7837 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that decisions on the introduction of nonindige- nous species could have such impacts. The hesi- tance of some State agencies to support interjurisdictional consultations reflected a simi- lar fear of the loss of control over important deci- sions. In effect, most States wanted a voice in but feared a "veto" over decisions that could affect their ability to set and attain their own manage- ment goals and objectives. Though the Task Force believes that binding decisions reached through interjurisdictional consultation may produce fewer "maverick" decisions and result in a greater reduction in the risks of adverse consequences, the policy review process revealed little precedence for Federally mandated binding authorities for interstate pan- els. Examples do exist of two or more States vol- untarily designating (e.g., through Memoranda of Understanding) a regional panel as a joint reg- ulatory agent with such power as they may jointly confer for the regulation of shared resources. Such a procedure has been set up by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Task Force recognizes therefore that the deliberations of interjurisdictional panels will constitute advi- sory rather than binding decisions. This in no way suggests perfunctory deliberations by such panels. As is the case in existing interstate coun- cils on other issues, deliberations should be broadly participative and scientifically and pub- licly credible. This deliberative process, even if not binding, serves to clarify intentions and helps flesh out potential or previously unforeseen prob- lems. Indeed, the utility of interjurisdictional panels regarding nonindigenous species issues should extend well beyond consultations on the actual decisions of whether or not to introduce a given species. Useful information exchange could include notifications of escape, unexpected dis- persal, illegal introductions that may affect oth- ers, and alterations to State approved or prohibited species lists. Recommendation 6B Interjurisdictional panels should serve as a forum for the sharing of nonindigenous species information; for the coordination, where desir- able, of State laws; and for the development of regional policy. Recommendation 6C Interjurisdictional nonindigenous species con- sultations should include representation from affected parties, i.e., Federal, State, Tribal, public and private interests and, where appro- priate, the international community. Implementation of a system of interjurisdictional review could be based either upon more formal acceptance of this role by existing panels or through the creation of new panels. Existing pan- els could include the large river basin groups (e.g., Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Agreement participants, Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority) or the regional com- mssions (e.g., Great Lakes Commission, regional marine fisheries commissions). Many of these same panels already discuss species intro- ductions on an ad hoc basis, but would likely need additional staff and financial support if they accepted the functions recommended above. While many of these existing panels already encompass a wide spectrum of participants, oth- ers may need to alter their by-laws to allow for such participation. MODEL STATE CODE State regulation of nonindigenous aquatic organ- isms is evolving rapidly. It currently varies from very limited authority or specific involvement to extensive and inclusive management and deci- sion-making approaches. To increase awareness of the approaches used by others, improve State- to-State consistency, and present what the Task Force viewed as an appropriate mix of the exam- ples reviewed, the Task Force has developed a "conceptual" Model State Code (Table 3). The elements arc largely drawn from approaches cited by various States (see Findings section). However, apparently no single State currently encompasses all elements of the Model Code. We believe that it incorporates most of the important concepts that States and others suggested would enable decision making that minimizes the risk of adverse consequences from intentional introduc- tions and would make an effective goal for States to pursue. Several review participants suggested linking a Model State Code to disincentives (e.g., fines or withholding Federal aid funds) for failure to comply. The Task Force does not recommend this linkage. Neither the model code provided herein nor the details of how to establish compli- ance are adequately developed at this point to take such a step. There is also no current legal 23