially plants. Helicopters,

planes, and even satellites gather information

using infrared or near-infrared photography. Imageprocessing software creates a digital mosaic in

which dominant species can sometimes be distinguished on a regional basis.

Federal and State agencies are conducting

research into and applying remote sensing technology. The data collected are important for identifying new infestations of damaging NIS and developing management plans. For example, the Agricultural Research Service used Landsat imagery

in a bollworm (Helicoverpa zea) control program

for cotton in Texas (32). Remote sensing data are

also often suitable for use in geographical information systems.

GIS TECHNOLOGY

Geographical information systems (GIS) store,

manipulate, analyze, and display spatial data. The

combination and display of variables such as

topography, vegetation types, and climate has

recently been enhanced by the merging of GIS

with online satellite data. By sorting and filing

vast amounts of information, GIS can rapidly

correlate and map such variables. Limiting factors

in GIS technology are the high cost of data

acquisition and a lack of data linking NIS to

geographical variables (39).

Federal and State agencies and universities use

GIS technology for various natural areas’ issues,

e.g., to study wildlife migration patterns and rates

of wetlands loss. Such tools are also applicable

for monitoring NIS. The National Fisheries Research Center in Gainesville, Florida, now uses

GIS to analyze non-indigenous fish and certain

mollusks (84). The National Park Service determines resources vulnerable to fire or gypsy moths

(Lymantria dispar) (85).

The applications of GIS vary with the availability of suitable MS data. Detailed knowledge of a

NIS allows the prediction of high-risk areas for

unplanned invasions or expansion. Conversely,

monitoring planned or known introductions can

generate NIS data by identifying habitat correlations. Hypotheses can rapidly be tested, for

example, relating invasions to habitat disturbance

or identifying particular corridors that invasions

are likely to follow (39).

Information Collection and Dissemination

The development of tools to collect information about NIS quickly and easily is important, as

are mechanisms to disseminate the information.

Methods to distribute information about NIS

presence and distribution should be timely and

reliable. The range of potential mechanisms

varies 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 information

strictly about NIS are available within the United

States. As one example, the New York Sea Grant

Marine Advisory Service operates the Zebra

Mussel Information Clearinghouse in Brockport,

New York, to provide information on zebra

mussel distribution, impacts, research, and other

issues (84).

Potentially, computer technologies could help

develop national or even global centralized NIS

databases. The function of such databases would

be not only to provide information on available

management technologies, but also to warn of

possible harmful NIS. No single organization is

likely to develop such programs, as the creation

and maintenance of the databases is expensive

(33).

Technologies such as computerized databases

could aid information management related to

NIS. For example, the BIOCAT database records

the results of nearly 5,000 introductions of
Chapter 5--Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 147

biological control agents in about 200 countries

since 1880 (28).

An interest at the Federal level (especially

within the USDA) exists for increased use of

computerized databases (17,88). Within the USDA,

however, OTA has found sharp contrasts between

the start-up and long-term support of databases

involving NIS. NAPIS (the National Agricultural

Pest Information System) and DATAPEST (the

National Historical Pest Database) under CAPS

(the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey), WHAID

(Western Hemisphere Immigrant Pest Database),

NAIAD (North American Immigrant Arthropod

Database), ROBO (Releases of Beneficial Organisms), and PINET (Pest Information Network)

are among some of the USDA databases that have

been recently developed. However, few of these

databases are properly functioning (17, 40). For

example, critics find that NAPIS suffers from

poor data (43); ROBO only was published in

1988, with information collected in 1981 (17).

Advances in computer technologies provide

relatively inexpensive approaches for quick dissemination of information on NIS. Various Federal

agencies have begun to apply these technologies

to NIS problems.

CD-ROM first appeared in 1985 and has

developed into an easy-to-use, well-standardized

technology (48). By applying indexing techniques, CD-ROM is commercially suitable for

building both general and specialized databases

(e.g., the National Agricultural Library’s AGRICOLA database, which indexes agricultural papers). Information specific to NIS could be

gathered in this format.

Electronic mail or computer-based message

systems are used by various agencies to transfer

NIS information. For example, information on

plant pests is collected and electronically sent to

the NAPIS. The rapid transmittance and minimal

costs of information via electronic mail can allow

for better and more timely decisionmaking (48).

Expert systems may also have use for NIS

concerns. An outgrowth of artificial intelligence

research, expert systems are computer programs

that make inferences and draw conclusions from

statements supplied by a user. These systems

have begun to find commercial application in the

last few years (48). For example, a prototype

system was recently developed to assist in European gypsy moth management.

Eradication

Finding:

Feasible eradication technologies do exist

for many NIS, but public opinion and cost

often prohibit implementation of a fully effective program. Three issues that complicate a

successful eradication program include: the

difficulty in identifying the zero-population

level, diminishing returns as the population

approaches zero, and the potential for reinfestation from surrounding areas. Although eradication of a NIS can have high short-term costs,

the alternative is often a long-term management program with far greater cumulative

costs.

It is important to distinguish between eradication and control, Both strategies use the same

technologies (e.g., chemical pesticides or biologically based methods), but they have different

goals. The goal of eradication is to remove the

entire population of a species from a specific area.

The alternative is to keep the population below a

defined threshold through containment or suppression. Eradication programs for NIS (especially terrestrial vertebrates) are often long, costly,

frustrating, and controversial (73), yet the failure

to fully eradicate a harmful NIS can lead to

long-term management programs, with continual

yearly investments of time and money.

APPLICATION OF ERADICATION

Both governmental (State and Federal) and

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) conduct MS eradication programs. The reasons for

eradication vary. For example, a Federal program

to eradicate witchweed (Striga asiatica) in North

and South Carolina is based on the potential
148 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

economic effects that would result if the weed

were to spread to the Midwest. Localized eradication programs for Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes

albopictus) infestations occur because they are

vectors for human diseases. Eradication programs

for feral goats (Capra hircus) in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park were implemented because of

the goats’ impact on the natural resources of the

area.

Studies assessing different eradication programs indicate that several factors influence the

ease of eradicating NIS (19,42). Some of the most

important include:

. adequate monitoring and early detection,

. quick implementation after detection,

. sensitive enough tools to detect low population densities,

. effective control technologies, and

. public perception and cooperation.

Eradication programs also require adequate planning and a commitment of sufficient resources

(19,98). These two elements in particular affected

the outcomes of eradication programs for imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta, S. richteri)

and boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) (box 5-A).

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC

Public interaction can play a significant role in

eradication programs for both governmental and

non-governmental organizations. Favorable public opinion can lead to help and cooperation

during a program while opposition can lead to

legal actions aimed at ending a specific program.

Perceived risk from control technologies, outrage

from involuntary quarantine restrictions, or moral

issues of animal rights may charge public opinion

against an eradication program. The desire for

humane treatment of MS can restrict or prohibit

the use of specific control technologies or eradication generally. Programs to eradicate damaging

NIS (like feral horses (Equus caballus) and

donkeys (Equus asinus) have evoked such public

opposition (23).

In some instances, negative reaction can simply stem from a lack of accurate information (73).

Implementing education programs around the use

of specific technologies and the reasons for

removing particular NIS can help alleviate public

fears.

I Domestic Quarantine and Containment

The goals of domestic quarantine and containment are to prevent or limit the spread of

potentially harmful NIS. Domestic quarantine

provides a regulatory means to prevent or slow

down the spread of a NIS within the United

States, often during control or eradication programs. Plants, animals, and diseases have all been

subject to domestic quarantine. Containment

more often applies to non-indigenous animals.

Some containment of cultivated game and other

non-indigenous animals is required, for example,

to prevent their spread into natural areas.

DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

Domestic quarantine attempts to slow or limit

the spread of a harmful NIS within or to a State or

region of the United States. Generally, domestic

quarantines exist for pests that threaten agriculture, horticulture, or forestry. All States have

some type of domestic quarantines (68).

Two important factors for a successful domestic quarantine program, like that for witchweed

(71), are an effective certification process for

pest-free commodities and other items within the

quarantine area, and the cooperation of the

general public (71).

Unfortunately, not all domestic quarantines

work as well. The domestic quarantine of the

imported fire ant has not prevented it from

spreading. Movement reportedly has occurred in

association with nursery material (l).

Domestic quarantines cannot slow or prevent

NIS from moving by natural means; they can only

hinder NIS from spreading through humanassisted mechanisms such as interstate shipments of nursery stock or household goods. Their
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 149

Box 5-A–Failure and Success: Lessons From the Fire Ant and

Boll Weevil Eradication Programs

Imported Fire Ant Eradication:

Two 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 and

had 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 an

eradication program.

Funding was provided to study the fire ants, but information on the biology of the species was lacking, and

the ant populations increased and spread. Various chemicals (heptachlor and mirex) were used to control and

eradicate the ants over a 30-year period. Although they did kill the ants, the chemicals caused more ecological

harm than good. Their widespread application, often by airplane, destroyed many non-target organisms, including

fire ants’ predators and competitors, leaving habitats suitable for recolonization by the ants.

The chemicals eventually lost registration by the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving few alternatives

available. 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, from

Mexico, in the early 1890s and crossed the Mississippi River in 1907. By 1922, it infested the remainder of the

southeastern cotton area. Unlike the imported fire ant eradication program, boll weevil eradication does not rely

solely on chemicals.

The eradication program centers around the weevil’s life cycle and uses many different techniques. Part of

the boll weevil population spends the winter in cotton fields. Insecticides are used to suppress this late season

population. In spring and early summer, pheromone bait traps and chemical pesticides reduce populations before

they have a chance to reproduce. Still other control technologies (e.g., sterile male release or insect growth

regulators) limit the development of a new generation of boll weevils.

Boll weevil eradication trials were conducted from 1971-1973 (in southern Mississippi, Alabama, and

Louisiana) and from 1978-1980 (in North Carolina and Virginia). Although results of the trials were mixed, cotton

producers in the Carolinas voted in 1983 to support the boll weevil eradication program in their area and to provide

70 percent of the funding. The USDA Animal and PIant Health Inspection Service was charged with overall

management of the program.

By the mid-1980s, the boll weevil was eradicated from North Carolina and Virginia. This 1978-1987

eradication program achieved a very high rate of return, mainly from increased cotton yields and lower chemical

pesticide spending and use. In 1986, pesticide cost savings, additions to land value, and yield increases amounted

to a benefit of $76.65 per acre. The benefit was $78.32 per acre for the expansion area in southern North Carolina

and 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 Historical

Practice,” Entomological Society of America, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 73, November 19S9; E.P. Uoyd, “The Boll Weevil: Recent

Research 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 and

Control of Imported Fire Ants,” Arrrrual Retiew of Enfomobgyvol. 30, 1975, pp. 1-30.

effectiveness is based on enforcement by govern- State border station systems are one mechament agencies and the education of the general nism to enforce domestic quarantines. Presently

public to prevent inadvertent spread. they are used in California and Florida to inspect
150 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

agricultural commodities for the presence of State

quarantined pests (68). The effectiveness of State

border inspection is illustrated by California’s

enforcement of the Federal domestic gypsy moth

program. Stricter enforcement raised compliance

with quarantine restrictions from about 20 percent

in 1985 to approximately 80 percent in 1990 (7).

CONTAINMENT OF LARGE GAME AND FISH

Non-indigenous animals are kept as pets, for

food production, sport, and as part of conservation programs. The escape of a NIS can introduce

disease or parasites to wild populations, alter

habitats, and lead to competition for limited

resources or hybridization with wild populations.

The scenarios that follow illustrate where deleterious effects might occur or have occurred.

Large-Game Ranching—Ranchers have kept

large game in the United States for at least 40

years. Non-indigenous animals such as African

ungulates are raised for sport, show, food, and for

their aesthetic value. Interest in species preservation has also increased the numbers of large game

in the United States. The first documented escape

of contained non-indigenous mammals occurred

approximately 45 years ago, from private ranches

in Texas, California, and New Mexico (47; see

ch. 7).

For most large mammals, no official national

minimum containment standards exist. States

such as California and Florida have established

guidelines, but they are far from uniform (75).

The USDA has asked the American Association

of Zoological Parks and Aquariums to develop

minimum standards for mammal containment,

but these are still under development (75).

Big game animals are most commonly contained with standard-grade sheep or goat fencing,

often electrified. The reasons and means of escape

vary, but they usually include poor fence maintenance or design, weather damage, or vandalism

(47). Further, when startled or upset, many

mammals are capable of escaping either over or

through fences.

Triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) are

tested for sterility before their release as biological

control agents for aquatic weeds.

Aquiculture-In aquiculture, NIS are propagated for 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 production

systems and new developments in genetics and

biotechnology are expanding the size of the

industry. Fish have escaped from commercial and

experimental culture facilities (12), raising concern about the containment of NIS as aquiculture

markets expand.

Scientists have created guidelines for the containment of transgenic or non-indigenous fish for

research purposes (35, 96). These guidelines aim

to prevent the escape of NIS from containment

facilities. They have little application to commercial aquiculture, however, because they often

involve small, indoor buildings. Many States,

such as Florida, have minimum containment

standards for commercial aquiculture. In general,

no national standards exist for commercial aquaculture.

outdoor facilities for containing NIS for aquaculture include ponds, pools, raceways, canals,

tanks, and floating pen nets. Escapes can be

prevented by constructing levees, placing ponds

above 100-year flood lines, or using fences or
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 1 5 1

nets. Escapes from tanks or pools can be prevented with the use of closed circulatory systems

and filtered drainage systems. Floating pen nets

are generally anchored to prevent drifting and

covered with nets to prevent escape or removal of

animals.

The production of sterile or single-sex populations can prevent establishment of reproducing

populations if escape occurs. Single-sex fish

populations are created by hybridization and sex

reversals. Sex reversal in fish is possible in the

early developmental period by administering

hormones in the diet or in slow-release implants.

These methods are not 100 percent effective,

however (35).

Reproductive sterilization is accomplished with

radiation, chemicals, or hybridization. Reproductive sterilization is perhaps the most secure

approach for the biological containment of NIS.

Currently, the use of triploid sterilityl has the

greatest potential (35). Although the sterilization

techniques are not 100 percent effective, some

NIS can be tested for triploidy. For example, tests

to guarantee grass carp and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) sterility are available.

Tools of the Control Trade

Finding:

No “silver bullets” exist for NIS control.

Alternatives to chemical pesticides are being

developed, but these new pesticides must provide advantages (cost, efficacy, environmental

stability) before they can replace chemicals.

Biotechnological improvements may overcome

some of the limitations of biological control

agents. As with chemicals, the potential for pest

resistance exists.

The final stage in the management of a NIS

is the development of a long-term control to

suppress the population below specific thresholds. Three major groups of control technologies

exist: physical controls, including manual, mechanical, and cultural methods; chemical pesticides, including synthetic and organic chemicals;

and biologically based technologies, including

natural or modified organisms, genes, or gene

products and related techniques (table 5-3). The

broad array of NIS in the United States requires an

assortment of controls for use in agriculture,

urban and suburban habitats, and natural areas.

Whether to eradicate an NIS, contain it, or limit

its economic damage to a crop, no control

technology is optimal for all species, or in all

settings.

PHYSICAL CONTROL

Physical controls may be mechanical (e.g.,

mowing), manual (e.g., hand pulling), or cultural

(e.g., burning) (table 5-3). Physical controls are

often applied to small populations of NIS because

of the time (and therefore cost) associated with

controlling larger populations. Physical controls

may also be used where other control technologies are infeasible (e.g., a control program for an

aquatic plant occurring close to a municipal water

supply).

Use of physical controls may be limited by

their low efficacy and other environmental factors. Hand pulling or cutting may leave roots,

vegetative fragments, or seeds to resprout or

germinate, leading to the establishment of new

populations. Similarly, small populations of nonindigenous animals (e.g., goats) can repopulate an

area if hunting or trapping does not remove all

reproductive pairs.

Physical techniques may also lead to high

levels of disturbance. The disturbance involved in

the removal of non-indigenous plants, for example, may encourage invasion by other, nearby

weedy non-indigenous plants and the germination

of 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 of

chromosomes arises from altering the earliest stages of development. Techniques to induce triploidy include temperature, chemical, and

pressure treatments.
152 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 5-3-Examples of Control Technologies for Non-Indigenous Species

Physical control Chemical control Biological control

Aquatic plants

Terrestrial plants

Fish

Terrestrial vertebrates

Aquatic invertebrates

Insects/mites

Cutting or harvesting for

temporary control of

Eurasian watermilfoil

(Myrlophyllum spicatum) in

waters

Fire and cutting to manage

populations of garlic

mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

in natural areas

Fencing used as a barrier along

with electroshock to control

non-indigenous fish in

streams

Fencing and hunting to control

feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in

natural areas

Washing boats with hot water

or soap to control the

spread of zebra mussels

(Dreissena polymorpha) from

infested waters

Various agricultural practices,

including crop rotation,

alternation of planting dates,

and field sanitation

practices

Various glyphosate herbicides

(Rodeo is one brand

registered for use in aquatic

sites) for controlling purple

loosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria)

Paraquat for the control of

witchweed (Striga asiatica)

in corn fields

Application of the natural

chemical rotenone to

control various nonindigenous fish

Baiting with diphacinone to

control the indian

mongoose (Herpestes

auropunctatus)

in industrial settings,

chlorinated water

treatments to kill attached

zebra mussels

Mathathion bait-sprays for

control of the

Mediterranean fruit fly

(Ceratitis capitatis)

imported Klamathweed beetle

(Agasicies hygrophila) and

a moth (Vogtia malloi) to

control alligator weed

(Alternanthera

philoxeroides) in

southeastern United States

introduction of a seed head

Weevil (Rhinocy//us

conicus) to control musk

thistle (Carduus nutans)

Stocking predatory fish such

as northern pike (Esox

lucius) and walleye

(Stizostedion vitreum) to

control populations of the

ruffe (Gymnocephalus

cernuus)

Vaccinating female feral

horses (Equus caballus) with

the contraceptive PZP (porcine zona pellucida) to limit

population growth

No known examples of

successful biological

control of non-indigenous

aquatic invertebrates

(Target specificity is a major

concern)

A parasitic wasp (Encarsia

partenopea) and a beetle

(Clitostethus arcuatus) to

control ash whitefly

(Siphoninus phiilyreae)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

CHEMICAL CONTROL

When used properly, chemical pesticides are an

effective tool for controlling pests. Their greatest

application has occurred within agriculture. In

1989, U.S. users spent approximately $7.6 billion

for conventional pesticides, with agriculture accounting for more than two-thirds (4). The use of

chemical pesticides for NIS control is limited

based on availability and application to specific

environments.

Quick and effective control technologies are

often desirable to limit the impact of a NIS, and

chemical pesticides can be applied and take effect

within a short period of time. For example, in

natural areas, systemic herbicides applied to a

non-indigenous plant population can suppress it

before it has a chance to produce seeds and

thereby prevent future populations.

Although chemical pesticides are effective for

many NIS, problems do exist in using many of

them in control programs. For non-indigenous

aquatic plants, effective chemical pesticides may

be available, but are not registered for use in

aquatic settings. Public concern can also limit the
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 153

use of chemical pesticides by government agencies. For example, Utah’s decision to use the

biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis instead of

chemical pesticides to control the European

gypsy moth was influenced by the general public

and environmental groups (44).

An important issue related to the use of

chemical pesticides is their future availability.

Methyl bromide, a widely used chemical pesticide, may soon become unavailable because of its

effect on the atmosphere (63). In addition, the

1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act2 may also limit

the availability of many chemical pesticides for

NIS (see the following section, “EPA Reregistration and Minor Use Pesticides”).

BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS

Alternatives to chemical pesticides are often

desirable for either economic or ecological reasons. Biological control has been in use in the

United States and elsewhere for more than 100

years, although the development of synthetic

chemicals in the 1940s shifted focus away from

biological control (61). Attention has recently

focused again on the development and use of

biological control. Biological control attributable

to natural enemies (i.e., classical biological control) is distinguished here from controls involving

other biologically based methods (e.g., genetic

control, hormones and pheromones, and contraceptives) (70). Both forms are important alternatives to chemicals for NIS control.

Biological Control With Natural Enemies—

The standard definition of biological control is

the use of natural enemies—parasites, predators,

or pathogens—to reduce populations of target

species and thereby reduce their damage to

tolerable levels (16). Applying biological control

involves research in many branches of biology—

behavior, development, physiology, genetics, reproduction, systematic, biogeography, population biology, and ecology.

Biological control is divided into three broad

categories: importation (or classical), involving

the establishment of a NIS as a natural enemy in

a new habitat; augmentation (often called the

biopesticide approach), involving direct manipulation of established populations of natural enemies through mass production or colonization;

and conservation, involving habitat manipulations to encourage populations of natural enemies. To date, importation is considered the most

successful of these approaches (16).

Classical Biological Control-h theory, classical biological control re-establishes natural control by predators or parasites for foreign NIS that

were introduced without their natural enemies.

The goal of classical biological control is not

to eradicate a NIS, but to lower the population

level to economically or aesthetically acceptable

levels.

Classical biological control has several advantages over other types of control technologies.

When successful, reasonably permanent management of the target species results. Control agents

are self perpetuating, will increase and decrease

with populations of the pest, and are self disseminating. Costs are non-recurrent and benefit/cost

ratios are high relative to other types of control

(20,101). The average benefit/cost ratio for successful biological control projects is about 30:1,

although the ratio varies widely among various

projects (83).

Historically, however, most biological control

projects have not been successful (59). The

worldwide rate of establishment of introduced

beneficial predators and parasites is about 30

percent; approximately 36 percent of these established agents successfully reduced or completely

controlled their targeted pests-a proportion that

is probably estimated too high (28). According to

another author, the introduction of natural enemies sufficiently reduced host densities to replace

z 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 States

chemical control only in approximately 16 percent of 600 projects (59).

Constraints to implementing biological control

stem from uncoordinated efforts among agencies,

inadequate funding for overseas and domestic

research, as well as the lack of a theoretical

framework for determining what species or combinations of species will likely control a target

pest in a given situation (20). Classical biological

control does not work well in certain agricultural

settings (e.g., annual crops where control must be

rapid). It does show great promise for controlling

NIS in natural areas or rangelands. For example,

an Australian weevil is the first natural enemy

imported for use against melaleuca (Melaleuca

quinquenervia) in the Everglades (3).

Microbial Pesticides—Microbial pesticides (or

biopesticides) include the use of fungi, viruses,

bacteria, protozoa, and nematodes to control

targeted species. Microbially derived herbicides

and insect pathogens are commercially available

in the United States (table 5-4, table 6-5).

Microbial pesticides represent only a small portion of the pesticide market. The biggest obstacles

in their development and commercialization involve host specificity, production technologies,

lack of virulence, and the time frame needed to

suppress the pest populations. The prospects for

developing additional microbial pesticides, naturally or through genetic modification, are considered good (83).

The research and development costs of biopesticides are significantly less than those for chemical

pesticides. The estimated cost for developing and

deploying a biopesticide is between $1 million

and $2 million, involving 11 to 13 scientist-years,

whereas a chemical pesticide takes at least $10

million (10). Although biopesticides will not

completely replace chemicals in the foreseeable

future, they will complement chemicals and allow

the development of improved integrated control

measures (37). Market size is an important

criterion in the development of these control

technologies because lead times are long and the

Table 5-4-Examplesa of Registered Microbial

Biological Control Agents

Fungi

Phytohthora palmivora controls citrus strangler vine

(Morrenia odorata)

Lagenidium gigantium controls various mosquito larvae

Viruses

Hellothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) controls the

cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea)

Gypsy moth NPV controls European gypsy moth larvae

(Lymantria dispar)

Bacteria

Bacillus popilliae controls Japanese beetle larvae (Popillia

japonica)

Bacillus thuringiensis controls various moth larvae

Protozoa

Nosema locustae controls various grasshoppers

a See table 6-5 for a Complete list.

SOURCE: F. Betz, Acting Chief, Science Analysis and Coordination

Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, letter to E.A. Chornesky,

Of fica of Technology Assessment, Apr. 10, 1992.

development and registration costs for new products are high.

Other Biologically Based Methods--Several

types of other biologically based methods have

become available for NIS control.

Sterile Male Release (genetic control)-The

release of sterile male insects was first successfully used in the United States in 1953 to control

the new world screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax). Since then, it has been attempted with

a large variety of insects, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly and the boll weevil, with varying

success (51).

Sterile males released in large numbers mate

with females, leading to the production of unfertilized eggs. Difficulties in implementing this

technology exist, especially with mass rearing.

Not only are appropriate facilities necessary to

breed large populations of a given species, but

adequate information about dietary needs and

biology are vital. Accurate sterilization techniques are also required, as is knowledge about

the effects of sterilization on species behavior.

Vertebrate Contraceptives--Contraceptives provide reversible fertility control for captive and
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 155

free-roaming non-indigenous animals. Their use

is seen as a humane alternative to hunting or other

management practices. Use of contraceptive methods requires continual monitoring and repeat

applications.

New research is centering on the use of

immuno-contraception (relying on an animal’s

immune system) instead of hormone levels to

interfere with a part of the reproductive process,

Other research has focused on the use of commercially available contraceptives such as Norplant

and in identifying antisperm antigens for male

animals (41). These controls are still in the

research and development stages for most NIS.

Semiochemicals-Semiochemicals are a group

of compounds (e.g., sex pheromones) that can

modify behavior. The compounds, either natural

forms or synthetic copies, are useful for largescale trapping or to disrupt mating behavior (78).

Semiochemicals are presently useful only against

insects (46). Their use has been inhibited by high

development and registration costs and low use in

specialized markets. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers pheromones

pesticides, requiring toxicity and residue testing

under FIFRA. Such species-specific technologies

are often more expensive than more traditional

techniques such as chemical pesticides. In agricultural settings, this generally makes the use of

semiochemicals economical only on high-value

crops (46).

Host Plant Resistance—Enhanced host plant

resistance is the artificial selection and breeding

of plants to produce specific physical traits (e.g.,

very hard or hairy leaves) or biochemical traits

(e.g., production of specific chemicals) that deter

pest damage (16). It is useful in agricultural and

horticultural settings.

Resistance is developed against non-indigenous plant diseases and plant-eating insects. It is

useful in situations where no registered chemicals

exist or when alternative controls are unavailable

(16). Host plant resistance is compatible with

other control measures.

Development of host plant resistance requires

large-scale support. A lack of specific information about plant genetics can limit the use of this

technology. Long production times mean it has

little application as a quick fix against new

harmful NIS (16).

Biotechnology--Many new biological control

technologies currently in the research stage depend on biotechnology to increase the virulence

and efficacy of controls. This approach, involving

recombinant DNA, so far has been applied only to

microorganisms. Limited knowledge curtails the

genetic manipulation of more complex organisms, such as insects used for biological control.

The long-term goals of biotechnology research

include increasing the shelf life of microbial

pesticides and their persistence in the field. For

example, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis

(Bt) releases an insecticidal toxic crystal along

with its reproductive spores. Researchers have

inserted the toxin gene into another bacterium

that produces the toxin during the nonreproductive phase. After the bacterium is killed

chemically, the dead cell wall protectively coats

the crystal and increases its stability. This process

also eliminates the release of viable spores, an

area of environmental concern.

The importance of biotechnology for biological control will likely increase in the future,

although more economic research into biotechnology methods is needed (83). One application

of biotechnology that will have a significant

impact, especially in agriculture, is the development of transgenic plants, an alternative approach to chemical or classical biological control

that involves genetically engineering crops to

express insecticidal or antifeedant proteins.

The first successful application of transgenic

technology occurred within the past 5 years (57).

Most of the work has focused on inserting genes

from various Bt strains into plants, which then

produce the insecticidal toxins. The Bt toxin is

considered safe (specific to certain groups of

species) and is relatively simple to work with

(57). Research has so far focused on cotton,
156 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

tomato, and potato. Private companies hope to

have transgenic tomato and cotton plants on the

market by the mid- 1990s (45).

Concerns exist that pests, especially insects,

will develop resistance to transgenic plants.

Recently, resistance to Bt has been documented in

both laboratory and field settings (45), Efforts to

prevent resistance counter-intuitively seek to

maintain the susceptible population, thus delaying complete population resistance. Possible techniques for maintaining susceptible populations

include rotating Bt toxins with other toxins,

establishing nontoxic plant refuges, spatially

alternating toxic and nontoxic plants, and expressing toxicity only in specific plant parts (53).

Scientists are just beginning to study the

effectiveness of these techniques in preventing

pest resistance. Some feel government legislation

to coordinate use by farmers will be required for

the proper application of this technology (50).

Other issues surrounding the used of transgenic

organisms are discussed in chapter 9.

Integrated Pest Management—Integrated Pest

Management (lPM) is used in agricultural and

natural areas for the control of NIS. IPM is

defined as a management system that uses all

suitable techniques in an economical and ecologically sound reamer to reduce pest populations

and maintain them at levels that do not have an

economic impact while minimizing danger to

humans and the environment (90).

IPM may combine biological control, pest

resistance, autocidal, cultural, and mechanical

and physical control technologies with limited

use of chemical pesticides (64). IPM uses monitoring and other decisionmaking tools to gauge

the health of the ecosystem, and consequently

requires an understanding of the biology and

ecology of the resource, the pest, and the pest’s

natural enemies.

Research establishes the needed economic

thresholds and natural suppression factors. An

understanding of the effectiveness of the control

technologies and damage caused by different

stages of pests is important. Because IPM does

c

(no

>

The boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) eradication

program 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 needed

to monitor the environment and implement programs before a pest becomes an economic problem.

Education and Management

The need for greater public awareness regarding harmful NIS and for educating various

specialized groups was cited repeatedly in recommendations by OTA’s expert contractors (39,43,49,82)

and its advisory panelists. Also, this theme

surfaced frequently in recommendations by nongovernmental groups (39). For example, successful education campaigns have been identified by

many experts as a key mechanism for gaining

public support of NIS management programs

(18,31,39).

To assess the breadth of current NIS education

programs, OTA asked the North American Association for Environmental Education to conduct a

survey of government and non-governmental

organizations (NGO) involved in educational

programs relating to MS. Federal and State

agencies and NGOs conduct many activities
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 157

related to NIS education. The survey of NIS

education programs found:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

THE

Education programs are typically small:

funding averages less than 10 percent of

agencies’ budgets.

Predicted funding outlays over the next 3

years varied depending on the organization.

NGOs generally devote a larger share of

their budgets to NIS issues as compared with

Federal and State agencies.

The need for increased funding for NIS

education was often voiced.

Little coordination of educational efforts

among agencies and organizations exists.

Information exchange is hampered by a lack

of networks and materials to exchange.

The success of the education programs is

rarely evaluated.

Programs that are evaluated rely on assessing subjective factors (76).

SCOPE AND METHODS OF EDUCATION

PROGRAMS

Some environmental education programs tackle

overarching environmental issues while others

focus on NIS in particular-. Groups in Hawaii are

among 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 educates children about the biology of the Hawaiian

islands (ch. 8). Part of the project deals with the

effects of NIS on Hawaii’s ecology.

On the other hand, numerous groups have

created focused educational materials on single

NIS such as zebra mussels, gypsy moths, or

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), sometimes

for specific user groups. For example, APHIS has

produced pamphlets and small fliers to educate

people leaving the quarantine zone for the European gypsy moth. They provide information

about how to identify, inspect, and treat for moths

on firewood, vehicles, and outdoor household

items. Vermont’s Department of Environmental

Conservation began with a program focused on

stopping the movement of Eurasian watermilfoil

(Myriophyllum spicatum). It is moving now to a

broader, regional watershed approach (76). Sometimes the selection of a narrow approach relates to

a program’s enabling legislation and funding

rather than its educational merits.

Few formal national programs exist to identify

and distribute information concerning harmful

NIS. Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources has compiled this kind of information at

the State level in its ‘Exotic Species Handbook’

(62). The Handbook provides basic information

on organizing citizen-level awareness programs

and contains reference materials on various NIS

in Minnesota. Information on obtaining educational material and a directory to the many

agencies and organizations involved are included.

The USDA’s Cooperative Extension Service has

been cited as a good Federal model for relaying

information about invasive NIS to the public (76).

The Extension Service does some technical training now, e.g., for pesticide applicators. And the

Extension Service, in combination with Land

Grant and Sea Grant universities, is doing the

most comprehensive and innovative public education regarding zebra mussels (76).

Media and methods used in education about

MS mirror the larger field of environmental

education in both scope and type. Techniques and

media vary considerably and include almost any

device or activity commonly used in education

and informational efforts (76). For example,

Federal and State organizations and NGOs have

relied on a wide variety of channels to inform

people about zebra mussel problems (table 5-5).

RELATED ISSUES

Ecological Restoration

Finding:

Ecological restoration is a relatively new

practice that shows some promise in prevent-
158 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 5-&Examples of Technologies Used in Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Education Programs

Technique Organization Description or title

Booklet, brochure, or leaflet Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Fact sheet Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program

Ohio Sea Grant Program

Poster or sign

Report

Workshops/lectures

Newsletter, magazine Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Zebra mussel Task Force Report to the

Michigan legislation

Indiana Academy of Sciences

Video or slide show Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Classroom kits Illinois Department of Conservation

“Zebra Mussels in Ohio”

Information on how to report a sighting

Information on zebra mussels in the Great

Lakes

“On the LOOSE”

“Out of The Blue”

Boater’s advisory on zebra mussels

Zebra mussel control in Michigan

Presentation on zebra mussels, Conference

on Biological Pollution: the Control and

Impact of Invasive Exotic Species,

October 1991

Zebra mussel slide series

Zebra mussel video

“Lakes in My World” K-8 Workbook

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

ing NIS introductions and controlling reintroductions of NIS. The goal of ecological restoration,

when applied to NIS control or eradication, is

to modify those biotic and abiotic conditions

that make the habitat suitable for NIS.

Ecological restoration is a branch of applied

ecology that became visible as a management tool

in the 1980s. It is the intentional return of an

ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition before human disturbance (66). The goal is

re-creation of whole, healthy, self-maintaining

ecosystems in which natural ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling and succession, can

operate without continual intervention by resource managers or reliance on synthetic engineered structures (5). Generalizations about ecological restoration’s effectiveness are difficult,

mainly because of the time it takes to see a project

through to completion.

Ecological restoration is almost invariably a

sequel rather than a preventive prelude to NIS

invasion. Reestablishing prairie burns (i.e., fire as

a restoration tool) is an exception to this statement. To date, ecological restoration has not been

widely used to control harmful NIS (5) and its

importance varies. At one extreme, the success of

a restoration project may rest entirely on the

removal of NIS. In other cases, control of a NIS

may occur only after other phases of restoration

have been completed (i.e., in which the restoration itself may eliminate the introduced species).

Existing data suggest ecological restoration is

useful for MS control, as it has been in part of

Everglades National Park, Florida, for example

(box 5-B). Limitations of ecological restoration in

the management of NIS do exist, however. It will

not repel an invader that is genetically or behaviorally very similar to a desired indigenous

species. Ecological restoration also does not seem

effective in managing NIS capable of invading

ecosystems in pristine condition. For example,

the non-indigenous garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is capable of invading relatively stable

forests in Illinois (5).

The genetic make-up of species used in restoration projects has recently become an important

issue. Locally adapted germ plasm is important

for assessing ecosystem performance, avoiding

restoration failure, and assuring long-term genetic

conservation (5).
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 159

Box 5-B-Ecological Restoration in the Hole-in-the-Donut,

Everglades National Park, Florida

Work 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 its

reintroduction. 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 over

indigenous 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 to

produce soil better suited for crops. The area remained in cultivation for 25 years. The changes in the soil-from

primarily low-nutrient anaerobic conditions to higher nutrient aerobic conditions-were more favorable to

Brazilian pepper and other non-indigenous plants.

in 1975, Everglades National Park acquired the land. With the end of agriculture, the vegetation began to

change. The nonrock-plowed land returned, for the most part, to indigenous species. The 2,000 hectares of

rock-plowed land were invaded and eventually dominated by Brazilian pepper. Between 1979 and 1985, f ire was

used to control Brazilian pepper, but monitoring of the burned sites indicated that repeated burning did not retard

or reduce its growth. Studies on the economic feasibility of Brazilian pepper control with chemicals concluded that

killing 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 of

ecological restoration on this former agricultural land. The idea was to remove the present vegetation and soil down

to the limestone bedrock, establishing pre-agricultural conditions. Since 1989, recolonization by Brazilian pepper

has been significantly reduced. The experimental site is still being monitored to determine the extent of the

indigenous flora’s return.

SOURCES: R.F, Doren and L.D. Whlteaker, “Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Chemical Control Strategies on Differing Age and

Density Ciassea Schhws terebinthhbhs,” Natural Areas Journa/voL 10, No. 1,1990, pp. 2S-34; R.F. Doren and L.D. Whiteaker, “Effects

of 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, Tampa

Fiorida, 1~, pp. 35-50.

A common recommendation is to use germ

plasm adapted to the restoration site, preferably

from the original gene pool. The notion that the

germ plasm source might be important to restoration success is too new to have been tested

rigorously. The reason locally adapted germ

plasm is not used in plant restoration programs

may be because of a lack of available seed

Environmental Impacts of Control

Technologies

Finding:

(5).

Adverse environmental impacts associated

with chemical pesticides have been documented. Host specificity, residual effects, and

human toxicity also need to be taken into

consideration when biologically based methods are used. Classical biological control

should also receive careful consideration before application, as it becomes very difficult to

remove an agent from the environment once it

is established.

CHEMICAL CONTROL

Since the 1940s, the chemical industry has

produced an array of chemical pesticides to

control damaging NIS. Many pesticides are effective against more than one species (i.e., broad

spectrum), and their application can pose significant environmental or human health risks when

used in natural or agricultural settings.

One consequence of chemical pesticide control

of NIS is the occurrence of secondary pest

outbreaks. Chemical pesticides may kill not only

the target pest, but also the natural enemies that
160 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

keep different pests under control. For example,

both indigenous and non-indigenous pest outbreaks are associated with malathion used for

Mediterranean fruit fly eradication in California

in 1980 (21,22).

Beginning with the 1972 amendment of FIFRA,

EPA has been reviewing chemical pesticides used

in the United States for their toxic effects on

nontarget organisms, including humans.

The issue of human toxicity, either through

accidental poisoning in the field or in residues on

food, is a large and complex issue. Because

chemical pesticides will continue to play an

important role in NIS management, support is

needed for EPA to finish its assessment of

chemical pesticide risk.

In addition, the development of resistance to

chemical pesticides by NIS threatens management of problem species. At least 500 insect

species are resistant to at least one synthetic

insecticide, and many are resistant to several (45).

In agricultural settings, chemical resistance can

lead to additional pest problems. For example,

numerous new plant viruses are reported associated with the emergence of a more aggressive,

pesticide-resistant, sweet potato whitefly (72).

Similarly, the tomato spotted wilt virus may

become an important disease outside its present

range if its insecticide-resistant vector, the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentals),

spreads (72).

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

Biological control is often considered a safer,

cleaner, and environmentally friendly alternative

to chemical pesticides for the control of NIS. As

with chemical pesticides, the risks associated

with a biological control agent must be considered before it is released into the environment.

Some scientists believe that, like chemical pesticides, biological control agents may disrupt

existing or future control programs (34). This

concern often focuses on introduced predators.

For example, an introduced predator could attack

a pest’s existing natural enemies. Secondary pest

outbreaks could result if previously controlled

pests flourish. Also, newly introduced and previously established biological control agents could

compete, lowering the efficacy of one or both.

This topic is hotly debated among the many

scientists who study and apply biological control.

Recognition of such potential environmental

effects is important, since it is normally impossible to eliminate a biological control agent from

the environment once it is established (30,34).

Comprehensive study before and after release of

a control agent would establish baseline data on

the environmental effects of such agents and

could limit future adverse effects.

Many species have been found to be harmful as

biological control agents. Vertebrates, in particular, are poor choices for effective, host-specific

control. The mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.), the

Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), and

the cane toad (Bufo marinus), for example, were

introduced for biological control and had extremely harmful non-target impacts (34). The

selection of species that have relatively narrow

host preferences, such as some predatory insects

or microbial organisms, provides greater likelihood of minimizing the impacts on non-target

organisms.

Environmental impacts of microbial pesticides

also require evaluation. Although microbial pesticides are considered safer than chemical pesticides, risks and uncertainties exist. Indirect effects often are not recognized because of a lack of

general research (99), although studies are beginning to assess the impacts of microbial pesticides.

The use of Bt can seriously affect indigenous

butterflies and moths (6,67). The effects of insect

pathogens (e.g., nematodes) on species closely

related to the target are not well known (34).

I EPA Reregistration and Minor Use

Pesticides

Finding:

During the present EPA reregistration process, many old chemicals will become unavaila-
Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 161

Box 5-C-The Loss of Chemical Pesticides: A Real Example

The loss of minor use chemical pesticides and the Iack of alternative technologies pose a significant problem

for NIS control. The Ioss of chemical pestiades used to control the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great

Lakes 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. Bayer

73 is an additive to TFM. These two chemicals must be reregistered under FIFRA 88. Because of high

reregistration 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 only

effective control. New, feasible technologies are not yet available. For example, a program based on sterile male

release 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 in

identifying additional suppliers. In order to maintain use of these pesticides, the Commission is faced with

assuming reregistration costs, estimated to be $8 million over 4 years (88). The Commission has not begun

incorporating the cost for reregistration into future budget proposals (89). However, FIFRA allows emergency use

of 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 Populations

In the Great Lakes,”’ Sept 17, 1991, U.S. Congress, General Aocountlng Office, Great Lakes Fishery Comrnisshvr.’ ActIons Nesded to

Support 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 replace

chemicals will not be available for large-scale

use.

Chemical pesticide use will continue to be

essential for control of a significant number of

NIS through the next decade, especially in

agricultural settings (80). The 1988 amendments

to FIFRA established reregistration guidelines for

active ingredients in pesticides first registered

before November 1, 1984. This reregistration

process uses tightened standards for human health

and environmental risk, and is scheduled for

completion by December 1997.

The cost for developing and marketing a

conventional chemical pesticide is more than $10

million (10). Although less expensive, reregistration also costs millions of dollars. FIFRA 88 will

have its biggest impact on minor use chemical

pesticides. Minor use is defined as low volume

use that is not sufficient to justify the cost to a

pesticide manufacturer to obtain federal registration (95).

In agricultural areas this includes chemical

pesticides used on most vegetables, fruits and

nuts, herbs, commercially grown ornamentals,

trees, and turf. In non-agricultural areas, minor

use chemical pesticides are used on aquatic

plants, terrestrial vertebrates, fish, and aquatic

invertebrates.

Many minor use chemicals are expected to

become unavailable under FIFRA 88 (24). For

example, the loss of herbicide registrations for

aquatic weeds will leave a void in control

programs because effective, economical substitutes are not now available (26). Chemical

registration for vertebrate control has similar

problems (box 5-C). It is estimated that about

1,000 minor use pesticides’ registrations, having

priority uses, will lose sponsorship during the

reregistration process (104).

A potential model for the reregistration of

minor use chemical pesticides for NIS is the

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), a

USDA Cooperative State Research Service program organized in 1963 to obtain residue tolerances for minor use pesticides on food and feed

crops. Since 1963, IR-4 has expanded to include
162 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

registration information for pesticides used on

nursery and floral crops, forestry seedlings, and

turfgrass; animal health drugs, antibiotics, and

antihehminthics; and for the further development

and registration of microbial and specific biochemical materials used in pest management

systems (95).

The IR-4 program is heavily burdened. It is

estimated that 3,600 new uses and chemical

reregistrations will try to pass through the IR-4

program by 1997 (95). Under the present funding

schedule and timetable it is unlikely that the IR-4

program will complete the research and analysis

necessary by the 1997 deadline (87,95). At best,

the IR-4 program provides a model for the

reregistration of minor use chemical pesticides

for NIS.

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter examined the technologies to

prevent the entry of harmful NIS and to control or

eradicate those that slip through. These include a

wide array of useful chemical, biological, physical, educational, and regulatory methods. Several

related circumstances raise concern whether as

many effective controls will be available in the

future. Some important chemical pesticides probably will not be reregistered under FIFRA and so

will go out of use. The environmental impacts of

microbial, biological, or bioengineered substitutes are not yet clear. And efforts to make

habitats less suitable for NIS in the long-term, via

ecological restoration, are not now possible on a

wide scale. For all of these reasons, continued

research and development remain essential.

Effective management of harmful NIS involves institutional, as well as technical, issues.

In the next 3 chapters, OTA examines the efforts

of Federal and State institutions.
A Primer

on

Federal

Policy 6

T

his chapter presents an overview of the Federal Government’s activities related to non-indigenous species

(NIS). It examines both the prevention and control of

harmful NIS and the intentional introduction and use of

desirable NIS. The reason for this dual focus is that, in the past,

some presumably beneficial NIS introduced or promoted by

Federal agencies have subsequently caused great economic or

environmental harm.

OTA has drawn from this analysis a number of significant

conclusions that cross agency jurisdictions and undergird several

policy options presented earlier (ch. 1). The chapter begins with

these conclusions, followed by a discussion of existing national

policies on NIS. The remainder of chapter 6 presents a detailed

reference to Federal programs, broken down along agency lines

(box 6-A).

LESSONS FROM THE PRIMER

Finding:

The current Federal framework is a largely uncoordinated

patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Some

focus on narrowly drawn problems. Many others peripherally address NIS. In general, present Federal efforts only

partially match the problems at hand.

Keeping Harmful Species Out of the United States

The Federal Government currently plays a much larger role in

preventing the entry of agricultural pests than in excluding other

potentially harmful NIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’s (APHIS) fiscal year 1992 budget for agricultural

163
164 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 6-A–A Locator for Federal Agencies Discussed in Chapter 6

Agency Page/s Agency Page/s

Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce

Animal and Plant Health inspection Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric

(APHIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-177 Administration (NOAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194-195

Agricuitural Marketing Service (AMS) . . . . . . . 177 Department of Defense (DOD) . . . . . . . . . . 195-196

Foreign Agricultural Service( FAS) .........177

Forest Service (USFS) ...............177-179 Environmental Protection Agency

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) . . . . 179-181 (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196-199

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) .......181-183 Department of Health and Human Services

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Public Health Service (PHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Service (ASCS) ...................183-184 Department of the Treasury

Cooperative State Research Service customs service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....199

(CSRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Department of Transportation

Department of the Interior Coast Guard (USCG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199-200

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . . . . . . . . 184-188 Department of Energy (DOE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

National Park Service (NPS) . . . . . . . . . . . 188-189 Department of Justice

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ....189-193 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ..........200

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) .............193

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) .............193

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessmet, 1993.

quarantine and port inspection was at least $100 routine evaluations of their programs. The continmillion, compared with the $3 million for port

inspections of fish and wildlife requested by the

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (97,100,170).

The hundreds of agricultural pests restricted from

entry by Federal regulations form the largest

category of excluded NIS.l Current FWS and

Public Health Service (PHS) regulations covering

injurious fish and wildlife and potential human

disease vectors restrict entry of far fewer NIS (by

an order of magnitude). Certain categories of

harmful NIS are not restricted from entry at all,

such as many potentially affecting only natural

areas.

Direct assessment of the effectiveness of Federal efforts to exclude harmful NIS is not possible

because both APHIS and FWS lack performance

standards for their port inspection activities or

uing entry of harmful species even in regulated

categories (ch. 3) suggests that the agencies are

not entirely successful.

Current Federal efforts may fail to exclude a

significant number of harmful MS because entry

of many is prohibited only after they have become

established or caused damage in the United

States. Under certain laws, such as the Lacey Act2

and the Federal Noxious Weed Act,3 harmful

species can continue to be imported legally until

added by regulation to a published list. However,

adding species to these lists is often difficult and

time consuming (40,83,140).

Delays in preventing entry of harmful NIS also

sometimes occur when new pathways emerge

with no regulatory history. Recent examples

include the slow reaction of PHS to the entry of

1 CFR Vols. 7,9.

2 Lacey 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 165

the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) in

used tire imports, and of APHIS to the potential

entry of forest pests and pathogens with proposed

timber imports from Siberia (see also boxes 3-A

and 4-B) (22,25), APHISs efforts to take a more

proactive approach for certain categories of agricultural pests have had varying success in part

because of erratic support of the databases necessary for worldwide monitoring and anticipation of

potential pest threats (54).

Dealing With Harmful NIS Already Here

The Federal Government devotes significant

resources to managing and preventing interstate

movement of many NIS that are agricultural

pests. However, insufficient impetus or authority

exists for Federal agencies to impose emergency

quarantines on other highly damaging species,

Noxious weeds, for example, despite explicit

authorization under the Federal Noxious Weed

Act,4 receive little attention from APHIS. Interstate transport of injurious fish and wildlife listed

under the Lacey Act, such as the zebra mussel

(Dreissena polymorpha), is not prohibited by

Federal law (30).

No coordinated control efforts exist to prevent

the spread of large categories of harmful NIS,

such as the many that damage only natural areas

or are vectors of human diseases. Current Federal

efforts to control non-indigenous fish and wildlife developed piecemeal and are noncomprehensive. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act5 authorized a coordinated program that might go far toward correcting

this shortcoming in the future. Lack of appropriations has impeded implementation of the Act thus

far (3 1).

Federal Land and Resource Management

Federal agencies manage about 30 percent of

the nation’s lands and play a major role in

The National Park Service has strict policies to

exclude or eradicate non-indigenous species. Still,

control of harmful species is not adequate in

Everglades National Park and many others.

determining the distributions and population

sizes of NIS in the United States. Their policies

regarding NIS vary from rigorous to nonexistent.

The National Park Service (NPS) has the most

stringent policies designed to conserve indigenous species and exclude or eradicate NIS.

Nevertheless, even this agency does not adequately control harmful NIS,

Most other Federal land management agencies

have general policies favoring the use of indigenous species or already established NIS in

planned introductions or stocking of fish and

wildlife. Few have similar policies regarding

plant introductions. Routine planting of NIS for

4

7 U. S.C.A. 2804

5 Nonindigenous 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 States

landscaping, soil conservation, and to provide

vegetation for wildlife occurs on many Federal

lands, including FWS’s National Wildlife Refuges and other reserves (4).

Grazing by non-indigenous livestock, feral

horses (Equus caballus), and burros (Equus

asinus) is specifically allowed by law on vast

areas of Federal land. In some places overgrazing

in the past has contributed to rangeland degradation and domination by noxious weeds (134).

Many Federal land managers consider the currently widespread and growing distribution of

noxious weeds to be a significant management

concern (136). Noxious weed control programs

generally are small and underfunded, however.

Widespread interest exists in the use of biological

control agents to control noxious weeds, but few

agencies have clearly defined policies for evaluating their safety before release.

Federal policies also affect millions of privately owned acres through the Conservation

Reserve Program of the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service. There are no requirements for planting indigenous species or controlling non-indigenous insect pests and noxious

weeds on lands enrolled in this program.

Evaluating NIS Before Introduction

Federal agencies vary in how rigorously they

assess potential environmental effects before

recommending NIS for technical applications or

introducing them through Federal or federally

funded activities. Neither the Soil Conservation

Service nor the Agricultural Research Service

systematically evaluates plant invasiveness before releasing species for use in soil conservation

or horticulture. FWS Federal Aid Program

makes it the responsibility of State applicants to

ensure any proposed introductions comply with

the National Environmental Policy Act6 

and

Executive Order 119877 (138,139).

NIS in Commerce

Historically, seed purity laws significantly

reduced the entry and spread of non-indigenous

weeds by requiring accurate labeling and by

setting standards for purity of agricultural seed.

Many other categories of MS are commercially

distributed today with varying degrees of equivalent coverage. The significance of contamination

of transported goods as a potential pathway for

harmful introductions is uncertain for these other

NIS. Nevertheless, areas with expanding production and markets pose the greatest concern. For

example, Federal regulations specifying labeling

requirements and standards for product purity are

lacking for horticultural seeds (including wildflowers) and certain biological control agents

(including insects and nematodes).

CURRENT NATIONAL POLICY

Finding:

No clear national policy presently exists on

NIS. President Carter issued a far-reaching

executive order on NIS in 1977; in practice it

has been ignored by most Federal agencies.

Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

has yet to implement the order in regulations

although specifically directed to do so.

President Carter’s Executive Order

President Jimmy Carter issued an executive

order in 1977 that could have created a national

policy on NIS if it had been broadly implemented

(box 6-B). It instructed executive agencies to

restrict introductions of ‘‘exotic’ species into

U.S. ecosystems, to encourage State and local

governments and private citizens to prevent

introductions, and to restrict the export of indigenous species for introduction into ecosystems

outside of the United States. While the order’s

definition of ‘exotic” is usually interpreted to be

those species not yet established in the United

s National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U. S.C.A. 4321 et seq.)

7 Executive Order No. 11987, Exotic Organisms, 42 PI? 26949, May 24, 1977
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 167

Box 6-B-Executive Order 11987—May 24, 1977, Exotic Organisms

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, and

as President of the United States of America, in furtherance of the purposes and policies of the Lacey Act (18

U.S.C. 42) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) it is hereby

ordered 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 Puerto

Rico, 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 or

historically, in any ecosystem of the United States.

(d) “Native species” means all species of plants and animals naturally occurring, either presently or

historically, in any ecosystem of the United States.

Section 2. (a) Executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, restrict the introduction of exotic

species into the natural ecosystems on lands and waters which they own, lease, or hold for purposes of

administration; and, shall encourage the States, local governments, and private citizens to prevent the introduction

of 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 exotic

species, 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, or

authorities used to export native species for the purpose of introducing such species into ecosystems outside the

United 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 have

an adverse effect on natural ecosystems.

Section 3. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of other

appropriate agencies, shall develop and implement, by rule or regulation, a system to standardize and simplify the

requirements, procedures and other activities appropriate for implementing the provisions of this Order. The

Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that such rules or regulations are in accord with the performance by other

agencies of those functions vested by law, including this Order, in such agencies.

JIMMY CARTER

SOURCE: Exeoutive Order No. 119S7, 42 Fedemi Reglster26949 (May 24, 1977).

States, the wording is sufficiently vague to allow regulations continue as internal guidelines for the

a species presently in one U.S. ecosystem to be

“exotic” in other U.S. ecosystems (30).

The Secretary of the Interior was instructed to

implement the order in regulations. Attempts by

FWS to develop regulations in 1978 met with

strong opposition from agriculture, the pet trade,

and other interest groups (see ch. 4, box 4-A). To

date, FWS has not succeeded in issuing regulations under the order, although the earlier draft

agency (37).

No direct evidence exists that other executive

agencies changed internal guidelines or agency

policies in response to the Executive Order. No

Federal agency contacted by OTA, other than

FWS and NPS, provided any explicit policy

statement on NIS, although officials from several

were aware of the Carter order. Considerable

variation exists among Federal agencies in how
168 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

they define and treat NIS. This sometimes makes

coordination among them difficult. Given its

minor effects, Executive Order 11987 did not

generate a consistent national policy on NIS.

Interest in implementing the Carter order

continues in some parts of FWS and other

agencies. However, executive orders are an inherently weak mechanism for establishing new

national policy. Executive Order 11987 has not

been fully implemented for 16 years. Consequently, its future significance is questionable.

Recent Related Efforts

Two acts of Congress in 1990 have recently

focused Federal attention on specific groups of

harmful MS.

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES TASK FORCE

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act created an interagency task

force to deal with harmful aquatic NIS in response

to the spread of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.

The Act’s goals go beyond control of this single

species and include significant anticipatory functions for preventing and controlling future invasions of other harmful aquatic MS.

The Task Force is cochaired by FWS and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and draws additional members from

five other Federal agencies. The Act set out a

number of assignments for the Task Force,

including many having required completion dates

(table 6-l). The delivery of most has been delayed

considerably on account of several factors (31).

First, little funding has been appropriated for

the program and policy development that is

authorized and necessary for fulfilling the Task

Force’s responsibilities (31), For most staff on

working groups, Task Force functions were

simply added to their existing responsibilities. A

lack of funds has also seriously hampered initiation of the required ballast exchange and biological studies (table 6-l). The related appropriations

that have been forthcoming in fiscal years 1991

and 1992 went primarily to zebra mussel control

programs and research (91).

In addition, the Task Force has a broad membership with differing missions and goals. It has

taken time for member agencies to air their differences, negotiate priorities, and set consensus

goals. Had a national policy on NIS already been

incorporated into the internal policies of all

agencies, this process probably would have been

more rapid. Nevertheless, the Task Force’s development of common policies and approaches may

lay the foundation for future efforts in this area.

Finally, administrative details related to the

mandated structure and function of the Task

Force have also slowed its progress. Early on,

attorneys for several member agencies decided

the Task Force needed to be chartered.8 Further,

the charter was deemed a prerequisite for the

memorandum of understanding required under

the Act and for allowing non-Federal entities to

participate in Task Force meetings (31).

A key to future prevention and control efforts

will be the development and implementation of

an ‘‘Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. ”9 The

Act does not set out details of this program.

Instead, it instructs the Task Force to develop the

program, describe the responsibilities of individual agencies, and recommend funding levels. A

draft of the program was released for public

comment in November 1992, Although the draft

sets out general areas of potential agency activity,

it does not clearly assign agency duties or provide

guidance to Congress on future funding. Member

agencies have hesitated to take on new responsibilities unmatched by new appropriations.

Should the prevention and control provisions

of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act eventually be funded and

implemented, they could have a significant role in

8 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 169

Table 6-l—Delivery of Requirements Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act

Responsibility

assigned to: Task: Required by: Delivered by:

Task Force

Task Force

USCG

Task Force

USCG

Task Force

Task Force

USCG

Task Force

Task Force

USCG

Request the Great Lakes Commission convene a

coordination meeting

Issue protocols for research on aquatic nuisance

species

Issue voluntary guidelines for ballast exchange

Sign memorandum of understanding on roles of

agencies in the task force

Issue education and technical assistance programs to

assist in compliance with ballast exchange guidelines

Report to Congress on a program to prevent and

control aquatic nuisance species (“Aquatic Nuisance

Species Program”)

Report to Congress on intentional introductions policy

review

Report to Congress on needs for controls on vessels

other than those entering the great lakes (“Shipping

Study”)

Report to Congress on effects of aquatic nuisance

species on the ecology and economic use of U.S.

waters other than the Great Lakes (“Biological Study”)

Report to Congress on the environmental effects of

ballast exchange (“Ballast Exchange Study”)

Issue regulations on ballast exchange

Feb. 29, 1990

Feb. 29, 1991

May 29, 1991

May 29, 1991

NOV. 29, 1991

NOV. 29, 1991

(annual reports

thereafter)

NOV. 29, 1991

May 29, 1992

May 29, 1992

May 29, 1992

NOV. 29, 1992

NOV. 26, 1991

Sept. 24, 1992 (draft)

Mar. 15, 1991

Apr. 17, 1992

Dec. 1991

NOV. 18, 1992

(draft)

anticipated mid-1 993

Dec. 1992

anticipated mid-1 995

anticipated mid-1 994

Apr. 8, 1993

SOURCES: 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 Federai

Register 18330 (April 8, 1993).

preventing the unintentional entry and dissemination of harmful aquatic species. However, since

the draft program requires detailed and timeconsuming analyses of requests for funds, this

probably will not result in a rapid-response

control program for new infestations (91). The

absence of any mechanism to disperse funds for

emergency control was a significant concern in

State reviews of the draft program (17,49). The

Act’s implementation also will not address the

escape of aquatic NIS from aquiculture facilities:

the Task Force has interpreted all introductions

related to aquiculture as intentional, and therefore not under the general purview of the Act (9 1).

UNDESIRABLE PLANT MANAGEMENT ON

FEDERAL LANDS

The 1990 Farm Bill contained an amendment

to the Federal Noxious Weed Act requiring

agencies to control ‘‘undesirable plants, ’ including ‘‘exotic’ ’10 species, on Federal lands. It

requires each agency to develop, staff, and

support 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 noxious

weeds in 1990 to more fully integrate its existing

programs and activities (103). Several agencies,

such as the Bureau of Land Management, Forest

Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, have

10 ~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 States

noxious weed programs in place, although these

tend to be a small component of overall land

management activities, and the level of effort

varies among sites. NPS has a long-standing

program for management of non-indigenous

plants, some of which are noxious weeds. Several

other agencies have not yet developed noxious

weed management programs, including FWS and

the Department of Energy.

Representatives of several Federal land management agencies met in September 1992 to

discuss future efforts to control noxious weeds.

There was general consensus that the problems

are severe and growing, programs are generally

underfunded and understaffed, and needs exist for

greater coordination among agencies. Such interest could presage greater efforts in this area.

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF FEDERAL

AGENCIES

Finding:

Of the 21 Federal agencies engaged in NIS

activities, APHIS has the largest role, with a

sizable staff performing its responsibilities to

prevent the importation and dissemination of

agricultural pest species. FWS, although its

programs are smaller, also has an important

role in regulating the importation of fish and

wildlife. Other relevant Federal activities are

scattered among agencies and primarily relate

to other uses or management of NIS or research.

Areas of Federal Activity

Federal activities related to NIS occur in

several areas (table 6-2):

. Movement of species into the United States.

This involves restricting entry of harmful

MS by regulation, inspection, and quarantine or enhancing entry by intentional importation of desirable species or by importation

of materials that unintentionally harbor harmful NIS.

●

●

●

●

●

●

Movement of species within the United

States across State lines. This involves

restricting movement of harmful NIS by

regulation, inspection, and quarantine or

enhancing movement of desirable NIS by

intentional transfers and of harmful NIS by

transporting materials that unintentionally

harbor NIS.

Regulating product content or labeling. This

involves restricting entry or interstate movement of harmful NIS by regulating contamination or mislabeling of NIS in commerce.

Controlling or eradicating harmful NIS.

Introducing desirable NIS.

Federal land management. This involves

preventing, eradicating, or controlling harmful NIS on Federal lands and introducing or

maintaining desirable NIS on Federal lands.

NIS research. This addresses prevention,

control, and eradication of harmful NIS and

beneficial uses of NIS.

The following section examines the roles and

responsibilities of 21 Federal agencies (box 6-A)

in each area of activity. Included are several

specific topics, such as control of noxious weeds;

development or application of aquiculture and

biological control (both often are based on the

transfer or cultivation of species in areas where

they did not formerly occur); and management of

livestock, wild horses, and burros-all of which

are NIS. These same domestic activities of the

various Federal agencies are shown for different

groups of organisms in table 6-3.

Department of Agriculture

At least eight separate agencies of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture have responsibilities

related to NIS. Their roles are diverse and include

most categories shown in tables 6-2 and 6-3.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION

SERVICE

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has 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 Organismsa

Federal

land management

Regulate

Fund or do research

Interstate

Control

Movement into U.S. product or Fund Prevent Introduce Prevention Assist movement within U.S. content or eradication or do eradication or control uses of

Restrict Enhance Restrict Enhance labeling

industry

programs introductions or control maintain eradication species uses

Plants APHIS ARSC APHIS ARS APHIS APHIS ARSC USFS FWS APHIS USFS C ARSC

DOD

customs DoD Customs SCSC AMS DODb AMS

ASCSC

FWS NPS ARS ARSC SCSC

NPS DOD SDS SCSC

DEA BOR BLM CSRS

NOAA DOD FWS

DOD NPS

BLM

BOR

DOD

Terrestrial vertebrates APHIS APHIS APHIS FWS APHIS FWS FWS USFS APHIS

FWS FWS FWS NPS FWS FWS

DOD NPS NPS

PHS BLM

Customs DOD

Insects (and arachnids) APHIS A R S APHIS ARSd APHIS ARSd USFS USFSd APHIS APHISd AR&

FAS DODb DODb USFS USFSd NPS NPSd USFS ARSd C S R

d

ARS DODd BLM BLMd ARS ARS

DOD CSRS NPSd

PHS NPS DODd

customs PHS

Fish FWS FWS FWS FWS FWS FWS NPS USFS USFS ARSe ARSe

Customs BOR BORd BLM FWS NPS

USCG

CSRSe CSRSe

NPS NOAA FWSeFWS

d e

BLM EPA NOAAe NOAAe

DOD USCG

Invertebrates (non-insect) APHIS APHIS APHIS FWS APHIS ARSC ARSe

ARS FWS ARSC NOAAe

FWS

CSRSe

NOAA CSRSe DODe

DOD EPA

PHS USCG

customs

USCG

Microbes APHIS ARSd APHIS EPA APHIS A RS USFS USFSd APHIS ARW ARSd

FAS DODb USFS USFS NPS NPSd USFS CSRSd

ARS FWS ARS NPSd

FWS CSRS

NOAA FWS

DOD NPS

EPA NOAA

PHS USCG

Customs

USCG

a 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.

e Aquiculture.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

s

CD
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 1173

tion, interstate movement, and management of

NIS under the Federal Plant Pest Act,ll the Plant

Quarantine Act,12 and several related statutes.

The agency’s primary concern is species that pose

a threat to agriculture, including plant pests and

pathogens, animal pests and pathogens, and

noxious weeds. APHIS, for the most part, does

not deal with species capable of harming natural

ecosystems or creating a human nuisance, unless

they also affect agriculture or forestry. Exceptions

include its responsibilities to control vertebrate

pests and to prevent importations of noxious

weeds. In addition, APHIS is a member agency of

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

Movement of Species Into the United StatesAPHIS restricts the movement of agricultural

pests and pathogens into the country by inspecting, prohibiting, or requiring permits for the entry

of agricultural products, seeds, live plants and

animals, and other articles that might either be or

carry pests and pathogens. In fiscal year 1992,

actual expenditures for agricultural quarantine

and inspection were $105,787,000, with 1,929

full-time employees (170). APHIS’s task of

controlling movement of NIS into the country

continues to expand because of increased international travel and trade (table 6-4). Pest exclusion

activities are projected to double between 1991

and the year 2000 (42).

Most import restrictions relate to the relative

risk that an item will be or will carry agricultural

pests or pathogens. Past risk assessments were

informal and based on review of the scientific

literature, previous experience, and expert judgment (ch. 4). Development of more for-r-naked

risk assessment procedures is under way.

A shortcoming of current pest exclusion is that

potential pests are not always restricted from

entry in a timely fashion. In 1990 APHIS did not

scrutinize the potential movement of forest pests

and pathogens with proposed imports of timber

from Siberia until substantial congressional concern surfaced (25). Delays also occur in excluding

noxious weeds from entry, which requires formal

listing of species by agency regulation under the

Federal Noxious Weed Act.13 The listing approach is difficult and time consuming, allowing

species fulfilling the criteria of a noxious weed to

be legally imported until added to the list (40,83).

The overall success of APHIS’s efforts to

exclude pests is difficult to evaluate. Complete

exclusion probably is infeasible. However, it is

unclear what level of exclusion APHIS aims for

or routinely attains, since the agency lacks

performance standards for its port inspection

activities or routine evaluation of its programs.

APHIS “pre-clears” some commodities before they are shipped to the United States by

inspecting or treating commodities to eliminate

pests or by inspecting growing areas, processing

facilities, or handling and shipping facilities (55).

Approved countries sometimes provide staff for

these functions. Pre-cleared materials can enter

the United States without further inspection,

although they are subject to random examination

at the point of entry (55). Thus far, APHIS

pre-clearance programs are small, with inspections of fruits, vegetables, and plant material

occurring in 24 countries (170).

Most of APHIS’s pest exclusion activities

occur at ports of entry, where inspection of

incoming passenger baggage and cargo and

assignment to quarantine take place. Thirty-seven

million passengers arrived in fiscal year 1990.

That year APHIS found 1,303,000 baggage violations and assessed $723,345 in penalties for

23,676 of these (42). APHIS forwards certain

plants, animals, and commodities from ports of

entry to quarantine facilities within the country

for detection and treatment of any pests or

pathogens 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~eAct (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 States

Table 6-4-APHIS’s Pest and Disease Exclusion Activities

Recent increases in Inspections, Incoming passengers, and commodities (thousands)

Percentage

1977 1984 1989 1980 increase

Total 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 Inspections

1990 1991

Airplanes 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbers of interceptions of unauthorized material

364,000

54,000

156,838

237,024

1,054,000

2,965,000

2,130

361,373

7,121,000

12,923

1990

356,915

52,119

151,988

256,964

1,109,175

—a

1,612

180,706

5,440,976

5,099

1991

Unauthorized plant material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,652,000 1,527,922

Unauthorized animal products, by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206,000 221,174

Noxious weeds: total interceptions (sent for inspection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,219 3,065

Noxious weeds: number of taxa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 30

Mail containing unauthorized material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,900 10,785

Baggage containing unauthorized material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,303,000 1,149,508

aData not obtained.

SOURCES: U.S. Department ofAgricuiture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “WADSlnformation: October1991/’lnformation Fact

Sheet, October 1991 ;U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Submmmittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related

Agencies, 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.

Movement of Species Within the United

States—APHIS restricts interstate movement of

agricultural plant pests or pathogens by imposing

domestic quarantines and regulations. Affected

States usually adopt parallel measures to restrict

intrastate movement (55).

Domestic quarantines exist for 14 nonindigenous plant pests.

14 Such quarantines restrict interstate transport of items that might carry

a pest, such as firewood and recreational vehicles

for the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). APHIS

also regulates the interstate transport of livestock,

animal products, hay, manure, and other items

that could spread animal pathogens, as well as

nursery stock, soil, and soil-moving equipment

that could spread plant pathogens listed in domes147 cm 301
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 175

tic quarantines (55). Some domestic quarantines

restrict interstate transport of imported commodities. For example, Japanese Unshiu oranges

(Citrus reticulate var. unshiu) can carry citrus

canker (Xanthornonas campestris pv. citri). APHIS

allows their importation, but restricts their transport within the country to non-citrus growing

areas.

Restricting the movement of non-indigenous

pests with high natural rates of spread is difficult.

Consequently, APHIS does not attempt eradication, containment, or suppression of pests like the

Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) (55).

APHIS also does not regulate some areas where

the States are active, unless problems occur

requiring a national approach. For example,

although regulation of the honey bee (Apis

mellifera) industry has been a State function,

introduction of varroa mites (Varroa jacobsoni)

prompted APHIS to consider developing regulations on interstate movement of honey bees in

1991 (42).

APHIS’s current authority requires a warrant

for inspection of first-class mail between States,

although this can be an important pathway for

pest spread. The shipment of agricultural products and associated pests, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), between Hawaii and the mainland has been a growing

concern. APHIS confiscated 4,228 pounds of

prohibited plant material and imposed 85 civil

penalties during the first five months of a trial

inspection program conducted with the U.S.

Postal Service in 1990. Fruit fly larvae occurred

in 45 inspected packages; other important agricultural pests were found in 177 packages (42).

APHIS supported formalization of first-class mail

inspection either in Postal Service regulations or

in additional legislation in 1991 (42). By 1992,

the agency was no longer seeking an easing of the

warrant system, because the interdiction program,

coupled with extensive public education, had

Witchweed (Striga asiatica) is the only noxious weed

that USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has attempted to quarantine.

reduced attempted quarantine violations by 80

percent (64).

APHIS narrowly interprets its authority under

the Federal Noxious Weed Act to restrict interstate transport of noxious weeds. The agency only

regulates interstate transport if a quarantine is in

place, and imposes a quarantine only if a control

or eradication program exists (41). Few control or

eradication programs exist for noxious weeds,

and the agency has imposed only one domestic

quarantine-witchweed (Striga asiatica).15 Consequently, although all 93 designated noxious

weeds are prohibited from entry to the United

States, 9 of these presently are sold in interstate

commerce (55).

Monitoring—APHIS conducts several monitoring programs abroad and in the United States

to track non-indigenous pests and pathogens.

International pest detection surveys focus on

approximately 100 non-indigenous fruit fly species, khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium),

citrus canker, and Karnal bunt fungus (Tilletia

indica)-primarily in Mexico, the Caribbean, or

Latin America (42). While monitoring of worldwide animal disease agents is relatively success157 cm 301,80”
176 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ful, widespread criticism exists of programs for

plant pests. Many observers consider current

systems to be inadequate for providing predictive

information of use to regulators (54). This may, in

part, be due to the inherent difficulty of developing plant pest databases (see ch. 4) (12). However,

it also reflects erratic support.

The agency has domestic survey programs for

at least 23 non-indigenous insect pests (42).

APHIS also participates in the National Animal

Health Monitoring Program, a cooperative FederalState-Industry monitoring system that provides

information on the geographic scope of infectious

pathogens threatening livestock, poultry, and

related industries.

Control and Eradication—APHIS management plans often combine regulatory actions with

monitoring, eradication, or control programs. The

choice among these options depends on feasibility and the existence of appropriate technologies.

Many management plans are in cooperation with

State agencies.

APHIS eradicates or controls certain species

that are newly introduced or present in confined

areas. Its advanced planning includes “action

plans’ for eradicating pests not yet in the United

States, but which previously have been intercepted at U.S. borders (32). Once a pest is widely

established, however, control responsibilities often

shift to other Federal, State, and private agencies.

For example, APHIS attempted to eradicate early

swarms of the African honey bee (Apis mellifera

scutellata) along the Texas border, but switched

its strategy to technology transfer and advice to

the States when eradication no longer seemed

feasible (42).

APHIS does have some eradication campaigns

to eliminate or suppress widespread pests that are

under domestic quarantines, such as the boll

weevil (Anthonomus grandis), the bluetongue

virus, several equine pathogens, golden nematode

(Globodera rostochiensis), and witchweed (55).

More often, however, the goal is to eliminate

isolated infestations of pests, like the gypsy moth

or imported fire ants (Solenopsis spp.).

Suppression of noxious weeds is a minor

component of APHIS’s eradication and control

efforts. Small control programs exist for only 8 of

the 45 listed noxious weeds that are known or

thought to occur in the United States (164).

APHIS spent an estimated $725,000 in fiscal year

1992 for control of noxious weeds. As perspective, the agency’s budget for domestic quarantine

and control totaled at least $42 million (98). The

budget request for noxious weed control in fiscal

year 1993 was even smaller, $412,000 (98).

Among other things, the agency plans to discontinue control efforts for common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) (98), even though, according to

experts, this harmful weed of rangelands infests

about 60,000 acres in the United States and is

spreading (87).

APHIS is increasingly involved in biological

control (55). Biocontrol programs exist for several pests, including the European corn borer

(Ostrinia nubilalis), diffuse and spotted knapweed (Centaurea difiusa and C. maculosa), leafy

spurge (Euphorbia esula), and Russian wheat

aphid (98). In 1990, the National Biological

Control Institute was created within APHIS to

“promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for

biological control” (106). Planned functions

include increasing the visibility of biological

control within APHIS, developing related regulations, and performing liaison with other Federal

and State agencies that use biological control

(106).

APHIS’s Animal Damage Control Program

(ADC) controls or eradicates both indigenous and

non-indigenous wildlife that conflict with agriculture 16 ( 15). It also is responsible for controlling

the brown tree snake (Boiga irregulars), under

the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention

and Control Act. ADC is working on methods to

prevent snake transfers in cargo and toxicants to

167 U. S.C.A. 426a.
reduce snake populations. It has begun to develop

a cooperative program with Guam, with control

efforts expected to begin in 1993 (16).

Under the Organic Act of 1944, 17 APHIS

conducts eradication programs in countries adjacent to or near the United States. For example, a

suppression program exists for the Mexfly (Anastrepha ludens), a pest of more than 40 fruits, in the

northwestern region of Mexico to prevent its

migration into the United States (98).

Research—Research at APHIS focuses on

methods to support the agency’s regulatory activities. Current areas include techniques to detect

noxious weeds at ports of entry, treatments to

eliminate pests from commodities, pest identification and control methods, and biological control (1,97). APHIS had research under way on

control methods for at least nine non-indigenous

pests in fiscal year 1992 (98). The agency

sometimes works with industry and other government agencies to evaluate promising control

agents (97). APHIS also funds some related

research by the Agricultural Research Service.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

The Federal Seed Act18 authorizes USDA to

regulate the labeling and content of agricultural

and vegetable seed imported to the United States

or shipped in interstate commerce. Historically,

implementation of this Act significantly reduced

the movement of non-indigenous plants into the

United States and between the States by setting

standards for seed purity and requiring that seed

packages accurately identify their contents (60).

The Act does not cover seeds of flowers or

ornamental plants (104). The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) originally was responsible

for regulating both seed importations and movement of seeds in interstate commerce. However,

Chapter 6—A Primer on Federal Policy I 177

APHIS assumed responsibility for importation in

1982 (75).

AMS works closely with States in regulating

interstate seed shipments. About 500 State seed

inspectors inspect seed subject to interstate provisions of the Federal Seed Act (98). Regulations

require accurate labeling, including specification

of all seed in excess of 5 percent, and designation

of ‘weeds’ and ‘noxious weeds’ conforming to

those of the State into which the seed is transported or offered for sale.19 It is illegal to transport

seeds containing weeds or noxious weeds into a

State in excess of specified tolerances. When

inspectors detect infractions, AMS usually resolves the case administratively, rather than by

prosecution (98). In fiscal year 1991, AMS tested

934 seed samples in connection with interstate

shipments and collected $76,075 in penalties

under the Act (98). The fiscal year 1991 budget

for Federal Seed Act functions was about $1.1

million (98).

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is the

lead agency in all USDA foreign activities (75).

It maintains agricultural counselors, attaches, and

trade officers in 74 offices, embassies and consulates covering about 110 countries (95). FAS staff

periodically report on plant or animal health

issues 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 of

APHIS staff supervising pre-clearance or monitoring foreign pest and pathogen conditions (75).

FOREST SERVICE

Primary responsibilities of the Forest Service

(USFS) relate to its management of the National

Forest System and research on forest pests and

pathogens.

17 Dep~ment ofA@ml~R org~ckt 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 States

Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) research is the U.S.

Forest Service’s responsibility while the Forest

Service and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service share obligation for controlling

the pest.

Land and Resource Management—The 191

million-acre National Forest System is distributed in 43 States (74) and makes up roughly 8

percent of the U.S. land area. Congress has

designated 32.5 million of these acres, or 17

percent, as wilderness (92). Policies regarding

NIS are more restrictive in wilderness areas; for

example, stocking of ‘exotic’ ’20 fish is prohibited,

restoration of disturbed vegetation must incorporate only indigenous species, and wildlife may be

controlled when they harm indigenous species

(75).

In general, however, the National Forest System is managed for multiple uses,21 including

timber production, outdoor recreation, rangeland

grazing, watershed preservation, and fish and

wildlife habitat (94). Thus, aside from constraints

on wilderness areas, the Forest Service manages

its lands for purposes that sometimes include the

introduction of NIS.

Grazing—In 1989, a total of 1,147,916 cattle

(Bos taurus), horses, and burros and 944,843

sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus)-all

of them non-indigenous-grazed on lands of the

National Forest System (163). The Forest Service

has inventoried approximately 50 million acres as

suitable for grazing (93). According to a recent

Forest Service internal survey, 24 percent of the

grazing allotments in six Western Regions had

problems with vegetation or soil and water

resources caused either by improper livestock

grazing or by grazing occurring where it conflicts

with other valued resources such as wildlife or

recreation (92).

Introductions of Fish and Wildlife-As a

general policy, when stocking or introducing fish

or wildlife, the Forest Service favors ‘native’ ’22 

or

“desirable” non-native species (108). Introductions of new NIS desired by the public may be

allowed (108). The Forest Service considers

management of fish and wildlife in the National

Forests primarily a State responsibility. Releases

of NIS at new sites involve joint agreements with

State fish and wildlife agencies and coordination

with FWS (108,163). In evaluating such introductions, the Forest Service and States consider

probable effects on adjoining private and other

public lands, as well as compatibility with multipleuse management (108,109). More careful consideration is given to introductions of new NIS than

to repeated stocking of species introduced in the

past, such as the chukar partridge (Alectoris

chukar). The latter do not require an environmental analysis unless they are controversial

(108).

Control of Noxious Weeds—The Forest Service has an active program to control noxious

weeds. The current emphasis is on use of integrated management systems, and the Forest

Zo ‘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 179

Service has a strong interest in using biological

control agents (1 12,168).

A recently issued interim directive on noxious

weeds includes several notable components (1 12).

Where possible, forage and browse seed for

planting and feed, hay, or straw brought onto

Forest Service lands must be certified free of

noxious weed seed (1 12). The directive further

encourages the use of desirable plant species that

out-compete noxious weeds and requires where

appropriate that equipment brought onto Forest

Service lands by contractors or permitters be free

of noxious weed seeds (1 12), Forest Supervisors

are specifically instructed to assess the risks of

introducing noxious weeds in projects that disturb

plant communities (1 12).

Control of Forest Pests and Pathogens—The

Forest Service has responsibility for detecting,

identifying, surveying, and controlling forest

pests affecting forested lands in the United States

under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act.23

While the Forest Service directly manages species affecting the National Forest System, management elsewhere is through cooperative agreements with other Federal and State agencies using

funds specifically appropriated to the Forest

Service for this use (162).

Most of this program does not deal with NIS,

since the majority of significant pests and pathogens affecting the nation’s forests are indigenous

(1 10). Nevertheless, it does address several wellestablished non-indigenous pests, including gypsy

moth, white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae),

and Port-Or-ford cedar root disease (Phytophthora

lateralis) (163). Gypsy moth, considered the most

damaging of these, is controlled cooperatively by

the Forest Service and APHIS (163). The Forest

Service manages larger infested areas, and it

shares eradication responsibilities with APHIS

for isolated outbreaks (163). The Forest Service

expended an average of at least $10 million

annually for gypsy moth suppression and eradication on Federal, State, and private lands from

1987 to 1991 (163). Non-indigenous insects and

pathogens could become an even more significant

component of forest pest management if species

from Siberia ever become established in the

Pacific Northwest-some localized infestations

have already occurred (26).

Research—Forest Service research on timber

management includes the selection, testing, and

distribution of plant materials to improve forests.

The United States is rich in indigenous woody

species, and only a few NIS have been developed

and distributed for specialized applications, such

as windbreaks in treeless areas, urban plantings,

and Christmas trees (56).

Forest Service research on forest insects and

pathogens previously had large programs on

introduced pathogens such as white pine blister

rust, Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulmi), and

chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitic) (162).

It currently has a large program (funded at

$3,849,000 in fiscal year 1992) on the gypsy moth

at the agency’s Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station (163).

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is

the research branch of USDA. Its functions

include the evaluation of agricultural NIS, which

later are disseminated throughout the country by

the commercial sector. ARS also conducts research on the prevention, control, or eradication

of harmful NIS, often in cooperation with APHIS.

Development of New Varieties—The National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) is an

important repository of seeds and other plant

materials (germ plasm) for plant breeding in the

United States (53,166). ARS plays a pivotal role

in coordinating, funding, and staffing NPGS,

although the system is actually a network of

cooperating Federal, State, and private institutions (77). ARS’s functions in the NPGS include

23 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 States

foreign exploration to bring back new plant

varieties of potential use to breeders and the

inspection and quarantine of imported plant

materials, which it conducts in cooperation with

APHIS (77). In addition, some of the U.S. plant

germ plasm collection is stored by ARS (105).

An annual average of 8,503 accessions were

incorporated into NPGS between 1985 and 1989

(165). About 90 percent of these were of foreign

origin (165). Screening of this plant material for

pathogens or contamination by other species is

generally successful. Only one introduced pest,

the peanut stripe virus has been traced to the

National Plant Germplasm Program during the

past 25 years (165).

Non-indigenous plant species and varieties are

not evaluated for potential invasiveness or other

harmful ecological qualities before being placed

in NPGS. Many are cultivated plants posing few

ecological risks (75). However, the collection

does contain some harmful plants that are sources

of useful genes for plant breeders (e.g., noxious

weeds like wild oats (Avena fatua)) (166). Individuals receiving noxious weed seed from the

collection must obtain Federal and State permits

(166).

ARS’s National Arboretum is part of the

National Plant Germplasm System. Its functions

include overseas plant exploration and importation, although the Arboretum’s main focus is on

plants for ornamental horticulture (24). The

Arboretum imported a total of 2,371 species

between 1986 and 1988 (165). In addition,

scientists at the Arboretum develop ornamental

plants and then release them to researchers or to

the commercial sector for multiplication, distribution, and sale. Plants are evaluated for hardiness, pest and disease resistance, and other

desirable characteristics before release. The Arboretum does not systematically evaluate plants

for invasiveness. Some ARS botanists, however,

may be sensitive to such concerns and incorporate

them into plant assessments (27).

ARS presently is developing the National

Genetic Resources Program required by the 1990

Farm Bill.24 This program will eventually subsume work currently in the NPGS (75). Its

functions include the collection, classification,

preservation, and dissemination of genetic material of importance to U.S. agriculture. Its

biological breadth is greater than that of NPGS,

encompassing genetic resources of animals, aquatic

species, insects, and microbes in addition to those

of plants. The National Genetic Resources Program may thus eventually expand ARS’s role in

foreign exploration and importation to include a

greater variety of organisms.

Aquiculture-An additional research area

involving the use of NIS is aquiculture. ARS

projects include culture techniques and disease

diagnosis and control (99). Total expenditures in

this area were at least $7 million in fiscal year

1992 (99).

Biological Control and Other Uses of Beneficial Insects-ARS considers biological control

to be one of the most important pest control

tactics and has a sizable program for locating,

importing, and evaluating insects and other organisms (5,99). The budget request for this program

was about $9.5 million for fiscal year 1993 (99).

The agency operates several laboratories abroad

where researchers locate and study new biological control agents and ship them to the United

States. The recently closed laboratory in Italy

shipped a total of 80,175 individuals of 28

biological control agents to the United States in

1990 (34). (The laboratory’s functions shifted to

a new facility in Montepellier, France.) Some of

ARS research on biological control is in cooperation with other Federal agencies. For example,

ARS and the Army Corps of Engineers cooperate

extensively on control of aquatic weeds in the

m 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 181

The Agricultural Research Service is studying methods

to control or eradicate the African honey bee (Apis

mellifera scutellata), the tracheal mites (Acarapis

woodi) that infect European honeybees (A. mellifera),

and other agricultural pests.

southeastern United States, and the Bureau of

Reclamation contributes funding to ARS work on

biological control of salt cedar (Tamarix spp.).

ARS researchers follow protocols for the

importation and release of non-indigenous biological control agents, in addition to fulfilling

APHIS’s requirements for import and interstate

transport permits (18). General provisions include

adherence to applicable Federal and State laws,

quarantine, detailed documentation, and evaluation of potential environmental and safety effects

(18). These protocols provide guidance for ARS

workers, but are largely voluntary for other

researchers in academia and industry (13). Detailed requirements for evaluation of environmental effects before release have not yet been

developed by ARS for all categories of biocontrol

agents (18).

ARS also imports non-indigenous bees for

research on crop pollination (88). APHIS requires

permits for importation and release of bees to

prevent entry of bee pathogens, parasites, predators, or harmful germ plasm (58).

Prevention, Control, or Eradication MethodsIn addition to its biological control program, ARS

has research aimed at the control or eradication of

several non-indigenous agricultural pests, such as

the Russian wheat aphid; sweet potato whitefly

(Bemisia tabaci); Mediterranean fruit fly; African

honey bee; pear thrips (Taeniothrips inconsequens); and tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi),

which infect honey bees (99).

The agency spent almost $9 million for research on these six NIS in fiscal year 1992 (99).

Another relevant research area is plant disease

resistance, which aims to prevent infections by

non-indigenous plant pathogens. ARS also studies animal pathogens not yet present in the United

States at four specialized laboratories in the

United States (75).

Some funds for ARS research come from State

or local governments. These are for research on

the control of NIS of great local concern. For

example, in 1991 Florida provided at least $200,000

to ARS for work on biocontrol of melaleuca

(Melaleuca quinquenervia) and aquatic weeds

(99).

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Soil Conservation Act of 193525 established the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Its

central mission continues to be the protection of

land and related resources against soil erosion.26

SCS gives technical advice to nearly all public

agencies and many private entities in the United

States on grasses, forages, trees, and shrubs

suitable for erosion control (75). The agency

devotes a significant part of its efforts to the

development and dissemination of new plant

materials for conservation.

Some plants released and recommended by the

SCS are non-indigenous to the United States (79).

Others are species of U.S. origin spread beyond

their natural ranges through soil conservation

applications. SCS uses NIS at least in part

25 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 States

because indigenous species sometimes may not

satisfy all soil conservation needs, especially for

plants that grow rapidly in disturbed, contaminated, or polluted habitats (75).

Movement of Species Into and Within the

United States-SCS operates 20 plant materials

centers throughout the United States, and an

additional 6 are operated either jointly with other

agencies or by State agencies with SCS assistance

(1 16). These centers assemble, test, release, and

provide for the commercial production and use of

plant materials. Plants evaluated for any given

application may come from collections of indigenous vegetation, foreign plant introductions,

strains from plant breeders, or commercial seed

(114). SCS has a small, informal program to

locate new species abroad (69). However, the

principal source of foreign plant materials is

ARS, which provides an estimated 90 percent of

the NIS evaluated by SCS (80).

At any given time, the plant materials centers

collectively may be evaluating as many as 20,000

plant types (117). Of these, about 25 percent are

non-indigenous to the United States27 (1 17).

From 1981 through 1990, the plant materials

centers formally released for public use a total of

75 species or cultivars (varieties); 29 percent had

origins outside the United States, including Turkey, China, and Africa (113). Once into commercial production, plants developed by SCS can

have wide distribution. For example, in 1989,200

SCS cultivars were in production, resulting in

24.8 million pounds of seed and 27.1 million

plants, with a retail value of $78.3 million (117).

Within the SCS, no explicit agency-wide

policy governs the use of indigenous versus NIS,

although SCS officials state that priority is

generally given to indigenous28 species (69,80).

The SCS does provide general guidance to the

plant materials centers regarding testing for

potential weediness. Specifically, it requires determination of whether a

qualities or has a potential

plant “has any toxic

for becoming a pest. ”

Should the plant have these qualities, “control

methods are to be developed and hazards are to be

carefully assessed before the plant is considered

for release” (114). Annually about 10 percent of

species under evaluation are discarded because of

their potential to become weeds (80).

Within those general national guidelines, the

review process and species choice occurs at the

individual plant material centers (69). Procedures

for evaluating plants are not standardized and can

vary among centers and even among individual

researchers (79,80). In the past, SCS has recommended some plants that have become notable

pests, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustfolia), and salt

cedar (75). SCS staff believe that many, if not all,

of these harmful species would not pass the plant

review process today (75,80).

Nevertheless, present review processes may

fail to adequately screen out potential pests,

especially those that only become pests in forests

and other natural areas. According to one expert,

at least 7 of the 22 non-indigenous cultivars

released between 1980 and 1990 have the potential to become invasive in natural areas (61). In

addition, even U.S. species spread beyond their

natural ranges by soil conservation applications

might cause problems: the Illinois Department of

Conservation recently expressed concern over the

release of Elsmo lacebark elm (Ulmus parvifolia)

by the Missouri plant material center for use in

windbreaks and ornamental and conservation

areas (76).

Control and Eradication-SCS does not

control or eradicate species it has released when

they become pests (80). However, SCS is involved in an effort to replace noxious weeds on

grazed lands with other palatable plants that

outcompete the weeds (80,115). Current and

27 scs s~fies that 75 percent are “native,’ presumably meaning indigenous to the United States (1 17).

28 SCS .s~ use tie te~ ‘cMtive.”
planned work includes grazing management studies, development of methods to encourage reinvasion by long-lived indigenous plants, and the

collection and screening of new grassland plants

(1 15), The collection and screening may itself

involve new introductions, since SCS is considering ‘‘importing plants that have been under

centuries of intensive grazing in Inner Mongolia

because they have evolved to withstand abusive

and intensive grazing’ (79).

Providing Indigenous Germ Plasm for Restoration—Since 1990, SCS has collaborated with

the National Park Service to propagate indigenous plants for revegetation following park road

construction (149). SCS expanded this program

to include providing plants for general park

maintenance in 1992 and adopted it as an agency

plan (81). A unique aspect of this effort is the use

of genetic strains that are indigenous29 to individual parks. The program provides mutual benefits

to the participating agencies. SCS obtains plant

materials for potential use in soil conservation.

Park managers receive indigenous plants that

otherwise are difficult to obtain (80).

A SCS draft strategic plan suggested this program and other SCS work could contribute to the

development of banks of indigenous30 species

with known ecological zones for future needs

(117). The plan recommended an expanded role

in the preservation of indigenous germ plasm,

including the establishment and operation of an

indigenous germ plasm center (117). Whether and

how this center would coordinate with the National Genetic Resources Center under development by ARS is unclear. In any case, a repository

of indigenous plant material might decrease SCS

reliance on potentially harmful NIS for conservation.

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND

CONSERVATION SERVICE

183

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), created under the

Food Security Act of 1985.31 CRP’s primary

objective is to help reduce water and wind erosion

on highly erodable croplands (19,95). Farmers

enroll eligible acreage, and then plant soilconserving plants for a 10-year contract period

(19). In exchange, participants receive annual

rental payments and a one-time payment for half

of the eligible costs of establishing the plant cover

(95). The 1990 Farm Bill broadened the program

to include wetland preservation and other conservation practices (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 1

percent of the total U.S. land area. In 1990, 58

percent of CRP lands were planted with grasses

non-indigenous to the United States, while only

24 percent were planted with indigenous grasses32

(19). The difference probably relates to per acre

planting costs of $37.39 for NIS versus $44.95 for

indigenous species (19).

CRP lands may inadvertently provide habitats

for non-indigenous weeds, such as tumbleweed

(Salsola iberica), kochia (Kochia scoparia), and

leafy spurge (19). Plants on CRP lands can also

provide habitats for non-indigenous crop pests

during periods when crop hosts are not available;

for example, the Russian wheat aphid persists on

several grasses recommended for western sites

(10,19).

Between 1986 and 1987, CRP acreage jumped

by approximately 17 million acres (107). This

unanticipated rapid rate of enrollment caused the

demand for grass seed to exceed supply and

resulted in large legal importations from abroad

29 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 States

and widespread use of uncertified seed (75).

While ASCS is not aware of any resulting weed

problems (75), such conditions provide a ripe

opportunity for unintentional importation and

distribution of non-indigenous weeds.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE

The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS)

funds research on agricultural pest control and

aquiculture through State agricultural experiment

stations, forestry schools, land-grant colleges, the

Tuskegee Institute, and veterinary colleges. CSRS

awarded grants for research on the management

and control, including biological control, of

non-indigenous pests totaling at least $450,000 in

1990 and $550,000 in 1991 (96). These included

leafy spurge, gypsy moth, imported fire ants,

Eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala),

and Russian wheat aphid. CSRS also provides

funds for the use of NIS in technical applications

such as biological control or aquiculture. In 1990,

$338,900 was awarded to develop facilities for

biocontrol of Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica)

(96). CSRS funds five regional aquiculture centers. At these and other locations, research is

under way on the detection and prevention of

diseases in aquiculture species and the development of species for aquiculture applications.

Department of the Interior

At least five agencies within the Department of

the 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 agencies affect the distributions and impacts of NIS on

at least 20 percent of the U.S. land area.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

FWS simultaneously engages in both controlling and intentionally introducing or stocking

NIS. The agency has responsibilities to prevent

and control injurious fish and wildlife and to

protect threatened and endangered species. At the

same time, FWS promotes recreational fisheries,

Buyer

Beware!

souvenirs

YOU buy

overseas

could

end up

costing a

lot more

than you

paid for

them.

Educational efforts, such as this brochure for

travelers, are part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s work to prevent and control injurious

introductions and protect endangered species.
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 185

hunting, and aquiculture that involve NIS. Although FWS uses regulations drafted under Executive Order 11987 as an internal policy to

discourage introductions of NIS, the policy has

not been uniformly adopted throughout the agency

(30). Conflicting goals sometimes occur between

different programs, and even between different

parts of individual programs.

FWS’s participation as co-chair of the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force has required some

synthesis and internal evaluation of the agency’s

role in NIS issues. While the ultimate effects of

this effort are presently unknown, it potentially

will generate increased communication and coordination among the currently disparate programs

within FWS.

Movement of Species Into the United StatesFWS has responsibility for regulating the importation of injurious fish and wildlife under the

Lacey Act. Current regulations prohibit or restrict

entry to the United States of two families of

fishes; 18 genera or species of mammals, birds,

reptiles, and shellfish; and two fish pathogens.33

FWS also restricts the importation of hundreds of

threatened and endangered species from abroad

under the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species (CITES).

The FWS port inspection program is relatively

small, especially in comparison with agricultural

inspection. The budget request for fiscal year

1992 included $3,294,000 for 65 wildlife inspectors and an additional $500,000 for an automated

import clearance system (100). In 1990, FWS port

inspectors inspected 22 percent (a total of 17,562

inspections) of the wildlife shipments at international ports of entry (100).

The potential exists for FWS to play an

increased role in regulating fish and wildlife

imports, but current shortcomings of the FWS law

enforcement division might compromise expanded

efforts. A recent advisory commission found the

division seriously understaffed and underfunded

and lacking clear priorities, adequate staff supervision, or sufficient technical expertise to identify

species (145). Unfunded needs for law enforcement identified by FWS regional offices totaled at

least $7 million for fiscal year 1992 (67).

Movement of Species Within the United

States-Under the Lacey Act, interstate transport

of federally listed species is legal. Thus, intentional movements within the country of harmful

fish and wildlife such as zebra mussels face no

Federal prohibition. In contrast, amendments to

the Lacey Act in 1981 made the interstate

movement of State-listed injurious fish and wildlife a Federal offense, potentially subject to FWS

enforcement (70,90). No interceptions of such

interstate shipments were listed among the 1990

accomplishments of FWS enforcement, suggesting this is not a high priority within the agency

(100). Future implementation of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act might increase the FWS role in preventing

interstate transfers of harmful aquatic species.

Federally Funded Introductions-The FWS

Federal Aid Program allows States to recover up

to 75 percent of acceptable costs for various

projects related to fish and wildlife restoration.

Funds come from Federal excise taxes on sales of

firearms and hunting and fishing equipment and

supplies. The receipts have grown steadily over

the past few years (figure 6-l), and payments to

States totaled more than $320 million in fiscal

year 1991.

The program frequently is criticized for its

historical role in supporting numerous introductions of non-indigenous fish and wildlife species

(20,141). Determining the exact number of introductions funded is difficult, however, since few

project titles include species names or the words

“exotic” or “non-indigenous” (63).

The Federal Aid Program now discourages

introductions of MS not yet established in an

area. It requires States to assess the environmental

3350 CFR 16, as amended (Jan. 4, 1974).
186 I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States

impacts of any introductions they propose (4,138,139).

Although proposals for introductions presently

are uncommon, they do continue (142). Most

involve introductions of U.S. species into areas

where they are not indigenous, such as the recent

proposal by the New Jersey Division of Fish,

Game and Wildlife to introduce chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Pacific

coast to the Delaware Bay (159). Such introductions have become controversial only recently (4),

and the Federal Aid Program lacks a clear policy

regarding their eligibility for funds. Additional

concerns are that proposals for introductions are

closely scrutinized only when they engender

vocal public controversy, and that State agencies

sometimes inadequately fulfill requirements for

assessing environmental effects of introductions.

Further, States can avoid scrutiny by using State

funds for the initial introduction of a species; once

the species is established, funding can be sought

from the Federal Aid Program for stocking

without any requirement for environmental assessment.

Control and Eradication—FWS has no centralized, comprehensive program for the control

and eradication of harmful NIS. Instead, control

programs have variable goals, such as control of

individual species, recovery of endangered species, and control of fish diseases affecting aquaculture. The most notable control program is for

the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the

Great Lakes, conducted by the North Central

Regional Office in Minnesota in cooperation with

other regional entities. Under the Great Lakes

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act,34 FWS plans

to expand sea lamprey control as part of a Great

Lakes initiative (100).

FWS had reported NIS as a factor contributing

to the decline of approximately 30 percent of

species listed as threatened or endangered as of

June 1991 (see table 2-3) (4). Control of NIS is a

component of the recovery plans of many listed

Figure 6-l—Account Receipts of the FWS Federal

Aid to States Program

Sport fish restoration account receipts

““~l

‘“v

I

I

I

0 1 I I I 1

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ●

Fiscal year

Source of funds:

_ Interest D Fuel taxes

~ Import duties m Excise taxes

● 1991 figures are estimates

Wildlife restoration account receipts

160-, -- 1

140

(/J 120

z

g 100

: 80

; 60 .—

z

40 I

20-

o~l

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Fiscal year

Taxes on:

_ Bows and arrows

~ Pistols and revolvers

D Arms and ammunition

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,

Subcommittee on the Department of the Intenorand Related Agencies,

“Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related Ageneies

Appropriations for 1992,” serial No. 43-2940, (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1991), pp. 1091, 1099-1100, 1111,

1117-1118.

34 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 187

species (4). Examples include control of feral

animals and non-indigenous vegetation in Hawaii

and reduction of non-indigenous fish populations

in the upper Colorado Basin (100). Implementation of many recovery plans has been poor,

however (4, 152). Endangered species recovery

plans consequently contribute little to the control

of NIS at this time.

Fisheries Enhancement and AquacultureFWS produces fish for stocking waterways at 77

National Fish Hatcheries throughout the country

(147). WhiIe much of this effort goes to culturing

indigenous fishes, it also produces NIS commonly stocked in U.S. waters. Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and striped bass (Morone

saxatilis), for example, are widely stocked beyond their natural ranges.

FWS created an office to coordinate aquaculture within the agency and with other Federal

agencies under the National Aquaculture Act of

1980 (70). The office’s primary activity is providing technical assistance related to natural resource

issues and fish diseases to State agencies and the

private sector. FWS helps control the spread of

fish pathogens by promoting a National Fish

Health Strategy and by providing voluntary

diagnosis and inspection to the private sector

through technical centers associated with the

National Fish Hatcheries.

Land Management—FWS manages approximately 91 million acres, about 4 percent of the

U.S. land area, mostly within the National Wildlife Refuge System. This system includes 500

national wildlife refuges, 166 waterfowl production areas, and 51 wildlife coordination areas

(46). General goals include the preservation of

natural diversity, although various units were

established under different authorities and for

varying purposes (4). Sometimes these even

include preservation of NIS-for example, management of longhorn cattle (Bos taurus) at the

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act35 only allows land uses that are

compatible with the refuges’ original purposes. In

practice, this results in inconsistent NIS policies.

Some NIS may be purposefully introduced-for

example, planting non-indigenous grass mixtures

(i.e., wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and sweet clover (Melilotus spp.)) to

enhance waterfowl production and stocking nonindigenous fish to achieve management objectives (4). Other NIS are controlled when they

interfere with refuge management goals (72,147).

Approximately 12 percent of the wildlife refuges

experienced problems with MS in 1991 (72).

Research—FWS has ongoing NIS research in

the following areas: the distribution, biology, and

control of aquatic nuisance species; the identification and treatment of fish pathogens; control of

wildlife diseases; control of the brown tree snake;

effects of non-indigenous vegetation on nongame

migratory birds; biological control of purple

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); and aquiculture

techniques (72,85,100). Much of the work on

aquatic species is conducted at the National

Fisheries Research Centers in Gainesville, Florida; AM Arbor, Michigan; and LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

The Gainesville center sometimes is referred to

as the ‘‘Exotic Species Laboratory. ” One of its

missions is to identify the distribution, status, and

impacts of non-indigenous fish (85). The center

has a database to monitor the spread of nonindigenous fishes in the United States and is

developing a geographic information system (ch.

5) for monitoring non-indigenous aquatic species

in general. The center’s prominent role in research and information exchange has been due to

the intense efforts of a small, experienced staff.

However, recent staff turnover coupled with the

ambiguous status of NIS among the center’s

various 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 States

The Federal Aid Program of FWS funds some

State research on uses, impacts, and management

of non-indigenous fish and wildlife. For example,

from 1989 to 1990,$100,036 went to research on

the brown trout (Salmo trutta) and $24,671 to

research on feral dogs (Canis familiars) and pigs

(Sus scrofa) (143,144). Such projects area small

part of the total research funded by this program.

Certification of Sterile Grass Carp-The

FWS has operated an inspection service to certify

that grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) are

triploid since 1979 (146). Presently, this is done

at the Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Center in

Georgia. Grass carp are non-indigenous fish that

have wide application as biocontrol agents for

aquatic weeds. However, they can also spread and

cause environmental harm if reproductive populations become established in the wild. The

triploid grass carp are sterile, and can be released

without risk of establishing self-sustaining field

populations.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Although the law that created the National Park

Service (NPS) says nothing about NIS, it does set

out a general goal to “conserve the scenery and

the natural and historic objects and the wild life

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the

same in such a manner and by such means as will

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of

future generations.”36 This responsibility is the

basis for NPS’s policies promoting the eradication and control of NIS and prohibiting introductions except under very limited circumstances (4).

As early as 1933, NPS had explicit policies

regarding the need to control ‘exotic’ species on

park lands (52).

When the National Park System was created,

preservation of U.S. ecosystems could be accomplished largely by leaving things alone. Increasingly, however, intervention has become essential

to control the ecological disruption caused by

harmful NIS. This changing need has not been

met by an adequate shift in management priorities, funding, and staffing within the NPS.

A rough estimate is that NPS allocates less than

1 percent of its annual budget to research,

management, and control of MS. Natural resource issues in general receive low priority

within NPS. In fiscal year 1990, only 6 percent of

the NPS budget went to management of natural

resources (66).

Growing recognition exists that NPS will need

to shift its funding priorities if it is to address the

degradation of natural resources, including that

related to NIS, resulting from human encroachment around park boundaries (86).

Land Management—NPS manages approximately 80 million acres divided into 10 geographic regions, or about 3 percent of the U.S.

land area (2). The system is made up of about 364

units having 22 different designations such as

parks, monuments, recreation areas, historic sites,

and battlefields (2). Reflecting this diversity, NPS

lands are divided into natural, cultural, park

development, and special use management zones

(148). NPS’s strictest policies related to NIS are

for natural zones (148).

A survey done in 1986 and 1987 on natural

resource conditions in the parks found control of

harmful NIS to be a significant management

concern throughout NPS (47). Respondents cited

non-indigenous plants as the most common threat

to park natural resources. Non-indigenous animals were the fourth most commonly reported

threat. Parks negatively affected by NIS occur in

all 10 NPS regions (47).

Most decisions regarding control and management of NIS are made by individual parks during

development of resource management plans.

Within any given park, the priority given to NIS

projects depends on the park’s goals and present

condition. NIS projects have relatively high

priority among natural resource concerns within

36 Natio~ Park Service organic Act (1916), as amended (16 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.)
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy! 189

NPS; according to NPS officials, 42 percent of

NIS projects were either funded (39 percent) or

ranked as highest priority among unfunded projects (3 percent) for the period from 1991 to 1995,

compared with only 36 percent for all other

resource management projects (51). National

Parks with especially pressing problems with NIS

include Haleakala and Volcanoes in Hawaii,

Everglades in Florida, Great Smoky Mountains in

Tennessee, and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Even smaller parks like Rock Creek Park

in the District of Columbia have numerous

pressing problems with non-indigenous plants.

NPS generally seeks to perpetuate indigenous

plants and animals, and its policy is to manage or

eradicate NIS that threaten park resources or

public health whenever prudent and feasible. NIS

introductions are generally prohibited by agency

regulation. 37 To further prevent introductions,

some parks, such as Yosemite, have park-specific

regulations requiring feed materials transported

into the park be certified weed free or requiring

use of pelletized feeds in the backcountry (52).

Notwithstanding these various bans, intentional

introductions are tolerated to varying degrees in

NPS’s four management zones (box 6-C) (148).

Still, NPS differs from other Federal land

management agencies in having strict guidelines

for introductions. Plants and animals must be

from populations closely related genetically and

ecologically to park populations, except when the

goal is to correct losses of the gene pool caused by

human activities (148). In natural zones, revegetation efforts are to use plant materials not only of

indigenous species, but of indigenous gene pools

as well (148).

NPS Control of Activities Outside the National Parks-NPS officials increasingly see

park resources affected by land use practices in

surrounding areas (15 1). The potential impact of

NIS is clear, since live organisms can move freely

on and off park lands and few other public or

private land managers are as restrictive as NPS.

However, few parks actually do control NIS on

neighboring lands, even though the 1991 NPS

Natural Resources Management Guidelines list

this as an appropriate approach when surrounding

land owners are cooperative (59).

Research—NPS conducts research to provide

‘‘an accurate scientific basis for planning, development, and management decisions” (148). Research in the national parks is conducted by both

NPS staff and researchers from outside institutions. NPS provided about $2 million for over 200

research projects related to NIS in fiscal year

1990. Research topics included evaluating environmental effects, monitoring, management, eradication methods, and restoration following species removal (150,151). NPS both conducts

research on the potential use of biological control

to control NIS and participates in related cooperative projects with State agencies (36).

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

manages about 270 million acres, or 11 percent of

the total U.S. land area, mostly located west of the

Mississippi River (2). The Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs

BLM to manage lands under its jurisdiction for a

mix of uses including grazing, mining, timber

harvest, recreation, and wildlife conservation.38

FLPMA thus authorizes certain uses that facilitate the spread and establishment of NIS (4).

Grazing-Grazing is one of the most common

and widespread uses of BLM lands (4). It also has

been a factor in the transformation and degradation of rangeland vegetation, including the spread

and establishment of many non-indigenous weeds

(39,134). The agency annually authorizes grazing

by 4.3 million cattle, sheep, goats, and horses on

3736 ~z-l (J- 30, 1983),

38 Federal Mpoliq and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C.A. 1701, 1702).
190 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 6-C-introduction of Non-lndigenouse Species in the National Parks

NPS divides its holdings into four management categories. Natural zones are managed to protect natural

resources. Cultural zones are managed to preserve and foster appreciation of cultural resources. Park

development zones are managed and maintained for intensive visitor use. And special use zones are managed

for uses not appropriate in other zones, such as commercial use, mineral exploration and mining, grazing, forest

use, 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 introductions

include: nearest relatives of extirpated indigenous species; improved varieties of indigenous species when the

local 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; for

example, the enabling legislation for Great Basin National Park allows for the perpetuation of free-ranging livestock

within 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 (Alectoris

chukar), introduced long ago to Haleakala National Park, are tolerated because they may satisfy ecological roles

previously filled by now-extinct Hawaiian birds. Also, biological control agents have been introduced into natural

zones of several national parks to control harmful NIS.

NIS maybe introduced in cultural zones when they area desirable, and historically authentic, part of the

historical landscape. Such introductions are permitted only if the plant or animal is controlled so that it cannot

spread. In park development zones, all of the above uses are allowed, as well as introductions to satisfy

management needs that cannot be met by indigenous species. Again, such introductions are only permitted if t he

NIS 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 altered

waterways that are inhospitable to indigenous species or in rivers and streams where non-indigenous fish are

already established. Similarly, stocking non-indigenous game species may be allowed in national recreation areas

and preserves where they are already established. When stocking fish and game, NPS gives precedence to

indigenous species wherever possible, and stocking is contingent on evidence that the species cannot spread or

do 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 prepared

for the Office of Twhnology Assessment, November 1991; D.E. Gardner, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, “Role of

Biological 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 communication

to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 10, 1991, Mar. 13, 1992; L. bope, U.S. Department of the lnterfor, National

Park Service, “Public Outreach in Controlling Alien Spedes in Haleakala National Pam” talk presented at the National Park Serviee

Headquarters, 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 the

BLM lands (100).

Additional grazing on BLM lands occurs under

the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.39

This law explicitly perpetuates NIS by protecting

wild horses and burros and preserving them as a

living reminder of the history of the American

West. An estimated 50,000 free-roaming horses

and burros occurred on BLM lands at the start of

1991 (loo).

Control of Non-Indigenous Weeds---Nonindigenous weeds are widespread on BLM lands

within the contiguous 48 States (figure 6-2) (132,

161). They degrade rangelands because many are

unsuitable for forage. Although some emphasis is

already being placed on weed management in

39 Wfld Free. Roaming Horses and Burros Act (1971) (16 U. S.C.A. 1331 e( se9).
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 191

Figure 6-2—Growing Distributions of Three Noxious Weeds in the Northwest

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

1920 1 1

Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

Many noxious weeds are widespread on BLM lands. These maps show how three species spread in five

States over a 60-year period.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Northwest Area NOXIOUS Weed Control

Program: Final Environmental Impact Statement,” December 1985.

BLM, much more is needed (136). Weed management is a small component of rangeland management, receiving only about $1.2 million annually

(100,136). A 1991 internal evaluation concluded

that even though noxious weed problems are

widespread and growing, their control program is

seriously underfunded and lacks adequate staff

(136). Moreover, existing staff lack technical

training or an awareness of noxious weed problems (136). Documenting the extent and severity

of noxious weed infestations on BLM lands is

almost impossible because of inadequate monitoring and inventory (136).

Cooperative weed control efforts exist among

BLM and other Federal, State, and county agencies, and BLM’s funding provides for control on

about 225 sites within 8 States (100). BLM also

is involved in the management of noxious weeds

in the greater Yellowstone area, in a coordinated

effort with several Federal and State agencies
192 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

(44). Recent draft policies on weed management

include requirements for anticipating and addressing factors that facilitate the spread and

establishment of noxious weeds (136), although

such long-term strategies have not yet been

implemented. Examples include requiring contractors to clean equipment before entering BLM

lands and using only seed, hay, mulch, or feed that

is free of noxious weed seed.

The 1990 Amendment to the Federal Noxious

Weed Act40 gave Federal land managers explicit

authority to develop programs for control of

undesirable plants. BLM’s internal evaluation

cited a need for increased coordination and

cooperation with State agencies (136), and the

agency has instructed its State Directors to

develop cooperative agreements with State agencies and review their programs to ensure fill

compliance (71).

Introduction of Biological Control AgentsBLM encourages introductions of biological control agents as part of an integrated management of

weeds (16 1). The agency differs from other

Federal land managers in having developed

specific guidelines for the release of biological

control agents. BLM requires compliance and

coordination with State and Federal authorities,

including evaluation of an agent’s potential

environmental effects before its release in an

environmental assessment prepared by APHIS

(135). BLM contributes funding to the Agricultural Research Service for the development and

release of biological control agents. ARS also

operates several small, l-acre laboratories on

BLM lands to propagate insects for biological

control; in return ARS makes these agents available to BLM (161).

Introductions and Control of Fish and Wildlife-BLM manages more fish and wildlife habitat than any other Federal or State agency

(100,130). The agency’s long-standing policy is

to give top priority to protecting, maintaining, and

The Bureau of Land Management is beginning a

program to manage weeds-like dyer’s wood (Isatis

tinctoria)-on public lands.

enhancing indigenous fauna and flora (131).

Requirements for introducing fish and wildlife

include prior assessment of environmental effects, creation of a buffer zone around the

introduction area, and a trial release of at least 2

years (131). In addition, animals must be quarantined to prevent pathogen or parasite introductions. Except under limited circumstances, current policy prohibits introductions into wilderness areas, into areas with threatened and endangered species, or of species that can hybridize

with indigenous fauna (131). A unique feature of

BLM policy is a provision that ‘‘individuals or

organizations may beheld liable for damages and

responsible for expenses incurred in control of

unauthorized exotic wildlife introductions’ (13 1).

However, no related regulation or law specifies

such liability (4).

~ 7 U.S.C.A. 2814
The current BLM manual lacks any statement

concerning harmful NIS already established on

BLM lands (4). A 1986 draft revision of the fish

and wildlife section did promote control of feral

species adversely affecting indigenous species,

and it would have permitted the persistence of

NIS that had become ‘‘naturalized’ prior to

passage of the 1976 Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (133), However, this draft was

never finalized, and BLM lacks any explicit

policy regarding whether and under what circumstances established non-indigenous fish and wildlife should be controlled or eliminated (4).

BLM is indirectly involved in the control of

non-indigenous fish through a new joint initiative

with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

The “Return of the Natives” project was begun

in 1991 and is cooperatively funded by public and

private sources. Its goal is to restore indigenous

fisheries in western streams, primarily through

habitat restoration (68).

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is now in

the fourth year of a 10-year program for management of noxious weeds, which agency staff

estimate infest 726,000-or 12 percent-of the

approximately 56 million acres found on Indian

reservations (129), The plan’s objective is to

eliminate approximately 90 percent of the weed

infestation by the end of fiscal year 1999.

According to BIA, the most serious problems

with noxious weeds occur in North and South

Dakota and Montana (65). The management plan

provides funds on a 50 percent cost-share basis

for control of noxious weeds on reservations to

States, counties, and individual farmers. Control

programs must last a minimum of three years.

BIA requested $1,974,000 for fiscal year 1993 to

fund control on approximately 80,000 acres

(101).

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Congress created the Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR) in 1902 to reclaim arid lands in the West

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 193

for development. Much of its efforts have been to

construct dams and irrigation systems for water

management, although the agency’s objectives

have expanded to include development of recreational waterways and other goals. Systems built

by the Bureau altered wetland habitats, and some

agency programs have begun to address resulting

changes in the resident plant and animal populations by controlling NIS. These projects are not

part of a coordinated program, but instead have

arisen according to need through the Bureau’s

regional offices (89).

Salt cedar now constitutes, in single or mixedspecies stands, 83 percent of riverside vegetation

along the Lower Colorado River (137). It provides poor habitat for most wildlife and consumes

water more rapidly than indigenous vegetation.

BOR currently is developing along-term program

for the management and eradication of salt cedar

(137). As part of this effort, BOR is funding

research by ARS on biological control. BOR

presently spends between $250,000 and $400,000

annually to remove salt cedar mechanically (89).

In the Columbia River Basin Project, problems

occur with Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum

spicatum) and purple loosestrife-the latter infests about 20,000 wetland acres in the area (89).

Non-indigenous aquatic weeds, like hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), now clog waterways and reservoirs in Texas and California. BOR is working

with Federal, State, and private agencies in

control programs, which have included introductions of triploid grass carp into irrigation systems

as well as the development of chemical control

methods for aquatic plants (89).

One by-product of BOR’s water management

programs has been the creation of habitats more

suitable for non-indigenous rather than for indigenous fish, with indigenous species becoming

threatened or endangered in some cases (89).

BOR currently has several projects designed to

control non-indigenous fishes and protect threatened and indigenous ones.
194 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Department of Commerce–National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) involvement with MS

originates from its role in the management of the

Great Lakes and coastal resources. NOAA has

conducted much of the Federal research and

funded much of the outside research on the zebra

mussel. The agency also co-chairs the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force.

MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTO

THE UNITED STATES

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

of NOAA inspects imported shellfish to prevent

the introduction of non-indigenous parasites and

pathogens. NMFS has cooperative inspection

agreements with Chile and Australia. Venezuela

has requested a similar cooperative agreement,

although it is not yet in place because of a lack of

funds (167).

ERADICATION AND CONTROL

NOAA awards annual matching grants to the

States for coastal zone management as authorized

by the Coastal Zone Management Act.41 States

use some of these funds for the eradication or

control of harmful NIS. For example, Pennsylvania received a grant in fiscal year 1991 for

eradication of four non-indigenous plants in

Presque State Park to aid in restoration of wetland

and dune communities (14). Additional funds

used for species eradication and control may

sometimes be allocated as a component of other

general management categories, such as “marsh

management’ (160).

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

NOAA cooperates with States in managing the

National Estuarine Research Reserve System,

also under authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The agency provides 50 percent in

matching funds for States to acquire, develop, and

operate estuarine areas as natural field laboratories. As of 1990, there were 18 reserves, or a total

of 267,000 acres of estuarine lands and waters, in

the system (120). Multiple uses can occur in the

reserves as long as they are consistent with the

program’s goals, including maintenance of a

stable environment through protection of estuarine resources, and the uses do not ‘‘compromise

the representative character and integrity of a

reserve. The regulations allow, but do not

require, restoration activities to improve the

representative character and integrity of a reserve,

including removal of NIS.42

RESEARCH

NOAA funds both in-house and outside research on NIS through Sea Grant, the Great Lakes

Environmental Research Laboratory, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and

the National Marine Fisheries Service. Research

topics include the ecology and control of harmful

species as well as the use of NIS in aquiculture.

Sea Grant’s competitive grants program funded

15 projects on the zebra mussel in fiscal year

1991, totaling about $1.5 million (45). Sea Grant

also funds aquiculture research, some of which

deals with NIS (1 19,121).

NIS have become a major research priority at

NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory (GLERL) since invasion of the zebra

mussel (102). The Laboratory was conducting six

projects on zebra mussels and one on the newly

introduced spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) in fiscal year 1991 (118). Funding

included $1.2 million, with a similar amount

provided for fiscal year 1992 (9).

NOAA funds some research projects on MS in

its estuarine reserves. Six projects related to NIS

were 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 ‘the

representative character and integrity of a site” (15 CFR 921).
Chapter 6–A Primer on Federal Policy I 195

Plans for 1995 to 1996 are to increase the focus on

restoring habitats in the reserves; in many cases

this may be to correct problems caused by NIS

(23).

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service

also conducts research on NIS. The NMFS

Laboratory in Oxford, Maryland, studies the

detection and diagnosis of non-indigenous pathogens and parasites of aquatic species (167). Much

of the $270,000 (fiscal year 1992) program on

oyster research involves studies of non-indigenous parasites and pathogens (91). NMFS also

conducts research on aquiculture.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DOD) has diverse

activities related to NIS. These generally relate to

its movements of personnel and cargo, management of land holdings, and maintenance of

navigable waterways.

MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTO

THE UNITED STATES

The Armed Forces move large shipments of

equipment, supplies, and personnel into the

United States from around the world. These

usually are not inspected by APHIS. Instead, each

branch of DOD conducts its own inspections

using military customs inspectors trained by

APHIS and the Public Health Service (124).

Although APHIS officials express confidence

in the capability of military customs inspection

(33), concerns exist that it lacks sufficient rigor,

especially during periods of enhanced military

activity. Insect pests were found within material

cleared for entry by U.S. Army inspectors during

Operation Desert Storm, and shipped equipment

sometimes carried excessive dirt or sand (3).

While APHIS considered these problems minor

(12), subsequent internal review by DOD suggested some Army inspectors may not be adequately trained and that careful inspection suffers

under the pressure to move materials rapidly (3).

Similar problems may affect other branches of the

military.

The Army Corps of Engineers helps States control

aquatic weeds such as water hyacinth (Eichornia

crassipes) and also conducts specialized research on

control methods.

The potential

movements was

spread of NIS through military

graphically illustrated by discoveries of the brown tree snake at military airports

and in naval cargo on Pacific islands where this

noxious pest is not yet established (35). DOD now

conducts special pre- and post-flight inspections

of military planes flying from Guam to Hawaii to

ensure they do not carry brown tree snakes. The

program has been commended by experts in

Hawaii (84).

MOVEMENT OF SPECIES WITHIN

THE UNITED STATES

Movement of military equipment within the

United States can also spread non-indigenous

insect pests, like the European gypsy moth (62),

and noxious weed seeds. A specific objective of

the Army pest management program is to prevent

the spread of economic pests throughout the

United States by controlling them at Army

installations (127).

The Army Corps of Engineers sometimes is indirectly involved in interstate transfers of species

through its efforts to develop aquiculture and build

wetlands (1 1). For example, during wetlands

construction the Corps will use NIS from nearby

areas 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 habitats

or pathways for the spread of aquatic NIS.

CONTROL AND ERADICATION

The Aquatic Plant Control Program of COE

controls aquatic weeds in cooperation with State

and local agencies by providing about 50 percent

of the funds for approved projects. The program

has supported control efforts in 10 States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Appropriations for fiscal year 1992 were $5 million (91).

In addition, the COE is a member of the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force.

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

DOD is the fifth largest land manager in the

Federal Government, owning at least 25 million

acres and managing another 15 million through

agreements with other Federal or State agencies

(82). DOD manages natural resources for multiple uses, including hunting, fishing, forestry,

grazing, and agriculture (122). NIS are routinely

introduced to DOD lands as livestock, agricultural crops, landscaping plants, and vegetation for

wildlife. Management plans exist for all DOD

lands, and they must include control of noxious

weeds43 (122). Cooperative agreements involving

DOD, FWS, and host State agencies are the vehicle for DOD management of fish and wildlife,

and new species introductions only occur when

consistent with such an agreement (122). Draft

Army regulations for resources management further require an environmental assessment to

determine the impact of introductions on existing

flora and fauna (126). These constraints are not

comprehensive, however: the Air Force, like the

Forest Service, excludes ‘‘certain game birds that

have become established, such as pheasants”

from its definition of “exotic” species (125).

DOD established

agement Program in

the Legacy Resource Man1991 to “inventory, protect,

and manage biological, cultural, and geophysical

resources on lands owned or used by DOD” in

cooperation with other Federal, State, and nongovernmental agencies and organizations (123).

The Legacy program funded two projects for

control of non-indigenous plants in Ohio and

California in fiscal year 1991 (123).

RESEARCH

The COE conducts research on the biological

and chemical control of aquatic weeds at its facility in Vicksburg, Mississippi, an effort related to

its Aquatic Weed Control Program. The research

presently focuses on hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil. Research efforts are coordinated with

other Federal and State agencies. The appropriation for fiscal year 1992 was $4 million (91).

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

deals with NIS in two general areas. First, it

regulates the entry and dissemination of various

microorganisms. Second, it conducts research on

aquatic nuisance species.

MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTO AND THROUGH

THE UNITED STATES

EPA regulates the movement of certain nonindigenous microbes into and through the United

States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act44 (FIFRA) and the Toxic

Substances Control Act45 (TSCA). Since both

statutes address the development, distribution,

and sale of commercial products, they generally

do not apply to the importation or distribution of

microbes for research uses before product development. EPA regulates pesticidal microbes, like

the bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), under

FIFRA. Microorganisms that are neither agricul-
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 197

tural pests nor pesticides—for example, nitrogenfixing fungi-are regulated under TSCA. Any

microorganism falling under regulation by FIFRA

or TSCA that is also either a potential agricultural

pest or a human pathogen would also deregulated

by APHIS or the Public Health Service.

Pesticidal Microbes-FIFRA authorizes EPA

to regulate importation, environmental release,

and commercial distribution and sale of pesticides. Living microorganisms used as pesticides

include bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses (8).

Manufacturers must register such microbial pesticides with EPA before commercial distribution

and sale. Reporting requirements for registration

are quite extensive and include detailed analyses

of effects on organisms other than the target pest

and of the eventual fate of” the microbe following

release to the environment (155). In addition,

FIFRA requires explicit labeling of microbial

pesticides (155). Violations of this or other

provisions of the Act can result in civil or criminal

penalties. 46

Only registered microbial pesticides may be

imported into the United States for commercial

distribution and sale (43). Unregistered pesticides

may be denied entry by U.S. Customs. As of

March 1992, 2 of the 23 microbes registered as

pesticides in the United States were nonindigenous (table 6-5) (7). Origins of an additional 11 are unknown, since EPA did not require

reporting of this information until 1984 (7). Under

FIFRA, EPA considers only those microbes from

continents other than North America to be nonindigenous to the United States (6).

During pesticide research and development,

EPA requires manufacturers to provide notification before small-scale tests of non-indigenous

microbial pesticides. EPA may then require

additional information, or application for an

experimental use permit. Such permits are required for large-scale tests. Permit applications

include information on microbe identity, origin,

host range, mode of action, intended application,

and potential effects on nontarget organisms and

the environment.47 Similar notification and application for an experimental use permit is not

required for small scale tests of indigenous

microbes. EPA currently is considering whether

it should continue to require notification for small

scale tests of NIS, since APHIS and the Public

Health Service require permits for tests involving

potential agricultural pests or human health

threats (6).

Non-Pest, Non-Pesticidal Microbes-Under

TSCA, EPA could regulate certain non-indigenous microbes that fall outside of other regulatory

authorities, such as nitrogen-fining bacteria and

fungi. Thus far EPA has regulated only genetically engineered microbes under TSCA (38).

TSCA regulations do not explicitly distinguish

between indigenous and non-indigenous microbes,

except in the requirement for EPA notification

when microbes are imported for commercial

purposes or into commerce. TSCA’s applicability

is further restricted to only those microbes having

an identified risk to human health or the environment, since naturally occurring microorganisms

are considered to be ‘‘in commerce’ and therefore implicitly on the TSCA inventory of unregulated substances (38). Nevertheless, should a risk

be shown, EPA could potentially ban, limit production of, or remove from sale the non-indigenous microbes that fall under TSCA.48

MONITORING

The goal of EPA’s Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program @MAP) is to monitor

the condition of the Nation’s ecological resources

(156). EPA began developing EMAP in 1987, and

the program is still in the preliminary phases of

467 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 States

Table 6-5-Microbial Pesticides Registered by EPA

Year

Microorganism registered Origin Pest controlled

Bacteria

Bacillus popilliae + B. Ientimorbus

B. thunngiensis “Berliner”

Agrobacterium radiobacter

B. thuringiensis istaeliensis

B. thuringiensis aizawai

Pseuhmonas fluorescent

B. thuringiensis San Diego

B. thunngiensis tenebrionis

B. thuringiensis EG2348

B. thuringiensis EG2371

B. thuringiensis EG2424

B. sphaericus

Viruses

Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosls virus (NPV)

Tussock moth NPV

Gypsy moth NPV

Pine sawfly NPV

Fungi

Phytophthora palmivora

Colltotrichum gloeosporioides

Trichoderma harziarum ATCC20476 +

T. polysporum ATCC20475

Gliocladium virens GL21

Trichoderma harzianum KRLAG2

Lagenidium gigantium

Protozoa

Nosema locstae

1948

1961

1979

1981

1981

1988

1988

1988

1989

1989

1990

1991

●

●

●

Israel

●

Us.

Us.

Germany

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

1975 ●

1976 ●

1978 ●

1983 ●

1981 ●

1982 ●

1990 Us.

1990 U.S.

1990 Us.

1991 Us.

1980 ●

Japanese beetle larvae (Popillia

japonica)

Lepidopteran larvae

crown gall disease (Agrobacterium

tumefaciens)

Dipteran larvae

wax moth larvae (Galleria mellonella)

Pythium, Rhizoctonia

Coleopteran larvae

Coleopteran larvae

Lepidopteran larvae

Lepidopteran larvae

Lepidopteran/Coleopteran

larvae

Dipteran larvae

cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea),

budworm (Choristoneura spp.)

Douglas fir tussock moth larvae (Orgyia

pseudofsugata)

Gypsy moth larvae (Lymantria dispar)

Pine sawfly larvae (Neodiprion spp.)

citrus stangler vine (Morrenia odorata)

northern joint vetch (Aeschynomene

virginia)

wood rot

Pythium, Rhizoctonia

Pythium

mosquito larvae

grasshoppers

● Reporting of the origin of registered microbes was not required before

1984 so their origins are unknown.

SOURCE: F. Betz, Acting Chief, Science Analysis and Coordination Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office

of Technology Assessment, Apr. 10, 1992.

design and small-scale application. However,

EMAP’s planners expect the program eventually

will involve the accumulation and analysis of

information on the plants, animals, and physical

environment throughout the country. Although

EMAP could conceivably be used to monitor NIS

in the United States, that is not one of its goals,

and its current design would not provide suitable

information for this purpose (50,57).

RESEARCH

EPA’s most direct involvement with NIS is

through its Office of Research and Development.

Staff from this office represent EPA on the

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. EPA’s

Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,

Minnesota, conducts in-house research on the

environmental effects and control of zebra mussels and the ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), and
Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 1199

participates in collaborative projects with NOAA

and the Coast Guard on zebra mussel monitoring

(48). In 1992, the laboratory also funded related

research at several other institutions. EPA appropriations related to harmful aquatic NIS totaled

$1.65 million in fiscal year 1992 (91).

Department of Health and Human

Services–Public Health Service

The Public Health Service (PHS) regulates

entry of living organisms that might carry or

cause human diseases.49 Current PHS regulations

restrict, require inspection of, or require permits

for the importation of all cats, dogs, monkeys,

turtles, and bats, as well as certain snails, insects,

and microbes.50 PHS does not perform primary

inspection at ports of entry. Instead, it provides

training for Customs and USDA inspectors who

directly examine people, baggage, and cargo and

make referrals to PHS when problems arise (158).

PHS has only small efforts abroad to identify

species and commodities that might serve as

human disease vectors, and it generally develops

regulations only after a potential route of human

disease entry has been demonstrated. For example, PHS developed regulations requiring fumigation of used tire imports at least 2 years after

evidence demonstrated that the tires were a major

pathway by which the Asian tiger mosquito-a

vector of several human diseases--entered the

country (see box 3-A). For certain human health

threats, like the African honey bee, PHS has taken

a minimal role. In this case, primary responsibility for devising a response has fallen to APHIS;

however, since APHIS is not a public health

agency, it has not fully addressed the public

health issues (78).

PHS does not impose quarantines or regulations to prevent the interstate spread of human

disease vectors once they become established in

the country (73). For such organisms, the agency

does, however, monitor spread and conduct

research on their potential to transmit indigenous

diseases. PHS research also examines general

techniques for tracking and controlling organisms

that can transmit human diseases (157).

Department of the Treasury–

U.S. Customs Service

The U.S. Customs Service (Customs) has a

major operational role in restricting the entry of

harmful NIS. Customs personnel inspect passengers, baggage, and cargo at U.S. ports of entry to

enforce the regulations of other Federal agencies

(154). They inform interested agencies when a

possible violation is detected and then usually

detain the suspected passenger or commodity for

inspection by agency staff. APHIS, FWS, and

PHS each has a cooperative agreement with

Customs and provides specialized training to

Customs inspectors. Customs inspects only some

incoming passengers, baggage, and cargo, aiming

to examine higher risk categories established by

country of origin and other criteria (153). APHIS

has established its own high risk categories for

agricultural port inspection using different criteria (12).

Department of Transportation—

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) was given

certain responsibilities related to preventing introductions of harmful aquatic species by the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act and is a member of the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force. USCG issued

voluntary ballast management guidelines for

ships entering the Great Lakes in March 1991.

Mandatory ballast management regulations went

into effect May 10, 1993 to prevent further

49 ~&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 States

introductions of aquatic species into the Great

Lakes. 51 These regulations require ships to exchange ballast water at sea, to retain ballast water

on the vessel, or to use an alternative approved

method.

USCG is also researching methods of ship

design that might prevent the survival and transport of NIS in ballast water (91).

Department of Energy

Approximately 2.4 million acres, or 0.1 percent

of the U.S. land area, fall under the management

of the Department of Energy (128). These holdings include research laboratories, electric utilities, and petroleum reserves (29). DOE has no

general policies regarding the control of NIS,

including noxious weeds, on its lands. The

agency plans to issue a programmmatic Environmental Impact Statement in 1993 that should help

establish consistent land use policies (169).

DOE conducts restoration in some areas. Although the primary goal now is removal or

containment of nuclear or toxic wastes, DOE is

beginning to restore ecological communities of

plants and animals at a few sites (28). DOE lacks

a general policy regarding the use of indigenous

versus non-indigenous organisms in restoration,

presently relying on State policies for guidance.

Department of Justice-Drug

Enforcement Agency

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) restricts

importation of a few non-indigenous plants and

fungi because they contain narcotic substances.

Importation of NIS such as coca (Erythroxylum

coca), marijuana (Cannabis sativa), and opium

poppy (Papaver somniferum) is only allowed

with a permit from DEA.

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter described the large number of

Federal agencies and programs responsible for

different aspects of managing harmful NIS or

introducing desirable ones. Clearly, much is

being done. However, OTA’s analysis shows that

the U.S. system for dealing with harmful NIS falls

short in a number of important areas. An overall

assessment requires looking beyond the Federal

Government, however. For example, when the

Asian tiger mosquito became established in the

country, control was left to State public health

authorities; they simply were unable to respond

effectively (21). In the next chapter, OTA looks

more closely at such interactions between Federal

and State efforts.

5158 Federal Register 18330 (Aphl 8, 1993).
State and Local

Approaches

From a

National

Perspective 7

T

his chapter picks up from the last, adding how State and

local efforts affect the management of non-indigenous

species (NIS). Here, OTA discusses Federal and State

relations and relationships among States. The chapter’s

centerpiece is an analysis of the States’ 50 distinct approaches to

regulating importation and release of “fish and wildlife”—

mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.1 In some cases,

States have pioneered exemplary approaches and these are

highlighted. The chapter examines how States treat nonindigenous invertebrates and plants also. Various proposed

model State laws and local approaches conclude the chapter.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES

Generalities come with difficulty regarding Federal-State

relationships. The authority of the Federal and State Governments varies not only with the type of organism regulated, but

also depending on the particular Federal and State laws and

agencies involved. Mainly, however, States control the entry of

NIS across State borders and release of MS within the State.

Often these are pests, of either foreign or U.S. origin, that are

already established elsewhere in the country.

For fish and wildlife, States retain almost unlimited power,

notwithstanding the Federal Lacey Act,2 to make decisions about

1 Some State and Federal laws include all, or certain groups of, invertebrate animals

under their definitions of “fish and wildlife. ” For example, the Lacey Act covers

invertebrates like snails and crayfii. Occasionally, “wildlife” is defined to include all

fauna and flor~ as in Illinois. The terq as used here, refers ordy to vertebrates, but it does

include domesticated or cultured species.

2 For full citations of this and other Federal laws see foomotes to ch. 6.

201
202 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 7-A—Mahine v. Taylor; A Key Constitutional Decision

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate international and

interstate trade. This grant puts limits on, but does not eliminate, the power of States to ban imports of NIS. The

limits were outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1986 ruling on the constitutionality of a Maine law that

prohibited importation into the State of “any live fish, including smelts, which are commonly used for bait fishing

in inland waters.” The case of Maine v. Taylor upheld the law even though it clearly discriminated against

out-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 well

by available nondiscriminatory means.” The Supreme Court approved a Iower court’s findings that both parts of

the test had been met:

First, the lower court found that Maine “clearly has a legitimate and substantial purpose in prohibiting the

importation of live baitfish,” because “substantial uncertainties” surrounded the effect that baitfish parasites would

have on the State’s unique population of wild fish, and the consequences of introducing nonnative species were

similarly unpredictable . . . . Second, the court concluded that less discriminatory means of protecting against these

threats were currently unavailable, and that in particular, testing procedures for baitfish parasites had not yet been

devised.... “[T]he constitutional principles underlying the commerce clause cannot be read as requiring the State

of Maine to sit idly by and wait until potentially irreversible environmental damage has occurred or until the scientific

community agrees on what disease organisms are or are not dangerous before it acts to avoid such

consequences.”

The Supreme Court has long upheld State quarantine Iaws that, notwithstanding the Commerce Clause, ban

importation of pests of known significance. Importantly, the Maine v. Taylor ruling upholds ban based on threats

whose significance involved “substantial uncertainties.” This gives States leeway in drafting laws on NIS

importation in the face of such uncertainties so long as they do not needlessly discriminate against out-of-State

interests.

SOURCES: 12 Me. Rev. StatAnn. see. 7613; Mainev. Taylor, 477 US. 131 (19S6).

which species are imported and/or released. case is Maine v. Taylor (box 7-A). As a result of

Congressional incursions on this traditional State

control over fish and wildlife have been limited

and controversial (16). In contrast, several major

Federal laws—such as the Federal Plant Pest Act

and the Federal Noxious Weed Act—set national

policy for weeds and other plant pests.

Where Federal programs miss significant problems, States, in effect, determine the success o f

nationwide efforts to manage harmful NIS. There

are important limits to the States’ capacities,

however.

The Constitution vests the power to regulate

international and interstate commerce in Congress.

3 Therefore, States cannot unnecessarily

restrict such commerce. The key Supreme Court

the Commerce Clause, States lack the power to

stop the importation and release of a potentially

invasive NIS in a neighboring State.

A few States, e.g., Hawaii and Alaska, have

geographical barriers against the interstate spread

of NIS. A small number of States, like California,

have border inspection stations to interdict pests

in transit. Without these kinds of barriers, a State

cannot do much to slow the influx of Stateprohibited plants or seeds that were acquired

legally in another State or country (53). Nor can

a State effectively stop mail-order sales of plants

or seeds it prohibits, as policing the mails is a

Federal function.

s U.S. Constitution Article I, section 8, clause 3.
Chapter 7–State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 203

Also, States cannot legislate in direct conflict

with Federal law. Nor can they directly regulate

activities on Federal lands, absent a cooperative

agreement. Occasionally, Federal laws explicitly

preempt State involvement.

Federal Preemption of State Law

Finding:

Federal preemption of State law varies

among categories of NIS. It is more common in

agricultural laws than in those related to fish

and wildlife. Cooperative programs are a more

feasible way for the Federal Government to

influence State actions.

A key issue in the relationship between Federal

and State authorities is whether an applicable

Federal law preempts State laws, keeping States

from legislating in the area. This occurs when the

Federal law explicitly or implicitly provides for

preemption, or regulates an area so comprehensively as to leave no practical State role.

Federal preemption is more common in agricultural laws than in thosepertaining to fish and

wildlife—traditionally an area of State prerogatives. The Lacey Act required that a list of

‘‘injurious species or groups be created and it

preempts States from allowing foreign importation of the 23 ‘‘injurious” taxonomic categories

of fish, wildlife, and fish pathogens on that list.

The Lacey Act does not, however, forbid more

restrictive State laws.

4 Similarly, no State may

permit foreign importation of a weed species

prohibited and listed under the Federal Noxious

Weed Act, although it does not otherwise preempt

State weed laws.5 The Federal Plant Quarantine

Act also allows States to be more restrictive under

certain circumstances, but it imposes a strong

Federal presence. For example, the Federal Government can quarantine an entire State under the

Act. 6 The Federal Plant Pest Act similarly provides strong emergency authority to override

State laws.7

The Federal power to preempt does not mean

that the Federal approach is always the best. Some

State laws regulate more comprehensively than

parallel Federal laws and their implementation is

more effective (see below). Such States are, in

effect, laboratories where different approaches

are tested; their successes can spawn Federal

imitation. Nevertheless, when States adopt widely

varying laws, the regulated industries may support federally imposed uniformity to facilitate

commerce.

Using Federal preemptive powers to implement a national approach is fraught with political

difficulties-especially for fish and wildlifeand usually engenders resistance from the States.

Thus, the trend is toward programs administered

cooperatively by State and Federal officials. In

these the Federal Government provides incentives to pull, and sanctions to push, the States

toward certain general goals or national minimum

standards. Several points made in a 1987 U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service discussion paper on

aquatic introductions appear applicable to NIS

introductions in general:

Introduced aquatic organism issues are inherently interjurisdictional and, thus, clearly national, indeed international in scope. Despite this

Federal interest, however, emergence of a fully

effective program for avoiding undesirable introductions of aquatic organisms requires that involvement by the Federal Government not

preempt State authority. Rather, the Federal

Government should function as a catalyst/

facilitator establishing incentives for action by the

States and the other co-managers of the Nation’s

fishery resources. However, it will also be imper4 Lacey Act (1900) (16 U. S.C.A. 3378(a)).

5 Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U. S.C.A. 2812).

b F~eral plant Quarantine Act (1912) (7 U. S.C.A. 161).

7 Federal Plant Pest Act (1957) (7 U. S.C.A. sec. 150dd(b)(l)).
204 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ative to ensure universal applicability of any

action. Although it must be exercised as a last

resort, a credible threat of Federal sanctions

against non-complying jurisdictions is essential

to ensure uniform and, therefore, fair application

of any corrective strategy. (66)

Congress has previously recognized circumstances that justify overriding State management

of 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 and

Burros Act. State officials may not kill them, or

allow their killing, even if they stray off Federal

lands.8

A major extension of Federal authority resulted

from litigation over the palila (Loxioides bailleui), a rare bird found only in Hawaii.9 The

State’s Department of Land and Natural Resources had been managing feral goats (Capra

hircus) and introduced mouflon sheep (Ovis spp.)

for the benefit of sport hunters but to the detriment

of the palila and its habitat. A Federal court ruled

that Hawaii’s action amounted to an illegal

“taking” of the palila under the Endangered

Species Act and ordered the State to remove the

non-indigenous goats and sheep (6). Under this

reasoning, other States could be compelled to

manage NIS to prevent conflicts with threatened

or endangered species.

10 Thus, precedents exist

for Federal preemption even in the traditionally

State-dominated area of fish and wildlife

management. 11

New emergency powers to override State

control were added to the Federal Plant Pest Act

after the 1980-1982 medfly (Ceratitis capitata)

crisis in California.12 Delays occurred in developing a coordinated Federal-State response because

of many factors including California’s unwillingness to spray chemical insecticides over cities.

These helped drive the eventual costs to the

highest ever for a single eradication project-at

least $100 million (17). Although they have not

yet been invoked to preempt State authority, these

powers represent a potent assertion of Federal

prerogatives, but only under defined circumstances. They provide sufficient leverage such

that actually invoking them may never be necessary. They also provide a potential model for

preempting State control efforts if they are found

lacking for other NIS (box 7-B).

Federal preemption can engender controversy

when applied to new areas, even in agricultural

regulation where preemption has a long history.

In 1993, Federal officials asserted their authority

to preempt more restrictive State laws regarding

releases of genetically engineered organisms,

raising concerns among some State officials

(see ch. 9).

I Federal-State Cooperation

Cooperative programs serve several key functions in Federal and State efforts. Many provide

a means for developing consistent strategies in

areas of common concern. Federal and State

agricultural officials, for example, collaborate in

the regulation of NIS importation, interstate

commerce, and control. Postentry quarantine of

certain federally restricted plants is a joint program, in which private importers keep the plants

in quarantine, usually subject to State inspection

(50). The National Plant Board, and four regional

8 Wild 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 for

fish 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 205

Box 7-B-When Federal and State Interests Collide:

Control of Harmful NIS In and Around Protected Lands

Where Federal- and State-related lands-, conflicts can arise over differing management goals. Some

national parks and other natural areas provide safe havens for non-indigenous pests of agriculture that are

controlled elsewhere. However, harmful NIS also invade Federal reserves from lands under State jurisdiction. The

Iack of comprehensive State regulation and control exposes the reserves to these species’ impacts when they are

introduced nearby and then spread.

Federal agencies can be stymied in trying to address problems attributable to State-supported NIS with

multiple impacts. An example occurs in and around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where park and

Forest 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 ecological

damage 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 wildlife

agency wants to maintain hogs in the area for hunters and it had support in dealing with the Park Service from

the 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 outside

their boundaries and their jurisdiction. A clear Federal interest lies in improving this situation by providing an

unambiguous mechanism for Federal managers to act beyond their boundaries, but only if compelling

circumstances exist. While cooperative, negotiated agreements are always preferable, unresolved NIS threats

may 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 oornrnunkation

to 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/Areas

Journal, 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 .

plant boards, composed of officials from State Yellowstone National Park signed a memorandepartments of agriculture, help coordinate Federal and State regulations (50).

Certain programs aim for consistent goals in

the management and control of harmful NIS

across a geographic region; it does little good for

an invasive NIS to be controlled in one area but

not in adjacent areas from which it can reinvade.

The 1990 amendment to the Noxious Weed Act

acknowledged this by requiring Federal land

managers to control State-prohibited weeds.13

Several other cooperative programs for nonindigenous weeds are voluntary. For example,

representatives of Federal, State, and local jurisdictions with holdings in the area surrounding

dum of understanding to control noxious weeds.

The agreement included adoption of comprehensive management guidelines (3). In Hawaii,

Federal and State officials have an interagency

agreement to research the biological control of

forest weeds (ch. 8). Similarly, the Western Weed

Coordinating Committee, with members from

western Federal and State agencies, enhances

cooperation in weed management (44). Florida’s

Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) fills this role

for primarily non-agricultural weeds; agency

officials, botanists, and others from private

groups in California recently created their own

EPPC using Florida’s model.

137 USC-A. 2814.
206 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Some programs allow targeting of Federal

funds or technical assistance to the States for

actions serving both national and State needs.

Both APHIS and the U.S. Forest Service cooperate extensively with States in the suppression of

forests pests such as the European and Asian

strains of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). The

Forest Service trains State personnel in the

management of forest insects and diseases (65).

Funding for pests surveys and control is on a

cost-sharing basis, with States providing 50

percent or more of the funds for some activities

(65). According to the Forest Service, such coordinated approaches have greater effectiveness

and lower overall costs than separate efforts (65).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also oversees

a program for the control of aquatic weeds in

which State or local governments can partially

recover costs for weed control in navigable

waterways (64). The Fish and Wildlife Service

provides information and expertise on diseases

affecting aquiculture, an area where no comprehensive Federal program currently exists (47).

In some areas, the Federal Government assists

or provides funds to address State needs. Sometimes these programs rely on Federal powers, for

example, the program to help California prevent

entry of agricultural pests via first class mail from

Hawaii (58). Also, Federal inspectors at ports of

entry in a particular State may help interdict

species prohibited by that State, even if they are

not federally listed (19).

Federal assistance for local problems makes

sense if, over the long run, they may become

national ones (e.g., a rapidly spreading NIS) or if

local problems are so common they become a

national concern. The Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990

provides for State submission of comprehensive

aquatic nuisance species management plans.

States with approved plans may receive Federal

matching grants for implementation. No Federal funds have yet been budgeted for these

grants (64).

The Cooperative Extension Service, which produced

this booket on kudzu (Puereria lobata) in Alabama, is

one of several means by which Federal and State

efforts are joined.

Federal and State agencies cooperate extensively in the prevention, quarantine, and control

of agricultural pests, but several problems exist.

Federal agencies do not always inform States of

foreign pest threats in a timely fashion. For

example, although the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) was aware of the

apple ermine moth (Yponomeuta malinellus), a

serious orchard pest, in British Columbia in 1981,

it did not advise Washington State officials until

1985. Shortly thereafter, the pest spread into the

State. According to a Washington State agriculture official, it ‘ ‘just fell between the cracks”; in

other words, Federal officials lacked a good

system for communicating about potential

threats (l).

The balance between Federal and State efforts

sometimes shifts too quickly to adequately ad-
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective I 207

dress potential problems, After APHIS removed

Federal quarantine restrictions on the movement

of nursery stock from Japanese beetle-infested

areas (Popillia japonica), a number of States, but

not all, promulgated quarantine regulations of

their own. The resulting patchwork of State

regulations led to the inadvertent movement of

infested nursery stock to States both with and

without their own quarantines (49). In another

case, black stem rust (Puccinia graminis), APHIS

has maintained a Federal quarantine, but has

delegated nearly all responsibility to the States.

Inconsistent enforcement by the States has increased the possibility that barberry (Berberis

vulgaris) varieties susceptible to black stem rust

will be shipped to areas protected by the quarantine (49).

Some observers maintain that the balance of

responsibility for eradicating agricultural pests

has tilted to the States since roughly 1980. This

was forcefully argued by a Florida official in

1991, after seven frustrating years of trying to

eradicate citrus canker (Xanthomonas campestris

pv. citri):

The concept of dual responsibility, a partnership, if you will, between States and the USDA

has never fallen into greater disrepair or erosion

than it has over the last decade or so. Simply put,

USDA/APHIS has become less and less responsive to domestic and exotic pest eradication

programs. (2)

The official further complained that the State had

been forced to can-y out quarantines of several

well-known, damaging NIS like the varroa mite

(Varroa jacobsoni) and Caribbean fruit fly (Anastrepha suspensa), because APHIS considered

them local pest problems of little economic

significance (2).

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG STATES

Finding:

Conflicts, particularly regarding aquatic

releases, arise among States because of their

differing ecological, economic, and policy contexts. Regional approaches provide opportunities for States to resolve their differences and

influence the actions of neighboring States.

Such approaches have been used most frequently for evaluating aquatic releases. Expanding the use of regional approaches for

other types of releases appears promising, but

is limited by their voluntary nature.

States lack the power to stop the importation

and release of a potentially invasive NIS in a

neighboring State. Since few Federal laws compel States to cooperate with each other, and States

have differing priorities, conflicts can and do

occur. A recent conflict between Virginia and

Maryland over the proposed introduction of the

Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to the Chesapeake Bay has largely economic origins and is

partly rooted in different patterns of public versus

private ownership of oyster beds (10,30), Harvests of the indigenous Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica) have declined to a historic low,

especially on the Virginia side of the Bay (34).

Virginia has a greater economic incentive to

promote the introduction than Maryland, which

still maintains a viable oyster fishery based on the

indigenous species. Virginia approved an experimental release of sterile Pacific oysters in 1992,

but later reversed this decision.

The experimental release by North Dakota of a

new sport fish, the European zander (Stizostedion

lucioperca), demonstrated how a State can introduce NIS notwithstanding concerns of adjacent

States. Minnesota had objections to the release

because of ecological and disease risks. (Federal

and provincial Canadian governments also disputed North Dakota’s action; see Scarratt and

Drinnan (51) for a description of Canadian

fisheries policies). Still, Minnesota officials supported the principle of paramount State sovereignty over natural resources (71). States themselves are unlikely to be advocates for less State

sovereignty.

Several councils or commissions exist to coordinate introduction policies across a particular
208 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, like its 4 counterparts elsewhere in the United States, coodinates

introduction policies across the region; controlling the damaging sea lamprey has been a major focus in the

Great Lakes.

region. For fish and wildlife, these include the

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Colorado

River Fish and Wildlife Council, and the three

Marine Fisheries Commissions (Atlantic States,

Gulf States, and Pacific). They provide venues for

State officials to agree on guidelines for releases,

inspections, and permits. For example, 5 western

States and the province of British Columbia

signed a cooperative agreement in 1980 for the

interstate transfer of shellfish under the auspices

of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (28).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides

technical and research assistance to the various

regional groups.

The National and four regional Plant Boards,

composed of State plant health officials, fill a

similar role for agricultural pests, i.e., facilitating

coordination of quarantines. They have commissioned a compilation of all State laws on weeds

and pests with the goal of improving communication and reducing inadvertent violations. These

boards move slowly, however, because of limited

funding and spotty State participation.

Sometimes no mechanism exists for resolving

conflicts between States short of a Federal lawsuit. The regional organizations that exist, however, provide important forums for proactively

addressing potential differences. Indeed, many

States require approval by the regional council or

commission as a prerequisite for certain NIS

introductions (52). Most of these regional organizations currently deal with aquatic releases,

although similar structures could be useful for

nonaquatic NIS issues. Regional organizations

are limited in that they are essentially voluntary

and not all States are members. Moreover, they

have no independent regulatory authority. Robson Collins (1 1), a California official, notes the

clear need for interstate cooperation but also that

the members of the Pacific Marine Fisheries

Commission have largely gone their own ways

since the efforts of the 1970s and early 1980s.

STATE LAWS REGULATING FISH AND

WILDLIFE IMPORTATION AND RELEASE

Findings:

● States prohibit importation and/or release

of a median of only eight potentially

harmful fish and wildlife species or

groups. In a survey of State fish and

wildlife agency officials, about one-third
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 209

●

●

●

●

responded that their lists of prohibited

species are too short.

About one-quarter of the States lack legal

authority over importation and/or release

of one or more of the five major vertebrate

groups (mammals, birds, fish, reptiles,

and amphibians). Also, about 40 percent

of State agencies would like to receive

additional regulatory authority from their

State legislatures.

Among those States that do have decisionmaking standards for approval of importation and/or release of non-indigenous fish

and wildlife, none legally requires adherence to a scientific protocol when considering a proposal. A few States mandate

scientific studies for certain proposals.

About half the States require a general

determination of potential impacts, defined broadly enough to include all ecological impacts. The rest lack rigorous

decisionmaking standards.

Most State agencies rate their own implementation and enforcement resources (staff,

funding, or others) as “less” or “much

less” than adequate; on average, they

would like increases of resources of about

50 percent to meet their responsibilities.

Several States present exemplary approaches

to managing non-indigenous fish and wildlife. On the other hand, many States are

under-regulating in several important respects. Overall, States are not adequately

addressing non-indigenous fish and wildlife concerns.

Overview of State Laws

OTA researched the laws14 of all 50 States to

answer the following questions regarding fish and

wildlife importation and release: What regulatory

approaches are used? Are large groups of clearly

harmful NIS not being regulated? What decisionmaking standards are agency officials required to

meet? The aim of this undertaking is to determine

which laws are exemplary, providing potential

models for national approaches. However, drawing conclusions from State-to-State comparisons

requires caution because each State has an unique

ecological, agricultural, and institutional setting.

No efficient way exists to find and compare

State laws and OTA’s process was time consuming and expensive. States’ key provisions diverge

broadly, use different terminology, are ofte n

scattered within their codes, and some rules and

regulations are unpublished. No group has the job

of maintaining a comprehensive, up-to-date compilation. The last private compilation was based

on 1983 laws; it rapidly became obsolete (29).

Any future oversight of State efforts will require

updating the information summarized in this

chapter. 15 In order to supplement this legal

research, OTA also surveyed the heads of the

responsible State agencies for their opinions

about 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 States

responded and their information was used for the analysis throughout this chapter, Another two States responded too late to be incorporated

into the full amlysis but their corrections are included in table 7-6. Respondents are listed in App. B.

15 A researchproject is under way at be u~versi~ of New Mexico ~w School’s Center for Wildlife ~W to collect ~ State wildlife laWS

and 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 States

Box 7-C-Views From the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies

States 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,

WY

Not responding: 14 (28%)-4A, CT, DE, KY, Ml, NV, NH, NM, OR, SC, SD, TX, VA, WA

NOTE: The OTA survey was conducted by mail in fall 1992. Percentages below are for the respondents listed

in appendix B. Explanations provided with the answers are not included here. South Dakota and New Hampshire’s

responses were received too late to be included in the analysis, although their corrections for table 7-6 are

tabulated.

Question 1: Beyond your existing authority, are there additional areas of legal authority that your

agency would like to receive from your State legislature to regulate the importation, possession, or

introduction of non-indigenous (exotic) fish and wildlife?

Yes: 15 (42%-AK, AL, GA, Hi, ID, MA, MD, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NY, WI, WY

No: 18 (50%)-AR, AZ, CO, FL, 1A, IL, IN, KS, IA, ME, MN, NC, NJ, OK, PA, TN, UT, WV

No answer/other: 3 (8%) – OH, RI, VT

Question 2: Evaluate the numbers of non-indigenous species that are prohibited outright

(disregarding minor exemptions such as for research)from importation, possession, or introduction into

your State.

List is too short: 13 (36%)-AL, FL, KS, LA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, RI, WI

List is about right: 17(47%)--AK, AR, CO, GA, Hi, IA, IL, IN, MA, ME, NC, NJ, OH, OK, UT, VT, WY

List is too long: O

Not sure: 2 (6%)-PA, WV

No answer/other: 4 (11%)-AZ, ID, NY TN

BASIC LEGAL APPROACHES

The States employ several basic legal approaches (table 7-1).16 The most restrictive approach is to prohibit all NIS except those individually evaluated and listed as allowed, that is, a

“clean” list. Hawaii is the only State with laws

that require this for both importation and release

of all major fish and wildlife groups. A few other

States have adopted clean lists for particular

actions, most commonly for fish releases.

More than half the States have “dirty” list

approaches, in which certain listed NIS are

prohibited from importation and/or release because of their economic, ecological, or health

effects. A smaller proportion of States have

neither clean nor dirty lists, that is, they have no

species prohibited by statute or regulation. For

importation this is true for 11 States regarding all

major vertebrate groups and for 7 States regarding

some groups. For release, 12 States prohibit no

16 some ~pomtpre~q q~lcatiom and observations: 1) me info~tions umrnarized represents the main provisions of the State

laws that directly govern whether or not importation and release of NIS is allowed in particular cases. This narrow scope of inquiry excludes

minor provisions, limited exemptions, and a myriad of veterinary, commercial, endangered species, humane, and other provisions that may

incidentally 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, similar

to OTA’S definition of ‘indigenous’ (ch. 2), so as to potentially cover intrastate movements. 3) The agencies responsible for camying out the

laws vary. Many States divide responsibility for different taxonomic groups among different agencies, which can lead to inconsistencies and

even conflict within a State (54).
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 211

Question 3: Has your agency undertaken internal or external evaluations of your programs in this

area?

Yes: 11 (31%)-FL, HI, KS, MA, ME, MT, OH, RI, VT, WI, WY

No: 23 (63%)-AK, AL, AR, CO, GA, 1A, ID, IL, IN, LA, MD, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NY OK, PA, TN, UT

WV

No answer/other: 2 (6%)-AZ, NJ

Question 4: How closely do your agency’s resources (staff, funding or others) match your current and

anticipated responsibilities in enforcing your State’s existing laws regulating the importation, possession,

or introduction of non-indigenous fish and wildlife?

More than adequate: O

Adequate: 7 (19%)-IA, LA, MD, MO, NY OH, OK

Less than adequate: 20 (56%)-AL, AR, CO, GA, Hi, ID, IL, KS, MA, ME, MN, MS, NC, ND, NJ, PA, Rl, UT,

WV, WY

Much less than adequate: 7(19%)-AK, AZ, FL, IN, MT VT, WI

Not sure: 1 (3%)-TN

No answer/other: 1 (3%)-NE

Question 5: in future regulation of the importation, possession, or introduction of non-indigenous fish

and 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, WY

Decreased: 1 (3%)-WI

About the same: 8 (23%)-AL, AR, IA, IL, MO, OH, OK, UT

Not sure: 1 (3%)-MS

No answer/other: 3 (8%) — AK, AZ, ID

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexioc Law School, “Selected

Research and Analysis of State Laws on Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction, “ contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, April 1992.

species in any fish or wildlife group and 9 States use the opposite, and stricter, approach of only

prohibit none in some groups. State’s that do treat

vertebrate groups differently usually treat fish

apart from the other wildlife groups.

A species or group that is not prohibited maybe

allowed in one of two ways: formal agency

permission is required, which the agency may

grant or deny, or no formal permission is required,

except possibly to comply with incidental veterinary, commercial, or other laws. Many States use

a combination of these two. They may have a list

of species for which permits are required and

allow any unlisted species to be imported or

released without government oversight. Others

listing the permit-exempt species, such as common pets, and requiring permits for all others.

Wide variety exists both in the structure of

statutory approaches and the detail of implementing regulations, even within the basic categories

of table 7-1. For example, California lists no

prohibited species but requires a permit for

importation of dozens of listed groups—

including whole orders, families, and genera.17

The total of individual species requiring a permit

is probably well into the thousands. Unlisted

species and groups do not require a permit for

importation, but all species do for release.18 By

17 Cal, Fish and Game Code SCC. 2118.

Is 14 Cal. Code Reg. SW. 671.
212 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 7-l—Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release

lmportationa b Release

Basic approach Number States Number States

All species are prohibited unless on

allowed (“clean”) list(s).

All species may be allowed except

those on prohibited (“dirty”) list(s).

Prohibited list(s) have 5 or more

identified species or groups.

Prohibited list(s) have fewer than 5

identified species or groups.

Ail species may be allowed; there Is no

prohibited list.

2 + 1 ptc Hl,lDpt, VPd

20+ 3pt AL AR, CO, CT FL, IL, KS,

KY, Ml, MN, MTpt, NC, NE,

NY, OH, PA, SCpt, SD, TN,

TXpt, UT, WA, WY

11 + 3pt AK, DE, IN, LApt, MD, ME,

MS, NH, NV, NJ, ORpt, Rl,

VA, WVpt

11 + 7pt AZ, CA GA, IDpt, 1A, LApt,

MA, MO, MTpt ND, NH,

NM, OK, ORpt, SCpt, TXpt,

Wl, WVpt

1 + 5pt AKpt, FLpt, GApt, Hl, IDpt,

KYpt

14+ 6pt AL, AR, CO, CT FLpt, GApt,

IL, KS, KYpt, MN, NE, NY,

OHpt, PA, SCpt, TN, TXpt,

UT, WA, WY

11 + 6pt AKpt, IN, LApt, NC, NDpt,

NJ, MD, MN, MS, NH, NV,

OR, Rlpt, SD, VA, VTpt,

WVpt

12+ 9pt AZ, CA, DE, IDpt, IA, LApt,

MA, ME, Ml, MO, MT, NDpt

NM, OHpt, OK, Rlpt, SCpt,

Txpt, VTpt Wl, WVpt

a State regulation of "possession" of a group or groups IS considered here es regulation of both “importation” and “release,” since neither act can

be done without having possession. For the few states that specifically regulate “lmportation with intention to release (or introduce),” it is not treated

here as comprehensive regulation of “release” because it covers only acts of importation done with a specific intent.

b Many States that regulate imporation of particularr group exempt mere transportation through the State. The are not distinguished here.

C 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 the vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.

d The summary classifications are general;in many States there limited exemptions, such as for scientific research, and other minor provisions

which 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 and

Analysis 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 groups

outright, and it requires a permit for release of all

but two fish species and for importation of many

others. 19 However, Texas lacks a permit system to

regulate importation and release of nonindigenous reptiles, amphibians, birds, or mammals, except for 15 mammal species that are

public safety risks such as lions (Panthera lee).

Analyzing the numbers of groups a State

prohibits outright presents an attractively quantitative, but problematic, measure of the State’s

attentiveness to potentially harmful NIS. Comparing the totals is difficult for some States that

list by taxonomic categories larger than single

species. A few list large indeterminate categories

(which are only counted as one listing here), such

as Alaska’s prohibition against importing or

releasing “venomous reptiles. ”20 States with few

or no species prohibited outright may still be

restrictive in their review of permit applications,

so that in practice they prohibit more species than

do States with a larger number of species prohibited outright but lower decisionmaking standards.

And, of course, States vary in their ecological

vulnerability to NIS invasions such that they

would not be expected to all have the same

number of prohibited species.
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 213

Table 7-2—Numbers of Species or Groups Prohibited From Importation and/or Release by States

Number NIS prohibited: 0 I I-4 I 5-9 I 10-19 I 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-99 100+ a

Number States: 9 I 10 I 8 I 7 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 11

a Ioo<ategov inclu~s those States that generally prohibit importation orreiease of one ormoreof the five vertebrate groups as a whole,

e.g., all non-indigenous fish.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research and

Analysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

Washington, DC, April 1992.

Given these limitations, breaking down the

numbers of prohibited species does provide a

rough sense of the variability (table 7-2). A total

of 34 States prohibit fewer than 20 species or

groups, and 19 of those prohibit fewer than 5; the

median number prohibited is 8.

The species most commonly prohibited include piranhas, walking catfish (Clarias balrachus), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella),

European (also called San Juan) rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), nutria (Myocaster coypus), and

coyote (Canis Latrans)-the latter by the eastern

States into which it is expanding its range because

of human activities (21). The processes States use

in listing species vary extensively, with some

based on expert input and others of unclear origin.

State lists of prohibited fish, in particular, have

been criticized for lack of scientific input (13,26).

At least one-third of the State fish and wildlife

officials surveyed rated their own lists of prohibited species as “too short’ (box 7-C, question 2).

North Dakota’s self-evaluation typifies the comments of this group:

There are presently no non-indigenous species

of animals other than fish that are prohibited from

importation, possession, or introduction into North

Dakota. Given the documented problems that

other states have had with the introduction and

escape of non-indigenous species, this is obviously an unacceptable state of affairs.

No States rated their prohibited species list as

“too long.” Slightly less than half rated their list

as “about right. ”

GAPS IN LEGAL AUTHORITY

The least restrictive approach would be to have

no laws regulating importation or release for any

groups. No States fit this description, although a

few come close. Several either omit or only

partially cover major taxonomic categories of fish

and wildlife (table 7-3).21 OTA’s listing of gaps

is limited to those States in which no legal

authority exists to regulate a particular group

comprehensively; it does not include those in

which the laws do give such authority, but the

agencies have, for whatever reason, chosen not to

exercise it. Thus, table 7-3 gives a conservative

picture.

Thirteen States lack legal authority over importation of one or more of the major vertebrate

groups. Twelve States lack legal authority over

release of one or more of the groups. Fish are least

likely to be left uncovered. The only State without

authority over fish releases is Mississippi, which

lacks authority over all releases except birds.

Almost half of the State officials who responded to OTA’s survey wanted additional legal

authority from their legislatures (box 7-C, question 1). They typically commented that their

existing authority left potentially harmful activities, such as NIS importation for game farming,

21 Ivfostof the gaps we complete omissions where the entire vertebrate group is unregulated. A few gaps are due tophdcoverageof a VUPJ

for example, Connecticut’s law only regulates mammals that are “quadmpeds” (Conm Gen. Stat. Annot. 26 sec. 55). ‘Ilk covers most

potentially harmful non-indigenous mammals, but it does omit authority over several taxa such as pinnipeds (e.g., seals), primates, and bats.
214 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 7-3-Gaps in Legal Authority

Legal authority over importation omits, or Legal authority over release omits, or only

only partially covers, the group partially covers, the group

Vertebrate group Number States Number States

Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CT 1A, LA, ND, OR, SC, 10 CT, Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl,

TX, Wl, WV SC, TX, VT, WV

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1A, IA, ND, OR, SC, TX, Wl, 8 Ml, ND, OH, Rl, SC, TX, VT,

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1A, ND, NJ, WI 1 MS

Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1A, LA, Ml, ND, OR, PA, SC, 9 Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl, SC,

TX, Wl, WV TX, VT, WV

Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 AK, 1A, LA, Ml, ND, OR, PA, 9 AK, Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl,

SC, TX, WI SC, TX, VT

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research and

Analysis 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 gaps

might try to keep harmful NIS out under their

general laws, but they could be legally challenged

in disputed cases.

DECISIONMAKING STANDARDS

How are State agencies required to exercise

their discretion in cases where they do have legal

authority? “Decisionmaking standards” refers to

the legal criteria imposed on, or adopted by, the

agencies to guide this discretion. With respect to

NIS, these criteria typically address potential

ecological impacts of the proposed action. States

have more restrictive standards for releases than

for importation, but overall few States require

careful studies, even for releases (table 7-4).

The most restrictive standard, of course, is

where the legislature prohibits entire groups of

NIS outright, eliminating agency discretion. Florida’s statute prohibiting any marine releases is an

example. 22 But predeterminations are rare---

agencies commonly have broad discretion when

permitting or denying NIS proposals.

-.

For allowing NIS importation, 17 States lack

standards for all vertebrate groups and 3 States

lack them for some groups; for NIS releases, 15

States wholly lack standards, and 6 in part.23 In

these States the discretion of the responsible

agency may still be generally guided by the

statute(s) that grants the agency’s general powers.

Nevertheless, having no defined, legally enforceable standards, and thus less accountability,

increases the likelihood of widely varying decisions. Political and citizen pressure, personal

preferences or values of agency officials, and

other unpredictable factors will more likely be

influential, especially as this regulatory area is

relatively volatile and fast changing (13).

Among the States that do have express decisionmaking standards for allowing importation

and/or release of NIS, none legally requires that

a scientifically based protocol, such as that

developed by the American Fisheries Society, be

followed. Such protocols are designed by experts

to provide formal guides forexamining all

potential risks and benefits of a proposal (see

protocols 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’S

laws provide no authority to make a decision+ neither do they provide decisionmaking standards.
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 215

Table 7-4—Decisionmaking Standards Used by States

For importation permission For release permission

Decisionmaking standarda Number States Number States

Agency has no discretion; action

prohibited

Mandated study of potential ecological

impacts

Determination of potential impacts,

defined broadly enough to include all

ecological impacts

Determination of potential impacts, not

defined broadly enough to include all

ecological impacts

No specific decisionmaking standards

1 ptb

1 pt

18 + 5pt

8 + 4pt

17 + 3pt

VTpt

FLpt

AL, CApt, CO, CT DE,

FLpt, GA, H/, ILpt, IN, KY

MD, ME, MN, NC, NE, NH,

NY, SCpt, TN, UT, VTpt,

WA

AZ, AKpt, CA@, ID, ILpt,

MT NJ, NM, NV, PA, Rlpt,

VA

AKpt, AR, 1A, KS, LA, MA, MI,

MO, MS, ND, OH, OK, OR,

Rlpt, SCpt, SD, TX, W/,

WV, WY

6pt

3pt

15 +12pt

4 + 6pt

15 + 6pt

AKpt, FFLpt, GApt, KYpt, MDpt,

WApt c

FLpt, Hlpt, MTpt

AL, 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, WI

AZpt, ID, ILpt, NJ, NV, OKpt,

ORpt, PA, VApt, WApt

AKpt, AR, CA, KS, LA, MA,

Ml, MSpt, MO, ND, NM,

OH, OKpt, ORpt, Rl, SCpt,

SD, TXpt, VT, WV, WY

a “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 State

Imt!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 permitting

and 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 and

Analysis 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” for

certain groups to investigate the potential ecological effects a proposed species will have if

released.

The main drawbacks to mandating scientific

protocols or detailed studies are the costs to

applicants and agencies (52). This is reflected, for

example, by Maine’s explicit decision not to

require rigorous scientific studies as a precondition for marine NIS releases, on the grounds

that “[existing] regulations require substantial

pre-introduction screening and review processes

that are the most appropriate safeguard and the

most efficient utilization of scarce resources’

. .

(12). Some States require that NIS be scientifically studied and evaluated after release, e.g.,

Washington. 24

Many States require some determination-but

not detailed scientific studies---of the potential

impacts, and they define this broadly enough to

include all ecological impacts. Eighteen States

require such determinations for importation of all

vertebrate groups and five require them for some

groups. Fifteen States require determinations of

impacts for release of all vertebrate groups and 12

require them for some groups. These standards

vary remarkably in their attention to detail.25 A

few States set out long and complex permitting

N 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 when

such impacts ,are not mentioned specifically. Thus, Alabama’s standard of ‘‘best interests of the State “ is treated as potentially including all

ccologic:d impacts.
216 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

criteria, such as Maine’s regulatory standards for

wildlife imports.26 By contrast, Alabama’s standard governing the Commissioner of Conservation

and Natural Resources’ decision to prohibit a

species is simply “the best interests of the

State. ’ ’27 It is difficult to hold decisionmakers

accountable for their actions regarding NIS when

legal standards are vague.

Several States require determination of potential impacts of the decision but do not define these

broadly enough to include all ecological impacts.

For example, Oregon’s standard for denying a

fish release pen-nit is “if the [Fish and Wildlife]

Commission finds that the release of the fish into

a body of water would adversely affect existing

fish populations. ”28 That standard does not require consideration of the other organisms potentially affected by a fish release, such as plants,

insects, and non-fish predators, nor of the overall

condition of the ecosystem.

Adding the number of States in table 7-4 with

no decisionmaking standards to the number of

States with standards that are not broad enough to

include all ecological impacts gives the following

totals: For importation, 25 States have no or

narrow standards for all vertebrate groups and 7

States have such standards for some groups. For

release, 19 States have no or narrow standards for

all vertebrate groups and 12 States have such

standards for some groups. These are the ‘‘States

without comprehensive decisionmaking standards in their NIS laws’ (category (a) in table 7-5).

However, 18 States have a superimposed layer

of decisionmaking standards in the form of State

environmental policy acts (SEPAs) (table 7-4 in

italics). The application of SEPAs varies widely,

and they appear to have had little effect in State

NIS decisionmaking.29 However, they can provide general protection against ill-considered

Table 7-&Non-indigenous Species

Decisionmaking Standards In Relation to

State Environmental Policy Acts

For importation For release

permission permission

(a) Number of States 25+ 7pt 19 + 12pt

without comprehensive

decisionmaking 

standards In their NIS

laws

(b) Number of States in 8 + 1 pt 6 + 3pt

category (a) that have

adopted general

environmental policy acts

(c) Remainder of States 17+ 6pt 13+ 9pt

Iacking comprehensive

dedsionmaking

standards (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 the

vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.

SOURCES: Office of Tsehnotogy Assessment, 1993 and Center for

Wildlife Law, University of New Mexieo Law S&ml, “Seieeted Research and Analysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation

and introduction,” contractor report prepared for the office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, April 1992.

decisions by requiring formal environmental

review of both agency-permitting and agencyinitiated actions (18). For example, Montana

requires a detailed environmental impact statement under its

non-indigenous

explicitly .30

These SEPAs

processes more

comprehensive

SEPA for all new releases of

fish, the only State to do so

could make the decisionmaking

rigorous in the States that lack

standards written directly into

their NIS laws. But in how many States do SEPAs

make up for their low (or no) standards? The

pattern of adoption of SEPAs answers this

question (table 7-5). Even after considering those

26402 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~~ by Feder~ ~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 2 1 7

States that have SEPAs, approximately one-third

of the States have agencies that permit MS

importation and release with no legal requirement

that they give comprehensive consideration to the

potential ecological impacts of their decisions.

Emerging Fish and Wildlife Issues

With a general decline in hunting opportunities

on public and open private lands, numerous States

face new proposals for releases of non-indigenous

mammals 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 Commission

was confronted with a proposal for a large ranch

using several hundred animals from 15 nonindigenous species, officials surveyed 13 other

western States and four Canadian Provinces that

had experience with these ranches. They found a

good deal of variation, including quarantine and

fencing requirements and responsibility for escapees (32). The key finding: ‘‘As they have become more experienced with the problems of disease, competition, and hybridization with exotics

and game farms, regulations governing exotics

and game farms in 7 States and 3 provinces have

become more restrictive for biological reasons. ’

Four of the States and Provinces either lacked

legal authority or did not respond to the survey;

only one State (Arizona) indicated it had become

less restrictive in certain circumstances.

As additional conflation of the greater State

concern in this area, in 1991 and 1992 Montana

and Washington imposed emergency moratoriums on various game farm activities, including

NIS importation. They cited mainly disease and

hybridization risks.

Another emerging area of State concern is the

release of non-indigenous fish stocks. (Stocks are

sub-species or recognized strains.) The concern

focuses on genetic dilution resulting from releases within the larger species’ range, but outside

the particular stock’s range. The most prominent

genetic dilution problems occur in the Northwest

where massive intentional releases of nonindigenous stocks of hatchery salmon have diluted several wild stocks, contributing to their

endangered status (67).

All States but Mississippi have general legal

authority to regulate non-indigenous fish releases

(table 7-3). A 1990 survey found that 26 of the 39

responding States had some restrictions on interstate and intrastate fish movements based on

genetics (70). But, 19 of the 26 States restricted

movements of only one or a few species. Usually

these were popular sport fish. Only 7 of the 26 had

policies applicable to all non-indigenous stock

releases.

The growth of aquiculture, with the potential

for accidental releases, compounds the risks of

genetic dilution.

 Lessons From State Fish and Wildlife

Laws

The above comparison of State wildlife laws

yields several lessons about exemplary approaches,

areas of under-regulation, and problems regarding enforcement.

EXEMPLARY APPROACHES

Which States’ approaches represent good examples for other States and the Federal Government? OTA’s broad answer, based on overall

comprehensiveness and attention to detail in

existing statutes and regulations, is that exemplary States include (in alphabetical order): Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Montana, and Utah. They

leave no major authority gaps, they have detailed

laws, and they require decisionmakers to observe

rigorous standards. This does not mean that their

approaches cannot be improved or that OTA

endorses decisions these States have made in

particular cases.

Also, a number of States’ individual legal

provisions stand out. The States listed below are

not necessarily the only ones with the provisions

discussed. The wide variety of these exemplary

provisions illustrates the strength of the U.S.
218 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

system, in which 50 different regulatory approaches can be developed and tested.

Burdens of Proof: Georgia strongly asserts that

importation and release of NIS are a ‘ ‘privilege’ to be granted only upon a ‘‘clear

demonstration’ that the review criteria are

satisfied (Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-l).

Expert input: Illinois created an Aquiculture

Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations regarding importation and possession of NIS for aquiculture (17 Ill. Admin.

Code sec. 870.10(e)). The regulation provides

for participation by experts from universities,

government, and private industry.

Funding: In the past, State fish and wildlife

agencies focused mostly on providing fishing

and hunting opportunities. Many still rely for

operating funds on license fees and taxes on

purchases by hunters and anglers. Understandably, these agencies balk at meeting the costs

of additional department responsibilities, like

new MS regulations, out of traditional revenues. Tennessee addressed this problem directly by mandating that ‘‘costs of administration’ of NIS laws come from either NIS permit

fees or the general fund (Tern. Code Annot.

70-4-417). New Jersey authorizes its Commissioner of Environmental Protection to charge

user fees adequate to cover the costs of NIS

inspections and other necessary governmental

services (N.J. Stat. Annot. 23:2A-5).

Control of Escapees: Louisiana’s regulation, of

non-indigenous game breeders is clear. Applicants must submit a written plan for recapture

of an escaped animal that includes: equipment,

personnel, recovery techniques, and the method

of payment for any damages caused (La.

Wildlife and Fisheries Reg. sec. 107.11 .D.).

Compensation for Damages: Many States hold

private owners of NIS responsible for damages

caused both to the State and to private claimants if their animals escape. Vermont goes

further than most by assessing treble damages

against importers of illegal NIS for expenses

Illegal releases of fish and wildlife, such as the

introduced wild boar (Sus scrofa), are a major concern

to States. Hogs and other animals that become feral

are seldom brought under State law.

●

●

incurred (10 Vt. Stat. Annot. sec. 4709).

Nevada created a compensation fund for private property damage and crop loss caused by

“game mammals not native to this State”

(Nev. Rev. Stat. 504.165). Georgia requires a

major insurance policy to cover potential

damages caused by certain ‘inherently dangerous’ ‘ animals, such as lions (Ga. Game and

Fish Code 27-5-4(f)).

Emergency Powers: Legal authority to respond

quickly to newly perceived threats can cut off

problems before they become widespread.

Montana imposed a 4-month moratorium in

1991 on importation of certain non-indigenous

game species on the basis of disease concerns,

using emergency rule-making powers (Mont.

Admin. Register 2-1/30/92).

Hybrids and Ferals: Although non-naturally

occurring hybrid animals are non-indigenous,

few States explicitly bring them under their

laws. Wisconsin spells out coverage of hybrids

(Wise. Admin. Code NR 19.05). Almost all

States exempt domesticated species from wildlife laws, leaving their authority over feral

domestic animals ambiguous. However, Alaska

specifically defines regulated ‘‘game’ so as to

include 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 sport

fishing trips, can cause NIS infestations (37,

43). Some States have specific laws regulating

live bait; Maine flatly bans all importation of

live bait fish commonly used in inland waters

(12 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7613) (see box 7-A, on

the constitutionality of this ban).

Sanctions: A Vermonter’s hunting or fishing

license may have “points” assessed against it

for violation of animal import laws, in addition

to a fine and/or imprisonment (10 Vt. Stat.

Ann. sec 4502(b)(2)(L)). This is similar to

points assessed against auto drivers convicted

of traffic offenses—a certain number results in

license suspension. In Montana, a conviction

for violation of NIS laws can lead to loss of

hunting, fishing, or trapping privileges for 2

years (Rev. Code Mont. 87-1-102).

Compliance Incentives: Hawaii recently

amended its laws to provide some of the most

severe frees for violations of its importation

permit laws—up to $10,000 for a frost offense

and up to $25,000 for a subsequent offense

within 5 years of the prior offense (Ha. Rev.

Stat. sec. 150A-1431). However, the same

statute provides a strong compliance incentive

by granting amnesty to any violator who

“voluntarily surrenders any prohibited plant,

animal, or microorganism or any restricted

plant, animal, or microorganism without a

permit issued by the department [of Agriculture], prior to the initiation of any seizure

action by the department.

Comprehensive Planning: Many States have

uncoordinated patchwork of NIS provisions.

Minnesota recognized this in its own laws and

directed a public-private task force to prepare

a major report on NIS threats (41). Based on

this, the Commissioner of Natural Resources

was to develop a comprehensive management

plan for ‘‘ecologically harmful exotic species’

by January 1993,

UNDER-REGULATION

The comparison of State non-indigenous fish

and wildlife laws also reveals areas of underregulation of clearly harmful MS by some States.

Five States (listed alphabetically) represent those

lacking complete regulatory authority, lacking

detailed implementing regulations, and/or not

legally requiring careful decisionmaking for proposed NIS: Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio,

Texas, and West Virginia. (This does not mean

that OTA disagrees with particular decisions

these States have made.) Many others also

under-regulate in one or more respects—a conclusion supported by the survey of State officials, 42

percent of whom wanted additional regulatory

authority.

The most important areas of NIS regulation in

which many States fall short are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

prohibiting harmful species or groups,

adopting legal authority covering all major

fish and wildlife groups and harmful activities,

following rigorous decisionmaking standards that look at all ecological impacts,

requiring scientific study of potential significant impacts,

defining ‘‘non-indigenous’ so as to potentially include both interstate and intrastate

releases,

regulating all releases of fish stocks to

protect genetic diversity,

covering hybrids and ferals unambiguously,

making comprehensive rules for containment and other ownership duties,

clarifying liability for escapes and damages

they may cause,

mandating post-release monitoring and evaluation, and

obtaining 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 States

OBSERVATIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT

As with the laws themselves, great variability

exists in legal enforcement regarding NIS (24).

The following admission from Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources probably applies

to many States:

[Michigan’s] laws and regulations have developed over many years and now exist in a

somewhat complex and fragmented manner. These

laws and regulations should be reviewed, consolidated, and publicized. Most people in the State are

probably not aware of the existing regulations,

and the impacts of ignoring these regulations.

Moreover, these regulations are often not vigorously enforced. (40)

A major enforcement difficulty is that States

generally lack effective ways to monitor imports

from within the United States, except for Hawaii

and Alaska. Few real geographic checkpoints

exist; State borders only provide meaningful

enforcement points in the rare States, like California, with inspection stations. A popular or wideranging species imported or released into one

unrestrictive State can soon spread on its own or

be taken into others.

Illegal releases are a major concern of State

managers, especially of sport fish (52). Fisheries

agencies repeatedly eradicate illegal releases.

California recently spent about $2 million to clear

white bass (Morone chrysops) out of a Central

Valley reservoir, where they were threatening

native salmonids, only to find them introduced

again in a neighboring reservoir (43). Indeed, in

some States, thwarting illegal private fish releases

is an impetus for officials to undertake their own,

more carefully managed, releases (52). Nevertheless, legal releases intended for one watershed can

be illegally transplanted by citizens into other

watersheds (72).

Illegal releases of animals for sport hunting

also occur occasionally, particularly of wild boar

(Sus scrofa) (35,36). Several other NIS have

escaped from game farms, especially in Texas. In

Montana, on March 2, 1992, the Wildlife Division conducted a statewide inspection and enforcement blitz of the 107 licensed game farms in

the State, looking for illegal or negligent practices

(42). They uncovered a number of serious violations, falling into 22 different categories. Five

categories involved escape or other opportunities

for MS, such as red deer, to come into contact

with indigenous wildlife. As a result of the blitz,

the Division pursued legal action against 12 of the

farms’ operators (42).

These types of enforcement operations are

relatively new for many States’ fish and wildlife

agencies. 32 Their traditional focus on fishing and

hunting still holds. In many cases, their budgets

depend almost exclusively on dollars generated

by hunters and anglers. For example, Utah’s State

Division of Wildlife Resources receives only 6

percent of its budget from the State legislature

(52). They have a strong incentive to introduce

popular, harvestable NIS. However, non-game

concerns, including MS regulation, have risen

dramatically in the last 15 years or so (52).

Internal and external evaluations are important

ways to assess whether an agency is meeting its

obligations, especially at times when its clients

are rapidly changing. Still, only 11 (31 percent) of

the agencies that responded to OTA’s survey had

undertaken 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 implementation and enforcement resources (staff,

funding, etc.) as “less than adequate” (box 7-A,

question 4).

In the opinions of several commentators, the

States’ limited mandates, authority, laws, policies, and resources, when taken as a whole, have

led States to do relatively little to slow the establishment or spread of harmful non-indigenous
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 221

fish and wildlife (table 7-6) (9,13,31,62). OTA’s

analysis supports these opinions. On the positive

side, OTA’s research revealed that many States

have recently taken steps to upgrade their laws

and programs, particularly in the West where

threats from non-indigenous fish and

have caused significant concern.

STATE LAWS ON NON-INDIGENOUS

PLANTS, INSECTS, AND OTHER

INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS

Finding:

wildlife

State laws governing agricultural pests are

relatively comprehensive. However, for nonindigenous invertebrates and plants that do

not affect agriculture, State laws provide only

spotty coverage.

Overview of State Laws

The Federal Government dominates the regulation of foreign plants and invertebrate agricultural

pests—much more than for fish and wildlife.

Nevertheless, States play a major role in quarantining interstate and intrastate movements of

weeds and pests of both foreign and U.S. origin.

No government agency maintains a compilation of State laws regulating plants and invertebrates. The National Plant Board, composed of

State and Federal agriculture officials, has commissioned a new compilation of nursery regulations and plant quarantines, available in June,

1993. Regional compilations are also underway.

For example, the Southern Plant Board had

compiled restrictions for 10 of the region’s 12

States as of December 1992 (25). These included

a ‘‘quick reference’* to each State’s full regulations and lists of: definitions; shipping and

additional permit requirements; fees; regulated

professions or industries; State noxious weeds;

applicable Federal and State quarantines; and

apiary and miscellaneous information. A similar,

standardized format for the national compilation

is planned.

State seed laws are compiled annually by Seed

World magazine (57). However, a State’s restrictions on seeds do not necessarily mean that

corresponding restrictions exist against importing

or planting whole plants of the same species.

Also, limited tolerances of most noxious weed

seeds are allowed per unit weight of imported

seed. In other words, State seed laws primarily

protect seed consumers (farmers) rather than the

environment.

As with fish and wildlife, variability exists in

State approaches to non-indigenous plants and

invertebrates (68). However, all States have

agricultural pest prevention programs and certification programs for pest-free nursery stock (68).

Most States inspect nursery stock before commercial interstate shipments (50). These programs

have been successful in eliminating the occurrence of certain pests in some States (27). Many

States also have interior quarantines designed to

limit infestations to certain counties.

WEEDS

Almost all States list some prohibited agricultural weeds beyond those listed under the Federal

Noxious Weed and Seed Acts. In these cases,

State prohibitions may reduce interstate spread of

some harmful non-indigenous weeds otherwise

allowed by Federal laws and regulations. Relatively few States, however, have natural area

weed laws, that is, plant prohibitions separate

from agricultural quarantines. The lack of such

prohibitions inmost States has left them unable to

address some harmful NIS, such as the wetland

invader purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

(63). A trend exists to adopt non-agricultural

weed prohibitions, especially to protect aquatic or

wetland areas. Washington, for example, has

recently adopted detailed regulations on natural

area weeds (box 7-D).

Since no national compilation of State plant

laws exists yet, OTA commissioned a case study

on the adequacy of the weed and seed laws for

five contiguous western States: Idaho, Oregon,

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. An expert on
222 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 7-6-References to Key State Statutes and Regulations on Importation and Release

of Fish and Wildlife

State Statutory authority Authority in regulations

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-13

Alaska . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.05.251, -.255(8), -.920, -.940(10), 20-

(17)

Arizona , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2901; 17-306

Arkansas ., . . . . . . . . . . .......15-46-101

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fish and Game Code 2118, -2150

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-6-112, -114, -114.5

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-40a, -55, -56

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 §7201 , 7§741, -772

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370.081 ; 372.26, -.265, -.922; -.98, -.981

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27-5 -1, -2, -4, -5, -7

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142-94, 150A-6, -7, -8; 197-3

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36-1 04(6), -701

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 §240; 56 §10-1 00, -105; 61§2.2, 2.3

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-2-7-20, -21

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109.20, -.47,-.83

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32-956, -1004

Kentucky , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.180

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56:20; 56:319, -:319,1

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 §1809, 12 §6071 ,-7202,-7204, -7237,

-7237a, -7239, -7240, -7613

Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agric. Code 5-601; Health-Gen. 18-219, 24-

109; Nat. Res, 4-1 IA-02, 10-903

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 §§19, -1 9A, -23

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300.253 93.(1), -(8), 300.257; 300.258(m);

304.2 §2(a); 305.9; 308.1 15a; 317.81

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.45, -.497; 84.967,-.968,-.9691 ; 97C.515,

-.521

Mississippi , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , 75-40-1 13; 79-22-9, -11

Missouri . ....,..,...........252.190; 578.023

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-1-201 ; 87-3-105, -210, -221 ; 87-4-424;

87-5-701 et seq.

220-2-.26, -.93

5 AAC 41.005, -.030, -.070, -92.029

R12-4-401, -405, -406, -410, -412, -413

Game and Fish Comm’n’s Code Book §§04.07;

18.1 2; 32.12-.16; 42.05, -.09

Fish and Game Comm’n regs§§171 -171 .5;

236; 670.7; 671.1 -671.5

Art. VII.007, -.008, -.009

26-55-1, -2

Dep’t of Nat. Res. and Env’t’l Control, Div. of

Fish and Wildlife regs. 10, 14

Vol. 14, 39-4.005; 39-6; 39-12.004, -.011 ;

39-23.006-.008; 39-23.088

391 -4-2-.06; 391-4-3-.12

Title 4, chs. 18, 71; Title 13, ch. 124

13K 1,5.4, 7; 13L 3

17 IAC 630.10, -870.10, -870.80

310 IAC 3.1-6.7, -10-1, -10-11

none

23-16-1 ; 115-20-3

301 KAR 1:1 15; -:120; -:122;1:171 ; 2:040;

2:080

Title 76, §107

Tab 402, Pt. IV, §7.60; Dep’t Marine Res.

regs. Ch. 24

08.02.14.05, -.07; 08.03.09.0; 08.02.1 1.05K

321 CMR 2.12, -9.00-.9.02

Wildlife Conservation Act Comm’n Order

update #92, 9/1 7/91: §§4.2, 5.2, 5.5

Dep’t of Nat. Res. Comm’r’s Order No. 2450

published in June 22, 1992 State Register,

Chs. 6216,6250

Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation Public Notice

No.s 1405,2768

3 CSR 10-4.110, -0134

12.7.602, -.701 ; 12.6.1506, -.1507, -.1512,

-.1514, -.1515
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 223

State Statutory authority Authority in regulations

Nebraska . ..................37-713, -719

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.597; 504.295

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 207:14; 21 1.62-(e) I and II (previous

provisions as reenacted in HB 1183, ch.

171 of 1992 Laws), 211 :64; 212:25 and

467:3

New Jersey. , , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23:4-50; 23:4 -63.1 , -63.2,-63.3, -63.4; 23:5-

30, -33.1

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-3-32; 77-18-1

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ag. and Markets Law §74-9; Env’t’l Cons.

Law $11-0507, -0511, -0917, -1703,-1709,

-1728

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113-158, -160, -274, -291, -291.3, -292

North Dakota. . . . . . . ... , ... , . 20.1-01-02; 20.1 -02-05.14; 20.1-04-03

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1533.31

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 §§5-103, 6-504, 7-801

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .498.052, -.222.b, -.242; 609.309

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30921 02; 34 §102, -2163, -2961, -2962,

-2963

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 -2; 4-18-3, -5; 20-1 -12; 20-1 O-12; 20-17-

9

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-11-1 760; 50-1 3-1630; 50-16-20, -40, -60

South Dakota . ...............41-2-1 8, -3-13, -13-1.1, -13-3

Tennessee . ...,.............70-2-212; 70-4-401,-403,-412

Texas . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ag. Code §134.020; Parks and Wildlife Code

§§12.015, 66,007

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23-13-5, -14

Vermont . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . 10 §4605, -4709

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1-183.2; 29.1-521, -531, -542, -545

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.08.295; 77.12.020,-030, -.040; 77.16.150

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .20-1 -2; 20-2-13

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.47(6), -.51, -.535

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-1 -302; 23-3-301; 23-4-101

Title 163, ch. 2, §§002, 004.03, 008.08

503.110, -.140

FIS ch. 800

7:25-4.1 et seq., -5.1 et seq., -10.1 et seq.

Reg. 677, Ch. 5, Art. 3, §A

Title 6, part 174; part 180, 3180,1

T0252B.0212; T15AO3B.O1O8; T15A:1OB.OIOO;

T15A:1 OC.0211

29-04-04-01, -03; 30-04-04

1501.31-19-01

800.25-25

635-07-515, -522, -523, -527, -585, -600,

-615, -620

58§§71.1-71.6, 73.1-73.2, 77.7, 137.1

Dep’t of Env’t’l Management, Div. of Fish and

Wildlife, Rules and Regs. no.s 61 -63; Dep’t of

Health, Rules and Regs., R4-18-IWA, §§2.0,

3.0, 4.0

none

41 :07:01:11; 41 :09:01 :02, 41 :09:02:02;

41 :09:02:06.01; 41 :09:08; 41:1 4:01

Rules 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., 57.111

et seq., 57.251 et seq.

R657-3-1 et seq., -16-1 et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Regs. Governing

Importation of Wild Birds and Animals

325-01-1. sec. 5,325-01-2. sees 1 -4; 325-02-

27 §§12, 13; 325-03-1 §§5, 6

220-20-039, -040; 232-12-017, -271

none

NR 19.05; 150.03

Game and Fish Comm’n regs. Chap. X.
224 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

This 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 aquatic

mollusks are less comprehensive than for agricultural pests.

non-indigenous plants of that region, Richard

Mack of Washington State University, assessed

the adequacy of the protection afforded by the

restrictions under the States’ noxious weed and

seed lists (also considering the species restricted

under the Federal Noxious Weed Act and Federal

Seed Act) (33). He based his assessment on the

likelihood of unlisted weeds causing economic or

ecological problems. His conclusions:

Idaho-list of 47 weeds (species or larger taxonomic groups) provides adequate protection but

omits at least 6 well-known threats.33

Oregon—list of 67 provides more than adequate

protection, although a few additions would be

appropriate.

Utah—list of 23 does not provide adequate

protection, omitting at least 11 threatening

species.

Washington—list of 75 provides more than

adequate protection (box 7-D), although a few

additions would be appropriate.

Wyoming—list of 34 provides barely adequate

protection, omitting at least 11 threatening species.

Thus, the adequacy of the case-study States’

lists of prohibited weeds varies considerably, but

only Utah’s was rated as inadequate. Also, some

State lists include inaccurate or misspelled scientific names, raising questions about the lists’

technical validity (33).

33 Ap~ialliSt 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 (SokJnwn

elaeagnifolium), tamari sk (Tamati gallica), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus).
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective I 225

Many western States have implemented a

promising approach to protect both agriculture

and natural areas through certification of noxious

weed-free forage (feed, hay, straw, or mulch) (4).

Forage is grown, marketed, and transported

throughout the West and is often taken into

natural areas to feed pack animals. The certification program reduces the pathways for the spread

of noxious weeds and protects consumers who

want to purchase pure feed.

INSECTS AND OTHER INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS

In many States, the same laws governing

importation and release of vertebrate animals

govern those invertebrate animals not otherwise

covered by agricultural pest quarantines. Nonindigenous aquatic invertebrates that can be

cultured, like oysters, are commonly covered by

specific laws regulating aquiculture. Most States

also have specific laws on bee culture. But in

many States, other non-agricultural pest invertebrates are simply left unregulated, including, for

example, aquatic mollusks-one of the most

potentially invasive animal groups-imported for

use in home aquariums (7).

As of 1992, only three States had adopted regulations specifically on biological control agents.

They are California, Florida, and North Carolina

(39). However, a later survey identified seven

States with laws encouraging the development

and application of biological control (see ch. 1).

ENFORCEMENT

State pest and weed programs lack the personnel to undertake comprehensive enforcement

against illegal importations. Almost all States

lack border inspection stations. Existing programs also have been weakened in recent years by

two major outside factors: widespread budget

crises affecting State Governments, and demographic changes favoring urban areas, with rural

interests losing their former dominance in many

legislatures (56).

Weed prevention and control programs are

highly underfunded (44,48), perhaps more than

other pest programs, Montana has addressed the

funding problem by creating an innovative Noxious Weed Trust Fund.34 Funded by a l-percent

surcharge on retail herbicide sales and a‘ ‘vehicle

weed fee’ imposed through automobile registration, it provides $1.2 million per year for grants

for weed control, with one-fourth earmarked for

“research and development of non-chemical

methods of weed management’ (44). Another

avenue Montana has pursued that lessens the need

for government expenditures is imposing greater

legal responsibility on private landowners to

prevent the spread of weeds from their property.

Designated noxious weeds are treated as common

nuisances, and it is illegal to ‘‘permit any noxious

weed to propagate or go to seed’ unless the

landowner is in adherence with a local weed

management plan.35

The leading agricultural production State, California, is the most well equipped to address

importation of weeds and pests. The California

Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has

16 border agricultural inspection stations to check

the almost 30 million incoming vehicles annually, and it carries out cooperative inspection

programs with USDA at ports and airports (15).

CDFA also inspects parcel post. It carries out

intensive insect detection trapping (over 100,000

traps per year), as well as active pest eradication

programs. Public education and involvement

receive high priority, In 1990, CDFA began an

apparently unique enforcement program called

‘‘We Tip, ’ with its own toll-free hotline. It offers

rewards of up to $10,000 (from funds donated by

private growers) for information leading to convictions of people who smuggle in quarantined

fruit (8). Yet even with such programs, three

agriculturally significant new NIS were detected

34 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 States

Box 7-D–Washington State’s New Quarantines on Natural Area Weeds

in response to concerns about natural area degradation, in 1992 the Washington Department of Agriculture

promulgated sweeping regulations prohibiting all transactions that could lead to the spread of seeds or whole

plants of 39 invasive plants not indigenous to the State. Previously, the only non-agricultural weed under

quarantine was purple Ioosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria and L. virgatum). The new listings are:

Scientific name Common name

Amorpha friuticosa indigobush, lead plant

Anchusa officinalis common bugloss, alkanet anchusa

Anthriscus sylvestris wild chervil

Carduus acanthoides plumeless thistle

Carduus nutans musk thistle, nodding thistle

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed

Centaurea jacea brown knapweed, rayed knapweed, brown centaury,

horse-knobs, hardheads

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed

Centaurea macrocephala bighead knapweed

Centaurea nigra black knapweed

Centaurea nigrescens Vochin knapweed

Chaenorrhinum minus dwarf snapdragon

Chrysanthemum Ieucanthemum oxeye daisy, white daisy, whiteweed, field daisy,

Marguerite, poorland flower

Cytisus scoparius Scotoh broom

Daucus carota wild carrot, Queen Anne’s lace

Echium vulgare blueweed, blue thistle, blue devil, viper’s bugloss,

snake flower

Heracleum mantegazzianum giant hogweed, giant cow parsnip

Hibkcus trionum Venice mallow, flower-of-an-hour, bladder ketmia,

modesty, shoo-fly

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed, orange paintbrush, red daisy,

frameweed, devil’s weed, grim-the-collier

Hieracium pratense yellow hawkweed, yellow paintbrush, devil’s paintbrush, yellow devil, field hawkweed, king devil

Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort, goatweed, St. Johnswort

Isatis tinctoria dyers’ woad

Kochia scoparia kochia, summer-cyprus, burning-bush, fireball,

Mexican fireweed

Linaria genistifolia dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax

Lepidium Iatiolium perennial pepperweed

Mirabilis nyctaginea wild four o’clock, umbrella-wort

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle

Proboscidea louisianica unicorn-plant

Salvia aethiopsis Mediterranean sage

Silybum marianum milk thistle

Torilis arvensis hedgeparsley

Ulex europaeus gorse, furze

Zygophyllum fabago Syrian bean-caper
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 227

Wetland and Aquatic Plants

Scientific name Common name

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla

Spartina patens salt meadow cordgrass

Spartina anglica common cardgrass

Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass

Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot’ s-feather, parrotfeather or waterfeather

Egerja densa or Elodea densa Brazilian elodea or egeria

SOURCE: Washington State Department of Agriculture, Plant Services Division, Plant Quarantine Manual, Seattle, WA, 1992.

in 1990-one weed (jointed vetch—Aeschynomene rudis), a fungal plant disease (a smut—

Ustilago esculenta), and one nematode (Hirschmanniella spp. ) (8). This is further evidence that

completely preventing entry of harmful nonindigenous species is not possible.

California’s park system is also active in NIS

issues. Its policies support replacing NIS, such as

eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), with indigenous

species; however, the expense is high and opposition occasionally comes from members of the

public who prefer the NIS (ch. 2) (69).

A few other States have begun to emphasize the

use of indigenous plants for soil conservation,

wildlife habitat, landscaping, and other public

purposes, which have traditionally depended

heavily on NIS. Illinois has blazed a trail in this

change (box 7-E).

PROPOSED MODEL STATE LAWS

Model State laws have been developed by

experts outside the legislative process to help

legislators improve, and achieve consistency in,

States’ statutes and regulations. Legislatures have

adopted them, sometimes wholly but usually in

part, in a wide range of contexts. Model State laws

have been directed to a wide range of topics, e.g.,

controlling narcotics, enforcing child support

obligations, and facilitating interstate business

(the Uniform Commercial Code).

A model law can be a preferred alternative to a

superimposed, preemptive Federal uniform law

from the perspective of preserving State sovereignty (see Federal/State section of ch. 8). Robert

McDowell, Director of New Jersey’s Division of

Fish, Game, and Wildlife, expressed this in

testimony against a proposed congressional House

of Representatives bill that would have imposed

greater Federal control over State fish and wildlife releases (38). He supported, as an alternative

to Federal control, a‘ ‘model law that states could

adopt to control undesirable impacts of introductions’; adopting the model law ‘‘would be a

requirement in order to have, for example, . . .

lack of Federal intervention in the issue” or

possibly as a condition for obtaining related

Federal funding (38).

Three proposed model laws address NIS issues.

The frost, and by far most detailed, is for fish and

wildlife.

“Model for State Regulations Pertaining to

Captive Wild and Exotic Animals”

In 1985, the Animal Health Association, a

national veterinary group, resolved to develop a

model law for upgrading State laws on NIS

introduction and related subjects, an effort led by

the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study

Center (SCWDSC) at the University of Georgia’s

College of Veterinary Medicine. The Center

proposed a broad regulatory system for animal

importation that addressed veterinary, humane,

public safety, ecological, and other concerns (46).

After extensive external review and revisions,

SCWDSC sent the model out to all appropriate

State agencies in late 1988 (60).
228 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 7-E-Illinois Shifts to Indigenous Plants

In the early 1980s, the Illinois Department of Conservation took a hard look at the benefits and costs of its

heavy reliance on non-indigenous species (NIS) in the two State-run nurseries. These produce plants for such

uses as Iandscaping of State property, erosion control, and for wildlife habitat and feed. Department officials

recognized the risks of degrading natural ecosystem and even endangering indigenous plants through

competition 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 and

equipment Then, they collected seeds from State parks and began producing plant materials on a commercial

scale. Currently, they grow 67 species of Indigenous trees and shrubs, 61 species of prairie wildflowers and

grasses, 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 be

controlled or eradicated from Department-owned or managed land ‘as time, manpower, and funds allow.” Officials

rewrote several manuals and public information pieces, such as “Landscaping for Wildlife, “ to emphasize

indigenous species. The Department of Conservation, USDA’s Soil Conservation Service, and the Cooperative

Extension Service at the University of Iliinoisjointiy prepared a manual for all agencies and organizations planning

and designing wind and snow breaks in the State. It specifies 31 indigenous trees and shrubs and just three

well-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 the

Iliinois Legislature by commercial nursery and agricaultural interests when it sought to add more prohibited species

to the State’s Exotic Weed Act. The act designed to protect natural areas, prohibits only three species, each of

which is already extensively present-purple Ioosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), multifora rose (Rosa multiflora), and

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). To put this number in perspective, at least 811 non-indigenous plant

species grow in a free-living condition in IIIinois, representing 29 Percent of its total plant species. About 37 of these

811 are considered to be damaging invaders of natural communities, yet Illinois law allows most of them to be

planted.

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 Exotlo

Species, Indiana Academy of Scbn-, Indianapolis, IN, Oot. 25=26, 1S91; R.D. tknry and AA ~% of Introddoo of the Alien

Component of the Spontanam Illinois V-rF* “ 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 gives generally considered native wild animals.”

States an optional resource to fill gaps in their These ‘‘will vary from State to State and the

laws. Key features include: species listed below are a partial list offered

A permit requirement to “own, possess,

transfer, transport, exhibit, or release’ nonexempt and non- “established exotic wild

animals.

A list of 30 common domestic animals that

should be exempt from the model’s regulatory requirements.

A list of “established exotic wild animals”

that have “become widespread and are

for consideration. ” It consists of ringnecked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus),

chukar (Alectoris chukur), Hungarian partridge (Perdix perdix), European starling

(Sturnus vulgaris), English or house sparrow

(Passer domestics), Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), mute swan (Cygnus olor),

European carp (Cyprinus carpio), brown

trout (Salmo trutta), and nutria.
Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 229

Criteria for deciding on “environmentally

injurious animals’ and a list of animals that

meet the criteria ‘‘offered for consideration . The list includes all 18 vertebrate

species or groups already prohibited under

the Federal Lacey Act plus 36 other species

or groups-28 more than the median number

of State-prohibited species. The list was

designed to be tailored to each State’s

particular circumstances.

A Technical Advisory Committee to provide

advice regarding regulations and exemptions, consisting of 12 members representing

scientific, commercial, humane, and other

interests,

No States have adopted the model wholly, but

some, such as Missouri, have used different parts.

Utah recently adopted the most detailed nonindigenous animal regulations of any State; it

considered the SCWDS model, but chose their

own approach instead (20). No further revisions

of the model are planned, nor has it been formally

evaluated.

Model Honey Bee Certification Plan

In response to the impending invasion by the

African honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata),

State and Federal officials and private beekeepers

developed a Model Honey Bee Certification Plan.

In 1991, they offered it to the States for adoption

or modification. It sets out methods to certify that

queen bees are the desired European type, rather

than African types, and it recommends steps for

quarantining areas in which the African bee

appears. It also prescribes beekeeping practices to

reduce ‘‘ Africanization. ’ Texas, the first State

affected by the new bee, has adopted most of the

plan; other States are considering it (23). However, some experts question the plan’s technical

assumptions and probable effectiveness, particularly in light of the very limited enforcement

personnel States commit to bee inspection and

certification (61).

Outline of a Model Law for

Non-Indigenous Weeds in

Natural Communities

John Schwegman, the Botany Program Manager of the Illinois Department of Conservation,

has outlined the only known model State law

approach to combating weeds in natural areas

(55):

States should enact laws that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Allow for designation of State exotic weeds by

a flexible administrative procedure under control of conservation interests as opposed to

agricultural interests.

Prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or planting

of plants or seed of designated exotic weeds.

Designate plants and seeds of exotic weeds

offered by dealers as contraband subject to

seizure by the State in addition to imposition of

fines.

Do not force landowners to remove or control

exotic weeds growing naturally on their lands

(based on the idea that doing so would rouse

intolerable public opposition).

Set policy on removal and control of exotic

weeds on all State owned and managed lands.

Require testing or other proof of safety from

escape to natural communities of new potential

problem plants proposed for marketing in the

State.

Nonregulatory components of the model program

include supporting research into control methods,

providing adequate management staff, supporting

Federal efforts, and public education. Schwegman’s suggested approach has not been widely

adopted, even in his own State (box 7-E). Indeed,

few States have comparable programs, although

some have made steps toward them, e.g., Washington (box 7-D).

LOCAL APPROACHES

Some local governments have ordinances covering harmful NIS. Generally, local authority has

not included imposing quarantines or prohibiting

importation of particular NIS except in public

health and safety matters. (However, particular
230 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is

among the non-indigenous weeds of natural areas

newly targeted by State and local efforts.

counties are routinely quarantined by State authorities to stop the intrastate spread of pests.)

Local governments most commonly address localized problems, such as the capturing of dangerous escaped exotic pets by animal control

officers.

Local authority has predominated in the control

of agricultural weeds in many western States, in

the form of weed control disticts. These districts

generally develop a county-wide management

plan and provide enforcement mechanisms. In the

event a landowner fails to comply with the plan by

allowing designated weeds to flourish, the districts often have authority to take control measures directly and charge the landowner for its

costs. Operations are typically funded through

local property assessments with some State support. Funding can vary greatly from county to

county, depending on local economies and property values (44). In regions without such districtsmost of the East and South-weed control, other

than private efforts, is a State Government

function. The historical reasons for this split

relate to the greater roles of county governments

in the West, the greater size of western States, and

their relatively severe weed problems.

Another key area of local authority is the

regulation of land development and use. As

development involves alterations to vegetation,

the local permit process affords an opportunity to

require the elimination of existing weeds. Ordinances can also require that certain areas be kept

in indigenous vegetation or prohibit the planting

of certain NIS. However, the nursery and landscaping industries, already concerned with 50

disparate State approaches, view increasing local

regulation with alarm (5). They would prefer not

to have to adjust their activities to a variety of

ordinances adopted by hundreds of sub-units

within a State.

The only ‘‘model local law’ addressing NIS

combines weed control with regulation of land

development. In 1985, the South Florida Exotic

Pest Plant Council, an association of government

and private individuals concerned with nonagricultural weeds, drafted a “Model Exotic

Species Ordinance for Municipalities and Counties” (59). Below OTA summarizes, with their

titles, the ordinance’s main provisions:

●

●

‘‘Model Ordinance Prohibiting the Importation, Transportation, Sale, Propagation and

Planting of Harmful Exotic Vegetation”—

an outright prohibition is imposed on the

listed activities for particular designated

harmful species.

“Requiring Removal of Harmful Exotic

Vegetation Prior to Development of Land or

When Such Vegetation Constitutes a Nuisance’ —before development, the landowner

must remove all of the designated species,

subject to the plant removal standards; also,
owners

can be

species

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 231

of land that is not being developed

ordered to remove the designated

within 1 year if their property lies

within given distances of defined environmentally sensitive areas.

. “Providing Property Tax Reductions for

Removal of Harmful Exotic Vegetation”-

landowners who have been ordered to conduct removal efforts to protect sensitive

areas under the previous provision are entitled to a l-year 25 percent property tax

reduction for the portions of their land from

which the vegetation was removed.

● “Establishing Standards for Exotic Vegetation Removal”—specifies removal techniques and precautionary measures.

● “Establishing Standards for Acceptance of

Covenants for the Protection and Management of Environmentally Sensitive Lands”—

lays out a procedure encouraging the 1ongterm protection of ecologically important

areas, with an emphasis on maintainingg them

free of harmful vegetation.

At least seven South Florida counties and two

cities have adopted parts of the model ordinance

(14). Clearly, South Florida’s non-indigenous

plant problems are among the worst in the country

(ch. 8). The model ordinance offers a useful

example for other regions with similar, but

perhaps currently less severe, problems.

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter surveyed State and Federal relationships and State laws regulating fish and

wildlife, insects, other invertebrate animals, and

weeds. States’ approaches vary widely, some tend

to under-regulate certain types of potentially

damaging NIS, and their enforcement of existing

standards is often inadequate. Other States’ show

exemplary approaches. More successful management of harmful NIS depends upon addressing the

deficiencies, disseminating noteworthy State approaches, and ensuring that Federal and State

efforts are mutually supportive. This chapter,

along with chapter 6, suggests that much more

can be done by both Federal and State Governments. In the next chapter, OTA takes a closer

look at the situation in two States where severe

NIS-related problems have prompted special

concern: Hawaii and Florida.
Two Case Studies:

Non-Indigeneous

Species in

Hawaii and

Florida ,8

I

n this chapter, OTA focuses on the status, problems, and

policies regarding nonmarine, non-indigenous organisms

in two particular States: Hawaii and Florida. These two

States have large numbers of non-indigenous species (NIS)

because of their particular geography, climate, and history. Each

has experienced considerable problems as a result. And each area

has developed interesting policy responses in the attempt to solve

these problems. Their efforts are worth attention in their own

right and also because they may provide lessons for other parts

of the United States.

Several common themes appear in both States. Invasive NIS

threaten the uniqueness of certain areas. In Hawaii, this threat is

to the remaining indigenous species, most of which occur

nowhere else in the United States or the world. In both States, the

greatest threat of NIS is to unusual natural areas as a whole, Both

States are transportation hubs and tourist destinations. Therefore,

entry and establishment of non-indigenous pests in either State

provide a route for further spread into other parts of the United

States.

Of course, Hawaii and Florida are very different from each

other. Hawaii is the only State subject to a Federal agricultural

quarantine that includes comprehensive Federal inspection

activities. Many policies affecting Hawaii would be different if

California, 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 the

center for U.S. production of tropical aquarium fish, and few

other States have engaged in environmental manipulation on the

large scale Florida has.

233
234 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

These two States have learned certain lessons

in dealing with harmful NIS:

●

●

●

●

Federal and State approaches need to be

coordinated;

seldom do those who are the source of NIS

problems also bear their cost;

agriculture and natural areas bear a high cost

for introductions, whatever their source; and

public education is vital to preventing new

species entry and spread.

These lessons are worth the attention of other

States, perhaps with less severe problems right

now. Also, these lessons are worth the attention of

Federal policymakers. The Federal Government

has both helped and hindered these States in their

efforts to deal with harmful NIS. Better integration of Federal and State policies and programs in

the future would benefit both the Nation and the

States.

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAll

Finding:

Hawaii has a unique indigenous biota, the

result of its remote location, topography, and

climate. Many of its species, however, are

already lost, and at least one-half of the wild

species in Hawaii today are non-indigenous.

New species have played a significant role in

the extinction of indigenous species in the past

and continue to do so. Hawaii, the Nation, and

the world lose something valuable as the

indigenous flora and fauna decline.

The Nature of the Problem

By many measures, the Hawaiian Islands

represent the worst-case example of the Nation’s

NIS problem. No other area in the United States

receives as many new species annually, nor has as

great a proportion of NIS established in the wild.

At the same time, Hawaii, the Nation’s so-called

extinction capital, has the greatest concentration

of threatened and endangered species in the

United States and the greatest number of extinct

species as well. While habitat destruction has

been and continues to be a main factor in the

demise of the indigenous biota, NIS1 have been

identified as an important, if not the most

important, current threat (27,85,86,128).

In addition, Hawaii may be the State most

visibly transformed by NIS. Most of the coastal

areas and lowlands of the mountainous islands

appear to be the proverbial paradise-green, often

lush, replete with birds and flowers. But except in

a few pockets, most of the trees, foliage, flowers,

and birds are non-indigenous. Only at higher

elevations can one find any appreciable expanse

of the globally unique flora and fauna.

Non-indigenous species have had a distinctive

impact in Hawaii for several reasons.

● The island ecology. The Hawaiian Islands are

the most remote land mass in the world,

separated from the continents by a 2,500-milewide ocean moat. As a result, only a relatively

few kinds of plants, insects, birds, and other

organisms managed to colonize the islands

before human settlement (see ‘‘original immigrants’ in table 8-l). The original several

hundred species that arrived by ocean or air

currents evolved into many thousands of species, more than 90 percent of which are

endemic (unique) to Hawaii.

Missing from this assemblage were many of

the predators, grazers, pathogens, and other

organisms that have shaped the ecology of the

continents. Birds, plants, brightly colored

snails, and insects dominated the original

Hawaiian landscape. Yet there were no ants,

mosquitoes, or cockroaches, nor any snakes or

other reptiles. The only mammals were a small

insect-eating bat and a marine mammal, th e

Hawaiian 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 235

Table 8-l—Past and Present Status of Nonmarine Species in Hawaii

Original Indigenous Endemic Extinct Threatened/ Established

immigrants species species species endangered NISb

Group (number) (number) (no./%) (no./%) (no./%) (no./%)

Plantsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 =1 ,400 =1 ,200/867. /=1 O% /=30% =900/450/0

Birdsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 =100 92/=920/. 60/=60 30%700/0 38/480/0

Mammal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0 0 1/100% 1 9/950/0

Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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%

Mollusksc 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 22-24 =1 ,060 /=99% /=50% /100% =30/6%

Insectsc 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 as

endangered) 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 under

a 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, other

published 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/ants

of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hi: University of Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum Press, 1990); L.L. Loope, O. Hamann, and C.P. Stone, “Comparative

Conservation Biology of Oceanic Archipelagoes,” @’oScience, vol. 38, No. 4, April 1988, pp. 272-282; G.M. Nishida (cd.) Hawaiian Terrestrial

Arthropod Checldist (Honolulu, Hl: Bishop Museum Press, 1992); and personal communications from H.F. James, ornithologist, National Museum

of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Jan. 23, 1992; W. Devick, aquatic resources specialist, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural

Resources, 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 any

large herbivorous animals like deer, many of

the plants lost their physical and chemical

defenses against such animals (17). Hawaii’s

indigenous raspberries (Rubus hawaiensis) do

not have the sharp thorns of related species.

The 50 species of indigenous mints lack the

herbivore-deterring aromatic scent of sage

(Salvia officinalis), basil (Ocimum basilicum),

and other continental mints. Similarly, more

than a dozen species of flightless, grounddwelling birds (88) evolved on the islands, as

did several unusual flightless moths, flies, and

other insects (55).

This isolated evolution is seen as the prime

reason why Hawaii, and oceanic islands in

general, are especially vulnerable to ecological

invasions (70). In addition, most indigenous

species in Hawaii are not adapted to free, which

has increased considerably with human settlement. This now common physical disturbance

not only eliminates indigenous species, particularly rare and threatened or endangered plants,

it provides an inroad to invasions by better

adapted NIS (109). Trampling by large nonindigenous animals also facilitates invasions.

. The tropical climate. Hawaii’s average temperatures vary little between winter and summer, at sea level ranging from about 72 to 78

degrees F. In contrast, rainfall, delivered to the

islands by trade winds from the northeast, “

varies tremendously. Windward mountain

slopes can receive 300 to 400 inches per year,

while leeward coasts receive as few as 10 to 20

inches.

The variation in rainfall, along with the

diverse, volcano-created terrain, accounts for

Hawaii’s large variety of habitats, which in

turn accounts at least in part for the diversity of

recently arrived organisms that have successfully colonized the islands (69). And the lack of

a killing frost except at high elevations means
236 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

that Hawaii is subject to invasion by many

species that would not be a threat to the largely

temperate continental United States.

. The transportation hub. Lying close to the

middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii is a portal

between Asia and North America. Traffic

through the islands has been increasing dramatically, given the rising economic importance of

the Pacific Rim nations and the increasing

popularity of Hawaii as a vacation spot. With

a 50-percent increase in traffic during the

1980s, Honolulu’s airport was 15th busiest in

the United States in 1990, according to the

Federal Aviation Administration. Equally important is the military traffic through Hawaii,

the Pacific center for U.S. defense (see below).

The large volume and variety of traffic is

responsible for the great number of NIS that

arrive in the State. In addition to stowaways on

transport equipment or cargo, plants and animals are brought in, intentionally or unintentionally, by the increasing number of travelers,

both residents and tourists.

RATES OF INTRODUCTIONS

The rate of NIS introductions in Hawaii increased dramatically with the start of regular air

service to the islands in the 1930s. But Hawaii’s

transformation by NIS began 1,500 or more years

ago, with the arrival of sea-faring Polynesians.

Polynesians intentionally introduced about 30

kinds of plants for cultivation—including sugar

cane (Saccharum officinarum) and coconut (Cocos

nucifera), two images closely allied with Hawaiian culture today—and accidentally brought along

several weeds. They also brought a few domesticated animals (pigs, dogs, chickens) and stowaways like rats, lizards, and probably several

insects. The rate of species becoming established

in the islands thus changed from the natural rate

of one new species every 50,000 years to three or

four new species every 100 years (70).

Hawaii began to absorb a new wave of species

with the arrival of Europeans in 1778, when the

rate of successful introductions jumped to hundreds of thousands of times the natural rate.

Among the most significant and persistent introductions were the goats (Capra hircus), sheep

(Ovis aries), European pigs (Sus scrofa), and

cattle (Bos taurus) released by explorer James

Cook and other early ship captains as gifts or to

create herds to feed their crews. Feral European

pigs and goats in particular remain serious pests

of natural areas (and to some extent agriculture)

today.

In the subsequent two centuries of European

and Asian settlement, horses, deer, and more

rodents have also been introduced. More nonindigenous bird species (including 15 game

species) have become established in Hawaii than

anywhere else (64). More than 4,600 nonindigenous plant species have been introduced,

primarily for cultivation. Of these, almost 900

have become established, so that Hawaii’s wild

non-indigenous plant species today are approaching the number of indigenous species (129).

Non-indigenous freshwater fish, most of which

were intentionally introduced for sport, food, or

other reasons (71), far outnumber the relatively

few indigenous freshwater species. In the case of

insects, NIS make up perhaps 25 percent (table

8-l). Many of Hawaii’s NIS are indigenous to the

continental United States; according to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, about onequarter of Hawaii’s non-indigenous pests are

mainland species (47).

Like goats and pigs, many other present-day

pest species were deliberate, well-intentioned

introductions in the past (table 8-2). Several

plants originally brought in for agricultural or

ornamental purposes have become extremely

invasive, as in the case of strawberry guava

(Psidium cattleianum) or bananapoka (Passiflora

mollissima). Some animals brought in to control

other pests became problems themselves. The

Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), introduced via Jamaica in the 1880s, was supposed

to control rats in sugar cane fields, but has come

to prey on birds, including the Hawaiian goose

(nene, the State bird) (Branta sandvicensis), and
Table 8-2—Significant Non-Indigenous Pest Species in Hawaii

Date

Species Origin introduced Reason Impacts

Pig (Sus scrofa) Europe 1778 Gift, food Damages crops; degrades natural habitats by foraging,

trampling; spreads alien plants; causes erosion, harming

watersheds

Goat (Capra hircus) Europe 1778 Gift, food Degrades natural habitat by foraging, trampling; spreads alien

plants; causes erosion, harming watersheds

Myna bird (Acridotheres tristis) India 1865 Control armyworm Spreads alien plants; damages crops; spreads avifaunal

in pastures diseases

Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Southern Eurasia 1959 Control insect pests Damages crops, aquiculture; airport hazard; preys on

Africa on cattle indigenous waterbird chicks

“Trifly” Widespread Accidental $300 million in lost produce markets; $3.5 million in damaged

produce; $1 million in postharvest treatment in 1989

Melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae) 1895

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 1907

capitata)

Oriental fruit fly (D. dorsalis) 1945

Strawberry guava (Psidiurn Brazil 1825 Cultivated for fruit Forms a thicket shading out indigenous plants; fruit attracts

Cattleianum) pigs; crowds out cattle forage; serves as primary host to

oriental fruit fly

Koster’s curse (Clidemia hirta) Tropical America pre-1 941 Possibly for erosion Highly invasive, forming a thicket in forest understory; 80,000

control acres affected

Banana poka (Passiflora Andes pre-1921 Ornamental Heavy vines damage indigenous trees; alters forest

mollissima) understory; 100,000 acres affected

Fountain grass (Pennisetum Africa early 1900s Ornamental Invades bare lava flows, natural areas, rangelands; provides

setaceum) fuel for damaging wildfires and is spread by fire

Fire tree (Myrica fava) Azores, pre-1900 Ornamental, or for Invades natural areas to forma dense stand, obliterating

Canary Islands fruit (wine) or indigenous ground cover; upsets nitrogen balance in soils,

firewood encouraging other weeds; attracts pigs

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

g

s

DY-.

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

at least seven other endangered species. The rosy

snail (Euglandina rosea) from Florida was introduced in 1955 to prey on a non-indigenous pest,

the African giant snail (Achatina fulica), but is

widely believed to have also hunted many of the

endemic snails to extinction (55).

Today organisms brought in for biological

control are more rigorously screened to avoid

nontarget effects; ‘‘no purposely introduced species, approved for release in the past 21 years, has

been recorded to attack any native or other

desirable species” in Hawaii (40). Other scientists, however, question whether monitoring adequately assesses other important impacts, such as

competition with indigenous species (55). Still,

most new problem species today are believed to

be the result of accidental or smuggled introductions.

The rate of MS establishment nevertheless

remains high, About five new plant species per

year have become established during the 20th

century (133), For the 50-year period from 1937

to 1987, Hawaii received an average of 18 new

insect and other arthropod species annually (6,

48)----more than a million times the natural rate

and almost twice the number absorbed each year

by North America (77). Since the mid- 1940s, the

annual rate for this fairly well-documented group

has been highly variable (see also ch. 3)--ranging

from at least 35 new species in 1945 and 1977 to

10 or fewer in 1957 and the beginning of the

1990s (86). It has been suggested that some of the

upsurges may be related to wartime activities at

the ends of World War II and the Vietnam War

(6). Annually about three of Hawaii’s new arthropod species turn out to be economic pests (7).

STATE OF INDIGENOUS SPECIES

The impact of the high rate of biological

invasions in Hawaii is partly reflected in the

extreme numbers of its extinct and threatened or

endangered indigenous species (table 8-1). Some

of the best evidence of extinction by MS comes

from Hawaii, as in the case of the rosy snail (ch.

2). Although habitat destruction was probably the

greater force behind extinctions in the past, today

MS, through predation and competition, are often

considered to be the main threat because they can

invade parks and other natural areas protected

from development (128).

Hawaii has been described as the 50th State but

first in terms of biological imperilment. It occupies only 0.2 percent of U.S. land area-the fourth

smallest State—but takes up disproportionate

space on the Federal Endangered Species List:

about a third of the plants and birds listed or being

considered for listing belong to Hawaii,

Much of the unique plant and animal life is

already gone. Of all the plants and birds known to

have gone extinct in the United States, two-thirds

are from Hawaii (128).

Hawaii’s spectacular bird life has been the

most visibly diminished. Half of the original bird

species, including all of the flightless birds, are

known only from skeletal remains. Polynesians

and their animals probably hunted the birds to

extinction, or ensured their demise by clearing

their habitat. About a dozen additional species are

thought to have gone extinct since Cook’s arrival.

Most of the remaining birds are either threatened

or endangered (table 8-l), accounting for the

greatest known concentration of endangered birds

in the world,

At least a tenth of Hawaii’s plant species are

already extinct, and about 30 percent of the

remaining species are considered threatened or

endangered (129); some botanists say as many as

half may be at risk. The indigenous insects and

other life forms are too poorly known to allow an

assessment of their status, but experts believe

they have been similarly affected (table 8-l). At

least half of Hawaii’s distinctive land snails, for

example, are thought to be extinct, while the

remaining species are probably all threatened or

endangered, in large part because of the imported

rosy snail (43,54).

Because islands are especially vulnerable to

biological invasions, many of their indigenous

species—Hawaii’s in particular-were once

thought to be doomed to extinction. But recent
Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 239

work in ecological restoration in Hawaii has been

promising, and some biologists and conservationists now express optimism that some habitats can

recover when browsing animals, for example, are

removed (55,70).

Causes and Consequences

Findings:

As a set of islands, Hawaii is unique among

the 50 States in its vulnerability to the sometimes devastating ecological impacts of NIS.

On the other hand its geographic isolation

limits the pathways for introductions and

presents unique opportunities for the design of

prevention strategies.

Hawaii’s natural areas and agriculture bear

the brunt of new species’ harmful impacts.

However, agriculture, including horticulture

and forestry, also has been a source of problem

introductions.

Few economic or noneconomic activities in

Hawaii are unaffected by or uninvolved in the

influx of NIS to the State. Specific costs incurred

because of harmful NIS, however, are available in

only some cases, (The State does not maintain

records of crop damages from pests.) Many of the

consequences of invasions, especially in natural

areas, are unquantified.

NATURAL AREAS

In Hawaii, harmful NIS have taken their

greatest toll on natural areas. Although they

produce no commodities like timber in substantial amounts, they are of value for their unique

biological diversity, for maintainingg the islands’

freshwater supply, for providing scenery and

some recreation in a tourist-dependent economy,

and as a scientific laboratory.

Hawaii is considered an unparalled site for the

study of evolution (see special issues of Bioscience, April 1988; Trends in Ecology and

Evolution, July 1987; Natural History, December

1982). The diverse indigenous species all evolved

from a small number of colonizers (table 8-1) and

Harmful non-indigenous species have taken their

greatest toll on Hawaii’s natural areas, including

Haleakala National Park.

as such have been important for understanding

how new species arise. One of the world’s most

dramatic examples of this process is Hawaii’s 600

or more species of fruit flies, a quarter of the

world’s species, all the evolutionary descendants

of one colonizing species. Similarly, a single

colonizing finch species gave rise to 40 remarkably varied species of honeycreepers.

This evolutionary proliferation of species has

endowed Hawaii with the most biological diversity per unit area in the United States (68); as such

it is a potential source of useful new biological

materials for research and development (123).

Hawaii’s endemic cotton plant (Gossypium tomentosum), for example, lacks the nectarproducing glands of other cotton species and has

been used by plant breeders to create a commercial strain that is less attractive to insect pests. A

marine coral produces a promising antitumor

compound. Only a fraction of Hawaii’s unique

species, however, have been screened for such

properties.

Many indigenous species—perhaps one-third

or more of the insects, for example-have not

even been described, prompting calls for a

thorough inventory of the remaining species and

important baseline population studies. The re-
240 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

cently signed Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery

Act2 specifies development of “actions to encourage and accelerate the identification and

classification of unidentified plant and animal

species” (sec. 605) and baseline studies (sec.

607) in Hawaii forests. The legislation also

authorizes grants for NIS control (sec. 610). The

1992 Hawaii legislature also took action3 to

establish a biological survey of the islands’

indigenous and NIS.

Natural areas that still support indigenous

species in relatively intact habitat makeup about

25 percent of Hawaii (114). These areas are

protected by the Federal Government (56 percent), the State (41 percent), and others, primarily

the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (3 percent).

The State forest reserves were established at

the beginning of this century in recognition of the

forests’ importance as watersheds (27). Early

management involved large-scale plantings of

non-indigenous trees, as well as fencing and

removal of feral goats, pigs, and other ungulates.

By rooting, browsing, and trampling, these animals destroy the vegetation that holds soil in

place, especially on steep terrains, resulting in

run-off into rivers and streams. Communities

have spent millions of dollars for water filtration

systems to deal with the contamination, siltation,

and discoloration (41).

Damage by feral ungulates is still one of two

main non-indigenous threats to forests and other

natural areas. Control of feral ungulates has been

best achieved in parts of two national parks, but

at considerable cost. Areas must be fenced off

then cleared of animals by shooting. At Haleakala

National Park (HALE), for example, 45 miles of

fencing were installed around two important

areas-including a rainforest of exceptional biological diversity-at a cost of $2.4 million,

provided by the National Park Service’s Natural

Resource Preservation Program. Maintenance of

fences—because of damage from storms, humidity, tree falls, and the like-costs an estimated

$130,000 per year (67). Fencing is also underway

at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park at a comparable cost.

Weeds constitute the second main nonindigenous threat to natural areas. About 90 of the

estimated 900 established non-indigenous plant

species in Hawaii are serious pests (109), capable

of invading undisturbed natural areas. Hawaii’s

national parks have a much greater proportion of

non-indigenous plant species than do other U.S.

national parks (65). At Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, the non-indigenous plant problem is

especially severe: 30 of the worst plant pest

species are present, 24 of which are widespread

(26). Out of 900 total plant species in the park,

two-thirds are non-indigenous. Control by hand

clearing, chemicals, or in some cases biological

agents is concentrated on portions of the park that

are especially sensitive; parkwide control is

considered impossible.

Non-indigenous insects also threaten natural

areas, by competing with or preying on indigenous species and altering pollination patterns,

although the extent of their impact is less

understood and has received less attention. Perhaps the worst of the insect pests are the predatory

Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) and western

yellow jacket (Vespula pensylvanica), which are

the subject of monitoring and control research in

the national parks.

For all natural areas, the control and management of harmful NIS consume the vast bulk of

their resource management budgets. In the case of

the two national parks, which have the most

aggressive management programs, the 1987 resource management budget was $1.8 million

(114); the 1991 budget was $1.2 million (86)

prompting concerns among managers regarding

shrinking and inconsistent funding. (Resource

management represents 40 percent of the total

park budget at HALE (66). By contrast, in the

z Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act (1992), Public Law 102-574

s H.B. 3660
Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 241

Table 8-3-Non-lndigenous Species in Hawaii: Roles of Federal and State Agencies

Federal Agencies

Treasury Department

Customs Service-inspects cargo and passengers from foreign points of origin; directs cases to USDA or FWS

Interior Department

Fish 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 Act

National Park Service—manages 2 nature parks, includes NIS control and research

Agriculture Department

Agricultural Research Service-research on pest control and eradication

Animal 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 prevent

movement of agricultural pests

● Veterinary Service-quarantines animals for rabies and other diseases

Forest Service-NIS control research

Defense Department

Military Customs inspection--inspects military transport arriving from foreign areas under Customs and APHIS authority

State Agencies

Governor’s Office

Agricultural Coordinating Committee

Department of Agriculture

Board of Agriculture

● Technical Advisory Committe-advises on plant and animal imports, based on input from five technical subcommittees

Plant Industry Division

● Plant Quarantine Branch-inspects arriving passengers and cargo to prevent entry of pests; reviews requests to import

plants and animals; regulates movement of biological material among islands; provides clearance for export of plant

material to meet quarantine standards

● Plant Pest Control Branch-carries out eradication and control of plant pests through two sections: Biological Control and

Chemical/Mechanical Control

Animal Industry Division

● inspection and Quarantine Branch-inspects animals entering Hawaii, manages animal quarantines

Department of Land and Natural Resources

Division of Forestry and Wildlife-manages State forests, natural area reserves, wildlife sanctuaries; involves watershed

protection, natural resources protection, control/eradication of pest species.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

National Park system as a whole, less than 10

percent of the budget is directed to natural

resource management, a figure OTA finds to be

low (ch. 6).) The budget for the State’s Division

of Forestry and Wildlife, which oversees Stateowned forests, natural areas, public hunting areas,

and wildlife sanctuaries (table 8-3), has been

substantially increased in recent years. In 1991, it

spent $2.8 million for pest control activities (86).

AGRICULTURE

Agriculture is Hawaii’s third largest source of

revenue-$551 million in 1991 (farmgate value)--

behind tourism and military-related spending.

Although declining in importance, sugar and

pineapple remain Hawaii’s two main agricultural

products, respectively generating about $200

million 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 States

provides the rest and represents a growth industry

for Hawaii.

All these products are derived from imported

species, and virtually all the agricultural pests

(primarily insects) are non-indigenous as well (8).

(By contrast, estimates of non-indigenous agricultural pests on the U.S. mainland range from 40

to 90 percent of all pests.) Many pests arrived in

Hawaii on agricultural material that was imported

to improve genetic stocks or to introduce new

crops. All of today’s pineapple pests, for example,

were brought in on vegetative material for propagation. The pests not only destroy crops but also

limit markets in mainland and foreign areas that

have imposed quarantines on produce from Hawaii because of the threat of new pests. This loss

of export markets is often cited as the main barrier

to the expansion of Hawaii’s diversified crops,

such as avocados (46).

The Governor’s Agriculture Coordinating Committee spent $3.8 million from 1987 to 1990 on

research to control or eliminate pest impacts on

agricultural commodities (86). The Federal Animal Damage Control (ADC) unit (table 8-3) in

Hawaii spent $181,000 (36 percent Federal funds)

in 1989 to minimize feral animal damage to

agriculture, as well as to natural resources, human

health, and property (about half of ADC’s work

involves controlling bird strike hazards at airports). Agricultural and nonagricultural damage

by non-indigenous animal pests confirmed by or

reported to ADC in 1989 amounted to $6.9

million (126).

Specific pest-control or -damage costs borne

by various types of agriculture follow. Instances

where agriculture has contributed to Hawaii’s

NIS problem are also noted. In general, about half

of Hawaiis non-indigenous established plants are

thought to have been introduced as crops or

ornamental (133).

Crops-Costs of pest control and damage are

best documented for sugar cane, Hawaii’s main

crop. Throughout its 150-year history, the sugar

cane industry has been confronted with a series of

damaging insect pests, most of which were

eventually controlled biologically. In 1904, the

sugar cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella saccharicida) from Australia was responsible for the loss

of 70,000 tons of sugar, at a cost of $25 million in

1990 prices ($350 per ton), according to the

Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association (91). By

1907, the leafhopper was subdued by several

predators imported from Australia.

The sugar cane beetle borer (Rhabdoscelus

obscurus) from New Guinea was first found in

1865 and remains an important pest of sugar cane,

Damage from the insect is exacerbated in areas

where rats are a problem, since damaged stalks

are favorable for egg laying. A study of losses at

two plantations in the 1960s estimated that borers

destroyed 2.2 percent of the crop. Industry-wide

losses from this pest amount to about 3,000 tons

of sugar per year, or about $1 million annually

(1990 prices).

Since 1985, at least four new insect pests of

sugar cane have become established in the State

(90). The lesser cornstalk borer (Ehsmopalpus

lignosellus) has exacted an estimated $9 million

in lost yields and other costs since it appeared in

1986 (124). A parasitoid from Bolivia was

established in 1991 and is now suppressing the

borer in sugar cane fields.

Chemical controls are used on weeds, which

are even more costly to the sugar cane industry

than are insect pests (91). (Chemical pesticide

manufacturers have generally not addressed the

needs of Hawaii’s agriculture, however, because

of its small size and the expense involved in

obtaining clearance for new pesticides by the

Environmental Protection Agency.) Research costs

for all types of pest control in the sugar cane

industry in recent years have approached $1

million annually (table 8-4). Development of

sugar cane resistance to recently introduced

diseases, primarily sugarcane smut and rusts,

accounts for another large portion of the industry’s research (an estimated $400,000 in 1991 and

1992).
Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 243

Table 8-4—Research Costs for Sugar Cane Pest

Control in Hawaii, 1986-1992

Pest 1986-87 1988-89 1991-92

Weeds . . . . . . . . . . $60,00 0 $214,000 $280,000

Rats . . . . . . . . . . . . $104,400 $281,000’ $232,500’

Insects . . . . . . . . . . $101,000 $224,600 $179,000

Diseases . . . . . . . . $152,700 $208,000 $172,000

Total . . . . . . . . . $418,100 $927,600 $863,500

a

incluldes $220,000 from USDA

SOURCE: Sugar industry Analyses, 1986,1988,1991.

Quarantines imposed on Hawaii’s fresh produce because of established pest species have

been a substantial cost to growers by limiting

markets. The most serious market-limiting pests

are the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), the melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae), and the

Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis)j known as the

trifly complex (box 8-A). The financial impact of

such quarantines are difficult to gauge; it has been

conservatively estimated that Hawaii’s export

market could increase by 30 percent if quarantines on tropical fruits were lifted (46).

Ranching—Hawaii’s pastures and rangelands

are vulnerable to invasions by non-indigenous

plants, such as the ornamental fountain grass

(Pennisetum setaceum), which are unpalatable

and lower livestock (primarily cattle) productivity. Grasses planted on rangelands themselves are

imported and have been plagued by such pests as

the army worm (Pseudaletia unipuncta) and grass

webworm (Herpetogramm lifsarsisalis). Since

its discovery in Kona in 1988, the highly invasive

yellow sugarcane aphid (Sipha flava) has spread

to all the islands and exacted several million

dollars in losses annually from State ranchers and

$200,000 in biological control research (124).

Seeds, grasses, and animal feed imported by

ranchers are believed to have been the avenue for

the introduction of some weeds, as in the case of

broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) (27), an

invasive North American grass that is adapted to

fire. Many sugar cane weeds are believed to have

arrived in imported rangeland materials (91).

Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum), a rangeland cover imported from Africa, has itself

become a weed in natural areas (109). Finally,

browsing cattle have been a destructive force in

natural forests and other habitats (27).

Ornamentals—The ornamental plant and floral industry in Hawaii has grown in recent years,

although it too has been limited by quarantines on

specific fresh products. Based predominantly on

NIS, the industry has also been affected by new

diseases and pests. A bacterial blight was responsible for a drop in revenues from anthuriums

(Anthurium spp.), a shiny, brilliantly colored

flower from Central America, and a lucrative

commodity for the State ($8 million in 1988, the

sixth largest crop). A sample of some 50 farms

lost $5.5 million in 1987 revenue and $1.6 million

in 1989 revenue because of the disease (124).

Two non-indigenous birds, the red-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) and the red-whiskered

bulbul (P. cafer), are responsible for significant

damage to orchids, a leading product in the cut

flower industry, as well as to fruits and other

horticultural products. In 1989 the total cost of

damaged orchids on Oahu, the only island to be

invaded thus far, was $300,000 (46). Indigenous

to India and prohibited from entry by State law,

bulbuls probably were smuggled into Hawaii as

pets, which then escaped or were released in the

mid- 1960s.

In turn, horticultural activities have been responsible for much of Hawaii’s non-indigenous

plant problem. Several hundred non-indigenous

plants introduced for landscaping or cultivation

have escaped and become established (138).

One of Hawaii’s worst weeds, the banana poka,

a pink-flowered vine, was introduced as an

ornamental early in this century and today infests

about 100,000 acres of forest. It is notolious for

engulfing indigenous trees, killing them or breaking branches and altering the understory. About

$1 million in State and Federal funds was spent

between 1981 and 1991 on research for the

biocontrol of banana poka and Koster’s curse
244 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 8-A-Costs of Hawaii’s Major Fruit Fly Pests and Their Eradication

Three of Hawaii’s insect pests-the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) (Cetatitis capitata), the Oriental fruit

fly (Dacus dorsalis), and the melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae)- were responsible for $300 million in lost markets in

1989, according to the Hawaii Agricultural Alliance. In addition, the so-called trifly complex cost $3.5 million in

damaged produce and $1 miilion in fumigation of other postharvest treatments. The triflycomplex has “imposed

strong constraints on the development and diversification of agriculture in Hawaii and has provided a large

reservoir for the unwanted and increasingly frequent introduction of fruit flies into the mainland United States and

other areas of the world viacontrabandfruit,” accordingtothe Agricultural Research Service. Consequently, ARS

is conducting a series oftechnology demonstration tests to help determine the feasibility of statewide eradication

of the fruit fly pests.

The three flies became established in Hawaii beginning with the melon fly in 1895, the medfly in 1907, and

the oriental fruit fly in 1945. Their establishment was aided by the spread in Hawaii of non-indigenous plants that

serve as host plants for the pests. The medfly alone—considered one of the world’s worst agricultural

pests-infests 250 fruit and vegetable crops. A 1980-1982 effort to eliminate the medfly from seven California

counties 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 eradication

project in Hawaii, as well as of the inspection of first-class mail from Hawaii, since the islands are assumed to be

a major source of medfly arrivals in California But preliminary DNAanalysis of medflies trapped in California during

its 1989 and 1991 infestations indicates the flies very Iikely did notcome from Hawaii; genetically they resemble

medflies from Argentina and Guatemala While the finding does not rule out the possibility that Hawaii may be a

source of medfly introductions in the future, it also raises the possibility that Hawaii’s role in medfly introductions

to the mainland maybe overemphasized. Additional genetic studies should help clarify where new infestations are

coming 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, is

attemptingto eradicate a large established medfly population on the island of Kauai through the release of sterile

insects, although noeradication has been achieved with this technique alone; traps with lures and the insecticide

malathion are expected to have to be used against the more abundant oriental fruit fly and melon fly. Demonstration

projects for eradication of these fruit fly species are scheduled to run into the next century, at which point the

decision 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 the

diverse endemic fruit flypopulations in Hawaii, given the likely use ofinsecticide. Objections have also been raised

over 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’s

inspection and quarantine efforts are substantially improved. The Malaysian fruit fly (Bactrocera latifrons), which

is 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 Fruit

and Vegetabb Reaearoh Laboratory, “1. ARS Perspective for Fruit Fly Eradication in Hawaii and PilotT=t Raquirementsfor f)emonstration

of 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 be8-2); additional sums are spent by public and come problems in natural areas are the fire tree

private groups in pulling weeds or applying (Myrica fava), fountain grass (table 8-2), and

herbicide. A 2-year poka eradication effort on other grasses. In some cases, botanic gardens

Maui 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 245

example, the velvet tree (Miconia calvescens), an

incipient invader described as the botanical equivalent of rabbits, probably escaped from a private

botanic garden.

Figure 8-l—Perceived Importance of Pathways

in the Introduction of Insect Pests and Illegal

Animals in Hawaii

60/0

TOURISM

The large volume of traffic associated with

tourism is often cited as a factor behind the influx

of harmful NIS to the islands. At the same time,

the $9.9 billion visitor industry (in 1991) is the

State’s biggest source of revenue and largest

employer. Consequently, some observers believe

there has been resistance in Hawaii to implementing controls that may be perceived as deterring

visitors.

The number of visitors in 1990 was 6.9 million,

according to the Hawaii Visitors Bureau, an

increase of about 50 percent from 1980. Most of

the visitors are from the U.S. mainland and

Canada, especially the West Coast, with an

increasing number from Japan. The remainder

come from other countries in Asia and western

Europe (78).

According to an opinion survey of State

agriculture inspectors, airline passengers are

thought to be the most common pathway for

insect pests and illegal animals to be introduced,

on undeclared plants hidden in carry-on or

checked baggage (49) (figure 8-l). For domestic

arrivals, this pathway may become less important

if a 1992 State law is well enforced. Previously,

the State’s agricultural declaration process was

easily bypassed; the law now requires all passengers to fill out a declaration form, with increased

penalties for bringing in prohibited organisms.

Development catering to the large number of

visitors may also contribute to the NIS problem

by disturbing natural habitats, providing inroads

for invasive species. Unauthorized importations

of grass materials for golf courses are thought to

be the inadvertent avenue for the recent increase

in the number of introductions of sugar cane (also

a grass) and rangeland pests (91,124). The yellow

sugarcane aphid, for example, was first found in

1988 near a new golf course development.

13“/0

~ Domestic airline passengers

m First-class mail

➤ ] Cargo

~ Military

~. Foreign arrivals

_ Private boats, planes

SOURCE: Based on an opinion survey of State agriculture inspectors

in the Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, “Report to

the 15th Legislature, 1989 Regular Session.”

Many observers point out that Hawaii’s tourism depends on the unique natural beauty of the

islands and that it would be harmed if the

indigenous natural resources are further diminished by harmful NIS (12,78). But there is also

said to be little emphasis within the visitor

industry on ecotourism or the distinctiveness of

Hawaii’s indigenous plant and animal life (109,113).

Resorts and residences are typically landscaped

with tropical plants from around the world:

bougainvillea (Bougainvillea buttiana) (from Central America); bird-of-paradise flower (Strelitzia

reginae) (from Africa); palms from other tropical

areas. Even the traditional Hawaiian lei is usually

made with non-indigenous plants.
246 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

MILITARY

Defense spending accounts for about $2 billion, or 10 percent, of State revenues, the second

largest share. The military is also believed to be

a significant contributor of new introductions to

the State and among the islands (figure 8-1)

because of the large volume of traffic associated

with it. Military personnel traveling from Fiji may

have been responsible for the introduction of

bulbuls, for example (135).

Military transport in recent years is thought to

have been responsible for bringing in from Guam

one of the most serious non-indigenous pest

threats to Hawaii, the brown tree snake (Boiga

irregulars). Although the snakes were dead or

seized, the possibility of their introduction remains a serious concern (box 8-B), especially

with the relocation of military personnel from

closed bases in the Philippines to Singapore and

Guam. Traffic between Guam and

projected to increase accordingly (1 1).

OTHER SECTORS

Two additional groups are often high

-lawaii is

ighted for

their impact on the NIS problem in Hawaii: sport

hunters and pet keepers.

Sport hunting—All of the legally hunted

game birds and mammals in Hawaii are introduced, and the maintenance of these populations—

including feral ungulates-has often conflicted

with conservation of natural areas. Negative

impacts on natural areas have been documented

for many of the game species (27). The kalij

pheasant (Lophura leucomelana), for example,

feeds on and disperses the seeds of the invasive

banana poka, enhancing its spread. Game and

other non-indigenous birds are also the source of

introduced diseases afflicting indigenous birds

(131). On the other hand, sport hunting provides

the State with one means of reducing feral

ungulates and generates almost $100,000 annually from the sale of licenses (51).

The conflict may have peaked in 1988, when a

Federal court found that the State Department of

Land and Natural Resources had “demonstrated

susceptibility” to hunters by not protecting the

habitat of one of Hawaii’s endangered birds, the

palila (Loxioides bailleui), from destruction by

feral goats and sheep (120). Under the ruling, the

State was required to remove the animals from the

palila’s habitat (see ch. 7). More recently, the

State has begun to address the issue of feral

ungulate removal from other especially sensitive

natural areas (86).

Pet trade-Animals escaped from their cages

or dumped by their owners are a common source

of vertebrate introductions today, particularly of

birds and reptiles (80). Several species of aquarium fish have also found their way into Hawaii’s

streams (71). According to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, about 22,000 birds from U.S.

and foreign sources were imported in 1989,

primarily for pet stores. They also sell thousands

of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) each year.

In October 1989, a resident released six unwanted rabbits at Haleakala National Park. Feral

rabbits can severely damage indigenous plants

and birds (by attracting predators), and the

rabbits’ eradication became the park’s top priority

once the population was discovered. By May

1991, 100 rabbits had been snared, shot, or

trapped. The emergency eradication cost $15,000

(National Park money) (66). Although the rabbits

were considered eradicated in 1992, future releases of escaped pets are expected to be a

recurring problem, with no Federal, State, or

island agency mandated to prevent rabbits from

establishing (67).

Searching for Solutions

Finding:

Hawaii’s geographic isolation makes it the

state most in need of a comprehensive policy to

address NIS—virtually a separate “national”

policy with its own programs and resources.

The greatest challenge is to coordinate this

need 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 247

Box 8-B—The Potential Invasion and Impact of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii

The brown tree snake has been singled out as one of the more serious-and perhaps imminent-new

biological 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 has

been 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 only

one small, blind, wormlike snake species) and consequently lack the protective behaviors of other birds. They were

easy prey for the bird- and egg-eating brown tree snake when it arrived sometime around 1950. Of 11 species

of indigenous forest birds present in 194&some of which were unique to the island-9 have gone extinct on

Guam. The remaining species have been drastically reduced. Experts attribute the extinctions and declines to the

brown 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 other

ecological disturbances on Guam have facilitated the snake’s invasion of the island. With a diverse and vulnerable

prey base and no natural predators, the snake population has soared, reaching densities of 10,000 to 30,000 per

square mile.

An able climber, the brown tree snake damages power lines, frequently interrupting service and costing Guam

millions of dollars a year. Although it is not considered dangerous to human adults, it is mildly venomous and can

poison small children. During a 14-month period in Guam, 27 people were treated for snake bites at one hospital

emergency 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 from

Guam. “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 time

without food, and is thus able to survive for long periods in ships’ holds or cargo bays of aircraft. Finally, the broad

range of feeding habits ensures that snakes arriving in new environments will adapt to available lizard, bird, and

mammal prey species and will therefore be likely to successfully colonize [a new] island” (32). Several reports in

1992 of snake sightings on Saipan in the Marianas, a U.S. Trust Territory, have raised suspicions that the brown

tree 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 high

snake densities on Guam and t he frequent number of military and civilian flights from the island. The brown tree

snake has turned up in Hawaii at least six times between 1981 and 1991, at Honolulu International Airport, Barbers

Point 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 hours

earlier.

Pest problems are best contained by interceptions at the points of departure, and inspection of military flights

departing Guam for Hawaii (typically five per week) is said to have been tightened as awareness of the threat has

increased. Jurisdictional questions remain, however, about inspection of the 10 to 15 civilian flights per

week-whether it is a Federal, Territorial, or State (Hawaii) responsibility. Such questions have resulted in a

generally uncoordinated response to the problem.

(continued on next page)
248 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 8-B-The Potential Invasion and Impact of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii-Continued

The main vehicle for the Federal Government’s response has been a line item in the budget for the Office

of 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 earmarked

for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, to explore the use of dogs in detecting snakes. The remainder has been

disbursed to Guam; a Fish and Wildlife Service research program; and, beginning in fiscal year 1992, the Animal

Damage Control unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Also

beginning in 1992, the Department of Defense (DOD) was appropriated $1 million in new money for brown tree

snake 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 of

legislation. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPACA) of 1990,1 which focuses

on the zebra mussel, directs that a program be developed to control the snake in Guam and other areas. Two other

bills direct that the Secretary of Defense2 and the Secretary of Agriculture3 take steps to prevent the introduction

of the brown tree snake into Hawaii. In Hawaii, in addition to the federally funded airport dog teams for snake

detection, State-run SWAT teams have been established on each of the islands to respond in the event of snake

sightings.

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 perceived

in Hawaii to have been uneven and sometimes slow. A committee to carry out the NANPACA-directed activities

was not in place until 1993, and no agency has taken on the crucial task of inspecting civilian aircraft in Guam

before departure.

Ultimately, safeguarding Hawaii and the Pacific basin will depend on establishment of long-term control on

Guam. Research by the Fish and Wildlife Service is aimed at an ecological control, along with more immediate

controls such as the use of methyl bromide for fumigating cargo and the use of toxicants, baits, and traps. Costs

for the various controls that would need development have been estimated to be about $2.5 million annually over

several years.

1 poLo 101-646, WC. 1~9,

2 ~Wrtmentof 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. Government

Printing Office, 1988); J. Engbring and T.H. Fritts, “Demise of an insuiar Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake on Guam,” Transactkws oftbe

Wssterrr Section of the 144/d/ife Society, vol. 24, 196S, pp. 31-37; T.H. Fritts, personal communications to the Office of Technology

Assessment, Jan. 10, Jan. 30, and December 1992; G.R. bong and P. MoGarey, legislative asaietants to Sen. D.K Akaka, personai

communications to Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 6, 19S2, and Dec. 3,1992, respectively; P, Deiongohamps, Offioe of Territorial

and International Affairs, personal communications to Offioe of Technology Assessment, May 22 and December 1992; L Nakaharaj plant

Quarantine Manager, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, personal communication to Office of T*noiogy Assessment, Apr. 16,1992 and

June 23, 1993.

quarantines are directed at protecting main- the only State where all passengers and cargo

land agriculture and enforcing international enroute to other States (to the U.S. mainland) are

trade agreements, sometimes at the expense of subject to “preclearance activity” by Federal

Hawaii’s natural resources and agriculture. agricultural inspectors, a function of Hawaii’s

geographic isolation and a Federal quarantine

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT imposed before Hawaiian statehood. Agricultural

Hawaii’s experience with NIS is also distinc- inspection of traffic from the mainland to Hawaii,

tive in terms of Federal involvement. Hawaii is however, is for the most part left to the State; the
Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 249

nature of mainland pest problems do not meet the

existing criteria to warrant Federal inspection of

Hawaii-bound passengers and goods.

The domestic quarantine on Hawaii has in turn

led to Federal inspection of first-class mail

leaving Hawaii and a recent proposal (which

failed) to collect inspection fees from passengers

departing the State for the mainland, The Federal

intent of all these actions, along with the proposed

fruit fly eradication program (box 8-A), has been

protection of mainland agriculture. An unintended effect, however, has been creation of a

double standard, since reciprocal protective measures have not been applied to Hawaii. In 1992,

Congress took action to begin to redress this

imbalance; any changes in the system have yet to

be evaluated.

Details about the Hawaii quarantine, inspection fee, and first-class mail issues follow.

Hawaii quarantine—Passage of the Plant

Quarantine Act? led to the quarantine of Hawaii

to prevent importation of the Mediterranean fruit

fly and other agricultural pests.5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began inspecting

goods bound for the U.S. mainland in 1910 and

goods arriving in the islands from foreign ports in

1949. Hawaii’s own plant and animal quarantines

were begun before the turn of the century.

The Federal quarantine regulations stipulate

that cargo and passengers from Hawaii to the U.S.

mainland are to be inspected by USDA’s Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for

prohibited materials (fresh produce, cut flowers,

and other plant materials). Certain products are

allowed provided they are treated or handled

according to prescribed methods to kill any pests.

This preclearance activity, aimed at preventing

pests from reaching the mainland, accounts for

about 85 percent of APHIS Plant Pest Quarantine activity in Hawaii (106). Inspection of

ships and planes arriving from foreign countries

accounts for 15 percent. The division of resources

is said to be roughly proportional to the number

of domestic and foreign passengers.

APHIS inspection of foreign arrivals focuses

on federally prohibited agricultural pest species,

which in turn reflects the temperate climate that

predominates in the United States (1 10). This

policy may allow new pests into Hawaii that

could otherwise be avoided, For example, State

officials tried unsuccessfully to have a mealybug

pest (Pseudococcus elisae) of bananas declared a

federally prohibited species after it repeatedly

turned up in the mid- 1980s on bananas from

Central 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 lost

markets: California rejected shipments of cut

flowers from Hawaii because of mealybug infestation (124).

Since the State has no authority over foreign

traffic, State agricultural inspectors rely on Federal inspectors (table 8-3) for referrals in order to

intercept State-prohibited species. Cooperation

among the agencies in this regard is generally said

to be good, although neither State nor Federal

inspection staffing has kept pace with the growth

in traffic through Hawaii in recent years. Between

1971 and 1988, for example, State inspection

activities on Oahu increased by a total of 138 to

1000 percent, while staffing increased by 15

percent (49). In the last 5 years, APHIS has

received less than its requested budget, and

staffing has remained constant, although the 1992

budget allowed for an increase (52).

Over the past decade, Customs has undergone

a change in policy, from one of inspection of all

foreign arrivals to “profiling’’ —inspection of

only a fraction of arrivals-in order to facilitate

the movement of passengers. In Honolulu, which

is said to be one of the stricter ports of entry into

the United States, APHIS and Customs each

4 Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 161)

5

7 CFR Ch. III Pti 318 (Jan. 1, 1991).
250 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

manage to check about 15 percent of the international baggage passing through the airport. (A

goal is to check all of the baggage originating

from high-risk areas such as the Philippines.) In

contrast, APHIS inspects all of the baggage

bound for the mainland by x ray. Many observers

maintain that goods and people coming into

Hawaii should be as thoroughly inspected as is

mainland-bound baggage to minimize the flow of

unwanted new species into the State and, in turn,

the rest of the country.

Pests found on the U.S. mainland may be as

threatening to Hawaii as those brought in from

foreign points of origin: seven of the eight new

insect pests of grasses that have appeared in

Hawaii in the last decade occur in the continental

United States, including the economically important yellow sugarcane aphid and the lesser

cornstalk borer (124). The transit of goods and

people from Florida and the Caribbean through

the mainland to Hawaii is thought to be an

increasingly common pathway of harmful new

pests (7).

Domestic quarantine user fees-In 1991,

APHIS proposed to collect user fees from inspected passengers and vessels departing Hawaii

for the mainland. The user fee, of $2 per

passenger, was intended to cover the cost of

agricultural inspections,6 in order to meet deficit

reduction goals. The fee would have been similar

to the fees collected by U.S. Customs and

Immigration and Naturalization services.

But the fee was interpreted as a “tourist tax”

that discriminated against Hawaii, being the only

State subject to domestic agricultural quarantine

and inspection activities. After the rule had been

made final,7 the Hawaii congressional delegation

took the unusual step of inserting a provision in

the 1992 Federal budget that prohibits such

domestic inspection user fees (45). Again, the

proposed action was seen as benefiting the

PROTECT HAWAll’ S

AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

FROM UNWELCOME VISITORS

A Guide for People Importing Plants & Animals

into Hawaii or Exporting Plants from Hawaii

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Plant Quarantine Branch

Plant Industry Division

Inspections offoreign arrivals are intended to

intercept harmful non-indigenous species, while

educational materials are often aimed at decreasing

the number that reach inspection stations.

6 56 Federal Register 8148 (Feb. 27, 1991).

7 58 Federal Register 18496 (Apr. 23, 1991).
Chapter 8-Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 2 5 1

mainland at the expense of Hawaii’s tourists and

residents.

First-class mail—First-class mail and express

mail delivery services have been identified as an

important pathway for the introduction of new

pests to Hawaii (figure 8-l). Plant material mailed

into the State is possibly responsible for the

introduction of the large number of whiteflies

established in the last 25 years, since these pests

can only be transported long distances on living

plants (7). Similarly, prohibited seeds, plants,

fruits, other insects, and small animals have all

made their way into Hawaii through the mail,

Prohibited materials have been intercepted

only when suspicious packages were noticed and

the State informed, since domestic first-class mail

is federally protected from inspection. (Foreign

mail may be inspected.) Congress, however,

following passage of the Agricultural Quarantine

Enforcement Act,8 which prohibits mailing of

quarantined agricultural material, authorized a

trial frost-class mail inspection program in Hawaii, but only of pieces departing for the mainland. The intent was to determine if fruit flies

were arriving on the mainland through domestic

first-class mail.

The trial program, originally proposed to run

for 60 days at a cost of $30,000 in USDA funds,

involved use of an APHIS dog at the main

Honolulu post office to sniff parcels for any

biological material. Reportable fruit flies, the

target of the program, and other insect pests were

found on produce seized from 130 parcels (94),

most of which were bound for California, Oregon,

or Washington. According to another report on

the program, fruit flies were found in 29 of the 2

million packages processed between June and

October 1990; five contained the Mediterranean

fruit fly. The report concluded that frost-class

domestic mail from Hawaii is a means of transport for the medfly larvae, ‘‘but that the rates are

low” (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-way

inspection was again perceived as discriminatory

in Hawaii, given the importance of frost-class mail

as a pathway for introduction to the islands (93).

Consequently, legislation readdressing the issue

for Hawaii was introduced and signed in 1992.

The Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement

Act9 is intended to prevent the introduction of

new pests to Hawaii through first-class mail by

allowing inspection of incoming parcels as well.

With each of these issues, the historical lack of

reciprocal protection for Hawaii’s agriculture and

especially for the large number of federally listed

endangered species has created the perception of

a Federal bias, with the $17 billion California

agriculture industry seen as the primary beneficiary. It is frequently observed as well that the

growing national interest in conserving tropical

forests in the developing world should be extended to U.S. tropical forests—namely, those in

Hawaii (2,85).

A greater Federal role in protecting Hawaii

from new damaging introductions may also be

warranted because of the large military presence

in the State. All military arrivals from foreign

ports, as well as military departures for the

mainland, are inspected in Hawaii under the

authority of Customs and APHIS. Military customs inspectors collaborate with APHIS on foreign arrivals and routinely spray plane cabins

with insecticide. Military arrivals from the mainland, however, are a State responsibility, and

inspections are said to be limited (49).

On the other hand, the Federal Government—

namely the National Park Service-has been

considered the most effective manager in terms of

g 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 States

preserving Hawaii’s habitats through the control

of harmful NIS (1 12,1 14).

Finding:

The National Park Service devotes considerable resources to eradicating or controlling

harmful NIS in Hawaii within and outside

park boundaries. The impact of these efforts

are limited, however, because State management on its own lands has been less aggressive.

Influx of a significant number of new species

annually, despite Hawaii’s relatively strict

system of regulating introductions, compounds

the problem.

STATE ROLE

State laws governing the entry of new plant and

animal species specify protection of agriculture,

the natural environment, and public health. Natural resources, however, are said to rank behind

agriculture and other economic issues, especially

tourism, as a priority for the State (61,108).

Comparison with other States’ spending levels

bears out this observation.

Hawaii’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife in

the Department of Land and Natural Resource,

which oversees the State-owned natural areas

(table 8-3), ranks 8th out of 50 States in terms of

the area it is responsible for (900,000 acres), but

38th in permanent staff and 45th in funding (13).

Similarly, Hawaii ranks 44th in terms of its

annual expenditures on natural resources and the

environment (0.85 percent of the State budget),

although this ranking may reflect the State’s

small size and relative lack of ‘brown’ environmental problems associated with heavily industrialized States. In per capita spending, it ranks 29th

($25.35) (10).

Hawaii spends almost $1.9 million annually on

its agricultural quarantine program, 90 percent of

which involves inspection of incoming passengers and goods and other preventive measures

(50,124). But coverage of incoming traffic to the

islands is still incomplete. A 1989 assessment by

the Hawaii Department of Agriculture estimated

that the additional cost of extra staffing and 16

x-ray units (for 16 baggage claims) to ensure complete inspection of incoming domestic baggage

alone would be about $2.25 million (49). In contrast to Federal inspection of mainland-bound baggage, which is all x rayed, State inspectors have

relied on agriculture declaration forms to bring to

light any incoming produce, plants, or animals.

Opinion differs on the efficacy of the State’s

importation and quarantine system. In one highprofile example, the importation of Christmas

trees each year, the likelihood of harmful new

insect introductions has taken a backseat to a

traditional societal demand. Because there is no

effective fumigant that does not damage the trees,

they are only visually inspected. Christmas trees

were very likely the vehicle on which yellow

jackets arrived in Hawaii, as might gypsy moths

(Lymantria dispar), according to some observers.

Other prevention efforts are improving. In

1990, State inspectors began to use beagles to

sniff baggage and cargo arriving from the mainland. Use of one portable x-ray unit for random

inspection of domestic baggage was also instituted. Penalties for smuggling in prohibited

species have been substantially increased, and the

State list of prohibited plant species is being

updated for the first time in 10 years. To emphasize protection of natural areas, the Department of

Land and Natural Resources, with the support of

environmental groups, is exploring the possibility

of creating a separate list of State-prohibited plant

species that threaten natural areas.

Many observers point out that the most costeffective approach to dealing with new pests

anywhere is to prevent their introduction (86).

Hawaii clearly needs tightened inspection and

quarantines to minimize the number of harmful

new introductions. Neither State nor Federal

efforts have been up to the task.

Harmful new introductions are expected to be

reduced once the recently authorized program for

inspection of first-class mail from the mainland to

Hawaii is in place. New pests could be further

reduced by inspection of:
Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 253

In 1990, State inspectors began using beagles to sniff

baggage and cargo for prohibited soil, agricultural

products, and other biological materials.

● all arriving domestic airline passengers and

baggage. Complete inspection by x ray or

beagles would require reconfiguration of

Honolulu’s airport, or that agricultural monitoring be made along with security checks at

the main U.S. points of departure for Hawaii.

Federal involvement in domestic arrival

inspections would require a change in APHIS's

mandate; complete inspection by the State

would require a redoubling of current efforts

and a clarified legal mandate.

● military transport arriving from the mainland, requiring increased State effort and/or

military effort or a change in APHIS’s

mandate.

● all arriving international airline passengers

and baggage. Complete inspection by x ray

or beagles would require increased APHIS

staffing and airport reconfiguration.

A more controversial option, because of objections by the public to pesticides, would involve

treating planes arriving from the Pacific region

with insecticide, since visual inspection of a plane

is not fail-safe. Such treatment was once routine

for mosquito (malaria) control.

Shortcomings exist in the State’s efforts to

control and eradicate NIS. Responsibility is

divided, depending on the type of species (insect,

plant, or other animal); whether it has an economic impact; and where the infestation is

occurring. Response to emergencies is said to be

slow for this reason. The jurisdictional difficulties

of controlling pest species on private land is a

particular problem (86).

Monitoring to detect pests before they become

too widespread to eradicate is also incomplete.

The Hawaii Department of Agriculture maintains

a program using traps, sweepings, and surveys to

detect new insect pests, but there is no clear authority for monitoring in cases like feral rabbits.

EDUCATION

Finding:

Public education is considered central to

solving problems involving NIS in Hawaii.

These efforts are better developed in Hawaii

than elsewhere in the United States.

Education is repeatedly cited as the primary

tool for enlisting the public’s cooperation in

containing the problem of harmful NIS. The state

of public understanding about the issue in Hawaii

is probably no different than anywhere else, but

the ecological repercussions of a lack of public

understanding are more severe, as in the case of

the released rabbits in Haleakala National Park.

The rabbit case also indicates how effective

public education can be. Park-generated publicity

and media attention resulted in calls from the

public about rabbit sightings. The pet owner
254 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

responsible for the release was unaware of the

rabbits’ impact and was said to be apologetic. The

incident led to a proposal to create a National Park

Service public outreach position devoted to such

issues. The idea was praised, although it did not

receive funding.

Other public and private groups in Hawaii have

begun educational campaigns related to NIS,

including the Alien Species Alert Program (ASAP)

of the Hawaii State office of the National Audubon Society; publicity about prohibitions of mailing fruits and vegetables to the mainland by the

USDA and the U.S. Postal Service; informational

outreach about indigenous species by the Division of Forestry and Wildlife; and the Bishop Museum’s Ohia project (named for a common indigenous tree), a grade school curriculum designed to

increase understanding of Hawaii’s ecology.

In February 1992, the Hawaii Department of

Agriculture publicized a l-week amnesty program encouraging residents to turn in illegal

animals. The campaign netted 53 animals, including snakes, other reptiles and amphibians, harvester ants, hamsters, and birds (82).

The traveling public is singled out as an important target for educators. As one botanist puts it:

“Tourists come for the scenery, but unless

they’ve been educated, they won’t care if the

plants are native or not, just as long as the hills are

green. There has been little effort to inform

visitors of Hawaii’s NIS problem by posters,

amnesty buckets, or other means upon arrival,

although a State-funded educational video began

to be shown on flights of a few domestic carriers

in 1992.

The brief video (“It Came From Beyond”)

takes a decidedly friendly approach to informing

visitors about NIS and is expected to reduce the

number of ‘‘innocent’ introductions; some observers believe a stern approach emphasizing the

law with its steep fines and penalties is necessary

to reduce the potentially more harmful flow of

smuggled species, which are probably more

commonly brought in by residents with commercial or hobby interests.

Educational efforts in Hawaii also need to be

developed and targeted to the State’s diverse

cultural and ethnic groups. An edible gourdproducing vine (Coccinia grandis) that has recently become a weed in Hawaii might have been

intentionally brought in as a delicacy from

Southeast Asia, for example.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS

Finding:

In recent years, various groups in Hawaii—

from State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, agriculture, and universities—have taken a strong interest in NIS.

Increasingly, they view harmful NIS as a

unifying threat.

Awareness of the widespread impact of damaging NIS in Hawaii has prompted a high degree of

cooperation across diverse groups. One such

effort involves an interagency agreement to

research the biological control of forest weeds, an

area that no agency was adequately addressing

despite the spread of weeds like banana poka. The

agreement involves the National Park Service;

U.S. Forest Service; Hawaii’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture; and the University of Hawaii.

There is growing interest in Hawaii in expanding interagency cooperation to address the larger

jurisdictional and informational gaps in the present system. Most of the agencies involved are

supporting a plan by the Nature Conservancy of

Hawaii and the Natural Resources Defense Council on improving interagency cooperation (86)

(box 8-C). A single interagency system may

prove more effective for Hawaii’s particular

needs than applying stop-gap measures to the

existing approach.

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN FLORIDA

Finding:

The problems caused by non-indigenous

species (NIS) in Florida are among the most

severe in the United States. Certain features of
Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 255

Box 8-C-A View From Hawaii: Recommendations of the Nature Conservancy and

Natural Resources Defense Council

In 1992, the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural Resources Defense Council released a detailed

analysis of the “alien pest species invasion in Hawaii” and offered a plan to create a coordinated multiagency

response to the problems, to be led by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. It does not, however, advocate

centralizing all inspection or other activities under one agency. The report stresses public education and

involvement 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 and

shipping 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 meet

a standard of pest interceptions.

● Statutes, policy, and rules. Conflicts and gaps in authority should be identified and resolved. A clear system

for allowing and prohibiting species should be created.

. Rapid response. Specific plans for dealing with new infestations should be created, including central

reporting mechanisms, staffing and equipment concerns, contingency funding, and identification of priority

pests.

● Statewide control. Federal, State, and private groups should collaborate in developing strategies to isolate

or eradicate selected major pests.

The report further identifies several long-range needs, namely, joint training among agencies for inspection

and response activities, coordinated information systems, coordinated research for prevention and control

methods, and expanded public awareness campaigns. The pest prevention and control systems of New Zealand

and 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: the National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve,

subtropical climate; major ports of entry;

burgeoning pet, aquarium, and ornamental

plant industries; high rates of human immigration; increasing urbanization; and extensive environmental manipulation.

 The Nature of the Problem

Florida is renowned for its mild climate,

abundant waterways, beaches, and other natural

attractions. Its freshwater lakes and streams

afford recreation, navigation, commercial fishing,

and wildlife habitat (57). Its major forest types,

various mixtures of oak and pine (22), are crucial

for wildlife as well as timber. South Florida

contains one of the largest complexes of preserved ecosystems in the eastern United States,

totaling about 3,500 square miles: Everglades

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and Fakahatchee Strand Preserve (figure 8-2).

South Florida also contains troublesome infestations of several aggressive non-indigenous

plants, most of which were deliberately introduced (30). The State has approximately 925

established non-indigenous plant species (130).

Non-indigenous plants and land mammals constitute about 25 percent of all species in the State

(table 8-5). Sixty-three percent of the introduced

non-indigenous bird species in the continental

United States are found in Florida (l), which also

has the largest number of established nonindigenous amphibian and reptile species in the

United States (136).

Non-indigenous species cause severe ecological, economic, and resource management prob-
256 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figure 8-2—Protected Areas in Southern Florida

. c, , ,,.,/. T-@l

. . S% \> ‘0.,s,,.,.

Beach

.

WCA

2B

. ti~Miami ;:~; /Acquisition Area

d

Biscayne

,.-. . . . . . . . ,, ~ay

:.‘:::”: . ., !:O- ~

. . . . . . . . . . . Homestead

f

7

, Florida Bay

\

Al ‘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 257

Table 8-5-Estimated Numbers of

Non-Indigenous Species in Florida

Group Established NIS Total species

Plants. . . . . . . . . . .

Insects . . . . . . . . . .

Freshwater snails .

Land snails . . . . . .

Freshwater fish . . .

Amphibians , . . . . .

Reptiles . . . . . . . . .

Birds . . . . . . . . . . .

Land mammals . . .

3,450

271

6

40

19“

3

22

11b 

17

98

140

80

55

100

607’

70

a D~crib~ as “estab~ish~” and including one transplant; 4 other

species are “possibly established,” 9are “formerly reproducing,” and

41 are “collected w“thout evidence of reproduction.”

b Aithough on~ 11 are considered established, at least 140 have ben

classified 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 of

Florida, Parts 1,2,3 (Miami, FL: Windward Publishers Inc., 1981, 1985,

1888); J.H. Frank and E.D. McCoy, ‘The Immigration of Insects to

Florida, With A Tabulation of Records Published Since 1970,” Flor@a

Entorrro/ogist, vol. 75, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-28; J.N. Layne, Checklist of

Recent Florida Mammals, MS, 1987, 10 pp.; W.B. Robertson, Jr. and

G.E. Woolfenden, Florida Bkd Species: An Annotated Usf, Special

Publication No. 6 of the Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville,

Florida, 1992, 260 pp.; P.L. Shafland, “Management of Introduced

Freshwater Fishes In Florida,” Proceedings of the 1990 Invitational

Symposium/Workshop: New Directions in Research, Management and

Conservation of Hawaiian Stream Ecosystems, Hawaii Dept. of Natural

Resources, 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, personal

communication, May 27, 1992; D.B. Ward, “How Many Plant Spedes

Are 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 impacts

on fishing and water sports and have degraded

wildlife habitat, decreased biological diversity,

and altered natural ecosystems. Future harmful

effects on agriculture and human health can be

anticipated from continued immigrations of insects and plant pathogens (39), as well as continued range expansion of established NIS (81).

Disturbed areas-construction sites, abandoned

farm land, drained or stressed wetlands, roadsides, and canals and ditches—are often the sites

where NIS gain footholds and eventually become

established. In such areas NIS often displace

indigenous forms, thus altering ecosystem dynamics. Debate persists as to whether NIS become established by actively out-competing and

displacing indigenous species even in undisturbed areas or whether they primarily colonize

disturbed habitats that are no longer optimum

sites for indigenous species. In many south

Florida urban and suburban sites, a lizard, the

invasive Cuban brown anole (Anolis sagrei) has

out-competed, and thereby replaced, the indigenous green anole (Anolis carolinensis) (136).

Undisturbed areas are difficult for many NIS to

colonize, but most of Florida’s natural areas and

waterways have experienced disturbance in some

varying degrees, thus making them prone to NIS

invasions (35,8 1).

Other conditions in Florida favor the introduction and establishment of NIS. The State has a

subtropical climate and prolonged growing season; abundant freshwater resources; large and

growing industries of aquiculture, ornamental

and nursery plants, and the pet trade; a thriving

tourist industry; and cargo flights originating in

Central and South America (102).

● Subtropical Climate. Florida’s subtropical

climate is attractive to people and to certain

industries, such as those dealing with ornamental and aquarium plants. The climate is moderated by large bodies of water on three sides.

Furthermore, Florida is as close to the equator

as is any conterminous State, so that most of it

is in the humid subtropical climatic zone; the

southern tip, from approximately Lake Okeechobee southward, is tropical savanna, the only

such zone in the United States (22). Areas in

this last zone are always hot, with alternate dry

and wet seasons.

The State has an average annual maximum

temperature of 82 degrees F and an average

annual minimum temperature of 63 degrees F

(137). Winter temperatures (40 degrees F and

lower), especially in south-central Florida, probably limit the northward dispersal of many NIS

(100,103,136). Florida is one of the wettest

States, with an average annual rainfall of 53
258 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

inches (60 or more inches in southeastern and

panhandle parts). This climate is conducive to

the establishment of many NIS of tropical

origin. Florida is also subject to tropical

weather systems, such as 1992’s Hurricane

Andrew, which can facilitate the spread of NIS

through disturbance (box 8-D).

Routes of Entry. Florida has numerous pathways of entry for NIS. Large numbers of plants

(333 million in 1990) and animals pass through

Miami International Airport each year, the

shipments originating chiefly in Latin America; 85 percent of all plant shipments into the

United States pass through the Miami Inspection Station (118). The shipments are destined

for a great variety of ornamental, nursery, and

landscaping businesses; the aquarium industry;

and commercial pet trade. This influx of NIS

sets the stage for potential escapes and unintentional and intentional releases.

Unintentional releases and escapes from

animal dealers, aquiculture, subsequent purchasers, public and private collections, and

tourist attractions have been documented (92,95).

Specific examples of harmful or potentially

harmful species are the African giant snail

(Achatina fulica) (1 11), cane toad (Bufo marinus) (136), and monk parakeet (Myiopsitta

monachus) (95).

Deliberate introductions for sport, biological

control, food, pharmaceutical material or dyestuffs, ornamental uses, and aesthetics are also

well known in Florida (98). In the 1800s and

early 1900s, botanist David Fairchild imported

large volumes of non-indigenous plants into

Florida (96). Since 1900, the most disastrous

deliberate introduction has been that of melaleuca

(Melaleuca quinquenervia), a fast-growing tree

brought in to dry out the swamplands of south

Florida. Another tree, Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), introduced for its showy

foliage, is also spreading rapidly in south

Florida. At least two introduced aquatic plants

continue to cause extensive ecological and

economic damage: hydrilla (Hydrilla verticil-

●

●

lata) and the showy water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes) (97). Plant pathogens and other

stowaways have concomitantly gained entry

through importation of foodstuffs and plants on

ships or aircraft (28).

In the 19th century and as late as 1941,

several insects, such as mole crickets (Scapteriscus vicinus and S. acletus) and a variety of

beetles, probably arrived in ship ballast (96).

For most non-indigenous plants and some

animals, however, the exact path of entry into

the State is unknown.

Industries Dealing With NIS. Several industries have played large direct or indirect

roles in the introduction of harmful NIS into

Florida. A $1 billion woody ornamental industry continues to import large numbers of plants

for landscaping and shade. A few woody

ornamental, such as Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Brazilian pepper, have

become major pest plants in Florida (79).

Florida’s aquiculture industry is the largest of

any state; tropical fish and aquarium plants

shipped from Florida are valued at $170

million annually, according to the Florida

Tropical Fish Farms Association. Most of

Florida’s 19 non-indigenous fish species escaped from aquarium fish culture facilities

(25). The aquarium plant trade introduced

hydrilla into canals near Tampa about 1950,

and later into Miami canals and the Crystal

River (58). Pet merchants and pet owners have

been implicated in the escape of tropical birds,

reptiles, and mammals (92,122).

Human Population Growth. Florida continues

to be one of the fastest g-rowing States: its 1990

population totaled 12.9 million, an increase of

32.8 percent since 1980 (127). Population

growth over the years has increased pressure to

develop more land and to make adequate water

supplies available. Most of the natural ecosystems of south Florida have been severely

altered. The disturbed areas-urban, suburban,

and rural-have become prime sites for colonization by non-indigenous plants and animals.
Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 259

Box 8-D—Non-indigenous Species and the Effects of Hurricane Andrew

On the morning of August 24,1992, the small but intense Hurricane Andrew cut a25-mile swath across south

Florida fromt he Dade County coast westward to Monroe Count y’s west coast. Alt hough total rainfall was relatively

light (5 inches or less), maximum sustained winds were 135 to 140 miles per hour and gusts exceeded 164 miles

per hour. Estimates of property damage to urban and suburban sites reached $20 billion, thus ranking Hurricane

Andrew as among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. Natural areas were also affected. The hurricane

caused an estimated $51 million in damage at Everglades and Biscayne National Parks and Big Cypress National

Preserve.

A large number of non-indigenous animals escaped from captivity when zoos, pet stores, and tropical fish

farms were destroyed, Escapees included fish, lizards, nonvenomous snakes, birds, and primates (e.g., some 500

macaque monkeys and 20 baboons).

Based on knowledge of the ecology of non-indigenous trees in south Florida and their invasions enhanced

by two previous hurricanes (Donna in 1960 and Betsy in 1965), a significant increase in the spread of some

non-indigenous plants can be predicted fort he next few years. The hurricane spread melaleuca seeds (Melaleuca

quhquenervia) and other non-indigenous plants in its path, thus setting back years of efforts to control melaleuca

in 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 already

established in south Florida.

As a direct result of the hurricane, Florida’s Department of Natural Resources estimates that mechanical and

chemical 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 that

biological control agents be introduced as quickly as possible. For species of primary concern in the aftermath of

the hurricane-melaleuca, Australian pine (Casaurina equisetjfolia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius),

lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica), and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera)-funding for research, quarantine and

grow-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,” Biscayne

National Park, and Everglades National Pati, Draft Report, U.S. National Park Service, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 15-24, 1992; Exotic Pest Plant

Couna”/ Newsletter, vol. 2, No. 3, fall 1992; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, “Effects of Hurricane Andrew on fish and

Wildlife of South Florida: A Preliminary Assessment,” Tallahassee, FL, Sept. 25, 1992; D. Schmitz, personal communication to Offica of

Technology Assessment, Jan. 21, 1993.

Causes and Consequences aquatic plants, such as hydrilla and water

Findings:

Natural habitats, especially in south Florida, have been altered or lost by drainage and

water storage projects, urban and suburban

land development, and land reclamation for

agriculture. Harmful NIS often invade and

become established in altered ecosystems from

which they can invade surrounding areas.

Invasive NIS in the State have disrupted

navigation and recreational activities, displaced indigenous wildlife and their habitats,

and reduced biological diversity. Severe ecological and economic impacts from several

hyacinth, and trees, such as melaleuca and

Brazilian pepper, have been documented.

The most conspicuous non-indigenous plants

in Florida are aquatic weeds (e.g., water hyacinth

and hydrilla) and trees (melaleuca, Australian

pine, and Brazilian pepper). Their success is due

to their ecological characteristics as well as the

condition of the ecosystem being invaded. In

disturbed ecosystems, NIS are sometimes better

adapted than indigenous species. Aquatic plants

have clogged waterways, hindered navigation,

disrupted fishing and water sports, and smothered

natural vegetation. In drier habitats, invasive trees
260 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

have often created monoculture, displacing indigenous species, decreasing biological diversity,

and destroying wildlife habitats. Insects, pathogens, and nematodes have caused damage to

agricultural crops. Several invading plants and

insects have created public health problems.

Invasion and establishment of many nonindigenous plants and animals is closely related to

the degree of ecosystem disruption. Alterations to

accommodate water management projects, human

population growth, and agriculture have been

especially important (81 ,98).

WATER MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH FLORIDA

Water management programs in the southeastern part of the State have greatly contributed to

the spread of non-indigenous plants and fishes

(83). Waterways and marshes were among the

frost natural systems in Florida to be affected by

increasing numbers of people because of demands for irrigation, urban water supplies, and

recreation.

As early as 1907, drainage of south Florida’s

Everglades was promoted for land reclamation, to

reduce flooding, and to supply water to developing southeastern coastal cities (42). Drainage was

accelerated in the 1930s, and by 1947, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers had created the Everglades Agricultural Area and a plan for management of Everglades’ waters, thus laying the base

for the vast urban areas now found on Florida’s

southeast coast. Areas along the eastern margin of

the Everglades, critical to movement of its waters

underground, are now drained and paved.

Today, a complex network of canals, dams,

pumping stations, and levees stretches from Lake

Okeechobee to southern Dade County, just east of

Everglades National Park (119). This network—

80 percent of it federally funded and built by the

Corps of Engineers-now controls flooding and

diverts large volumes of water for agriculture and

coastal urban areas. Half the Everglades-once

occupying about 3,600 square miles, perhaps the

largest wetland in North America-is now farms,

groves, pastures, and cities. The remaining fragAltered hydrology in south Florida has been linked to

the spread of non-indigenous fish, aquatic plants, and

trees-such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia).

ments of natural communities now function so

poorly that plant and animal life suffers as water

and food supplies are diminished, distorted, and

polluted (132).

Altered hydrology in the East Everglades has

been linked to the spread of non-indigenous trees

such as melaleuca (104). This alteration of the

natural water flow has decreased populations of

nesting wading birds (92) and accelerated the

proliferation and spread of non-indigenous fishes

and aquatic plants (24,59,60,102).

Some 700,000 acres of agricultural land just

south of Lake Okeechobee-nearly two-thirds of

it in sugar cane-not only use much of south

Florida’s water, but also release run-off contaminated with nitrogen and phosphorus (105). Excessive growth of hydrilla and other plants has been

linked to this increased pollution (15).

URBANIZATION

Florida’s population in 1990 was concentrated

in three principal areas: Miami-Fort Lauderdale

(3.19 million), Tampa-St. Petersburg (2.1 million), and Orlando (1.1 million) (127). Natural

areas, such as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and

scrub communities, have been developed to

supply urban demands for house sites, municipal
.

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 1261

services, and landscaping. Many urban sites in

south Florida have become dominated by NIS,

especially ornamental plants, birds, and fishes

(23,59,122,136).

Many non-indigenous animal species are today

found chiefly or entirely in urban and suburban

areas of south Florida. Collectors, hobbyists, and

pet owners have deliberately or accidentally

released tropical fish, mammals, birds, reptiles,

and invertebrates into urban and suburban settings where they find plentiful food, breeding

sites, shelter, and a subtropical climate conducive

to growth and reproduction (25,31,72,95,136). In

cities, non-indigenous birds such as parrots have

few predators, diseases, or parasites (122). At

ports of entry, such as Miami, stowaway insects

and other invertebrates have escaped from their

imported hosts (28). The Asian tiger mosquito

(Aedes albopictus) commonly breeds in water

that collects in waste tire dumps and flower pots

in cemeteries (89).

THE SPREAD OF MELALEUCA

The last three decades have been marked by an

explosive invasion of melaleuca across south

Florida (53), where some 450,000 acres are

infested (73). In 1983, its estimated rate of spread

was 8 acres per day, but less than a decade later

the rate is estimated to be 50 acres per day. Thus,

melaleuca has the potential to invade all of south

Florida’s wetlands within the next 50 years (37).

Indigenous to Australia, melaleuca’s release

from natural competitors, predators, and disease

and its characteristics of prolific seed production

and adaptation to fire have facilitated its spread.

Its monoculture have replaced sawgrass marshes,

sloughs, forests, and other natural habitats to the

extent that melaleuca is now regarded as the most

serious threat to the integrity of all south Florida’s

natural systems (74).

Because of its proximity to the numerous

melaleuca plantings in the urban areas of the Palm

Beaches, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge

has one of the most severe infestations of

melaleuca anywhere in the Everglades. The trees

were rare in the 1960s, but by 1990, 14 percent of

the refuge was moderately to heavily infested

(36). Moderate to heavy infestations also occur in

Big Cypress National Preserve, the eastern half of

the East Everglades Acquisition area, in marshes

of Okeechobee, in large areas of Broward and

Dade counties east of the Everglades, and in an

area designated Water Conservation Area 2-B.

Equally severe problems exist on the west coast

of Florida from Charlotte Harbor to U.S. Highway

41 (74).

ECONOMIC COSTS

The various control programs for melaleuca

have been expensive. Since 1986, 2 million

melaleuca and Australian pine stems have been

treated in the East Everglades at a cost of

$287,000 for helicopter services and herbicides

(104). Mehdeuca management costs in the Big

Cypress National Preserve were $60,000 in 1989.

Costs for mechanical removal of trees range from

$500 to $2,000 per acre. Estimated melaleuca

management costs in recent years for Water

Conservation Areas 2-A, 2-B, 3 in south Florida,

and Lake Okeechobee have been nearly $1

million annually (74).

One estimate in 1991 placed the cost of

melaleuca removal in Florida at $1.3 million. For

fiscal year 1992 the estimated expenditures for

herbicide and mechanical control of melaleuca

were $720,000 in the South Florida Water Management District, $150,000 in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and $180,000 in Everglades National Park (1 17). Based on the current

rate of expansion, in one water conservation area

alone, complete eradication of melaleuca with

herbicides and mechanical removal would cost

$12.9 million over 5 years (1 17).

The benefits and costs for removal of melaleuca

have been estimated (29). The total annual

benefits, especially to tourism, of preventing a

complete infestation of melaleuca would be

$168.6 million, whereas the resulting losses in

honey production and pollination services (the

tree provides honey bees with nectar) would cost
262 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

only $15 million. Thus, eradication of melaleuca

would greatly benefit the State’s economy, according to this analysis, although some of its

assumptions may inflate the benefits (21).

Florida has experienced severe economic impacts from other NIS as well. The economic

impact of hydrilla on tourism and recreational

fishing can be staggering. For example, a study of

Orange Lake in north central Florida indicated

that the economic activity on the lake was almost

$11 million annually, but in years when hydrilla

covers the lake, these benefits are all but lost (63).

During the 1980s, statewide costs for controlling

hydrilla totaled approximately $50 million (98).

Today hydrilla is the most costly aquatic plant to

manage, with an annual expenditure of $7 million. Since 1980, management of all nonindigenous aquatic plants by State and Federal

agencies has cost $120 million (98).

Consequences to the State’s agriculture also

have been documented. The value of citrus crops

in Florida from 1955 to 1985 totaled $13.5

billion. An estimated 15 percent of the citrus was

lost 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’ origins

are not certain, experts speculate that one or both

are non-indigenous. Fire ants (Solenopsis invicta)

from South America have extensively damaged

eggplants, soybeans, and potatoes. Brazilian pepper growing in proximity to agricultural areas is

believed to support large populations of vegetabledamaging insects, especially when vegetable

crops are nearing harvest (19). In 1984, the cost of

damage and control of mole crickets in Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama was about $45

million, with most of the cost to Florida. By 1986,

the losses had risen to $77 million for turf grasses

alone (38).

From 1957 to 1991, NIS eradication and

control programs cost $31 million for citrus

canker (Xanthomas camestris pv. citri), $11

million for fire ants, and $10 million for citrus

blackfly (Aleurocanthus woglumi). In 1990 and

1991, Meditemanean fruit fly (medfly) eradication programs totaled $0.5 million, according to

the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL HEALTH

CONSEQUENCES

Many NIS have been linked to human health

problems, and an increasing number of incidents

are reported annually in the growing urban areas.

Very common trees, such as melaleuca and

Brazilian pepper, can cause contact dermatitis,

allergies, and respiratory problems. A large number of other cultivated and established plants in

Florida contain some poisonous compounds (3).

The Asian tiger mosquito, now in virtually all

Florida counties, can carry dengue fever and a

form of equine encephalitis virus (39) (ch. 10). In

addition to their agricultural impacts, nonindigenous fire ants can cause stings, allergic

reactions, and secondary infections in people.

EFFECTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIES

Non-indigenous aquatic plants are threatening

the integrity of habitats occupied by certain

endangered and threatened species in Florida.

Both water hyacinth and water lettuce (Pistia

stratiotes) can cover surface waters, thus hampering efforts of the endangered snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) to find its prey (116). Nonindigenous trees are invading habitats of the

endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis). Australian pines

have interfered with nesting of endangered and

threatened sea turtles (84); on the other hand, they

have improved nesting conditions for the American oyster catcher (Haematopus palliatus) (121).

The endangered beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma) and key deer (Odocoileus

virginianus clavium) are subject to predation by

feral cats or dogs (4). Populations of the endangered Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okatoosae)

have been reduced because of competition from

the introduced brown darter (E. edwini) (14).
Chapter 8-Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 263

CONFLICTING INTERESTS ON NON-INDIGENOUS

SPECIES

The introduction of cetiain NIS into Florida has

resulted in conflicts between agencies and user

groups. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

were introduced to control aquatic weeds (1 15),

but the carp shows a preference for important

waterfowl food plants, thus apparently causing

declines in waterfowl populations (134). Peacock

bass (Cichla spp.) were introduced to control

other non-indigenous fish and as a game fish in

southeast Florida canals (101), but the bass is

slowly reducing populations of indigenous bass

and bream (73). Perhaps the most troublesome of

the 19 non-indigenous fish species is the blue

tilapia (Tilapia aurea), introduced by the Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission as a

possible weed-control and sport fish. Blue tilapia

competes directly with indigenous fishes and is

now established in 18 Florida counties (73).

Hunters value wild hogs (Sus scrofa) as game,

and management and relocation programs are

common in Florida. Yet wild hogs have detrimental effects on terrestrial habitats and are probable

public health threats (parasites and diseases) (9).

Certain aquatic plants frequently categorized

as pest species may be beneficial for wildlife.

Despite extensive, costly efforts to control or

eradicate hydrilla, some hunters like the plant

because it is an important duck food and its mats

provide habitats for wintering waterfowl (44,57).

At least in small amounts, it is also believed to

improve sport fishing (76).

Aside from those species introduced for biological control or sport, some NIS in Florida

benefit people and wildlife. The aesthetic values

of colorful tropical birds are intangible, but are

important to urban dwellers in an otherwise less

colorful environment (92). Avid birdwatchers

travel to the Miami area to observe its nonindigenous avifauna (122). The importance of

NIS as food for indigenous wildlife is only partly

understood, but the endangered Florida panther

(Felis concolor coryi) feeds on non-indigenous

Blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea) is among the most

troublesome of Florida’s 19 non-indigenous fish

species.

wild hogs and nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus

novemcinctus), whose negative environmental

impacts have been documented (18,72).

Non-indigenous ornamental shrubs and trees

are in great demand for landscaping (because of

their showy leaves or flowers), fruit, and shade

from the intense sunlight of south Florida (79).

Many species of introduced fig trees (Ficus spp.)

line southeastern Florida’s roadsides, and Australian pines offer shade along beach fronts.

POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPACTS OF

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

Biologists and ecologists caution that many

poorly studied NIS have the potential of becoming agricultural pests, transmitting diseases, or

displacing indigenous species. Potentially serious

pests include Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical),

which is invading pine forests (81); about 20

recent insect immigrants (39); the Asiatic clam

(Corbicula manilensis) (87); catclaw mimosa

(Mimosa pigra var. pigra), a highly invasive plant

of disturbed areas; the disease-carrying Asian

tiger mosquito; and African honey bees (Apis

mellifera scutellata), predicted to be in Florida by

1994.
264 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

I Searching for Solutions

Findings:

Florida’s Exotic Pest Plant Council has

provided an effective forum for the exchange

of ideas and conflict resolution concerning

NIS. It has identified the most invasive NIS

and involved policy makers in its discussions.

Florida’s extensive problems with NIS and

its high human immigration rate suggest that

public education is vital to the management or

eradication of NIS in the State.

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

The Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) was the

first multiorganizational effort in Florida to control non-indigenous water weeds because of the

growing environmental threats posed by pest

plants that were crossing political and jurisdictional boundaries. EPPC is an organization of 40

member agencies, and local and private groups.

Through frequent meetings, a newsletter, and

other publications, EPPC promotes coordinated

efforts in developing management programs. It

also assists in writing appropriate legislation;

pushes for State and Federal funds to manage

invasive plants in wetlands and upland forests;

and organizes symposia to bring together scientists, policymakers, and the public to exchange

information and formulate plans (30).

EPPC assisted in coordinating efforts by the

National Park Service, Dade County Department

of Environmental Resource Management, South

Florida Water Management District, and the

Florida Department of Corrections to establish

and maintain a melaleuca-free buffer zone along

the eastern boundary of Everglades National Park

(the East Everglades).

Because of melaleuca’s highly invasive nature,

its control and eradication have received top

priority in the East Everglades, South Florida

Water Management District, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and other sites in south

Florida. At least three techniques are currently in

use: manual removal of seedlings and young

trees, mechanical removal of older trees, and

herbicides (62).

The future use of biological control agents has

been identified as one of the keys to effective,

long-lasting management of melaleuca (5). Major

efforts are under way to identify natural controls

for melaleuca, both in the United States and

Australia. Even after biological control agents are

identified, several years must pass before their

effectiveness can be determined. Meanwhile,

herbicidal and mechanical control will be needed

to arrest further spread of the tree (74).

Control of Australian pine and Brazilian pepper demands a combination of mechanical removal and herbicides. Hydrilla is currently managed at considerable cost with herbicides and

mechanical removal and in some cases with

sterile triploid grass carp. At one time, water

hyacinth infested more than 120,000 acres of

Florida waterways. Herbicidal and mechanical

controls have limited the plant to less than 3,000

acres in public waters (98). Three natural enemies, the bagoine weevil (Bagous affinis) and two

leaf-mining flies (Hydrellia spp.), also show

some promise in controlling hydrilla (62). Management of these and other species would benefit

from increased coordination.

Several other control and eradication projects

have been successful in Florida. In the mid- 1980s

at least 18 million young citrus trees were

destroyed to eradicate citrus canker (99). Other

species successfully eradicated include the

medfly; the giant African snail; and 13 species of

insects, viruses, and rusts, according to the

Division of Plant Industry in Florida.

LONG-TERM NEEDS

Resource managers in Florida stress that successful management and eradication programs for

existing and future problem NIS in Florida will

require an educated public along with coordination among agencies, long-range planning, and

consistent funding.

Inventories of existing harmful NIS, their

distribution, and impacts in the State are needed
Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 265

The critically endangered Florida panther (Felis

concolor coryi) and other indigenous species rely on

remnants of undisturbed habitat that are susceptible to

damage by non-indigenous species.

to develop priorities for management. Early

detection of damages enhances the probability of

success in controlling any pest (20). Because the

establishment and spread of any NIS may be due

to a lack of natural enemies, the search for

biological control agents is an important consideration.

Relatively undisturbed ecosystems in Florida

are fast disappearing and are usually represented

by small fragments of their original extent. These

areas warrant special attention to protect them

from injurious NIS. The State needs to enhance

strategies for controlling or eradicating injurious

non-indigenous animals such as wild hogs (75).

Ample evidence indicates that the existing

management of water flow through the Everglades has altered hydroperiods and contributed

to the invasion of non-indigenous trees. A new

design and management of water flow would be

needed to restore a natural water regime, one that

would protect the quality and quantity of water

feeding the Everglades (34).

Some aspects of water quality management in

the Everglades, especially those related to phosphorus, are being addressed now, In 1988, the

U.S. Department of Justice sued the Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation and the

South Florida Water Management District for not

enforcing water quality standards for water entering Everglades National Park. In July 1993, these

parties, along with agricultural interests, environmental groups, and Indian tribes, agreed to a

mediated framework for a 20-year, $465 million

restoration and clean up plan. The impact of these

efforts on harmful NIS will not be clear for some

time.

COORDINATED EFFORTS FOR MANAGING NIS

Centers or councils to coordinate the work of

various agencies and industries could be of help

in developing and implementing effective management of harmful NIS. They might also encourage statewide resource protection, public awareness, and consistency in policies, goals, administration, and control methods, The structure and

operations of the Exotic Pest Plant Council could

be used as a model for coordinating work on

pestiferous fish and insects, for example. A

planned “Center for Excellence, ” combining

expertise from the University of Florida, Division

of Plant Industry, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, also shows promise in coordinating

biological control research and implementation in

the State, especially for agricultural crops.

FUNDING FOR RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT AND

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

Except for a few highly invasive aquatic plants

and trees, little biological and ecological information is available for most of Florida’s MS.

Equally lacking are data on natural enemies of the

species and ecological data for the ecosystem

likely to be invaded. Without the necessary

research to reveal this information, effective

programs of control, management, and eradication cannot be fully developed nor expected to be

successful.

For the most part, funding for management and

research of NIS in Florida has been piecemeal and

often inadequate for programs to achieve maximum success. For example, management pro-
266 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

grams for noxious weeds and biological control

research are said to have been underfunded and

short-term. Current quarantine facilities for biological control research are inadequate, thus

hampering efforts to control melaleuca and other

species. Development and implementation of

strategies to arrest further spread of NIS and to

decrease their environmental impacts would require consistent, adequate funding.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Florida’s continuing population growth and

tourist influx plus the magnitude of the impacts

from harmful NIS suggest that public education

and awareness programs could be intensified to

prevent new introductions. Such programs could

be targeted toward unintentional and intentional

introductions, including ornamental plants, aquarium fishes, other pets, and insects. Attempts could

be made to discourage the planting of invasive

ornamental species and to warn of the need to

control their spread. The major biological and

economic impacts of melaleuca, water hyacinth,

and hydrilla could be widely publicized to encourage support for management issues. The

importance of protecting remaining natural communities warrants emphasis, especially since

undisturbed ecosystems can serve as barriers

against the spread of NIS.

CHAPTER REVIEW

Virtually all parts of the country face problems

related to harmful NIS, but Hawaii and Florida

have been particularly hard hit. Both States have

large numbers of established NIS, constituting

significant proportions of their flora and fauna,

and including numerous high-impact species.

Many harm natural areas that are unique or

otherwise special reservoirs of the Nation’s biological heritage. Both Hawaii and Florida have

turned to cooperative, interagency mechanisms

and public education to address their particular

problems with NIS. Federal action and inaction

have sometimes hindered the States’ efforts.

Lessons learned in these States are likely to serve

well elsewhere. The situation in Hawaii and

Florida, while unusual in some ways, nevertheless heralds what other States face as numbers of

harmful NIS climb and people become more

aware of their damage.
Genetically

Engineered

Organisms as

a Special

Case 9

I

n requesting this assessment, Congress asked OTA to

compare non-indigenous species (NIS) and genetically

engineered organisms (GEOs; box 9-A)---specifically,

whether and how pre-release evaluations can reduce the

risks of unwanted introductions (41). The comparison makes

sense because the central issues for NIS and GEOs are the same,

namely, making decisions regarding intentional introductions,

devising strategies to prevent unintentional introductions, and

planning eradication and control programs should releases have

unexpected harmful effects.

Moreover, according to OTA’s definition of non-indigenous,

all GEOs are non-indigenous. OTA has defined MS to include

species beyond their natural ranges, domesticated and feral

species, and non-naturally occurring hybrids (see ch. 2, box 2-A).

Most species used in genetic engineering research today are

domesticated species and fall within this definition. When

domesticated species long cultivated in the United States are

genetically engineered and then released, they become new

varieties of these NIS. Just as the products of domestication are

non-indigenous, regardless of origin, so too are the products of

genetic engineering. Indigenous species that have been altered

via genetic engineering and introduced into the environment

become non-naturally occurring, and therefore non-indigenous,

varieties.

The overlap between GEOs and NIS goes beyond such

functional and definitional issues, however. Federal agencies

apply many of the same laws to NIS and GEOs, and some of the

same legislative gaps and ambiguities hold for both categories.

Overlap also occurs in the risk assessment procedures used for

267
268 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 9-A–What Do You Call an Organism With New Genes?

Terms Used by OTA

OTA uses the adjectives genetically engineered and transgenic to describe plants, animals, and

microorganisms modified by the insertion of genes using genetic engineering techniques. GEO is used in this

chapter as an abbreviation for “genetically engineered organism.”

Genetic engineering refers to recently developed techniques through which genes can be isolated in a

laboratory, manipulated, and then inserted stably into another organism. Gene insertion can be accomplished

mechanically, chemically, or by using biological vectors such as bacteria or viruses. The bacterium Agrobacterium

turnefaciens 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 donor

organisms 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, and

sometimes genetic material from the vector as well.

Many of the organisms being genetically engineered today are domesticated species. Domestication occurs

when organisms are selectively bred by humans for desired characteristics. The term “domesticated” often is used

in 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 Terms

Genetically modified organisms have been deliberately modified by the introduction or manipulation of

genetic material in their genomes. They include not only organisms modified by genetic engineering, but also those

modified by other techniques such as traditional breeding, chemical mutagenesis, and manipulation of sets of

chromosomes.

Biotechnology refers to the techniques, including both genetic engineering and traditional methods, used

to 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 the

Environment of Organisms with Modified Hereditary Traits,” 55 Federal Register 31118 (July 31, 1990); U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment A New 7&hno/o@a/ Era for American A@w/ture, OTA-F-474 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Offioe, August 1992).

the GEOs and NIS, although in the recent past SOURCES OF CONTROVERSY

methods have developed more rapidly for GEOs. Despite the overlap between GEOs and NIS,

This chapter takes a closer look at these two

areas-regulation and risk assessment—related

to Federal review of GEO releases. The analysis

draws heavily on the previous assessment of

Federal coverage for NIS (ch. 6) and of risks

associated with introductions (chs. 2, 3, and 4).

The chapter begins, however, with a brief discussion of why comparisons between GEOs and NIS

are sometimes controversial.

comparisons between the two can arouse strong

objections, especially among those in the executive branch charged with reviewing environmental releases of GEOs (20). Such reactions

have origins in the technical and policy issues

discussed below. They are complicated by the

historical context—the rapid development over

the past decade of Federal policies on GEOs

(table 9-1) and the continuing dialogue among

scientists, policymakers, and the public regarding

the potential benefits and risks of GEO releases.
Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 269

Table 9-1—Federal Policies and Regulations Related to the Environmental Release of GEOs Since 1984

Office of Science and Technology Policy

1992 Exercise of Federal Oversight Within Scope of Statutory Authority: Planned Introductions of Biotechnology

Products into the Environment, 57Federal Register (FR) 6753 (Policy statement,)

1990 Principles for Federal Oversight of Biotechnology: Planned Introduction into the Environment of Organisms with

Modified Hereditary Traits, 55 FR 31118 (Proposed Policy)

1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 FR 23302 (Policy Statementar?d Request for Public

Comment)

1985 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology; Establishment of the Biotechnology Science

Coordinating Committee, 50 FR 47174

1984 Proposal for a Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 49 FR 50856 (Proposed Policy)

The President’s Council on Competitiveness

1991 Report on National Biotechnology Policy (Policy Statement and Recommendations for Impementation)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

1993 Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for the introduction of Certain

Regulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status, 58 FR 17044 (Final Rule)

1992 Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for the introduction of Certain

Regulated 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 Plant

Pests 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 Which

are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe are Plant Pests, 51 FR 23352 (Proposed Rule and/Notice

of Public Hearings)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology

1990 Proposed USDA Guidelines for Research involving the Planned Introduction into the Environment of Organisms

with 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 Public

Comment)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1993 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 and

the 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, 1993

Technical Sources

Considerable controversy surrounded the first

releases of GEOs because of concerns over their

potential effects and how they should be evaluated before their release. In the absence of

experience with GEOs, some scientists argued

that experience with ‘ ‘exotic’ (i.e., nonindigenous) species might help provide guidance

(29,32). However, the comparison of GEOs to

NIS itself provoked debate,

The approach was criticized because GEOs

introduced to the same environment as the parent

non-engineered organism differ by only a few

genes. Effects of the gene changes in GEOs might

be well characterized, allowing better prediction

of how they affect the organism’s ecology. In

contrast, most NIS differ from indigenous organisms by many genes that generally are not well

characterized. Further, some comparisons of GEOs

to harmful NIS, such as kudzu (Puerario lobala)

and the sea lamprey (Petrornyzon marinus), were

alarmist, inappropriately suggesting that all GEOs

are potentially like the worst NIS.
270 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

These limitations, however, do not address the

basic similarity between the process of introducing a MS and the process of introducing a GEO.

Both involve the release of a living organism

potentially capable of reproduction, establishment, and ecological effects beyond the initial

release site (36). The specific characteristics of

the organism and the receiving environment will

determine the consequences of either type of

introduction (18,36,37), In this regard, experience

with NIS has proven quite useful in defining the

types of ecological questions that should be raised

before releasing a GEO into the environment (box

9-B) (23,37).

Policy Sources

A recurring theme in policy discussions of

GEOs has been whether effective regulation can

be accomplished under existing Federal statutes

or whether new legislation is needed (25,41,42).

For the interim, at least, this issue has been tabled

by the development of the “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology” by

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

OSTP has announced policies related to Federal regulation of biotechnology several times

since 1984 (table 9-1). General goals of these

policy statements include:

●

●

●

coordinating and streamlining Federal regulation, in part by clarifying the roles of

various agencies;

giving guidance to Federal agencies in their

regulatory approach and scope; and

ensuring such regulation adequately balances protection of human health and the

environment along with the national interest

in fostering growth of the biotechnology

industry.

An important early conclusion was that existing legislation was generally sufficient to cover

planned releases of GEOs to the environment

(25). The President’s Council on Competitiveness strongly reiterated this position in 1991:

“The Administration should oppose any efforts

to create new or modify existing regulatory structures for biotechnology through legislation’ (28).

This policy reflected, in part, a desire to support

commercial development of biotechnology by

reducing the regulatory burden on the industry

(28).

Although both proponents and critics of genetic engineering agree that Federal agencies

exercise sufficient oversight of most current GEO

releases, the adequacy of the Coordinated Framework may be challenged in the future. Certain

GEO releases may not be adequately covered by

Federal statutes. In some cases, the application of

existing statutes to genetic engineering requires

application of laws beyond their initial intent. The

result has been confusing regulations based on

convoluted interpretations of legal definitions.

It is important to note that the Coordinated

Framework is an executive branch policy and has

no explicit basis in Federal law. This imparts a

sometimes counter-productive flexibility. For example, repeated changes since 1984 in how OSTP

defined which GEOs should be regulated helped

stymie efforts by the Environmental Protection

Agency to issue regulations under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (39).

The Federal agencies that review environmental releases of GEOs have been faced with the

practical reality of regulating an activity where

political pressures are strong to allow releases,

technical information for decisionmaking is sometimes insufficient, and legislative authority imperfectly matches the problems at hand. The

procedures currently in place reflect compromises hard won over the past decade. And for the

present, at least, the system generally works. In

this light, the reluctance of regulators to revisit

debates of the past concerning the risks of GEO

releases is understandable. It may, however, leave

them unprepared for the future when technical

advances, the application of genetic engineering

to a wider array of organisms, and the move to
Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1271

Box 9-B–The Risks of Genetically Engineered Organisms:

Lessons from Non-Indigenous Species

Can 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 human

cultivation (e.g., many agricultural crops) are unlikely to become pests or harm natural ecosystems. GEOs formed

by the insertion of genes into cultivated species similarly pose little risk, unless the inserted genes affect the

organism’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 can

establish free-living populations and cause environmental or economic harm. Certain significant pests of

agriculture and natural areas are escaped crop and horticultural plants (e.g., crabgrass, Digitaria spp., and

Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicere japonica) or livestock (e.g., feral goats (Capra hircus)). NIS directly introduced

to 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, was

initially introduced for water management. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), widely introduced for aquatic

weed control, also increase water turbidity and destroy habitats of young fish. Thus, GEOs resulting from insertion

of 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 examples

include 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 (Lycopersicon

esculentum) and wild tomato (Lycopersicon pimpinnellifolium) in South America. Hybridization between crop and

weed 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 among

species. For example, although there is no evidence that genes move from carrots (Daucus carota sativa) to wild

relatives like Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) in North America, gene exchange between alfalfa (Medicago

sativa) planted for forage and wild relatives appears to be widespread.

The opportunity for hybridization also varies geographically. Most major agricultural crops lack free-living

relatives (and therefore the opportunity for hybridization) in the United States because they originated in other

areas of the world. Some exceptions are sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), clover (Trifolium

spp.), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Wild cotton (Gossypium tomentosum), which potentially might hybridize

with 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 risk

assessments. All else being equal, GEOs lacking free-living relatives in the area of release pose fewer risks. The

consequences of gene movement from GEOs to other species depend on what traits they confer. Some, like genes

affecting fruit color, pose little risk. Greater concerns center on genes that might transfer harmful traits to free-living

species. For example, much current research involves insertion of genes for herbicide resistance into crop plants

to allow control of weeds without harm to the crop. Should this trait be transferred to weedy relatives, the usefulness

of 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 Jourrral

of 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 the

Environment,” 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 States

Table 9-2—Who Regulates Which GEO Releases?

Regulated Types of approved

Agency category Authoritya

releases thus far Number

APHIS Plant pests

Veterinary biologics

EPA Pesticides

Other microbes

Federal Plant Pest Act

Plant Quarantine Act

Federal Noxious Weed Act

Virus-Serum Toxin Act

Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act

Toxic Substances Control

Act

Transgenic plants 327 contained field tests at

660 sites in 37 States

and Puerto Ricob

Live animal vaccines 25 controlled releases;

(microbes) 7 licenses for

commercial distributionc

Pesticidal microbes 42 small-scale field testsd

Pesticidal plants 3 releases of over 10 acrese

Microbes modified for 19 small-scale field

Improved detection or releasesf

enhanced nitrogen

fixation

a For full citations of Federal laws see text.

b As of @tober 1992 The flFlavrSa~~~tomato was r~entl~exempted from regulation, permitting r~uirementswere reiwed in 1993 fOr5CategOdeS

of 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 for Iarge-=aie tests of Baa”//us thurirrgiensls delta endotoxin produced in ~tton, wrn, and Potato. AS of

July 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, “Pesticidal

Tranegenic Plants: Risk Issues,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Product Development, Risk Assessment, and Data Nee& (U.S. EPA Conference

Proceedings: Nov. 6 and 7, 1990), pp. 127-132. -

commercialization of GEOs broaden the scope of

regulatory issues.

FEDERAL REGULATION OF GEO

RELEASES

Under the Coordinated Framework, two Federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversee most environmental

releases of GEOs (table 9-2).

APHIS regulates releases of GEOs for which

the donor, recipient, or vector of new genetic

material is a potential or actual plant pest (box

9-C). In the past, anyone wishing to move or

release such organisms needed to apply for a

permit certifying the action did not pose a

significant risk to agriculture or the environment.

APHIS then evaluated the ecological risks of

release by conducting an in-house environmental

assessment for each permit granted. APHIS

recently relaxed these permitting requirements

for transgenic potatoes (Solanum tuberosum),

tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), soybean (Glycine max), tobacco

(Nicotiana tabacum), and corn (Zea mays) that

fulfilled certain eligibility criteria and released

according to specified performance standards,l

These cases now require only that APHIS be

notified in advance of field trials. In practice,

APHIS has overseen releases of a wide array of

genetically engineered plants because the bacterial vector used to insert genes is itself a plant

158 Federal Register 17044 (hlaxch 31, {993)
Chapter 9—Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1273

Box 9-C-Which Categories of GEOS APHIS Regulates as “Plant Pests”1

Definition 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 and

meets the definition of a plant pest, or is an unclassified organism and/or an organism whose classification is

unknown, or any product which contains such an organism, or any other organism or product altered or produced

through genetic engineering which the Deputy Administrator determines is a plant pest or has reason to believe

is a plant pest. Excluded are recipient microorganisms which are not plant pests and which have resulted from

the addition of genetic material from a donor organism where the material is well characterized and contains only

non-coding regulatory regions.”

Taxa Listed in 340.2

Viruses (all members of groups containing plant viruses, and all other plant and insect viruses); Bacteria(13

genera; gram-negative phloem-limited bacteria associated with plant diseases; gram-negative xylem-limited

bacteria 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; members

of the genus Spiroplasma; mycopiasma-like organisms associated with plant diseases; mycopiasma-like

organisms 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—13

superfamilies; 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 any

organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing; or any infectious agents or substances, which can directly

or 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 than

the compfete genome of a plant pest and fieid releases of a set of tomatoes having aitered softening properties. The

agency 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 Genetic

Engineering 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. Department

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for

the Introduction of Certain Regulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status,” proposed rule, 57 FederdFte@ter53036 (Nov. 6,

1992).

pathogen or because plant pathogen genes have product purity, efficacy, and safety (to the envibeen inserted to promote expression of other ronment, human health, and animal health) before

inserted genes, licensing and wider distribution. APHIS has not

Uncontained uses of live animal vaccines issued specific regulations for GEOs in this

(veterinary biologics) are also regulated by APHIS. category, but has instead relied on existing

A permit is required for experimental use of a regulations for live vaccines.

vaccine, and vaccines must fulfill standards of
274 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

EPA regulates releases of genetically engineered microbes under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

2 and the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).3 Final

regulations have not yet been promulgated under

either Act for small-scale releases; consequently,

the agency is operating under interim policy. The

GEOs regulated under FIFRA are pesticideproducing microbes. Users must notice EPA

before small-scale field tests. Following notification, the agency may require submission of

materials for an Experimental Use Permit before

release. EPA also intends to regulate under

FIFRA the commercial distribution and sale of

transgenic plants engineered for pest and disease

resistance (i.e., because of the pesticidal substances they produce) (34). This category eventually is likely to include agricultural crops, ornamental plants, aquatic plants, and species for

forest and rangeland management (48).

Under TSCA, EPA regulates transgenic microbes not covered by any other statute, for

example, nitrogen-fining bacteria or microbes

used for environmental remediation. This regulation rests on extension of TSCA’s definition of

‘‘chemical substance’ to live organisms-an

interpretation that has been a source of continuing

debate and could be subject to legal challenge in

the future. Transgenic microbes constructed by

transferring genes between genera or higher

taxonomic categories are considered ‘‘new chemical substances’ under the agency’s current

policy (unless they are on the TSCA inventory).

Notification of EPA is voluntary before experimental releases, but required before full general

commercial use (6).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) historically has had a role in evaluating environmental

releases through its Recombinant DNA Advisory

Committee. However, this committee has not

reviewed any deliberate releases of GEOs since

1987 and voted in May 1991 to terminate overSeveral corporations hope to genetically engineer

insect viruses-such as the celery looper virus that

infects cabbage loopers (Trichoplusia ni) and several

other insect pests-into more potent insecticides.

view in this area that overlaps with APHIS and

EPA. The issue is now under consideration by the

director of NIH (43).

Holes in the Coordinated Framework

Finding:

Some of the same gaps in current Federal

authority and regulation that exist for NIS also

apply to GEOs under the Coordinated Framework. In the foreseeable future, commercial

development is likely to proceed for several

categories of GEOs that lack Federal or State

regulation of experimental release or commercial distribution. Similar gaps for NIS continue

to allow some ill-advised introductions resulting in economic costs or environmental harm.

Because environmental releases of GEOs currently are regulated under many of the same

statutes that cover NIS, several gaps in Federal

coverage identified by OTA for MS also apply to

GEOs. Most of the gaps raise few “real-world”

concerns at present: environmental releases of

GEOs through October 1992 primarily have been

z 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 1275

of only a few types of organisms (table 9-3).

These generally have presented relatively low

risks and are clearly covered by current Federal

oversight. However, the gaps may become increasingly important as the range of biological

origins and applications of GEOs expands over

the next 5 to 10 years. This is especially worrisome given the rapid advances in genetic engineering technologies and the growing numbers of

field releases. Between 1987 and 1991 alone,

applications to APHIS for field testing of transgenic

plants increased more than six-fold (49).

Some observers anticipate that Federal oversight under the Coordinated Framework will

evolve to fill these gaps as needs arise (6,43).

Experience with NIS has shown, in contrast, that

under the constraints of budgetary limitations,

Federal agencies sometimes hesitate to expand

their regulatory domains, even where clear needs

and authority exist (see boxes 3-A, 4-B). Moreover, statutory authority does not exist to fill

certain of these gaps. Voluntary compliance by

GEO producers—motivated by a desire to quell

public concerns—also might help limit future

problems resulting from regulatory gaps. One

Limitation may be that, as the number of releases

grows ever larger, public scrutiny of individual

releases is likely to decline, potentially decreasing the incentives for producers to seek voluntary

approval.

The following sections describe some areas

where Federal authority to review GEO releases

is lacking or ambiguous. This is not to say that

every release of a GEO in these categories

necessarily poses a risk. But these are areas where

there is no experience on which to evaluate

riskiness nor mechanisms yet in place to gain

such experience. Moreover, the track record of

harmful introductions of NIS in these same

categories suggests a need for some level of

review before GEO releases (chs. 2 and 4). These

potential limits to the Coordinated Framework

were addressed by Congress during consideration

of the Omnibus Biotechnology Act of 1990 (40).

The bill, however, was not enacted.

Table 9-3—Current and Potential Future Releases

of GEOs

GEOs Already Released In Field Experiments

Microbes:

pesticidal microbes

nitrogen-fixing microbes

marker microbes for tracking environmental dispersal

live animal vaccines

Plants:

agricultural crops (e.g., tomato (Lycopersicon

esculentum), cotton (Gossypium hirsuturn), corn

(Zea mays))

agricultural crops producing pharmaceuticals or

specialty chemicals

forage crops (e.g., alfalfa (Medlcago sativa))

trees (e.g., poplar (Populus spp.), walnut (Juglans

spp.))

Geos Currently Under Research for Future Releases

Microbes:

microbes that break down chemicals for bioremediation

Plants:

ornamental plants

plants for range management

trees for timber production

trees for urban plantings

erosion control plants

Fishes:

game fish for fisheries management

fish for aquiculture (rapid growth, disease resistance,

cold tolerance)

Invertebrate animals:

shellfish for aquaculture

crustaceans for aquaculture

nematodes (roundworms) for biological control

insects and arachnids for biological control

SOURCES: M. Fischetti, “A Feast of Gene-Splicing Down on the Fish

Farm,” -’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 Transfer

in 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 WILDLIFE

No law directly provides for Federal oversight

of interstate transport or release of genetically

engineered fish (finfish and shellfish) or wildlife.

Under the Lacey Act, controls over environmental releases of fish and game are State

functions, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
276 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Service (FWS) can play a role in limiting the

interstate transport of species listed by States as

prohibited or injurious (chs. 6, 7). Few States

compensate for this lack of a Federal presence

with comprehensive laws covering release of

GEOs. Moreover, States have been discouraged

from developing such laws by those concerned

that States might obstruct the testing and development of agricultural GEOs like transgenic crops

(9).

Future implementation of the Non-Indigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of

199@ could narrow this gap slightly by restricting

the unintentional importation or transport of

harmful aquatic GEOs. However, the Federal

interagency task force implementing the Act has

not yet addressed GEOs in any context.

Other significant areas remain uncovered by

Federal law. No Federal authority exists to

directly limit the interstate transport or release of

aquiculture species, although this is an active

area of genetic engineering research (19). Similarly, should genetic engineering techniques be

applied to game species of fish and wildlife, there

presently are no Federal requirements for review

before release. Moreover, the agencies most

likely to be involved, FWS and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lack

applicable policies on GEOs.

Some experts estimate genetically engineered

fish will enter commercial distribution within this

decade (1 1). Two have already been field tested

in holding ponds. This category raises particular

concerns because many fish can establish freeliving populations.

CERTAIN PLANTS

APHIS's current regulations for GEOs do not

explicitly include large categories of plants (box

9-C). Listed as regulated are parasitic plants in 13

families and 27 genera that fulfill the definition of

plant pest. Not included are numerous taxa

containing species that are weeds or can become

A genetically engineered variety of striped bass

(Morone saxatilis) is likely to be among the first

transgenic fish released.

weeds in some habitats. Examples of the latter are

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), which is an

important turf grass and forage plant but also one

of the worst weeds in many parts of the United

States (4), as well as many plants used in

ornamental horticulture, such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Should genetic engineering be used to develop new varieties of

species for range management or ornamental

horticulture (21), it is unclear whether they would

be reviewed before release under the category of

organisms ‘‘altered or produced through genetic

engineering which the Deputy Administrator

determines is a plant pest or has reason to believe

is a plant pest. ’

Many genetically engineered plants (including

some forage and ornamental plants) presently fall

under APHIS review because the plant pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens was used as a

vector for gene insertion (boxes 9-A, 9-C). New

mechanical and chemical techniques for inserting

genes into plants do not involve plant pathogens.

Consequently, some genetically engineered

plants produced by such methods also will not fall

squarely under APHIS’s authority, Again, it is

unclear how the agency will choose to deal with

these 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 277

Users are required to contact APHIS regarding

planned releases of unregulated GEOs only if

they have reason to believe the GEO poses a risk

of being a plant pest (44). Given the historical

complacency regarding introductions of nonindigenous plants, expecting users to rigorously

evaluate the risks of transgenic plant introductions may be unrealistic.

CERTAIN INSECTS AND INVERTEBRATES USED

FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

In the future, should genetic engineering techniques be applied to insects, nematodes, or other

invertebrates, environmental releases of some

products might fall outside APHIS’s purview.

The key criterion defining APHIS’s authority is

whether an organism is a potential plant pest (box

9-C). Some insects and invertebrates used in

biological control clearly fall outside this category since they injure neither plants nor plant

products, for example. an insect that eats or

parasitizes another insect that is itself a plant pest

(40). Given that the agency’s present coverage of

this category is uneven (ch. 6), and its authority is

ambiguous, it is unclear how APHIS would deal

with GEOs in this category. The Environmental

Protection Agency has exempted such nonmicrobial biological control agents from regulation under FIFRA.5 The agency still could step in

to assume this role (6), although it has not yet

shown any interest in doing so.

RESEARCH

In general, research releases of GEOs are

subject to the same restrictions as nonexperimental releases. Further, research conducted or funded by Federal agencies is subject to

the National Environmental Policy Act.6 The U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Office of Agricultural Biotechnology recently released proposed

voluntary research guidelines that apply only to

USDA funded research (47). The guidelines rely

heavily on input from the Institutional Biosafety

Committees that exist at many public and private

sector institutions conducting genetic engineering research. The committees originated to ensure

that researchers follow guidelines developed by

NIH. Their main role has been in the review of

contained laboratory research on GEOs. The

committees are predominantly composed of members with expertise in genetic engineering (38); an

important issue will be whether the committees

expand their membership to include ecologists

and others with technical backgrounds more

appropriate for evaluating the safety of field

releases.

Research releases falling within the gaps listed

above (fish and wildlife, certain plants, biological

control agents) and not funded by Federal dollars

may not be covered by the current framework. For

example, no Federal agency would review the

research release of a genetically engineered fish

where the research is privately funded. The Toxic

Substances Control Act does not cover noncommercial and strictly academic research releases of non-pesticidal transgenic microbes (30).

Concerns over research gaps are not purely

hypothetical, as was demonstrated when a researcher at Auburn University moved to conduct

experiments involving releases of transgenic carp

(Cyprinus carpio) in ponds where there was a risk

of fish escape (box 9-D).

COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION AND SALE

Certain laws, such as the Federal Seed Act;7

Virus, Serum, and Toxin Act (VSTA);8 and

FIFRA, set standards for accurate labeling and

assurance of product purity and efficacy for live

organisms in commerce. The Federal Seed Act

covers agricultural seed, VSTA covers live mi5

40 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)

7 Federal 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 States

Box 9-D-Transgenic Fish: Events

Surrounding the Auburn Experiments

Considerable controversy erupted in 1989 when

a researcher at Auburn University in Alabama moved

to conduct experiments with transgenic fish in outdoor

holding ponds where there was a risk of escape. After

some initial confusion over the appropriate Federal

forum for review of the proposal’s safety, oversight fell

to the Cooperative State Research Service of USDA,

which partly funded the experiments. The agency’s

first Environmental Assessment and its associated

finding of no significant environmental impact was met

with strong criticism. This prompted the agency to

conduct a second assessment with assistance from

APHIS. While this assessment also found no significant impact, the finding was contingent on substantial

modifications at the site to prevent fish escape.

Modifications included construction of new ponds at a

higher elevation and filtration of pond effluent, in

addition to the existing preventative measures of an

8-foot fence and bird netting above the ponds. No

Federal scrutiny necessarily would have occurred had

this research been funded by the private sector. In this

case, the researcher voluntarily sought Federal oversight even prior to receiving Federal funding.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, “Environmental Assessment of Research on Transgenic

Carp in Confined Outdoor Ponds,” Nov. 15, 1990; J.L. Fox, Wish

Drifi Satween Agencies’ Guidelines,” IYotechnology, vol. 7,

September 19S9, p. SS5.

crobes in animal vaccines, and FIFRA regulates

microbial pesticides and pesticidal transgenic

plants. These laws aim to protect against product

misrepresentation and the distribution and sale of

contaminants. The lack of equivalent protection

for other types of organisms in commerce may

become important as the living products of

genetic engineering move toward commercialization. Flower seeds, for example, are not covered

by the Federal Seed Act. Nor do any Federal laws

or regulations currently specify labeling requirements for grown plants or insects and other

microorganisms used in biological control.

An additional role of commercial statutes is to

regulate usages of potentially harmful products

like pesticides-only allowing certain uses under

specified conditions. As agricultural GEOs move

toward commercial sale, they will not be subject

to such regulation. Under the Federal Plant Pest

Act9 and the Plant Quarantine Act,10 the mechanism APHIS uses to allow commercial sales of

GEOs is to formally exempt them at this stage

from regulation.11 For certain GEOs it may be

more appropriate to place constraints on commercial applications; for example, it might be prudent

to limit planting of certain transgenic cottons in

Hawaii where the potential for hybridization with

free-living cotton (Gossypium tomentosum) exists.

GAP FILLING BY THE STATES

A perceived lack of adequate Federal regulation has been the driving force behind State

efforts to develop laws on GEOs. As of February

1991, nine States had laws specifically dealing

with the release of GEOs, and about 30 percent of

the States were in the process of developing GEO

release and product policies (3). A total of six

States introduced, and three enacted, legislation

related to the environmental release of GEOs in

1991 (15).

In at least some cases, State laws may cover all

releases of GEOs. Under the North Carolina

Genetically Engineered Organisms Act, for example, “A genetically engineered organism may

not be released into the environment, or sold,

offered for sale, or distributed for release into the

environment unless a permit for its release has

been 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 279

releases of transgenic fish in the State of North

Carolina currently would require a State, but no

Federal, permit (33). North Carolina, however, is

an exception among the States in this regard.

Similar to the patchwork of State fish and

wildlife laws (ch. 7), current State laws on GEOs

vary widely in scope and rigor (43). Such

inconsistency could create burdensome requirements for researchers and industry (13). One

representative of the seed industry clearly expressed some of the potential hazards of multiple

States’ regulation:

Few engineered crop varieties or hybrids, if

my, could bear the cost and time involved in

multiple registrations in 50 individual States.

Environmentally this approach would also fall

short, as environmental problems, should they

occur, can hardly be expected to respect State

boundaries. Thus, a Federal lead in regulation of

engineered crop plants is essential, but can only

become a reality if the final system gains the

confidence of the public and the States (35).

A SURPRISE CONSEQUENCE OF APPLYING THE

SAME LEGAL AUTHORITY TO NIS AND GEOs

Applying the same laws to NIS and GEOs may

have some unanticipated results. A case in point

is APHIS’s recent move to relax permitting

requirements for releases of certain transgenic

plants. APHIS’s authority here derives from the

Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine

Act, both of which were designed to protect U.S.

agriculture from pests. Historically, this is an area

where Federal preemption of the States is common; for example, the Federal Government may

impose quarantines unsupported by the States or,

alternatively, it may allow for more liberal

interstate transport of commodities that the States

would prefer to curtail (ch. 7). In a recent rule,

APHIS asserted its authority to exercise this

preemptive power in the area of GEO releases;13

that is, where the Federal Government has moved

to allow a release, States cannot prevent the

release from occurring.

Whether APHIS’s position here would withstand a challenge in the courts is open to question

(8). The issue may be largely theoretical, however: legal challenge is unlikely since most States

lack the technical expertise to evaluate planned

releases of GEOs and rely heavily on APHIS’s

judgment (17,33). Moreover, the new regulations

provide for notifying the States before GEO

releases. Nevertheless, the example demonstrates

an important point. As long as the same sections

of the same laws are used as authority for both

NIS and GEOs, any amendments to these laws

will need to anticipate how they will affect

Federal actions regarding both categories of

organisms. Moreover, legal precedents established for one category may eventually be applied

to the other (7).

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Since the first environmental release of a GEO

in 1986, Federal agencies have reviewed, authorized, or permitted several hundred additional

releases of genetically engineered plants and

microbes under final or interim rules. The general

approach has been to treat each release as allowed

only after case-by-case evaluation (i.e., on a‘ ‘not

sure” list; see ch. 4). Central to the evaluation

process is some form of risk assessment. The

potential for high profits combined with vocal

public concern has driven the rapid development

of risk assessment methods for GEOs and a

growing scientific literature in this area (table

9-4).

As with NIS, assessments of GEO risk usually

center on characteristics of the organism, the

environment into which it will be released, and

the likelihood the GEO or new genes will spread

to other locales. Of particular concern has been

characterization of the effects of the genetic

modification, specifically its stability and whether

IS ~’Geneti~ly Engineered orga~s~and~ducts: NoMication~o~d~es forthe Int.mductionof Certain Re@atedArticles; ~dpetition

for Nonregulated StatuS,” Final Rule, 58 Federal Register 17044 (March 31, 1993).
280 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 9-4—Selected Recent Discussions of the Environmental Effects of Releasing GEOs

L.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 Modified

Plants 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 the

Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of scientific Unions (ICSU) (Chichester, England; New York, NY: John Wiley

and Sons, 1991 ).

National Research Council, Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions (Washington, DC: National

Academy 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 Introduction

of Transgenic Potatoes,” Conference Report, 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Workshop on Safeguards for Planned Introduction

of Transgenic Corn and Wheat,” Conference Report, April 1992.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Workshop on Safeguards for Planned Introduction

of 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 characteristics on the GEO or other species to which they

might spread. Factors affecting the GEO or gene

spread include how likely the GEO is to establish

a free-living population outside of human cultivation and the presence of free-living relatives that

might hybridize with GEOs.

A far greater number of authorized releases has

occurred for plants than for microbes. Although

the same categories of risk apply to both, development of general risk assessment methods has been

less tractable for microbes. The biology and

ecology of microbes in nature is relatively poorly

understood (16), and predicting environmental

effect and dispersal potential is difficult (2).

Microbes present special problems in evaluating

the potential spread of genes since gene exchange

in nature can occur not only between different

species, but also between different genera (27). In

addition, populations of microbes evolve rapidly,

complicating predictions of the possible longterm effects of inserted genes.

Comparing the Current Level of Review

for NIS and GEO Releases

Finding:

While some categories of GEOs actually

pose lower risks than similar NIS, pre-release

evaluations for certain GEOs have been more

rigorous. This inconsistency reflects the chronic

underestimation of risk for NIS introductions

in the past. Some of the approaches being

instituted for evaluating risks of GEOs might

usefully be transferred to NIS.

Comparison of the current level of review by

the Federal Government for various categories of

MS and GEOs shows that greater scrutiny often

is applied to GEOs, even though some may pose

lower risks than NIS (table 9-5) (see ch. 4). For

example, until 1993, APHIS conducted an environmental assessment for each permitted release

of a genetically engineered plant, even for plants

highly dependent on human cultivation and

lacking free-living relatives in the United States.

In contrast, non-indigenous plants are routinely

introduced in the United States for applications in
Chapter 9-Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case I 281

Table 9-5—Federal Pre-ReIease Requirements for Small-Scale Releases of Certain

Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) and GEOs

NIS GEOs

Crop and forage plants No systematic review

Live animal vaccines

Pesticidal microbes

Requires application to APHIS for a permit;

APHIS reviews application

Requires notification of EPA; EPA may

require additional information or

application for an Experimental Use

Permit; EPA reviews submitted material

For “plant pests”: APHIS also reviews

material before release

Non-pest, non-pesticidal No systematic review

microbes (e.g., nitrogenfixing bacteria)

If within APHIS’s definition of a “regulated

article” (box 9-C):

Most require application to APHIS for a

permit; APHIS conducts an

environmental assessment; EPA reviews

APHiS’s assessments for pesticidal

plants

For certain regulated articles: no permit is

required, instead requires notification of

APHIS at least 30 days before the day of

release

If not a regulated article: same as for NIS

Same as for NIS

Same as for NiS

Voluntary notification of EPA; EPA may

request additional information; EPA

reviews submitted material

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

soil conservation and wildlife forage with no

systematic review of the potential environmental

consequences of release-although such species

may be chosen specifically for the ability to

establish free-living populations (ch. 6). Similarly, EPA does a case-by-case review of certain

releases of transgenic microbes, such as nitrogenfixing bacteria, but releases of equivalent nonindigenous microbes are not subject to any

Federal oversight. If more rigorous standards are

applied to under-evaluated categories of NIS in

the future, methods already developed for GEOs

could provide a useful model.

Impending Scale-Up of Releases for

Agricultural GEOs

Finding:

Experience with NIS overwhelmingly has

shown that an organism’s effects and ecological role can change when it is transferred to

new environments. This suggests a need for

caution in extrapolating from the results of

small-scale field tests of GEOs to larger scale

releases. Also GEOs that pose a low risk in the

United States sometimes may pose a higher

risk in other countries.

Most releases of GEOs in the United States

thus far have been small field tests (table 9-2). The

geographic area of release will inevitably increase

for approved GEOs, particularly as they enter the

phase of commercial production, distribution, and

sale. This issue looms large especially for agricultural releases: estimates are that commercial

distribution for some crops under development

could occur as early as 1994 or 1995 (5). The

impending scale-up raises several as yet unanswered questions, recently illustrated by the case

of transgenic squash (Cucurbita pepo) (box 9-E).
282 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 9-E-Controversy Erupts as Upjohn’s Transgenic Squash (“ZW-20”)

Moves Towards Commercialization

The case of squash (Cucurbita pepo) genetically engineered for disease resistance illustrates several

impending issues: the complexity of some of the decisions ahead; needs for better use of field tests to evaluate

the 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 Upjohn

Co.—ZW-20-is not a plant pest and therefore is not subject to further regulation by the agency. This variety

contains genes from two plant virusesthat confer enhanced disease resistance. APHIS’s ruling would be essential

to the squash’s commercial distribution. Calgene's Flavr SavrTM tomato (Lycopersicon esclentum)is the only other

transgenic plant that the agency has ruled is not a plant pest.

Respnse to APHIS’s plan, especially from environmental organizations, was strongly negative. Upjohn’s

petition was criticized for its scientific in accuracies and failure to cite important research. Further concerns were

that APHIS apparently took the scientific content of Upjohn’s petition at face value, and, in the absence of outside

reaction, 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 specifically

requested further information on the potential for hybrization between ZW-20 and free-living squash and whether

transfer of disease resistance genes to free-living populations would affect their weediness. APHIS also contracted

with Hugh Wilson, an expert on squash genetics at Texas A&M University, to prepare a report addressing these

issues.

Wilson’s report clearly identified several important risks. The potential for hybridization with ZW-20 would be

great throughout the 12-State range of free-living squash. Moreover, free-living squash are already significant

agricultural weeds in some areas and the transfer of new disease resistance genes to these populations could

enhance their weediness. Gene transfer might also erode the genetic diversity of the free-living squash

populations-a potential gene source for future squash breeding.

(continued)

WHAT IS THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK FOR

GEO RELEASES?

types of GEOs increase (table 9-3) and GEOs

posing more intermediate levels of risk begin to

Finding:

Proposals approved to date by APHIS for

small-scale field releases of GEOs have been

low risk. For the most part, APHIS has not yet

been challenged to evaluate proposals posing

intermediate risk levels. It is unclear how the

agency plans to deal with this difficult task of

setting acceptable levels of risk, especially as

APHIS has not yet standardized its procedures

for evaluating the risks associated with NIS.

Permit applications to date primarily have

involved low-risk GEOs, such as those lacking

free-living relatives in the United States, or

involving genes that would pose negligible risk

even if transferred to free-living relatives. Decisions concerning which releases to allow will

become increasingly complex as the numbers and

be proposed for release.

APHIS is operating under statutes designed to

protect U.S. agriculture from harmful pest species. Neither the Federal Plant Pest Act nor the

Plant Quarantine Act contains any specification

of what level of “harm” might be acceptable.

This is in contrast to commercial statutes like

FIFRA and TSCA, which give explicit instructions on how benefits should be weighed against

risks. APHISs current regulations give no indication of how acceptable levels of risk are to be set.

Some perspective on how the agency balances

such issues might be gleaned from its experience

with NIS. Here APHIS weighs preventing entry

of new plant pests against the economic desirability of free trade (see ch. 4). Critics complain the

agency often errs in the wrong direction by
Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 283

Although hybridization between free-living and domesticated squash has probably occurred throughout

history, hybridization involving the transgenic squash poses special concerns. According to Wilson, the novel

source of the disease resistance genes (viruses) “represents, within the biological and historical context . . . an

unknown and untested factor. The process of injecting a foreign genetic element. . . that has no precedent within

the 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 is

conducting additional field tests to address many of the important issues. According to one USDA official, APHIS

plans to make its decision regarding ZW-20 according to the same criteria used to judge varieties produced by

traditional breeding. However, the consequences of gene transfer from domesticated to free-living plants have not

been examined in the past. So, even traditional plant breeding provides little experience on which to base a

regulatory decision.

If APHIS rules to allow commercialization of ZW-20, another issue will arise. Free-living squash also occur

in 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, personal

communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 13, 1993; J. Rissler et al., “National wildlife Federation

Comments to USDA APHIS on a Proposed Interpretive Ruling Concerning Upjohn’s Transgenic Squash,” Oct. 19, 1992; U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health inspection Service, “Notice of Proposed Interpretive Ruling in connection With the Upjohn Company

Petition 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 Upjohn

Company PetitIon for Determination of Regulatory Status of ZW-20 Virus Resistant Squashp” 5S Fedem/Regkter15323 (March 22, 1993);

H.D. Wilson. “Free-Living Cucurbitapepo in the United States: Viral Resistance, Gene Flow, and Risk Assessment” contractor report

prepared 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 the around the perimeter of an experiment to ‘‘trap”

country with few restrictions until risks are

clearly demonstrated. Further, APHIS gives far

greater attention to effects of its actions on agriculture, often neglecting effects on natural areas.

This is of particular concern since upcoming GEO

releases may have the potential to invade natural

areas, or to affect populations of non-target

species through their pesticidal properties.

RESULTS OF CONFINED FIELD TESTS AND

POTENTIAL RISKS OF LARGER SCALE RELEASE

In approving the hundreds of test releases of

transgenic plants thus far, APHIS has placed

considerable emphasis on confinement—

requiring that special precautions be incorporated

into experimental protocols to prevent gene

spread. Such precautions include destroying the

plants before they flower or removing the flowers.

Sometimes non-engineered plants are planted

pollen from the transgenic plants. Test fields also

may be isolated a certain distance from other

fields to minimize the chance of pollen transfer.

General agreement exists that confinement will

become infeasible for many GEOs when they are

released on a large-scale or go into commercial

sale. The range of different environments into

which a GEO is released will also increase. If

changes in environment influence such risk factors as likelihood of establishment or dispersal,

the relative risk of a release may increase with

scale-up. Evidence from experiments with transgenic

crucifers (plants in the mustard family) in England already has demonstrated variation among

sites in the plants reproduction and other features

that affect the potential for establishment (10).

Confined experimental releases conducted thus

far demonstrate the characteristics, stability, and

performance of GEOs—attributes important to
284 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

evaluate during product development. They do

not, however, necessarily provide any additional

information on the ecological risks posed by a

GEO under unconfined conditions or whether

these risks will change as the scale of release

increases (49). An analysis by the National

Wildlife Federation showed that, for the 115 field

releases permitted by APHIS from 1987 through

1990, the required final report was filed for only

half (24). And most lack data on potential

environmental effects that could be used for

scale-up decisions. Nevertheless, proponents of

genetic engineering have used the approval of,

and low risk attributed to, small-scale experimental releases as evidence that permitting requirements for field tests are far too stringent (l).

In new regulations issued in 1993,14 APHIS

used the same reasoning to justify why certain

releases of GEOs should require only agency

notification rather than receipt of a permit. This

probably poses few problems for the bulk of

low-risk GEOs that will fall under the new

regulations. It does, however, establish a poor

precedent for higher risk GEOs. Especially for

these, small field trials will need to better

incorporate research and monitoring designed to

evaluate the ecological risks of larger scale

releases.

In the absence of such research, it is unclear

what information will be used to make scale-up

decisions. APHIS assumes that petitions to exempt an organism from regulation (i.e., allow

commercial distribution) will include the necessary information to judge whether a GEO will

cause significant environmental impacts when

grown under unconfined conditions (26). However, the existing data applicable to such decisions are patchy at best.

Some groups in the private sector also have

conducted or funded experiments to determine

whether genes are likely to spread from transgenic

crops by hybridization with wild and weedy

The cotton boll at left (Gossypium hirsutum) was

protected from pests by a gene from Bt (Bacillus

thuringiensis). Domesticated cotton has wild relatives

(G. tomentosum) in Hawaii and elsewhere in the world

that potentially could hybridize with the genetically

engineered form.

relatives (22,49). But, Federal investment in basic

research in this area has not occurred in the United

States until quite recently. The 1990 Farm Bi115

required USDA to allocate 1 percent of its

research budget to “biotechnology risk assessment research. ’ The Cooperative State Research

Service administers the program, which is expected to provide about $1 million annually in

research grants (14).

HOW TO DEAL WITH INTERNATIONAL

TRADE IN GEOs?

An even greater level of scale-up will occur

when GEOs enter international commerce. Current Federal regulations do not address export of

GEOs (44), although the risks associated with

releases in other countries sometimes may be

substantially greater than in the United States

(box 9-B) (18, 23). Further, recipient countries for

exports may themselves lack laws or regulations

requiring oversight of GEO releases (12).

1458 Federal Register 17044 (Mmch 31, 1W3).

15 meFood, &pjcu]~e, consemritio~ and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624.
Chapter 9—Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1285

Most important crops lack wild and weedy

relatives in the United States because they originated elsewhere, However, in countries closer to

these crops’ centers of origin, wild and weedy

relatives generally are common. Close relatives of

corn, tomatoes, and potatoes are common in

Central and South America. In these areas the risk

would be far higher that engineered genes might

spread through hybridization (45,46). Moreover,

the small fields surrounded by vegetation typical

of farming in developing countries provide greater

opportunity for contact and hybridization with

wild and weedy relatives (4).

A Question of Values: The Hazards of Our

Successes

Objections to the first releases of GEOs commonly addressed the intrinsic merit of altering the

natural world. This issue has been less prominent

recently probably because it is less germane for

agricultural releases to environments already

highly modified by human manipulation. It may,

however, reemerge as GEOs begin to be released

into natural areas,

In many cases, NIS are valued by natural

resource managers because of their ability to live

in stressed, polluted, or otherwise degraded habitats where comparable indigenous species cannot

dwell. Concerns have been voiced that genetic

engineering may pose a similar opportunity to

deal with environmental degradation not by

fixing the problem but by changing the managed

species.

In the past, we tried to control pollution to

accommodate plants and animals. Now, new

[genetic engineering] techniques give us the

power to control plants and animals to accommodate pollution. . . . In the past, petrochemical

companies engineered pesticides to make them

compatible with crops. Now they can engineer

crops to make them compatible with pesticides (31).

The potentially vast opportunities genetic engineering brings also will pose certain implicit

questions about the biological future of the

country. As with NIS, managers of natural areas

may need to decide between indigenous species

and GEOs, or between improving habitats and

stocking degraded habitats with GEOs that are

more stress tolerant. As with NIS, explicit articulation of such choices and the development of

clear policies is needed at a national level.

CHAPTER REVIEW

This chapter examined how the Federal Government oversees the environmental release of

GEOs. Many low risk GEOs have been subject to

a level of review never applied to potentially

harmful NIS. However, other important issues—

such as the need for better research on higher risk

GEO releases and post-release monitoring-have

received scant attention. The current Federal

framework for regulating release of GEOs employs laws that were not designed for this

purpose. As for NIS, a patched-together approach

has resulted-one that leaves significant areas

unaddressed and creates confusion for industry,

academia, and government.

The kinds of GEOs discussed here seemed

futuristic only a few years ago. In the next

chapter, OTA takes a closer look at the future and

the kinds of global changes that may further shape

the impacts of harmful NIS.
The Context

of the Future:

International

Law and

Global Change 10

M

uch of the debate about non-indigenous species (NIS)

concerns the future-what trends related to the

movement 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 unilateral

regulation of the movement of MS inadequate, especially

because international trade is among the most important pathways for harmful introductions. This chapter broadens our point

of view by examining a few global socioeconomic and technological trends related to harmful MS and evaluating pertinent

international law. Then, the chapter highlights specific predictions regarding the future status of MS, including scenarios

related to species movement and global climate change.

INCREASING GLOBAL TRADE AND OTHER

SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS

Finding:

As international trade relationships change, new pathways

for species exchange will open. Similarly, the increasing

volume of international commerce in biological commodities—

in part because of liberalized trade—is likely to increase the

number of new species entering the United States.

Global social and economic trends have long affected the

kinds, numbers, and pathways of MS that move around the world

(ch. 3, table 3-5). Global population growth and economic

expansion contribute to ever-greater demands on natural ecosystems, on agriculture, and on governmental institutions. Greater

U.S. demand for particular kinds of foreign imports generates

287
288 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 10-A-U.S. Exports of Non-indigenous Aquatic Species

The United States, as a trading partner and home base to many travelers, exports as well as imports harmful

NIS. OTA has not systematically examined the United States’ role as an exporter. However, some scientists and

officials express concern that Federal and State authorities are not accountable for damaging species intentionally

sent outside the United States.

A number of harmful or accidental U.S. exports have occurred. The slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata) was

inadvertently exported to Europe with a shipment of American oysters in the 1 880s; also Canadian scientists know

or suspect U.S. origins for coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch) in Nova Scotia, an oyster disease in Prince Edward

Island, and a trout disease from certified idaho trout. Bonamia ostreae, aparasiteof European oysters, probably

originated in oysters shipped from California in the 1970s. R.L. Welcomme, of the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, lists 64 fish and other aquatic speciesthat were introduced to other countries

from the United States for ornamental, sport fisheries, aquaculture, or other purposes. Not all established

reproducing populations; nor have all been harmful. According to his records, the United States accounted for 240

of 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 parts

of central China. A pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus lignicoius), probably from the Southeastern United

States, is killing black pines (Pinus nigra) in Japan. And ragweed (Ambrosia spp.) is spreading on the Russian

steppes.

SOURCES: R.A. EMon, “Effeotive Applications of Aquacdture Usease40ntroi Regulations: Recommendations From an Industry

Viewpoint” D/spersd of LA4?g @nkwns {nto Aquatk EoosysWns, A Roeenfleki and R. Mann (ads.) (Oolfege Pa~ MD: Maryland Sea

Grant, 1992), pp. 3S3-359; K. Langdon, Grsat Smoky Mountains National Pa~ U.S. Department ofths Intsdor, Gatlinburg, TN, personal

communication to K.E. Barmen, Office of Twlmology Assessment, Aug. 17, 199S; DJ. Soarratt and R.E. Drinnan, “Canadian Strategies

for Risk Reductions in Introductions and Transfers of Marine and Anadromous 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, /ntsvnational

Muductkws of /n/andAquat/c SPsc/es, FAO Fishierlss Technioai Paper No. 294 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, 19SS).

new and more heavily used pathways for acciden- ucts, and imports of many are increasing. The

tal introductions. Foreign demand stimulates U.S.

exports of species (box 10-A). Socioeconomic

trends also drive the processes by which ecosystems become vulnerable to invasion. For instance,

clearing land often eliminates indigenous vegetation and creates pathways for invaders; more

recreational visitors to natural areas increases the

likelihood that harmful NIS will invade them

(105).

From the standpoint of harmful NIS, the

continuing increase in global trade is among the

most significant trends of the 1990s. Harmful NIS

move via intentional commercial imports of live

animals, live plants, seeds, and plant products,

together with unintended ‘‘hitchhikers” on these

products or in the ships, planes, and trucks that

transport them (ch. 3). The United States is a

major market for these biologically based prodopening of trade relationships through free trade

agreements with Canada and Mexico and the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

will mean increased volumes of trade, as well as

new trade routes. Climatic and ecological similarities between regions of the United States, Russia,

China, and Chile, for example, suggest great

potential for species exchange as trade increases.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade

The United States recognizes the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--the

post-World War II agreement that liberalized

global trade. GATT’ set rules to eliminate national

practices that distort free global markets and

provided mechanisms for dispute settlement. The

parties to this Agreement have been renegotiating
Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 289

since 1986 (the ‘‘Uruguay round’ ‘), with no final

resolution yet.

GATT declares trade restraints invalid if they

do not protect legitimate domestic interests.

Article XX(b) acknowledges the need for parties

to protect themselves from harmful NIS in that it

legitimizes trade restraints, such as quarantine

regulations, that are ‘‘necessary to protect human,

animal, or plant life or health. ” However, some

quarantines are alleged to be protectionist barriers

designed to spare domestic products from foreign

competition.

Pacific Northwest apple growers contend that

Japan’s quarantine of their apples is an example,

They claim to be shut out of the lucrative Japanese

markets by a quarantine against the lesser apple

worm (Enorminia prunivora) (1), a pest that is

indigenous to the eastern United States. The

insect exists in very low numbers in Northwest

orchards; no outbreaks of quarantine significance

have occurred since the 1950s. According to a

Washington State University agricultural economist, the Japanese quarantine is scientifically

‘‘indefensible’ (71). Meanwhile, high-quality

apples sell in Japan’s markets for the equivalent

of $7 or $8 each.

Allegations have been raised by other countries

about protectionist U.S. pest regulations as well.

These include:

●

●

●

restrictions on imports of cut flowers and

potted plants from the Netherlands (2);

a ban on seed potatoes from some Canadian

provinces (4); and

a ban on imports of Mexican avocados (81),

GATT has rarely been invoked to resolve these

sorts of allegations.

Also, GATT authorities have only resolved a

few disputes about whether environmental measures violate its norms of liberal trade (98). Under

GATT, trade restraints are not to be imposed by

s TOP 

PLANT PROTECTION QUARANTINE

INSP ECTION AND FUMIGATION INSPECCION FUMIGACION FITOSANTARIA

OBLIGATORY A N D FRE E OBLIGATORIA Y GRATUITA

TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF

m THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUITFLY

ATE WITH MEXICAN AGRICULTURE

Increased trade is likely to distribute more harmful

non-indigenous species among nations but these

changes have received scant attention in free trade

agreements--like that proposed with Canada and

Mexico.

one party to compel another to change its

environmental practices. In 1992, a GATT dispute settlement panel decided that provisions of

the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act l amounted

to an unfair trade restraint (98). These provisions

banned imports of Mexican tuna caught using

methods that kill dolphins (34). Under GATT, the

United States may impose bans on such imports

only if their very presence is harmful, that is, if the

imports could introduce pests. However, GATT

does not allow quarantines if they discriminate

against foreign imports without scientific justification.

Little systematic analysis of the environmental

impacts of different trade patterns or policies has

been done (98). Some groups have proposed that

U.S. acceptance of future changes to GATT or

other trade agreements be subject to formal

environmental review. The applicability of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)2—

the law that requires environmental impact as1 Marine Mammal protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 1361 et seq.)

2 NationaI Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U. S.C.A. 4321 et seq.)
290 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

sessments for Federal actions—to trade agreements is not resolved legally.3

GATT’s solution to unfairly restrictive quarantine standards is to encourage parties to ‘‘harmonize” their standard-setting criteria. All parties

need not regulate the same pests. However, they

should recognize common principles, adopt equivalent definitions of key terms like “economic

pest, ’ and use comparable criteria for deciding

whether to quarantine imports (69). This would

make quarantine decisions more amenable to

objective scrutiny.

Harmonization does not in and of itself lead to

more liberal importation. It could, however,

reduce the cases of protectionism disguised as

quarantine standards. Reaching agreements on

acceptable levels of pest risk presents great

difficulty in practice. The proposed harmonized

risk analysis prepared for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

concedes this: ‘‘it is not possible to define a level

of risk that is acceptable for all situations” (69).

Currently, determnining acceptable levels of risk is

a sovereign decision made by individual governments (11). In addition, pest risk analysis often

entails high uncertainty (ch. 4). Given these

obstacles to achieving international consensus,

complete harmonization of pest risk standards is

probably not achievable, although agreeing on

analytical processes may be.

Greater international harmonization raises two

main concerns. First, many developing countries

lack the resources or expertise for the sophisticated risk analyses that are feasible for developed

countries (63). Second, an overriding GATT

approach could preempt national, State, and local

MS laws (84,107).

The concern is whether the United States

would be obligated to strike down or preempt a

State law that requires a more rigorous pest risk

analysis for imports than the international ‘ ‘harmonized’ approach under GATT. GATT’s current draft language would support the State’s

case, as long as its laws use ‘‘science-based’ risk

analysis (108). A State might, however, ban a

class of imports on the grounds that uncertainty

prevented determining which should be allowed

and which prohibited. At the same time, State

officials might be unwilling or unable to undertake the research necessary to remove those

uncertainties. Then the foreign exporter could

argue that the State’s ban was not based on

scientific evidence and therefore violated GATT.4

GATT’s current emphasis on harmonization

generally-including pesticide and food safety

standards-has been criticized by some legislators and environmental groups as sacrificing

national, State, and local environmental controls

for the ideal of global free trade (78,98).

Free Trade Agreements With Canada and

Mexico

Canada and Mexico are the top two suppliers of

U.S. agricultural imports (100). Considerable

effort has been expended to coordinate pest

prevention approaches with both. The pestrelated provisions of the existing Canada-U.S.

Trade Agreement (signed in 1988) constitutes a

continuation of these efforts (101). The proposed

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),

which would create a Canada-U.S.-Mexico free

trade bloc, includes language on harmonization of

pest risk approaches similar to that in the current

GATT draft (108).

3 On Sept. 15, 1992, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Government’s lack of

environmental analysis under NEPA for the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement. Public Citizen, et al., v. O@ce of the United

States Trude Representative, efal., Cause No. 92-2102. On June 30, 1993, the court ruled that NEPA applied. However, the United States filed

an 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, The

appeal 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 is

analogous to constitutional preemption of State and local laws by Federal laws (see ch. 7) and their potential unconstitutionality under the

Interstate 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! 291

NAFTA will increase the prospects of importing new non-indigenous pests by increasing the

volume of agricultural and horticultural imports

from Mexico (52). Programs to prevent pest

exports traditionally have been weaker in Mexico, although the country recently strengthened its

approach and capabilities (3, 11). By one estimate,

Mexican agricultural exports to the United States

would increase by only a few percent (41). By

another estimate, commercial truck traffic across

the U.S.-Mexico border could expand more than

four-fold (to 8 million crossings) from 1990 and

the year 2000 (104).

Extensive controversy and information have

been generated regarding the environmental impacts of NAFTA. Little of this information relates

specifically to the consequences of harmful NIS,

however.

I Other Socioeconomic Trends

Additional socioeconomic trends are likely to

shift the movements and impacts of harmful NIS

(table 10-1). International travel is also expected

to increase and play a key role in the emergence

of new threats to human health (54), some of

which are carried by insects or other vectors that

are not indigenous to the United States.

Both the biological control and aquiculture

industries are poised to expand (9,19,25,51).

Rates of introduction linked to both of these

industries are likely to increase in the future.

Consumer demand exceeds the capacities of

catch-fisheries. The proportion of aquatic organisms raised by aquiculture is expected to climb

from 11 percent to 25 percent of the global harvest

by the year 2000 (72). Likewise, sport fishing is

projected to double by the year 2030 (72),

As the aquiculture industry expands—and as

researchers, commodity distributors, and the general public also transport fish and shellfish—

some fisheries experts expect that species movements are likely to diversify, with the increased

risk of spreading pathogens (3 1). On the other

hand, some observers envision that new introductions will come to be judged by more consistent

standards and that aquiculture and nonindigenous fish will be managed “in a manner

that preserves the biological integrity of native

and desired naturalized fish communities” (42).

Growing interest in environmentally sound

methods of pest control is spurring development

of commercial biological control. Interest also is

growing in applying biological control to new

environments, 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 species

introductions and unexpected effects. Biological

control agents, like other introductions, also can

carry associated pests unintentionally, although

quarantines are in place to prevent this.

Gardening is already the most popular leisure

activity in the United States—involving 1 in 3

adults—and most surveys predict that gardening

will grow. Nursery stock, seeds, equipment and so

on amount to a $9 billion industry (109). Gardeners, in their search for plants that are novel, that

reflect particular cultures, or that reflect fashion

trends, are spurring changes in the seed and plant

industry (40). For example, demand for wildflower seed is so keen that supplies do not meet

demand, and some seeds are imported from

Europe (40). Drought- and heat-tolerant species

are especially popular. Gardening trends could

have a variety of implications for NIS. Wildflower seeds are a largely unregulated potential

source for the unintentional import and interstate

movement of harmful NIS (ch. 1). Gardeners’

demands could spur removal of technical and

marketing bottlenecks to the use of indigenous

species and thus decrease demand for potentially

risky NIS imports.

Predicting changes in species use is an uncertain proposition. Even the more exhaustive studies tend not to evaluate species use at this level of

detail. For example, agricultural economist Pierre

Crosson’s (22) future scenarios for U.S. agriculture focuses broadly on production of wheat,

major grains, and soybeans. Other recent analyses
292 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Table 10-1—How Social and Economic Factors and Technological Innovations Could Change the Status

of Non-Indigenous Species in the Future

Social and Economic Factors

Factors Potential effects

Seed exchanges between previously isolated

regions, e.g., Russia and the United States

Increased cross-border movement of material and

refugees due to regional wars

Doubling of U.S. air passengers by the year 2000

Broadened interest in ornamental uses of

indigenous plants

Increased interest in smaller pets for urban areas

Increased interest in planting forage for wildlife

Increased concerns regarding risks of chemical

pesticide use

Increased interest in protecting endangered

species

Could increase international spread of pests and pathogens

Could break down national inspection and quarantine systems and

increase the spread of NIS regionally

Could increase interstate spread of harmful species

Could decrease incentives for foreign plant exploration and

importation; could spread non-indigenous plants of U.S. origin

throughout the country

Could increase demand for non-indigenous fish and birds

Could increase introduction of non-indigenous plants to natural areas

Could result in loss of some effective techniques to exclude, manage,

or eradicate NIS

Could lead to relocations of species and additional introductions

Possible Technological Innovations

Innovations Potential effects

Further development of biological control for NIS Could increase imports of control agents

Improvements in pest eradication mentods Could cut needs for widespread pesticide spraying in urban areas

Improvements in detection equipment at ports of Could increase interception of contaminated seed lots, microbes, and

entry, e.g., molecular probes and biomarkers other small NIS

Upgraded ballast water exchange systems Could reduce likelihood of unintentional introductions of aquatic NIS

Progress in genetic engineering Could blur distinctions between indigenous and NIS astraits are traded

Domestication of “microlivestock” such as the black Could create new pathways for introductions and could spread

iguana (Ctenosaura spp.) and giant rat vertebrate diseases

(Cricentmys gambianus, C. emini).

Development of new plant species to replace Could cut imports of raw timber and associated pests

shrinking traditional supplies of wood

Use of “constructed wetlands” for wastewater treat- Could increase direct planting of otherwise harmful NIS, such as the

ment water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)

Environmental remediation using bacteria, algae, Could increase release of non-indigenous microbes

and fungi

SOURCES: Anonymous, “Wildlife Market On the Rise,” Seed i4br/d, November 1991, p. 26; M.J. Bean, ‘The Role of the U.S. Department of the

Interior 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-KrrownSma//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 Intrastmcture

Threatens U.S. Economy,” 7he Futurk#, vol. 23, No. 6, NovemberlDecember 1989, p. 7; S. Reed, “Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment,” Biocycie, vol. 32, January 1991, pp. 44-49.
Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 293

of the nursery, greenhouse, and turf grass industries; floriculture; and forestry do not distinguish

between indigenous and non-indigenous species

(10,46,92).

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES

Finding:

Technological changes and other means will

continue to add non-indigenous organisms to

the United States, sometimes by new pathways.

At the same time, certain technological innovations, e.g., improved predictive models and

more biologically sophisticated pesticides, are

likely to provide more effective ways to detect,

eradicate, and manage NIS.

Technology, like social, economic, and political changes, will continue to alter the movement,

survival, and impacts of NIS (table 10-1). Indeed,

experts predict that technical innovation will

proceed at increasing rates (18,86) and provide

new approaches to preventing and solving environmental problems (16,20). Based on past experience, breakthroughs in transportation, pest control, and information management are most likely

to affect NIS directly.

More complex pest control methods seem

virtually certain as biotechnology expands (chs.

5, 9). Phytotoxins—plant-damaging compounds

produced biologically by microbes-may form

the next generation of herbicides; combinations

of other biological control methods, the use of

modified cultivation practices, and lowered chemical herbicide use may also be increasingly

common (91 ). A host of new methods might

ultimately be available to manage NIS more

effectively. One biologist predicts: ‘‘ [i]t probably

will be possible to eliminate most exotic species

in less than a decade after the initiation of a

program’ with methods such as the release of

sterile males; genetically engineered, hostrestricted pathogens; repression of pests immune

systems; manipulation of reproduction; and the

use of sexual attractants (86). Not all of these are

Flourishing air travel is likely to bring more harmful

non-indigenous species to the United States and spur

technological innovations in detection and baggage

handling that will have additional impacts.

have proved to be difficult to eradicate, even with

sophisticated technology (30), despite repeated

predictions that better methods were on the way.

Biotechnology will also shape the way indigenous and non-indigenous germ plasm is used and

combined (ch. 9). Conventional breeders and

specialists in biotechnology are increasingly turning their attention to fish. Fish with new adaptations to specific environments can be expected,

along with larger fish and the use of more

complex reproductive technologies to isolate new

strains from indigenous species (72). Technology

now allows more fish and shellfish species to be

manipulated to limit their post-release reproduction—technology unavailable even 10 years

near-term possibilities, however. And insect pests ago (31). Likewise, plant breeders expect novel
294 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

additions of genes through biotechnology (29,37).

Management of some non-indigenous weeds will

change, for example, when genes for herbicide

resistance are introduced into crops.

Improved methods to assess risk and make

decisions are underway and likely to develop

further (ch. 4) (14). Other improved means of

gathering and managing information remain tantalizing, but remote, possibilities. For example,

computerized systems might enable worldwide

tracking of pests and other species. The National

Aeronautic and Space Administration uses extremely sensitive biomarkers to detect and identify microbes that might contaminate space missions (68). These techniques might eventually be

adaptable to detecting NIS at ports of entry,

although they require complex and expensive

laboratory methods now. Medical technology

might have new applications, e.g., nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might be used to

identify and classify previously unknown species

(86) but cost prohibits such uses currently.

High-speed trains are already in service in

some parts of the world and high-speed magnetic

levitation systems are under development-other

examples of technological innovation. In the past,

higher speed transportation has increased the

survival of intentionally and unintentionally transported NIS (ch. 3). High-speed ground transportation could accentuate this trend. Ultimately,

experts envision that high-speed ground transportation would interconnect with highways and air

travel (93). Difficulties in restricting NIS of

foreign origin could increase if international

airports become hubs for multiple high-speed

ground transportation systems that automatically

transfer baggage.

The caliber of international restrictions on the

movement of harmful or potentially damaging

NIS is significant, given the increasingly global

nature of the socioeconomic and technological

trends cited here. Many damaging NIS already in

the United States, such as zebra mussels, arrived

circuitously, sometimes crossing several international borders. The United States has vast agricultural and other natural resources that are vulnerable to damaging NIS. Thus, this country would be

a major beneficiary of an international system that

is as effective as possible. In the next section,

OTA examines how well international treaty

obligations protect the United States and others

from damaging MS.

TREATIES AND THE MOVEMENT OF

HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

Finding:

Generally, the international regulation of

NIS is weak. Except for plant protection, no

multilateral treaty to which the United States

is a party directly addresses the risks of NIS

imports, although the new Convention on

Biological Diversity includes a weak provision

on NIS.

International environmental laws have multiplied in the last 20 years but they remain weak

compared with national prerogatives, as the laws

tend to lack enforceability (96). International

legal obligations can be important, however, and

they are becoming more comprehensive.5 A

number of treaties address harmful NIS directly,

with specific provisions. Others deal with related

environmental issues and indirectly affect NIS

(box 10-B). Only the former are discussed in

detail here.

Some experts have called for more effective

international laws regarding NIS, particularly to

regulate aquatic releases (13,1 1 1). Of the three

directly relevant multilateral treaties, one has

only vague provisions on NIS (the Convention on

Biological Diversity) and another has not been

ratified by enough countries to take effect (the

Convention 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 the

Exploration 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 295

Box 10-B—Main International Treaties with Provisions Related to Non-Indigenous Species

Multilateral 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 signed

Bilateral 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 Agreement

of 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), signed

in 1976

Multilateral and Bilateral Treaties With Indirect Effects on NIS.

These generally protect habitats or groups of indigenous species deemed to have major conservation

significance.

. 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 in

1975; (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, signed

in 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 1936

The bilateral migratory bird treaties focus on harvest restrictions and include general provisions to preserve

important 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 enforce

obligations.

NOTE: Dates given are for U.S. signature. Agreements were established and opened for signature either in the same year or up to several

years 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 Technology

Assessment, Tec/mo/ogias to A#ahtain Lho/ogica/ Diversify, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987).

The International Plant Protection ● strengthen international efforts to prevent

Convention (IPPC)

IPPC covers agricultural pests. Created under

United Nations auspices, this major multilateral

treaty has been signed by 94 countries, including

the United States in 1972. It establishes a

framework for cooperation in agricultural pest

regulation; lays out general and specific quarantine principles; standardizes terminology an d

permits; and provides a process for resolving

disputes (47). It aims to:

the introduction and spread of pests of plants

and plant products,

● secure international cooperation to control

pests and to promote measures for pest

control, and

• ensure adoption by each country of the legislative, technical, and administrative measures to carry out the Convention’s provisions (15).
296 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

IPPC requires each signatory to establish a

plant protection organization to undertake certification, inspection, control, and research; to conduct surveys; and to share information. This does

not guarantee uniform performance by all parties.

Training, equipment, and facilities differ among

the parties and are lacking altogether in some

(15).

From the U.S. perspective, this unevenness

means that agricultural agencies in many exporting countries cannot be relied on to keep potentially harmful pests out of shipments. In some

cases, it has been advantageous to assist developing countries in improving their pest prevention

infrastructures, as with economically important

Mexico.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO) administers IPPC with

input from regional plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection Organization, to which the United States

belongs. Proposals for changes to IPPC include:

the need for its own secretariat, separate from and

stronger than the current FAO administration

(48); and expanded coverage beyond commercial

plants, that is, to explicitly protect indigenous

plants in non-agricultural areas (12).

No convention comparable to IPPC exists for

animals or their pests, but livestock disease

prevention terminology and information is coordinated by the International Office on Epizootics.

Based in France, it is the international standard

setting organization for animal health.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

Plans for a global multilateral convention on

international protection of biological diversity

have been discussed since 1982 (53). At the

request of the U.N. Environment Programme, the

International Union for the Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources’s (IUCN) Environmental Law 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” article

would have obligated the parties to: prevent

introductions harmful to biological diversity;

attempt eradication of existing harmful introductions; and be attentive to the determinations of a

new international expert body (to be created by

the Convention) as to harmful species, risk

management, and eradication. Several preparatory meetings for UNCED considered the alien

species article and weakened the IUCN draft,

reducing the specificity of the obligations and

eliminating the proposed expert body. In the

version of the “Convention on Biological Diversity” presented at Rio de Janeiro, and signed by

almost all counties except the United States, the

alien species provision reads:

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible

and appropriate: . . . (h) Prevent the introduction

of, control or eradicate those alien species which

threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (95).

The initial obstacles to U.S. signature were

financial and legal concerns concerning biotechnology; language regarding property rights; and

inadequate provisions for financial oversight by

donors (103). The alien species provision did not

contribute to the U.S. refusal. The United States

later signed the Convention in June 1993 but the

Senate has not yet acted on ratification.

The Convention on Biological Diversity does

not hold much promise for significantly reducing

unwanted international exchanges. The alien

species provision is vague and probably unenforceable. This approach contrasts significantly

with the detailed requirements of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an important and

relatively successful treaty (57). Paul Munton,

who chairs the Introductions Specialist Group for

IUCN’s Species Survival Commission, suggested

that CITES could serve as a model for international regulation 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 297

CITES has both strengths and weaknesses as a

model (box 10-C). U.N. officials, other international experts, and the U.S. International Trade

Commission have suggested recently that monitoring compliance with CITES and other international agreements needs more attention (96).

Suggested improvements include monitoring efforts like those used by GATT, the International

Labor Organization, or other groups.6

The Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United States has not signed the sole

multilateral convention with provisions specific

to marine introductions, the Convention on the

Law of the Sea. Indeed, the Convention has not

taken effect because fewer than the required

number of countries have ratified it. The United

States refused to sign the Convention primarily

because of concerns over distribution of revenues

from deep sea-bed mining (53). However, the

Reagan administration did express its intent to

voluntarily comply with the non-mining provisions (102).

The Convention proposes an international approach to marine introductions:

States shall take all measures necessary to

prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the

marine environment resulting from the use of

technologies under their jurisdiction or control, or

the intentional or accidental introduction of

species, alien or new, to a particular part of the

marine environment, which may cause significant

and harmful changes thereto (Article 196) (94).

Articles 197 and 200 call for formulation of

standards on a cooperative global or regional

basis to prevent harmful introductions and to

conduct coordinated research on ‘‘pathways,

risks, and remedies. ’

Bilateral Treaties

The United States has adopted several bilateral

agreements on agricultural quarantines and animal health with Canada and Mexico. These are

agreements between corresponding agency departments, without treaty status. The United

States and Mexico did sign a convention to

protect livestock in 1928 that has facilitated

mutually advantageous veterinary programs, such

as U.S. participation in the control of foot and

mouth disease in Mexico in the 1940s and 1950s

(66).

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 covers

the Great Lakes. The International Joint Commission co-manages the treaty and has overseen

agreements on NIS such as the zebra mussel (39).

The invasion of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon

marinus) in the early 1900s, which devastated

indigenous fish populations, precipitated the establishment of another treaty in 1955—the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (33). The Great

Lakes Fishery Commission administers this treaty

and coordinates sea lamprey control. Also, the

Commission coordinates fish stocking with such

NIS as Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.).

Disputes among the parties (States, Provinces,

and Federal Governments) regarding fish restoration were anticipated by the Joint Strategic Plan

adopted in 1980 (38). The Plan calls for consensus before unilateral actions, and the Commission

can arbitrate if a dispute cannot be resolved

otherwise.

Outside the Great Lakes, disputes have occurred between individual States and the Canadian and Provincial governments over fish releases. North Dakota’s experimental release of

the European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca)

raised concerns not only because of uncertainty

over impacts from the fish itself, but also from

two potentially associated non-indigenous fish

diseases (5). No direct legal mechanism like the

6 In January 1991, Senator Daniel Moynihan introduced Senate bill S .59, tie General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for the Environment

Act of 1991. This bill proposed using GA~ to monitor and enforce international environmental agreements (96),
298 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 10-C-CITES as a Model for International Regulation of Non-Indigenous Species

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and flora (CITES) is credited

with saving many species from extinction and has been called the most successful international treaty concerned

with wildlife conservation. It has had its share of difficulties, too—many involving political disagreements. CITES

regulates and monitors international wildlife trade, business that grosses between $5 billion and $17 billion

annually.

CITES detailed approach is quite different from that of the Convention on Biological Diversity and thus

represents an alternate model for regulating those harmful NIS not already covered by the International Plant

Protection 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 cause

harm for both parties. For example, exporting rare parrots can diminish South American fauna and threaten

indigenous U.S. birds with disease if they escape here. Tree ferns are rare and protected in Australia, but they

are 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 for

which 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 Authorities

to address biological aspects, in most signatory countries; these commicate directly with each other and

the 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 by

the parties.

(continued)

Great Lakes agreement, existed for Canada to reduced if appropriate screening and regulachallenge the action by North Dakota.

In sum, international agreements that control

the movement of harmful NIS are quite limited.

What kind of future can be predicted, given the

continuing, and probably increasing, numbers

and kinds of NIS in international transit?

FROM TRENDS TO PREDICTIONS

Finding:

Many experts anticipate increasingly negative impacts from unintentional introductions

of NIS in the long term. OTA concurs that

there is considerable cause for concern. At the

same time, future problems associated with

intentional importations and releases could be

tory programs are adopted and implemented.

A Pessimistic View of the Future

Many researchers are strikingly pessimistic

about slowing and managing harmful introductions. Some anticipate:

a future ‘‘. , . with invasion sure to play an

increasingly important role in the ecology of the

biosphere . . .“ (106)

‘‘continued mixing of the regions’ biotas . . .“

(36)

an “. . . inexorable invasion of all biotas by

alien species from other regions, biomes and

continents.” (87)
Chapter 10–The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change! 299

Negative 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 species

carefully along with those that manage carelessly;

. creation of a harmful underground trade (approximately one-fourth to one-third of threatened and

endangered species trade is estimated to be illegal);

. lack of scientific knowledge and/or political will in many countries to make appropriate listings and to

enforce permits;

• the opportunity for countries that disagree with CITES on particular listings to exempt themselves by

entering “reservations;”

. limited compliance with reporting requirements and lack of enforcement measures specified in the treaty

itself; and

. lack of uniform documentation for importing and exportingcountries, making misrepresentation and forgery

easier;

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 inadequate

assessment 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 Defense

Council, Washington, DC, personal communication to the Office of T=hnology Assessment, Dec. 24, 1992; G. Hemley, “international

Wildlife 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 the

Third International Theriological Conference, Helsinki, Finland, August 1982; U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, /nternatrbrrsd

Environment: /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 and of six continental realms of life with all their

fragmentation, this implies a biota increasingly minor components of mountain tops, islands and

enriched in wide-spread, weedy species-rats, fresh waters, separated by barriers to dispersal,

ragweed and cockroaches . . , .’ (45) there will be only one world, with the remaining

“

that the circumstances conducive to the wild species dispersed up to the limits set by their. . .

invasion of introduced species will become more genetic characteristics, not to the narrower limits

widespread in the future, not less widespread. ” set by mechanical barriers as well. ” (32)

(59)

“Because of increasing contact and exchange

throughout the world, introductions of exotic

pests will take place with increasing frequency

. . . “ (23).

“

. . . as species are introduced or move in

response to environmental changes, some of

today’s desirable species may become pests in

their new environmental context, while some

pests may become more pernicious. ” (56)

‘ ‘If we look far enough ahead, the eventual

state of the biological world will become not

more complex but simpler—and poorer. Instead

When people speculate about the future, they

tend to be predominantly pessimists or optimists;

the work of futurists has even been categorized on

that basis (62). Whether these experts are unduly

pessimistic or not, they picture a serious problem

that is getting worse. One prominent conservation

biologist sees the spread of NIS as the only high

impact threat to biological diversity that affects

both richer and poorer countries at every level of

biological organization-from single genes to

whole landscapes (88). In order to supplement

these views, OTA asked its Advisory Panel to

envision the world’s future regarding NIS also.
300 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Box 10-D-OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the Future

OTA’s Advisory Panelists (p. iv) have been dealing with NIS for much of their professional Iives and are more

expert than most in assessing what the future might hold. Fallowing are some of the fears and hopes they identified

when 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 massive

alteration of natural habitats and natural flora and fauna . . . By the mid-21st Century, biological invasions become

one of the most prominent ecological issues on Earth . . . A few small isolated ecosystems have escaped the hand

of [humans] and in turn NIS. . . One place looks like the next and no one cares . . . The homogeneity may not

be aesthetically or practically displeasing, but inherently it diminishes the capacity of the biotic world to respond

to 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 the

late 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 . . . All

unwanted 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 accessible

knowledge 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 urban

landscaping, for ornamental in gardens, for biological control of pests, for added interest, for increased

biodiversity, for new food and medicine-is appreciated. The overarching criterion for judging the value of a

species 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 those for analogs to the zebra mussel—those surprise

excerpted above (box 10-D).

Such scenarios would have substantial financial, as well as environmental, costs. The worst

case scenarios of future U.S. economic losses

from 15 harmful NIS could total $134 billion7

(table 10-2). These figures are based on available

economic projections, ranging from 1 to 50 years.

However, far more than these 15 harmful NIS are

likely to create losses in the future (ch. 2, 3). For

example, if leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) is

allowed to spread unrestricted throughout Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming, annual impacts could reach $46 million by 1995 (6). Similar

cost estimates are not available for most harmful

MS, however. Nor do these projections account

species that radically and rapidly alter economic

outlooks.

Island species, as well as those inhabiting

long-isolated bodies of freshwater, will remain at

high environmental risk from non-indigenous

predators, diseases, and competitors from continental regions (ch. 8) (86). Generally, however,

island-like continental areas (such as isolated

mountains) have not experienced the same degree

of evolutionary isolation and thus are less likely

to be as vulnerable to MS-caused extinctions as

oceanic islands are (59).

In the future, larger proportions of harmful

introductions will be unplanned as controls are

likely to tighten on intentional ones. Most ani7 Past economic losses are provided in ch, 3.
Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 301

Table 10-2—Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic Losses From 15 Selected Non-lndigenous Speciesa

Cumulative loss estimates

Group Species studied (in millions, $1991)b

Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . melaleuca, purple Ioosestrife, witchweed 4,588

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . African honey bee, Asian gypsy moth, boll weevil, 73,739

Mediterranean fruit fly, nun moth, spruce bark beetles

Aquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . zebra mussel 3,372

Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . annosus root disease, larch canker, soybean rust fungus 26,924

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foot and mouth disease, pine wood nematodes 25,617

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 species 134,240

a 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. Many

of the economic projections are not weighted by the probability that the invasions would actually occur. Thus, the figures represent worst case

scenarios. 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 of

Technology Assessment, March 1992.

mals are intentionally imported and released and

heightened awareness should limit further releases of harmful entries (59) (box 3-b).

Some observers expect that weed problems are

likely to become greater and more complex

(35,59). The significance of woody weeds is

likely to increase in Mediterranean-like regions of

the world, including California, while better

management may cause other types to decline

(36). Many U.S. weeds have close relatives

overseas. As more of these weeds reach the

United States, hybridization could sufficiently

alter the non-indigenous weeds to make identification of their natural enemies difficult; as a

result, biological control would progress more

slowly (30),

Likewise, some forests may experience more

severe insect and disease outbreaks as new pests

add to the cumulative damage of current ones (7).

One prominent conservation biologist expects

control of various NIS to be a growth industry and

anticipates calls for massive spraying of pesticides (87).

The Next Pest s

OTA identified 205 foreign species that were

introduced or detected in the United States

between 1980 and 1993; 59 are known to be

harmful (table 3-l). For those that become

established, impacts are likely to increase as their

ranges expand. This kind of data could alert

managers to new and potentially damaging NIS.

However, such information is scattered and of

highly variable quality.

USDA’s APHIS tracks certain overseas pests

and diseases. This is a daunting task. Thousands

of organisms are potential pests, but a smaller

number are most likely to reach the United States

and become established. The USDA Veterinary

Service identified 61 diseases of livestock and

poultry and 4 fish diseases of particular concern;

veterinarians receive these reports and are asked

to look out for new diseases (52). The most recent,

comprehensive assessment of future plant pests

for the United States identified 1,200 species still

restricted to other countries (75). Plants worth

watching include:

●

●

23 species plus 8 multispecies genera of

aquatic, parasitic, or terrestrial plants prohibited from entry by the Federal Noxious

Weed Act (FNWA); and

29 species, 10 genera, plus 6 families of

weedy plants that are not listed on the

FNWA (60).

Preventing damage by the first group depends

on the effectiveness of the system back stopping

the Federal Noxious Weed Act. The second group

of plants also poses significant economic and

ecological hazards, but the FNWA provides no
302 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

protection from them. Many species in this group

have close relatives in the United States that are

already troublesome weeds (60). Another 29

species and one genus of non-indigenous weedy

plants are present in the United States but not yet

widespread. Examples of the most significant of

these 3 categories of potential U.S. weeds appear

in table 10-3.

Neither the Federal Government nor most State

Governments make systematic efforts to evaluate

such imminent problems. Within USDA, support

has been sporadic for the databases that would

provide early warnings (ch. 5). On the other hand,

Minnesota recently completed an assessment of

threats from MS; 11 plant, 8 insect, 5 fish, 2

invertebrate, and 7 vertebrate species were identified as potential pests not known to occur in

Minnesota as of January 1991 (65). Also, the

Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species

Task Force is developing an information system

on non-indigenous aquatic species and their

effects. This part of the Task Force’s proposed

Aquatic Nuisance Species Program is intended to

provide timely notification of the detection and

dispersal of these organisms.

Climate Change: the Wild Card in

Predictions

Finding:

Projected ecological disruption from climate change would increase the probability of

invasions by NIS. Also, it would inject great

complexity into defining what is and is not

indigenous and cause even more policymaking difficulty than currently exists. In

particular, new policies would be needed to

address whether movements by populations in

response to climate change should be treated

passively—as if they were natural-or actively.

Scientists are confident that human activity is

dramatically changing the chemical makeup of

the Earth’s atmosphere (97). Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases that trap heat

in the atmosphere-carbon dioxide, methane,

nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons-have

increased rapidly over the last 100 years, generally as a result of human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded

that the global mean temperature could increase

from today’s level by roughly 2.2 o

F (1.0 ‘C) by

2030 and 6.6 o

F (3.0 ‘C) by 2100 if present

emission levels continue (43). Because greenhouse gases may persist in the atmosphere for up

to a century, some amount of global warming

appears unavoidable even if countries take stringent measures to limit further emissions today

(43).

Temperature changes of this magnitude would

have significant effects on the distribution of

indigenous and non-indigenous species. Any

predictions about the future status of harmful NIS

need to account for the possibility of global

climate change.

Many uncertainties surround predictions of

climate change. However, 100-year increases of

1.5 to 5.5 oC fall in the middle range of most

models’ predictions. If realized, these levels

would make the Earth warmer than at any time in

the past 200,000 years (1 10), with temperatures

rising at a rate perhaps 15 to 40 times as fast as

past natural changes (80).

Living organisms are quite sensitive to temperature and temperature-related parameters such as

precipitation, humidity, and soil moisture. To find

the same temperature, a 3 oC increase requires a

northward shift of 250 kilometers or an upward

elevational movement of 500 meters (58). Different species will shift ranges at different rates.

Estimates for individual species project larger

range shifts: 350 km northward for loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda) (64) and 500 to 1,000 km for 4

common North American trees8 (24). Such species relocation may be possible for highly mobile

organisms or for those that readily colonize new

a 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 303

Table 10-3—Examples of Weedy Plants With Potential for Significant Economic or Ecological Harm

Common (when available) and scientific names Comments

Weedy plants not established in the United States and prohibited from entry by the Federal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA)

Monochoria vaginalis aquatic weed of rice fields throughout Asia

African payal (Salvinia auriculata) South American aquatic weed now troublesome in Africa; closely

related to one of world’s worst weeds (S. mdesta)

Dodders (Cuscuta spp.) parasitic plant of many crops; worldwide problem (some species in

warmer parts of United States)

Broomrapes (Orobanche spp.) parasitic plant of many crops; worldwide problem

Witchweeds (Striga spp.) parasite mostly of grasses; widespread in India, Africa

Couchgrasses (Digitaria spp.) terrestrial weed of fields, disturbed areas in Africa

African boxthorn (Lycinum ferocissimum) terrestrial hedge plant--escaping; serious weed of natural areas and

fields in South Africa, Australia New Zealand

Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) terrestrial weed of fields, waste places; one of worst weeds in New

Zealand

Weedy plants not established in the United States and not listed by the FNWA

Tutsan (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 Australia

Bromegrasses (Bromus spp.) close relatives to already troublesome U.S. weed; weeds of arid sites

in central Asia, Russia, Mediterranean region

(Avena strigosa) close relative to already troublesome U.S. weed; weed in corn and

oats fields in central Europe and Mediterranean region

Panic grasses (Panicum spp.) climbs over vegetation; problem in tropical Africa and Asia

Sedges (Cyperaceae) weeds of waste places, cultivated fields, and wet areas near ponds,

streams, rivers; worldwide; multiple genera

Weedy plants in the United States but not yet widespread

Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) listed under FNWA; problem along roadsides and in waste places in

Idaho; eradicated in California

Catclaw mimosa (Mimosa pigra var. pigra) listed under FNWA; wide-spread in tropical Africa; quarantined in

Australia; present in Florida

Persian darnel (Lolium persicum) not listed under FNWA; weed of fields and waste places in North

Dakota

Cudweed (Filago arvensis) not listed under FNWA; weed of fields, waste places, overgrazed

rangeland in Washington and Oregon

Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) not listed under FNWA; poisonous to livestock; found in roadsides,

(Thladiantha dubia)

Raoul grass (Rottboellia

(Medicago polymorpha)

gullies, canals in Florida and the Pacific Northwest

not listed under FNWA; vine that climbs over vegetation; found in New

Hampshire and Minnesota

exaltata) listed under FNWA; invading sugarcane fields in Florida and

Louisiana

not listed under FNWA; weed of cultivated areas and waste places;

found in Hawaii and almost worldwide

SOURCES: R.N. Mack, “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1992. Compiled from: R.D. Blackburn, L.W. Weldon, R.R. Yeo, and T.M. Taylor, “Identification and Distribution

of Certain Similar-Appearing Submersed Aquatic Weeds in Florida,” Hyacinth Contro/ Journa/, vol. 8, 1969, pp. 17-21; R.A. Creager, “Seed

Germination, Physical and Chemical Control of Catclaw Mimosa (Mimosa pigra var. pigra), k%ed Technology, vol. 6, 1992, pp. 864-891; T. Miller

and 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 States

areas. Some evidence indicates that northward

range shifts are already happening (79).

Species that cannot relocate fast enough may

be able to adapt genetically to climate changes.

However, most species’ physiological adaptations to climate are highly conservative. They are

unlikely to evolve fast enough to fit such rapidly

changing conditions and extinctions of populations and species can be expected (74).

Also, biological, geographic, or human-caused

factors such as habitat destruction may prevent

many species from adjusting their ranges or

otherwise responding successfully. Even those

species capable of spreading rapidly to cooler

sites may not flourish given new soil conditions,

changes in day length, or different food sources

and they may also be extirpated (74). Indeed, the

most successful species are likely to be those

adept at invading new habitats, including many

current pests and pathogens (26).

New species may arrive from overseas or

spread north from Mexico, the Caribbean, or from

the southern United States. For example, models

predict that at least a few agricultural pests and

pathogens, such as the potato leafhopper (Emposasca fabae), which feeds on soybeans and

other crops, are likely to experience expanded

areas in which they can survive winter temperatures (90). The species compositions of aquatic

communities will change with increasing water

temperatures. Many water bodies, such as the

Chesapeake Bay, will probably become poorer in

terms of diversity and size of harvest (50). Other

water bodies could become more productive, e.g.,

populations of warm-, cool-, and cold-water fish

in the Great Lakes are expected to increase

because of longer growing seasons, although

biological diversity overall could decline (61).

Forest pests and pathogens may spread (74).

Tropical livestock diseases, such as Rift Valley

fever and African swine fever, will be more likely

to spread (73).

Increases in the incidence of several human

diseases and parasites could result from the

northward movement of their vector species in the

United States. These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

ascariasis, caused by the nematode Ascaris

lumbricoides;

Chagas’ disease, caused by a protozoan

parasite (Trypanosoma cruzi) transmitted

by temperature-sensitive insects (Triatoma

sp.) (28);

dengue, caused by a virus carried by the

temperature-sensitive mosquitoes (Aedes

aegypti, A. albopictus, and A. triseriatus);

malaria, caused by Plasmodium spp., with

mosquito vectors (Anopheles spp.); and

arthropod-borne encephalitis, a group of

viral diseases carried by a variety of mosquitoes (55).

Rapid ecological changes set the stage for speeding up the process by which new diseases emerge

or by bringing humans in contact with new agents

(83).

Today’s biological communities will break

apart as some species relocate or are lost and

others are added (74). These newly re-sorted

biological groups could be more vulnerable to

further invasions by NIS (49). Some observers

predict that climate change could become the

dominant driving force for new biological invasions in the next century (26). Assuming climate

change occurs, and significantly affects North

America, the changing biological communities

will greatly complicate issues relating to NIS,

compelling increasingly difficult decisions (21).

Understanding the complex forces that drive

large-scale movements of animal and plant populations will be critical to unraveling particular

invasions (56). But, in one scientist’s view, ‘‘it is

hopelessly optimistic to expect that the scientific

understanding that can be obtained over the next

100 years will enable us to predict the kind and

extent of changes in the distribution and abundance of dominant plant species’ (21). Others are

less pessimistic regarding biologists’ predictive

capabilities (49). Several studies outline at least
Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change! 305

Understanding the rapid spread of non-indigenous

species such as dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) might

help predict and manage the biological shifts that

would accompany global climate change.

the general effects of unprecedented warming on

future species ranges and different ecosystems

(99,1 13)$

Global climate change would also scramble

policies related to NIS. Under the commonly used

historical definition of indigenous or its equivalents, a individual becomes non-indigenous when

it leaves its species’ range at some particular point

in time. That time would need to be steadily

reassessed for this definition to remain meaningful during climate changes. Otherwise, an increasing proportion of species would be considered non-indigenous, ‘‘exotic, ’ or “alien’ and

subject to the statutes, regulations, and policies

that use these terms.

Under OTA’s definition (ch. 2), an individual

remains indigenous as long as it is within its

species’ natural range or natural zone of potential

dispersal—areas determined in the absence of

‘‘significant human influence. ’ Natural ranges

and zones can and do change over ecological and

evolutionary time. Climate change would alter

the specific location of species’ ranges and

dispersal zones but species would retain their

designation as indigenous if their movements

were treated as ‘‘natural. For this definition to

remain meaningful, there must be some way to

distinguish between phenomena that involve

lesser and greater human intervention. This is

increasingly difficult.

In time, global climate change could render

both definitions obsolete, along with policies

based on them. Therefore, management and

policy flexibility is likely to be increasingly

important. A number of options regarding species

movement have been suggested. Each presents

difficult, and often expensive, choices. Many

lessons learned from managing harmful NIS

could inform such choices. These include decisions to:

1. Block Species’ Movements---Managers might

want to block movements of particularly harmful

species. However, USDA’s $6 million attempt to

slow the African honey bee’s (Apis mellifera

scutellata) advance in southern Mexico has proven

impractical (77). It is not clear whether other such

efforts would be more successful.

2. Conduct Intensive Habitat Creation or

Restoration—Managers might try to create artificial habitats for some species unable to adjust on

their own (8). This could also entail controlling

invaders from the south or lower elevations (70).

However, the science of ecological restoration is

in its infancy (ch. 5), managers would face great

difficulty in anticipating changes and implementing plans (21), and some sites may change so

much that habitat restoration or creation is

impossible,

3. Provide Movement Corridors and New

Protected Areas--Farmland, highways, cities,

forest clear cuts, and other human-made areas can

interrupt the movement of populations adjusting

to climate change. Managers might acquire and

maintain either movement corridors through these

areas or new protected areas (74). Movement

corridors might provide new pathways for harmful species as well (85), however. The practicality

of corridors is not known because few have been

intentionally created and studied. Data on pathways for harmful NIS might suggest plausible

approaches,
306 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

4. Translocate Species-Impassable barriers

to population movements may compel managers

to physically move individual organisms, or their

germ plasm (70). Perhaps only a few commercial,

recreational, or otherwise popular species would

receive the political and financial support for such

expensive efforts. Unanticipated ecological and

economic consequences could result from releases into new environments, as have other

releases discussed in this report. Large-scale

species translocations to prevent extinction remain largely theoretical.

5. Emphasize Ecosystem Functions-Managers might aim to preserve desirable ecosystem

services-such as erosion control or providing

forage, timber, or other commodities-rather

than preserving particular species or communities

(89). In some cases, NIS maybe the only species

capable of providing these services during climate change. However, little is known about the

fictional substitutability of species, in part

because many critical species are decompose

microbes and soil invertebrates (112).

Expanding international trade and other 20th

Century changes have increased the numbers of

species being moved worldwide. Climate change

would be likely to accelerate these trends further.

Many more species would be shifting ranges and

people could have additional reasons to import

and release species into new areas. Climate

change is the wild card in predicting the future

status of NIS.

WRAP-UP: THE CHOICES BEFORE US

Certainly parts of the future pictured in this

chapter will come to pass—the trends toward loss

of indigenous species and greater global movement of non-indigenous ones are firmly in place.

These trends may be slowed but they would be

very difficult and costly to reverse. As a result,

some observers find that a profound transition is

under way. The metaphors that guide natural

resource management are shifting-from the

self-sustaining wilderness to the managed garden

(27. The world is being defined more in terms of

the “unnatural” rather than the “natural” (82).

This change is just one part of a general trend

toward a more managed globe, whether such

management relates to trade, pollution, telecommunications, or international conflict (17). To

some, this shift represents a grave loss. To others,

it represents greater willingness to undertake

responsible action. Issues regarding indigenous

and non-indigenous species underscore these

different points of view.

In thinking about the future, the distinction

between forecasts and visions is significant.

Forecasts are concerned with the probable and

possible. 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 a

future in which beneficial MS contributed a great

deal to human well-being, indigenous species

were preserved, and harmful MS were brought

under control (box 10-D). Much of this report is

designed to provide the background and means

for Congress to achieve such a vision. But

deciding the vision’s worthiness-and choosing

whether to pursue it—are not choices that science

can make. Nor does nature provide answers.

Which species to import and release, which to

exclude, and which to control are ultimately

cultural and political choices--choices about the

kind of world in which we want to live.
Appendix A:

1

Boxes

l-A.

l-B,

l-c.

l-D.

l-E.

l-F.

l-G.

l-H.

Figure

1-1.

Tables

1-1.

1-2.

1-3.

1-4.

SUMMARY, ISSUES, AND OPTIONS

A Road Map to the Full Assessment, 2

Failure and Success: Lessons from the Fire

Ant and Boll Weevil Eradication Programs,

10

OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the

Future, 16

The National Environmental Policy Act and

Non-Indigenous Species, 18

How New Zealand Addresses NonIndigenous Species, 20

How to Improve the Lacey Act, 23

National Minimum Standards for State Fish

and Wildlife Laws, 26

How to Improve the Federal Noxious Weed

Act. 29

State-by-State Distribution of Some High

Impact Non-Indigenous Species, 4

Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous

Species in the United States, 3

Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United

States From Selected

Harmful Non-Indigenous Species-1906-

1991, 5

Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic

Losses From 15 Selected Non-Indigenous

Species, 6

Lag Times Between Identification of

1-5.

1-6.

1-7.

2

Boxes

2-A.

2-B.

2-c.

2-D.

Figures

2-1.

2-2.

2-3,

2-4.

2-5.

List of

Boxes,

Figures,

and Tables

Species’ Pathway and Implementation of

Prevention Program, 8

Examples of Control Technologies for NonIndigenous Species, 9

Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to

NIS, 12

Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for

Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release,

14

THE CONSEQUENCES OF HARMFUL

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

Terms Used By OTA, 53

The Case of the Brown Trout: Opposing

Views of Fish Introductions, 64

Economic Losses Caused by NonIndigenous Weeds, 66

Case Study of An Affected Industry: The

“One-Two Punch” of Asian Clams and

Zebra Mussels on the Power Industry, 68

Scope of Study, 52

How Frequent Are High-Impact NonIndigenous Species?, 58

State by State Distribution of Some HighImpact Non-Indigenous Species, 59

Reported Effects of Non-Indigenous

Species in the United States, 60

How Often Do Intentional Versus

Unintentional Introductions Have Harmful

Effects?, 62

307
308 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Tables

2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

2-4.

3

Boxes

3-A.

3-B.

3-c.

Figures

3-1.

3-2.

3-3.

3-4.

Tables

3-1.

3-2.

3-3.

34.

3-5.

Groups of Organisms Covered by OTA’s

Contractors, 55

Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United

States From Selected Harmful NonIndigenous Species, 1906-1991,69

Contribution of Non-Indigenous Species to

Threatened and Endangered Species

Listings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 72

Examples of Non-Indigenous Species

Problems in the National Parks, 75

THE CHANGING NUMBERS, CAUSES,

AND RATES OF INTRODUCTIONS

The Unwelcome Arrival of the Asian Tiger

Mosquito, 81

Importations for Fish and Wildlife

Management Have Decreased, 99

Dry Ballast Has Ceased to be a Pathway,

100

Generic Pathways of Species Entry and

Spread, 78

State by State Spread of Four Harmful

Non-Indigenous Species, 86-87

Estimates of the Cumulative Numbers of

Non-Indigenous Species of Foreign Origin

in the United States, 94

Numbers of New Insect and Other

Invertebrate Species Established

in California, 1955-1988, 97

Some Species of Foreign Origin Introduced

or First Detected in the United States From

1980 to 1993, 101-106

Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous

Species in the United States, 92-

Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous

Species in Selected States, 95

Number of New Species of Foreign Origin

Established Per Decade, 96

Factors Affecting Species Movements, 98

4

Boxes

4-A.

4-B.

4-c.

4-D.

4-E.

4-F.

Figures

4-1.

4-2.

4-3.

4-4.

Tables

4-1.

4-2.

4-3,

4-4.

5

Boxes

5-A.

THE APPLICATION OF

DECISIONMAKING METHODS

History of Fish and Wildlife Service

Attempts To Implement Clean Lists under

the Lacey Act, 111

Siberian Timber Imports: A Potentially

High-Risk Pathway, 118-119

Macroeconomics and Non-Indigenous

Species, 124

outline of Steps for Benefit/Cost Analysis

of Non-Indigenous Species 128

The IUCN Position Statement on

Translocation of Living Organisms, 129

Prominent Decisionmaking Protocols, 130

Application of the APHIS Generic Pest Risk

Assessment Process, 116

Relative Extents to Which Effects of

Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Species are

Amenable to Economic Quantification, 123

National Costs and Benefits of Detecting

Forest Pest Introductions in New Zealand,

125

The Major Interests Involved in Shaping

Non-Indigenous Species Policy, 133

General Approaches to Making Decisions

About Non-Indigenous Species, 108

Examples of Clean and Dirty Lists in

Statutes or Regulations, 109

Relative Technical Feasibility of

Comprehensive Clean Lists for Regulating

Importation of Major Groups of NonIndigenous Species, 110

Documented Benefit/Cost Ratios for

Eradication, Control, or Prevention of

Selected Non-Indigenous Species, 126-127

TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTING

AND MANAGING PROBLEMS

Failure and Success: Lessons From the Fire

Ant and Boll Weevil Eradication Programs,

149
5-B.

5-c.

Tables

5-1.

5-2.

5-3.

5-4.

5-5,

6

Boxes

6-A.

6-B.

6-C.

Figures

6-1.

6-2.

Tables

6-1,

6-2.

6-3.

64.

6-5.

Appendix A: List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 309

Ecological Restoration in the Hole-in-theDonut, Everglades National Park, Florida,

159

The Loss of Chemical Pesticides: A Real

Example, 161

Examples of Treatment Technologies for

Importing Commodities, 140

Lag Times Between Identification of

Species’ Pathway and Implementation of

Prevention Program, 144

Examples of Control Technologies for NonIndigenous Species, 152

Examples of Registered Microbial

Biological Control Agents, 154

Examples of Technologies Used in Zebra

Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Education

Programs, 158

A PRIMER ON FEDERAL POLICY

A Locator for Federal Agencies Discussed

in Chapter 6, 164

Executive Order 11987—May 24, 1977,

Exotic Organisms, 167

Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species in

the National Parks, 190

Account Receipts of the FWS Federal Aid

to States Program, 186

Growing Distributions of Three Noxious

Weeds in the Northwest, 191

Delivery of Requirements Under the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention and Control Act, 169

Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to

NIS, 171

Federal Coverage of Different Groups of

Organisms, 172

APHIS’s Pest and Disease Exclusion

Activities, 174

Microbial Pesticides Registered by EPA,

198

7

Boxes

7-A.

7-B.

7-c.

7-D.

7-E.

Tables

7-1.

7-2.

7-3.

7-4.

7-5.

7-6.

8

Boxes

8-A.

8-B.

8-C.

8-D.

STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHES FROM

A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Maine v. Taylor: A Key Constitutional

Decision, 202

When Federal and State Interests Collide:

Control of Harmful NIS In and Around

Protected Lands, 205

Views from the State Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, 210-211

Washington State’s New Quarantines on

Natural Area Weeds, 226-227

Illinois Shifts to Indigenous Plants, 228

Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for

Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release,

212

Numbers of Species or Groups Prohibited

from Importation and/or Release by States,

213

Gaps in Legal Authority, 214

Decisionmaking Standards Used by States,

215

Non-Indigenous Species Decisionmaking

Standards in Relation

to State Environmental Policy Acts, 216

References to Key State Statutes and

Regulations on Importation and Release of

Fish and Wildlife, 222-223

TWO CASE STUDIES: NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAll AND

FLORIDA

Costs of Hawaii’s Major Fruit Fly Pests and

Their Eradication, 244

The Potential Invasion and Impact of the

Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii, 247-248

A View from Hawaii: Recommendations of

the Nature Conservancy and Natural

Resources Defense Council, 255

Non-Indigenous Species and the Effects of

Hurricane Andrew, 259
310 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Figures

8-1.

8-2.

Tables

8-1.

8-2.

8-3.

8-4.

8-5.

9

Boxes

9-A.

9-B.

9-c.

9-D.

9-E.

Tables

9-1.

Perceived Importance of Pathways in the

Introduction of Insect Pests and Illegal

Animals in Hawaii, 245

Protected Areas in Southern Florida, 256

Past and Present Status of Nonmarine

Species in Hawaii, 235

Significant Non-Indigenous Pest Species in

Hawaii, 237

Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii: Roles

of Federal and State Agencies, 241

Research Costs for Sugar Cane Pest Control

in Hawaii, 1986-1992, 243

Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous

Species in Florida, 257

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED

ORGANISMS AS A SPECIAL CASE

What Do You Call an Organism With New

Genes?, 268

The Risks of Genetically Engineered

Organisms: Lessons From Non-Indigenous

Species, 271

Which Categories of GEOs APHIS

Regulates as “Plant Pests,” 273

Transgenic Fish: Events Surrounding the

Auburn Experiments, 278

Controversy Erupts as Upjohn’s Transgenic

Squash (“ ZW-20’ Moves Towards

Commercialization, 282-283

9-2.

9-3.

94.

9-5.

10

Boxes

1O-A.

1O-B.

l0-C.

10-D.

Tables

10-1.

10-2.

10-3.

Federal Policies and Regulations Related to

the Environmental Release of GEOs Since

1984,269

Who Regulates Which GEO Releases?, 272

Current and Potential Future Releases of

GEOs, 275

Selected Recent Discussions of the

Environmental Effects of Releasing GEOs,

280

Federal Pre-Release Requirements forSmallScale Releases of Certain Non-Indigenous

Species (NIS) and GEOs, 281

THE CONTEXT OF THE FUTURE:

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GLOBAL

CHANGE

U.S. Exports of Non-Indigenous Aquatic

Species, 288

Main International Treaties with Provisions

Related to Non-Indigenous Species, 295

CITES as a Model for International

Regulation of Non-Indigenous Species, 298-

299

OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the

Future, 300

How Social and Economic Factors and

Technological Innovations Could Change

the Status of Non-Indigenous Species in the

Future, 292

Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic

Losses From 15 Selected Non-Indigenous

Species, 301

Examples of Weedy Plants With Potential

for Significant Economic or Ecological

Harm, 303
Appendix B:

I Part 1. The Assessment’s Contractors’

Reports and Their Reviewers

Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the

Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,

Terrestrial and Estuarine Mollusks in the United

State-October 1991

Author: Joseph C. Britton, Department of Biology,

Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX

Advisory panel reviewers: William B. Kovalak and

Rudolph A. Rosen

outside reviewers:

Robert Hershler, Department of Invertebrate Zoology,

Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC

Robert F. McMahon, Department of Biology,

University of Texas, Arlington, TX

Barry Roth, Consultant, San Francisco, CA

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the

introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States-September 1991

Author: Richard N. Mack, Department of Botany,

Washington State University, Pullman, WA

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, John

D. Lattin, Don C. Schmitz, Howard M. Singletary,

Jr., and Clifford W. Smith

Authors, Workshop

Participants,

Reviewers, and

Survey Respondents

Outside reviewers:

Richard R. Old, Department of Plant, Soil and

Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho,

Moscow, ID

Marcel Rejmanek, Department of Botany, University

of California, Davis, CA

Kevin J. Rice, Department of Agronomy and Range

Science, University of California, Davis, CA

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the

Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the

United States-August 1991

Author: Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., Department of

Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University,

Boca Raton, FL

Advisory panel reviewers: William B. Kovalak and

Rudolph A. Rosen

Outside reviewers:

James E. Deacon, Department of Biological Sciences,

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV

Christopher C. Kohler, Cooperative Fisheries

Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale, IL

James A. McCann, National Fisheries Research

Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Gainesville, FL

Peter B. Moyle, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Biology, University of California, Davis, CA

311
312 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Richard T. Noble, Departments of Zoology and

Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

NC

Bruce R. Schmidt, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Salt

Lake City, UT

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the

United States-December 1991

Author: Calvin L. Schoulties, Regulatory and Public

Service Program, Clemson University, Clemson,

SC

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, Robert

P. Kahn, and Clifford W. Smith

Outside reviewers:

Stella Melugin Coakley, Department of Botany and

Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Conrad J. Krass, Division of Plant Industry, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,

CA

Kurt J. Leonard, Cereal Rust Laboratory, University of

Minnesota, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN

George A. Zentmyer, Department of Plant Pathology,

University of California, Riverside, CA

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in

the United States---December 1991

Authors: Ke Chung Kim and A.G. Wheeler, Jr,, Frost

Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, University

Park, PA

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, Lester

E. Ehler, Robert P. Kahn, John D. Lattin, Jerry D.

Scribner, Clifford W. Smith, William S. Wallace,

and Reggie Wyckoff

Outside reviewers:

James R. Carey, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, CA

Ernest S. Delfosse, National Biological Control Institute, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Mark A. Deyrup, Archbold Biological Station, Lake

Placid, FL

Ronald L. Johnson, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Morestown, NJ

Douglass R. Miller, Agricultural Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD

Report: Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United

States-October 1991

Authors: Stanley A. Temple and Dianne M. Carroll,

Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of

Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Advisory panel reviewers: J, Baird Callicott and

Faith T. Campbell

Outside reviewers:

Thomas H. Fritts, National Museum of Natural History, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

Michael P. Moulton, Department of Biology, Georgia

Southern University, Statesboro, GA

Gordon H. Orians, Department of Zoology, University

of Washington, Seattle, WA

Charles van Riper, III, Cooperative National Park

Resources Studies Unit, National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Flagstaff, AZ

Decisionmaking Models

Report: Risk Analysis As a Tool for Making Decisions

About the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species

Into the United States-July 1991

Authors: Peter Kareiva, Martha Groom, Ingrid Parker,

and Jennifer Ruesink, University of Washington,

Seattle, WA

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T.Campbell, Lester

E. Ehler, Robert P. Kahn, John D. Lattin, and

Clifford W. Smith

Outside reviewers:

Ronald D. Hiebert, National Park Service-Midwest,

U.S. Department of Interior, Omaha, NE

Gary H. Johnston, Wildlife and Vegetation Division,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

Matthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Daniel Simberloff, Department of Biological Sciences,

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents 3 1 3

Report: The Role and Limits of Economics in Deci -

sionmaking Regarding Non-Indigenous Species—

August 1991

Authors: Alan Randall and Michael H. Thomas,

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural

Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Advisory panel reviewers: J. Baird Callicott and

Katherine H. Reichelderfer

Outside reviewers:

Richard C. Bishop, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Gardner Brown, Economics Department, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA

Richard B. Norgaard, Energy and Resources Group,

University of California, Berkeley, CA

Richard C. Ready, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

Mark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and Public

Policy, University of Maryland, College Park MD

Reports:

A.

B.

c.

D.

A Framework for Special Accounting of the

Effects of Introductions of Non-Indigenous Spe -

cies-March 1992

The Application of Benefit Cost Analysis to

Social Accounting of Non-Indigenous Species

Introductions-March 1992

Economic Impact Tables-March 1992

Two Case Studies Applying the General Framework for Benefit Costs Analysis on NonIndigenous Species:

1: Melaleuca-March 1992

2: Sea Lumprey-March 1992

Author: Mark J. Cochran, Department of Agricultural

Economics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,

AR

Advisory panel reviewer: Katherine H, Reichelderfer

Outside reviewers:

William G. Boggess, Food and Resource Economics

Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Craig Osteen, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

Alan Randall, Department of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Micheal E. Wetzstein, Department of Agricultural

Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA

Federal Policy Regarding Non-Indigenous Species

Report: Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species:

The Role of the United States Department of

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service---December 1991

Author: Donald H. Kludy, Consultant, Richmond,

VA

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, William Flemer, III, Robert P. Kahn, Jerry D. Scribner,

and William S. Wallace

outside reviewer:

Craig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and Grower

Services, American Association of Nurseryman,

Washington, DC

Report: The Role of the United States Department of

the Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues—

November 1991

Author: Michael J. Bean, Environmental Defense

Fund, Washington, DC

Advisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, Lynn

Greenwalt, Gary H. Johnston, and Clifford W.

Smith

Outside reviewers:

R. Joseph Abrell, Great Smoky Mountain National

Park Headquarters, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Gatlinburg, TN

Donald J. Barry, Land and Wildlife, World Wildlife

Fund, Washington, DC

David Nottingham, Ecology and Conservation Office,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

Gary B. Edwards, Fisheries Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC

Amos S. Eno, Conservation Programs, National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC

Dennis Lassuy, Fisheries Division, Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arlington,

VA

Lewis H. Waters, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
314 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Report: Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species:

An Overview of the U.S. Department of AgricultureDecember 1991

Author: John Schnittker, Schnittker Associates, Santa

Ynez, CA

Advisory panel reviewers: Robert P. Kahn, Katherine

H. Reichelderfer, William S. Wallace, and Melvyn

J. Weiss

Outside reviewers:

Ray Brush, Ray Brush Horticultural Consulting Services, Madison, VA

Dan Laster, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center,

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Clay Center, NE

Special Topics

Report: Bioengineered Organisms and Non-Indigenous Species-November 1991

Authors: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of Urban and

Environmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford,

Richard Wetzler, Center for Environmental Management, Tufts University, Medford, MA

Advisory panel reviewers: Robert P. Kahn, Philip J.

Regal, and William S. Wallace

Outside reviewers:

Norman C. Ellstrand, Department of Botany and Plant

Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA

Rebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund,

New York, NY

Eric M. Hallerman, Department of Fisheries and

Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Blacksburg, VA

Greg Simon, United States Senate,

Office of the Honorable Albert Gore, Washington, DC

Report: Ecological Restoration and Non-Indigenous

Species-August 1991

Authors: John J. Berger, Restoring the Earth,

Berkeley, CA and Lawrence A. Riggs, GENREC,

Oakland, CA

Advisory panel reviewers: William Flemer, III, Don

C. Schmitz, Clifford W. Smith

Outside reviewers:

Robert F. Doren, Everglades National Park and Fort

Jefferson National Monument, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Homestead, FL

John M. Randall, Nature Conservancy, Consumnes

River Preserve, Gait, CA

Report: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii—January

1992

Author: Christine Mlot, Milwaukee, WI

Advisory panel reviewer: Clifford W, Smith

Outside reviewers:

Michael G. Buck, Department of Land and Natural

Resources, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

Thomas Fritts, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

Alan Holt, Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu,

HI

Charles H. Lamoureux, Harold L. Lyon Arboretum,

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI

Lloyd L. Loope, Haleakala National Park, National

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Makawao, HI

Ahser K. Ota, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association,

Aiea, HI

Ilima Piianaia, Hawaii Department of Agriculture,

Honolulu, HI

Charles P. Stone, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Hawaii National Park, HI

Roger I. Vargas, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, HI

Report: Non-Indigenous Species in Florida: A Survey

of Pathways, Consequences, and Economic and

Environmental Impacts-December 1991

Author: David W. Johnston, Fairfax, VA

Advisory panel reviewer: Don C. Schmitz

Outside reviewers:

Mark A. Deyrup, Archbold Biological Station, Lake

Placid, FL

Robert F. Doren, Everglades National Park and Fort

Jefferson National Monument, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Homestead, FL

Brian A. Millsap, Nongame Wildlife Section, Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL
Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents 315

Report: Selected Analysis of Introduced Animal

Species Survey Data-December 1991

Author: Peter T. Schuyler, Division of Forestry and

Wildlife, Honolulu, HI

outside reviewers:

Gary M. Fellers, Point Reyes National Seashore,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Point Reyes, CA

Report: Public Educational Efforts in the United

States Regarding Prevention and Management of

Non-Indigenous Species-December 1991

Authors: Andrea Shotkin and Edward J. McCrea,

North American Association for Environmental

Education, Washington, DC

Advisory panel reviewers: John D. Lattin and Clifford W. Smith

Outside reviewers:

John F. Disinger, School of Natural Resources, Ohio

State University, Columbus, OH

Diana L. King, Hawaii Nature Center, Honolulu, HI

R. Ben Peyton, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Report: Additional Information on Non-Indigenous

Plants in the United States-October 1992

Author: Richard N. Mack, Department of Botany,

Washington State University, Pullman, WA

Report: Addendum to Report: Bioengineered Organisms and Non-Indigenous Species-March 1992

Authors: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of Urban and

Environmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford,

Richard Wetzler, Center for Environmental Management, Tufts University, Medford, MA

Report: Additional Information on Recently Detected

Non-Indigenous Insects-June 1993

Author: E. Richard Hoebeke, Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Report: Review of OTA’s Script for Scenarios Exercise-July 1992

Author: Ann Z. Kulp, Annandale, VA

The following individuals provided additional reviews on 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 and

Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Blacksburg, VA

Ted Center, Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory,

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Michael J. Crawley, Department of Biology, Imperial

College at Silkwood Park, U.K.

Luther Val Giddings, Biotechnology Biologics and

Environmental Protection, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Francis G. Howarth, Department of Entomology,

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI

Part 2: Workshop Participants: Workshop

on Management and Policy Decisionmaking

R. Joseph Abrell, Great Smoky Mountain National

Park Headquarters, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Gatlinburg, TN

Faith Thompson Campbell, Natural Resources

Defense Council, Washington, DC

Mark J. Cochran, Department of Agricultural

Economics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,

AR

M. Lynne Corn, Environment and Natural Resources,

Congressional Research Service, Library of

Congress, Washington, DC

Peter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA

Stephen R. Kellert, School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven,

CT

Lynn A. Maguire, School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies, Duke University, Durham,

NC

Marshall Meyers, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council,

Washington, DC
316 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Alan Randall, Department of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Craig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and Grower

Services, American Association of Nurseryman,

Washington, DC

Matthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Mark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and Public

Policy, University of Maryland, College Park MD

Michael Shannon, Plant Protection Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Terry R. Steinwand, North Dakota Department of State

Game and Fish, Bismarck, ND

Part 3: The Assessment’s Reviewers

This assessment was reviewed either totally or in

part by the study’s Advisory Panel (listed on p. iv);

certain authors of its contractor reports; and

another group of external experts.

These authors took part

(see Part 1 for affiliations):

Michael J. Bean

Joseph C. Britton

Mark J. Cochran

Walter R. Courtenay, Jr.

Peter Kareiva

Ke Chung Kim

Donald H. Kludy

Sheldon Krimsky

Richard N. Mack

Alan Randall

John Schnittker

Calvin L. Schoulties

Stanley A. Temple

Richard Wetzler

Also, the following people contributed reviews:

Fred S. Betz, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC

Michael E. Buck, Division of Forestry and Wildlife,

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State

of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

D. Scot Campbell, International Services, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Joseph F. Coates, Coates and Jarratt, Inc., Washington,

DC

David Nottingham, Ecology and Conservation Office,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

Michael J. Crawley, Department of Biology, Imperial

College at Silwood Park

Ascot, Berksire, U.K.

Albert Cutress, Ministry of Forestry, Wellington, New

Zealand

Gary B. Edwards, Fisheries Division, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC

Robert E. Eplee, Whiteville Plant Methods Center,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Whiteville, NC

David E. Giamporcaro, TSCA Biotechnology

Program, Chemical Control Division, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

DC

Rebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund,

New York, NY

Eric M. Hallerman, Department of Fisheries and

Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Blacksburg, VA

Charles A. Havens, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Ginette Hemley, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,

DC

Francis G, Howarth, Department of Entomology,

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI

Will Kissinger, Plant Industry Division, Montana

Department of Agriculture, Helena, MT

Dennis Lassuy, Fisheries Division, Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arlington,

VA
Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents I 317

Lloyd L. Loope, Haleakala National Park, National

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Makawao, HI

Lynn A. Maguire, School of the Environment, Duke

University, Durham, NC

James A. McCann, National Fisheries Research

Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Gainesville, FL

Elizabeth Milewski, Office of Prevention, Pesticides

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC

Edward L. Mills, Biological Field Station, Department

of Natural Resources, Cornell University,

Bridgeport, NY

Abdul Moeed, Ministry for the Environment,

Wellington, New Zealand

Barbra Mullin, Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Division, Montana Department of Agriculture,

Helena, MT

John G. Nickum, Division of Fish Hatcheries, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Washington, DC

John M. Randall, Nature Conservancy Consumnes

River Preserve, Galt, CA

Mark J. Reeff, International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC

Craig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and Grower

Services, American Association of Nurseryman,

Washington, DC

Jay Rendall, Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species

Task Force, Division of Fish and Wildlife,

Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN

Matthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD

Mark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and Public

Policy, University of Maryland, College Park MD

William Schneider, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

DC

W. Curtis Sharp, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

Stanwyn G. Shetler, National Museum of Natural

History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

Calvin R. Sperling, Agricultural Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD

Timothy A. Sullivan, World Conservation Union,

Species Survival Commission, Brookfield, IL

Lewis H. Waters, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, DC

Randy G. Westbrooks, Whiteville Plant Methods

Center, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Whiteville, NC

Part4: State Officials Who Reviewed State

Laws and Regulations and Who Responded

to the OTA Survey (alphabetically by State)

Kathleen Meddleton, Wildlife Biologist-Permit

Section, Division of Wildlife Conservation,

Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK

Charles D. Kelley, Director, Division of Game and

Fish, Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources, Montgomery, AL

Steve N. Wilson, Director, Arkansas Game and Fish

Commission, Little Rock, AR

Duane L. Shroufe, Director, Game and Fish

Department, Phoenix, AZ

Richard Kahn, Senior Biologist, Division of Wildlife,

Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO

(now retired)

Robert M. Brantly, Executive Director, Game and

Fresh Water Fish Commission, Department of

Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL

Bill Fletcher, Regional Game Management

Supervisor, Game and Fish Division, Department

of Natural Resources, Gainesville, GA

Calvin Lure, Animal Industry Administrator, Hawaii

Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, HI

Larry M. Nakahara, Manager, Plant Quarantine

Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Hawaii

Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, HI

Rick McGeough, Bureau Chief, Department of Natural

Resources, Des Moines IA

Lloyd Oldenburg, Wildlife and Research Manager,

Bureau of Wildlife, Fish and Game Department,

Boise, ID

John Tranquilly, Director, Office of Resource

Management, Department of Conservation,

Springfield, IL
318 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Gregg McCollam, Chief of Administrative Services,

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of

Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN

Bill D. Hlavachick, Chief, Wildlife Management

Section, Fish and Wildlife Division, Department of

Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, KS

Hugh A. Bateman, Administrator, Wildlife Division,

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge,

LA

Thomas W. French, Assistant Director, Division of

Fisheries, Natural Heritage and Endangered

Species program, Boston, MA

Mary Jo Scanlan, Wildlife Permits Coordinator,

Wildlife Division, Department of Natural

Resources, Annapolis, MD

R. Steven Early, Assistant to the Director, Fisheries

Division, Department of Natural Resources,

Annapolis, MD

Henry Hilton, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Department of

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME

Jay Rendall, Exotic Species Coordinator, Minnesota

Interagency Exotic Species Task Force, Division of

Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN

Ollie Torgerson, Chief, Wildlife Division, Department

of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO

Bill Thomason, Chief of Game, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, MS

Heidi Youmans, Special Projects Coordinator, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT

Gary Burke, Special Investigations Unit, Department

of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT

R.B. Hamilton, Assistant Director, Wildlife Resources

Commission, Raleigh, NC

Rex Sohn, Disease Research Supervisor, Department

of Game and Fish, Bismarck, ND

Ken Johnson, Chief, Wildlife Division, Game and

Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE

Nancy L. Girard, Legal Coordinator, Fish and Game

Department, Concord, NH

Robert McDowell, Director, Fish, Game and Wildlife

Division, Environmental Protection Department,

Trenton, NJ

Patrick P. Martin, Senior Wildlife Biologist, New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY

Richard T. Scott, Executive Administrator, Law Enforcement, Division of Wildlife, Department of

Natural Resources, Columbus, OH

Larry Taylor, Chief, Law Enforcement, Department of

Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK

J.R. Fagan, Director, Law Enforcement, Pennsylvania

Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA

Michael Lapisky, Deputy Chief, Wildlife Division,

Department of Environmental Management, Fish,

and Wildlife, Wakefield, RI

Ron Fowler, Game Staff Specialist, Game, Fish and

Parks Department, Pierre, SD

Walter Cook, Wildlife Officer II, Tennessee Wildlife

Resources Agency, Nashville, TN

Randy Radant, Chief, Nongame Management, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT

Timothy VanZandt, Commissioner, Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Agency of Natural Resources,

Waterbury, VT

S. Shapiro Hurley, Wildlife Health Specialist, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

James Ruckel, Assistant Chief, Division of Natural

Resources, Charleston, WV

Francis Petera, Director, Department of Game and

Fish, Cheyenne, WY
CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY, ISSUES, AND OPTIONS

1. Alfieri, S. A., Jr., Assistant Director, Division of

Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee FL,

“Regulatory Pest Control Philosophy: Views

and Assessment, ” paper presented at the meeting of the National Plant Board, Kalispell, MT,

August 1991.

2. Arner, D. H., Jones, J., and Bucciantini, C.,

“Carolina Clover: High Prospect for the Conservation Reserve Program, ’ Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, vol. 47, No, 4, July-August

1992, pp. 292-293.

3. Asbury, C. H., “The Orphan Drug Act,” Journal

of the American Medical Association, vol. 265,

No. 7, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 893-897.

4. Backiel, A. et al., “The Major Federal Land

Management Agencies: Management of Our

Nation’s Lands and Resources,’ CRS Report for

Congress, 93-197 ENR, Congressional Research

Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC,

Feb. 8, 1993.

5. Barnard, J., “Forest Slams Shut Wolf-trapping

Plans,” Seattle Times, Jan. 19, 1990.

6. Bean, M. J., “TheRoleoftheU.S. Department of

the Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, November 1991.

7, Bergsman, J., “Changes in Pet Regulations

Raise Howls,” Seattle Times, May 12, 1992, p.

c-1.

8. Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,

Appendix C:

References

Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United

States, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

9. Brown, L. L., ‘‘A hgislative History of Outdoor

Recreation User Fees,” CRS Report for Congress, 92-645 ENR, Congressional Research

Service, The Library of Congress, Washington,

DC, Aug. 14, 1992.

10, Browning, H.R. and Charudattan, R., Executive

Summary of the National Workshop on Regulatory Issues,’ Regulations and Guidelines: Critical Issues in Biological Control-Proceedings

of a USDAICSRSNational Worbhop, R. Charudattan and 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 Pest

Detection Surveys for Exotic Pests and Diseases

Which Threaten Commercial Forestry in New

Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Forestry

Science, vol. 19, Nos. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-74.

14. Chadwell, J., “Marshall Meyers: The Environment and 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 EnvironmentA Plan for Federal Action (Salt Lake City, UT:

Howe Brothers, 1989).

319
320

16.

17,

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States

Cook A., ‘Grub Attack Refund, ’ The Washington Post, Home Section, June 4, 1992, p. 4.

Nottingham, D., Director, Ecology and Conservation Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, July 31, 1992.

Nottingham, D., Director, Ecology and Conservation Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC, memorandum for agency distribution, Jan. 6, 1993.

Coulson, J.R. and Soper, R. S., ‘Protocols for the

Introduction of Biological Control Agents in the

United 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 Conservation and Cropland Reduction Programs,” Task

Force Report No. 117, Ames, IA, September

1990.

Counts, C.L. III, “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.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Fish Introductions and

Translocations, and Their Impacts in Australia,’

Introduced and Translocated Fishes and Their

Ecological Eflects, Proceedings No. 8, Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop, Magnetic Island, Aug. 24-25, 1989, D.A. Pollard

(cd.) (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1990), pp. 171-179.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Fishes in the United States,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., Professor of Zoology,

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, July 27, 1992.

Craighead, F. C., Jr. and Dasmann, R. F., “Exotic

Big Game on Public Lands” (Washington, DC:

26,

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, 1966).

Doren, R.F. and Whiteaker, L, D., “The Exotic

Pest Plant Council: An Example of Interagency

Cooperation To Solve Resource Related Problems,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic

Pest Plants, TD. Center et al. (eds.), Technical

Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91 /-6 (Washington, DC: NationaI Park Semice, U.S. Department

of the Interior, September 1991), pp. 111-114.

Dottavio, F.D. et al. (eds.), Protecting Biological

Diversity in the National Parks: Workshop

Recommendations, Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 9 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 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, May

1991).

Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Draft

Handbook for the Removal of Non-Native Animals,” Point Reyes, CA, 1992,

Edwards, G. E,, Assistant Director, Fisheries,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment,

letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 7, 1992.

Elston, R. A., ‘Effective Applications of Aquiculture Disease-Control Regulations: Recommendations From an Industry Viewpoint, Dispersal of

Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, A.

Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park,

MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 353-359.

Environmental Law Review Committee, “Environmental Legislation: The Increasing Costs of

Regulatory Compliance to the City of Columbus,” report to the Mayor and City Council of

the City of Columbus, OH, May 13, 1991.

Fleming, P., Rock Creek Park, National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, personal communication to Office of

Technology Assessment, Oct. 9, 1991.

Gallagher, J.E. and Hailer, W. T., “History and

Development of Aquatic Weed Control in the

United States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,

December 1990, pp. 115-192.
Appendix C: References 1321

35.

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 and

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, testimony at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural

Research and General Legislation, Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Preparation for the 1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, ’

Mar. 28, 1990, pp. 350-354,376-379.

Glosser, J. W., Director, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, testimony at hearings before the U.S. House

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related

Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Devel -

opment and Related Agencies Appropriations

for 1992: Part 4, Serial No. 43-1710 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, May

1991), pp. 271-467.

Hallerman, E. R,, Assistant Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, Virginia, personal communication

to the Office of Technology Assessment, Mar. 7,

1991.

Harty, F. M., “How Illinois Kicked the Exotic

Habit,’ conference on Biological Pollution: the

Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species,

Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, IN,

Oct. 26, 1991.

Havens, C., Chief Operations Officer, Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication to S.M. Fondriest, Office

of Technology Assessment, July 23, 1992.

Hester, F. E,, “The U.S. National Park Service

Experience With Exotic Spaies, ’ Natural Areas

Journal, vol. 11, No, 3, July 1991, pp. 127-128,

Howarth, F.G. and Medeiros, A. C,, “NonNative Invertebrates,” Conservation Biology in

klawai’i, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.)

(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit,

1989), PP. 82-87.

Hubbell, S., ‘‘Ladybugs, “ The New Yorker, Oct.

7, 1991, pp. 103-111.

44.

45.

46,

47.

48,

49,

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55,

International Union for the Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival

Commission in collaboration with the Commission on Ecology and the Commission on Environmental Policy, Law and Administration, ‘‘The

IUCN Position Statement on Translocation of

Living Organisms Introductions, Re-Introductions and Re-Stocking ” (Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN, 1987).

Johnson, G., National Park Service, Washington,

DC, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Sept. 27, 1991.

Kareiva, P. et al., “Risk Analysis as a Tool for

Making Decisions About the Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Species Into the United States,’

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, July 1991.

Keystone Center, Final Consensus Report of the

Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversity on Federal Lunak (Keystone, CO: The

Keystone Center, April 1991).

Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

States, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

Kludy, D. H., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on NonIndigenous Species: The Role of the United

States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, ” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.

Kludy, D.H., Consultant, Richmond, VA, letter

to P.N, Windle, July 30, 1992.

Kohler, C.C. and Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “American Fisheries Society Position on Introductions

of Aquatic Species, ’ Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2,

March/April 1986, pp. 39-42.

Keller, G., ‘‘Native Dictates,” Arnoldia, vol. 52,

No. 4, winter 1992, pp. 23-32.

Keller, G,, Senior Horticulturist, Arnold Arboretum, personal communication to K.E. Bannon,

Office of Technology Assessment, June 2, 1993.

Kucewicz, W. P., “Grime and punishment,”

ECO, vol. 1, No. 1, June 1993, pp. 50-55.

Kurdila, J., “The Introduction of Exotic Species

into the United States: There Goes the Neighbor-
322

56,

57.

58.

59.

60.

61,

62.

63.

64.

65.

66,

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

hood!” Boston College Environmental Aflairs

Law Review, vol. 16, No. 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.

Langston, A., Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, May 6, 1991,

Lattin, J., Professor of Entomology, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR, memorandum to

Bill Wright, Administrator, Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR,

NOV. 26, 1991.

Lederberg, J., Shope, R. E., and Oaks, S. C., Jr.

(eds.), Emerging Infectiondicrobial Threats

to Health in the United States (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1992).

Macdonald, I.A.W. et al., “Wildlife Conservation and the Invasion of Nature Reserves by

Introduced Species: Global Perspective,” Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, J.A,

Drake et al. (eds) (New York, NY: John Wiley

and Sons, 1989), pp. 215-255.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mack, R. N., Professor and Chair, Department of

Botany, Washington State University, Pullman,

WA, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 4, 1992.

Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on NonIndigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1992.

McCann, J., Center Director, National Fisheries

Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Gainesville, FL, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, Aug. 3, 1992.

McGregor, R. C., The Emigrant Pests, a report to

F.J. Mulhern, Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, May 1973.

Mech, L.D., “WolflDog Hybirds,” Species—

Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission

(International Union for the Conservation of

Nature), No. 15, December 1990, pp. 66-67.

Metterhouse, W. M., “Biological Control: State

Regulatory View Point,’ Regulations and Guide67.

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 Agricultural Sciences, 1992).

Meyers, M., General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint

Advisory Council, Washington, DC, letter to

P.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,

July 29, 1992.

Miller, D., Research Leader, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, 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: A

Little Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing,”

Rutgers Law Review, vol. 45, No. 2, winter 1993,

pp. 285-334.

Minnesota Exotic Species Interagency Task

Force, Report and Recommendations (St. Paul,

MN: State of Minnesota, Department of Natural

Resources, July 1991).

Moody, M.E. and Mack, R. N., “Controlling the

Spread of Plant Invasions: the Importance of

Nascent 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 of

Agriculture, ‘Honey Bee Pests—A Threat to the

Vitality of U.S. Agriculture, ’ Washington, DC,

February 1991.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Fiscal Year 1992 Wildlife

and Fisheries Assessment, Washington, DC,

April 1991.

National Parks and Conservation Association, A

Race Against Time: Five Threats Endangering

America’s National Parks and the Solutions to

Avert Them (Washington, DC: National Parks

and Conservation Association, Aug. 20, 1991).

National Research Council, Science and the

National Parks (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992).
77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural

Resources Defense Council, “The Alien Pest

Species Invasion in Hawaii: Background Study

and Recommendations for Interagency Planning,” July 1992.

Neesen, J., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Animals and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Budget and Accounting Division, personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment,

Nov. 9, 1992.

North American Native Fishes Association, Introductions Committee, memorandum to D. Lassuy, Intentional Introductions Review Committee, U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,

Jan. 25, 1992.

Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group, ‘‘The

Federal Noxious Weed Program Evaluation and

Recommendations, 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 and

Wildlife Service, testimony at hearing on Proposed Injurious Wildlife Regulations before the

House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife,

Dec. 12, 1974, p. 108.

O’Brien, S. J., ‘‘Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies, ’ Science, vol. 251, No. 4998, Mar. 8, 1991, pp.

1187-1188

Peoples, R. A., Jr., McCam, J. A., and Starnes,

L. B., ‘Introduced Organisms: Policies and Activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ’

Dispersal of Living Organisms Into Aquatic

Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.)

(College Park MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),

pp. 325-352.

Reichelderfer, K. H., “The Expanding Role of

Environmental Interests in Agricultural Policy,’

Resources, No. 102, winter 1991, pp. 4-7.

Repetto, R. et al., Green Fees: How a Tax Shifi

Can Work for the Environment and the Economy

(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,

November 1992).

Schmitz, D. C., Florida Department of Natural

Resources, Tallahassee, FL, statement submitted

at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on

Agricultural Research and General Legislation,

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

Appendix C: References 323

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 communication to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, June 14, 1993.

Schneider, K., ‘‘Where We Went Wrong on

Regulation,” Eco, June 1993, pp. 16-22.

Schoulties, C. L., “Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant

Pathogens in the United States,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.

Schoulties, C. L., Director, Division of Regulatory and Public Service Programs, Clemson

University, Clemson, SC, personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment, July

31, 1992.

Schoulties, C. L., Director, Division of Regulatory and Public Service Programs, Clemson

University, Clemson, SC, personal communication to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, June 14, 1993.

Schuyler, P. T., Introduced Animl Species Issues: Current Status and Problems Including a

Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a

Multi-Disciplinary Introduced Animal Species

Center, TRI Working Papers No. 56, 56A (New

Haven, CT: Yale University School of Forestry

and Environmental Studies, 1991).

Schuyler, P.T., “Non-Indigenous Species in the

United States: Selected Analysis of Introduced

Animal Species Survey Data, ’ contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.

Sellars, R., “The Roots of National Park Management,” Journal of Forest~, vol. 90, January

1992, 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 Educational Efforts in the United States Regarding

Prevention and Management of Non-Indigenous

Species, ’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December

1991.
324 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

97. Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, testimony

at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on

Federal Services, Post Office, and Civil Service,

Committee on Governmental Affairs, “Oversight of the Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing 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 hearings

before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural

Research and General Legislation, Committee

on 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 of

the Environment (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1992), pp. 235-245.

100. Smith, C., Unit Leader, Cooperative National

Parks Resources Studies Unit, University of

Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, letter to Office

of Technology Assessment, July 1992.

101. Sprengehneyer, E., “Killing to Preserve,” Santa

Fe 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 Recommendations

to the Director of the National Park Service,

National Park Service Document No. D-726,

1992.

103. Temple, S. A., “The Nasty Necessity: Eradicating Exotics,” Conservation Biology, vol. 4, No.

2, pp. 113-115, June 1990.

104. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways and

Consequences of Introduction of NonIndigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, October 1991.

105. Thomas, C., “Reorganizing Public Organizations: Alternatives, Objectives, and Evidence, ”

unpublished report prepared for the Secretary of

Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of

Energy, Washington, DC, August 1992.

106. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Agriculture, Rural Development and Related

Agencies AppropriatiorN for 1991: Part 4, Serial

No. 43-1710, May 1, 1991,

107. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations for 1992, Part 1, Justification of

the Budget Estimates (Washington, DC: U.S.

Goverrnent Printing Office, 1991).

108. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Parkx

and Recreation.” Recreation Fee Authorizations,

Prohibitions, and Limitations, GAOBCED-86-

149 (Washington, DC: GAO, 1986).

109. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Wi/dlife Protection: Enforcement of Federal Laws

CouldBe Strengthened, GAO/RCED-9144 (Washington, DC: GAO, April 1991).

110. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Pesticides: USDA’s Research To Support Registration of Pesticides for Minor Crops, GAO/RCED92-190BR (Washington, DC: GAO, June 1992).

111. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation,

Present Law and Background Relating to Federal Environmental 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 on

Agricultural 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, Noxious

Weed Workshop, Billings, MT, Feb. 14-17,

1989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, May 1989).

114. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Vegetation Diversity Project: A

Research and Demonstration Program Plan.

Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant

Diversity on Deteriorated Range lands. Great

Basin and Columbia Plateau (Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Oregon State Office, May 1990).

115. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, draft report, “Evaluation: Bu-
Appendix C: References I 325

116.

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 Wildlife Service, internal memorandum from Director to Regional Directors 1-8, Washington, DC,

Oct. 20, 1987.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, State of the Parks 1980: A Report to

Congress (Washington, DC: Office of Science

and Technology, May 1980).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Soil Conservation Service, Native P/an~s for

Parks, D-425 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

U.S. Department of the Intenor, National Park

Service, Federal Recreation Fee Report to Congress 1992, Washington, DC, 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of

Inspector General, Semiannual Report, Washington, DC, April 1992.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement

Advisory Commission, Report of Findings and

Recommendations, Washington, DC, June 15,

1990.

U.S. Interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task

Force, Washington, DC, Proposed Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, Sept. 28, 1992.

Van’t Woudt, B. D., “Roaming, Stray, and Feral

Domestic 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 Private

Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Washington,

DC, personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment, Aug. 24, 1992.

Westbrooks, R. G., “Interstate Sale of Aquatic

Federal Noxious Weeds as Omamentals in the

United Sates,” Aquatics, June 1990, pp. 16-24.

128,

129.

130<

131,

132,

Westbrooks, R. G., Station Ixxider, Whiteville

Noxious Weed Station, USDA Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, Whiteville, NC, letter

to P.W. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug. 11, 1992,

Westman, W. E., ‘ ‘Managing for Biodiversity,”

Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 1, January 1990, pp.

26-33.

White, R. J., “We’re Going Wild: A 30-year

Transition horn Hatcheries to Habitat,” Trout,

30 year anniversary series, summer 1989, pp.

15-49.

Working Group on Non-Apis Bees, Memorandum to State Departments of Agriculture, W.P.

Stephen and R.W. Thorp, Secretaries Pro-Tern,,

Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, June 2, 1993,

Yount, J.D. (cd.), Ecology and Management of

the Zebra Mussel and Other Introduced Aquatic

Nuisance Species, report based on an EPA

Workshop, Sept. 26-28, 1990, Saginaw, MI,

EPA/600/3 -91-O03 (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, February 1991).

CHAPTER 2: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HARMFUL

NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

Anonymous, ‘‘Count it Quick, Before it’s Gone,”

The Economist, Sept. 14, 1991, vol. 319, No.

7724, pp. 99-100.

Bangsund, D.A. and Leistritz, F. L., Department

of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State

University, “Economic Impact of Leafy Spurge

on Grazing Lands in the Northern Great Plains, ’

AgricukumlEconornics Report No. 275-5, November 1991.

Bean, M. J., ‘‘The Role of the U.S. Department of

the Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, November 1991.

Bedunah, D. J., ‘‘The Complex Ecology of Weeds,

Grazing and Wildlife,’ Western Wildlands, VOL

18, No. 2, summer 1992, pp. 6-11.

Bergsman, J., “Changes in Pet Regulations

Raise Howls,” Seattle Times, May 12, 1992, p.

c-1.
326

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Brenchley, G.A. and Carlton, J.T., “Competitive

Displacement of Native Mud Snails by Introduced Periwinkles in the New England Intertidal

Zone, ” Biological Bulletin, vol. 165, December

1983, pp. 543-558,

Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and

Estuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Cochran, M. J., “Non-Indigenous Species in the

United States: Economic Consequences,’ contmctor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, March 1992.

Conant, S., “Saving Endangered Species by

Translocation-Are we Tinkering with Evolution?” Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4, 1988, pp.

254-57.

Courtenay, W., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

D’Antonio, C.M. and Vitousek, P. M., “Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/Fire

Cyclel, anfl Global Change,” Annual Review of

Ecology and Systernatics, vol. 23, 1992, pp.

63-87.

Dickerson, W. A,, ‘Gypsy Moth in the Southeastern United States, ’ North Carolina Department

of Agriculture report, Raleigh, NC, Apr. 16,

1991,

Dowling, TE. and Childs, M.R., “Impact of

Hybridization on a Threatened Trout of the

Southwestern United States,’ Conservation Biology, vol. 6, No. 3, September 1992, pp. 355-364.

Edwards, G.B. and Nottingham, D., Co-Chairs of

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, letter

to E,A. Chornes&, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 25, 1992.

Engbring, J. and Fritts, TH., “Demise of an

Insular Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake on

Guam,” Transactions of the Western Section of

the Wildlife Society, vol. 24, 1988, pp. 31-37.

Ervin, K., “The Brink of Extinction, ” The

Seattle TimeslSeattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov.

25, 1990, pp. Al, A16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Evangelou,

Department

P., Agricultural Economist, U.S.

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, letters to Office of

Technology Assessment, Dec. 9, 1991 and Jan.

7, 1992, with attachment summarizing information from the APHIS Fiscal Year 1990 Budget

Witness Book.

Fergus, C., “The Florida Panther Verges on

Extinction,” Science, vol. 251, Mar. 8, 1991, pp.

1178-1180.

Fey, C.L. et al., “History of Weed Introductions, ” Exotic Plant Pests and North American

Agriculture, 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 and

Development of Aquatic Weed Control in the

United States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,

1990, pp. 115-192,

Gangstad, E.O. and Cardarelli, N. F., “The Relation Between Aquatic Weeds and Public

Health,” Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and

Management of Nuisance Aquutic Vegetation,

A.H. Pieterse and K.J. Murphy (eds.) (New

York NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.

85-90.

Ganzhorn J. et al., “Dissemination of Microbial

Pathogens Through Introductions and Transfers

of Fish fish,’ Dispersal ofLiving Organisms Into

Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann

(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,

1992), pp. 175-192.

Goodman, B., “Keeping Anglers Happy Has a

Price,” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 5, May 1991, pp.

294-299.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, ‘‘Ruffe in the

Great Lakes: A Threat to North American

Fisheries,’ Report of the Ruffe Task Force, Ann

Arbor, MI, March 1992.

Hadfield, M.G. and Miller, S.E., “Alien Predators and Decimation of Endemic Hawaiian Tree

Snails,” Pac~ic Science, vol. 46, No. 3, 1992, p.

395.

Haughton, C. S., Green Immigrants: The Plants

that Transformed America (New York, NY:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978).

Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park Service

Experience with Exotic Species, Natural Areas
Appendix C: References ! 327

28.

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 Species and Vacant Niches, The American iVaturali~t, vol. 128, No. 5, November 1986, pp.

751-760.

Howarth, F.G. and Rarnsay,G,W.,‘‘The Conservation of Island Insects and Their Habitats, ” The

Conservation 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 Vegetation

Division, Natural Resources Program Branch,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, personal communications to Office of

Technology Assessment, July 10, 1991 and Mar.

13, 1992.

Kass, H., “Once a Savior, Moth is Now a

Scourge, Plant Conservation, vol. 5, No. 2,

summer 1990, p. 3.

Kay, S. H., “Hydrilla, a Rapidly Spreading

Aquatic Weed Problem in North Carolina, ”

Agriculture Bulletin—AG-449, North Carolina

Cooperative Extensive Service (Raleigh, NC:

North Carolina State University, May 1992).

Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., ‘‘Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

States, contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

Klassen, W., ‘‘Eradication of Introduced Arthropod Pests: 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 Forest

Insects and Diseases in Eastern USNPS Units:

Impacts and Interventions,’ The George Wright

Forum, vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 2-14.

Lanka, B., ‘ ‘Analysis and Recommendations on

the Applications by Mr. John T. Dorrence III to

Import and Possess Native and Exotic Species, ’

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Mar. 1, 1990,

Leonard, K., Director, Cereal Rust Lab, University of Minnesota, U.S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, letter to P.N. Windle, Office

of Technology Assessment, Jan. 3, 1992,

Lodge, D. M., “Species Invasions and Deletions:

Community Effects and Responses to Climate

39.

40,

41.

42,

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

and Habitat Change, ’ Biotic Interactions and

Global Change (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer and

Assoc., 1993).

Imope, L.L. and Sanchez, P. G., “Biological

Invasions of Arid Land Nature Reserve,’ Biological Conservation, vol. 44, 1988, pp. 95-118.

Luoma, J. R., “Boon to Anglers Turns Into a

Disaster for Lakes and Streams,” New York

Times, Nov. 17, 1992.

Macdonald, I.A.W. et al., “Wildlife Conservation and the Invasion of Nature Reserves by

Introduced Species: Global Perspective,” Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, J.A.

Drake et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wiley

and Sons, Ltd., 1989), pp. 215-255.

Mace, G.M. and Lande, R., “Assessing Extinction Threats: Toward a Reevaluation of IUCN

Threatened Species Categories, ” Conservation

Biology, vol. 5, No. 2, June 1991, pp. 148-157.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mack, R. N., Chairman, Department of Botany,

Washington State University, Pullman, WA,

personal communication to P.N. Windle, Office

of Technology Assessment, Aug. 4, 1992.

Marsh, P.C. and Langhorst, D. R., “Feeding and

Fate of Wild Larval Razorback Sucker,’ Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 21, No. 1, 1988,

pp. 59-67.

Master, L., “Aquatic Animals: Endangerment

Alert,” Nature Conservancy, March/April 1991,

pp. 26-27.

Mayer, J,J. and Brisbin, I. L., Jr., Savannah River

Ecology 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 American

Fisheries Society with Exotic Species, 1969-

1982,” Distribution, Biology, and A4anugement

of Exotic Fishes, W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R.

Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 1-7,

McCrea, E.J. and Shotkin, A., “Public Educational Efforts in the United States Regarding
328 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Prevention and Management of Non-Indigenous

Species,’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December

1991.

50. McKey, D.B. and Kaufmann, S. C., “Naturalization of Exotic Ficus Species (Moraceae) in South

Florida,” Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Technical Report NPS/NREVER/

NRTR-91/06, September 1991.

51. McNab, W. H., “Oriental Bittersweet: Another

Kudzu?” Proceedings of the 16th Annual Hardwood Symposium (Cashiers, NC: Hardwood

Research Council, 1988), pp. 190-191.

52. Mech, L. D., “Wolf/Dog Hybrids,” Species (Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission of

IUCN-World Conservation Union), Brookfield, IL, No. 15, December 1990, pp. 66-67.

53. Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task

Force, “Report and Recommendations,” submitted to the Natural Resources Committees of

the Minnesota House and Senate, St. Paul, MN,

July 1991.

54. Missouri Department of Natud Resources, “Challenge of the ‘90s: Our Threatened State Parks,”

Jefferson City, MO, October 1991.

55. Mitchell, C.J. et al., “Isolation of Eastern Equine

Encephalitis Virus From Aedes albopic[us in

Florida,” Science, vol. 257, July 24, 1992, pp.

526-527.

56. Mooney, H,A. and Drake, J. A., “Biological

Invasions: a SCOPE Program Overview, ” Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, J.A.

Drake et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wiley

and Sons, 1989), pp. 491-506.

57. Moyle, P. B., Li, H.W., and Barton, B.A. “The

Frankenstein Effect: Impact of Introduced Fishes

on Native Fishes in North America, ” Fish

Culture in Fisheries Management, R.H. Stroud

(cd.) (Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, 1986), pp. 415-426.

58. Moyle, P.B. and Williams, J. E., “Biodiversity

Imss in the Temperate Zone: Decline of the

Native Fish Fauna of California,” Conservation

Biology vol. 4, No. 3, September 1990, pp.

275-284.

59. National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture, ‘Honey Bee Pests—A Threat to the

Vitality of U.S. Agriculture, ” Washington, DC,

February 1991.

60. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural

Resources Defense Council, “The Alien Pest

Species Invasion in Hawaii: Background Study

and Recommendations for Interagency Planning,” July 1992.

61. Neill, W.M., ‘‘The Tarnarisk Invasion of Desert

Riparian Areas,’ CalEPPC News, vol. 1, No. 1,

winter 1993, pp. 6-7.

62. O’Brien, S.J., ‘‘Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies, ’ Science, vol. 251, Mar. 8, 1991, pp. 1187-88.

63. Paul, J., Communications Director, National Pest

Control Association, personal communication,

Oct. 30, 1992.

64. Peine, J.D. andFarrner, J.A., “WildHogM anagement Program at Great Smoky Mountains National Park’ Proceedings of the 14th Vertebrate

Pest 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., “Plant

Exploration, ” Plant Breeding Reviews: Volume

7 The National Plant Germplasm System of the

United States, J. Janick (cd.) (Portland, OR:

Timber Press, 1989), pp. 67-94.

66. Pimentel, D.H. et al., “Environmental and Economic Effects of Reducing Pesticide Use, ’

Handbook on Pest Management in Agriculture,

D.H. Pimentel (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press, 1991).

67. Sailer, R. I., “History of Insect Introductions, ”

Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture, C.L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (New

York NY: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 15-38.

68. Savidge, J.A., “Extinction of an Island Forest

Avifauna by an Introduced Snake,” Ecology,

VO1. 68, No. 3, 1987, PP. 660-668.

69. midt, B. R., Chief of Fisheries, Division of

Wildlife Resources, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, Salt Lake City, ~, letter to P.N.

Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec.

16, 1991.

70. Schrnitz, D.C. et al., ‘‘The Ecological Impact of

Three Invasive Alien Plant Species in Florida: A

Review,’ unpublished manuscript.
Appendix C: References 1329

71. Schoener, A. A., “TheRole of Competition in the

Replacement of Native Fishes by Introduced

Species, ’ 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 Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant

Pathogens in the United States,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.

73. Showier, A.T. and Reagan, T. E,, “Ecological

Interactions of the Red Imported Fire Ant in the

Southeastern United States,’ J. Entomol. Sci.

Suppi., VO]. 1, 1987, pp. 52-64.

74. Soul&, M. E., “Conservation: Tactics for a Constant Crisis,” Science, vol. 253, Aug. 16, 1991,

pp. 744-750.

75. Spaulding, W. M., Jr. and McPhee, R. J.—BiNational Evaluation Team (submitted by), ‘‘The

Report of the Evaluation of the Great Lakes

Fishery Commission by the Bi-National Evaluation Team: Volume 2, An Analysis of the

Economic Contribution of the Great Lakes Sea

Lamprey Program’ (,Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Nov. 28, 1989).

76. Spencer, C.N. et al., “Shrimp Stocking, Salmon

Collapse, and Eagle Displacement,’ Bioscience,

vol. 41, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 14-21.

77. Struzik, E., “The Game Ranch, ” International

Wildlfe, vol. 22, July/August 1992, pp. 18-20,

22-24.

78. Taylor, O. R., Jr., “African Bees: Potential Impact in the United States,” Bulletin of the

Entomological Society of America, winter 1985,

pp. 14-24.

79. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways and

Consequences of Introduction of NonIndigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1991,

80. Terborgh, J., “Why American Songbirds are

Vanishing,’ Scientl~ic American, May 1992, pp.

98-104.

81. Texas Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Development Program, ‘‘Exotic Game in Texas:

An Overview of Commercial Potential, ’ Austin,

TX, February 1989.

82. Thomas, L. K., Jr., ‘‘The Impact of Three Exotic

Plant Species on Potomac Island, ” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

Scientific Monograph Series, No. 13, Washington, DC, 1980.

83. Thompson, D,Q. et al., “Spread, Impact, and

Control of Purple Loosestrife (Ly(hrurn salicaria) in Noflh American Wetlands, United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

DC, 1987,

84. Toland, B., “Use of Forested Spoil Islands by

Nesting American Oystercatchers in Southeast

Florida,” Journal of Field Ornitho[og]’, vol. 63,

No. 2, spring, 1992, pp. 155-158.

85. Thrner, C. E., “Conflicting Interests and Biological Control of Weeds, ’ Proc. IV lnt. Syrnp. Bio/.

Contr. Weeds, August 1984, pp. 203-225.

86. U.S. Congress, GeneralAccounting Office, “Great

Lakes Fishery Commission—Actions Needed to

Support an Expanded Program, ” NSIAD-92-

108 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, March 1992).

87. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Maintain Biological

Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1987),

88. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Bioremediation for Marine Oil SpillsBackground Paper, OTA-BP-O-70 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1991).

89. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Kudzu for

Erosion Control in the Southeast,” Farmer’s

Bulletin No. 1840, 1944.

90. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, “Imported Fire

Ant: A Guide for Nursery Operators, ” program

aid no. 1420, 1989.

91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of

Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East,”

Miscellaneous Publication Nc. 1495, September

1991.

92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Forest Semice Manual 2600-Wildlife, Fish,

and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management WO

Amendment 2600-91 -6,” Sept. 24, 1991.
330

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, “Improved Conservation Plant

Materials Released by the SCS and Cooperators

Through December 1990,” 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, “Vegetation Management Study-Imwer ColomdoRiver,’

Phase I, September 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Restoring Arnerica’s Wildlife, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1987).

von Broembsen, S. L., “Invasions of Natural

Ecosystems by Plant Pathogens,” Biological

Invasions: a Global Perspective (New York,

NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp. 77-83.

Webb, D. A., ‘‘What Are the Criteria for Presuming Native Status?, Watsonia, vol. 15,1985, pp.

231-236.

Westbrooks, R. G., Poisonous Plants of Eastern

North America (Columbia, SC: University of

South Carolina Press, 1986).

Westman, W. E., “Managing for Biodiversity—

Unresolved Science and Policy Questions,”

Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 1, 1990, pp. 26-33.

Whitson, T.D. et al., Weeds of the West (Jackson,

WY: Pioneer of Jackson Hole, January 1991).

Williams, M. C., “Purposefully Introduced

Plants that Have Become Noxious or Poisonous

Weeds,’ ‘ Weed Science, vol. 28, No. 3, May

1980, pp. 300-305.

Young, J. A., “Tumbleweed,” Scientific American, March 1991, pp. 82-87,

CHAPTER 3: THE CHANGING NUMBERS, CAUSES,

AND RATES OF INTRODUCTIONS

1.

2.

3.

4.

American Fisheries Society, Southern Division,

‘‘ Newsletter,’ Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Blacksburg, VA, February

1991.

Anonymous, “Hazards of Travel,” Washington

Post, Dec. 31, 1991, p. C2.

Anonymous, ‘Around the States: Florida,’ Ecology USA, vol. 21, No. 7, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.

Anonymous, ‘Search On for Snail That Eats Up

Lawns, ” Washington Times, May 15, 1992, p.

B3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Bandel,

sources

D. M., Chief, Natural and Cultural ReDivision Directorate of Public Works,

Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir, VA,

memorandum to the Executive Director, Armed

Forces Pest Management Board, Forest Glen

Section, Feb. 4, 1992.

Bangsund, D.A. and Uistritz, F.L., “Economic

Impacts of lafy Spurge on Grazing Lands in the

Northern Great Plains,’ Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND,

Agricultural Economics Report No. 275-S, November 1991.

Barton, B. J., Gardening by Mail: a Source Book

(Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1990).

Beauchamp, R. M., President, Pacific Southwest

Biological 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 Dispersal

of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch Broom) in California Sierra Nevada Foothill and Northern Coastal

Habitats,” Proceedings of the Symposium on

Exotic Pest Plants, ID. Center et al. (eds.)

(Denver, CO: National Park Service, Natural

Resources 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 of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,

Terrestrial, and Estuarin e Mollusks in the United

States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Burkhead, N.M. and Williams, J. D., “An Intergenic Hybrid of a Native Minnow, the Golden

Shiner, 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/EPPC

News, vol. 1, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 5.

California Forest Pest Council, “Forest Pest

Conditions in Califomia-1991,” Sacramento,

CA, Feb. 28, 1992.
Appendix C: References ! 331

16,

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Cardoza, J.E. et al., “A Compilation of the

History and Status of Exotic Vertebrates of

Massachusetts,” Fauna of Massachusetts Series,

No. 6, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and

Wildlife, Westborough, MA, September 1992.

Carlton, J. T,, “Introduced Invertebrates of San

Francisco Bay,’ San Francis coBay: The Urbanized Estuary (San Francisco, CA: Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1979), pp. 427444.

Carlton, J. T., Director, Maritime Studies Program, Williams College, Mystic, ~, personal

communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of

Technology Assessment, December 1990.

Carlton, J. T., “Dispersal of Living Organisms

into Aquatic Ecosystems as Mediated by Aquiculture and Fisheries Activities, ’ Dispersal of

Living 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 by

Ship’s Ballast Water: An Overview,’ introductions and Transfers of Marine Speciesy M,R.

DeVoe (cd.) (Charleston, SC: South Carolina

Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 23-29.

Carlton, J,T. et al., ‘‘Remarkable Invasion of San

Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the Asian

Clam Potamocorbula amurensis. I. Introduction

and Dispersal, ’ Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 66, 1990, pp. 81-94.

Carlton, J.T and Geller, J. B., “Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of Nonindigenous

Marine Organisms, ” Science, vol. 261, July 2,

1993, pp. 78-82.

Center for Conservation Biology, Center for

Conservation Biology Update, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, vol. 6, No. 2, winter 1993, p.

12.

Cochran, M. J., ‘‘Non-Indigenous Species In the

United States: Economic Impact Tables,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, March 1992.

Counts, C.L. III, “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,

26,

27,

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in

the United States,” contractor report prepared

for the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Courtenay, W.R., Professor of Zoology, Florida

Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, FAX to

E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 13, 1993.

Courtenay, W.R. and Robins, C.R., “Fish Introductions: Good Management, Mismanagement,

or No Management,’ Critical Reviews in Aquatic

Sciences, vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 159-172.

Courtenay, W.R. and Williams, J. D., “Dispersal

of Exotic Species From Aquiculture Sources,

With Emphasis on Freshwater Fishes,” Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mam (eds.) (College

Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp.

49-81.

Craven, R.B. et al., “Importation of Aedes

albopictus and Other Exotic Mosquito Species

into the United States in Used Tires From Asia, ’

Journal of the American Mosquito Control

Association, vol. 4, No. 2, 1988, pp. 138-142.

Deitnch, B., “State Girds To Battle Alien

Invader: A Moth,” Seattle Times, Nov. 19,1991,

p. A-1.

Dickerson, W. A., ‘‘Gypsy Moth in the Southeastern United States, ’ North Carolina Department

of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC, Apr. 16, 1991.

Dold, C., ‘ ‘Exotic Birds, at Risk in Wild, Maybe

Banned as Imports to U.S.,” The New York

Time~, Oct. 20, 1992.

Dowell, R.V. and Gill, R., “Exotic Invertebrates

and Their Effects on California, ’ Pan-Paczjlc

Entomologist, vol. 65, No. 2,1989, pp. 132-145.

Dowell, R. V., State Entomologist, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, FM to E.A. Chornesky, Ol%ce of

Technology Assessment, Apr. 12, 1993.

Ebinger, J,E. and McClain, W. E., “Naturalized

Amur Maple (Acer ginnala Maxim.) in Illinois,’

Nauwal Areas Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp.

170-171.

Ezzell, C., ‘ ‘Strangers in Paradise, ” Science

N~/s, Vol. 142, No. 45, Nov. 7, 1992, pp.

314-319.
332

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Fisher, TW., personal communication to J.C.

Britton, as cited in Britton, J. C., 1991 (#12).

Fleming, P. and Kanal, R., “Newly Documented

Species of Vascular Plants in the District of

Columbia,’ Castanea, vol. 57, No. 2, June 1992,

pp. 132-146,

Frankie, G.W. et al. “Some Considerations for

the Eradication and Management of Introduced

Insect Pests in Urban Environments,” S.L.

Batten field (cd.) Proceedings of a Symposium on

the Imported Fire Ant, Atlanta, GA, June 7-10,

1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service/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, Boiga

irregulars, 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 Microbial

Pathogens Through Introductions and Transfers

of Fin fish,’ Dispersal of Living Organisms into

Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann

(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,

1992), pp. 175-192.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ruffe Task

Force, “Ruffe in the Great Lakes: A Threat to

North American Fisheries, ” Ann Arbor, MI,

March 1992.

Greathead, D.J. and Greathead, A. H., ‘ ‘Biological Control of Insect Pests by Insect Parasitoids

and Predators: the BIOCAT Database, ’ Biocontrol News and Information 1992, vol. 13, No. 4,

1992, PP. 61 N-68N.

Gregg, M., Administrator, Metro Parks Natural

Areas Management, State of Florida, memo to K.

Hale, Director, Office of Emergency Management, Oct. 11, 1992.

Hanna, G. D., “Introduced Mollusks of Western

North America,” Occasional Papers of the

Ca[#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 Conservat ion,’ 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, Bothriocephalus gowkongensis, in the United States, and

Research Needs in Fish Parasitology,’ Proceedings of the 1976 Fish Farming Conference and

Annual 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 Mekdeuca

quinquenervia in Southern Florida,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants,

TD. Center et al. (eds.) (Denver, CO: National

Park Service, Natural Resources Publication

Office, 1991), pp. 159-176.

Howard, L.O., “Gipsy Moth in America: A

Summary Account of the Introduction and

Spread of Porthetria dispar in Massachusetts

and of the Efforts Made by the State to Repress

and 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,’ Agricultural Research, vol. 38, December 1990, pp.

4-11,

Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G,, “Pathways and

Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

Kindler, S.D. and Springer, T. L., “Alternate

Hosts 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,, “American

Fisheries Society Position on Introductions of

Aquatic Species, ” Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2,

March-April 1986, pp. 39-42.

Langdon, K.R. and Johnson, K. D., ‘Alien Forest

Insects and Diseases in Eastern USNPS Units:

Impacts and Intementions,’ The George Wright

FORUM , VOI. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 2-14.

Lanka, B, et al., “Analysis and Recommendations on the Application by Mr. John T. Dorrance

III to Import and Possess Native and Exotic

Species,” Exotic Species Committee, Game

Division, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

Cheyenne, WY, Mar. 1, 1990,
58

59%

60.

61.

62,

63.

64.

65.

66,

67,

Lewis, V.R. et al., “Imported Fire Ants: Potential Risk to California, ’ California Agriculture,

vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp.

29-31.

Lieberman, S. S., “Awareness Grows on the

Problems of Trading Live Birds and Other Live

Wildlife, ’ Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, vol. 15, No. 11, 1990, pp. 13-14.

Lightner, D.V. et al., ‘‘Geographic Dispersion of

the Viruses IHHN, MBV, and HPV as a ~onsequence of Transfers and Introductions of Penaeid

Shrimp to New Regions for Aquiculture Purposes, ” Dispersal of Living Organisms into

Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann

(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,

1992), pp. 155-173.

Immbardi, A. K., Director, Office of Cargo Enforcement and Facilitation, Department of Customs, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, personal communication to Office of

Technology Assessment, Jan, 24, 1992.

Mack, R. N., “Catalog of Woes,” Natural History, March 1990, pp. 44-53.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mack, R. N., “The Commercial Seed Trade: An

Early Disperser of Weeds in the United States,”

Economic Botany, vol. 45, No. 2, 1991, pp.

257-273.

Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on NonIndigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1992.

McCann, J. A., “Involvement of the American

Fisheries Society With Exotic Species, 1969-

1982, ” Distribution, Biology, and Management

of Exotic Fishes, W,R. Courtenay and J.R.

Stauffer, Jr, (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 1-7.

McCann, J. A., Director, National Fisheries Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,

personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 17, 1991.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73,

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

Appendix C: References I 333

McClintock, E., ‘‘Escaped Exotic Weeds in

California, ” Fremontia, vol. 12, No. 4, January

1985, pp. 3-6.

McCoid, M. and Fritts, TH., “Growth and

Fatbody Cycles in Feral Populations of the

African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis (Pipidae),

in California With Comments on Reproduction,” The Southwestern Naturalist, vol. 34, No.

4, December 1989, pp. 499-505.

McMullen, M. M., Inspector-Program Officer,

Office of Cargo Enforcement and Facilitation,

Department of Customs, U.S. Department of the

Treasury, Washington, DC, personal communication to Office of Technology Assessment, Jan.

24, 1992.

Mills, E.L. et al., “Exotic Species in the Great

Lakes: A History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions,” Journal of Great Lukes

Research, vol. 19, No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-54.

Morrison, J., “Cockroaches on the Move, ”

Agricultural Research, vol. 35, No. 2, February

1987, pp. 6-9.

Moyle, P. B., “Fish Introductions in California:

History and Impact on Native Fishes,’ Biological Conservation, vol. 9, No. 2, 1976, p p .

101-118,

National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture, Washington, DC, ‘Honey Bee Pests

—A Threat to the Vitality of U.S. Agriculture: A

National Strategy,” February 1991.

Nichols, F.I-I. et al., “Remarkable Invasion of

San Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the

Asian ClarnPotamocorbula amurensis; II. Displacement of a Former Community, Marine Ecolo~

Progress Series, vol. 66, 1990, pp. 95-101,

Nuzzo, V. A., ‘‘Current and Historic Distribution

of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in Illinois, ’ report prepared for the Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield, IL, July

1991.

Randall, J., Invasive Weed Specialist, Consumnes River Preserve, The Nature Conservancy,

Gait, CA, letter to P,N, Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, July 23, 1992.

Regelbrugge, C. J., Director of Regulatory Affairs and Grower Services, American Association of Nurserymen, Washington DC, letter to
334 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,

Aug. 10, 1992.

79. Rosenberry, B., “Shrimp Farming in the United

States,” 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.) (New

York NY: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 15-38.

81. Schafland, P. L., “A Proposal for Introducing

Peacock Bass (Cidda spp.) in Southeast Florida

Canals,” Contribution No. 40, Non-Native Fish

Research Laboratory, Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission, Boca Raton, FL, 1984.

82. Schoulties, C. L., “Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant

Pathogens in the United States, ” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, December 1991.

83. Schmitz, D. C., Biological Scientist III, Permitting Section, Florida Department of Natural

Resources, Tallahassee, FL, memorandum to

Rob Kipker, June 28, 1990.

84. Schwegman, J. E., “Newsletter of the Illinois

Native Plant Conservation Program Division of

Natural 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 Technology Assessment, Apr. 6, 1992.

86. Seed World, “Wildlife Market on the Rise,”

Seed World, November 1991, p. 26.

87. Sharp Bros. Seed Co., “Buffalo Brand: Select

Native Grasses” (seed catalog), Healy, KS,

1989.

88. Shelton, A.M. and Wyman, J. A., “Insecticide

Resistance of Diamondback Moth in North

America, ” Journal of Economic Entomology,

VOI. 79, No. 1, 1986, pp. 11-19.

89. Shelton, W.L. and Smitherman, R. O., “Exotic

Fishes 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 and

Their 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, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Subcomitteee on Federal Services, Post Offices,

and Civil Services, Postal Implementation of the

Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June

5, 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 Freshwater Mussel, Anodonta, Introduced into Arizona,

The Veliger, vol. 8, No. 3, 1966, pp. 197-198.

94. Teer, J. G., “Non-Native Large Ungulates in

North America, ” Wildlife Production: Conservation and Sustainable Development, L.A. Renecker and R.J. Hudson (eds.) (Fairbanks, AK:

Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,

1991), pp. 55-66.

95. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways and

Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1991.

96. Torchio, P.F. et al,, “Introduction of the European Bee, Osmia cornuta, into California Almond Orchards (Hymenopteran: Megachilidae), ’

Environmental Entomology, vol. 16, No. 3, June

1987, 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 in

Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors

in 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-
101,

102.

103,

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

ment Program’ (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of

Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East,”

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, September

1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Restoring Americans Wildl$e (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1987).

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, ‘Memorandum Opinion 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 Subcommittee on Aquiculture, ‘‘National Aquiculture Development Plan: Volume II, ’ Washington, DC,

September 1983.

Westbrooks, R. G., “Interstate Sale of Aquatic

Federal Noxious Weeds as Ornamental in the

United States,” Aquatics, vol. 2, No. 3, June

1990, 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, ” September

1991, 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 Them

In’ (catalogue of animals and plants for wildlife

habitat) (Oshkosh, WI: 1989).

Wildseed Farms, “Wildflowers: 1992 Seed Catalogue” (Eagle Lake, TX: 1992).

Williams, J., Project bader, National Fisheries

Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Apr. 16, 1993.

Williams, M. C., “Purposefully Introduced

Plants that Have Become Noxious or Poisonous

Weeds, ’ ‘ Weed Science, vol. 28, No. 3, May

1980, pp. 300-305.

Yee, R. S. N., personal communication to R.N.

Mac~ as cited in Mack, R. N., 1991 (#63).

113.

Appendix C: References 1335

Zamora, D.L. et al., “An Eradication Plan for

Plant Invasions,” Weed Technology, vol. 3, No.

1, January/March 1989, pp. 2-12.

CHAPTER 4: THE APPLICATION OF

DECISIONMAKING METHODS

1.

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10,

Associated Press, ‘Forest Bugaboo-Alarm Over

Discove~ of Asian Gypsy Moths, ” Seattle

Times/Post Intelligence, Nov. 24, 1991, p. B-8.

Blockstein, D., Executive Director, Committee

for the National Institute for the Environment,

Washington, DC, ‘‘Sample Guidelines for Consideration of Biological Diversity in Environmental Impact Statements, ’ draft unpublished

memorandum, 1989.

Bullis, C.A. and Kennedy, J. J., “Values Conflicts and Policy Interpretation, ” Policies Studies .lourrud, vol. 19, No. 34, 1991, pp. 542-552.

Bullock, G., “A Love Affair with Exotic

Plants,” Bulletin of the Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, vol. 18, No. 2-3, April/July, 1988,

pp. 58-9,

Cadton, J. T., ‘ ‘Man’s Role in Changing the Face

of the Ocean, ’ Conservation Biology, vol. 3, No.

3, 1989, pp. 270-272.

Cmter, P. C. S., ‘‘Risk Assessment and Pest

Detection Surveys for Exotic Pests and Diseases

which Threaten Commercial Forestry in New

Zealand,” New Zealand Jourrwl of Forestry

Science, vol. 19, Nos. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-374.

Clark A., Program Supervisor, Pest Exclusion

Branch, California Department of Agriculture,

Sacramento, CA, personal communication to

P,T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,

Feb. 14, 1991.

Coates, J. F., “Factors Shaping and Shaped by

the Environment: 1990-2010,’ Futures Research

Quarterly, vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 5-55.

Cochran, M., “Non-Indigenous Species in the

United States: Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, March 1992.

Coulson, J.R. and Soper, R. S., ‘‘Protocols for the

Introduction of Biological Control Agents in the

U.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 States

11. Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences

of Introductions of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the

United States, ” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, August

1991.

12. Crawley, M. J., “What Makes A Community

Invisible?’ 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., ‘Environmental

Economics: A Survey,” Journal of Economic

Literature, vol. 30, June 1992, pp. 675-740.

14. DeFazio, P., Member of U.S. House of Representatives et al., letter to Clayton K. Yeutter,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dec.

5, 1990.

15. Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, ‘‘Draft Handbook for the Removal

of Non-Native Animals,” 1992.

16. Edelson, D., Staff Attorney, Natural Resources

Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, personal

communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 5, 1991.

17. Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, Fisheries

Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, testimony at hearings before the House Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 12,

1991, Serial No. 102-28, pp. 32-33.

18. Environmental Law Institute, Law of Environmental Protectio~Vol. I (New York, NY: Clark

Boardman Co., 1990), p. 6-24.

19. Gleick, J., Chaos. Making a New Science (New

York, NY: Viking Press, 1987).

20. Gregory, R,, ‘‘A Decision Framework for Managing the Risks of Deliberate Releases of Genetic

Materials,’ Dispersal of Living Organisms into

Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfeld and R. Mann

(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,

1992), pp. 421-434.

21. Grego~, R. et al., ‘‘Adapting the Environmental

Impact Statement Process to Inform Decision

Makers,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 11, No. 1, 1992, pp. 58-75.

22. Harding, M., Arizona Department of Game and

Fish, Phoenix, AZ, ‘ ‘Public Interest in Conservation: Perceptions of Native Fishes in ArizonaA Report to the Nongame Branch of the Arizona

Department of Game and Fish,” June 1991.

23. Hiebert, R. D., Chief Scientist, National Park

Service-Midwest Region, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Omaha, NE, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Sept. 27, 1991.

24. Kahn, R. P., “Quarantine Significance: Biological Considerations,’ 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 to

P.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 Decisions

about the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species into the United States, ” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, July 1991.

27. Kareiva, P., Professor, Department of Zoology,

University of Washington, contract paper prepared for OTA Workshop on Management and

Policy Decisionmaking for Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, Washington, DC, Nov.

13-14, 1991.

28. Kellert, S. R., Knowledge, Affection and Basic

Attitudes toward Animals in American Society

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1980).

29. Kellert, S.R. and Clarlq T.W., “The Theory and

Application of a Wildlife Policy Framework”

Public Policy Issues in Wildl&e Management,

W.R. Mangun (cd.) (New York, NY: Greenwood

Press, 1991), pp. 17-38.

30. Klingman, D.L, and Coulson, J. R., “Guidelines

for Introducing Foreign Organisms into the

United States for the Biological Control of

Weeds,” Bulletin of the Entomological Society

of America, vol. 19, No. 3, 1983, pp. 55-61.

31. Kohler, C. C., ‘‘Toward a Reasoned Approach to

Introduced Aquatic Organisms,” Dispersal of

Living 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 of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘‘Con-
Appendix C: References I 337

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

trol of Exotic Pests—Forecasting Economic

Impacts, ” Agricultural Economic Report No.

518, 1984.

Kurdila, J,, “The Introduction of Exotic Species

into the United States: There Goes the Neighborhood!” Boston College Environmental Aflairs

Law Review, vol. 16, No, 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.

Lassuy, D., Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Fisheries Division, 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, Oregon

State University, memorandum to Bill Wright,

Administrator, Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR, Nov. 1, 1990.

Lattin, J, D., Professor of Entomology, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Jan. 31, 1991.

Lattin, J. D., Professor of Entomology, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR, letter to Kathleen Johnson, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Feb. 20, 1991.

Lawton, J. H., “Annual Report: 1 April 199P

31 March 1991,’ Center for Population Biology,

Imperial College at Silwood Park, Berkshire,

England, June 14, 1991.

bvin, S. A., ‘‘Analysis of Risk for Invasions and

Control Programs, ” Biological Invasions: a

Global Perspective, J.A. Drake et al. (eds.) (New

York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 1989), pp. 425435.

Mack, R. N., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences of

Introductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

Introductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States-Additional Information,’ supplemental contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, October 1992.

Maguire, L. A., Professor, School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies, Duke University, presentation at OTA Workshop on Management and

Policy Decisionmaking for Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, Washington, DC, Nov.

13-14, 1991.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49,

50.

51.

52.

Maguire, L.A. and Servheen, C., “Integrating

Biological and Sociological Concerns in Endangered Species Management: Augmentation of

Grizzly Bear Populations,’ Conservation Biology, vol. 6, No. 3, September 1992, pp. 426-432.

Mann, R., “Exotic Species in Aquacukure: An

Overview of When, Why and How,” Proceedings of a Symposium on Exotic Species in

Mariculture, Woods Hole, MA, Sept. 18-20,

1978, pp. 331-53.

McCrea, E.J. and Shotkin, A., “Public Educational Efforts in the United States Regarding

Prevention and Management of Non-Indigenous

Species,’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December

1991.

Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task

Force, St. Paul, MN, ‘Report and Recommendations, ’ submitted to the Natural Resources

Committees of the Minnesota House and Senate,

July 1991.

Moody, M.E, and Mack, R. N., “Controlling the

Spread of Plant Invasions: the Importance of

Nascent Foci,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.

25, 1988, pp. 1009-1021.

Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J. A., “The Release of

Genetically Designed Organisms in the Environment: Lessons from the Study of Ecology of

Invasions,’ Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment, H.A.

Mooney and G. Bernardi (eds,) (New York, NY:

Wiley and Sons, 1990), pp. 117-129.

Morris, R., Division Resources Manager, ImuisianaPacific Corp., Samoa, CA, internal memorandum to Bill Phillips, Dec. 19, 1990.

Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI,

and the Natural Resources Defense Council,

Honolulu, HI, “The Alien Pest Species Invasions in Hawaii: Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning, ” July

1992.

Noble, R., Professor, Fisheries and Wildlife

Sciences, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC, personal communication to P.N.

Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, May

31, 1991.

Norgaard, R.B. and Howarth, R. B,, ‘‘The Rights

of Future Generations and the Role of Benefit-
338 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Cost Analysis in the Policy Process,” paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, San Francisco, CA, October 1990.

53. Orr, R. L., Entomologist, and Cohen, S. D., Plant

Pathologist, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Generic Pest Risk Assessment Process-For Estimating the Pest Risk Associated with Importationof Foreign Plants and Plant Products (Draft),”

Nov. 20, 1991.

54. Peoples, R.A, et al., “Introduced Organisms:

Policies and Activities of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, ” Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfeld

and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 325-352.

55. Randall, A., Professor of Economics, Ohio State

University, Columbus, OH, letter to P.T. Jenkims, Office of Technology Assessment, Sept.

28, 1992.

56. Randall, A. and Thomas, M., “The Role and

Limits of Economics in Decisionmaking Regarding Non-Indigenous Species, ’ contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1991.

57. Royer, M. H., “Global Pest Information SystemsCan We Make Them Work?” Plant Protection

and Quarantine-Vol. III, R.P. Kahn (cd.) (Boca

Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1989), pp. 37-57.

58. Sagoff, M., “Some Problems with Environmental Economics,’ 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 Ecological

Systems,” Ecology, vol. 66, No. 1, 1985, pp.

93-106.

61. Schuyler, P. T., ‘‘Selected Analysis of Introduced

Animal Species Survey Data,’ contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

62. Scnbner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, letter

to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 3, 1992,

63. Scribner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, personal communication to Office of Technology

Assessment, July 30, 1992.

(M. Shannon, M., Chief Operating Officer for Planning and Design, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication

to P,T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 5, 1991.

65. Shannon, M., Assistant Director for Planning

and Design, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Hyattsville, MD, personal communication to

P.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,

Nov. 13, 1991.

66, Shannon, M,, Assistant Director for Planning

and Design, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Hyattsville, MD, personal communication to

P.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,

Mar. 2, 1992.

67. Shelton, W.L., “Strategies for Reducing Risks

from Introductions of Aquatic Organisms: An

Aquiculture Perspective,” Fisheries, vol. 11,

No. 2, 1986, pp. 16-18.

68. Starfield, A.M. and Herr, A. M., “A Response to

Maguire,’ letter to the editors, Conservation

Biology, vol. 5, No. 4, 1991, p. 435.

69, Stone, C. P., “Humane Natural Area Management in Hawai’i,” The George Wright Forum,

vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 32-35.

70. Suter, G., ‘‘Exotic Organisms,’ Ecological Risk

Assessment, G.W. Suter II (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL:

Lewis Publishers, 1993), pp. 391401.

71, Suter, G. and Barnthouse, L,, “Assessment

Concepts,” 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 of

Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological

Considerations and Recommendations,” Eco/-

0#, vol. 70, No. 2, 1989, pp. 298-315.

73. Towns, D.R, et al., ‘‘Protocols for Translocation

of Organisms to Islands, ” Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands, D.R. Towns et al.

(eds.) (Wellington, New Zealand: Department of

Conservation, 1990).
Appendix C: References I 339

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,

Intentional Introductions Policy Committee, ‘Options Paper—Intentional Introductions Policy

Review, ” May 1992.

U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,

‘‘Proposed Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, ’

Sept. 28, 1992.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Hearing on Proposed Injurious Wildlife

Regulations, Dec. 12, 1974.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearings on the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species into Existing

Ecosystems, Serial No. 102-28, July 12, 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington,

DC, press release entitled “USDA Places Temporary Prohibition on Entry of Siberian Logs

Because of Pests,” Dec. 20, 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington,

DC, “An Efficacy Review of Control Measures

for Potential Pests of Imported Soviet Timber, ’

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496, September

1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, “Review of

OTA’S Draft Document: Non-Indigenous Species in the United States,” July 30, 1992.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of

Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East, ”

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, September

1991.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Sports

Fisheries and Wildlife, “Draft Environmental

Statement on Proposed Importation RegulationsInjurious Wildlife,” DES 74-64, 1974.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, “Policies for

Reducing Risks Associated with Introductions of

Aquatic Organisms,” executive summary of

discussion paper, Oct. 14, 1987.

Welcomme, R. L., “International Measures for

the Control of Introduction of Aquatic Orga85.

86.

87,

nisms, ’ Fisheries, vol. II, No. 2, April-May

1986, pp. 4-9.

Whiteaker, L.D. and Doren, R. F., Southeast

Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, “Exotic Plant Species Management Strategies and List of Exotic

Species in prioritized Categories for Everglades

National Park,” Research/Resources Management Report SER-89/04, 1989,

Wood, D. L., Professor of Entomology, and

Cobb, F. W., Jr., Professor of Plant Pathology,

Univ. of California, Berkeley, letter to Dean

Cromwell, California State Board of Forestry et

al., Sacramento, CA, Dec. 11, 1990.

Yang, X.B. et al., “Assessing the Risk and

Potential Impact of an Exotic Plant Disease, ”

Plant Disease, vol. 75, No. 10, 1991, pp. 976-82.

CHAPTER 5: TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTING

AND

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

MANAGING PROBLEMS

Anonymous, “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, pp.

B3.

Anonymous, ‘Entomology: Destructive Fly May

Be New Species,” Washington Post, Jan. 4,

1993, pp. M.

Anonymous, “Science Update, ” Agricultural

Research, February 1993.

Aspelin, A. L., Grube, A. H., and Kibler, V.,

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Pesticide Programs, “Pesticide Industry Sales

and Usage: 1989 Market Estimates,’ Washington, DC, July 1991.

Berger, J.L. and Riggs, L. A., “EcologicalRestoration and Non-Indigenous Species, ” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, August 1991.

Butler, L., “Non-target Impact of Din-din and

Bacillus thuringiensis,’ @PSY Moth News, February 1992, pp. 4-5.

California Department of Food and Agriculture,

Division of Plant Industry, “ 1990 Annual Report, ” Sacramento, CA, 1990.

California Department of Food and Agriculture,

Divison of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion, ‘Cali-
340

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

fornia Plant Pest Distribution Report,” vol. 9,

1990, pp. 63-66.

Carey, J. R., “The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in

California: Taking Stock,” California Agriculture, Jan. -Feb. 1992, pp. 12-17,

Charudattan, R. et al., Special Problems Associated with Aquatic Weed Control, ” New Directions in Biological Control: Alternatives for

Suppressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases,

R.R. Baker and P.E. Dunn (eds.) (New York,

NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1990).

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), Pests of Plant and Animals: Their

Introduction and Spread, report No, 112, Ames,

IA, March 1987.

Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in

the United States, ” contractor report prepared

for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1991.

Cowley, J. M., “A New System of Fruit Fly

Surveillance Trapping in New Zealand,” New

Zealand Entomologist, vol. 13, 1990, pp. 81-84.

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.

Crozier, YC., Koulianos, S., and Crozier, R. H.,

“An Improved Test for Africanized Honeybee

Mitochondrial DNA,” Experiential, vol. 47,

1991, pp. 968-969.

DeBach, P. and Rosen, D., Biological Control by

Natural Enemies (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge

University Press, 1991).

Delfosse, E. S., Director, National Biological

Control Institute, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 31, 1992,

DeI.mach, C.J., “Past Successes and Current

Prospects in Biological Control of Weeds in the

United States and Canada,” Natural Areas

Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp. 129-142.

Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., “Handbook for

the Removal of Non-native Animals, ” draft,

1992.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Ehler, L.E., “Revitalizing Biological Control,”

Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 7, No. 1,

fall 1990, pp. 91-%.

Ehler, L,E. and Endico~ P. C., “Effect of MalathionBait Sprays on Biological Control of Insect Pests

of Olive, Citrus, and Walnut, ” Hilgardia, vol.

52, No. 5, 1984, pp. 1-47.

Ehler, L.E. et al., “Medfly Eradication in California: Impact of Malathion-Bait Sprays on an

Endemic Gall Midge and Its Parasitoids,’ Entomological Experiments and Applications, vol.

36, 1984, pp. 201-208.

Ehrenfeld, D., “Conservation and the Rights of

Animals,” conservation Biology, vol. 5, No. 1,

March 1991, pp. 1-3.

Fagerstone, K. A,, Bullard, R. W., and Ramey,

C. A., “Politics and Economics of Maintaining

Pesticide Registrations,” Proceedings of the

14th. Vertebrate Pest Conference, L.R. Davis

and R.E. Marsh (eds.) (Davis, CA: University of

California at Davis, 1990).

Fritts, T.H., Scott, N.J., Jr., and Smith, B. E.,

“Trapping Boiga irregulars on Guam Using

Bird Odors,” Journal of Herpetology, vol. 23,

No. 2, 1989, PP. 189-192.

Gallagher, J.E. and Hailer, W.T., “History and

Development of Aquatic Weed Control in the

United States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,

1990, pp. 115-192.

Geist, V., “Endangered Species and the Law,”

Nature, vol. 357, May 28, 1992, pp. 274-276.

Greathead, D.J. and Greathead, A. H., “Biological Control of Insect Pests by Parasitoids and

Predators: the BIOCAT Database,” Biocontrol

News and Information, vol. 13, No. 4, 1992, pp.

61 N-68N.

Hansen, J.D. et al., “Efficacy of Hydrogen

Cyanide Fumigation as a Treatment for Pests of

Hawaiian Cut Flowers and Foliage after Harvest,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol.

84, No. 2, 1991, pp. 532-536.

Harris, P., “Environmental Impacts of WeedControl Insects. Weed Stands have been Replaced by Diverse Plant Cornrnunities,” Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 8, September 1988, pp.

542-548.

Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park Service

Experience with Exotic Species,’ NationulAreas
Appendix C: References 1341

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp. 127-128.

Holt, M. and Radzanowski, D., Library of

Congress, CmgressionalResearch Semice, “Memorandum on Potential Environmental Characteristics and Monitoring Technologies Currently

Used by Federal Agencies, ” Dec. 5, 1991.

Hopper B.E. and Campbell, W. P., ‘‘Crop Protection Information Needs: A NAPPO Perspective, ’ Crop Protection Information: An International Perspective, Proceedings of the International Crop Protection Information Workhop,

1989, K.M Harris and P.R. Scott (eds.) (WalIingford, Oxon, U. K.: CAB International, 1989),

pp. 225-233.

Howarth, F. G., ‘‘Environmental Impacts of Classical Biological Control, ’ Annual Review of

Entomology, vol. 36, 1991, pp. 485-509.

Jennings, P. and McCann, J, A., U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research

Center, “Research Protocol for Handling NonIndigenous Aquatic Species, ” Gainesville, FL,

April 1991.

Joslin, P., ‘‘The Genetic Test that Can Recognize

Wolves, 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 Biological Control: Status and Prospects, ” Phil.

Trans. R. Soc. Imnd. B, vol. 318, Biological

Control of Pests, Pathogens and Weeds: Development and Prospects, R.K. S. Wood, F. R, S,, and

M.J. Way (eds.) 1988, pp. 357-376.

Kahn, R. P., “Exclusion as a Plant Disease

Control Strategy, ” Annual Review of Phytopa -

thology, vol. 29, 1991, PP. 219-246.

Kareiva, P. et al., ‘‘Risk Analysis as a Tool for

Making Decisions about the Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Species into the United States,’

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, July 1991.

Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

State s,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

Kirkpatrick, J. F., “Wildlife Contraception. A

New 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 Arthropod Pests: Theory and Historical Practice,”

Entomological Society of America, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 73, November 1989.

Kludy, D. H., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on NonIndigenous Species: The Role of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Semice, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

LaMadeleine, L. A., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Se~ice, “Non-Indigenous Species

in the United States-Gypsy Moth EradicationUtah,” Ogden, UT, May 13, 1991.

Lambert, B. and Peferoen, M., “Insecticidal

Promise of Bacillus thuringiensis,’ Bioscience,

vol. 42, No. 2, February 1992, pp. 112-122.

Lanier, G. N., ‘ ‘Principles of AttractionAnnihilation: Mass Trapping and Other Means,’

Behavior- modi~ing Chemicals for Insect Management: Applications of Pheromones and Other

Attractants, R.L. Ridgway, R.M. Silverstein,

R.M. Inscoe (eds.) (New York, NY: Marcel

Dekker, Inc., 1990), pp. 25-45.

Lanka, B. et al., Game Division, Wyoming Game

and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY, ‘ ‘Analysis and Recommendations on the Applications

by Mr. John T. Dorrance III to Import and

Possess Native and Exotic Species,’ Mar. 1,

1990.

Lindsey G. and Novak, K., “Developments in

Information Dissemination Techniques: Directions for International Agricultural Research

Centers, ’ Crop Protection Information: and

International Perspective: Proceedings of the

International 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 of

Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mallet, J, and Porter, P., “Preventing Insect

Adaptation to Insect-Resistant Crops: Are Seed

Mixtures or Refugia the Best Strategy?’ Proceed-
342 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ings 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 of

the Effectiveness of Quarantine,” Annua2 Review of Phytopathology, vol. 18, 1980, pp.

85-101.

53. McGaughey, W,H. and Whalen, M. E., “Managing Insect Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis

Toxins,” Science, vol. 258, Nov. 27, 1992, pp.

1451-1455.

54. McGregor, R. C., “TheEmigrantPests,” areport

to Dr. F.J. Mulhern, Administrator, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, May

1974.

55. McMahon, R.F. and Tsou, J, L., “Impact of

European Zebra Mussel Infestation to the Electric Power Industry, ” paper presented at the

Annual 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 it4acoma

balthica from the Pacific Coast of North America: Evidence for Recent Introduction and Historical Distribution, ’ Marine Biology, vol. 102,

1989, pp. 235-241.

57. Meeusen, R.L. and Warren, G., “Insect Control

with Genetically Engineered Crops, ’ Annual

Review of Entomology, vol. 34, 1989, pp. 373-

381.

58. Melching, J. S,, Bromfield, K. R., and Kingsolver,

C. H., ‘The Plant Pathogen Containment Facility

at Frederick, Maryland,’ Plant Disease, vol. 67,

No. 7, July 1983, pp. 717-722.

59. Meyers, J, H., Higgins, C., and Kovacs, E., “How

Many Insect Species are Necessary for the

Biological Control of Insects?” Environmental

Entomology, vol. 18, No. 4, 1989, pp. 541-547.

60. Micales, J. A., “The Use of Isozyme Analysis in

Fungal Tlixonomy and Genetics,” A4ycotaxon,

vol. 27, October-December 1986, pp. 405449.

61. Mik, N.J., “Biological Control, A Century of

Pest Management,” Bulletin of Entomological

Research, vol. 80, 1990, pp. 359-362.

62, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

Exotic Species Programs and Bureau of Information and Education, Exotic Species Handbook

(St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, 1992).

63. Morrissey, W. A., Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, ‘‘Methyl Bromide and

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Scientific Basis

for Regulation?’ Report for Congress, Aug. 14,

1992.

64, Murphy, K.J. and Pieterse, A.H,, “Present Status

and Prospects of Integrated Control of Aquatic

Weeds,” Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and

Management 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 Global

Genetic Resources: The U.S. National Plant

Germplasm System (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1991).

66. NationalResearch Council, Restoration ofAquatic

Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public

Policy (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1992).

67. Peacock, J. et al., “Laboratory and Field Studies

on the Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on

Non-target Lepidoptera,” Gypsy Moth News,

February 1992, pp. 7-8.

68. Rosenberg, D. Q., ‘‘The Interaction of State and

Federal Quarantines in the U.S.,” Plant Protection and Quarantine, Volume III Special Topics,

R.P. Kahn (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

hlC., 1989), pp. 59-74.

69. Roth, H., “Concepts and Recent Developments

in Regulatory Treatments, ’ Plant Protection

and 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 Cultural

Control of Insect Pests of Crops,” CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, Ist.

d, D. Pimentel (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press, 1981), pp. 57-67.
Appendix C: References 1343

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78,

79,

Sand, P.F. and Manley, J.D., “The Witchweed

Eradication Program Survey, Regulatory and

Control,” Witchweed Research and Control in

the United States, P.F. Sand, R.E. Eplee, and

G.W. Westbrooks (eds.) (Champaign, IL: Weed

Science Society of America, 1990), pp. 141-150.

Schoulties, C. L., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences

of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant

Pathogens in the United States,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, December 1991.

Schuyler, P., ‘ ‘Feral Animal Control: Santa Cruz

Island, 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 Medfly

May Be Differentiated by Mitochondrial DNA

Variation, Experimentia, vol. 48, No. 10,

October 1992, pp. 1010-1013.

Shoemaker, A., Chairman of the Mammal Standards Committee, Riverbank Zoological Park,

Columbia, SC, personal communication to S.

Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment,

Apr. 7, 1992.

Shotkin, A. and McCrea, E. J., “Public Educational Efforts in the United States Regarding

Prevention and Management of Non-Indigenous

Species, ’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, December

1991.

Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Offices,

and Civil Services, Postal Implementation of the

Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June

5, 1991.

Silverstein, R. M., ‘‘Practical Use of Pheromones

and Other Behavior-modifying Compounds: Overview, ’ Behavior-Modi~ing Chemicals for Insect Manage merit.” Applications of Pheromones

and 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 Quzmmtine Diagnostic Problems: Viruses, ’ Plant Protection and Quarantine Volume II, Selected Pests

80.

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 a

Vegetative Management System,’ HortScience,

vol. 25, No. 2, February 1990, pp. 164-167.

Stevens, W. K., “Biologists Plan Survey of

Ecosystems,’ The Sunday Herald, Monterey

Bay, CA, Mar. 14, 1993, p. 8A.

Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways and

Consequences of Introductions of NonIndigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Tisdell, C. A., ‘‘Economic Impacts of Biological

Control of Weeds and Insects,’ Critical Issues in

Biological 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, Geographic Information Systems, Status of Selected

Agencies, GAO-C-90-74FS, August 1990.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Great

Lakes Fishery Commission: Actions Needed to

Support an Expanded Program, March 1992.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, USDA’s

Research to Support Reregistration of Pesticides

for Minor Crops, June 1992.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1993,

Serial No. 56-090 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 28, 1992), pp.

231-246.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Great

Lakes Sea L.umprey Control Program Hearings,

Status of Efforts to Control Sea Lamprey Populations in 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 and

Plant Health Inspection Semice, Plant Protection
344

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

and Quarantine, “Protecting United States Agriculture from Foreign Pests and Diseases, ’ August

1985.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Management

and Budget Administrative Services Division,

Hyattsville, MD, “Master Plan for the USDA

National Plant Gerrnplasm Quarantine Center,’

Sept. 11, 1989.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inpection Service, “Administrative

Instructions Governing the Entry of Apples and

Pears from Certain Countries in Europe,’ 7 CFR

Ch. III, 319.56-2r,(l-l-91 Edition), 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, ‘Papayas From

Hawaii, ’ 7 CFR Part 318. 56 (156), ‘lhesday,

Aug. 13, 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative

State Research Service, “Role of IR-4 in the

Registration of Biological Control Agents,”

Proceedings of the USDAICSRS National Workshop on Critical Issues in Biological Control,

held at the National Wildlife Federation, Vienna,

VA, 1991.

U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Office of the

Secretary, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology,

“Environmental Assessment of Research on

Transgenic Carp in Confined Outdoor Ponds,”

Nov. 15, 1990.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151, “Ballast Water Management

for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes,” vol. 57,

No. 192, Friday, Oct. 2, 1992.

Veitch, C.R. and Bell, B. D., “Eradication of

Introduced Animals from the Islands of New

Zealand,” Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands, D.R. Towns, C.H. Daugherty, and

I. Atkinson (eds.), Conservation Sciences Publication No. 2, Department of Conservation, Wellington, 1990, pp. 137-146.

Vinson, S. B., “Potential Impact of Microbial

Insecticides on Beneficial Arthopods on the

Terrestrial Environment, ” Safety of Microbial

Insecticides, 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~ing Chemicals 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 Control of Weeds,’ Crop Protection, vol. 8., August

1989, pp. 227-250.

Wilson, E. O., “The Corning Pluralization of

Biology 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 communication to E. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 9, 1992.

Womach, J., Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, “Regulating U.S. Pesticide

Exports: Policy Issues and Proposed @gislation,” Report to Congress, July 1991.

Zadig, D., ‘‘Plant Quarantines: Domestic Strategies Yield to International Policies,’ California

Agriculture, January-February 1992, pp. 9-10.

CHAPTER 6: A PRIMER ON FEDERAL POLICY

1,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Anonymous, “Preventing Tomorrow’s Catastrophes, “ Farm Forum, summer 1990.

Backiel, A. et al., Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, “Major Federal Land

Management Agencies: Management of Our

Nation’s Land and Resources,’ May 7, 1990.

Bandel, D, M., Chief, Natural and Cultural Resources Division, Directorate of Public Works,

Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir, VA,

memorandum to the Executive Director, Armed

Forces Pest Management Board, Feb. 4, 1992.

Bean, M.J., ‘‘The Role of the U.S. Department of

the Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues, ”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, November 1991.

Beard, J.D., “Bug Detectives Crack the Tough

Cases,’ Science, vol. 25, Dec. 13, 1991, pp.

1580-1581.

Betz, F. S., Acting Chief, Science Evaluation and

Coordination Staff, Environmental Protection
Appendix C: References 1345

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

1~.

13.

14.

15.

Agency, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, .lanuary 1992.

Betz, F.S., Acting Chief, Science Evaluation and

Coordination Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 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 Considerations for .Microbial Pest Control Agents in North

America. ’ ,Tafe~ of ilficrobial Peticides, M.

Laird et al. (eds, ) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,

Inc., 1990).

Bolsenga, S. J., Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and At mos -

pheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of

Technology Assessment, Apr. 1, 1992.

Brosten, D., “lTackling Tumbleweeds on CRP

Acreage, ’ Agrichemicul Age, vol. 32, No. 5,

May 1988, pp. 12-18.

Bushman, J., Office of Environmental Policy and

Civil 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 Support

International Services, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, Aug. 11, 1992.

Cm-ruthers, R.I. and Coulson, J. R., “Ecological

Benefits and Risks Associated with the Introduction of Exotic Species for Biological Control of

Agricultural Pests, ’ paper presented at workshop of National Academy of Science, Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology, Airlie

Foundation, Barrington, VA, Feb. 2&Mar. 1,

1991.

Cauchon, S. P., Coastal Information Specialist,

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department

of 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,

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

MD, personal communication to the Office of

Technology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.

Clay, W., Director, Animal Damage Control,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

FAX to E.A, Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Oct. 23, 1992.

Conlin, M., Chief, Fisheries Division, Illinois

Department of Conservation, Springfield, IL,

letter to R.A. Peoples, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 4, 1993.

Coulson, J.R. and Soper,R.S.,‘‘Protocols for the

Introduction of Biological Control Agents in the

U.S.*” Plant Protection and Quarantine: Volume Ill, Robert P. Kahn (cd. ) (Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press, Inc., 1989), pp. 1-35.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, “Ecological Impacts of Federal Conservation and Cropland Reduction Programs, ’ Task

Force Report No, 117, September 1990.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., ‘ ‘Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Fishes in the United States, ” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1991.

Craig, G., Professor of Biology, University of

Notra Dame, letter to P.T. Jenkins, Office of

Technology Assessment, Mar. 14, 1992.

Craven, R.B. et al., “Importation of Aedes

albopictu.s and Other Exotic Mosquito Species

into the United States in Used Tires from Asia, ’

Journal of the American Mosquito Control

Association, vol. 4, No. 2, 1988, pp. 13842,

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.

Cunningham, 1. S., “The U.S. National Arboretum: bader in Ornamental Plant Germplasm

Collection,” Diversity, No. 12, 1988.

DeFazio, P. et al., Members of Congress, letter to

C.K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Dec. 5, 1990.

Deitnch, B., “State Girds to Battle Alien Invader: A Moth, ’ Seattle Times, Nov. 19, 1991,

p. A-1.
346

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Dudley, TR., Research Botanist and Project

hader, National Arboretum, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC, personal communication to

Office of Technology Assessment, Oct. 4, 1991.

Duffy, L., Assistant Secretary for Environmental

Restoration and Water Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, personal

communication to S.M. Fondriest, Office of

Technology Assessment, Jan. 2, 1992.

Earl, R., Real Property Office, Department of

Energy, personal communication to S.M. Fondriest, Ofllce of Technology Assessment, Dec.

13, 1992.

Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, Fisheries

Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, letter

to 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, letter

to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 25, 1992.

Elder, E., Chief Operations Officer, Domestic

and Emergency Operations, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, personal communication to OffIce

of Technology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.

Fens, J., Senior Operations Officer, Inspection

and Compliance, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, personal communication to Office

of Technology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.

Fomasari, L. et al., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Biological

Control of Weeds Laboratory-Rome, Italy,

“Overview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Biocontrol of Weeds Laboratory—

Europe, “ Dec. No. O018P, 1991.

Fritts, TH., “The Brown Tree Snake, Boiga

irregulars, 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 Biological

Control as a Management Tbol in National Parks

and Other Natural Areas, ” Technical Report

NPS/NRUH/NRTR-90/01, September 1990.

37,

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Geiger, J. G., Acting Assistant Director, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, letter to J.A. Schmid, Mar. 29, 1991.

Giamporcaro, D., TSCA Biotechnology Program, Chemical Control Division, Ofllce of

Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chomesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 14, 1992,

Gillis, A. M., “Should Cows Chew Cheatgmss

on Cornmonlands?” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 10,

November 1991, pp. 668-675.

Glosser, J.W., Director, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, testimony at hearings before the U.S. Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research

and General hgislation, Preparation for the

1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, Mar. 28, 1990,

pp. 350-354.

Glosser, J. W., Director, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, letter to The Honorable Tom Daschle, Apr.

17, 1990.

Glosser, J.W., Director, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, testimony at hearings before the U.S. House

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related

Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations

for 1992: Part 4, Serial No. 43-1710 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, May

1991), pp. 271467.

Grable, K., Plant Pathologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Mar. 31, 1992.

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee,

Billings, MT, “Guidelines for Coordinated Management of Noxious Weeds in the Greater

Yellowstone Area, ’ undated.

Griswold, B., Program Director, Marine Advisory Services, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver

Spring, MD, FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office of

Technology Assessment, Mar. 31, 1992.
46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Heck, J. A., Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, “National WiIdlife Refuges:

Places to Hunt?” July 28, 1992.

Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park Service

Experience with Exotic Specie s,’ Natural Areas

Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, July 1991, pp. 127-128.

Hetke, S. F., Associate Director for Research

Operations, Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Duluth, MN, letter to E.A. Chornesh~, Office of

Technology Assessment, Jan. 15, 1992.

Holmes, R., Director, Division of Fish and

Wildlife, Minnesota Department of NaturaI Resources, letter to R.A. Peoples, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Department of the Interior, Dec. 28,

1992.

Hunsaker, C.T. and Carpenter, D. E., Ecological

Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program (Research Triangle

Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Research and Development, 1990).

Johnston, G. H., Chief of Wildlife and Vegetation

Division, Natural Resources Program Branch,

National Park Service, U.S. Deaprtment of the

Interior, personal communication, July 10, 1991,

Mar. 13, 1992.

Johnston, G.H. and Dennis, J. G., Wildlife and

Vegetation Division, Natural Resources Program Branch, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, letter to P.N. Windle,

Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 13, 1992.

Kaplan, J. K., “Bring ‘Em Back Alive and

Growing, ’ Agricultural Research, vol. 39, No.

7, July 1991, pp. 4-13.

Kim, K.C. and Wheelerl A. G., Jr., ‘‘Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of NonLndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

State s,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC,

December 1991.

Kludy, D. H., “Federal Policy on NonIndigenous Species: The Role of the United

States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, ” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

Appendix C: References 1347

Krugman, S., U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, personal communication to J.A.

Schnittker, 1991.

Kutz, R., Deputy Director EMAP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication to E,A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Jan. 13, 1992.

Lima, P., Entomologist, BATS, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Semice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication to

S.M. Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 12, 1992.

Laope, L., Research Biologist, U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, letter to

P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,

July 28, 1992.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on NonIndigenous Plants in the United States,’ Contractor Report Prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1992.

Marroquin, R,, Entomologist, U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center, Department of the Army, personal communication to

S.M. Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 7, 1992.

McCann, J. A., Director, National Fisheries Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S

Department of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,

personal communication to E.A. Chomesky,

Office of Technology Assessment, Mar. 23,

1993.

Melland, R. B., Director, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S, Department of

Agriculture, testimony at hearings before the

U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

and Related Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug Ministration, and Related Agenciew Appropriations for

1993, 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 States

65. Miller, S., Chief, Division of Land and Water

Resources, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, personal communication to

E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Oct. 26, 1992.

66. NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, ‘‘Fiscal Year 1991 Budget Recommendations for United States Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Management Program, ’ 1990.

67. National Fishand WildlifeFoundation, Washington, DC, ‘‘Fiscal Year 1992 Wildlife and Fisheries Assessment,” April 1991.

68. National Fish andWildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, Internal Progress Report on the “Bring

Back the Natives Projects, ” Mar. 1, 1992.

69. Newman, J. B,, Director Ecological Sciences,

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 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 of

Interior, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 26, 1991.

71. Noldan, H. K., Acting Assistant Director, Land

and Renewable Resources, Bureau of Land

Management, Washington, DC, internal information bulletin No. 91-266 to all State Directors,

Feb. 6, 1991.

72. Peoples, R. A., Resource Analyst, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office

of Technology Assessment, Aug. 19, 1991, Mar.

4, 1992.

73. Perez, A., Quarantine Division, Center for Disease Control, 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 Forest

Service Fisheries Program,” Fisheries, vol. 13,

No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 22-23.

75. Schnittker, J., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on NonIndigenous Species: An Overview of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, ” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

76. Schwegman, J. E., “Newsletter of the Illinois

Native Plant Conservation Program Division of

Natural 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 Preservation in the United States: the U.S. National Plant

Germplasm System,” Biotic Diversity and

Germplasm Preservation, Global Imperatives,

L. Knutson and A.K. Stoner (eds.) (Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), pp. 97-115.

78. Shamon, M., Assistant Director for Planning

and Design, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of

Technology Assessment, May 19, 1992.

79. Sharp, C., “The Soil Conservation Service

Perspective,” paper presented at the 16th Annual

Natural Areas Conference, Knoxville, TN, Oct.

18, 1989,

80. Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 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 of

Agriculture, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, July 24, 1992.

82. Siehl, G.H,, “Natural Resource Issues in National Defense Programs, ” Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, 91-781 ENR,

Oct. 31, 19914

83. Singletary, H. M., Director, Plant Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,

testimony at hearings before the U.S. Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research

and General Legislation, Preparation for the

1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, Mar. 28, 1990,

pp. 354-357.

84. Smith, C., Professor, Department of Botany,

University of Hawaii at Manoa, personal communication to E,A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 6, 1993.

85. Stanley, J. G., Peoples, R. A., Jr., and McCam,

J. A., “Legislation and Responsibilities Related

to Importation of Exotic Fishes and Other
Appendix C: References 1349

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

Aquatic Organisms,’ Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Organisms, vol. 48, supl. 1,

1991, pp. 162-166.

Steering Committee for the 75th Symposium,

National Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail

Agenda Report and Recommendations to the

Director of the National Park Service, National

Park Service Document No, D-726, Mar. 25,

1992.

Thin, D., Department of Plant Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow,

ID, personal communication to R.N. Mack,

Pullman, WA, Oct. 21, 1992.

Torchio, P.F. et al., “Introduction of the European Bee, Osmia cornuta, into California Almond Orchards (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae),

Environmental Entomology, vol. 16, No. 3,

1987, Pp. 664-667.

Troust, J., Senior Environmental Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the

Interior, FM to E.A. Chornesky, Office of

Technology 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, Forest Service: Difficult Choices Face the Future of

the Recreation Program, RCED-91 -115 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, Apr.

15, 1991).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Rangeland Management: Forest Service Not Pe~orming Needed Monitoring of Grazing, RCED-91-

148 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, May 16, 1991).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, National Forests: 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 on

Agriculture, Rural Development and Related

Agencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 2, Serial

96.

97.

98.

99.

100,

101.

102.

No. 43-149 0 (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, April 1991).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Agriculture, Rural Development and Related

Agencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 5, Serial

No. 43-194 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1991).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Agriculture, Rural Development and Related

Agencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 4, Serial

No, 43-171 0 (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, May 1991).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, 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 on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 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 the

Interior and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Justifications of the Budget Estimates for the

Bureau of Lund Management, Fish and Wildlfe

Service, and National Park Service, Serial No.

40-442 (Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office, 1991).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies, Justification of

the Budget Estimates: Part 2, Serial No. 52-547

0 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Ocean-
350

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental

Shelf, Hearings on Present Activities and Future

Needs of Federal Programs Directed at Improving the Water Quality of the Great Lakes, Serial

No. 102-15, Apr. 30, 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Policy of

Noxious Weed Management,’ departmental regulation, 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Marketing Service, “This is AMS, ” March

1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, “Seeds for Our Future: The

U.S. National Plant Gerrnplasm System,” December 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, ‘‘National Biological Control Institute,” Information Sheet,

undated.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “The Conservation Reserve

Program: Enrollment Statistics for Signup Periods 1-9 and Fiscal Year 1989,’ Statistical

Bulletin 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 261P

Cooperative Relations,” June 25, 1990,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Blue Mountains Forest Health Report: New

Perspectives in Forest Health,” April 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“Forest Service Manual 2600-Wildlife, Fish,

and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management WO

Amendment 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 Conservation Service, “Improved Conservation Plant

Materials Released by the SCS and Cooperators

Through December 1990,” 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, ‘‘National Plant Materials Manual

115,

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 Conservation Service, “SCS National Plant Materials

Program: Accomplishments and Opportunities,’

September 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, “Plant Materials Centers: Finding

Vegetative Solutions to Conservation Problems,’

June 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, ‘Draft Strategic Plan for SCS Plant

Materials Center Program,” Aug. 15, 1991.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Great

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory: Annual Report FY 91 ,“ undated.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘‘The

National Sea Grant College Program Annual

Report FY 89,” 1989.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “National Estuarin e Research Reserve System Site

Catalogue,” 1990$

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Sea Grant College Program, “Second Annual

Call for Research Proposals Related to Nonindigenous Species With Special Emphasis on the

Zebra Mussel,” 1992.

U.S. Department of Defense, “Department of

Defense Directive: Natural Resources Management Program,” Directive No. 4700.4, Jan, 24,

1989.

U.S. Department of Defense, “bgacy Resource

Management Program, ” Report to Congress,

September 1991.

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the

Air Force, “AF Regulation 400-21: Retrograde

Material Preclearance Program, ’ June 15, 1972,

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the

Air Force, “AF Regulation 126-1: Conservation

and Management of Natural Resources, ” Oct.

21, 1988.

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the

Army, “Army Regulation 420-74: Natural Resource Management, ’ Feb. 25, 1986.
Appendix C: References 1351

127.

128.

129,

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the

Army, “Army Regulation 420-76: Facilities

Engineering Pest Management,” June 3, 1986.

U.S. Department of Energy, “Real Property

Statistics,” Sept. 30, 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, “1992 Noxious Weed Plan, ” executive

summary, Washington, DC, 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Plan

for the Future,” undated.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “BLM Manual: 6820-Wildlife

Introduction and Transplants,” Oct. 20, 1976.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Northwest Area Noxious Weed

Control Program: Final Environmental Impact

Statement, ” December 1985.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “BLM Manual: 1745—Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation, and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and Plants, ’ revision of

section 6820, draft, Aug. 15, 1986.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, ‘Drafl Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in

Thirteen Western States,” 1989.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “BLM Manual: 9014---Use of

Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public

Lands,” Oct. 30, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, “Evaluation: Bureauwide Noxious Weed Program, ’ internal agency review,

draft, December 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, ‘Vegetation Management Study: Lower Colorado River—

Phase I,” Boulder City, NV, September 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “NEPA in Federal Aid Proposals:

Guidance to the States,’ September 1980.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Federal Aid Manual, ” 1982.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Internal memorandum from the

Director to the Regional Directors concerning

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

“potential policy initiatiw+-reducing risks of

aquatic organism introductions, ” Oct. 20, 1987.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Restoring America Wildl~e (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1987).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife

Restoration,” 1988.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Current Federal Aid Research

Report: Fish 1990,” report, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Current Federal Aid Research

Report: Wildlife 1990,” report, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Law Enforcement Advisory Commission, ‘‘Report of Findings and Recommendations,” June 15, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Triploid Grass Carp Report,”

1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Vision for the Future: 1991 Total

Quality Management Plan,” May 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, “Management Policies,’ 1988.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Soil Conse~ation Service, Native Plants for

Parks, D-425 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, “1989 Inventory of Research Activities

in the National Parks,” Science Report NPS/NRWV/

NRSR-91/03, January 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, ‘‘1990 Inventory of Research Activities

in the National Parks, ” Science report, 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of

Inspector General, “The Endangered Species

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,’ Audit

Report No. 90-98, September 1990.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs

Service, “Master Plan for Passenger Processing

at United States Airports for the 1990’ s,’

undated.
352

154,

155,

156,

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162,

163.

164.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs

Service, “Importing Into the United States, ”

September 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticide Assessment Guidelines: Microbial Pest

Control Agents, ” March 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMAP

Monitor,” EPA-600/M-90/022, January 1991.

U.S. Public Health Service, “MedicalEntomologyEcology Branch (MEEB),” information brochure, draft, undated.

U.S. Public Health Service, “Public Health

Scr*nings at U.S. Ports of Entry: A Guide for

U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service and

U.S. Customs Service Inspectors, ” October

1991.

Versar, Inc., ‘‘Introduction of Pacific Salmonids

into the Delaware River Watershed,” draft

environmental impact statement prepared for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New

Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, July

25, 1991.

Wahle, C. M,, Evaluation Team bader, Office of

Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administmtion, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A, Chornesky, Office

of Technology Assessment, Mar. 31, 1992.

Waters, L, H,, Pest Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Sept. 5, 1991.

Weiss, M. J., Assistant Director Forest Pest

Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.

Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb.

5, 1992.

West, A. J., Deputy Chief of State and Private

Forestry, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.

Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.

24, 1992,

Westbrooks, R. G., Station Leader, Whiteville

Noxious Weed Station, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection 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’s Plant Introduction Program-Safeguards

Against Introducing Pests,” 1991.

White, G. A., Shands, H. L., and Lovell, G. R.,

“History and Operation of the National Plant

Germplasm System,” Plant Breeding Reviews:

The National Plant Germplasm System of the

Uni/ed States, Vol. 7, J. Janick (cd.) (Portland,

OR: Timber Press, 1989), pp. 5-56.

Wilkinson, D., Marine Resource Management

Specialist, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD,

personal communications to E.A. Chornesky,

Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 22,1992

and Mar. 31, 1992.

Williamson, W., Director of Range Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, July 19, 1991.

Witfield, P., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environmental Restoration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, personal communication

to 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 Technology

Assessment, Nov. 9 and Nov. 10, 1992.

CHAPTER 7: STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHES

FROM A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

1. Alexander, D., Pest Exclusion Specialist, Washington Department of Agriculture, Olympia, WA,

personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office

of Technology Assessment, Feb. 15, 1991.

2. Alfieri, S. A., Jr., Assistant Director, Division of

Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee FL,

“Regulatory Pest Control Philosophy: Views

and Assessment,” paper presented at the meeting of the National Plant Board, Kalispell, MT,

August 1991.
Appendix C: References 1353

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Anonymous, ‘‘Guidelines for Coordinated Management of Noxious Weeds in the Greater

Yellowstone Area, ’ adopted by parties to Memorandum of Understanding between the Governor of the State of Wyoming et al,, dated Sept.

30, 1990.

Anonymous, ‘‘Wyoming Noxious Weed-Free

Forage,” pamphlet issued by Wyoming Department of 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 States

Department of Interior in NIS Issues, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, November 1991.

Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences of

Introductions of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,

Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United

States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of 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, written statement submitted to the Intentional Introductions Policy Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance

Species Task Force, Feb. 26, 1992.

Cohn, D., ‘‘Plan to Revive Bay’s Oysters Creates

a Regional Dispute, ’ Washington Post, Nov. 18,

1991, pp. Al, A12.

Collins, R. A., “California’s Approach to Risk

Reduction in the Introduction of Exotic Species, ’ Dispersal ofLiving Organisms into Aquatic

Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R, Mam (eds,)

(College Park MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),

pp. 361-364.

Commissioner, Maine Department of Marine

Resources, Code of Maine Rules, Ch. 24, Basis

Statement, Aug. 15, 1984.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Pathways and Consequences of Introductions of Non-Indigenous

Fishes in the United States,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1991.

Doren, R. F., Assistant Research Director, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL, personal

15.

16.

17,

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 21, 1992.

Dowell, R.V. and Krass, C. J., ‘‘Exotic Pests Pose

Growing Problem for California,” California

Agriculture, vol. 46, No. 1, January-February

1992, pp. 6-12.

Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, Fisheries

Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, testimony at hearings before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

July 12, 1991, Serial No. 102-28, pp. 32-3.

Elder, E. W., Chief Operations Officer, Domestic

and Emergency Operations, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.

Environmental Law Institute, Law of Environmental Protection, Vol. 1 (New York, NY: Clark

Boardman Co., 1990), p. 6-24.

Federal Noxious Weed Committee, Weed Science Society of America, ‘‘Points of Discussion

on Six Proposed Amendments to the Federal

NOxiOUS Weed Act,” 1989.

Fleck, A., Enforcement Officer, Utah Division of

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, personal

communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Sept. 9, 1992.

Gilbert, B., “Coyotes Adapted to Us, Now We

Have to Adapt to Them,” Smithsonian, April

1991, pp. 69-78.

Girard, N., Counsel, New Hampshire Fish and

Game Department, Concord, NH, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, May 6, 1992.

Gomez, R., Chairman, U.S. Department of Agriculture Interagency Technical Working Group

on the Africanized Honey Bee, Washington, DC,

personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office

of Technology Assessment, Sept. 9, 1992.

Greenwalt, L. A., Vice-President, International

Affairs, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 11,

1991.
354

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States

Hardy, T.N., Administrator Coordinator, Quarantine Programs, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, LA, letter to P.T.

Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec.

21, 1992.

Hocutt, C.H., “Toward the Development of an

Environmental Ethic for Exotic Fishes,” Distribution, Biology and Management of Erotic

Fishes, W.R. Courtenay and J.R. Stauffer (eds.)

(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,

1984), pp. 374-386.

Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quarantine

Practices,’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, November

1985,

Kern, F.G. and Rosenfield, A., “Shellfish Health

and Protection,’ Dispersal of Living Organisms

into Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosen field and R.

Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea

Grant, 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 on

Crassostrea virginica in Maryland with Comments on the Possible Introduction of an Exotic

Oyster, Crassostrea gigas,” Introductions and

Transfers of Marine Species, Achieving a Balance Between Ecorwmic Development and Resource Protection, Proceedings of Conference/

Workshop at Hilton Head, SC (Charleston, SC:

SC Sea Grant Consortium, 1992), pp. 121-126.

Kurdila, J., ‘‘The Introduction of Exotic Species

Into the United States: There Goes the Neighborhood!” Boston College Environmental Affairs

h Review, vol. 16, No. 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.

Lanka, B. et al., Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, Game Division, Exotic Species

bnmittee, Cheyenne, W, “Analysis and Recommendations on the Applications by Mr. John T.

Dorrance III to Import and Possess Native and

Exotic Species,” Mar. 1, 1990.

Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences of

Introductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in the

United States-Additional Information, ’ supplemental contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, October 1992.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Mann, R., Burreson, E.M., and Baker, P.K.,

“The Decline of the Virginia Oyster Fishery in

Chesapeake Bay: Considerations for Introduction of a Non-endemic Species, Crassostrea

gigas (ThUnberg),’ Introductions and Transfers

of Marine Species, Achieving a Balance Between

Economic Development and Resource Protection, Proceedings of a Conference/Workshop at

Hilton Head, SC (Charleston, SC: South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, 1992), pp. 107-120.

Martin, G., “Hog Wild,” Discover, vol. 11, No.

6, June 1990, pp. 43-46.

Mayer, J,J. and Brisbin, I. L., Wild Pigs in the

United States: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991).

McCam, J, A., Director, National Fisheries Research Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,

letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Oct. 4, 1991.

McDowell, R., Director, Division of Fish, Game

and Wildlife, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ, testimony at

hearings before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on

Oversight and Investigations, Serial No. 102-28,

July 12, 1991, p. 19.

Metterhouse, W. M., “Biological Control: State

Regulator 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 Agricultural Sciences, 1992).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Lansing, MI, Draft Briefing Statement on Zebra

Mussels, August 1992.

Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task

Force, St. Paul, MN, ‘Report and Recommendations,’ submitted to the Natural Resources

Committees of the Minnesota House and Senate,

July 1991.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and

Parks, Wildlife Division, “Draft summary of

Background Information Pertaining to Regulation of the Game Farm Industry,” 1992.
43.

44.

45.

46.

47,

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

Moyle, P. B., Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis, CA,

letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Dec. 16, 1991.

Mullin, B., Weed Coordinator, Montana Department of Agriculture, Helena, MT, letter to P.T.

Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb.

18, 1992.

Musgrave, R,, Program Director, Center for

Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law

School, Albuquerque, NM, personal communication to P.T, Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Jan. 16, 1992.

Nettles, V., Director, Southeast Cooperative

Wildlife Disease Study Center, Athens, GA,

personal communication P.T. Jenkins, Office of

Technology Assessment, Feb. 10, 1992.

Nickum, J., National Aquiculture Coordinator,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Interior, Washington, DC, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 26, 1991.

Old, R. R., Weed Diagnostician, University of

Idaho, Moscow, ID, letter to P.N. Windle, Office

of Technology Assessment, Oct. 28, 1991.

Regelbrugge, C., Director of Regulatory Affairs

and Grower Services, American Association of

Nurserymen, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.

Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.

10, 1992.

Rosenberg, D, Y., “The Interaction of State and

Federal Quarantines in the U.S.,’ Plant Protection and Quarantine-Vol. 111, R.P. Kahn (cd.)

(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1989), pp. 59-74.

Scarratt, D.J. and Drinnan, R. E., “Canadian

Strategies for Risk Reductions in Introductions

and Transfers of Marine and Anadromous Species, Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic

Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.)

(College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),

pp. 377-385.

Schmidt, B. R., Chief of Fisheries, Division of

Wildlife Resources, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, 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.

Appendix C: References 355

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 hearing

before the Intentional Introductions Policy Committee of the U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species

Task Force, Feb. 26, 1992.

Schwegman, J., Botany Program Manager, Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield,

IL, “A State Program to Combat Exotic Weeds

in Natural Communities,” Apr. 1, 1989,

Scribner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, letter

to 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, California

Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office,

and Civil Service, Postal Implementation of the

Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June

5, 1991.

South Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Th.llahassee, FL, ‘‘Draft Model Exotic Species Ordinance

for Municipalities and Counties in South Florida,” Nov. 20, 1985.

Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study

Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, ‘‘Model for State

Regulations Pertaining to Captive Wild and

Exotic Animals,” Oct. 12, 1988.

Taylor, O., Professor of Entomology, University

of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Sept. 9, 1992.

Temple, S,A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways and

Consequences of Introductions of NonIndigenous Vertebrates in the United States, ”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, October 1991.
356 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

63. Thompson, D.Q. et al., U.S. Department of

Interior, 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 the

Interior and Related Agencies, Hearings on

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations for 1992: Part 3, Serial No. 40

4440, 1991.

66. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, “Policies for Reducing Risks Associated with 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 NMFS

F/NWC-201-Status Review for Snake River

Fall Chinook Salmon,” June 1991.

68. Waterworth, H. E., “Control of Plant Diseases by

Exclusion: Quarantines and Disease-free

Stocks” Handbook of Pest Management in

Agriculture, Vol. 1, D. Pimental et al. (eds.) (Boca

Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 1981), pp. 269-295.

69. Westman, W. E., “Park Management of Exotic

Plant Species: Problems and Issues,” Conservation Biology, vol. 4, No. 3, 1990, pp. 251-58.

70. Wingate, P. J., Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, Fisheries Section, St. Paul, MN,

“U.S. States’ Views and Regulations on Fish

Introductions,” 1990.

71, Wingate, P. J., Fisheries Research Manager, Fisheries Section, Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, St. Paul, MN, letter to Jack

Baughman, Environmental Defense Fund, July

16, 1991.

72. Wingate, P.J., Fisheries ResearchManager, Fishcries Section, Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, St. Paul, MN, personal communication, P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 23, 1992.

CHAPTER 8: TWO CASE STUDIES: NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAII AND FLORIDA

1. American Ornithologists’ Union, Check-1ist of

North American Birds (Washington, DC: American ornithologists’ Union, 1983).

2. Anonymous, “Preaching to Brazil From Hawaii,” New York Times, July 24, 1990.

3. Austin, D. F., ‘‘Exotic Plants and Their Effects in

Southeastern Florida,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 25-34.

4. Austin, D, F., ‘‘Vegetation on the Florida Atlantic University Ecological Site, Flori&z Scientist

(Bio/. Sci.), vol. 53, No. 1, 1990, pp. 11-27.

5. Balciunas, J.K. and Center, TD., “Biological

Control of Melaleuca quinquenervia: Prospects

and Conflicts,” Proceedings of the Symposium

on 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 in

Hawaii: 1962 through 1976,” Proceedings of the

Hawaiian Entomological Society, vol. 13, No. 1,

April 1979, pp. 3544.

7. Beardsley, J. W., Jr., University of Hawaii at

Manoa, Honolulu, HI, “Introduction of Arthropod Pests into the Hawaiian Islands,” paper

presented at Workshop on Exotic Pests in the

Pacific, University of Guam, May 31, 1990.

8. Beardsley, J, W., Jr., Chairman, Entomology

Department, University of Hawaii at Manoa,

Honolulu, HI, personal communication to K.

Desmond, Oct. 19, 1990.

9. Belden, R. C., Wild Hog Stocking: A Discussion

of Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and

Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1990).

10. Brown, R.S. et al., “Resource Guide to State

Environmental Management,” Council of State

Governments, 1990, as cited in World Resources

Institute, The 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992), p. 196.

11. Brown, T., Lieutenant Colonel, Military Customs Inspection, U.S. CINCPAC, Camp Smith,

HI, personal communication to C. Mlot, Apr. 13,

1992.

12. Buck, M.E., Administrator, Hawaii Department

of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI,
Appendix C: References ! 357

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18,

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

personal communication to K. Desmond, Oct.

11, 1990.

Buck, M. E., Administrator, Hawaii Department

of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI,

personal communication to C, Mlot, Feb. 10,

1992.

Burkhead, N.M. and Williams, J. D., “Research

on the Okaloosa Darter, Focuses on Competition

and Habitat Use,’ Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, 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 on

Water Quality in a Florida Lake,” Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 19, No. 5, September/

October, 1983, pp. 773-778.

Carey, J. R., “Establishment of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly in California, ’ Science, vol. 253,

No. 5026, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 1371.

Carlquist, S., “Worst-case Scenarios for Island

Conservation: 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 Fruit

Flies Invading Florida, ’ Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL, undated.

Cochran, M. J., ‘ ‘Applying the General Framework for Benefit Costs Analysis on NonIndigenous Species to the Case of Mekdeuca,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, March 1992.

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Trends (Washington, DC: Council on

Environmental Quality, 1989).

Courtenay, W. R., Jr. and Robins, C. R., “Exotic

Aquatic Organisms in Florida With Emphasis on

Fishes: A Review and Recommendations,’ Trans24.

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 in

Fresh and Brackish Waters of Florida,’ Biological Conservation, vol. 6, No. 4, 1974, pp.

292-302.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. and Stauffer, J. R., Jr., ‘‘The

Introduced Fish Problem and The Aquarium Fish

Industry,” 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 Hawaii

Volcanoes National Park,” Transactions of the

Western Section of the Wildlife Society, vol. 24,

February 1988, pp. 42-46.

Cuddihy, L.W. and Stone, C. P., Alteration of

Native Hawaiian Vegetation: Eflects of Humans,

Their Activities and introductions (Honolulu,

HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).

Denmark, H.A, and Porter, J. E., “Regulation of

Importation of Arthropods Into and of Their

Movement 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 of

Melaleuca quinquenervia to the Florida Prohibited Aquatic Plant List, ’ Proceedings of the

Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants, TD. Center et

al. (eds.), Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR91/06 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior/National Park Service, 1991).

Doren, R.F. and Whiteaker, L. D., “The Exotic

Pest Plant Council: An Example of Interagency

Cooperation to Solve Resource Related Problems, ” Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic

Pest Plants, T.D. Center et al. (eds.), Technical

Report 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 Natural

Environment, ’ Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 1986.

Engbring, J. and Fritts, T. H., “Demise of an

Insular Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake on

Guam,” Transactions of the Western Section of

the Wildlife Socie~, vol. 24, 1988, pp. 31-37.
358

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Esser, R. P., O’Bamon, J.H., and Riherd, C. C.,

“The Citrus Nursery Site Approval program for

Burrowing Nematode and Its Beneficial Effect

on the Citrus Industry of Florida,” Bulletin

OEPPIEPPO(European Plant Protection Organization), No. 18, 1988, pp. 579-586.

Everglades Coalition, “Everglades in the 21st

Century, The Water Management Future,” 1992.

Ewel, J.J., “Invasibility: Lessons from South

Florida,” Ecology of Biological Invasions of

North America and Hawaii, H.A. Mooney and

J.A. Drake (eds.) (New York, NY: SpringerVerlag, 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 Pests

of Tti and Pastures, ’ Classical Biological

Control in the Southern United States,’ D.H.

Habeck et al. (eds.), Southern Cooperative Series

Bull. No. 355 (Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,

1990).

Frank, J.H. and McCoy, E. D., ‘The Immigration

of Insects to Florida, with a Tabulation of

Records Published since 1970, ” Florida Entomologist, vol. 75, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-28.

Funasaki, G.Y et al., “A Review of Biological

Control 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 Hawaiian Natural 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: Miami

Geological 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 from

a Central Florida Lake, ” Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of Southeastern Associations of 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, Port

Operations, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, personal communication to C. Mlot, Jan. 3, 1992.

Hawaii Agricultural Alliance, Aiea, HI, “Introduced Species: An Overview of Damages

Caused by the Introduction of Some Alien

Species to Hawaii,” draft, 1991.

Hawaii Department of Agriculture,

HI, “Annual Report,” 1985.

Hawaii Department of Agriculture,

HI, “Annual Report,” 1987.

Hawaii Department of Agriculture,

Honolulu,

Honolulu,

Honolulu,

HI, “Report to the 15th bgislature, 1989

Regular 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 communication to C. Mlot, Dec. 20, 1991.

Hofstetter, RH., “The Current Status of Melaleuca

quinquenervia in Southern Florida,” Proceedings of 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 Conservation Efforts,” Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4, April

1988, pp. 232-237.

Howarth, F.G. and Ramsay, G, W., “The Conservation of Island Insects and their Habitats, ’ The

Conservation 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, “Selection of Plant Communities by Wintering Waterfowl on Lake Okeechobee, Florida,’ Journal of

Wildlije Management, vol. 48, 1984, pp. 174-

178.
Appendix C: References! 359

58. Joyce, J. C., ‘‘History of Aquatic Plant Management in Florida, ’ Aquatic Pest Control Application Training Manual, K.A. Langeland (cd.)

(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1990).

59. Kushlan, J. A., ‘‘Exotic Fishes in the Everglades,

A Reconsideration of Proven Impact,’ Environmental Conservation, vol. 13, 1986, pp. 67-69.

60. Kushlan, J. A., “External Threats and Internal

Management: The Hydrologic Regulation of the

Everglades, 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: Florida

Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,

1990).

63. Langeland, K. A., ‘‘Hydrilla, A Continuing Problem in 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 in

L.L. Loope and D. Mueller-Dombois, “Characteristics of Invaded Islands, With Special Reference to Hawaii,’ Biological Invasions: A Global

Perspective, 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 Needed

for Preservation of Island Biota,” Proceedings

of Conference on Science in National Parh,

(vol. 5): Management of Exotic Species in

Natural Communities, L,K. Thomas (cd.) (Hancock, MI: George Wright Society/U.S. National

Park Service, 1986).

66. bope, L. L., Research Scientist, Haleakala National Park, Makawao, HI, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 21-22, 1991.

67. Loope, L. L., Research Scientist, Haleakala National Park, Makawao, HI, personal communication to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Feb. 10, 1992.

68. Loope, L.L. and Gon, S.M., III, “Biological

Diversity and Its Loss,” Conservation Biology

in 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 Oceanic

Archipelagoes,’ Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4,

April 1988, pp. 272-282.

70. Imope, L.L. and Mueller-Dombois, D., “Characteristics of Invaded Islands, with Special Reference to Hawaii, ’ Biological Invasions: A Global

Perspective, J.A, Drake et al. (eds.) (Chichester,

England: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp.

257-280.

71, Maciolek, J. A., “Exotic Fishes in Hawaii and

Other 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 Terrestrial Wildlife in Florida, ” unpublished manuscript, 1984.

73. McClelland, M., “Invasion of the BioSnatchers,’ Florida Environments, vol. 6, No. 2,

February 1992, pp. 5, 13.

74. Melaleuca Task Force, ‘‘Melaleuca Management

Plan for South Florida, Recommendations from

the Mekdeuca Task Force,” West Palm Beach,

FL, April, 1990.

75. Millsap, B., Chief, Florida Bureau of Nongame

Wildlife, Tallahassee, FL, personal communication to D.W. Johnston, Jan. 7, 1993.

76. Milon, J.W. and Welsh, R., “An Economic

Analysis of Sport Fishing and the Effects of

Hydrilla Management in Lake County, Florida,”

Economics Report No. 118, Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL, 1989.

77. Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J. A., “TheEcologyof

Biological Invasions, ” Environment, vol. 29,

No. 5, June 1987, p. 12.

78. Morgan, J., “Tourism,” Conservation Biology

in Hawaii, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.)
360

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,

1989), pp. 146-153,

Morton, J. F., “Pestiferous Spread of Many

ornamental and Fruit Species in South Florida,’

Proceedings of the Floridu State Horticultural

Socie@, vol. 89, 1976, pp. 348-353.

Moulton, M.P. and Pimm, S. L,, “Species Introductions to Hawaii, ” Ecology of Biological

Invasions of North America and Hawaii, H.A.

Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.) (New York, NY:

Springer-Verlag, 1986), pp. 231-249.

Myers, R.L. and Ewel, J,J. (eds.), Ecosystems of

Florida (Orlando, FL: University of Central

Florida Press, 1990).

Nakahara, L., Plant Quarantine Manager, Hawaii

Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, HI, personal communication to C. Mlot, Apr. 16, 1992.

National Audubon Society, Report of the Advisory Panel on the Everglades and EnAngered

Species, Audubon Conservation Report No. 8.

(New York, NY: National Audubon Society,

1992).

National Research Council, Decline of the Sea

Turtles (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1990).

Natural Resources Defense Council, ‘‘Extinction

in Paradise: Protecting our Hawaiian Species, ’

Honolulu, HI, April 1989.

Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural

Resources Defense Council, “The Alien Pest

Species Invasion in Hawaii: Background Study

and Recommendations for Interagency Planning,” July 1992.

Nordlie, F. G., “Rivers and Springs,” Ecosystems of Floriaiz, R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds,)

(Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida

Press, 1990).

Olson, S.L. and James, H. F., ‘‘Fossil Birds From

the Hawaiian Islands: Evidence for Wholesale

Extinction by Man Before Western Contact, ”

Science, vol. 217, No. 4560, Aug. 13, 1982, pp.

633-635.

O’Meara, G.F. et al., ‘‘Invasion of Cemeteries in

Florida by Aedes albopictus,” Journal of the

American 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 communication to K. Desmond, Oct. 16, 1990.

Owre, O.T., “A Consideration of the Exotic

Avifauna of Southeastern Florida,’ Wilson Bulletin, vol. 85, 1973, pp. 491-500.

Peterson, S. D., Chairperson, Hawaii Board of

Agriculture, Honolulu, HI, testimony at hearings

before the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittees on Postal Operation

and Services and Postal Personnel and Modernization, Nov. 4, 1987.

Reynolds, J, R., Regional Director, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, memo to

B.G. he on the results of the first 90 days of the

Hawaii First Class Mail Pilot Project, Sept. 19,

1990.

Robertson, W. B,, Jr, and Woolfenden, G. E.,

Florida Bird Species: An Annotated List, Special

Publication No. 6 (Gainesville, FL: Florida

Ornithological Society, 1992).

Sailer, R. I., “History of Insect Introductions,”

Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture, C,L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (New

York NY: Academic Press, Inc., 1983).

Schardt, J.D. and Schmitz, D. C., “ 1990 Florida

Aquatic Plant Survey,” Technical Report ##91-

CGA (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of

Natural 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 of

Citrus 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 Bass

Investigations,” unpublished repofi, Florida Game

and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,

FL, 1990.
102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108,

109.

110.

111.

112.

Shafland, P. L., Management of Introduced Freshwater Fishes in Florida, ” Proceedings of the

1990 Invitational SymposiumlWorkshop: New

Directions in Research, Management and Conservation of Hawaiian Stream Ecosystems (Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, in

press).

Shafland, P.L. and Pestr~ J. M., “J.mwer Lethal

Temperatures for Fourteen Non-native Fishes in

Florida,’ Environmental Biology of Fish, vol. 7,

No. 2, February 1982, pp. 149-156.

Sharp, D. U., Doren, R. F., and Anderson, J. N.,

“East Everglades Exotic Plant Control, Annual

Report,” South Everglades Research Center,

Homestead, FL, 1991.

Shelton, M. L., ‘‘Surface-Water Flow to Everglades National Park,” Geographical Review,

vol. 80, No. 4, October 1990, pp. 356-369.

Shiroma, E., Officer in Charge, Honolulu International Airport, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication to K. Desmond,

Oct. 15, 1990.

Shiroma, E., Officer in charge, Honolulu International Airport, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication to C. Mlot, Jan. 6,

1992.

Smith, C. W., “Weed Management in Hawaii’s

National Parks,” Monogr. Syst. Bet. Missouri

Botanical Gardens, vol. 32, 1990, pp. 223-234.

Smith, C. W., “The Alien Plant Problem in

Hawaii,’ Proceedings of the Symposium on

Exotic Pest Plants, Technical Report NW

NREVER/NRTR-91/06 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior/National Park Service, 1991), pp. 327-337.

Smith, C. W., Botany Department, University of

Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, personal communication to C. Mlot, Oct. 21, 1991.

Stange, L. A., Taxonomic Entomologist, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville,

FL, personal communication to D.W. Johnston,

June 1992.

Stone, C. P., “Alien Animals in Hawaii’s Native

Ecosystems: Toward Controlling the Adverse

113.

114.

115,

116,

117.

118,

119.

120.

121.

122.

Appendix C: References I 361

Effects of Introduced Vertebrates, ’ Hawaii’s

Terrestrial Ecosystems: Presentation and Management (Honolulu, HI: Cooperative National

Park Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaii

at Manoa, 1985), pp. 251-288.

Stone, C. P., Research Scientist, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, ‘‘Environmental FAucation

in Hawaii, ” paper presented at workshop on

Critical Resource Issues in the Pacific, Guam,

April 1990.

Stone, C.P. and HoIt, R. A., “Managing the

Invasions of Alien Ungulates and Plants in

Hawaii’s Natural Areas,” Monogr. S]’st. Bet.

Missouri Botanical Gardens, vol. 32, 1990, pp.

211-221.

Sutton, D,L. and Vandiver, V. V., Jr., “Grass

Carp, a Fish for Biological Management of

Hydrilla and Other Aquatic Weeds in Florida,”

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations. Bulletin No. 867 (Gainesville, FL: Instjtute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences, LTnjversity of Florida,

1986).

Sykes, P. W., “The Feeding Habits of the Snail

Kite in Florida, USA, ” Colonial Waterhirds,

vol. 10, 1987, pp. 84-92.

Thayer, D., Director, Aquatic Plant Management

Division, South Florida Water Management

District, West Palm Beach, FL, personal communication to D.W. Johnston, May 27, 1992.

Thompson, D. R., Operations Officer, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Anjmal Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication

to 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. Politics and the Protection of Biological Div~ersity

(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), pp.

216-219.

Toland, B., “Use of Forested Spoil Islands by

Nesting American Oystercatchers in Southeast

Florida, ’ Journal of Fie/d Ornithology, vol. 63,

No. 2, spring 1992. pp. 155-58.

Toops, C. and Dilley, W. E., Birds of South

Florida: An Interpreti\le Guide (Conway, AR:

River Road Press, 1986).
362 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

123. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Hearings on H.R. 126&The National

Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act, No. 30, May 17, 1989, pp.

259-334.

124. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office, and Civil Service, Hearings on

Postal Implementation of the Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, kne 5, 1991.

125. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, Tropical Fruit and Vegetable

Research Laboratory, “I. ARS Perspective for

Fruit Fly Eradication in Hawaii and Pilot Test

Requirements for Demonstration of Technology, ’ and ‘II. Pilot Test to Eliminate Mediterranean Fruit Fly from the Islands of Kauai and

Niihau: Detailed Work Plan,” drafts (Honolulu,

HI: December 1989).

126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control, Honolulu, HI, “Annual Report, ”

FY 1989.

127. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States:

1990 (1 loth cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990).

128. Vitousek, P. M., Loope, L. L., and Stone, C. P.,

“Introduced Species in Hawaii: Biological Effects and 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 Are

Native to Florida?” Palmetto, winter, 1989-90,

pp. 3-5.

131. Warner, R. E., ‘‘The Role of Introduced Diseases

in the Extinction of the Endemic Hawaiian

Avifauna,” 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 Adventive Alien Flowering Plants in Hawaii, ’

Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of

Hawaii: Management and Research, C.P. Stone

et al. (eds.) (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii

Press, in press), pp. 99-114.

134. Wiley, M. J., Taze~ P, P., and Sobaski, S.T.,

“Controlling Aquatic Vegetation With Triploid

Grass 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 Ecological

Impact 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 and

Needs of the Horticulture Industry in Relation to

Alien Plant Problems in Hawaii,” A/ien P/ant

Invasions 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 ENGINEERED

ORGANISMS AS A SPECIAL CASE

1. A.rntzen, C. J,, “Regulation of Transgenic

Plants,” Science, vol. 257, No. 5075, Sept. 4,

1992, p. 1327.

2. Berry, D.F. andHagedorn, C., “SoilandGroundwater Transport of Microorganisms, Assessing

Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, L.R.

Ginzburg (cd,) (Boston, MA: ButterworthHeinemam, 1991), pp. 57-74.

3. Eisner, R., “State bgislators Seek to Broaden

Regulation of Biotech Products,” The Scientist,

vol. 5, No. 4, Feb. 18, 1991, pp. 1, 6, 19.

4. Ellstrand, N.C. and Hoffman, C. A., “Hybridization as an Avenue of Escape for Engineered

Genes: Strategies for Risk Reduction,” Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 6, June 1990, pp. 438-442.

5. Fuchs, R.L. and Serdy, F. S., “GeneticallyModified Plants: Evaluation of Field Test Biosafety

Data,” International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically
Appendix C: References 1363

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

MochfiedPlatisandMicroorganisms, D.Il. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry (eds.) (Bethesda, MD:

Agricultural Research Institute, 1990), pp. 25-

30.

Giarnporcaro, D. E., Section Chief, TSCA Biotechnology Program, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC, personal communication to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Apr. 29, 1993.

Goldburg, R. J., Senior Scientist, and Hopkins,

D. D., Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense

Fund, New York, NY, memorandum to “Persons Interested in State Oversight of Intentional

Releases of Genetically Engineered Organisms,’

NOV. 30, 1992.

Goldburg, R. J., Senior Scientist, and Hopkins,

D. D., Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense

Fund, New York, NY, letter to Chief, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 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 of

Transgenic and Conventional Oilseed Rape in

Natural Habitats, ” Bulletin of the Ecological

Society of America, vol. 73, No. 2, June 1992, p.

197.

Hallerman, E. M., Assistant Professor, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of

Technology Assessment, Nov. 29, 1992.

Hallerman, E.M, and Kapuscincki, A. R,, “Ecological and Regulatory Uncertainties Associated

With Transgenic Fish,” Trarzsgenic Fish, C.L.

Hew and G. Fletcher (eds.) (Singapore: World

Science Publishing, 1992), pp. 209-228.

Herrett, R. A., Statement on behalf of the Association for Biotechnology Companies, Hearings

before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Research and Foreign Agriculture, ‘‘Review of

Statutes of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,” July 10, 1990.

Hess, C. E., ‘‘Opening Remarks,” International

Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Tests of Genetically Modljied Plants and Microorganisms, D.R. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry

(eds.) (Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research

Institute, 1990), pp. 25-30.

Industrial Biotechnology Association, “YearEnd Survey of State Government bgislation on

Biotechnology: 1991,” Washington, DC, 1991.

Istoc~ C, A,, “Genetic Exchange and Genetic

Stability in Bacterial Populations,” Assessing

Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, L.R.

Ginzburg (cd.) (Boston, MA: ButterworthHeinemann, 1991), pp. 123-150.

Kludy, D., Consultant, Richmond, VA, personal

communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of

Technology Assessment, May 20, 1993.

Krimsky, S. and Wetzler, R., “Bioengineered

Organisms and Non-Indigenous Species, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1991.

Maclean, N. and Penman, D., ‘‘The Application

of Gene Manipulation to Aquiculture,’ Aquiculture, vol. 85, 1990, pp. 1-20.

Medley, T. L., Director, Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, letter

to W.S. Wallace, Director of Policy and Program

Development, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Hyattsville, MD, Feb. 11, 1992.

Mel, J.N.M. et al., “Manipulation of Floral

Pigmentation Genes in Petuna: ‘‘Sense and

Antisense Make Sense, ” Horticultural Biotechnology, A.B. Bennett and S.D. O’Neill (eds.)

(New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990),

p. 192.

Muench, S.R., “Requirements and Considerations in Successful Field Releases of Genetically

Engineered Plants,” International Symposium

on the Biosafety Results of Field Tests of

Genetically Mod@ed Plants and Microorganisms, D.R. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry (eds.)

(Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute,

1990), pp. 3-8.

National Research Council, Field Testing Genetically Modl>ed Organisms: Framework for Decisions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1989),
364

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

National Wildlife Federation, Biotechnology Policy Center, ‘‘Reports to Animal and Plant Health

Inpsection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on Completed Field Tests of Transgenic

Plants,’ information sheet, Washington, DC,

August 1992.

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC,

“Coordinated Framework for Regulation of

Biotechnology,” 51 Federal Register 23302-

23308 (June 26, 1986).

Payne, J. H., Associate Director, Biotechnology,

Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD,

letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology

Assessment, Nov. 10, 1992.

Postgate, J., “The Malleable Microbe,” New

Scientist, vol. 129, No. 1756, Feb. 16, 1991, pp.

38-41.

President’s Council on Competitiveness, “Report on National Biotechnology Policy,” Washington, DC, February 1991.

Regal, P. J,, presentation on environmental issues, Transgenic Plant Conference, Annapolis,

MD, Sept. 7-9,1988, co-sponsored by U.S. Food

and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1988.

Rogul, M. and Levin, M., “Regulation of

Biotechnology by the Environmental Protection

Agency,” Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, L.R. Ginzburg (cd.) (Boston, MA:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991), pp. 233-265.

Sagoff, M., ‘On Making Nature Safe for Biotechnology, ’ Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotech -

rdogy, I.& Ginzburg (cd.) (aMA ButterwodhHeinemann, 1991), pp. 341-365.

Sharples, F.E., “Applications of Introduced

Species Models to Biotechnology Assessment,’

Application of Biotechnology to Environmental

and Policy Issues, J.R. Fowle III (cd.) (Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, Inc., 1987), pp. 93-98.

Shore, S., Biotechnologist, Division of Plant

Industry, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC, personal communication to

E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 25, 1993.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Slutsky, B., “Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Risk

Issue s,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Product

Development, Risk Assessment, and Data Neeak,

U.S. EPA Conference Proceedings (EPwlT1024), Annapolis, MD, Nov. 6 and 7, 1990, pp.

127-132.

Springer, W. D., testimony before the U.S. House

Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on

Department Operations, Research, and Foreign

Agriculture, Adequacy of Current Biotechnology

Regulation and the Omnibus Biotechnology Act

of 1990 (HR 5312), Serial No. 101-75, Oct. 2,

1990.

Suter, G. W., “Exotic Organisms,” Ecological

Risk Assessment, G.W. Suter (cd.) (Boca Raton,

FL: hwis Publishers, 1993), pp. 391401.

Tiedje, J.M. et al., ‘‘The Planned Introduction of

Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological

Considerations 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, December

1987).

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Biotechnology: Delays in and Status of EPA’s

Eflorts to issue a TSCA Regulation, GAO/RCED92-167, Washington, DC, June 1992.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Research, and Foreign Agriculture, Review of

Current and Proposed Agriculture Biotechrwlogy Regulatory Authority and the Omnibus

Biotechnology Act of 1990, Serial No. 101-75

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1991),

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marines and Fisheries, request letter to J.H.

Gibbons Director, Office of Technology Assessment, July 24, 1990.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science

and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Issues in the Federal

Regulation of Biotechnology: From Research to

Release (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, December 1986).
43.

44.

45.

46.

47,

48.

49.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, A New Technological Era for American

Agriculture, OTA-F474 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, August 1992).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,

Biologics, and Environmental Protection, “User’s

Guide for Introducing Genetically Engineered

Plants and Microorganisms, ” technical bulletin

No. 1783, Hyattsville, MD, June 1991.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,

Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Conference Report of the Workshop on Safeguards

for 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 and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,

Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Conference Report on Workshop on Safeguards for

Planned Introduction of Transgenic Corn and

Wheat, Keystone, CO, Dec. 6-8, 1990, L.V.

Giddings et al. (eds.), April 1992.

U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology, ‘‘Proposed USDA Guidelines for Research Involving the Planned Introduction Into the Environment of Organisms With

Deliberately Modified Hereditary Traits,” 56

Federal Register 4134-4151 (Feb. 1, 1991).

Vaituzis, Z., ‘‘Product Characterization and Toxicological Evaluation of Pesticidal Transgenic

Plants,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Product

Development, 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 Analysis

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Environmental Assessments, ” Bioscience, vol. 42, No.

4, April 1992, pp. 280-289.

Appendix C: References I 365

CHAPTER 10: THE CONTEXT OF THE FUTURE:

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GLOBAL CHANGE

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11

Anonymous, “Extremely Rare Fruit Worm

Blocks Apple Export,” Seattle Times, Nov. 30,

1991, p. Al 1.

Anonymous, ‘‘Floral Arrangement,” Journal of

Commerce, June 27, 1991, p. A3.

Anonymous, “Pest Infestation Spurs Doubt

Over Standards in Mexico, ” Christian Science

Monitor, May 4, 1992, p. 19.

Anonymous, “Potatoes at the Root of Another

U.S.-Canada Trade Embroilment, ’ Journal of

Commerce, Feb. 19, 1991, p. A7.

Asselin, P., Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries

and Oceans Department, Government of Canada,

internal memorandum to Associate Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Planning, July 31, 1987.

Bangsund, D. A., and Uistritz, F. L., Economic

Impact of Leafy Spurge in Montana, South

Dakota, and Wyoming, Agricultural Economics

Report No, 275 (Fargo, ND: Department of

Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State

University, October 1991).

Birrningham, M. J., “The State of Forest Health

in New York,” New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands

and Forests, Albany, NY, Dec. 31, 1990.

Breckenridge, R.P. and Otis, M. D., “Monitoring

Concepts Useful in the Assessment of Climate

Change Effects on U.S. Fish and WildIife

Resources,” Coping With Climate Change, J.C.

Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The Climate

Inst., 1989), pp. 268-272.

Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences of

the Introduction of Non-indigenous Freshwater,

Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United

States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC,

October 1991.

Brooks, D. J., ‘‘International Dimensions of U.S.

Forestry,” Agriculture Outlook ’93, Prospects

for Fruit and Vegetables, Floriculture and Forest Products, booklet 2, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC, Dec. 12, 1992, pp.

19-33.

Campbell, D. S., Director, Operational Support,

International Services, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
366

12,

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

ture, letter to Phyllis N. Windle, OTA, Aug. 21,

1992.

Campbell, F.T, Natural Resources Defense Council, “Legal Avenues for Controlling Exotics,”

presentation at Indiana Academy of Science

Conference on Biological Pollution, Indianapoh, IN, Oct. 26, 1991.

Carlton, J,T, ‘ ‘Man’s Role in Changing the Face

of the Ocean,’ Conservation Biology, vol. 3, No.

3, September 1989, pp. 270-72.

Chi, K.S. “Foresight Activities in State Governmerit, ” Futures Research Quarterly, vol. 7, No.

4, 1991, pp. 47-60.

Chock, A. K., “International Cooperation on

Controlling Exotic Pests,” Exotic P/ant Pests

and North American Agriculture, C.L. Wilson

and C.L. Graham (eds.) (I_xmdon, England:

Academic Press, 1983), pp. 479-498.

Coates, J. F., “Factors Shaping and Shaped by

the Environment, 1990-2010, ’ Futures Research

Quarterly, vol. 7, No. 3, fall 1991, pp. 5-55.

Coates, J. F., President, Coates & Jarratt, Inc.,

Washington, DC, personal communication to

Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21,

1992.

Coates, J,F. and Jarratt, J., “What Futurists

Believe,’ Futures, vol. 24, No. 6, NovemberDecember 1990, pp. 22-28.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous

Fishes in the United States,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991.

Cramer, J. and Zegveld, W. C. L., “The Future

Role of Technology in Environmental Management,” Futures, vol. 23, No. 5, June 1991, pp.

451-468.

Crawley, M. J., “The Responses of Terrestrial

Ecosystems to Global Climate Change,” Global

Climate and Ecosystem Change, G. MacDonald

and L. Sertorio (eds.) (New York, NY: Plenum

Press, 1990).

Crosson, P., “United States Agriculture and the

Environment: Perspectives on the Next Twenty

Years, ” Resources for the Future, Washington,

DC, April 1992.

Dahlsten, D. L., Garcia, R. and I.mraine, H.,

“Eradication as a Pest Management Tbol: Con24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29,

30.

31.

32.

cepts and Contexts, ” Eradication of Exotic

Pests: 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 in

Geographical Range Resulting from Greenhouse

w 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 Biological

Control Institute, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communication

to Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 19,

1991.

Di Castri, F., “On Invading Species and Invaded

Ecosystems: The Interplay of Historical Chance

and Biological Necessity,’ Biological Invasions

in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, F. di

Castri, 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 Parasitic

Diseases of Man and Domestic Livestock in the

United States,” Coping With Climate Change,

J.C. Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The Climate Inst., 1989), pp. 147-152.

Duvick, D, N., “Plant Breeding in the 21st

Century,” Choices, vol. 7, fourth quarter 1992,

pp. 26-29.

Ehler, L., Professor, Department of Entomology,

University of California, Berkeley, CA, personal

communication to Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 23, 1992.

Elston, R. A., ‘Effective Applications of Aquiculture Disease-Control Regulations: Recommendations From an Industry Viewpoint, Dispersal of

Living 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 Animals

and Plants (Ilmdon, England: Chapman and

Hall, Ltd., 1958).
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Fetterolf, C. M., ‘‘Why a Great Lakes Fisheries

Commission and Why a Sea Lamprey International Symposium,’ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 37, 1980, pp.

1588-1593.

Fletcher, S.R. and Tiemann, M. E., “Trade and

the Environment, ” CRS Review, Congressional

Research Service, Washington, DC, FebruaryMarch, 1992, pp. 29-31,

Forcella, F., “Final Distribution Is Related to

Rate of Spread in Alien Weeds,’ Weed Research, vol. 25, 1985, pp. 181-191.

Fox, M. D., “Meditemanean Weeds: Exchanges

of Invasive Plants Between the Five Mediterranean Regions of the World, ’ Biological invasions in 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, “Genetically

Engineering 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 Management of 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 Flower

Trends, ” Seed World, vol. 130, No. 1, January

1992, pp. 19-22.

Hanrahan, C. E., ‘Agriculture in the North American Free 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 North

American Fisheries Leadership Workshop, Snowbird, UT, May 21-23 (Bethesda, MD: American

Fisheries Society, Fisheries Administrators Section, 1991).

Houghton, J,T, Jenkins, G. J., Ephraums, J.J.

(eds.), Climate Change-The Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment,

World Meteorological Organization/U.N. Envi44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52,

53.

54.

Appendix C: References 1367

ronrnent Programme (Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

International Union for the Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources, Environmental

Law Centre, Bonn, Germany, “Biological Diversity Convention Draft,” June 30, 1989.

Jablonski, D., “Extinctions: A Paleontological

Perspective,” Science, vol. 253, No. 5021, Aug.

16, 1991, pp. 754-757.

Johnson, D. C., “Recession Impacts and Economic Outlook for the U.S. Nursery, Greenhouse, and ‘Ihrfgrass Industries, Agriculture

Outlook ’93. Prospects for Fruit and Vegetables,

Floriculture and Forest Products, booklet 2,

U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Washington,

DC, 1992, pp. 3-12.

Kahn, R. P., “Exclusion as a Plant Disease

Control Strategy,” Annual Review of Phytopa -

thology, vol. 29, 1991, pp. 219-246.

Kahn, R. P., Consultant, Rockville, MD, personal

communication to the Office of Technology

Assessment, Dec. 4, 1991.

Kareiva, P. M., Kingsolver, J. G., and R.B. Huey

(eds.), Biotic Interactions and Global Change

(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc., 1993).

Kennedy, V. S., “Potential Climate Effects of

Climate Change on Chesapeake Bay Animals

and Fisheries, ” Coping With Climate Change,

J.C. Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The Climate Inst., 1989), pp. 509-513.

Kim, K.C, and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathways

and Consequences of the Introduction of NonIndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United

States,’ contractor report prepared for the Oflice

of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

Kludy, D. H., “Federal Policy on NonIndigenous Species—The Role of the United

States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, ” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, December 1991,

Lausche, B., “International Laws and Associated Programs for In-Situ Conservation of Wild

Species, ’ contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, September

1985.

Lederberg, J., Shope, R. E., and Oaks, S. C., Jr.

(eds.), Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats
- 368I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

55.

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 Potential

Impact of Climate Change on Patterns of Infectious Disease in the United States, ’ The Potential Eflects of Global Climate Change on the

United States, Appendi.r G, Health, J.B. Smith

and D. Tirpak (eds.), EPA-230-05-89-057 (Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning, and

Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

May 1989), pp. 3-1—3-41.

Lubchenco, J. et al., ‘‘The Sustainable Biosphere

Initiative: 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 (New

York, NY: Harper and Row, 1972).

Macdonald, I. A. W,, Imope, L. L., Usher, M. B.,

and Hamann, O., “Wildlife Conservation and

the Invasion of Nature Reserves by Introduced

Species: 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 NonIndigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, DC, October 1992.

Magnuson, J.J. et al., “Potential Responses of

Great Lakes Fishes and Their Habitat to Global

Climate Warming,” The Potential Eflects of

Gloabl Climate Change on the United States,

Appendix E, Aquatic Resources, J.B. Smith and

D. 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 50

Overviews and Agenda’ s,” Futures Research

Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 1, spring 1990, pp.

103-112.

M’Boob, S., U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization-Africa, presentation at the North American Plant Protection Organization Workshop on

International Pest Risk Analysis, Alexandria,

VA, Oct. 23, 1991.

Miller, W.F, Dougherty, P.M. and Switzer, G. L.,

“Rising C02 and Changing Climate: Major

65.

66.

67.

68.

69,

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

Southern Forest

The Greenhouse

Management Implications,”

Effect, Climate Change, and

U.S. Forests (Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1987).

Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task

Force, Report and Recommendations, final edit

(St. Paul, MN: State of Minnesota, Department

of Natural Resources, July 1991).

Moulton, W,, “Constraints to International Exchange of Animal Germplasm, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, October 1985.

Munton, P., “Problems Associated With Introduced Species,” paper presented at the Workshop on Feral Animals at the Third International

Theriological Conference, Helsinki, Finland,

August 1982.

National Research Council, Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations,

Space Studies Board (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1992).

North American Plant Protection Organization,

Pest Risk Analysis Panel, ‘A Process for Analyzing the Risk to Plants and Plant Products Posed

by the Introduction and/or Spread of Biotic

Agents,” 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, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, personal

communication to K.E. Bannon, Office of Technology Assessment, July 12, 1993.

Parker, N. C., “Economic Pressures Driving

Genetic Changes in Fish,” Introductions and

Transfers of Marine and Anadromous Species,’

Dispersal of Living Organisms Into Aquatic

Ecosystems, 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 Warming

for Biological Diversity, ’ Global Climate

Change and Life on Earth, R.L. Wyman (cd.)
—

75.

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., Economically

Important Foreign Weeds, USDA Agricultural

Handbook Number 498 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1977).

Rensberger, B., ‘‘Marine Biology: Blue Crabs to

the Rescue?” The Washington Post, Feb. 24,

1992, p. A2.

Rinderer, T.E. et al., “The Proposed Honey Bee

Regulated Zone in Mexico,” American Bee

Journal, March 1987, pp. 160-164.

Ritchie, M., “GA~, Agriculture and the Environment: The U.S. Double Zero Plan, ’ The

Ecologist, vol. 20, No, 6, November-December

1990, pp. 214-220.

Schneider, K., “Ranges of Animals and Plants

Head 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.) (New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp.

38-55.

Scott, D. C., ‘ ‘Mexico’s Avocado Growers Grumble Over Unlikely Beachhead-Alaska,’ Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 9, 1992, p, 6.

Shetler, S. G., “Three Faces of Eden, ” Seeds of

Change Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press,

1991), PP. 227-247.

Shope, R. E., “Global Climate Change and

Infectious Disease,’ EnvironmntalHealth Perspectives, vol. 96, 1991, pp. 171-174.

Shrybman, S., ‘ ‘International Trade: In Search of

an Environmental Conscience, ’ EPA Journal,

July-August 1990, pp. 17-19.

Simberloff, D. and Cox, J., “Consequences and

Costs of Conservation Corridors,’ Conservation

Biology, vol. 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 63-71.

SOU16, M. E., “Conservation Biology in the

Twenty-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.

Appendix C: References 369

Conservation Biology, vol. 4, No. 3, September

1990, pp. 233-239.

Soul+ M. E,, “Conservation: Tactics for a Constant Crisis, ” Science, vol. 253, No. 5021, Aug.

16, 1991, pp. 744-750.

Steadman, D. W., “Extinction of Species: Past,

Present, and Future,” Global Climate Change

and 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 Climate

Change on Plant-Pest Interactions,’ The Potential E#ects of Global Climate Change on the

United 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 Protection

Agency, 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 World

Floriculture Markets,’ Agriculture Outlook ’93,

Late Speeches (1), Booklet 9, U.S. Department

of 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 the

Sea and Resolutions I-IV, Third United Nations

Conference on the Law of the Sea, Eleventh

Session, New York, March-April, 1982.

United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Draft

Convention on Biological Diversity,” May 22,

1992, Art. 8.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, lnternational Environ men t: International Agreements

Are 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 Reduce

Greenhouse (2nes, OTA-482 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment: Conjlicts and

Opportunities, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington,
370

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1992).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessrnen~ Preparingfwan Uncertain Climate (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, in

press).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Statistics 1990 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Import-Export Program, ‘‘Program Monitoring Review” (undated).

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of

the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President

on United States Ocean Policy, Mar. 10, 1983,”

Washington, DC.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Science

and Technology (Washington, DC: GMce of

Science and Technology Policy, 1993).

U.S. Interagency Task Force, “Review of U. S.-

Mexico Environmental Issues,” Office of the

U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC,

February 1992, as cited in U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment: Conflicts and Opportunities, OTA-BP-ITE94 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, May 1992).

Usher, M. B,, “Biological Invasions of Nature

Reserves: A Search for Generalizations,” Biological Conservation, vol. 44, Nos. 1/2, 1988,

pp. 119-135,

106.

107,

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

Verrneij, G. J., ‘‘When Biotas Meet: Understanding Biotic Interchange,” Science, vol. 253, No.

5024, Sept. 6, 1991, pp. 1099-1104.

Vogt, D. U,, Congressional Research Service,

Library of Congress, Washington, DC, memorandum entitled ‘GA~ Sanitary and Phytosanitary Proposals, ” Nov. 14, 1990.

Vogt, D. U., “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Pertaining to Food in International Trade

Negotiations,” Congressional Research Service,

Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Sept. 11,

1992.

Waldrop, J., ‘Garden Variety Customers, “American Demographics, vol. 15, No. 4, April 1993,

pp. 44-49.

Warrick, R.A. et al., “The Effects of Increased

C02 and Climatic Change on Terrestrial Ecosystems, The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic

Change, and Ecosystems, SCOPE 29, B. Bolin et

al. (eds.) (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,

1986), Pp. 363-392.

Welcomrne, R.L., “International Measures for

the Control of Introduction of Aquatic Organisms,” Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2, May-April

1986, 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 and

I#e on Earth (New York, NY: Chapman and

Hall, 1991).

Ziegler, W., “Envisioning the Future,” Futures,

vol. 23, No. 5, June 1991, pp. 516-527.
Common Namel (Scientific Name)

Disease Pathogens

African swine feve~, Iridoviridae, 304

annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum = Fomes

unnosus), 6, 301

black stem rust (Puccinia grarninis), 207

bluetogue virus, Reoviridae (Orbivirus), 176

bT (Bacil/us thuringiensis), 153-6, 160, 196, 198,284

burrowing nematode (Radopholus sirnilis), 262

chestnut blight (Cryphonecrria parasitic), 58, 66, 74, 118,

179

chrysanthemum rust (Puccinia ch~’santhemi = P. tanaceti),

37

chrysanthemum white rust (Puccinia horiana), 82, 105

citrus canker (Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri), 104, 139,

175,207, 262, 264

citrus nematode (Tylenchu[us semipenetrans), 262

corn cyst nematode (Heterodtera zeae), 105

crown gall disease (Agrobacteriurn tumefaciens), 198

dengue fever, Flaviviridae (Flavivirus), 70, 81,262

dogwood anthracnose (Discula destructive), 52

Dutch elm disease (C’eratocystis ulmi = Ophiostoma ulmi),

66,88,98, 118, 179

eastern equine encephalitis, Togaviridae (Alphavirus), 81,

70, 262

Eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala), 184

foot and mouth disease, Picornaviridae (Aphthovirus), 6,

126, 141,301

golden nematode (Globodera rosrochiensis), 81,91, 176

~sy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae

(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 154, 198

Index to

Common and

Scientific

Names of

Species

heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae (Nuclear

Polyhedrosis Virus), 154, 198

hog cholera (European swine fever), Flaviviridae

(Pestivirus), 68

Karnal bunt fimgus (Tilletiu indica), 175

LaCrosse encephalitis, Bunyaviridae (Bunyavints), 81

larch canker (Luchnelhda spp.), 6, 301

malaria, caused by (Plasmodti spp.), 253, 304

needle cast (i%.fycospaereila laricina), 105

oak wilt disease (Ceratocystis fagacearum), 74

peanut stripe virus, Potyviridae (Potyvirus), 50,84, 180

pine sawfly nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae

(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 198

pine wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus spp. B. lignicolus),

6,288,301

Port-Orford cedar root disease (Phytophthora lareralis), 179

potato virus y—necrotic strain (n), Potyviridae (Potyvirus),

105

Rift valley fever virus, Bunyaviridae (Phlebovirus), 304

rust fungus (on chrysanthemum)---see chrysanthemum white

rust

smut fungus (on rice) (Ustilago esculenta), 82, 105, 227

soybean rust fungus (Phakopsora pachyrhizi), 6, 115, 301

swine flu, Orthomyxovitidae (Orthomyxovirus), 52

tomato spotted wilt virus, Bunyaviridae (Tospovirus), 160

tussock moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae

(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 198

wheat rust fungus (Puccinia recondite), 65

white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), 66, 118, 179

yellow fever, Flaviviridae (Flavivkus), 70

1 Only scientific names are listed for species that do not have generally accepted common names and for most of the species for which no

common 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. OTA

lists 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, 304

Insects and Arachnids

African honey bee (Apismellifera scutellata), 4,6,17,37,46,

50,57,59,69,83,88,101, 144-5,176,181,199,229, 263,

301,305

alfalfa blotch leafrniner (Agromyzafiorztella), 126

alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica), 66

American elm bark beetle (Hylurgopinus rufipes), 88

apple errnine moth (Yponomeuta rnalinella), 101, 206

apple pith moth (Blasrodacna atra), 101

apple sucker (Psylla mali), 101

Argentine ant (Zridomyrmex humilis), 91,240

armywonm (Pseudaletia unipuncta), 237, 243

ash whitefly (Siphoninus phyllyreae), 9, 101, 152

Asian cockroach (Blattella asahinai), 91, 101

Asian gypsy moth (Lymuntria dispar), 6,37-8,41,80, 101,

105, 112, 117-9,206, 301

Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), 8,46,69,80-1,88,

101, 112, 144, 148, 165, 199, 200,261-3

avocado mite (0/igonychus persae), 101

bagoine weevil (Bagous afirzis), 264

Bahamian mosquito (Aedes bahamensis), 101

baileyana psyllid (Acizzia acaciae-baileyanae), 101

balsam wooly adelgid (Adelgespiceae), 66,71, 179

banana moth (Opogona sacchari), 101

beach fly (Procanace dianneae), 101

black parlatoria scale (Parlatoria ziziphi), 101

blow fly (Chrysomya megacephala), 101

blue gum psyllid (Ctenarytaina eucalypti), 101

boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), 6,10,37,65,126,148-9,

154, 156, 176,301

bollworm-see cotton bollwonn

budworrn (Choristoneura spp.), 198

bumble bee (Bombus spp.) 49

burrower bug (Aethus nigritus) 101

cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni) 274

Caribbean fruit fly (Anastrepha suspensa), 207

cactus moth (Cactoblastis cactorum), 61, 101

cereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus), 58

chestnut weevil (Curculio elephas), 140

citrus blackfly (Aleurocanthus woglumi), 262

convergent lady beetle (Hippodamia convergent), 49, 90

cotton boll weevil-see boll weevil

cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), 146, 154, 198

diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), 89

Douglas fu tussock moth (Orgy iapseudotsugata), 198

eucalyptus longhorn borer (Phoracantha semipunctata), 102

eucalyptus psyllid (Ctenarytaina spp.), 102

eugenia psyllid (Trioza eugensae), 102

Eurasian lace bug @ictyfa echii), 78

European barberry fruit maggot (Rhugoletis meigenii), 102

European com bonx (Ostrinia nubilalis), 176

European 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, 198,206,252

European honey bee (Apis melhfera), 37,56,90, 144-5,175,

229

European violet gall midge (Dasineura afinis), 102

false codling moth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta), 140

f~e ant-see imported fm ant

forest cockroach (Ectobius sylvestris), 102

fuchsia mite (Aculopsfichsiae), 102

German cockroach (Blattella germanica), 57

grass webworm (Herpetogramrna Iicarsisalis), 243

green wattle psyllid (Acizzia nr. jucunda), 102

guava fruit fly (Bactrocera correcta), 102

gypsy moth-see European gypsy moth

honey bee-see European honey bee

honey bee tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi), 66,90, 102, 181

honey bee varroa mite (Varroa jacobson~~, 37,66,90, 102,

175,207

imported f~e ant (So/enopsis invicta, S. richteri), 4, 10, 57,

59,63,69-70,91,99-100, 148-9, 176, 184,262

imported klarnathweed beetle (AgasicZes hygrophila), 9, 152

Japanese beetle (PopiZlia japonica), 91, 154, 184, 198,207

khapra beetle (Trogoderma granariurn), 175

leaf-mining fly (Hydrellti pakistanae, H. spp.), 264

lesser apple worm (Enorrninia prunivora), 289

lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus), 242, 250
Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1373

lichen moth (Lycomorphodes sordida), 102

longhorn beetle (Tetrops praeusta), 102

Malaysian fruit fly (Bactrocera /a@wns), 244

mason bee (Osmia cornuta), 82

medfly-see Mediterranean fruit fly

Mediterranean 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, 301

Meditemanean mint aphid (Eucarazzia elegans), 102

melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae), 237, 243JI

Mexfly-see Mexican fruit fly

Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens), 177

monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), 75

nesting whitefly (Paraleurodes minei), 103

New World screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax), 154

nine spotted ladybird beetle (CoccinelZa novernnotata), 61

nun moth (Ljvnantria monacha), 6, 118, 301

Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis), 237,2434

peach fruit fly (Bactrocerazonata), 103

pear thrip (Taeniothrips inconsequent), 67, 181

pepper tree psyllid (Calophya schini), 103

pine sawfly, (Neodiprion spp.), 198

pine shoot beetle (Tomicuspiniperda), 103

pink bollworm (Pectinophora go,wypiella), 66

pirate bug (Braschysteles panicornis), 103

poinsettia whitefly-see sweet potato whitefly

potato leafhopper (Empoascafabae), 304

privet sawfly (Macrophya punctumalbum), 103

red clover seed weevil (Tychius stephensi), 103

Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia), 4,50,58-9,65-6,79,

98, 103, 175-6, 181, 184

seed head weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus), 9, 152

seven spotted lady beetle (Coccinella septempunctata), 61

Siberian elm aphid (Tinoca/lis zelkowae), 104

southern mole cricket (Scapteriscus acletus), 100, 258, 262

spider wmp (A14pk~pus carbonarius), 104

spindletree ermine moth (Yponomeutu cagnage[la), 104

spruce bark beetles (Zps typographus and others), 6, 104,301

sugar cane beetle borer (Rhabdoscelus obscurus), 242

sugar cane leafhopper (Perkinsie//a saccharicida), 242

stink bug (Pellaea srictica), 104

sweet potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), 103, 105, 143, 160,

181

tatarica honeysuckle aphid (Hyadaphis lataricue), 104

tawny mole cricket (Scap(eriscus vicinus), 100, 258, 262

tracheal mite—see honey bee tracheal mite

trifly— see melon fly, Mediterranean fmit fly, and oriental

tiuit fly

tristania psyllid (Ctenarytaina Iongicauda), 104

two-teeth Pityogenes bark beetle (Pityogenes bidentatus),

104

varroa mite-see honey bee varroa mite

waxflower wmp (Aprostocetus spp.), 104

wax moth (Galleria melionella), 198

western flower thrip (Frankliniella occidentals), 160

western yellow jacket (Vespula pensylvanica), 240

wheat bulb maggot (DeZia coarcta?a), 104

yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti), 304

yellow 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, 103

Invertebrates (mollusks, crustaceans, worms)

African giant snail (Achatinafilica), 84,238,258, 2&l

Asian clam (Corbiculajluminea), 4,50,58-9,67-8,79,86,

88,91

Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis), 71,80

Asiatic clam (Corbicula manilensis), 263

Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica), 207

blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 291

California sea squirt (Botry/loides diegense), 91

common periwinkle (Littorea littorea), 71

decollate snail (Z?umina decollata), 90

eastern mudsnail-see mud snail

giant African snail-see African giant snail

giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), 83, 105

Japanese snail (Ocenebrajaponica), 80

mitten crab (Eriocheir spp.), 22

mud snail (Ilyanassa obsoleta), 71

opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta), 73

Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), 56,80, 83, 151,207

Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), 56,85, 105

periwinkle-see common periwinkle

rosy snail (Eughndina rosea), 71, 238

schistosomes (Schistosoma spp.), 69

slipper limpet (Crepidulafornicata), 288

spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), 105, 194

water flea (Daphniu spp.), 90

zebra 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, 9 0

(Teneridrilus mastix), aquatic worm, 105

(Theorafiagi/is), clam, 104

(Theora lubrica), clam, 81

Fishes

alewife ( A[osa pseudotirengus), 79

bigeye lates (Lutes mariae), 83

bighead carp (Hypophthdmichthys nobilis), 83, 104

blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea), 263

blue-eyed cichlid (Cich!asoma spi!urum), 104

bream, several genera and species, 263

brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis), 74, 188

brown darter (Etheostoma edwini), 262

brown trout (Salmo trutta), 56, 64, 74, 228

carp-see common carp

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschu), 18, 120, 186

coho salmon (Oncorhychus h“stch), 288

common carp (Cyprinus carpio), 73, 277-8

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), 76

European carp-see common carp

European zander—see zander

four-spine sticklebacks (Apeltes quadracus), 91

golden trout (Oncorhynchus aquabonita), 64

goldfish (Carassius auratus), 57

grass carp (Ctenophayzgodon idella), 71,73,80,90, 150-1,

188, 193,213, 263-4, 271

green swordtail (Xiphophorus hel[eri), 85

hybrid bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis), 131

jaguar guapote (Cichlasoma manaquense), 104

kirgemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 56,90

long tom (Strongylura he@’), 104

Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus), 104

mosquito fish (Gambusia afinis, Gambusia spp,), 71

Nile perch (Lutes niloticus), 83

northern pike (Esox lucius), 9, 152, 160

Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae), 262

Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), 52,297

peacock bass—see peacock cichlid

peacock cichlid (Cichla ocehlzris), 84, 263

piranha, several genera and species, 213

rainbow krib (Pelviachromis pulcher), 104

rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), 79

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus myh”ss), 56, 64, 74, 76, 187

rainwater killfish (Lucania parva), 90

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), 71

redstriped eartheater (Geophagus surinamensis), 104

round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), 104

xudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), 90

ruffe (Gymnocephahn cernuus),9, 67, 81, 91, 104, 152, 198

sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), 67, 79.126, 131, 161,

186, 208,269, 297

shad (Alosa sapidissima), 76

sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates), 6, 88

sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), 90

striped bass (Morone sa.xatilis), 56, 187, 276

Texas big-scale logperch (Percina macrolepida), 90

tilapia (Tilapia spp.), 52

tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus), 104

walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), 213

walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), 9, 83, 99, 152

white bass (Morone chrysops), 220

yellowbelly cichlid (Cichlasoma salvini), 104

zander (Stizostedion lucioperca), 83, 99, 207, 297

zebra danio (Danio rerio), 85, 104

(Ancistrus sp.), 104

Vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds)

African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), 57, 84

American oyster-catcher (Haemaropus palliates), 75, 262

anole (Ano/is spp.), 89

barn owl (Tyto alba), 56

beach mouse (Peromyscuspolionotus phasma), 262

black-hooded parakeet (ZVandayus nenday), 84

black iguana (Ctenosaura spp.), 292

boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), 84

boa.-see hog

bobcat (Felis ru,s), 84

brown-headed cowbird (A4010thrus ater), 71

brown tree snake (l?oiga irregulars), 2,5,68,72,76,81,91,

176, 187.195, 246-8

bull frog (Rana cutesbeiana), 90

burro (Equus asinus), 131, 148, 166, 178, 190,204

Californian condor (Gymnogyps cal~ornianus), 52

cane toad (Bufo nm-inus), 160, 258
376 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus rnaritimus

mirabilis), 262

cat (Fe/is caftus), 50, 57, 131, 199, 262

cattle (Bos raw-us), 3, 78, 189, 236-7, 243

cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), 237

chuckar—see chukar partridge

chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), 57, 94, 178, 190, 228

coyote (Cunis Iutrans), 73, 213

crocodile (Caiman crocodiles), 84

Cuban brown anole (Anolis sagrei), 257

desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), 75

dog (Carzisfarni/iaris), 49-50, 57,69, 131, 138, 143, 188,

199, 236, 248, 251-3,262

donkey-see burro

eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), 71

English sparrow (Passer domestics), 63,99, 228

European fallow deer (Dama darna), 84

European pig—see hog

European rabbit (Orycto/agus curzictdus), 33,75, 213, 246,

253

European starling-see starling

feral burro-see burro

feral cat—see cat

feral dog—see dog

feral European pig—see hog

feral goat—see goat

feral hog-—see hog

feral horse-see horse

feral rabbit—see rabbit

feral sheep-see sheep

Florida panther (Felis concoior coryi), 49, 76, 265

giant rat (Cricetrnys gambianus, C’. emini), 292

goat (Capra hircus), 7, 61, 148, 151, 178, 189, 204, 236-7,

240, 246, 268, 271

green anole (Anolis carolinensis), 257

grey wolf––see wolf

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), 135

Guam rail (Rallus owstoni), 76

Hawaiian goose—see nene

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), 234

Himalayan snow cock (Tetraogallus himalayensis), 94

hog (Sus scrofa, Sus scrofa domesricus), 9,33,50,52,61,73,

76, 131, 152, 188,205,218,220,236, 237,240,263,265

horse (Equus caballus), 9, 111, 131, 148, 152, 166, 178,

189-90, 204, 236

house sparrow-see English sparrow

Hungarian partidge (Perdix perdix), 228

Indian mongoose (Iferpestes auropunctatus), 9, 152, 160,

236

ka.lij pheasant (L.ophuru leucomelana), 246

key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), 262

Kirtland’s warbler (Dcndroiea kirl/andii), 71

lion (Punthera Ieo), 212, 218

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), 75

longhorn cattle (Bos taurus), 187

mongoose—see Indian mongoose

monk parakeet (h4yiopsitta monachus), 84, 258

mouflon sheep (Ovis spp.), 204

Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), 228

mute swan (C’ygnus olor) 228

myna bird (Acridotheres tristis), 237

nene (Branta sandvicensis), 236

Nile monitor lizard (Varanus niloticus), 84

nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), 263

nutria (it4yocaster coypus), 213, 228

Old World blackheaded gull (L.arus ridibundus), 52

ostrich (Struthio camelus), 141

palila (Loxioides bailleui), 204,246

pig—see hog

rabbit—see European rabbit

rat (I?attus spp. ), 56, 131, 236, 242, 299

red deer (Cervus elaphus), 141, 217, 220

red-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus), 243

red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer), 243

ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), 57,82,94, 178,

190, 228

Rocky Mountain goat (Oreamnus americanus), 94

San Juan rabbit—see European rabbit

scarlet kingsnake (L.umpropeltistriangulum elapsoides), 89

sheep (Ovis aries), 178, 189, 236, 246

Sichuan pheasant (Phasianus colchieus), 82

sika deer (Cervus nippon), 57, 71

snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis), 262

South African oryx (Oryx gazella gazella), 57

starling (Sturnus vulgaris), 71, 228

tree frog (Hykz cinerea), 89

wild boar-see hog

wild bumo-see burro

wild hog—see hog

wild horse-see horse

wild pig—see hog

wolf (Canis lupus), 49, 69

wolffdog hybrid (Canis lupus x C. familiars), 49, 52,69, 71

Plants

African boxthom (Lycinurn ferocissimum), 303

African lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), 71

African payal (Salvinia auriculata), 303

air potato (Dioscorea buZbifera), 259

alfalfa (Medicago sativa), 52,61, 187,271, 275

alkanet-see common bugloss

alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), 9, 152

American chestnut (Castanea dentata), 66,74

Amur maple (Acer ginnala), 84

anchusa—see common bugloss
—

Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1377

Andean pampas grass (Cortuderia jubata), 83

animated oat (Avena sterilis), 88

anthurium (Anthuriwn spp. ), 243

apple (Malus dome.mica), 289

Asian fig (Ficus microcarpa), 58

Asian water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica), 82

Australian pine (C’asuarina equisetfolia), 34,75, 258-9,

261-4

autumn olive (Elaeagnus urnbelkzta), 88

avocado (Persea americanu), 289

baby’s breath (Gypsophilapaniculata, G. elegans), 63,83

banana (klusa spp.), 249

banana poka (Passiflora mollissima), 88,236-7,243-4,246,

254

barberry (Berberis vulgaris), 39,65,207

basil (Ocimum basilicum), 235

beech (Fagus grandiflora), 302

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacfykm), 56,89, 276

bighead knapweed (Centaurea macrocephda), 226

bird-of-paradise (Strelitzia reginae), 245

black knapweed (Centaurea nigra), 226

black pine (Pinus nigra), 288

bladder ketmia-see Venice mallow

blue devil—see blueweed

blue spruce (Picea pungens), 228

blue thistle—see blueweed

blueweed (Echium vulgare), 226

Bolivian weed potato (Solarium sucrense), 271

bougainvillea (Bougainvillea buttiana), 245

Brazilian elodea (Elodea densa), 227

Brazilian pepper (Schirzus terebirtthfo!ius), 27,69, 88, 159,

258-9, 262, 264

bromegrass (Bromus spp.), 50, 52,303

broomrape (Orobanche spp,), 303

broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), 243

brown centauxy-see brown knapweed

brown knapweed (Centaurea jacea), 226

bunchgrass (Schizachyrium condensafum), 73

burning-bush-see kochia

cabbage (Brassica oleracea), 89

Canada thistle (Cirsium ar}ense), 191

candleberry myrtle-see fwe tree

carrot (Daucus carota sati}’a), 226, 271

catclaw mimosa (Mimosa pigra pigra), 263, 303

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 17, 39, 63, 73, 89

chestnut (Casranea sativa), 55, 140

citrus (Citrus spp.), 37, 55, 93, 262, 264

citrus strangler vine (Morrenia odorara), 154, 198

clover (Trifoiium carolinianurn, Trifolium spp.), 31, 271

coca (Erythro~lum coca), 200

coconut (Cocos nucifera), 236

coffee (Coffea arabica), 241

Cogon grass (Imperafa cylindrical), 263

common bugloss (Anchusa oficimdis), 226

common cordgrass (Spartina anglica), 227

common crupina (Crupina vulgaris), 87, 176, 303

common St. Johnswort (Hypericum pe~oratum), 226

couchgrass (Digitaria spp.), 303

com (Zea mays), 268, 272, 275, 285

corn brome (Bromus squarrous), 101

cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), 89

cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) (see also--wild cotton), 79,

146, 149, 155, 239,271-2,275, 278, 284

crabgrass (Digitariu spp.), 57, 61, 271

cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), 56

creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides), 83

crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), 65, 71, 75

crimson clover (Trifolium incarmtum), 89

cudweed (Filago arvensis), 303

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genist~olia dabnatica), 226

dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronulis), 89

dandelion (Taraxucum oficinale), 557

devil’s paintbrush-see yellow hawkweed

devil’s weed—see orange hawkweed

Mse knapweed (Centaurea dij’fusa), 39, 176,226

dodder (Cuscuta spp.), 303

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 55,93, 228

dwarf snapdragon (Chaenorrhinum minus), 226

dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), 88,192,226,305

early millet (Milium vernale), 80, 101

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 302

edible fig (Ficus carica), 83

egeria-see Brazillan elodea

eggplant (So[anum rnelongena), 262

elm (/71mus spp.), 66, 182

Elsmo Iacebark elm (Ulmusparv~olia), 182

English ivy (Hedera helix), 61,75,83

eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), 75, 227

Eurasian waterrnilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), 9,27, 152,

157, 193, 196,230,227

European buckthom (Rhamnus cathartic), 74

European gorse (Ulex europaeus), 83,226

Europxm viper’s bugloss (Echium vulgare), 78

feather-head knapweed (Centaurea trichocephda), 101

field daisy-see oxeyed daisy

field hawkweed-see yellow hawkweed

fig tree (Ficus spp.), 263

f~ (Abies spp., 71

fmball-see kochia

fm tree (Myrica faya), 75,237,244

flarneweed —see orange hawkweed

flower-of-an-hour-see Venice mallow

forked fern (Dicranopterisf7exuosa), 101

forsythia (Forsythia spp.), 56

fountain grass (Permisetum setaceum), 237, 2434

foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), 69, 83
378 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

fimze-see gorse

garlic mustard (Alliarti petiolata), 9, 89, 152, 158

giant cow parsnip-see giant hogweed

giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), 226

ginkgo (Gingko biloba), 57

goatweed-see common St. Johnswort

gorse—see European gorse

grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), 140

@-the-collier-see orange hawkweed

hardheads-see brown knapweed

Hawaiian raspbemy (Rubus hawaiensis), 235

hedgeparsley (Torilis arvensis), 226

horse-knobs-see brown knapweed

hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), 67,85,88, 126, 193, 196,

227, 258-60,262, 264, 266

ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), 75

indigobush (Amorpha@ticosa), 226

iris (Iris spp. ), 56

Japanese dodder (Cuscatajaponica), 101

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica), 62,75,228,271

Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli var. jiumentacea)

89

Japanese Unshiu orange-see Satsuma orange

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) 65, 88

jointed vetch (Aeschynomene rudis) 227

Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) 243

king devil-see yellow hawkweed

kochia (Kochia scoparia), 183, 224,226

Koster’s curse (Clidemia hirta), 237,243

kudzu (Pueraria lobata), 4,7,28,55,59,61,63,82, 88,93,

206,269

larch (Larix spp.), 118

lather leaf (Co!ubrina asiatica), 259

lead plant-see indigobush

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), 5,65,74,99, 120, 176,

183-4, 191, 300

lepyrodiclis (Z..epyrodiclis holosteoides), 101

lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), 56

leucaena @-.eucaena leucocephala), 75,89

little love grass (Eragrostis minor), 101

loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), 302

macadamia nut (Macadamia integrl~olia), 241

Manchuria rice (Zizania latifolia), 82

mango (Mangi~era indica), 139-40

Marguerite-see oxeye daisy

marijuana (Cannabis sativa), 200

Meditemanean sage (Salvia aethiopsis), 226

Medusa head (Taenniatherum asperum), 39

melaleuca-see paper bark tree

Mexican fwweed—see kochia

milk thistle (Silybum marianum), 226

modesty-see Venice mallow

molasses grass (h.ielinis minutiflora), 73

multiflora rose (Rosa multi flora), 28, 82, 182, 228

musk thistle (Carduus nutans), 9, 82, 152, 226

nodding thistl~ee musk thistle

northern joint vetch (Ae.schynomene virginia), 198

Nonvay spruce (Picea abies), 228

oak (Quercus spp.), 71, 255

oats (Avena sativa), 8

oilseed crucifer-see rapeseed

oleander (Nerium oleander), 83

opium poppy (Papaver somn~erum), 200

orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), 226

orange paintbrush-see orange hawkweed

Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), 74

oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), 226

panicgrass (Panicum spp.), 303

papaya (Caricapapaya), 140, 241

paper bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), 2,5,6, 16,34,

41-2,57,63,73-4,99, 126, 154, 181,258-262,264,266,

271,300-1

Parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), 227

parrotfeather-see Parrot feather

peanut (Arachis hypogaea), 84

pecan (Carya illinoensis), 56

perennial pepperweed (L.epidium fatifolium), 226

Persian darnel (Ldium persicum), 303

pine (Pinus spp.), 71, 117,255,263

pineapple (Ananas comosus), 241

phuneless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), 226

poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima), 131

poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), 224

poorland flower-see oxeye daisy

poplar (Popu!us spp.), 275

potato (Solarium tuberosum), 55,93,156,262,272,285, 289

poverty grass (Sporobolus vaginiglorus), 101

prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), 61

purple Ioosestrife (Lythrum salicarti), 4-6,9,27,59,63,74,

85-6, 100, 126, 152, 157, 187, 193,221,226,228,276,

301

Queen Anne’s lace-see also carrot (Daucus carota), 271

ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), 288, 299

Raoul grass (Rottboellia exaltata), 303

rapeseed (Brassica napus), 271

rayed knapweed-see brown knapweed

red bromegrass (Bromus rubens), 76

red daisy-see orange hawkweed

red oak (Quercus rubra), 74

redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), 112

rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), 55, 93

rooted water hyancinth (Eichhornia asurea), 49

ruby salt bush (Enchykzeua tomentosa), 91

runningbamboo(Arwzdinariz spp.,Phyll@achys spp.@ewbhstus

spp., Sasa spp.), 36
Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1379

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), 82

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), 182

Russian thistle-see tumble weed

Russian wild rye (Psathyrosfachys junceus), 89

St, Johnswort-see common St. Johnswort

sage (Salvti oflcina[is), 235

salt cedar (Tamarixpendantra, T gallica, T. ramosissima, T.

africana, T spp.), 4,33,59,68,73,75,88, 181-2, 193,224

salt meadow cordgrass (Spartitu patens), 227

Satsuma orange (Citrus reticulate var. unshiu), 139, 175

sawtooth oak (Quercus serrata), 88

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), 82-3,226

Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), 226

serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), 28, 80, 101, 303

shattercane (Sorghum halepense x S. bicolor), 65

shoal grass (Dip[anthera wightii), 89

shoo-fly-see Venice mallow

silver-leaf nightshade (Solarium elaeagnifolium), 224

skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), 56

smooth cordgrass (Spartina aiterniflora), 27, 227

snake flower-see blueweed

sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), 65, 271

soybean (Glycine max), 3, 262, 272, 291, 304

spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 39,89, 176,226

spruce (Picea spp.-see also see blue and Norway spruce),

71

squash (Cucurbita pepo), 2, 271, 281-3

strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), 236-7

sugar beet (Beta vulgaris), 65

sugar cane (Saccharum ojjicinarum), 236, 242-3, 245, 260

sugar maple (Acer saccharum), 67, 302

summer-cyprus-see kochia

sunflower (He/ianthus spp. ), 56, 271

sweet clover (Melilotus spp. ), 187

Syrian bean-caper (Zygophyllum fabago), 226

tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), 80, 303

tamarisk-see salt cedar

tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), 69

tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), 224

thistle (Cirsium vulgare), 33

tobacco (Nicottina tabacum), 56, 271-2

tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), 65, 156,271-2,275,282,

285

treefem (Cyarhea cooperi), 298

tumbleweed (Saisob iberica), 65, 96, 183,224

tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum), 303

urnbrella—wort-see wild four o’clock

unicorn-plant (Proboscidea louisianica),

Unshiu orange-see Satsuma orange

velvet tree (Miconia calvescens), 245

Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum), 226

viper’s bugloss—see blueweed

226

Vochin knapweed (Centaurea nigrescens), 226

walnut (.luglans spp.), 275

waterfeather-see Parrot’s feather

water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), 7, 28, 88, 126, 193,

195,258-9,262, 264, 266, 292

water lettuce (Pistti stratiotes), 262

weeping willow (Salix spp.), 56

wheat (Triticum spp.), 3, 55, 79, 93, 291

wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), 187

white daisy-see oxeye daisy

whiteweed-see oxeye daisy

wild carrot-see carrot

wild chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris), 226

wild cotton (Gossypium tomentosum—see also cotton), 239,

271,278,284

wild four o’clock (Mirabilis nyctaginea), 226

wild mustard (Brassica kuber, B. juncea, B. nigra), 271,283

wild oats (Avena fatua), 180

wild tomato (Lycopersicon pimpinnellifolium), 271

witchweed (Striga asiatica, Striga spp.), 6, 9, 41, 91, 126,

147-8, 152, 175-6,301,303

yellow birch (Betula alleghuniensis), 302

yellow devil-see yellow hawkweed

yellow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense), 226

yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), 224

yellow paintbrush-see yellow hawkweed

yellow 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
Index

Accountability, 4345

ADC. See Animal Damage Control Program

Agricultural Marketing Service, 177

Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, 251

Agricultural Research Service, 29-30, 115

research, 179-181

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 183-

184

Air cargo as pathway, 80,91,96

Alabama

agency surveys, 210-212

decisionmaking standards, 216

fm ants, 10,99, 100

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Alaska

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

interstate movement of MS, 202

monitoring programs, 220

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14, 218

statutes and regulations, 222

Alien Species AIert Program, 254

Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act, 48-49

Altered environments, 74,257

biological diversity, 75

Florida, 259-260

American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums,

150

American Fisheries Society, 97, 125, 214

AMS. See Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 114-118, 139

“blitz” baggage inspections, 142-143

control and eradication, 176-177

Federal-State cooperative programs, 206

genetically engineered organisms, 272-274, 276-277

importation and exclusion, 173

inspections in Hawaii, 249

interstate movement of NIS, 174-175

monitoring programs, 175-176

overseas pests and diseases, 301

Animal Damage Control Program, 176-177

Animal Health Association, 227-229

APHIS. See “ Aurnal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Aquacuhure Advisory Committee, 218

AquaCulture industry, 18

Agricultural Research Service research, 180

Fish and Wildlife Service discussion paper, 203

Florida, 258

research, 180, 187

trends, 291

Aquarium industry, 57,85

Aquatic NIS, Federal policy, 168

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 32,54,85, 113, 119,

185, 194, 198-199

research, 50

Aquatic Plant Control Program, 196

Arbor Day Foundation, 89

Arizona

agency surveys, 210-212

Asian chrn, 79

game releases, 217

regulatory approaches, 14

road construction and species movement, 97

statutes and regulations, 222

Arkansas

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

380
Index I 381

Army Corps of Engineers, 88, 195

ARS. See Agricultural Research Service

ASCS. See Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service

Bait animals as pathway, 88

Benefit/cost analysis, 37

Benefits of introductions, 56-57,63

altered environments that are inhospitable to indigenous

species, 75

biological diversity, 75-76

to ensure survival of the species, 76

indigenous species utilize NIS, 75

Big Cypress National Preseme, 261

Bilateral treaties, 297-298

Biological controls

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176

Bureau of Land Management, 192

classical, 37-38, 153-154

environmental impact, 160

genetically engineered organisms, 154, 155,277

host plant resistance to pests, 155

importation, 141

microbial pesticides, 154

in national forests, 179

natural enemies, 153

as pathway, 56, 82, 90

sale and release, 46-48

State laws, 225

trends, 291

vertebrate contraceptives, 154-155

Biological diversity, 34,74-76,294

Florida, 259

Hawaii, 239

Biomedical experimentation, 57

Biopesticides, 154, 197

environmental impact, 160

Bioremediation, 57

Biotechnology, 293-294

Boll weevil eradication, 149

Border inspection stations, 225

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 297

Brown trout, 64

Buildings, economic costs of NIS, 67

Bulk commodities as pathway, 79

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 193

Bureau of Land Management, 30,44, 189-193

Bureau of Reclamation, 180-181, 193

California

African clawed frog, 84

agricultural pests, 96

Asian clam, 68, 79

border inspections, 149,225

clams, 81

Dutch elm disease, 98

ecological risk analysis, 112

t?lJCdyptUS, 75, 76

Federal emergency powers to override State control, 204

feral mammals, 75

fmt class mail, 49, 143, 144, 206,251

golden trout, 64

ice plant, 75

illegal releases of fish, 220

importation permits, 211

interstate cooperation, 208

Japanese beetle, 91

laws concerning biological controls, 225

mason bee, 82

Mediterranean iiuit fly, 48,89

melaleuca tree, 63

numbers of NIS, 95

ornamental plants, 83

Pacific oyster, 83,90

pests associated with Asian fbods, 97

pests from military cargo, 97

pets, 93

rainwater killillsh, 90

red bromegrass, 76

regulatory approaches, 14

replacing NIS in parks, 227

rust fungu$, 56

scale insects, 93

Scotch broom, 82

shoal grass from Texas, 89

snails, 90

species decline and extinction, 72

statutes and regulations, 222

sticklebacks, 90

surveys to detect new introductions, 145

sweet potato whitefly, 143

Texas big-scale logperch, 90

woody weeds, 301

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 142-143

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 46

Chemical pesticides, 37-38, 152-153

environmental impact, 159-160

Hawaii, 242

reregistration, 38, 160-162

CITES. See Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species

“Clean” and “dirty” lists, 8, 23-24, 108-110, 210-212

Climate change, 302-306

Coastal Zone Management Act, 194

Colorado

agency surveys, 210-212
382 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council, 208

Columbia River Basin Project, 193

Computerized databases, 146-147

Congress and a more stringent national policy, 15-19

Connecticut

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Conservation Reserve Program, 183

Containerized freight, 80,93

Centainment

big-game animals, 150

biological controls, 151, 153-156

chemical pesticides, 152-153

fish, 150-152

physical controls, 151

Control of NIS. See also Biological controls; Chemical

pesticides; Physical controls

Agricuhural Research Service, 181

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176-177

Bureau of Land Management, 190-193

Department of Defense, 196

Fish and Wildlife Service, 186-188

Forest Service, 178-179

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194

policymaking process, 9, 110-111

Soil Conservation Service, 182-183

Convention on Biological Diversity, 296-297

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, 297

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,

185,298-299

Convention on the Law of the Sea, 297

Cooperative Forest~ Assistance Act, 179

Cooperative State Research Service, 38, 161, 184-188

CRP. See Conservation Reserve Program

CSRS. See Cooperative State Research Semice

Cuivre River State Park, 74

Damage to natural areas, 31-34

Decisionrnaking approaches, 22

‘ ‘clean’ and “dirty” lists, 23-24

economic analysis, 122-125

new syntheses of diverse approaches, 131-136

protocols, 47, 125-130

risk analysis, 111-119

standards, 24-25, 26, 214-217

values, 129-131

Decline of indigenous species, 71. See also Species

extinction

Deftitions, 52-54

Delaware

regtdato~ approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Department of Agriculture, 170-184. See also specific

agencies

Conservation Reserve Program, 79

quarantines, 249

Department of Commerce policies, 194-195

Department of Defense, 195-199

Department of Energy, 200

Department of Health and Human Services, 199

Department of the Interior, 184-195. See also specific

agencies

Department of Justice, 200

Department of Transportation, 199-200

Department of the Treasury, 199

Detection technologies

GIS technology, 146

remote sensing, 146

traps, 145

visual surveys, 145

District of Columbia

English ivy, 75

Japanese honeysuckle, 75

pathways, 89

Rock Creek Park, 189

Drug Enforcement Agency, 200

Ecological restoration, 157-159

Hawaii, 239

Ecological risk assessment, 279-285

Economic costs of NIS, 5,6,92

to agriculture, 65-66

analysis, 122-125

to buildings, 67

to fisheries and watemvay use, 67

Florida, 261-262

to foresq, 66-67

fruit flies in Hawaii, 244

to health, 69-70

to natural areas, 68-69

Education. See Public education

Emergencies, 36-38

Endangered species, 262

Hawaii, 238

Endangered Species Act, 49,72, 130, 204

Enforcement of laws and regulations, 220-221,225,227

Environmental costs of NIS, 70

to biological diversity, 74-76

decline of indigenous species, 71

in National Parks, 74

transformation of ecological communities and

ecosystems, 73-74

Environmental impact
Index 1383

of control technologies, 159

decisionmaking standards, 215-216

tra.nsgenic fish, 278

Environmental impact assessment, 120-122

Environmental Protection Agency, 155, 196-199

genetically engineered organisms policies, 274

research, 198-199

Eradication, 9-11, 170

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176-177

Department of Defense, 196

fiie ant and boll weeviI programs, 10

Fish and Wildlife Service, 186-188

Florida, 262

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194

policymaking process, 110-111

programs, 149

research, 181

Soil Conservation Service, 182-183

States’ responsibility, 207

technologies, 147-148

Evaluations

genetically engineered organisms, 269

probable environmental impact, 61-62

risk analysis, 111-119

Everglades National Park, 74, 158, 159

water management, 260

Exclusion, 170. See also Importation; Inspections

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 173

Federal policies, 163-165

Executive Order 11987,21, 167

Exotic Pest Plant Council, 205, 230, 264, 265

Exotic Phmt Pest Council, 39

Extinction

Hawaii. 238

Farm Bill of 1990, 30-31,42, 183

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Federal Aid Program, 185-186, 188

Federal Endangered Species List, 238

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 38,153,

196, 274

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 189, 193

Federal laws, 11-13

Federa! Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 135

Federal Noxious Weed Act, 25-26, 26-30, 30-31, 117, 173,

175, 202,203, 224

1990 Amendment, 192, 205

Federal Plant Pest Act, 173,202, 203,204, 278,279,282

Federal Plant Quarantine Act, 203

Federal Seed Act, 26-28,79-80, 97, 224,277

Federal-State relationships, 201-203

cooperative programs, 204-207, 254

Federal preemption of State law, 203-204

genetically engineered organisms, 279

FIFRA, See Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act

F& ant eradication, 149

Fish and Wildlife Service, 19, 72,99, 109, 184-188

aquiculture discussion paper, 203-204

Federal-State cooperative programs, 206

frees, 45

release of genetically engineered organisms, 276

risk analysis, 119

Fishing industry, 56-57

benefits of introductions, 64

economic costs of NIS, 67

evaluations of probable environmental impact, 61

interstate shipments, 90

removing harvesting pressure from indigenous species, 76

values in decisionrnaking, 131

Florida, 13-15, 254-257

African giant snail, 84, 258

African honey bee, 263

agency surveys, 210-212

American oyster catcher, 262

anoles, 257

aquarium fhh, 85, 109

Asian fig plant, 58

Asian tiger mosquito, 81, 262,263

Asian water spinach, 82

Asiatic clam, 263

Australian pine, 75,258,262

bagoine weevil, 264

beach mouse, 262

blue tilapia, 263

border inspection of commodities, 149

Brazilian pepper tree, 67,88,258

brown darter, 262

brown trout, 64

cactus moth, 61

cane toad, 258

Cape Sable seaside sparrow, 262

catclaw mimosa, 263

citrus blackfly, 260

citrus canker, 207, 260, 263

climate, 95, 257-258

Cogon grass, 263

decisionmaking standards, 214-215

diamondback moth, 89

ecological restoration, 158, 159

economic costs of NIS, 261-262

effects of hurricanes, 88, 259

eradication, 262

Exotic Pest Plant Council, 205, 230, 264, 265

Exotic Plant Pest Council, 39

Federal-State cooperative programs, 207
384 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

f~ ants, 260

funding, 265-266

giant African snail, 263

GIS technology use, 146

gTaSS Carp, 263

health costs of NIS, 262

honey bee parasites, 90

human population growth, 258

hydrilla, 258

key deer, 262

laws concerning biological controls, 225

leaf-mining flies, 263

Meditemanean fi-uit fly, 260

melaleuca tree, 63, 73, 99, 258, 260, 261

minimum containment standards for commercial

aquacuhure, 150

mole crickets, 258

monk parakeet, 258

nine-banded armadillo, 263

numbers of NIS, 95, 255

Okaloosa darter, 262

panther, 76,263

pathways, 258

peacock bass, 263

peacock cichlid, 84-85

peanut stripe virus, 84

pets, 93

potential future impacts of NM, 263

public education, 266

regulato~ approaches, 14

releases, 19, 214

research, 181

research centers, 187

snail kite, 262

snails, 67

statutes and regulations, 217, 222

urbanization, 260-261

water hyacinth, 258

water lettuce, 262

water management, 260

wild hogs, 263

Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association, 258

FLPMA. See Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976

HA. See Federal Noxious Weed Act

Food and Agriculture Organization, 290,296

Food Security Act of 1985, 183

Foreign Agricultural Service, 177

Forest Sewice, 32

Federal-State cooperative programs, 206

land management, 178-179

research, 179

Forestry, economic costs of NIS, 66-67

Free trade agreements, 290-291

Funding, 33,4043

Fur industry, 57

FWS. See Fish and Wildlife Service

Game animals, 19

big-game, 84,94

centainment, 150

enforcement of laws and regulations, 220

quarantine, 140-141

releases, 217

Gaps in legal authority, 213-214

Gaps in legislation and regulation, 45

Gardening, 291

GATT See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 288-290

Genetically engineered organisms, 7-11, 113-114, 155

commercial distribution and sale, 277-278

commercialization issues, 282

compared with NIS, 268

confinement, 283-284

Coordinated Framework, 274-275

EPA regulations, 197

Federal policies concerning release, 269

fish and wildlife, 275-277

insects and invertebrates used in biological control, 277

international trade, 284-285

microbes, 280

plants, 276-277

potential effects, 269

pre-release evaluations, 11-12

regulatory responsibilities, 272

releases, 272-279

research, 277

risks, 270

terms, 268

Geographic distribution, 93-95

Geographic information systems, 146

Georgia

agency surveys, 210-212

diamondback moth, 89

feral hogs, 76

regulatory approaches, 14, 217

statutes and regulations, 217, 222

sterile grass carp, 188

GEOS, See Genetically engineered organisms

Glacier National Park, 73,79

Grand Teton National Forest, 85

Grazing, 189-190

in national forests, 178

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 67,208,297

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 74, 189

Guam
brown tree snake, 76, 177

milit~ freight as pathway, 195

Habitat destruction, 304

Habitat modification, 78-79

Habitat reduction, 74

Haleakala National Park, 189, 190,240

rabbits, 246, 253

Hawaii, 13-15

agency surveys, 210-212

agriculture, 241-245

banana poka, 88

barn owl, 56

brown tree snake, 247-248

chemical controls, 242

Christmas trees, 252

climate, 95, 235-236

crested wheatgrass, 75

decisionmaking standards, 214-215

ecology, 234-235

Endangered Species Act, 204

environmental education programs, 157

Federal-State cooperative programs, 205

feral goats, 148

fiie tree, 75

first class mail, 49

fruit flies, 239, 249

gourd-producing vine, 254

Guam rail, 76

gypsy moth, 252

Haleakala National Park, 189, 190

human populations of diverse origins, 93

hunting industry, 246

hurricane effects, 88

importation laws, 110

insects introduced as biological controls, 61

inspections, 246-248

interagency cooperation, 255

interstate movement of NIS, 202

irradiation of imported commodities, 140

leuceana, 89

mail as pathway, 48, 89, 143, 144, 175, 206

mealybug, 249

military freight as pathway, 195, 246

molasses grass, 73

monitoring programs, 220, 253

National Parks, 33

number of NIS, 235

ornamental plants, 82, 243-245

pet industry, 246

popular attitudes toward NH, 130

potted plants, 96

public education, 2s3-254

Index 1385

quarantines, 243,249-251

rabbits, 253

ranching, 243

rates of introductions, 236, 238

recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, 187

regulatory approaches, 14, 219

roles of Federal and State agencies, 241

rosy snail, 71, 238

signitlcant NM, 237

species decline and extinction, 71-72

state of indigenous species, 238-239

statutes and regulations, 217, 222, 252-253

strawberry guava, 236

sugar cane, 236

tourism, 245

transgenic cottons, 278

Volcanoes National Park, 189

Hawaii Tropical Recovery Act, 240

Health costs of NIS, 46,69-70

Asian tiger mosquito, 81

Florida, 262

High-speed trains, 294

Honey bee industry, 56, 90

economic costs of NIS, 66

model State laws, 229

regulation, 175

research, 181

Host plant resistance to pests, 155, 181

Hunting industry, 57,82, 84,94

Hawaii, 246

state regulation, 220

Hurricanes and NIS spread, 88, 259

Hybridization, 71, 76

Idaho

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

weed and seed laws, 221, 224

Illinois

agency surveys, 210-212

Elsmo Iacebark elm, 182

garlic mustard, 158

numbers of NE, 95

nursery trade, 88

regulatory approaches, 14, 218

statutes and regulations, 222

use of indigenous plants, 227, 228

Immune-contraception, 155

Importation, 194. See also Interstate movement of NIS

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service policies, 173

animals, 140-141

biological control agents, 141
386 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

commodities, 139-140

decisionrnaking standards, 215

Department of Defense policies, 195

Fish and Wildlife Service, 185

number prohibited by states, 194

permits, 211

plant germ plasm, 141

policymaking process, 108-110

public education, 141-142,225,227

Public Health Service, 199

seeds, 80, 177, 221

Soil Conservation Service, 182

State laws, 208-221

treaties, 294

Indiana

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Information gaps, 54-55

Inspections, 28

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 173

commodities, 139-140, 173

containerized freight, 80

detection technologies, 145-146

evaluation of prevention programs, 142

Hawaii, 246-248,249-250,252-253

Public Health Service, 199

sterile grass carp, 188

travelers and baggage, 138-139

U.S. Customs Service, 199

Integrated Pest Management, 119-124, 156

Intentional introductions, 6, 28, 61-62, 170. See also

Unintentional introductions

Federal funding, 185

Florida, 258

national forests, 178

National Park Service, 189

pathways, 82-83

Interagency cooperation, 254

Florida, 264,265

Interagency coordination

genetically engineered organisms, 274-275

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 302

International law, 287-306

International OffIce on Epizootics, 296

International Plant Protection Convention, 295-2%

International trade, 287-288

genetically engineered organisms, 284-285

International treaties, 295

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, 17, 125, 129, 296

Interregional Research Project No. 4, 38, 161

Interstate cooperation, 207-208

Interstate movement of MS, 21, 170,202

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 174-175

Department of Defense, 195

Fish and Wildlife Service, 185-186

produce shipments, 89

Iowa

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

IPM. See Integrated Pest Management

IPPC. See International Plant Protection Convention

Irradiation of imported commodities, 140

IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Name

and Natural Resources

Kansas

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Kentucky

Asian clam, 68

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Lacey Act, 44, 109, 114, 119, 185,201-202, 203

implementation, 34

proposed changes, 22,23,49

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 33,42

Land management, 30-31,33

Department of Defense, 196

Federal policy, 165-170

Forest Service, 178-179

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194

National Park Se~ice, 188-189

Landscaping industry, 258

Local approaches, 229-231

Imuisiana

agency surveys, 210-212

Argentine ant, 91

boll Wt%%k, 10

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

legal approaches, 14

regulatory approaches, 14,218

statutes and regulations, 222

Imxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, 261

Maguire approach to decisionmaking, 133-135

Mail as pathway, 48-49,82,89-90, 143, 175,251-252

Federal regulation, 202

Puerto Rico, 143

Mail-order sale of plants or seeds, 202

Maine
Index 1387

agency smeys, 210-212

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14, 219

requirements for releases, 215

statutes and regulations, 222

Marine Fisheries Commissions, 208

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 289

Ma.xyland

agency surveys, 210-212

diamondback moth, 89

Pacific oyster, 207

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Massachusetts

agency surveys, 210-212

animals found in plant shipments, 89

California sea squirt, 91

numbers of NIS, 95

pet escapes, 84

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 222

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and WildMe, 84

Medical technology, 294

Michigan

enforcement of laws and regulations, 220

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

research centers, 187

Sichuan pheasant, 82

statutes and regulations, 222

Microbes, 280

Microbial pesticides, 197

environmental impact, 160

registered by EPA, 198

used for biological control, 154

Military freight as pathway, 81,97, 195, 246

Hawaii, 253

Minnesota

agency surveys, 210-212

educational material, 157

Environmental Research Laboratory, 198

European zander, 207

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14, 219

sea lampreys, 186

statutes and regulations, 222

Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task Force, 21,39

Mississippi

agency surveys, 210-212

bighead carp, 83

boll weevils, 10

fish releases, 217

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

legal authority to release, 213

regulatory approaches, 14

research facilities, 196

statutes and regulations, 222

under-regulation, 219

Missouri

agency surveys, 210-212

Asian Amur maple, 84

Elsmo lacebark elm, 182

European buckthom, 74

model laws, 24-25

statutes and regulations, 222

Model local ordinances, 230-231

Model national law on NIS, 17

Model State laws, 24-25

captive wild and exotic tialS, 227-229

honey bee certillcation plan, 229

weeds in natural communities, 229

Monitoring programs, 37-38,220

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 175-176

Environmental Protection Agency, 197-198

Hawaii, 253

Montana

agency surveys, 210-212

decisionmaking standards, 214-215,216

emergency moratorium on game farm activities, 217

funding strategies, 225

game farms, 220

leafy spurge, 99, 300

regulatory approaches, 14, 218, 219

statutes and regulations, 217, 222

Movement of species into the United States. See Importation

NAITA. See North American F= Trade Agreement

National Aeronautic and Space Administration, 294

National Animal Health Monitoring Program, 176

National Aquiculture Act of 1980, 187

National Arboretum, 180

National Biological Control Institute, 176

National Environmental Policy Act, 18, 120-122,289-290

National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 194

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 193

National Fish Health Strategy, 187

National Fisheries Research Centers, 187

National Genetic Resources Center, 183

National Genetic Resources Program, 180

National Institutes of Health, 274

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19-20

genetically engineered organisms, 276

land management, 194

research, 194-195

National Park Service, 31-34,74, 183, 188-189

fencing, 240
388 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

GIS technology use, 146

Hawaii, 251-252

land management, 188-189

natural zones, 190

policies, 107

research, 189

National Plant Board, 204-205, 221

National Plant Gerrnplasm System, 179-180

National Wildlife Refuge System, 187

Natural enemies used in biological contxol, 153

Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, 240

Nebraska

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act

Nevada

game animals, 94

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

New Hampshire

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

New Jersey

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14, 218

statutes and ~gulations, 223

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, 186

New Mexico

game animals, 19

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

New York

agency surveys, 210-212

diamondback moth, 89

nursery industry as pathway, 93

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

New York Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, 146

New Zealand, 19

benefit/cost analysis, 37

laws and programs, 20

NTH. See National Institutes of Health

NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act of 1990, 19,27,32,54, 176-177, 199,206,276

North American Association for Environmental Education,

35

North American Free Trade Agreement, 290-291

North Carolina

agency surveys, 210-212

boll WtXVilS, 10

commercial sales, 47

genetically engineered organisms, 278-279

gypsy moth, 67

laws concerning biological controls, 225

~egulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

witchweed, 147-148

North Carolina Genetically Engineered Organisms Act,

278-279

North Dakota

agency surveys, 210-212

European zander, 83,99,207,297-298

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

leafy spurge, 99

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

under-regulation, 219

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 179

Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group, 39

NPGS. See National Plant Gerrnplasm System

NPS. See National Park Sexvice

Nun&m of NIS, 3,91-106,257

Florida, 255

Hawaii, 235

by state, 95

Nursery industry, 18

Ohio

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

under-regulation, 219

Oklahoma

agency surveys, 210-212

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1987,44

Oregon

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

numbers of NIS, 95

pine wood chips, 117

regulatory approaches, 14

species arriving in ballast water, 82

statutes and regulations, 223

weed and seed laws, 221, 224

organic Act of 1944,33, 177

OSTP. See White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Oyster industry, 56
Pacitlc Marine Fisheries Commission, 208

Packing material as pathway, 80

Pathways of spread within the United States, 85, 88-91

Pennsylvania

agency surveys, 210-212

funding for eradication programs, 194

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

Pennsylvania State Bureau of Consumer Protection, 48

Pest-free zones, 139

Pet industry, 18,57, 84,93

animal quarantines, 140-141

Hawaii, 246

values in decisionmaking, 131

Pet Indus~ Joint Advisory Council, 24, 97

Physical controls, 151

Phytotoxins, 293

Plant Boards, 208, 221

Plant germ plasm, 141

importation, 141, 179-181

Plant Pest Act, 44, 117

Plant Quarantine Act, 44, 173,249, 278,279,282

Pollution, 78

Potential future impacts of NIS, Florida, 263

Power industry, economic costs of NIS, 67,68

Pre-release evaluations, 11-12, 28-30

Predictions, 298-301

next pests, 301-302, 303

Preservation of ecosystems, 188

Preservation of endangered and threatened species that

cannot be saved in their natural habitat, 57

Presque State Park, 194

Priority setting, 3840

Protected lands, 205

Public education, 34-36, 156-157

Florida, 266

Hawaii, 253-254

importation, 141-142

Public Health Service, 19,46

Public opinion

eradication programs, 148

values in decisionmaking, 131

Puerto Rico

mail as pathway, 49, 143, 144

species decline and extinction, 72

Quarantines, 83

animal, 140-141

commodities, 139-140

coordination, 208

domestic, 148-150, 174-175,203,204-205, 207,221

Hawaii, 243, 249

international, 289

Washington, 226-227

Ranching in Hawaii, 243

Randall approach to decisionmaking, 132-133

Rates of introductions, 6

Hawaii, 236, 238

Rates of movement, 95-96

Regulating product content and labeling, 170

Releases, 83-95. See also Containment

biological control agents, 4648

decisionmaking standards, 215

Florida, 258

genetically engineered organisms, 281

interstate cooperation, 208

number prohibited by states, 213

Pacific oysters in Virginia, 207

policymaking process, 108-110

pre-release evaluations, 11-12

from research facilities, 91

State laws, 208-221

Remote sensing, 146

Reregistration of minor use pesticides, 38, 160-161

Research, 50, 170

Agricultural Research Service, 179

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 177

biological control, 180-181

Environmental Protection Agency, 198-199

Forest Service, 179

genetically engineered organisms, 277

interagency agreements, 205

methodology, 55-56

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194-

195

ship design, 200

Research releases as pathway, 91

Resistance to chemical pesticides, 160

Restoration of habitats, 57

Rhode Island

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

Risk iUl@SiS, 7-8, 111-113

economic analysis, 122-125

environmental impact, 120-122

experimentation, 114

by Federal agencies, 114-119

process, 113-114

Rock Creek National Park, 89, 189

Safe Minimum Standard, 132

SCS. See Soil Conservation Service
390 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States

Seed trade as pathway, 88

Semiochemicals, 155

SEPAS. See State environmental policy acts

Ship’s ballast, 81,88,91

dry, 100

U.S. Coast Guard regulations, 199-200

Soil Conservation Act of 1935, 181

Soil Conservation Service, 82,84,88, 181-183

importation, 182

South Carolina, 147-148

boll WeeVi.lS, 10

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

giant tiger shrimp, 83

legal approaches, 14

Pacific white shrimp, 85

sawtooth oak, 89

statutes and regulations, 223

South Carolina Department of Fish and Game, 89

South Dakota

agency surveys, 210-212

leafy spurge, 99,300

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

South Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, 230

Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Center, 227

Species extinction, 71-73

Species identification and inspection, 143-144

molecular biology techniques, 144-145

Species Survival Commission, 44, 47

Standards, 24-25, 26,214-217

State environmental policy acts, 120,216

State f~h and wildlife agencies survey, 210-211

State laws and regulations, 13,201-229

Alaska: Ak. Stat. sec. 16,05.940(17), 218

genetically engineered organisms, 278

Georgia: Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-1,218

Georgia: Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-4(f), 218

Hawaii, 252

Hawaii: Ha. Rev. Stat. sec. 150A-14, 219

Illinois: 17 Ill. Admin. Code sec. 870.10(e), 218

insects and other invertebrates, 225

Louisiana: La. Wildlife and Fisheries Reg. sec. 107.1 1.D.,

218

Maine: 12 Me, Rev, Stat. Ann. 7613,219

Maine v. Taylor, 202

Montana: Rev. Code Mont. 87-1-102,219

Montana: Mont. Admin. Register 2-1/30/’92, 218

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. 504.165,218

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Annot. 23:2A-5, 218

Temessee: Term. Code Annot. 70-4-417,218

Vermont: 10 Vt. Stat. Ann. sec 4502(b)(2)(L), 219

Vermont: 10 Vt. Stat. Annot. sec. 4709,218

weeds, 221-225

Wisconsin: Wise. Admin. Code NR 19.05,218

Sterile male release for biological control, 154

Subset sampling, 139

Taxes, 43

Technological changes, 293-294

Temessee

agency surveys, 210-212

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 189

regulatory approaches, 14, 218

statutes and regulations, 223

Texas

African honey bee, 90, 176,229

Asian Tiger mosquito, 81

big-game animals, 84

bobcats, 84

boll WtXVilS, 10

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

illegal releases from game farms, 220

numbers of NIS, 95

peanut Stripe ViIUS, 84

regulatory approaches, 14

salt cedar, 75

snails, 67, 72

statutes and regulations, 223

under-regulation, 219

unsuccessful introductions of fish, 83

Thermal pollution, 78

Timber imports, 118-119

Time lags, 79

between establishment and harrnfid effects, 58

between identiilcation of species’ pathway and

implementation of prevention program, 8, 144

Toxic Substances Control Act, 196,274

Transformation of ecological communities and ecosystems,

73

Transgenic f~h, 278

Transgenic squash, 282

Transgenic technology, 155-156. See also Genetically

engineered organisms

Traps used for detection, 145

Travelers and baggage

“blitz” inspections, 142-143

Hawaii, 245,252

international flights, 36

as pathway, 82

Treatment technologies forimportingcommodities, 139,140

TSCA. See Toxic Substances Control Act

Types of organisms covered by GTA’s contractors, 55

Unintentional introductions, 6,62-63

national forests, 178

pathways, 79-83
Index 1391

prevention technologies, 137-143

Unknown effects, 58

Urban landscaping, 57

U.S. Coast Guard, 199-200

U.S. Customs Service, 199

USDA. See Department of Agriculture

USFS. See Forest Service

Utah

agency surveys, 210-212

brown trout, 64

enforcement of laws and regulations, 220

gypsy moth control, 153

model laws, 24-25

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14

salt cedar, 75

statutes and regulations, 217, 223

weed and seed laws, 221, 224

Utiiities. See Power industry

Values in decisionrnaking, 129-131

Vehicles as pathways, 80

Vermont

agency surveys, 210-212

Eurasian watermilfoil, 157

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

pear thrip, 67

regulatory approaches, 14, 218, 219

statutes and regulations, 223

Vertebrate contraceptives, 154-155

Virginia

African giant snails, 84

boll weevils, 10

numbers of NIS, 95

Pacific oyster, 207

peanut Stripe ViIUS, 84

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

ViNs, Serum, and Toxin Act, 277

Volcanoes National Park, 73, 148, 189

fencing, 240

Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Center, 188

Washington

animated oat, 88

apple ermine moth, 206

dyer’s woad, 88

emergency moratorium on game farm activities, 217

Paciilc oyster, 83

regulato~ approaches, 14

shad, 76

statutes and regulations, 223

weed and seed laws, 221, 224

weeds, 221

Washington, D.C.. See District of Columbia

Washington State Department of Fisheries, 76

Water management, Florida, 260

Waterways, economic costs of N_IS, 67

Weeds, 25-31

economic costs of NE, 65-66

State laws, 221-225

West Virginia

agency surveys, 210-212

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

numbers of NIS, 95

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

under-regulation, 219

Western Weed Coordinating Committee, 205

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 270

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge, 187

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 190,204

Wildflowers as omamentals, 89

Wisconsin

agency surveys, 210-212

crayfish, 71

gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214

honey bee parasites, 90

protocols, 47

regulatory approaches, 14, 218

research centers, 187

statutes and regulations, 223

Wood ChipS, 36-37

Wooden crates as pathways, 80

Wyoming

agency surveys, 210-212

big-game animals, 84

leafy spurge, 99,300

regulatory approaches, 14

statutes and regulations, 223

weed and seed laws, 221, 224

Wyoming Game and Fish Cornmission, 217

Yellowstone National Park, 205

Yosemite National Park, 189

Zebra mussel education programs, 158

Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse, 146

Zoo animal importation, 140-141