7837 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

viable wild stocks exist to use of the local wild stock (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization 1992) . Several over-arching themes guided the develop- ment of recommendations. Perhaps most impor- tant among these is that although nonindigenous species have been and continue to be both a source of significant benefits to many sectors of American society and a serious threat to the maintenance of biological diversity, nonindige- nous species issues in general are vastly under- recognized. Asecond current that ran though the deliberations and much of the public participa- tion is that a better understanding of and accountability for the effects of introductions is needed at every level. It was also felt that a bal- ance needed to be struck between greater risk reduction and accommodating the current activi- ties and economies that depend on the use of nonindigenous species. At this stage therefore, it was concluded that a useful compromise would be that the recommendations should generally apply only to "new" introductions. There is one departure from this general principle in the rec- ommendations. As a general management prac- tice, the Task Force recommended that ongoing introduction of nonindigenous species be period- ically reviewed. "New" introductions include movements of species into ecosystems where they do not presently occur. Thus, moving black bullhead (Ameiurus melns) from Illinois to Alaska or Pacific oyster (Crassoslrea gigas) from waters or hatcheries in the State of Washington to the Chesapeake Bay would constitute a new intro- duction. This also specifically means that ongo- ing introductions into ecosystems where the species is nonindigenous but is already estab- lished (e.g., brown trout in the Madison River system, MT) would not be considered new and thus largely unaffected by the recommendations. Substantial differences may exist between pro- posals to introduce species into open aquatic ecosystems and introductions to more secure facilities, e.g., many aquarium supply and aqua- cultural facilities. Though escape or spread from the site of introduction has certainly occurred under both conditions, one obvious difference is that containment measures can be under much greater control in the latter situations. In general then, somewhat different approaches may be appropriate-e.g., while direct introductions may require a full assessment of the potential environ- mental effects, a limited assessment in conjunc- tion with containment, contingency, or liability measures may be appropriate for introductions into more secure facilities. Finally, jurisdictional issues need to be clarified. The Task Force regards the importation of species into the United States as clearly falling under Federal jurisdiction. Similarly, with the exception of imports, introductions whose poten- tial dispersal sites lie wholly within a single State are and should remain the responsibility of that particular State. There are many cases, however, that do not easily fall into either of these cate- gories. Examples would include introductions directly into bodies of water that constitute inter- state borders or that course through more than one State; introductions into other waters from which they are likely to spread to interstate waters; or introductions within State waters that may affect Federally significant resources (e.g., national parks, marine sanctuaries). The inter- state movement of species is another area where State authorities are currently the primary guide to decision making (though Federal statutes such as the Lacey Act and Noxious Weed Act do come into play) but the resources of more than one jurisdiction may be affected by the decision. The recommendations address situations that fit into all of these jurisdictional settings. The Task Force was acutely aware of the jurisdic- tional division between the Federal government and State governments. In several instances it rejected options that would have provided a greater degree of Federal control over State man- agement of introductions. It limited the permit- ting recommendation to imports from outside the United States despite one comment that pointed out that the interstate commerce clause provided constitutional authority to cover intro- ductions from within the United States. It chose to make interjurisdictional recommendations nonbinding. The Task Force also chose not to tie either incentives or disincentives to the Model State Code. Nevertheless, several State agencies expressed the view that the recommendations contained in the Proposed Report to Congress would unduly infringe on the traditional State authority for management of fish and wildlife resources. Some comments cited Section 1205 of the Act which provides: "Nothing in this title shall affect the authority of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce control measures for 4