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

40 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFor plant pathogens, overseas screening bycommodity, along with inspection at ports of exit,might be most effective (91). USDA has focusedon identifying foreign pathogens likely to bedamaging in the United States (89). With a list ofpotential pathogens running to 1,000 pages andlimited detection methods for micro-analysis,complete exclusion at ports of entry is impossible.Pathogens tend to be insidious-they may becomeapparent only after populations are beyondwhat would amount to ‘‘early detection’ forlarger and less mobile NIS. Pathogen hosts mustbe eradicated to eliminate diseases, but manyhosts are valuable commodities, and their destructioncan be costly and controversial.Others have recommended alternative criteriafor setting priorities. For example, Walter Westman,of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory inBerkeley, CA, suggested that priorities might bebased on severity of impact on indigenous biota,with wilderness areas receiving higher prioritythan urban recreation areas. Also, control mightbe emphasized for more easily contained NIS(e.g., those with slow rates of spread, localizedoccurrence, and susceptibility to available methods)and/or those that threaten endangered species.Those NIS that play a role in ecosystemfunction (e.g., controlling soil erosion control orsupporting wildlife) and cannot be readily replacedcould be given lower priority (129).Stanley Temple, a zoologist at the University ofWisconsin, likewise suggests NIS that threatenendemic species on remote islands deserve special,high-priority treatment (103). The InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources (IUCN) took a similar approach.Its Species Survival Commission counseledthat special efforts should be made toeradicate harmful NIS in: islands with a highpercentage of endemic plants and animals, centersof biological uniqueness, areas with high speciesor ecological diversity, and in places where a NISjeopardizes a unique and threatened plant (44).In the long-term, strategic decisionmaking, likebetter detection and more rapid response, requiressolid databases (with information from foreignsources) and substantial taxonomic expertise. Theinadequacy of the former and the dwindling of thelatter are common concerns in the scientificcommunity (ch. 5) (24,60,63).Issue 7: Funding and AccountabilityOption: Congress could increase user fees thatrelate directly to the evaluation, use, andmanagement of potentially or actually harmfulNIS. Also, Congress could require thatrecreational fees collected by Federal landmanagement agencies be made available formanagement of harmful NIS on public lands.Option: Congress could examine the adequacy ofFederal and State fines related to illegal andpoorly planned introductions. If necessary,Congress could develop additionalmechanisms to recoup an increasedproportion of the costs for preventing andminimizing damage from NIS that becomepublic nuisances.Option: Congress could change the Aid-to-Statesprogram to encourage projects that limitdamage from non-indigenous fish and wildlife.Many small-scale efforts related to NIS couldbe improved without large funding increases.Some of the options suggested for issues abovefall into that category. However, some initiativesare large enough to require additional money.These needs are likely to grow as the number andimpact of harmful NIS also grows.Options that give additional responsibilities toFederal or State agencies-e. g., for more complexrisk assessment or earlier pest detection—need to be matched with increased funding if theyare to be effective. The problems faced by theFederal interagency Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesTask Force-delays in reporting to Congress,lack of funding and staff-illustrate what happenswhen new obligations are assigned without theresources to implement them. Some Federal