Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States - Aquatic ...

34 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThe Park Service alone cannot solve its pressingresource management problems. Up to 70percent of the external threats to Parks result fromactions by other Federal agencies or by State orlocal governments (75). This suggests NPS mustwork closely with adjacent land managers. Specifically,Congress could require that NPS initiateagreements for managing those NIS that threatenpark lands from outside their boundaries. Thoseprojects that serve multiple goals, e.g., NISremoval and recovery of endangered species, arethe best candidates for top priority (6).A Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on biologicaldiversity (47) suggested an agency-byagencyapproach to NIS on public lands. Participantsrecommended that each agency: prohibitpotentially harmful new releases of NIS, includingany intended to control indigenous species;identify, control, or replace already establishedNIS; eliminate any newly discovered NIS; andmaintain those beneficial NIS that do not interferewith biological diversity.Congress’ 1990 amendments to the FNWAtook a similar approach, requiring each agency todevelop plans for weed control on lands under itsjurisdiction. The FNWA could further protectnatural areas if this function were more explicit(98). The definition of a Federal noxious weedincludes species affecting ‘‘fish and wildliferesources. Nevertheless, critics complain thatAPHIS has been slow or failed to act on weeds ofnatural areas such as melaleuca and Australianpine (Casuarina equisetfolia) (ch. 8). At leastone State—Washington-has recently providedmore complete protection for natural areas fromweeds (box 7-D) (124).Improved implementation of the Lacey Act andfuture implementation of the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Actmight go far towards protecting natural areasfrom harmful, non-indigenous fish and wildlife(including aquatic invertebrates). Today, however,protection of natural areas from these NIS isalmost nonexistent. For example, mollusks thatharm natural areas continue to arrive in thecountry (ch. 3) (8). APHIS may screen out somemollusks during inspection of plant imports, butonly if they are potential agricultural pests. Justone species would be stopped due to a prohibitionunder the Lacey Act—the well-known zebramussel, which was listed far too late to stop itsspread across the country.Congress might delay further legislation onharmful aquatic NIS until the 1990 NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct is fully implemented, although the Federalinteragency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Forcehas been slow to fulfill its required assignments(table 6-l). Instead, Congress might evaluate theTask Force program to date, urge faster implementation,and ensure that funds are provided forState control in a timely manner.Issue 5: Environmental Educationas PreventionOption: Congress could require that the 20-someFederal agencies involved with NIS developbroadly based environmental educationprograms to increase public awareness ofproblems caused by damaging orunpredictable NIS.Option: Alternately, Congress could develop asmaller scale initiative to take greateradvantage of current programs andinformation.Option: Congress could require that airlines,port authorities, and importers intensify theirpublic educational efforts regarding harmfulNIS.Although public appreciation of U.S. biologicaldiversity is increasing (ch. 4), the differencebetween indigenous and NIS in natural surroundingsis not commonly perceived—thus the neglectof a coherent public policy regardingharmful NIS.Lack of awareness on the part of the public andpolicymakers is mutually reinforcing. Many,