43 



Weeds as a group receive little attention from APHIS, and weed 

 control programs throughout the Federal agencies are generally 

 small and underfunded. Recognition of these sorts of problems in 

 natural areas is relatively new and it is one of OTA's major find- 

 ings. A broader interpretation of current legislation could ensure 

 that weeds of natural areas are better addressed. Also, it seems 

 clear to us that this is one area in which more funding will be 

 needed, especially for weed management on public lands and re- 

 source management generally for national parks and other pro- 

 tected areas. 



As Mr. Glenn noted, the 1990 Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

 Prevention and Control Act is among our most recent efforts to en- 

 sure interagency coordination. As such, it provides a case study in 

 the pluses and minuses of interagency efforts. Its successes include 

 the internal discussion it prompted within the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service. The successes also include the intentional introductions 

 policy review and how it aims to improve risk assessments for pro- 

 posed introductions. 



However, the Act did set out a number of assignments that have 

 completion dates that were considerably delayed from those origi- 

 nally set by Congress, and there are two important concerns that 

 remain. The task force chose to interpret the Act as not addressing 

 aquatic non-indigenous species that escape from aquaculture facili- 

 ties, and States remain concerned that the draft program as the 

 task force developed it lacks mechanisms to disburse funds for 

 emergency control. 



We feel that the 1990 law and the task force could have a signifi- 

 cant role in preventing unintentional entry and dissemination of 

 harmful aquatic species, but in a number of areas regulations are 

 not underway or planned. OTA concluded that the rocky start of 

 the task force makes its potential in the future uncertain. It is 

 clear to us that Congress' assignment of new responsibilities with- 

 out funds does not work, and that has affected the task force. 



It is also clear that those who are the source of non-indigenous 

 species problems seldom bear their cost. Therefore, OTA suggested 

 that Congress might consider further questions of funding and ac- 

 countability for harmfiil introductions. These could include addi- 

 tional entrance or user fees, higher fines for illegal imports, bond- 

 ing, insurance surcharges, taxes, and a variety of other possibili- 

 ties. 



As you know, harmful non-indigenous species have hit Hawaii 

 and Florida particularly hard. Increasingly, State and FederaT 

 agencies, non-governmental organizations, university scientists and 

 agricultural interests see non-indigenous species as a unifying 

 threat, and public education as one important tool to alleviate it. 

 Therefore, OTA is in good company in suggesting that Congress 

 might significantly expand environmental education. 



These are Asian clams in this bowl. They were unknown in the 

 United States before they were first detected in California before 

 1940. By 1986, as you can see on our map, they had spread to 30 

 States, including 6 of the 14 states that the Committee represents. 

 This bowl-full came from only a few square yards of Potomac River 

 shoreline at Great Falls last autumn, 3,000 miles away from where 



