100 



Meanwhile, this initial OTA study has spawned additional research on biological 

 pest control at OTA. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are 

 organizing an interagency working group to tackle weed problems on public lands. 

 They, like other Federal agencies, are responding to requirements in the 1990 Farm 

 Bill. APHIS is making policy and program changes that respond to OTA's concerns. 

 For instance, APHIS' pilot project imder the Government Performance and Results 

 Act will set objectives and standards for pest exclusion for the first time. The Soil 

 Conservation Service is incorporating OTA's critique in its 5-year resource appraisal 

 required by the 1977 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act. And the Aquatic 

 Nuisance Species Task Force continues its work. 



While these initial steps are important and gratifying, OTA identified some other 

 larger and longer-term issues that only Congress can resolve. These are questions 

 of national values. Certainly better management of harmful NIS will save money. 

 It will also help conserve the resources that we are committed by law and treaty 

 to protect. But there is another, less tangible benefit. 



Picture the acres of vast wetlands along the Atlantic coast, the salmon fisheries 

 of the Pacific Northwest, and the vast canyon lands of the West. Consider the 

 unique dunes around Lake Michigan and our only tropical lands in Hawaii and 

 Puerto Rico. Imagine the miles of wheat, com, rice, Douglas fir, and loblolly pine 

 that stretch from border to border. 



Our country possesses a rich, one-of-a-kind inheritance of plants, animals, and mi- 

 crobes. Failing to limit harmful NIS threatens industries based on beneficial ones 

 and obscures our Nation's uniqueness. In the process, we risk squandering our coun- 

 try's natural and agricultural heritage. Ultimately, only Congress can enact a vision 

 to protect our country's biological legacy. And only Congress can determine what 

 level of risk we are willing to accept. 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT DAVISON 



Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with a summary of the 

 efforts, policies, and concerns of the Department of the Interior regarding the intro- 

 duction of non-indigenous species. 



The global transfer of non-indigenous organisms is one of the most pervasive and 

 perhaps least recognized effects of humans on the ecosystems of the world. In order 

 for this issue to be addressed effectively, we must start from an understanding that 

 any introduced species that survives the transfer will interact with the community 

 it colonizes. 



Human-mediated transport has largely removed the natural barriers to invasion 

 that are partly responsible for the evolution of distinct ecosystems. This new found 

 mobility of species has had profound environmental and economic consequences. 



As documented in the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report, Harmful 

 Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, many non-indigenous species have 

 been transferred unintentionally (ballast water and other means), while others were 

 intentionally introduced to meet human purposes (landscaping, biological control, 

 recreational fishing, food production, and the aquarium trade). 



It is important to realize that once a species is introduced into an open ecosystem, 

 it is extremely difficult (often virtually impossible) to remove it — introduction, like 

 extinction, is forever. Thus, the most important strategy is to prevent the introduc- 

 tion and consequent spread of harmful non-indigenous species. 



Non-indigenous species are neither inherently "good" nor "bad", and some species 

 produce both good and bad ecological and economic consequences, depending on lo- 

 cation and society's perceptions. Of the thousands of non-indigenous species in the 

 United States, many provide enormous benefits, especially in agriculture. However, 

 15 percent (675) have been identified as having severe, unwanted economic costs. 

 In the last century, just 79 of these 675 species cost the American public an esti- 

 mated $97 biUion in damage to natural resources and industrial productivity. Costs 

 of just 15 existing non-indigenous species in the United States are expected to ex- 

 ceed $100 billion over the next 50 years. For example, the zebra mussel is expected 

 to cost about $400 million per year in the Great Lakes Basin alone. The sea lamprey 

 has cost millions of dollars in losses to recreational and commercial fisheries and 

 millions of dollars in control programs since its entry into the Great Lakes in the 

 19208. These figures imply a heavy burden on the American public and institutions, 

 and do not take into account future introductions. 



Some areas have experienced particularly high numbers of introductions. Hawaii, 

 for example, has more than 3,000 non-indigenous species, many of which have been 

 cited as factors in the high rate of extinction in the archipelago's largely endemic 

 biota. In the Great Lakes, at least 139 non-indigenous aquatic organisms have be- 



