Laserfiche WebLink
were only added after they had already become <br />established. <br />Improvements need to be made in Federal <br />responsibility for imports through increased <br />responsiveness of Lacey Act activities and more <br />systematic and thorough review of proposed <br />imports of aquatic organisms. One means of <br />expediting injurious species listings may be <br />through the use of expert panels for initial listing <br />recommendations and creating the authority for <br />emergency listings. While perhaps appropriate <br />for a few very widely distributed species or con- <br />trolled uses, the Task Force does not endorse the <br />use of a uniform national approved list (="clean <br />list") approach because regional environments <br />vary sufficiently that a species approved for one <br />area may more appropriately be prohibited in <br />another (see Prohibitions and Enforcement sec- <br />tion below). Some form of regionally approved <br />list may help deal with this complication but the <br />Task Force instead supports more of a case-by- <br />case approach. Further discussion of this <br />approach and the import review system cited in <br />#4 above is presented in the "Permit Systems" <br />section below. <br />In response to comments received, the Task <br />Force recommends that additional attention be <br />given to identification of pathogens and parasites <br />of concern that may have impacts on wild popu- <br />lations or on species being raised in aquaculture <br />facilities. It is suggested that priority be given to <br />diseases affecting crustaceans and mollusks and <br />to fish that may be stocked into open waterways. <br />The existing regulations on salmonid diseases <br />require certification that imports are specific <br />pathogen-free, but industry has indicated that it <br />would appreciate clarification as to who might be <br />competent to make such certifications. The Task <br />Force recommends that the appropriate Federal <br />agencies work with industry to set meaningful <br />certification requirements. <br />Recommendation 3F <br />The appropriate Federal agencies should: 1) <br />expedite the listing process for noxious weeds, <br />2) develop the required management programs <br />for undesirable plants, and 3) encourage the <br />use of Federal-State-private partnerships in <br />developing the authorized control and preven- <br />tion programs. <br />The Federal Noxious Weed Act delegates to the <br />Secretary of Agriculture the authority to desig- <br />nate plants (including aquatic plants) as noxious <br />weeds and prohibits the movement of such <br />species in interstate and foreign commerce <br />except by permit. Permits are obtained through <br />the USDAAnimal and Plant Health Inspection <br />Service (APHIS). Authority was also given to <br />inspect, seize, and destroy products, or quaran- <br />tineareas and to develop cooperative programs <br />as needed to control, eradicate, or prevent the <br />spread of noxious weeds. The ] 990 amendments <br />to the Noxious Weed Act broadened the concept <br />of noxious weeds to undesirable plants and <br />included plants "that are classified as undesir- <br />able, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poi- <br />sonous, pursuant to State or Federal law." They <br />also required Federal land management agencies <br />to develop undesirable plant management <br />programs. <br />As with the Lacey Act, there often has not been <br />adequate review of potential problem species <br />under the Noxious Weed Act prior to introduc- <br />tion. In many instances, species are listed after <br />they have become established and created <br />problems. <br />As under the Lacey Act recommendations, one <br />means of expediting the listing process may be to <br />involve expert panels in a more proactive review <br />of potential noxious weeds in order to maintain <br />an up to date listing. Again, a further discussion <br />of an import review system is presented in the <br />"Permit Systems" section below. <br />PROHIBITIONS AND <br />ENFORCEMENT: <br />The Task Force makes no specific recommen- <br />dation under this option other than increased <br />attention to the enforcement of existing author- <br />ities. Instead, several related recommendations <br />are re-emphasized and additional observations <br />are presented on the Task Force's view of the <br />utility of some of the suggested approaches to <br />prohibition and enforcement. <br />As noted, several policy review participants sup- <br />ported essentially total bans on the use of non- <br />indigenous species. Obviously if there is no <br />introduction, there is no associated risk. An <br />effective total ban on the use of nonindigenous <br />species would represent the option with the <br />greatest risk reduction and the least disruption of <br />the ecological and evglutionary integrity of <br />ecosystems. However, as a number of State <br />19 <br />