PLAN FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF

NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES

IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

 

(Draft plan for consideration by the Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council)

December 1998

PREFACE

This report is presented to the Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council (CRFWC) states as part of a cooperative effort to address a portion of the requirement for comprehensive state management plans under Section 1204 of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA). This plan is intended to primarily address communication, coordination, information and education strategies relative to controlling the spread of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Some strategies for control and monitoring will most logically be addressed in this plan while others will best be handled by the individual states.

This report is based on A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan For The Prevention And Control Of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species: Report To The Great Lakes States prepared by the staff of the Great Lakes Commission's Resource Management and Environmental Quality Program: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder (principal author), Thomas Crane and Lori Reynolds along with members of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. The model plan was used heavily in drafting this document and saved the CRFWC states a great deal of time and energy. Other information was drawn from the Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control prepared by the Information/Education Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Katherine Glassner-Shwayder of the Great Lakes Commission and Linda Drees of the US Fish and Wildlife Service have been especially helpful while drafting this document. I thank them for their efforts.

Dirk Miller

Assistant Fishery Management Coordinator

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

528 S. Adams Street

Laramie, WY 82070

307-745-5180 ext 234

dmille@missc.state.wy.us

PLAN FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF NONINDIGENOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i

Executive Summary 1

Description Of The Colorado River Fish And Wildlife Council 2

Other ANS Efforts In The Colorado River Basin 2

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Background 2

Policy Background 6

Management Actions 8

Goal I: Prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into, within and from Colorado River Basin waters.

Goal II: Abate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.

Goal III: Provide regional coordination of information dissemination regarding aquatic nuisance species programs involving prevention, control, monitoring, research, education, policy and other related activities.

Goal IV: ·Increase the involvement of Colorado River Basin regional policy makers and user groups in the promotion of aquatic nuisance prevention and control programs.

Goal V: Provide additional resources to assist states with implementation of the CRFWC’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Plan.

Implementation 22

Example Implementation Schedule 23

Example Timeline 24

Program Monitoring And Evaluation 25

Glossary 26

Appendices 27

Section 1204 of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990

List of members of relevant task forces/committees

State laws and regulations

Other relevant management plans

Reference Materials

Emergency contacts

Literature Cited 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(Note: The executive summary should provide a brief synopsis of each section of the management plan. The executive summary also should include a general statement on the purpose of the management plan as articulated in NANPCA. The statement of purpose should be augmented with a state-specific perspective. Also recommended for inclusion is an overview of the goals on which the plan is based. Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." The content of each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices and measures to be taken on by state and local programs to prevent and control ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound.)

The purpose of this management plan is to provide coordination of actions to address the prevention, control and impacts of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade the Colorado River Basin and inland waters of the states in the region (Note that in this document, reference to aquatic nuisance species will imply that the species is nonindigenous.). This plan is intended to advance a cooperative regional approach to ANS management. It will provide a communication framework among the CRFWC member states by identifying the appropriate ANS contacts. This plan does not emphasize control or monitoring efforts, however it does not completely leave them out as there may be instances where regional control or monitoring will make the most sense. Additionally it is not intended to replace comprehensive state plans of the members states.

The development of a state management plan, as called for in Section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA) provides an opportunity for federal cost-share support for implementation of the plan. Once approved by the member states of the Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council (CRFWC) the plan must be approved by the national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force to be eligible for federal cost-share support.

This plan is based on the following goals:

These goals address different stages of ANS invasion: 1) the introduction of nonindigenous species transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent or world; 2) the spread of an established, reproducing ANS population to other water bodies and 3) the colonization of ANS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts resulting from colonization.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLORADO RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COUNCIL

(Note: Need to insert a brief description of the CRFWC, probably should not exceed 2 pages.)

OTHER ANS EFFORTS IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

(Note: Need to insert a descriptions of the ANS efforts in the member states. Are there states which currently are developing a state ANS plan? Statutes and regulations should be referenced here as well as referencing an appendix where the actual statutes and regulations will be included. Examples include restrictions on bait fish use and importation, restrictions on private and public aquaculture regarding fish disease and movement and stateor county weed control restrictions which impact aquatic systems.)

NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES BACKGROUND

(Note: The following text is suggested information for use in the introduction of each state's management plan. Each state should use this material, as appropriate, and add additional state-specific information, as available. The text from the model plan was used and ?? were inserted where more information is needed. Note that collecting this information will be a great deal of work and we may simply want to make general statements about economic impacts rather than digging out those numbers. We may not be able to adequately address the numbers of ANS present in the basin until we’ve worked to implement the plan, so general statements may be best in this first draft. The Great Lakes examples were left in here, we need to identify Colorado River Basin examples and decide if we should delete these or leave them in. The first 5 paragraphs can probably stay with a few minor edits.)

The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin and inland state waters is a source of biological pollution that threatens not only the ecology of the region and states’ water resources, but also the economic, societal and public health conditions of the region and states. The water resources of the Colorado River Basin region are an integral part of activities such as recreation and tourism valued at $?? billion annually, $?? billion of which is related to the fishing industry. Approximately ?? jobs are supported by sport fisheries and commercial fisheries provide an additional ?? jobs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995).

The Colorado River Basin region has been subject to the invasion of aquatic nuisance species since the settlement of the region by Europeans. Since the 1800s, at least ?? nonindigenous aquatic organisms have colonized habitats of the Colorado River Basin ecosystem. The bulk of these species include: plants (??), fish (??), algae (??), mollusks (??) and oligochaetes (??). About ?? percent of these species are native to Eurasia; ?? percent are native to the Atlantic Coast. Although the obvious impacts of some of the most abundant species are being determined, most of the aquatic nuisance species and their direct and indirect impacts are not known.

As use of the Colorado River Basin intensified the rate of introduction of aquatic nuisance species also increased. More than ?? of the organisms have been introduced in the past 30 years. Other human activities contributing to the transport and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Colorado River Basin and inland waters include movement or intentional release of aquaculture and fishery species along with their associated (free-living and parasitic) organisms, release of organisms associated with pet industries or pest management practices, recreational boating, bait handling, water transport, and ornamental and landscape practices.

Nonindigenous aquatic species are causing significant economic and ecological problems throughout North America. Zebra mussels, Asiatic clams, Atlantic salt marsh cordgrass, purple loosestrife, and other invasive species threaten western waters. A 1996 report by The Nature Conservancy emphasizes that invasive, non-native species are one of the leading threats to the ecological integrity of our nation’s forests, grasslands, and waterways. Examples of problems that are caused by nonindigenous species in fresh and marine waters include:

A newly introduced species, if it becomes established through reproduction, can disrupt the natural ecosystem balance by altering the composition, density and interactions of native species. This disruption can cause significant changes to the ecosystem, such as alterations to the foodwebs, nutrient dynamics and biodiversity. New introductions also can cause costly socio-economic impacts even if effective prevention and control mechanisms are established. Eventually, each newly introduced species will become integrated into an ecosystem that is in a constant state of flux; or the introduced population will not survive and become extinct (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993).

(Note: The remainder of this section can probably be completely deleted but we will need to add a similar section with Colorado River Basin examples.}

Approximately 10 percent of the Great Lakes' nonindigenous aquatic species have resulted in significant negative ecological and economic impacts. The following examples portray the extensive ecological and economic impacts caused by aquatic nuisance species that have been introduced into the Great Lakes region.

The invasion of the sea lamprey in the 1940s has resulted in substantial economic losses to recreational and commercial fisheries, and has required annual expenditures of millions of dollars to finance control programs. During the 1940s and 1950s, the sea lamprey, a top predator which kills fish by attaching to its prey and feeding on body fluids, devastated populations of whitefish and lake trout. The predation of the sea lamprey on this valuable commercial fishery permitted populations of commercially less valuable fish to proliferate. In 1992, annual sea lamprey control costs and research to reduce its predation were approximated at $10 million annually. The total value of the lost fishing opportunities plus indirect economic impacts could exceed $500 million annually (Office of Technology Assessment, 1993).

The nonindigenous populations of alewife increased rapidly in the Great Lakes during the 1940s and 1950's because of the suitability of the habitat and the fact that predators were not sufficiently abundant to check their growth. Consequently, periodic die-offs fouled recreational beaches and blocked municipal and industrial water intakes. While the alewife out-competed and suppressed whitefish, yellow perch, emerald shiners and rainbow smelt, it subsequently became a fish preyed upon by introduced trout and salmon. The alewife has permanently altered the existing predator-prey relationships in the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The ruffe, a Eurasian fish of the perch family, was introduced to North America in the 1980s, most likely through the ballast water of a seagoing vessel. This aquatic nuisance species has few predators, no commercial or recreational value and is replacing valuable native fishes. Since its introduction, the ruffe has become established in the nearshore waters of western Lake Superior, with an estimated average rate of range expansion of 18 shoreline miles per year. By the fall of 1994, ruffe populations were found in Michigan waters of Lake Superior and in August of 1995, three ruffe were discovered in a commercial harbor in northern Lake Huron, more than 300 miles east of the previously known range. The ruffe has become the most abundant species in Duluth Harbor. Based on observations of present ruffe migration rates along with native fish population displacements in Lake Superior, as well as past experience of ruffe in European waters, it appears that ruffe will be in direct competition with yellow perch and whitefish populations. Walleye populations are affected indirectly through a change in the food chain composition brought on by the proliferation of the ruffe. Based on moderate estimates of expected declines of yellow perch, whitefish and walleye, the annual economic loss to the U.S. sport and commercial fisheries is estimated at approximately $119 million if the ruffe suddenly proliferates to all lake regions (Leigh, 1994).

The round goby and the tubenose goby were introduced via ballast water into the St. Clair River, near Detroit in 1990. The tubenose goby has not thrived, but the round goby has spread into Lake Erie and Lake Michigan where the largest population is found. The round goby was observed in the St. Louis River Estuary in Lake Superior during the summer of 1995. The primary concern with the round goby is the tremendous range expansion exhibited since its introduction in 1990. It is a very aggressive fish, and feeds voraciously upon bottom-feeding fishes (e.g., sculpin, darters and logperch), snails, mussels and aquatic insects. The Great Lakes fisheries, particularly those in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie, are threatened by this aquatic nuisance species due to its robust characteristics and ability to displace native species from prime habitat and spawning areas.

The spiny water flea, a likely ballast water introduction, is a tiny crustacean with a sharply barbed tail spine. The northern Europe native was first found in Lake Huron in 1984. The spiny water flea is now found throughout the Great Lakes and in some inland lakes. Although researchers do not know what effect the invader will have on the ecosystem, resource managers suspect that the water flea competes directly for food with small fish such as perch.

The zebra mussel, another ballast water introduction, is one of the best known invaders of the Great Lakes region and other areas of the country where it has spread. This aquatic nuisance species has caused serious economic and ecosystem impacts. The zebra mussel, a highly opportunistic mollusk, reproduces rapidly and consumes microscopic aquatic plants and animals from the water column in large quantities. The potential impact on the fishery can be profound due to changes in food availability and spawning areas, to name a few. Economic impacts are as pervasive as the ecosystem impacts. Great Lakes municipalities, utilities and industries due to the infestation of zebra mussel in their intake/discharge pipes have significant costs associated with monitoring, cleaning and controlling infestations. According to a recent economic impact study, each of 84 Great Lakes water users reported average total expenditures of $513,600 over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994 (Hushak et al., 1995). By the end of this century, water users across the country are expected to spend between $2 billion and $3 billion cleaning clogged water intakes (Ruiz et al., 1995). Commercial and recreational vessels and beach areas also are vulnerable to the negative impacts of the zebra mussel.

Nonindigenous aquatic plants also have been introduced to the Great Lakes region and inland waters. Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant from Europe and Asia that was introduced to the east coast of North America in the 1800s. Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. This nonindigenous plant is unsuitable to meet habitat needs such as cover, food or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads and turtles.

Eurasian water milfoil, unintentionally introduced to North America from Europe, has spread into inland lakes primarily by boats. Milfoil can proliferate in high densities in lakes, producing habitat conditions that cause serious impairments to commercial fishing and water recreation such as boating, fishing and swimming. The plant’s surface canopy also can out-compete and eliminate native aquatic vegetation, as well as threaten native fish and wildlife populations.

Numerous aquatic nuisance species have been introduced and dispersed in the Colorado River Baisn waters of each state by various pathways. The environmental and socio-economic costs resulting from ANS infestations will only continue to rise with further ANS introductions. Although an awareness of the problems caused by aquatic nuisance species is emerging, the solutions are not readily apparent. This comprehensive management plan for nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species provides guidance for management actions to address the prevention, control and impacts of aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade the region.

POLICY BACKGROUND

(Note: The following text offers exemplary language for the "policy background" section of each state management plan. This text is limited to an overview of NANPCA, with a special emphasis on Section 1204 language addressing state management plans. This text should be followed by state-specific background on institutional arrangements, and provisions for ANS prevention and control on the state level. We need to identify relevant ANS statutes and regulations from each of the member states and include them in an appendix, with some reference here.)

The prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species have global implications that require policies and programs at various levels of government. The following overview of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-646) (NANPCA), delineates the basic role of federal, regional and state government in the act's implementation. NANPCA is the federal legislation which calls upon each state to develop and implement a comprehensive state management plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. NANPCA has guided the development of this model state management plan and the states are strongly advised to acknowledge the guidelines of the act in the implementation of the state plans.

Federal Role

NANPCA is based on the following five objectives as listed in Section 1002:

NANPCA was primarily created in response to the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes, where this ballast water introduction has caused serious ecological and socio-economic impacts. Although the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes has played a central role in prompting passage of the federal legislation, NANPCA has been established to prevent the occurrence of new ANS introductions and to limit the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already in U.S. waters.

The national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established under Section 1201 of NANPCA to coordinate governmental efforts related to nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the United States with those of the private sector and other North American interests. An important role of this federal group is to facilitate national policy direction in support of the act. The ANS Task Force (consisting of seven federal agency representatives and eight ex officio members representing nonfederal governmental entities) has adopted the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program under Section 1202 of the act which recommends the following essential elements:

The ANS Task Force recommends research, education and technical assistance as strategies to support the elements listed above.

The ANS Task Force also provides national policy direction as a result of protocols and guidance that have been developed through the efforts of the following working committees: Research Protocol/Coordination Committee, Intentional Introduction Policy Review Committee, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Ruffe Control Committee, Risk Assessment and Management Committee, Detection and Monitoring Committee, Zebra Mussel Coordination Committee and the Brown Tree Snake Control Committee.

One role of the federal government in the prevention of unintentional introductions of aquatic nuisance species is defined under Section 1101 of NANPCA, which mandates the establishment of regulations for ballast water management aimed at limiting introductions through transoceanic shipping. U.S. regulations control the discharge of ballast from all vessels entering Great Lakes waters, thus far the only region in the United States to be regulated. The regulations have been enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard since May 1993, with active assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard and Seaway authorities. (The Canadian federal government has yet to enact federal ballast water management regulations; voluntary guidelines are in place.) The need has been identified for a federal research program to develop innovative technology for ballast water management.

Regional Role

Colorado River Basin regional coordination is addressed through this plan. This plan does not emphasize monitoring and control and assumes that individual states will have primary responsibility for those activities within their states. There may some ANS control and monitoring issues which arise that are best addressed regionally.

A provision calling for the formation of the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (WRP) was included in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 101-636) which amended the 1990 Act. The WRP is to be comprised of western region representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and from private environmental and commercial interests. The purposes of the WRP are to:

State Role

The comprehensive state management plans for aquatic nuisance species are addressed in Section 1204 of NANPCA. Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." The content of each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices and measures to be pursued by state and local programs to prevent and control aquatic nuisance species infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound. As part of the plan, federal activities are to be identified for prevention and control measures, including direction on how these activities should be coordinated with state and local efforts. Section 1204 also states that in the development and implementation of the management plan, the state needs to involve appropriate local, state and regional entities, as well as public and private organizations that have expertise in ANS prevention and control.

This regional plan is primarily intended to address regional coordination, communication and information and education efforts. It is not intended to usurp the responsibility or authority of individual states. Individual states may be developing ANS management plans and responsibility for control and monitoring of ANS will remain at the state level regardless of whether this plan is implemented or not. It is hoped that this plan will simplify the development of state management plans, enhance efficiency and ultimately reduce the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

(Note: This section of the model should present the state's management goals, associated problem statements, and the strategic actions and tasks needed to address them. It is recommended that each state's plan center upon the goals stated below. Each is accompanied by a problem statement, strategic action(s), and task(s). Much of the text is presented in generic form and should be readily adaptable to each state's management plan. State-specific information should be incorporated into the text where relevant. Language from the Great Lakes Panel’s Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control is incorporated into this document )

The primary purpose of the plan is to provide regional direction and coordination of aquatic nuisance species activities among the participating agencies, institutions and organizations. It is important to note that while some of these activities may be undertaken specifically by the CRFWC, many of the activities may be underway or taken on by other Colorado River Basin organizations. The plan is being established as a regional initiative for the benefit of all interested stakeholders.

The goals of this plan are designed to address different stages of ANS invasion: 1) the introduction of nonindigenous species transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent or world; 2) the spread of an established, reproducing ANS population to other water bodies; and 3) the colonization of ANS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts resulting from colonization.

This plan is based on the following goals:

Goal I: Prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into, within and from Colorado River Basin waters.

Problem: (I.1) Introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin, frequently causes environmental, socio-economic and public health impacts. The severity of these impacts is not known or recognized on a wide-scale basis, impeding the investment of resources needed to prevent new ANS introductions. A delayed "crisis-response" approach often limits the vision and opportunity for the prevention of new introductions, leaving the region with ANS management problems that are economically costly, technically challenging, if not unfeasible to solve, and frequently irreversible. Although ?? nonindigenous aquatic species already have been introduced into the Colorado River Basin ecosystem, new introductions are still highly likely. The prevention of new introductions is critical in ameliorating ANS problems in the Colorado River Basin.

Multiple mechanisms transport aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin; some such mechanisms transcend the authority of a single state to control. Transport mechanisms increasing the potential for new introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin include the aquaculture business, recreational boating, the bait industry, illegal transplants and fish stocking activities -- all of which have the potential to introduce aquatic nuisance species as well as associated parasites and other disease organisms. In some cases, such activities are subject to little or no regulation. In cases where laws/regulations do exist, they are frequently not well known and/or enforced. User groups that could potentially introduce aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin region/states are generally not aware of ANS prevention practices.

Objective: (I.1.a) Develop and implement management strategies to limit the introduction of new aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.1.a.1) Based on identified dispersal pathways, develop voluntary and regulatory approaches to limit the introduction of aquatic nuisance species. Also, identify the best available technology for each management strategy and include an environmental impact assessment, where necessary.

Activity: (I.1.a.2) Implement a watershed approach to limit the introduction of aquatic nuisance species within the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.1.a.3) Establish cooperative policies with states sharing watersheds to limit the introduction of ANS populations.

Objective: (I.1.b) Conduct or support research regarding management options that will help prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species into the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.1.b.1) Assess the transport mechanisms potentially responsible for new ANS introductions into the Colorado River Basin. Develop preventive action plans to interrupt pathways of introduction.

Activity: (I.1.b.2) Prioritize research needs to help in establishing program structure.

Activity: (I.1.b.3) Conduct priority research, or promote the conduct of such research via federal research initiatives, academia or the private sector.

Activity: (I.1.b.4) Support/coordinate scientific research between state and federal agencies and academic institutions that investigate potential control strategies and associated environmental impacts. Develop a technology transfer program to be used in distributing research findings. (The Internet-based Great Lakes Information Network is the recommended vehicle for this process.)

Problem: (I.2) The spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested state waters is largely via human activity, such as boat transfers, ballast exchange, bait handling, water transport, and ornamental and landscape practices. Limiting the spread of such populations is problematic due to the numerous pathways of dispersal, the complex ecological characteristics associated with ANS populations and the lack of feasible technology that is needed to limit the spread.

Many public and private resource user groups are not aware of existing infestations of aquatic nuisance species in the Colorado River Basin, and why they cause priority problems locally, regionally and beyond. The probability of ANS spread to other waters can increase when resource user groups are not aware of how their routine activities can cause the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into uninfested water bodies. An information/education program is needed to provide information on why the spread of ANS populations needs to be limited, how the ANS populations can be reduced, and the value of a healthy aquatic ecosystem that supports a diverse native aquatic community. Information/education programming is also critical to strengthening public/private support for and statewide participation in ANS management strategies.

It also is difficult to manage the spread of aquatic nuisance species, since infestation frequently occurs in watersheds that occupy more than one state. Cooperation among Colorado River Basin states sharing ANS-infested watersheds is needed to implement consistent management strategies that will effectively limit the spread of ANS populations.

Objective: (I.2.a) Develop and implement management strategies to limit the spread of each aquatic nuisance species determined to be a regional priority.

Activity: (I.2.a.1) Based on identified dispersal pathways, develop voluntary and regulatory approaches to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Also, identify the best available technology for each management strategy and include an environmental impact assessment, where necessary.

Activity: (I.2.a.2) Implement a watershed approach to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species within states.

Activity: (I.2.a.3) Establish cooperative policies with states sharing watersheds to limit the spread of ANS populations.

Objective: (I.2.b) Monitor the spread of those aquatic nuisance determined to be a regional priority.

Activity: (I.2.b.1) Design a monitoring program to provide information that will help in developing an effective strategy to limit the spread of selected ANS populations. A network approach, including federal/regional/state/local agencies, public/private groups and academic institutions, is recommended. Variables to monitor include population size, structure and range; rate of growth; type of habitat; distribution; impacts on native species; and economic and other impacts on human communities.

Activity: (I.2.b.2) Develop identification materials for each aquatic nuisance species that is being monitored to facilitate participation of all stakeholders.

Problem: (I.3) Comprehensive listings of status and distribution of aquatic nuisance species within the Colorado River Basin are not readily available to interested individuals and organizations.

Objective: (I.3.a) Develop state-specific and regional listings of aquatic nuisance species which are currently present or have the potential to infest the Colorado River Basin. As part of this cooperative effort, identify existing and potential transport mechanisms that facilitate new ANS introductions or movement into the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.3.a.1) Member states develop lists of aquatic nuisance species known to occur in each state. The list should include potential transport vectors and impacts of increased distribution of the species.

Activity: (I.3.a.2) Review research on the movement of aquatic nuisance species on a global scale, and use findings to help predict potential ANS invasions in the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.3.a.3) Establish an advisory group, with representation from all stakeholders affected by the ANS problems in the basin, to guide in the selection of aquatic nuisance species that merit management.

Activity: (I.3.a.4) Develop identification materials for each aquatic nuisance species that is being monitored to facilitate participation of all stakeholders.

Activity: (I.3.a.5) Develop and implement a process to prioritize those aquatic nuisance species that merit management. (Note: An assessment of ANS impacts is recommended for this process. Also, a recommended resource to facilitate this prioritization process is the National Park Service publication, Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control (see literature citations).)

Problem: (I.4) The unintentional introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species may be due to a lack of understanding of the problem by the general public.

Objective: (I.4.a) Inform and educate the appropriate resource user groups on the management strategies needed to limit the spread of targeted ANS populations. To support this effort, the target groups should be informed on how the spread of aquatic nuisance species threatens the health of a diverse native aquatic community, and other harmful ANS impacts. Volunteer groups, such as lake associations and outdoor recreation groups, should be actively involved in these outreach efforts..

Activity: (I.4.a.1) Assess existing ANS information/education programs (i.e., Sea Grant, cooperative extension, state natural resource agencies). Build on the strengths and address the weaknesses of these programs.

Activity: (I.4.a.2) Identify pathways that disperse aquatic nuisance species (i.e., recreational boaters/anglers, commercial and sport fishers, bait handling, water transport, ornamental and landscape practices) and inform these groups on practices to help limit the spread. This outreach program should focus on changing the behavior of user groups to limit the spread of targeted ANS populations in the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (I.4.a.3) Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of information/education efforts.

Objective: (I.4.b) Ensure that all permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commercial fishers, and other resource harvesters, take action to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species.

Outreach activities targeted to permitted aquaculture operators and bait dealers

Activity: (I.4.b.1) Develop a workshop series and supporting materials that can be conducted by local and state agencies, targeted to permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commercial fishers, and other resource harvesters. This audience should be informed about their role mitigating the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. As part of workshop activities, the targeted audience should be trained on how to deliver the message to their clientele.

Activity: (I.4.b.2) Distribute informational materials and regulations about aquatic nuisance species to permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commercial anglers, and other resource harvesters in the Colorado River Basin states. Due to frequent modification of the information and regulations, distribution in each state should occur annually or biennially.

Objective: (I.4.c) Ensure that all recreational boaters take action to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species.

Outreach activities targeted to recreational boaters

Activity: (I.4.c.1) Develop and distribute I/E resources, such as those developed by the Great Lakes Sea Grant programs, targeted to recreational boaters through the following channels: 1) Coast Guard Auxiliary safe boating courses and watercraft examinations; 2) boat manufacturers owners manuals; 3) marine dealers; 4) state boat registration materials; 5) power squadron courses; 6) boat show displays and sport shows.

Activity: (I.4.c.2) Promote the development and distribution of standardized signs and billboards to deliver the message on aquatic nuisance species at waterfront areas and along major transportation routes used by boaters.

Activity: (I.4.c.3) Implement regional boat-wash demonstrations and/or inspections to teach boaters how to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species on their boats. To impede the spread to inland waters, target areas where there is high traffic. Inspections could be conducted at public accesses or infested waters.

Activity: (I.4.c.4) Include information about aquatic nuisance species in state fishing regulations.

Activity: (I.4.c.5) Develop and distribute radio public service announcements about aquatic nuisance species to draw attention to the issue and provide precautions that boaters should take to prevent further spread.

Activity: (I.4.c.6) Notify tourism related industries, such as travel agencies and resorts, of the informational materials available for distribution and/or posting.

Activity: (I.4.c.7) Develop I/E materials that will help pave the way for appropriate laws to be enacted that will reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance introduction and spread.

Goal II: Abate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.

Problem: (II.1) The infestation of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the Colorado River Basin can cause, to varying degrees, ecological, economic, social and public health impacts. Strategies to control aquatic nuisance species in infested water bodies and in efforts to abate their impacts are not always known or technically and/or economically feasible. Control strategies also must be designed so as not to cause significant environmental impacts.

The infestation of aquatic nuisance species in the Colorado River Basin can alter or disrupt existing relationships and ecological processes. Without co-evolved parasites and predators, some nonindigenous aquatic species out-compete and even displace aquatic native plant or animal populations. As part of this process, the invading species also can influence to some extent the foodwebs, nutrient dynamics and biodiversity of the ecosystem. To abate the ecological impacts of the invading organism, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms by which the species disrupts the natural balance of the ecosystem.

{need to add Colorado River examples here}

The Colorado River Basin waters provide valuable economic benefits for the region/state, some of which include commercial and sport fisheries, recreational use and water usage by manufacturers, industry and electric power companies. Some introduced aquatic nuisance species to the Colorado River Basin have provided economic benefits, such as those supporting the aquaculture business and sport fishing industry. However, several aquatic nuisance species have been found to cause adverse economic impacts. For instance, the zebra mussel infests the intake/discharge pipes of hundreds of facilities that use raw water from the Great Lakes, causing extensive monitoring and control costs. The Eurasian water milfoil forms thick mats on the surface of water, which can interfere with many types of water recreational activities, such as swimming, water skiing and sailing. The invasion of the ruffe in Duluth-Superior Harbor appears to be causing the displacement of perch and whitefish populations, which could pose a serious threat to the commercial and sport fishing industry if the ruffe invasion spreads throughout the Great Lakes and inland state waters.

Organisms invading the Colorado River Basin can threaten public health through the introduction of disease, concentration of pollutants, contamination of drinking water, toxic algae blooms and other harmful human health effects (Ohio Sea Grant College Program, 1995). An extensive monitoring system for these aquatic nuisance species needs to be established to prevent human health problems from occurring in the Colorado River Basin.

It is often difficult to assess the ecological, socio-economic and public health impacts of aquatic nuisance species in terms that are meaningful to decision makers and the general public. Action(s) to abate ANS impacts through control strategies is frequently impeded by circumstances, such as the absence of political support and the lack of resources needed to effectively develop and implement control strategies.

Objective: (II.1.a) Assess the ecological, socio-economic and public health impacts of aquatic nuisance species in the Colorado River Basin. Use this assessment as guidance to develop action levels that warrant implementation of control strategies.

Activity: (II.1.a.1) Identify and assess the damages of aquatic nuisance species that threaten the ecological health of the Colorado River Basin.

Activity: (II.1.a.2) Identify and assess the damages of aquatic nuisance species that threaten public safety and/or human health of the region's residents.

Activity: (II.1.a.3) Identify and assess economic costs for each aquatic nuisance species causing damage to water users.

Goal III: Provide regional coordination of information dissemination regarding aquatic nuisance species programs involving prevention, control, monitoring, research, education, policy and other related activities.

Problem: (III.1) Outreach products and activities regarding aquatic nuisance species are not adequately coordinated among/between agencies, institutions and organizations causing duplication of efforts, unnecessary expenditures of financial resources, and inconsistencies/confusion in the message being delivered.

Objective: (III.1.a) Provide coordinated, non-conflicting outreach programming to the public and private sector regarding ANS issues.

Activity: (III.1.a.1) Coordinate state management programs to ensure, where appropriate, that public access projects and interpretive displays include information about aquatic nuisance species.

Activity: (III.1.a.2) Design programs targeting public agencies needed in promoting management action to abate impacts; user groups needed for effective control of targeted species; and communities that need to learn how to live with aquatic nuisance species problems.

Activity: (III.1.a.3) Inventory and Evaluation of ANS outreach programming. Conduct an inventory to determine the status of existing outreach resources and to identify the gaps in outreach programming. Based on inventory findings, provide guidance (i.e., policy statements) to agencies, institutions and organizations that 1) support coordination of existing outreach resources and 2) assist in planning efforts regarding the development of future outreach programming.

Activity: (III.1.a.4) Training sessions for educators/information providers in formal and non-formal settings. Under the auspices of the CRFWC, and in partnership with key members, identify existing and prospective opportunities to work with educators/information providers in the classroom and non-formal settings. Such training sessions can be a vehicle for presenting I/E packets and available curricula materials to (and opening the lines of communication with) a targeted group of educators that will then carry the message to a much larger audience. Two options can be pursued, either singly or in combination: an agency sponsored event to which a group of educators from an array of relevant settings are invited, or a user-group sponsored event to which an agency member is invited to speak.

Activity: (III.1.a.5) Evaluate I/E materials and distribution methods for outreach programs targeted to Colorado River Basin user groups. Identify and pursue means to better utilize fact sheets as an effective tool for disseminating information. This will entail assembling and reviewing all existing fact sheets and related materials; identifying and filling gaps; assessing effectiveness of distribution mechanisms; and exploring and pursuing opportunities to combine disparate fact sheets into I/E kits for broad distribution. The latter is a promising option involving the development of a single kit which contains the materials from many different groups, thus providing the reader with numerous contacts for more detailed information.

Activity: (III.1.a.6) Newsletter inserts. A number of organizations currently produce newsletters that provide a valuable service in disseminating ANS information to user groups and the interested public. While a new, entirely separate newsletter from the CRFWC is not well-advised for that reason, there is a need to enhance the overall breadth and readership of existing newsletters. An effective vehicle for doing this is a one page (two-sided) newsletter insert produced by the CRFWC for inclusion in the many existing Colorado River Basin newsletters, both those that are ANS specific and others more general in nature. CRFWC members would determine an appropriate format and content and assist in preparation. A copy would be developed most likely on a quarterly basis, and be provided to newsletter editors for incorporation.

Activity: (III.1.a.7) Audio-Visual program on ANS problem. Produce slide show and/or video to raise awareness among Colorado River Basin residents on the ANS problem. It is recommended that the CRFWC play an active role in developing the message for this A-V program, to ensure that the information presented is balanced and consistent.

Activity: (III.1.a.8) Computer access to ANS information. Provide computer access to ANS information through a regional electronic information system.

This activity should be coordinated with the efforts of Minnesota Sea Grant Great Lakes Information Network to place zebra mussel outreach materials on the Internet system as well as the existing information clearinghouse functions, such as the Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Research Information Clearinghouse in New York.

Activity: (III.1.a.9) Program evaluation. Assess the effectiveness of various outreach methods and products in terms of facilitating regional coordination of information dissemination.

Problem: (III.2) A complete network does not exist for communication to facilitate information transfer between agencies, institutions, and organizations on ANS research needs and findings.

Objective: (III.2.a) Strengthen lines of communication (networks, publications, meetings/conferences, etc.) used by ANS researchers to facilitate information transfer regarding ANS research needs and findings. Establish interjurisdictional approaches to facilitate legislative, regulatory and other actions needed for the prevention of new ANS introductions into the Colorado River Basin and inland state waters.

Activity: (III.2.a.1) Evaluation of ANS research network. Identify existing lines of communication used by ANS researchers to determine how the network can be strengthened. This exercise will be done in collaboration with the International Joint Commission’s initiative to develop an ecosystem approach to research management.

Activity: (III.2.a.2) Establish and support coalitions among the Colorado River Basin states, including ANS officials from the state natural resource agencies, tribal groups, recreational boater and angler groups and other concerned resource users. Assist coalitions in promoting federal legislation and programmatic support for the prevention of new ANS introductions in the region.

Objective: (III.2.b) Develop/maintain monitoring programs in the Colorado River Basin region/states to provide for early detection and prevention of infestations of aquatic nuisance species into unaffected watersheds.

Activity: (III.2.b.1) Establish/participate in monitoring programs that emphasize partnerships between federal/state/local agencies; business/industry; academic institutions; and resource user groups. The feasibility of various technologies (e.g., Geographic Information Systems (GIS)) should be explored in designing such programs.

Activity: (III.2.b.2) Establish a state communication network of ANS officials from the state natural resource agencies to encourage information exchange among the states as they develop their own ANS management plans. Care should be taken to ensure that state efforts and this regional plan are complimentary, minimizing redundancy without leaving important gaps. Monitoring and control efforts are expected to be the most problematic and will likely need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The communication network is expected to greatly facilitate problem solving.

Objective: (III.2.c) Assess the regulatory and enforcement programs currently in place relevant to ANS.

Activity: (III.2.c.1) Establish and support an interjurisdictional process to ensure compatibility and consistency between Colorado River Basin states and between states and federal agencies. (Federal consistency, a tool implemented by coastal management programs to ensure that federal activities/projects are compatible with enforceable policies of the state, is recommended to facilitate interjurisdictional endeavors.)

Objective: (III.2.d) Promulgate, publicize and enforce state regulations to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the region.

Activity: (III.2.d.1) Establish an interagency task force (with representation from public and private sectors) to develop regulations for state legislative consideration. State management personnel should play a role in the process to ensure that proposed rules are consistent with and build upon extant authorities. CRFWC participation should emphasize consistent regulatory approaches among all states.

Activity: (III.2.d.2) Develop and implement an outreach program that informs relevant groups of the regulations, why they exist, and compliance procedures.

Activity: (III.2.d.3) Develop and implement enforcement programs.

Problem: (III.3) The roles and coordination of agencies, institutions, and organizations involved with aquatic nuisance prevention and control are not completely understood.

Objective: (III.3.a) Provide access to current information regarding ANS contacts and their roles from all state, provincial, tribal and federal governments and other organizations participating in aquatic nuisance prevention and control.

Activity: (III.3.a.1) Computer information exchange regarding ANS actors. Develop a database on ANS contacts and their role in addressing the ANS problem. Provide interested parties access to the database through a computer information system that will also allow questions to be addressed on line.

Problem: (III.4) The I/E network is not fully coordinated to effectively disseminate information on aquatic nuisance species activities between agencies, institutions and organizations.

Objective: (III.4.a) Strengthen existing lines and establish new lines of communication between agencies, institutions, organizations to facilitate coordinated information dissemination.

Activity: (III.4.a.1) Regional Information Clearinghouse Services. Through discussions with existing clearinghouses (including Sea Grant and state/provincial efforts), determine the current level of operation, types of services, funding base and unmet needs. On the basis of that investigation, the CRFWC can identify and act on its findings to ensure the availability of needed services over the long-term.

Goal IV: Increase the involvement of Colorado River Basin regional policy makers and user groups in the promotion of aquatic nuisance prevention and control programs.

Problem: (IV.1) Policy makers may not be fully aware of the financial and irreversible ecological and social damage caused by aquatic nuisance species. As a result, the aquatic nuisance species issue may not be a priority on the agenda of some policy makers.

Objective: (IV.1.a) Educate decision-makers on the economic and environmental impacts resulting from aquatic nuisance species infestation in the Colorado River Basin and the need for significant increased funding to mitigate these impacts.

Activity: (IV.1.a.1) Outreach strategy targeted to elected officials and policy makers. Develop and implement an outreach strategy that will frame ANS issues to address the agenda priorities of elected officials and policy makers pivotal in establishing the legislative mandates and funding necessary to develop and implement regional solutions to the ANS problems. An important step in developing this strategy is determining the type of economic, ecological and social information that would gain the support of policy makers in their decisions regarding ANS issues.

The message can be delivered through an array of mechanisms, such as succinct fact sheets and brochures; legislative briefings; expert testimony at hearings; congressional/parliamentary dialogues and the Annual Report on Aquatic Nuisance Species (refer to activities listed below). One promising model for developing an outreach strategy for elected officials and policy makers is Michigan’s Sea Grant legislative outreach strategy on the zebra mussel. The program, entitled Michigan Great Lakes Legislative Update, supplies state legislators (and their staff and research offices) with comprehensive information on the zebra mussel problem, related legislation and updates on research findings. In developing this strategy, it was found that legislators value information they can directly use in the decision-making process.

Activity: (IV.1.a.2) Informational brochure for state/provincial legislators and other elected officials. Design, print and distribute an informational brochure targeted to legislative leadership throughout the Colorado River Basin. The brochure, in a concise, lay person-oriented format employing photographs, charts and graphs, would introduce legislators to the magnitude and urgency of the issue, economic and environmental aspects, current legislative and program initiatives, and agencies and individuals to contact for more information. Most importantly, it could present a blueprint for action that might include legislative programs and budget needs.

Goal V: Provide additional resources to assist states with implementation of the CRFWC’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Plan.

Problem: (V.1) Funding has not been appropriated for implementation of the CRFWC Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Plan.

Objective: (V.1.a) Obtain approval of the draft plan by the CRFWC members and then submit it to the ANS Task Force for review. Once approved, pursue funding through the NANPCA.

Activity: (V.1.a.1) Submit revised plan for CRFWC approval at the January CRFWC meeting. If approved, ask state representatives to fill in the details of the implementation plan.

Objective: (V.1.b) Support efforts to facilitate Congressional appropriations of funds, authorized in the ANS act, to implement the I/E strategy.

Activity: (V.1.b.1) Inform ANS Task Force, Congress, and relevant federal agencies of funding needs. Through briefings, prepared materials and inquiry responses as appropriate, ensure that policy leaders are informed of plans, associated benefits, and funding requirements that might be addressed via the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act.

Problem: (V.2) Agency resources are not adequate to support the plan.

Objective: (V.2.a) Support efforts to ensure that state and federal agencies, with responsibility to minimize ANS impacts, allocate both financial resources and/or in-kind services to implement portions of the CRFWC ANS management plan.

Activity: (V.2.a.1) Collaborative arrangements for strategy implementation among relevant state and federal agencies. Under CRFWC leadership, identify for each strategy element prospective agency collaborators. In consultation with those collaborators, develop a scope of work for each activity that maximizes access to available financial resources and/or in-kind contributions.

Problem: (V.3) A comprehensive search for available funding from private sector sources has not been pursued to implement the CRFWC ANS management plan.

Objective: (V.3.a) Provide a mechanism to facilitate private funding to support implementation of the CRFWC ANS management plan.

Activity: (V.3.a.1) Private sector development program. Develop and implement a fund-raising strategy targeted to private business and organizations concerned with ANS issues for the support of public awareness programs.

IMPLEMENTATION

(Note: Implementation -- in terms of tasks, budgets and timelines -- is an important component of any state management plan. The following implementation schedule and timeline, excerpted from the Great Lakes Panel’s Information/Education Strategy, is presented for illustrative purposes only. Once a plan is further refined for the CRFWC an implementation schedule will need to be developed.) To facilitate effective implementation of the plan, state authorities are strongly encouraged to carefully assign the office(s) best suited to implement the plan. This process will entail the establishment of an infrastructure of agencies equipped to address the identified strategic actions and tasks of the plan.

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Goal II: Limiting the spread of established nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the Colorado River Basin.

 

Strategic Actions

Tasks

Lead Agency

Cooperating Organizations

Source of Funding

Budget

(State/Federal)

Status/Progress Report

Information/Education

Evaluate existing ANS outreach program

 

 

 

Western Regional Panel (WRP)

 

State Nat.Res. Agency, Sea Grant, State Coastal Mgmt. Prog., Tribal Authority, Academic Instit.

USFWS, U.S. Coast Guard

 

WRP (staff support) State Agencies (staff support)

 

State: $5,000

Federal: (to be determined)

 

Preliminary stages of development

Information/Education

Identify ANS dispersal groups and inform on management practices

 

State agencies

 

Sea Grant, Coastal Mgmt. Prog., GLP, Tribal Auth., U.S. Coast Guard, Lake Assoc.

 

Coastal Mgmt. Program (Access Project), Sea Grant Project Funding, watercraft surcharges

 

State: (to be determined)

Federal: (to be determined)

 

(to be determined)

Information/Education

Establish outreach activities in support of ballast management program

 

 

 

U.S. Coast Guard

 

Lake Carriers’ Assoc., USFWS, Sea Grant, state agencies

 

Shipping Assoc., U.S. Coast Guard, State Coastal Mgmt. Prog.

 

State: (to be determined)

Federal: (to be determined)

 

 

(to be determined)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Note: This Implementation Schedule is presented for illustrative purposes only.)

 

EXAMPLE TIMELINE

(quarterly timeline to cover a three year-period)

Goal II: Limiting the spread of established nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the Colorado River Basin.

 

Strategic Actions

Tasks

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Information/Education

Evaluate existing ANS outreach program

 

 

X------

 

-----X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information/Education

Identify ANS dispersal groups and inform of control practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X------

 

---------

 

---------

 

---------

 

-------X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information/Education

Establish voluntary ballast management program

 

 

 

 

X-------

 

---------

 

---- X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Note: This three-year timeline is presented for illustrative purposes only)

PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION

(Note: A monitoring/evaluation section should be included in each state management plan as a means to monitor progress, evaluate implementation problems/needs and make necessary "mid-course" corrections. Each state's management plan will be unique; the monitoring/evaluation methodology will vary from one state to the next. The following recommendations are presented as guidance to the states when developing their own evaluation plan.) Because the CRFWC plan focuses on I&E efforts and leaves ANS inventory, control and monitoring to the individual states it is expected that program monitoring and evaluation will likely be minimal.

GLOSSARY

(Note: The management plan should include a glossary presenting clear definitions of selected terms used in the plan. For illustrative purposes, a series of definitions follows, drawn from Section 1003 of NANPCA with the exception of that marked with (*). It is recommended to use terms defined in NANPCA when appropriate. Each state will want to add other terms/definitions, as needed.)

aquatic nuisance species: An aquatic nuisance species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquaculture or recreational activities dependent on such waters. (Note: For purposes of the state management plans, reference to an aquatic nuisance species will imply that the species is nonindigenous.)

ballast water: Any water and associated sediments used to manipulate the trim and stability of a vessel.

environmentally sound: Methods, efforts, actions or programs to prevent introductions or control infestations of aquatic nuisance species that minimize adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem and adverse effects on nontarget organisms and ecosystems and emphasize integrated pest management techniques and nonchemical measures.

federal consistency (*): A requirement under the Coastal Zone Management Act that stipulates that federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a coastal state's federally approved coastal management program (CMP). A coastal state reviews the federal action to determine if the proposed action will be consistent with the CMP.

Great Lakes: Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian Border), and includes all other bodies of water within the drainage Basin of such lakes and connecting channels.

nonindigenous species: Any species or other viable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organism transferred from one country to another.

waters of the United States: The navigable waters and the territorial sea of the United States.

unintentional introduction: An introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species that occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of nonindigenous species in ballast or in water used to transport fish, mollusks or crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes.

RECOMMENDED APPENDICES

(Note: The following information is recommended to be included as appendices to the management plan. Each state may identify additional materials.)

 

LITERATURE CITED

(Note: It is recommended that each management plan include a section for citation of literature. The following list is provided for illustrative purposes based on the literature used in this document.)

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (D. James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Mollie Beattie, Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Report to Congress: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review.

Carlton, J.T. 1985. Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanography and Marine Biology, An Annual Review: volume 23.

Hushak, L.J., Y. Deng, M. Bielen. 1995. The Cost of Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control. ANS Digest: volume 1, number 1.

Leigh, P. 1994. Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan.

Ohio Sea Grant College Program. 1995. Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Report: An Update of Research and Outreach: 1988-1994. The Ohio State University.

Ruiz, G.M., A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton. 1995. An Historical Perspective on Invasion of North American Waters by Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. ANS Digest: volume 1, number 1.

U.S. Congress, Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-646.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Nonindigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F565.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1991. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plant for Management and Control. Authored by R.D. Hiebert and James Stubbendieck. (Copies of this report (Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08) are available from: Publications Coordinator, National Park Service, Natural Resources Publications Office, P.O. Box 2587 (WASO-NRPO), Denver, CO 80225-0287).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 1995. Report to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.