7837 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agencies attested, the simple existence of a ban does not mean that introductions will not occur. Such drastic action would be extremely damag- ing to a wide range of private entities and would dramatically alter many public and private sector research and recreational programs. The Task Force does not recommend that this approach be adopted on a national scale though some species should remain on nationally prohibited lists. The Task Force does not specifically endorse strict adherence to either an approved list or a prohibited list approach, though this may work well for individual States. As was noted in the discussion of existing State laws, both can be useful as a general approach but are more com- monly combined. Again, the important aspect is that all species are subject to formal review. For both prohibited and approved lists, the primary concern was that ecological variation among receiving ecosystems may supplant the usefulness of the list. For example, a tropical species with a narrow temperature tolerance may appropriately be prohibited in warmer regions of the U.S. while the same species may have no problem being approved for use in a colder region where it could not survive an open ecosystem release. Some form of regional listings may help address this concern but the Task Force is not recom- mending this approach at this point. Improvements in the listing of prohibited species under the Lacey Act were discussed and recom- mendations for appropriate review of species not on such lists are presented below ("Permit Systems" section). Many State agencies suggested that better awareness and enforcement of existing prohibi- tions and enforcement authorities may represent the most effective means of reducing ill- considered, illegal introductions. The Task Force agrees and has reflected this in our recommenda- tions in the "Education and Extension" and "Research" sections above. In general, better enforcement via education, tougher and well- advertised penalties, and Federal support for State nonindigenous species programs were most often recommended by the States. Federal fund- ing under Section 1204 (State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act was frequently cited as the Federal authority under which such funding could be provided. To date, the Task Force has received only a few such plans for approval and no appro- priations to fund the grant program. PERMIT SYSTEMS: With the exception of imports, introductions whose potential dispersal sites lie wholly within a single State are and should remain the responsi- bility of that particular State. Though the cover- age and implementation varied widely, nearly all of the States that participated in the policy review cited some form of permit system as a compo- nent of their system of accountability for the movement of aquatic species. Similarly, the Task Force regards the importation of species into the United States as a Federal responsibility. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has authority over and issues permits for importation of plants, insects, biocontrol organ- isms, birds, and other terrestrial animals. However, no Federal permit system is in place that applies generally to the importation of non- indigenous aquatic organisms. Recommendation 4A Establish a Federal permitting system for imports from outside the United States to pro- vide acredible review of proposed new intro- ductions of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. An import permitting system for foreign non- indigenous aquatic organisms could be new or based on the expansion of an existing permit sys- tem. In either case, substantial additional person- nel will likely be required as well as new legislative authority. Though the form and mechanics of a permit sys- tem will continually evolve with its implementa- tion, the following account represents the permit system structure that the Task Force initially rec- ommends. As a guiding principle, the Task Force believes that the rigor of review should be related to the degree of risk involved. The risks involved in a planned release of a species into open waters are greater than the risks involved in introduc- tions intended for closed systems. However, if a permit system is authorized, it may be necessary to set standards for closed systems by regulation. Individuals, organizations or institutions propos- ing to import nonindigenous aquatic organisms would be required to apply for a formal permit to import the species desired. All applications would include information on the source, characteris- tics (physical, behavioral, biological, ecological), and health status of the species to be imported, the purpose and destination of the importation, 20