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

in the review that members of the industry would
have to make multiple applications to different
agencies for the same assessment. The Task
Force considers this to be a legitimate concern
and does not intend that there should be multiple
Federal reviews of the same introduction.
PROTOCOLS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS:
Recommendation 5
The ICES Code of Practice or other acceptable
protocols should be used as a tool to evaluate
introductions.
The United States has been a member of the
International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES) since 1973 and is a signatory to the
ICES Code of Practice (protocol) for reducing
the risks of adverse effects from the introduction
of nonindigenous marine species. The Task
Force considers that the appropriate Federal
agencies, rather than individual States as is often
the current practice, should serve as the point of
contact and coordination for foreign govern-
ments. This would ease the burden of foreign
nations in dealing with the United States and
would allow for a more consistent interpretation
of the code.
The major thrust of the recommendations in this
report is that potential risks related to intentional
introductions of nonindigenous species be
reduced by careful consideration of an introduc-
tion before it occurs. As examples, recommenda-
tions for application of NEPA, implementation of
Executive Order 11987, and the permitting sys-
tem for imports from outside the United States
are all designed to ensure that introductions are
evaluated before being made. As a means of eval-
uating proposed introductions, a number of pro-
tocols have been developed. The Task Force
recognizes that any one "generic" protocol may
not work in all situations. However, general sup-
port is given for the use of protocols in meeting
the information needs of the decision-making
process. Examples of protocols that may serve as
guidelines for satisfactorily addressing environ-
mental concerns include the ICES Code of
Practice (ICES 1984), American Fisheries
Society protocol (Kohler and Courtenay 1986),
and the research protocol developed under this
Act. Summaries of these three protocols are pre-
sented in Appendix G.
Protocols and environmental assessment docu-
ments were generally favored by the Task Force
because they are information-rich decision tools.
As was noted in the discussion of Permit
Systems, the Task Force recommends the use of
environmental assessment documents for pro-
posed importations. Similar use of environmental
assessment documents is also recommended as
one aspect of a Model State Cade (see below).
INTERJURISDICTIONAL
CONSULTATIONS:
In the Options Paper two variations of interjuris-
dictional decision methods were discussed, sec-
ondary review and panel review. The former
received little support during the review process
and will not be discussed here. However, the use
of interjurisdictional review panels was one of the
more broadly supported options. The Task Force
concurs that interjurisdictional panels are an
appropriate forum for consultations on introduc-
tionsthat may affect the resources of multiple
jurisdictions.
Recommendation 6A
State and Federal officials should solicit review
and approval from existing or newly developed
interjurisdictional panels regarding new intro-
ductions that may affect the resources of multi-
ple jurisdictions.
This consultative role was also reflected in the
proposed permit system (see above). The inter-
jurisdictional panel concept was primarily mod-
eled after the various interstate and international
councils and commissions but could easily be
adapted, if a State so chose, to multiple jurisdic-
tions within a single State (e.g., multiple counties
within the same drainage, or multiple agencies
with overlapping responsibility).
Interjurisdictional panels represented something
of a dilemma for resource management agencies
that participated in the policy review. Many
Federal and State agencies expressed support for
interjurisdictional consultation and noted that
they would like to have a voice in decisions that
may significantly impact their ability to manage
resources for which they are responsible. Nearly
all of these same management agencies agreed
22