95 



d) Expanded public awareness campaign. 



For both political and technical reasons, this process will be a major undertaking. 

 To succeed, it should be guided by a simple, clear policy statement identifying the 

 standard of excellence Hawaii aspires to in this field (e.g., "Hawaii will develop a 

 pest prevention and control system that is the most effective in the world", or 

 ". . . that reduces the influx of new pest species into the State to 10 percent of 

 present levels by the year 2000"). Because of its long history and broad involvement 

 m this area, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture is the most appropriate agency 

 to lead such a planning effort. 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS N. WINDLE 



Unlike you, we at OTA virtually never receive letters from constituents. But last 

 October, Lawrence Sperandio, of Verona, Missouri, read a newspaper account of 

 OTA's report and wrote to me: 



"I am a 65 year old disabled veteran who has given up on controlling the 

 worst plant ever imported into the United States, the multiflora rose. Forty 

 years ago, a neighbor allowed the Missouri Conservation Commission to 

 plant a Vz mile fence row of multiflora on his farm V2 mile from my farm. 

 This neighbor allowed the fence to grow uncontrolled and birds spread the 

 rose seed over miles across two counties. I have spent thousands of dollars 

 and more than that many hours without slowing its spread. The neighbor 

 responsible is dead. ... I am physically and financially broke 

 after . . . battling this pest that leaves land in an unproductive jungle 

 state. . . . My farm is greatly depreciated by this terrible plant and my el- 

 derly wife will have no inheritance in her declining years and my heirs may 

 be saddled with damages assessed by the State of Missouri. I plead for your 

 assistance." 



There is very little that I can do to help Mr. Sperandio. You, however, have many 

 more options. Today, we shall describe now we got to a place where this farmer 

 finds his Government derelict. Also, we shall discuss ways to remedy the situation. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Phyllis Windle from the Office of Technology 

 Assessment. With me today is Elizabeth Chomesky. I directed the OTA study that 

 we will discuss today; Dr. Chomesky was the senior analyst on that study. 



Mr. Sperandio's case is not unusual. I can guarantee that harmful non-indigenous 

 species (NIS) affect the constituents of every Member of this Committee. If your 

 State is agricultural, probably 50-75 percent of your weeds are non-indigenous and 

 your constituents suffered some of the estimated $3.6 to $5.4 biUion in crop losses 

 and herbicide costs per year nationwide. If your State contains a wildlife refuge, a 

 National Park, or other protected areas, it is almost certain that it has problems 

 with harmful NIS and is short of resources to manage them successftilly. If your 

 constituents own pets, travel overseas, fish, hunt, garden, or engage in interstate 

 commerce the issues we discuss affect every one of them directly. 



WHERE WE ARE TODAY: THE STATUS AND IMPACTS OF HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS 



SPECIES 



Over one-half of the Irees and shrubs on the Capitol grounds are not indigenous 

 to the United States. They, like almost all our crops, many sport fish, and numerous 

 biological control agents, provide substantial economic, aesthetic, and other benefits. 



Harmful NIS, however, cause substantial damage. In OTA's judgment, these im- 

 pacts are likely to climb. Troublesome species already in the United States are rare- 

 ly eliminated while new ones are constantly added. As a result, the combined num- 

 ber of foreign NIS is steadily and swiftly growing. In the process, problenis multiply 

 like compound interest. One expert calls this "an explosion in slow motion". 



At least 4,500 NIS of foreign origin have established free-living populations in the 

 United States, a much larger number than was present 100 years ago. Approxi- 

 mately 15 percent, or several hundred species, trigger severe harm. 



The threat of new introductions is ongoing. Just since 1980, some 200 foreign spe- 

 cies were first introduced or detected here. At least 59 of these are ah-eady, or are 

 expected to be, harmful. 



Most organisms arrive with human help, often as unintended contaminants ot 

 commodities, packing materials, shipping containers, or ships' ballast. Others were 

 intentionally imported as crops, ornamental plants, livestock, pets or aouaculture 

 species — and later escaped confinement. A number of NIS were introduced as seem- 

 ingly desirable species for soil conservation, fishing and hunting, or biological con- 



