Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 368 561 SE 054 264 TITLE Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Office of Technology Assessment. REPORT NO ISBN-0-16-042075-X; OTA-F-565 PUB DATE Sep 93 NOTE 409p.; Chapter One, The "Summary" has also been printed as a separate publication (OTA-F-566). ANAILABLE FROMU.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. PUB TYPE Books (010) Reports Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC17 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Animals; Biotechnology; Case Studies; Decision Making; *Federal Legislation; Financial Support; Genetic Engineering; International Law; Natural Resources; *Plants (Botany); *Public Policy; Science Education; State Legislation; Weeds; Wildlife Management IDENTIFIERS Environmental Issues; Environmental Management; *Environmental Problems; Florida; Global Change; Hawaii; *Non Indigenous Speciez ABSTRACT Non-indigenous species (NIS) are common in the United States landscape. While some are beneficial, others are harmful and can cause significant economic, environmental, and health damage. This study, requested by the U.S. House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, examined State and Federal policies related to these harmful NIS. The report is presented in 10 chapters. Chapter 1 identifies the issues and options related to the topic and a summary of the findings from the individual chapters that follow. Chapters 2 "The Consequences of NIS" and 3 "The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions" examine basic aspects of NIS, their effects, how many there are, and how they get here. Technologies to deal with harmful NIS, including decision-making methods and techniques for preventing and managing problem species, are covered in chapters 4 "The Application of Decisionmaking Methods" and 5 "Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems." Chapters 6, "A Primer on Federal Policy," 7 "State and Local Approaches from a National Perspective," and 8 "Two Case Studies: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii and Florida" assess what various institutions at the Federal, State, and local levels do, or fail to do, about NIS. Chapters 9 and 10 place NIS in a broader context by examining their relationships to genetically engineered organisms, to international law to other prominent environmental issues, and to choices regarding the future of the nation's biological resources. Appendixes include: lists of boxes, figures, and tables in the document; list of authors, workshop participants, reviewers, and survey respondents for the study; and list of references by chapter. Additional sections contain an index to common and scientific names of species, and a general index. (MDH) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Othcn EducrooneI Re 'match nP Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERICI Thm document heS boon reprOduced as receiveo from the person or organization Onginating it 0 Mrnorchanges have Wen made to imptove reproduction duality Ptente ol vmw or optnionsslated 111 IIrrS dOCU- me nt do not necessarily representotiltrat OE RIposition or policy 4. - TechnoJpgv Aement 1.30gc1.01 the 103T1 Congre ,EDWARD M. KONNEDY, N1 h.litt5ett. DON SUNDQUIST, I coric;',vt.. SENATE HOUSE :E..RNar;T.T HOLUNG:-.3. uih ( .tFi.H11.1 CEORGErE BROWN. J,L1 , Ct AlgORNE PELL'. itho'dc JQHN.D. {DINGELL. Of3RIN.G.;HATCH. .J.CM.McDERtviQT.T., Wooln,1,11 cHARLES E. GHASSLEY.-i,,v..r .AMO HOUGHTON. N.,' %.. .PAVE DURENERGR;.1,1"rznc,L.!,,, ..r.NIII( HA.EL.C.3: OXLEY:(.)11j(*:.; ROGER C HERD.M4N rreithnOloayAssessniat AdvisorvCoone'il f JOSHUA LED)RE.iiG:Ct33,/,7,1i/ JAMES C. HVNT ICJ , 11144:1111, \10111,111. NELL-E..HARL, MAX LENNON 14,v,..,1 State I. ni\ .1' 0...ikknt: tni\ cf CILMINtkri:SIIllth CHARkzES BOWSHER . .CFIASEN PETERSON Irnoll,ci,( kilo of IN,: I 'fiIdefilt.fliVrttfl4 :Ind Prorc...or L LA) Lake ( IIL. UwiS M -BRANSCOMB 1)11., hn,,10,2, A JOS.EPH E. ROSS CM.);2:01011..it I Ii. 3f.'11,;.,' IL\I .11;`.LIk1111, nit CrNI(.. hi: I 0'1,0> W,111.111'.1141. HERBERT (JED) DOAN Vet I., ,JOHN EM. SIMS \LRIkin,t. Prt::kicrfi.I.itiscio)';. I..11,,..th Min.... In, THOMAS J RF:-.RKINS I An hAnk:s. rok,11., t MARINA v N WHITMAN ....HI PI t.. .:1111411i1.1. 1'10,14 Poh, .1 \nn \ 1 i c, I \ %>, 1;1 )1 \\ til 1111111ILECI !IC6'...111V1 h,..h.%.1 a SI 143 I 111. U.S. CONGRESS OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMFNT \-` V ' 1:1', , \,1 ` -, , 47, Reoommended 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 iialc h!, the (.S. Government Printing Office 11 Superintendent of Dm umenti, Mail Stop. ssop, likaiihington, DC 20402d/12g I SBN 0-16-042075X oreword on-indigenous species (NIS)those species found beyond their natural rangesare part and parcel of the U.S. landscape. Many are highly beneficial. Almost all U.S. crops and domesticated animals, many sport fish and aquaculture species, numerous horticultural plants, and most biological 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 MS and their cumulative impacts are crcating 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. 04QRoger C. Herdman, Director 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 Lynn Greenwait Rudolph A. Rosen' J. Baird Callicott National Wildlife Federation Texas Parks and Wildlife University of Wisconsin- Washington, DC Depart ment Austin, TX Stevens Point Robert P. Kahn WI Stevens Point, Consultant Don C. Schmitz Faith 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 Attorney-at-Law James Carlton John D. Lattin Williams College-Mystic Seapcm Sacramento, CA Oregon State University Mystic, CT Corvallis, OR Howard M. Singletary, Jr. North Carolina Department of Alfred Crosby Joseph P. McCraren University of Texas Agriculture National Aquaculture Association Raleigh, NC Austin, TX Shepherdstown, WV Lester E. Ehier Clifford W. Smith Marshall Meyers University of Califorhia University of Hawaii at Manoa Pet Industry Joint Advisory Honolulu, HI Davis, CA Council William Flemer,III Washington, DC Reggie Wyckoff Wm. Flemer's Sons, Inc. National Association of Wheat Robert E. Morris t/a Princeton Nurseries Growers' Associations Northcoast Mortgage Genoa, CO Princeton, NJ Eureka, CA 'Affiliation 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 thoughorul 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. 3Panel member until August, 1991; liaison thereafter. 4After January 1992. roject 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 Caroiyn Swann Peter T. Jenkins