Laserfiche WebLink
to species not native to a receiving ecosystem. <br />For example, although both occur naturally in the <br />United States the desert pupfish is not native to <br />the Great Lakes nor is the walleye (Stizostedion <br />vitreum vitreum) native to Ash Meadows, <br />Nevada. <br />Among the comments on the proposed Report, <br />was a comment that a broad interpretation of the <br />definition was not justified. It was argued that a <br />narrower definition was intended and that imple- <br />mentation of the Executive Order should be lim- <br />ited to introductions of foreign species that have <br />not become established anywhere in the United <br />States. The Task Force believes that Executive <br />Order 11987 should generally apply to the move- <br />ment of a nonindigenous species from any <br />ecosystem to another as the result of human <br />intervention and that without a broad definition <br />of "exotic species" the Order would be of limited <br />utility. Consistent with other recommendations, <br />the Task Force believes that in implementing the <br />Executive Order, the primary focus should be on <br />new introductions and not on established non- <br />indigenous species. <br />EO 11987 states that Federal executive agencies <br />shall, to the extent permitted by law, restrict the <br />introduction of exotic species into the natural <br />ecosystem on lands and waters which they own, <br />lease, or hold for purposes of administration <br />(Section 2(a)) and, to the extent authorized, <br />shall restrict the introduction of exotic species <br />into any natural ecosystem of the United States <br />(Section 2(b)). It further states that executive <br />agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, <br />restrict the use of Federal funds, programs, or <br />authorities to export native species for the pur- <br />pose of introducing such species into ecosystems <br />outside the United States where they do not nat- <br />urally occur (Section 2(c)). The Executive Order <br />does not apply if the Secretary of Agriculture or <br />the Secretary of the Interior specifically finds that <br />such introduction or exportation will not have an <br />adverse impact on natural ecosystems (Section <br />2(d)). While some Federal agencies have devel- <br />oped internal procedures for complying with EO <br />11987, none has followed through with a rule <br />making and adopted a published procedure. This <br />leaves Federal agencies without any accountable <br />system of assuring compliance. Though the Task <br />Force has taken the position that only a broad <br />interpretation of the Executive Order is ecologi- <br />cally credible, the question of definition is likely <br />to remain unresolved until specific action is taken <br />to implement it. The combination of NEPA and <br />EO 11987 may be viewed as Federal policy on <br />nonindigenous species and their use under exist- <br />ing Federal authorities. EO 11987 provides a <br />baseline criterion while NEPA provides proce- <br />dural guidance to the decision-making process. <br />Recommendation 3D <br />Federal agencies should not provide financial <br />assistance for new introductions of aquatic <br />nonindigenous species (plant or animal) <br />unless the proposed introduction is consistent <br />with EO 11987 and other existing or new <br />Federal authorities (e.g., Endangered Species <br />Act, NEPA, and the recommended permit sys- <br />tem [see 4A below] when developed). <br />A number of Federal sources fund research on <br />and use of nonindigenous species. The <br />Department of Commerce and Department of <br />Agriculture funds have been used to investigate <br />the aquaculture potential of nonindigenous <br />species. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />funded the use of a nonindigenous plant species, <br />Spartina alterniflora, in San Francisco Bay. The <br />Federal program that received the most attention <br />in the policy review process was funding under <br />the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. <br />This program provides Federal aid to States for <br />the management and restoration of fish having <br />"material value in connection with sport or recre- <br />ation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the <br />United States." Funds raised through Federal <br />excise taxes are permanently appropriated to the <br />Secretary of Interior for paying up to 75% of the <br />cost of approved projects (e.g., habitat improve- <br />ment, fish stocking, fishery research and moni- <br />toring, and access facilities). Discussion of the <br />Sport Fish Restoration Act concentrated on the <br />use of Federal funds for projects that use non- <br />indigenous species. As noted above, many States <br />have become dependent upon the use of non- <br />indigenous species. Similarly, many States rely <br />upon Sport Fish Restoration Act funds to sup- <br />port their ongoing programs. Nonetheless, in <br />light of the noted conflicts between sport fishing <br />related introductions of nonindigenous species <br />and the endangerment or extinctions of indige- <br />nous species, the Task Force feels that future <br />expenditures of Federal funds for using non- <br />indigenous species need to be reviewed. <br />This does not mean that Sport Fish Restoration <br />Act or other Federal funds should not be used to <br />support activities that employ nonindigenous <br />species, particularly if potential unanticipated <br />17 <br />