Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species

Background

As national and international travel and trade has grown, so has the intentional and non-intentional movement of plants and animals. Not only have many native species been moved around within our own country but more than 30,000 new species have been introduced as well. Many of these species have been intentionally introduced for a wide variety of beneficial purposes such as food and fiber production, vaccine and drug development, companion animals for recreation and plants for landscaping. The movement and trade of non-indigenous species are an essential part of our economy and well being. In fact, researchers recently estimated that fully 98% of the U.S. food supply, valued at over $500 billion annually, now comes from introduced non-indigenous plants and animals.

The USGS has recently compiled a database with over 17,000 entries documenting the introduction of over 500 non-indigenous fish species in the U.S. Three hundred seventeen (317) of these species are native to the U.S. but have been introduced outside of their native ranges. Included in this listing are many highly valuable aquacultured species such as rainbow trout, brook trout, arctic char, channel catfish, striped bass, various Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon, and ornamental fish. One hundred eighty five (185) non-indigenous fish species have been brought in from foreign countries and 22 of the non-indigenous fish species are due to hybridization. Of the 185 fish species brought in from foreign countries, 71 species have either already established self-sustaining populations in open waters or are believed able to do so. In addition to finfish, numerous species of oysters, clams and mussels and other shellfish, crustaceans, aquatic plants and algae are non-indigenous but highly valued, commercially cultured and economically important.

Not all introductions have been intentional or beneficial. Everything from rats to English sparrows and purple loosestrife to Dutch elm disease continue to have damaging biologic and economic effects. It was recently estimated that harmful introduced species now cost our country $123 billion a year in economic losses. Aquatic plants and animals are no exception to this problem. It was recently estimated that over $5 billion dollars in economic losses can be attributed to the adverse effects of introduced aquatic organisms such as the zebra mussel, Asiatic clam, green crab, and various species of fish.

Public awareness of economic and biologic impact of the zebra mussel became so great that it prompted Congress to enact the “Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act” in 1990. This act not only provided the mechanism to address the zebra mussel problem but also provided opportunity to examine other non-indigenous aquatic species. Current resources and activities are primarily focused on such issues as ballast water dumping and other mechanisms of non-intentional introductions, but intentional introductions related to commercial aquaculture are also under consideration. A Presidential Executive Order was recently issued requiring Federal agencies to work collaboratively through an Invasive Species Council to reduce the risk of bio-invaders. The Council will develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan.

Policy

The NAA:

1. Strongly supports the reasonable and unencumbered movement of beneficial aquatic species. Such movement is essential to the sustainability and growth of aquaculture industries.
2. Recognizes that the introduction of some aquatic organisms may have undesirable or damaging effects, in some instances, even on established aquaculture industries themselves.
3. Supports the design and implementation of any reasonable plan or effort to minimize the risk of introduction or dissemination of unknown or clearly undesirable aquatic nuisance species.
4. Demands that any measure or determination of desirability or beneficial value of an aquatic species be based on findings of fact and objective science and that any decisions be based on unbiased assessment of the real and proven risks relative to the potential value and benefits of the introduction or movement.
5. Demands that laws, regulations or policies designed and implemented to prevent the introduction or dissemination of unknown and undesirable non-indigenous aquatic species neither supplant current laws and regulations which provide for the free and essential movement of aquaculture products nor be allowed to be used for the covert purpose of restricting or eliminating commercial aquaculture.
6. Is opposed to any extension of non-indigenous species regulations that attempt to include pathogenic parasites, bacteria or viruses of aquatic animals.  Laws, regulations and policies are already established and working on a regional, state, national and international level to address pathogens.

Approved April 1999