42 



categories of harmful non-indigenous species that are not restricted 

 from entry at all. 



There seems to us to be a general consensus now that our basic 

 legislation needs changing, although that change would not come 

 without opposition. Such changes could provide, for example, more 

 adequate authority for listing regulated species more quickly, also 

 for providing emergency treatment for early infestations. Often, 

 those are the only hope we have for sta5ring ahead of pests. 



But the broadest question is whether we need a stricter national 

 approach. OTA finds that such an approach is justified if Congress' 

 goals include, for example, better protection of national parks and 

 more limited interstate spread of non-indigenous pests. We may 

 never be able to fully predict the risk of new introductions, but we 

 know that both intentionsd and accidental introductions of fish and 

 wildlife in the past have had about equal chances of turning out 

 badly. That suggests a history of not only poor decisionmaking, but 

 as well the inherent unpredictability of introductions. 



For some species, keeping them out is clearly the best strategy. 

 For others, control is easier than interception at ports of entry. So 

 we feel that aiming for a standard of zero entry is both unrealistic 

 and undesirable, especially if stronger exclusion efforts come at the 

 expense of control of those organisms that enter or are already 

 here. 



But without better goal-setting, data gathering, and especially 

 evaluations by the Federal agencies, we cannot unquestionably tell 

 whether pre-introduction screening and post-introduction quar- 

 antine and enforcement are adequate. We have indirect evidence, 

 however, that our system fails with some regularity. One response 

 to these problems could be stricter screening for invasiveness in 

 federally-funded efforts, especially for plants and fish and wildlife. 



Once harmful non-indigenous species enter the U.S., there is no 

 coordinated effort to prevent their spread for large categories of or- 

 ganisms. At least five plants on the Federal Noxious Act list of pro- 

 hibited importations were legally sold in interstate commerce as of 

 1990. Compliance with the limited Federal and State laws that 

 limit interstate distribution of noxious weeds is, in effect, largely 

 voluntary. 



Amendments to the Lacey Act in 1981 allowed the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service to enforce State-restricted injurious fish and wild- 

 life, but we could find so such interceptions listed among the agen- 

 cy's 1990 accomplishments, suggesting that this enforcement is not 

 a high priority either. 



Generally there is insufficient authority and impetus for the Fed- 

 eral agencies to impose emergency quarantines on non-agricultural 

 pests. The Federal role is far larger for excluding, managing and 

 limiting agricultural pests than the corresponding activities for 

 pests of natural areas, for fish and wildlife, and for their diseases. 



For example, neither the Agricultural Research Service nor the 

 Soil Conservation Service systematically evaluates plants' 

 invasiveness before they are released for horticulture or for soil 

 conservation. According to one of our experts, at least 7 of the 22 

 cultivars released by the Soil Conservation Service between 1980 

 and 1990 could become weeds of natural areas. 



