EPA-9O3-R-96-004
CBP/TRS 146/96
Introduction of
Non-Indigenous
Aquatic Species
Implementation Plan
August 1996
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership leading
and directing restoration of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake
Bay Program partners include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which represents the federal government; and participating citizen
advisory groups.
In the 7957 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay Program
partners set a goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In the 7992 Amendments to
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, partners agreed to maintain the 40%
goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source—
upstream in the tributaries. The Chesapeake Executive Council, made up
of the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the mayor of
Washington, D.C.; the EPA administrator; and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, guided the restoration effort in 1993 with
five directives addressing key areas of the restoration, including the
tributaries, toxics, underwater bay grasses, fish passages, and agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. In 1994, partners outlined initiatives for
habitat restoration of aquatic, riparian, and upland environments; nutrient
reduction in the Bay's tributaries; and toxics reductions, with an emphasis
on pollution prevention.
Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has
been the restoration of the Bay's living resources-its finfish, shellfish, bay
grasses, and other aquatic life and wildlife. Improvements include
fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient
reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science.
-------
Introduction of
Non-Indigenous Aquatic
Species
Implementation Plan
Prepared by
Exotic Species Workgroup
Living Resources Subcommittee
Chesapeake Bay Program
U.S. SEA Re^on III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103 ^£&$
August 1996
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
EXOTIC SPECIES WORKGROUP
Chairs: Daniel Terlizzi, Maryland Sea Grant
John Christmas, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)
Eric May, MD DNR
Members:
Tom Beauduy, Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC)
Carin Bisland, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Chesapeake Bay Program
Office (CBPO),
Claire Buchanan, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)
Robert Byrne, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
Vickie Clarke, Virginia Sea Grant
Frances Cresswell, MD DNR
Lee Crockett, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Chesapeake Bay Office (CBO)
David Dowling, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)
Leo Dunn, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (DO A)
Rick Eades, VDGIF
Richard Everett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Mary Jo Garreis, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
Bill Hall, Delaware Sea Grant
Frederick Kern, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Ron Klauda, MD DNR
John Lipman, CBC
Roy Miller, Delaware Division of Fish and Game
Eugene Olmi, Virginia Sea Grant
Ira Palmer, District of Columbia Environmental Regulatory Administration
Harriette Phelps, University of the District of Columbia
Greg Ruiz, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC)
Jon Siemien, District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
(DC DCRA)
Andy Shiels, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PA FBC)
Gary Smythe, Acres International, New York
Jeff Tinsman, Delaware Fish and Wildlife Service (DE FWS)
Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
Document coordinator: Frances Cresswell, MD DNR
Workgroup i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Definitions 1
Public and private aquaculture stocking 3
Research 3
Monitoring 3
Controls 4
Education 4
Public and Private Aquaculture and Stocking Programs 6
Implementation Tasks 6
Research 8
Implementation Tasks 8
Monitoring 10
Implementation Tasks 10
Controls 13
Implementation Tasks 14
Education and Information 15
Implementation Tasks 16
References 19
Implementation Matrix 20
Public and private aquaculture and stocking 20
Research 21
Monitoring 22
Controls 23
Education 24
Appendix A: Summary of existing regulations 26
Federal policy 26
Regional policy 26
Policies of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Jurisdictions 27
Appendix B: Overviews of existing protocols for intentional introductions 33
Intentional introductions 33
Unintentional introductions 35
Table of Contents ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species adopted by
the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in December 1993 (hereafter the Policy) is intended to
minimize the economic and/or ecological risks associated with first time introductions of non-
indigenous aquatic species to waters of the Chesapeake Bay region. This implementation plan is
intended to reflect the language and the intent of the Policy statement:
// shall be the policy of the Jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay basin to oppose the first-
time introduction of any non-indigenous aquatic species into the unconfined waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for any reason unless environmental and economic
evaluations are conducted and reviewed in order to ensure that risks associated with the
first-time introduction are acceptably low. The signatories to the Adoption Statement are
committed to sharing information and to carefully assessing through a joint review
process all proposed first-time introductions of non-indigenous aquatic species in the
Chesapeake Bay basin. The signatories to the Adoption Statement are also committed to
working together to prevent unintentional introductions of non-indigenous aquatic
species and to minimize the negative effects ofundesired aquatic species within the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
Recommendations which are developed through the Policy and this Implementation Plan are
advisory, not compulsory, for the watershed jurisdictions. The Policy and its implementation plan
are focused on ensuring that all Bay jurisdictions are provided with the best information upon
which to base their decisions about introductions, and that all Bay jurisdictions are informed about
the decisions of the others with respect to non-indigenous aquatic species.
Definitions
1. Introductions: Entry of a non-indigenous non-naturalized species (as defined in
the Policy) into a geographic area beyond its historic range or its present
naturalized range, as a result of human-mediated.activities. This does not include
natural migrations or range extensions of a species, or similar events.
2. Intentional Introduction: Deliberate release of non-indigenous aquatic species
(as defined in the Policy) into the unconfined waters of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
3. Unintentional Introduction: Accidental release of non-indigenous aquatic species
into the unconfined waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
4. Non-indigenous Species: For the purpose of this document, any aquatic species,
as defined in the Policy, that enters or could potentially enter a watershed, as
Introduction 1
-------
defined in the Policy, beyond that species' historic range. Hatchery-produced
hybrids and genetically engineered organisms are also defined as non-indigenous
species, even if the parent species or source organisms are indigenous or
naturalized.
5. Aquatic Nuisance Species: This Implementation Plan uses the definition
developed by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which is: "A non-
indigenous species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or
the ecological stability of infested waters or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural,
or recreational activities dependent on such waters. Aquatic nuisance species
include non-indigenous species that occur in inland, estuarine and marine waters
and that presently or potentially threaten ecological processes and natural
resources."
The Policy focuses primarily on the development of regional guidelines for evaluating the benefits
and risks associated with aquaculture, recreational fishing, stock enhancements, biological
control, and research activities associated with intentional introductions. In addition, the Policy
seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of unintentional introductions into the Chesapeake Bay
region through development of a combined program of education, monitoring, ballast water
management, and control/eradication measures
The Policy strives to create a consistent review process which ensures the input of the most recent
scientific information and enhances the flow of information between Chesapeake Bay basin
jurisdictions in matters involving non-indigenous aquatic species. The effectiveness of such a
review process was illustrated by the response of the Exotic Species Workgroup to the proposed
introduction of grass carp by Virginia Power into Lake Anna, Virginia (Exotic Species
Workgroup 1994). An ad hoc panel was formed and met on April 29, 1994 to review the
proposal. The panel then submitted a formal recommendation to all parties involved. The
subsequent stocking of grass carp in Lake Anna was done in accordance with the panel's
recommendations. Input on the recommendations was provided by specialists from Pennsylvania,
Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Texas, Georgia, and Illinois.
The Policy calls for creation of an Implementation Plan that defines protocols and a schedule for
achieving the goals set forth in the Policy. The plan addresses five issue areas: aquaculture
(private and public aquaculture and stocking), research, monitoring, education, and control.
Ballast water, a pathway of introduction identified in the Policy, is being addressed further by the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, working with the Chesapeake Bay Program, stakeholders
throughout the Bay region, the Coast Guard, the Navy, the U.S. Congress, federal agencies and
researchers. They have produced a report summarizing their findings and stating their
recommendations for reducing the risk of biological invasion via ballast water release in
Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Commission 1995). To avoid repetition, ballast water
management will not be discussed in this document.
Introduction 2
-------
The Implementation Plan particularly focuses on the following aspects of unintentional
introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species: (1) identification of introduction pathways; (2)
risk assessment for the respective pathways; (3) development of appropriate protocols to
minimize the risks associated with the unintentional introduction; and (4) education as a means of
preventing unintentional introduction. In addition, this document addresses the need for a regional
information base on non-indigenous aquatic species.
Public and Private Aquaculture and Stocking
Private aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay basin is highly diverse, employing various methods to
culture a variety of finfish, shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic plants. The history of private
aquaculture relating to food production and stocking in the Chesapeake Bay region dates back to
the 17th century, but expansion to the commercial scale is a recent development in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
Public aquaculture facilities and stocking programs associated with such facilities (inside and
outside of the basin) provide support for sport and commercial fishery interests of the Bay region.
Under special situations public and private aquaria provide a refuge for endangered species, where
propagation techniques can be tested. The goal of such programs is preservation and eventual
reintroduction of the species into its native habitat or other suitable natural habitat.
Research
The jurisdictions of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia recognize the value of research involving non-indigenous aquatic
species in the Chesapeake Bay basin and strive to develop guidelines to minimize the potential
ecological and economic risks posed by research-related intentional and unintentional
introductions to the region.
Although the rate of introductions of non-indigenous aquatic species through the research
pathway is less than other pathways, as acknowledged in the Policy (CBP 1993, Appendix B, p.
24), precautions should be taken to reduce risks associated with use of non-indigenous aquatic
species in any endeavor. Researchers should consistently employ reasonable precautions when
working with non-indigenous aquatic species using guidelines already available as examples of
appropriate precautions (Implementation Plan, Appendix B).
Monitoring
Extensive monitoring has been underway in the Chesapeake Bay Basin for many years, although
only in recent years have such efforts been expanded to include non-indigenous aquatic species. In
Introduction 3
-------
1989, the Monitoring Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program published the results of an
extensive survey of current monitoring programs in the six-state Chesapeake Bay basin. This
(Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Program Atlas (CBP 1989) details state, federal, municipal,
and citizen monitoring efforts, including 79 biological and 112 water and air quality monitoring
programs.
In determining methods to monitor aquatic nuisance species, the establishment of multi-
jurisdictional ad hoc committees to develop monitoring protocols has been extremely effective, as
shown by the success of the zebra mussel monitoring program. The Susquehanna River Basin
Task Group," an ad hoc group created in 1991 by the Exotic Species Workgroup, developed a
method for monitoring zebra mussels based upon available information, monitoring constraints,
and concerns of participants (Exotic Species Workgroup 1993). Considerable research into the
monitoring of zebra mussels and other non-indigenous aquatic species has been funded by both
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) under the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
of 1990. Information relating to monitoring methods is available from the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force and other groups.
The use of consistent monitoring protocols throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin is
recommended and encouraged. Monitoring programs already established may need to be modified
to include aquatic nuisance species.
Controls
Historically, the control of aquatic nuisance species has not been discussed or undertaken until a
non-indigenous aquatic organism was discovered in a new geographic area and environmental
alterations became apparent. Although professionals in water quality and other resource-related
fields are now better informed and attempting to fill in this gap, education of the general public is
not at the level necessary to effectively aid in the implementation of controls.
With respect to the control of pathogens, implementation falls under the jurisdiction of state and
federal human health, animal health and agricultural agencies. Efforts to establish a regional policy
regarding pathogens associated with aquatic species and their transfers are on-going, outside the
Chesapeake Bay Program. For example, there is a fish health policy in development funded
through the Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, United States Department of Agriculture.
Currently, jurisdictional policies apply.
Education
Education represents a method of control through prevention strategies directed at aquaculture,
fisheries management, the aquarium trade and research. Education contributes to the uniformity of
Introduction 4
-------
monitoring methods and the selection of safe and appropriate controls. The value of education in
preventing the unintentional introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species is underscored by the
emphasis placed on education in the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Report (1994) to
Congress: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy
Review. This report recommends that federal agencies support education and extension programs
that increase awareness of non-indigenous aquatic species including risks, enforcement and
appropriate uses. In addition, it is recommended that federal and other agencies support the
development of national clearinghouses for educational materials to support outreach programs.
Introduction 5
-------
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AQUACULTURE, AND STOCKING PROGRAMS
The interests of the developing aquaculture industry, existing programs for stock enhancement
and the need to protect natural resources can be addressed by developing programs to identify
current aquaculture and stocking practices in the basin. Guidelines are needed to minimize the
potential risks. Such an approach will entail identifying species used in public and private
aquaculture, identifying and evaluating culture systems, and identifying the potential risks
associated with stocking processes.
Implementation Tasks
I. Identify all those aquatic species currently approved for public and private
aquaculture or stocking and the conditions under which each may be cultured or
stocked at the present time in each jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay basin.
a. Every regional agriculture and fishery agency will be asked to contribute a list of
those aquatic species currently approved for public and private aquaculture and
used in stocking programs for their jurisdictions. As stated in the Policy, these
species will be considered as approved for that jurisdiction (CBP 1993, p.4). Each
jurisdiction will also provide a list of any aquatic species whose importation is
prohibited in that jurisdiction.
b. The Exotic Species Workgroup will compile the individual lists and provide a
complete multi-jurisdictional compilation of lists to each of the Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions.
II. Identify and provide to all Bay jurisdictions a list of routes of entry into the
Chesapeake Bay Basin of aquatic species used in aquaculture and stocking.
a. The agricultural and fisheries agencies of each jurisdiction will be asked to provide
a list to the Exotic Species Workgroup. Each list will identify the routes of entry
for aquatic species used in aquaculture and stocking into and between the tributary
watersheds of that jurisdiction, as identified in the Policy.
b. The Exotic Species Workgroup will provide a multi-jurisdictional compilation of
the individual jurisdictional lists to all Bay jurisdictions.
Ill A multi-jurisdictional group will evaluate the risks associated with each defined
route of entry and establish suggested guidelines or protocols to minimize the risks.
Aquaculture and Stocking Programs 6
-------
a. The Exotics Species Workgroup will select and work cooperatively with a group
of specialists (agricultural, fishery and one risk assessor) from the public and
private sectors and Policy signatory agencies.
b. The Exotics Species Workgroup and the group of specialists will assess activities
(e.g. those from the bait-fish industry, stock enhancement programs, and the
aquarium and pet trade) with regard to associated risks and assign them with
appropriate documentation or verification through historical and scientific
evidence.
The multi-jurisdictional group will consider approaches to minimize risk levels for
each activity. As an end-product of that consideration, the group should define sets
of protocols to minimize risk that will be applied such that the potential for
introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species will be minimized. The group will
consider:
i. The defined risk.
ii. The significance of the activity to the region's interests
(economic and resource).
iii. Procedures to reduce risk that are most effective and
economical.
iv. Cost to both the jurisdiction and private sector for applying
protocols.
v. Uniformity of application. It is recognized that different
technologies to fulfill intent may be preferred under different
conditions, and that new technologies may be developed.
c. A document, stating the risk of unintentional introduction of non-indigenous
aquatic species for each activity and the suggested protocols for minimizing risk of
introduction, will be produced by the Exotics Species Workgroup. After review
and approval by the Living Resources Subcommittee, the document will be
distributed to the various signatory jurisdictions.
Aquaculture and Stocking Programs 7
-------
RESEARCH
Development and adoption of specific research protocols should be consistent with, but not
identical to, the process outlined for Public and Private Aquaculture and Stocking (see p. 6). The
various uses of non-indigenous aquatic species for research should be identified, risks associated
with those uses assessed and specific protocols developed and implemented.
Guidelines for handling non-indigenous aquatic species in research already exist to control both
intentional and unintentional introductions. These have been developed by regional, national and
international" groups. As called for in the Policy, such guidelines were evaluated in the
development of this Implementation Plan. Two particular guidelines, which are summarized in
Appendix B, were evaluated for their applicability to other non-indigenous aquatic species and to
in situ situations: the guidelines of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES), for minimizing disease and parasites associated with first-time introductions; and the
Protocols for Conducting Research on Nonindigenous Mussels of the Genus Dreissena in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin (Exotic Species Workgroup 1993).
The generation of a set of research protocols, which will be standard for all non-indigenous
aquatic species research, needing only minimal additions for each species, is addressed by the
following implementation tasks.
Implementation Tasks
I. Identify and classify the kinds of research that could result in the movement of
new non-indigenous aquatic species into, within or through the Chesapeake Bay basin.
a. Components of the Chesapeake Bay scientific community, e.g., Smithsonian
Estuarine Research Center, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, Academy of Sciences, universities and the STAC, will be
asked to provide the Exotic Species Workgroup a list of on-going and planned
research activities, as well as a summary of completed research projects.
b. The Exotic Species Workgroup will provide a compilation of the individual lists to
the jurisdictions.
c. New types of research will be added to this list as they are developed.
II Evaluate the risks of introduction of a non-indigenous aquatic species from each
research activity.
Research 8
-------
a. An ad hoc panel will be formed to evaluate the risks associated with each kind of
research. The panel will consist of a group of scientists representing each
signatory, as well as one risk assessor.
b. The aforementioned risk assessment information, generated and documented by
the ad hoc panel, will be made available by the Exotic Species Workgroup for the
development of protocols, as described in the following section. Such information
will be made available to all interested parties, including universities, public and
private research facilities, management agencies in each jurisdiction, STAC, and
the public.
III. Develop protocols for minimizing identified risks for each research activity, following
federal guidelines for biocontainment facilities.
a. A group of scientists, including participants of the workgroup discussed above,
and managers from resource agencies, invited from every Bay jurisdiction, will
identify methods of reducing risks associated with research activities.
b. These methods of reducing risks associated with research activities will be
summarized by the Exotic Species Workgroup and made available to all interested
parties, including universities, public and private research facilities, management
agencies in each jurisdiction, STAC, and the public.
Research 9
-------
MONITORING
Any program dealing with non-indigenous aquatic species invasions will require a monitoring
element. Existing monitoring programs in the Chesapeake Bay drainage should be reviewed for
their effectiveness in detecting non-indigenous aquatic species, and in tracking populations and
distributions of aquatic nuisance species.
In inter-jurisdictional waters such as the Chesapeake Bay basin, it is important that compatible
protocols be used by the jurisdictions to monitor non-indigenous aquatic species in order to
ensure comparability of results. When consistent protocols are developed by consensus ~ as with
zebra mussel monitoring protocols in the Susquehanna River basin - the probability of regional
cooperation is increased.
Inter-jurisdictional communication is also essential in developing effective monitoring programs
for non-indigenous aquatic species in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Currently the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) serves as the clearinghouse for zebra mussel
monitoring in the Susquehanna River basin. Establishing a regional clearinghouse for other
aquatic nuisance species will serve to encourage information exchange, thus maximizing
monitoring efforts.
Implementation Tasks
I. Review existing Chesapeake Bay basin monitoring programs to determine whether
changes should be recommended that address non-indigenous aquatic species. Although
these programs focus on indigenous aquatic species, they may provide early detection
information on non-indigenous aquatic species as well.
a. In coordination with the Monitoring Subcommittee, as necessary, the Exotic
Species Workgroup will update the monitoring information in the 1989
Chesapeake Bay Program publication, Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring
Program Atlas.
b. The Exotic Species Workgroup will distribute copies of such an update to
interested parties.
c. A list of experts within the region who are available for both the verification and
identification of specimens thought to be non-indigenous aquatic species will be
developed by the Exotic Species Workgroup. This list will be supplied to the
regional non-indigenous aquatic species coordinator and, when feasible, maintained
on the World Wide Web, accessed via the Chesapeake Bay Program's homepage.
Until such time as this position is filled, the list would be supplied to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, whose staff will refer any inquiries to the
Monitoring 10
-------
appropriate expert. A toll-free number for the Chesapeake Bay Program will
include provisions for such inquiries.
d. When a non-indigenous aquatic species is identified from a sample taken from a
location thought to be outside the range .or accepted culture system of that non-
indigenous aquatic species, the information will be sent to the Exotics Species
Workgroup. The Workgroup will evaluate these findings and forward such
information to each jurisdiction, as necessary. They may decide to distribute that
information to the director of each potentially affected agency in each jurisdiction.
A literature search may be initiated on the species and its effects on ecosystems.
Information thus gained may lead to its designation as an aquatic nuisance species.
II. Develop and implement a program to allow for the creation of clearinghouses for
monitoring information relating to non-indigenous aquatic species. This program will
alert all jurisdictions to a change in distribution of non-indigenous aquatic species in a
timely manner. Relevant information will be circulated to all jurisdictions.
a. A full-time regional non-indigenous aquatic species coordinator is desirable to
facilitate the implementation of monitoring tasks, education and other components
of this implementation plan. Should the position of a full-time coordinator be
established, the role of the individual species-specific clearinghouses would be
transferred to that person, with each Policy signatory designating a representative
to serve as a liaison.
The responsibilities of such a full-time regional non-indigenous aquatic species
coordinator would include the following: (1) coordinating any existing non-
indigenous aquatic species clearinghouse within the region; (2) preparing and
distributing annual reports on monitoring efforts for aquatic nuisance species; (3)
providing for the verification of specimen identification as needed or identification
of unidentified specimens collected within the region; and (4) maintaining a list of
experts within the region who are available for both the verification and
identification of specimens.
b. Designation of a non-indigenous aquatic species as an aquatic nuisance species
requires consensus of the Bay jurisdictions.
c. When a non-indigenous aquatic species is identified as an aquatic nuisance species,
the regional non-indigenous aquatic species coordinator will be responsible for
disseminating monitoring information on that species within the Chesapeake Bay
basin. Until such time as this position is filled, a lead agency will be chosen from
the Exotic Species Workgroup and designated as the clearinghouse coordinator for
that particular aquatic nuisance species. The clearinghouse coordinator will be
Monitoring 11
-------
responsible for disseminating pertinent monitoring information on that species
within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
d. All jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay basin will submit monitoring
information relating to an aquatic nuisance species to the regional non-indigenous
aquatic species coordinator, or the appropriate clearinghouse in a standard format
to be determined by the Exotic Species Workgroup. Data will also be submitted by
each jurisdiction to the Exotic Species Data Base of the National Biological
Service in Gainesville, Florida.
e. Brief annual reports of monitoring activities and findings relating to an aquatic
nuisance species will be prepared and distributed by the regional non-indigenous
aquatic species coordinator or the clearinghouse agency to cooperating agencies
and interested parties.
III. Develop and implement, as necessary, programs that encourage the use of
consistent monitoring protocols throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin for aquatic
nuisance species, consistent with the actions specified in the Policy. Existing monitoring
programs should be evaluated to determine adequacy for compatibility,
comprehensiveness, and consistency. Jurisdictions are requested to report findings from
on-going monitoring programs and research related to the aquatic nuisance species to
the Exotic Species Workgroup annually.
a. After a non-indigenous aquatic species has been designated as an aquatic nuisance
species, each Policy signatory will designate a current member of the Exotic
Species Workgroup to an ad hoc committee, which will be chaired by the
clearinghouse coordinator, to determine appropriate regional monitoring methods
for that species.
b. Develop monitoring protocols for the aquatic nuisance species:
I. Define vulnerable areas and environmental tolerances of the aquatic
nuisance species.
ii. Request input from all recognized monitoring groups.
iii. Evaluate compatibility of existing monitoring programs for
monitoring of the aquatic nuisance species.
iv. Determine appropriate regional monitoring protocols for aquatic
nuisance species.
A brief comment period will be provided for those groups or individuals unable to attend
protocol development meetings.
Monitoring 12
-------
CONTROLS
Control strategies can be divided into two categories, preventative measures and treatment
controls. Preventative measures provide a proactive approach to controlling non-indigenous
aquatic species introductions, including strategies such as deep ocean ballast water exchange,
education, legislation and permitting processes. Treatment controls are typically reactive in nature
including strategies such as chemical, thermal, and biological controls, ultraviolet radiation, and
oxygen deprivation.
In many cases there may not be a specific target organism for which a preventative measure is
implemented. A preventative measure will generally preclude the entry of most, if not all, non-
indigenous aquatic species where it is applied. The implementation of preventative measures
should have little if any effect on the existing environmental conditions in the area intended to be
protected. The use of effective preventative measures should eliminate, or at least delay, the need
for specific treatment controls. The potentially high economic and ecological costs associated
with some introductions of non-indigenous aquatic species suggest placing prevention as a high
priority. Although prevention may only delay an inevitable introduction, these activities are
warranted. During the interim, advances in treatment control technology may better equip
industry and the public to combat detrimental impacts. To achieve success, prevention programs
must be environmentally acceptable, comprehensive and practical. They must also account for
occupational safety, include short and long-term goals, and provide an acceptable cost/benefit
ratio. Implementation of preventative programs requires support and cooperation from federal
and multi-jurisdictional state, private, and public organizations.
Treatment controls to eradicate or limit specific populations of non-indigenous aquatic species
typically take advantage of various life stages based on vulnerability. For example, younger life
stages such as larvae may be less tolerant to chemical or thermal treatments, therefore requiring
lower dosages to eliminate large numbers, or fish that congregate on spawning shoals concentrate
the population in an area for effective treatment. Knowledge of environmental tolerances and life
history characteristics of the targeted species is critical for effective treatment controls, indicating
the need for research on species expected to pose a threat to Chesapeake Bay waters. Utilizing
this type of species-specific information, treatment is intended to impact only the targeted species;
however, this is seldom the case. Often other species are impacted directly by the treatment or
indirectly by subsequent alterations in environmental conditions.
Whatever the control options chosen, when a species becomes an aquatic nuisance species,
findings of the monitoring groups should be reported annually to the Exotics Species Workgroup
to guide revision and improvement of control strategies.
Controls 13
-------
Implementation Tasks
When the Exotic Species Workgroup agrees that there is an imminent threat of an aquatic
nuisance species entering the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the following shall be done:
I The Exotic Species Workgroup will form a small ad hoc committee, which will
consist of representatives from each signatory, at-risk facilities, jurisdictional
regulatory agencies, and resource management agencies.
II * The ad hoc committee will identify and summarize sensitive components of
facilities and ecosystems at risk.
III. The ad hoc committee will evaluate and/or develop environmentally sound
preventative and treatment control strategies as needed. This will be done in
consultation with regulatory agencies and water users in each jurisdiction, ensuring
that any recommended control strategies are in accordance with jurisdictional and
federal water quality standards. As needed, information will be supplied to
regulatory agencies.
IV. The ad hoc committee will prepare a report that summarizes its findings and
recommendations. The report will be submitted to the Living Resources
Subcommittee for review
Controls 14
-------
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
The importance of public awareness of non-indigenous aquatic species to protection of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem should not be underestimated. In today's world market community,
the probability of introducing species is increased. Introductions may occur either intentionally or
unintentionally. Intentional introductions occur when there is a planned and approved stocking of
a species, such as hybrid striped bass. Unintentional introductions occur through accidental
actions such as naively releasing non-native aquarium plants and animals into natural waters or
discharging ballast water containing non-indigenous species into the Bay.
Currently, education of the public about existing and possible future problems associated with
non-indigenous aquatic species and the challenges society may face in controlling them is
inadequate. Although the importance of educating the entire public, young and old, is recognized,
special emphasis is being given to the leaders of today (politicians and other government officials)
and the education of students, as the leaders of tomorrow.
Numerous public awareness materials have been developed by both public and private sources.
Sea Grant programs, through the Mid-Atlantic Sea Grant Network, have produced fact sheets,
brochures, ID cards and guides for zebra mussel outreach efforts. In addition, Virginia Sea Grant
has published a curriculum on the zebra mussel. Similarly, Louisiana Sea Grant currently publishes
a curriculum and accompanying video on non-indigenous aquatic species intended for the middle
school level, grades 6-8. Examples of successes in the development of non-indigenous aquatic
species educational materials already exist and were the result of prioritization and funding by Sea
Grant (zebra mussel) and National Science Foundation (nutria, water hyacinths).
Many informal and formal education outlets exist, including public nature centers, nature
organizations/societies, teacher-oriented agencies such as departments of education, teacher
centers, science teacher associations, and offices of information and education run by state
agencies. These outlets should be used as a means of reaching larger numbers of individuals.
As public awareness increases, opportunities must be put in place to allow the public to help
identify and resolve any exotic species issues. Initially, one of the most important roles of the
public is with citizen long-term monitoring for exotic species that currently, or in the future,
threaten the Bay's resources. Additionally, active public participation in groups with the technical
expertise to respond to the introductions of non-indigenous aquatic species will be invaluable.
The citizens of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, when properly educated and organized, can
become part of the solution to many of the Bay's problems. Education and information efforts by
the Exotic Species Workgroup will be coordinated with the Communications Subcommittee.
Education 15
-------
Implementation Tasks
I Compile, develop, and coordinate the dissemination of educational materials on
non-indigenous aquatic species. The following tasks will be completed by the Exotic
Species Workgroup:
a. Develop a prioritized list of non-indigenous aquatic species for education
purposes. Priorities should be based on such factors as the potential magnitude of
ecological, economical, or environmental health impacts, likelihood of successful
infestations of the Chesapeake Bay drainage and the "expected time of arrival".
The Exotic Species Workgroup will work with agencies involved in environmental
monitoring to develop a list of non-indigenous aquatic species that could become a
problem in the Chesapeake Bay basin. This list will be used for the development of
educational materials.
b. Develop a list of existing educational materials, including concerns and benefits.
c. Seek funding to prepare brochures and various other materials for informal and
formal educational use.
d. Develop fact sheets on each aquatic nuisance species detailing natural history and
possible or known habitat effects. In addition, prepare fact sheets for important
routes of entry, including aquaculture and the aquarium industry. Update existing
fact sheets when new information becomes available.
e. Initiate printed materials such as posters, curricular guides, and wallet cards, to
increase public awareness.
f. Produce a video that describes aquatic nuisance species and their habitat impacts.
Distribute the video to public, private and governmental organizations, including
the news media.
II Educational materials will be made available for use by signatories and other
interested groups, with coordination provided by the Exotic Species Workgroup.
a. Develop a library of slides on non-indigenous aquatic species, their natural history,
and habitat impacts. Eventually these materials will be made available in a CD
ROM format
b. Provide seminars on non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species for managers and
other interested parties. The Exotic Species Workgroup should ensure that
presentations are developed and speakers are available to fulfill such requests.
Education 16
-------
c. Assign persons within the Exotic Species Workgroup to serve as contacts for
educational efforts for each of the signatories.
III. Utilize public forums, whenever, possible to educate residents and water users.
a. A regional display on aquatic nuisance species should be developed for use at
public facilities or activities. The display needs to be housed centrally and a
schedule kept for use/distribution or multiple displays made available.
b. Workshops should be developed that focus on identifying resource issues and
monitoring techniques. These need to be available for agency personnel, nature
center staff, and private citizens.
c. Citizen monitoring programs for aquatic nuisance species should be initiated and
linked to existing programs such as the Citizens' Water Quality Monitoring
Program, in collaboration with the Monitoring Taskgroup of the Exotic Species
Workgroup.
IV. Coordinate programs to provide relevant information about non-indigenous aquatic
species and their potential effects on native flora and fauna.
a. Seek funding to initiate a region-wide symposium on non-indigenous aquatic
species for agency managers, wildlife and fishery professionals, and researchers to
discuss possible or known effects.
b. For individual aquatic nuisance species, it is important to identify stakeholder
groups and agencies most likely to be affected by a successful species invasion of
the Chesapeake Bay drainage. Identification of pertinent user groups and agencies
will help focus education and public awareness efforts. An integrated approach to
aquatic nuisance species management is more likely if a number of concerned
parties can be encouraged to interact from the onset. Specialized workshops and
training may be especially valuable to educate key personnel with respect to
particular species' invasions.
V. Seek necessary support to develop a regional on-line computer library of materials
concerned with non-indigenous aquatic species and a library of materials in each
jurisdiction for hard copy access. The following efforts by the Exotic Species
Workgroup will be coordinated with the Chesapeake Bay Program's Communications
Subcommittee.
a. The Workgroup, working with Communications Subcommittee through the
Chesapeake Bay Homepage Team, will develop technical and nontechnical public
information on current and potential non-indigenous aquatic species. The materials
Education 17
-------
should be evaluated and updated periodically by the Workgroup. Information
should include professional, lay, and curricular materials.
b. Develop a CD ROM program that contains all the known materials on non-
indigenous aquatic species and distribute to public libraries, natural resource
agencies in each jurisdiction, nature centers, and schools.
c. Develop in service training and curricular materials on non-indigenous aquatic
species for teachers.
d. Jurisdictional agencies, working with Sea Grant, University systems and interested
parties, should develop and foster public programs for formal education K-12.
VI. Develop collaborative forums to present a diversity of viewpoints when there is
disagreement over a non-indigenous aquatic species.
Education 18
-------
REFERENCES
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 1994. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review. Report to Congress. March 1994.
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 1995. The Introduction of Nonindigenous Species to the
Chesapeake Bay via Ballast Water: Strategies to reduce the risks of future
introductions through ballast water management. Chesapeake Bay Commission Report.
Januarys, 1995.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 1989. Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Program Atlas.
Vol. II. Biological and Living Resource Monitoring Programs. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. CBP/TRS 35/89.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 1993. Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-
Indigenous Aquatic Species. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. CBP/TRS 112/94.
Exotic Species Workgroup, Research Task Group. 1993. Protocols for Conducting Research
on Nonindigenous Mussel of the Genus Dreissena in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.
Exotic Species Workgroup. 1994. Report of the grass carp ad hoc panel to the
Chesapeake Bay Program and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Living Resource
Subcommittee. Annapolis, MD.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. 1990. Code of Practice To Reduce the Risks
of Adverse Effects Arising from Introductions and Transfers of Marine Species. ICES
Document C.M. 1990/F:37 (A Report of the Working Group on Introductions and
Transfers of Marine Organisms), and ICES Annual Report for the 78th Statutory
Meeting, 1990 (Copenhagen): Council Resolution 1990/4:6
Office of Technology and Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United
States. Produced for the 103rd Congress.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1992. Summary of zebra
mussel sampling protocol for Susquehanna River basin. Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Public Law. 1990. Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646).
References 19
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MATRIX
Protection of our natural ecosystem from uncontrolled introductions and proliferation of non-indigenous aquatic species is a many-sided
problem. Because of funding and staffing restraints, implementation of the recommendations outlined in the previous sections will take
place in two phases. The recommendations which need to be implemented immediately to maintain our present ecosystem throughout
the Bay jurisdictions and lay the groundwork for future action.
Implementing Tasks
Public and Private Aquaculture and Stocking
I.a. Identify and provide a list of those aquatic species currently approved for public
and private aquaculture and used in stocking programs within each jurisdiction.
Also provide a list of any aquatic species that are prohibited from that
jurisdiction.
b. Provide a multi-jurisdictional compilation of the individual lists to the Policy
signatories.
II.a. Identify and provide a list of routes of entry into the Chesapeake Bay basin of
aquatic species used in aquaculture and stocking. Routes into and between the
watersheds will be provided to the Exotic Species Workgroup.
Lead Group or Agency
EXS Workgroup with the
Agriculture and Fisheries
Agencies for each
jurisdiction
EXS Workgroup
Agriculture and Fisheries
Agencies of each
jurisdiction
Schedule for
Completion
Sept. 1996
Oct. 1996
Sept. 1996
b. Provide multi-jurisdictional compilation of individual lists to the Policy
signatories.
EXS Workgroup
Oct. 1996
III.a. Select a group of specialists (agriculture, fisheries, and one risk assessor) from
the signatory jurisdictions and private sectors to evaluate risk associated with
identified activities.
EXS Workgroup
July 1996
Implementation Matrix 20
-------
Assess risks and assign each activity with appropriate documentation through
historic and scientific evidence. Establish suggested protocols to minimize risks
associated with each activity.
Produce a document stating the risk of each activity for inadvertent introduction
of non-indigenous aquatic species and the suggested protocols for minimizing
risk of introduction.
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
July 1997
Dec. 1997
Research
I.a. Develop a list of on-going and planned research activities that could result in the
movement of new non-indigenous species, in consultation with the scientific
community of the Chesapeake Bay basin.
b. Provide the list developed under I.a. to all Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions.
c. Add new types of research to this list as they are developed.
EXS Workgroup and
STAC
EXS Workgroup and
STAC
EXS Workgroup and
STAC
October 1996
February 1997
as needed
II. a. Evaluate the risks of introduction of non-indigenous species from each kind of
research activity.
b. Risk assessment information will be made available for the development of
protocols. This information will be distributed to all Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions, STAC, and other interested parties.
III. a. Identify methods of reducing risks associated with research activities, with the
assistance of scientists and managers invited from each Bay jurisdiction.
EXS Workgroup and
STAC
(ad hoc panel)
EXS Workgroup
(ad hoc panel)
EXS Workgroup
(ad hoc panel)
August 1997
to be announced
to be announced
Implementation Matrix 21
-------
Summarize these methods of reducing risks associated with research activities
and distribute to Universities, private and public research facilities, management
agencies in each jurisdiction, STAC, and the public.
EXS Workgroup
to be announced
Monitoring
** indicates tasks for the regional non-indigenous aquatic species coordinator
I. a. Review existing Chesapeake Bay basin monitoring programs to determine
whether changes should be recommended which address non-indigenous aquatic
species.
b. Provide that review to all interested parties.
c. Develop a list of experts for verification and identification of specimens thought
to be non-indigenous aquatic species. **
d. When a new non-indigenous aquatic species is identified in the watershed,
available information on the finding will be distributed to the director of each
potentially affected agency in each jurisdiction.
EXS Workgroup and
Monitoring Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
State coordinator of
monitoring program
September 1996
November 1996
November 1996
on-going
II, a. Facilitate monitoring and education tasks by creating a full-time position for a
non-indigenous aquatic species coordinator.
b. Designate an aquatic nuisance species by consensus of the Bay jurisdictions.
c. When an aquatic nuisance species is identified, the regional non-indigenous
aquatic species coordinator will disseminate monitoring information for that
species within the Chesapeake Bay basin. Until a regional coordinator is hired, a
ESX Workgroup
ESX Workgroup
EXS Workgroup in
collaboration with the
signatory jurisdictions
when possible
as required
as required
Implementation Matrix 22
-------
lead agency will be chosen by the EXS Workgroup as clearinghouse coordinator
for a particular aquatic nuisance species. **
d. Submit monitoring information relating to aquatic nuisance species
to the designated clearinghouse.**
e. Prepare and distribute brief annual reports of monitoring activities
and findings related to any aquatic nuisance species.**
III.a. Form an ad hoc committee after a non-indigenous aquatic species
has been identified as an aquatic nuisance species.
b. Develop monitoring protocols for that aquatic nuisance species.
All Policy Signatory
Jurisdictions
Clearinghouse
coordinator
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
as required
Dec. 1996
as required
as required
Controls
II.
III.
An ad hoc committee with representatives from each signatory, at-risk facilities, EXS Workgroup
jurisdictional regulatory agencies, a resource management agencies will be
formed.
Identify and summarize sensitive components of at-risk facilities and ecosystems.
Evaluate and/or develop environmentally sound preventative and treatment
control strategies.
IV Prepare a report summarizing the above findings and recommendations.
EXS Workgroup
(ad hoc committee)
EXS Workgroup
(ad hoc committee)
EXS Workgroup
(ad hoc committee)
as required
as required
as required
as required
Implementation Matrix 23
-------
Education
** indicates tasks for the regional coordinator, when the position is funded.
I a. Develop a prioritized list of non-indigenous aquatic species for educational
**
c. Seek funding to prepare materials for educational use.
d. Develop fact sheets.
e. Develop printed educational materials such as posters, curricular guides and
wallet cards.
f. Produce a video.
II. a. Develop a library of slides on non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species, their
natural history, and habitat impacts for agency use and eventual inclusion in a
CD ROM format. **
c. Assign specific Exotic Species Workgroup members to serve as contacts for
educational efforts.
EXS Workgroup
purposes.
b. Develop a list of existing education materials on non-indigenous aquatic species EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
b. Provide seminars on non-indigenous aquatic species. Ensure that speakers are EXS Workgroup
available to fulfill presentation requests. **
EXS Workgroup
III. a. Develop a regional display on aquatic nuisance species for use at public facilities EXS Workgroup
or activities. **
August 1996
on-going
(dependent on
funding)
on-going
on-going
on-going
March 1997
ongoing
ongoing
Feb. 1997
dependent on
funding
Implementation Matrix 24
-------
b. Develop short workshops that focus on identifying resource issues and
monitoring techniques. **
c. Initiate citizen monitoring programs for aquatic nuisance species and link to
existing programs, in cooperation with the Monitoring Taskgroup of the Exotic
Species Workgroup. **
V. a. Provide technical and nontechnical information on current and possible non-
indigenous aquatic nuisance species in the Chesapeake Bay basin, working with
the Chesapeake Bay Homepage Team.**
b. Develop a CD ROM program that contains materials on non-indigenous aquatic
nuisance species and distribute to public libraries, nature centers, schools and
natural resource agencies in each jurisdiction. **
c. Develop in service training for teachers on non-indigenous aquatic species.
**
d. Develop and foster programs for formal education, grades K-12.
**
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
IV a. Seek funding for a region-wide symposium on non-indigenous aquatic species. EXS Workgroup
b. Identify pertinent stakeholder groups and agencies for educational targeting. EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup/
Ches. Bay Homepage
Team
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup
EXS Workgroup/
Interested parties
dependent on
funding
March 1997
dependent on
funding
dependent on
funding
dependent on
funding
dependent on
funding
dependent on
funding
dependent on
funding
VI. Develop collaborative forums to present a diversity of viewpoints when there is
disagreement over a non-indigenous aquatic species.
EXS Workgroup
as required
Implementation Matrix 25
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS GOVERNING
THE INTRODUCTION OF
NON-INDIGENOUS AQUATIC SPECIES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
The Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species is intended
to be consistent with the federal Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 Many of the definitions are taken from the federal documents.
Federal Policy
Since the Lacey Act of 1901 (18 U.S.C. 42), some limited regulation of specific non-indigenous
aquatic species has been vested in the federal government. Although the federal role was
expanded somewhat by Presidential Executive Order 119087 (May 24, 1977), the federal role
remained relatively limited through the 1980's.
The Lacey Act also provides an intergovernmental mechanism for the development of a
cooperative national program to reduce the risks of or prevent the unintentional introduction and
dispersal of non-indigenous aquatic species that may be nuisances; ensure prompt detection of the
presence of and monitor changes in the distribution of non-indigenous aquatic species; and control
established aquatic nuisance species in a cost-effective, environmentally sound manner.
Regional Policy
The only regional policy for non-indigenous aquatic species that has been developed in the
Chesapeake Bay basin was issued by the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
• The Chesapeake Bay Commission unanimously adopted the following policy statement on
May8, 1992:
// is the policy of the Chesapeake Bay Commission to oppose the introduction of non-
native species into the Chesapeake Bay watershed for any reason unless comprehensive
environmental and economic impact studies are conducted and thoroughly evaluated in
order to ensure that risks associated with the introduction are minimized. Proposals for
the introduction of non-native species should be subjected to an extensive review process
that provides for ample peer review by the Exotic Species Workgroup and others prior to
the final decision-making process.
• A letter sent by the Chesapeake Bay Commission to the resource management agencies in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia stated that the management of
Appendix A 26
-------
non-native species anywhere within the Chesapeake Bay watershed should be pursued on a
regional rather than a state-by-state or species-by-species basis and urged each jurisdictional
agency to "weigh the position of the Chesapeake Bay Commission in any pertinent policy
decision or action."
• Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species
adopted in December 1993 by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
• A Ballast Water Resolution was drafted by the Chesapeake Bay Commission in
January 1995.
Policies of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Jurisdictions
Individual Bay basin jurisdictions have regulations pertaining to the introduction of non-
indigenous or non-native aquatic species.
Delaware
In Delaware, triploid grass carp became a legal method of aquatic weed control beginning January
1, 1990. Permits are issued to private pond owners meeting a set of criteria, including: escape
prevention; demonstrated need for aquatic plant control; the aquatic plants in question are known
targets of the grass carp; the carp must be triploid and stocked at a controlled rate; the state must
have access to the pond for evaluation; the pond must not contain rare; threatened or endangered
plants or animals, and must not be in any designated natural area or a freshwater marsh wetland.
The grass carp must be certified as triploid by the USFWS or by another agency approved by the
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Other laws governing the introduction of aquatic species exist for oysters and aquaculture.
Written permission from the state agency is needed to bring live oysters or seed oysters into the
state and place them in Delaware waters. Permits are needed for aquaculture of any species. A
facility to be used for restricted species (black bass, grass carp, hybrid striped bass, and all non-
native species of finfish and shellfish) must have Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control approval. The walking catfish is prohibited.
Anyone wishing further information on Delaware regulations is referred to regulation 2112 for
material on oysters, the memorandum of understanding between the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and the Department of Agriculture (May, 1992), and the
grass carp policy (January, 1990; revised 1993).
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has rules that establish guidelines for the management of fisheries and
wildlife resources. These guidelines and procedures provide for implementation of the Water
Pollution Act of 1984, which mandates protection of aquatic animals and plants and the
restoration and preservation of aquatic life in the District's waters for aesthetic enjoyment,
Appendix A 27
-------
recreation and industry. The purpose of these rules is to ensure that the District's fisheries and
wildlife resources are properly managed and protected.
With regard to the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species, the guidelines are simple and
clear.
Section 1503.1, Prohibited Activities:
It shall be unlawful to do any of the following:
a) Introduce any species offish or other aquatic organism not indigenous to the District of
Columbia into the waters of the District of Columbia.
Maryland
In Maryland, the Tidewater and Fish, Heritage and Wildlife Administrations of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) regulate the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species (Code of
Maryland Regulations). With regard to one non-indigenous mollusk species, the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorphd), a section of the regulations pertaining to shellfish, (COMAR
08.02.08.02) states: "Except as permitted by the Secretary of Natural Resources, a person may
not import into the state or possess any living life stage or reproductive products of mussels of the
genus Dreissena." For other species of shellfish taken from waters outside the waters of the state,
a person may not import or possess any of these species within Maryland, unless they first obtain
a permit from DNR. This section of the regulation goes on to say that "the Department shall issue
a permit if presented with proof satisfactory to the Department that the shellfish will not be
harmful to Maryland shellfish." For these regulations, the term shellfish includes live oysters, seed
oysters, oyster shells, live hard-shell clams, live soft-shell clams, and clam shells.
In COMAR 08.02.11.05K, the term "indigenous fish species" is defined by Maryland as "any fish
species that naturally occurs in, or has been artificially introduced into, the waters of the state, and
has established self-sustaining populations for at least ten years." To protect fish populations in
the non-tidal waters of the state, a person may not introduce into the non-tidal waters, or import
or possess for introduction, any live fish not indigenous to the non-tidal waters of the state
without first obtaining a permit. A permit will not be granted until satisfactory proof is provided
by the applicant that the specific fish intended to be imported will be free of any communicable
disease at the time of importation and will not be harmful to the native flora and fauna in the non-
tidal waters.
The provisions of the Maryland regulations in COMAR 08.02.11.05K that deal with importation
and possession do not apply to fish for use in laboratories and exhibitions, or for use as pets. Any
fish not indigenous to the waters of the State shall be held only in aquaria and other indoor
facilities from which escape into the waters of the state is impossible. Hence, except for the
specific provision directed at zebra mussels, Maryland does not prohibit nor is a permit required
for the importation of non-indigenous species for research purposes, provided the species are
confined indoors and cannot escape into state waters.
Appendix A 28
-------
Maryland also has regulations (COMAR 08.02.14) pertaining to non-native fish and aquatic plant
species related to aquaculture. The stated purpose of these regulations is "to encourage the
orderly development of an aquaculture industry in Maryland, while ensuring that aquaculture
operations do not adversely impact upon the state's wild stocks offish." In this section of the
regulations, the phrase "non-native" species means "a species offish that is not native or
naturalized..." A native species means "any species offish which historically has lived, grown,
and reproduced in Maryland's waters." A naturalized species means "any species offish which,
though not indigenous to Maryland, has acclimated, or adapted to life in Maryland's waters so that
the species has been documented as having lived, grown, and reproduced in Maryland for more
than ten years."
Any person who wishes to engage in aquaculture in Maryland (the commercial rearing offish or
aquatic plant species listed in COMAR 08.02.14.07) must first obtain a permit from DNR. A
permit will not be issued if the proposed aquaculture activity will adversely affect wild stocks of
fish; result in the release of non-native species into Maryland waters, except in confined water
such as ponds where there are safeguards to prevent escape; or result in the contamination of
native or naturalized species offish or their ecosystem. A facility that is permitted to culture non-
native and hybrid finfish in non-tidal waters may not discharge its effluent directly or indirectly
into Maryland without approved treatment. Maryland also requires that imported hybrid or non-
native finfish shall be certified by an authority acceptable to DNR to be free of known, infectious
disease that have the potential to contaminate native or naturalized fish or aquatic plants.
Anyone wishing further information on Maryland regulations is referred to the Code of Maryland:
Title 08, Subtitle 02, Chapters 08, 11 and 14; and the Natural Resources Articles, Sections 4 and
10, Annotated Code of Maryland.
New York
In New York, importation and stocking of triploid (sterile) grass carp became legal for the
purpose of pond vegetation control in 1990. Requirements for the pond into which the triploid
grass carp were to be introduced were very strict: 5 acres or less in size, having no inlets or
outlets to or from other waters, lying wholly within the boundaries of lands privately owned or
leased by the individual authorizing the treatment, harboring no species of wildlife, fish, shellfish,
Crustacea or plants of special concern, threatened or endangered, not contiguous to a New York
State regulated freshwater wetland. Effective March 12, 1993, New York is allowing the stocking
of triploid grass carp in ponds with inlets or outlets to other waters, provided that the ponds are
not impoundments or natural ponds on a permanent stream or a source of a permanent stream as
designated by the most recent U.S. Geological Survey or New York State Department of
Transportation quadrangle covering the permit application site.
In May, 1991, New York added section 11-0507-4 to the environmental conservation law. It now
reads: No person shall intentionally liberate zebra mussels (Dreissenapolymorphd) into any
waters of the state. No person shall buy, sell, or offer to buy or sell, or intentionally possess or
Appendix A 29
-------
transport zebra mussels except under a license or permit. Zebra mussels, except those lawfully
held pursuant to a license or permit, may be destroyed by any person at any time.
The regulations about wildlife and fish require permits for placing fish or fish eggs in the waters of
the state, or for willfully liberating wildlife. Permits are also required to possess, transport, import
or export species of live native or non-native wildlife or fish where such actions would present a
danger to the health or welfare of people in the state, and individual or indigenous fish or wildlife
populations. Licenses are required to collect, possess or sell fish, wildlife, shellfish, Crustacea and
aquatic insects, and the Department has the power to make regulations to protect the animals
from cruelty; disease or undue discomfort and to protect the public from attack or contamination.
Fish or shellfish which hinder the propagation of food fish or shellfish may be removed by the
state, or by an individual permitted by the state, in any manner the state may prescribe from public
or private waters.
Anyone wishing further information on New York regulations is referred to the environmental
conservation law 11-0507, 11-0511, 11-0515, and 11-0517, and the 1991 amendment regarding
zebra mussels. Also see the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Fish and Wildlife Policy on triploid grass carp use (revised 3/12/93).
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: Under Act 66 of 1993, the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture has the authority to regulate the health of all domestic animals, including those wild or
semi-wild animals held in captivity. The Commonwealth interprets "animal" to include all fish,
invertebrates, and other members of the taxonomic Animal Kingdom. The Department of
Agriculture is seeking a consolidation of all Pennsylvania animal health statutes into a new
"Domestic Animal Act." Once this legislation is enacted, the Department will work with the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to draft and promulgate any necessary fish health
regulations.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission: The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code of 1980 (Act
1980-175, Title 30, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 30 Pa.C.S.§§ 101 et seq.) provides
authority for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to promulgate general and specific
regulations about fish and fishing in Pennsylvania. The following provisions apply:
30 Pa. C.S. § 102 defines "fish," when used as a noun, to include all game fish, fish bait, bait
fish, amphibians, reptiles and aquatic organisms.
30 Pa. C.S. § 2102(a) authorizes the Fish and Boat Commission to make such general and
special regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate concerning fish and fishing in the
waters of Pennsylvania, the protection, preservation and management offish and related
matters.
Appendix A 30
-------
30 Pa. C.S. § 2102(c) authorizes the Commission to make regulations concerning the
transportation or introduction of, or importation into or within this Commonwealth or
exporting offish, the selling, offering for sale of purchase offish or the disturbing offish in
their natural habitat.
30 Pa. C.S. § 2904 authorizes the Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission,
to require permits for taking, catching, killing, possession, introduction, removal, importing,
transporting, exporting or disturbing any fish in Pennsylvania waters. The Commission may
set fees for the permits and make rules and regulations concerning the issuance and provisions
of the permits.
30 Pa. C.S. Chapter 33 contains requirements for artificial propagation licenses and provides
that no person may artificially propagate any fish in Pennsylvania without a license issued by
the Fish and Boat commission (30 Pa. C.S. § 3312). In addition, this chapter requires licenses
or permits for live fish dealers and for transportation of live fish in Pennsylvania.
Title 58. Pennsylvania Code contains regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission.
Chapter 71, "INTRODUCTION OF FISH INTO COMMONWEALTH WATERS"
subsection 71.3 (b), provides for the issuing of limited propagation license subject to
additional restrictions. These are used to permit non-indigenous fish species to closed system
aquaculture.
Chapter 73, "TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE FISH INTO THE COMMONWEALTH"
subsection 73.1 (a) states "No species offish may be transported into this Commonwealth
from another state, province, or country and liberated in any watershed of the Commonwealth
without previous written permission for the Fish and Boat Commission. Nor may any species
offish be transferred from any water within the Commonwealth into any other drainage of the
Commonwealth where this particular species is not always present without prior written
consent from the Fish and Boat Commission. Inspection for species composition or presence
of disease, or both, will be required at the discretion of the Fish and Boat Commission on all
lots offish transported into the Commonwealth."
References to grass carp in Chapters 71 and 73 have been changed by Fish and Boat
Commission action which provided for the issuing of permits for the use of triploid grass carp
in Pennsylvania beginning January 1, 1994.
A new section, 71.7 became effective on January 1, 1994. Under 71,7(a) it states: "As a
limited exception to the prohibition of grass carp (white amur) in this Commonwealth, it is the
policy of the Commission to permit triploid grass carp, certified by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and procured from a producer participating in the USFWS
Appendix A 31
-------
certification program, to be introduced into Commonwealth waters and imported and
transported into this Commonwealth in accordance with this section."
Virginia
In Virginia, regulations pertaining to non-indigenous species are administered by the Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries (freshwater species) and under the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (saltwater species). Under regulation VR325-01-2 (Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries), Section 1, it is unlawful to take, possess, import, cause to be imported,
export, cause to be exported, buy, sell, offer for sale or liberate within the Commonwealth any
wild animal "unless otherwise specifically permitted by law or regulation. Section 4 of this code
specifies that a special permit is required and may be issued by the department, if consistent with
the department's fish and wildlife management program, to import, possess, or sell those non-
native (exotic) animals listed in pages 200-202 of the 1993 edition of the Virginia Game, Inland
Fish and Boat Laws and Regulations document. Under regulation 28.2-825 (Virginia Marine
Resources Commission), it is unlawful to import any fish, shellfish or Crustacea with the intent of
placing such organisms into the waters of the Commonwealth unless the organism is coming from
an approved list of states and waters, and unless it is on an approved species list. If the species or
source is not on the approved lists, the person desiring to import may notify the Commissioner of
Marine Resources and receive written permission.
Anyone wishing further information on Virginia regulations is referred to the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries regulation VR325-01-2, and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission regulation 28.2-825.
West Virginia
In West Virginia, a fish importation permit allows an individual to import and haul native game,
food, and sport fishes. However, the introduction of exotic fishes or those not native to this state
is strictly prohibited. All persons must be legally licensed to propagate or sell fish, amphibians or
other forms of aquatic life. Those persons legally entitled to propagate and sell fish, amphibians
and other forms of aquatic life are also allowed to transport such beyond the limits of the state.
All imported wildlife shall be subject to inspection by authorized agents of the department and
such inspections may include biological examinations and the removal of a reasonable sample of
fish or eggs for such purposes.
Permits to import triploid grass carp may be obtained if a pond owner has the pond inspected by
proper state personnel, follows the required application process and orders the fish from an
approved producer of certified triploid grass carp. Only triploid grass carp may be imported under
any circumstances. A certificate issued by the USFWS is required from their authorized point of
origin.
Anyone wishing further information on West Virginia regulations is referred to Chapter 20 of the
Code of West Virginia and the annual fishing regulations.
Appendix A 32
-------
APPENDIX B
OVERVIEWS OF PROTOCOLS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR INTENTIONAL
INTRODUCTIONS AND REDUCTION OF UNINTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONS BY
RESEARCH PATHWAY
Intentional Introductions
Intentional introductions for research purposes will follow guidelines modeled after the ICES
Code of Practice 1990 and the Protocols of Conducting Research on Nonindigenous Mussels of
the Genus Dreissena in the Chesapeake Bay Basin (Exotic Species Workgroup 1993), hereafter
referred to as the Dreissena Protocols.
The protocols developed by the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES Code of
Practice 1990) are used as a prototype for the section on intentional introductions. These
protocols, developed for intentional introductions, are outlined here.
I. A request for an intentional introduction will be submitted by the principal
investigator to the appropriate jurisdiction at least 90 days in advance of the proposed
introduction. This request will consist of a research proposal or scope of work that
includes:
a. Objectives of research, including justification for using this particular species, as
opposed to alternative species (resident or non-indigenous).
b. Summary of information on species proposed for introduction, including known
life history, reproductive capacity, geographic distribution, habitat utilization,
physical (e.g., temperature and salinity) requirements, predators, competitors,
prey, associated organisms (especially parasites, pathogens, and diseases), and
ecological role in its native community. It is understood that such information may
be very limited for many species.
c. Proposed plan of introduction, including information on life stage(s), numbers,
source (geographic origin and culture or stocking method), disease history and
disease certification when available, location(s) of introduction, and any alteration
of reproductive capacity (e.g., triploid or single-sex populations). This should
include a plan for initial introduction on a limited scale (see II.d. below).
d. Estimated risks of introduction, including likelihood of invasion and probable
effects (economic and ecological) should an invasion occur. This assessment
should incorporate what is known about the target species in its native or
Appendix B 33
-------
naturalized range and should consider potential interactions with local populations
and communities.
II. If after appropriate review by an ad hoc panel (as described in the Policy) the
intentional introduction is permitted, the following procedure should be used when
jurisdictional review (as described in the Policy) provides approval for intentional release
following quarantine:
a. Brood stock establishment: A brood stock should be established under quarantine
conditions (see Unintentional Introductions below) to allow adequate evaluation of
its health status. It is preferable to use early life stages to establish brood stock, as
prevalence of parasites usually increases with size and age.
b. Testing of brood stock and progeny: The brood stock and progeny should be
tested routinely for evidence of associated organisms (especially parasites and
pathogens). If associates are found in progeny, these may not be introduced into
unconfined waters.
c. Isolation of Fl progeny: The progeny should be isolated from brood stocks to
reduce the possibility of transferring associated organisms from adults to brood.
d. Initial introduction: If progeny show no evidence of associated organisms, an
introduction can proceed on a limited scale to assess ecological interactions with
resident community. Because even limited introductions may result in successful
and rapidly expanding populations, additional safeguards are recommended for
initial introductions, such as use of triploid organisms or single sex groups.
e. Isolation of hatchery: All hatchery procedures should maintain quarantine
conditions (as in Dreissena Protocol referenced below) to prevent unintentional
introductions, limiting all introductions to a controlled and approved pathway(s),
as described in the research proposal
f. Study and progression of introduction: An evaluation of the initial introduction
should be reported to the appropriate jurisdiction. After examining results, the
jurisdiction will decide whether the introduction can proceed. As the introduction
proceeds, identification information should be made available to monitoring groups
to facilitate their ability to detect escapement. Assessment of the population size,
distribution and its impact should be reported routinely to the appropriate
jurisdiction, which will dictate the frequency and scope of such assessment. This
information will be available to other jurisdictions.
Appendix B 34
-------
Unintentional Introductions from Research
Following protocols developed by the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the Exotic
Species Workgroup prepared Protocols for Conducting Research on Nonindigenous Mussels of
the Genus Dreissena in the Chesapeake Bay Basin (1993). These are used here as a prototype for
reducing the risk of unintentional release during research on all non-indigenous aquatic species.
We adhere to the general precautionary principals included in the Dreissena Protocols to prevent
unintentional release of non-indigenous aquatic species from research, as well as other, activities.
I Notification of relevant jurisdiction by principal investigator by submitting proposal
or scope of work to appropriate agency (which will submit copy to the Exotic Species
Workgroup of the Living Resources Subcommittee). The proposal should include the
following:
a. Objectives of research, including a brief description of species being studied and
their origin(s), and justification for using this species.
b. Summary of information on species proposed for introduction, including life
history, reproductive capacity, habitat utilization, ecological role and status in
native habitat and other introduced areas if available, an estimate of potential
habitat range extension, physical (e.g., temperature and salinity) requirements,
predators, competitors, prey, and associated organisms. It is recognized that such
information may be limited for some species.
c. Detailed description of research, including estimated numbers of organisms,
transportation procedures of organisms to research facilities, tracking when
mailings are involved, description of research facilities (including drawings), names
and qualifications of project personnel.
d. Detailed description of wastewater treatment, including water flow from research
facilities, decontamination methods, and proximity of nearby bodies of water
(streams, lakes, estuaries, ocean) including if the facility is in or in proximity to the
flood plain.
e. Detailed description of proposed containment/confinement facilities, including site
security, posted signs, treatment of research equipment and holding facilities,
personnel responsible for maintenance and operation, and training on handling and
protocols.
f. Detailed description of plans for termination after study and emergency
termination (in case of hurricane, fire, flood or other catastrophe).
Appendix B 35
-------
II. Site visit of research facility by appropriate agency is recommended and can be arranged
upon request of agency to ensure conformity to protocols.
Appendix B 36
------- |