97 



• Two non-indigenous grasses now comprise 80 percent of the plant cover in parts 

 of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park— grasses that have increased the frequency 

 of brush fires and offset normal ecological processes. 



• Mosquitofish have been associated with localized declines in at least 15 indige- 

 nous fish in desert rivers and springs. 



• The Australian melaleuca tree is rapidly replacing the Florida Everglades 

 sawgrass marshes, forests and other natural habitat with single species stands. 



• In the Flathead River-Lake ecosystem, the recent introduction of opossum 

 shrimp started a series of reactions. Eventually, the areas's fish predators — in- 

 cluding eagles, otters, coyotes, and bears — were driven away. 



The introduction of NIS is, however, closely correlated with the disappearance of 

 indigenous species in Hawaii and other islands. Biological control agents in Hawaii 

 have been implicated in the loss of 15 indigenous moth species. In Guam, the brown 

 tree snake is believed to have caused extinctions of five species or subspecies of 

 birds and declines of numerous others. If it reaches Hawaii, its effects would prob- 

 ably be similar. 



As of 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered NIS a contributmg fac- 

 tor in listing 160 species as threatened and endangered, or, on average, about 25 

 percent of all listings. Harmful NIS were considered the major cause for listing 41 

 of these species, 23 of which are from Hawaii or Puerto Rico. Even indigenous spe- 

 cies on the U.S. mainland can be pushed dangerously low when harmful NIS com- 

 bine with other environmental stresses such as pollution or habitat destruction. For 

 example, the combination of extensive water projects and the introduction of species 

 better adapted to such altered habitats is considered the major cause of drops m 

 California's indigenous fish, 76 percent of which are declining, threatened, endan- 

 gered, or already extinct. 



THE ADEQUACY OF CURRENT POLICY 



Mr. Sperandio blames the Missouri Conservation Commission and State 

 law for his predicament. He could more rightly cite the Federal Govern- 

 ment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced multiflora 

 rose and encouraged its use. Thus, there is more than enough responsibiUty 

 to go around. 

 It is commonly accepted that the Federal Government has no national poUcy on 

 non-indigenous species. 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 (FWS) has yet to implement the order in regula- 

 tions although specifically directed to do so. , • j 

 Instead, the Nation has responded to harmful NIS with a largely uncoordinated 

 patchwork of laws, regulations, poUcies, and programs. Many only address NIS pe- 

 ripherally, whereas others address the more narrowly drawn problems of the past. 

 In general. Federal efforts only partially match the problems at hand. 



Exclusion and Enforcement 



We may never be able to fully predict the risks of new introductions and, thus, 

 screen organisms properly. However, past intentional and accidental introductions 

 of fish and wildlife have had about equal chances of turning out badly. This sug- 

 gests a history of poor decision-making. For some species— keeping them out is the 

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

 aiming for a standard of "zero entry" is unrealistic and undesirable, especially if ex- 

 clusion comes at the expense of control. 



The Federal Government currently plays a much larger role in preventing the 

 entry of agricultural pests than in excluding other potentially harmful NIS. In fiscal 

 year 1992, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) budgeted 

 at least $100 million for agricultural quarantine and port inspection. This compares 

 to $3 million for port inspections of fish and wildlife requested by FWS. Likewise, 

 the Federal Government devotes significant resources to managing and preventing 

 interstate movement of agricultural pests but little to pests of natural areas or fish 

 and wildlife. , 



Without better goal setting, data gathering, and evaluations, we cannot tell 

 whether pre-introduction screening, monitoring, quarantine, and enforcement are 

 adequate. However, OTA's long list of newly introduced or detected species provides 

 indirect evidence that the system fails with some regularity. These examples provide 

 additional proof: 



