130 



I have worked on the effects of NIS on the functioning of whole ecosystems in nat- 

 ural areas of Hawaii (Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and elsewhere). My col- 

 leagues and I have published a number of scientific papers that show unequivocally 

 that invasion by fire tree (Myrica faya) changes the pathway of development and 

 the final state of the new tropical forests and soils that develop following volcanic 

 eruptions — ^the very process a park should protect — in addition to displacing indige- 

 nous Hawaiian species. Similarly, we have shown that invasion by molasses grass 

 (Melinis minutiflora) and other non-indigenous grasses allows fu-es to spread in pre- 

 viously fire-resistant woodland — and thereby converts a diverse native ecosystem 

 into highly flammable biological desert in which only molasses grass thrives. These 

 and other consequences of NIS are dramatic in Hawaii — but they are far fi-om 

 unique there. Invasion of an area by NIS can fundamentally change the way it 

 looks, works, and interacts with its surroundings. 



I would go farther than the OTA report in one respect. It discussed (very well) 

 the effects of global change on NIS. I believe that the ongoing exolosion of biological 

 invasions represents a significant global change in and of itself — one that hasn't 

 captured the attention that global climate change has, but one that is already costly 

 to biological diversity and to our economy (far more than is climate change, now or 

 for some decades to come), and one that is close to irreversible in a sense that even 

 climate change is not. The consequences of NIS are most dramatic — so far — in Ha- 

 waii and other islands, and areas that humans already have altered. However, the 

 rest of the Nation has not escaped. Western rangelands and our fi-eshwater systems 

 have been altered substantially, and even the great eastern forests have suffered 

 the loss or diminishment of species after species (chestnut, elm, beech, fir, and dog- 

 wood) as non-indigenous pests and diseases move in. The direct costs to farmers, 

 ranchers, fishermen, and municipal water users run to billions of dollars a year, and 

 the cost to our national biological heritage is incalculable. 



The scope of the problem is large, and its control will ultimately be costly — but 

 a great improvement in how we cope with NIS could be purchased relatively cheaply 

 and highly cost-effectively. The States must cope with the local and regional fea- 

 tures of the problem — but the Federal Government could do a great deal to interdict 

 interstate and international movement of NIS by expanding the American Public 

 Health Inspection Service, and the scope of its mandate. It is also clearly a Federal 

 responsibility to control NIS on Federal land, one that the dedicated people in the 

 field are close to overwhelmed by. Tens of million of dollars per year are needed for 

 the National Parks system alone. Finally, changes in Federal laws and regulations 

 could help a great deal. For example, regulating NIS by specifying which species 

 may be brought into the U.S. rather than which may not would help. Without a se- 

 rious effort, which means a serious commitment of funds, NIS will continue to de- 

 grade our national biological heritage — and directly cost us much more than any 

 reasonable level of spending on their control. 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. MARY LOU McHUGH 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 



Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement summarizing the Depart- 

 ment of Defense programs to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species into 

 the United States. 



Background 



Historically, the Department of Defense (DOD) has cooperated with the Federal 

 Border Clearance agencies responsible for the prevention of the introduction of non- 

 indigenous species into the United States. Under the supervision of the U.S. Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture and the U.S. Customs Service advisors, DOD personnel have 

 been conducting pre-shipment inspections of personnel and materiel leaving the 

 overseas theaters. Although originally established to halt the flow of drugs and 

 other contraband into the U.S. through military controlled transportation, the pro- 

 gram has enforced all U.S. laws and regulations established by the border clearance 

 agencies. In a similar manner, the overseas military postal system operates under 

 the policies established by the U.S. Postal Service, which includes prohibitions on 

 mailing plants and animals as specified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 



The regulating U.S. border clearance agencies include the Department of Agri- 

 culture (tor agricultural pests and dirt), the Department of Transportation and the 

 Environmental Protection Agency, (privately owned vehicles), the Bureau of Alcohol, 

 Tobacco, and Firearms (weapons), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered 

 species), the U.S. Public Health Service (human disease and disease vectors), and 

 the Immigration and Naturalization Service (immigrants). The DOD program was 



