99 



The 1990 law and the Task Force could have a significant role in preventing the 

 unintentional entry and dissemination of harmful aquatic species. For example, the 

 law provides for Federal grants to States with approved aquatic nuisance manage- 

 ment plans — grants that have been unfunded since authorization. Also, the Lacey 

 Act's limited controls on aquatic imports and interstate movement could be supple- 

 mented as the Task Force develops its "Aquatic Nuisance Species Program." Regula- 

 tions on import and quarantine of aquatic and wetland weeds could fill gaps in the 

 Federal Noxious Weed Act, especially those related to weeds of natural areas. 



However, regulations are not underway or planned in these areas. The Task Force 

 chose to interpret the Act as not addressing aquatic NIS that escape from aqua- 

 culture facilities — excluding significant concerns. Also, States worried that the draft 

 program lacked mechanisms to disperse funds for emergency control. OTA concluded 

 that "the rocky start of the [Task Force] makes its future potential imcertain." 



Federal and State agencies cooperate on many programs related to agricultural 

 pests, but their policies can also conflict, e.g., when different agencies manage adja- 

 cent lands. Federal law preempts State law in some specific cases, more often re- 

 garding agriculture than fish and wildlife. Conflicts between States also occur, often 

 without forums for resolving disputes. A widely cited example is North Dakota's ex- 

 perimental release of the zander, a new sportfish. Both Minnesota and Canada ob- 

 jected to the release, citing ecological and disease risks. 



State laws are relatively complete for agricultural pests, but spotty for inverte- 

 brate and plant pests of nonagricultural areas. The State role is most critical for 

 the import and release of fish and wildlife, where there is less Federal presence. 

 States' fish and wildlife laws use a variety of approaches and vary firom la:: to exact- 

 ing. Many such laws are weak and inadequately implemented. Others, however, 

 present exemplary approaches that could serve as important models, e.g.: 



• The v.'ay Tennessee funds fish and wildlife management fi-om either NIS permit 

 fees or its general fund. 



• The burden of proof required by Georgia before import and release of NIS. 



• Utah's legal and regulatory thoroughness for fish and wildlife. 



• The host of educational material prepared by Ohio Sea Grant and the State De- 

 partment of Natural Resources on the zebra mussel. 



• Maine's control of baitfish imports, upheld in a key 1986 Supreme Court deci- 

 sion. 



Harmful NIS have hit Hawaii and Florida particularly hard because of their dis- 

 tinctive geography, climate, history, and economies. Cooperative efforts have sprung 

 up in both places. Increasingly, State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental orga- 

 nizations, agricultural interests, and universities see harmful NIS as a unifying 

 threat and public education as one important tool to alleviate it. 



POTENTIAL AND PROSPECTIVE FEDERAL ACTIONS 



Expanding environmental education is just one step Congress could take to im- 

 prove U.S. management of harmful NIS. Others might include amendments to the 

 Lacey Act and the Federal Noxious Weed Act to fill gaps and ensure broad interpre- 

 tation. Federal policy cannot succeed without State help. Model State laws or na- 

 tional minimum standards are two possible ways to ensure more adequate authority 

 for States. 



In addition, Congress could require stricter screening for invasiveness m federally 

 funded efforts using NIS. And Congress could provide adequate authority for emer- 

 gency treatment of early NIS infestations — often the only hope for staying ahead of 

 enlarging pest populations. 



Also, Congress might direct additional funds specifically to weed management on 

 public lands and to resource management generally in National Parks and other 

 protected areas. Howevc-r, assigning new responsibilities without money does not 

 work, as the experience of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force has shown. 

 Thus, Congress might consider further the questions of liability and accountability. 

 Congress could, for example, expand the application of entrance or user fees to risk 

 analysis for new introductions. Additional fees and/or higher fines could decrease in- 

 centives to import or spread harmful NIS and fund the control necessitated by those 

 that cause harm. 



In some cases, change is underway. In Congress, Representative Studds expects 

 to introduce legislation on fish and wildlife in the House Merchant Marine and Fish- 

 eries Committee. Senator Dorgan and Representative Rose are drafting separate 

 amendments to the Federal Noxious Weed Act. And we are aware of your amend- 

 ment to the Crime Bill for consolidating enforcement of biological crimes. 



