DOCSLIB.ORG

Revision Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revision Draft Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Certification Report Netherlands blue shell mussel (translocation, bottom & cultured) fishery On Behalf of Vereniging Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse mosselcultuur (Dutch PO mussel culture) the Zeeuwse Hangcultuurkwekers and Vereniging van Importeurs van Schelpdieren Prepared by Control Union (UK) Limited. July 2021 Authors: Dr. J. Gascoigne Ms. C. Sieben Beverley O‘Kane Control Union (UK) Limited. 56 High Street, Lymington, Hampshire, SO41 9AH, United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 Email: [email protected] Website: http://uk.controlunion.com CU (UK) Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template v2.2 (1st May 2020) QA: 3474R06C 1 Contents CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 2 QA ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................................ 6 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Changes since the Previous Assessment................................................................................. 8 1.2 Principle 1.............................................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Principle 2.............................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Principle 3.............................................................................................................................. 14 2 REPORT DETAILS............................................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Authorship and peer review details ...................................................................................... 15 2.2 Version details ....................................................................................................................... 17 3 UNIT(S) OF ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION AND RESULTS OVERVIEW ................................... 18 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ................................................................ 18 3.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification .................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Client groups ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.4 Scope of assessment in relation to enhanced fisheries .................................................................. 20 3.2 Assessment results overview ................................................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ........................................................................ 21 3.2.2 Principle level scores ....................................................................................................................... 21 4 TRACEABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY ..................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Eligibility date ........................................................................................................................ 22 5 TRACEABILITY WITHIN THE FISHERY ............................................................................................. 22 5.1 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ......................................................................... 26 5.2 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody .............................................................................................................................................. 27 6 SCORING ........................................................................................................................................ 27 6.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores .................................................................. 27 6.2 Principle 1.............................................................................................................................. 28 6.2.1 Principle 1 background UoAs 1-4 .................................................................................................... 28 6.2.2 Mussel translocation and genetics (UoA 5) .................................................................................... 30 6.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ................................................................................... 32 6.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ..................................................... 33 6.3.1 PI 1.1.3 – Genetics : UoA 5 – translocation of mussels from other MSC mussel fisheries into the Oosterschelde .............................................................................................................................................. 33 CU (UK) Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template v2.2 (1st May 2020) QA: 3474R06C 2 6.4 Principle 2.............................................................................................................................. 35 6.4.1 Fishery survey data availability ....................................................................................................... 35 6.4.2 Translocation UoA (UoA 5) ............................................................................................................. 36 6.4.3 Designation of species under Principle 2 ........................................................................................ 38 6.4.4 Primary and Secondary species ...................................................................................................... 39 6.4.5 ETP species ...................................................................................................................................... 40 6.4.6 Habitats ........................................................................................................................................... 41 6.4.7 Ecosystem ....................................................................................................................................... 48 6.4.8 Scoring elements ............................................................................................................................ 48 6.5 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ..................................................... 49 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ............................................................................................................. 49 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ........................................................................................ 51 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ........................................................................................................ 54 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ......................................................................................................... 57 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy .................................................................................... 61 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information .................................................................................................... 64 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome .................................................................................................................... 66 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ............................................................................................... 76 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ............................................................................................................... 81 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ......................................................................................................................... 84 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy .................................................................................................... 91 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information .................................................................................................................... 95 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ..................................................................................................................... 98 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy .............................................................................................. 101 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information .............................................................................................................. 104 PI 2.6.1 – Translocation outcome .............................................................................................................. 107 PI 2.6.2 – Translocation management ....................................................................................................... 110 PI 2.6.3 – Translocation information .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Down Effects of a Native Crab on a System of Native and Introduced Prey Emilyw
    OPENQ ACCESS Freely available online e pLOSl- Preference Alters Consumptive Effects of Predators: Top- Down Effects of a Native Crab on a System of Native and Introduced Prey EmilyW. Grason"'', BenjaminG. Miner"' 1 WesternWashington University, Biology Department, Bellingham, Washington, United States of America,zshannon Point MarineCenter, Anacortes, Washington, UnitedStates of America Abstract Top-down effects of predators in systems depend on the rate at which predators consume prey, and on predator preferences among available prey. In invaded communities, these parameters might be difficult to predict because ecological relationships are typically evolutionarily novel. We examined feeding rates and preferences of a crab native to the Pacific Northwest, Cancer productus, among four prey items: two invasive species of oyster drill the marine whelks Urosaipinx cinerea and Ocenebra inornata! and two species of oyster Crassostrea gigas and Ostrea iurida! that are also consumed by U. cinerea and O. inornata. This system is also characterized by intraguild predation because crabs are predators of drills and compete with them for prey oysters!. When only the oysters were offered, crabs did not express a preferenceand consumedapproximately 9 juvenileoysters crab " day ". Wethen testedwhether crabs preferred adult drills of either U. cinerea or O. inornata, or juvenile oysters C. gigas!. While crabs consumed drills and oysters at approximately the same rate when only one type of prey was offered, they expressed a strong preference for juvenile oysters over drills when they were allowed to choose among the three prey items. This preference for oysters might negate the positive indirect effects that crabs have on oysters by crabs consuming drills trophic cascade! because crabs have a large negative direct effect on oysters when crabs, oysters, and drills co-occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity, Habitats, Flora and Fauna
    1 North East inshore Biodiversity, Habitats, Flora and Fauna - Protected Sites and Species 2 North East offshore 3 East Inshore Baseline/issues: North West Plan Areas 10 11 Baseline/issues: North East Plan Areas 1 2 4 East Offshore (Please note that the figures in brackets refer to the SA scoping database. This is • SACs: There are two SACs in the plan area – the Berwickshire and North available on the MMO website) Northumberland Coast SAC, and the Flamborough Head SAC (Biodiv_334) 5 South East inshore • Special Areas of Conservation (SACs): There are five SACs in the plan area • The Southern North Sea pSAC for harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 6 South inshore – Solway Firth SAC, Drigg Coast SAC, Morecambe Bay SAC, Shell Flat and is currently undergoing public consultation (until 3 May 2016). Part of Lune Deep SAC and Dee Estuary SAC (Biodiv_372). The Sefton Coast the pSAC is in the offshore plan area. The pSAC stretches across the 7 South offshore SAC is a terrestrial site, mainly for designated for dune features. Although North East offshore, East inshore and offshore and South East plan areas not within the inshore marine plan area, the development of the marine plan (Biodiv_595) 8 South West inshore could affect the SAC (Biodiv_665) • SPAs: There are six SPAs in the plan area - Teesmouth and Cleveland 9 South west offshore • Special protection Areas (SPAs): There are eight SPAs in the plan area - Coast SPA, Coquet Island SPA, Lindisfarne SPA, St Abbs Head to Fast Dee Estuary SPA, Liverpool Bay SPA, Mersey Estuary SPA, Ribble and Castle SPA and the Farne Islands SPA, Flamborough Head and Bempton 10 North West inshore Alt Estuaries SPA, Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA, Cliffs SPA (Biodiv_335) Morecambe Bay SPA, Duddon Estuary SPA and Upper Solway Flats and • The Northumberland Marine pSPA is currently undergoing public 11 North West offshore Marshes SPA (Biodiv_371) consultation (until 21 April 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Impact of Key Marine Invasive Non-Native Species on Welsh MPA Habitat Features, Fisheries and Aquaculture
    Assessing the impact of key Marine Invasive Non-Native Species on Welsh MPA habitat features, fisheries and aquaculture. Tillin, H.M., Kessel, C., Sewell, J., Wood, C.A. Bishop, J.D.D Marine Biological Association of the UK Report No. 454 Date www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk About Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales’ purpose is to pursue sustainable management of natural resources. This means looking after air, land, water, wildlife, plants and soil to improve Wales’ well-being, and provide a better future for everyone. Evidence at Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales is an evidence based organisation. We seek to ensure that our strategy, decisions, operations and advice to Welsh Government and others are underpinned by sound and quality-assured evidence. We recognise that it is critically important to have a good understanding of our changing environment. We will realise this vision by: Maintaining and developing the technical specialist skills of our staff; Securing our data and information; Having a well resourced proactive programme of evidence work; Continuing to review and add to our evidence to ensure it is fit for the challenges facing us; and Communicating our evidence in an open and transparent way. This Evidence Report series serves as a record of work carried out or commissioned by Natural Resources Wales. It also helps us to share and promote use of our evidence by others and develop future collaborations. However, the views and recommendations presented in this report are not necessarily those of
    [Show full text]
  • New Records for the Distribution and a Description of the Egg Capsules Of
    New records for the distribution and a description of the egg capsules of the Japanese nassa, Hima fratercula (Dunker, 1860) Family Nassariidae in Ladysmith Harbour, B.C. 1 2 2 by R.M. Harbo , George P. Holm and W. (Bill) Merilees 1 Research Associate, Invertebrate Zoology, Royal BC Museum. E-mail: [email protected] 2, 3 Pacific Northwest Shell Club SUMMARY The intertidal Japanese snail, Hima fratercula (Dunker, 1860), was most likely introduced to Washington and B.C. from Japan along with Pacific oyster seed, Crassostrea gigas, over the period from the 1920’s to 1960’s. Previously, it has only been reported from isolated sites in Washington and at Boundary Bay, B.C. Both the native Western lean nassa, H.mendica and the non-native Japanese nassa, H. fratercula were found at numerous sites at the head of Ladysmith Harbour, B.C. over the period April to October, 2014. Bubble-shaped or bulliform egg capsules of H. fratercula, with 4 to 7 eggs per capsule, were found in May and June, 2014 at Ladysmith. H. fratercula were common and abundant in the mud under rocks, shells and wood debris. The limited distribution of the non-native species, H. fratercula at isolated sites may be attributed to a limited dispersal of crawl-away larvae. In contrast, the widely distributed native species, H. mendica has 28 to 33 embryos per capsule and planktonic larvae. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was a clear, sunny spring day in April, 2014. We slowly grounded the boat on the mud bottom at Page Point in Ladysmith Harbour, B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Corel Ventura
    Ruthenica, 2003, 13(1): 53-74. ©Ruthenica, 2003 Review of the Recent species of Ocenebra Gray, 1847 and Ocinebrellus Jousseaume, 1880 in the Northwestern Pacific R. HOUART*, B. I. SIRENKO** *Research Associate, Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, rue Vautier, 29, 1000 Bruxelles, BELGIUM. E-mail: [email protected] **Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St.-Petersburg, 199034 RUSSIA. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The generic position of O. acanthopho- means that the character was observed in a few cases ra (A. Adams, 1863), Ocenebra inornata (Récluz, but not in all specimens. 1851), O. lumaria (Yokoyama, 1926) and Ocinebrellus falcatus (Sowerby, 1834) is discussed. The geographi- Other abbreviations: cal distribution in the northwestern Pacific is given for each species. BM(NH): The Natural History Museum, Lon- don, U.K. MNHN: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France. Introduction SMF: Forschunginstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Germany. The starting point of this paper was a set of USNM: National Museum of Natural History, apparently different ocenebrine species from the Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Northwestern Pacific sent for identification and ZISP: Zoological Institute of the Russian Aca- comments. After having compared this material with demy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. specimens stored in the Zoological Institute of the UMUT: The University Museum, The Universi- Russian Academy of Sciences, in the RH collection, ty of Tokyo, Japan. and with specimens illustrated in recent publications, RH: collection of Roland Houart. it appeared necessary to classify these species in an ad.: adult specimen. adequate genus before discussing the geographical juv.: juvenile specimen.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Science
    ICES Journal of Marine Science ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015), 72(3), 992–996. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu232 Contribution to the Themed Section: ‘Risk Assessment’ Introduction Risk assessment and risk management: a primer for marine scientists Mark T. Gibbs1,2 and Howard I. Browman3* 1Department of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia 2AECOM 540, Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4007, Australia 3Institute of Marine Research, Marine Ecosystem Acoustics Disciplinary Group, Austevoll Research Station, N-5392 Storebø, Norway *Corresponding author: e-mail: [email protected] Gibbs, M. T., and Browman, H. I. Risk assessment and risk management: a primer for marine scientists. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 992–996. Received 29 November 2014; accepted 30 November 2014. Risk assessment is the management approach or framework of choice in many disciplines, including health care and research, engineering design, and particularly the insurance sector which relies on the best available forward projections of natural hazards and accidents. The marine manage- ment community, which includes researchers, practitioners, and resource managers responsible for individual targeted stocks, aquaculture activ- ities, and the marine environment in general, has been slower to take up quantitative risk assessment approaches. Whilst there are prominent examples where risk assessment and management approaches have been applied, they are relatively few. This article theme set presents examples of such and identifies tools and approaches that can be applied to coastal and oceanic marine systems worldwide. The methods developed and the lessons learned from these studies can be used to guide researchers, practitioners, and resource managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Invasive Species in Nordic Waters - Fact Sheet
    NOBANIS - Marine invasive species in Nordic waters - Fact Sheet Rapana venosa Author of this species fact sheet: Kathe R. Jensen, Zoological Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 København Ø, Denmark. Phone: +45 353-21083, E-mail: [email protected] Bibliographical reference – how to cite this fact sheet: Jensen, Kathe R. (2010): NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Rapana venosa – From: Identification key to marine invasive species in Nordic waters – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access x/x/201x. Species description Species name Rapana venosa, (Valenciennes, 1846) – Veined rapa whelk Synonyms Purpura venosa Valenciennes, 1846; Rapana thomasiana Crosse, 1861; ?Rapana marginata (Valenciennes, 1846); ?Rapana pechiliensis Grabau & King, 1928; Rapana pontica Nordsieck, 1969. Common names Veined rapa whelk, Asian rapa whelk (USA, UK); Thomas’ whelk (English common name for Black Sea whelks identified as R. thomasiana); Cocozza, Bobolone (IT); Geaderde stekelhoorn (NL); Bai top shell (commercial name for Bulgarian Black Sea specimens); Akanishi (JP). Taxonomic note The genus Rapana is sometimes referred to the family Muricidae (e.g., DAISIE, 2006), sometimes to Thaididae (e.g., Koutsoubas & Voultsiadou-Koukoura, 1991; Mann & Harding, 2000). According to World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) the family should be Muricidae, and the Thaididae is considered a synonym of Rapaninae, a subfamily of Muricidae (see Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). Identification Rapana venosa is a large, 9-16 cm shell length, species with a heavy, strongly sculptured shell. Specimens up to 17.5 cm have been recorded in the Black Sea (Micu et al., 2008). The spire is relatively short, less than half the height of the aperture.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Marine Species in the Channel Islands: a Review and Assessment
    Non-native Marine Species in the Channel Islands - A Review and Assessment - Department of the Environment - 2017 - Non-native Marine Species in the Channel Islands: A Review and Assessment Copyright (C) 2017 States of Jersey Copyright (C) 2017 images and illustrations as credited All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the States of Jersey. A printed paperback copy of this report has been commercially published by the Société Jersiaise (ISBN 978 0 901897 13 8). To obtain a copy contact the Société Jersiaise or order via high street and online bookshops. Contents Preface 7 1 - Background 1.1 - Non-native Species: A Definition 11 1.2 - Methods of Introduction 12 1.4 - Threats Posed by Non-Native Species 17 1.5 - Management and Legislation 19 2 – Survey Area and Methodology 2.1 - Survey Area 23 2.2 - Information Sources: Channel Islands 26 2.3 - Information Sources: Regional 28 2.4 –Threat Assessment 29 3 - Results and Discussion 3.1 - Taxonomic Diversity 33 3.2 - Habitat Preference 36 3.3 – Date of First Observation 40 3.4 – Region of Origin 42 3.5 – Transport Vectors 44 3.6 - Threat Scores and Horizon Scanning 46 4 - Marine Non-native Animal Species 51 5 - Marine Non-native Plant Species 146 3 6 - Summary and Recommendations 6.1 - Hotspots and Hubs 199 6.2 - Data Coordination and Dissemination 201 6.3 - Monitoring and Reporting 202 6.4 - Economic, Social and Environmental Impact 204 6.5 - Conclusion 206 7 -
    [Show full text]
  • Recreational Vessels As Vectors for Non-Native Marine Species in California 2012
    Aquatic Invasive Species Vector Risk Assessments: Recreational vessels as vectors for non-native marine species in California Final Report July 2012 Submitted to the California Ocean Science Trust Funded by the California Ocean Protection Council By: The Aquatic Bioinvasion Research & Policy Institute A Partnership between Portland State University & the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Gail Ashton, Chela Zabin, Ian Davidson & Greg Ruiz TableofContents 1.ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................2 2.Introduction........................................................................................................................5 2.1.TheRecreationalVesselVector...................................................................................6 2.2.HistoryoftheVector....................................................................................................8 3.Aims....................................................................................................................................8 4.Methods..............................................................................................................................9 4.1.InvasionHistory...........................................................................................................9 4.2.ContemporaryVectorOperationinCalifornia..........................................................12 5.Results...............................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Steps Toward Nation-Wide Monitoring of Non-Indigenous Species In
    RAPPORT L.NR. 7022-2016 DK3 Denmark UDBUD/TENDER UDBUD/TENDER Denmark Steps toward nation-wide Danmarksmonitoring havstrategi of – non-indigenous Danmarksikke-hjemmehørendespecies havstrategi in Danish – arter: marine waters ikke-hjemmehørendeArtsbestemmelseunder af the arter: Marine Strategy Artsbestemmelse af ikke-hjemmehørendeFramework arter Directive ikke-hjemmehørendeved hjælp af eDNA arter ved hjælp af eDNA Klient: Naturstyrelsen Klient: Naturstyrelsen © NIVA Denmark Water Research, Ørestads Boulevard 73, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Doc.no./rev.code/rev.date: 100061-eng/6c/30.06.2014 Page: 1 of 2 © NIVA Denmark Water Research, Ørestads Boulevard 73, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Doc.no./rev.code/rev.date: 100061-eng/6c/30.06.2014 Page: 1 of 2 NIVA Denmark Water Research – a subsidiary of the Norwegian Institute for Water Research REPORT Main Office NIVA Region South NIVA Region East NIVA Region West NIVA Denmark Gaustadalléen 21 Jon Lilletuns vei 3 Sandvikaveien 59 Thormøhlens gate 53 D Ørestads Boulevard 73 NO-0349 Oslo, Norway NO-4879 Grimstad, Norway NO-2312 Ottestad, Norway NO-5006 Bergen Norway 2300 Copenhagen S Phone (47) 22 18 51 00 Phone (47) 22 18 51 00 Phone (47) 22 18 51 00 Phone (47) 22 18 51 00 Phose (45) 88 96 96 70 Telefax (47) 22 18 52 00 Telefax (47) 37 04 45 13 Telefax (47) 62 57 66 53 Telefax (47) 55 31 22 14 www.niva-danmark.dk Internet: www.niva.no Title Report No.. Date Steps toward nation-wide monitoring of non-indigenous species in 7022-2016-DK3 7 April 2016 Danish marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Project No.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Read by a Wide Audience
    Page 2 Vol. 39, No. 4 In 1972, a group of shell collectors saw the need for a national or- AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST, the official publication of the Conchol- ganization devoted to the interests of shell collectors; to the beauty of ogists of America, Inc., and issued as part of membership dues, is published shells, to their scientific aspects, and to the collecting and preservation of quarterly in March, June, September, and December, printed by Cardinal mollusks. This was the start of COA. Our membership includes novices, Printing, 341 Vincennes Street, New Albany, IN 47150. All correspondence advanced collectors, scientists, and shell dealers from around the world. should go to the Editor. ISSN 1072-2440. In 1995, COA adopted a conservation resolution: Whereas there are an Articles in AMERICAN CONCHOLOGIST may be reproduced with estimated 100,000 species of living mollusks, many of great economic, proper credit. We solicit comments, letters, and articles of interest to shell ecological, and cultural importance to humans and whereas habitat de- collectors, subject to editing. Opinions expressed in “signed” articles are those of the authors, and are not necessarily the opinions of Conchologists struction and commercial fisheries have had serious effects on mollusk of America. All correspondence pertaining to articles published herein populations worldwide, and whereas modern conchology continues the or generated by reproduction of said articles should be directed to the Edi- tradition of amateur naturalists exploring and documenting the natural tor. world, be it resolved that the Conchologists of America endorses respon- MEMBERSHIP is for the calendar year, January-December, late mem- sible scientific collecting as a means of monitoring the status of mollusk berships are retroactive to January.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Acknowledgments
    Draft Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Acknowledgments This plan was created by the Washington Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Committee and only exists due to the selfless dedication of many individuals who were willing to assist while attending to their regular workload. Numerous Tribal, state, federal and private organizations came together in the spirit of a true partnership to create this plan. We thank all those who contributed to the composition of the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Management Plan. Special thanks is justly afforded to the following individuals who were especially generous in supporting this plan (in alphabetical order): Wendy Sue Bishop, Washington Department of Agriculture; Janie Civille, Washington Department of Natural Resources; Kathy Hamel, Washington Department of Ecology; Senator Ken Jacobson, Washington State Senate; Lisa Lantz, Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board; Annette Olson, University of Washington; Scott Redman, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team; Derrick Toba, Tulalip Tribe; Cecilia Welch; Bill Zook, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Draft - Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan June 11, 1998 i Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................... i Executive Summary ..........................................................1 Introduction ...............................................................2 I. Nonindigenous Species Authorities and Programs .................................4
    [Show full text]