Aquatic Invasive Species Affirmative - Michigan7 2014 GRAMS

1AC
1AC squo
Contention 1 is the status quo
Aquatic Invasive Species are flooding into the United States ship ballast
and lack of regulation
Boothe 8 James, J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2006, Drake University
(Defending the Homeland: A Call to Action in the War Against Aquatic Invasive Species, 2008-09,
HeinOnline Law Review \\CLans)
Before addressing the prevention of AIS introduction, it
is important to understand how these organisms

end up residing in a habitat that is foreign to them in the first place. AIS arrive in new
habitats with both intentional and unintentional assistance from humans ! Intentional AIS
introductions are not necessarily nefarious.8 In fact, intentional introductions can occur when a
particular species is initially introduced for its perceived or actual benefits.' For example, intentional
introductions may be desirable for aquaculture or seafood production purposes, with the risk resulting from unexpected
consequences or improper control of such species.'" Other
methods of AIS introduction include the ballast

water of ships, recreational boating, live fishing bait, aquarium releases, canals, and semisubmersible oil platforms." Ballast water is the primary means of AIS introduction and is a significant part of what is
addressed by the statutory and regulatory regime.'2 Thus, it is worthwhile to gain a better understanding of this process.
Whenever a ship travels from port to port, either without cargo or with anything less than a full capacity of
cargo on board, it must take on ballast water before departing in order to make a transoceanic trip safely.'3 Upon
arrival at a new port, the ship discharges its ballast water as it takes on the weight of cargo,
releasing foreign water, and with it any organisms and eggs that may be in the ballast
water, into the waters of that port." Even ships that leave their original port with a full load of cargo (and thus no ballast water)
retain some amount of residual water in their ballast tanks along with organisms and eggs that can be released into a foreign port
during a later ballast discharge." Approximately
50,000 ships enter American ports from overseas

any given ship may hold more than twenty-one million gallons of ballast water.'6
It is clear the risk of AIS introduction through ballast water discharges is significant .
each year, and
Aquatic Invasive Species are flooding into the United States lakes prove
Gunderson 2013 (Sep 19 2012, Minnesota Public Radio writer citing DNR (department of natural
resources), Aquatic invasive species by the numbers,
<http://blogs.mprnews.org/statewide/2013/09/aquatic-invasive-species-by-the-numbers/>)
The current DNR infested waters list shows 138 lakes, rivers and wetlands infested with
zebra mussels. The official list will be updated soon, but the latest information from the DNRs
AIS expert Heidi Wolf, lists 28 new lakes infested with zebra mussels this year . There are
also a few lakes where DNR aquatic invasive species staff will look for zebra mussel evidence on boat lifts
and docks as they come out of the water this fall. Zebra mussels are a focus of AIS efforts
because of concerns about how they might affect lake ecosystems, but there are many
other unwanted plants and animals making their way to Minnesota lakes and rivers. There
have been seven new infestations of eurasian water milfoil this year and two new
infestations of flowering rush. Spiny water fleas are another concern with two new
infestations this year and faucet snails are another invasive species finding its way to
more lakes. The DNR uses inspections and checkpoints as tools to enforce aquatic invasive species laws
and prevent their spread. The DNR has data on 13 checkpoints it set up this summer.
Coordinated Federal Policy key status quo state efforts are failing now
US Commission on Ocean Policy, 4 ---- created by an act of the 106th United States
Congress known as the Oceans Act of 2000. The commission's mandate was to establish findings and
develop recommendations for a new and comprehensive national ocean policy (CHAPTER 17:
PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES,
http://www.nobanis.org/files/Chapter17UScommissionOnOceanPolicy.pdf, RE)
Coordinated Action The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive
Species Council have made a start in coordinating federal agencies and stat es. Yet different
priorities among the agencies constrain full cooperation in funding and implementing
invasive species programs. The ability to establish cross-agency goals is limited , and neither the task
force nor the Council has established clear performance-oriented objectives in their work plans. Management of invasive
species is particularly complicated because the initial source of the non-native specie s, the
path of introduction, and the resulting ecological and economic impacts may be quite far removed from each other. This
increases the need for close coordination among different jurisdictions. Although
national standards are important for ballast water, coordinated regional or state actions may
be more appropriate for other pathways. The task force does promote the development
of state plans, but has had only marginal success in bringing resources to the
regional panels and local authorities for implementation. While most management plans focus on
unintentional introductions, a noticeable gap in regulatory authority exists in the area of
intentional introductions of non-native species for commercial purposes . A recent example is
the controversial proposal to introduce a Chinese oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) into the Chesapeake Bay to replace the vanishing
native oyster and revive the moribund oyster industry there. A 2003 National Research Council report concluded that a rigorous,
consistent risk assessment protocol will be needed to evaluate such proposals, but there is currently no authority or mechanism for
conducting such assessments. 15 Clearer policies will also be necessary as the aquaculture industry expands (Chapter 22).
Voluntary selfregulation by participants in the aquaculture industry is likely to be

ineffective because the costs of control are relatively high, it is difficult to trace an introduced species to
a specific source, and the negative consequences of an introduction fall on outsiders.
1AC plan
Thus, the plan:
The United States federal government should implement a federal
framework for the management of aquatic invasive species in United States
oceans.
1AC biodiversity
The risk and scope of invasive species spread is high and rising
Murray et al 11- Catheryn, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada (Recreational boating: a large unregulated vector transporting marine invasive
species, A Journal of Conservation Biogeography, Biodiversity Research, 2011 \\CLans)
This study demonstrated that NIS are both present on recreational boats and, perhaps more
importantly, travelling on boats in British Columbia suggesting the risk posed to other
temperate marine ecosystems could be high. Within the boating community, we conrmed nine NIS, some
of which are considered highly invasive, and many of these boats were visiting multiple marinas . Thus,
the risk of spread of marine NIS in BC should be considered very high. Many of the NIS observed in hull
fouling communities were likely introduced originally with live trade associated with Pacic oyster aquaculture. However, the
current study provides evidence that the secondary spread
of these species can likely be attributed to the

recreational boating vector both in BC and in other regions as well. Fouling of niche areas is the
most probable mechanism of introduction and spread as per cent cover was not related to travel frequency or antifouling paint age.
Transport may not be restricted to short distances as nonindigenous ascidians B. violaceus and M. manhattensis were found in
marinas as far north as Prince Rupert. Boats
undertaking frequent or long distance travel still had

fouling on niche areas suggesting this region is at continued risk of primary introductions via
recreational boats. In contrast to other historically important vectors such as shipping and aquaculture, there are no
management actions in place today aimed at limiting introduction and spread by the
recreational boating vector. Boating activities are on the rise worldwide, both in terms of number
of boats, number of marinas and connections between marinas, elevating the probability that NIS will be
transported through this pathway into an increasing number of habitats, regions and
possibly countries.
Squo ballast water efforts to stop invasive species fail invasive species are
flooding into foreign habitats
Nilsson 10- Annika, Masters Thesis in International Environmental Law (Regulations on Ballast
Water & Invasive Species a Comparative Approach, Spring 2010 http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?
func=downloadFile&recordOId=1670578&fileOId=1685527\\CLans)
Harmful aquatic species are today invading foreign habitats at an unprecedented pace.
They have had a large negative impact on many fragile ecosystems of the world and
ballast water has been identified as one the major culprits behind their fast spread. Today, the
most common remedy used to combat the problem is exchanging ballast water in the open
ocean to get rid of any organisms with the potential to survive in the coastal areas of ports. This
method is now proving to be much less efficient than what was first thought
and scientists are forced to find new solutions. The new solution is the installment of onboard ballast
water treatment systems and most of the regulations on ballast water seem to be moving in the same
direction by establishing performance standards for such systems, which dictate the amounts of viable
organisms allowed in ballast water discharges. The contents of most regulations on ballast water have
shown to be very similar. The general requirement is that vessels exchange their ballast water at least 200
nautical miles from shore before entering into the exclusive economic zones of states. Alternatively,
discharges may be but only if accepted onboard treatment systems have been used or if
discharges can be made to land-based reception facilities. Discharging untreated ballast water
can only be accepted in emergency situations when the vessel, its crew or passengers are threatened.
Internationally, there are several legally binding regulations which concern invasive
species such as the Convention on biological diversity, but up until today any ballast
water regulations have been voluntary. The tables are about to turn since the International
maritime organization has developed its Ballast water convention. However, the convention
requires the signing of 30 states, representing at least 35 % of the gross
tonnage of the world's shipping to enter into force and there is no saying
when it finally will become ratified.
Invasive species decimate ecosystems

Once established in a new habitat, the nature and degree of environmental and economic
harm AIS cause varies according to the particular species and the timing and adequacy of the
response to combat them. Generally speaking, the environmental impact of AIS is
likely to be severe because they can harm native species by competing for common
food sources, preying on native species, bringing in new diseases, and changing the
genetic makeup of similar species.'" Ultimately, AIS may be able to modify substantially
the original ecosystem."
Previous mass extinction events were triggered by the introduction of
invasive aquatic speciesnew analysis proves that we are headed towards a
higher extinction rate in the status quo
National Science Foundation 10, The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent
federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national
health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense" With an annual budget of $7.2 billion
(FY 2014), we are the funding source for approximately 24 percent of all federally supported basic
research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer
science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing (NSF, What Triggers Mass
Extinctions? Study Shows How Invasive Species Stop New Life, 12/29/10,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118292&org=NSF&from=news)//ADravid
An influx of invasive species can stop the dominant natural process of new species
formation and trigger mass extinction events , according to research results published
today in the journal PLoS ONE. The study of the collapse of Earth's marine life 378 to 375 million years
ago suggests that the planet's current ecosystems, which are struggling with biodiversity
loss, could meet a similar fate . Although Earth has experienced five major mass extinction events, the environmental
crash during the Late Devonian was unlike any other in the planet's history. The actual number of
extinctions wasn't higher than the natural rate of species loss, but very few new species arose . "We refer to the Late Devonian as a mass
extinction, but it was actually a biodiversity crisis," said Alycia Stigall, a scientist at Ohio University and author of the PLoS
"This research significantly contributes to our understanding of species invasions

from a deep-time perspective," said Lisa Boush, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which
funded the research. "The knowledge is critical to determining the cause and extent of mass
ONE paper.
extinctions through time, especially the five biggest biodiversity crises in the history of
life on Earth. It provides an important perspective on our current biodiversity crises. " The
research suggests that the typical method by which new species originate --vicariance--was absent during
this ancient phase of Earth's history, and could be to blame for the mass extinction. Vicariance occurs when a population becomes geographically divided by a
natural, long-term event, such as the formation of a mountain range or a new river channel, and evolves into different species. New species also can originate through dispersal,
Stigall used phylogenetic analysis,

which draws on an understanding of the tree of evolutionary relationships to examine
how individual speciation events occurred. She focused on one bivalve, Leptodesma (Leiopteria), and two brachiopods, Floweria and
which occurs when a subset of a population moves to a new location. In a departure from previous studies,
Schizophoria (Schizophoria), as well as a predatory crustacean, Archaeostraca. These small, shelled marine animals were some of the most common inhabitants of the Late
Devonian oceans, which had the most extensive reef system in Earth's history.
Dunkleosteus
The seas teemed with huge predatory fish such as
, and smaller life forms such as trilobites and crinoids (sea lilies). The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time;
As sea levels rose and the continents closed in to form connected land
masses, however, some species gained access to environments they hadn't inhabited
before. The hardiest of these invasive species that could thrive on a variety of food
sources and in new climates became dominant, wiping out more locally adapted species.
The invasive species were so prolific at this time that it became difficult for many new
species to arise. "The main mode of speciation that occurs in the geological record is shut down during the Devonian," said Stigall. "It just stops in its tracks." Of
amphibians began to walk on land.
the species Stigall studied, most lost substantial diversity during the Late Devonian, and one, Floweria, became extinct. The entire marine ecosystem suffered a major collapse.
Reef-forming corals were decimated and reefs did not appear on Earth again for 100
million years. The giant fishes, trilobites, sponges and brachiopods also declined dramatically, while organisms on land
had much higher survival rates. The study is relevant for the current biodiversity crisis, Stigall said, as human activity has introduced
a high number of invasive species into new ecosystems . In addition, the
modern extinction rate exceeds the rate of ancient extinction events,
including the event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago . "Even if you
can stop habitat loss, the fact that we've moved all these invasive species around the planet will take a long time to recover from because the high level of invasions has
suppressed the speciation rate substantially," Stigall said. Maintaining Earth's ecosystems, she suggests, would be helped by focusing efforts and resources on protection of new
species generation. "The more we know about this process," Stigall said, "the more we will understand how to best preserve biodiversity." The research was also funded by the
American Chemical Society and Ohio University. -NSF-
Marine hotspots are keythe impact is extinction

Mittermeier 11 (et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds
Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations.
He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally
discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book Biodiversity HotspotsF.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI
10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a
very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)//HA
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible.

Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al.
1995). What are the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for future resource use.
Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of
even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002). As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every

human. Earths species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next
new pathogencures waiting to be discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of
all commercial medicineseven more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and
ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other
innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without knowing
the content of 90% or more of the books. With
loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops

and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience , the inspiration for manufactured products, and
the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems that support humans and all life on
Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity
contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value
species for their own sake, and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the worlds cultures (Wilson 1984). The road
to extinction
is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems
that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of
coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality
and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003
emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human
consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the
deterioration of Earths natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global
economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems
and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less
from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earths climate changes, the roles of species and
ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In many respects, conservation is local. People
generally care more about trhe biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the mostand,
broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important
and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what
Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far

beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries
is the importance of setting global priorities?
to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budgetperhaps 90%originates in
and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally exible funds availablein
the hundreds of millions annuallybe guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing
biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented

rst ? The eld of conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of
vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species
present in a regionif the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in
the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species
alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with
high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved
elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these
areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the
areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact. Myers seminal paper (Myers1988) was the rst application
of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers
described ten
tropical forest hotspots on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat
loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of hotspot status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional
hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in
1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a rst systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict
quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the
worlds total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts
culminated in an
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientic publication (Myers et al.2000) that
introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-dened criteria and new data. A second
systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the
distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redened several
hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufcient
data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region
the East Melanesian Islandswhich rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region
that failed to meet the less than 30% of original vegetation remaining criterion to a genuine hotspot.
The aff solves Federal leadership key to unity and stopping species spread
One approach to addressing the AIS problem in light of the shortcomings of the existing federal response is to strengthen the role of state governments in managing the threat.
After all, states will generally be more familiar with the complexities of their own waters and have a greater interest in ensuring their protection than the federal government. In
recognition of some of the inadequacies of the federal response to AIS ,
ways.
some states have chosen to take action in various
One way for states to act is to put in place their own bans on the importation of certain AIS, much like the Lacey Act bans the importation of injurious species at the federal level. For example, consider the grass carp. Under the Lacey Act, the grass
carp has not been found to be injurious and can still be imported into the United States.'" However, a number of states have decided to ban the importation of the grass carp, including the Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, among other
attempt by
one state to prevent the introduction of grass carps can easily be thwarted if a
neighboring state with connected bodies of water does not have such a prohibition in place.
Such a reality favors a uniform federal approach to import prohibitions but with some
states throughout the country.'"' This approach is one way for states to overcome the slow process of getting a species listed under the Lacey Act or to act when the USFWS has simply failed to act.
However, the
modifications as noted below in the section on a stronger federal role. Another way in which states have taken up the cause of
fighting AIS is to address ballast water as a means of introduction. Two examples of states that have imposed more stringent regulations on ships than those implemented by the Coast Guard are
California and Michigan. In California, all ships entering state waters with ballast water on board from another port within the "Pacific Coast Region" are required to complete a ballast water exchange before entering California waters, retain the ballast water on
board, use an alternative method of ballast water treatment approved by the Coast Guard, discharge the ballast water in a preapproved reception facility, or, if none of the previous options are possible, perform an exchange in some other agreed-upon location.' 2
This rule essentially enlarges the scope of ballast water regulation to include ships that otherwise would not be captured by Coast Guard regulations. Furthermore, California has issued regulations that will go into effect for ships built after January 1, 2009, to govern
the content of the ballast water discharges based on the amount and size of living organisms in that water.'3 The state sets standards for the allowable size and quantity of live organisms in discharged water that are to be achieved by treating the ballast water on
board before discharge using methods that have yet to be determined.' Finally, California has established that beginning January 1, 2020, all discharged water must be treated so that it contains "zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes."' ' 5 In
Michigan, the approach to ballast water management is also more rigorous than that of the Coast Guard under NANPCA and NISA. Michigan requires all oceangoing ships that enter its waters to obtain a permit, which will only be granted if it can be shown the ship
will not discharge AIS or if one of the state-approved methods of ballast water treatment is used.'" The approved methods of ballast water treatment include: hypochlorite treatment, chlorine dioxide treatment, ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended solids
removal, and deoxygenation treatment. 10 '7 It is noteworthy that ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ is not one of the approved methods for ships entering Michigan waters. Thus, ships that are otherwise in compliance with the requirements under NANPCA
This additional burden on shippers gave rise to a recent lawsuit

by a group of international shippers who claimed that the Michigan ballast water statute was
invalid due to preemption by the federal statutes and regulations on ballast water ."8 The
court upheld the Michigan ballast water statute, and the plaintiffs have appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit." Even if the district court's decision is affirmed, the underlying
concern of the plaintiffs is still an issue that must be considered on its merits. That issue is the inconsistent and
varying obligations imposed upon Shippers that results when states are able to craft
their own ballast water statutes in a manner such as Michigan. Ultimately, these efforts by Michigan and other states
and NISA will have to do more if they wish to enter Michigan waters.
to thwart the introduction of AIS suggest state governments do recognize the seriousness of the AIS threat and are willing to take the
measures create
external burdens to international commerce and may ultimately not be as beneficial as
the states intend them to be given the nature of the AIS threat . After all, AIS do not
recognize state borders and can easily spread through connected waterways from a state
with lax regulations to one with stringent importation and ballast water standards in
place. This reality suggests the potential futility of a stronger state role and reinforces the
need for a uniform federal approach to combat AIS, albeit modified and enhanced from its existing
lead on such matters if they feel the federal government's response is lacking. Nevertheless, such
condition.
Even if we cant stop the invasive species early monitoring resolves the
impacts
Ricciardi 98- A., Dpartement de biologie (GIROQ), Universit Laval, Ste-Foy (Predicting the
identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management, 1998,
\\CLans)
Because the ecological and economic costs of invasion are high (OTA 1993), resources should
be allocated towards prevention. Preventative measures depend on advance knowledge
of invasion threats, which can be gained from careful monitoring of information networks (e.g.,
literature, the internet, sym- posia), and the application of the guidelines we have described. Such endeavors would be aided greatly
by the development of a broadly accessible electronic inventory of aquatic invaders, with information about their life history, habitat
requirements, dispersal patterns, and methods of control. Even
when invasion is imminent, advance

knowledge could prepare us for dealing with the ecological and technological impacts
that may follow. Given the detrimental effects of invasive aquatic organisms on
fisheries, biodiversity, outdoor recreation, and water supply systems (e.g., Morton 1979, 1997;
Kaufman 1992; Lodge 1993; Mills et al. 1993a; OTA 1993), the identification of future invaders should be a
common priority among scientists and policy makers.
Monitoring/Detecting/surveying Key
Lee et al, 13 --- Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Henry, Integrated Monitoring and Information Systems for
Managing Aquatic Invasive Species in a Changing Climate,
http://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/ConservationBiology_2008b.pdf, RE)
Monitoring for Native and Non-Native Species Monitoring surveys provide the
foundation for assessments of current ecological condition and provide baseline biotic
data to develop niche models. Nevertheless, the sampling design of a monitoring program affectswhat types of
questions can be addressed. In addition to geographical scope and target species or habitat, key design criteria affecting how data
can be used include (1) whether a random versus a fixed or nonrandom sampling design was used, (2) whether only non-native or
both non-native and native species were sampled, (3) whether abundance and presence data were collected, (4) the sample density
(number of samples per area or time period), and (5) whether sites were resampled over time. Another
issue important
for programs monitoring invasive species is taxonomic resolution and accuracy.
Detection of new invaders hinges on the ability to recognize species not included in
standard, regional taxonomic references, which requires high-quality taxonomy. Within the United States, the
2 largest ecological surveys on a national scale are the ambient monitoring programs of
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The USGS program is the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA; http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/),
which evaluates the ecological condition of streams in a set of watersheds across the
United States. The major EPA program is the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP; U.S. EPA 2002,
http://www.epa.gov/emap/index.html), which evaluates ecological condition of surface, coastal, and
estuarine waters. Both programs collect abundance data on native and non-native
aquatic species, although the primary 578 Integrated Monitoring and Information Systems objective is not to quantify the
abundance or diversity of non-natives within a specific area . Differences in these 2 programs illustrate how
sampling design can affect the types of questions best addressed by a particular
program. The NAWQA uses fixed stations in a limited number of watersheds and is more
suitable for detecting short-term temporal patterns and long-term trends at a few representative sites. In
contrast, the EMAP program uses a probabilistic sample design to generate areal estimates of ecological condition or population
abundance over defined target areas (e.g., biogeographic region) with a known confidence level. Besidesmeeting the assumption of
random samples required for some models, an advantage of a probabilistic design for niche models is that samples are taken over a
broader range of habitat types than with fixed stations, thus capturing a greater portion of a species niche space.
Nevertheless, both NAWQA and EMAP are limited to the United States and thus
likely truncate the northern and/or southern range of many species. In contrast to the broad
taxonomic surveys conducted by EMAP and NAWQA, invasive-species monitoring focuses solely on non-native species .
Invasive-species surveys identify what non-native species presently occur within a
region. Several sampling designs for invasive species are possible (Campbell et al. 2007). One approach is to
conduct quantitative surveys focused on areas of likely invasion, such as port surveys in
Australia (Hewitt & Martin 2001). Advantages of quantitative surveys are that they are repeatable over time and allow rigorous
statistical comparisons among sites or over time. A qualitative approach is the rapid-assessment survey in which a team of
taxonomists descends on a specific area and specifically focuses on cataloging as many nonnative species as possible within a few
days to a week (e.g., Cohen et al. 2005). Rapid
assessment surveys of invasive species appear to have

been limited to coastal waters , but are also applicable to surface waters and
wetlands. An advantage of such surveys is that results are obtained rapidly, with species
identified on site to the extent practical. Nevertheless, different surveys are not easily compared because the
results depend on the participating taxonomists and sampling is biased toward readily accessible habitats. The greatest
strength of rapid assessment surveys is that they are a cost-effective way to detect new
or expanding invaders in high-risk areas and can be used to establish an initial baseline
of the presence of non-native species in poorly studied areas. Field surveys can also be designed to
address specific questions related to climate change and invasion dynamics. Although there will be exceptions due to regionalscale
environmental patterns (e.g., Helmuth et al. 2002), climate change will often lead to shifts in species ranges across latitude and
elevation. Thus, sampling the expansion or contraction of these leading edge populations may be a sensitive indicator of climate
effects (Hellmann et al. 2008 [this issue]), although the low abundance typical at the edge of a species range can make detecting
statistically significant differences difficult.
Precautionary principle is the way you view the round--- depends on 100
trillion
Myers, 93 --- a British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity and noted for his work on
environmental refugees (Norman, Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle, Ambio, Vol. 22, No.
2/3, Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy (May, 1993), pp. 74-79, JSTOR, RE)
The precautionary
principle is becoming an established guideline for policy makers

tackling environmental problems. In salient respects, it applies to biodiversity
more than to any other environmental problem. This is because the mass extinction
gathering force will, if it proceeds unchecked, not only eliminate half or more of all species,
but will leave the biosphere impoverished for at least 5 mill . years-a period twenty times longer than
humankind itself has been a species. Present society is effectively taking a decision on the unconsulted
behalf of perhaps 100 trill. of our descendants, asserting that future generations can
certainly manage with far less than a full planetary stock of species. Yet despite the ostensible certainty we display in
taking this decision, the biodiversity issue is attended by exceptional uncertainty , notably as concerns
the adverse repercussions-biological, ecological and economic among others-of mass extinction .
Thus, there is a super-premium on applying the precautionary principle to the biotic
crisis in a manner expansive enough to match the scope and scale of the problem.
Biodiversity is the framing impact
Myers, 93 --- a British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity and noted for his work on
environmental refugees (Norman, Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle, Ambio, Vol. 22, No.
2/3, Biodiversity: Ecology, Economics, Policy (May, 1993), pp. 74-79, JSTOR, RE)
Extinction of species is different. When a single species is gone, it is gone for good. Yet we are into the
opening phase of a speciesextinction spasm with capacity to eliminate a sizeable share of
Earth's biodiversity. True, evolution will eventually come up with replacement species in numbers and variety to match
today's array. But so far as we can discern from episodes of mass extinction and the
subsequent recovery periods in the prehistoric past, the time required will be at least 5
mill. years, possibly several times longer (10-12). If we allow the present mass extinction proceeds
unchecked, we shall impoverish the biosphere for a period equivalent to at least 200
000 human generations, or 20 times longer than humankind itself has been a species . As an illustration
of our responsibility to future generation s-a key component of the rationalef or
the precautionaryp rinciple-the biodiversity issue is in a league of its own . Since mass
extinction would amount to an unmatched degradationo f the biosphere ,it
1AC fisheries
Ocean aquaculture is coming Obama proves
Luening, 13 (1/2/2013, Erich, Obama's First Term Aquaculture Successes,
http://marthasvineyard.patch.com/groups/erich-luenings-blog/p/bp--obamas-first-term-aquaculturesuccesses, JMP)
WASHINGTON D.C.--With the Obama Inauguration for a second term in January, a look at the
aquaculture policy successes of the first four years of the administration shows significant momentum in
establishing new policies for the industry among other positive developments. Under the first Barack
Obama presidency the first National Aquaculture Policy (NAP) was adopted, along with
the coordination of aquaculture and other marine stakeholders under the presidents
National Ocean Councils (NOC) Draft Implementation Plan, indicating a serious effort to
push the domestic seafood farming sector forward, say aquaculture policy makers and industry
members. Aquaculture professionals say there has been a change in how aquaculture is perceived at least
on the policy level over the last four years. I can see that starting to happen slowly now, said Sebastian
Belle of Maine Aquaculture Association, at the December Northeastern Aquaculture Conference and
Expo. NAP was the most significant and most headlined aquaculture development under
Obamas first term, Dr. Michael Rubino, the Director of Aquaculture at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration NOAA, told Aquaculture North America but there were other
accomplishments made on-the-ground that were important as well . There was a fair
number of the sort of nots in bolts things that happened too, he said. Certainly when Jane
Lubchenco was appointed as NOAA director they asked us to look at everything we are
doing, stakeholders and all, on aquaculture. The NOAA went around the country and
got input at several public meetings as well. The federal government hadnt done that in 10
years, and we got a broad economic view. NOAA policy was addressed on the kind of things we do as far as
marine stewardship and engagement, Rubino said. Going back 40 years, there have been several
commissions, all the way up to the establishment of the National Oceans Council in 2004, and others in
between. They all have had aquaculture components, all saying the same thing. Aquaculture has to be
done sustainably, with trade policy and good science behind it. Its fair to say that the adoption of the
NAP came out of all of those commissions over the years enhanced by the efforts under
Lubchenco to get NOAA officials out to different regions of the country to add their
voices and interests to the dialogue around framing the new policy. In the summer of 2011,
the United States National Aquaculture Policy was announced, making headlines as the first of its kind in
a country that has 95,471 statute miles of tidal shoreline and 200 nautical miles from those coasts out to
sea as part of the Exclusive Economic Zone, according to NOAA. The new aquaculture policy and
its components, which reflect the public comments received after draft policies were released on
February 9, focus on: encouraging and fostering sustainable aquaculture that increases the
value of domestic aquaculture production and creates American business, jobs, and
trade opportunities; making timely management decisions based on the best scientific information
available; advancing sustainable aquaculture science; ensuring aquaculture decisions protect wild species
and healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems; developing sustainable aquaculture compatible with other
uses; working with partners domestically and internationally; and, promoting a level playing field
for U.S. aquaculture businesses engaged in international trade, working to remove

foreign trade barriers, and enforcing our rights under U.S. trade agreements .
Independently, global food production will inevitably breakdown --- ocean

aquaculture key to sustainably feed the growing population and prevent
massive deforestation
Strasser, 14 --- Senior Editor of ThinkProgress (4/21/2014, Annie-Rose, The New, Innovative And
More Efficient Way Of Feeding People, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3422486/big-agtakes-to-the-ocean/, JMP)
Don Kent, President of the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute , was standing in the seafood
aisle of a Whole Foods in the affluent San Diego neighborhood of La Jolla recently when he took out his
phone and snapped a photo of a fresh-looking branzino. Branzino is European sea bass, Kent explained.
Its grown in the Mediterranean. And its flown 6,900 miles from Greece to here and then its put on ice
in La Jolla. Kent, whose organization studies the intersection of nature and human activity and offers
solutions on how the two can co-exist, is one of the people who believes theres a different way to
approach how we get our protein here in the U nited S tates. He insists that theres a new,
innovative, and more efficient method of feeding people not just in La Jolla, but all over
the world. Aquaculture. Or, as its known to most people, fish farming. We spend 130 million
dollars a year on air freight for the 300,000 metric tons of salmon that get flown into
the U.S. from Chile. Think of the carbon footprint associated with that, he says. Theres
absolutely no reason why that brazino shouldnt be a white sea bass grown three miles
off the coast. And then imagine the carbon footprint thats saved in doing that. What,
exactly, is aquaculture? The basic idea is that youre farming aquatic life. The specifics, however, vary
quite a bit. In the case of fish, eggs are fostered into small fish at a hatchery, raised for food, and farmed
whenever theyre needed. The fish can be raised in tanks or in net pens, in fresh water, off the coast, or out
in the open ocean. And fish are just one kind of aquaculture; a similar process is utilized to farm shellfish
like mussels or oysters and for seaweeds. Aquaculture right now is in an age of innovation. The
advent of indoor tank farming is one promising way fish farming could grow. Another would be going out
into the open ocean and dropping fish in large, globe-shaped aquapods down below the surface. Openocean aquaculture is one of the emerging frontiers, says Michael Rubino, Director of the
Aquaculture Office at the N ational O ceanic and A tmospheric A dministration. Theres not much
of it yet but we have crowded coastlines, we have coastlines that have a lot of new trees and theyre
shallow, or theyre multiple uses, so some people think that going further offshore, you avoid those
multiple use conflicts and get a more stable environment. Attempts to take aquaculture offshore include
building farms off of decommissioned oil rigs. Farmers also hope it can help them to farm in rougher
waters where weather events like hurricanes might get in the way. Some aquaculture groups even hope
that there is a way to fuse offshore farms with renewable energy projects. Spend just a few minutes
reading news about agriculture and climate change these days, and youll understand
whats driving people to consider scaling up aquaculture : The latest report from the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us were headed toward a
breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and
precipitation variability and extremes. Studies come out every week, practically, that say
drought threatens our supply of key grains like wheat, corn, and rice. The warming globe is even slowing
down cows production of milk. And not only is our food on the fritz, but its causing a lot of the problems
that seem to be leading to its own demise. Cows, a growing source of protein here in the United States, are
major emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Meat production is also a serious drain on other
resources: A quarter pound of hamburger meat uses up 6.7 pounds of grains and 52.8 gallons of water.
Were paying a high price to get our protein, and all the while our population is growing at a breakneck
speed. There are a lot of hungry mouths to feed. The United Nations has urged a substantial worldwide
diet change, away from animal products altogether. But aquaculture might be a good stepping stone.
Overall, if were going to if were going to adequately nourish the increasing number of
billions of people on this planet continue to consume the amount of seafood we

consume or put more apocalyptically, if were going to adequately nourish the
increasing number of billions of people on this planet , Michael Conathan, Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress, more and more
protein is going to have to come from aquaculture. Experts say there are myriad
reasons why the world can and should shift toward getting more of its sustenance from
aquaculture. For one thing, it can be much more efficient than the status quo. The thing
about aquaculture is that from a resource efficiency perspective its one of the most resourceefficient ways to produce protein in terms of the amount of food and the amount
of space it takes, says NOAAs Rubino. Far more than land animals. Youre not using fresh
water [to grow crops to feed land animals], and the feed conversion of fish is roughly
one to one one pound of food for one pound of flesh as opposed to pork or beef
where its seven or ten to one So from an environmental footprint
perspective, its very efficient . You can also grow a lot of fish in a very small space. They dont
need a lot of space whether its a pond or a tank, as opposed to grazing land or all the corn or soybeans
that it takes to feed animals. As it stands now, 40 percent of the non-water surface of earth
is used for agriculture. A whopping 30 percent of land thats not covered in ice is being
used not to feed us directly, but to feed the things that feed us, namely chickens, cows,
and pigs. One of the effects of this is that agriculture is driving massive
deforestation .
Deforestation will cause extinction
Chivian 11, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global
Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam.
He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian works with the
United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (Species
Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmentalhealth-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011) Kerwin
Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates
that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally
(Wilson l992), approximating the largest extinctions in geological history . When
homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest
ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the
lowest since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all
species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l). In addition to the ethical issues
involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens
of millions of years prior to our arrival - this behaviour is ultimately self-destructive,
upsetting
the delicate ecological balance on which all life depends, including our own ,
and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides
food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential
growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the
production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. Global warming,
acid rain, the depletion of stratospheric ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals into the
air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately lead to a loss of biodiversity.
But it is habitat destruction by human activities, particularly deforestation, that is

the greatest destroyer. This is especially the case for tropical rainforests. Less than 50% of the
area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned
at a rate of approximately l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of
Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size of a football
field (Wilson l992). It is this destruction which is
primarily responsible for the mass
extinction of the worlds species . It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0
million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a conservative estimate of 20 million total
world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates
of tropical deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each
year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson l992). This article examines the human
health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity. It is the authors belief
that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases,
and ultimately, perhaps, in threatening human survival - then they would
recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly
evolving medical emergency and would demand that efforts to preserve species
and ecosystems be given the highest priority .
The decline of fisheries destroys marine ecosystems and risks starvation of
hundreds of millions
Pauly, 9 --- professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (9/28/2009, Daniel,
Aquacalypse Now, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-energy/aquacalypse-now, JMP)
The jig, however, is nearly up. In 1950, the newly constituted Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations estimated that, globally, we were catching about 20 million
metric tons of fish (cod, mackerel, tuna, etc.) and invertebrates (lobster, squid, clams, etc.). That
catch peaked at 90 million tons per year in the late 1980s, and it has been declining ever
since. Much like Madoffs infamous operation, which required a constant influx of new investments to
generate revenue for past investors, the global fishing-industrial complex has required a constant influx
of new stocks to continue operation. Instead of restricting its catches so that fish can reproduce and
maintain their populations, the industry has simply fished until a stock is depleted and then
moved on to new or deeper waters, and to smaller and stranger fish. And, just as a Ponzi
scheme will collapse once the pool of potential investors has been drained, so too will
the fishing industry collapse as the oceans are drained of life . Unfortunately, it is
not just the future of the fishing industry that is at stake, but also the continued
health of the worlds largest ecosystem . While the climate crisis gathers front-page
attention on a regular basis, people--even those who profess great environmental consciousness--continue
to eat fish as if it were a sustainable practice. But eating a tuna roll at a sushi restaurant should be
considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or harpooning a manatee. In the
past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and
other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One study, published in the prestigious journal
Science, forecast that, by 2048, all commercial fish stocks will have collapsed, meaning
that they will be generating 10 percent or less of their peak catches. Whether or not that particular
year, or even decade, is correct, one thing is clear: Fish are in dire peril, and, if
they are, then so are we. The extent of the fisheries Ponzi scheme eluded government
scientists for many years. They had long studied the health of fish populations, of course, but typically,
laboratories would focus only on the species in their nations waters. And those studying a particular
species in one country would communicate only with those studying that same species in another. Thus,
they failed to notice an important pattern: Popular species were sequentially replacing each other in the
catches that fisheries were reporting, and, when a species faded, scientific attention shifted to the
replacement species. At any given moment, scientists might acknowledge that one-half or two-thirds of
fisheries were being overfished, but, when the stock of a particular fish was used up, it was simply
removed from the denominator of the fraction. For example, the Hudson River sturgeon wasnt counted
as an overfished stock once it disappeared from New York waters; it simply became an anecdote in the
historical record. The baselines just kept shifting, allowing us to continue blithely damaging marine
ecosystems. It was not until the 1990s that a series of high-profile scientific papers demonstrated that we
needed to study, and mitigate, fish depletions at the global level. They showed that phenomena previously
observed at local levels--for example, the disappearance of large species from fisheries catches and their
replacement by smaller species--were also occurring globally. It was a realization akin to understanding
that the financial meltdown was due not to the failure of a single bank, but, rather, to the failure of the
entire banking system--and it drew a lot of controversy. The notion that fish are globally imperiled has
been challenged in many ways--perhaps most notably by fisheries biologists, who have questioned the
facts, the tone, and even the integrity of those making such allegations. Fisheries biologists are different
than marine ecologists like myself. Marine ecologists are concerned mainly with threats to the diversity of
the ecosystems that they study, and so, they frequently work in concert with environmental NGOs and are
often funded by philanthropic foundations. By contrast, fisheries biologists traditionally work for
government agencies, like the National Marine Fisheries Service at the Commerce Department, or as
consultants to the fishing industry, and their chief goal is to protect fisheries and the fishermen they
employ. I myself was trained as a fisheries biologist in Germany, and, while they would dispute this, the
agencies for which many of my former classmates work clearly have been captured by the industry they
are supposed to regulate. Thus, there are fisheries scientists who, for example, write that cod have
recovered or even doubled their numbers when, in fact, they have increased merely from 1 percent to 2
percent of their original abundance in the 1950s. Yet, despite their different interests and priorities--and
despite their disagreements on the end of fish--marine ecologists and fisheries scientists both want
there to be more fish in the oceans. Partly, this is because both are scientists, who are expected to concede
when confronted with strong evidence. And, in the case of fisheries, as with global warming, the evidence
is overwhelming: Stocks are declining in most parts of the world. And, ultimately, the important rift is not
between these two groups of scientists, but between the public, which owns the seas resources, and the
fishing-industrial complex, which needs fresh capital for its Ponzi scheme. The difficulty lies in forcing the
fishing-industrial complex to catch fewer fish so that populations can rebuild. It is essential that we do so
as quickly as possible because the consequences of an end to fish are frightful. To some
Western nations, an end to fish might simply seem like a culinary catastrophe, but for
400 million people in developing nations , particularly in poor African and South
Asian countries, fish are the main source of animal protein. Whats more, fisheries are a major
source of livelihood for hundreds of million of people. A recent World Bank report found that the income
of the worlds 30 million small-scale fisheries is shrinking. The decrease in catch has also dealt a blow to a
prime source of foreign-exchange earnings, on which impoverished countries, ranging from Senegal in
West Africa to the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, rely to support their imports of staples such as
rice. And, of course, the end of fish would
disrupt marine ecosystems to an extent that
we are only now beginning to appreciate. Thus, the removal of small fish in the Mediterranean to
fatten bluefin tuna in pens is causing the common dolphin to become exceedingly rare in some areas,
with local extinction probable. Other marine mammals and seabirds are similarly affected in various parts
of the world. Moreover, the removal of top predators from marine ecosystems has effects
that cascade down, leading to the increase of jellyfish and other gelatinous zooplankton
and to the gradual erosion of the food web within which fish populations are embedded.
This is what happened off the coast of southwestern Africa, where an upwelling ecosystem similar to that
off California, previously dominated by fish such as hake and sardines, has become overrun by millions of
tons of jellyfish. Jellyfish population outbursts are also becoming more frequent in the northern Gulf of
Mexico, where the fertilizer-laden runoff from the Mississippi River fuels uncontrolled algae blooms. The
dead algae then fall to a sea bottom from which shrimp trawling has raked all animals capable of feeding
on them, and so they rot, causing Massachusetts-sized dead zones. Similar phenomena--which only
jellyfish seem to enjoy--are occurring throughout the world, from the Baltic Sea to the Chesapeake Bay,
and from the Black Sea in southeastern Europe to the Bohai Sea in northeastern China. Our oceans,
having nourished us since the beginning of the human species some 150,000 years ago, are now turning
against us, becoming angry opponents. That dynamic will only grow more antagonistic as the oceans
become warmer and more acidic because of climate change. Fish are expected to suffer mightily
from global warming, making it essential that we preserve as great a number of fish and
of fish species as possible, so that those which are able to adapt are around to evolve and
propagate the next incarnations of marine life. In fact, new evidence tentatively suggests
that large quantities of fish biomass could actually help attenuate ocean
acidification . In other words, fish could help save us from the worst consequences of
our own folly--yet we are killing them off. The jellyfish-ridden waters were seeing now may be
only the first scene in a watery horror show.
Aquaculture increases key to feed growing population collapse means

mass starvation
Jolly, 11 (1/31/2011, David, Fish Farming Overtaking Traditional Fisheries,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/global/01fish.html?_r=1&, JMP)
About 32 percent of world fish stocks are overexploited, depleted or recovering and need
to be urgently rebuilt, according to the report. Nonetheless, people are eating more fish,
thanks to aquaculture: The report showed that global fish consumption rose to a record of almost 17
kilograms a person. Wally Stevens, executive director of the Global Aquaculture Alliance , a
trade association, said Monday that the industrys target actually was to increase the annual
output of the aquaculture industry 7 percent. Our attitude is that aquaculture production
must double in the next 10 years to keep pace with global demand , and in particular the
changes in demand coming from growth in middle-class populations in developing nations, he said. Fish
can be raised in tanks and ponds, and with the aid of cages or nets in oceans, lakes or rivers. With
most of the worlds fisheries operating at or above their sustainable yields, aquaculture
is seen as the only way to increase the supply of fish in a world hungry for protein .
Invasive species causes ocean aquaculture collapse--- federal
policy/oversight key
Naylor et al, 12 --- professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford (Rosamond with
Susan L.Williams, Donald R. Strong, AquacultureA Gateway for Exotic Species,
http://faculty.wwu.edu/~shulld/ESCI%20432/Sci2001-Aqu-Invasives.pdf, RE)
The National
Research Council (23) has ranked invasive species and overexploitation as the
most serious threats to native marine biodiversity . Nonetheless, marine and freshwater
species received the smallest allocation (<1%) of the federal FY2000 budget for invasive species
management, whereas more than 90% went to agriculture (24). The Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, a
multiagency body legislated by the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (1990) to assume federal
management leadership, has received no appreciable budget to support research and
control programs. Moreover, the new Invasive Species Management Plan (2001) focuses
primarily on terrestrial species and largely ignores aquaculture introductions (24). Improved
Oversight A clear policy on exotic introductions is needed as aquaculture expandsone that
includes scientific risk assessment for all nonnative introductions and single-agency
oversight for the prevention, containment, and monitoring of potentially harmful
exotics. New Zealands Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996) provides a model that the United States and other
countries should follow. The New Zealand approach regulates exotic introductions comprehensively in a single legislative act with
clear oversight. Importers of nonnative species must apply to an independent regulatory authority accountable to the Environment
Ministry and Parliament for public approval.
All species are considered potentially invasive and

therefore prohibited unless proven otherwise. International transfers of nonnative
species for aquaculture pose high ecological risks given the absence of strong policies in
most countries. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has identified at least 46 international quasi-legal instruments that
address exotic species invasions; however, there is no binding agreement apart from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
that deals comprehensively with introductions, control, and eradication of exotic species (25). The CBD (convened by the IUCN and
ratified in 1992 by 170 countries excluding the United States) holds signatory members accountable for conducting scientific risk
assessments for introductions and advocates use of native species in aquaculture .
Persuading the United States and

nonsignatory countries to abide by this process remains a worthy challenge . In many cases,
the aquaculture industry itself has an economic stake in preventing introductions of
exotic species that harm their products. In other cases, the costs of exotic species introduced
by aquaculture are external to the industry and even to the state or country where the
industry operates. Comprehensive guidelines for preventing introductions of invasive
species exist through the IUCN (25) and ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (26) and have been
implemented by New Zealand as a working model. Widespread adoption of these policies is
urgently needed in the United States and abroad to stem the rising tide of
aquatic invasions.
Invasive species carry disease and collapse the fisheries industry

Patrick 9 Christopher J., JD at University of Notre Dame Law School (NOTE: BALLAST WATER
LAW: INVASIVE SPECIES AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF INEFFECTIVE LEGISLA-TION, 2009,
Virginia Environmental Law Journal Association
Virginia Environmental Law Journal \\CLans)
ballast
water can also carry organisms that are directly harmful to human health . n31 Two
examples of species-caused harm are the transportation of cholera and of various types of toxic
In addition to transporting organisms that can have severe environmental impacts that translate into economic harm,
dinoflagellates. The bacterium that causes cholera, Vibrio cholerae, can thrive in sea water and is
easily transported in ship ballast. If the bacterium is ingested by humans, it can cause
severe intestinal distress and even death if untreated. n32 There have been numerous cholera outbreaks where ship ballast was
the likely culprit, none more serious than that which afflicted South America in 1991. n33 In January 1991, choleracontaminated ballast water was released off the coast of Peru and was one of the major causes of an epidemic
that continued until September 1994, causing over 600,000 in-fections and nearly 10,000 deaths. n34
[*73] Toxic dinoflagellates, responsible for the "red tide" phenomenon, are other
organisms that pose a threat to human health and are transported via ballast water. Dinoflagellates are a
diverse group of aquatic and marine algae that are abundant worldwide. As part of their lifecycle, dinoflagellates form hard cysts that
can be easily transported. According to one study of dinoflagellates in ship ballast in Australia, forty percent of the ships entering
port were con-taminated, six percent were contaminated with known toxic species at loads as high as 300 million viable cysts. n35
Toxic dinoflagellate blooms may lead to shellfish toxicity and the closure of the local
seafood industry ultimately causing illness in those who consume affected mollusks . Every
year there are estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 cases of red tide poisoning. n36 Although these algae species bloom naturally, in
recent years blooms have occurred in previously unaffected are-as. In 2005, the largest red tide bloom since 1972 took place off the
coast of New England. The algae species, Alexan-drium fundyense, covered 15,000 square miles of federal waters, as well as the
waters of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. Shellfish beds were closed for over a month, costing the local fishing
economies almost $ 3 million a week. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared

it a "commercial fisheries failure" and eventu-ally the federal government had to provide
aid to fishermen in Maine and Massachusetts. n37
1AC solvency
Federal framework key to coordinated response
Britton 9 Kerry O., National Forest Pathology Program Leader, Forest Service, Research and
Development, (Invasive Species Overarching Priorities to 2029, A Dynamic Invasive Species Research
Vision 2009-29, 2009, \\CLans)
Invasive species are one of the greatest threats to forest, range, aquatic, and urban forest
ecosystem health. They contribute to the endangerment of native species and may lead to
other severe ecological and financial consequences in our Nations wildlands and urban
forests. Costs the public pays for damage, losses, and control efforts are estimated at more than $138
billion per year. Severe infestations of cheatgrass have contributed to increased fire frequency and intensity in Western
States, reducing property values in some areas by up to 80 percent. Asian long-horned beetles threaten more
than $500 billion in urban tree losses in America, over time, if left unchecked. Recent regional invasions, such as
Sudden Oak Death in California, Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwest, and Sirex noctilio in New York, have the potential to become
national threats. Invasive
species threaten Pacific Island ecosystems, riparian communities,

and wetlands and are the second leading contributor of species endangerment in aquatic
ecosystems. Expanding global trade is increasing the rate of invasive species
introductions and the costs associated with preventing introductions and quarantining
and managing new infestations. Given the large number of nonnative invasive species present in the United States and projections
for increasing numbers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) must
be strategic in allocating research resources to develop the science to manage invasive

species and their effects. Forest owners and managers likewise need tools to help allocate resources across pests and ecosystems.
A recent peer review panel recommended increased funding for two areas: (1) prevention and
prediction and (2) early detection and rapid response. Therefore, quantitative risk analysis and pathway
assessments will be key components of our research program. Our future strategy also recognizes the importance of maintaining
research in two other areas: (1) control and management and (2) restoration and rehabilitation. We believe a
holistic
national strategy will improve sharing of expertise across research stations and
encourage actions that prevent regional threats from expanding into national ones .
Increased coordination with other agencies will help identify regulatory and research
gaps and will improve the complementary use of resources.
Coordinated Federal Policy key --- States cant act alone

Aff
2AC
Squo
Aquatic Invasive Species are flooding into the United States climate
change exarcerbates the impact
McDowell et al 2014 (W.G. McDowell, A.J. Benson, J.E. Byers, February 5 2014, Freshwater
Biology volume 59, issue 4, All are working for the United States Geological Survey laboratory in Florida,
Climate controls the distribution of a widespread invasive species: implications for future range
expansion)
Second, our model does not make any predictions regarding densities, nor does it address how the effects
of Corbicula on a previously colonised or newly invaded aquatic ecosystem might be
altered by climate change. Density is one of the main factors controlling the impact of a nonindigenous species (Parker et al., 1999), and areas that are deemed suitable habitat may support widely
varying densities of Corbicula. Modelling densities go beyond the abilities of the approaches used in this
paper and present an interesting challenge for future work. The interactions between Corbicula
behaviour and climate change could lead to alterations in their impacts. For example,
increasing temperatures could lead to higher metabolic rates and increased filtration
and nutrient uptake by Corbicula (Spooner & Vaughn, 2008). However, at very high temperatures,
mass mortalities of Corbicula can occur and may negatively affect water quality and native mussels by
increasing toxic concentrations of ammonia in porewater and the water column (Cherry et al., 2005;
Cooper, Bidwell & Cherry, 2005). Climate change could make these events more common . In
summary, it is critical to assess the importance of climate in controlling the distribution of
a species, as this dramatically affects the weight that should be given to the impacts of
climate change and more local drivers. By empirically testing the relative importance of
climate and carefully considering the biology of the organism being studied, we have
demonstrated that Corbicula is likely to expand well beyond its current distribution.
Already widely distributed, Corbicula could become nearly ubiquitous throughout the
conterminous United States. MaxEnt and the freely available BioClim data make constructing a
species distribution model for current and future distributions deceptively easy, and their misuse opens
them up to criticism (Woodward & Beerling, 1997; Haegeman & Loreau, 2008). However, the
combination of multiple approaches allows us to recognise what the models are capturing well and can
lead to a more robust result than any single model alone.
Solvency
Federal leadership and immediacy are key to combat invasive species
(Solvency advocate 1ac card)
another response to the shortcomings of the existing federal response to AIS

would be to modify and enhance the already existing federal statutory and regulatory
response so that it is better able to meet the challenges we face from AIS . This would entail changing
the statutes and regulations in force to address the shortcomings noted earlier as well as adopting some new approaches to the AIS problem. First,
regarding the Lacey Act and its "reactive" nature, it has been suggested that such an approach to
AIS is "doomed to failure" because it operates as a 'black list' approach," and it is not
possible for the government to monitor any and all incoming species such that this list could
adequately capture all or most AIS." ' In other words, the Lacey Act approach "requires
that an ecological disaster be in place before action is taken. 11' So what could be done in
the alternative to allow the USFWS to take a more "proactive" approach? One possibility would be to modify the Lacey
Act such that it embraces the "precautionary principle" and shifts the burden to the
importer to prove that the organisms they are importing are noninjurious."2 While this method may
seem radical and particularly difficult, it apparently is not an insurmountable task because it is precisely the
system that is used in Australia and New Zealand."3 The United States can learn about dealing with AIS by
examining how other countries deal with the problem. Concerning the federal ballast water management
regime, problem areas could be addressed with a modified and enhanced federal
statutory and regulatory framework. First of all, on the issue of the NOBOB ship loophole, the ballast water
regulations should be changed to address ships with "empty" ballast water
tanks that nevertheless pose a risk of introducing AIS into U.S. waters . In
Accordingly,
recognition of this loophole, the Coast Guard issued a notice in 2005 stating that NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes should voluntarily conduct a
ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ or use saltwater flushing to try to counter the risk that NOBOB ships pose.' Then, in late 2007, the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, which manages the regulation of shipping practices in the St. Lawrence Seaway along with its Canadian
counterpart, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it will require all foreign NOBOB ships (not U.S. or Canadian) to carry out a saltwater
flushing outside the EEZ before entering the Seaway and to achieve a thirty parts per thousand salinity level in the tanks."5 These additional measures
the Coast Guard could and should strengthen the existing ballast water
regulations for NOBOB ships by making them mandatory and applicable to all ships that
enter all U.S. waters. Furthermore, the Coast Guard could make a better effort to adopt alternative
measures for ballast water management beyond the exchange process, such as
approving some of the treatment measures used in Michigan. Presumably a state with a strong concern about preventing
are undoubtedly helpful, but
AIS would not have adopted such techniques without having confidence in their efficacy. By combining these new treatment techniques with the
adoption of the California strategy of requiring all ships to have their ballast water regulated, including those that have not operated outside the EEZ,
the Coast Guard could reestablish its ballast water management program as one that is
up to the challenge of preventing AIS introductions in an aggressive manner . Another
weakness in the realm of AIS introductions through shipping is something that has not been addressed by the
ballast water statutes and regulations, primarily because it does not directly involve ballast water. This is the problem of hull fouling. Hull
fouling is the process by which AIS are introduced into new waters by essentially riding along on the hull of a ship."6 Recall the zebra mussel has a habit
This particular vulnerability could be addressed with the

establishment of a Coast Guard program requiring ships to inspect and
of attaching to barge and boat hulls.
clear their hulls, with random inspections to ensure compliance. Additionally, the federal government
could strengthen its role in combating AIS if the NISC took its
responsibilities more seriously and if it was better funded and staffed .
Successfully implementing the goals of the NISC set forth in the National Management Plan, in conjunction with
states and other actors, ought to be a greater priority for the administration, because it ultimately
means not only avoiding the larger economic costs in the future by preventing AIS establishment, but also
achieving the added benefit of protecting the crucial aquatic environment . A final step
the federal government can take in addition to or, in some cases, instead of those above would be for Congress
to pass the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA) and for the President to sign it into law."' This
legislation would modify and enhance NANPCA and NISA in a number of helpful ways, including: (1)
applying more stringent ballast water management practices for all ships entering U.S. waters, (2)
adopting a more aggressive approach to finding ballast water treatment alternatives , (3)
implementing a more thorough approach to importing organisms that includes a proactive risk
assessment process, (4) deploying rapid response resources and capabilities throughout the country so that
early detected outbreaks of AIS can be quickly eradicated and/or controlled , (5) supporting the
development and use of underwater dispersal barriers such as those used in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, and (6) providing greater funding for all of these projects and
more research efforts in the field of AIS."8 Ultimately, while states are likely to have the most
intimate knowledge about their waters and the strongest interest in protecting them, the nature of 'the AIS problem
is one that requires a uniform solution provided at the federal level. This federal
leadership is needed primarily so that parties facing regulatory requirements have a consistent
set of obligations throughout the United States and so that the ultimate goal of protecting
the aquatic ecosystem will not be thwarted by those states that fail to take sufficient
protective action. Over a decade ago, a group of 500 scientists and resource managers penned a letter to Vice President Al Gore to demand
action on the invasive species problem, claiming the United States was losing in the war against AIS invasions and suffering tremendous environmental
Given today's world, in which global trade and travel is the norm, there is no
question that the United States will continue to be threatened by AIS and will need to remain steadfast in its
and economic damage."9
efforts to combat AIS deleterious consequences. It is quite possible that the war against AIS is one that will never be won in any traditional sense, given
it is undeniable that the war against AIS is one that might be lost if
we fail to maintain a constant vigilance or to act with sufficient purpose to manage effectively this threat and minimize its
impacts. It is incumbent upon the federal government to act soon and rejuvenate its effort
in combating AIS to avoid the tremendous environmental and economic costs that
accompany this very real threat.
the nature of globalization. However,
AIS introduction into the US prevalent now

Before addressing the prevention of AIS introduction, it
is important to understand how these organisms

end up residing in a habitat that is foreign to them in the first place. AIS arrive in new
habitats with both intentional and unintentional assistance from humans ! Intentional AIS
introductions are not necessarily nefarious.8 In fact, intentional introductions can occur when a
particular species is initially introduced for its perceived or actual benefits.' For example, intentional
introductions may be desirable for aquaculture or seafood production purposes, with the risk resulting from unexpected
consequences or improper control of such species.'" Other
methods of AIS introduction include the ballast

water of ships, recreational boating, live fishing bait, aquarium releases, canals, and semisubmersible oil platforms." Ballast water is the primary means of AIS introduction and is a significant part of what is
addressed by the statutory and regulatory regime.'2 Thus, it is worthwhile to gain a better understanding of this process.
Whenever a ship travels from port to port, either without cargo or with anything less than a full capacity of
cargo on board, it must take on ballast water before departing in order to make a transoceanic trip safely.'3 Upon
arrival at a new port, the ship discharges its ballast water as it takes on the weight of cargo,
releasing foreign water, and with it any organisms and eggs that may be in the ballast
water, into the waters of that port." Even ships that leave their original port with a full load of cargo (and thus no ballast water)
retain some amount of residual water in their ballast tanks along with organisms and eggs that can be released into a foreign port
during a later ballast discharge." Approximately
50,000 ships enter American ports from overseas

each year, and any given ship may hold more than twenty-one million gallons of ballast water .'6
It is clear the risk of AIS introduction through ballast water discharges is significant .
National strategy key to coordinated response (maybe solvency advocate?)
Britton 9 Kerry O., National Forest Pathology Program Leader, Forest Service, Research and
Development, (Invasive Species Overarching Priorities to 2029, A Dynamic Invasive Species Research
Vision 2009-29, 2009, \\CLans)
Invasive species are one of the greatest threats to forest, range, aquatic, and urban forest
ecosystem health. They contribute to the endangerment of native species and may lead to
other severe ecological and financial consequences in our Nations wildlands and urban
forests. Costs the public pays for damage, losses, and control efforts are estimated at more than $138
billion per year. Severe infestations of cheatgrass have contributed to increased fire frequency and intensity in Western
States, reducing property values in some areas by up to 80 percent. Asian long-horned beetles threaten more
than $500 billion in urban tree losses in America, over time, if left unchecked. Recent regional invasions, such as
Sudden Oak Death in California, Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwest, and Sirex noctilio in New York, have the potential to become
national threats. Invasive
species threaten Pacific Island ecosystems, riparian communities,

and wetlands and are the second leading contributor of species endangerment in aquatic
ecosystems. Expanding global trade is increasing the rate of invasive species
introductions and the costs associated with preventing introductions and quarantining
and managing new infestations. Given the large number of nonnative invasive species present in the United States and projections
for increasing numbers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) must
be strategic in allocating research resources to develop the science to manage invasive

species and their effects. Forest owners and managers likewise need tools to help allocate resources across pests and ecosystems.
A recent peer review panel recommended increased funding for two areas: (1) prevention and
prediction and (2) early detection and rapid response. Therefore, quantitative risk analysis and pathway
assessments will be key components of our research program. Our future strategy also recognizes the importance of maintaining
research in two other areas: (1) control and management and (2) restoration and rehabilitation. We believe a
holistic
national strategy will improve sharing of expertise across research stations and
encourage actions that prevent regional threats from expanding into national ones .
Increased coordination with other agencies will help identify regulatory and research
gaps and will improve the complementary use of resources.
bioD
Global ecosystems are on the brink of collapse we are reaching the
tipping point of environmental degradation
Knight, 10 --- Cites the GBO and CBD: The GBO-3 is a landmark study in what is the U.N.'s
International Year of Biodiversity and will play a key role in guiding the negotiations between world
governments at the U.N. Biodiversity Summit in Nagoya, Japan in October 201 (Matthew, U.N. report:
Eco-systems at 'tipping point',
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/10/biodiversity.loss.report/index.html?
eref=igoogle_cnn,RE)
The world's eco-systems are at risk of "rapid degradation and collapse" according to a new
United Nations report. The third Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) published by the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) warns that unless "swift, radical and creative action" is taken "massive further
loss is increasingly likely." Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the CBD said in a statement: "The news is not good.
We continue to lose biodiversity at a rate never before seen in history ." The U.N. warns several
eco-systems including the Amazon rainforest, freshwater lakes and rivers and coral reefs are
approaching a "tipping point" which, if reached, may see them never recover . The report says that
no government has completely met biodiversity targets that were first set out in 2002 -- the year
of the first GBO report. Executive Director of the U.N. Environmental Program Achim Steiner said there were key
economic reasons why governments had failed in this task. "Many economies remain blind to the huge
value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life-forms and their role in healthy and functioning eco-systems," Steiner said
in a statement. Although many countries are beginning to factor in "natural capital," Steiner said that this needs "rapid and
sustained scaling-up." Despite
increases in the size of protected land and coastal areas, biodiversity

trends reported in the GBO-3 are almost entirely negative. Vertebrate species fell by nearly one
third between 1970 and 2006, natural habitats are in decline, genetic diversity of crops is
falling and sixty breeds of livestock have become extinct since 2000 . Nick Nuttall, a U.N.
Environmental Program spokesman, said the cost of eco-systems degradation is huge. " In terms of land-use change,
it's thought that the annual financial loss of services eco-systems provide -- water, storing
carbon and soil stabilization -- is about &euro50 billion ($64 billion) a year," Nuttall told CNN. "If this
continues we may well see by 2050 a cumulative loss of what you might call land-based natural
capital of around &euro95 trillion ($121 trillion)," he said.
Invasive species is a threat to Biodiversity and aquaculture industry--federal policy/oversight key

Naylor et al, 12 --- professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford (Rosamond with
Susan L.Williams, Donald R. Strong, AquacultureA Gateway for Exotic Species,
http://faculty.wwu.edu/~shulld/ESCI%20432/Sci2001-Aqu-Invasives.pdf, RE)
The National
Research Council (23) has ranked invasive species and overexploitation as the
most serious threats to native marine biodiversity . Nonetheless, marine and freshwater
species received the smallest allocation (<1%) of the federal FY2000 budget for invasive species
management, whereas more than 90% went to agriculture (24). The Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, a
multiagency body legislated by the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (1990) to assume federal
management leadership, has received no appreciable budget to support research and

control programs. Moreover, the new Invasive Species Management Plan (2001) focuses
primarily on terrestrial species and largely ignores aquaculture introductions (24). Improved
Oversight A clear policy on exotic introductions is needed as aquaculture expandsone that
includes scientific risk assessment for all nonnative introductions and single-agency
oversight for the prevention, containment, and monitoring of potentially harmful
exotics. New Zealands Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996) provides a model that the United States and other
countries should follow. The New Zealand approach regulates exotic introductions comprehensively in a single legislative act with
clear oversight. Importers of nonnative species must apply to an independent regulatory authority accountable to the Environment
Ministry and Parliament for public approval.
All species are considered potentially invasive and

therefore prohibited unless proven otherwise. International transfers of nonnative
species for aquaculture pose high ecological risks given the absence of strong policies in
most countries. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has identified at least 46 international quasi-legal instruments that
address exotic species invasions; however, there is no binding agreement apart from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
that deals comprehensively with introductions, control, and eradication of exotic species (25). The CBD (convened by the IUCN and
ratified in 1992 by 170 countries excluding the United States) holds signatory members accountable for conducting scientific risk
assessments for introductions and advocates use of native species in aquaculture .
Persuading the United States and

nonsignatory countries to abide by this process remains a worthy challenge . In many cases,
the aquaculture industry itself has an economic stake in preventing introductions of
exotic species that harm their products. In other cases, the costs of exotic species introduced
by aquaculture are external to the industry and even to the state or country where the
industry operates. Comprehensive guidelines for preventing introductions of invasive
species exist through the IUCN (25) and ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (26) and have been
implemented by New Zealand as a working model. Widespread adoption of these policies is
urgently needed in the United States and abroad to stem the rising tide of
aquatic invasions.
Invasive Species causes Biod loss and spread of disease

Lee, 9 --- Ph.D., Executive Director Oceanic Institute at Center for Tropical and Subtropical
Aquaculture (Cheng-Sheng, Introduced Species and Aquaculture,
https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull29/8.pdf, RE)
Problems associated with the culture of local species led culturists in many regions of the world to seek related non-
indigenous species as alternatives (Stickney, 2001). Aquaculture, then, has become the main cause of the
introduction of non-indigenous species, accounting for 38.7% of introduced species recorded in the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) database (Garibaldi and Bartley 1998). The practice of culturing
non-indigenous species has existed for many years to take advantage of existing markets, as well as available technology
and resources. Almost 10% of global aquaculture production came from introduced species (Garibaldi
and Bartley 1998). The pressure to culture non-indigenous species has increased , given expanding
aquaculture production and increasing demand for diversified seafood from consumers. Aquaculture farms in the United States
currently produce more than 100 different species of aquatic plants and animals; most
major aquatic species
cultured in the U.S. are not native to their farm sites (Naylor et al., 2001). Non-indigenous species have
been introduced for farming in particular regions because of the immediate social and economic benefit s. Some
nonindigenous species, however, have quickly adapted to their new environment, have
become established, and now compete with indigenous species for limited habita ts.
Biological invasions are recognized as serious threats to marine biodiversity and

ecosystem structure and function (Frisch and Murray, 2002). In addition, introduction of non-indigenous
species for aquaculture has resulted in numerous unintentional introductions of
pathogens, parasites, and pest species (Galil, 2000).
Invasive species destroy paddlefish population
Pegg et al., 9 ---- professor School of Natural Resources, University of NebraskaLincoln (Simon,
Potential Effects of Invasive Species on Paddlefish, http://w.fisheries.org/proofs/pad/pegg.pdf, RE)
Invasive species are one of the dominant problems fisheries managers face when dealing with
management, conservation, or preservation of native fishes. The primary concern is the potential for negative interactions between
invasive and native species where the outcome is reduced abundance, fitness, growth, or extirpated native fish species. These
negative interactions can come from direct competition for resources , vectors for the
spread of disease or parasites, and subtle effects such as altering the flow of energy within and among
other trophic levels. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula are not exempt from these threats and may
even be at a higher risk because they are endemic to historically lotic systems in the central
United States where many invasive species are now becoming established. The most prominent
invasive threat to paddlefish may be from fellow filter-feeders bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp H. molitrix
because they consume similar food
resources, possibly displace other pelagic species, and can also

change the plankton community to one that cannot be as efficiently used by paddlefish.
These two carp species have had a negative influence on native fish communities in other
parts of the world, and have been shown to negatively interact with juvenile paddlefish in North America. Response plans that
implement a movement barrier or removal of invasive species may also have ramifications for paddlefish in that they restrict
movement patterns or reduce abundances as bycatch through harvest schemes. Gaining insights into potential invasive species
threats to paddlefish
is critical so that informed decisions can be made to prevent ecological

damage from the invasive species while optimizing sustainability of native species.
AIS causes Biod Loss and economic impacts that decimate ag and trade
Lovell and Stone, 5 --- P.hDs work at National Center for Environmental Economics at U.S. EPA
(Sabrina and Susan, THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES: A REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/ffb05b5f4a2cf40985256d2d00740681/0ad7644c390503e3852
56f8900633987/$FILE/2005-02.pdf, RE)
Invasive species are a growing threat in the United States, causing losses in biodiversity,
changes in ecosystems, and impacts to economic enterprises such as agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, power production, and international trade. The costs of preventing and controlling
invasive species are not well understood or documented, but estimates indicate that the costs are quite high, in the range of millions
to billions of dollars per year. EPAs Office of Water needs to develop a national estimate of the costs of aquatic invasive species and
the benefits of control. This review of the economic literature on invasive species is the first stage in the development of that
estimate. The review includes studies on fish, mollusks, crustaceans, invertebrates, and plants .
There are few

theoretical, and even fewer empirical, studies dealing with the economic costs of aquatic
invasive species. Due to the high level of invasions in the Great Lakes, a number of studies focus on species
found there, and on Zebra Mussels in particular. The aquatic studies reviewed show values ranging from several hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year to tens of millions of dollars a year. It seems apparent that a
systematic approach is
needed to develop a consistent method to estimate such costs . As the literature points out,
invasive species and their control have definite public good aspects and thus call for some level of
government intervention. However, to what extent and what form that intervention takes place depends on myriad
of issues associated with both the region and the species involved. Optimal policy
appears to be as unique as the individual species or ecosystem it is attempting to control and protect.
Invasive species decimate ecosystems
Once established in a new habitat, the nature and degree of environmental and economic
harm AIS cause varies according to the particular species and the timing and adequacy of the
response to combat them. Generally speaking, the environmental impact of AIS is
likely to be severe because they can harm native species by competing for common
food sources, preying on native species, bringing in new diseases, and changing the
genetic makeup of similar species.'" Ultimately, AIS may be able to modify substantially
the original ecosystem."
Federal leadership key to unity and stopping species spread
One approach to addressing the AIS problem in light of the shortcomings of the existing federal response is to strengthen the role of state governments in managing the threat.
After all, states will generally be more familiar with the complexities of their own waters and have a greater interest in ensuring their protection than the federal government. In
recognition of some of the inadequacies of the federal response to AIS ,
ways.
some states have chosen to take action in various
One way for states to act is to put in place their own bans on the importation of certain AIS, much like the Lacey Act bans the importation of injurious species at the federal level. For example, consider the grass carp. Under the Lacey Act, the grass
carp has not been found to be injurious and can still be imported into the United States.'" However, a number of states have decided to ban the importation of the grass carp, including the Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, among other
attempt by
one state to prevent the introduction of grass carps can easily be thwarted if a
neighboring state with connected bodies of water does not have such a prohibition in place.
Such a reality favors a uniform federal approach to import prohibitions but with some
states throughout the country.'"' This approach is one way for states to overcome the slow process of getting a species listed under the Lacey Act or to act when the USFWS has simply failed to act.
However, the
modifications as noted below in the section on a stronger federal role. Another way in which states have taken up the cause of
fighting AIS is to address ballast water as a means of introduction. Two examples of states that have imposed more stringent regulations on ships than those implemented by the Coast Guard are
California and Michigan. In California, all ships entering state waters with ballast water on board from another port within the "Pacific Coast Region" are required to complete a ballast water exchange before entering California waters, retain the ballast water on
board, use an alternative method of ballast water treatment approved by the Coast Guard, discharge the ballast water in a preapproved reception facility, or, if none of the previous options are possible, perform an exchange in some other agreed-upon location.' 2
This rule essentially enlarges the scope of ballast water regulation to include ships that otherwise would not be captured by Coast Guard regulations. Furthermore, California has issued regulations that will go into effect for ships built after January 1, 2009, to govern
the content of the ballast water discharges based on the amount and size of living organisms in that water.'3 The state sets standards for the allowable size and quantity of live organisms in discharged water that are to be achieved by treating the ballast water on
board before discharge using methods that have yet to be determined.' Finally, California has established that beginning January 1, 2020, all discharged water must be treated so that it contains "zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes."' ' 5 In
Michigan, the approach to ballast water management is also more rigorous than that of the Coast Guard under NANPCA and NISA. Michigan requires all oceangoing ships that enter its waters to obtain a permit, which will only be granted if it can be shown the ship
will not discharge AIS or if one of the state-approved methods of ballast water treatment is used.'" The approved methods of ballast water treatment include: hypochlorite treatment, chlorine dioxide treatment, ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended solids
removal, and deoxygenation treatment. 10 '7 It is noteworthy that ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ is not one of the approved methods for ships entering Michigan waters. Thus, ships that are otherwise in compliance with the requirements under NANPCA
This additional burden on shippers gave rise to a recent lawsuit

by a group of international shippers who claimed that the Michigan ballast water statute was
invalid due to preemption by the federal statutes and regulations on ballast water ."8 The
court upheld the Michigan ballast water statute, and the plaintiffs have appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit." Even if the district court's decision is affirmed, the underlying
concern of the plaintiffs is still an issue that must be considered on its merits. That issue is the inconsistent and
varying obligations imposed upon Shippers that results when states are able to craft
their own ballast water statutes in a manner such as Michigan. Ultimately, these efforts by Michigan and other states
and NISA will have to do more if they wish to enter Michigan waters.
to thwart the introduction of AIS suggest state governments do recognize the seriousness of the AIS threat and are willing to take the
measures create
external burdens to international commerce and may ultimately not be as beneficial as
the states intend them to be given the nature of the AIS threat . After all, AIS do not
recognize state borders and can easily spread through connected waterways from a state
with lax regulations to one with stringent importation and ballast water standards in
place. This reality suggests the potential futility of a stronger state role and reinforces the
need for a uniform federal approach to combat AIS, albeit modified and enhanced from its existing
lead on such matters if they feel the federal government's response is lacking. Nevertheless, such
condition.
The risk and scope of invasive species spread is high and rising
Murray et al 11- Catheryn, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada (Recreational boating: a large unregulated vector transporting marine invasive
species, A Journal of Conservation Biogeography, Biodiversity Research, 2011 \\CLans)
This study demonstrated that NIS are both present on recreational boats and, perhaps more
importantly, travelling on boats in British Columbia suggesting the risk posed to other
temperate marine ecosystems could be high. Within the boating community, we conrmed nine NIS, some
of which are considered highly invasive, and many of these boats were visiting multiple marinas . Thus,
the risk of spread of marine NIS in BC should be considered very high. Many of the NIS observed in hull
fouling communities were likely introduced originally with live trade associated with Pacic oyster aquaculture. However, the
current study provides evidence that the secondary spread
of these species can likely be attributed to the

recreational boating vector both in BC and in other regions as well. Fouling of niche areas is the
most probable mechanism of introduction and spread as per cent cover was not related to travel frequency or antifouling paint age.
Transport may not be restricted to short distances as nonindigenous ascidians B. violaceus and M. manhattensis were found in
marinas as far north as Prince Rupert. Boats
undertaking frequent or long distance travel still had

fouling on niche areas suggesting this region is at continued risk of primary introductions via
recreational boats. In contrast to other historically important vectors such as shipping and aquaculture, there are no
management actions in place today aimed at limiting introduction and spread by the
recreational boating vector. Boating activities are on the rise worldwide, both in terms of number
of boats, number of marinas and connections between marinas, elevating the probability that NIS will be
transported through this pathway into an increasing number of habitats, regions and
possibly countries.
Squo ballast water efforts to stop invasive species fail
Nilsson 10- Annika, Masters Thesis in International Environmental Law (Regulations on Ballast
Water & Invasive Species a Comparative Approach, Spring 2010 http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?
func=downloadFile&recordOId=1670578&fileOId=1685527\\CLans)
Harmful aquatic species are today invading foreign habitats at an unprecedented pace.
They have had a large negative impact on many fragile ecosystems of the world and
ballast water has been identified as one the major culprits behind their fast spread. Today, the
most common remedy used to combat the problem is exchanging ballast water in the open
ocean to get rid of any organisms with the potential to survive in the coastal areas of ports. This
method is now proving to be much less efficient than what was first thought
and scientists are forced to find new solutions. The new solution is the installment of onboard ballast
water treatment systems and most of the regulations on ballast water seem to be moving in the same
direction by establishing performance standards for such systems, which dictate the amounts of viable
organisms allowed in ballast water discharges. The contents of most regulations on ballast water have
shown to be very similar. The general requirement is that vessels exchange their ballast water at least 200
nautical miles from shore before entering into the exclusive economic zones of states. Alternatively,
discharges may be but only if accepted onboard treatment systems have been used or if
discharges can be made to land-based reception facilities. Discharging untreated ballast water
can only be accepted in emergency situations when the vessel, its crew or passengers are threatened.
Internationally, there are several legally binding regulations which concern invasive
species such as the Convention on biological diversity, but up until today any ballast
water regulations have been voluntary. The tables are about to turn since the International
maritime organization has developed its Ballast water convention. However, the convention
requires the signing of 30 states, representing at least 35 % of the gross
tonnage of the world's shipping to enter into force and there is no saying
when it finally will become ratified.
Even if we cant stop the invasive species early monitoring resolves the
impacts
Ricciardi 98- A., Dpartement de biologie (GIROQ), Universit Laval, Ste-Foy (Predicting the
identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management, 1998,
\\CLans)
Because the ecological and economic costs of invasion are high (OTA 1993), resources should
be allocated towards prevention. Preventative measures depend on advance knowledge
of invasion threats, which can be gained from careful monitoring of information networks (e.g.,
literature, the internet, sym- posia), and the application of the guidelines we have described. Such endeavors would be aided greatly
by the development of a broadly accessible electronic inventory of aquatic invaders, with information about their life history, habitat
requirements, dispersal patterns, and methods of control. Even
when invasion is imminent, advance

knowledge could prepare us for dealing with the ecological and technological impacts
that may follow. Given the detrimental effects of invasive aquatic organisms on
fisheries, biodiversity, outdoor recreation, and water supply systems (e.g., Morton 1979, 1997;
Kaufman 1992; Lodge 1993; Mills et al. 1993a; OTA 1993), the identification of future invaders should be a
common priority among scientists and policy makers.
Shipping is the proximate cause of invasive species introduction
Cass-Hausler 10- Nicole, Masters Thesis for a Master of Science in Marine Studies, (ROLE OF
RISK BASED DECISION MAKING IN ACHIEVING BALLAST WATER POLICY GOALS IN MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION, Fall 2010 http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/9790/Nicole_CassHausler_thesis.pdf?sequence=1\\CLans)
Shipping is the most significant vector for maritime introductions of nonindigenous

species (3). Maritime shipping accounts for approximately 90 percent of world cargo
movement and 77 percent of U.S. cargo movements by weight, resulting in a significant
dependence on the seas for global economic health (19-20). Although there are many benefits to using
maritime transportation, in recent years, it has become apparent that there are also areas of concern, specifically regarding the
introduction of NIS. Maritime
transportation increases the opportunities for invasions to occur

leading to environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. These processes have a negative effect
on the areas surrounding ports despite national and international policies (16-17, 21-22). The IMO states that between 3 and 5
billion tons of ballast water are discharged into the world ocean each year with as many
as 7,000 different species (11). Fouled ship hulls may carry as many as 2,000,000
organisms, available for release into port environments (23).
Nonnative fish species alter ecosystems- costs 5.4 billion
David Pimentel, Prof Emeritus, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB), College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS),
December 29th, 2004, Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United
States, Ecological Economics 52 (2005) 273 288)//SQR
2.5. Fish A total of 138 alien fish species has been introduced into the United States (Courtenay
et al., 1991; Courtenay, 1993, 1997). Most of these introduced fish have been established in states with mild climates, like Florida (50
species; Courtenay, 1997) and California (56 species; Dill and Cordone, 1997). In Hawaii, 33 alien freshwater fish species have
become established (Maciolek, 1984). Forty-four native species of fish are threatened or endangered by alien-invasive fish (Wilcove
and Bean, 1994). An additional 27 native species of native fish species are also negatively affected by introductions (Wilcove and
Bean, 1994). Introduced
fish species frequently alter the ecology of aquatic ecosystems . For

instance, the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) reduces natural aquatic vegetation, while the common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) reduces water quality by increasing turbidity. These changes have caused
the extinctions of some native fish species (Taylor et al., 1984). Although some native fish
species are reduced in numbers, are forced to extinction, or hybridized by alien fish
species, alien fish do provide some benefits in the improvement of sport fishing. Sport fishing contributes $69 billion to the
economy of the United States (Bjergo et al., 1995; USBC, 2001). However, based on the more than 40 alien invasive species that have
negatively affected native fishes and other aquatic biota, and considering the fact that sports fishing is valued at $69 billion/y
(USBC, 2001), the conservative
(Pimentel, unpublished data).
economic losses due to exotic fish is $5.4 billion annually
Mollusks overtake native areas- costs billions

2.7. Mollusks Eighty-eight
species of mollusks have been introduced and established in the

U.S. aquatic ecosystems (OTA, 1993). Three of the most serious pests are the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha),
Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), and quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis). The European zebra mussel was first found in Lake St.
Clair after gaining entrance via ballast water released in the Great Lakes from ships that had traveled over from Europe (Benson and
Boydstun, 1995). The zebra mussel has spread into most of the aquatic ecosystems in the eastern United States and is expected to
invade most freshwater habitats throughout the nation (Benson and Boydstun, 1995). Another related mussel species, the quagga
mussel, is spreading rapidly and in some cases displacing zebra mussels (C.A. Stepien, PC, Cleveland State University, 2003).
Large mussel populations reduce food and oxygen for native fauna. In addition, zebra
mussels have been observed completely covering native mussels, clams, and snails,
thereby further threatening their survival (Benson and Boydstun, 1995; Keniry and Marsden, 1995). Mussel
densities have been recorded as high as 700,000/m2 (Griffiths et al., 1991). Zebra and quagga mussels also invade and clog water
intake pipes, water filtration, and electric generating plants ;
it is estimated that they cause $1 billion/year in

damages and associated control costs per year (Army, 2002). Although the Asian clam grows
and disperses less rapidly than the zebra mussel, it too is causing significant fouling
problems and is threatening native species. Costs associated with its damage are about
$1 billion/year (Isom, 1986; OTA, 1993). The introduced shipworm (Teredo navalis) in the San Francisco Bay
has also caused serious damage since the early 1990s. Currently, damages
are estimated to be about $205
million/year (Cohen and Carlton, 1995).

Alien diseases costs billions
Human diseases The alien
diseases now having the greatest impact are Acquired Immune

Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), syphilis, and influenza (Newton-John, 1985; Pimentel et al.,
1999). In 1993, there were 103,533 cases of AIDS with 37,267 deaths (CDC, 1996). The total health
care cost for the treatment of AIDS averages about $6 billion per year (USPHS, 1994). New
influenza strains, originating in the Far East, quickly spread to the United States. These
are reported to cause 5% to 6% of all deaths in 121 U.S. cities (Kent et al., 1992). Costs of
hospitalizations for a single outbreak of influenza, like type A, can exceed $300 million per year (Chapman
et al., 1992). In addition, each year there are approximately 53,000 cases of syphilis; to treat only new
born children infected with syphilis costs the nation $18.4 million/year (Bateman et al., 1997). In total,
AIDS, influenza, and syphilis take the lives of more than 40,000 people each year in the
United States, and treatment costs for these diseases plus syphilis total approximately
$6.5 billion/year and does not include the other exotic disease s. In addition, West Nile virus
is a new invading disease of humans, birds, horses and other animals. Approximately 4200 humans were
infected last year, with 284 deaths (CDC, 2003). The estimated public health costs are $631 million per
year (Table 1). An increasing threat of exotic diseases exists because of rapid transportation,
encroachment of civilization into new ecosystems, and growing environmental degradation.
Reduces quality of fish and water

Pejchar 9 (Liba Pejchar, professor at CSU, Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being, Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Trends in ecology and evolution vol. 24 no.9)//SQR
Provisioning services Food, fiber and fuel Introduced species are both a blessing and a curse for are deliberately introduced nonnative species, yet other IAS can reduce crop yields by billions of dollars annually [10]. The impacts of
several plant IAS on agriculture have recently been well documented. For instance, yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstialis), an
invasive late-season annual in California that is unpalatable to cows, costs the state US$7.65 million annually in lost livestock forage
and costs ranchers US$9.45 million in out-of-pocket control expenditures [16]. These numbers amount to 7% of all revenue from
active rangeland in California. Comprehensive economic impact data, however, are still lacking for many IAS in agricultural systems
[16]. Environmental
and societal costs are often not included in analyses of even the best-
documented IAS [17]. For instance, controlling redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) in Texas rangelands is economically
feasible over a 30 year period because of increased livestock production resulting from its control [18]. The net benefits of
controlling this species might be even higher if other services, such as increased water available to recharge aquifers, were included
in the analysis. In addition to impacting terrestrial agriculture ,
IAS can also have important repercussions

for aquatic food production [19]. For example, the introduction of water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crossipes) into Lake Victoria has reduced the production and quality of fish, obstructed
waterways and boat movement, damaged water supply intakes, contributed to the
spread of water-borne diseases and increased water loss through evapotranspiration [20].
The nature of the impact of IAS on food, fiber and fuel is usually a matter of scale and perspective. An invasive tree in Florida
(Melaleuca quinquenervia) has a positive impact on honey production (US$15 million annually [21]), but removing this species
would result in a US$168.6 million yr1 gain in ecotourism dollars that would otherwise be lost if Melaleuca were to infest the
Everglades and other south Florida natural areas [22]. The introduction of brush-tailed possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) to New
Zealand has resulted in massive defoliation, but is also highly profitable for the eco-friendly fur industry (at least US$20 million
yr1 in exports [23]). Both of these cases illustrate that the costs and benefits of IAS can be distributed differently: those who benefit
do not pay the costs and those who lose are not compensated [24,25]. IAS can have complex and sometimes beneficial impacts on
rural low-income communities in particular [26] (Box 1). For example, in South Africa, invasive Acacia and Pinus species have
resulted in reduced stream flow and increased fire intensity [27]. However, these species are also important ecosystem goods that
are now used for thatching, timber, medicine, charcoal and firewood by local communities [25,28]; the economic value of the
firewood alone is US$2.8 million [29]. Because introduced species are often incorporated into local livelihoods, it is not possible to
assume that harmful impacts on biodiversity or other ecosystem goods and services automatically translate into universally negative
effects on human well-being [30] (Box 1). Fresh water In contrast to the effects on crop and pastureland, fewer studies have
documented the impacts of IAS on hydrological services [31 ].
It is known that plant IAS can fundamentally

change the flow of water for drinking and irrigation if they have at least one of the
following characteristics in comparison to native species: (i) deeper roots; (ii) higher
evapotranspiration rates; or (iii) greater biomass [4]. For example, salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), a
widespread invasive alien tree along streams in the southwestern USA , consumes more water than do native
riparian species, using an additional 1.43.0 billion cubic meters of water each year [32].
Thus, US$26.367.8 million of water is lost annually that would otherwise be available for
irrigation, municipal drinking water or hydropower [32]. Similarly, the yellow star thistle
depletes soil moisture, costing between US$16 million and US$75 million a year in lost
water to the Sacramento watershed [33]. M. quinquenervia, which is invasive in Florida and Australia, and several
Eucalyptus species, introduced in California, all have deep tap roots and use large amounts of water relative to their host native plant
communities [34]. By contrast, in the midwestern USA, invasive alien grasses have shallow roots, and therefore might use less water
than do the native perennial grasses that they displace [35]. In
one of the clearest examples of IAS impacts

on ecosystem services, many woody plant IAS in South Africa, which have high
evapotranspiration rates, decrease the amount of surface water and the magnitude of
stream flow [36]. These results are the basis for the innovative program Working for Water, which has been largely successful
in combining the cutting of woody IAS to restore hydrological services with poverty alleviation through job creation (Box 1) [37,38].
Regulating services Impacts of IAS on regulating services are relatively unknown but, because they interfere with basic ecosystem
functions such as the provision of clean water and a stable climate, they might well dwarf the impacts on the betterunderstood
provisioning services discussed previously.
IAS could thus have underappreciated but widespread

impacts on pollination, water purification, pest control, natural hazards and climate
mitigation, services that are both the cornerstone of fisheries, agriculture and forestry
and fundamental to human well-being [39]. Pollination Non-native honeybees (Apis mellifera) are
widely used to pollinate crops in North America, providing indispensable services for
farmers, particularly in areas where native pollinators are scarce . These pollination
services are worth an estimated US$14.8 billion annually in the USA [40]. In some cases,
however, honeybees act as IAS. The European honeybee has hybridized with the far more aggressive Africanized honeybee in Latin
America and is moving northward. This hybrid is a danger to human health, chasing people perceived to be a threat great distances
from the hive and inflicting large numbers of potentially deadly stings. Bee IAS can also disrupt mutualisms [41] by displacing native
bees that are superior pollinators [42].
Non-native bees could also enable range expansion in

pollinator-limited plant IAS [43] and distract both native and non-native pollinators
away from native species [44].
Understanding the ecological dimensions and economic impacts of IAS on pollination is crucial for food security and the
maintenance of agricultural and natural plant communities worldwide. Climate regulation When
IAS replace native

plant species, differences in carbon storage capacity could affect the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere. For example, nonnative annual grasses have largely replaced the native
sagebrush ecosystem in the US Great Basin region. This Box 1. Woody plant IAS and ecosystem services in South Africa Table I
illustrates the complex interactions between woody plant IAS, ecosystem services and society in South Africa. Introduced trees and
shrubs have benefited the forest products industry, and provide fuel wood and building supplies for local communities [25].
However, owing to high rates of evapotranspiration, these species have also led to a loss of hydrological services, with 30% less water
now available to downstream users [27,29,36,73,74]. These woody plants have invaded the native and unique fynbos ecosystem,
impacting pollination services, ecotourism and displacing native fynbos plants that are used as tea and in medicine [73,75]. Higher
fuel loads have led to increased fire frequency and a subsequent rise in surface-water runoff and erosion of topsoil [78]. Many of
these impacts were incorporated into costbenefit analyses, and the findings (net negative impacts on fresh water) led to policy
action [37]. Working for Water is an innovative government-funded program that combines removing woody plant IAS (Figure I) to
restore hydrological and other services with much- needed income for South Africas poorest citizens [27,37]. The Figure I. Contract
workers and participants in the Working for Water program removing a dense thicket of woody plant IAS in South Africa.
Reproduced, with environmental benefits of Working for Water (e.g. water saved and permission, from Working for Water
(http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw). biodiversity protected) are well demonstrated [27,36], whereas the social dimension of the program
has had mixed success [38]. Water purification IAS
in aquatic ecosystems have had mixed consequences

for water purification. For example, by heavily grazing aquatic plants, the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) has
transformed wetlands across Southeast Asia from a clear water purification system to a turbid, algae-dominated state [48]. In
addition to these dramatic impacts on water quality, this snail feeds voraciously on young rice seedlings, with serious economic
repercussions for rice production; Philippine rice farmers lost US$4251200 million in 1990 alone [49]. By contrast, on occasion, a
non-native species can increase water filtration and purification, but often not without impacts on other important services. For
example, the
zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) is the poster child for an effective biological

filtration machine [50] that has also caused serious damage to the ecological and
economic value of the Great Lakes region, coating boats and beaches Box 2. Ecosystem services impacted by zebra mussels
Zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha have been deliberately introduced to some aquatic environments because they are extremely
efficient filter feeders that increase water clarity [50,83]. However, most
introductions have been accidental,

with many unanticipated impacts on a host of ecosystem services (Table I) [85]. Zebra
mussels clog water intake pipes (Figure I), costing millions of dollars in damage to industry and interfering with the
flow of fresh water in and out of lakes [19,51]. They serve as food for some native species (e.g.
waterfowl) and compete with others (e.g. native mussels) in addition to changing the
light and nutrient environment substantially through filterfeeding[39,81,83]. They
bioaccumulatetoxins that end up infishes and birds that we ea t [82,86] and they coat
beaches, boats and docks, cutting the feet of bathers. They make shipwrecks easier to find by coating them
in mussels but often foul them before they are found [88]. Because of clear economic impacts on local industry and communities,
the impacts of zebra mussels on ecosystem services are particularly well quantified [19]. This
species is both a
blueprint and a warning for evaluating potential ecological and economic impacts of
other aquatic Figure I. Effects of zebra mussels. The mussels clog water intake pipes, with invaders. negative impacts on
the provision of fresh water from the Great Lakes and costs for local industries of millions of dollars in maintenance.
Increases risk of flood and fire

Flood mitigation By increasing the intensity or frequency of fires or floods, IAS
can exclude native species and

increase risk to nearby human communities. The alteration of fire regimes by IAS has
been well studied [56]; IAS can change fuel properties and the frequency, intensity, extent,
type and seasonality of fire. Examples include the large-scale invasion of the North American shrub-steppe community
by an annual grass, Bromus tectorum, which is fire adapted and has permanently altered the native plant community, which is
unable to regenerate in the face of heightened fire frequency [57]. A similar transformation has occurred in Hawaii following the
invasion of exotic grasses [58]. Altered
fire regimes can result in substantial social and economic
costs. In Florida alone, M. quinquenervia is projected to cause US$250 million in fire damages by 2010 by increasing fuel loads
[21]. IAS can increase flood risk by narrowing stream channels and decreasing holding
capacity [32]. The floods that occurred as a result of the introduction of Tamarisk cost an estimated US$52 million annually in
damages. The introduction of beavers into novel riparian areas can also increase flood risk to some communities, as well as decrease
water quality [59]. Removing aquatic plant IAS from lakes and waterways in Florida results in US$10 million annually in avoided
flood damages to residential structures [60] and US$6345 per acre in avoided flood damage to citrus crops [61]. The fire and flood
prevention services that some native ecosystems supply are generally underappreciated. These services should be accounted for in
controlling IAS and protecting native ecosystems.
Nonnative fish species alter ecosystems- costs 5.4 billion

2.5. Fish A total of 138 alien fish species has been introduced into the United States (Courtenay
et al., 1991; Courtenay, 1993, 1997). Most of these introduced fish have been established in states with mild climates, like Florida (50
species; Courtenay, 1997) and California (56 species; Dill and Cordone, 1997). In Hawaii, 33 alien freshwater fish species have
become established (Maciolek, 1984). Forty-four native species of fish are threatened or endangered by alien-invasive fish (Wilcove
and Bean, 1994). An additional 27 native species of native fish species are also negatively affected by introductions (Wilcove and
Bean, 1994). Introduced
fish species frequently alter the ecology of aquatic ecosystems . For

instance, the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) reduces natural aquatic vegetation, while the common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) reduces water quality by increasing turbidity. These changes have caused
the extinctions of some native fish species (Taylor et al., 1984). Although some native fish
species are reduced in numbers, are forced to extinction, or hybridized by alien fish
species, alien fish do provide some benefits in the improvement of sport fishing. Sport fishing contributes $69 billion to the
economy of the United States (Bjergo et al., 1995; USBC, 2001). However, based on the more than 40 alien invasive species that have
negatively affected native fishes and other aquatic biota, and considering the fact that sports fishing is valued at $69 billion/y
(USBC, 2001), the conservative
(Pimentel, unpublished data).
economic losses due to exotic fish is $5.4 billion annually
Mollusks overtake native areas- costs billions

2.7. Mollusks Eighty-eight
species of mollusks have been introduced and established in the

U.S. aquatic ecosystems (OTA, 1993). Three of the most serious pests are the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha),
Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), and quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis). The European zebra mussel was first found in Lake St.
Clair after gaining entrance via ballast water released in the Great Lakes from ships that had traveled over from Europe (Benson and
Boydstun, 1995). The zebra mussel has spread into most of the aquatic ecosystems in the eastern United States and is expected to
invade most freshwater habitats throughout the nation (Benson and Boydstun, 1995). Another related mussel species, the quagga
mussel, is spreading rapidly and in some cases displacing zebra mussels (C.A. Stepien, PC, Cleveland State University, 2003).
Large mussel populations reduce food and oxygen for native fauna. In addition, zebra
mussels have been observed completely covering native mussels, clams, and snails,
thereby further threatening their survival (Benson and Boydstun, 1995; Keniry and Marsden, 1995). Mussel
densities have been recorded as high as 700,000/m2 (Griffiths et al., 1991). Zebra and quagga mussels also invade and clog water
intake pipes, water filtration, and electric generating plants ;
it is estimated that they cause $1 billion/year in

damages and associated control costs per year (Army, 2002). Although the Asian clam grows
and disperses less rapidly than the zebra mussel, it too is causing significant fouling
problems and is threatening native species. Costs associated with its damage are about
$1 billion/year (Isom, 1986; OTA, 1993). The introduced shipworm (Teredo navalis) in the San Francisco Bay
has also caused serious damage since the early 1990s. Currently, damages are estimated to be about $205
million/year (Cohen and Carlton, 1995).
Invasive species lead to cascading biodiversity loss
Showalter et al 6- Stephanie, National Sea Grant Law Center, University, MS (Managing HullBorne Invasive Species and Coastal Water Quality for California and Baja California Boats Kept in
Saltwater, 2006, California Sea Grant College Program Report Number
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/casg/casgt06004.pdf\\CLans)
High biodiversity arose on our planet when species were separated on isolated areas of land
or sea. This is how, for example, different cereal grains originated in different parts of the world wheat in the Middle East, rice
in the Far East and corn in the Americas. A well known example of the role of geographic isolation in biodiversity is the large variety
of bird species found in the Galapagos Islands. As humans transport species across the globe, inevitably some new arrivals displace
natives. Scientists
who study invasion biology fear that this process could lead to a day when
the Earth has many fewer species than it does now a homogenized world. 16 17 18 Together,
bioinvasions and habitat destruction have been major causes of species extinctions
throughout the world in the past few hundred years. Aquatic invasive species can have significant
undesirable impacts on ecosystems by causing a loss of biodiversity .19 This irretrievable
loss of biodiversity is one of the ecological costs of biological invasions.20 Scientists have
extensively documented the importance of habitat loss as a threat to biodiversity . For
example development of II-2 natural areas in San Diego County, California has reduced diversity of flora and fauna and threatened
some species with extinction.21 However, as understanding of bioinvasions has grown, some scientists have come to believe
that invasive species have an even greater impact on biodiversity than habitat loss does .22
23 Effects on biodiversity and resulting ecological and socio-economic impacts will be discussed in Sections V, VI and VII of this
report. Some scientists believe that ecosystems
with high biodiversity may be more resistant to
bioinvasions. In a study of experimentally assembled communities, decreasing native diversity increased the survival of
invaders. Increasing native diversity decreased open space that could accommodate
invaders.24 Pollution may affect biodiversity by favoring species that are more tolerant of it. The role of pollution in the balance
between native and invasive species will be discussed in Section IX of this report.
Invasive species biggest threat to biodiversity

Kusek 14- Jessica L., J.D. Candidate, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State
University (2007); B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison (2004) (Fishing for a Solution: How to Prevent
the Introduction of Invasive Species Such as the Snakehead Fish, 2004, \\CLans)
The damage caused by invasive species produces widespread environmental and

agricultural harm which costs the United States a tremendous amount of money each year.27
However, it is difficult to assign a monetary value to the harm that invasive species cause to native ecosystems and native species. 28
Non-native species reduce the quality of habitat for native species, limit the availability of
habitat to other animals and thereby contribute to the demise of many native species.29 Most
non-native species leave any natural predators in their native country, therefore, most outlive native species and often thrive in
foreign lands.30 Furthermore, there
is considerable competition between non- native and native

species and often native species are harmed and many times even destroyed by these
foreign invaders.3 ' As a result, nearly half of all species listed on the Endangered Species Act
are threatened by one or more invasive species. 32 These foreign species are extremely dangerous because
with few predators, once they are introduced into an ecosystem it becomes very difficult to eradicate them. 33 One particular
invasive species which has wreaked havoc near the nation's capital is the snakehead fish. This fish was first introduced into
Maryland waters by an individual who bought the fish for medicinal purposes and later discarded it in a pond when the fish's
proposed healing powers were no longer needed.34 Currently, there
are no known predators of the

snakehead fish in the United States, and therefore these non-native fish pose a considerable
threat to a wide variety of native species.35 Like many invasive species introduced into the United States,
snakeheads can be very dangerous to the environment, detrimental to wildlife and the
cost to eradicate them could be very costly. 36
Control before entrance into the US is key

There are two main ways to diminish the damaging effects invasive species have on the
environment. The first method is to prevent the introduction of non-native species into
the United States before potential harm arises.37 Establishing inspection sites and quarantining potential infected
areas have proven effective mechanisms for preventing the introduction of many invasive species in the United States. Second, if
prevention proves unsuccessful, it
is imperative that the spread of the foreign species is controlled

to reduce the potential harm to native species.39 There are two techniques which can be implemented in
order to control a species once it becomes established. If possible, the first method is to completely eradicate the non-native species
it is often
difficult and sometimes impossible to control an invasive species once it is introduced
into the environment. Therefore, in order to minimize the damaging effects caused by nonnative species, aggressive measures must be taken before a species even enters the U.S.
and where this proves impossible the other alternative is to reduce the species to bearable levels. 40 However,
Invasive species cause disease spread, collapse ecosystems, and cause

extinction
After developing a primitive understanding of Great Lakes Basin ecosystems, it
is possible to understand how

external factors exert an influence that alters the status quo. Among the forces that act on an
ecosystem are invasive species. Popular misconception adheres to a technically incorrect understanding of what constitutes an
invasive species. The layman's definition of an invasive species is likely one that is non- native to the area which it occupies. This
description is more apropos of a nonindigenous species, which is properly defined as "an organism (plant, animal, or microbe) found
living beyond its historic range, which is usually taken as the area where it evolved to its present form."3 4 On the other hand,
an
invasive species is a "[nonindigenous] species whose introduction does or is likely to cause

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health ."" While all invasive species are
nonindigenous, it does not necessarily follow that all nonindigenous species are invasive.36 Invasive species are noted for forcibly
ejecting indigenous species and filling the newly vacated niche. The
primary means by which invasive species

effect the displacement of endemic species are: directly preying upon native species, competing
with native species for a static amount of resources, causing the loss of genetic uniqueness
through hybridization, and serving as a vector for transmittable diseases. 38 The introduction of the Nile
Perch (Lates niloticus) into African rift lakes demonstrates the significant harm caused through direct predation.3 9 Brought into the
region by the aquaculture industry, L.
niloticus has caused the extinction of over one hundred
species of native cichlids.40 Invasive North American gray squirrels are displacing red squirrels endemic to Britain by
virtue of their ability to better forage for nuts and other food items.41 Genetic distillation can be seen in the aftermath of the
introduction of North American mallard ducks to the Hawaiian Islands.42 Mallards, which were introduced to create a commercial
hunting industry, interbred with endangered endemic Hawaiian ducks, thereby creating genetically impure hybrids.43 Although a
the Bubonic
Plague that affected Europe thrice in the past centuries is among the most
prominent examples of such harm .44 Similar outbreaks of plague occurring in Uganda have
been attributed to the accidental introduction of roof rats by freighter and cargo ships .45
These invasive rats carried fleas, which in turn carried the Bubonic Plague bacterium
widely publicized example of disease transmission by an invasive species has not occurred recently,
that inflicted humans in the area.46 Invasive species are able to thrive due in large part to
the fact that they are often conveyed in isolation from other organisms in their natural
food chain.47 Species adopted to prey upon invasive species in their native habitat are often absent from the invaded
environment, resulting in decreased pressure on invasive species from the higher tiers of the food chain. On a related note, prey
species differ between the native and invaded environments, and the most prolific invasive species are able to adapt to this change.
Further limiting factors are natural fluctuations in season temperatures and conditions which are present in native environments
but at times absent in the invaded environment. For example, when a plant with a growing cycle limited by the onset of winter in its
natural environment is introduced to a locale that has a warm climate year round, the invasive species can be expected to have no
neatly delineated growing season. Scientific
studies summarize these factors succinctly:

"[u]nchecked by natural controls, invasive species are spreading across our lands and
through our waterways, and wreaking havoc with already fragile native species and
ecosystems."48 For the most part, invasive species are condemned for their adverse impacts on
agriculture, ranching, forestry, and industry, but they also pose a dire threat to
biodiversity and ecological stability within the areas in which they supplant local species.49 Peer reviewed
scientific studies have established that invasive species are the second-leading threat to
imperiled indigenous species, second only to habitat destruction caused by human activity.o Furthermore,
"introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined.""1 Collectively,
invasive species are estimated to inflict damages in excess of $137 billion to the United
States economy alone,52 and more than $1.4 trillion globally - roughly equivalent to five
percent of the global economy.5
Aquatic invasive species destroy ocean bio-d
Bostrom 9- Suzanne, Editor in Chief, Environmental Law, 2009-2010; Member, Environmental Law,
2008-2009; J.D. and Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, Lewis and Clark Law
School, expected 2010; B.S. Marketing and International Business, New York University (HALTING THE
HITCHHIKERS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTROLLING BALLAST WATER
DISCHARGES AND AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES, 2009, Accessed via HeinOnline \\CLans )
In January 1991, the Ministry of Health in Lima, Peru, started receiving reports of an illness later identified as cholera.' Over the
course of the next several years, the epidemic spread to all but one Latin American country, infecting at least 100,000 and killing
approximately 10,000 individuals.2 Evidence indicates ballast water from ships moving between Asia and South America was the
most likely source of the outbreak-the first in the Western hemisphere in over a century. Ultimately, the cholera outbreak cost Peru
$770 million, primarily as a result of trade embargoes on food and decreased tourism.4 Unfortunately, the
cholera
epidemic in Peru is just one example of a non-native species causing harm
internationally to the environment, human health, and the economy . Non-native species are
species of plants, animals, and microbes that do not occur naturally in a particular habitat.5 Approximately 50,000 non-native
species are located in the United States.6 Some non-native species, including corn, wheat, rice, poultry, and cattle, are utilized for
agriculture and other purposes in the United States.7 However, when the species
are introduced into new

environments, their natural predators are often absent and the species "can compete with
native biota; displace them; predate upon them; parasitise and transmit or cause
diseases; reduce growth and survival rates; cause decline, extirpation (local extinction) of
populations, or extinction."8 These invasive species are a destructive subset of non-native species that cause
environmental damage and lead to adverse economic consequences in agriculture,
forestry, and other industries.9 Internationally, governments and other entities have already spent billions of dollars
to remove and control invasive species.'0 Invasive species also cause damage to the environment and other species, with
"[a]pproximately 35-46 percent of the species on the endangered species list [present either] partly or entirely because of the effects
The International Maritime Organization ( IMO )'" considers invasive marine

species to be one of the four greatest threats to the world's oceans .1 3 However,
of invasive species.""
"[unlike other forms of marine pollution, such as oil spills, where ameliorative action can be taken and from which the environment
will eventually recover,
the impacts of invasive marine species are most often
irreversible .' 4 In marine environments, ballast water from ships is the primary mechanism for distribution of species
between aquatic ecosystems. 5 Ships often introduce invasive species into new habitats when releasing ballast water, which vessels
take on for balance and stability.' Despite
the tremendous risk posed internationally to the

economy, public health, and the environment, current regulations for ballast water are
limited in scope and effectiveness."
Environment First
We must prioritize the environment- otherwise the movement fails
Burns and Lemoyne, 1---- University of Utah Department of Sociology and Department of
Sociology, Anthropology and Geography The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga ( Thomas and Terri,
How Environmental Movements Can Be More Effective: Prioritizing Environmental Themes in Political
Discourse, http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her81/81burnslemoyne.pdf,RE
0
sA number of observers have pointed out that environmental movements have, at best,
met with mixed success. Our paper develops a theoretical framework for why this has
been the case. The work draws on a number of intellectual traditions, including theories of rational choice, human ecology,
rhetoric, resource mobilization, social movements, criticism and conflict. We examine ways in which
environmental issues are framed and prioritized in the collective decision process, both
within environmental movements, and for the overall polity. Environmental issues often
are used to energize a constituency to support a given political regime ; yet unless the
environment is one of the regimes top priorities, it is typically abandoned
in favor of other issues. In a related vein, we consider how other social movements can
effectively co-opt environmental concerns, thereby diverting significant amounts of
collective energy to other ends. The theory adduced is fractal, or recursive, applying on a number of levels of analysis.
The paper concludes by suggesting ways in which environmental movements can
become more effective.
Discourse on environment allows for future action

Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 4---- leading global thinkers on energy, climate, security,
human development, and politics. Their 2007 book Break Through was called "prescient" by Time and
"the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring" by Wired (Ted and
Michael The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world.
http://grist.org/series/dont-fear-the-reapers-on-the-alleged-death-of-environmentalism, RE)
Going Beyond Special Interests and Single Issues To be empty of a fixed

identity allows one to enter fully into the shifting, poignant, beautiful, and
tragic contingencies of the world. Stephen Batchelor, Verses from the
Center The marriage between vision, values, and policy has proved elusive
for environmentalists. Most environmental leaders, even the most vision-oriented,
are struggling to articulate proposals that have coherence. This is a crisis because
environmentalism will never be able to muster the strength it needs to deal
with the global warming problem as long as it is seen as a special interest.
And it will continue to be seen as a special interest as long as it narrowly identifies the
problem as environmental and the solutions as technical. In early 2003 we joined
with the Carol/Trevelyan Strategy Group, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy,
the Common Assets Defense Fund, and the Institute for Americas Future to
create a proposal for a New Apollo Project aimed at freeing the US from
oil and creating millions of good new jobs over 10 years. Our strategy was to
create something inspiring. Something that would remind people of the
American dream: that we are a can-do people capable of achieving great
things when we put our minds to it. Apollos focus on big investments into
clean energy, transportation and efficiency is part of a hopeful and patriotic
story that we are all in this economy together. It allows politicians to inject
big ideas into contested political spaces, define the debate, attract allies,
and legislate. And it uses big solutions to frame the problem not the other
way around. Until now the Apollo Alliance has focused not on crafting legislative
solutions but rather on building a coalition of environmental, labor, business, and
community allies who share a common vision for the future and a common set of values.
The Apollo vision was endorsed by 17 of the countrys leading labor unions
and environmental groups ranging from NRDC to Rainforest Action
Network. Whether or not you believe that the New Apollo Project is on the
mark, it is at the very least a sincere attempt to undermine the assumptions beneath
special interest environmentalism. Just two years old, Apollo offers a vision that
can set the context for a myriad of national and local Apollo proposals, all of
which will aim to treat labor unions, civil rights groups, and businesses not
simply as means to an end but as true allies whose interests in economic
development can be aligned with strong action on global warming. Van
Jones, the up-and-coming civil rights leader and co-founder of the
California Apollo Project, likens these four groups to the four wheels on the
car needed to make an ecological U-turn. Van has extended the metaphor
elegantly: We need all four wheels to be turning at the same time and at the same
speed. Otherwise the car wont go anywhere. Our point is not that Apollo is the
answer to the environmental movements losing streak on global warming.
Rather we are arguing that all proposals aimed at dealing with global warming Kyoto,
McCain-Lieberman, CAFE, carbon taxes, WEMP, and Apollo must be evaluated not
only for whether they will get us the environmental protections we need but also
whether they will define the debate, divide our opponents and build our political power
over time. It is our contention that the strength of any given political
proposal turns more on its vision for the future and the values it carries
within it than on its technical policy specifications. Whats so powerful
about Apollo is not its 10-point plan or its detailed set of policies but rather
its inclusive and hopeful vision for Americas future. There was a brief
period of time when my colleagues thought I was crazy to grab onto Apollo,
said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, a co-chair of the Apollo
Alliance. They kept looking at Apollo as a policy outcome and I viewed it as
a way of reframing the issue. They kept asking, How do you know
[Teamsters President] Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. is going to get the issue? I
answered, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. isnt! Im not doing policy mark-up here, Im
trying to get the people that work for Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. to do something
different. Getting labor to do something different is no easier than getting
environmentalists to. Its problems are similar to those of the
environmental movement: lack of a vision, a coherent set of values, and
policy proposals that build its power. Theres no guarantee that the
environmental movement can fix labors woes or vice versa. But if we would
focus on how our interests are aligned we might craft something more
creative together than apart. By signifying a unified concern for people and the
climate, Apollo aims to deconstruct the assumptions underneath the categories labor
and the environment. Apollo was created differently from proposals like
McCain-Lieberman. We started by getting clear about our vision and values
and then created a coalition of environmentalists, unions, and civil rights
groups before reaching out to Reagan Democrats and other blue-collar
constituents who have been financially wrecked by the last 20 years of
economic and trade policies. These working families were a key part of the
New Deal coalition that governed America through the middle of the last
century. Though ostensibly liberal on economic issues, Reagan Democrats have
become increasingly suspicious of American government and conservative on social
issues, including environmentalism, due in no small part to the success of conservatives
in consistently targeting this group with strategic initiatives. And yet more than 80
percent of Reagan Democrats, our polling discovered, support Apollo higher rates even than college-educated Democrats. Irrespective of its shortterm impact on U.S. energy policy, Apollo will be successful if it elevates the key
progressive values noted above among this critical constituency of opportunity. Viewed
as part of a larger effort to build a true, values-based progressive majority
in the United States, Apollo shouldbe conceived of as one among several
initiatives designed to create bridge values for this constituency to move,
over time, toward holding consistent and coherent views that look more
and more like those of Americas progressive and environmental base.
Monitoring Key
Monitoring and detection key response plans solve but management

necessary
Gerber 5/1 (5/1/2014, Caitlin Gerber is from the University of South Main and is writing a peer
reviewed public article. Elements of a Successful Plan: Marine Invasive Species
Management,http://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1063&context=muskie_capstones)
If and when an aquatic invasive species is detected it can be difficult to properly and
quickly identify it and take action to control it. A rapid response plan is essential for
success in this situation. A rapid response plan outlines steps taken starting before the
detection of an invasive species through a decision process that may culminate in an
attempt to eradicate the species before it becomes established in the new habitat. It is
essentially a plan B when prevention measures have failed. While monitoring and early
detection programs are important, they are somewhat useless if a rapid response plan is not put in
place. Removing an introduced 19 invasive species requires great effort and often involves
multiple party involvement, funds and appropriate laws to support needed actions. The three main
components of a rapid response are: 1. Processes and plans to guide response actions 2. Tools with which
to respond 3. The capability and resources to carry out the response (Hewitt D. W., 2004)
Interestingly, many places have AIS management plans but have not developed rapid response plans.
States without plans are Massachusetts, South Carolina, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and
the Maritimes, Canada. Most of these places acknowledge the importance of creating a rapid response
plan but for a variety of reasons (mostly lack of available funding) have not created plans. Maine has two
rapid response plans, one for plant protocol and one specifically for fish and other fauna (this plan is
mostly geared toward freshwater fish). Also, Maine does not have a monitoring and early detection
protocol and it is unclear whether the rapid response plan has ever been used and whether it would be
useful. One of the problems with the existing Maine Rapid Response Plan is that it does not have the third
important part of the plan: capability and resources to carry out the response . Therefore it is
unlikely that, if utilized, it would be successful (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
2006). Alternatively, Australia, Washington, Connecticut (draft), parts of Florida, California and New
Zealand do have rapid response plans. In Australia, the National System for the Prevention and
Management of Marine Pest Incursions has an emergency response system set up called the Australian
Emergency Marine Pest Plan which is thorough and contains all three of the primary listed components.
There is also an Emergency Eradication Operational Response pending approval of the National
Management Group. As part of this, rapid response manuals are currently under development that will
specifically deal with green crabs, among other species. This was commissioned by the Australian
Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. The National Introduced Marine Pest
Information System rapid response toolbox contains a range of eradication options. There are also
methods that outline how to rapidly gain access to funding if needed. This emergency response plan
also highlights specific actions to be undertaken by members of the emergency response

team and outlines specific phases from activation of the plan to completion (Natural
Heritage Trust, 2005). Thorough rapid response plans are crucial to preventing the spread
of marine invasives.
Fisheries
Invasive species carry disease and collapse the fisheries industry
Virginia Environmental Law Journal \\CLans)
ballast
water can also carry organisms that are directly harmful to human health . n31 Two
examples of species-caused harm are the transportation of cholera and of various types of toxic
dinoflagellates. The bacterium that causes cholera, Vibrio cholerae, can thrive in sea water and is
easily transported in ship ballast. If the bacterium is ingested by humans, it can cause
severe intestinal distress and even death if untreated. n32 There have been numerous cholera outbreaks where ship ballast was
the likely culprit, none more serious than that which afflicted South America in 1991. n33 In January 1991, choleracontaminated ballast water was released off the coast of Peru and was one of the major causes of an epidemic
that continued until September 1994, causing over 600,000 in-fections and nearly 10,000 deaths. n34
[*73] Toxic dinoflagellates, responsible for the "red tide" phenomenon, are other
organisms that pose a threat to human health and are transported via ballast water. Dinoflagellates are a
In addition to transporting organisms that can have severe environmental impacts that translate into economic harm,
diverse group of aquatic and marine algae that are abundant worldwide. As part of their lifecycle, dinoflagellates form hard cysts that
can be easily transported. According to one study of dinoflagellates in ship ballast in Australia, forty percent of the ships entering
port were con-taminated, six percent were contaminated with known toxic species at loads as high as 300 million viable cysts. n35
Toxic dinoflagellate blooms may lead to shellfish toxicity and the closure of the local
seafood industry ultimately causing illness in those who consume affected mollusks . Every
year there are estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 cases of red tide poisoning. n36 Although these algae species bloom naturally, in
recent years blooms have occurred in previously unaffected are-as. In 2005, the largest red tide bloom since 1972 took place off the
coast of New England. The algae species, Alexan-drium fundyense, covered 15,000 square miles of federal waters, as well as the
waters of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. Shellfish beds were closed for over a month, costing the local fishing
economies almost $ 3 million a week. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared

it a "commercial fisheries failure" and eventu-ally the federal government had to provide
aid to fishermen in Maine and Massachusetts. n37
Aquaculture Key to Global Food Supply ***

Other food sources will become increasing constrained --- seafood key to
global protein supply
Kite-Powell, 11 --- aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(9/21/2011, Hauke, interview by Kate Madin, Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the
world, the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-weget-our-seafood, JMP)
Why did you bring this group together for a colloquium? Kite-Powell: The main motivation for me was the
stalemate in the U.S. over aquaculture in federal waters. It's a question of thinking about future
international competition for food production resources. We're starting to hear a lot
about impending fresh water constraints in many parts of the world, and the limits of
the productivity of land-based agricultural resources. Seafood is likely to play a
more important role in global protein supply in the future than it does today.
People here in New England like the quaint lobster boat, and there's nothing wrong with artisanal
fisheries. In many places around the world, theyre a key piece of the local social fabric. But
that's not where the solution to our food supply problems is going to come from. Could
we as a country meet all our domestic seafood needs with aquaculture? Kite-Powell:
There's no ecological or environmental reason why we couldn't match our
consumption with production.
Aquaculture increases key to feed growing population

Jolly, 11 (1/31/2011, David, Fish Farming Overtaking Traditional Fisheries,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/global/01fish.html?_r=1&, JMP)
About 32 percent of world fish stocks are overexploited, depleted or recovering and need
to be urgently rebuilt, according to the report. Nonetheless, people are eating more fish,
thanks to aquaculture: The report showed that global fish consumption rose to a record of almost 17
kilograms a person. Wally Stevens, executive director of the Global Aquaculture Alliance , a
trade association, said Monday that the industrys target actually was to increase the annual
output of the aquaculture industry 7 percent. Our attitude is that aquaculture production
must double in the next 10 years to keep pace with global demand , and in particular the
changes in demand coming from growth in middle-class populations in developing nations, he said. Fish
can be raised in tanks and ponds, and with the aid of cages or nets in oceans, lakes or rivers. With
most of the worlds fisheries operating at or above their sustainable yields, aquaculture
is seen as the only way to increase the supply of fish in a world hungry for protein .
Aquaculture growing source of food production --- less energy and land
intensive
McCutcheon, 14 (3/27/2014, Jody, Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment,
http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/, JMP)
Aquaculture: Pros and Cons Enter aquaculture to bridge the gap between voracious demand and
unsustainable supply. A practice that began thousands of years ago in Asia has evolved into a $78 billion
industry, with almost half of the seafood we eat coming from aquaculture. In the last few decades, in
fact, aquaculture has become the fastest-growing method of food production. The UN
estimates the industry has grown 600% in twenty years, to the point where the UN and US Department of
Agriculture agree that farmed-fish production has now surpassed beef production
worldwide. One benefit of aquaculture is it can be less energy-intensive than land-based
farming. Compared to land animals, fish are more efficient at converting feed to mass.
Farmed Atlantic salmon are said to be most efficient, with a feed conversion ratio (FCR) close to 1:1,
although thats at the lower end of the spectrum compared to tilapia and catfish, both of which have FCRs
around 2:1. To compare, poultrys FCR is roughly 2.5:1, while that of beef cattle is over 6:1. Less energyintensive doesnt mean more eco-friendly, though, as well soon see.
Econ
Invasive species tank great lake shipping
Grubb 12- Christopher, J.D. candidate at Chicago-Kent College of Law and is pursuing a certificate in
Environmental and Energy Law (STUDENT NOTE: WORTHY OF THEIR NAME? ADDRESSING
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES WITH COMMON LAW PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIMS, 2012, Accessed
Via LexisNexis \\CLans)
Most invasive species make their way into the United States as the result of human activity:
through intentional or unintentional introductions, or through human caused habitat
modifications that enable a species to gain a foothold in a new area. n4 There are at least 4,500 invasive species that have
established populations in the United States. n5 The Great Lakes are home to more than 180
aquatic invasive species. n6 The National Invasive Species Council ("NISC") n7 has described the threat
associated with invasive species in this way: Invasive species ... may prey upon, displace or otherwise harm native species. Some
invasive species also alter ecosys-tem processes, transport disease, interfere with crop
production, or cause disease in animals or humans ; affecting both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. For
these reasons, invasive species are of national and global concern . n8 [*239] In addition to causing vast
ecological damage, invasive species also exact an economic toll. One recent study put the cost of
dealing with invasive species at $ 120 billion annually, or about $ 1100 per household. n9 Zebra mussels,
which have a tendency to clog the water intake pipes of power plants around the Great Lakes, can cost each infested power plant $ 3
million each year. n10 Invasive plant species cause at least two to three billion dollars in annual crop damage in the United States.
n11 Aquatic invasive
species introduced to the Great Lakes by shipping have been estimated

to cost the region at least $ 200 million annually. n12 A public nuisance is "an unreasonable interference with a
right common to the general public." n13 The U.S. experi-ence with two aquatic invasive species, Asian carp n14 and the zebra
mussel, demonstrate that public rights in naviga-tion, bathing, and fishing n15 may be harmed by the introduction of aquatic
invasive species. Asian
carp have caused extensive damage to ecosystems in the United States and
currently threaten the Great Lakes. n16 First introduced to clean aquaculture facilities in the southern United States, in
the 1980s Asian carp escaped and have advanced through the Mississippi River, Illinois River, and have been found within miles of
Lake Michigan. n17 In
parts of the Illinois Riv-er, Asian carp make up over ninety [*240] percent
of the biomass. n18 Asian carp, which can weigh up to 100 pounds, n19 interfere with public rights in
navigation due to their penchant for jumping out of the water in the presence of engine noise from
passing boats. The sheer quantity of fish flying through the air is enough to make navigation un-safe in
invaded areas, and indeed some boaters have been injured after being hit by a jumping
carp. n20 In a different but equally destructive way, the zebra mussel has impacted U.S. waterways to the detriment of the public's
right to fish and bathe. Zebra mussels - small mollusks native to eastern Europe - were first discovered in the Great Lakes in the
Zebra
mussels have had a profoundly negative impact on the food web of the
Great Lakes and can disrupt commercial and recreational boating . n23 In
1980s, n21 and it is widely believed they were introduced as a result of ocean-going shipping on the Great Lakes. n22
addition, the shells of dead zebra mussels, which can be extremely sharp, have so extensively littered some beaches on the Great
Lakes as to severely constrain the public's right to en-joyment of the waterway. n24 The Asian carp and zebra mussel make clear that
invasive species have harmed rights common to the public. Un-fortunately, Congress
has had difficulty

addressing their introduction and spread through legislation.
Great lakes key to the economy
Alcalde 11
Nancy, New Economic Study Finds Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System Supports Over 225,000
Jobs and Generates Billions in Other Benefits, http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/slsdc_pr20111018.pdf
According to a new study released today, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
navigation system supports over 225,000 jobs and generates billions of dollars in
income and revenues annually in both the U.S. and Canada. The comprehensive
study, The Economic Impacts of the Great LakesSt. Lawrence Seaway System 2010, was commissioned by the marine
shipping industry in partnership with government agencies and peer reviewed by U.S. and Canadian
economists. This report bears out what weve long known that the St. Lawrence
Seaway is crucial to the U.S. economy, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Not only is
marine transportation the single most fuel-efficient and cost-effective way to haul goods from one place to another,
but it also supports hundreds of thousands of essential jobs and generates billions of
dollars in economic activity.
IAS caused environment change- costs 131 billion a year
Although the effects of invasive alien species (IAS) on native species are well documented, the many ways in which such species
impact ecosystem services are still emerging. Here we assess the costs and benefits of IAS for provisioning, regulating and cultural
services, and illustrate the synergies and tradeoffs associated with these impacts using case studies that include South Africa, the
Great Lakes and Hawaii. We identify services and interactions that are the least understood and propose a research and policy
framework for filling the remaining knowledge gaps. Drawing on ecology and economics to incorporate the impacts of IAS on
ecosystem services into decision making is key to restoring and sustaining those life-support services that nature provides and all
organisms depend upon. Invasive
species, ecosystem services and valuation Invasive alien species (IAS), defined as those
key drivers of human-caused global
environmental change [2]. Widely heralded as the second greatest agent of species
endangerment and extinction after habitat destruction, particularly on islands [3], IAS
are also inflicting serious impacts on the ecosystem processes that are fundamental to
human well-being (defined as access to secure livelihoods, health, good social relations,
security and freedom) [4]. These changes have global consequences for well-being [5],
including the wholesale loss or alteration of goods (e.g. fisheries, agricultural and forest
products) and services (e.g. clean and plentiful drinking water, climate stabilization,
pollination, culture and recreation) [6]. Because the ecosystem services approach to conservation is becoming
non-native species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species [1], are
central to many areas of environmental policy decision making, valuation information (economic as well as non-economic) is
increasingly needed. Much effort has gone into understanding what makes a species invasive and into documenting the ecological
effects of invasions [7]. Although invasion-driven changes to the structure and functioning of ecosystems are well known [8], less is
known about the mechanisms linking IAS to ecosystem services [9]. Additionally, the economic impact of IAS on these services is
often neither quantified nor incorporated into economic impact assessments. As such, the impacts of IAS can result in an invisible
tax on ecosystem services that is rarely included in decision making. There have been several attempts to quantify the economic
impact of IAS at a national level [1012]. In these cases, their impacts are staggering (e.g. US$14.45 billion in China) [12] but largely
anecdotal and wide ranging. For example, figures
for the total cost of IAS in the USA range from

US$131 billion cumulative to US$128 billion annually [10,11], but do not use systematic empirical
methods of estimating costs and do not consider benefits [13,14]. In addition , many effects of IAS on ecosystem
services that are difficult to convert into monetary terms are regularly overlooked [14,15]. To
capture the full impact of IAS on human well-being , dimensions that go beyond monetary costs and
benefits must be considered, such as the number of people affected positively or
negatively by IAS and the magnitude of this impact on their lives. Policy responses to
date have been based on rough estimates of ecological, social and economic damages [15].
Filling this gap would be worthwhile if more data demonstrate that current investments in prevention and eradication could save
millions of dollars in diminished losses to human health, agriculture and forestry and in the preservation of natural systems and the
services that they provide.
AIS cause billions of dollars of lose to the economy

Mcgee, 1 --- Member of Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy (Sarah,
2001 YEARBOOK: WATER: Proposals for Ballast Water Regulation: Biosecurity in an Insecure World,
COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 141, Lexisnexis, RE)
Invasive Species are Widespread and Cause Significant Economic and

Environmental Problems Invasive species cause millions of dollars in damage to
businesses, affecting the timber, agriculture, and shipping industries, among others. n37
C.
For example, an estimated thirty-nine percent of all agricultural and forestry insect pests are considered non-indigenous, and at
least half of the weeds in the United States are non-indigenous. n38 Invasive species also lead governments to spend millions on
their containment and removal. According to the General Accounting Office, the United States government agencies spent more
than a half a billion dollars in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to combat the problem of invasive species. n39 The 1991 Office of
Technology Assessment Report states that from 1906 to 1991 the
United States suffered at least $ 97 billion

dollars in economic losses from just seventy-nine invasive species. n40 A more recent study by
Cornell University researchers found that in the United States, the economic cost of invasive species damage,
plus the cost of controlling them was approximately $ 137 billion annually. n41
Internationally, the problem is even larger. One rough extrapolation found that annual losses to
agriculture due to invasive species worldwide [*147] may be between $ 55 billion and $
247.5 billion. n42 This figure does not include the losses invasive species bring about on
other industries, such as forestry, fisheries , utilities, and building structures. n43 In
addition, these figures do not include the incalculable costs to human health and the environment. n44
Impact Extinction (?)

Previous mass extinction events were triggered by the introduction of
invasive aquatic speciesnew analysis proves that we are headed towards a
higher extinction rate in the status quo
National Science Foundation 10, The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent
federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national
health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense" With an annual budget of $7.2 billion
(FY 2014), we are the funding source for approximately 24 percent of all federally supported basic
research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer
science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing (NSF, What Triggers Mass
Extinctions? Study Shows How Invasive Species Stop New Life, 12/29/10,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118292&org=NSF&from=news)//ADravid
An influx of invasive species can stop the dominant natural process of new species
formation and trigger mass extinction events , according to research results published
today in the journal PLoS ONE. The study of the collapse of Earth's marine life 378 to 375 million years
ago suggests that the planet's current ecosystems, which are struggling with biodiversity
loss, could meet a similar fate . Although Earth has experienced five major mass extinction events, the environmental
crash during the Late Devonian was unlike any other in the planet's history. The actual number of
extinctions wasn't higher than the natural rate of species loss, but very few new species arose . "We refer to the Late Devonian as a mass
extinction, but it was actually a biodiversity crisis," said Alycia Stigall, a scientist at Ohio University and author of the PLoS
ONE paper. "This research significantly contributes to our understanding of species invasions
from a deep-time perspective," said Lisa Boush, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which
funded the research. "The knowledge is critical to determining the cause and extent of mass
extinctions through time, especially the five biggest biodiversity crises in the history of
life on Earth. It provides an important perspective on our current biodiversity crises. " The
research suggests that the typical method by which new species originate --vicariance--was absent during
this ancient phase of Earth's history, and could be to blame for the mass extinction. Vicariance occurs when a population becomes geographically divided by a
natural, long-term event, such as the formation of a mountain range or a new river channel, and evolves into different species. New species also can originate through dispersal,
Stigall used phylogenetic analysis,

which draws on an understanding of the tree of evolutionary relationships to examine
how individual speciation events occurred. She focused on one bivalve, Leptodesma (Leiopteria), and two brachiopods, Floweria and
which occurs when a subset of a population moves to a new location. In a departure from previous studies,
Schizophoria (Schizophoria), as well as a predatory crustacean, Archaeostraca. These small, shelled marine animals were some of the most common inhabitants of the Late
Devonian oceans, which had the most extensive reef system in Earth's history.
Dunkleosteus
The seas teemed with huge predatory fish such as
, and smaller life forms such as trilobites and crinoids (sea lilies). The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time;
As sea levels rose and the continents closed in to form connected land
masses, however, some species gained access to environments they hadn't inhabited
before. The hardiest of these invasive species that could thrive on a variety of food
sources and in new climates became dominant, wiping out more locally adapted species.
The invasive species were so prolific at this time that it became difficult for many new
species to arise. "The main mode of speciation that occurs in the geological record is shut down during the Devonian," said Stigall. "It just stops in its tracks." Of
amphibians began to walk on land.
the species Stigall studied, most lost substantial diversity during the Late Devonian, and one, Floweria, became extinct. The entire marine ecosystem suffered a major collapse.
Reef-forming corals were decimated and reefs did not appear on Earth again for 100
million years. The giant fishes, trilobites, sponges and brachiopods also declined dramatically, while organisms on land
had much higher survival rates. The study is relevant for the current biodiversity crisis, Stigall said, as human activity has introduced
a high number of invasive species into new ecosystems . In addition, the

modern extinction rate exceeds the rate of ancient extinction events,
including the event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago . "Even if you
can stop habitat loss, the fact that we've moved all these invasive species around the planet will take a long time to recover from because the high level of invasions has
suppressed the speciation rate substantially," Stigall said. Maintaining Earth's ecosystems, she suggests, would be helped by focusing efforts and resources on protection of new
species generation. "The more we know about this process," Stigall said, "the more we will understand how to best preserve biodiversity." The research was also funded by the
American Chemical Society and Ohio University. -NSF-
New research points to the coming of a modern apocalypseincreasing

level of aquatic invasive species parallels previous mass extinctions
Skirble 11, Journalist for Voice of America (Rosanne, Invasive Species
Could Trigger Next Massive Extinction, Voice of America, 1/5/11,
http://www.voanews.com/content/invasive-species-could-trigger-next-massiveextinction--113013594/169620.html)//ADravid
Clues to a modern apocalypse found in ancient fossils. The most recent mass extinction was 65 million years ago
when the dinosaurs disappeared. That was one of five mass extinctions in earth's history - when the number of species dramatically declines. Scientists are eyeing the next mass
According to Ohio University paleo-geologist Alycia

Stigall , the sixth era of mass extinction is already under way . It began about a million years ago
when big animals like wholly mammoths and saber tooth cats went extinct. Collapse Stigall sees clues to a modern apocalypse in
the fossil record from the Devonian period 360 million years ago. The Devonian was an
era of mass extinction, when marine ecosystems completely collapsed, and reefs
disappeared from the world's oceans. Sea levels rose and fell. Continents moved closer together. The stage was set for safe passage of
invasive species. The invaders captured resources and adapted to their new living conditions,
overwhelming native species. Stigall says it was a huge change in how the ecosystem was structured. "What you realize is
that the main organisms that are dominant in the rocks suddenly change. So the major
groups of organisms, the major types of corals, the major type of shell fish, that we see
beneath the 'biodiversity crisis interval' are completely different from the major groups
of organisms that we see afterwards." Bio-diversitycrisis Species go extinct at regular intervals in earth's history, but the mass extinction
during the late-Devonian was unlike any other in the planet's history. The formation of new species came to a halt . Stigall calls it a
extinction, which might be triggered by an invasive species.
"bio-diversity crisis." "These new groups that are trying to become a new species, rather than to be able to expand their population and be successful, they get out competed for
Stigall sees parallels with our world, in which human activities agriculture, industry, population growth and urbanization - are promoting invasives,
accelerating habitat loss and pushing species toward extinction . "Evolution of new species
resources and just go extinct."
or speciation is harder to see because the process of speciation takes between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Whereas you could drive a species extinct in a decade." Stigall adds that
if invasive species could trigger a mass extinction 360 million years ago, similar forces
could be at work today. "What we can see from this is that things that are very limited or
specialized in their ecology are the types of species that are both more likely to go extinct
and less likely to have successful speciation down the line . So we may want to focus resources on species that are a
little more broadly adapted that are still in their natural local habitats." According to Stigall, the rate of species loss today is higher than anything documented in the fossil
record. "We are looking at basically a whole series of potential effects that line up very well with the worst mass extinctions that occurred, which was 250 million years ago where
96 percent of the earth's species went extinct." Stigall says her study underscores the long-term impact of invasive species. "The more we know about this process," she says, "the
more we will understand how best to preserve bio-diversity." The work is published in PloS ONE.
Gurevitch wrong- IAS cause extinction

Clavero 5(Miguel Clavero, professor,January 12th, 2005, Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions,
Institute of Aquatic ecology at University of Girona)//SQR
In a recent Opinion article in TREE [1],
Gurevitch and Padilla concluded that the importance of

invasive species in causing declines and extinctions of species is unproven . They analyzed the
IUCN Red List database [2] and stated that only 6% of the taxa are threatened with extinction as a result of invasion by alien species
and !2% (ten terrestrial plants and no animal species) of the 762 extinctions were the result of the introduction of alien species.
We
believe that these figures and the message of the article are misleading. The IUCN database
includes a searchable hierarchical classification of threats to wildlife (e.g. habitat loss, invasive alien species, harvesting, and so on),
which was used by Gurevitch and Padilla in their article [1]. However, this classification system is used in only 5.1% (39 out of 762) of
the extinct species (e.g. there are 129 extinct species of birds, but none of them has been assigned a extinction cause, despite the fact
that many are among the best documented cases of extinction) and detailed information about the causes of extinction is provided in
other fields of the database (e.g. the robust white-eye Zosterops strenuus, endemic to Lord Howe Island, Australia, was common
before 1918, but plummeted to extinction following the arrival of black rat). We
reanalyzed the extinctions

included in the IUCN Red List database on a species-by-species basis and reassessed the
role of invasive species in those extinctions. The conclusion is radically different from that reached by
Gurevitch and Padilla. Of the 680 extinct animal species, causes could be compiled for 170
(25%), of which 91 (54%) included the effects of invasive species. For 34 cases (20%),
invasive species were the only cited cause of extinction. Habitat destruction and
harvesting (hunting and/or gathering) were cited for 82 and 77 species, respectively. Our
results agree with those of recent statistical analyses [3,4], modelling of future scenarios [5], and several reviews of particular taxa by
expert groups that have concluded that
invasive species are the leading cause of extinction of birds

(65 out of 129 spp.) [6] and the second cause of the extinction of North American fish (27
out of 40 spp. [7]), world fish (11 out of 23 spp. [8]) and mammals (12 out of 25 spp. [9]). Although extinction is often
the end result of invasions, there are other ecological and evolutionary impacts of biotic
homogenization that are less understood [10,11], thus prevention and the precautionary
principle are of particular relevance to invasive species.
AT: Squo Solves
Squo fails -- generic

Status quo regulations fail and allow invasive species to continue spread
Grubb 12- Christopher, J.D. candidate at Chicago-Kent College of Law and is pursuing a certificate in
Environmental and Energy Law (STUDENT NOTE: WORTHY OF THEIR NAME? ADDRESSING
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES WITH COMMON LAW PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIMS, 2012, Accessed
Via LexisNexis \\CLans)
The regulatory landscape relevant to the control of invasive species has been described as
a "largely uncoordinated patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs ," n25 and
it has not been effective in stopping their introduction and spread. One significant component of
this "patchwork" [*241] is the Lacey Act of 1900. n26 The Lacey Act was adopted in an attempt to restore populations
of certain bird species that were being harmed, in part, by introductions of non-native species. n27 In its current form, the Lacey Act authorizes the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") to prohibit the importation and interstate transport of a list of species deemed "injurious to human
beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States ... ."
n28 The USFWS
has made several attempts over the years to place a blanket prohibition on the
importation of all species, al-lowing only those species found on a "low-risk list." n29 However,
substantial opposition from the pet industry defeated such proposals. n30 Today, unless a species is
regulated by another law, or is found on the USFWS list of injurious spe-cies,
importation into the U.S. is allowed. n31 The Lacey Act has been criticized as being
ineffective in stopping the importation and spread of invasive species in the U.S. n32 The brunt
of the criticism is aimed at the Lacey Act's approach of allowing the importation of all species except for those found to be injurious, as opposed to
prohibiting the importation of all species except those found to be low-risk.
n33 Additionally, the Lacey Act has been
criticized for not placing enough species on the list, for the length of time required to list
a species, for only being effective for those few species not already in the U.S. when
listed, and for failing to fund the USFWS adequately. n34 Despite being in effect for over 100
years, the Lacey Act's list of injurious species contains only seventeen taxa that are
denied importation, and critics argue that hundreds if not thousands more taxa are
injurious and should be prohibited. Critics have also noted that "the listing time has generally increased from [less than one]
Further,
many of the species found on the list were already present in the United States at the [*242] time they
were listed, and the Act has done nothing to stop their spread. n36 Thus, critics have come to the
conclusion that "the contemporary threat of invasive species has far outstripped current
authority and practices under [the Lacey Act]." n37 In addition to the Lacey Act, the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 n38 (NANPCA) represents
another attempt by Congress to address the impacts of invasive species . NANPCA was passed in the wake of the
year in the mid-[twentieth] century to a mean of at least 4.8 years for taxa (n = 4) that were pend-ing listing as of March 1, 2007." n35
discovery of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes. n39 Recognizing the risk posed by introductions of invasive species like the zebra mussel, Congress set out to "prevent [the] unintentional introduction and
dispersal of nonindigenous species into waters of the United States through ballast water management and other requirements." n40 Congress attempted to achieve its goal in large part by directing the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to issue regulations applicable to ships with ballast water tanks operating on the Great Lakes. n41 Congress in-structed that the regulations require such ships to: a)
conduct ballast water exchange (BWE) on waters beyond the ex-clusive economic zone (EEZ), b) conduct BWE on other waters where the BWE would not pose a threat of infestation, or c) utilize an alternative
ballast water management method if the Secretary determines that such methods are as ef-fective as BWE. n42 In 1996, Congress passed the National Invasive Species Act ("NISA"), which amended NANPCA,
most notably by directing the Secretary to issue "voluntary guidelines" that essentially mirrored the Great Lakes provi-sions but were applicable nationwide. n43 As of this writing, the Coast Guard has
promulgated ballast water regulations pursuant to NANPCA as amended by NISA. n44 Ships visiting ports in the Great Lakes that "carry ballast water" must conduct BWE outside the EEZ, retain their ballast
water on board the ship, or use an accepted alternative ballast water management method. n45 The regula-tions also require ships that are coming into U.S. waters from beyond the EEZ, and that are carrying
[*243] ballast water that was taken on less than 200 nautical miles from any shore, to conduct BWE, retain the ballast water onboard the ship, or use an alternative ballast water management method. n46 In
addition, the St. Lawrence Seaway Develop-ment Corporation, an arm of the U.S. Department of Commerce, now requires ships entering the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the "No Ballast on Board"
However, despite the existing ballast

water laws and regulations, new aquatic invasive species have continued to
make their way into the Great Lakes . n49 At least sixteen such species have been found in
(NOBOB) n47 condition to conduct saltwater flushing before entering the seaway
. n48
the Great Lakes since passage of NISA. n50 Recognizing the shortcomings of the existing regulatory
framework, some in Congress have unsuccessfully attempted to pass legislation that would
require ocean-going ships to install treatment technology that would kill organ-isms
residing in the ship's ballast water. n51 Some environmental advocates have taken a different approach to the problem by arguing that the U.S. EPA must
regulate ballast water discharge as a point source discharge under the CWA. n52 Soon after passage of the CWA, the EPA promulgated a regulation that exempted "discharges incidental to the operation of a vessel"
from permit requirements under the Act. n53 In Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the court held that the regulation was not authorized by the CWA because
the statute's plain language prohibited such discharges. n54 In a later proceeding focused on the appropriate remedy for EPA's ultra vires action, the court instructed the EPA to create a replacement regulation
within two years. n55 The EPA has since issued a "Vessel General Permit." n56 The regulations include two technology-based effluent limitations, which require BWE for ocean-going [*244] ships and saltwater
flushing for ships in the NOBOB condition. n57 The regula-tion also includes a water quality-based effluent limitation, which requires, "Your discharge must be controlled as nec-essary to meet applicable water
quality standards in the receiving waterbody or another waterbody impacted by your discharges." n58 However, the EPA indicates that it "generally expects that compliance with the other conditions in this
permit ... will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards." n59 Except for the loosely de-fined water quality-based effluent limitation, to the extent that the VGP is consistent with
. In short,
invasive species remain a tremendous problem in the U.S., harm rights shared by the public,
and Congress has had little success controlling them. Many aquatic invasive species may unquestionably
be considered a public nui-sance. The ecological and economic impacts from invasive species
generally, as well as the specific experience with Asian carp and the zebra mussel, make it clear that
what is already required by NANPCA and its associated regulations, and by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation regulations, it es-sentially maintains the status quo
such species often cause impacts that harm rights common to the public such as
navigation, bathing, and fishing. Indeed, it is telling that one of the primary statutes to address aquatic invasive species in the
United States refers to these species as a nuisance in its title: The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nui-sance Prevention and Control Act. n60 The remainder of
this article addresses whether impacts from invasive species can be addressed by the common law of public nuisance given the Supreme Court's
jurisprudence in the field.
Squo Federal and State policy fails

Howe, 10 --- J.D. Candidate, 2011, University of Maine School of Law (Jason, FEDNAV, LTD. V.
CHESTER: BALLAST WATER AND THE BATTLE TO BALANCE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY
INTERESTS, Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, LexisNexis, RE)
B. Federal and State Attempts to Regulate Aquatic Nuisance Species In 1990, Congress
recognized the zebra mussel n17 as one of several new environmental hazards in the
Great Lakes region, passing the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act (NANPCA) in response. n18 NANPCA recognized that ballast water n19 discharges
caused the ANS hazard, and sought to control ballast water management systems n20 by
charging the United States Coast Guard (USCG) with developing and implementing such regulations. n21 In 1993, the USCG
issued regulations requiring ballast-carrying vessels entering the Great Lakes from
beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) n22 to meet one of three ballast water management practices: (1)
exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ; (2) retain ballast water; or (3) use an environmentally sound alternative. n23 Ships were
also encouraged to keep records of each ballast water exchange. n24 While compliance was originally voluntary, it became
mandatory two years later. n25 By
1996, Congress recognized that ANS posed a threat not only to

the Great Lakes, but to the entire country and amended NANPCA with the National Invasive Species Act
(NISA). n26 NISA retained the ballast water regulations of NANPCA, and required that ballast-carrying vessels entering inland U.S.
Furthermore,
NISA [*385] specifically recognized that "participation and cooperation of the Federal
Government and state governments" would eventually be necessary . n28 Atop NISA, Congress
waters file a ballast water management plan with the USCG twenty-four hours prior to entering port. n27
amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate "vessels and other floating
craft," along with the discharge of "biological materials" such as ANS. n29 However, the EPA refused to regulate ballast water
discharges until it was ordered to do so in 2006 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. n30 The
California court gave the EPA until September 30, 2008 to enact ballast water regulations that would coexist with NISA. n31 The
ramifications of this decision for Fednav are discussed in greater detail below. n32 However,
the CWA, NANPCA,

and NISA have each failed to fully regulate vessels with the potential to spread ANS via
ballast water, leaving open an "enormous loophole" n33 in the federal regulatory
scheme. No federal ballast water regulation controlled vessels designated as "No Ballast On Board" (NOBOB). n34 Vessels
designated NOBOB have ballast tanks and can still carry ballast water.
Squo FailsLacey Act

The Lacey act fails to manage the spread of invasive specieslack of
efficient risk assessment, funding and authority compromise effectiveness
Science Daily 07, ScienceDaily features breaking news and videos about the latest discoveries in
health, technology, the environment, and more -- from major news services and leading universities,
scientific journals, and research organizations. Citing the Ecological Society of America; is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization of scientists founded in 1915 to promote ecological science by improving
communication among ecologists; raise the publics level of awareness of the importance of ecological
science; increase the resources available for the conduct of ecological science; and ensure the appropriate
use of ecological science in environmental decision making by enhancing communication between the
ecological community and policy-makers (Science Daily, Controlling Invasive Species: How Effective Is
The Lacey Act? 9/13/07,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910163257.htm)//ADravid
Andrea Fowler, David Lodge, and Jennifer Hsia (University of Notre Dame) examined the efficacy of the Lacey Act in their research communication, "Failure of the Lacey Act to
the Lacey Act is the main legal

defense against invasive animal species. The "injurious wildlife provision" of the Lacey Act seeks to
regulate foreign invasive species that may damage ecosystems, replace native
populations, and kill off valuable natural resources and fisheries. "If the US is to reduce
the probability of future damage from invasive animal species, revision or replacement
of the Lacey Act's injurious wildlife provision is essential," say the authors. " The
contemporary threat of invasive species has far outstripped current
authority and practice under this statute ." Examining all Federal Register documents, Fowler and colleagues searched
protect US ecosystems against animal invasions." With over 100 years on the books (passed in 1900),
the listed names of organisms, references to the Lacey Act, and references to injurious wildlife to determine which species were listed, considered for listing, and either added or
not added to the list. Many animals were already established when they were added to the list and continued to spread after their listing. The most common way to begin the
process of listing a species in the last 25 years has been by petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, by March 1, 2007, when the authors wrote the paper, it took
the lack of an efficient and consistently

applied risk assessment procedure undermine the Lacey Act. Currently, most imported
species only need to be declared to customs or permitted through the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The act was expanded from mammals and birds to include mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles, and amphibians in the late 1960's and early 1980's.
In the 1970's there was a movement to limit importation to a list of low-risk wildlife, but the list was never implemented. Fowler et. al. point out that the Lacey Act
contains no authority or funding to manage the spread of established wild invasive
species, which will do little to slow down organisms already present in the US . The researchers
an average of more that three and a half years to list a species in this way. According to the report,
suggest that prescreening, as well as switching from the use of a list of banned animals to approved species, would better protect the nation's environment and natural resources.
The study appears in the September issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Squo FailsFederal Response

Status quo federal responses are wholly ineffectiveefforts to combat
invasive species are uncoordinated, piecemeal and contradictory
Boothe 08, J.D. Candidate Tulane University School of Law; B.A. from Drake University (Jason,
Defending the Homeland: A Call to Action in the War Against Aquatic Invasive Species, Tulane
University, 2008)//ADravid
IV SHORTCOMINGS OF THE FEDERAL RESPONSE As noted above, there are a number of tools available at the federal level to address the problem of AIS on several fronts
The Lacey Act tries to prevent people from bringing known injurious species into the
United States, NANPCA and NISA attempt to limit the introduction of AIS via ballast
water, and the NISC attempts to push the federal government to undertake a variety of
actions to address all aspects of the AIS problem. It is unquestionable that this existing statutory
and regulatory regime is helpful, but it still presents a number of
shortcomings. First, the Lacey Act's ability to ban the import of injurious species is
premised on the finding that such species are actually injurious to people or the
environment. Presumably, the government cannot know that a species is injurious until
it has already caused some degree of harm. Otherwise there would be no basis for a finding of injuriousness. This
"reactive" rather than "proactive" nature of the Lacey Act has even been recognized by
the USFWS itself in discussing how it fails to prevent the introduction and spread of
AIS." Thus, assuming a particular type of AIS is listed as injurious under the Lacey Act after having already established itself at some location in the country, it may
still be able to cause a great deal of harm and continue spreading into more bodies of
water regardless of such designation. In a best-case scenario, a finding of injuriousness under the Lacey Act may prevent the introduction of
the particular AIS into unaffected waters or diminish the speed with which existing populations spread into additional areas by way of its deterrent effect on importers. In a
worst-case scenario, the established AIS will spread throughout waters all across the country on their own or with the unintentional assistance of humans, making the Lacey Act
Furthermore, even if a particular type of AIS is only in its early stages of

causing environmental and economic harm in a small geographic area, the Lacey Act's
procedure for finding a species to be injurious limits its effectiveness. The evaluation
process that the USFWS undertakes before deciding whether to prohibit the importation
of a species can take a long time, averaging around three and a half year s, according to one study 8 9
This time gap between an initial recognition of a potential threat and a final rule is a problem. It allows the continued importation of what ultimately
may be designated an injurious species, exacerbating what is likely an already established presence in U.S.
waters. On the subject of the federal ballast water statutes and regulations, one problem noted before is that the Coast
Guard has failed to approve any alternatives to ballast water exchange as a way to fulfill
the requirement of the ballast water management program . There are several other
methods for addressing the problem of AIS introductions via ballast water that do not
involve exchanging the water at sea, yet the Coast Guard has failed to approve such
measures. 9 " Moreover, the ballast water regulations create an enormous loophole for a
particular type of ship-those that have no ballast on board (NOBOB)Y Without closer examination, it would seem that
designation have little effect.
a NOBOB ship would not be a means of AIS introduction. However, as noted in Part II.B, NOBOB ships are equipped with ballast water tanks that still have remaining sediment
and unpumpable water in them after being emptied as much as possible by the pumps. Organisms can survive in this remaining water and then be discharged at a later time
when the ballast water tanks are filled and emptied again. Thus, if a NOBOB ship enters U.S. waters and is not required to carry out an exchange beforehand, it may release AIS
This loophole is significant because eighty-five percent of

all ships entering the Great Lakes are NOBOB ships. 9 ' Finally, there are shortcomings regarding
the NISC and its attempts to establish a common effort to combat AIS throughout the federal government. One
point of criticism of the NISC relates to its structure. As noted before , it is a committee that consists of the heads of
thirteen federal agencies. All of these federal agencies have their own set of
if it later discharges ballast water while still in U.S. waters.
duties and responsibilities wholly unrelated to AIS; therefore, depending on an

organization with dispersed power and a lack of singular leadership to deal with the
problem of AIS could be inefficient and unsuccessful. In fact, although the NISC was formed in 1999 and issued its first National
Management Plan in 2001, by September 2002, only twenty percent of the agency actions that were to be completed by that time in accordance with the plan had actually been implemented." By July 2005,
only twenty-eight percent of the plan's programs had been carried out. 6 Perhaps this slow
implementation process is also why the NISC failed to comply with the requirement of Executive Order 13112 to
issue a National Management Plan every two years, having only recently issued a draft of its second National Management
Plan for 2008-2012." 7 The Government Accountability Office notes that the 2001 National Management Plan currently in force "lacks a clear long-term desired outcome and
Given these
weaknesses of the NISC efforts and the entire federal response to AIS, one may be left
wondering what the potential solutions to the AIS problem going forward are going to
be.
quantifiable measures of performance." 9 8 Finally, there is inadequate funding and staffing provided for the NISC to carry out the plan. 9 9
SQ policies insufficient
The true challenge lies not in determining the precise costs of the impacts of exotic
species, but in preventing further damage to natural and managed ecosystems.
Formulation of sound prevention policies needs to take into account the means through
which alien species gain access to and become established in the United States . Since the
invasions vary widely, we should expect that a variety of strategies would be needed for prevention programs. For example,
public education, sanitation, and effective prevention programs at airports, seaports,
and other ports of entry will help reduce the chances for biological invaders becoming
established in the United States. Fortunately, the problem is gaining the attention of
policymakers. On February 2, 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order
allocating $28 million and creating an Interagency Invasive Species Council to produce a
plan within 18 months to mobilize the federal government to defend against alien
species invasions. In addition, a Federal Interagency Weed Committee has been formed
to help combat nonindigenous plant species invasions (FIWC, 1999). The objective of
this interagency committee is education, formation of partnerships among concerned
groups, and stimulation of research on the biological invader problem. Secretary Bruce
Babbitt (1999) has also established an Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition to combat the
invasion and spread of non-native plants. While these policies and practices may help
prevent accidental and intentional introduction of potentially harmful exotic species, we
have a long way to go before the resources devoted to the problem are in proportion to
the risks. We hope that this environmental and economic assessment will advance the argument that investments made now to
prevent future introductions will be returned many times over in the preservation of natural ecosystems, diminished losses to
agriculture and forestry, and lessened threats to public health. In our view, investments
to prevent or reduce the

introduction of potentially harmful exotic species should be focused on educating the
public and inspectors at airports and seaports concerning the threat of alien-invasive
plants, animals, and microbes to the U.S. environment and economy.
NISA Shortcomings
NISA unsuccessful due to lack of stable funding plan solves
Whitney 2002 (Proceedings Document of the Symposium Looking Forward, Looking Back:
Assessing Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control prepared by Sarah Whitney, the Project
Manager at the Great Lakes Commission, a governmental commission designed to address policy
discrepancies in ANS policies. AN EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT TO
SUPPORT ITS REAUTHORIZATION, http://glc.org/files/docs/2002-evaluation-national-invasivespecies-act.pdf)
Gaps/Needs/Future Directions A majority of efforts within NISA are focused on ballast water
as a vector and zebra mussels as the primary invasive species of concern. It is recommended that
the reauthorization of NISA expand the scope of the legislation to recognize the role that
other vectors, such as the aquaculture industry, aquarium trade, biological control,
recreational boating, recreational fisheries enhancement, bait industry and horticultural

practices have in introducing and spreading invasive species, and the threat and impacts
of all applicable invasive aquatic organisms. In addition, reauthorization efforts should
work to streamline the structure of the legislation. It currently ranges from a broad,
national perspective to very specific local targets, often driven by politics alone. The biggest
deficiency in NISA regarding research and monitoring is a lack of funding on two fronts .
First, there is a dramatic discrepancy between what is authorized in the legislation and
what is actually13 appropriated. Congress needs to fund what it authorizes if it wants reasonable
progress and results. Secondly, authorization levels should be updated and expanded as
invasive species are expensive expensive to understand, expensive to prevent and even more
expensive to control.
Whitney 2002 (Proceedings Document of the Symposium Looking Forward, Looking Back:
Assessing Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control prepared by Sarah Whitney, the Project
Manager at the Great Lakes Commission, a governmental commission designed to address policy
discrepancies in ANS policies. AN EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT TO
SUPPORT ITS REAUTHORIZATION, http://glc.org/files/docs/2002-evaluation-national-invasivespecies-act.pdf)
Information and Education: Joe Starinchak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ANS became a recognized
issue with the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes ten years ago. However, the issue has since grown
into one that is much more than zebra mussels. ANS are now considered an emerging global problem.
Invasion rates are increasing and pathways for introduction are numerous and complex. In terms of
information and education, the ANS issue is driven by multiple values, including economics, ecology, and
human and ecosystem health. It is this point that the Communication, Education and Outreach (CEO)
Committee of the federal ANS Task Force plans to focus on to raise awareness and increase ownership.
The fact that ANS are generally out of sight means that they are frequently out of mind for the general
public. However, invasive species are an extremely important issue. The problem of invasive species is
second only to habitat loss as a factor affecting declines in biodiversity. The ANS Task Force and related
entities have the ability to successfully address lack of the public awareness. With its diverse and
experienced membership, the task force can effectively coordinate information/education activities within
its existing infrastructure. At each level, this federal entity can leverage supplemental outside resources to
enhance and build upon national outreach activities. Additionally, the timing and climate are right to
develop, implement and evaluate a nationally-coordinated outreach program. The CEO Committee of the
ANS Task Force is a logical and necessary step in achieving the type of results desired. Operationally, the
CEO Committee used the original legislation and the ANS program as guidance. These documents helped
establish the committees mission, which as interpreted by the members consists of: Expanding the ANS
issue to broader audience Engaging the public (when applicable) to adopt prevention behaviors Making
the best use of limited resources Ensuring that efforts do not reinvent the wheel Creating marketing
strategies for existing products Strategically targeting efforts to raise the most awareness Members of
the CEO Committee have determined that their overall efforts need to focus on raising public awareness
of the ANS issue. In order to do so, they want to expand state and regional awareness of the ANS Task
Force and its mechanisms for helping state and regional entities address ANS problems. Their secondary
concerns focus on working collaboratively with all efforts (Invasive Species Council, Invasive17 Species
Advisory Committee, state management agencies, state Sea Grant programs, regional ANS panels) who
have been successful in raising ANS awareness. Members of the CEO Committee also believe it is
important to present a unified image of the task force, and to use the task forces 10th anniversary to
effectively enhance outreach efforts by highlighting prior successes. Part of the CEO efforts also focus on
helping the task force improve its coordination. The CEO Committee will rely upon existing task forcerelated products that empower specific target audiences to address the ANS issue. The committee also will
help build upon regional successes by transferring them to a national level. By using social market
planning processes, the CEO Committee will market these existing products and empower audiences to
become part of the overall solution to prevent and control
Failures of NISA necessitate new changes in policythe plan is crucial in

patching holes in previous legislation
NECIS No Date, National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species; Established in 2003, the
National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) is a national partnership of several major
environmental organizations that provides a united expert and scientific voice on invasive species policy.
Its leaders include scientists, lawyers, activists, and advocates with many years of experience on invasive
species policy (NECIS, The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, No Date)//ADravid
a single law has been the nations chief protection against new aquatic invaders
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
Congress passed the 1990 law in response to the invasion of the
zebra mussel and other species that damaged the Great Lakes
Since its passage in 1990,
especially those that arrive in ballast water. That law
of 1990was
revised in 1996 and Congress is considering a second revision now.
. That law brought much-needed attention to the global movement of aquatic
species. It also established the federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which became a key resource for regional and state efforts. The 1990 laws strictest and most detailed provisions required that ships headed for the Great Lakes exchange their
ballast water at sea. The law was reauthorized, renamed the National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, and expanded slightly in 1996. Then all ships arriving from outside the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone were encouraged to exchange their ballast water, but
Despite its successes,

NISA has considerable room for improvement Federal agencies have ignored
important provisions; the law neglects important pathways of introduction other than
ballast water; all the nations waters deserve protection equal to the Great Lakes; and
reliance on ballast water exchange to reduce organisms in ballast water doesnt work
NISA expired in September 2002, so Congress must reauthorize the law.
This is an opportunity to address NISAs shortcomings.
stakeholders has
been working with members of Congress since early 2002 to draft and revise a stronger
version of NISA
While versions of this bill were introduced into both
chambers of Congress in 2003, neither chamber voted on the measure.
required to report whether they had. NISA also authorized important research and linked its results to decisions about whether further ballast water regulation was needed.
even in
the Great Lakes where exchange is mandatory.
A broad group of
, titled the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA).
On April 13 2005, the NAISA was re-introduced
into the U.S. Senate by Senators Collins (R-ME), Levin (D-MI), and Stabenow (D-MI). Senators Akaka (D-HI), Bayh (D-IN), Dayton (D-MN), DeWine (R-OH), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Reed (D-RI), and Warner (R-VA)
co-sponsored the measure.
If passed, NAISA would reauthorize and strengthen the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996. It contains provisions to: regulate ballast discharge from
commercial vessels; prevent invasive species introductions from other pathways;
support state management plans; screen live aquatic organisms entering the United
States for the first time commercially; authorize rapid response funds; create education
and outreach programs; conduct research on invasion pathways, and prevention and
control technologies; authorize funds for state and regional grants; and strengthen
specific prevention efforts in the Great Lakes. This bill
has several
improvements
, which has not yet been assigned a number,
from the 2003-2004 version. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Representatives Gilchrest (R-MD), Ehlers (R-MI), Kirk (R-IL), DeFazio (D-OR), and Blumenaur (D-OR) introduced complementary legislation. Differing
from the Senate version, the House effort is comprised of two billsthe Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act (H.R. 1592) and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. The Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act proposes to create a comprehensive research
program that supports federal, state and local efforts to prevent non-native organisms from ever entering our waterways, as well as research into detection, control and eradication efforts once they are here. The Houses National Aquatic Invasive Species Act deals
with implementing the rules and regulations based on the research results so that we can avoid further problems. Specific attention is paid in both bills to the ballast water of ships, a primary pathway for water-borne plant and animal pests to enter an ecosystem.
believes NAISA is the most significant of a number of bills on

invasive species before the current Congress.
Both bills are much the same as their previous versions. UCS
Its passage is urgently needed but by no means assured. Therefore, we continue to devote considerable resources to improving its
text, gaining additional congressional co-sponsors, and helping it move smoothly through the necessary congressional committees.
Global Warming Amplifies AIS

The effects of aquatic invasive species are only going to increaserising
temperatures have a negative impact on native species while allowing
nonnative organisms to outcompete
Sorte, Williams and Zerebecki 10, Cascade Sorte is Assistant Professor of Evolution and
Ecology at the University of CaliforniaDavis and at Bodega Marine Laboratory. Susan Williams is a
Professor at University of CaliforniaDavis, Bodega Marine Laboratory. Robyn ZerebeckiMarine
Science Center, Northeastern University, Massachusetts (Cascade/Susan/Robyn, Ocean warming
increases threat of invasive species in a marine fouling community, Ecological Society of America, August
2010, http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/10-0238.1)//ADravid
We addressed the potential for climate change to facilitate invasions and precipitate
shifts in community composition by testing effects of ocean warming on species in a
marine fouling community in Bodega Harbor, Bodega Bay, California, USA. First, we determined that introduced species
tolerated significantly higher temperatures than natives, suggesting that climate change
will have a disproportionately negative impact on native species . Second, we assessed the
temperature dependence of survival and growth by exposing juveniles to an ambient control temperature and increased temperatures predicted by ocean warming scenarios
Based on the
temperature tolerance, survival, and growth results, we predict that, as ocean
temperatures increase, native species will decrease in abundance, whereas introduced
species are likely to increase in this system. Facilitation of invasions by climate change
may already be underway; locally, invasive dominance has increased concurrent with
ocean warming over the past 40 years. We suggest that the effects of climate change on communities can occur via both direct impacts on the diversity and
(+3C and +4.5C) in laboratory mesocosms. We found that responses differed between species, species origins, and demographic processes.
abundance of native species and indirect effects due to increased dominance of introduced species. Introduction Global climate change is hypothesized to lead to the increased
compounding threats to biodiversity (Vitousek et al. 1997,

Sala et al. 2000). Correlative evidence from terrestrial systems suggests that invasive species have larger latitudinal ranges
than native species, which may be indicative of their ability to tolerate a broader range
of environmental conditions and their potential for greater success at increased
temperatures (see Dukes and Mooney 1999). However, few empirical studies have specifically linked climate change to increasing abundances of nonnative species
invasion of communities by nonnative species (Dukes and Mooney 1999), thus
(Hellmann et al. 2008, Rahel and Olden 2008; but see Stachowicz et al. 2002, Chown et al. 2007, Willis et al. 2010), especially in marine systems. This is in part because it is
challenging to separate climate change effects from invasion processes, such as propagule supply, which cannot be controlled in most field studies (e.g., Harris and Tyrrell 2001).
We examined the effects of temperature on survival and growth of native and nonnative species in a subtidal community using laboratory mesocosms in which propagule supply
temperature increases similar to those predicted by climate change

models can strongly impact marine species (Sanford 1999, Phillips 2005, Harley et al. 2006, Wethey and Woodin 2008), but less is
was absent. Previous studies indicate that
known about responses of marine invaders relative to native species (Carlton 2000; but see Braby and Somero 2006, Fields et al. 2006). Our study system was the marine
fouling community of Bodega Harbor, Bodega Bay, California, USA (see Plate 1). Fouling communities comprise species that colonize human-made structures including ships'
hulls, mariculture farms, and seawater pipelines, as well as natural hard substrata (see Harris and Tyrrell 2001, Valentine et al. 2007). Fouling communities have long been
models for community assembly studies (Boyd 1972, Sutherland 1974, Sutherland and Karlson 1977), and they can be dominated by nonnative species, especially in ports and
marinas where human-mediated colonization is frequent (Lambert and Lambert 1998). For example, at our study site, nonnative species currently represent 71% of cover in the
dock fouling community based on annual surveys conducted from 2006 through 2009. The 11 species of sessile invertebrates, including four natives and seven introduced
species, considered in our study account for 80% of the occupied space. Space is an important limiting resource in fouling communities (Stachowicz et al. 1999, Dunstan and
Johnson 2004), and we therefore focused our experiments on the temperature dependence of the processes most important for allowing juveniles to initally acquire and
maintain space. In the early life stages considered here, these processes include survival and growth. Competition becomes important in later stages and is strongly size
dependent (Buss 1980, Sebens 1982); thus, there is a direct relationship between initial acquisition of bare space and adult abundance. We first conducted temperature tolerance
experiments to address the hypothesis that introduced species are more tolerant of high temperatures than native species. Second, we determined the survival and growth rates
of the common space-holders in the fouling community in Bodega Harbor at current (ambient) and future predicted temperatures. Our results indicate that,
as ocean
temperatures increase, the fouling community is likely to become increasingly

dominated by introduced species. Methods All field collections were made from a floating dock at Spud Point Marina in Bodega Harbor,
California (38.3290 N, 123.0581 W) during peak recruitment season (JuneAugust). Common species included bryozoans (Bugula californica Robertson 1905, Bugula neritina
Linnaeus 1758, Schizoporella sp., and Watersipora subtorquata d'Orbigny 1842), colonial tunicates (Botrylloides violaceus Oka 1927, Botryllus sp., Didemnum sp., Diplosoma
listerianum Milne-Edwards 1841, and Distaplia occidentalis Bancroft 1899), the solitary tunicate Ascidia ceratodes (Huntsman 1912), and the hydroid Obelia sp. Of these
species, Bugula californica, Distaplia, Ascidia, and Obelia are considered to be native to Bodega Harbor, whereas the other seven are introduced species. Lethal temperature
experiment Individuals (5 weeks old) of 10 fouling species (four natives and six invasives) settled on plastic tiles (Duplos; LEGO Group, Billund, Denmark) suspended 1 m
below the surface in Bodega Harbor. Tiles were transferred to the laboratory and weeded to contain two individuals (subsamples) of the target species; tiles with one individual
were used when necessary. We supplemented tiles of Bugula californica with colonies collected manually from the docks. After a 24-h laboratory acclimation in running
seawater, tiles were placed in 1-L tanks with constant aeration at ambient temperature (12C), and temperature was raised by 1C every 15 min until the treatment temperature
was reached. Individuals were exposed to the treatment temperature for 24 h, and we scored them as live or dead based on the presence of movement (either autonomous or
when probed) immediately after the treatment and after 2 d of recovery at ambient temperature. Values did not vary between these two observations; therefore, the first
observation was used in our analyses. Survivorship of the 10 species was tested at six temperatures ranging from 14 to 32C (14, 16, 20, 24, 28, and 32C) for each target
species. We ran N = 5 replicates for each species temperature combination, with the following exceptions: for B. neritina, N = 7 for runs at 20C and 24C, and for Ascidia,
which recruited in low abundance, we evaluated survival at 20, 24, and 28C with N = 3, 3, and 2, respectively. Species treatment combinations were randomly assigned to
tank and experimental run (nine runs were completed over 4 weeks). Survivorship values were used to calculate the temperatures lethal to 50% of individuals (LT50) using
probit analysis in SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA). Mesocosm experiments For the survival experiment, fouling species recruits (2 weeks old) were
collected on 10 10 cm PVC plastic plates suspended horizontally at 1-m depth in Bodega Harbor. Initial recruits were counted, and plates were not weeded. The 18 plates were
randomly assigned to 2.5-L plastic aquaria (N = 6 per temperature). Treatment temperatures were 13.5C (ambient), 16.5C (+3C increase), and 18.0C (+4.5C increase; see
Appendix A for supplementary methods). Plates were suspended upside down and horizontally, each in a separate tank. Individual counts were repeated after 5 weeks. Survival
(percentage of initial individuals surviving) was calculated for seven species for which natural recruitment led to sufficient replication. Plates for the growth experiment were
naturally field-seeded as in the survival experiment. Unlike the survival experiment, growth plates were initially weeded of all but individuals of a single species. In 2008, we ran
sequential 6-d experiments on six of our focus species that recruited in adequate abundance. For each species, the experiment was run during its seasonal peak in recruitment,
and all individuals were 1 week of age at the start of the experiment. A total of 72 tanks (N = 24 for each of the three temperature treatments) were arrayed in two different
seawater tables (blocks), and experimental runs of the two blocks were staggered by 1 d. For most species, we analyzed changes in surface area relative to the initial sizes. Plates
were photographed before and after the experiment, and we digitally measured three random, isolated colonies per plate using the average of two measurements per colony
(length and width) to calculate their total (roughly circular) surface area. The exception to this method was that, for Bugula (arborescent bryozoan) species, we counted
individual zooids of all individuals on the plate (N = 122 subsamples per plate) and calculated growth as relative change in zooid number. In 2009, we used the same methods
to measure growth of B. californica, except that colonies were 2 months old, and N = 7 for each of two temperature treatments (ambient and +4.5C increase). To justify
including the 2009 data for B. californica, we did a concurrent experimental run of B. neritina and confirmed that this species' increase in growth at the +4.5C relative to the
ambient treatment did not differ between the 2008 and 2009 experiments (t test, P = 0.195). The effect of temperature on each species in the survival experiment was assessed
by ANCOVA using total initial abundance (Init) as a covariate; the interaction term was not included in the model after testing for homogeneity of slopes. For the growth data,
relative percentage increase in size was analyzed with a separate ANOVA (growth = temperature, block, temperature block; with both as fixed effects) for each species. Power
transformations were applied to data, as required, to meet the assumptions of normality (using the Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variances (using Levene's test). Leastsquares means were used for multiple comparisons and for calculating relative change in growth (Appendix B). Data are reported as means SE. Community structure changes
The survival and growth data were used to explore potential species-specific changes in total (assuming no space limitation) and relative cover after 5 weeks for the five species
common to both mesocosm experiments. Initial values were from individual cover estimates of these focus species on eight plates collected in August 2008 that had been in the
field for 3 weeks. We estimated change in cover using the experimentally determined survival and growth values at +4.5C relative to the ambient temperature (Appendix B). To
calculate each species' relative percent cover, we divided the individual species' cover values by the total of all species. Specifically, the percent cover of species t at 5 weeks was
calculated as follows: where l was survival per 5 weeks, g was growth per 5 weeks, and T5wk was the total cover of all species at 5 weeks. Predicted values were compared to
actual counts on the field plates (at ambient temperature) 5 weeks later. Results Introduced species were more tolerant of higher temperatures than native species (t = 2.45, P =
0.040; Fig. 1). Temperatures lethal to 50% of individuals (LT50) were 23.7 0.6C and 26.1 0.7C for native and introduced species, respectively. The native Distaplia
exhibited decreased survivorship after exposure to the +4.5C increase (temperature, F2,14 = 4.41, P = 0.033; Init, F1,14 = 5.63, P = 0.033; Fig. 2A). Survival rate declined >80%
between the +4.5C increase and ambient treatments (Tukey post hoc P = 0.034). Survival was unrelated to temperature for the six nonnative species (ANCOVA P > 0.2).
Survival rates ranged from 2% for Distaplia in the +4.5C treatment to 100% for Watersipora. Growth was strongly influenced by temperature for five of the seven species
examined (ANOVA P < 0.04; Fig. 2B). For the five species that exhibited temperature-dependent growth, growth rates increased by 49136% between the ambient and +4.5C
temperature treatments (see Appendix B). Of these five species, the native Distaplia exhibited the smallest increase in growth. Growth rates were not related to temperature for
the native B. californica or introduced Watersipora (P = 0.965 and 0.806, respectively). Although there was a significant block effect for three of the species (Distaplia,
Didemnum, and Watersipora), the temperature effect was consistent across blocks with the possible exception of Watersipora (temperature block, P = 0.052). Based on the
temperature dependence of growth and survival, as increases approach +4.5C, three of four nonnatives are predicted to increase in abundance, whereas Distaplia, the most
commonly recruiting native species, is predicted to decrease in abundance (Fig. 3; Appendix B). The abundance of Distaplia is predicted to decrease by 74%, whereas the
nonnative species Didemnum, Botrylloides, and Bugula neritina are predicted to increase by 4%, 5%, and 19%, respectively (Fig. 3). Watersipora is not predicted to increase via
this mechanism because it was the only species for which both survival and growth were temperature independent (ANCOVA P = 0.215 and ANOVA P = 0.806, respectively).
To the extent that our findings in the fouling community reflect a general pattern,
as mean ocean temperatures increase, introduced species are likely to become more
abundant due to their higher survival and greater increase in growth relative to native
species. After making the simplifying assumption that survival and growth are solely
responsible for the initial maintenance and acquisition of space, respectively, we used
data for the five species included in both the survival and growth experiments to
estimate potential changes in abundances. An indication of the model's qualitative explanatory ability is that the trajectory of
predicted changes in abundances over time at ambient temperature are the same as those we documented on ambient field plates. We found that as
temperature increases approach +4.5C, three of four nonnative species are likely to
become more abundant, whereas abundance of the native species Distaplia is predicted
to decrease from 2.5% cover at ambient temperature to 0.66% cover at +4.5C. This decreased
Discussion
abundance of Distaplia is predicted in part because of high post-settlement mortality, which, at ambient temperature, was 80% monthly in the laboratory experiment and 90%
in the field (mean on six field plates; M. Cockrell, unpublished data). In current ambient temperature conditions, Distaplia offsets this high mortality rate by recruiting in high
The decline in
relative abundance predicted for Distaplia as ocean temperatures increase is also
expected for a larger suite of native species in the community. Although only seven species were sufficiently
abundances, but it seems unlikely that there will be a fivefold change in reproduction to counteract the temperature-driven decrease in survival.
abundant for analyses of survival in our multi-species survival experiment (Fig. 2A), a total of 11 species (four natives and seven nonnatives) were initially present on the plates
At the end of the survival experiment, native species represented a lower proportion of
total individuals at higher temperatures (39% of individuals were natives at ambient
temperature, 20% at +3C, and 13% at +4.5C; Appendix C), and this change in relative proportion of natives was temperature dependent (ANOVA F2,15 = 4.09, P
= 0.038). Combined, our results for both dominant and rarer species in the community demonstrate that early post-settlement success of
nonnative species is enhanced, whereas success of native species declines, as
temperatures increase. Furthermore, results from the lethal temperature experiment indicate
that introduced species are more temperature tolerant than native species . In addition, these six
invasives inhabit, on average, broader environmental temperature ranges globally than the four native species (R. A. Zerebecki and C. J. B. Sorte, unpublished data). Ocean
temperatures approaching the lethal temperatures of these species are currently rare in Bodega Harbor; however, an average of 18.9C was observed over a 24-h period during a
heat wave in July 2006 (C. J. B. Sorte, unpublished data). Based on this heat wave temperature and predicted increases in mean temperature and heat wave severity, LT50
temperatures for native species, but not invasives, are likely to be exceeded with increasing frequency in the next century (Meehl and Tebaldi 2004, IPCC 2007). Thus,
extreme temperature events are also likely to increase invasive dominance by causing
widespread mortality that disproportionately impacts native species . Our results indicate that ocean
warming, along with continuing spread and propagule pressure, could have contributed to the increasing dominance of invasive fouling species already evident in both Southern
California (Lambert and Lambert 1998) and Bodega Harbor (Boyd 1972). Nonnatives currently represent 67% of the nine most common local species compared to only 33%
almost 40 years ago (Boyd 1972), coincident with an increase in ocean temperature (measured at a shoreline station on the outer coast) of >1.0C between 1957 and 2007
(Bodega Ocean Observing Node; data available online).4 Both Bugula neritina and Botrylloides violaceus have become more locally abundant than their native congeners,
Bugula californica and Botrylloides diegensis, and comparisons with historical data suggest that relatively rare native species (e.g., Botrylloides diegensis and the hydroid Obelia
sp.) will continue to decrease in abundance (Boyd 1972). However, these patterns may need to be evaluated if B. diegensis or Obelia are later identified as nonnative in origin (J.
Carlton, personal communication). Although Didemnum is currently the least abundant of the nonnative species considered, we show that it could increase in abundance over
four times more rapidly than the other increasing species as oceans warm. In addition, field observations in Bodega Harbor have shown that Didemnum outcompetes both
Botrylloides and Watersipora at ambient temperatures (K. Edwards and J. Stachowicz, unpublished data). Didemnum's superior abilities to colonize, compete, and resist
Ocean warming, thus, might

help explain why Didemnum has recently become an aggressive and actively spreading
invader on both coasts of North America (Bullard et al. 2007). In conclusion, the survival and
growth of early life stages of nonnative species increased relative to native species under
predicted ocean warming scenarios. This study demonstrates that ocean warming can facilitate species invasions independent of propagule
predators (Osman and Whitlatch 2007, Valentine et al. 2007) will likely be strengthened as temperatures increase.
pressure, which cannot be controlled in correlative and field studies. Because survival and growth are responsible for space acquisition and maintenance, they set the stage for
subsequent competitive interactions and community development. Strong responses of these two key processes to increased temperature underscore the potential for shifts in
community composition. Such shifts seem to be already underway in Bodega Harbor, where dominance of invasive species has approximately doubled over the last 40 years, as
sea temperatures have increased. Increasing dominance of fouling communities by nonnative species could influence ecosystem and economic impacts of the community by
leading to changes in filtering rates and water clarity (Wilkinson et al. 1996), mobile (e.g., fish) species abundances and diversity (Clynick et al. 2007), and competition with
farmed shellfish (McKindsey et al. 2007). In addition, faster growth rates in response to ocean warming indicate that fouling control practices will need to be undertaken with
our results highlight the need to consider two types of

climate change effects on communities: direct impacts on native species and indirect
effects due to the increased dominance of introduced species.
increased frequency and at increased cost. More broadly,
Global warming has increased the spread of invasive speciesnew research

proves that pest organisms are multiplying and outcompeting native
wildlife
ScienceDaily 14, ScienceDaily features breaking news and videos about the latest discoveries in
health, technology, the environment, and more -- from major news services and leading universities,
scientific journals, and research organizations; This story was based on materials provided by Queens
UniversityBelfast (ScienceDaily, Invasive species in waterways on rise due to climate change,
ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140326101547.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+invasivenews+
(NISIC+Invasive+Species+News)//ADravid
One of the most serious threats to global biodiversity and the leisure and tourism
industries is set to increase with climate change according to new research by
Queen's University Belfast. Researchers at Queen's have found that certain invasive weeds, which have previously
been killed off by low winter temperatures, are set to thrive as global temperatures
increase. The team based at Quercus, Northern Ireland's centre for biodiversity and conservation science research, predicts that invasive
waterweeds will become more widespread over the next 70 years . The researchers say that
additional management and legislation will be required if we are to stop the
spread of these pest species . Four species in particular could establish in areas on
average 38 per cent larger than previously thought due to projected climatic warming. The
water fern, parrot's feather, leafy elodea and the water primrose, are already highly
problematic throughout warmer parts of Europe. Invasive species are considered to be one of the most serious threats to global biodiversity, along with climate
change, habitat loss and nutrient addition. The estimated annual cost of invasive species (plants and animals) to the UK economy is 1.8 billion, with 57 million of impact on
the research has been published

in the journal Diversity and Distributions. It looked at the global distributions of 15 invasive plant species
waterways including boating, angling and waterway management. Funded by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA),
over a 69 year period. Dr Ruth Kelly, from the School of Biological Sciences at Queen's, who led the study, said: "Traditionally upland
areas have been protected by low winter temperatures which kill off these invading
weeds. Now these are likely to become increasingly vulnerable to colonisation . "On the island of
Ireland currently about six per cent of the island is unsuitable for these invasive species but we think this will drop to less than one per cent by 2080. This type of research from
Queen's is an example of how we are creating a more sustainable future and shows how monitoring the impact climate change is having is important for many reasons. This
project will allow the NIEA and other agencies to begin their planning on how to address future issues and ensure our waterways remain a valuable economic and recreational
resource." Dr Kelly added: "It's not all bad news, however, as our most common invasive waterweed, the Canadian pondweed, is likely to become less vigorous perhaps allowing
"Invasive waterweeds can be a

major problem in lakes and rivers throughout Britain and Ireland. Such plants are fast growing and often form dense
mats of vegetation which may block waterways and cause problems for boating and
fishing, and, therefore, to the leisure and tourism industries . Dr Kelly's research is crucial in planning for the future
as we know invasive waterweeds will also out-compete native aquatic plants species and alter
habitats for insects and fish."
space for restoration of waterways and native plant communities." Dr Michael Meharg, from the NIEA, said:
Globalization
Globalization has exasperated the spread of aquatic invasive species
undermining ecosystem stability, human health and economic growth
Meyerson and Mooney 07, Laura Meyerson is an Associate Professor of Invasion Biology and
Restoration Ecology at the University of Rhode Island. She has a Ph.D., Yale University - School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies. Harold Mooney is the Senior Fellow, Emeritus - Stanford Woods
Institute for the Environment; Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology (Laura/Harold,
Invasive alien species in an era of globalization The Ecological Society of America, 2007)//ADravid
Globalization facilitates the spread of invasive alien species (IAS) as international

commerce develops new trade routes, markets, and products. New technologies increase
the pace at which humans and commodities can move around the world . Recent research on IAS at the
global scale has examined commerce and travel in order to inform predictions, risk analyses, and policy. Due to limited data, regional-scale studies have primarily focused on
invasion patterns rather than impacts. Local-scale experimental research can identify mechanisms and impacts of biological invasions, but the results may not be applicable at
the number of information networks devoted to IAS is increasing

globally and may help integrate IAS research at all scales, particularly if data sharing
and compatibility can be improved. Integrating ecological and economic factors with trade analysis to explore the effectiveness of different
larger spatial scales. However,
approaches for preventing invasions is a promising approach at the global scale. F or hundreds of years, humans have been introducing plants, animals, and other organisms
around the world, in a relatively slow process of globalizing the Earths biota (DiCastri 1989). More recently, the pace of this process has increased with modern trade, travel, and
Globalization facilitates and intensifies

the spread of invasive alien species (IAS) defined here as alien species whose introduction
does, or is likely to, cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health
technology, so that biological invasions have become a consequence of globalization.
(Executive Order 1999) through intentional or accidental introductions. Researchers can approach critical questions surrounding IAS by focusing on global-scale phenomena
such as international trade and regional scale patterns (Figure 1), or by focusing more specifically on particular species or an ecosystem that has been colonized by IAS. For
example, global research may examine commerce and travel trends over time to inform predictions, risk analyses, and policy. Regional-scale analyses often focus on patterns of
invasion such as rates of introduction or the presence of invaders because data on IAS impacts are rarely collected at large spatial scales. Local-scale experimental research
frequently uses observation and manipulation to tease apart the complex ecological relationships that promote invasions and may seek to specify IAS impacts. However,
Invasive plants, animals, and pathogens are indelibly

altering ecosystems and shaping how we live in them. Meeting the challenges associated
with IAS requires the application of new science, the integration of other disciplines into
this scientific research, and the engagement of policy makers and the public . Where possible, the
research is rarely conducted at these three scales simultaneously.
multiple scales of invasion research should be integrated to advance the science of invasion biology and to increase our ability to control invasion rates and manage the effects of
undesirable species introductions that do occur. Working across multiple disciplines, across spatial scales, and within the policy arena will enhance the success of such efforts.
This paper discusses the interaction between IAS and globalization at multiple spatial scales and explores opportunities to work across scales and disciplines. Factors that drive
At the global scale, commercial trade propels rising annual and cumulative
rates of invasion due to the development of new source and recipient regions, trade
routes, and markets, as well as new products, larger and faster ships, and increased air
transport (Lodge 2006; Ruiz et al . 2006). These rates of invasion are expected to increase, as are the
associated environmental and social costs (Levine and DAntonio 2003). Although many vectors are responsible for species
introductions, the rising volume of air and ship transport has been identified as the primary
driver of marine invasions (Lodge 2006) and the spread of insect disease vectors (Tatem et al . 2006). A major
biological invasions Trade
opportunity to intervene and better manage species introductions exists, but, in practice, using trade and vector information to reduce invasions is difficult. It requires
cooperation across multiple sectors, including international trade organizations, national and local regulators, suppliers, distributors, and buyers. Cooperation at the global scale
to reduce invasions requires changes in business practices by all parties and trade-offs, but may ultimately produce benefits that outweigh the costs. For example, as major forces
in the world economy, China and the US both import and export substantial quantities of goods, which makes these two nations leading sources and recipients of IAS (Jenkins
and Mooney 2006). Both countries have diverse flora and fauna and both have increasing reservoirs of established and incipient IAS from around the globe, poised for
secondary introductions elsewhere (Lodge 2006). The US and China also share similar ecogeographic regions, so both countries are primed for enhanced biotic interchange.
Furthermore, neither nation has a consistent, proactive regulatory framework applied across all sectors to prevent the introduction and spread of IAS (Jenkins and Mooney
2006). There are, therefore, a number of reasons for the US and China to work together to decrease invasion vectors and to strengthen regulatory frameworks and cooperative
agreements. While environmental concerns alone are not likely to spur this kind of cooperation, Chinese and American economists and others could conduct costbenefit
Another example involves the Great

Lakes region, which is considered to be an invasion beachhead for the rest of North
America, because so many aquatic invasive species have been introduced there from the
Baltic region and have subsequently spread to other North American waters (Lodge 2006).
analyses for reducing species introductions, which may produce a more compelling argument.
These multistage invasions include vectors such as transcontinental commercial trade

and inter-lake recreational boating and fishing. Effectively addressing such complex invasion webs requires internationally
coordinated policy and monitoring efforts, commercial, economic, and ecological assessments at all scales, and an informed and invested public sector in all affected countries.
The Great Lakes/Baltic Sea Partnership developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency seeks to achieve some of these goals by fostering the sharing of information, data,
and technology and by encouraging collaborative research between these two regions (www.epa.gov/glnpo/ baltic). This partnership is modeled on the Great Lakes binational
initiatives of the US and Canada, such as the USGreat Lakes Fisheries Commission (www.glfc.org) and the USCanada International Joint Commission (www.ijc.org). Another
continental example is the North American Plant Protection Organization, which coordinates the efforts among Canada, the United States and Mexico to protect their plant
resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of regulated plant pests, while facilitating intra/inter- regional trade (NAPPO; www.nappo. org). These are large and
multifaceted agendas, but such coordinated initiatives in other regions could bring similar important benefits. At regional and local scales, comparisons of climatically similar
sites can reveal non- climatic factors that facilitate species invasions. For example, comparisons of invasion rates over time in the Mediterranean climates of California and Chile
clearly show that, while climatic and temporal factors are roughly equivalent, rates of invasion are not (Arroyo 2006). California has substantially more invasions than Chile,
perhaps because Chile has lower propagule pressure, greater biotic resistance, less disturbance, and fewer transport corridors (eg lower road density), or because it has fewer
available niches for introduced species to exploit than California (Arroyo 2006). Like the USChina example given above, California and Chile have become sources for
secondary invasions elsewhere in the world (Figure 2). A more global analysis that included exogenous factors such as trade balances and IAS propagule pressure might lead to
the discovery of additional causes that have contributed to high invasion rates in California.
Fed Key
Coordinated Federal Policy key --- States cant act alone

Federal framework key
AFWA, 11 --- North Americas fish and wildlife agencies to advance sound, science-based management
and conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest (MANAGEMENT OF
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES (ANS) Federal and State Government Roles, Responsibilities, and
Authorities, http://www.nisaw.org/2011/AFWA-ANS-Whitepaper.pdf, RE)
Federal and State Legislative and Jurisdictional Gaps, Needs, and Capacity to Fill While
these many authorities provide a broad framework for action, gaps still exist within the legal
framework and within the science-based resource management community. In addition to a
scarcity of resources, another significant gap lies in the lack of available scientific and technological
innovation, and policy interventions based on such innovation, to address invasive
species. The combined result of scarce resources and tools has led to an increase in established invasive species, including in the
aquatic arena. Additional key gaps to fill in Federal policy and authority include : Federal legislative
and regulatory measures to more effectively control importation and interstate commerce of species
for State/Interstate Management Plans Nation-wide

rapid response capability to combat incipient harmful invasive species. At the State Level there are a
found to be injurious wildlife. Funding
number of issues which limit State governments from effectively addressing invasive species, particularly aquatic species:
Capacity (funding and staff) is needed to close the gaps in existing state laws, regulations, and programs.
Funding is all there we just need the regulatory framework
Corn and Johnson, 13 ---Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy and Specialist in Agricultural Policy (M. Lynne and Rene, Invasive Species: Major
Laws and the Role of Selected Federal Agencies, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/assets/crs/R43258.pdf, RE)
An invasive species (alternatively known as an alien, exotic, injurious, introduced or naturalized, non-native,
nonindigenous, nuisance, or noxious species) refers to an animal or plant that is introduced into an environment where it is not
native. The introduction of invasive species to the United Stateswhether deliberate or unintentionalfrom around the globe
can
pose a significant threat to native animal and plant communities, and may result in extinctions of
native animals and plants, species disruptions as native and non-native species compete for limited resources, reduced biodiversity,
and altered terrestrial or aquatic habitats. This can
result in a range of economic, ecologic, and cultural

losses, including reduced agricultural output from U.S. farms and ranches; degradation of U.S.
waterways, coastal areas, national parks, and forests; and altered urban, suburban, and rural landscapes. It is estimated
that 50,000 non-native species have been introduced to the United States. The potential economic costs associated
with nonindigenous plant and animal species are estimated at $129 billion annually
in the United States. A few examples of the types of damages attributed to non-native invasive species in the United States
are as follows. Burmese pythons are multiplying in south Florida, becoming a top carnivore and killing large numbers of native
species of reptiles, birds, and mammals. Zebra and quagga mussels from Eastern Europe are clogging intakes for urban water
supplies and nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes and the Mississippi basin. The light brown apple moth, a native pest of
Australia, has been detected in California and is causing damage to a wide range of plant species and commercial fruit and vegetable
crops. Leafy spurge is lowering the forage value of western grazing land, and reducing overall land values. In
the United
States, numerous federal and interagency efforts share responsibilities regarding
invasive species. Among the federal agencies involved are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland
Security, Interior, Transportation, and others, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Executive Office of the
President. Of these, three DepartmentsAgriculture, Commerce, and Interiorplay a major role by co-chairing the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC). Created by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, NISC provides high-level interdepartmental
coordination of federal invasive species actions and works with other federal and nonfederal groups to address invasive species
issues at the national level. In
FY2012, the U.S. government spent an estimated $2.2 billion

across a range of federal agencies and activities in an effort to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive
species domestically. Activities at the Department of Agriculture accounted for the bulk of available federal funding, nearly $1.3
billion (58% of total available funds). Activities at the Department of Homeland Security, comprised of mostly border protection and
security activities, accounted for about $0.7 billion (31% of total funding). The remainder of federal funding, about $0.2 billion
(about 11% of total funding) covers activities across a range of agencies at the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and
also other independent agencies. Despite
efforts to achieve high-level interdepartmental

coordination, comprehensive legislation on the treatment of invasive species has never
been enacted, and no single law provides coordination among federal agencies . Instead, the
current legal framework is largely governed by a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Some laws are tailored to
individual species or narrowly focused on what is affected by the species. Other laws have a broader intended purpose and may only
peripherally address invasive species. Some laws, although they do not directly address invasive species control or prevention, may
limit such introductions.
NOAA has sole jurisdiction for aquatic invasive species research ---
Corn and Johnson, 13 ---Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy and Specialist in Agricultural Policy (M. Lynne and Rene, Invasive Species: Major
Laws and the Role of Selected Federal Agencies, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/assets/crs/R43258.pdf, RE)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
is a statutory co-chair of both the

interagency NISC and ANSTF, and administers a variety of programs aimed at expanding
and coordinating prevention, early detection, rapid response, control, and monitoring
programs nationwide. NOAA is responsible for supporting research and monitoring efforts on
the effects of aquatic invasive species on ecosystems and socioeconomic factors . It also
assists regions and states by providing technical support and best management
practices to prevent and contain invasive species. NOAA sub-agencies, including the National Ocean Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, are involved in both prevention and control activities. In addition, the National Ocean Service monitors
coastal areas for the presence of nonindigenous species.120 Funding for NOAAs invasive species activities totaled $6.7 million in
FY2012 (less than one half of one percent of total federal funding for invasive species), and was used mostly for research and
restoration activities. (See Table 2.) NOAAs Sea Grant programs on invasive species focus on marine systems and the Great Lakes,
through funding of research, education, and outreach to address threats from invasive species.121 Through this program, NOAA
has supported research on ballast water technology and marine engineering advances
to combat aquatic nuisance species under two effortsNOAAs Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab
(GLERL) and at the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research at Michigan State University (NOAAs Joint
Institute partner). Regarding invasive species, GLERL targets both
the prevention and control to stop the

inflow and spread of new aquatic organisms, with particular emphasis on ship ballast ,
and also understanding and minimizing the ecological and economic impacts of recent
species invasions, especially the ongoing secondary effects of zebra mussels.122 GLERL also leads investigations of invasive
species impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem, focusing on zebra mussels and other recent invaders. Other program efforts support
research on the biology of non-native invasive species; impacts
of invasive species on ecosystems,

including socioeconomic analysis of costs and benefits; control and mitigation options;
prevention of new introductions; and reduction in the spread of established populations of
harmful non-native species. The program also funded a Nationwide Zebra Mussel Training Initiative to provide technical services
outside the coastal and Great Lakes areas and help
provide inland states with a knowledge base for

creating state and regional programs.
Ballast is main cause of invasive species
GAO, 3 --- Government Accountability Office (INVASIVE SPECIES Federal Efforts and State
Perspectives on Challenges and National Leadership, http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/110057.pdf, RE)
Invasive species may arrive unintentionally as contaminants of bulk commodities, such as

food, and in packing materials, shipping containers, and ships ballast water. Ballast water is considered a
major pathway for the transfer of aquatic invasive species. Ballast is essential to the safe
operation of ships because it enables them to maintain their stability and control how high
or low they ride in the water. Ships take on or discharge ballast water over the course of a voyage
to counteract the effects of loading or unloading cargo, and in response to sea conditions. The ballast that ships pump aboard
in ports and harbors may be fresh, brackish, or salt water. These waters could potentially contain various
organisms that could then be carried to other ports around the world where they might
be discharged, survive, and become invasive.
Squo Fails--- Congressional Legislation is key to successful implementation

The National
Invasive Species Councils management plan , Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge,
issued in January 2001, calls for actions that are likely to help control invasive species , such as issuing
additional regulations to further reduce the risk of species introductions via solid wood packing material, developing methods to
determine rapid response measures that are most appropriate for specific situations, and devoting additional resources to
strengthening inspection services at ports of entry. However, as
we observed in our October 2002 report, the

plan lacks a clear long-term goal and quantifiable performance criteria against which to evaluate its
overall success. For example, the plan does not contain performance-oriented goals and objectives ,
such as reducing the introduction of new species by a certain percentage or reducing the spread of established species by a specified
amount. Instead, the plan contains an extensive list of actions that, while likely to contribute to preventing and controlling invasive
species, are
not clearly part of a comprehensive strategy . Similarly, many of the actions in the
plan call for federal agencies to take certain steps rather than to achieve specific results and do not have
measurable outcomes. For example, the plan calls for the Council to work with relevant organizations to expand
opportunities to share information, technologies, and technical capacity on the control
and management of invasive species with other countries . The plan also calls for the Council to support
international conferences and seminars. These types of actions are more process-oriented than outcome-oriented; taken
individually, the actions may be useful, but judging whether they are successful and have contributed to an overall goal, will be
difficult. Federal officials involved in developing the plan told us that they recognize that it has deficiencies and are working on
improvements. The Council acknowledged in the plan itself that many
of the details of the actions called for

would require further development in the implementation phase. The executive director of the
Council staff told us that, in her opinion, given the scope of this first-time effort, it would have been
unrealistic and difficult to agree on specific measurable goals. She also said that, in many areas ,
the federal government does not have the data on invasive species
conditions needed to set long-term goals and develop better performance
measures. She said that many of the actions called for in the management plan are designed to help develop needed data
but pointed out that doing so for some aspects of invasive species management will be difficult given the comprehensive data
needed. The management plan also called for the Council to establish a transparent oversight mechanism by April 2001 to report on
implementation of the plan and compliance with the executive order. This mechanism, however, is just now being set in place.
Without this mechanism, the only available measure that could have be used to assess overall progress in implementing the plan was
the percentage of planned actions that were completed by the dates set in the plan.
By this measure,
implementation has been slow. Specifically, federal agencies had completed less than 20 percent of the 65
actions that were called for by September 2002. Council agencies had started work on over 60 percent of the remaining planned
actions, however, including some that have a due date beyond September 2002. Several actions in the plan that were completed on
time related to the development of the Councils Web site, which is found at www.invasivespecies.gov. In
addition, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) h ad sponsored research related to ballast water
management . Nevertheless, a vast majority of the members of the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee, which we surveyed for our October 2002 report, said that the Council was
making inadequate or very inadequate progress. We found several reasons for
the slow progress in implementing the plan. First, delays occurred in establishing the
teams of federal and nonfederal stakeholders that were intended to guide implementation of various parts of
the plan. Second, our review of agencies performance plans (prepared pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act)
indicated that while some agencies plans described efforts taken to address invasive species under their own specific programs,
none of the plans specifically identified implementing actions called for by the plan as a performance measure. Some stakeholders
expressed the view that the low priority given to implementing the plan and associated limited progress may be due to the fact that
the Council
and plan were created by executive order, and thus do not receive the same
priority as programs that are legislatively mandated. Finally, we also noted a lack
of funding and staff specifically devoted to implementing the plan.
Ballast Problem now but the plan solves

current efforts by the United States are not

adequate to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species into the
Great Lakes via ballast water of ships, and they need to be improved . Since 1993,
According to experts and agency officials we consulted,
federal regulations have required vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Economic Zonea zone extending 200
nautical miles from the shoreto exchange their ballast water in the open ocean (that is, water deeper than 2,000 meters) before
entering the zone. Exchanging
ballast water before arriving in the Great Lakes is intended to

serve two purposes: to flush aquatic species taken on in foreign ports from the ballast
tanks and to kill with salt water any remaining organisms that happen to require fresh or brackish
water. If a ship bound for the Great Lakes has not exchanged its ballast water in the open
ocean it must hold the ballast in its tanks for the duration of the voyage through the lakes or
conduct an exchange in a different approved location. Data from the Coast Guard show that the percentage of ships entering the
Great Lakes after exchanging their ballast water has steadily increased since the regulations took effect in 1993 and averaged over 93
percent from 1998 through 2001. Despite this, numerous aquatic invasive species have entered the Great Lakes via ballast water and
have established populations since the regulations were promulgated. Experts have cited several reasons for the continued
introductions of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes despite the ballast water regulations .
In particular, the
Coast Guards ballast water exchange regulations do not apply to ships with little or no
pumpable ballast water in their tanks, which account for approximately 70 percent of
ships entering the Great Lakes from 1999 through 2001. These ships, however, may still have thousands of gallons of
residual ballast and sediment in their tanks that could harbor potentially invasive organisms from previous ports of call and then be
discharged to the Great Lakes during subsequent ballast discharges. There are also concerns that open-ocean ballast water exchange
Federal officials
believe that they should do more to develop treatment standards and technologies to
protect the Great Lakes from ballast water discharges . The Coast Guard is now working to develop new
is not an effective method of removing all potentially invasive organisms from a ships ballast tank.
regulations that would include a performance standard for ballast waterthat is, a measurement of how clean ballast water should
be before discharge within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard is expecting to have a final rule ready for interdepartmental review by the
fall of 2004 that will contain ballast water treatment goals and a standard that would apply not only to ships entering the Great
Lakes but to all ships entering U.S. ports from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone. Once the Coast Guard sets a performance
standard, firms and other entities will be able to use this as a goal as they develop ballast water treatment technologies. While
several technologies are being investigated, such as filtration and using physical biocides such as ultraviolet radiation and heat
treatment, a major hurdle to be overcome in developing technological solutions is how to treat large volumes of water being pumped
at very high flow rates. In addition, small container vessels and cruise ships, which carry a smaller volume of ballast water, may
require different technologies than larger container vessels. As a result, it is likely that no single technology will address the problem
adequately. Consequently, it could be many years before the worlds commercial fleet is equipped with effective treatment
technologies. Without
more effective ballast water standards, the continued introduction of

aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes and other aquatic systems around the
country is likely to cause potentially significant economic and ecologica l impacts. We
reported in October 2002 that the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportations Maritime Administration are developing
programs to facilitate technology development. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have funded 20 ballast water technology demonstration projects at a
total cost of $3.5 million

since 1998 under a research program authorized under the National Invasive Species
Act. Other programs also support research, and the Maritime Administration expects to make available several ships of its Ready
Reserve Force Fleet to act as test platforms for ballast water technology demonstration projects. Once effective technologies are
developed, another hurdle will be installing the technologies on the world fleet.8 New ships can be designed to incorporate a
treatment system, but existing ships were not designed to carry ballast water technologies and may have to go through an expensive
retrofitting process. With each passing year without an effective technology, every new ship put into service is one more that may
need to be retrofitted in the future. Public
and private interests in the Great Lakes have expressed

dissatisfaction with the progress in developing a solution to the problem of aquatic
invasive species introduced through ballast water . An industry representative told us that she and other
stakeholders were frustrated with the slow progress being made by the Coast Guard in developing a treatment standard. More
broadly, in the absence of stricter federal standards for ballast water, several Great Lakes states have considered adopting legislation
that would be more stringent than current federal regulations. In addition, in a July 6, 2001, letter to the U.S. Secretary of State and
the Canadian Minster of Foreign Affairs, the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission stated their
belief that the two governments were not adequately protecting the Great Lakes from further introductions of aquatic invasive
species.9 They also noted a growing sense of frustration within all levels of government, the public, academia, industry, and
The
two commissions believe that the reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act is
a clear opportunity to provide funding for research aimed at developing binational
ballast water standards. S. 525 sets forth a more aggressive program against the introduction of aquatic invasive species
through ballast water and related pathways. In particular , it would require ballast water standards for ships
in all waters of the U.S., instead of the current voluntary program for waters outside of
the Great Lakes. It also specifically authorizes significantly more funding in the form of
grants to states, and federal funding and grants for research, including research on
pathways, likely aquatic invaders, and development of cost-effective control methods .
environmental groups throughout the Great Lakes basin and a consensus that the ballast water issue must be addressed now.
Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering state perspectives on invasive species legislation and management.
No Single Agency can solve

Currently, no single agency oversees the federal invasive species effort. Instead, the
National Invasive Species Council, which was created by executive order and is composed of the heads
of 11 federal departments and agencies, is intended to coordinate federal actions
addressing the problem. State officials most often identified specifically authorizing the
Council in legislation as an effective leadership structure for managing invasive species .
Almost all of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee members that responded to our survey agreed with this approach. During our
work for our October 2002 report, the executive director of the Council noted that
legislative authority for the

Council, depending on how it was structured, could be useful in implementing the national
management plan for invasive species by giving the Council more authority and, presumably,
authorizing more resources. Officials from USDA, the Department of Defense, and EPA also told us that legislative authority, if
properly written, would make it easier for Council agencies to implement the management plan, as implementing actions under the
executive order are perceived to be lower in priority than are programs that have been legislatively mandated. Many state officials,
however, also believed that keeping the current Council authority as established by executive order is an effective option.
T Cards
Data collection and monitoring is exploration
Huddleston, 9 communications officer for the National Research Council (Nancy, Ocean
Exploration: Highlights of the National Academies Reports,
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf
What Is Ocean Exploration?
As defined by the Presidents Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse
observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations
and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archeological
aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.
Recording inventories of marine life is exploration we have a caselist
NOAA 01 (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, January 2001, A New Era of Ocean
Exploration http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/oceanpanel.pdf)
Navy proposes the
following topical areas as suitable for
National commitments and interagency efforts in
ocean
exploration:
Seafloor
exploration & mapping (e.g., Neptune, GOMaP)
Hyperspectral sensing from space

Long-time
series in U.S. waters as part of an integrated ocean observing system (OCEAN.US)
Cooperative coastal efforts with other nations

Inventories
of marine life (e.g. a census of marine mammals)
Inventories of polar ice caps

Marine archaeology
Plan would go through the NOAA (T card?)

Corn and Johnson 13 M. Lynee, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Renee Johnson,
Specialist in Agricultural Policy (Invasive Species: Major Laws and the Role of
Selected Federal Agencies, Congressional Research Service, October 24, 2013
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43258.pdf\\CLans)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a statutory co-chair of both the
interagency NISC and ANSTF, and administers a variety of programs aimed at
expanding and coordinating prevention, early detection, rapid response, control, and
monitoring programs nationwide. NOAA is responsible for supporting research and monitoring efforts on the
It also assists regions and states

by providing technical support and best management practices to prevent
and contain invasive species . NOAA sub-agencies, including the National Ocean Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, are involved in both prevention and control activities . In addition,
the National Ocean Service monitors coastal areas for the presence of
nonindigenous species .120 Funding for NOAAs invasive species activities totaled $6.7 million in FY2012 (less than
effects of aquatic invasive species on ecosystems and socioeconomic factors.
one half of one percent of total federal funding for invasive species), and was used mostly for research and restoration activities. (See
Table 2.) NOAAs
Sea Grant programs on invasive species focus on marine systems and the
Great Lakes, through funding of research, education, and outreach to address threats
from invasive species.121 Through this program, NOAA has supported research on ballast
water technology and marine engineering advances to combat aquatic
nuisance species under two efforts NOAAs Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (GLERL) and at
the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research at Michigan State University (NOAAs Joint Institute partner).
Regarding invasive species, GLERL targets both the prevention and control to stop the inflow and spread of new aquatic organisms,
with particular emphasis on ship ballast, and also understanding and minimizing the ecological and economic impacts of recent
species invasions, especially the on going secondary effects of zebra mussels) GLERL also leads investigations of invasive species
impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem, focusing on zebra mussels and other recent invaders. Other program efforts support research
on the biology of non-native invasive species: impacts of invasive species on ecosystems, including socioeconomic analysis of costs
and benefits; control and mitigation options: prevention of new introductions; and reduction in the spread of established
populations of harmful non-native species. The
program also funded a Nationwide Zebra Mussel

Training Initiative to provide technical services outside the coastal and Great Lakes
areas and help provide inland states with a knowledge base for creating state and
regional programs. The primary law governing NOAAs role in addressing invasive
species is the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (16 U.S.C. 4701. el
seq.), as amended.
Misc
NAISA comparatively better than PAISA only way to solve fed leadership
and unity
The United States Congress
is currently considering several proposals that would create more

stringent provisions for ballast water management in the United States. These bills include the
Prevention of Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 (PAISA) and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA). n103
The PAISA specifically addresses ballast water, whereas the NAISA is a comprehensive
law that addresses ballast water in addition to all other [*89] unregulated areas of aquatic
invasive species introduction and transport. Environmental groups such as The Nature
Conservancy and the Union for Concerned Scientists are supporting NAISA over PAISA because of
concerns that if PAISA is passed, it will be difficult to get Congress to revisit other
invasive species-related issues. While this concern is valid, it should be noted that PAISA and other similar proposed
laws may have a better chance of passing due to their specificity, whereas the far-reaching NAISA has been introduced several times
and never been voted on. Regardless of which one is eventually adopted, the
United States has encountered

sufficiently destructive invasive species that Congress must finally address this problem
and pass a comprehensive federal law setting a national minimum standard.
FYI on AIS
Considering their rather ominous-sounding name, it is important to understand what is actually meant by
the term "aquatic invasive species" how such species find their way into our waters, and what effect they
have on the environment and economy. First, it should be noted that invasive species is a subcategory of a
broader group of organisms often referred to as "nonnative," "nonindigenous," "exotic," or "alien." Each of
these terms refers to an organism that lives in a habitat in which they have not historically resided.! These
foreign species are classified as "invasive" because their presence in the new environment "does or is likely
to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.' 6 Thus, AIS are nonnative, waterresiding organisms that either do cause or are likely to cause harm to the economy, the environment, or
human health.
FYI on the Lacey Act

First, under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is vested with the authority to declare species of
mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles to be "injurious to human beings, to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States."5 When the
Secretary designates a species as injurious, people are prohibited from importing them or their offspring
or eggs into the United States or between individual states." Exceptions to this prohibition are allowed for
live specimens used for "zoological, educational, medical, and scientific purposes." 8 However, a party
must first obtain a permit before importing or transporting an injurious species between states. 9 Permits
are only granted after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ensures a number of criteria are met.'
The current list of prohibited injurious aquatic species under the Lacey Act includes the zebra mussel, the
black carp, and the silver carp, among others." The procedure for listing a species as injurious under the
Lacey Act can be initiated by the USFWS or by petition from the public. Next, the process of evaluation
occurs, which involves a review of the risks associated with the species and can vary in duration
depending on available information.63 Ultimately, if the USFWS determines a species is injurious based
on the information it has acquired, it will issue a proposed rule and conduct a notice and comment
proceeding lasting between thirty and sixty days before deciding whether to issue a final rule listing the
species as injurious.' A violation of a prohibition established under the Lacey Act can result in a prison
sentence of up to six months and a fine of $5000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization.
FYI on NANPCA
The next tool in the federal arsenal to combat AIS is the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act (NANPCA) (later amended by the National Invasive Species Act (NISA)), which is the federal
government's ballast water statute.6 This statute was passed in 1990 to address the zebra mussel invasion
in the Great Lakes and originally only directed the United States Coast Guard to apply ballast water
regulations to ships entering the Great Lakes and later, the Hudson River. Although originally voluntary,
the regulations within NANPCA became mandatory within two years. Under these regulations, all ships
with ballast water on board that enter ports of the Great Lakes or the Hudson River from a location
beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 69 are required to perform one of three tasks.0 They must
conduct a complete ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ before entering those ports, retain their
ballast water on board during their time inside the EEZ, or use another method of ballast water
management approved by the Coast Guard.7' However, the Coast Guard has yet to approve any alternative
methods of ballast water management beyond exchanging the water in the ocean." Thus, ships unable to
carry out an exchange are required to keep their ballast water on board while inside the EEZ 3 The
purpose of exchanging ballast water beyond the EEZ is both to physically remove any organisms in the
ballast water tanks and to increase the salinity level in the tanks to kill any living organisms that require
fresh or brackish water to survive. 4 If a ship is unable to perform a ballast exchange at sea due to weather
or other problems, it must contact a Coast Guard officer and determine a proper exchange site." Failure to
comply with reporting and ballast water exchange requirements can lead to a fine of up to $27,500 and a
felony conviction for knowing violations. 6 In 1996, Congress amended NANPCA with NISA to expand the
ballast water regulations beyond their limited geography and to prevent the introduction of AIS into all
waters of the United States. 7 As with NANPCA, regulations were voluntary at first but became mandatory
in 2004 due to low compliance rates. 8 Under NISA, all ships with ballast water on board bound for the
United States must perform a complete ballast water exchange outside the EEZ, retain their ballast water
on board, or use an alternative method of ballast water management approved by the Coast Guard. 9
Ships unable to perform the ballast water exchange must either retain the ballast water while within the
EEZ or discharge only as much as is "operationally necessary"--as long as the ship is not within the Great
Lakes or the Hudson River. NISA also carries with it the same penalties as NANPCA for failure to comply
with the ballast water exchange regulations or the reporting and recordkeeping requirements."
FYI on the NISC

A final component of the federal response to AIS is Executive Order 13112, which established the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC) in 1999.2 The NISC members include the heads of the following agencies:
State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development.83 The NISC is tasked with ensuring that actions undertaken by each member agency and
all other federal agencies will prevent or at least not promote the introduction and spread of invasive
species." Furthermore, these agencies are supposed to work with each other, with states, and with other
relevant actors in developing and implementing responses to the invasive species problem. This appears
to be the first serious attempt to establish a framework to address the threat of invasive species
throughout the entire federal government. To guide the federal government in this endeavor, the NISC
also has the responsibility of issuing and biennially revising the National Invasive Species Management
Plan (National Management Plan), in which it outlines the goals and duties of federal agencies in response
to invasive species.86 The first National Management Plan was released by the NISC in 2001 and set forth
goals and proposed actions relating to prevention, early detection and rapid response, restoration, and
other matters.
Neg
BioD
The threat of invasive species has been overstateddata shows that the
claim that these species are dangerous to biodiversity is unfounded
Davis et al. 11, Mark A. Davis is DeWitt Wallace professor of biology at Macalester College, St Paul,
Minnesota, USA. Report was reviewed and contributed to by other ecologists: Matthew K. Chew, Richard
J. Hobbs, Ariel E. Lugo, John J. Ewel, Geerat J. Vermeij, James H. Brown, Michael L. Rosenzweig, Mark
R. Gardener, Scott P. Carroll, Ken Thompson, Steward T. A. Pickett, Juliet C. Stromberg, Peter Del
Tredici, Katharine N. Suding, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, J. Philip Grime, Joseph Mascaro, John C. Briggs (Mark,
Dont judge species on their origins, Nature, June 2011,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/474153a.html)//ADravid
Conservationists should assess organisms on environmental impact rather than on whether they are natives, argue Mark Davis and 18 other ecologists.
Over the past few decades, non-native species have been vilified for driving beloved
native species to extinction and generally polluting natural environments. Intentionally or not,
such characterizations have helped to create a pervasive bias against alien species that
has been embraced by the public, conservationists, land managers and policy-makers, as
well by as many scientists, throughout the world. Increasingly, the practical value of the native-versusalien species dichotomy in conservation is declining , and even becoming counterproductive 1 . Yet many
conservationists still consider the distinction a core guiding principle 2 . Todays management approaches must
recognize that the natural systems of the past are changing forever thanks to drivers
such as climate change, nitrogen eutrophication, increased urbanization and other landuse changes. It is time for scientists, land managers and policy-makers to ditch this
preoccupation with the nativealien dichotomy and embrace more dynamic and
pragmatic approaches to the conservation and management of species approaches better suited to
our fast-changing planet. The concept of nativeness was first outlined by the English botanist John Henslow in 1835. By the late 1840s, botanists had
adapted the terms native and alien from common law to help them distinguish those plants that composed a true British flora from artefacts 3 . Over
the next century, many botanists and a few zoologists described and studied introduced species without being aware that others were doing the same.
The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and

Plants, some 40 scientists had published descriptions of non-natives, but no consensus
had been reached on the desirability of intervening when alien species were introduced . It
By the time the British ecologist Charles Elton wrote his famous 1958 book
wasnt until the 1990s that invasion biology became a discipline in its own right. By this point, partly fuelled by Eltons book, proponents of
biodiversity preservation and ecological restoration commonly used military metaphors and exaggerated claims of impending harm to help convey the
some species introduced by humans have

driven extinctions and undermined important ecological services such as clean water and timber
message that introduced species are the enemies of man and nature. Certainly,
resources. In Hawaii, for instance, avian malaria probably introduced in the early 1900s when European settlers brought in song and game birds
has killed off more than half of the islands native bird species. Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), originally native to the lakes of southeast Russia
and accidentally introduced to North America in the late 1980s, have cost the US power industry and water utilities hundreds of millions (some say
But many of the claims driving peoples

perception that introduced species pose an apocalyptic threat to
biodiversity are not backed by data. Take the conclusion made in a 1998 paper 4 that invaders are the secondgreatest threat to the survival of threatened or endangered species after habitat destruction. Little of the information used to
support this claim involved data, as the original authors were careful to point out. Indeed,
recent analyses suggest that invaders do not represent a major extinction
threat to most species in most environments predators and pathogens on islands and in lakes being the main exception 5 . In
fact, the introduction of non-native species has almost always increased the number of
species in a region 5 . The effects of non-native species may vary with time, and species that are not causing harm now might do so in the
future. But the same is true of natives, particularly in rapidly changing environments. BIOLOGICAL BIAS Nativeness is not a sign of
billions) of dollars in damage by clogging water pipes.
evolutionary fitness or of a species having positive effects. The insect currently suspected to be killing more
trees than any other in North America is the native mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae. Classifying biota according to
their adherence to cultural standards of belonging, citizenship, fair play and morality
does not advance our understanding of ecology. Over the past few decades, this
perspective has led many conservation and restoration efforts down paths that make
little ecological or economic sense. Take the effort to eradicate the devils claw plant (Martynia annua), introduced from Mexico
to Australia in the nineteenth century, probably as a horticultural oddity. For the past 20 years, the Northern Terri- tory Parks and Wildlife Service,
along with hundreds of volunteers, have been manually digging up the plants along 60 kilometres of creek bed in Gregory National Park. Today, devils
claw is still found in the park and is abundant in adjacent cattle stations. Is the effort worth it? There is little evidence that the species ever warranted
such intensive management it does not substantially change the fundamental character of its environment by, say, reducing biodiversity or altering
nutrient cycling 6 . Another example is the US attempt to eradicate tamarisk shrubs (Tamarix spp) introduced from Eurasia and Africa into the
countrys arid lands in the nineteenth century. These drought-, salt- and erosion- resistant plants were initially welcomed into the United States, first as
ornamental species for peoples gardens and later as shade trees for desert farmers. Then in the 1930s, when water supplies in eastern Arizona, central
New Mexico and western Texas ran short, they were indicted as water thieves, and later, during the Second World War, as alien invaders. Beginning
in 1942, they became the object of a 70-year suppression project involving herbicides, bulldozers and the picturesquely named LeTourneau Tree
Crusher 7 . NEW GUIDING PRINCIPLES Ecologists have since discovered that tamarisks use water at a rate comparable to that of their native
counterparts 8 . And the plants are now the preferred nesting habitat of the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus.
Tamarisks, which survive under common water-management regimes that destroy native trees and shrubs, arguably have a crucial role in the
functioning of the human- modified river-bank environment 9 . Yet between 2005 and 2009 alone, the US Congress authorized US$80 million to
support ongoing tamarisk control and eradication. What, then, should replace the native versus non-native species distinction as a guiding principle in
conservation and restoration management? Most human and natural communities now consist both of long-term residents and of new arrivals, and
ecosystems are emerging that never existed before. It is impractical to try to restore ecosystems to some rightful historical state. For example, of the 30
We must embrace the

fact of novel ecosystems and incorporate many alien species into management plans,
rather than try to achieve the often impossible goal of eradicating them or drastically
reducing their abundance. Indeed, many of the species that people think of as native are actually alien. For instance, in the United
planned plant eradication efforts undertaken in the Galapagos Islands since 1996, only 4 have been successful.
States, the ring-necked pheasant, the state bird of South Dakota, is not native to the great plains of North America but was introduced from Asia as a
game bird in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Specifically, policy and management decisions must take into account the positive effects of many
invaders. During the 1990s, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared several species of introduced honeysuckles to be alien (harmful), and
banned their sale in more than 25 states. Ironically, from the 1960s to the 1980s, the USDA had introduced many of these same species in land
reclamation projects, and to improve bird habitats. Recent data suggest that the agencys initial instincts may have been appropriate. In Pennsylvania,
more non-native honeysuckles mean more native bird species. Also the seed dispersal of native berry-producing plants is higher in places where nonnative honeysuckles are most abundant 10 . Clearly, natural-resource agencies and organizations should base their management plans on sound
empirical evidence and not on unfounded claims of harm caused by non-natives. Another valuable step would be for scientists and professionals in
conservation to convey to the public that many alien species are useful. We are not suggesting that conservationists abandon their efforts to mitigate
serious problems caused by some introduced species, or that governments should stop trying to prevent potentially harmful species from entering
But we urge conservationists and land managers to organize priorities around

whether species are producing benefits or harm to biodiversity, human health,
ecological services and economies. Nearly two centuries on from the introduction of the
concept of nativeness, it is time for conservationists to focus much more on the
functions of species, and much less on where they originated.
their countries.
Aquaculture
Alt causes slay the affaquaculture has introduced scores of invasive
species that the aff cant contain
Naylor, Williams and Strong 01, R. L. Naylor is at the Center for Environmental Science and
Policy, Stanford University, S. L. Williams is director, Bodega Marine Laboratory, and professor of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Bodega Bay, D. R. Strong is at
Bodega Marine Laboratory, and professor of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis
Aquaculturethe farming of fish, shellfish, and aquatic plantsis among the fastestgrowing segments of the world food economy. Global aquaculture production more than doubled in
volume and value during the past decade and now supplies one-third of seafood
consumed worldwide. Growth in U.S. production parallels the global trend (see figure, this page). Spread across all 50 states in the United
States, farms collectively raise over 100 different species of aquatic plants and animals (1). Plans
are under way for a fivefold increase in domestic aquaculture output by 2025 with more lenient regulatory oversight in accordance with the National Aquaculture Act (1, 2). In the United States and abroad,
aquaculture has led to introductions of unwanted seaweeds, fish,

invertebrates, parasites, and pathogens and without special care, the rapid
expansion of this sector will result in the spread of even more pests.
Aquaculture has become a leading vector of aquatic invasive species
worldwide (3, 4). Although the problem is global, much can be learned from recent U.S. experience. Most major aquatic species cultured
in the United States are not native to their farm sites (1). Accidental escapes and even
purposeful releases create biological pollution with irreversible and unpredictable
ecological impacts. Surprisingly little federal oversight exists even for deliberate
aquaculture introductions in the United States (5). For example, no restrictions existed to prevent the escape
of seaweed species introduced in 1973 to Hawaii ; they have since spread rapidly across the states coral reefs (6). Likewise, bighead and silver
carps, imported from Asia for confined food culture and biological control in the 1970s, have become established in rivers
throughout the Mississippi Basin and compete with native fish (7). Local and state
regulations are inadequate, particularly because once species escape, they often move across state boundaries. Mollusk-Related Introductions Farming oysters, clams, scallops,
and other mollusks is an important industry in the United States worth more than $100 million annually (8). Ecological impacts of mollusk farming are small, relative to other forms of aquaculture (9); the
industry relies on clean water and advocates environmental protection. Nonetheless, mollusk farming is responsible for many invasions of exotic species. The widely cultured Japanese or Pacific oyster is
established on almost all Northern Hemisphere coasts (10). Industry safeguards to prevent establishment of exotic mollusks, e.g., use of sterile triploids and culture in environments unsuitable for reproduction,
are not foolproof (10). Concern about these safeguards led Maryland to protest the recent introduction to Virginia of a new Southeast Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakenesis, intended to restore the Chesapeake Bay
Alien mollusks and species hitchhiking with them become competitors,

predators, pathogens, and parasites of wild species and can harm molluscan aquaculture
itself. Terebrasabella heterouncinata, a parasitic worm introduced into California with
South African abalone in the 1980s, de- forms shells of cultured abalone (11). It has reduced market prices for
infested animals by half and caused closure of several abalone farms. Other major pests transferred through molluscan
aquaculture include the Japanese oyster drill (10), turbel- larian flatworm (10), Asian
eelgrass (12), and highly invasive seaweeds (13). One of these seaweeds, Codium fragile, is known as the oyster thief because it overgrows and
oyster economy.
smothers oyster beds (13). Introduced Carp for Biological Control Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) are the most widely farmed fish in the United States, accounting for more than 70% of domestic
aquacultural production by meat weight (1). Asian black carp (Mylopharyn- godon piceus) provides the cheapest means of controlling trematodes in catfish ponds (14, 15). However, they eat mollusks, posing a
Freshwater mollusks are the most endangered group of animals in

North America, and 90% of native mussel species designated as endangered, threatened
or of special concern are found in the Southeast where the catfish industry is
concentrated. Black carp have escaped and colonized open water in all other countries
where they have been introduced (16). Black carp are currently held in eight Southern states, mainly in sterile triploid form (16). Despite the strong ecological
special ecological risk in the Mississippi Basin.
rationale for using triploids, Mississippi permitted the transport and use of fertile diploids in 1999 in response to a major outbreak of trematodes. In February 2000, fishing and conservation groups petitioned to
list black carp as an injurious species under the federal Lacey Act (14). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), responsible for enforcing the Lacey Act, has not yet reached a decision on the petition.
listing of injurious would prohibit importation and interstate transfer of black carp but
would not bar proliferation and dissemination of the species within states where it
already exists (2). At issue is state sovereignty over federal authority, even when
potential damage clearly transcends state boundaries. All other species of Asian carp introduced in the United States, even those under
the theoretical control of genetic triploidy, have escaped, have reproduced in the wild, and have spread throughout the Mississippi Basin (4, 7). Missouri adopted a policy in 2000 to hold all black carp for certified
triploid production and sale through the Department of Conservation for 5 years before banning the fish altogether (17). Such an approach may strike an acceptable balance between industry and conservation
objectives. Farmed Salmon The introduction and frequent escape of farmed salmon along Atlantic and Pacific coastlines pose an equally challenging problem. In the United States, farming of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) is now valued at about $100 million annually (1). This fish has been selectively bred for aquaculture and differs genetically from wild Atlantic and Pacific salmon species with which it competes, and
in some cases inter- breeds, after escape (18, 19). In addition, intensive culture elevates the risk of disease and parasite transfers. Infectious salmon anemia and sea licewidespread problems in European salmon
aquaculturehave recently appeared in North American farms and could spread to wild salmon (1). Up to 40% of Atlantic salmon caught in the North Atlantic and more than 90% caught in the Baltic Sea are of
). More than a half-million Atlantic salmon escaped on the West Coast of North
America between 1987 and 1997 (21); they have been found in 77 British Columbian rivers and are spawning in some locations (1, 22). In the New BrunswickMaine
region, farmed escapees vastly outnumber wild salmon in some spawning rivers (1). The establishment of farmed salmon in the wild
increases pressure on endangered native salmon populations. Even more pressure could
arise if transgenic salmon containing added growth-hormone genes are approved for
commercial net-pen culture. Regulatory Quagmire The case of Atlantic salmon in Maine illustrates the regulatory quagmire in which the aquaculture industry and
farmed origin (20
conservation agencies operate. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) opposes introductions of fertile nonNorth American strains of Atlantic salmon and is working with the USFWS and the Army Corps
of Engineers (which provides net-pen permits) to enforce a ban. The state of Maine pro- hibits the use of live nonNorth American salmon, but allows the use of foreign genetic material (milt). Until November
the
regulatory structure for controlling exotic introductions is diffuse and uncoordinated
among state and federal agencies. Federal authority is based only on the Lacey Act (1900), the Plant Protection Act (2000), and the Na- tional Invasive Species Act
2000 when wild salmon in Maine were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), state sovereignty ruled on this issue. Now state and federal agencies must comply with the ESA. More generally,
(1996) that focuses on ballast water introductions; none have been effective in aquaculture (4, 5). The National Research Council (23) has ranked invasive species and overexploitation as the most serious
threats to native marine biodiversity. Nonetheless, marine and freshwater species received the smallest allocation (<1%) of the federal FY2000 budget for invasive species management, whereas more than 90%
went to agriculture (24). The Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, a multiagency body legislated by the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (1990) to assume federal management leadership,
has received no appreciable budget to support research and control programs. Moreover, the new Invasive Species Management Plan (2001) focuses primarily on terrestrial species and largely ignores
aquaculture introductions (24). Improved Oversight A clear policy on exotic introductions is needed as aquaculture expandsone that includes scientific risk assessment for all nonnative introductions and singleagency oversight for the prevention, containment, and monitoring of potentially harmful exotics. New Zealands Hazardous Sub- stances and New Organisms Act (1996) provides a model that the United States
and other countries should follow. The New Zealand approach regulates exotic introductions comprehensively in a single legislative act with clear oversight. Importers of nonnative species must apply to an
independent regulatory authority accountable to the Environment Ministry and Parliament for public approval. All species are considered potentially invasive and therefore prohibited unless proven
otherwise. International transfers of nonnative species for aquaculture pose high ecological risks given the absence of strong policies in most countries. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has identified at
least 46 international quasi-legal instruments that address exotic species invasions; however, there is no binding agreement apart from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that deals comprehensively
with introductions, control, and eradication of exotic species (25). The CBD (convened by the IUCN and ratified in 1992 by 170 countries excluding the United States) holds signatory members accountable for
conducting scientific risk assessments for introductions and advocates use of native species in aquaculture. Persuading the United States and nonsignatory countries to abide by this process remains a worthy
challenge. In many cases, the aquaculture industry itself has an economic stake in preventing introductions of exotic species that harm their products. In other cases, the costs of exotic species introduced by
aquaculture are external to the industry and even to the state or country where the industry operates. Com- prehensive guidelines for preventing introductions of invasive species exist through the IUCN (25)
and ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (26) and have been implemented by New Zealand as a working model. Widespread adoption of these policies is urgently needed in the Unit- ed
States and abroad to stem the rising tide of aquatic invasions.
Alt Cause --- Enviro

Alt Cause---- Asian Carps will decimate the great lakes ecosystem--- plan
cant stop because only deals with oceans
Reeves, 12----reporter for This Magazine, citing Becky Cudmore who is manager of the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk
Assessment (CEARA) at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and spent the last 8 years studying Asian Carp (Andrew,
Attack of the killer carp, http://this.org/magazine/2012/08/15/attack-of-the-killer-carp/,RE)
Each carp is seven-pounds and little more than 23 inches long, market size, according to Cudmore. They seem nothing like the
monstrous invaders I have spent the past three months researching. Report after report has described a voracious creature, one
capable of growing to massive weights, decimating native fish species, and destroying local fisheries and recreational areas. Some
carp jump so high and with such force that recreational boaters have shied away from the carp-filled Illinois and Missouri rivers
after a woman was struck in the face by a 30-pound Asian carp in 2005 while water-skiing, knocking her unconscious. She lived.
Ive been struck before, says Cudmore. And believe meit hurts. Boats are now being rigged with protective shields for the
drivers. To get to her office, we walk through the halls of the monolithic concrete building, past other research labs and government
offices with views of the polluted Hamilton Harbour and the Burlington Skyway. Inside, the space is strewn with binders, awards,
and a life-size fiberglass bighead carp. Here, from a desk covered with family photos, Cudmore manages DFOs Centre of Expertise
for Aquatic Risk Assessment. Founded in 2006, the centre operates with a long-term, national perspective of invasive species. It
both mitigates and manages current threats and those that could spell future disaster for the Great Lakes and its tributaries .
Asian carp are at the top of CEARAs priority list. Ive been working on invasive species
for a very long time, says Cudmore, and [Asian carp] are the first species that are
breathing down my neck. Thanks to their seemingly unstoppable spread, Asian carp are
on their way to becoming the latest household name in aquatic threatsjoining such
past invasive species as zebra mussels, sea lamprey, and alewives . Already, their presence in
midwestern waterways has proven a history of ecological destruction on a tremendous
scale. Over the past 40 years, the carp have spread hundreds of miles north from the American
south, outcompeting native fish species, destroying ecosystems and spawning with
alarming fecundity. Theyre now poised to invade the Great Lakes . There they
would unleash incalculable damage on freshwater ecosystems already plagued by a
litany of environmental problemsunless Canadian and U.S. governments can figure
out a way to stop them. Asian carp is an umbrella term, the collective expression for several carp species (bighead, silver,
black and grass) that belong to the Cyprinidae family. Of them all, bighead and silver pose the largest threat, and therefore receive
the most attention. What makes these carp so devastating, ironically, is exactly what attracted early aqua-culturalists: bighead and
silver are filter feeders with gluttonous appetites, capable of thriving in a broad range of habitats. This makes them ideal pond
cleaners. It also makes them ideal invaders. Bighead and silver outcompete native species through sheer volume. Researchers
cannot begin to estimate how many Asian carp now exist in America, but have
determined carp have cultivated the entirety of the Mississippi River and much of the
Illinois and Missouri rivers and their hundreds of tributaries. More than that, they are huge: Over a
20-year lifespan, carp can grow to 100 pounds. Both feats are achieved largely through destruction. Some
carp filter feed plankton by straining water through their gills and eating whatever they
catch, allowing them to consume upwards of 20 per cent of their body weight in a single day. They are also opportunistic feeders,
devouring whatever is available at multiples levels of the aquatic food web. The hazards of their filter feeding on
native species are two-fold. Asian carp out-feed secondary consumers that rely on
phytoplankton and zooplankton as their primary food source and also reduce available food supplies
for tertiary consumers across the food web. Both bighead and silver are highly tolerant species, capable of building sustainable
populations in diverse habitats. Rapid spawning during multiple annual peaks means Asian carp also typically outbreed their native
competition. This
destruction of natural ecosystems can rarely be fixedno matter how hard

humans try to mitigate the damage. Ultimately, the intricacies of healthy, working ecosystems are little understood
and too sophisticated for [humans] to reproduce even with the most advanced technology, reports the Australian-based Ecosystem
Services Project, which studies the services humans obtain from their environments and their economic and social worth.
Species already in the Great Lakes decimate biodiversity

Walsh, 13 --- Reporter for Time Science (Brian, Forget the Asian Carp. Heres a New Great Lakes
Invasive Species to Worry About, http://science.time.com/2013/12/04/forget-the-asian-carp-heres-anew-great-lakes-invasive-species-to-worry-about/, RE)
Officials havent had a whole lot of luck with their containment effort, despite spending
tens of millions of dollars on the battle. A study in October found for the first time that a subspecies of Asian
carpgrass carphad successfully reproduced within the Great Lakes watershed , in a tributary of a
river that feeds into Lake Erie. Now it turns out that there may be reason to worry about another
invasive speciesgoing in the other direction. Scientists with the Nature Conservancy, the University of
Notre Dame and Central Michigan University have for the first time discovered DNA from the Eurasian
ruffe in two water samples taken in July from Lake Michigans Calumet Harbor in Chicago. While a
Eurasian ruffe might sound like some kind of Siberian motorcycle gang, its actually an invasive species of small
perch native to central and western Europe that established itself in Lake Superior in the
mid-1980s after hitching a ride in a European freighters ballast water tanks . Since then its been
slowly spreading around the southern shore of Lake Superior, before
invading northern Lakes Michigan and Huron. If Eurasian ruffes do establish
themselves in the Mississippi watershed, the consequences would not be good . The ruffes
have been identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as one of the 29 species that have the potential to
transfer between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin . Ruffes are comfortable in large
rivers, and the Mississippi and its tributaries have twice the number of native fish as the Great Lakes basin does. Thats a lot of local
fish that could be displaced if the ruffes move in. The Eurasian ruffe is a relatively small fish that produces a lot of eggs and reaches
maturity very quickly, says Lindsay Chadderton, the Aquatic Invasive Species Director for The Nature Conservancys Great Lakes
Project. They
feed from the bottom of the food chain, and theyre going to compete with
native and introduced species dependent on the same fauna .
Alt Cause--- Econ

Asian Carps will kill the Great Lakes Econ
Reeves, 12----reporter for This Magazine, citing Becky Cudmore who is manager of the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk
Assessment (CEARA) at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and spent the last 8 years studying Asian Carp (Andrew,
Attack of the killer carp, http://this.org/magazine/2012/08/15/attack-of-the-killer-carp/,RE)
Indeed, its
worth examining the financial risks associated with the spread of Asian carp
into the Great Lakes. Currently, the total cost to Canadian governments for dealing with 18 minor invasive species is
pegged at $34 billion annuallynot one-time costs, but annual financial burdens. Asian carp could increase that number greatly.
Much else must be considered: lump
sum and annual costs spent on prevention and damage

control once a species is established; revenue lost to commercial, recreational, and
tribal fisheries due to native species destruction; jobs and wages dependent upon
healthy ecosystems; and damages to the immeasurable services offered by a healthy
ecosystem that is no longer functional. Plus, if Asian carp break through the barriers in
Chicago and enter Lake Michigan, they could become the most expensive invasive
species to manage in North American history. Currently, the United States spends $50
million annually on controlling Asian carp, and the Obama administration has slated an additional $51
million in 2012-13 for researching alternative control methods, a move both Cudmore and Ullrich welcome. That number rises
when you factor in money spent by the Canadian, Ontario and Quebec governments, both cash and in-kind offerings, including
roughly $5 million to complete the CEARA-led risk assessment study. Cudmore says the federal government shares the same
level of concern as Washington towards Asian carp but financially, they
are not on the same playing field.

Too bad considering prevention as opposed to maintenancecan generate up to $ 9.5 billion in
long-term savings. We have learned the critical nature of prevention. This is now the
number one strategy for dealing with invasive species, says Eder. Once [an invasive
species] is in the system they are virtually impossible to eradicate or control or
manage. Yet the cost of controlling an invasive species is only the tipthere is also
the mountain of associated costs and lost revenue. Take the Great Lakes fishery: the GLC
estimates that $ 16 billion is spent annually on boating trips and equipment ,
with some of this money trickling down to Aboriginal groups specializing in fishing expeditions on tribal lands.
Commercial and sport fisheries generate an additional $7 billion in economic activity

annually as part of 1.5 million jobs the Great Lakes directly sustain, generating an
estimated $62 billion in annual wages. If Asian carp enter the waterways, the
recreational fishing industry could likely not survive such a monumental
blow.
Privatization CP
Economic incentives solve IAS
Future directions Assessing the impacts of IAS on ecosystem services has only recently become an explicit focus of studies of
invasion ecology [27], and certainly some ecosystem services are better understood than others. For example, the impacts of IAS on
provisioning services (food, fiber and fuel) are frequently well quantified. Impacts
on other life-supporting
services, such as fresh water and most regulating services (pollination, disease and pest
regulation and flood and fire control), are rarely calculated, but are likely to be
substantial. Finally, of all the services, the interaction between IAS and culture is perhaps the
most complex and underaddressed. Yet these types of service tend to resonate strongly with diverse stakeholders,
such as private landowners, local communities and cultural practitioners [15]. Much invasion research thus far has focused on
predicting invasibility, comparing invader and native traits and assessing environmental impacts, particularly on biodiversity. Do
species with the greatest ecological impacts also have the greatest impacts on ecosystem services? Given that it is usually easier to
prevent an introduction than to control an invasion ,
it is important to make good predictions regarding

which species or groups of species will impact ecosystem services by understanding the
underlying mechanisms. For example, are differences in impact of invasive plant species due to functional traits (e.g.
nitrogen fixation) or to biomass [69]? This is not an easy task. Models and short-term experiments are poor
predictors of invasions [70]. The best approach might be intensive study and long-term
monitoring of impacts of previous invasions of the same or similar species . Global trade
and travel is likely to exacerbate the problem of invasions and continue to compromise
vital ecosystem services. More effective inspection systems at international borders are crucial to identify and cut off
pathways of introduction [71]. Because losses from IAS are not always transparent and are spread across many stakeholders , few
industries or communities view IAS as their primary concern. Thus, few groups have
emerged to pressure governments to implement or enforce effective regulations. Using
economic incentives and disincentives, such as taxes, fines and grants, could result in
greater compliance for those introducing IAS and is already working well to control
established IAS in many places, such as South Africa (Box 1). Investing in education on IAS and their diverse impacts in
tandem with economic incentives could also lead to better bottom-up enforcement [72] and more public support for prescreening
and trade regulations. Finally, much of invasion biology focuses on ecological effects, predicting spread and developing control
methods rather than documenting economic and social damage to society from impacts on ecosystem services. Because ecosystems
provide life-support services to all of human society, using the ecosystem-service framework for prevention and control of IAS has
potential for reaching a diverse audience and giving them a stake in the outcome of IAS introductions. The next generation of IAS
science and policy should reflect the fact that invasive alien species, similar to habitat loss and climate change, are emerging as a
major driver of global environmental change, with grave consequences for biodiversity and human well-being.
US-CanadaCP
Solvency Mech for Aff/CP
NAS, 8 --- National Academies of Science (Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic
Invasive Species, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-inbrief/St_Lawrence_Seaway_Final.pdf, RE)
Prevention measures for all ships that pose a risk. Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast
Guard should ensure that all vessels entering the Great Lakes after operating in coastal areas of
eastern North America take protective measures similar to those required for transoceanic vessels, notably
ballast water exchange for ballasted vessels and saltwater flushing for vessels declaring
no ballast on board. Create uniform standards. The United States should follow
Canadas lead and take immediate action to adopt and implement ballast water
exchange and performance standards for the Great Lakes that are identical to those specified in
the International Maritime Organizations International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships
Ballast Water and Sediments. Improve monitoring for AIS. A binational science-based
surveillance program should be established to monitor for the presence of new AIS in
the Great Lakes. The program should involve dedicated lake teams, as well as academic researchers, resource managers, and
local citizens groups, and should leverage existing monitoring activities wherever possible. 1. 2. 3.
Create feedback mechanisms for improving the program. An adaptive process should be
established to ensure that policy measures designed to prevent further AIS
introductions into the Great Lakes are updated in a timely and periodic fashion to reflect practical experience and knowledge
gained through research. The organization responsible for this process should have a binational
mandate; adequate resources to conduct its work; and the ability to draw on the advice
of scientific and policy experts in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere as needed. It should also be
widely perceived as independent and free from conflicts of interest. Uncertainty about future ballast water
management regulations for the Great Lakes may well be hindering investment in the
transportation system. Thus, timely implementation of the committees recommendations
with regard to ballast water management and associated standards could help reduce regulatory
uncertainties and the associated barrier to the development of trade-enhancing
transportation infrastructure and services. In the committees judgment, the recommended suite of actions comes
closer to achieving the two project criteria than any other options it identified.
States CP
States solve the aff
Bostrom 9- Suzanne, Editor in Chief, Environmental Law, 2009-2010; Member, Environmental Law,
2008-2009; J.D. and Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, Lewis and Clark Law
School, expected 2010; B.S. Marketing and International Business, New York University (HALTING THE
HITCHHIKERS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTROLLING BALLAST WATER
DISCHARGES AND AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES, 2009, Accessed via HeinOnline \\CLans )
Motivated by delay in the development of international and domestic laws, several states created, or are
in the process of developing, legislation to control ballast water discharges . Although
California is on the forefront of implementing stringent discharge requirements, Oregon and Washington
are close behind, and there is a high probability that the West Coast states, excluding Alaska,
will implement a regional treatment standard if the federal government does not define
a treatment standard in the near future. 9 This Part discusses actions currently underway in various states, and argues
that the state-driven regulation of ballast water could drive international adoption of effective treatment technologies for ballast
water. 1. California on the Frontline Responding to concerns over the lack of performance standards for ballast water discharges,
the California State Land Commission (CSLC) developed and submitted ballast water
standards to the California legislature in 2006.290 The California legislature incorporated the standards into
the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 and passed the CSLC's recommendations into law.' The CSLC based the performance
standards on organism size and developed a phased implementation schedule based on vessel size class and construction date,
which is similar to the IMO guidelines.92 California's
standards require that there be no detectable

living organisms greater than fifty micrometers in dimension, and less than 0.01 living organisms per
milliliter that are between ten and fifty micrometers in dimension. 293 In other words, California's technology
requirements overall are one thousand times more stringent than the Ballast Water
Convention requirements and ten times more stringent than proposed requirements
considered recently in Congress.m 2. West Coast Alliances as a Catalyst for Change Although Oregon's current
regulatory program is similar to the Coast Guard's program, the state's Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive
Species Task Force (Task Force) is encouraging the state to enact more stringent protections
for Oregon waters in 2009. "' The purpose of the Task Force, which the legislature created in 2007, is
to make recommendations for future amendments to Oregon's ballast management
regulations.26 In recommendations to the 2009 Oregon Legislature, the Task Force indicated that "[i]f
sufficiently protective Federal standards [are] not in place by 2009," the state should
pursue "an Oregon standard that is complementary to neighboring states. " 1 Additionally, "[i]f
Washington and California adopt comparable treatment standards, the Oregon
Department of Enivironmental Quality will adopt a common west coast treatment
standard. " 9 In Washington, similar efforts to create a regional treatment standard are underway. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in tandem with a Ballast Water Work Group, is rewriting
Washington's laws to replace the state's current laws with concentration requirements
that are comparable to California's laws.299 Additionally, "WDFW will no longer independently approve
treatment systems for use in state waters and will instead rely on regional, national or international approvals.". 3. Great Lakes
Developments The
Great Lakes states have either enacted or are in the process of examining
strict ballast water treatment requirements. For example, in Michigan, state law indicates that without a
permit or another form of permission, "the discharge into the waters of the state from an oceangoing vessel of any ballast water is
prima facie evidence" that a person discharged an injurious substance into Michigan's waters.' Under
the general permit

that implements Michigan's ballast water law, if a ship wants to discharge ballast water, the vessel
must use approved, "environmentally sound and effective technology" for "preventing
the discharge of aquatic nuisance species" and must ensure aquatic species are not
discharged "at levels which are injurious to the designated uses of the waters of the
state." 0 1 2 In other words, Michigan's standards do not allow for the discharge of any aquatic invasive species that could harm
the environment. Minnesota followed Michigan's lead and adopted ballast water regulations, but Minnesota's requirements are less
stringent-than those in California or Michigan; under Minnesota's vessel general permit, ships must meet treatment requirements
that are comparable to those under the Ballast Water Convention.3 Although none of the other Great Lakes states have permitting
regimes as of yet, several
states in the region are examining options for ballast water

legislation. In New York, recent developments related to the state's certification of EPA's
VGP illustrate how the state is taking action in the absence of effective federal controls
for ballast water. Relying on the state's narrative water quality standards and antidegradation policy, New York imposed
performance standards and an implementation schedule for treatment technologies as part of the VGP certification."*' Under New
York's conditions, with certain limited exceptions, each vessel, by no later than January 1, 2012, must have a ballast water treatment
system that discharges less than one living organism that is fifty or more micrometers in dimension per ten cubic meters and less
than one living organism that is less than fifty micrometers in dimension per ten mifiliters.3 Despite the fact that New York did not
have a regulatory or statutory version of the certification's performance standards, a New York Supreme Court upheld the conditions
as "rationally derived from the authority of the [New York Department of Environmental Quality] to control ballast water
pollution."37 Ultimately,
whether other states follow Michigan, Minnesota, and New York's

lead in the Great Lakes region, and whether the states will work toward regional
uniformity has yet to be seen. However, as demonstrated by the Great Lakes states thus far,
the states are concerned about aquatic invasive species introductions and are likely to
continue working towards the implementation of ballast water controls.
States solvethey can create more specialized and local frameworks for
containing and eliminating invasive species
Environmental Law Institute 04, non-partisan research and education center working to
strengthen environmental protection through policy, management and environmental law
(Environmental Law Institute, INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL, May 2004,
http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/modellaw.pdf)//ADravid
The threat posed by invasions of exotic plants, animals, pathogens and other organisms into non- native environments has begun to capture the
attention of the public and the government officials that represent and serve them. Throughout the 50 states and the other territories of the United
States, invasive species significantly endanger the ecological integrity of our nations natural systems, challenge the reliability of our agricultural
practices, and threaten public health and safety. Invasive species displace native plants and animals, disrupt ecological processes, threaten ecosystem
stability, and alter both natural and man-made landscapes. Invasive species threaten two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered one
of the most severe threats to biodiversity in the United States, second only to habitat destruction. And the impact of invasive species comes with a
substantial price tag. Federal, state and local governments all spend millions of dollars to remedy the adverse effects of species invasions while
businesses, farmers, and other landowners sustain substantial economic harm. The total cost to the U.S. economy from invasive species is now
estimated at well over $100 billion annually. Thanks to poster-worthy species, such as the northern snakehead fish, and widespread attention to other
invaders such as purple loosestrife, the zebra mussel, and the Asian longhorn beetle, government authorities are quickly finding the support they need
Although federal authority remains somewhat fragmented, states are

perhaps in a better position to design and establish comprehensive
programs to address the threat of species invasions and initially respond to
invasions as they are discovered . Many states already have programs in place to
address particular categories of threats, such as invasive plants in agricultural lands or
invasive aquatic species. And recently, several states (e.g., Virginia) have passed legislation
establishing interagency invasive species councils with the mission to coordinate
programs and activities among the various state agencies to more comprehensively
address the threat of invasive species. A broad look at state approaches around the country reveals a variety of potential
approaches and tools for states to use in combating invasive species. From defining which species will be considered
invasive, to regulating the import of potentially invasive species, to early detection and
to take action.
rapid response programs, to the establishment of state invasive species councils, state
laws and policies offer effective tools for protecting biodiversity, natural systems,
agriculture, and the economy. In a recent study of state programs entitled Halting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species
Management, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) identified at least 17 state tools for preventing, regulating, controlling and managing invasive
species and for effectively enforcing and implementing their programs. By combining most or all of those 17 tools, a state could implement a very
comprehensive program to manage the threat of invasive species. The model state law described in this document is one effort to do just that. The
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has drafted the following model state law for invasive species detection, control, and management. This model state
law provides the statutory framework for a comprehensive program to address invasive non-native species across all taxa. The structure of the model
law is based generally on the 17 state tools for managing invasive species identified in ELIs report Halting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species
Management. To briefly summarize, Halting the Invasion identified 17 state legal and policy tools for invasive species management in the following 5
preventing the introduction and establishment of invasive

species is the most effective and cost-efficient strategy. To help prevent the entry and spread of unwanted
invasive species, states may develop the following prevention tools: Identification and
mitigation of future threats (including research, data collection, and pathway identification). Detection (including
inspection, survey, and mapping programs). Import/Introduction/Release requirements
(including scientifically based standards for introductions and permit requirements).
Quarantine authority (including authority for quarantines of facilities, incoming
shipments, and means of conveyance). Education (including programs for the benefit of landowners, businesses and
other stakeholders, and the public at large). REGULATION Some states may establish authorities to control the
deliberate possession, movement, and release of certain invasive species . These authorities
include: Permits and licenses (including permits for importation, release, and even possession of invasive species).
Transportation and shipping requirements (including notice requirements and best practices). Monitoring
(including post-release monitoring and reporting). Bonds and insurance (to ensure recovery of costs and damages resulting from
permitted or accidental releases). CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT As a second line of defense, some states may
authorize emergency control measures for rapid response to an early detection of an
infestation of invasive species. Some states may also authorize programs to control,
manage, and mitigate widespread infestations. State control and management
strategies include the following: General control and management authority (including notice
requirements and authority to enter private lands for control actions). Emergency power (to rapidly respond to newly
identified or severe infestations). Biological controls (including standards and
procedures governing the release of bio-control species). Restoration (to help restore
areas where invasives have been controlled and to prevent other infestations). ENFORCEMENT
categories: PREVENTION Over the long term,
AND IMPLEMENTATION Adequate enforcement authority and resources are essential to effective implementation of invasive species programs.
States may utilize the following tools: Enforcement authorities (including administrative
and criminal penalties). Funding (including dedicated funding sources). COORDINATION
States are better equipped to implement and enforce existing authorities and tools
aimed at the prevention, control, and management of invasive species if they coordinate their use
through two fundamental tools: Invasive Species Council Invasive Species Management Plan To create this model law, ELI has selected, adapted, and
blended provisions from some of the best existing state programs across the country in order to describe a program that incorporates all the basic
The comprehensive state invasive species program

outlined in the model law includes the creation of a statewide, interagency invasive
species council responsible for planning statewide invasive species management, for
developing and maintaining comprehensive species lists, and for exercising regulatory
authority to implement the programs described in the statute. The model law includes provisions designed
elements of the 17 tools described in Halting the Invasion.
to prevent species invasions (including threat and pathway assessment, detection programs, import controls, pathway regulation, and quarantines),
regulatory provisions (including permitting and monitoring), invasive species control provisions (including general authorities and emergency
response) and enforcement provisions. The model law is intended both to stand alone as a comprehensive program and to be readily separable into its
component parts for adoption into an existing state legislative framework.
State approach to aquatic invasive species are effectivefederal programs

are fragmented and do not have the same tools as the states
Environmental Law Institute 04, non-partisan research and education center working to
strengthen environmental protection through policy, management and environmental law
(Environmental Law Institute, HALTING THE INVASION: State Tools for Invasive Species
Management, May 2004, http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d12-06.pdf)//ADravid
Non-native invasive species, or invasives, significantly threaten the ecological integrity of our nations natural systems. 1 These species invade natural
communities, farmland, forestland, wetlands, waterways, and pastures. They displace native plants and animals, disrupt ecological processes, upset the
stability of our ecosystems, and can permanently change our natural landscapes. Not only do invasives undermine biological diversity, but they also
States and local governments spend hundreds of millions of

dollars to control infestations and damage caused by such invasive species as the zebra
mussel, Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), purple loosestrife, and melaleuca tree. 2 It is estimated that invasives cost the U.S.
cause substantial economic burdens.
economy at least 137 billion dollars each year. 3 The large majority of non-native speciesalso referred to as exotic, alien, foreign, introduced, or
a small
percentage of non-native species that do establish have the potential to become invasive
and to cause significant economic, environmental, and human health consequences. The
nonindigenous speciesdo not pose a threat to the natural or human systems in which they are introduced. 4 However,
economic and ecological harm caused by the prolific spread of invasive species has captured national attention, particularly in recent years. However,
Multiple federal laws

and programs address invasive species in a fragmented manner and primarily focus on
the impacts to our natural resource-based industries, particularly agriculture; thus, they
fail to adequately cover invasive species that cause widespread damage to our natural
areas. Federal resources currently devoted to this national catastrophe simply do not
reflect the severity of the problemneither its economic impacts nor its impacts to the nations biological diversity and
biological integrity. Even though many invasive species are not regulated or controlled federally, states have passed a wide array
of laws designed to address invasive species problems. As with the federal invasive
species programs, state programs are varied and dispersed within and between
multiple state agencies and organizations. There are many opportunities, however, to
utilize existing state laws to address the problem of invasive species at a
more local level. Many states have agricultural pest control laws in place to address
invasive species that pose a threat to agricultural crops. States are also beginning to
adopt non-agricultural weed prohibitions to protect natural systems, especially
aquatic or wetland areas. Many of these laws provide states with the authority to control the spread of invasive species in the
despite such increased awareness, current federal law offers limited protection from this menacing problem.
agricultural context and to address invasive species that impact the natural environment more broadly. This report analyzes the current legal tools
available at the state level to combat invasive species. Only those mechanisms and programs approved through state legislation or agency rulemaking
States may also have a variety of tools and programs available to them that
were not established through legislation or administrative action ; these were not addressed in this
have been covered.
report. This study does not make an attempt to evaluate how state programs are enforced or implemented. Rather, this report outlines the tools that are
States currently possess a wide variety of tools to address the threat

posed by invasive species. The adoption and implementation of strong state polices can
provide an effective option for managing invasive species problems. This study identifies seventeen
currently available in the states.
state tools that are grouped into five categories, each discussed below. In addition, how states choose to define invasive species will determine which
species will be addressed through the states laws and regulations. DEFINING AN INVASIVE SPECIES To manage invasive species effectively,
states must first address the fundamental issue of defining which non-native species will
be considered invasive for the purposes of regulation. The adopted definition determines the type and range of
species the state will regulate, and therefore the scope of the states statutes, regulations, programs, and authorities. An effective state
program affirmatively declares that all non-native invasive species are subject to
regulation, thereby regulating all categories of species, including wildlife, aquatic life,
plants, insects, microorganisms, and pathogens. States may also use the definition of
invasive to expand coverage of the laws and regulations beyond those species that
impact agriculture to those that cause harm to the natural environment, human health,
and the economy. Once a state comprehensively defines what constitutes an invasive
species, it may then build on this definition by naming specific species that fall under
the adopted definition and which therefore should be regulated. States generally follow one of two
approaches to listing: a dirty list or a clean list. The clean list approach identifies species approved for import, introduction, or release, thus
resulting in the regulation of all non-listed invasive species. 5 The use of a clean list is a more stringent, proactive approach to the regulation of nonnative and potentially invasive species, which places the burden on the importer to prove that the new species will not pose any economic or
environmental threat. This stringent approach generally presumes that all species should be prohibited unless they have been officially determined to
be clean. In contrast, dirty lists designate species that are banned from import, introduction, or release. This more permissive approach allows all
species unless they have been demonstrated to be harmful and have been listed as prohibited. The majority of state (and federal) programs have
adopted the dirty listing approach. After developing a definition and method for identifying invasive species, the state should then adopt and enforce
state statutes, regulations, and policies to control, use, and manage these species. This report presents seventeen tools that states can adopt to create a
strong, comprehensive policy for addressing invasive species. These tools fall into five categories: Prevention Regulation Control and Management
Enforcement and Implementation Coordination
Empirics prove that the states are able to coordinate effective responses to
invasive speciesdata collection and responses are adequately
administered at the local level
Simpson, Jarnevich and Madsen et al. 09, Annie Simpson is a data coordinator for the
Eco-Science Synthesis group in the Core Science Analytics and Synthesis Program, based at the
headquarters of the US Geological Survey. Her research interests include invasive species information
management, taxonomy and identification tool development, ecotourism as sustainable development, and
plant/insect interactions. Catherine Jarnevich is a Research Ecologist with the US Geological Survey. Dr.
John D. Madsen is Associate Extension/Research Professor in the Geosystems Research Institute and the
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University. Previously, he was an Assistant
Professor of Biology at the Minnesota State University, Mankato from 2000 to 2003; and a Research
Biologist in the Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS from 1991 to 2000. Other contributors include: Randy Westbrooks , Christine Fournier ,
Les Mehrhoff , Michael Browne , Jim Graham and Elizabeth Sellers (Annie/Catherine/John, Invasive
species information networks: collaboration at multiple scales for prevention, early detection, and rapid
response to invasive alien species, Mississippi State University, 2009,
http://www.erc.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2009/09/6294Invasive_species_information_networkscolor.pdf)//ADravid
Introduction E.O. Wilson (1997) wrote, Extinction by habitat destruction is like death in an automobile accident: easy to see and assess. Extinction by
the invasion of exotic species is like death by disease: gradual, insidious, requiring scientific methods to diagnose. The old adage, An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure has been used in health advice and fire prevention, and also effectively describes the imbalance of costs associated
with preventing versus responding to (and cleaning up after) biological invasions. In their 2005 article, Pimentel et al. found that in the US alone, up to
$120 billion per year can be attributed to environmental damage and loss caused by invasive alien species (IAS). Cooperative human networks for the
detection of and rapid response to IAS can now be found across the globe, and are proving to be effective at raising awareness and increasing
surveillance for IAS. But invasion prevention and IAS early detection by these networks, which usually have a sub-national geographic scope, are only
as good as the information that initiates and drives them. Information sharing within and, more importantly, between networks may help shift the
balance and reduce costs associated with biological invasions by improving these networks prevention and early detection capabilities.
Participation in early detection and monitoring networks by trained volunteers has

greatly increased the amount of information collected about biological invasions,
including data that can be used to test the efficacy of control methods and to develop
more accurate models of present and future distributions of IAS. Here we describe examples of IAS
detection networks in the United States and beyond our borders, and success stories about effective rapid response. We advocate standardized data
collection for effective international sharing of biodiversity and IAS information. This is because natural history information (life cycles, diet,
predator/prey relationships, parasites, etc.) about a species where it is native can provide ideas for detection, assessment, and response to a species
where it has become invasive. In addition, response and control methods that are effective in one location may also be effective elsewhere. And finally,
the most reliable indication that a species may become invasive is that it is an invader somewhere else (Mack et al. 2002). Clearly, sharing IAS data
globally can help create reliable species watch lists for invasion prevention and IAS early detection and rapid response.
Several
comprehensive global indexes and compilations of known IAS, such as Rod Randalls Global Compendium
of Weeds (Randall 2002) and Webers Invasive Plant Species of the World (Weber 2003), have been developed after extensive
and time-consuming research and literature review. However, these lists only provide a snapshot in time while
new species with invasion potential continue to emerge. It is these species that human networks may not detect unless they have prior knowledge of
Examples of Information
Networks Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE): Created in 2001 to fill
information gaps for non-native invasive plants known to occur across the six-state New
England region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont), IPANEs over-arching goal has been to establish an early detection
network for New England (Figure 1). Volunteers are trained to look for new incursions
of both known and anticipated alien invaders, and to gather and submit basic ecological
information on invasive plants that encounter on the New England landscape via the IPANE
Web site (http://www. ipane.org). IPANE also collects herbarium specimen data from major herbaria
in the region. As part of IPANEs multifaceted approach, these data, along with the basic
ecological data gathered by more than 700 trained volunteers, are coalesced to build the
online information system available in map and database formats to give a composite picture of a species
status and distribution in space and time (Figure 2). To date, IPANE volunteers have gathered more than 11,000
individual species occurrence records in New England. These data are used in scientific research to create
predictive models, in regulatory actions, and as a basis for environmental monitoring and control efforts. Invasive Plant Atlas of the
Mid-South (IPAMS): The IPAMS database (http://www.gri.msstate.edu/ipams) is modeled after IPANE but centers
on the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee (Madsen and Ervin
2007). Species information, including management recommendations, forms an important
part of the IPAMS Web site. There are more than 6,900 records for 136 invasive plant
species from 29 US states, and all data is validated both spatially and taxonomically by
an expert. IPAMS allows anyone to register as a user or sign up for e-mail alerts. Even unregistered users can view map features, download data,
and report sightings for verification. IPAMS researchers are comparing the accuracy of volunteer data
with the systematic survey data of professionals and also creating probabilistic species
models. Survey data shows that some species, particularly cogongrass, are not randomly distributed and are utilizing road networks as corridors
them or, even better, access to real-time detection and invasion data for effective decision-making.
for dispersal (Ervin 2009a, b). IPAMS research has also examined effects of invasive plants on ecosystem processes (Holly et al. 2008) and generated
tools to predict the distribution of invasive aquatic plants (Ervin 2008; Madsen and Wersal 2008).
Trade Turn
Measures taken against aquatic invasive species are a form of disguised
protectionismjustifying trade intervention and retaliatory tariffs
Margolis and Shogren 11, Mark MargolisDepartment of Economics, Gettysburg College; Jason
ShogrenStroock Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management, University of
Wyoming/Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming (Mark/Jason, Disguised
Protectionism, Global Trade Rules and Alien Invasive Species 6/14/11, Springer Science and Business
Media, http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/250/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10640-011-9490-x.pdf?
auth66=1406489408_91da1c98c2ea17bfde38b178555b1600&ext=.pdf)//ADravid
Disguised protectionism is a common charge leveled at obstacles to international trade

ows contained in policies explicitly aimed at environmental, product safety, or other market-failure rooted
goals. Such obstacles have become increasingly prominent in recent years , and more are
expected as openly protectionist measures (tariffs and quotas) are removed by trade agreements. Current
trade law, however, seems based on the belief that forcing protectionism into disguise is better than letting it stay out in the open, both for consumers in the
nations tempted to protectionism and their trade partners. We develop in this paper a model that reveals some potential pitfalls in applying this
logic to policies aimed at alien invasive species. Governments impose tariffs and import
quotas both to alter world prices and to redistribute income to favored domestic
interests. As various nations do so, the price impacts tend to counteract one another,
leaving only a welfare-reducing fall in global trade. The tariff- setting game is thus a Prisoners Dilemma, to which the World Trade
Organization (WTO) is a negotiated response (Bagwell and Staiger 2001). Although a governments commitments under the WTO
are to other nations, the protection of consumers from special interests within their own
nations is often touted as an ancillary benetfor example, as number nine of the 10 benets of the WTO trading system listed on the WTO
website. Both of these purposes, we show, can be undermined by the current WTO practice in
which tariffs are strictly limited while disguised forms of protectionism remain possible.
The problem does not arise with every sort of trade-environment link. Many times, environmental damage from trade liberalization has been asserted on the basis of, for example, computable general equilibrium
models predicting the expansion of polluting sectors. In such cases tariffs are clearly inferior to policies aimed directly at the economic activity from which the externality arises rather than attempting to inuence
behavior through the prices of related goods that happen to be imports or exports. This is the targeting principle of Bhagwati and Ramaswami (1963). We examine the problem of an alien species that may slip
importing is the economic activity most closely related to

environmental damage This problem can often justify positive tariffs (McAusland and Costello
2004), and lobbyists can use this argument to achieve excessive tariffs unless
the value of environmental harm is common knowledge (Margolis et al. 2005). Intuitively, the Bhagwati
into a country on imports and do harm. 1 In this case
Ramaswami targeting principle might then be taken to imply that the excessive tariff problem could be eased by agreements binding tariffs (i.e., setting a maximum permissible tariff) if there is another policy
Cargo is inspected at the port,

and if specimens of an undesired species are detected the cargo is rejected and the
merchant is ned. Merchants can decontaminate their cargo, although they can never be
certain they have killed every specimen. Just as a pollution tax outperforms a Pigovian
(output) tax, this policy ought to outperform a tariff. Mrel and Carter (2008) show that this is the case when the policy problem is
available more precisely directed at the alien species. We extend the model in Margolis et al. (2005) by adding precisely such a policy.
unconstrained. But things become quite different when government must act within limits. We consider here two types of constraint. The rst is fundamental to the question to which this paper is addressed: a
limit on the explicit tariff. The heart of our analysis is a comparison between equilibria resulting with and without such a limit. The second constraint is maintained throughout the analysis: there is a cap on the
ne which can be imposed when contaminated cargo is found. There are several reasons to assume such a cap. First, some limit along these lines is needed for the problem to have a solution. Mrel and Carters
results are conditional on inspection levels being strictly positive a condition which is not itself derived from the optimization problem. The reason for this conditioning is that the full optimization problem (with
both ne and inspection level free) has no maximum. Intuitively, one may always increase the ne and compensate by reducing the inspection level to achieve the same expected ne with less spent on inspection.
This is the same idea as Beckers famous advice often paraphrased as hang jaywalkers with probability zero (Becker 1968). Technically, the second order condition for a maximum is not fullled in the problem
analyzed by Mrel and Carter (2008). Thus, one must either posit a maximum ne or a minimum inspection level. This does not at all invalidate their normative conclusion that the two-part policy dominates the
tariff-only policy, but it does mean that the corresponding positive model requires some constraint on the problem. Limits on a nations ability to ne those providing contaminated imports could arise from at
least two sources. The rst is the credibility of the promise to pay the ne if caught. One cannot charge more than the offending rm is worth, except perhaps by requiring it to carry insurance, in which case the
insurance premium acts as a tariff and will be subject to international trade law. Second, an unlimited ne is likely to present problems in trade negotiations. This is because a ne, unlike inspections, requires no
It would thus be much easier to use a Draconian ne as a

mechanism of disguised protectionism if there were no corresponding discipline. This
may be why trade negotiators do not seem concerned with the danger of disguised
expenditure on the part of the government of the importing nation.
protectionism through Draconian nes, but they have often expressed concern
about excessive inspections . Although we know of no case law on the subject, it seems likely that the reason this
does not come up is that it would be easy for WTO dispute resolution panels to say that a
ne that seems extreme is protectionist. To say the same of a government undertaking
environmental protection efforts that seem extreme is more clearly an overruling of
domestic priorities; the WTO would then be telling a country that it is choosing to spend too much of its own money on environmental protection. To put the matter concisely, assuming
no cap on the ne seems inconsistent with our subject, which is a cap on the tariff. Mrel and Carter (2008) indicated the same intuition when they called the policy a two-part tariff. Since the above logic
a country agreeing to a limit on its tariff

may end up increasing its level of inspection so much that importing actually becomes
more expensive i.e., what we will call the real tariff rises . This is so both for a
government maximizing social welfare and one setting policy under the inuence of
special interest lobbying as modeled in the well-known Protection for Sale model (Grossman
indicates the ne will always be set at its cap, we treat it as exogenous. Under these conditions, we show that
and Helpman 1994). The difference between these two types of government turns out to be quite slight: the impact of binding the tariff on the domestic political negotiations is entirely transmitted through the
change induced in the social optimum, which is the governments outside option in those negotiations. What makes this surprise possible is that the tariff is the most efcient instrument for dealing with the an
external cost that remains even with optimal inspections. If the tariff is bound below the governments preferred level, this externality can only be dealt with by increasing the inspection level above its optimum.
The further the inspection level is above the optimum the greater is the externality. The result of this circumstancein which an external cost can only be internalized by making it largeris a non-convexity in the
policy decision. Protectionism becomes more desirable the more of it is donethat is, there is an interval of inspection level through which marginal benet is increasing. Sometimes this means there is no
Sometimes there
may be no interior maximum at all to the constrained problem, even when there was to
the unconstrained, so that binding the tariff leads to inspection levels that choke off
trade entirely. This is the crucial difference between our model and that of Copeland (1990) which also dealt with an agreement binding one trade barrier that leads to substitution towards more
maximum to the governments objective function in the range of inspections between the unconstrained optimum and that which would yield the unconstrained real tariff.
costly barriers. In that model, the use of the the more costly barrier did not affect the marginal benet of discouraging trade. Thus, increasing the cost of protectionism always resulted in less of it. Even if Copeland
had considered this sort of non-convexity, his framework would have ruled out our result. The tariff binding we consider is arbitrary, while Copelands was negotiated with foresight of the subsequent domestic
policy response. Negotiators would never consider binding tariffs at a level yielding higher real tariffs. Our model should thus be thought of as demonstrating possible outcomes if a country commits to limit its
nominal tariff for a long time, but can adjust environmental policy as market and environmental conditions change. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we lay out a simple
extension of the Protection for Sale model to allow for invasive species and the cargo inspection scheme. The presentation includes some heuristics made possible by linearization; a more general, purely formal
Most
market failures exacerbated by increasing global trade are in principle best addressed by
policies directed at the source of market failure itself rather than by trade policies . This paper
deals with the exceptions: externalities arising from the very act of shipping things, the
important example being the movement of unwanted species with the cargo . Examples include diseases
affecting humans, crops and livestock, as well as invasive species that can damage valued ecosystems and interfere with productive activity. Policies directed towards
these problems must inhibit trade , but it seems sensible to think we are better off if they do so if we seek safer trade, rather than less trade. We have
shown, however, that when a country agrees to limit its use of a tariff, but is free to set
the level of inspection stringency, the political pressures that would
otherwise drive the tariff above the optimum instead drive stringency
above the optimum; and the optimum itself may actually imply a larger
degree of trade intervention than was the case when intervention did not
need to be disguised. The real-world trade implications of this possibility are certainly limited. There is no place in our model for a merchant to challenge an inspection
regime, exposing a nation to retaliatory tariffs if international authorities deem
the policy not to have been formed in good faith . This leaves no room for environmental organizations to weigh in, or for
presentation appears in the Appendix. In the third section we examine the difference made by limiting the tariff, and demonstrate the perverse results mentioned. Section four concludes.
judges to apply common sense. But in the absence of transparent standards for the valuation of environmental damage, the application of any such super-national authority is necessarily an assertion that a
paternalistic world court knows better than domestic politicians what is in the interest of a nations people, or is purer in its dedication to those interests. It seems unlikely that such assertions will generally
prevail. The current preference given to policies that are on their face less trade restrictive than alternative approaches to contaminated imports may therefore favor, from time to time, practices that both diminish
social welfare and impede trade more than would more openly protectionist alternatives. It has not yet been determined whether this perverse impact is possible if the full cost of running the inspection operation
can be charged to the importing rm. Intuition suggest notthe source of the underlying non-convexity is that inspectors salaries are an external cost of importingbut the model this suggests has not been
solved. (We are grateful to an anonymous referee for pointing out the possible significance of this point.) In the United States the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sets fees with the goal of full cost
recovery (APHIS 2011). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has also concluded 100% cost recovery would be appropriate for activities relating to import and export, but the reasoning behind this is debatable
it may be disguised protectionism.8 The European Union requires member states to seek either full cost recovery or charge standard fees (Council Directive 2000/29/EC), indicating the greater fee should be
chosen. The situation in less developed countries is more variable. According a British rm specializing in the West Africa trade, Benin, Senegal, Mauritania, Togo, Burkina Faso and Niger pay all their own
inspection costs, while Angola, Cameroon, Congo, Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic and Mali all attempt to make the importer pay (OTAL 2011). Even in the latter set of countries, cost recovery is
expressed as a goal, while the actual policy is a fee schedule without the scope for technocratic revision seen in the developed country policies. This seems to be nearly universal in low-income countries. The
Philippines, for example, charges 100 pesos (about C=1.5) for inspection of a goat. As far as we aware, no non-OECD country gives inspection agencies the authority to recover costs for inspection of packaging
materials or any other possible pest vector that is not itself alive. It seems likely, then, that the perverse impacts we have discovered are a developing country problem, rooted in lack of the technical capacity
needed to make such charges both exible and transparent.
Protectionism exasperates tensions and conflictextinction

Pazner 08, Faculty member at the New York Institute of Finance (Michael, Financial Armageddon:
Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, p. 137-138)
The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations
over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of
production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations . Whether
involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and
natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to fullscale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and
religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling
frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a
whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue
nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency.
China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may
embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a
dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers,
constantly out of kilter with supply.
like John Mearsheimer, a political scientists at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some point. More than a few
Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed

from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts
and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise
missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction . Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts
between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological.
2NCTrade Turn
The process of containing the spread of invasive species gets hijacked by
special interest groups and politicianscausing an overall decrease in trade
levels and an increase in protectionist policies passed in the name of public
welfare
Margolis and Shogren 11, Mark MargolisDepartment of Economics, Gettysburg College; Jason
ShogrenStroock Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management, University of
Wyoming/Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming (Mark/Jason, How Trade
Politics Affect Invasive Species Control January 2004, Resources for the Future,
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-04-07.pdf)//ADravid
As humans traverse the globe more swiftly, we have become the main mode of
transportation for other species. One estimate suggests that 50,000 nonnative species now live in just the United States (see
1. Introduction
Pimentel et al. 2000). Most creatures introduced into alien environments die without a trace, and some become valued crops or ornaments. But some
invasive species are diseases, some are agricultural pests, and some become major threats to the ecosystems. People only now are beginning to
appreciate the scope and severity of the problems posed by this last class. Exotic species are the second most commonly cited cause of extinction threats
(after land-use changes) and a source of threats to water quality, navigability, and other ecosystem services (OTA 1993; Sandlund et al. 1999). At
Most species, however,

are brought to their new homes unintentionally in ballast water, packing material, and
cargo (Jenkins 1996). The resulting invasions constitute a market failure rooted in
international trade. Economists generally agree that market failures should be corrected as close as possible to their source. Consider
present, species that have not yet been shown to cause problems can be freely imported into most countries.
pollution from hog farming for example. While pollution could be alleviated by subsidizing some combination of other activities to attract labor and
machinery away from hog-farms, most economists agree that a tax on hog farmers is better, and a tax that varies with level of emissionsa Pigovian tax
is ideal. Similarly, although the theory of the second best implies that trade restrictions may improve national welfare if there is any domestic market
Invasive species are among a

relatively small group of market failures the source of which is trade itself (although it is never
failure, economists almost always respond by urging a solution more targeted to the failure.
explicitly discussed in Copeland and Taylors 2003 book on trade and the environment). Other examples include pollution from ships and the
In these cases reducing trade is

the solution closest to the source of the failure , unless it is possible to monitor
the harmful activity itself. That might be possible for noxious pollution from ships, but for invasive species it is
prohibitively costly. One can search for the species and remove them when found; but unless it is optimal to search with such intensity
opportunity for smuggling of contraband materials or military (i.e., terrorist) personnel.
that invasion risk is driven to zero, an external cost to trade still exists that would seem to call for some policy such as a tax (McAusland and Costello,
an idealized social planner has little need to

engage in international trade negotiation to begin with. The central accomplishment of
those negotiations has been to rid participating countries of policies that were contrary
to the interest of their own citizenry, but that emerge due to the fundamental asymmetry of trade politicsproducers count
more than consumers. Even in the best-functioning democracy, the benefits of trade barriers accrue to small
groups of producers, while the costs are spread across a large group of consumer s. It is
easier to push the costs on diffuse consumers who have less incentive to form a group to
fight for free trade. Producers use protectionism as a way to keep prices high to extract
consumer surplus from consumers. This fundamental asymmetry of trade politics is
mitigated by international rules that prohibit policies discriminating against foreign
goods, but such rules are inappropriate for market failures in which it is the transport
of the goods itself that does the harm. Herein we present a straightforward incorporation of an invasive species
2002). To an idealized social planner, this presents no great challengebut
externality in trade into the predominant model of the political economy of tariff formation (Grossman and Helpman 1994). The result is sharpif
countries are freely setting tariffs, the external damage is added to the tariff that would be chosen to redistribute income in the absence of the
externality. While the simplicity of this argument is due in part to assumptions made for computational convenience, the result nonetheless serves to
illustrate the interaction of public and private interest in the formation of a trade-environment policy. The result also indicates the impossibility of
distinguishing legitimate public-goods protection from protectionism without full knowledge of the public-goods value. Economists argue that
countries should encourage free trade because it allows countries to specialize in producing those goods and services in which they have a comparative
advantage. Trade opens each economy to import goods produced by less expensive means of production given basic differences in endowments.
Provided property rights are well-defined and enforced, free trade is argued to generate more overall welfare in both nations. Invasive species, however,
are a counterexample against unrestricted free trade. Free trade with exotic hitchhikers might not be good for the environment or for the people who
public policies to control these

invasive species are not immune from political pressure from private interest groups.
Herein we explore how well-organized interest groups can affect a public
decisionmakers choice of tariff levels to reduce the risk of invasive species .
The interest group offers up political contributions to an incumbent
interested in both the general welfare of the public and its own chances of
reelection. We find that private political contributions cause the regulator to select a
tariff level that exceeds the socially optimal level. Free trade is too constrained . The
invasive-species tariff is set higher than it would be if government were independent of rent-seeking contributors. This gap is
disguised protectionism created by the existence of invasive species . Good
intentions aimed at reducing risks to native ecosystems from exotic invaders can be
leveraged into protectionist policies. The degree to which we should be concerned about this protection is the next step in this
depend on the related ecosystem services (e.g., zebra mussels in the Great Lakes). But
line of research. Measuring empirically the level to which disguised protectionism exists in either the WTO or NAFTA seems most worthwhile.
Alt CausesAquariums and Ornamental

Trade
Invasive species spread through the aquarium tradethese organisms
present a larger threat than pests from ballast water transportation
Padilla and Williams 04, Dianna PadillaDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook
University; Susan WilliamsUniversity of California, Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology
Professor, Bodega Marine Laboratory (Dianna/Susan, Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental
trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems, The Ecological Society of America, 2004,
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/padillalab/pdfs/Padilla%20%26%20Williams%20(Front%20Ecol)
%202004.pdf)//ADravid
Aquatic invasive species are just a mouse click away from any home in
America. There are more than 11 million hobbyists in the US alone, supporting a $25 billion-per-year
worldwide industry in aquarium and aquatic ornamental species, most of which are available
through mail order and over the Internet (Kay and Hoyle 2001). For example, although water hyacinth is banned in
many states, and took Florida over 100 years and considerable expense to control (Schardt 1997 ), it remains available over the
Internet for $4. While aquarium release is one of the five top avenues for
introduction of non-native invasive species (Ruiz et al. 1997), it has received relatively
little attention from both scientists and policy makers. The aquarium and ornamental
species industry is growing by 14% annually worldwide, and the majority of export
dollars enter developing countries (Figures 1 and 2). Far outstripping the per-pound value of harvested wild fish, ornamental
fish harvest and culture is being promoted as a pathway to environmentally sustainable development by the Fisheries Resources Office of the Food and
this largely unregulated industry poses a serious

but mostly unrecognized threat to marine and freshwater ecosystems as a source of
invasive species. Here we make the case for increased attention to this threat. At present we do not have all of the data on its full
environmental and economic extent, but there are enough examples of aquarium and ornamental
escapees that are important invasive species to raise concern. We highlight the tension between sustainable
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Figure 3). However,
development, intended to support the conservation of biodiversity, and the negative impacts from invasive species. Resolution of this conflict rapidly
boils down to a need for future economic analyses. In the meantime, however, we suggest several relatively easy steps that managers and policymakers
can take immediately. Invasive species are recognized as the second leading cause of extinctions around the world (Wilcove et al. 1998). They pose
severe ecological and economic threats as well as danger to human health for example, the snail Biomphalaria glabrata carries schistosome parasites
most attention has focused on ballast water (Ruiz et al. 1997),

including the proposed reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act, which largely ignores other sources
of aquatic invasive species. Ballast water is certainly an important and controllable vector of potential pests to
harbors and estuaries that are centers of shipping, but it is not the only threat to aquatic habitats (Figure 4).
Although other avenues of invasion are now receiving attention (Naylor et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2003), the risks from aquarium
and ornamental aquatic species remain below the radar of most agencies responsible for
preventing and managing aquatic invasive species, and even of concerned scientists . For
(Ferrari and Hoffman 1992). To date,
example, a recent report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Best and Bornbusch 2001) addressed habitat destruction and
overexploitation during the collection of coral reef organisms for marine aquariums, but ignored the threat of introduction of non-natives when these
species are transported around the world. As a step forward, the Working Group on Introduction and Transfers of Marine Organisms of the
International Council on the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recently recommended that the risk from ornamentals and aquarium species should be
evaluated (ICES 2001). Aquarium species are important and beautiful (Figure 5); however, like species transported in ballast, some pose extreme
Because of their extraordinarily widespread dispersal to homes and businesses

after importation, they can affect all freshwater and marine habitats . This contrasts with
ballast-transported organisms, which are only released into ports where ballast water
threats.
discharge is not regulated. Organisms transported in ballast water are usually small,
even microscopic, and are often at very young life stages (ie larvae and spores). Aquarium species,
in contrast, are large and usually traded as adults, which have a greater probability of
surviving to reproduce. In addition, good aquarium animals and plants are hearty, with weaker individuals (7585%) being weeded out
during collection and transportation (Wabnitz et al. 2003). Thus, although ballast water collects all species, only species most likely to survive the harsh
conditions associated with collection and transport and the broad physiological conditions needed to survive and reproduce in aquariums are used in
Of all the species with the potential to establish,

aquarium and ornamental species represent a subset that may be
particularly invasive.
the aquarium and ornamental industry.
No Impact to AIS
No impact to invasive speciesthey maintain the diversity and resiliency of
ecosystems. Their authors are overly ideological and ignore the inevitability
of new species being introduced
Beining 09, Greg Breining is a journalist and author whose articles and essays about travel, science,
and nature have appeared in The New York Times, Audubon, National Geographic Traveler, and many
other publications. He is the author of Super Volcano, the story of a massive active volcano beneath
Yellowstone National Park, and Wild Shore, an account of two seasons kayaking around Lake Superior. In
a previous article for Yale Environment 360, he wrote about the possibilities of converting sewage
wastewater into biofuel (Greg, Courting Controversy with a New View on Exotic Species, Yale
Environment 360, 2009, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/courting_controversy_with_a_new_view
_on_exotic_species/2212/)//ADravid
biologists are challenging the long-held orthodoxy that alien species are
inherently bad. In their contrarian view, m any introduced species have proven valuable and
useful and have increased the diversity and resiliency of native ecosystems .
When biologist Mark A. Davis talks about exotic species, he eventually comes to LTL, his shorthand for Learn to Love them. Flying in the face of the
conventional wisdom among biologists that exotic species are harmful to native
ecosystems, Davis and a small cohort of biologists espouse a heretical viewpoint: Exotic species are here to stay, so get used
to them, and forget about ripping out the fast-spreading shrub, buckthorn, on a large
scale or throwing Asian carp on the bank to die. If the newcomers are only changing the
ecosystem but not causing significant harm, then altering ones perspective is
certainly much less costly than any other sort of management program , Davis writes in his recently
published book, Invasion Biology. Its amazing how extensive the indoctrination has been: Non-native
species are bad weve got to get rid of them, says Davis, chairman of the biology department at Macalester College in St. Paul,
Minnesota. Boy, if you want nature to stop, youre going to be miserable. Davis and his like-minded colleagues contend
that the rigid attitudes, and militaristic metaphors, that characterize the debate
about exotic species make for poor science and policy-making. Today, Americans continue to
A number of
wage war on alien species that have taken root by accident or design. Assuming that exotic species are inherently bad, that ecosystem integrity can be measured by the number
of alien species, or even that newly arrived species are functionally different from longtime residents, simply isnt supported by science, says Davis.
Many
introduced species, he notes, have proven valuable and useful, including crops (from apples to wheat),
horticultural plants (hostas and Norway maples), and game species (ring-necked pheasants and brown trout). He holds firm to that
position, even while conceding that some newcomers, such as kudzu (the vine that ate the South) can be terribly destructive. Im very careful to say that lots of invasive
species are causing great problems, says Davis, who says he supports control programs where damage is great and controls stand a chance of success. One highly destructive
exotic species causing great economic harm, and for which Davis supports eradication programs, is the emerald ash borer, a beetle recently introduced into the U.S.s upper
Midwest from Asia that has already killed 2 million ash trees in Michigan and nearby states. All Ive been arguing for is a more nuanced characterization of whats been
happening, says Davis. And he claims that hes finding traction for his ideas: People are thinking more carefully about the words they are using, the assumptions they might be
bringing in. Davis work is in the tradition of some scientists including the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who have argued that the movement of species
around the globe should be viewed as part of the tumultuous evolutionary process, and therefore not necessarily a destructive force. Gould wrote in 1998 that the discussion
we will not
achieve clarity on this issue, Gould continued in the journal Arnoldia, if we advocate a knee-jerk equation of
native with morally best, and fail to recognize the ethical power of a contrary view,
supporting a sensitive cultivation of all plants, whatever their geographic origin, that can
enhance nature and bring both delight and utility to humans . Today, Americans continue to wage a war on alien
about native plants encompasses a remarkable mixture of sound biology, invalid ideas, false extensions, ethical implications, and political usages. But
species that have taken root by accident or design. Zebra mussels, Dutch elm disease, cheat grass, purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil, spiny water fleas, gypsy moths the
United States is beset by exotics invading native forests, spreading across prairies, and clogging streams and lakes. But Dov F. Sax, assistant professor of ecology and
evolutionary biology at Brown University, says a growing number of scientists are listening to iconoclasts like Davis. James Brown, professor of biology at the
University of New Mexico, says he generally agrees with Daviss view of alien species but acknowledges that almost certainly most ecologists and conservation biologists would
not agree with either one of us. One of those scientists, Dan Simberloff a professor of ecology at the University of Tennessee, the director of the Institute for Biological
Invasions, and one of the most prominent voices in the field called Invasion Biology a really good book. He added, however, Im going to say it has a number of peculiar
aspects to it. They almost all revolve around Daviss odd views that invasions arent really so problematic and theres something xenophobic about people who worry about
them. Among the widely accepted precepts that Davis challenges are the following: Because native species evolved in a specific ecosystem and exotics didnt, natives are better
suited to their niche. In fact, says Davis, a scientist who didnt know the history of individual organisms would have difficulty distinguishing natives from non-natives. The
Galapagos Islands a world Assemblages of exotics and natives quickly adapt and perform about as well. heritage site of biodiversity and the scene of Darwin's important
For years conservationists had fretted over

invasive weeds overrunning the islands. Because the weeds were out of control,
conservationists assumed they were non-natives, recently introduced by human traffic.
Research showed, however, that the plants were native. They belonged. In fact, they had been present since prehistoric
discoveries leading to the theory of evolution provided just such an example.
times. Diverse communities of native species resist invasions by alien species. While carefully controlled experiments on small plots have confirmed this age-old belief, studies in
the tumult of natural forests and grasslands show quite the opposite, says Davis. Natural disturbances, such as disease or fire, and fluctuations in resources in diverse
communities offer plenty of footholds for invaders. Pristine ecosystems are highly evolved and well-ordered. Again, ecologists have little evidence for this, Davis says. Ragtag
If you view [nature] as a continually changing

tumult, the introduction of new species isnt necessarily looked at as a huge threat . He cites
assemblages of exotics and natives quickly adapt and perform about as well.
the example of regeneration of forests in Puerto Rico, where non-native species are facilitating the re-establishment of native species. Which brings up the dire warning of
The spread of exotic species threatens to drive natives

extinct. Rarely happens , Davis says, except on islands, in lakes, or in other insular environments. Usually its the
opposite the appearance of exotics increases species richness , he maintains. Throughout
the United States, local ecosystems have perhaps 20 percent more plant species than they once
did because of the addition for foreign species. How many species of plants in the U.S.
have gone extinct because of the thousands of nonnative plants that have been
introduced? asks Davis. Zero! Finally, exotics signify a degraded ecosystem. There isnt such a thing as a healthy ecosystem or a sick ecosystem, Davis
says. Ecosystems are just out there. Theres no particular goal or purpose . Theyre just the species and the
physical and chemical processes taking place. Other ecologists beg to differ. Dan Simberloff counters that invasions of exotic species do
threaten native species with extinction. The chestnut blight, caused by an introduced fungus, swept across the eastern U.S. a century ago,
orthodox conservation biologists:
virtually exterminating the native chestnut tree. In addition, Simberloff says, We know it caused total global extinction of at least seven species of moths that were host-specific
only on American chestnuts. Even if exotics dont drive native species to extinction, they can completely transform ecosystems, many biologists argue. There are some biotic
communities that have entirely disappeared from the U.S. because of invasive species, says Simberloff. There are many Land managers cant begin to control the thousands of
exotics that reach our ecosystems. others that have drastically changed over large areas. For example, he notes that Eurasian cheat grass now dominates millions of acres of
Western range, displacing native bunch grasses and reducing the value of the range for livestock. Asks Simberloff, If thousands of people work to deal with the impact of these,
even aside from any moral or aesthetic issue, is Mark [Davis] saying theyre all nuts? James Carlton, professor of Marine Sciences at Williams College and a Pew Fellow in
Marine Conservation, attacks Daviss assertion that biologists cant distinguish natives from exotics. We can easily distinguish natives from many (not all!) nonnatives many
times in many ways, based very much on how they function in an ecosystem. Native species are often finely tuned physiologically to the environment, whereas nonnative species
may possess a repertoire of adaptations that clearly do not match the environment. Still,
a sizable minority of biologists are more
sanguine about the impact of exotic species. Dov Sax says he began to question exotic species orthodoxy as an undergraduate at the
University of California, Berkeley. A professor leading a field trip described the Bay Areas abandoned plantations of Australian eucalyptus trees as a biological desert. Says
Exotics
werent always doing the awful things people seemed to think they were doing . Sax says that
land managers cant begin to control the thousands of exotics that reach our ecosystems
through globalized trade and travel. A lot of conservation biology in the past has been built around the idea of preventing change, says Sax.
That old mantra is going to get thrown out because its going to be impossible to prevent change. The future landscape will be home to
novel ecosystems, never-before-seen agglomerations of species, of which exotics will
be a key and often valued component, Sax and others say. If we lump them into this category
of all being evil or awful in some way, he says, we may blind ourselves to those situations
where theyre actually providing a benefit either for humans or for biological
conservation. For example, a recent study of two nonnative wetland plants, phragmites and hydrilla, suggests they provide waterfowl habitat, biomass production,
and nitrogen retention that equals that of native species. Overselling the threat exotic species pose is bound to lose
credibility as exotics make up ever more of the biota around us , says Davis. And it will lead to
misguided spending on projects as fruitless as ripping out buckthorn from thousands of acres of parks, when we should focus instead on disease
Sax, There was all kinds of stuff growing in there. I found there were really a similar number of species in both [native oak and eucalyptus] woodland types.
organisms, agricultural pests, and other more pressing threats, Davis believes. Its very important, he says, to distinguish harm from change.
Not all invasive species outcompete native onesdistribution patterns and

research proves
Hinterthuer 13, Adam Hinterthuer is a freelance science and environmental writer. He has written
stores for Scientific American, BioScience and Plenty Magazine. He was formerly a podcaster for Scientific
American (Adam, Study challenges prevailing view of invasive species, University of Wisconsin
Madison News, 10/24/13, http://www.news.wisc.edu/22243)//ADravid
Zebra mussels. Asian carp. Kudzu. Chances are you recognize these names as belonging to invasive species plants or animals that are relocated from their native habitat to a
foreign land, only to prove so prolific that they take over their new home. Except that's not how the story usually goes, according to a new study. The study, out of the Center for
overabundance is not the most common plot in invasive

species stories . In fact, the species we consider to be invasive usually exist in low
numbers, quietly occupying a niche at densities so low, you might not even notice
they are there . The study was published online in the journal PLOS ONE on Oct. 23. "Invasive species are often thought
of as species that take over wherever they get in," says Jake Vander Zanden, a UW limnology professor who directed the research.
"But, in our experience studying lakes and rivers, in most places they weren't all that
abundant. It was only in a few places where they got out of hand ." If that pattern held true, the researchers
realized, then invasives were acting a lot like their native counterparts . To test these observations, Vander Zanden and 13
researchers collaborated to compile data on 17 invasive and 104 native aquatic species,
comprising a total of 24,000 abundance measurements . Their analysis revealed that, by
and large, invasive and native species followed similar distribution patterns, suggesting
that they play by the same ecological rules . "Pick a species, any species, and you'll
find that high abundance is the exception, not the rule," says Gretchen Hansen, who was the study's lead author as a
postdoctoral researcher at the UW and is now a research scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "If you sample a large
number of locations like lakes, fields or patches of forest, you will only find a few
individuals of your chosen species in most locations. It will be rare most of the time, " Hansen
Limnology at UW-Madison, says
says. "Every now and then though, you will find a place where conditions are just right and the sample will be chock full of the plant or animal in question. This holds true for
both natives and what are often called 'invasives.'" There are, however, differences. Invasives are, on average, three times more abundant than natives. But that is still a small
number. Take crayfish, for example. Set out one hundred traps in a lake and you can expect to catch six native crayfish in a day, Hansen says. That same time frame will net you
nineteen invasives. While that's triple the native catch, it's not exactly a huge number, she says. Whether this difference leads to measurable negative impacts is unknown.
"We're not saying invasive species aren't a problem," says Hansen, "but this paper points to several important questions for which we don't currently have answers." Answering
these questions is important for a number of reasons. In Wisconsin, for example, research has shown that lakefront property owners see the value of their property plummet if
it's discovered that an invasive aquatic plant, Eurasian water milfoil, is in their lake. But, says Vander Zanden, that's "only a reaction to the presence of the plant, not a reflection
of its impact on that specific lake." Perhaps more importantly, he argues, if scientists can identify characteristics of the sites where a specific invasive species will flourish or
determine what level of abundance constitutes an "invasion," then the countless hours and millions of dollars spent on invasive species control each year could be better
allocated. It's time and money, says Vander Zanden, that's currently spent in a "scattershot" manner. "We need to get better at fighting invasive species and focusing our efforts
at prevention and control," he says. One way to do that would be to identify invasive species "hotspots." For example, in human disease epidemics, it is accepted practice for
health professionals to target "hotspots" where outbreaks or the transmission of disease is most likely to occur. Focusing efforts on these specific areas is crucial to containing
Of all the species we know to be

invasive, our study shows that they are likely to reach high densities in only a few places
the problem, Vander Zanden says. That would be a good approach to the invasive issue, too, says Hansen. "
predicting which ones would help focus control efforts on the sites where they're likely to become highly abundant, letting us spend our limited resources in ways that will
provide the maximum benefit."
Multilateral CP
Multilateral Agreement is the only way to solve
Mcgee, 1 --- Member of Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy (Sarah,
2001 YEARBOOK: WATER: Proposals for Ballast Water Regulation: Biosecurity in an Insecure World,
COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 141, Lexisnexis, RE)
III. Multilateral Solutions Many
countries and organizations favor an international approach to

developing solutions for the transport of invasive marine species in ballast water . Japanese
officials, for example, favor an international treaty. " It is good to have a standardized,
international regime to control ballast water. That's why we need a treaty." n101 The
shipping industry, represented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), is concerned about the
development of unilateral regulation of ballast water because their industry "must
operate across many jurisdictions and ... may be impacted severely when the rules change from
port to port." n102 Furthermore, the IMO is concerned that unilateral measures will detract supporters from
a comprehensive international solution. n103 The IMO believes a "piece-meal, disjointed approach is counterproductive when [*154] dealing with a trans-boundary, global industry such as shipping." n104 There is no single
binding international treaty that directly addresses the problem of invasive
species. n105 Further, few countries have developed policies and programs to tackle this problem domestically. n106 There
are, however, at least twelve treaties in force that make reference to invasive species introductions. n107 Perhaps the most
important international instrument to general invasive species control is Article 8(h) of
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 8(h) "provides that each contracting party shall,
as far as possible and appropriate, prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems,
habitats or species." n108 While
the CBD entered into effect in 1993, the United States is not yet
a party to the treaty. The 5th Conference of Parties to implement the CBD arrived at fifteen guiding principles for the
prevention, introduction, and mitigation of invasive species impacts. n109 These principles include recommendations for
information exchange, border control and quarantine measures, agency authorization for intentional introductions, and regulation
of the pathways for unintentional introductions. n110 In March 2001 the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice (SBSTTA) met to discuss the international problems associated with invasive species. n111 The SBSTTA
considered seventeen guiding principles for invasive species management, which [*155] will be presented to the Conference of the
Parties in April 2002. n112 The principles include using the precautionary approach and recognizing the importance of prevention,
research, monitoring, education, and public awareness. n113 The meetings resulted in: 1. Further elaboration of a series of nonbinding principles ... that are intended to provide guidance to governments as they develop national plans, policies, and strategies
aimed at minimizing the spread and impact of invasive species; 2. Options for future work on invasive species that highlight the
importance of international cooperation, the development of national invasive species action plans, research on risk assessment
techniques, and increased capacity building; and 3. Recognition of the Global Invasive Species Programme's (GISP) scientific and
technical contributions to the CBD and a clear role for GISP in the future work of the CBD. n114 Particularly
with respect
to ballast water, the SBSTTA found that pathways for the unintentional introduction of
species should be identified and "appropriate provisions to minimize such introductions
should be in place." n115 Further, the SBSTTA recommended that, wherever possible, a risk assessment should conducted
for all unintentional introduction pathways of invasive species. n116 A more specific example of multilateral
ballast water regulation is the voluntary guidelines published by the IMO. Pursuant to
Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, n117 the IMO agreed upon voluntary guidelines [*156] for ballast water regulation in 1997. n118
These voluntary guidelines include: [1] Minimising the uptake of organisms during ballasting, by
avoiding areas in ports where populations of harmful organisms are known to occur, in
shallow water and in darkness, when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise in the water
column. [2] Cleaning ballast tanks and removing muds and sediments that accumulate
in these tanks on a regular basis, which may harbour harmful organisms. [3] Avoiding
unnecessary discharge of ballast. n119 The voluntary guidelines further detail specific practices for the management
of ballast water including: (1) exchanging ballast water at sea, replacing it with open ocean water,
presumed to be clean; (2) not releasing ballast water altogether; and (3) discharging to
onshore reception and treatment facilities. n120 These regulations are a good start, but their voluntary
nature means compliance rates are low; mandatory regulations are being developed for 2003. n121 The Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC), a division of the IMO, met in April 2001 and reviewed the issues
of prevention and
mitigation of invasive species contamination through ballast water discharge . n122 The
MEPC is working to develop a Ballast Water Treatment Standard, an international legal
regime, which could be enacted by 2003. n123 Adoption of mandatory standards for
ballast water management could do a good deal to halt further spread of invasive species
through ballast water. A final multilateral solution involves GloBallast, the Global Ballast Water Management
Programme. GloBallast is a multilateral initiative, authorized by the United Nations
Development Program, designed to enable [*157] the IMO to "assist developing
countries [in] tackling the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms in ships' ballast water ."
n124 GloBallast has the mission of developing model legislation for countries to use in implementing either the existing voluntary
guidelines, or in the future, the Ballast Water Convention. n125 If
countries adopt uniform or consistent

ballast water management techniques, efficacy can be monitored more easily, and the
shipping industry does not have to comply with a series of conflicting regulations . IV.
Proposed Technological Solutions Experts agree that prevention is the cheapest, easiest, and most successful solution to the
problems connected with invasive species. n126 But before countries can take preventative measures, they must identify potentially
invasive species. It is impossible to predict with certainty which species will become established and invade their new environment.
There are, however, biological factors that allow scientists to determine the potential invasiveness of a given species. Also, certain
ecosystems are known to be more vulnerable to invasion than others. n127 Risk assessment will be an essential component to
successful invasive species regulation. Technology may also play a key role in preventing the spread of invasive marine species. In
November 2001, the First International Conference on Ballast Water Management (Conference) was held in Singapore. n128 The
Conference attendees concluded, "shipboard technology-based systems offered the only feasible solution to the problem of invasive
species." n129 The sheer number of ships entering large port cities daily prevents major ports from instituting effective shore-based
solutions. n130 The
most common method used to keep invasive species from spreading

through ballast water is for vessels to exchange their ballast [*158] water with deep
ocean water, an environment not suitable for coastal water organisms . n131 This technique has its
downfalls, as it can only be used if weather and sea conditions permit, n132 and it is not completely effective in removing all invasive
species. n133 Alternative technologies that have been considered for ballast water management include chemical treatments,
radiation, thermal processes, and physical separation. n134 Several of these methods have been criticized as being unsafe for the
ship's crew and the marine environment. n135 Other technologies being developed include: shipboard generation of ozone that can
be pumped throughout the ballast water tanks; n136 vacuum suction for removing oxygen from ballast water; n137 ultraviolet
radiation of ballast water; n138 and on-site generation of hydrogen peroxide to kill organisms lurking in the ballast tanks. n139
Perhaps the most promising new technological solution involves using nitrogen gas to
remove oxygen from the ballast water of ocean vessels. n140 Releasing nitrogen gas
bubbles into ballast water tanks depletes the oxygen in the water, killing most species.
n141 Using nitrogen to rid ballast water of invasive species has the added advantage for ship owners [*159] of reducing corrosion of a
ship's hull by as much as ninety percent. n142 Researchers found that by deoxygenating the ballast water, oxidation or rust of the
tanks is prevented, and over the twenty-five year life of a typical cargo ship, the owner may save up to $ 1.7 million in maintenance
costs. n143 This is the first proposed solution that offers vessel owners a financial incentive to control the spread of invasive species
through ballast water. n144 Deoxygenation of ballast water has the additional advantage of being harmless to the surrounding
The best solution to the ever-growing problem of

invasive aquatic species must involve an international agreement,
specifically one that mandates the use of on-board technology to rid the ballast water
of potentially invasive species. Due to the international nature of the shipping industry, a global
patchwork of unilateral solutions will eventually prove unworkable. Portmarine environment. n145 V. Conclusion
based solutions, such as mandatory reporting of ballast water management practices,

have proven insufficient in the United States, although the new Australian plan may have more success. The
best option is an international agreement requiring ship-based technology to clear the
water of aquatic invasive species. There are many promising technologies on the horizon, but it will take much
additional research to bring these technologies into practice.

Aquatic Invasive Species Affirmative - Michigan7 2014 GRAMS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquatic Invasive Species Affirmative - Michigan7 2014 GRAMS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1AC

is important to understand how these organisms

methods of AIS introduction include the ballast

50,000 ships enter American ports from overseas

Voluntary selfregulation by participants in the aquaculture industry is likely to be

of these species can likely be attributed to the

undertaking frequent or long distance travel still had

Invasive species decimate ecosystems

"This research significantly contributes to our understanding of species invasions

Stigall used phylogenetic analysis,

The seas teemed with huge predatory fish such as

Marine hotspots are keythe impact is extinction

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible.

species vanish, so too does the health security of every

the content of 90% or more of the books. With

loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops

Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far

should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented

some states have chosen to take action in various

This additional burden on shippers gave rise to a recent lawsuit

requirements, dispersal patterns, and methods of control. Even

when inva- sion is imminent, advance

assessment surveys of invasive species appear to have

principle is becoming an established guideline for policy makers

for U.S. aquaculture businesses engaged in international trade, working to remove

Independently, global food production will inevitably breakdown --- ocean

billions of people on this planet continue to consume the amount of seafood we

But it is habitat destruction by human activities, particularly deforestation, that is

primarily responsible for the mass

disrupt marine ecosystems to an extent that

Aquaculture increases key to feed growing population collapse means

All species are considered potentially invasive and

Persuading the United States and

Invasive species carry disease and collapse the fisheries industry

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared

species threaten Pacific Island ecosystems, riparian communities,

be strategic in allocating research resources to develop the science to manage invasive

Voluntary selfregulation by participants in the aquaculture industry is likely to be

another response to the shortcomings of the existing federal response to AIS

This particular vulnerability could be addressed with the

of attaching to barge and boat hulls.

AIS introduction into the US prevalent now

is important to understand how these organisms

methods of AIS introduction include the ballast

50,000 ships enter American ports from overseas

species threaten Pacific Island ecosystems, riparian communities,

be strategic in allocating research resources to develop the science to manage invasive

increases in the size of protected land and coastal areas, biodiversity

Invasive species is a threat to Biodiversity and aquaculture industry--federal policy/oversight key

management leadership, has received no appreciable budget to support research and

All species are considered potentially invasive and

Persuading the United States and

Invasive Species causes Biod loss and spread of disease

major aquatic species

Biological invasions are recognized as serious threats to marine biodiversity and

resources, possibly displace other pelagic species, and can also

is critical so that informed decisions can be made to prevent ecological

There are few

some states have chosen to take action in various

This additional burden on shippers gave rise to a recent lawsuit

of these species can likely be attributed to the

undertaking frequent or long distance travel still had

when inva- sion is imminent, advance

Shipping is the most significant vector for maritime introductions of nonindigenous