Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States September 1993 OTA-F-565 NTIS order #PB94-107679 GPO stock #052-003-01347-9 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993). For Sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office ii Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop, SSOP. Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN O-1 6-042075-X Foreword on-indigenous species (NIS)-----those species found beyond their natural ranges—are part and parcel of the U.S. landscape. Many are highly beneficial. Almost all U.S. crops and domesticated animals, many sport fish and aquiculture species, numerous horticultural plants, and most biologicalN control organisms have origins outside the country. A large number of NIS, however, cause significant economic, environmental, and health damage. These harmful species are the focus of this study. The total number of harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts are creating a growing burden for the country. We cannot completely stop the tide of new harmful introductions. Perfect screening, detection, and control are technically impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Federal and State policies designed to protect us from the worst species are not safeguarding our national interests in important areas. These conclusions have a number of policy implications. First, the Nation has no real national policy on harmful introductions; the current system is piecemeal, lacking adequate rigor and comprehensiveness. Second, many Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading non-indigenous pests. Third, better environmental education and greater accountability for actions that cause harm could prevent some problems. Finally, faster response and more adequate funding could limit the impact of those that slip through. This study was requested by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee; its Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and the Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes; the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and by Representative John Dingell. In addition, Representatives Amo Houghton and H. James Saxton endorsed the study. We greatly appreciate the contributions of the Advisory Panel, authors of commissioned papers, workshop participants, survey respondents, and the many additional people who reviewed material. Their timely and indepth assistance enabled us to do the extensive study our requesters envisioned. As with all OTA studies, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of OTA. Roger C. Herdman, Director iii Advisory Panel Marion Cox John Grandy Philip J. Regal Chair Humane Society of the U.S. University of Minnesota Resource Associates Gaithersburg, MD Minneapolis, MN Bethesda, MD 1 Lynn Greenwalt Rudolph A. Rosen J. Baird Callicott National Wildlife Federation Texas Parks and Wildlife University of Wisconsin- Washington, DC Department Stevens Point Austin, TX Robert P. Kahn Stevens Point, WI Consultant Don C. Schmitz Fait h Thompson Campbell Rockville, MD Florida Department of Natural Natural Resources Defense Resources William B. Kovalak Tallahassee, FL council Detroit Edison Co. Washington, DC Detroit, MI Jerry D. Scribner James Carlton Attorney-at-Law John D. Lattin Williams College-Mystic Seaport Sacramento, CA Oregon State University Mystic, CT Corvallis, OR Howard M. Singletary, Jr. Alfred Crosby North Carolina Department of Joseph P. McCraren Agriculture University of Texas National Aquiculture Association Austin, TX Raleigh, NC Shepherdstown, WV Lester E. Ehler Clifford W. Smith Marshall Meyers University of California University of Hawaii at Manoa Pet Industry Joint Advisory Honolulu, HI Davis, CA council William Flemer, Ill Washington, DC Reggie Wyckoff Wm. Flemer’s Sons, Inc. National Association of Wheat Robert E. Morris Growers’ Associations t/a Princeton Nurseries Northcoast Mortgage Genoa, CO Princeton, NJ Eureka, CA 1Affiliatiion provided for identification only. iv EXECUTIVE BRANCH LIAISONS Gary H. Johnston Robert Peoples William S. Wallace U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Arlington, VA Washington, DC Kenneth Knauer2 Katherine H. Reichelderfer3 Melvyn J. Weiss4 U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Washington, DC Washington, DC NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and though&d critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. 2Until January 1992. 3 Panel member August, 1991; liaison thereafter. 4After January 1992. Preject Staff Walter E. Parham Phyllis N. Windle ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Program Manager Project Director Food and Renewable Resources Nathaniel Lewis Program Office Administrator ANALYTICAL STAFF Nellie Hammond Elizabeth Chornesky Administrative Secretary Analyst Carolyn Swarm Peter T. Jenkins Personal Computer Specialist Analyst Steven Fondriest Research Assistantl Kathleen E. Bannon Research Assistant2 Christine Mlot Editor 1 Until January 8, 1993. ‘After April 12, 1993. vi c ontents 1 Summary, Issues and Options 1 Summary of Findings 1 Policy Issues and Options 15 Chapter Review 50 2 The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 51 What’s In and What’s Out: Focus and Definitions 51 Do We Know Enough To Assess the Situation? 54 Benefits of Introductions 56 When Non-Indigenous Species Cause Problems 57 Economic Costs 63 Health Costs 69 Environmental Costs 70 Relationship to Biological Diversity 74 Chapter Review 76 3 The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 77 Pathways: Humans Increase the Movement of Species 77 How Many Non-Indigenous Species Are There? 91 Factors Affecting Pathways and Rates 96 How Many Is Too Many? 97 Chapter Review 100 4 The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 107 Which Species Are Imported and Released? 108 Which Species Are Controlled or Eradicated? 110 Common Decisionmaking Approaches 111 Decisionmaking Protocols 125 Values in Decisionmaking 129 New Syntheses of Diverse Approaches 131 Chapter Review 136 5 Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 137 Technologies for Preventing Unintentional and Illegal Introductions 137 Technologies for Managing Established Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 143 Related Issues 157 Chapter Review 162 vii 6 A Primer on Federal Policy 163 Lessons From the Primer 163 Current National Policy 166 Policies and Programs of Federal Agencies 170 Chapter Review 200 7 State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 201 The Relationship Between the Federal Government and the States 201 Relationships Among States 207 State Laws Regulating Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release 208 State Laws on Non-Indigenous Plants, Insects, and Other Invertebrate Animals 221 Proposed Model State Laws 227 Local Approaches 229 Chapter Review 231 8 Two Case Studies: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii and Florida 233 Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii 234 Non-Indigenous Species in Florida 254 Chapter Review 266 9 Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 267 Sources of Controveny 268 Federal Regulation of GEO Releases 272 Ecological Risk Assessment 279 Chapter Review 285 10 The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 287 Increasing Global Trade and Other Socioeconomic Trends 287 Technological Changes 293 Treaties and the Movement of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 294 From Trends to Predictions 298 Wrap-up: The Choices Before Us 306 APPENDIXES A List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 307 B Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents 311 C References 319 SPECIES INDEX 371 INDEX 380 Vlli Issues, and Options 1 he movement of plants, animals, and microbes beyond their natural range is much like a game of biological roulette. Once in a new environment, an organism may simply die. Or it may take hold and reproduce, but with littleT noticeable effect on its surroundings. But sometimes a new species spreads unimpeded, with devastating ecological or economic results. This latter category-including species like the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)-is largely the focus of, and the reason for, this assessment. This opening chapter both summarizes the assessment and spells out the policy issues and options for Congress that emerged from the analysis. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The summary portion of this chapter compiles the more detailed findings from the individual chapters that follow (box 0 1-A). It is organized to reflect the three focal points of the report: 00 0 . an overview of the status of harmful non-indigenous species 0 0 0 “0 (MS) in the United States (chs. 2, 3); 00 o an analysis of the technological issues involved in dealing 000 with harmful NIS (chs. 4, 5, 9); and 0 ● an examination of the institutional organization in place (chs. 6, 7). Two chapters cut across these areas. Chapter 8 presents detailed case studies for two States with particularly severe NIS-related problem-Hawaii and Florida. Chapter 10 discusses the future and the international context in which NIS issues will evolve. In each case, the pertinent chapter provides additional docu- mentation. 1 2 Harmful