1AC1AC squo Contention 1 is the status quo

Aquatic Invasive Species are flooding into the United States ship ballast and lack of regulationBoothe 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 semi-submersible 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.

Aquatic Invasive Species are flooding into the United States lakes proveGunderson 2013 (Sep 19 2012, Minnesota Public Radio writer citing DNR (department of natural resources), 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 nowUS 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 states. 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 species, 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 planThus, 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 risingMurray 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 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)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 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, which occurs when a subset of a population moves to a new location. In a departure from previous studies, 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 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. The seas teemed with huge predatory fish such as Dunkleosteus, and smaller life forms such as trilobites and crinoids (sea lilies). The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time; amphibians began to walk on land. 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 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)//HAExtinction 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 is the importance of setting global priorities? Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries 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 regionthe 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 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)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, some states have chosen to take action in various ways. 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 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 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 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 and NISA will have to do more if they wish to enter Michigan waters. 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 to thwart the introduction of AIS suggest state governments do recognize the seriousness of the AIS threat and are willing to take the lead on such matters if they feel the federal government's response is lacking. Nevertheless, such 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 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 pre- vention. Preventative measures depend on advance knowledge of invasion threats, which can be gained from careful monitor- ing 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 inva- sion 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 or- ganisms 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 identi- fication of future invaders should be a common priority among scientists and policy makers.Monitoring/Detecting/surveying KeyLee 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/wp-content/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 impactMyers, 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 generations-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 fisheriesOcean 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-aquaculture-successes, 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 deforestationStrasser, 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-ag-takes-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 United States. 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. Open-ocean aquaculture is one of the emerging frontiers, says Michael Rubino, Director of the Aquaculture Office at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 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 resource-efficient 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 extinctionChivian 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/environmental-health-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 millionsPauly, 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 starvationJolly, 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 keyNaylor 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 (1.0C 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 predators (Osman and Whitlatch 2007, Valentine et al. 2007) will likely be strengthened as temperatures increase. 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 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 increased frequency and at increased cost. More broadly, 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. 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 waterways including boating, angling and waterway management. Funded by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), the research has been published in the journal Diversity and Distributions. It looked at the global distributions of 15 invasive plant species 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 space for restoration of waterways and native plant communities." Dr Michael Meharg, from the NIEA, said: "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."Globalization Globalization has exasperated the spread of aquatic invasive speciesundermining 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 larger spatial scales. However, the number of information net- works 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 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 technology, so that biological invasions have become a consequence of globalization. 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 (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, research is rarely conducted at these three scales simultaneously. 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 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 biological invasions Trade 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 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 analyses for reducing species introductions, which may produce a more compelling argument. 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). 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 KeyCoordinated Federal Policy key --- States cant act aloneUS 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 states. 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 species, 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.

Federal framework keyAFWA, 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 found to be injurious wildlife. Funding for State/Interstate Management Plans Nation-wide rapid response capability to combat incipient harmful invasive species. At the State Level there are a 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 frameworkCorn 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/wp-content/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 broade