7837

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7837
• Author: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
• Title: Report To Congress, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review.
• USFW Year: 1994.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

the containment/confinement conditions under
which the species is to be maintained, and means
of decontamination (if applicable) and eventual
disposal at the termination of permitted use of
the species. Additionally, for importations for
proposed direct releases into open aquatic
ecosystems, an environmental assessment docu-
ment (e.g., that follows the ICES Code of
Practice) would be required.
Permit applications would be evaluated by a per-
manent professional staff with appropriate exper-
tise. Applications may be granted, granted
subject to certain conditions, or denied. Site vis-
its may be necessary to evaluate conditions and
adequacy of facilities. Testing of organisms or
source of organisms to be imported may be
required to provide information of certain dis-
ease organisms or parasites, strain or other
genetic identification, or behavioral characteris-
tics. Species for which little or no information is
available would require more stringent contain-
ment, confinement, or isolation facilities than
would species and specific importations about
which much information is known.
Recommendation 4B
The USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service should establish a joint permit review
process. Congress should take appropriate leg-
islative action recommended by the
Administration to authorize the agreed to
process.
This recommendation capitalizes on the expertise
of many different agencies and interests, and
would in a tangible way protect the interests of
aquaculture, natural resources, and marine and
coastal fisheries. An example of a joint approval
of permits presently takes place between APHIS
and the Environmental Protection Agency for
genetically engineered microbial pesticides.
Consistent with recommendation #3E.2 and the
discussion of prohibitions, some organisms (e.g.,
those currently listed under the Noxious Weed
Act and Lacey Act, and others as appropriate)
will be prohibited from permit issuance because
of their behavioral or other characteristics detri-
mental to plants, animals, natural ecosystems or
human health or activity, or their potential for
such effects. Exceptions would be granted only
when considered advisable by an interagency
multidisciplinary panel or advisory committee (as
currently practiced by APHIS' Parent Committee
on Importation of Foreign Pathogens), under
strictly prescribed containment.
Permits will generally need to be issued on a
case-by-case basis. However, for some species or
species groups for which there is a great deal of
information and experience, species with a his-
tory of use in existing commercial practice with
no detrimental effects either evident or suspected
(e.g., tropical aquarium fishes in northern
States), or species already established in an area,
categorical exclusions or simplified permit
processes can be developed. Processes for the
assessment of potential environmental effects
would have to be developed and implemented.
Adequate authority and capabilities for site and
import inspections and, if necessary, quarantines
will be needed. The need for quarantines would
be lessened should the proposed receiving facility
have a closed water circulation system or be
equipped with adequate effluent treatment sys-
tems to avoid the spread of the organism and its
pathogens. Standards for the classification of
open and closed systems would need to be devel-
oped. Aschematic flow chart of the decision-
making process under the proposed permit
system is presented in Appendix F.
Of all of the recommendations made in the pro-
posed report, the recommendation fora permit-
ting system generated the most controversy. Both
the aquarium and aquaculture industries had
strong misgivings over the recommendation.
A number of tropical fish dealers expressed the
view that such a requirement would put them out
of business. They noted that it is not always pos-
sible to identify species contained in live fish
shipments in advance. With up to 3,000 different
fish species being imported and little advance
notice, they said that adequate assessment would
not be possible during the short period of time
required to keep fish alive. Home hobbyists indi-
cated concern that a permitting system would
limit their access to different species.
Many in the aquaculture industry also opposed a
permitting system. They expressed concern that
the review process would result in economic
costs because of paperwork requirements and
delays caused by the review process. They were
particularly concerned by what they termed "lay-
ering" in relation to this issue. There was fear
that because there are multiple recommendations
21