Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Overview
By Diane Cooper
(January 2002)

As a Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) representative, I have been involved at various levels on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) issues and ensuring our concerns and comments are heard. While it is critical that we get a handle on harmful invasive species, it is equally critical that we protect our ability to continue to culture nonnative species as well as potentially having a process in place that allows for the introduction of new species for culture. There is a growing interest in this issue, not only within natural resource agencies and academia, but also with the general public.

At the federal level, we have the National Invasive Species Act, 1996, (reauthorized) that attempts to coordinate state and regional efforts for the control and management of invasive species. The National Invasive Species Council oversees its implementation. This council is comprised of several federal agencies including, Interior, Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Secretary of State, EPA administrator, among others. The council takes advice from an Invasive Species Advisory Committee, a diverse group of stakeholders. Part of this federal legislation is the creation of regional panels that put together work plans/programs for addressing ANS issues within their respective regions. I recently attended the Western Regional Panel conference and gave a presentation on aquaculture as it relates to ANS.

I have several concerns with how these issues are evolving. Here is an overview of those concerns:

Inconsistent terminology. "Nonnative," "nonindigenous," introduced," invasive," "alien," "biological pollutant," etc., are all used interchangeably. Only a small percentage of introduced species actually become invasive. Additionally, as you know, many nonnative species are beneficial. There can't be constructive discussions of issues without agreed upon terminology.

No differentiation between new imports and established species. In other words, there have been discussions about additional regulations on currently established species and industries to ensure nonnatives don't become invasive. In fact, in a recent meeting in Maine (there was no aquaculture rep in attendance, as far as I know), one of the discussion points suggested the aquaculture industry should move toward culturing native species only.

Regulation of market-ready seafood. There seems to be a core group of folks who have little concern for economic/business interests, or market constraints, and clearly want to shut all of the gates regardless of the cost.

As with many emerging environmental issues, there can be extreme points of view (on both sides) that are not supported by science. One of my efforts has been to verify citations. Various publications cite info that was pulled out of context or simply wrong.

There is a significant amount of controversy on which agency should have purview. Our position has been that the regulating agency has expertise in natural resources, particularly in plant and animal interactions. This is in opposition to a vocal group of folks who want EPA to regulate nonnative species under the Clean Water Act as biological pollutants.

Zero risk versus acceptable levels of risk. Our position has been that zero risk is unachievable and that there can be acceptable levels of risk based on careful analysis of environmental cost/benefits.

I have offered additional key considerations for developing a regulatory process. They are:

• Any process developed must be economically/operationally feasible, adequately funded, and based on sound science. This three-part test will help ensure process effectiveness.
• A mix of education, voluntary measures by industry, and regulation is needed, rather than strict regulation alone.
• Draw from existing models and plans that are working instead of reinventing the wheel. Some states currently have programs in place that seem to be working. Let's extract elements from those programs and then fill in the gaps.
  

The National Aquaculture Association has been instrumental in getting appropriate representation on the various regional panels as well as providing a voice for aquaculture at the federal council level.

Clearly, this is an issue that requires proactive participation. There are a number of websites that shed additional light of the subject. The following list is just a few of them.

www.invasivespecies.gov

www.cnie.org/ncseconference

www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/nuisxsum.htm

anstaskforce.gov

www.cce.cornell.edu/aquaticinvaders

www.msstate.edu/dept/crec/ans.html

Please feel free to contact me with your comments and concerns. I welcome your input.

Diane Cooper
Taylor Shellfish
DianeC@taylorshellfish.com