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

Building in Washington, D.C., was attended by a
very diverse group of 25 participants.
At the public meeting, a summary of the options
identified in written r~sponses that were received
prior to February 26t was presented. Following
presentation of the summary and an open micro-
phone session for those in attendance to identify
additional options or detail previous submissions,
Committee members and attendees held an open
forum discussion of the options. The purposes of
the discussion were to tease out any additional
variations and allow participants the opportunity
to begin assessing the potential advantages or
difficulties of each option. To date, more than
100 non-Task Force individuals, groups, and
organizations have already contributed to the
identification of options, including over 90 writ-
ten responses from a wide range of interests.
Summaries of these options are presented in the
following pages and are intended to reflect both
the written responses and comments made at the
public meeting. In most cases, the participant's
suggested approach combined aspects of several
of the outlined options. However, there were so
many variations in how the elements were pack-
aged that the Committee felt it would be useful to
discuss each option separately rather than
attempt to address all of the different combina-
tions. At the broadest policy level, potential
approaches might be summarized as just three
alternatives-laissez faire, a total ban on intro-
ductions, or some intermediate level of control.
None of the participants suggested that the first
was appropriate; several approximated the sec-
ond; most came closer to the third. However, the
Committee needs your help in assessing the more
specific options cited or suggested for use in
implementing these broad strategies.
For the purposes of this paper, the identified
options have been categorized as: 1) prohibitions
& enforcement, 2) permit systems, 3) protocols
or NEPA-like review, 4) interjurisdictional deci-
sion methods, 5) model State codes, 6) educa-
tion and extension, 7) more judicious use of
existing authority, and 8) industry-based codes
of good business practices. These options are not
listed in any particular order. All of the options,
with the exception of #8, were suggested by
more than one respondent and, as mentioned
above, most often two or more of the options
were combined to form an overall approach. The
following discussions of these options and their
potential advantages or difficulties are not pre-
sented here as the recommendations of the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and are
not intended to be assessments of the value or
validity of the cited concerns. Further, their util-
ity is not suggested to be limited to Federal
implementation. Many, in fact, are currently used
by and applicable to State government. They are
presented only for the purposes of identifying
and clarifying a range of options available for
"reducing the risk of adverse consequences asso-
ciated with the intentional introduction of
aquatic organisms" and to better enable you to
assist the Committee in its evaluation of these
options. Once all comments on the Options
Paper have been received and reviewed, the
Committee will prepare a draft Report to
Congress on its "findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations." At that time, opportunity will
again be provided to comment on the document.
THE OPTIONS:
#1. Prohibitions & Enforcement:
Variations of both this (Prohibitions and
Enforcement) and the following option (Permit
Systems) were suggested by many participants
but were particularly commonly cited as existing
forms of State regulation. Cited or suggested
prohibitions varied widely and employed a range
of enforcement tools. Forms of prohibition
included near total bans (on international, inter-
state, and/or interbasin introductions), "dirty
lists," "clean lists," a combination of clean and
dirty lists, or often a general prohibition tied to
some form of permit system.
Suggestions for "total" bans often included
exceptions, for example, for the recovery of
threatened or endangered species or for licensed
breeders to establish certified "clean" brood-
stocks of aquarium fishes. The latter exception
was specifically suggested to be a means of pro-
moting amore U.S.-based industry and reduce
potential overexploitation of native stocks in the
countries of origin. Some of the suggested
broader advantages of an effective ban on intro-
ductionswere administrative simplicity, ecologi-
cal and evolutionary consistency, and the obvious
reduction in risks of adverse consequences
absent any introductions. Suggested difficulties
with such sweeping prohibitions were the
decreased availability of products and uses based
on introduced species and potentially costly
30