Laserfiche WebLink
with "primary consideration" given to the possi- <br />ble adverse effects of the species. Illinois also has <br />restricted and prohibited species lists but is <br />largely guided by an approved list that primarily <br />includes native and long-established nonindige- <br />nous species that the State feels pose no threat. It <br />is illegal "to culture, transport, stock, import <br />and/or possess" any species not on the approved <br />list until such action has been the subject of a <br />permit review; in the case of aquacultural <br />species, by an interagency advisory committee. <br />As can be seen, the approaches of the two States <br />are quite different. However, an important simi- <br />larity is that regardless of the form of the initial <br />screening, all other species (for which they have <br />authority) are subject to some type of formal <br />review. Such reviews lend a measure of account- <br />ability to both the permittee and the agencies. <br />Other States have gone, or expect to go, a step <br />further in terms of accountability by placing con- <br />tingency or liability requirements on permittees. <br />Draft rules for marine resources provided to the <br />Task Force by the Florida Department of Natural <br />Resources noted that applications for a special <br />activity license for the culture of a broad group of <br />protected marine species must include "contin- <br />gency plans in the event of a natural disaster, <br />such as a hurricane, to prevent specimens from <br />entering the state's waters." The draft rules also <br />make it illegal "to release into waters of the state <br />any nonindigenous marine animal" or to use <br />nonindigenous species as bait. Hawaii adds <br />accountability to its own decision-making <br />process by including "extensive review by the sci- <br />entific and environmental communities." <br />Additionally, in cases where permit violations <br />"result in the escape or establishment of any pest <br />and caused the department to initiate a program <br />to capture, control, or eradicate that pest, the <br />court shall also require that person or importer to <br />pay...an amount...based upon the cost of the <br />development and implementation of the <br />program." <br />In Florida, a State where the director of the <br />Department of Natural Resource's Division of <br />Resource Management suggested that "the <br />spread of exotic species-biological pollution- <br />is the most serious environmental problem facing <br />Florida today" (Craft 1991), a number of addi- <br />tional measures have been taken to reduce the <br />risks of adverse effects from introductions of <br />nonindigenous species. The Florida Bureau of <br />Aquatic Plant Management regularly monitors <br />for the presence of nonindigenous aquatic plants; <br />when necessary, dispatches personnel to remove <br />those considered to be deleterious; and routinely <br />examines imports and nursery facilities. Schardt <br />and Schmitz (1990) report that these activities <br />have prevented the entry and spread of a number <br />of potentially problematic species. Florida also <br />mandates very specific requirements for outdoor <br />facilities that hold certain restricted aquatic <br />species, e.g., the surrounding levee must be at <br />least one foot above the 100-year flood level, <br />have either no water discharge or a barrier sys- <br />tem adequate to prevent escape of any life stage, <br />and be inaccessible to the public. Though the <br />100-year floodplain was often cited by other <br />review participants as an appropriate restriction, <br />the important aspects of Florida's requirements <br />are not its specific requirements so much as its <br />clear recognition of the importance of effective <br />containment. <br />The State of Washington has an extensive system <br />of rules "to protect the aquaculture industr~~ [fin- <br />fish, shellfish, amphibians, and marine plants] <br />and wild stock fisheries from loss of productivity <br />due to aquatic diseases or maladies." The system <br />variously involves geographic limitations, <br />pathogen inspection certifications, quarantines, <br />site and product inspections, user fees, and com- <br />pliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. <br />As in Washington, a few other States also cited <br />the need to adhere to an environmental review <br />process. In Montana, transplant or introduction <br />of any wildlife is prohibited "unless it is deter- <br />mined through scientific investigation and after <br />public hearing" that the species poses no signifi- <br />cant harm to native wildlife and plants. At least in <br />the case of fish, this scientific investigation <br />requires preparation of an environmental review <br />in compliance with provisions of the Montana <br />Environmental Policy Act. The Montana <br />Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks <br />expressed a sentiment shared by many other <br />States in noting that it "has been taking an <br />increasingly cautious approach to intention~il <br />introduction of aquatic species." <br />The Illinois Department of Conservation <br />reported that introductions into boundary waters <br />are discussed at various interstate forums ar-d <br />may lead to "advisory decisions" by such bodies. <br />Several of the Great Lakes area States cited the <br />Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a forum for <br />shared management decisions. Similarly, the <br />Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission <br />provides a structured forum for the examination <br />of interjurisdictional transfers of shellfish. The <br />11 <br />