EPA 855-R-00-003
September 2000
An Initial Survey of
Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Established Invasive Species:
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta)
Potential Future Invasive Species:
Zebra mussel (Dreissena po/ymorpha)
Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata)
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
AN INITIAL SURVEY OF
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ISSUES
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION
September 2000
Version 4.0
Released on August 31, 2001
Submitted to:
Gulf of Mexico Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bldg. 1003, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Submitted by:
Battelle
Coastal Resources and Ecosystems Management
938 Lafayette Street, Suite 101
New Orleans, LA 70113
EPA/OCPD Contract No. 68-C-00-121
Work Assignment 1-07
-------
Version 4.0
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements v
Acronyms vii
Executive Summary ix
1.0 Scope and Purpose 1
1.1 Scope of this Report 1
1.2 Purpose of this Report 3
2.0 An Introduction to the Aquatic Invasive Species Issue 6
2.1 Key Concepts 6
2.2 Characterizing Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introductions to the U. S 8
2.3 Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species 13
2.4 Control and Mitigation of Aquatic Invasive Species 14
3.0 Aquatic Invasive Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region 1 6
3.1 Aquatic Species Introductions in the Gulf of Mexico Region 16
3.2 An Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region.... 19
4.0 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in the 23
Five Gulf States
4.1 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Alabama 24
4.2 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Florida 25
4.3 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Louisiana 30
4.4 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Mississippi 32
4.5 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Texas 34
4.6 Summary Tables: Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in the 37
Gulf of Mexico Region
5.0 Gulfwide Issues Addressed by the ISFT: Shrimp Viruses 40
5.1 Overview of the Shrimp Viruses Issue 40
5.2 Shrimp Virus Sources and Pathways 43
5.3 Management Framework Related to Shrimp Viruses 47
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Pagei
-------
Version 4.0
6.0 Gulfwide Issues Addressed by the ISFT: Ballast Water 53
6.1 Overview of the Ballast Water Issue 53
6.2 The Ballast Water Issue in the Gulf of Mexico Region 56
6.3 Perspectives from Gulf of Mexico Region Stakeholders 62
6.4 The Management Framework for Ballast Water 63
7.0 The Management Framework for Addressing Invasive 68
Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region
7.1 General Analysis of the Available Management Framework 68
7.2 Federal Level '. 71
7.3 Regional Level 76
7.4 Federal-State Relationships 79
7.5 State Level: Alabama 81
7.6 State Level: Florida 83
7.7 State Level: Louisiana 88
7.8 State Level: Mississippi 89
7.9 State Level: Texas 92
7.10 Federal and Gulf State Agency Costs for Aquatic Invasive Species 94
Management and Control
7.11 Private Organizations 97
7.12 International Level: Reference to Information 98
8.0 An Inventory of Regional Actions 99
9.0 Related Research for the Gulf of Mexico Region 100
9.1 Inventory of Research Activities Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region 100
9.2 Invasive Species Research Needs for the Gulf of Mexico Region 104
10.0 Recommended Report Enhancements 108
11.0 Glossary 111
12.0 References 113
Page ii September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
List of Tables
Table 1. Numbers of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced into the U.S 9
Table 2. Principal Pathways of Introduction for Aquatic Species 10
Table 3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the U. S. by Pathway 11
Table 4a. Generalized Characteristics of Successful Invasive Nonindigenous Species 12
Table 4b. Generalized Characteristics of Communities More Likely to be Invaded 12
Table 5. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced to each Gulf State
Compared to the U.S. 50 State Average 17
Table 6. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring in the Five Gulf States 20
Table 7. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the
Five Gulf States 20
Table 8. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States ...20
Table 9. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States 21
Table 10. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States,
September 2000: Aquatic Invasive and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species 37
Table 11. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States,
September 2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species 38
Table 12. Status of Ballast Water Treatment Technology Research Projects 55
Table 13. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major
Gulf of Mexico Ports 56
Table 14. National Ballast Water Clearinghouse Data Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico
Region 58
Table 15. Federal Laws Regulating Introduction and Movement of Nonindigenous Species ....71
Table 16. Prohibited Plant Species in Alabama 82
Table 17. Prohibited Fish and Aquatic Mammal Species in Alabama 82
Table 18. Prohibited Marine Fish Species in Florida 83
Table 19. Restricted Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida 84
Table 20. Prohibited Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida 85
Table 21. Prohibited Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species in Florida 85
Table 22. Prohibited Fish Species in Louisiana 87
Table 23. Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Louisiana 89
Table 24. List of Prohibited Fish Species in Mississippi 90
Table 25. List of Prohibited Invertebrate Species (Mussels and Crayfishes) in Mississippi 91
Table 26. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Mississippi 91
Table 27. List of Prohibited Fish and Shellfish Species in Texas 92
Table 28. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Texas 94
Table 29. Fiscal Year 1999 Expenditures by Florida State Agencies for Invasive Species
Management and Control Activities 96
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page iii
-------
Version 4.0
Table 30. Keyword Phrases for Literature Searches on Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Gulf
of Mexico Region 101
Table 31. Organization of the Research Inventory (Appendix I) 101
Table 32. Distribution of References, by Research Category, for Each Species in the Research
Inventory 103
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Report Study Area: The Gulf of Mexico Region 2
Figure 2. Pathways of Fish Species Introductions in the U.S. and Florida 19
Figure 3. Origin of Introduced Fish Species in the U.S. and Florida 19
Figure 4. Aquaculture as an Introduction Vector for Shrimp Viruses 44
Figure 5. Processing as an Introduction Vector for Shrimp Viruses 45
Figure 6. Port Zone Boundaries of National Ballast Water Clearinghouse 58
Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico Shipping Routes 59
Appendices
Appendix A Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction
Appendix B Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico
Region
Appendix C Ballast Water Reporting Form
Appendix D Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species
Appendix E Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to Invasive Species
Appendix F Federal Agency Coverage by Major Species Groups
Appendix G Federal Agency Responsibilities Applicable to Invasive Species
Appendix H Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix I Inventory of Research Activities Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page iv
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Acknowledgements
The Gulf of Mexico Program and the document authors would like to acknowledge the
volunteer efforts of the many individuals that contributed to this report.
Technical direction throughout the development of the document was provided by the
Characterization Report Workgroup, an ad-hoc working subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico
Program Invasive Species Focus Team. Workgroup members volunteered an appreciable
amount of their time and contributed directly to the report's development. Workgroup members
included:
• Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program
• Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
• Pam Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey
• Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program
• Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service
• Ron Lukens, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
• Dan Roberts, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Many Gulf-region experts volunteered their time to provide information or review drafts of
the document. They included:
Jimmy Avery, Aquaculture Extension Specialist, MSU
Paul Carangelo, Coastal Environmental Planner
David Felder, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Joe Hendrix, GMP Citizens Advisory Committee Fisheries Representative (Texas)
Jeffrey Hill, Dept. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, UF
Dewayne Hollin, Texas Sea Grant Program
Heidi Lovett, MRAG Americas
Greg Lutz, Specialist and Professor, Aquaculture, LSU Ag Center
John MacMillan, President, National Aquaculture Association
Susan McCarthy, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Tom Mcllwain, National Marine Fisheries Service
Larry McKinney, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Benedict Posadas, MSU Coastal Research and Extension Center
Granvil Treece, Texas Sea Grant Program
Robert Stickney, Texas Sea Grant Program
Edwin Theriot, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sherman Wilhelm, Division of Aquaculture, FDACS
Paul Zajicek, Division of Aquaculture, FDACS
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page v
-------
Version 4.0
This document is a product of the Invasive Species Focus Team, which guided the report's
development, reviewed drafts, and approved the final draft. Focus Team members include:
• Ron Bean, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
• Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
• Vince Cottone, Texaco
• Charles Biggar, Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fisheries
• Roland Ferry, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
• Douglas Fruge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Pam Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey
• Tom Herrington, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program (Co-Chair)
• Doug Jacobson, Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service (Co-Chair)
• Marilyn Barrett O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program
• Ron Lukens, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
• Vernon Minton, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
• Cynthia Moncreiff, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
• Dan Roberts, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
• Deborah Schultz, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program
• Thomas Schultz, Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University
• Robert Stender, Chief of Naval Education and Training, U.S. Navy
• Bruce Thompson, Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University
• Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Cover photo credits:
Giant salvinia - Rhandy Helton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (permission obtained
from Colette Jacono, USGS/BRD, Gainesville, Florida)
Nutria - Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (permission obtained from Kerry St.
Pe, BTNEP, Thibodaux, Louisiana)
Spotted jellyfish - Monty Graham, Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory, Alabama (permission
obtained from Monty Graham)
Zebra mussel - USGS/BRD (permission obtained from Colette Jacono, USGS/BRD, Gainesville,
Florida)
Battelle prepared this document for the Gulf of Mexico Program under EPA/OCPD Contract
No. 68-C-00-121, Work Assignments WAO-07 and WA1-07. The Principal Investigator was
Brent Ache; other Battelle contributors included Debbie Tanis and Angela Walters.
Page vi September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Acronyms
AAPA American Association of Port Authorities
ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
AEC Aquaculture Executive Committee (Texas)
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
ANSTF Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
APCS Aquatic Plant Control Section (Louisiana)
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APMS Aquatic Plant Management Section (Florida)
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980)
ARS Agricultural Research Service
ASPEA Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992
ATF Aquaculture Task Force (Mississippi)
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIPM Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (Florida)
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
CEC North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
DBA Drug Enforcement Agency
DOD United States Department of Defense
DOE United States Department of Energy
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPPC Exotic Pest Plant Council
ERS Economic Research Service
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FAWCA Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act
FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FHA Federal Highway Administration
FICMNEW Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
FLEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council
FNPS Florida Native Plant Society
FSA Farm Service Agency
FNAPCA Florida Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act
GAO U.S. General Accounting Office
GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
GMP Gulf of Mexico Program
GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
ICES International Council for Exploration of the Seas
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page vii
-------
Version 4.0
IHHNV Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISC Invasive Species Council
ISFT Invasive Species Focus Team
JSA Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
LMRCC Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
LWF Louisiana Wildlife Federation
LWFC Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MDAC Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce
MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks
MDMR Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
MEPC Marine Environmental Protection Committee (United Nations)
NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
NBWIC National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMI Northeast-Midwest Institute
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NFS National Park Service
NRC National Research Council
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
NSF National Science Foundation
OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
PHS Public Health Service
SERC Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
SPF Specified Pathogen Free
SVW Shrimp Virus Workgroup
TDA Texas Department of Agriculture
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPWC Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
TSV Taura Syndrome Virus
UMRCC Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee
USAGE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCG United States Coast Guard
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WBCA Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992
WMD Water Management District
WSSV White Spot Syndrome Virus
YHV Yellow Head Virus
Page viii
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Executive Summary
What is the Scope of This Report?
Humans have a long history of deliberately introducing terrestrial and aquatic species to new
areas for agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, sport fishing, hunting, pets, and a host of
other reasons. These nonindigenous species are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of
the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors of our economy, offering recreational
opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in our gardens. At the same time,
human activities like travel, trade, and natural habitat alteration have caused many unplanned or
accidental introductions of species to new areas. The contemporary massive transformation of
the natural environment and worldwide transport of people and cargo now facilitate species
introductions - both deliberate and accidental - at a rate that completely overshadows natural
rates of species movement (OTA 1993), and makes large-scale range expansions across
mountains and oceans common. For the purposes of this report, we focus on these human-
facilitated movements of species - both deliberate and accidental - to new areas: throughout this
report such species are referred to as nonindigenous species.
For those nonindigenous species introduced to open ecosystems (i.e., outside of human
control and confinement), only a portion will successfully establish one or more permanent,
reproducing populations (Mack et al. 2000). These established nonindigenous species can be
categorized by their impacts - ecologic and economic - in the new ecosystem: beneficial,
harmful, unknown, or neutral (although, in many cases, impacts are a mix of beneficial and
harmful) (OTA 1993).
Many intentionally established nonindigenous species provide great benefit to agriculture,
horticulture, recreational fishing, biological control, etc. However, a small number of
established nonindigenous species, including species both intentionally and unintentionally
introduced, result in serious threats to the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological
stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural,
commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. The impacts of
these few species is considerable; one study estimates that the overall economic impact of
harmful nonindigenous species is a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999).
This report purposefully focuses on the small number of nonindigenous species that are harmful,
or potentially harmful (i.e., those with unknown impacts), and does not further discuss beneficial
nonindigenous species. Throughout this report, the term invasive species is used to denote those
nonindigenous species with any form of harmful impact in open ecosystems.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page ix
-------
Version 4.0
Invasive Species: A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the
ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural,
aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human
health. Synonyms for invasive species include harmful species, injurious species, invader,
noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and weed.
This report focuses on just those invasive species that are obligated to live in a waterbody for
part or all of their lives: aquatic invasive species. Of all aquatic taxa, this initial survey
concentrates on fish, non-insect aquatic invertebrates, aquatic mammals, aquatic microbes, and
aquatic and semi-aquatic plants; it does not consider aquatic birds or aquatic insects. In order to
adequately survey aquatic invasive species issues, including potential future aquatic invasive
species issues, in the Gulf of Mexico region, the scope of this report covers:
• Invasive nonindigenous aquatic species (1) established in free-living populations, (2) in a
captive or managed state in the Gulf of Mexico region, or (3) not yet introduced to the Gulf
of Mexico region, but with an active introduction pathway.
• Indigenous aquatic species aggressively expanding their natural ranges or density in an area
due to human activities (e.g., habitat alteration), to the detriment of other native species or
ecosystems.
• Uncontrolled and unmonitored introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species, where there is
no appropriate assessment of risks.
This report focuses only on the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The study
area for this report includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf States -
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas - and waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the
seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
What is the Purpose of This Report?
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Management Committee serves as the Gulf of Mexico
Regional Panel (Gulf Panel) to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF).
The Gulf Panel exists to coordinate prevention, research, management, control, and outreach
efforts in the Gulf of Mexico region, and is responsible for submitting an annual report to the
ANSTF. In addition, the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT) has committed to assisting
the five Gulf States in developing invasive species management plans. To begin fulfilling these
responsibilities in a coordinated manner, the ISFT has developed this report to:
• Compile background and technical information needed to generate the Gulf Panel's first
(2000) Annual Report to the ANSTF;
• Begin compiling information that will assist the five Gulf States in developing aquatic
components of their invasive species management plan(s);
• Generate a regional information and coordination resource for aquatic invasive species
management and research activities, targeting the GMP's broad group of stakeholders.
Page x September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
This report is current as of its completion date, September 2000. However, due to the highly
dynamic nature of bioinvasions, new species introductions and management responses continue
to occur. The ISFT intends this report to be a "living document," to be expanded and updated at
the discretion of the ISFT.
What Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occur in the Gulf of
Mexico Region?
It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous aquatic
species introductions to an area, as these introductions form the "pool" of established species
from which a few harmful invasive species arise. The Gulf region is vulnerable to aquatic
species introductions due to the magnitude and variety of viable pathways created by, for
example: (1) large numbers of people, vessels, and airplanes, and large volumes of cargo,
coming through multiple large-scale, international ports and airports; (2) year-round, cross-state
recreational boating, fishing, and other aquatic recreational activities; (3) numerous industries
import, breed, grow-out, and warehouse a large variety of nonindigenous aquatic species; and (4)
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi River, which provide the 5 Gulf states with an
aquatic connection to more than half of the 48 states in the continental U.S. The subtropical
climate and abundant aquatic habitats make the Gulf of Mexico region naturally hospitable to
nonindigenous aquatic species (Devine 1998, Cox 1999).
Several descriptions of the occurrence and status of nonindigenous aquatic species in Florida
have been published (McCann et al. 1996, Simberloff et al. 1997, Goodyear 2000), but similar
descriptions for other Gulf States and the Gulf of Mexico region as a whole are less frequent.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an Internet-accessible database
(http://nas.er.usgs.gov) of nonindigenous aquatic species that is searchable by state or by
watershed drainage (USGS 2000). To date, nonindigenous freshwater species introductions have
received more attention than estuarine and marine species; there are no systematic studies of
nonindigenous estuarine and marine invertebrates or plants in Florida waters (Carlton and
Ruckelshaus 1997), or for the Gulf region.
An inventory of nonindigenous aquatic species occurrences in the Gulf of Mexico region was
prepared for this report. The inventory attempts to identify those nonindigenous species that
occur or have occurred in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments in the Gulf of Mexico
region, by Gulf State. This initial iteration of the inventory focuses on aquatic microbes, non-
insect aquatic invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, aquatic mammals, algae, aquatic
plants, and semi-aquatic plants; it does not address nonindigenous aquatic birds, aquatic insects,
or any terrestrial species in the Gulf region. Information for the inventory was gathered via
Internet-based and other databases, and Gulf-region experts (the primary information source was
the USGS database described above). The complete Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic
Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region is provided in Appendix B, and summarized in Tables ESI,
ES2,ES3,andES4.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xi
-------
Version 4.0
Table ESI. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring (or Having Occurred at Least Once) in
the Five Gulf States.
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
Shrimp Viruses
*
1
*
*
3
, Bacteria
1
2
*
*
1
Protozoa
2
7
2
2
1
Fungi
*
*
*
*
*
TOTAL
3
10
2
2
5
* = None.
Table ES2. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the Five Gulf States.
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
Tuni-
cates ,
*
3
+
*
1
Bryo- *'
, t zoans ?
*
6
*
*
*
$^*"-
Sponges
* rv*^
*
*
*
*
*
Coelen-*
terates }
1
2
*
1
*
Flat-
wornis
*
7
*
*
%
Roiind-
-* $*.
worms
*
2
*
*
1
Seg.
Worms
*
2
*
*
*
Moll-
usks
3
19
3
2
9
Crust-
aceans
3
23
5
2
5
TOTAL
7
64
8
5
16
* = None.
Table ES3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States.
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
, ,\ '/Fishes'; _';•
51
117
27
22
98
• 'Amphibians',;*?
*
13
2
*
4
*; ;, ReptilesT''
1
18
*
*
3
Mammals
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
53
149
30
23
106
* = None.
Table ES4. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States.
State;
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
-">-"• M.f\ Algaef-'-
1
2
1
1
2
Aquatic Vascular
/-• , Plants' '.' . ;', "
25
45
34
25
30
.' -Semi-Aq. Vascular
^f- ' Plants1' ' :
6
23
10
7
12
TOTAL
32
70
45
33
41
Page xii
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
What Are the Current Aquatic Invasive Species Management
Priorities for the Five Gulf States?
Tables ESS and ES6 present the results of interviews with Gulf State agency representatives
on the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team to identify aquatic invasive species that are current
management priorities or potential future management priorities in each of the five Gulf
States (see Section 4.0 of the document for detailed interviewed results). In some cases, as noted
below, the interviewed state agency representatives sought the input of a larger group of state
stakeholders, while in other cases interview results represent the opinions of one agency
representative. The interviews were intended to produce a representative, rather than
comprehensive, list of Gulf-region management priorities. It has been recommended that a more
formal and extensive survey be conducted for any future compilation of this information.
For the purposes of the interviews, "current management priority" is defined as an invasive,
or potentially invasive, aquatic species that the state is most concerned with managing at the
present time. "Potential future management priority" is defined as an invasive, or potentially
invasive, aquatic species that (1) does not yet occur in the state, but that has an active
introduction pathway, or (2) already has been introduced to the state, and is of concern due to the
magnitude of adverse impacts experienced in similar ecosystems. It is critical to recognize that
management priorities can be based on the actual or perceived threat a species poses, even
though it does not yet occur in the state. Similarly, invasive or potentially invasive species that
already occur in a state may not necessarily be a management priority in that state.
What Management Framework is Available to Address
Aquatic Invasive Species Issues?
At the federal level, the current management framework for invasive species has its
foundation in over 28 pieces of legislation and is dependent on activities of more than two dozen
different federal agencies. In general, there are substantial gaps in federal laws and programs to
prevent the introduction of invasive species, and it is clear that significant risks remain
unaddressed (ISC 2000).
Existing legislation is targeted toward both controlling particular species and regulating
specific vectors. Species-oriented legislation prohibits or regulates introduction of species that
have caused problems, or have the potential to cause problems. Much of the current federal and
state legislation contains lists of prohibited and restricted species. For prohibited lists, it is
usually illegal to import, sell, possess, or transport those species; restricted species can usually be
imported, cultured, sold, and/or transported with one or more permits from appropriate natural
resource agencies. Agency rules, and associated permits, for restricted species often differentiate
between releases to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture, ornamental fish farms,
research facilities, public aquaria) and releases to open ecosystems.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xiii
-------
Version 4.0
It has been suggested that many currently implemented vector-based controls are
compromised by understaffmg and time pressure (Ruesink et al. 1995). For example, for foreign
imports, the volume of trade creates a tremendous burden on an understaffed federal inspection
system and forces a strong reliance on self-reporting by the shipping industry (OTA 1993).
Equally problematic, there has been little support for regulations addressing unintentional "by-
product" introductions (Corn et al. 1999). However, recent efforts to manage ballast water
discharges represent a serious attempt to understand and control a high-risk introduction vector.
Table ESS. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000:
Invasive Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species.
>:, SCIENTIFIC NAME- ' < ,
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Aureoumbra lagunensis
Brachiaria mutica
Casuarina equisetifolia
Caulerpa toxifolia
Colocasia esculenta
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii
Eichhornia crassipes
Hydrilla verticillata
Hygrophila polysperma
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Imperata cylindrica
Ipomoea aquatica
Lythrum salicaria
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Mimosa pigra
Panicum repens
Pistia stratiotes
Pueraria montana
Salvinia minima
Salvinia molesta
Sapium sebiferum
Schinus terebinthifolius
Solanum tampicense
i ' COMMON.NAME^'',,
alligatorweed
brown tide algae
paragrass
Australian pine
tropical green algae
wild taro
blue-green algae
water hyacinth
hydrilla
Indian swampweed
West Indian marshgrass
cogongrass
waterspinach
purple loosestrife
paperbark (melaleuca)
catclaw mimosa
torpedograss
waterlettuce
kudzu
common salvinia
giant salvinia
Chinese tallow tree
peppertree
wetland nightshade
, ;
-------
Version 4.0
Table ES6. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000:
Invasive Aquatic Animal Species.
^ SCIENTIFIC NAME, ' <" >
Anguillicola crassus
Belonesox belizanus
Callinectes bocourti
Carcinus maenus
Charybdis helleri
Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum
Cichlasoma urophthalmus
Cittarium pica
Glorias batrachus
Corbicula fluminea
Crassostrea gigas
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Dreissena polymorpha
Drymonema dalmatinum
Eriocheir sinensis
Glossodoris sedna
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
Limnoperna fortune!
Litopeneaus vannamei
Monopterus albus
Mylopharyngodon piceus
Myocastor coypus
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Mytilopsis sallei
Neogobius melanostomus
Oreochromis aureus
Oreochromis mossambicus
Oreochromis niloticus
Pernaperna
Perna viridis
Phyllorhiza punctata
Pinctada margaritifera
Platychirograpsus spectabilis
Pomacea canalicula
Rapana venosa
Sarotherodon melanotheron
Taura Syndrome Virus
Tilapia marine
Tridacna spp.
White Spot Syndrome Virus
sl - X -• ; COMMON NAME -,-X^ '
exotic nematode on American eels
pike killifish
chocolate brown crab
green crab
marine swimming crab
Rio Grande cichlid
Mayan cichlid
West Indian trochid
walking catfish
Asian clam
Japanese (or Pacific giant) oyster
grass carp
zebra mussel
jellyfish
Chinese mittencrab
marine nudibranch
silver carp
bighead carp
freshwater mussel
Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp
swamp eel
black carp
nutria
Conrad's (or dark) falsemussel
Salle's (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel
round goby
blue tilapia
Mozambique tilapia
Nile tilapia
brown (or Mexihalo) mussel
green mussel
spotted jellyfish
black-lipped (or Pacific) pearl oyster
saber crab
channeled applesnail
veined rapa whelk
blackchin tilapia
shrimp virus
spotted tilapia
giant clams
shrimp virus
JAIA
p
p
p
p
V
p
p
p
V
V
' FL-<
V
V
V
V
V
V
p
pa
p
V
p
p
V
V
v
p
V
V
p
V
p
V
V
p
LA •
p
p
V
p
V
p
p
V
V
p
V
p
p
p
;MS-
V
p
p
V
p
V
V
'' TX ,
p
p
p
V
p
V
V
p
p
p
p
p
V
V
V
p
p
V
V
V
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page xv
-------
Version 4.0
Table ES6, continued. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States,
September 2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species, cont.
Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of
Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than
comprehensive, list of management priorities.
V = Current management priority in the state.
P = Potential future management priority for the state.
Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the
unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management.
a = Diploid stocks only.
b = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved)
Some researchers contend that a consensus is developing that the invasive species problem
has reached proportions demanding a coherent national policy to guide future actions (Williams
and Meffe 1999). In 1997, more than 500 scientists and natural resource managers wrote the
Clinton Administration to express their deep concern about the damage done by invasive species
every year (ISC 2000). This action resulted in the establishment of a national Invasive Species
Council (ISC), through Presidential Executive Order, which issued a national invasive species
management plan in January 2001. At the same time, the recognition of federal framework
limitations has initiated state and regional management and planning (Fletcher 2000).
Universally it is recognized the prevention of new introductions of invasive species, and the
immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive species, is the most effective, and cost
effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al. 2000). Risk-based decision-making
approaches, based on available information, can help managers to quantitatively evaluate the
likelihood of an undesired event and the likelihood of harm or damage being caused (Hayes
1998). At this time though risk-based decision criteria are currently absent from most U.S.
policy for intentional introductions, although the ANSTF recently presented a generic
nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk analysis review process (ANSTF 1996). Some researchers
and managers advocate the implementation of zero-risk policies at national and international
levels (Mack et al. 2000), assumably for species introductions to open ecosystems versus imports
to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture).
Given the magnitude of active introduction pathways and the diversity of nonindigenous
species and receiving ecosystems, an adaptive management approach will have to be adopted.
This way the relative ecological, economic, and human health threats posed by invasive species
will periodically re-prioritize prevention, management, control, and public education efforts to
yield the most benefit for the environment, economic vitality, and human health. In addition,
management of invasive species ultimately must be a global endeavor. Efforts to restrict
invasive species introductions to the U.S. will be aided through coordination with the countries-
of-origin for these species (ISC 2000).
All five Gulf States have statutory provisions applicable to nonindigenous species
introductions, and specific provisions applicable to at least selected aquatic species (specific Gulf
State statutes and regulations are described in Sections 7.5 through 7.9). Each Gulf State
Page xvi September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
maintains prohibited and/or restricted species lists, and conducts permit programs to regulate the
import, possession, sale, and transport of selected species.
To date, none of the five Gulf States has established a comprehensive invasive species
management plan, although plans for a few plant species have been developed in Florida
(FEPPC 1997, FEPPC 1999). However, planning efforts are beginning at both the state and
regional levels (Texas Sea Grant Program 1998). In the summer of 2000, the Louisiana Sea
Grant Program sponsored the state's first meeting to discuss development of an invasive species
management plan (Barrett O'Leary, pers. comm.). Likewise, Florida Governor Jeb Bush
recently requested that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection facilitate a meeting
of Florida's state agencies to determine the most effective way to develop a comprehensive
invasive species management plan (Bush 2000).
Two primary statutes and a noxious weed program in Florida, Texas's Statewide Vegetation
Management Plan, and Alabama's Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act, appear to
adequately address invasive plants in those states. In fact, the Florida and Texas statutes and
programs could serve as good models for state invasive species management plans, as they
provide a lead executing agency, scientific research directives, prohibitions on introductions, and
grant programs for local agencies (Fletcher 2000). However, in both of these cases, the states do
not have provisions applicable to freshwater and saltwater animals: statutory authorities would
have to be expanded for truly comprehensive planning. In Texas and Louisiana nonindigenous
animal restrictions are basically a patchwork of aquaculture and wildlife provisions (Fletcher
2000).
With respect to regional planning, Fletcher (2000) indicates that no Gulf State statutes
provide (1) provisions to offer notice of identifications, introductions, or infestations to
neighboring states or (2) any provisions for mitigation. Without such provisions, significant
conflict can occur among states when a nonindigenous species introduction is intentional and
controversial (Fletcher 2000).
What Research Resources are Available and What Research
is Still Needed?
An inventory of recent peer-reviewed scientific research relevant to selected Gulf-region
aquatic invasive species issues was prepared for this report. The purpose of the inventory is to
(1) serve as an initial regional scientific directory on key current and emerging invasive species
issues and (2) begin identifying regional research gaps and needs. This iteration of the Research
Inventory, found in Appendix I, contains over 400 individual references and contains references
on over 37 key species.
Research Needs
Initial lists of Gulf-region invasive species research needs prepared by various committees of
the GMP are presented in Section 10.0. The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc
Experts Panel for Invasive Species Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and Dr. Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xvii
-------
Version 4.0
It is expected that the Expert Panel will complete a thorough invasive species research
guidance/research needs report in 2001.
Gulfwide Aquatic invasive Species Issues Addressed by the
CMP Invasive Species Focus Team: Shrimp Viruses and
Ballast Water
To facilitate Gulf-wide communication and coordination on invasive species issues, the GMP
sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the ISFT serves as a
venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, it is currently focused on three
issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an introduction pathway, and the
prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the majority of the Focus Team's
efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues.
Shrimp Viruses
Of the 14 penaied shrimp viruses known worldwide, three exotic viruses have been identified
in the Gulf of Mexico region: White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), Taura Syndrome Virus
(TSV), and Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV). Another exotic
shrimp virus, Yellow Head Virus (YHV), usually co-occurs with WSSV (Lightner 1996a,
Lightner 1996b), but has not been identified in live shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico region
(Mcllwain, pers. comm.). WSSV is endemic throughout much of Asia, and TSV and IHHNV
are endemic in wild shrimp populations throughout much of Central and South America (ISA
1997). It has been shown that all three viruses are carried by some live shrimp, but they also
have been found in imported frozen shrimp, shrimp by-products, and in a number of non-penaied
shrimp and other crustacean species (e.g., copepods, crabs, and crayfish) (Lightner 1996a,
Lightner 1996b, ISA 1997). Note that none of these three exotic shrimp viruses are known to
pose a threat to human health (Kumpf et al. 1999).
Shrimp consumption in the U.S. has increased while the average annual domestic harvest has
remained steady at approximately 200 million pounds (Kumpf et al. 1999). Growing demand for
shrimp has been met by increasing imports (from Asia and South America) and expanding
domestic aquaculture capacity. Unfortunately these activities increase the threat of exotic shrimp
viruses entering processing and aquaculture facilities: viruses can enter processing facilities
through infected imported or domestic shrimp, and likewise, can enter aquaculture facilities
through infected brood stock, contaminated feed, infected transport containers, or by migratory
birds.
There are three native penaied shrimp species of commercial importance in the Gulf of
Mexico — brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum),
and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). The Gulf-region native shrimp fishery is economically
significant; in Texas alone, it generates $600 million in economic benefits annually and provides
30,000 jobs (GMP 1999). All three exotic shrimp viruses described above have been shown
experimentally to infect the Gulfs three native penaied shrimp species (Kumpf et al. 1999). The
presence of exotic shrimp viruses at processing and aquaculture facilities increases the threat of
Page xviii September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
infecting wild native shrimp populations in the Gulf, potentially harming associated harvesting
and processing industries.
In 1996, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculrure, Shrimp Virus Workgroup conducted a
workshop on the status of shrimp viruses in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic
Ocean, and the results of that workshop established the baseline information and action plan for
dealing with the virus issue. Since that time additional Gulf-region workshops have been held
and considerable new scientific research on shrimp viruses in the Gulf region has been
conducted. Thus it is recommended that a new shrimp virus workshop be carried out in 2001 to
bring all stakeholders up to date and to re-evaluate the approaches needed to address this
important issue.
Ballast Water
Fundamental to world trade, ships have moved across the oceans for centuries and currently
transport approximately 80 percent of the world's commodities (NRC 1996). Ballast, normally
in the form of water, is an integral part of the safe operation of ships under a wide range of
conditions and loads. The uptake, transport, and subsequent discharge of water and sediment
from ship ballast tanks can disperse aquatic organisms - including jellyfish, crabs, clams, fish,
snails, bacteria, and viruses. Research has confirmed that plants, animals, and pathogens can live
and grow over a long period in ballast tanks and cargo holds (Smith et al. 1996). It has been
estimated that more than 3,000 species of animals and plants are transported daily around the
world in ballast water (NRC 1996). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses through
ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains virtually
unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000). The potential for entire coastal planktonic
assemblages to be introduced by international ballast water transfers, make bays, estuaries, and
inland waters some of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world (Carlton and Geller 1993).
Because of the lack of alternative ballast water control strategies, open-ocean exchange -
exchanging ballast water loaded in port or in inshore waters with ocean water during passage
between ports of call - is the only control option being implemented for reducing the risk of
introduction. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of open-
ocean exchange. This uncertainty combined with the fact that open-ocean exchange can
compromise vessel safety and can be costly, particularly when exchange time exceeds voyage
time, has led to the conclusion that open-ocean exchange is a short-term ballast water
management approach.
This conclusion has prompted considerable research and investigations into other control
options. Control options being investigated internationally include avoiding ballasting if water is
likely to contain unwanted organisms (e.g., in areas of sewage discharge or high sediment loads)
and shipboard and shore-based treatment of ballast water. Shore-based treatment of ballast may
have some advantages, but centralized handling and treatment of such large volumes of water
poses many economic and infrastructure challenges including, increased port congestion, lack of
available land for treatment facilities, and delays in ship schedules. Although shipboard
treatment also poses considerable challenges (e.g., space and energy limitations, shipboard
safety), it currently provides the most flexibility in managing ballast water.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xix
-------
Version 4.0
The diversity of potential introductions and the numerous environmental factors determining
the fate of organisms discharged with ballast water make it difficult to predict what the next
introduction will be or when and where it will occur (NRC 1996). To clarify the vulnerability of
the Gulf of Mexico region, a better understanding is needed of (1) the nonindigenous species that
have entered the Gulf region via ballast water and (2) each Gulf port's potential to serve as a
conduit for future invasions. To begin this process, one recent study has estimated ballast water
discharges to five major Gulf of Mexico ports (Table ES7). In addition, Barrert-O'Leary (1999)
has prepared a white paper detailing a process to assess the potential for nonindigenous species
introduction through U.S. Gulf of Mexico ports, which considers the following factors: total
tonnage and total export tonnage; types and proportions of transport vessels and cargos; trade
partners; origin of ballast; natural environment and port water quality compared to water quality
of trade partners; and location of known pests and foulants in port.
Table ES7. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major Gulf of Mexico
Ports
\V>iPort %V \
*£,,/ -VV«. *;
Houston
New Orleans
Gulfport
Mobile
Tampa
V*' Cargo/
" (million tons) '
149
83
2.0
50.8
51.3
*' /'* s'v!'\/ \''' *- ~
; # f . v.T"ype Vessel ". * /
78% Tankers
37% Tankers
36% General Cargo
74% General Cargo
70% Bulk Carriers
52% Bulk Carriers
' , - - Ballast Water Exchange - "
3.7 million metric tons (1 billion gallons/yr)
21.8 million metric tons (5.8 billion gallons/yr)
17.8 thousand metric tons (47 million gallons/yr)
1 . 1 million metric tons (293 million gallons/yr)
2.1 million metric tons (543 million gallons/yr)
Source: Kumpf et al. (1999)
Detailed ballast water information is now being collected under the National Ballast Water
Survey. This survey is being conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to evaluate the level of
ship compliance with the voluntary at-sea exchange guidelines for foreign vessel arrivals. Upon
entry into U.S. ports, foreign vessels are required to submit a ballast water reporting form
indicating whether an exchange has been conducted, and the volume and location of exchange.
All information reported on the ballast water reporting form is recorded in the National Ballast
Water Information Clearinghouse (NBWIC), operated and maintained by the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center (SERC). This information, combined with assessments of
individual Gulf-region port vulnerabilities and a solid understanding of the nonindigenous
aquatic organisms and their active introduction pathways, should allow regional managers to
better control the ballast water pathway.
Three ballast water workshops have been held in the Gulf of Mexico region. During each
workshop, national and regional perspectives on ballast water were shared during presentations
made by the ports, the shipping industry, environmental managers, and scientists. Workshop
participants also shared their opinions on regional management of ballast water and provided
suggestions for future actions.
Page xx
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
7.0 Scope and Purpose
1.1 Scope of this Report
Human activities have and continue to introduce - both deliberately and accidentally - a
large number of new species to the Gulf of Mexico region. Many such nonindigenous species
are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors
of our economy, offering recreational opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in
our gardens. However, there is a harmful subset of these species - invasive species - that, when
established as free-living populations beyond human control and confinement, can threaten the
diversity of native species; the ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities
dependent on these ecosystems; and human health.
This report focuses on just those invasive species that are obligated to live in a waterbody for
part or all of their lives: aquatic invasive species. Of all aquatic taxa, this initial survey
concentrates on fish, non-insect aquatic invertebrates, aquatic mammals, aquatic microbes, and
aquatic and semi-aquatic plants; it does not consider aquatic birds or aquatic insects.
In order to adequately survey aquatic invasive species issues, including potential future
aquatic invasive species issues, in the Gulf of Mexico region, the scope of this report covers:
• Invasive nonindigenous aquatic species (1) established in free-living populations, (2) in a
captive or managed state in the Gulf of Mexico region, or (3) not yet introduced to the Gulf
of Mexico region, but with an active introduction pathway.
• Indigenous aquatic species aggressively expanding their natural ranges or density in an area
due to human activities (e.g., habitat alteration), to the detriment of other native species or
ecosystems.
• Uncontrolled and unmonitored introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species, where there is
no appropriate assessment of risks.
The large marine ecosystem that is the Gulf of Mexico contains two zoogeographic
provinces, with tropical, subtropical, and temperate flora and fauna (Kumpf et al. 1999), shared
among three countries, the U.S., Mexico, and Cuba. While Gulf-region managers must
eventually consider this entire ecosystem and all three countries, this report focuses only on the
U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The study area for this report includes the area
within the political boundaries of the five Gulf States - Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Texas - and waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the seaward boundary of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (Figure 1).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Pagel
-------
Version 4.0
Figure 1. Map of the Report Study Area: The Gulf of Mexico Region
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone In
Gulf of Mexico with Coastal HUC's
/\/ U.S. Exckisi¥« Economic Zone Boundary
Noaa Guif Coastal 8 Digit HUC's
USGS
c.ti'-vt tar* i.-lij>v(i--aii *»Mi
EEZ data are based on interpretation of
available information (NOAA, 3 C F R 22)
and should not be construed as legally binding
DRAM-
Key Report Definitions
Despite previous attempts at standardization, terminology used to describe invasive species
issues has not been applied consistently (Nico and Fuller 1999), in either the peer-reviewed or
gray literature. Key terms used in the report are defined as follows (also see Section 11.0
Glossary):
Aquatic Species
All plants, animals, and microbes that are obligated to live in a freshwater, estuarine (i.e., tidally-
influenced), or marine waterbody (including a freshwater or coastal wetland) during all or part of
their lives (adapted from Benson 2000).
Nonindigenous Species
Any individual, group, or population of a species, or other viable biological material, that is
intentionally or unintentionally moved by human activities, beyond its natural range or natural
zone of potential dispersal, including moves from one continent or country into another and
Page 2
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
moves within a country or region; includes all domesticated and feral species, and all hybrids
except for naturally occurring crosses between indigenous species. Introduced and non-native
are synonyms for nonindigenous.
Pathway
The means by which a species enters an open ecosystem (adapted from McCann 1996). Vector
is a synonym for pathway.
Introduction
The act of an organism being moved by either intentional and unintentional human-facilitated
transference, including escape from confinement, to an area beyond its natural range or natural
zone of potential dispersal. This definition does not include organisms imported and cultured in
human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture or research facility, ornamental pond), unless
it escapes.
Established
A species with one or more successfully reproducing or breeding (i.e., permanent) populations in
an open ecosystem (i.e., outside of human control and confinement), which are unlikely to be
eliminated by man or natural causes. Naturalized is a synonym for established.
Invasive Species
A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of
impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural, commercial, or
recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. Synonyms for invasive species
include harmful species, injurious species, invader, noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and
weed.
Gulf of Mexico Region
The Gulf of Mexico region includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf
States - Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas - and waters of the Gulf of Mexico
to the seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
1.2 Purpose of this Report
The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world, with a surface area of
approximately 1.5 million square kilometers, over 200 estuaries, an extensive barrier island
system, and 5 million acres of coastal wetlands - nearly one-half of the U.S. total coastal wetland
acreage (Kumpf et al. 1999). The 33 major river systems that comprise the Gulf of Mexico's
U.S. watershed drain some 66 percent of the continental U.S. The Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
provides one-third of all marine recreational fishing opportunities in the U.S., 72 percent of the
U.S. shrimp harvest, and 66 percent of U.S. oyster production (Kumpf et al. 1999). It is a
desirable place to live: population of the 50-mile-wide corridor along the entire Gulf coast is
projected to increase by nearly 150 percent over the 50-year period ending in 2010 (Cato and
Kumpf 1991).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 3
-------
Version 4.0
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) is a network of citizens dedicated to managing and
protecting resources of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of
the region (USEPA 1999). One goal of the GMP is to sustain living resources in the Gulf of
Mexico. One mechanism to achieve this goal, the GMP will support implementation, by 2009,
of voluntary or incentive-based practices and technologies that can prevent new introductions of
invasive species, or reduce the impact or range of dispersal of known invasive species, as
identified by the five Gulf States. By 2004, the GMP will assist each of the five Gulf States in
developing a prevention, management, education, and monitoring plan to minimize introductions
and impacts of invasive species.
To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP
convened, beginning in 1997, a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While
the Focus Team is a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is
currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as a
major introduction vector, and preventing new introductions of invasive species. The ISFT
specifically assists the GMP by formulating technical characterizations, recommending annual
program workplan goals, recommending priority projects, and developing a communication/
public education program to address Gulf-region invasive species issues. The ISFT has also
committed to serving as a resource to Gulf States preparing invasive species management plans,
in accordance with the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996.
In 1999, the GMP Management Committee was designated to serve as the Gulf of Mexico
Regional Panel to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF). The Gulf
Regional Panel provides the ANSTF with regional input on emerging invasive species issues,
coordinates regional invasive species control programs, and develops recommendations on
policy and program actions to be implemented at the national level. The Gulf Regional Panel is
also responsible for submitting an annual report to the ANSTF describing invasive species
management activities in the Gulf region.
To meet these program responsibilities in a coordinated manner, the ISFT has developed this
report to:
• Compile background and technical information needed to generate the Gulf Regional Panel's
first (2000) Annual Report to the ANSTF;
• Begin compiling information that will assist the five Gulf States in developing aquatic
components of their invasive species management plan(s);
• Generate a regional information and coordination resource for aquatic invasive species
management and research activities, targeting the GMP's broad group of stakeholders.
The report is organized as follows:
• Section 2.0 provides an introduction to the aquatic invasive species issue.
• Section 3.0 provides a synthesis of aquatic species introduced to the Gulf of Mexico region,
on a state-by-state basis (without regard to invasiveness).
Page 4 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
• Section 4.0 presents the results of a survey of aquatic invasive species management priorities
in the five Gulf States.
• Section 5.0 provides an overview of shrimp viruses, an issue of Gulfwide importance.
• Section 6.0 provides an overview of ballast water as an introduction pathway, an issue of
Gulfwide importance.
• Section 7.0 outlines the current invasive species management framework at federal, regional,
and state levels in the Gulf region.
• Section 8.0 provides an inventory of recent major actions undertaken by regional
stakeholders to address their aquatic invasive species issues.
• Section 9.0 provides an inventory of abstracts from recently completed and current scientific
research on selected aquatic invasive species issues. It also provides broad guidance for
further scientific research in the Gulf region.
• Section 10.0 provides specific recommendations for developing future versions of this
document.
• Section 11.0 provides a glossary of terms used in this document.
• Section 12.0 provides bibliographic references.
In selected instances, this report incorporated recently published issue summaries to avoid
duplication of effort. For example, descriptions of the shrimp virus sources and pathways in
Section 5.2 were excerpted from JSA (1997). Similarly, descriptions of the federal-state
management relationships in Section 7.4 and Appendices D, E, F, and G were adapted or
excerpted from OTA (1993) and Corn et al. (1999). Now final, the Invasive Species Council
report, National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge (the final version -
dated January 18, 2001 - is available at www.invasivespecies.gov), contains an extremely
detailed description of the federal and international management framework for invasive species,
and should serve as an excellent supplement to Section 7.0.
This report is current as of its completion date, September 2000. However, due to the highly
dynamic nature of bioinvasions, new species introductions and management responses continue
to occur. The ISFT intends this report to be a "living document," to be expanded and updated at
the discretion of the ISFT.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 5
-------
Version 4.0
2.0 An Introduction to the
Aquatic Invasive Species Issue
2.1 Key Terminology
Humans have a long history of deliberately introducing terrestrial and aquatic species to new
areas for agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, sport fishing, hunting, pets, and a host of
other reasons. These nonindigenous species are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of
the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors of our economy, offering recreational
opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in our gardens. At the same time,
human activities like travel, trade, and natural habitat alteration have caused many unplanned or
accidental introductions of species to new areas. The contemporary massive transformation of
the natural environment and worldwide transport of people and cargo now facilitate species
introductions - both deliberate and accidental - at a rate that completely overshadows natural
rates of species movement (OTA 1993), and makes large-scale range expansions across
mountains and oceans common. For the purposes of this report, we focus on these human-
facilitated movements of species - both deliberate and accidental - to new areas: throughout this
report such species are referred to as nonindigenous species.
For those nonindigenous species introduced to open ecosystems (i.e., outside of human
control and confinement), only a portion will successfully establish one or more permanent,
reproducing populations (Mack et al. 2000). These established nonindigenous species can be
categorized by their impacts - ecologic and economic - in the new ecosystem: beneficial,
harmful, unknown, or neutral (although, in many cases, impacts are a mix of beneficial and
harmful) (OTA 1993). Many intentionally established nonindigenous species provide great
benefit; see the sidebar "The Many Benefits of Nonindigenous Species Introduced to the U.S."
on Page 7. However, a small number of established nonindigenous species both intentionally
and unintentionally introduced result in serious threats to the diversity or abundance of native
species; the ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural,
aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health.
The impacts of these few species is considerable; one study estimates that the overall economic
impact of harmful nonindigenous species is a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et
al. 1999). This report purposefully focuses on the small number of nonindigenous species that
are harmful, or potentially harmful (i.e., those with unknown impacts), and does not further
discuss beneficial nonindigenous species. Throughout this report, the term invasive species is
used to denote those nonindigenous species with any form of harmful impact in open
ecosystems.
Page 6
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
The Many Benefits of Nonindigenous Species Introduced to the U.S.
Excerpted from OTA (1993).
Almost all economically important crops and livestock in the U.S. are nonindigenous species. Nonindigenous
plants have a similarly important role in horticulture and include such familiar mainstays as iris (Iris spp.), forsythia
(Forsythia spp.), and weeping willow (Salix spp.). Many plants used to prevent erosion are also nonindigenous,
such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.). Importation of new species and strains
continues for the development of new varieties for agriculture, horticulture, and soil conservation. Nonindigenous
insects also have important functions in agriculture. The European honey bee (Apis melliferd) forms the basis for
the U.S. agriculture industry, providing bees to pollinate orchards and many other agricultural crops.
Nonindigenous organisms of many types have beneficial uses as biological control agents, frequently for
control of nonindigenous pests. Insects and pathogens of plants and animals are most commonly used for control of
weeds and insect pests. For example, a rust fungus (Puccinia chondrillind) was successfully introduced into
California to control skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) in 1975. Fish have been introduced in some places to
control aquatic weeds, mosquitoes, gnats, and midges. Some consider the introduction of barn owls (Tyto alba) to
Hawaii to control mice and rats a success, although the use of land-dwelling vertebrates for biological control has
generally caused great environmental damage.
A number offish and shellfish cultured in the growing aquaculture industry are nonindigenous. Virtually the
entire West Coast oyster industry is based on the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), originally from Japan. Fish
species of tilapia, from Africa and the Middle East, are now commonly grown throughout the U.S., and shrimp
farmers in southeastern and other regions of the country commonly raise Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus
vannamei), a shrimp originally from Asia.
Sport fishing often means fishing for nonindigenous fish. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), striped
bass (Morone saxalilis), and varieties of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), although indigenous to the U.S.,
have been widely introduced beyond their natural ranges for fisheries enhancement. A frequently stocked sport fish,
the brown trout (Salmo trutta), originated in Europe. The Great Lakes salmon fishery is based on species
indigenous to the Pacific coast of North America. Additional fish have been introduced to provide forage for game
fish. Sport fishing not only provides recreational opportunities, but also stimulates the development of related
businesses, such as boat rentals, charter fishing, and sales of fishing equipment and supplies.
Some of the most widely hunted game species, such as the chukar partridge (Alecloris chuckar) and ring-necked
pheasant (Phasianus colchieus), originated outside of the U.S. Sizable businesses exist to provide supplies and
services for recreational hunting. Some nonindigenous big-game animals, like Sika deer (Cervus nippon) from Asia,
and South African oryx (Oryx gazella gazella), are grown on private ranches for hunting, and also to satisfy the
growing market for "exotic" game meats. Nonindigenous fur-bearing animals support both the trapping industry
and far-bearer farms.
Most pet and aquarium industries are based on domesticated and other nonindigenous species, including cats,
dogs, hamsters, goldfish, snakes, turtles, and chameleons. These animals are valued by owners for companionship,
protection, and recreation. A number of nonindigenous animals, such as the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis),
are used in biomedical fields for experimental work or testing.
Restoration of habitats degraded by pollution, mining, and other human disruptions sometimes includes planting
stress-tolerant nonindigenous species. Several trees, like the ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) from China, are common in
urban landscaping, where few indigenous species can grow. Some nonindigenous sport fish serve a similar role in
reservoirs and other artificial habitats less hospitable to indigenous species. Efforts to remedy environmental
contamination from oil or other substances sometimes involve the release of nonindigenous microbes that accelerate
contaminant degradation. Certain microbes help make nutrients available to plants through nitrogen fixation. These
microbes also have been widely transferred and released around the world.
Paradoxically, nonindigenous species introductions are increasingly seen by some conservationists as a means
to preserve certain endangered and threatened species that cannot be saved in their native habitats. Some
conservationists have even suggested that introduction of large ungulates from Africa onto the American plains may
be some species' best chance at survival.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 7
-------
Version 4.0
Invasive Species: A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the
ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural,
aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human
health. Synonyms for invasive species include harmful species, injurious species, invader,
noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and weed.
It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous species
introductions to an open ecosystem, as these introductions form the "pool" of established
nonindigenous species from which a few harmful invasive species arise. The remainder of
Section 2.0 begins to explore these issues for the U.S., and Section 3.0 begins to explore these
issues for the Gulf of Mexico region.
2.2 Characterizing Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Introductions to the U.S.
The Magnitude of Nonindiqenous Aquatic Species Introductions to the U.S.
Researchers have documented a great increase in the number of nonindigenous aquatic
species in the U.S. over the past 100 years (Benson 2000). Benson (2000) has inventoried 334
exotic aquatic amphibian, bryozoan, coelenterate, crustacean, fish, mammal, mollusk, plant, and
reptile species introduced into the U.S., and 428 similar species transplanted within the U.S.
(Table 1). Researchers predict that the effects of nonindigenous fishes on aquatic biodiversity
will probably increase during the next 25 years because of the great increase in introduced fishes
over the past 45 years (Fuller et al. 1999, Williams and Meffe 1999). Ruiz et al. (1997) contends
that nonindigenous species are a significant force of change in marine and estuarine
communities, fundamentally altering population, community, and ecosystem processes. Even
though the number of fishes introduced to estuarine and marine systems worldwide appears to be
small compared to the number in freshwater systems (Baltz 1991), Cohen and Carlton (1998)
found an accelerating rate of aquatic invasions in the San Francisco Bay estuary.
Origin of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introductions to the U.S.
Introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species can be organized into two categories, based
on where the species originates. The first is species having origins outside of the U.S. that enter
the country, becoming established either under human cultivation (e.g., agriculture, horticulture,
pets, etc.) or as independent, free-living populations. These species are defined as foreign or
exotic species. The second category, defined as transplanted species, is a species having origins
within the U.S. that is moved to an area beyond its native range.
At least one-half of all nonindigenous aquatic amphibians, crustaceans, fishes, mollusks, and
reptiles introduced into U.S. waters, and more than 80 percent of the introduced aquatic plant
species, are exotic (Table 1) (Benson 2000). Species from all taxonomic groups have come to
the U.S. from South America, Central America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, the Caribbean,
the South Pacific, and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Benson 2000). South America is the
origin for the greatest number of U.S. nonindigenous aquatic species with 22 percent, followed
Page 8 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
by Asia with 20 percent, Eurasia with 16 percent, Europe with 13 percent, Africa with 12
percent, Central America with 6 percent, and Australia with 2 percent (Benson 2000).
Table 1. Numbers of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced into the U.S.
Amphibians
Bryozoans
Coelenterates
Crustaceans
Fishes
Mammals
Molluscs
Plants
Reptiles
Foreign to the U.S.
13
1
4
15
176
1
29
74
21
Native to the U.S.
24
2
1
15
331
0
7
15
33
Source: Benson (2000)
Determining the origin of some aquatic species becomes more problematic in estuarine and
marine environments. It is assumed that centuries of ship traffic have brought numerous marine
organisms (e.g., fouling and wood-boring invertebrates) to the U.S. and the Gulf region. Such
species, established before the first surveys of marine taxa, are traditionally considered native,
but there is little evidence whether they are native or introduced (Carlton and Ruckelshaus 1997).
Until paleontological, archaeological, historical, biogegraphic, systematic, or genetic evidence is
available to further classify these organisms, they remain cryptogenic (i.e., a species whose
status as indigenous or nonindigenous is not resolved) (Carlton and Ruckelshaus 1997).
Pathways of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduction to the U.S.
A pathway, or vector, is the means by which a species enters an open ecosystem.
Introduction pathways can be divided into three categories: unintentional, intentional, and escape
from confinement (Williams and Meffe 1999). As a generalization, most plant and vertebrate
animal introductions have been intentional, whereas most invertebrate and microbe introductions
have been unintentional (Pimentel et al. 1999). Table 2 presents the principal pathways for
aquatic species introductions categorized by this scheme. These pathways are described in more
detail in Appendix A.
It should be recognized that many species have been intentionally introduced for beneficial
reasons (e.g., increasing recreational fishing opportunities), only to later realize serious
ecological and economic repercussions. Some infamous examples are grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idelld), introduced for aquatic weed control, kudzu (Pueraria montand),
introduced for erosion control, and Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), highly touted in
Texas as fast growing shade trees during the 1970s (Stickney 2001). There are several such
recreational fish species for which federal and state agencies established aggressive hatchery and
distribution programs.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 9
-------
Version 4.0
Table 2. Principal Pathways of Introduction for Aquatic Species
. . Pathway Category '
Pathway of Introduction
''-..-- ," - . .
Unintentional
Transported Commodities
Vessels: Dry Ballast, Ballast Water, and Hull Fouling
Boat Trailers
Recreational Activities
Habitat Alteration / Canals
Interbasin Transfers of Water
Nontarget Species / Stock Contamination
Unknown
Intentional
' Agriculture, Horticulture, and Soil Conservation
Recreational Sport Fishing / Forage Species
1 Bait Bucket Releases
1 New Food Sources
1 Intentional Aquarium and Pet Releases
1 Biological Control
1 Species Conservation
1 Unknown
Escape from Confinement
Horticulture
Ornamental Pond and Pet Escapes
Aquaculrure and Fish Farms
Imported Live Food
Research / Public Display
Establishment of Nonindiqenous Aquatic Species
Of all nonindigenous species introductions (terrestrial and aquatic) - both intentional and
unintentional - only a subset persist and successfully reproduce (i.e., become established) in the
new ecosystem (Mack et al. 2000). From the 50,000 terrestrial and aquatic nonindigenous
species estimated by Pimentel et al. (1999) to have been introduced to the U.S., Williams and
Meffe (1999) estimate that there are some 6,500 species of nonindigenous plants, animals, and
microbes with established populations. Another study indicates that five to ten percent of
introduced species (terrestrial and aquatic) become established, and two to three percent are able
to expand their ranges (di Castri 1989). Nico and Fuller (1999) estimate that 38 percent of 185
exotic fish taxa introduced to U.S. inland waters have established or possibly established
populations.
Invasiveness of Established Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Only a subset of established nonindigenous species becomes invasive (Mack et al. 2000),
although the impacts of many established nonindigenous species are a mix of beneficial and
harmful, or remain unknown. Williams and Meffe (1999) estimate that, of the 6,500 established
nonindigenous taxa (terrestrial and aquatic) in the U.S., about 15 percent are ecologically or
Page 10
September 2000
-------
Version 4,0
economically harmful. OTA (1993) estimates a range from 4 to 19 percent of nonindigenous
terrestrial and aquatic species in the U.S. are harmful. Another study indicates that two to three
percent of nonindigenous terrestrial and aquatic species expand their ranges (di Castri 1989). In
Florida, 5 of the state's 20 established nonindigenous aquatic plant species are considered
invasive (McCann et al. 1996).
Table 3 presents the number of nonindigenous aquatic species introduced to the U.S. by
pathway. As indicated in Table 3, a wide variety of pathways facilitate introductions of
nonindigenous fishes. A common pathway for a large number of species across varied aquatic
taxa is aquarium and pet releases. As expected, the pathway of introduction remains unknown
for a large number of species. Ruiz et al. (1997) contend that the global movement of ballast
water currently appears to be the largest single vector for nonindigenous species transfer.
Table 3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the U.S. by Introduction Pathway
^Pathway
' Amphib-
, ians - .
VBry'o-'-;
zoans '
Coeleiit-
erates , ,
Crusta-;
V wans""".
Fishes
. 'Mam- -
*v mals -\
vMollT
-_ \ uses "~\
Reptiles
Unintentional
Shipping
Ballast Water
Stock Contamination
Unknown
0
0
2
12
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
2
5
1
1
53
7
31
15
1
0
0
0
2
3
1
15
1
0
0
12
Intentional
Sportfishing
Forage Species
Bait Bucket Releases
New Food Sources
Stocked
Aquarium and Pets
Biological Control
Conservation
Unknown
0
0
3
1
7
22
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
4
1
0
0
1
114
47
84
19
21
81
14
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
6
44
0
0
0
Escape from Confinement
Ornamental
Imported Live Food
Aquaculture / Farms
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
18
3
54
1
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
Source: Adapted from Benson (2000)
It is important to realize that an established nonindigenous species can remain relatively
contained for long periods of time, only later becoming invasive. Purple loosestrife (Ly thrum
salicarid) existed at low population levels and in a limited geographic area for decades before
greatly expanding its range and becoming a widely recognized invasive species (Williams and
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 11
-------
Version 4.0
Meffe 1999). In other cases, the harmful effects of an established nonindigenous species can
remain undetected for extended period (OTA 1993). Other nonindigenous species become
problems only after an associated nonindigenous species is introduced (e.g., a plant's pollinator
insect) (OTA 1993).
The impacts of a nonindigenous aquatic species can also be unknown (and therefore
potentially invasive). For example in aquatic environments, of 111 fishes introduced in the U.S.,
28 percent were found to have harmful effects, 30 percent to have beneficial effects, 17 percent
both harmful and beneficial effects, and 25 percent unknown effects (OTA 1993). Of 88
mollusks analyzed in the same study, 44 percent were found to have harmful effects, 3 percent
beneficial effects, and 53 percent unknown effects (OTA 1993). Steirer (1992) contends that
most intentional aquatic introductions result in a mix of benefits and detriments, but no
unintentional aquatic introductions have been considered beneficial.
Williams and Meffe (1999) have summarized the characteristics of invasive species and
ecosystems subject to invasion (Tables 4a and 4b). Note, however, that the predictability of
invasions remains limited in spite of well-established patterns of invasion (OTA 1993, Howells
1999).
Table 4a. Generalized Characteristics of Successful Invasive Species
High rate of reproduction; pioneer species; short generation time
Long-lived
High dispersal rates
Single-parent reproduction (for example, a gravid or pregnant female can colonize)
Vegetative or clonal reproduction
High genetic variability
Phenotypic plasticity
Broad native range
Tolerant of wide range of conditions
Habitat generalist
Broad diet (polyphagous)
Gregarious
Human commensal
Table 4b. Generalized Characteristics of Communities More Likely to be Invaded
• Climatically similar to original habitat of invader
• Early successional (recently disturbed)
• Low diversity of native species
• Absence of predators on invading species
• Absence of native species morphologically (form or structure) or ecologically similar to the invader
• Absence of predators or grazers in evolutionary history (nai've prey)
• Absence of fire in evolutionary history
• Low-connectance food web
• Disturbed by humans
Source: Williams and Meffe (1999)
Page 12 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
2.3 Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species
Invasive species are one of six major components of global environmental change, and a
significant contributor to the loss of biological diversity (Vitousek et al. 1996, Mack et al. 2000).
While only a small number of all nonindigenous species introductions cause severe harm, such
invasive species occur in almost all regions of the U.S. (OTA 1993). The major ecological
impacts of invasive species are (1) outright loss of native species or decline in abundance of
native species due to competition for food and space, predation, and habitat alteration; (2)
changes in ecosystem structure and function, such as nutrient cycling and hydrology; (3)
rearrangement of trophic relations; or (4) the introduction of virulent plant and animal diseases
and parasites (Williams and Meffe 1999, Benson 2000, Mack et al. 2000). For example, two
invasive fish species, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld) and common carp (Cyprimts
carpio), consume large quantities of aquatic vegetation, increase water turbidity, and generally
destroy habitat for smaller fishes (Moyle et al. 1986). Genetic effects also occur through
hybridization and interbreeding with native species (Mills et al. 1994).
Plants form the biological foundation of all terrestrial and freshwater communities, and
invasive plant species can alter an ecosystem substantially, changing productivity, consumption,
decomposition, water fluxes, nutrient cycling and loss, soil fertility, erosion, and frequency of
fire (Schmitz et al. 1997). Invasive semi-aquatic trees such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius) and Australian paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervid) often form dense, single
species stands, and constitute a serious threat to open marshlands and coastal shrub and strand
communities of the Gulf of Mexico region (Cox 1999). In addition, chemicals from invasive
organisms can adversely impact ecosystems. For example, various tannins and phenols in
decaying leaves of the highly invasive Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) are reported to be
toxic to many aquatic invertebrates (Cox 1999).
Invasive species - both terrestrial and aquatic - can affect endangered and threatened species.
Williams and Meffe (1999) report that invasive species contribute, at least in part, to the
inclusion of about 315 U.S. native species and subspecies on federal endangered and threatened
species lists. Of 30 extinct fishes in the U.S., invasive species were a factor in the extinction of
24 (Williams and Meffe 1999). Within rivers and lakes of Alabama (a Gulf state with a
relatively large number of endemic freshwater invertebrates), 65 percent of gill-breathing snails
and 69 percent of mussels are considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Minton
2000). It is feared that zebra mussels (Dreissenapolymorphd), now established in northern
Alabama, might invade Alabama's waters, displacing many of these endangered and threatened
species (Minton 2000). Even seemingly insignificant species like the guppy (Poecilia reticulatd)
or mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) have threatened native fishes and been implicated in the
extinction of others (Howells 1999). Impacts on other species also can be indirect: the spread of
horsetail Australian pines (Casuarina equisetifolid) on sandy coasts and barrier islands has
altered the beach profile, hampering the ability of endangered loggerhead and green sea turtles to
nest (Cox 1999, Williams and Meffe 1999).
Aquatic species introductions have both adversely and positively impacted local, regional,
and national economies. Sport fishing, greatly enhanced by introductions of nonindigenous
species, contributes $69 billion annually to the U.S. economy. However, accounting for only
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 13
-------
Version 4.0
selected adverse ecological effects, one study estimates overall economic losses due to invasive
fish introductions at more than $1 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). This same study
estimates that the overall economic impact of nonindigenous species has been negative,
contributing to a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). Within the
aquatic environment, the highly invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorphd) is expected to
cost the power industry more than $3 billion during the ten year period ending in 2003 (OTA
1993). It is estimated that $100 million is spent annually to control aquatic weeds in the U.S.
(OTA 1993). Florida alone spends about $15.5 million each year on hydrilla (Hydrilla
verticillatd) control, yet infestations have caused an estimated $10 million in annual recreational
losses in just two Florida lakes (Center et al. 1997).
Adverse effects of introductions are not relegated to ecological and economic impacts:
aquatic invasive species also have the potential to impact human health. For example, the
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), a significant problem in South Florida, produces
allergens that cause contact dermatitis and respiratory problems in many people (Williams and
Meffe 1999). An issue of Gulfwide concern is the introduction of aquatic invasive species
through ballast water exchange. While the population did not proliferate, an exotic strain of
Vibrio cholerae, the bacteria that causes cholera, was introduced to Mobile Bay in 1991 by
ballast water exchange (McCarthy, pers. comm.). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses
through ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains
virtually unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000).
History has demonstrated that those species with impacts to industry, commerce, and human
health are the first to receive political attention, while species causing only ecological impacts
remain unaddressed due to lack of financial incentives (OTA 1993). For example, water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) are aquatic plants that
significantly altered native ecosystems, but gained greater political visibility by being nuisances
for recreational boaters and fishers (Benson 2000).
2.4 Control and Mitigation of Aquatic Species
Once a nonindigenous aquatic species becomes established, eradication is almost impossible
in large aquatic ecosystems (Howells 1999, Benson 2000, Mack et al. 2000). Usually managers
can only hope to control populations at economically or ecologically acceptable levels.
However, recent history has demonstrated that control efforts can be enormously expensive,
technologically impossible, harmful to nontarget species, and politically controversial
(Simberloff 1997b, Devine 1998, Cox 1999).
Control is usually site-specific, and several methods are usually necessary (Benson 2000).
Management and control should follow an integrated plan with the following components:
prevention, assessment, site specific management, evaluation, monitoring, and education
(Madsen 1997). National control programs exist for several aquatic species; for example, three
aquatic plants currently in the U.S. Army's Corps of Engineer's Aquatic Plant Control Program
are hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), and Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) (Madsen 1997).
Page 14 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Invasive species control techniques can be categorized as either biological or nonbiological.
Biological control is accomplished through the introduction of natural predators, diseases, or
parasites that help keep the nuisance species in balance with its new environment (Benson 2000).
Host-specificity between the pest and the biological control agent is necessary for effective
biological control (Center et al. 1997). Several invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth,
hydrilla, alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeraides), and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) have
been successfully controlled with introduced insects (Center et al. 1997). So far, though,
researchers are having little success finding effective natural predators of other species, such as
zebra mussels (Benson 2000).
Nonbiological control techniques can be categorized as either chemical or physical.
Chemical control utilizes pesticides and herbicides to kill target organisms. In recent years fewer
chemicals are available for aquatic use due to adverse effects on human health, aquatic
ecosystems, and wildlife resources; there are currently six U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA)-approved herbicides for aquatic use (Madsen 1997). Physical techniques used
to remove nonindigenous aquatic plants include hand-pulling, cutting, suction, rotovating,
dredging, use of benthic barriers, light attenuation, and nutrient inactivation (Madsen 1997).
Mechanical conveyors have long been used in South Florida to physically remove water
hyacinth, one technique in an integrated control plan. Physical techniques used to control the
zebra mussel include thermal, acoustic vibration, electrical current, filters and screens, coatings,
toxic constructed piping, carbon dioxide injection, ultraviolet light, ozone, and anoxia/hypoxia
(Benson 2000).
Control and management efforts should be an integral part of a comprehensive ecosystems
restoration program. For example, a restoration project was undertaken at Hole-in-the-
Doughnut, Everglades National Park, beginning in the 1970s. After several limited-success
efforts to control invading Brazilian pepper trees using fire and herbicides, the removal of "rock-
plowed soils" returned the area to a more natural state and significantly reduced Brazilian pepper
infestations (Randall et al. 1997).
The need to address the adverse consequences of invasive species was officially recognized
almost a century ago: the first legislation aimed at controlling unwanted introductions was the
Lacey Act, passed in 1900. However, some researchers feel that current federal laws address
only specific incidents and provide a remedy for only a small fraction of the invasive species
problems (Williams and Meffe 1999). Even though southern Florida has been subject to
relatively intense management for at least a decade, invasive species are currently invading every
major ecosystem and converting large areas of natural ecosystems into new ecosystem types
dominated by these new species (Cox 1999). Universally it is recognized that the prevention of
new introductions of invasive species, and the immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive
species, is the most effective, and cost effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al.
2000).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 15
-------
Version 4.0
3.0 Aquatic Species Introductions to the
Gulf of Mexico Region
It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous species
introductions to an open ecosystem, as these introductions create the "pool" of established
nonindigenous species from which harmful invasive species arise. Section 3.0 begins to explore
these issues for the Gulf of Mexico region.
3.1 Aquatic Species Introductions to the Gulf of Mexico
Region
Information to Assess Aquatic Species Introductions to the Gulf of Mexico
Region
While datasets suitable for assessing nonindigenous aquatic species introductions are
currently rare for the U.S. (Cohen and Carlton 1998), documentation of these species and their
impacts is increasing rapidly as the adverse effects of invasive species become better recognized
and appreciated. Several descriptions of the occurrence and status of nonindigenous aquatic
species in Florida have been published (McCann et al. 1996, Simberloff et al. 1997, Goodyear
2000), but similar descriptions for other Gulf States and the Gulf of Mexico region as a whole
are less frequent.
There are several existing and planned online resources. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) maintains an Internet-accessible database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov) of nonindigenous
aquatic species that is searchable by state or by drainage (USGS 2000; see Fuller et al. 1999 and
Benson 2000 for summaries of this dataset). The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains an extensive Internet-accessible database of
plants that includes a searchable list of invasive species (USDA 1999). Both the USGS and
NRCS websites provide access to digital distribution maps for selected species. The Center for
Aquatic and Invasive Plants at the University of Florida maintains a descriptive online inventory
of Florida's invasive aquatic plant species (CAIP 2000). The GMP recently partnered with the
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Museum to develop a detailed online database of nonindigenous
species (terrestrial and aquatic) in the Gulf of Mexico region (USM 2000).
The Magnitude of Aquatic Species Introductions to the Gulf of Mexico Region
Within the U.S., Florida and the Gulf Lowlands are second only to Hawaii in magnitude of
nonindigenous species introductions (Cox 1999). The subtropical environment and abundant
Page 16
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
aquatic habitats of the five Gulf States is naturally hospitable to nonindigenous aquatic species
(Devine 1998, Cox 1999).
In 1990, 19 nonindigenous aquatic plant species were reported in Florida's public waters,
placing Florida behind only Hawaii and perhaps California (McCann et al. 1996). Fuller et al.
(1999) reported the number of nonindigenous fish species introduced into inland waters of
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as 122, 53,23, 28, and 105, respectively; at
that time, the U.S. 50-state average was approximately 57 introductions per state. Table 5
presents a recent inventory of nonindigenous aquatic species introduced in the five Gulf States.
These studies indicate that the total number of aquatic species introductions to Florida and Texas
is nearly 2-3 times the U.S. 50-state average. See Section 3.2 for an updated inventory of
nonindigenous aquatic species (including microbes, invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants) in the
Gulf of Mexico region.
Table 5. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced to each Gulf State Compared to the U.S. 50
State Average
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
AVG.
N Aniphib
-ians
0
13
2
0
4
1.5
Bryo-
zoans
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
Coelent-
, erates -
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
Crusta—
% ceansSS
2
3
2
2
2
2.6
Fishes
?S%C
53
123
28
23
107
59
, Mam-
' raals ^
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
MOH-,;
V uses -
2
9
2
2
7
3.3
Plants
17
60
25
10
21
8.7
Reptiles
1
16
0
0
3
1.8
TOTAL
76
225
60
38
145
-78
Source: Benson (2000)
Courtenay (1997) did not report any established nonindigenous marine fishes in Florida,
noting that the complex life histories of these fishes may preclude colonization. However,
several marine fishes, all released from aquariums, survive on coral reefs in Florida (Fuller, pers.
comm.). For example, two orbiculate batfish (Platax orbicularus), a species from Indonesia,
were collected from the Florida Keys; it was determined that these fish have resided here since
1994, and perhaps since!989 (Fuller, pers. comm.). Some nonindigenous freshwater species
established in Florida, such as blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotherori), have high salinity
tolerance and have been reported in brackish waters (Baltz 1991). While numerous estuarine and
marine invertebrates are established in the Gulf of Mexico region, there are no systematic studies
of nonindigenous estuarine and marine invertebrates or plants in Florida waters (Carlton and
Ruckelshaus 1997), or for the Gulf region.
Florida's rapidly expanding population has increased demand for development and water
supplies, thus altering most of the natural ecosystems of southern Florida (McCann et al. 1996).
These trends exist for the other four Gulf States, especially coastal areas. As a result, disturbed
areas - urban, suburban, and rural - are now ideal sites for the establishment of nonindigenous
plants and animals (McCann et al. 1996). Cox (1999) estimates that 27 percent of Florida's
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 17
-------
Version 4.0
current flora is nonindigenous. South Florida has proven particularly vulnerable to invasive
species due to its insularity, tropical climate, and large area of disturbed habitat (Simberloff
1997a, Devine 1998). For example, in 1992, the South Florida Water Management District
estimated that 26,000 acres were covered with stands of the Australian paperbark (Melaleuca
quinquenervia). Today this highly invasive tree infects more than 500,000 acres of Florida south
of Lake Okechobee (Cox 1999).
Pathways of Introduction to the Gulf of Mexico Region
The Gulf of Mexico region is vulnerable to aquatic species introductions due to the
magnitude and variety of viable pathways created by, for example:
• Large numbers of people, vessels, and airplanes, and large volumes of cargo, coming through
multiple large-scale, international ports and airports.
• Year-round, cross-state recreational boating, fishing, and other aquatic recreational activities.
• Due to the warm climate and proximity to tropical areas, numerous industries import, breed,
grow-out, and warehouse a large variety of nonindigenous aquatic species.
• The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi River, which provide the 5 Gulf states with
an aquatic connection to more than half of the 48 states in the continental U.S. In addition,
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway established a direct aquatic link between the Tennessee
River and the Gulf of Mexico.
Nonindigenous fish have entered Gulf-region waters through a variety of pathways, including
ballast water, bait bucket transfers, discarded aquarium pets, biocontrol efforts, sportfish
stocking and stock contamination, aquaculture escapes, and stocking for food (Benson 2000) (see
Appendix A for descriptions of these pathways). Pike killifish (Belonesox belizanus) were
released in Florida after laboratory experiments at the University of Miami (Fuller, pers. comm.).
Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate Florida's unique distribution of introduction pathways and species'
origin for fish, relative to the U.S. A reason for at least part of these unique distributions is
related to the zoogeography of Florida. The nonindigenous fish base of most states consists
primarily of transplanted species, not foreign species, while Florida either already has many of
these transplanted species as natives or has an unsuitable climate or habitats for them (e.g.,
sahnonids) (Hill 2001).
A pathway of concern in Alabama is the introduction of aquatic invasive species through
ballast water exchange (Minton 2000). While the population did not proliferate, strong evidence
indicates that Vibrio cholera, the bacteria that causes cholera, was most probably introduced to
Mobile Bay by ballast water exchange in 1991 (Minton 2000). Awareness of the significance of
this pathway is greatly increasing throughout the Gulf region, and the ballast water pathway is a
Gulfwide issue currently being addressed by the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team.
One pathway of special concern in the State of Texas is interbasin transfers of water
(McKinney 2000). With water development infrastructure being constructed throughout Texas,
the potential for rapid transfers of biota between river basins, and thus coastal bays, is increasing.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recently commissioned a study in an area where
interbasin transfers will be likely, and found that risks were low for higher aquatic taxa (e.g.,
Page 18 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
fish), but moderate for microbes and other lower taxa (McKinney 2000). This potential pathway
exists in other parts of the Gulf of Mexico region, for example with the Tri-State Water Project
for Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.
Figure 2. Pathways of Fish Species Introductions in the U.S. and Florida
I B Aquarium
release or tish
farm escape
• Ba it bucket
U.S.
• SKK ki-il For
Sport
Florida
Source: P.L. Fuller and L.G. Nico, USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, FL, from the South Florida
Restoration Forum website (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/species/invasive/focus/).
Figure 3. Origin of Introduced Fish Species in the U.S. and Florida
U.S.
Florida
Source: P.L. Fuller and L.G. Nico, USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, FL, from the South Florida
Restoration Forum website (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/species/invasive/focus/).
3.2 An Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the
Gulf of Mexico Region
An Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region of
nonindigenous aquatic species occurrences in the five Gulf states was prepared for this report
(Appendix B). This initial version of the inventory focuses on aquatic microbes, non-insect
aquatic invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, aquatic mammals, algae, aquatic
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 19
-------
Version 4.0
plants, and semi-aquatic plants; it does not inventory aquatic birds and aquatic insects, or any
terrestrial species, in the Gulf region. The inventory compiles reports of nonindigenous aquatic
species that occur or have occurred in all freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments in the
Gulf of Mexico region, by Gulf State (note that an empty cell in the inventory does not
necessarily mean that the species in question is not present in a given state). Information sources
for each entry in the inventory are provided in the "Info Source" column in Appendix B.
Information for the inventory was gathered via Internet-based and other databases, and
interviews with several Gulf-region experts (a primary information source was the USGS
database described at the beginning of Section 3.1). The inventory is summarized in Tables 6, 7,
8, and 9.
Table 6. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring (or Having Occurred at Least Once) in the
Five Gulf States
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
Shrimp Viruses
*
1
*
*
3
, ^^«Bacteriav^f rCT
1
2
*
*
1
/,.Ji,."ijr<"'i • , Vfiijf
*•'" TSowozoa' "'„ 4.
2
1
2
2
1
fir Fungi-
*
*
*
*
*
TOTAL
3
10
2
2
5
: = None.
Table 7. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the Five Gulf States
State
, VAk
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
Tuni-
. - cates ••
*
3
*
*
1
, Bryo- „
zoans
*
6
*
*
*
\"
Sponges
6 -
*
*
*
*
*
«-»., ^-v
,Coelen-
,
«terates
1
2
*
1
*
, Flatf|:
, worms'-*
*
7
*
*
*
;;Roundr4|
'<< worms;-'.
*
2
*
*
1
!, Seg.,,
, Worms,
*
2
*
*
*
.Moii-
usks
3
19
3
2
9
Crust-
aceans
3
23
5
2
5
TOTAL
7
64
8
5
16
' = None.
Table 8. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
.Fishes
51
117
21
22
98
'Amphibians.
*
13
2
*
4
Reptiles :':t
1
18
*
*
3
Mammals
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
53
149
30
23
106
' = None.
Page 20
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 9. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
TX
l,v ' > '• Algae * *'•'->••*
\
2
\
}
2
' Aquatic Vascular Plants
25
45
34
25
30
Semi-Aq. Vascular Plants
6
23
10
7
12
\ v ^TOTALV -;V
32
70
45
33
41
Some Notes about Creating the Inventory
In general, there is adequate information available about the occurrence of nonindigenous
aquatic invertebrates (excluding insects) and vertebrates in the Gulf of Mexico region. Likewise,
there is abundant information available for nonindigenous aquatic plants, with many
government, university, and private websites listing, describing, and picturing species.
The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database, a primary information source for the
Inventory, tracks the spatial and temporal distribution of all introduced aquatic organisms. This
includes introductions of species from foreign countries as well as native species transplanted
outside of their native range in the U.S. The database tracks all incidents of introductions,
whether or not the introduction results in an established population. This allows for a better
understanding of pathways, source regions, and spatial patterns of introductions. The majority of
the data in the database is derived from published, peer-reviewed literature, but also includes
reports from state and federal natural resource agencies and personal communications from
knowledgeable field biologists.
It appears that much less effort has been expended to identify nonindigenous microbes
occurring in the Gulf of Mexico region, probably due to the complexity of the task. As there are
few Internet-based sources of information on the occurrence of nonindigenous microbes in the
Gulf of Mexico region, the species included in the Inventory were compiled through the
volunteer efforts of a number of regional microbiology experts. It is important to highlight
several notes about these species.
According to Carol Shieh, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration virologist at the Gulf Coast
Seafood Laboratory, little effort has been spent researching nonindigenous aquatic viruses; the
obvious exceptions are the three nonindigenous shrimp viruses identified in the Gulf-region
(Shieh, pers. comm.). Two bacteria with nonindigenous strains in the Gulf of Mexico region
have been studied. There is a toxigenic strain of Vibrio cholerae that is indigenous to the Gulf of
Mexico region. However, the epidemic strain, V. cholerae, serotype Inaba, biotype El Tor, is
exotic, and was introduced in ballast water (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Similarly, Vibrio
parahaemolyticus occurs ubiquitously. However, the O3:K6 serotype that caused the Texas and
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 21
-------
Version 4.0
New York outbreaks is probably exotic since it was never reported in the U.S. before (McCarthy,
pers. comm.). It has proven difficult to keep track of this strain because it undergoes frequent
genetic changes (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Many terrestrial fungi are capable of living in aquatic
environments and, as a generality, it is difficult to determine which fungi species are
nonindigenous (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Protozoa listed in the inventory consist primarily of
fish parasites.
Page 22 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
4.0 Aquatic Invasive Species Management
Priorities in the Five Gulf States
"It has gone berserk. It's like the Blob... The willows, the
hollies, the cabbage palms - they're being buried alive."
Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, July 30, 2000
Of Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) in the Everglades
Sections 4.1 through 4.5 present the results of interviews with Gulf State agency
representatives on the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team to identify aquatic invasive species
that are current management priorities or potential future management priorities in each of
the five Gulf States. Section 4.6 provides summary tables of information in Sections 4.1 to 4.5.
In some cases, as noted below, the interviewed state agency representatives sought the input of a
larger group of state stakeholders, while in other cases interview results represent the opinions of
one agency representative. The interviews were intended to produce a representative, rather than
comprehensive, list of Gulf-region management priorities. The ISFT intends to conduct a more
formal and extensive survey for future compilations of this information.
For the purposes of the interviews, "current management priority" is defined as an invasive,
or potentially invasive, aquatic species that the state is most concerned with managing at the
present time. "Potential future management priority" is defined as an invasive, or potentially
invasive, aquatic species that (1) does not yet occur in the state, but that has an active
introduction pathway, or (2) already has been introduced to the state, and is of concern due to the
magnitude of adverse impacts experienced in similar ecosystems. It is critical to recognize that
management priorities can be based on the actual or perceived threat a species poses, even
though it does not yet occur in the state. Similarly, invasive or potentially invasive species that
already occur in a state may not necessarily be a management priority in that state.
Selected Gulf State agency representatives on the ISFT prepared and presented
invasive/nonindigenous species "status presentations" at the Nonindigenous Species Focus
Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
In most cases, summaries from these presentations, distributed at the Panel Session, served as the
foundation for follow-up interviews with these same representatives.
In all interviews the following information was requested for a each species recognized as a
current or potential future management priority: species common name; species scientific name;
place of origin; confirmed, suspected, or potential introduction pathway(s); biological and/or
economic rationale for concern (potential impacts); impacts experienced; management status in
the state; and current control/prevention strategies. However, only the information provided by
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 23
-------
Version 4.0
the interviewee is documented in the following sections. In several cases only the species name
was provided.
4.1 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in
Alabama
Vernon Minton, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (ADCNR) summarized Alabama's aquatic invasive species management
priorities as follows (Minton 2000; note that not all literature citations and personal
communications in Minton 2000 are not provided in Section 12 References of this document).
The list was supplemented with comments from Steve Health, Marine Resources Division,
ADCNR, and Pam Fuller, USGS.
Invertebrates
• The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorphd) has established itself in the Wheeler Reservoir of
the Tennessee River in North Alabama and in the lower Mississippi River, and may in time
reach the lower Mobile Delta. However, zebra mussels have not multiplied to the extent seen
in northern parts of the country. Whether it can survive in Mobile Bay, where it will
confront moderate to high salinities and predators such as black drum (Pogonias cromis), is
unknown. A recent report by Deborah Wills stated that Alabama is home to 43 percent of the
native freshwater gill-breathing snails and 60 percent of the native freshwater mussels found
in the U.S. (Wills 2000). Of those, 77 percent of the snails and 34 percent of the mussels are
endemic to Alabama, or the river system shared by Alabama and a neighboring state (Wills
2000). Unfortunately, the report also states that 65 percent of the snails and 69 percent of the
mussels are considered either endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Wills 2000).
Research will have to determine if zebra mussel infestations would displace native mussels.
• Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctatd) (Fuller, pers. comm.)
• The bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) has been reported frequently in public
waters. The biological impact of bighead carp is unknown; further research on the potential
impacts on other filter-feeding fishes, such as the paddlefish (Polyodon spathuld), bigmouth
buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), is needed. We
have observed, however, that bighead carp is frequently caught with the paddlefish in main
channel habitats.
Aquatic Plants
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) is distributed throughout Alabama.
• Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) was identified in March 1999 in a 7-acre golf course pond
in Auburn. It is likely that it existed here since at least 1997. A flood event in July 1999
dispersed these plants to the drainage below the golf course; giant salvinia is now found at
Page 24 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
two impounded tributaries of Sougahatchee Creek. In August 1999, giant salvinia was
reported from a 3.8 acre pond draining Uchee Creek, north of Scale, Alabama. By December
1999, plants were believed to have been carried, perhaps by animals such as racoons or
turtles, upslope from the Scale pond to a smaller pond nearby.
• Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Heath, pers. comm.)
Potential Future Aquatic Invasive Species of Concern
There are several potential invertebrate invaders of concern in Alabama:
• The chocolate brown blue crab (Callinectes bocourti) usually does not venture further north
than Belize, but this species typically co-occurs with the blue crab (Callinectese sapidus) in
its natural habitat. One individual was collected in Alabama coastal waters in the summer of
2000 (Heath, pers. comm.).
• The jellyfish (Drymonema dalmatinum), colloquially referred to as the "pink meanie" or the
"pink insullation jellyfish," was collected in Alabama coastal waters in the summer of 2000
(Heath, pers. comm.).
• The Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) has not yet been reported in Alabama, but it is a
species of concern due to its highly invasive nature.
• While there is no record of green crab (Carcinus maenus) in Alabama, it is a potential future
management concern.
• Asian clam (Corbiculaflumined) (Fuller, pers. comm.)
• Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld) (Fuller, pers. comm.)
• Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (Fuller, pers. comm.)
Introduction Pathways of Special Concern
• A management concern is the introduction of aquatic invasive species through ballast water
exchange. While the population did not proliferate, strong evidence indicates that Vibrio
cholera, the bacteria that causes cholera, was most probably introduced to Mobile Bay by
ballast water exchange in 1991.
4.2 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in
Florida
Invertebrates
Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the
Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized Florida's invasive invertebrate species
management priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is admittedly focused on estuarine
and marine species; future versions of this report will give equal focus to Florida's freshwater
invasive species management priorities.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 25
-------
Version 4.0
The green mussel (Perna viridis), a marine mussel (>20 ppt), is a confirmed invasive species.
Ecosystem effects include conversion of planktonic carbon to benthic carbon and possible
competition for space with natural fouling organisms on red mangrove prop roots.
Individuals were discovered in Tampa Bay in late 1999, but possibly were introduced in
1998. A spawning population has been confirmed, as is the ability of this tropical mussel to
overwinter in Tampa Bay. The green mussel has been found throughout Tampa Bay, in the
Gulf of Mexico as far west as Anna Maria Island, and in Sarasota Bay. It is expected to
populate many substrates in Tampa Bay and be exported to other Florida harbors.
The Asian clam (Corbicula flumined) is currently found in many freshwater lakes and
streams in north Florida. It is suspected to have been brought to the U.S. in the 1920s for use
as a food source. Potential ecosystem effects include competition for space with native
freshwater mussels, many of which are endangered or threatened.
Conrad's (or dark) falsemussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeatd) is native to Florida, but a
facultative mollusk of concern. It occurs on hard substrates in coastal ponds, lakes, and
rivers from 2-5 ppt. Recently, these mussels have been found throughout the Caloosahatchee
river and in southern Lake Okeechobee. They have also been seen in the King's Bay region
of Crystal River. Upstream invasions are likely because of increasing dissolved solids as a
result of human activities (e.g., fertilizer). This problem will continue and expand unless
discharges and runoff are controlled.
Salle's (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel (Mytilopsis sallei) may or may not be native to
Florida (i.e., cryptogenic). It occurs in southeastern Florida and possibly was introduced by
shipping sometime in the past 500 years. It has habitat requirements similar to those of
Conrad's falsemussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeatd), and has invaded upstream in the
Caloosahatchee River.
The saber crab, or river crab, (Platychirograpsus spectabilis) is native to eastern Mexico and
west Africa (Rathbun 1914, In: Marchand 1946). The crab was apparently introduced to the
Hillsborough River by vessels delivering cedar logs for the manufacture of cigar boxes. It is
known to be riverine, but some local scientists think part of its life cycle is estuarine. This
crab is not found in large numbers and impact appears to be minimal.
The West Indian trochid (Cittarium pica), a gastropod, was found at Marathon and Molasses
Keys in the Florida Keys. The species may be established, but may disappear as it did in
Bermuda. Natural recruitment might be responsible for appearance of this species, which
may be recruiting from planktonic larvae spawned in the Caribbean basin (Abbott 1976).
In April 1995, both male and egg-bearing female marine swimming crabs (Charybdis helleri)
were caught in traps in the Indian River Lagoon. This crab lives throughout the Indo-Pacific
area from the east coast of Africa to Hawaii. Juveniles and one ovigerous female in the
Indian River leave no doubt that a reproducing population exists, if not an established one.
This crab has not been found in the Gulf of Mexico yet. However, it's aggressive nature and
migration patterns in other parts of the world (e.g., through the Suez Canal to the
Mediterranean Sea) have scientists anticipating further distribution and colonization into the
Gulf of Mexico (Camp 1997).
The marine nudibranch (Glossodoris sednd), native to the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, was
found in Tavernier Key, Florida (Bertsch 1988). Only a few specimens were found.
Page 26 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Fishes
Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the
Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized Florida's invasive fish species management
priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is admittedly focused on estuarine and marine
species; future versions of this report will give equal focus to Florida's freshwater invasive
species management priorities.
• Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) are common in southeast Florida coastal
canals and in Tampa Bay. They range west through the state, but east and west coast
populations do not seem to be confluent. Each of the sites where Mozambique tilapia has
been collected represent a different source of introduction (Courtenay et al. 1974; Shafland,
pers. comm., June 9, 1997).
• The blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotherori) was the first tilapia species to become
established in Florida (Springer and Finucane 1963 In: Shafland 1996). It is distributed in
Brevard and Indian River Counties on the east coast, and Tampa Bay on the Gulf coast. It is
extensively associated with brackish water. Although the Gulf coast population has been
locally successful in Tampa Bay, it has not extended its range significantly for 30 years
(Shafland 1996).
• The Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus)is quite common in southwestern Florida,
where they inhabit mangroves, and has spread south of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41).
According to Shafland (1996) this species may contribute substantially to the forage base for
tarpons and snooks, and they may prey on those same species as well depending on size
interaction. Mayan cichlid supports a limited sport fishery in some areas as it readily takes
artificial baits. In some areas it is the most common fish caught on hook-and-line. It fights
hard and has an attractive snapper-like appearance (Shafland 1996).
• Two nonindigenous populations of the Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus) recently were
discovered in Florida in 1997 (Tampa and Miami areas). USGS field data indicates that the
species is locally abundant and reproducing (Nico 1999). Based on literature and preliminary
findings, the swamp eel appears to have the potential to colonize and adversely affect natural
wetlands in the Everglades and other systems in the southeastern U.S. (Nico 1999).
• Walking catfish (Glorias batrachus)
• Spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae)
• Pike killifish (Belonesox belizanus)
Aquatic Plants
Eleven invasive aquatic plant species are listed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council as
Category I plants, capable of disrupting aquatic ecosystems (FDEP 2000). These species are
actively controlled in public waters by the Aquatic Plant Management Section, Bureau of
Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
• The highest priority species for control in Florida's public waters are water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) and waterlettuce (Pistia stratiotes). Managers brought these two
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 27
-------
Version 4.0
species under control during the late 1980s and have sustained these low levels through the
1990s (Schardt 1999).
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) is distributed statewide, highly invasive, and a current high
priority species for control. Insufficient funding allowed hydrilla to expand from 50,000 to
140,000 acres in the 1990s (FDEP 2000).
• Two occurrences of giant salvinia (Salvinia molestd) in Florida were identified and removed
(Schardt, pers. comm.). While an herbicide eradication program exists for this species, there
is considerable concern about its spread. Weed Alert, an awareness-building campaign,
exists for giant salvinia. It is suspected that waterspinach is planted by some Asian
communities for food.
• While an herbicide eradication program exists for waterspinach (Ipomoea aquaticd), there is
considerable concern about its spread. Weed Alert, an awareness-building campaign, exists
for waterspinach.
• Aquatic nightshade (Solarium tampicense)
• Hygro, or Indian swampweed, (Hygrophilia polyspermd)
• Paragrass (Brachiaria muticd)
• Torpedograss (Panicum repens)
• West Indian marshgrass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis)
• Wild taro (Colocasia esculenta)
• Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeriodes), until recently a high priority invasive species,
has been brought under control by a suite of three insects (Schardt 1999).
Semi-Aquatic Plants
The Upland Plant Management Section, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection funds individual invasive plant removal projects on
public conservation lands throughout the state. Several high priority species for management
readily thrive in semi-aquatic habitats.
• Weed Alerts, an awareness-building campaign, are ongoing for catclaw mimosa (Mimosa
pigrd) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervid) (Schardt, pers. comm.). An herbicide
eradication program exists for both species.
• Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia)
• Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)
Potential Future Aquatic Invasive Species
Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the
Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized some of Florida's potential future invasive
invertebrate and fish species management priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is
admittedly focused on estuarine and marine species; future versions of this report will give equal
focus to Florida's freshwater invasive species management priorities.
Page 28 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
• The veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) inhabits sandy substrates in estuaries and nearshore
marine environments. It is a voracious marine predator that prefers bivalves such as the hard
clam (Mercenaria mercenarid) and the Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginicd). Research
needs to determine if it will compete with native predators for food. It is presently limited to
Chesapeake Bay, but is likely to be transported to the Indian River system.
• The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorphd) [and the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis)]
inhabit hard substrates in freshwaters to brackish waters less than 2 ppt. These mussels have
caused over $400 million in human impacts hi just over ten years of invasion of the Great
Lakes, St. Lawrence, and Mississippi River systems. They also are interfering with native
unionid freshwater mussels in many systems. Mussels are easily transported between water
bodies on and in boats and other vessels and with bait, aquatic vegetation, diving gear, etc.
They are unlikely to become widespread in Florida because of high summer temperatures
and low pH in many waterbodies. However, some Florida lakes and spring run rivers are
vulnerable to zebra mussel invasion. Efforts to prevent such invasions need to be initiated,
including examining incoming boats and trailers and quarantining freshwater bait from areas
where zebra mussels have become established.
• The black-lipped pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritiferd) is an extremely valuable organism,
probably capable of surviving in South Florida and the Caribbean. It is reported to occur
near Palm Beach off of southeastern Florida. Research needs to determine if it will compete
with native fauna.
• Many attempts have been made to create sterile hybrids of the Japanese oyster (Crassostrea
gigas) because of its excellent taste and rapid growth rate (adults of over 15 cm are not
uncommon). Triploid hybrids have been generated and are in widespread aquaculrure use in
the Pacific Northwest; however, the production of triploids has not totally resulted in sterile
populations. Research needs to determine if culture of these animals would increase the
potential for release of viable oysters. Research also needs to determine if this species will
directly compete with the native Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginicd).
• Giant clams (Tridacna crocea and Tridacna maxima) are valuable organisms for food, shells,
and as an aquarium species. Trade in some species is restricted by international agreement.
Others can be purchased live via the Internet. Potential impacts are unknown.
• An Asian mytilid freshwater mussel (Limnoperna fortune!) occupies lakes, ponds, and rivers
attached to hard substrates. This species has been recently introduced to Argentina and
Brazil; it appears to be the tropical and warm-temperate ecological equivalent of the zebra
mussel. There is nothing to prevent this species from invading Florida freshwaters. The
organism is causing widespread problems in South America; research needs to determine
potential impacts in Florida.
• Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp (Litopeneaus vanammei) have not been reported in Florida
waters. However, there is concern about an accidental release from a one billion post larval
per year hatchery on Summerland Key.
• Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) has been documented throughout central and south
Florida (smaller populations are found further north), and in estuarine waters on both the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The species is tolerant of brackish water
salinities and cool water. Shafland (1996) points out that the species is also successful in
terms of standing crop: it often exceeds 20 percent of total fish biomass. While blue tilapia
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 29
-------
Version 4.0
have occurred in Florida for about 40 years, there are few published data documenting
adverse effects in Florida freshwaters (Hill 2001). It is a popular recreational and
commercial species in freshwater and brackish areas. Wild and farmed tilapia are sold in
restaurants and grocery store outlets throughout Florida. Weekend fishermen in Tampa Bay
fish for tilapia for food and sport with both cast nets and hook-and-line gear.
• Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld) (Roberts, pers. comm.). Triploid grass carp are
widely used under permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for
the control of aquatic macrophytes (Hill 2001). Diploid stocks may be maintained only
under permit by aquaculture and research facilities (Hill 2001).
Jeff Schardt, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and Herb Kumpf, NMFS, identified Florida's potential future invasive aquatic plant
species management priorities as follows:
• A bloom of nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae (Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii), native to
Australia, has persisted for at least two years in Lake Griffin (SJRWMD 1999). The St.
John's River Water Management District is working to restore this degraded lake (Schardt,
pers. comm.).
• A tropical green algae (Caulerpa toxifolid) (Kumpf, pers. comm.)
4.3 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in
Louisiana
The State of Louisiana's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, assisted by the Louisiana Sea
Grant Program and Louisiana State University, is in the process of convening an Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force (an organizational meeting was held in August 2000) (Biggar, pers.
comm.). Once representation from other state agencies and organizations is established, the Task
Force will begin to work on a state management plan. One of the first tasks of the Task Force
will be to identify aquatic invasive species of concern: this list will be included in potential
future versions of this document.
Mammals
The adverse impact of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on Louisiana marshes is well documented
(TNCL 1999). The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, working with state and
federal agencies, as well as private companies, has developed a set of management
recommendations for nutria.
Fishes
Charlie Biggar (Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)
summarized Louisiana's invasive fish species management priorities as follows:
Page 30 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
• Rio Grand cichlid (Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum)
• Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
• Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
• Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
Aquatic Plants
Richard Brassette (Aquatic Plant Control Section, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries), Charlie Biggar (Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries), and the Nature Conservancy of Louisiana (TNCL 1999) summarized Louisiana's
invasive aquatic plant species management priorities as follows:
• Alligatorweed (Alternantheraphiloxeroides) (Biggar, pers. comm.)
• Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999)
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999)
• Torpedograss (Panicum repens) (Biggar, pers. comm.)
• Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) (Biggar, pers. comm.)
• Giant salvinia (Salvinia molestd) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999)
• Common salvinia (Salvinia minima) (Brassette, pers. comm.)
Semi-Aquatic Plants
• Kudzu (Pueraria montana} (TNCL 1999)
• Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) (TNCL 1999)
Potential Future Aquatic Invasive Species of Concern
Potential future introductions of several species were identified as management priorities at a
recent GMP-sponsored workshop (GMP 1997). The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana also
identified some relatively new species expected to become serious problems in the near future
(TNCL 1999).
• Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) exist in the Mississippi River in southern Louisiana.
There is concern about the potential spread of this species (TNCL 1999). The opening of the
Bonne Carre spillway (Lake Pontchartrain) and other proposed freshwater diversions the
species has new routes to the Gulf of Mexico (GMP 1997).
• Brown (or Mexihalo) mussel (Pernapernd) (GMP 1997)
• Marine swimming crab (Charybdis helleri) (GMP 1997)
• Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) (GMP 1997)
• European green crab (Carcinus maenus) (GMP 1997)
• Asian clam (Corbicula flumined) (Biggar, pers. comm.)
• Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctatd) (Biggar, pers. comm.)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 31
-------
Version 4.0
• B lack carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) (GMP 1997)
• Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) (GMP 1997)
• Cogongrass (Imperata cylindricd) (TNCL 1999)
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicarid) (TNCL 1999)
4.4 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in
Mississippi
The following multi-agency group summarized Mississippi's aquatic invasive species
management priorities, presented in this section:
• Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
• Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
• Ron Garavelli, Dennis Riecke, and Todd Slack, Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Parks
• Mark LaSalle, Mississippi Sea Grant Program
• Cynthia Moncrief, University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
• David Felder, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Invertebrates
• The spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctatd), native to Australia but present in the Caribbean
Sea for several years now, showed up in the northern Gulf of Mexico in large numbers in
2000. The organism grows to 2 to 3 feet in diameter and is a voracious feeder on plankton.
These organisms may compete with other plankton feeding organisms, and at high densities
could alter the composition of the plankton community. They have also caused fouling of
fishing nets and propellers. First seen in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Mobile Bay area) in
May of 2000, it remains to be seen if these organisms will successfully overwinter (Graham,
pers. comm.).
• Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorphd) have been found in the Mississippi River, the
associated oxbow lakes that form Mississippi's western border, and in the Tennessee River in
the northeast corner of the state. There are well documented problems with this species
competing with native species, fouling water intakes, screens, and other structures.
• Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), an aquacultured species in Mississippi, have been
collected in the wild. There is concern that they are able to overwinter in thermal discharges
in the coastal rivers. Todd Slack, State Ichthyologist for Mississippi, and Mark Peterson,
Gulf Coast Research Lab, have submitted a proposal to study the effect of tilapia on gamefish
hi coastal Mississippi. Blue tilapia (Oreochromis owreus) and Mozambique tilapia
(Oreochromis mossambicus) are both aquacultured species in Mississippi, but no officially
documented species have been collected in the wild at this time (Slack, pers. comm.).
Page 32 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Mammals
• Nutria (Myocastor coypus) are widespread across the southern states, and compete with
native muskrats and beavers. They cause problems by destroying wetland and crop
vegetation, burrowing into levees, and carrying diseases.
Aquatic Plants
• The aquatic fern, giant salvinia (Salvinia molestd) has been found in Mississippi, and is of
concern because of problems observed in Texas, Louisiana, and other southern states with
similar habitats. It shades out desirable native species, interferes with fishing, and may
reduce the quality of wetlands as waterfowl habitat.
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) is a very aggressive invasive species forming thick mats that
shade out native vegetation. It has been found in Aliceville Reservoir on the Tennesse-
Tombigbee Waterway, and is reported from other locations across the state. It is often
accidentally transported from one waterbody to the next on boats or trailers.
• Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a free-floating plant much like giant salvinia, is
present in several drainages of Mississippi. Water hyacinth infestations are of concern as
they can reduce fisheries, block boat traffic, shade out submerged plants, and reduce
biological diversity.
Semi-Aquatic Plants
• The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) is extremely invasive in a variety of habitats,
from upland to wetland.
Potential Future Aquatic Invasive Species of Concern
• The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), a fish native to Eurasia, was introduced into the
Great Lakes Region, probably via ballast water around 1990. The species does well in both
freshwater and saltwater, and is spreading rapidly in the Great Lakes. It is reported to be
interfering with the walleye fishery in Lake Michigan. There is concern that the organism
will spread south via the Mississippi River.
• The Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus) is spreading rapidly in south Florida and has been
reported in the Chattahoochee River system in north Georgia. The swamp eel does well in
lakes, ponds, rivers, and swamps. Because it has the ability to breathe out of the water, it can
cross short distances of dry ground.
• Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) is an Asian carp that feeds predominantly on
mollusks. This fish is being used by catfish farmers in the Mississippi Delta to control snails
as part of an integrated management strategy to control a yellow grub disease. This species
of fish has not been collected from Mississippi waterways, but there is concern that, if it
escaped, it could further reduce populations of rare or endangered mollusks, and that it would
compete with native fishes with a similar feeding habit. However, the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and the Department of Agriculture and
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 33
-------
Version 4.0
Commerce have an approved management plan for black carp (Avery 2001). In addition,
black carp have been cultured in Arkansas since its importation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in the late 1960s, and there has not been a report of escapement (Avery 2001).
4.5 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in
Texas
Dr. Larry McKinney, Senior Director of Water and Resource Protection at Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD) summarized Texas' aquatic invasive species management
priorities as follows (McKinney 2000). The list is supplemented, as noted, with input from Dr.
Earl Chilton (TPWD), other TWPD staff, and other experts.
Microbes
• Introductions of diseases associated with nonindigenous shrimp (i.e., Taura Syndrome Virus,
White Spot Syndrome Virus, and white-spot-like viruses), is an issue of concern in Texas.
Invertebrates
• The Pacific giant (or Japanese) oyster (Crassostrea gigas) is of concern because of disease
potential and potential competition with native oysters.
• Channeled applesnail (Pomacea canaliculd) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld) is established in the Galveston Bay system. This
species has been identified as the primary culprit in the failure of numerous marsh
revegetation projects in the upper reaches of the system. Grass carp have been reported in
several other coastal bay systems. The release of triploid grass carp are permitted by TPWD
for vegetation control, and approximately 1,000 permits per year are issued (Chilton, pers.
comm.). The release of diploid grass carp is prohibited, as is the release of triploid grass carp
without a permit (Chilton, pers. comm.).
Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) are
established in many Texas power plant cooling reservoirs, but have not expanded outside
those systems. Both of these species have been recorded in routine sampling of bayous
emptying into the Galveston Bay system.
The Rio Grande cichlid (Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum) in native to southern waters in Texas,
but has been documented in other systems, such as Galveston Bay.
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Page 34 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Aquatic Plants
• Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd)
• A large infestation of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) was discovered and treated in eastern
Texas in 1999. This infestation represents the first documented large-scale occurrence of this
plant in Texas.
• While cryptogenic at this point, the persistent brown tide (Aureoumbra lagunensis) in the
Laguna Madre system, the longest continuous algal bloom ever recorded, might be a aquatic
invasive species issue requiring management
• The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) has invaded coastal prairies and freshwater
wetland areas in Texas (Moulton, pers. comm.).
• Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Waterlettuce (Pistia stratiotes) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Common salvinia (Salvinia minima') (Chilton, pers. comm.)
Potential Future Aquatic Invasive Species of Concern
• In the past, the brown (or Mexihalo) mussel (Pernaperna) has been widely distributed from
the mid-Texas coast south into Mexico. Populations have fluctuated in past years, however,
they seem to have more recently disappeared (Tunnell, pers. comm.). Past invasions appear
to have been associated with currents bringing the mussels from Mexican waters (Tunnell,
pers. comm.).
• American eels (Anguilla rostrata) were cultured in Texas on one occasion. The exotic
nematode, Anguillicola crassus, was found in some eels imported from the U.S. east coast for
use in culture ponds. To date, no native eels have been found to have this parasite.
• The potential introduction of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is of concern.
• Asian clam (Corbiculaflumined) (Fuller, pers. comm.)
• Marine swimming crab (Charybdis helleri) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• European green crab (Carcinus maenus) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Successful establishment of waterspinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is of concern.
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicarid) (Chilton, pers. comm.)
• Kudzu (Pueraria montana} (Chilton, pers. comm.)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 35
-------
Version 4.0
• New introductions of pathogens, viral and other, is an invasive species issue of concern. The
cryptogenic nature of these organisms makes it difficult to know if the situation is one of
introduction or observed manifestation of an indigenous species. Related to this concern are
bacteria mixes used for biological control of oil spills. Because these are often proprietary in
nature and their use is for emergencies, control is problematic unless addressed in advance.
Introduction Pathways of Special Concern
• Interbasin transfers of water is a pathway of special concern in Texas. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department has commissioned a study to assess that risk in one region of the state
where interbasin transfers will be likely. Preliminary results indicate that risks are low for
higher taxa, such as fish, but moderate for microbial and other aquatic taxa.
Page 36 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
4.6 Summary Tables: Aquatic Invasive Species Management
Priorities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Tables 10 and 11 summarize the invasive aquatic plant and animal species identified as
management priorities in Sections 4.1 to 4.5.
Table 10. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000:
Invasive Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Aureoumbra lagunensis
Brachiaria mutica
Casuarina equisetifolia
Caulerpa toxifolia
Colocasia esculenta
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii
Eichhornia crassipes
Hydrilla verticillata
Hygrophila polysperma
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Imperata cylindrica
Ipomoea aquatica
Lythrum salicaria
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Mimosa pigra
Panicum repens
Pistia stratiotes
Pueraria montana
Salvinia minima
Salvinia molesta
Sapium sebiferum
Schimts terebinthifolius
Solarium tampicense
COMMON NAME
alligatorweed
brown tide algae
paragrass
Australian pine
tropical green algae
wild taro
blue-green algae
water hyacinth
hydrilla
Indian swampweed
West Indian marshgrass
cogongrass
waterspinach
purple loosestrife
paperbark (melaleuca)
catclaw mimosa
torpedograss
waterlettuce
kudzu
common salvinia
giant salvinia
Chinese tallow tree
peppertree
wetland nightshade
•AL*,
V
V
V
FL
V
V
V
p
V
p
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
'LA
V
V
V
p
p
V
V
V
V
V
V
MS
V
V
V
V
TX
V
V°
V
V
p
p
V
p
V
V
V
Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of
Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than
comprehensive, list of management priorities.
V = Current management priority in the state.
P = Potential future management priority for the state.
Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the
unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management.
" = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 37
-------
Version 4.0
Table 11. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000:
Invasive Aquatic Animal Species.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Anguillicola crassus
Belonesox belizanus
Callinectes bocourti
Carcinus maenus
Charybdis helleri
Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum
Cichlasoma urophthalmus
Cittarium pica
Glorias batrachus
Corbicula fluminea
Crassostrea gigas
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Dreissena polymorpha
Drymonema dalmatinum
Eriocheir sinensis
Glossodoris sedna
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
Limnoperna fortunei
Litopeneaus vannamei
Monopterus albus
Mylopharyngodon piceus
Myocastor coypus
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Mytilopsis sallei
Neogobius melanostomus
Oreochromis aureus
Oreochromis mossambicus
Oreochromis niloticus
Perna perna
Perna viridis
Phyllorhiza punctata
Pinctada margaritifera
Platychirograpsus spectabilis
Pomacea canalicula
Rapana venosa
Sarotherodon melanotheron
Taura Syndrome Virus
Tilapia mariae
Tridacna spp.
White Spot Syndrome Virus
COMMON NAME
exotic nematode on American eels
pike killifish
chocolate brown crab
green crab
marine swimming crab
Rio Grande cichlid
Mayan cichlid
West Indian trochid
walking catfish
Asian clam
Japanese (or Pacific giant) oyster
grass carp
zebra mussel
jellyfish
Chinese mittencrab
marine nudibranch
silver carp
bighead carp
freshwater mussel
Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp
swamp eel
black carp
nutria
Conrad's (or dark) falsemussel
Salle's (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel
round goby
blue tilapia
Mozambique tilapia
Nile tilapia
brown (or Mexihalo) mussel
green mussel
spotted jellyfish
black-lipped (or Pacific) pearl oyster
saber crab
channeled applesnail
veined rapa whelk
blackchin tilapia
shrimp virus
spotted tilapia
giant clams
shrimp virus
•AL.
P
P
P
P
V
P
P
P
V
V
FL
V
V
V
V
V
V
P
pa
P
V
P
P
V
V
v
P
V
V
P
V
P
V
V
P
LA
P
P
V
P
V
P
P
V
V
P
V
P
P
P
MS
V
P
P
V
P
V
V
TX
P
P
P
V
P
V
V
P
P
P
P
P
V
V
V
P
P
V
V
V
Page 38
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 11, continued. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September
2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species, cont.
Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of
Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than
comprehensive, list of management priorities.
V = Current management priority in the state.
P = Potential future management priority for the state.
Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the
unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management.
* = Diploid stocks only.
b = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 39
-------
Version 4.0
5.0 Gulfwide Issues Addressed by the
ISFT: Shrimp Viruses
To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP
sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the Focus Team
serves as a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is
currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an
introduction vector, and the prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the
majority of the Focus Team's efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues. Section 5.0
provides an overview of the shrimp virus issue in the Gulf of Mexico region and highlights
efforts to address the issue.
In 1996, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Shrimp Virus Workgroup conducted a
workshop on the status of shrimp viruses in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic
Ocean, and the results of that workshop established the baseline information and action plan for
dealing with the virus issue. Since that time additional Gulf-region workshops have been held
and considerable new scientific research on shrimp viruses in the Gulf region has been
conducted. Thus it is recommended that a new shrimp virus workshop be carried out in 2001 to
bring all stakeholders up to date and to re-evaluate the approaches needed to address this
important issue.
5.1 Overview of the Shrimp Virus Issue
Of the 14 penaied shrimp viruses known worldwide, three exotic viruses have been identified
in the Gulf of Mexico region: White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), Taura Syndrome Virus
(TSV), and Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV). Another exotic
shrimp virus, Yellow Head Virus (YHV), usually co-occurs with WSSV (Lightner 1996a,
Lightner 1996b), but has not been identified in live shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico region
(Mcllwain, pers. comm.). WSSV is endemic throughout much of Asia, and TSV and IHHNV
are endemic in wild shrimp populations throughout much of Central and South America (JSA
1997). It has been shown that all three viruses are carried by some live shrimp, but they also
have been found in imported frozen shrimp, shrimp by-products, and in a number of non-penaied
shrimp and other crustacean species (e.g., copepods, crabs, and crayfish) (Lightner 1996a,
Lightner 1996b, JSA 1997). Note that none of these three exotic shrimp viruses are known to
pose a threat to human health (Kumpf et al. 1999).
Shrimp consumption in the U.S. has increased while the average annual domestic harvest has
remained steady at approximately 200 million pounds (Kumpf et al. 1999). Growing demand for
shrimp has been met by increasing imports (from Asia and South America) and expanding
Page 40
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
domestic aquaculture capacity. Unfortunately these activities increase the threat of exotic shrimp
viruses entering processing and aquaculture facilities: viruses can enter processing facilities
through infected imported or domestic shrimp, and likewise, can enter aquaculture facilities
through infected brood stock, contaminated feed, infected transport containers, or by migratory
birds.
In 1997, there were almost 400 shrimp harvesting and processing (non-aquaculture)
businesses located in the five Gulf States, with more than two-thirds (268) located in Louisiana
and Texas (ISA 1997). To date, no processing facilities in the Gulf region have reported the
presence of exotic shrimp viruses. However, little testing for viruses of shrimp product, solid
waste, or wastewaters from these facilities is undertaken (Treece and Johnson, pers. comm.).
One recent study found WSSV in 8 of 10 samples from lots of imported frozen shrimp tails
(Durand et al. 2000), and the study authors contend that because the U.S. imports thousands of
tons of cultured shrimp each year, frozen imported shrimp are a probable source for the
introduction of WSSV into the Americas.
Exotic shrimp viruses have decimated stocks at a few Gulf region aquaculture facilities,
bringing economic hardship to those businesses. WSSV, first identified in Asia in 1992,
appeared in cultured white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) in three Texas shrimp ponds in 1995
(Kumpf et al. 1999, Treece, pers. comm.). These ponds were drained and dried, and WSSV has
not been reported again in commercial facilities in Texas (Treece, pers. comm.). Outbreaks of
TSV, first identified in Ecuador, occurred at shrimp farms in Texas in 1995 and 1996 (ISA
1997). However, TSV has likely been eliminated in Texas' commercial channels of livestock
through the USDA High Health and Genetically Improved stock program (Treece and Johnson,
pers. comm.). One chapter in Fulks and Main (1992) reported IHHNV occurring in Texas and
Florida shrimp aquaculture facilities (JSA 1997).
There are three native penaied shrimp species of commercial importance in the Gulf of
Mexico - brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum),
and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). The Gulf-region native shrimp fishery is economically
significant; in Texas alone, it generates $600 million in economic benefits annually and provides
30,000 jobs (GMP 1999). All three exotic shrimp viruses described above have been shown
experimentally to infect the Gulfs three native penaied shrimp species (Kumpf et al. 1999). The
presence of exotic shrimp viruses at processing and aquaculture facilities increases the threat of
infecting wild native shrimp populations in the Gulf, potentially harming associated harvesting
and processing industries.
There is little information on the presence of exotic shrimp viruses in populations of native
shrimp in the Gulf region. Since initiating investigations in 1998, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department has regularly found a white-spot-like virus in native Gulf shrimp (Treece, pers.
comm.). However, the results have not been published and may be given an accurate
presentation by TPWD in the future (Johnson, pers. comm.). A researcher at Texas A&M
University looked at live shrimp from bait stands in three Texas ports and diagnosed at least one
group as having a white-spot-like virus, however, further samples from these bait stands did not
show the presence of virus (Treece, pers. comm.). In 1996, wild native white shrimp (L.
setiferus) introduced to a Texas A&M University research facility in Port Aransas were found to
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 41
-------
Version 4.0
be infected with a white-spot-like virus (Treece, pers. comm.). Fortunately the exotic shrimp
(Litopenaeus vannamei) at the research facility were not exposed to the WSSV-infected wild L.
setiferus and, therefore, did not develop the disease. Similar to concerns of processing and
aquaculture facilities being a vector for virus transmission to wild shrimp populations, shrimp
aquaculturists have fears of diseased wild native shrimp exposing their cultured stocks to viruses
(Treece, pers. comm.).
Specifics on the Shrimp Virus Issue in Texas
Despite the fact that WSSV, TSV, and IHHNV have occurred at Texas aquaculture facilities,
the history of the industry has demonstrated that aquaculture is viable in Texas and that a
conservative regulatory approach is warranted in combination with a fundamentally adaptive
management approach (Baker 1997, Ray et al. 1998). To date, the industry has done an excellent
job of coordinating with the regulatory and conservation communities to develop best
management plans and strategies (GMP 1999). In 1998, the following management response
was established for any future outbreaks of either WSSV or YHV (GMP 1999):
• Quarantine facility and contact Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) immediately.
• Permit holders must send specimens to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory
for testing.
• Conduct weekly pond-side clinical testing of all ponds and report findings to TPWD.
• Remove dead shrimp along the edges of the pond and bury or incinerate.
• Permit holders must make effort to drive birds away from infected ponds.
• Harvest affected ponds as soon as possible.
• Retain all harvest water on the premises until approved by TPWD for disposal.
• Infected shrimp of marketable size must be sent to a processor that disposes of the
wastewater and by-products in a manner that eliminates vectors for virus transmission.
• Harvest non-infected ponds as soon as possible or manage in a highly protective manner as
described in an approved management plan.
Currently, there are 11 major coastal permits for exotic species of shrimp, 1 proposed coastal
permit, 2 permits for inland facilities and 4 permits for research facilities (GMP 1999). Pacific
white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is the only exotic shrimp species allowed for open
mariculture systems. Blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris) are allowed in closed aquaculture
systems outside an exclusion zone.
Specifics on the Shrimp Virus Issue in Florida
Aquaculture is Florida's most diverse agribusiness. Over 800 aquaculturists produce the
greatest variety of aquatic species of any state in the nation (FDACS 2000). The State of Florida
operates an annual certification program for aquaculture operations. There are eight certified
facilities to raise marine shrimp, and of these eight facilities, four currently possess and culture
marine shrimp (Zajicek, pers. comm.). The shrimp species cultured at these facilities is the
exotic Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). These facilities are not located in coastal
areas, with the exception of one large shrimp hatchery on Summerland Key. This facility, which
imports brood stock from Honduras, was subject to past outbreaks of TSV and IHHNV, but
Page 42 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
successfully eliminated the viruses by draining, drying, and disinfecting the facility (Treece,
pers. comm.). More recently, no exotic shrimp viruses have been detected at any aquaculture
facilities or in wild shrimp populations in Florida waters (three miles seaward on the Atlantic
Ocean coast and nine miles seaward on the Gulf of Mexico coast) (Zajicek, pers. comm.).
Specifics on the Shrimp Virus Issue in Alabama. Louisiana, and Mississippi
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not have any coastal shrimp farms, and do not
conduct any regular monitoring for exotic shrimp viruses in coastal areas. Tom Van Devender,
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), summarized the shrimp virus issue in
Mississippi as follows (excerpted from Van Devender 2000):
Other than controlled research activities on shrimp viruses carried out at the Gulf Coast
Research Laboratory, the State of Mississippi has no penaied shrimp mariculture operations.
While some live bait shrimp camps may capture live shrimp in one bay system, transport
them either by boat or truck to open seawater systems and hold the shrimp for a few days
(usually less), these activities hardly can be considered mariculture, and disease outbreaks
among these wild stocks, even though held for a short time in crowded bait tanks, has not
been reported.
Pounds of shrimp processed by local dealers exceed pounds landed in Mississippi several
times over. Shrimp are brought in from other Gulf States and also imported from a number
of foreign suppliers. The possibility of viruses from these imports being discharged with
peeling machine process water into local bays and infecting wild stock does exist, but has not
been documented. Apparently neither has the presence of viruses introduced or evident in
wild stocks been described or enumerated. One of the fundamental data gaps to be addressed
in any impact assessment is the identification of viruses and their distribution in Mississippi's
native shrimp stocks.
5.2 Shrimp Virus Sources and Pathways
Section 5.2 was excerpted from JSA 1997.
Critical to evaluating the risks of shrimp viruses is understanding potential sources and
pathways of virus. This section provides a discussion of the two primary virus sources - shrimp
aquaculture and processing facilities. The Shrimp Virus Workgroup (SVW) of the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture considered these two sources as those with the greatest potential
to introduce viral diseases into wild penaied shrimp populations. This section also includes
several other potential sources and pathways that were considered less critical by the SVW.
Aquaculture
Entry of Viruses into Aquaculture Facilities
Although there are few outbreaks with confirmed sources, there exist several ways in which
viruses may enter aquaculture facilities: (1) infected broodstock/seed; (2) transfer by birds (i.e.,
by seagulls via feces); (3) transfer by non-shrimp animal species (e.g., crabs, crayfish, squid,
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 43
-------
Version 4.0
other crustaceans, amphipods, isopods) as either carriers or transmitters; (4) contaminated feed;
and (5) contaminated vehicles or transport containers (Figure 4).
For those viral outbreaks in Texas in 1995, it was speculated that viruses might have been
transferred by birds to the affected aquaculture facilities. Though never confirmed, nearby
shrimp packing plants, major importers and re-processors of large quantities of shrimp from
Asia, were suspected as the ultimate source of the imported viruses. Reports that non-shrimp
animal species may have been the source of some infections have been unsubstantiated. The
1996 TSV outbreaks in Texas apparently resulted from broodstock that were contaminated after
they arrived at a hatchery, although the original source of broodstock infection is unknown.
Farmers purchased infected seed from this facility, although recommended procedures direct
farmers to avoid purchasing seed from a supplier having a recent history of disease.
Figure 4. Aquaculture
as an Introduction
Vector for Shrimp
Viruses
Entry of Virus into Aauaculture < * • ,'• ,
*
,*
W-r
»•' * ( ^
Contaminated
Feed
« j<- '' ' *YV
T. *
f
Infected Brood
Stock/Seed
i ,13
I
Contaminated
Vehicles or
Transport
Containers
f
"™
Bird and
Animal
Transport
V
Factors Affecting
Exposure
Location
Timing
Facility Size
Disinfection
and Quarantine
Pathways to Wild Stock
Native shrimp species may be exposed to viruses through a number of pathways from
aquaculture, including: (1) pond effluents; (2) pond flooding; (3) escape of infected shrimp; (4)
spills or losses during transport to shrimp processing facilities; (5) disposal of pond sediment or
solid waste; and (6) infected bait shrimp (Figure 4). Wild shrimp may be most susceptible to
Page 44
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
these exposures during certain time periods. Wild penaied populations are most dense during
immigration of postlarvae (e.g., usually spring and early summer) and immigration of juveniles
(e.g., late summer into fall). In addition to these spatial and temporal relationships, other
important factors in assessing potential exposures to native shrimp species include the volume of
effluent discharged from shrimp farms and processors, as well as disinfection and quarantine
procedures used in these facilities. Infected wild shrimp may contaminate aquaculture stocks
through the use of infected wild broodstock and postlarvae or from contaminated materials
entrained in local water supplies.
Figure 5. Processing as an
Introduction Vector for
Shrimp Viruses
mracraa imported >nnmp
(AquscuBurO or WBd-Caught):
Heads On/Hnads OfflPuBted
Factors Affecting
Exposure
Location
Seasonally
Volume
Shrimp source
Waste treatment
Wild Stock ;
'"
, ,
Auaculture
Shrimp Processing
Entry of Viruses into Processing
Shrimp viruses enter processing in two ways: infected domestic shrimp (aquaculture or wild-
caught) and infected imported shrimp (Figure 5). Currently, there are over 60 countries
exporting both pond-raised and wild shrimp to the U.S. Over 50 percent of the shrimp processed
in the U.S. is imported from Thailand, India, and numerous other countries where viral diseases
are a major problem. Some countries harvest shrimp during the early stages of a disease
outbreak in order to minimize disease effects on cultured shrimp yield. This strategy effectively
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 45
-------
Version 4.0
avoids high mortality and catastrophic economic losses in those countries, but increases the
likelihood that shrimp imported into the U.S. will be contaminated with viable virus particles. In
fact, virus-infected shrimp have been identified in retail stores in the U.S. Thus, importation of
infected shrimp for processing by the U.S. shrimp industry significantly increases the potential
for introduction of pathogenic viruses into coastal waters adjacent to the processing plants.
Pathways to Wild Stock
Infected shrimp processed in the U.S. may infect wild shrimp through the following
pathways: (1) solid waste; (2) effluents (treated or untreated); (3) bait shrimp (live or frozen);
and (4) infected material from processing used in shrimp and fish feed (Figure 5). For example,
solid wastes from processing facilities are often processed into meal at low temperature (i.e., not
sufficient to inactivate pathogenic viruses). This meal is added as a protein source to shrimp
feeds. If this feed is used for animals in aquaculture, and wastewater containing pathogenic
viruses from culture facilities is discharged into local receiving waters, local wild shrimp stocks
may be at risk from this pathway. Important factors to consider when evaluating risks to native
shrimp and aquaculture populations include facility location, seasonal patterns, varying volumes
of effluent discharges, the source of potentially contaminated shrimp for processing, and waste
treatment procedures.
Other Sources and Pathways
Live or Frozen Bait Shrimp
Pathogenic viruses may be found in infected bait shrimp that could contaminate wild stocks
through use in recreational and subsistence fishing. The bait shrimp industry is integral to the
U.S. shrimp fishery, and it supports a large and economically-important sportfishing industry in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Because the demand for bait shrimp is high, especially when local
shrimp supplies are limited, many bait shrimpers haul live shrimp among different bays within a
state or across state lines. At certain times of the year, the demand for bait shrimp has been so
great that suppliers to the recreational fishery have had to depend on imported shrimp to meet the
demand. When contaminated bait shrimp are discarded, wild stocks feeding on these discards
could be vulnerable to infection, especially during the spring and summer when postlarval
shrimp are migrating into the coastal nursery areas.
Ballast Water
The transport of live shrimp in ballast water is well documented. It is estimated that 25 or
more species of shrimp have been released to U.S. surface waters through ship ballast. The
introduction of pathogenic viruses may be possible with the establishment of these new species.
However, virus introduction to wild stock may result even if exotic shrimp species originating in
ballast water do not become established (e.g., diseased, dead, or dying shrimp discharged from
ballast may be eaten by or come in contact with wild crustaceans). Ballast water can include a
mix of crustaceans (e.g., crab larvae, amphipods, and isopods), and the possibility of viral
transmission from one crustacean species to another may be amplified under these conditions.
Research and Public Display
Pathogenic viruses may be unintentionally released in association with wastes, feed, or
organisms from research activities at public agencies, universities, or large public aquaria, or by
Page 46 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
discarded ornamental cultures of shrimp or other crustaceans. Many of these facilities are
located in coastal areas in proximity to habitat for wild shrimp populations. Proper quarantine or
disinfection procedures for new or exotic organisms (i.e., especially those known to carry
pathogens) are critical for preventing the release of pathogenic organisms, but the extent of these
procedures varies greatly among research and display facilities.
Non-Shrimp Translocated Animals
Animals other than shrimp may carry viruses that could infect shrimp populations. Potential
pathways for viral entry include international, national, or regional transport of infected live
animals, bait, or feed materials. Important factors affecting exposure to wild shrimp include
location, seasonality, the number of animals, and the proximity of their habitat relative to wild
shrimp. All but the most basic information is unavailable for evaluating the potential exposures
these animals represent to wild shrimp.
Natural Spread
While anthropogenic pathways for the introduction of pathogenic viruses to wild shrimp are
the primary concern, it is possible that the spread of a virus could be enhanced by natural
processes. Examples include movements by large-scale water currents, hurricane or flood
events, and translocation by birds or other animals. Little information is available on this
potential pathway for exposure to pathogenic shrimp viruses.
Other
Two other sources are considered less important than the preceding sources - fishing vessels
and intentional introductions. When fishing vessels based in U.S. ports return from foreign
waters, their nets and other equipment may be contaminated with organisms or materials that
harbor pathogenic shrimp viruses. While intentional introduction of a virus is possible, it is not
considered likely, and it would be difficult if not impossible to predict or control.
5.3 Management Framework Related to Shrimp Viruses
Federal Level
Because pathogenic shrimp viruses have the potential to be spread through interstate
commerce, the federal government has regulatory authority in this area. Numerous federal
agencies have statutory authorities, roles, and overlapping responsibilities for regulating the
importation and movement of aquatic animals and products in commerce (see Section 7.0).
Although human health and food safety are clearly provided for under existing federal statutes,
the health of U.S. domestic shrimp, other crustaceans, and other susceptible "wild" animals may
not be adequately protected from diseases that may result from the importation of aquatic
animals or animal products. Under the Lacey Act, importation of plants or animals that are
considered injurious to humans, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to the
fisheries and wildlife resources of the U.S. is prohibited; however, current provisions do not
address shrimp viruses.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 47
-------
Version 4.0
To prevent future threats to aquaculture, indigenous species, and aquatic ecosystems, federal
agencies need to better define and coordinate their roles in a number of areas, including
importation, interstate movement, release of live animals, and waste management (ISA 1997). A
variety of federal statutes give several different agencies responsibilities for managing risks
associated with shrimp viruses; however, these statutes do not specifically reference shrimp
pathogens. Federal agencies that have authority include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA)
The JSA is a federal interagency advisory group formed under the auspices of the President's
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The JSA formed a Shrimp Virus Work Group in
1996 in response to the growing threat to shrimp aquaculture and concerns for possible effects on
wild shrimp populations from shrimp viruses. The primary task of the Work Group is the
development of an interagency strategy to address the shrimp virus issue. As a first step, the
Work Group identified existing authorities among federal agencies, as well as research underway
on shrimp viruses, their mode of transmission, and potential for introduction into U.S. waters
(JSA 1997). In addition, the following actions are being pursued: (1) support information
exchange and education; (2) develop a risk assessment; and (3) determine actions needed by the
U.S. to prevent introductions.
U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program
Funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, and other cooperating institutions, this program operates a Nucleus
Breeding Center and quarantine centers, and supplies specified pathogen free (SPF) shrimp
stocks to the U.S. shrimp aquaculture industry.
Regional Level
The GMP and its federal agency partners have focused considerable effort on the exotic
shrimp virus issue in the Gulf of Mexico. In the summer of 1996, a joint U.S./ Mexico shrimp
virus workshop was held by the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group
(co-sponsored by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USEPA). The purpose of the
workshop was to compile knowledge about shrimp virus status, impact, and threats to the shrimp
culture industry, as well as to wild shrimp populations. Recommendations resulting from the
workshop included an assessment of disease and financial risks associated with the introduction
and spread of shrimp viruses in the wild and to shrimp farms (Kumpf et al. 1999). The second
Gulf-wide effort, in February 1998, was a NOAA/USEPA workshop organized to address the
development and implementation of specific management strategies dealing with exotic shrimp
viruses, ballast water pathways, and potential introduced species (Kumpf et al. 1999).
Page 48 September 2000
-------
Version 4,0
State Level: Florida
This section was adapted from information available at the Division of Aquaculture,
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website (FDACS 2000).
During 1984 the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Aquaculture Policy Act (FAPA) to
create a governmental framework conducive to the orderly growth of aquaculture. FAPA,
codified in Chapter 597, Florida Statutes, has been amended almost every year since its passage
to refine the working relationship between the industry and state government. FAPA directs the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to carry out a variety of
responsibilities. An important component of FAPA is a farmer advisory committee, the
Aquaculture Review Council (ARC). The ARC provides guidance to the Commissioner of
Agriculture and critical input on the annual development of the Florida Aquaculture Plan. The
Act also requires all Florida aquaculturists to acquire a Certificate of Registration and abide by a
set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) (outlined in Rule 5L-3). The FDACS is responsible
for compliance with these BMPs and conducts annual compliance inspections of farm facilities.
In the event of a farmer and agency conflict, FAPA directs the FDACS to provide assistance in
the form of an Aquaculture Ombudsman to intercede on their behalf.
Chapter 597, Florida Statutes, states that "any person engaging in aquaculture in the State of
Florida must be certified by the department." The purpose of the Aquaculture Certification
Program is to identify aquaculture producers and aquacultural products, and to implement
appropriate BMPs at these aquaculture facilities. The appropriate Aquaculture Certification
number must be on all aquaculture products from harvest to point of sale. An Aquaculture
Certificate also exempts aquafarmers from certain requirements of wild-harvested species, offers
tax advantages, and reduces the number of permits required from other regulatory agencies.
State Level: Mississippi
Prevention of nonindigenous shrimp virus introductions could only be addressed through a
broad interpretation of Mississippi's Aquaculture Act (Mississippi Code Annotated §79-22-9
(1972 & Supp. 1999)), passed in 1988 (Van Devender 2000). Most provisions of the act,
including issuance of aquaculture cultivation and marketing permits, are administered by the
Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC). Cultivation permits for any
nonindigenous species are required. The Aquaculture Task Force (ATF), established in the act,
is charged with advising the MDAC in its permit issuance responsibilities. The Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is one member of the ATF, and Section 79-22-15(4),
Mississippi Code of 1972 states:
"The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks [more suitably MDMR (Van Devender
2000)] may promulgate regulations which specify criteria to protect marine resources and to
prevent the release of undesirable species from an aquaculture facility into the environment."
Mississippi has a list of prohibited species determined by the ATF to be detrimental to
Mississippi's native resources, and their release into state waters is forbidden. Further
aquaculture regulations require nonindigenous species to be cultured with a filter system to
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 49
-------
Version 4.0
prevent passage of eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. However, neither the prohibited list nor
filter requirements affect the possibility of viral releases. Prevention of viruses released from
non-aquaculture activities would fall into a gray area of authority (Van Devender 2000). Tom
Van Devender, MDMR, concludes:
"Only after we can say with some degree of certainty which viruses are endemic, which
may appear on an irregular periodic basis like the various influenza viruses, or which might
be genuinely entirely new and introduced by man's activities, and then only after some
analysis of the effects these viruses have on shrimp and all other important marine species
can we begin to craft meaningful, enforceable regulations." (Van Devender 2000).
State Level: Texas
The following sub-section was adapted from information provided
by Larry McKinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, in Battelle (1999)
In 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
authority to prohibit the introduction of nonindigenous fish species into Texas waters. The
Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) began to actively recruit the mariculture industry
in 1986, and in 1987, the Texas Legislature passed a law allowing an exemption from water
rights permitting for mariculture facilities. The Fish Farming Act of 1989 transferred most
aquaculture responsibilities from TPWD to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). TDA
responsibilities include: (1) promote fish farming products; (2) license and regulate facilities; (3)
provide technical assistance; (4) provide coordination for university and government entities; and
(5) develop and expand the industry. TPWD responsibilities include: (1) adopt rules to regulate
aquaculture of exotic species; (2) publish a list of prohibited exotic species; (3) prohibit the
release of exotic species; and (4) enforce exotic species rules (Texas Agricultural Code §
134.001).
In addition to regulating exotic species for aquaculture use, TPWD is the state agency
responsible for protecting fish and wildlife resources and managing wild shrimp populations.
The TPWD management strategy attempts to be responsive to both the harvest and aquaculture
industries, as well as to meet mandated resource protection responsibilities. Key elements of this
strategy include allowable exotic species, disease management, native species management, and
coordinated permitting. Specific policies and procedures include:
• Allowable exotic shrimp species include Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) for
open mariculture systems, and blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris) in closed systems outside
an exclusion zone.
• TPWD has worked with industry to develop management responses for IHHNV, TSV,
WSSV, and YHV outbreaks.
• TPWD initially supported the use of native shrimp, however staff are no longer convinced
that use of native shrimp is the best option.
• The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and TPWD coordinate
mariculture regulation through a Memorandum of Understanding. TPWD will not issue an
Page 50 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Exotic Species Permit until a TNRCC discharge permit is obtained; TPWD has a formal role
in the TNRCC permitting process.
The Fish Fanning Act mandated that an Aquaculture Executive Committee (AEC) adopt
rules for fish farming, advise TDA to suspend licenses for violations, and employ an aquaculture
liaison to coordinate activities among the entities. However, the AEC is unable to carry out its
directives due to budgetary constraints. Senate Bill 977 (1991) amended the Fish Farming Act
by: (1) abolishing the aquaculture liaison position; (2) requiring the AEC to assist applicants
seeking aquaculture permits; (3) requiring the AEC to coordinate the issuance of permits; (4)
requiring the AEC to compile a strategic plan biennially; (5) requiring each member of the AEC
to appoint a staff member as aquaculture coordinator; and (6) creating an industry advisory
committee.
In 1995, TPWD and TNRCC enhanced their regulations to better address disease and
discharge issues pertaining to mariculture facilities along the Texas coast. The goal of the
resulting Aquatic Exotic Species Program, implemented in March 1995, is to prevent the
introduction of nonindigenous aquatic fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants to the public waters of
the State. Components included:
• Emergency Plans: Require the submission of a plan for all applicants within an exclusion
zone, describe methods used to prevent release or escapement in the event of a natural
catastrophe, and replace the rule to destroy exotic species with an approved biocide.
• Research Permits: Reduce the possibility for exotic species escaping and impacting the
marine environment and permit new exotic marine species research outside the exclusion
zone. The permit also requires research facilities within the exclusion zone to: (1) be fully
quarantined; (2) have a closed life support system; (3) have an effluent treatment system
designed to prevent escape of animals and release of disease-laden effluent; (4) have an
approved emergency plan; (5) have secured facilities; (6) have an approved disposal method
for exotic species; (7) agree not to promote the use of unapproved exotic species; and (8)
have an approved research proposal.
• Health Certification: Required for all exotic shellfish possessed by individuals conducting
research or displaying animals in public aquaria.
• Screening Requirement: Requires (1) a permanent screen (strong enough to prevent a
"blowout") in front of the final discharge pipe in the harvest structure and (2) a screen over
the end of the discharge pipe of facilities discharging into public waters.
In November 1996, the purchase of live Pacific white shrimp was allowed by licensed retail
or wholesale fish dealers without a permit if their place of business is located outside the
exclusion zone. In January 1997, Exotic Species and Discharge Permits required (1) new
applicants to obtain a discharge permit or an exemption from TNRCC prior to applying for an
Exotic Species Permit and (2) existing Exotic Species Permit holders to demonstrate they
possess or have applied for a TNRCC discharge permit or exemption. The following disease
management components were added to the Aquatic Exotic Species Program in April 1998: (1)
definitions and new rules concerning exotic and native shellfish; (2) a weekly clinical analysis
checklist; and (3) a choice for permit holders between requesting an inspection from an approved
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 51
-------
Version 4.0
examiner or submitting samples to a laboratory for disease analysis as a result of manifestation
of disease or before discharging.
Aquaculture Industry
A voluntary SPF broodstock and shrimp seed program is used in the U.S. to help prevent
contamination of commercial aquaculture operations by pathogenic viruses. High Health
facilities are an important part of the SPF-based industry - producing seed for growout with a
documented history of pathogen surveillance. Other elements of disease prevention in the
industry include farm biosecurity practices and quick response to disease outbreaks.
Page 52 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
6.0 Gulfwide Issues Addressed by the
ISFT: Ballast Water
"Every minute, 40,000 gallons of foreign ballast water
is dumped into U.S. harbors."
James Baker, Under Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (ISC 2000)
"Transport of entire coastal planktonic assemblages
across oceanic barriers to similar habitats renders
bays, estuaries, and inland water among
the most threatened ecosystems in the world."
Carlton and Cellar 2000, of international ballast water exchange
To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP
sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the Focus Team
serves as a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is
currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an
introduction vector, and the prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the
majority of the Focus Team's efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues. Section 6.0
provides a summary of the ballast water issue for the Gulf of Mexico region.
6.1 Overview of the Ballast Water Issue
Fundamental to world trade, ships have moved across the oceans for centuries and currently
transport approximately 80 percent of the world's commodities (NRC 1996). Ballast, normally
in the form of water, is an integral part of the safe operation of ships under a wide range of
conditions and loads. The uptake, transport, and subsequent discharge of water and sediment
from ship ballast tanks can disperse aquatic organisms - including jellyfish, crabs, clams, fish,
snails, bacteria, and viruses. Research has confirmed that plants, animals, and pathogens can live
and grow over a long period in ballast tanks and cargo holds (Smith et al. 1996). It has been
estimated that more than 3,000 species of animals and plants are transported daily around the
world in ballast water (NRC 1996). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses through
ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains virtually
unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000). The potential for entire coastal planktonic
assemblages to be introduced by international ballast water transfers, make bays, estuaries, and
inland waters some of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world (Carlton and Geller 1993).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 53
-------
Version 4,0
The effects from some introductions have resulted in expensive remedial actions and a broad
range of adverse ecological repercussions resulting in government, public, and scientific
attention on the role of shipping as a dispersal vector for nonindigenous aquatic organisms (NRC
1996). Ports, states, and nations and the international community, under various international,
national, regional, and local programs, are evaluating the potential impacts of the introductions
and conducting scientific research to support the evaluation of appropriate management
strategies and actions to control introductions from ballast water.
Appropriate management and control strategies designed to reduce the threat of
nonindigenous species introductions must effectively address a complex diversity of multiple
source and discharge environment pairings, and organism diversity in the ballast tanks. The task
of developing control methods is complicated further by the need to address shipboard safety,
technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and practicality.
Because of the lack of alternative ballast water control strategies, open-ocean exchange -
exchanging ballast water loaded in port or in inshore waters with ocean water during passage
between ports of call - is the only control option being implemented for reducing the risk of
introduction. This method is considered effective because most freshwater and estuarine
organisms cannot survive when discharged into the open ocean environment and vice versa.
However, few studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of open-ocean
exchange. A recent evaluation of the efficiency of ballast water exchange practices and degree
of ship compliance concluded that although thousands of ships routinely conduct open-ocean
exchanges, very few studies have directly measured the efficacy of the procedure, and more
research on both reballasting and dilution procedures is needed on a wider range on ship types
(Hay and Tanis 1998). Further, because of the complex biological diversity within the tanks,
there is some question whether open-ocean exchange facilitates the survival of some organisms
that would otherwise die off prior to port arrival. These uncertainties combined with the fact that
open-ocean exchange can compromise vessel safety and can be costly, particularly when
exchange time exceeds voyage time, has led to the conclusion that open-ocean exchange is a
short-term ballast water management approach.
This conclusion has prompted research and investigations into other control options. Control
options being investigated internationally include avoiding ballasting if water is likely to contain
unwanted organisms (e.g., in areas of sewage discharge or high sediment loads) and shipboard
and shore-based treatment of ballast water. A ballast water management plan developed in
conjunction with the ship cargo plan could provide flexibility for meeting contingencies and
avoiding ballasting in certain locations. However, without solid criteria and supporting science,
it is difficult to determine which ports pose highest risk. As a result, development of risk
assessment frameworks are now being recommended to assist mangers in targeting their
resources and efforts on those ports of origin, vessels, and particular species that pose the most
threat.
Current research has focused on ballast water treatment options. Shore-based treatment of
ballast may have some advantages, but centralized handling and treatment of such large volumes
of water poses many economic and infrastructure challenges including, increased port
Page 54 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
congestion, lack of available land for treatment facilities, and delays in ship schedules. Although
shipboard treatment also poses considerable challenges (e.g., space and energy limitations,
shipboard safety), it currently provides the most flexibility in managing ballast water.
Ballast Water Treatment Options
In an evaluation often major categories of candidate shipboard treatment technologies, the
National Research Council (NRC) identified several promising approaches including physical
separation methods, the addition of low concentrations of biocides, and thermal treatment (NRC
1996). Numerous research projects are underway that attempt to quantify the effectiveness of a
wide variety of shipboard and shore-based treatment technologies (Table 10). In addition to
those listed in Table 10, several foreign countries have shipboard treatment research underway
(Cangelosi, 1999):
• Singapore: Repetitive Bench-Scale Trials of Various Technologies
• Norway: Biological Efficacy of UV
• Germany: Efficacy of Various Chemical Treatments
• Japan: Electrolytic Treatment
• Brazil: Ballast Tank Modifications to Facilitate BWE
• Canada: Thermal Treatment
• Australia: Decision Support System (Hazard Assessment)
Table 12. Status of Ballast Water Treatment Technology Research Projects
Technology
Waste Engine Heat
Backwash Filtration
Gluteraldehyde
Peracetic Acid
Shoreside Treatment
Cyclonic Separation/UV
Excimer Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet (various)
Full-Scale Design and Installation Plan
Ultrasonics/Ozone
Ultrasonics
Electrically-Generated Ozone
Juglone
EVT: Voraxial Separator
Complete
1996 (Australia)
1 997-98 (GLBTDP)
Underway
1 997-99 (UM)
1 998-2000 (SUNY)
1998-20001 (SFBI)
1 998-2000 (Velox)
1998-2001 (Sea Grant)
Pending
2000 (GLBTDP)
2000 (GLBTDP)
1999-2001 (Sea Grant)
1999-2001 (Sea Grant)
1999-2001 (Sea Grant)
1999-2001 (Sea Grant)
2000-2002 (UMCBL)
GLBTDP = Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration
University of Maryland Chesapeake Biological Laboratory;
University of New York Stonybrook.
Source: Cangelosi 1999 and BusinessWire 2000
Project; UM = University of Michigan; UMCBL =
SFBI = San Francisco Bay Initiative; SUNY =
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 55
-------
Version 4.0
Another evaluation of three ballast water treatment technologies - ultraviolet (UV) radiation
and thermal and acoustic techniques - concluded that ultraviolet radiation is currently the best
suited technology for secondary treatment of ballast water, because it is well developed, has
many vendors for producing equipment for a variety of applications, and shows the best potential
for shipboard trials (Battelle 1998). Since that evaluation was completed, four treatment
technologies have been developed and are being tested on vessels, including a combined
filtration and UV treatment system developed by OptiMarin, a Norwegian company, in
conjunction with Hyde Marine, Inc. This combined system was installed aboard the Princess
Cruise Lines Regal Princess during the late spring of 2000. Performance data is not available at
this writing, and it is unknown whether the technology can be effectively and efficiently applied
as a treatment method for the trade shipping industry, which often requires more frequent
ballasting operations per voyage. The Battelle (1998) evaluation also indicated that ultrasonics
technology shows promise for application to ballast water treatment, but more research is needed
to determine if the technology is suitable for large-scale volumes and high flows. Many of the
technologies currently under investigation could prove effective in the future, and it is unlikely
that one treatment technology or control strategy will suffice for all situations.
6.2 The Ballast Water Issue in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Shipping and Ballast Water in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Ranked by tonnage, the Gulf of Mexico region is home to eight of the ten largest ports in the
U.S. These include both coastal ports (e.g., Tampa, and Galveston) and riverine ports (e.g.,
Mobile, Houston, New Orleans, and South Alabama). These ports move a large volume of
international trade, including a high portion from the countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean Sea. Two of the largest inland waterway systems, the Mississippi River system
and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, flow through these ports and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Most of the coastal and riverine ports are linked by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW).
Table 13. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major Gulf of Mexico
Ports
Houston
78% Tankers
3.7 million metric tons (1 billion gallons/yr)
New Orleans
83
37% Tankers
36% General Cargo
21.8 million metric tons (5.8 billion gallons/yr)
Gulfport
2.0
74% General Cargo
17.8 thousand metric tons (47 million gallons/yr)
Mobile
50.8
70% Bulk Carriers
1.1 million metric tons (293 million gallons/yr)
Tampa
51.3
52% Bulk Carriers
2.1 million metric tons (543 million gallons/yr)
Source: Kumpf et al. (1999)
Page 56
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Collectively, a very large volume of cargo is shipped through the ports of the U.S. Gulf
Coast. A study of five major ports in the Gulf of Mexico calculated estimates of 1996 ballast
water releases based on cargo volume and ship type (Table 13). The largest volume of ballast
discharged across these five ports is released by bulkers calling on the Ports of Lower
Mississippi, followed by tankers in the Port of Houston, and general cargo in the Lower
Mississippi (Battelle 1998).
Detailed ballast water information is now being collected under the National Ballast Water
Survey. This survey is being conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to evaluate the level of
ship compliance with the voluntary at-sea exchange guidelines for foreign vessel arrivals. Upon
entry into U.S. ports, foreign vessels are required to submit a ballast water reporting form
(Appendix C) indicating whether an exchange has been conducted, and the volume and location
of exchange. All information reported on the ballast water reporting form is recorded in the
National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBWIC), operated and maintained by the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC).
NBWIC data relevant to arrivals, ballast water discharge volumes, and vessel origin is
summarized by USCG and is available via the Internet (http://invasions.si.edu/whats.htm'). The
data summary for all port zones completely included in the Gulf of Mexico region is shown in
Table 14: port zone abbreviations in Table 14 can be cross-reference with the geographical
coverage shown in the map provided in Figure 6. The MIAMS port zone was excluded from
data summary provided in Table 14 as it is encompasses areas beyond the Gulf of Mexico
region. Though only a summary of the information collected for the ballast water reporting
forms is available via the Internet, all fields on the ballast water reporting form are recorded in
the central database maintained by SERC. SERC will provide this dataset, organized by state,
upon formal written request (Miller, pers. comm.).
The data presented in Table 14 is considered draft, but some general trends and conclusions
can be drawn responsibly. For example, the data show that of the 1831 total vessels reporting,
more than half reported that some exchange was conducted. More than half, 63 percent, of the
approximate 4 million gallons of ballast water from all vessels was exchanged.
The data also show that a large proportion of vessels reporting originate from the Caribbean and
South and Central America. The summary data available through the NBIWC does not provide
sufficient detail to allow an analysis of the proportion of ballast water discharge, after exchange, to
the source region. However, transit time for traveling the major shipping routes (Figure 7) is often
not long enough to conduct full exchange, and there are few areas along these routes that meet the
criteria for open-ocean exchange. Further review of a more detailed dataset from the NBWIC could
provide the needed data to assess exchanged discharge volumes in Gulf ports relative to ship
sources.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 57
-------
Version 4.0
Table 14. National Ballast Water Clearinghouse Data" Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region
LOCATION
REPORTING FORMS
ARRIVALS/DISCHARGE
•o
n
3
O
Is
=> a
7
8
8
8
8
8
r
o
£
0
.c
15
c
3%
a c
re o
0 N
TAMMS
CORMS
HOUCP
MOBMS
NEWMS
PATMS
Total
in
0
to
0
6 c
z t
1- U.
270
164
628
118
546
105
1831
O)
c
a>
n
c.
o
rivals Di:
"*
94
50
223
39
206
32
644
O)
c
o>
2 0
o 21
rivals Di:
h Excha
< ?
32
25
128
22
128
21
356
°> §>
E c
*1
> X
0, UJ
51
1!
o o
287901
176544
492101
135172
1200710
215962
2508390
0
a
n
.c
o
5 |
"re 3
o o
£ >
392379
430146
1092323
184334
1527240
324486
3950908
VESSEL TYPES
|
o
rier/Unkr
89
33
97
43
54
14
330
JC
c
K
48
85
306
16
186
69
710
ssenger
°-
61
0
0
1
103
0
165
o
neral Ca
O
21
1
9
7
13
2
53
ntainer
o
O
4
4
114
16
38
4
180
0
3
ffi
39
36
70
29
125
12
311
SOURCE REGIONS BY CONTINENT
OR REGION
|
E
<
6
8
20
6
26
4
70
re
<
6
3
16
10
22
2
59
•a
antic Isl;
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ro
I
<
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
ribbean
0
50
8
104
6
41
1?
221
re
o
0
1
re
'c
0
O
59
2
62
23
23
4
173
2
3
UJ
17
14
51
7
86
8
183
ddle Eas
i
2
z
14
4
30
7
59
5
rth Ame
o
Z
88
65
248
31
212
49
693
u>
cific Isia
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
nj
0
O
30
59
90
21
82
16
298
Source: SERC, http://invasions.si.edu/whats.html
a Data collected in the period between July 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000.
There was no data reported for the MORMS port zone in the SERC data summary.
c North American data includes vessels originating from Mexico and Canada. A request was made to SERC to
provide the vessels information for each country. However, there was insufficient time to accommodate the request
by the time of this submission. Data will be available by the end of September 2000.
Figure 6. Port Zone Boundaries of National Ballast Water Clearinghouse
Source: SERC, http://invasions.si.edu/whats.htm
Page 58
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Assessing the Risk of Ballast Water as an Introduction Vector in the Gulf of
Mexico Region
Many factors affect the likelihood of nonindigenous species introductions from ballast water
and the survivability of the newly introduced organisms. To clarify the vulnerability of ports
within the Gulf of Mexico, a better understanding is needed of each port's potential to serve as a
conduit for future invasions of nonindigenous species. One of the primary factors that should be
considered is total volume of ballast discharged and total volume of ballast discharged after
exchange. However, this factor alone can not be used to assess port vulnerability. Other factors
that need to be considered in relation to one another and to ballasting operations and volumes
discharged include: types and proportions of transport vessels and cargos; trade partners; origin
of ballast; natural environment and port water quality compared to water quality of trade
partners; and location of known pests and foulants in port (Barrett-O'Leary 1999). Data and
information on shipping and ballasting operations can be obtained through the NBWIC and a
more extensive analysis is recommended. Natural environmental and water quality data can only
be obtained through research and field studies. Summarized below, is a discussion of these risk
factors, which has been adapted from Barrett-O'Leary (1999) and discussed in context with the
availability of NBWIC data.
Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico Shipping Routes
Source: Ministry of Defence (1987)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 59
-------
Version 4.0
Tonnage and Ballast Water Discharge Volumes
The three ports handling the highest amount of export tonnage in the U.S. are all located
along the Gulf of Mexico - the Port of South Louisiana, the Port of Houston (number one in
terms of foreign tonnage), and the Port of New Orleans (Barrett-O'Leary 1999). Review of
export statistics assist in determining which ports should be evaluated further because it indicates
which ports are likely to be receiving the highest volume of ballast discharge. However, total
volume of ballast water discharge is not the only factor to be considered.
With the initiation of the National Ballast Water Survey, the NBWIC now contains data on
the volume of ballast water discharge, the total volume of ballast on board, and total ballast water
capacity. Using data in Table 14, within the Gulf of Mexico region, the NEWMS port zone that
includes Southern Louisiana receives the highest volume of ballast water discharge; second is the
GALMS/HOUCP area containing the ports of Galveston and Houston. These statistics alone
would suggest that the NEWMS port zone is a higher risk area for the receipt of introduced
species. However, the proportion and total volume of ballast water discharged after exchange in
the NEWMS port zone is actually higher than that of the GALMS/HOUCP zone, indicating that
the GALMS/HOUCP is the area of greater risk. A more detailed evaluation on ballast discharge
volumes with and without exchange should be conducted to assess trends over time to assist
individual Gulf ports in assessing and unexchanged ballast discharge volumes.
Types and Proportions of Transport Vessels and Cargo
The risk to individual ports is related, first, to tonnage and ballast water discharge volumes,
and second, to the ballast water exchange procedures associated with different vessel and cargo
types. Of the known vessel types reporting (Table 14), the largest proportion of vessels arriving
in all Gulf of Mexico ports are tankers (49 percent), followed by bulk carriers. Research
suggests that bulk carriers exchange a large volume of ballast and thus, may be more likely to
introduce nonindigenous species (Barrett-O'Leary 1999). Often bulkers carry a single
commodity (e.g., ore, woodchips, etc.) that are loaded or unloaded in total at a particular port.
Therefore, exporting vessels arrive in port fully ballasted and discharge full volumes while in
port to take on cargo. In this situation, without any open-ocean exchange, the total volume of
water and organisms discharged from the bulker would originate from the last port of call. There
are times however, when bulkers load or unload cargo at a number of sequential ports before
offloading the entire amount of cargo at a final destination port (Carlton et al. 1995). In these
instances, similar to the ballasting operations of cargo or container ships, the ballast discharged
at the final port is a mixture of water taken on in many different ports and may harbor organisms
from several origins. Tankers tend to conduct ballasting operations in a similar manner to
bulkers.
Container and general cargo vessels usually do not discharge the large volumes that bulkers
and tankers do, however, they make faster, more direct voyages. This short transport pattern
may provide better opportunities for plants and animals to live in ballast tanks, or even survive a
short period in the saltwater environment following an open-ocean exchange (Barrett-O'Leary
1999). In most cases container ships partially load and unload cargo at many different ports,
taking on and discharging partial volumes of ballast to compensate for the cargo distribution. As
a result, container ships often carry ballast water from many different ports and depending upon
Page 60 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
the loading and unloading pattern, ballast tanks can contain a homogenized mix of ballast water
from several different ports (Carlton et al. 1995).
This information combined with the proportion of vessels types entering the Gulf of Mexico
(Tables 13 and 14) suggests that more attention should be focused on bulk carriers and tankers.
However, crucial data is lacking to make such determinations. More detailed data and
information, by port, is needed on vessel types in conjunction with the volumes on ballast
discharged with and without exchange to assess patterns and trends and to begin to assess and
predict individual port risk. However, evaluation of these factors alone will not provide the
necessary information for a full assessment. To fully understand the impacts and potential risk
posed by ballast discharge, ballasting operations must be considered in context with the source of
the ballast water to predict the likelihood of organism survivability in the receiving port.
Trade Partners and Origin of Ballast
Disclosure of all ballast water sources for all tanks is a requirement of the ballast water
reporting form (Appendix C) and is recorded in the NBWIC. Review and evaluation of this data
in conjunction with ballasting data would indicate which ports are most vulnerable. It would
seem likely that trade between neighboring ports would pose less of a risk of introduction than
ports further away, since neighboring areas may share environments and species. However, this
may not always be a valid assumption because sometimes species are very different in
neighboring countries, but the environmental conditions may be quite similar; for example, the
U.S. Gulf Coast and Mexico (Barrett-O'Leary, 1999). Therefore, it is more important to assess
the similarities of the environmental conditions (e.g., geology, climate and water quality
characteristics) and indigenous organisms of the trading ports. Species thriving in ports with
extremely different water quality and climate characteristics are less likely to survive if
transferred, and thus vessels carrying ballast from regions with different water quality
characteristics present less risk.
Attention should be directed first to trade vessels with neighboring countries along the Gulf
of Mexico and Caribbean with similar environments and significantly different species.
Neighboring countries (South and Central America and the Caribbean) represent approximately
40 percent of all entering the Gulf of Mexico vessels (Table 14). Trade with areas of the world
like northern Russia or the Scandinavian countries should receive less research attention because
the climate is so different that species arriving from those waters are more likely to die than
becoming established (Barrett-O'Leary 1999).
Most of the time the U.S. port of call is the port perceived to be at the highest risk of
receiving potential invaders. However, the risk for introductions also exists in subsequent U.S.
ports. Ships, particularly foreign container or general cargo ships, taking on cargo sequentially
from many different Gulf of Mexico ports may be discharging ballast water taken from previous
foreign ports of calls, or may be a mixture of domestic and foreign ports. Additionally, in the
Gulf of Mexico region, inland trade along the GIWW, as well as coastwise trade between
neighboring Gulf ports, provides an opportunity to spread invasive species among ports. Florida,
for example, has many aquatic invasive species not found in other Gulf states (Barrett-O'Leary
1999). Data and information on the sources of ballast water being discharged and the trade
patterns, both domestic and foreign, are necessary for a full evaluation of the risk of
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 61
-------
Version 4.0
introductions. Foreign vessels are required to report their last port of call and their next port of
call upon entering the U.S. However, no reporting is required in subsequent U.S. ports. As a
result, ballasting volumes and operations and ballast water exchange information are accessible
through NBWIC only for transit voyages from the foreign origin port to the first U.S. port of call.
6.3 Perspectives from Gulf of Mexico Region Stakeholders
Over the past year three ballast water workshops have been held in the Gulf of Mexico
region:
• Invasive Species and Ballast Water Management in the Gulf of Mexico Region, October
1999, New Orleans, Louisiana
• Aquatic Invasive Species and Shipping in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico: A Workshop for the
Maritime and Scientific Community, November 1999, Tampa, Florida
• Western Gulf Ballast Water Workshop, April 2000, Houston, Texas
These workshops have either solely focused on the ballast water issue or have addressed it as
a major component of invasive species management. During each workshop, national and
regional perspectives on ballast water were shared during presentations made by the ports, the
shipping industry, environmental managers, and scientists. Workshop participants also shared
their opinions on regional management of ballast water and provided suggestions for future
actions. The following highlights have been summarized from the workshop proceedings -
Grantham and Barrett-O'Leary (1999), Greening and Holland (1999), and Barrett-O'Leary
(2000) - and reflect the perspectives and suggestions of the workshop participants.
Ballast Water Management Approaches
The consensus of the participants was that non-regulatory approaches are not likely to be
viable. Therefore, regulations are needed to drive ballast water management and treatment
strategies. Future regulations should be national (or if possible international) in scope and
should establish uniform standards for clean ballast and acceptable levels of risk, but should also
allow for regional/local implementation and monitoring. A unified national approach is far
superior to establishing varying regulations at local levels. The participants agreed that it is
important to support the USCG voluntary approach and SERC efforts to record regional
information on ballasting procedures and sources.
By comparison to other areas of the country, the Gulf of Mexico has received little attention
for invasive species research. Participants agreed that more regional efforts are needed to raise
the visibility of the potential impacts of ballast water introductions within the Gulf of Mexico.
To accomplish this goal, the Gulf States need to work together, in the same way that the Great
Lakes States do, to influence funding and research.
All workshop participants agreed that a risk assessment approach is necessary to identify and
focus efforts on the most probable and damaging species, and the geographic areas within the
Page 62 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Gulf of highest concern. Public health concerns as they relate to ballast water (i.e., imported
viruses and bacteria) should be a top priority within the approach. A realistic, scientifically-
defensible framework should be developed that accounts for the range and conditions for
survival and tolerance levels of potential invaders; the origin of foreign vessels entering Gulf
ports; and the environmental conditions of those ports. However, to develop a risk assessment
approach, a substantial amount of baseline data needs to be collected to characterize port and
ballast water quality and biology.
Ballast Water Treatment Options
There is currently no cost-effective alternative to open-ocean exchange and because of the
inherent problems with exchange, viable alternatives are needed. Most workshop participants
agreed that shipboard systems that treat ballast water during ballasting operations were the
preferred alternative; however, it may be necessary to provide incentives to ship owners for
installing these systems. Portside facilities will increase port congestion and ultimately impact
port economics. Additionally, construction of portside treatment facilities will require available
space and land, both of which are difficult to secure at existing port terminals. The participants
agreed that a critical review of all potential treatment options needs to be conducted and that all
potential options should be considered, including alternative sources of ballast.
Regional Needs
As a result of discussions during these workshops, the following regional needs were
expressed by participants:
• Stronger action needs to be taken regionally to raise political awareness.
• Regional workgroups and forums need to be established to exchange scientific information
and to develop management strategies.
• Additional research needs to be conducted to develop methods for preventing invasions.
• Baseline data to support a risk assessment approach is necessary.
• A Gulf-region information clearinghouse needs to be established.
• Educational campaigns targeted at vessel operators need to be initiated locally.
• Public outreach campaigns need to continue.
6.4 The Management Framework for Ballast Water
International Level
Although open ocean exchange of ballast water is currently the best method of controlling
nonindigenous species introductions, it is a voluntary practice in most countries. As such, it is
impossible to enforce a particular level of exchange. Ballast water management will most
effectively be accomplished by international regulations that provide consistent guidelines for all
countries.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 63
-------
Version 4.0
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
The IMO, a United Nations agency with jurisdiction over maritime affairs, is developing an
international framework for ballast water management. In 1997, the members of the IMO
adopted the resolution, "Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water to
Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens." These are voluntary
guidelines that vessel masters and port states can adopt to minimize the risk of spreading
nonindigenous species through ballast water. Many countries, including the U.S., have adopted
these guidelines and some ships are carrying out open ocean exchanges, as called for in the
guidelines. While these voluntary measures are a good first step, the Marine Environmental
Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO is continuing to develop a binding legal agreement on
ballast water management. Current plans are for a final agreement in the 2001-2002 time frame;
however, it would still need to be ratified by member nations before it becomes effective, which
could take until 2005.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
MARPOL is an international treaty that addresses pollution from ships. Shipboard waste
from a variety of sources is regulated under six MARPOL annexes, none of which address
nonindigenous species in ballast water. The MEPC is promoting a seventh MARPOL annex that
covers ballast water management. The MO's voluntary guidelines will be used as a basis for
developing these mandatory regulations. The new MARPOL annex would include Ballast Water
Management Guidelines as well as a Ship's Ballast Water Management Plan.
International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES)
The ICES has convened sessions and symposia focused on reducing the risk of adverse
effects from transport and introduction of nonindigenous species. Specifically, the ICES
Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms has included ballast water
issues on its agenda since 1988. ICES efforts are focused on the research that is needed to
develop control and treatment techniques, understanding the conditions under which ballast
water supports a diversity of aquatic organisms, and providing education on managing ballast
water.
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
The CEC's "Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems" project has
two initiatives, one of which is relevant to nonindigenous species and ballast water. The
"Closing the Pathways of Aquatic Invasive Species across North America," which will develop a
coordinated, multinational prevention and control campaign aimed at eliminating pathways for
the introduction of invasive species for inland and coastal waters of Canada, Mexico, and the
U.S.
National Level
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990
focused on preventing the release of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes where there has
been significant economic and ecological impacts associated with nuisance species introduced
through ballast water. The Nonindigenous Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 amended the
Page 64 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
1990 Act and pertains to all ships that operate in foreign waters and enter U.S. ports. To comply
with ballast water provisions of NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed both regulations and
voluntary guidelines in April 1998.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Program
To implement the NISA, the USCG has developed regulations that (1) promote ballast
management for operators of all vessels in waters of the U.S., (2) provide voluntary ballast water
management guidelines for all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside the EEZ, and (3) require
that all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the EEZ report ballast water management
data. On July 1, 1999, the USCG published an interim rule establishing a program for the
voluntary exchange of ballast water from ships prior to entering U.S. ports.
As discussed previously, the USCG, in cooperation with the Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center (SERC), has developed a nationwide program to measure ballast water
management and delivery patterns for commercial vessels that arrive in U.S. ports from outside
the EEZ. This National Ballast Water Survey is designed explicitly to create a national database
on ballast water practices. USCG personnel are involved in the collection of data to verify the
accuracy of data submitted under the new regulations. In addition, vessel owners and/or
operators must submit ballast water management forms to the National Ballast Water
Information Center, operated by SERC for the USCG. Results from the ballast water reports
may be viewed on the Internet at www.serc.si.edu\invasions\ballast.htm. The USCG plans to
implement a mandatory ballast management program if compliance with the voluntary program
is determined to be inadequate. In addition to the value that the data from the survey provides to
the USCG in evaluating the regulatory approach, the data, as discussed in Section 6.3, will also
be invaluable to environmental managers and in assessing the potential risks of introductions to
specific ports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Review of Ballast Water Regulation
In response to a petition from a coalition of environmental groups, USEPA indicated that a
final decision on whether to revise USEPA's regulations to direct states to regulate ballast water
as a point source would not be made until mid-2000. USEPA is currently drafting a white paper
that will describe options for regulating the discharge of ballast water, and they plan to work
with the USCG to develop possible options. USEPA then expects to coordinate the proposal
with its regional offices before releasing it for public review.
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)
The AAPA is working with ports and the USCG to identify opportunities for ports to
encourage increased compliance among carriers, especially at private bulk-exporting terminals
where most ballast water is discharged. The AAPA is working with government, industry, and
private maritime stakeholders to address the problem of terrestrial pests as well as the emerging
problem of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. The AAPA is currently working with the U.S.
government and other maritime stakeholders to promote a binding international agreement that
eliminates the spread of nonindigenous aquatic species with the least disruption to existing
commercial shipping practices.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 65
-------
Version 4.0
Northeast-Midwest Institute (NMI)
The NMI is a private, non-profit, and non-partisan research organization dedicated to
economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest states.
Aquatic invasive species is one of NMFs priority issues and has been active in four main arenas:
congressional authorizing and appropriating legislation to prevent and control the spread of
aquatic nuisance species; oversight of program implementation; ship-board ballast treatment
technology development; and development of an international convention on ballast water
management as part of the IMO. On December 2-3, 1999, NMI held a discussion forum, "The
NISA Ballast Management Program: Opportunities to Add Value through Partnerships," to
attempted to outline opportunities for interested entities to cooperatively enhance the NISA
Ballast Management Program.
Gulf Coast Regional Maritime Technology Center
The Gulf Coast Regional Maritime Technology Center, headquartered at the University of
New Orleans, is an organization established in late 1994 through a cooperative agreement with
the Office of Naval Research. The main purpose of the Center is to enhance the competitiveness
of the U.S. maritime industry in the international market by promoting and supporting the
application of basic research processes in maritime technology development.
State Level
A number of states are focusing attention on the issue of nonindigenous species and ballast
water. For example:
• The California legislature passed a bill last year establishing a ballast water management
program. Vessels entering a California port from outside the U.S. EEZ must pay a fee of
$400 and submit the USCG's ballast water management form to the State Lands
Commission.
• The Maryland legislature considered a bill that would essentially adopt the USCG program.
• A bill similar to the USCG program was developed in the State of Washington, but this bill
would make ballast exchange mandatory (except when safety is at risk) on all voyages
including coastwide trades. Additionally, as an incentive to develop ballast water treatment
technologies, all ballast water discharged into state waters after July 2000 would have to be
treated.
• A bill introduced to the Michigan legislature required that ballast water be "sterilized" before
discharge into state water.
• Ballast water legislation has been introduced to the Ohio legislature.
To date, no ballast water management bills have been introduced in the legislatures of the five
Gulf States.
Page 66 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Individual Port Initiatives
Several ports have implemented individual ballast water research, reporting, and
management programs. For example, the Port of Oakland (California) recently proposed to
require ships using its facilities to discharge ballast water at sea. The Port modeled their
requirements after those being used in Vancouver (Canada). The Port is on record as favoring
uniform national regulations for ballast water in order to provide a level playing field for all U.S.
ports. In addition, the California Association of Port Authorities is sponsoring a study of ballast
water management technologies.
In the Gulf region, the port authorities in Corpus Christi and Houston have made public
statements at regional ballast water workshops about implementing some ballast water
management plan, if warranted after their own internal research (Barrett-O'Leary, pers. comm.).
Regional National Estuary Programs have also identified introductions of invasive species as a
priority issue. The Coastal Bend Bays National Estuary Program (CCBNEP) included ballast
water management planning as one of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
Actions. Under this action the CBBNEP plans to educate vessel owners and operators on the
impacts of ballast operations and identify the vessels entering the port of Corpus Christi that pose
the highest risk through the evaluation of trade partners, ballasting operations and compliance
with the voluntary guidelines.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 67
-------
Version 4.0
7.0 The Management Framework for
Addressing Invasive Species Issues in
the Gulf of Mexico Region
"In a global economy, we must fight a global war against
invasive pests and diseases."
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, March 11, 2000
Section 7.0 describes the roles of government and private entities that contribute to the
collective management of invasive species issues in the Gulf of Mexico region. Organizations
discussed are not limited to those addressing only aquatic invasive species. While a thorough
inventory of organizations is discussed in this section, it is by no means comprehensive. In fact,
the Invasive Species Council report, National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species
Challenge (the final version - dated January 18, 2001 - is available at
www.invasivespecies.gov), contains an extremely detailed description of the federal and
international management framework for invasive species, and augments and updates related
information in this section.
7.1 General Overview of the Available Management
Framework
Invasive species problems arise in seemingly disconnected crises and species, and there is
general consensus that both federal and state legislation have been developed in a reactionary
fashion, as each crisis was addressed (ISC 2000). At the federal level, the current management
framework has its foundation in over 28 pieces of legislation and is dependent on activities of
more than two dozen different federal agencies. Some of these laws and activities only
peripherally address invasive species; others cover related issues in a manner unintended in the
original legislation. The laws addressing threats to agriculture - for centuries a well-developed
U.S. industry whose risks from invasions were relatively clear - tend to be more developed than
laws protecting ecosystems or other industries (Cora et al. 1999). For example, laws protecting
industries such as tourism and electric power and water supplies are far less developed and, in
some cases, do not exist.
With no single law, or coordinated group of laws, providing coordination among federal
agencies in addressing invasive species concerns, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
(1993) determined that "the current federal framework is a largely uncoordinated patchwork of
laws, regulations, policies, and programs." In general, there are substantial gaps in federal laws
Page 68
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
and programs to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species, and it is clear that significant
risks remain unaddressed (ISC 2000).
Existing legislation is targeted toward both controlling particular species and regulating
specific vectors. Species-oriented legislation prohibits or regulates introduction of species that
have caused problems, or have the potential to cause problems. Much of the current federal and
state legislation contains lists of prohibited and restricted species. For prohibited lists, it is
usually illegal to import, sell, possess, or transport those species; restricted species can usually be
imported, cultured, sold, and/or transported with one or more permits from appropriate natural
resource agencies. Agency rules, and associated permits, for restricted species often differentiate
between releases to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture, ornamental fish farms,
research facilities, public aquaria) and releases to open ecosystems.
Hawaii is unique among the U.S. state for using a "clean list" approach, which prohibits all
nonindigenous species introductions except those that are evaluated and determined not to be
injurious (Fletcher 2000). However, the clean list approach can be overly restrictive to
reasonable economic activity and would be difficult to implement in a state like Florida with its
long-established ornamental fish industry (Hill 2001).
It has been suggested that many currently implemented vector-based controls are
compromised by understaffing and time pressure (Ruesink et al. 1995). For example, for foreign
imports, the volume of trade creates a tremendous burden on an understaffed federal inspection
system and forces a strong reliance on self-reporting by the shipping industry (OTA 1993).
Equally problematic, there has been little support for regulations addressing unintentional "by-
product" introductions (Corn et al. 1999). However, recent efforts to manage ballast water
discharges represent a serious legislative attempt to control a high-risk introduction vector.
Some researchers contend that a consensus is developing that the invasive species problem
has reached proportions demanding a coherent national policy to guide future actions (Williams
and Meffe 1999). In 1997, more than 500 scientists and natural resource managers wrote the
Clinton Administration to express their deep concern about the damage done by invasive species
every year (ISC 2000). This action resulted in the establishment of a national Invasive Species
Council (ISC), through Presidential Executive Order, which issued a national invasive species
management plan in January 2001. At the same time, the recognition of federal framework
limitations has initiated state and regional management and planning (Fletcher 2000).
Universally it is recognized the prevention of new introductions of invasive species, and the
immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive species, is the most effective, and cost
effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al. 2000). Risk-based decision-making
approaches, based on available information, can help managers to quantitatively evaluate the
likelihood of an undesired event and the likelihood of harm or damage being caused (Hayes
1998). At this time though risk-based decision criteria are currently absent from most U.S.
policy for intentional introductions. However, the ANSTF recently presented a generic
nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk analysis review process (ANSTF 1996), and Hayes (1998)
has recently presented a suggested approach for an ecological risk assessment for ballast water
introductions. Some researchers and managers advocate the implementation of zero-risk policies
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 69
-------
Version 4.0
at national and international levels (Mack et al. 2000), assumably for species introductions to
open ecosystems versus imports to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture).
Given the magnitude of active introduction pathways and the diversity of nonindigenous
species and receiving ecosystems, an adaptive management approach will have to be adopted.
This way the relative ecological, economic, and human health threats posed by invasive
nonindigenous species will periodically re-prioritize prevention, management, control, and
public education efforts to yield the most benefit for the environment, economic vitality, and
human health. In addition, management of invasive species ultimately must be a global
endeavor. Efforts to restrict invasive species introductions to the U.S. will be aided through
coordination with the countries-of-origin for these species (ISC 2000).
General Analysis of Gulf State Management Provisions
All five Gulf States have statutory provisions applicable to nonindigenous species
introductions, and specific provisions applicable to at least selected aquatic species (specific Gulf
State statutes and regulations are described in Sections 7.5 through 7.9). Each Gulf State
maintains prohibited and/or restricted species lists, and conducts permit programs to regulate the
import, possession, sale, and transport of selected species.
To date, none of the five Gulf States has established a comprehensive invasive species
management plan, although plans for a few plant species have been developed in Florida
(FEPPC 1997, FEPPC 1999). However, planning efforts are beginning at both the state and
regional levels (Texas Sea Grant Program 1998). In the summer of 2000, the Louisiana Sea
Grant Program sponsored the state's first meeting to discuss development of an invasive species
management plan (Barrett O'Leary, pers. comm.). Likewise, Florida Governor Jeb Bush
recently requested that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) facilitate a
meeting of Florida's state agencies to determine the most effective way to develop a
comprehensive invasive species management plan (Bush 2000).
Two primary statutes and a noxious weed program in Florida, Texas's Statewide Vegetation
Management Plan, and Alabama's Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act, appear to
adequately address invasive plants in those states. In fact, the Florida and Texas statutes and
programs could serve as good models for state invasive species management plans, as they
provide a lead executing agency, scientific research directives, prohibitions on introductions, and
grant programs for local agencies (Fletcher 2000). However, in both of these cases, the states do
not have provisions applicable to freshwater and saltwater animals: statutory authorities would
have to be expanded for truly comprehensive planning. In Texas and Louisiana nonindigenous
animal restrictions are basically a patchwork of aquaculture and wildlife provisions (Fletcher
2000).
With respect to regional planning, Fletcher (2000) indicates that no Gulf State statutes
provide (1) provisions to offer notice of identifications, introductions, or infestations to
neighboring states or (2) any provisions for mitigation. Without such provisions, significant
conflict can occur among states when a nonindigenous species introduction is intentional and
controversial (Fletcher 2000).
Page 70 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
7.2 Federal Level
Federal Laws
The array of federal laws that affect invasive species management, prevention, and control
generally fall into three categories: (1) statutes and treaties that restrict importation through trade
regulation (and sometimes interstate movement) of intentional introductions or organisms
brought into the U.S. for specific purposes; (2) statutes that address unintentional introductions
of organisms as an adjunct to other commercial activity; and (3) environmental legislation for
land management (organic acts) and other conservation and natural resources laws that require
consideration of risks and cumulative impacts to natural resources and systems, including species
at risk of extinction (ISC 2000). Table 15 provides summary descriptions of the applicable
federal laws and Appendix D provides a more detailed description of most of these laws.
Table 15. Federal Laws Regulating Introduction and Movement of Nonindigenous Species
Federal Law
Lacey Act (1900)
Plant Quarantine Act (1912)
National Park Service Organic Act
(1916)
Animal Damage Control Act (1931)
Federal Seed Act (1939)
Public Health Services Act (1944)
Organic Act (1944)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (1947)
Importation of Certain Mollusks
(1951)
Department of Agriculture Organic
Act (1956)
Federal Plant Pest Act (1957)
National Environmental Policy Act
(1970)
Marine Protection, Reserves, and
Sanctuaries Act (1972)
Endangered Species Act (1973)
*^ H . ,^:* Summary Description ' ,,^_
Strengthens and supports state wildlife conservation laws and promotes
agricultural and horticultural interests by prohibiting importation of injurious
wildlife.
Regulates imports or interstate shipments of plants or their parts and
propagates to prevent introduction of plant diseases and insect pests.
Promotes the eradication and control of nonindigenous species and prohibits
most introductions in national parks.
Provides the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with the authority
to control wildlife damage (including nonindigenous species) on federal,
state, and private land.
Authorizes U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for seed purity
and to reduce the interstate movement and importation of nonindigenous
plants.
Regulates entry of living organisms that may carry or cause human diseases.
Forms the basis of the Animal and Plan Health Inspection Service's
domestic detection, eradication, control, and prevention efforts with regard
to plant pests.
Controls movement of nonindigenous microbes into and through the U.S.
Provides for the inspection and treatment of goods entering the U.S. from
areas infested with any terrestrial or freshwater mollusks to control entry of
such organisms.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is authorized to conduct an
eradication program in countries adjacent to or near the U.S.
Restricts agricultural pests (pathogens, noxious weeds, animal, and plant
pests) from importation and interstate movements.
Requires federal government agencies to consider the environmental effects
of their actions through the preparation of environmental impact
statements — possible applications to nonindigenous species.
Releases of ballast water might be permitted or otherwise controlled under
ocean dumping provisions.
Protections for rare species may provide vehicle for regulation of
nonindigenous species.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 71
-------
Version 4.0
Federal Law-
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974)
Executive Order 1 1987 Exotic
Organisms (1977)
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
(1978)
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(1980)
Clean Water Act (as amended in
1987)
Agricultural Quarantine
Enforcement Act (1989)
Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act (1990)
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act (1990)
Toxic Substances Control Act
(1990)
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act (1990)
Alien Species Prevention and
Enforcement Act (1992)
Wild Bird Conservation Act (1992)
Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery
Act (1992)
National Invasive Species Act
(1996)
Executive Order 13112 Invasive
Species (1999)
« Summary Description
Provides_program support to control undesirable plants on federal lands.
Restricts the introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems under
federal agency authority.
Detects, identifies, surveys, and controls forest pests.
The Act, as amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act of 1987, requires ships in U.S. waters to comply with the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
Releases of ballast water might be permitted or otherwise controlled under
sections 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and 303(d)
Total Maximum Daily Load program.
Prohibits shipping of plants, fruits, and vegetables via first-class mail.
Establishes Genetic Resources Program to collect, classify, preserve, and
disseminate genetic material important to agriculture.
Controls the sea lamprey.
Enables USEPA to regulate nonindigenous microbes.
Controls and reduces the spread of aquatic pest species.
Prohibits the shipping of certain categories of plants and animals through the
mail.
Regulates the importation of certain wild birds, which may reduce the
associated importation of nonindigenous parasites and diseases.
Addresses the problems of the native forests of Hawaii, including the
introduction of nonindigenous species.
Amended the NANPCA of 1990. Prevents the introduction and spread of
aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through ballast water and other
vessel operations. Encourages international program to prevent the
introduction and spread of invasive species in ballast water.
Prevents the introduction of invasive species, provides for their control, and
then reduces impacts through improved coordinated federal agency efforts
under a National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Sources: Corn et al. (1999) and Williams and Meffe (1999).
Federal Agency Responsibilities
The OTA (1993) reports that federal activities occur in several areas:
• Movement of species into the U.S. Restricting entry of harmful nonindigenous species by
regulation, inspection, and quarantine, or enhancing entry by intentional importation of
desirable species, or by importation of materials that unintentionally harbor harmful
nonindigenous species.
• Movement of species within the U.S. across state lines. Restricting movement of harmful
nonindigenous species by regulation, inspection, and quarantine, or enhancing movement of
desirable nonindigenous species by intentional transfers, or by transporting materials that
unintentionally harbor nonindigenous species.
Page 72
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
• Regulating product content or labeling. Restricting entry or interstate movement of harmful
nonindigenous species by regulating contamination or mislabeling of nonindigenous species
in commerce.
• Controlling or eradicating harmful nonindigenous species.
• Introducing desirable nonindigenous species.
• Federal land management. Preventing, eradicating, or controlling harmful nonindigenous
species on federal lands and introducing or maintaining desirable nonindigenous species on
federal lands.
• Nonindigenous and invasive species research. Addressing prevention, control, and
eradication of harmful nonindigenous species and beneficial uses of nonindigenous species.
• Aquaculture development.
• Biocontrol development.
Appendix E is a matrix presenting the areas in which each federal agency is involved. Appendix
F is a matrix that presents federal agency coverage as it relates to major species groups.
Appendix G provides detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the following
federal agencies:
U.S. Department of • Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Agriculture (USDA) • Animal and Plant Health inspection Service (APHIS)
• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
• Economic Research Service (ERS)
• Farm Service Agency (FSA)
• U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
U.S. Department of • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Commerce • National Sea Grant College Program
U.S. Department of • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
Defense
U.S. Department of • Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
the Interior • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
• National Park Service (NFS)
• Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
U.S. Department of • Department of State
State
U.S. Department of • U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Transportation • Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
Independent • Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Agencies • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• Smithsonian Institution
Interagency Efforts • Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic
Weeds (FICMNEW)
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF)
The NANPCA of 1990 created the ANSTF to provide, in an advisory capacity, an
intergovernmental organization for the development of a coordinated federal program to control
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 73
-------
Version 4.0
aquatic nuisance species. The ANSTF consists of seven federal agency representatives and ten
ex-officio members. It is co-chaired by the USFWS and NOAA; other participating federal
agencies are USEPA, USCG, USAGE, USDA, and the U.S. Department of State. The ANSTF is
responsible for all aspects of the Act other than those associated with Great Lakes ballast water
and national shipping programs. Specific responsibilities are to:
• Develop a program for U.S. waters to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic
nuisance species and the brown tree snake, to monitor, control and study such species, and to
disseminate information.
• Establish and follow a protocol to ensure that research carried out under the Act does not
result in the introduction of aquatic nuisance species to U.S. waters.
• Conduct a biological study and ballast exchange study and ecological surveys.
• Recommend allocation of funds authorized under the Act for competitive research grants to
study all aspects of aquatic nuisance species.
• Develop voluntary guidelines to control the spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic
nuisance species through recreational activities, including boating and fishing.
• Request the Great Lakes Commission to convene a panel of Great Lakes representatives to
provide advice about and coordinate efforts devoted to aquatic nuisance species in the Great
Lakes.
• Establish and use the Western Regional Panel and encourage the development and use of
other regional panels.
• Provide technical assistance in the development and implementation of state and interstate
aquatic nuisance species management plans, review and approve such plans, and make
recommendations for grants to implement approved plans.
• Advise the Secretary of State regarding aquatic nuisance species infesting waters shared by
the U.S. and other nations, as well as, planning and implementation programs to prevent,
monitor, study, provide education about, and control those infestations.
*
The partnership that is the ANSTF has initiatives and activities underway in the following
action categories: (1) biological case studies and ecological surveys; (2) control programs; (3)
prevention initiatives; (4) risk assessments and reviews; (5) policies; and (6) protocols and
guidance. Most of these activities are coordinated by the ANSTF through standing or ad-hoc
committees and subcommittees. The following subsection highlights one of such activity.
National Voluntary Aquatic Nuisance Species Guidelines for Recreational Activities
The ANSTF established a Recreational Activities Committee to draft voluntary guidelines to
prevent the spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species through boating, fishing,
and other recreational activities. The USCG must issue these voluntary guidelines, based on the
recommendations prepared by the ANSTF, to comply with the NISA of 1996.
The purpose of the voluntary guidelines is to provide clear, concise information for
dissemination to the public, identifying specific practices that can be undertaken to minimize or
avoid transport of aquatic nuisance species. The Committee, chaired by the USFWS, is
comprised of representatives from numerous other organizations and agencies. The Committee
adopted the following strategy: (1) develop generic guidelines; (2) identify the potential
Page 74 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
recreational pathways of spread; (3) develop specific guidelines for the various recreational
pathways; and (4) identify potential partners to participate in disseminating and implementing
the guidelines.
The USCG is currently seeking comments on Voluntary Guidelines on Recreational
Activities To Control the Spread of Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species. These
voluntary guidelines are for persons engaged in water-related recreational activities (e.g., boating
and fishing) to help control the spread of the zebra mussel and other aquatic nuisance species.
Invasive Species Council (ISC)
The ISC was established by Executive Order 13112. It is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the
Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; other members of the Council include the
Secretaries of Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation, and the
Administrator of USEPA. Other agencies and subcabinet offices may be added as necessary.
The ISC is managed by an Executive Director and staff supplied by the U.S. Department of
Interior. The ISC established an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
to provide information and advice in achieving the goals and objectives of the Executive Order.
The ISC provides national leadership regarding invasive species by:
• Overseeing implementation of the order in conjunction with the agencies and existing
organizations such as the ANSTF, FICMNEW, and the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources;
• Encouraging planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels
in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations;
• Developing recommendations for international cooperation;
• Coordinating with the Council on Environmental Quality;
• Developing guidance to federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
for inclusion of invasive species in Environmental Impact Assessments;
• Facilitating development of a coordinated federal agency network to document, evaluate, and
monitor impacts from nonindigenous species;
• Establishing a coordinated information-sharing system that collects information on
nonindigenous species including distribution and abundance of nonindigenous species; life
histories; invasive characteristics; economic, environmental and human health impacts;
management techniques; and laws and programs for management, research and public
education;
• Preparing and issuing a National Invasive Species Management Plan.
The ISC issued the first draft of United States Invasive Species Draft Management Plan:
Preparing for the Future on July 10, 2000. The draft Management Plan is divided into four
sections. The first section briefly describes problems associated with invasive species and future
trends that will impact the introduction of invasive species. The second section describes the
federal response to date to the challenges presented by invasive species, providing a brief
summary of authorities and management approaches and a discussion of gaps in those authorities
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 75
-------
Version 4.0
and approaches. The Action Plan presents a vision and guiding principles and a series of
recommendations for federal agencies that focus on the next few years, as well as measures that
can be achieved over the longer term. This third section includes strategies to reduce the risk of
invasive species introductions and identifies research priorities. The Council Progress and
Action section, the fourth section, describes the work of the Council to date and actions that the
ISC will take over the next few years prior to revision of the management plan. It also provides
accountability measures that hold the ISC responsible for seeing that the plan is carried out.
The ISC will update the Management Plan biennially and will concurrently evaluate and
report on success in achieving the goals and objectives described in the Management Plan. The
Plan will identify the personnel, other resources, and additional levels of coordination needed to
reduce the threat of nonindigenous species.
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has developed the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral
Reefs (issued in March of 2000), which identifies invasive alien species as one of the specific
and widely accepted threats to coral reefs requiring immediate action. The Plan calls for specific
actions to address nonindigenous species threats to coral reefs utilizing existing authorities
among various federal and state agencies.
7.3 Regional Level
The OTA (1993) determined that conflicts, particularly regarding nonindigenous aquatic
species releases, arise among states because of their differing ecological, economic, and policy
contexts. States lack the power to stop the importation and release of a potentially invasive
nonindigenous species in a neighboring state. Since few federal laws compel states to cooperate
with each other, and states have differing priorities, conflicts can and do occur. Sometimes no
mechanism exists for resolving conflicts between states short of a federal lawsuit.
Regional approaches provide opportunities for states to resolve their differences and
influence the actions of neighboring states. Such approaches have been used most frequently for
evaluating aquatic releases, and several regional entities exist with a specific role to coordinate
introduction policies across a particular region. For example, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission provides the venue for state officials to agree on guidelines for releases,
inspections, and permits. Expanding the use of regional approaches for other types of releases
appears promising, but is limited by their voluntary nature. The regional organizations that exist,
however, provide important forums for proactively addressing potential differences.
Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel
Over the last decade, substantial progress has been made in documenting and responding to
nonindigenous species and their associated impacts. The NANPCA of 1990 established the first
institutional framework for national policy and programmatic response to the issue. The role of
regional, multi-jurisdictional organizations has been growing significantly with the recognition
Page 76 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
that prevention and control efforts are more effective when administered on a hydrologic (i.e.
ecosystem) basis, as opposed to a geopolitical basis. A regional, multi-jurisdictional approach to
the aquatic nuisance species issue was further emphasized with the passage of the NISA of 1996
which fosters and encourages the development of regional panels by the ANSTF to advance
prevention and control efforts. These panels serve in a voluntary capacity to provide the ANSTF
with (1) regional input on emerging invasive species issues, (2) coordination of regional
programs involved in controlling invasive species, and (3) development of recommendations on
policy and/or program actions that are recommended to be undertaken at the national level by the
organizations represented by the ANSTF.
In 1998, the ANSTF invited the GMP to serve as the Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel. The
structure of the GMP's Management Committee is ideally suited, by virtue of its broad
organizational management representation, to serve as the Gulf Regional Panel. The Invasive
Species Focus Team provides the technical expertise in identifying, evaluating, and preparing
characterizations of and recommendations on invasive species issues and initiatives in the Gulf
of Mexico region.
The Management Committee's responsibilities as Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel include the
following:
• Identify Gulf regional priorities for responding to aquatic nuisance species;
• Make recommendations to the ANSTF regarding education, monitoring, and prevention of
aquatic nuisance species in the Gulf region;
• Coordinate other Gulf aquatic nuisance species program activities not pursuant to the Act;
• Develop an emergency response strategy for federal, state, and local entities for the purpose
of eliminating new invasions of aquatic nuisance species in the Gulf;
• Provide advice to public and private individuals and entities across the Gulf region
concerning methods of preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species infestations; and
• Submit an annual report to the ANSTF describing the Gulf region's invasive species
management activities.
The first official meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel was held in October 1999 in
Galveston, Texas. The Gulf Regional Panel is identifying regional priorities, developing a
workplan, and developing an emergency response strategy for federal, state and local entities. In
addition, the panel is developing comprehensive outreach and education strategies.
100th Meridian Initiative
The USFWS initiated the 100th Meridian Initiative as a means of preventing the spread of
zebra mussels west of the 100th meridian. Initial surveys of boats being transported through
Texas indicate that boats may not be a significant vector for transport of zebra mussels across
this meridian (McKinney 2000). The USFWS will probably reevaluate boat survey strategies
over the next year and focus on other pathways for transport of zebra mussels west of the 100th
meridian.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 77
-------
Version 4.0
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (CSMFC)
The GSMFC is an organization of the five Gulf States. This compact, authorized under
Public Law 81-66, was signed by representatives of the Governors of the five Gulf States on July
16, 1949, at Mobile, Alabama. It has as its principal objective the conservation, development,
and full utilization of the fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico, to provide food, employment,
income, and recreation to the people of these United States.
During a recent GSMFC meeting, there was a discussion about the need for state plans for
the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic species. Subtitle C, Section 1204(a) of the
NANPCA of 1990 calls for the development of state plans to assist states and the federal
government in establishing programs. As a result of those discussions, the GSMFC formally
recommended that the Governors of the five Gulf States proceed rapidly to develop state plans
(GSMFC 1999, Fletcher 2000). Through a variety of venues, including the GMP, the GSMFC
Sport Fish Restoration Administrative Program will be engaged in planning activities to move
this effort forward.
Lower Mississippi River Council
On March 20 to 23, 2000 the first joint meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee (UMRCC) and the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC) was
held in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Resource professionals from the entire length of the
Mississippi River met to discuss river resource issues. One of the most critical issues addressed
was that of nonindigenous species. One of the primary reasons for the continuing influx of
nonindigenous species to North America is a lack of federal legislation regulating intentional and
accidental importation of these organisms. Both the LMRCC and UMRCC strongly advocate the
need for federal action, in cooperation with the states and private industry, to alleviate this
problem. Federal action is also needed to require that any imported species be proven innocuous
before it is allowed to enter the country.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (SFER Task Force)
In 1993 a federal Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was established by interagency
agreement to develop "consistent policies, strategies, plans, and priorities for addressing the
environmental concerns of the South Florida ecosystem." The Task Force was later formalized
and expanded to include tribal, state, and local governments by the 1996 Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA). The purpose of the expanded SFER Task Force is to develop and
implement a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida
ecosystem. In this capacity it serves as an information clearinghouse (for example, the Internet-
based South Florida Restoration Science Forum) and a coordinating entity that guides the
restoration effort and ensures fiscal accountability. Invasive species is one of the SFER Task
Force's priority issues.
The 1996 WRDA specified that the SFER Task Force establish a Florida-based working
group, which includes representatives of the agencies and entities represented on the SFER Task
Force as well as other governmental entities, for the purpose of formulating, recommending,
Page 78 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
coordinating, and implementing the policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and
priorities of the Task Force.
7.4 Federal-State Relationships
Section 7.4 was excerpted from OTA (1993).
Few generalizations can be made regarding federal-state relationships concerning
nonindigenous species. The authority of the federal and state governments varies not only with
the type of organism regulated, but also depending on the particular federal and state laws and
agencies involved. Mainly, however, states control the entry of nonindigenous species across
state borders and release of nonindigenous species within the state. Often these are pests, of
either foreign or U.S. origin, that are already established elsewhere in the country. For fish and
wildlife, states retain almost unlimited power, notwithstanding the Federal Lacey Act, to make
decisions about which species are imported and/or released. Federal incursions on this
traditional state control over fish and wildlife have been limited and controversial. In contrast,
several major federal laws - such as the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Federal Noxious Weed
Act - set national policy for weeds and other plant pests.
Where federal programs miss significant problems, states, in effect, determine the success of
nationwide efforts to manage harmful nonindigenous species. There are important limits to the
states' capacities, however. The U.S. Constitution vests the power to regulate international and
interstate commerce in Congress. Therefore, states cannot unnecessarily restrict such commerce.
As a result of the Commerce Clause, states lack the power to stop the importation and release of
a potentially invasive nonindigenous species in a neighboring state.
None of the Gulf States has sufficient geographical barriers against the interstate spread of
nonindigenous species, and only Texas land bordering Mexico has border inspection stations to
interdict pests in transit. Without these kinds of barriers, a state cannot do much to slow the
influx of state-prohibited plants or seeds that were acquired legally in another state or country.
Nor can a state effectively stop mail-order sales of plants or seeds it prohibits, as policing the
mails is a federal function. In addition, states cannot legislate in direct conflict with federal law.
Nor can they directly regulate activities on federal lands, absent a cooperative agreement.
Occasionally, federal laws explicitly preempt state involvement.
Federal Preemption of State Law
The finding of the OTA is that federal preemption of state law varies among categories of
nonindigenous species; it is more common in agricultural laws than in those related to fish and
wildlife - traditionally an area of state prerogatives. Cooperative programs are a more feasible
way for the federal government to influence state actions.
A key issue in the relationship between federal and state authorities is whether an applicable
federal law preempts state laws, keeping states from legislating in the area. This occurs when the
federal law explicitly or implicitly provides for preemption, or regulates an area so
comprehensively as to leave no practical state role. The Lacey Act required that a list of
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 79
-------
Version 4.0
"injurious" species or groups be created and it preempts states from allowing foreign importation
of the 23 "injurious" taxonomic categories offish, wildlife, and fish pathogens on that list. The
Lacey Act does not, however, forbid more restrictive state laws.
Similarly, no state may permit foreign importation of a weed species prohibited and listed
under the federal Noxious Weed Act, although it does not otherwise preempt state weed laws.
The federal Plant Quarantine Act also allows states to be more restrictive under certain
circumstances, but it imposes a strong federal presence. For example, the federal government
can quarantine an entire state under the Act. The federal Plant Pest Act similarly provides strong
emergency authority to override state laws.
The federal power to preempt does not mean that the federal approach is always the best.
Some state laws regulate more comprehensively than parallel federal laws and their
implementation is more effective. Such states are, in effect, laboratories where different
approaches are tested; their successes can spawn federal imitation. Nevertheless, when states
adopt widely varying laws, the regulated industries may support federally imposed uniformity to
facilitate commerce.
Using federal preemptive powers to implement a national approach is fraught with political
difficulties - especially for fish and wildlife - and usually engenders resistance from the states.
Thus, the trend is toward programs administered cooperatively by state and federal officials. In
these the federal government provides incentives to pull, and sanctions to push, the states toward
certain general goals or national minimum standards. Several points made in a 1987 USFWS
discussion paper on aquatic introductions appear applicable to nonindigenous species
introductions in general:
"Introduced aquatic organism issues are inherently interjurisdictional and, thus, clearly national,
indeed international in scope. Despite this federal interest, however, emergence of a fully effective
program for avoiding undesirable introductions of aquatic organisms requires that involvement by the
federal government not preempt state authority. Rather, the federal government should function as a
catalyst/facilitator establishing incentives for action by the states and the other co-managers of the
Nation's fishery resources. However, it will also be imperative to ensure universal applicability of
any action. Although it must be exercised as a last resort, a credible threat of federal sanctions
against non-complying jurisdictions is essential to ensure uniform and, therefore, fair application of
any corrective strategy."
Congress has previously recognized circumstances that justify overriding state management
of nonindigenous species when it conflicted with federal goals. Under this reasoning, other
states could be compelled to manage nonindigenous species to prevent conflicts with threatened
or endangered species. Thus, there could be instances of federal preemption even in the
traditionally state-dominated area of fish and wildlife management.
Federal-State Cooperation
Cooperative programs serve several key functions in federal and state efforts. Many provide
a means for developing consistent strategies in areas of common concern. Federal and state
Page 80 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
agricultural officials, for example, collaborate in the regulation of nonindigenous species
importation, interstate commerce, and control.
Certain programs aim for consistent goals in the management and control of harmful
nonindigenous species across a geographic region; it does little good for an invasive species to
be controlled in one area but not in adjacent areas from which it can re-invade. The 1990
amendment to the Noxious Weed Act acknowledged this by requiring federal land managers to
control state-prohibited weeds. Several other cooperative programs for nonindigenous weeds are
voluntary, for example, Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council, which enhances cooperation among
control efforts primarily for non-agricultural weeds.
Some programs allow targeting of federal funds or technical assistance to the states for
actions serving both national and state needs. The USAGE oversees a program for the control of
aquatic weeds in which state or local governments can partially recover costs for weed control in
navigable waterways. The USFWS provides information and expertise on diseases affecting
aquaculture, an area where no comprehensive federal program currently exists.
In some areas, the federal government assists or provides funds to address state needs.
Sometimes these programs rely on federal powers. Also, federal inspectors at ports of entry in a
particular state may help interdict species prohibited by that State, even if they are not federally
listed. Federal assistance for local problems makes sense if, over the long run, they may become
national ones (e.g., a rapidly spreading nonindigenous species) or if local problems are so
common they become a national concern. The NANPCA of 1990 provides for state submission
of comprehensive invasive species management plans. States with approved plans may receive
federal matching grants for implementation.
7.5 State Level: Alabama
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act is Alabama's primary nonindigenous species
statute (Alabama Code §9-20-1 - 7 (1975 & Supp. 1999)). Section 9-20-1 states that "any person
who introduces, places, or causes to be introduced or placed, any nonindigenous aquatic plant
into any public waters of the state shall be in violation of this chapter." Authority is given to
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) to carry out the act's
provisions and establish standards for it's enforcement. Table 16 lists aquatic plant species
prohibited under the act's authority.
Section 9-2-13 gives the Commissioner of ADCNR the authority to "prohibit by duly
promulgated regulation, the importation of any bird, animal, reptile, amphibian, or fish when the
importation of such animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish would not be in the best interest of
the state." The ADCNR Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries has in place regulations
prohibiting the placement or introduction of several fishes and one aquatic mammal that are
nonindigenous to the state. However, in most instances, these regulations serve to control the
spread of these species, not prevent their original introduction (Minton 2000). These regulations
state that "no person, firm or corporation, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import,
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 81
-------
Version 4.0
bring or cause to be imported into the State of Alabama" certain species: Table 17 lists the fishes
and mammal prohibited under these regulations.
Table 16. Prohibited Plant Species in Alabama
u-^^^MsSjH,entiS£^anJ^x CN!^^*
N3S8OT?8PNPf^1*MWid*«^H»»4*?C y *- **4«*
Aloe sp.
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Egeria densa
Eichhornia azurea
Eichhornia crassipes
Hydrilla verticillata
Hygrophila polysperma
Ipomoea aquatica
Lagarosiphon major
Genus: Limnophila
Lythrum salicaria
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas marina
Pistia stratiotes
Potamogeton crispus
Salvinia molesta
Trapa natans
l4?n4tc.°mm^Name *
Water-aloe
Alligatorweed
Brazilian elodea
Rooted waterhyancith
Floating waterhyancith
Hydrilla
Hygrophila
Water spinach
African elodea
Limophila
Purple loosestrife
Parrot-feather
Eurasian watermilfoil
Spinyleaf naiad
Water-lettuce
Curly leaf pondweed
Giant salvinia
Water chestnut
Source: Alabama Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act (1995, No. 95-767, p. 1813, §3)
Table 17. Prohibited Fish and Aquatic Mammal Species in Alabama
Fish of the genus Glorias
Fish of the genus Serrasalmus
Genus Mylopharyngodon
Siniperca spp.
Channa maculuta
Chirrhinus molitonella
Alosa aestivalis
Acipenserspp., expect A. oxyrhynchus
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Rutilus rutilus
Myocastor coypus
||f ^'Common Namej( S^- >
Walking catfish
Piranha
Black carp
Chinese perch
Channa
Chirrihinus
Blueback herring
Non-native sturgeon
Rudd
Roach
Nutria
Source: Alabama Regulations 220-2-.26 and 220-2-.93 (1999-2000)
Page 82
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
7.6 State Level: Florida
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
The FFWCC is charged with managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-
being and the benefit of people of Florida. Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation,
Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 370 Saltwater Fisheries, Florida Statutes (1999) provides
authority regarding nonindigenous species and protection of Florida's living marine resources.
According to §370.081(2):
"It is unlawful to import or possess any marine plant or marine animal, not indigenous to the
state, which ... may endanger or infect the marine resources of the state or pose a human
health hazard ..."
This section provides a list of marine organisms that may not be imported (Table 18).
Table 18. Prohibited Marine Fish Species in Florida
, Scientific Name ".
Family Hydrophiidae
Family Trachinidae
Genus Synanceja
Common Name
sea snakes
weaverfishes
stonefishes
Source: § 370-081(2), Florida Statutes (1999)
Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 372
Freshwater Fish Dealer's License, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the importation of any
exotic or nonindigenous fish without a fish sale license and fee payment through FFWCC (§
372.65(1)) (note that this statute does not apply to persons or businesses with an aquaculture
permit for the same species).
According to the FFWCC Code, Chapter 68A Freshwater Fish and Wildlife (68A-23.008):
"No person shall transport into the state, introduce, or possess for any purpose that might be
reasonably expected to result in liberation into the waters of the state, any aquatic species not
native to the state, without having secured a permit from the Commission ..."
Subject to specific conditions and adequate safeguards to prevent escape or accidental
release, permits for restricted species (and their hybrids) are available for research or
aquacultural purposes, commercial import or export facilities, or public aquaria involved in
educational efforts. Permits are not issued for display in private aquaria. Facilities and all
records (e.g., shipping tickets, invoices, bills of lading, or other records of sales,
purchases, or transfers) are subject to periodic inspection by the FFWCC. Table 19 presents
restricted freshwater species that may be possessed only under permit from the Executive
Director of the FFWCC.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 83
-------
Version 4.0
Table 19. Restricted Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida
• '•'' .;';*('<,', '.Scientific Name , , „, ,-„
• ? 'V-, - '< - ;<,•" '• •"*•••, - , -^.t^-^^ *.»" *.
Aristichthys nobilis
Family Osteoglossidae, all species except
Silver arowana (Osteoglossum
bicirrhosum)
Genus Salminus, all species
Family Potamotrygonidae, all species
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Genus Lates, all species
Hypophthalmichthys molitri\
Mylopharyngodon piceus
Tilapia (Oreochromis) aureus, T. (O.)
hornorum, T. (O.) mossambicus and
Tilapia (0.) niloticus
Glorias batrachus
Cherax quadricarinatus
Ictalurusfurcatus
Procambarus clarkii and P. zonangulas
^ ^ - -sss'Vv4\^\H*if%, ' .Common Name , s
Bighead carp
Bony-tongue fishes
Dorados
Freshwater stingrays
Grass carp *
Nile perches
Silver carp
Snail or black carp
Tilapia; T. (0. ) aureus may be possessed, cultured, and transported
without permit in the following areas: North Central Region, Citrus
and Hernando counties only; Northeast Region, all counties, except
Duval and Nassau; South and Southwest regions.
Walking catfish
Australian red claw crayfish; tank culture systems only
Blue catfish; except north and west of the Suwannee River blue catfish
may be possessed without permit.
Red swamp crayfish and white river crayfish; except that pond
aquaculture is prohibited; both species may be possessed west of the
Apalachicola River or imported for direct sale to food wholesalers and
food retailers for re-sale to consumers without permit.
Source: FFWCC Code, Chapter 68A Freshwater Fish and Wildlife (68A-23.008, F.A.C.)
* 68A-23.088, F.A.C. specifies detailed rules for possessing, stocking, selling, transferring, and transporting both
triploid, and other than triploid (e.g., diploid), grass carp.
Several freshwater species (and their hybrids) are prohibited from import, sale, possession, or
in-state transport. Table 20 presents the list of prohibited freshwater species in Florida. There
are limited exceptions to this subsection that may be made by permit for viewing at large public
aquaria or for research. However, no research or public aquaria permits shall be granted for
piranhas and pirambebas (subfamily Serrasalminae, all species).
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
Florida addresses nonindigenous aquatic plant species through two primary statutes, the
Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act (FAWCA) and the Florida Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant
Control Act (FNAPCA). FAWCA (Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation,
Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 369 Conservation, Part I Aquatic Plant Control, Section 369.20,
Florida Statutes (1999)), provides FDEP authority to "direct the control, eradication, and
regulation of noxious aquatic weeds and direct the research and planning" with the purpose of
protecting human health, plant and animal life, and property. Under FAWCA, the FDEP Bureau
of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM) coordinates and develops aquatic weed management
programs in public waters, issues permits to control aquatic weeds in public waters, and
disperses funds to agencies, local authorities, universities, or contractors for control and research
activities.
Page 84
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 20. Prohibited Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida
v ">N , ~
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name' >. ,
Mimosa pigra
Monochoria hastata
Monochoria vaginalis
Myriophyllum spicatum
Nechamandra alternifolia
Oryza rufipogon
Paederia foetida
Pennisetum polystachyon
Pistia stratiotes
Pontederia rotundifolia
Pueraria montana
Salvinia auriculata
Sahinia biloba
Salvinia herzogii
Salvinia molesta
Salvinia natans
Sapium sebiferum
Schinus terebinthifolius
Solatium tampicense
Sparganium erectum
Stratiotes aloides
Trapa bicornis
Trapa natans
Trapa natans
Trapa natans
Vossia cuspidata
Common Name
N ,s, V\ ,\\\v ~SV X •-"" %N
black mimosa
arrowleaf falsepickerelweed
heartshape falsepickerelweed
Eurasian watermilfoil
none provided
brownbeard rice
skunk vine
missiongrass, thin napiergrass
water lettuce
tropical pickerelweed
kudzu
eared watermoss
giant salvinia
giant salvinia
aquarium watermoss
eared watermoss
Chinese tallow tree
peppertree
wetland nightshade
simplestem bur-reed
water soldiers
horn nut
water chestnut
singhara nut
caltrop
hippo grass
State Weed Status
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Noxious weed
Noxious weed
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 2
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Noxious weed
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Noxious weed
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Noxious weed
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1
Source: Rules of FDEP, Chapter 62C-52.011 - Prohibited Aquatic Plants, and rules of FDACS, Chapter 5B-57 -
Introduction or Release of Plant Pests, Noxious Weeds, Arthropods, and Biological Control Agents (those listed in
the table as "Noxious weed").
Class 1 - Plants that may not be possessed, collected, transported, cultivated, or imported without a special permit.
Class 2 - Plants that can be cultured in-state for out-of-state sales only, but may not be imported or collected from
the wild.
The FNAPCA (Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use,
Chapter 369 Conservation, Part I Aquatic Plant Control, Section 369.22, Florida Statutes (1999))
provides FDEP authority to supervise the control of any "floating, submersed, or ditch bank
species, growing in, or closely associated with, an aquatic environment." The statute has
provisions for FDEP to permit importing, transporting, cultivating, collecting, selling, or
possessing any aquatic plant on the prohibited plant species list. This list, cooperatively
developed by the FDEP and the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (Schardt, pers. comm.) is
presented in Table 21. Under this statute, BIPM issues permits to control, eradicate, remove or
alter any nonindigenous aquatic plants in public waters. The Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund
(§ 369.252(4)) provides resources for plant control activities on public lands and public waters
(Fletcher 2000).
The BIPM has three sections. The Aquatic Plant Management Section (APMS) currently
manages the control of 11 invasive aquatic plants in Florida's 1.3 million acres of public waters:
hydrilla, water hyacinth, water lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant salvinia, hygrophilia, paragrass,
Page 86
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
torpedograss, waterspinach, West Indian marshgrass, and wild taro (FDEP 2000). The APMS
primarily disperses funds to private contractors for regular control of high priority species. The
APMS budget was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY 2001
(Schardt, pers. comm.). The Upland Plant Management Section similarly manages the control of
several semi-aquatic, ditchbank species. The Field Operations Section permits importation and
collection activities, and routinely examines retail facilities for prohibited species. The BIPM
has a Weed Alert program to disseminate identification information to agencies, local authorities,
universities, or contractors conducting control activities around the state.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)
The FDACS has promulgated rules (Chapter 5B-57) under the authority of § 570.07 (13),
(23), Florida Statutes, to control the introduction into, or movement or spread within this state of
any plant pest, noxious weed or arthropod, and to establish procedures under which the field
release of plant pests, noxious weeds, arthropods, and biological control agents are permitted.
Table 21 includes terrestrial weed species in these rules that readily grow in semi-aquatic and
ditchbank habitats.
The FDACS regulates aquaculture activities under Title XXXV Agriculture, Horticulture,
and Animal Industry, Chapter 597 Aquaculture, Florida Statutes (1999). A permit is required for
raising or possessing nonindigenous species for aquaculture purposes. Florida has a very
restrictive stocking policy, which prohibits the stocking of any species that is not native;
however this policy does not apply to marine bivalve mollusks, which are transported throughout
the state without regulatory restrictions.
Florida also mandates specific requirements for outdoor facilities that hold prohibited aquatic
species. The primary requirement is that a surrounding levee must be at least one foot above the
100-year flood level, have either no water discharge or a barrier system adequate to prevent
escape of any life stage, and be inaccessible to the public. Though the 100-year floodplain was
often cited by other review participants as an appropriate restriction, the important aspects of
Florida's requirements are not its specific requirements so much as its clear recognition of the
importance of effective containment.
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC)
The FLEPPC's goals are to build public awareness about the serious threat invasive plants
pose to native ecosystems, secure funding and support for control and management of exotic
plants, and develop integrated management and control methods to prevent the spread of exotic
pest plants throughout the Florida. FLEPPC and FDEP coordinate closely to manage
nonindigenous aquatic plant species control programs.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 87
-------
Version 4.0
7.7 State Level: Louisiana
Title 56, Section 319, Louisiana Revised Statutes, provides the Louisiana Wildlife and
Fisheries Commission (LFWC) with the authority to control the importation, sale, transport, and
possession of specified nonindigenous fish species. Table 22 lists the species prohibited in this
statute, however the LFWC has the authority to issue renewable, one-year permits for the
possession of these species (actual permitting is conducted for the LFWC by the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)). Title 56, Section 17 gives the Director of the
LFWC the authority to introduce, or issue permits for such introductions, any kind of fish into
any waters, for the purposes of science and of cultivation and distribution. Title 76, Section 901,
Wildlife and Fisheries regulations, addresses LDWF permits for the possession and
transportation of triploid grass carp for aquatic plant control. Section 903 outlines regulations
for tilapia aquaculture.
Title 56, Section 328, Louisiana Revised Statutes, provides the LWFC with the authority to
prohibit the importation of specified "noxious aquatic plants," to protect fish habitat. Table 23
lists aquatic plant species prohibited under this statute. The LWFC can issue permits for
importation of these species for the purpose of conducting scientific investigations.
Title 33, Section 1791, Revised Louisiana Statutes, provides the Louisiana Department of
Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) with the authority to regulate terrestrial plant introductions,
and lists the Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), a species that readily grows in aquatic
ecosystems, as a noxious weed. LDAF periodically inspects nurseries for prohibited
nonindigenous species, both terrestrial and aquatic. The weak statute that provides LDAF with
this authority only prohibits importation into the state, and once these organisms are in the state,
there is no authority to regulate within-state distribution (Brassette, pers. comm.). Infestations of
public waterbodies and other occurrences that cause citizen complaints become the responsibility
of the LDWF Aquatic Plant Control Section (APCS).
Table 22. Prohibited Fish Species in Louisiana
Carassius auratus
goldfish
Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum
Rio Grande tetra
Glorias batrachus
carnero catfish
All of the family Clariidae
walking catfishes
Cyprinus carpio
common carp
Electrophoms sp.
freshwater electric eel
Scardiniits erythrophthalmus
rudd
Fish of the genus Serrasalmus
piranha
many
carp
many
all species of tilapia
Source: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 56, §319.
Page 88
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 23. Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Louisiana
Scientific Name,;, : . >
Elodea canadensis
Eichhornia azurea
Eichhornia crassipes
Hydrilla spp.
Lagarosiphon major and L. muscoides
Lythrum salicaria
Melaleuca auinquenvia
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas marina
Najas minor
Panicum repens
Pistia stratiotes
Pontederia spp.
Salinia spp.
Spirodela oligorrhiza
Trapa spp.
•, «* >° < \ ^i'"^'*^^^*^ J-
-,; ^-u-_-»»--y»xQo,nimon;Narae
eloea
rooting or anchoring waterhyancith
waterhyancith
hydrilla
African elodea
purple loosestrife
kapok tree
Eurasian watermilfoil
marine naiad
slender naiad
torpedograss
water lettuce
pickerelweed
salvinia
giant duckweed
waterchestnut
Source: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 56, §328.
The APCS is primarily funded to control water hyacinth infestations statewide, with the
purpose of maintaining boat access and improving habitat, but APCS is underfunded to complete
this task (Brassette, pers. comm.). Extensive hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) and common
salvinia (Salvinia minima) infestations often go unaddressed due to funding shortages (there is
no statewide funding to control hydrilla and the APCS has received only one allocation of
funding to assess and control common salvinia (Brassette, pers. comm.)). Common salvinia
infestations can seriously impact duck hunting: when the common salvinia infestation brown in
the fall, ducks appear to avoid landing in these brown patches. Governor Mike Foster recently
established May 23 as Salvinia Awareness Day for Louisiana, and LDWF convened an ongoing
Giant Salvinia Task Force in 2000.
7.8 State Level: Mississippi
Passed in 1998, Title 49 Conservation and Ecology (Mississippi Code Annotated §49-7-80
(1972 & Supp. 1999)) contains Mississippi's nonindigenous species provisions (Fletcher 2000).
Authority is given to the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) to
establish and maintain a list of approved, restricted, and prohibited nonindigenous species, and to
establish rules governing their importation, possession, sale, and escape. Tables 24, 25, and 26
list the nonindigenous fish, invertebrate, and aquatic plant species prohibited by MDWFP.
Title 49 prohibits stocking or releasing "any animal not indigenous to Mississippi" without a
permit from MDWFP. Where applications are made to release nonindigenous species, MDWFP
must "determine any detrimental effect the species might have on the environment."
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 89
-------
Version 4.0
Table 24. List of Prohibited Fish Species in Mississippi
'• " Scientific Name - •' • -«Aj«^wt v- •..»•--.-•
Family Petromyzontidae (includes sea lamprey)
Subfamily Serrasalminae (includes all piranhas)
Astyanax fasciatus
Astyanax mexicamis
Hoplias malabaricus
Raphidon vulpinus
Family Trichomycteridae
Family Clariidae
Family Osteoglossidae
Genus Saliminus
Family Potamotrygonidae
Genera Lates and Luciolates
Family Malapteruridae
Family Alestidae, Subfamily Hydrocyninae
Family Electrophoridae
Family Channidae
Family Erythrinidae
Family Heteropneustidae
Cichla ocellaris
Family Characidae, all species of the Genus Acestrorhynchus; Family
Ctenolucidae, all species of the Genera Ctenolucious and Luciocharax
(Botilengerella)
Family Hepsetidae, all species of the Genus Hepsetus Family
Ichthyboridae, all species
Family Characidae, Subfamily Rhaphiodontinae, all species of the
Genera, Hydrolycus and Raphiodon (Cynodon)
Gymnotus carapo
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Cirrhinus and
Thynnichthys
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Scardinius and Rutilus
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Abramis, Blicca,
Megalobrama and Parabramis
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Leuciscus
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Aspius, Psedaspius,
Aspiolucius, and Elopichthys
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Tor and the species
Barbustor and Barbus hexagonolepis
Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Catia
Family Cetopsidae, all species
Family Poeciliidae, Bilonesox belizanus
Family Synanceiidae, all species
Family Percidae, all species of the Genus Gymnocephalm
Family Percidae, Stizostedion lucioperca, Stizostedion volgense
(volgensis), Stizostedion marinum
Family Cichlidae, all species of the Genera Crenicichla and Batrachops
Family Luciocephalus, all species
Common Name
Lampreys
Piranha and pirambebas (all species)
Banded tetra
Mexican tetra or Silvery tetra
Tiger characin or trahira
Skinny Tiger characin or biara
Pencil or parasitic catfishes
Airbreathing or Walking catfishes
Bony-tongue fishes
Dorados
Freshwater stingrays
Nile perches
African electric catfishes
African tigerfishes
Freshwater electric eels
Snakeheads
South American tigerfishes
Airsac catfishes
Peacock bass or Peacock cicled
South American pike characoids
African Pike characoids
Rhapiodontid characoids
Banded knifefish
Mud carp, Sandhkol carp
Rudd and Roach
Old World breams
Old World chubs; ide and dace
Asps and yellowcheek
Giant Barbs and Mahseers
Catla
Whale catfishes
Pike killifish
Marine stonefishes
Ruffes and Schraetzers
Zanders
Pike cichlids
Asian pikehead
Source: Van Devender (2000)
Page 90
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 25. List of Prohibited Invertebrate Species (Mussels and Crayfishes) in Mississippi
Scientific Name
Cherax destructor
Dreissena polymorpha
All species of the Genus Astacopsis
Common Name
Yabbie Lobster
Zebra Mussel
Tasmanian Giant crayfish
Source: Van Devender (2000)
Table 26. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Mississippi
' s\Sx V -, - - N * ".
' x Scientific Name x>x *
Hydrilla verticillata
Egeria densa
Eichhornia crassipes
Eichhornia azurea
Myriophyllum spicatum
Pistia stratiotes
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Common Name
Hydrilla (Florida elodea)
Egeria (African elodea)
Water hyacinth *
Rooted hyacinth
Eurasian watermilfoil
Water lettuce
Paperbark (melaleuca)
Source: Van Devender (2000)
* Use of water hyacinth in a controlled, filtered aquaculture system may be allowed.
Mississippi's Aquaculture Act (Mississippi Code Annotated §79-22-9 (1972 & Supp. 1999)
was passed in 1988, primarily to protect and aid the state's farm-raised catfish industry (Van
Devender 2000). Most provisions of the act, including issuance of aquaculture cultivation and
marketing permits, are administered by the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and
Commerce (MDAC). Cultivation permits for any nonindigenous species are required, with
certain exceptions, for example, no permit is required for nonindigenous tropical fish that are
maintained in closed systems. The Aquaculture Task Force (ATF), established in the
Aquaculture Act, is charged with advising the MDAC in its permit issuance responsibilities. The
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is one member of the ATF (Van
Devender 2000). Section 79-22-15(4), Mississippi Code of 1972 states:
"The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks may promulgate regulations which specify
criteria to protect marine resources and to prevent the release of undesirable species from an
aquaculture facility into the environment..."
Given that MDMR has authority for regulating, and technical expertise, in marine fisheries,
MDMR would assist MDWFP in any regulation development.
The State of Mississippi is currently taking initial steps to form a state-level Exotic Pest Plant
Council (Holland, pers. comm., Matlack 2000).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 91
-------
Version 4.0
7.9 State Level: Texas
Under existing Parks and Wildlife Code (Texas Parks & Wildlife Code § 66.007), the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) has authority to prevent the importation, possession,
sale, or introduction into state waters of exotic, harmful, or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or
aquatic plants, except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD). Table 27 lists the fish and shellfish species, and Table 28 lists the aquatic
plant species, restricted by TPWC. TPWD issues Exotic Species Permits for these restricted
species for a variety of situations, for example: (1) as experimental organisms in a TPWD-
approved research program; (2) for exhibit in a public aquarium approved for display of harmful
or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants; and (3) fish farming operations
(TPWD Fisheries Regulations § 57.113). A fish farmer who holds a valid Exotic Species Permit
may "possess, propagate, transport, or sell Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) provided
the exotic shellfish meet disease free certification requirements" (TWPD Fisheries Regulations §
57.113). The statute in § 66.007 provides the authority to require similar certification for other
farmed exotic shellfish species. The Texas Aquaculture Code (Texas Agricultural Code §
134.001) provides authority to control the importation, possession, propagation, and sale of
harmful and potentially harmful exotic species by an aquaculturalist to the TPWC (Fletcher
2000).
The State of Texas historically has promoted introductions of nonindigenous species to
enhance hunting and fishing opportunities. That perspective has changed dramatically and
exotic introductions are now viewed as potentially problematic, however the system remains
permissive rather than restrictive (McKinney 2000). The current regulatory structure is under
review and will likely be revised to reflect new perspectives on exotic introductions and to a
lesser degree all nonindigenous species (McKinney 2000). In a state as diverse as Texas,
intrastate movement of species, for example, from one river basin to another, can cause problems
normally associated with exotic species: the political boundaries of the state mean nothing in this
context (McKinney 2000).
Table 27. List of Prohibited Fish and Shellfish Species in Texas
"T^^Cornmp,n5^ame.^;^'
Freshwater Eels
Swamp Eels
Lampreys
Freshwater Stingrays
Araima
South American Pike
African Tiger Fish
Piranhas and Priambebus
Rhaphiodontid
Dourados
South American Tiger
Fishes
*y • „ Family'' t
•-x- l " s * »/}'* /$ „' , **>
Anguillidae
Synbranchidae
Petromyzontidae
Potamotrygonidae
Osteoglossidae
subfamily: Characoids
subfamily: Hydrocyniniae
subfamily: Serrasalminae
subfamily: Rhaphiodontinae
subfamily: Bryconinae
Erythrindae
^•r'.*,,~, ' Species Affected^
N i *•<
All species except Anguilla rostrata
All species
All species except Icthyomyzon castaneus and /. qaqei
All species
Arapaima gigas
All species of genus Acestrorhyncus
All species
All species
All species of genera Hydrolycus and
(synonymous with Cynodon)
Rhaphiodon
All species of genus Salminus
All species
Page 92
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Common Name
South American Pike
African Pike Characoids
Electric Eels
Carps and Minnows
Walking Catfish
Electric Catfish
South American Parasitic
Candirus Catfish
Pike Killifish
Marine stonefishes
Tilapia
Asian Pikeheads
Snakeheads
Walleye
Nile perch
Drums
Whale Catfish
Ruff
Air sac Catfish
Crayfishes
Giant Ram's-horn Snails
Zebra Mussels
* Family
Ctenolucidae
Hepsetidae & Ichthyboridae
Electrophoridae
Cyprinidae
Claridae
Malapteruridae
subfamilies: Stegophilinae
& Vandelliinae
Poeciliidae
Synanceiidae
Cichlidae
Luciocephalidae
Channidae
Percidae
Centropomidae
Sciaenidae
Cetopsidae
Percidae
Heteropneustidae
Parastacidae
Piliidae
Dreissenidae
' .' - % : Species Affected
All species of genera Ctenolucius and Luciocharax
(synonomous with Boulengerella and Hydrocinus)
All species
Electrophorus electricus
All speciesand hybrid of species of genera: Abramis,
Aristichthys, Aspius, Aspiolucius, Blicca, Catla,
Cirrhina, Ctenopharyngodon, Elopichthys,
Hypophthalmichthys, Leuciscus, Megalobrama,
Mylopharyngodon, Parabramis, Pseudaspius, Rutiluc,
Scardinus, Thynnichthys, Tor, and the species
Barbustor (synonumous with Barbus hexoagoniolepis)
All species
All species
All species
Belonesox belizanus
All species
All species of genus Tilapia and Oreochromis
All species
All species
All species except of the genus Stizostedion except
Stizostedion vitreum and S. canadense
All species of genera Lates and Luciolates
All species of genus Cynoscion except Cynoscion
nebulosus, C. nothus, and C. arenarius
All species
All species of genus Gymnocephalus
All species of genus Heteropneustes
all species of genus Astracopsis
all species of genus Marisa
all species of genus Dreissena
Source: TPWD website (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish/regulate/exotics.htm'l. accessed in May 2000.
In 1999, the Texas Legislature enacted legislation that directs TPWD, in coordination with
the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Texas Department of Agriculture,
and water districts, to develop and adopt a Statewide Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (Act
of June 19, 1999, ch. 1461, 1999 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 12 (West 1999)) (Fletcher 2000). The
legislation provides the TPWD oversight in aquatic vegetation management and focuses on
integrated pest management strategies (Parks and Wildlife Code § 11.081). The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission will adopt rules implementing the statutes in June 2000.
TPWD staff have been active participants in Western Regional Panel activities. The Western
Regional Panel has been an effective advocate in many issues relating to nonindigenous aquatic
species, particularly in ballast water management, zebra mussel research, Chinese mitten crab
control, and green crab research.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 93
-------
Version 4.0
Table 28. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Texas
!' '\Gomhion IXame*, -
Giant Duckweed
Salvinia
Waterhyacinth
Waterlettuce
Hydrilla
Lagarosiphon
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Alligatorweed
Rooted Waterhyacinth
Paperbark
Torpedograss
Water Spinach
_,, „ Family s ;,
Lemnaceae
Salviniaceae
Pontederiaceae
Araceae
Hydrocharitaceae
Hydrocharitaceae
Haloragaceae
Amaranthaceae
Pontedericiaceae
Myrtaceae
Gramineae
Convolvulaceae
Species Affected
Spirodela oligorhiza
all species of genus Salvinia
Eichhornia crassipes
Pistis stratiotes
Hydrilla verticillata
Lagarosiphon major
Myriophyllum spicatum
Alternanthera philozeroides
Eichhornia azurea
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Panicum repens
Ipomoea aquatic
Source: TPWD website (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infisli/regulate/exotics.htm). accessed in May 2000.
7.10 Federal and Gulf State Agency Costs for Aquatic
Invasive Species Management and Control
Federal Agency Expenditures
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) recently surveyed ten federal departments to
determine national expenditures on invasive species activities (both terrestrial and aquatic).
Eight agencies on the Invasive Species Council - representing the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, Treasury, and Transportation, and the Environmental
Protection Agency - as well as the Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation,
collectively spent $513.9 million in fiscal year 1999 and $631.5 million in fiscal year 2000 to
management and control invasive species (GAO 2000). The Department of Agriculture spent 89
percent of this funding (GAO 2000). Prevention of the introduction of invasive species received
the largest percentage of funding - about 51 percent and 49 percent in fiscal years 1999 and
2000, respectively (GAO 2000).
The GAO also surveyed seven states - California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland,
Michigan, and New York - to determine selected state expenditures on invasive species
activities. Florida spent the most at $ 94.5 million and $ 127.6 million in 1999 and 2000,
respectively, on managing and controlling invasive terrestrial and aquatic species (GAO 2000).
California reported the second highest expenditures at $ 82.6 million and $ 87.2 million in 1999
and 2000, respectively (GAO 2000).
Alabama
The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries spent approximately $ 30,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to manage invasive plant species in freshwater systems (Zolcynski, pers.
Page 94
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
comm.). The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Alabama Power Company also manage
programs to control invasive freshwater species in Alabama. There are currently no programs
within Alabama state agencies devoted to the management of invasive species in marine systems
(Minton, pers. comm.).
Florida
The GAO reported that Florida state agencies spent $ 94.5 million and $ 127.6 million in
1999 and 2000, respectively, on managing terrestrial and aquatic invasive species (GAO 2000).
The FDEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (WMD), South Florida WMD, and
the St. Johns River WMD spent approximately $23.7 million on invasive aquatic plant
management (see Table 29). The Aquatic Plant Management Section within FDEP currently
manages the control 11 invasive aquatic plants in Florida's 1.3 million acres of public waters:
hydrilla, water hyacinth, water lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant salvinia, hygrophila, paragrass,
torpedograss, waterspinach, West Indian marshgrass, and wild taro (FDEP 2000). The APMS
budget was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY 2001 (FDEP 2000).
The APMS primarily disperses funds to private contractors for regular control of high priority
species. The Marine Fisheries Division of the FFWCC spent approximately $2 million in fiscal
year 1999 (Table 29) for the control of invasive fish and aquatic invertebrates.
Louisiana
The LDWF Aquatic Plant Control Section, and the USAGE together spent $ 1.5 million
dollars in fiscal year 2000 to manage invasive aquatic plant species in Louisiana (Brassette, pers.
comm. and Cali, pers. comm.). The USAGE specified that 60 percent of those funds were spent
on actual contractor activities (i.e., plant removal, clearing waterways) and the remaining 40
percent of the funds were spent on program management. There are no programs devoted to
management of invasive fish or aquatic invertebrates (Bigger, pers. comm.).
Mississippi
There are no programs within Mississippi state agencies entirely dedicated to management
and control of aquatic invasive species (Van Devender, pers. comm.). The Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources does administer a monitoring program for red tide, which is
conducted for the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The program includes aerial flights and
water sampling costing approximately $ 25,000 to $ 50,000 per year (Van Devender, pers.
comm.). There are currently no comprehensive state agency efforts to control invasive
freshwater plants (Van Devender, pers. comm.).
The TPWD Aquatic Vegetative Control Group spent approximately $ 750,000 per year on
invasive aquatic plant management in the mid to late 1980s (Helton, pers. comm.). There is
currently a proposal for a $ 1.5 to $ 2 million budget to continue management of these plant
species, such as giant salvinia, hydrilla, water hyacinth, alligator weed, water lettuce, and
Eurasian milfoil (Helton, pers. comm.).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 95
-------
Version 4.0
Table 29. Fiscal Year 1999
Control Activities
Agency
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Northwest Florida WMD
Southwest Florida WMD
South Florida WMD
St. Johns River WMD
Suwannee River WMD
Florida Department of
Agriculture
Florida Department of
Transportation
Expenditures by Florida State Agencies
Species Group
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
• Aquatic
Fish and aquatic invertebrates
Terrestrial arthropods
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
• Aquatic
Mammals
Expenditures that cut across or cover
more than one type of invasive species
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
• Aquatic
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
• Terrestrial crop
• Aquatic
Mammals
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
Animal/Plant Microorganisms and
Diseases
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
• Terrestrial crop
Terrestrial arthropods
Expenditures that cut across or cover
more than one type of invasive species
Plants
• Terrestrial non-crop
for Invasive Species
Itemized FY99
Expenditures
$ 2 million
$ 17.3 million
$2,001,000
$100,000
$13,320
$185,765
$48,185
$12,889
$150,043
$3,154,587
$5,689,805
$409,600
$5,000
$614,400
$229,675
$25,500
$23,965,920
$11,409,768
$370,000
$9,409,667
$741,556
$13 million
Management and
Total FY99
Expenditures
$19.3 million
$2,101,000
$13,320
$396, 882
$8,844,392
$1,258,675
$25,500
$45,896,911
$13 million
Source: Florida Governor's Office (1999).
WMD = Water Management District
Page 96
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
7.11 Private Organizations
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Founded in 1951, TNC is a leading private conservation organization. The mission of TNC
is to preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Conservancy resources are used
to purchase or otherwise protect habitats that maintain endangered or threatened species and
significant biological communities. Part of this management responsibility includes protecting
preserves from nonindigenous species invasions.
TNC maintains and manages a number of preserves in the Gulf of Mexico region. There are
four preserves in Alabama (Bibb County Glades, Grand Bay Savanna, Chitwood Barrens
Preserve, Pratt's Ferry-Cahaba River, and Desoto Woods); ten in Florida (Rock Hill Preserve,
Apalachicola Bluffs & Ravines Preserve, John S. Phipps Preserve, Janet Butterfield Brooks
Preserve, Tiger Creek Preserve, The Disney Wilderness Preserve, Saddle Blanket Lakes
Preserve, Blowing Rocks Preserve, Torchwood Hammock Preserve, and Terrestris); four in
Louisiana (Cypress Island Preserve, Lake Ramsay Wetland Preserve, Mary Ann Brown Preserve,
and White Kitchen Preserve); three in Mississippi (Charles M. Deaton Nature Preserve, Grand
Bay Savanna, and Coonewah Creek Chalk Bluffs Preserve); and 35 in Texas (Wier Woods,
Wilson Preserve, Roy E. Larsen Sandyland Sanctuary, Big Thicket Bogs & Pinelands, Little
Rocky, Hookswood Preserve, North Boggy Slough, Sheff s Woods, Caddo Lake, Oak Woods
and Prairies, Lennox Woods, Blackland Prairies, Tridens Prairie, Clymer Meadow, County Line
Prairie, Matthews Prairie, Leonhardt Prairie, Rolling Plains, High Plains, Enron Matagorda
Island Environmental Education and Research Center, Texas City Prairie Preserve, Pierce Marsh,
Clive Runnells Family Mad Island Marsh Preserve, Shamrock Island, Redhead Pond, High
Island, Mesquite Brushland, Chihuahua Woods, Eckert James River Bat Cave, Ruth P. M.
Lehmann Preserve, Barton Creeek Habitat Preserve, Ezell's Cave, Elizabeth P. Hill Preserve,
Gypsum Dunes, Madera Canyon Ranch, Davis Mountains Preserve, Sandia Springs, Diamond Y
Spring Preserve, Brushy Canyon, Chandler Independence Creek, Dolan Falls Ranch, Cuatro
Cienegas National Wildlife Refuge, Laguna Madre, and Sierra Madre Oriental).
Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS)
The FNPS was organized in 1980 to promote the preservation, conservation, and restoration
of the native plants and native plant communities of Florida. The FNPS represents the interest of
individuals and organizations working towards the preservation, conservation, and restoration of
the native plants and plant communities of Florida. Education and conservation are the primary
goals of the FNPS.
Louisiana Wildlife Federation (LWF)
At the March 12, 200 meeting in Alexandria, Louisiana, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation
adopted a resolution on controlling invasions of exotic fish species. It states that:
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 97
-------
Version 4.0
• Louisiana has been and continues to be invaded by exotic fish species released in other
states; recent examples include grass carp, bighead carp, and silver carp.
• Two of Louisiana's sister states have legalized the introduction of exotic black carp, a species
that will eventually invade Louisiana waters.
• Invasion and establishment of exotic aquatic species is often detrimental to native species
and their habitats.
• Introduction and invasion of exotic aquatic species into Louisiana waters should be curtailed
and the pathways of invasion closed.
• Preventative action should begin now at the regional, state, and local levels.
The statement resolves that the LWF urges and requests the National Nuisance Species Task
Force and the Invasive Species Council to form an interstate organization composed of states
with common watersheds and river basins, and that the states prepare a cooperative plan
addressing the release, control, and management of exotic species.
7.12 International Level: Reference to Information
The Invasive Species Council has produced an excellent reference on the federal and
international management framework for nonindigenous species, United States Invasive Species
Draft Management Plan: Preparing for the Future (ISC 2000). While currently in its first draft
stage, Appendix 3, International Legal Instruments With Programs/ Activities Pertaining to
Invasive Species, and Appendix 4, Codes of Conduct/Guidelines Pertaining to Invasive Species,
should serve as excellent references and will not be re-presented in this report. However, one
organization is highlighted below.
North American Council on Environmental Cooperation (CEO
The CEC is an international organization created by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. under the
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The CEC was established to
address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental
conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement
complements the environmental provisions of North American Free Trade Agreement.
One of the CEC's program areas is Conservation of Biodiversity. The mission of work in
this program area is to promote cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. in fostering
conservation, sound management and sustainable use of North American biodiversity. The
"Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems" project has the objective of
protecting marine and aquatic ecosystems from the effects of land-based human activity and
aquatic invasive species. Effort on this project is divided into two initiatives, one of which is
Closing the Pathways of Aquatic Invasive Species Across North America.
Page 98 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
8.0 An In ventory of Regional A ctions
"Eradication of an established invader is rare."
(Mack et al. 2000)
An inventory of actions, projects, and initiatives to address aquatic invasive species issues in
each Gulf State, and across the Gulf of Mexico region, was developed. The inventory, presented
in Appendix H, is not meant to be comprehensive, rather, it is intended to be a representative
listing of recent major actions (with a focus on 1997 to present). The purpose of the inventory is
to facilitate Gulf-region coordination and communication on the issues and methods to address
the issues.
Actions included in the inventory were compiled by interviewing ISFT members and other
Gulf-region invasive species managers, and searching the Internet. The inventory is loosely
organized by actions taking place at the regional level and within each of the five Gulf states.
Contact information is provided where available. The types of actions included in the inventory
are:
• New species detection and taxonomic, life history, and biological descriptions
• Monitoring species distribution and rates of spread
• Developing and applying control technologies and strategies / minimizing impacts
• Restoring invaded habitats
• Assessing ecosystem impacts
• Assessing economic impacts
• Preventing introductions
• Conducting risk assessments
• Developing management plans
• Research initiatives
• Education and outreach
• Interagency coordination and cooperation
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 99
-------
Version 4.0
9.0 Related Research for the Gulf of
Mexico Region
"These [invasive Asian] eels eat almost anything
- worms, shrimp, crayfish, other fishes, and frogs -
and they eat in massive quantities."
USGS Biologists, March 4, 2000 (Zaneski 2000)
Section 9.0 presents an inventory of recent peer-reviewed research activities relevant to
selected Gulf-region aquatic invasive species, selected potential future aquatic invasive species
for the Gulf region, and ballast water management. The purpose of this inventory is to (1) serve
as an initial regional scientific directory on key current and emerging invasive species issues and
(2) begin the processes of identifying regional research gaps and needs.
9.1 Inventory of Research Activities Relevant to the Gulf of
Mexico Region
Literature searches on selected aquatic species (selected by the ISFT) and ballast water issues
were conducted by searching several online databases of peer-reviewed literature, searching the
Internet, and surveying representatives from the five Gulf States. Only relatively recent research
activities were selected for the inventory, stressing the period from the early-1990s to present
(including ongoing research). Where several references existed for a specific subject, one or
more of those references were selected to represent the group. Hence, the effort yielded a
representative, rather than a comprehensive, inventory of research literature.
An attempt was made to include only research activities relevant to the Gulf of Mexico
region in the inventory. However, when searching for more general research on the aquatic
invasive species issue and several aspects of ballast water management, for example treatment
technologies, non-regional research activities were included in the inventory. Thus the inventory
includes an international range of research on managing aquatic invasive species in general, and
provides a more thorough list of ballast water management techniques.
Literature searches on 37 aquatic species were guided by 6 categories of specific keyword
phrases, presented in Table 30. These categories and keywords represent slightly modified
versions of those used by the Great Lakes Regional Panel and the National Sea Grant Program
for classifying basic and applied research activities on aquatic invasive species (GLPANS 1997).
Page 100
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
References, and abstracts when readily available, were added to the Research Inventory for
each applicable research activity identified. Species-specific references selected for inclusion in
the Research Inventory were organized by the six categories in Table 30 (note that categorizing
references according to this scheme is inherently a somewhat subjective exercise). Individual
references within each species/category section are organized by date, from most to least recent.
Table 30. Keyword Phrases for Literature Searches on Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Category
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Category Title
Biology/life history
Ecosystem effects
Socioeconomic
effects
Spread of established
populations
Control/mitigation of
established
populations
Prevention of
population
establishment
Keyword Phrases
Life history; Reproductive biology; Population dynamics; Environmental
requirements and tolerances; Parasites and diseases; Genetics; Physiology and
behavior
Community structure; Habitat (physical, chemical); Nutrient/contaminant
cycles; Food web structure; Predator/prey interactions
Human health aspects; Recreation/tourism impacts; Shipping and navigation;
Water use - agricultural, industrial, municipal; Policy and law determination;
Resource management issues
Identification of potential invaders; Definition of vectors of introduction -
shipping, bait, aquaria, canals, biological vectors; Determination of
preventative measures; Establishment of international protocols
Habitat manipulation; Biological interactions - predator/prey,
parasites/diseases; Physical measures; Chemical measures; Consequences of
control; Integrated control strategy
Improvement in initial detection; Mechanisms of spread; Rate of spread;
Range of spread; Natural barriers; Predictive models
This September 2000 version of the Research Inventory (Appendix I) contains over 400
individual references and is organized according to Table 31. Table 32 presents the distribution
of references for each of the 37 species, by category, in the Research Inventory.
Table 31. Organization of the Research Inventory (Appendix I)
1.0 Vascular Plants
1.1 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatuni)
1.2 Alligator weed (Alternantheraphiloxeroides)
\ .3 Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
1.4 Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
1.5 Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes)
1.6 Giant salvinia (Salvinia molestd)
1.7 Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
1.8 Wetland nightshade (Solarium tampicense)
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 101
-------
Version 4.0
2.0 Semi-Aquatic Plants
2.1 Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum)
2.2 Torpedo grass (Panicum repens)
2.3 Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides)
2.4 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)
2.5 Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervid)
2.6 Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolid)
3.0 Mammals
3.1 Nutria (Myocastor coy pus)
4.0 Fishes
4.1 Multiple-species documents
4.2 Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld)
4.3 Spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae)
4.4 Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus)
4.5 Blackchin tilftpia (Sarotherodon melanotheron or Tilapia melanotheron)
4.6 Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus)
5.0 Invertebrates
5.1 Multiple-species documents
5.2 Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir hepuensis or Eriocheir sinensis)
5.3 Exotic penaied shrimps
5.4 Green crab (Carcinus maenas)
5.5 Veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosd)
5.6 Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis)
5.7 Green mussel (Perna viridis)
5.8 Brown mussel (Pernaperna or Perna indica)
5.9 Zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha)
5.10 Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)
5.11 A freshwater mussel (Limnoperna fortune?)
5.12 Porrunid crab (Charybdis hellerii)
6.0 Amphibians
6.1 Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis)
7.0 Algae
7.1 Brown tide (Aureoumbra lagunensis)
8.0 Microbes
8.1 Multiple-species documents
8.2 Shrimp viruses
8.3 Vibrio cholerae
8.4 Vibrio parahaemolyticus
8.5 Gymnodinium pulchelltim
9.0 Ballast Water
9.1 Ballast Water Research Summaries
9.2 Ballast Water Treatment Research
9.3 Ballast Water Sampling Research
9.4 Ballast Water Risk Assessment Research
9.5 Ballast Water Exchange Research
10.0 General - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
10.1 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Research Summaries
10.2 General Documents
11.0 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Online Databases and Clearinghouses
Page 102 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Table 32. Distribution of References, by Research Category, for Each Species in the Research Inventory
Species Group
Vascular
Plants
Semi-Aquatic
Plants
Mammals
Fishes
Invertebrates
Amphibians
Algae
Microbes
Ballast Water
NAS General
. ' •-•->?•-•'•>• Species If^T'^'l
Eurasian watermilfoil
Alligator weed
Water hyacinth
Hydrilla
Water lettuce
Giant salvinia
Purple loosestrife
Wetland nightshade
Chinese tallow tree
Torpedo grass
Carrotwood
Brazilian pepper **
Melaleuca **
Australian pine
Nutria
Multiple-species docs
Grass carp
Spotted tilapia
Blue tilapia
Blackchin tilapia
Mayan cichlid
Multiple-species docs
Chinese mitten crab **
Exotic penaied shrimps
Green crab
Veined rapa whelk
Quagga mussel
Green mussel
Brown mussel
Zebra mussel
Asian clam
Freshwater mussel
Portunid crab
Cuban treefrog
Brown tide
Multiple-species docs
Shrimp viruses **
Vibrio cholerae
Vibrio parahaemolyticus
Gymnodinium pulchellum
Research Summaries
Treatment Research
Sampling Research
Risk Assessment Research
Exchange Research
Research Summaries
General Documents **
Online Databases
' V1* ;.r -V;?. ,>No. of References Per Research Category* v .-„ , :,,\ -,
1 -Biology;
4
—
1
8
2
1
3
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
2
JrirEcq^Eff
9
—
2
3
2
—
3
1
2
—
—
1
1
1
12
,3-Socio
— .
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
4-Spread
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
3
—
~
;5-Control
11
1
3
11
5
—
1
—
-
5
—
2
13
1
1
6-Prevent
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
Total of 10
3
2
6
4
1
4
~
—
~
-
—
-
—
-
—
3
—
—
-
—
2
-
—
-
-
~
--
—
-
-
Total of 3
2
1
—
1
8
2
3
24
4
1
1
1
9
-
~
2
--
-
--
1
5
1
--
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
3
—
-
~
--
—
~
--
1
--
1
—
7
9
—
1
--
-
--
-
-
-
--
1
-
-
8
3
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
-
~
-
Total of 3
4
2
2
—
1
—
—
1
2
—
—
-
2
4
—
~
4
-
-
-
3
-
—
-
Total of 4
Total of 17
Total of 3
Total of 17
Total of 2
Total of 3
- 4 6 12 10 7
Total of 9
* See Table 30 for a description of these categories. ** In addition, one or more species summary references.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 103
-------
Version 4.0
9.2 Invasive Species Research Needs for the Gulf of Mexico
Region
This section describes the status of three efforts, all undertaken by various committees of the
GMP, to compile and prioritize research needs related to invasive species (terrestrial and
aquatic). It is expected that the ongoing GMP Experts Panel for Invasive Species Research will
consider work from previous efforts, and produce a more definitive list of research needs. It is
also expected that the Experts Panel will solicit comments on the initial draft(s) of their research
needs list from related GMP committees and other appropriate stakeholders.
GMP Experts Panel for Invasive Species Research
The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc Experts Panel for Invasive Species
Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Dr.
Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute. It is expected that the Expert Panel will
complete a thorough invasive species research guidance / research needs report in 2001. Any
future versions of this report will include the Panel's findings.
Research Subcommittee of GMP Monitoring. Modeling, and Research Committee
In March 2000, the Research Subcommittee of the GMP Monitoring, Modeling, and
Research Committee, assisted by the Invasive Species Focus Team Co-Chairs, defined the
Priority Research Questions for the GMP's invasive species focus area. These Priority Research
Questions were further refined by the ISFT in June 2000 for this report.
1. What methods, data, or models are required to assess the potential human health and/or
ecological risks associated with nonindigenous species introductions?
a. What predictive associations/models are required to assess species and source locations
that pose a high risk to Gulf waters?
b. What laboratory and field methods, data, and models are required to assess both human
health and ecological risks associated with introductions of nonindigenous species?
2. What is the ecological and economic extent and effects of invasive species in the Gulf of
Mexico?
a. What nonindigenous species are present in the Gulf of Mexico and what are their
economic, human health, and ecological effects?
b. What methods, models, and data are required to detect and track subsequent invasions
and spread of nonindigenous species in Gulf watersheds and Gulf-wide?
3. What non-invasive species are transported to and released into Gulf ports from ship ballast?
a. What methods are needed to monitor compliance of ballast exchange in the Gulf of
Mexico?
b. What are the characteristics of biological (taxa and quantity) contamination of ballast
discharges into major Gulf ports?
c. What is the anticipated 10-year shipping forecast for Gulf ports?
Page 104 . September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
d. What methods are needed to detect unknown species in ballast water released into the
Gulf of Mexico, or to monitor for worst case scenarios like human pathogens and/or plant
pathogens?
e. What are the ecological vulnerabilities, associated with nonindigenous species, of
particular Gulf areas subject to shipping pressures?
4. What are the ecological risks associated with the introduction of nonindigenous viruses into
Gulf waters from aquaculture and seafood processing? At the same time, what are the risks
associated with viruses that enter aquaculrure facilities from a variety of sources, including
stocked shrimp, processing wastes carried into ponds by birds, etc.
a. What simple biological/chemical indicators are required to determine the
presence/absence of shrimp viruses in environmental samples?
b. What biological indicators are required to routinely monitoring for the presence of
viruses in wild populations of commercially important species?
c. What are the chemical and biological characteristics of effluent from aquaculrure and
seafood processing plants that might affect the Gulf of Mexico, or other areas receiving
aquaculture products?
5. What technologies might prevent and/or control invasive species introductions?
a. What techniques are effective in the shipboard treatment of ballast water?
b. What are the best management/treatment practices to identify and control the release of
shrimp viruses and other microorganisms from aquaculture and seafood processing
plants, or to other areas receiving aquaculture products?
Invasive Species Focus Team
The following specific research needs were defined by the ISFT Co-Chairs, and refined by
the ISFT in June 2000. They are organized by generic topic areas, and listed without regard to
priority.
Risk Analysis
• Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of trade pathways
and trade partner sources associated with invasive species introductions.
Prevention of New Introductions
• Determine preventive strategies and develop model control mechanisms.
• Develop risk assessments for potential and initial presence of nonindigenous aquatic species.
• Inventory Gulf of Mexico marine waters for nonindigenous and invasive species.
Reducing the Spread of Established Populations
• Develop basin specific and Gulfwide quantitative databases to pinpoint and track invasions
and spread of aquatic invasive species.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 105
-------
Version 4.0
• Conduct a Gulfwide status and trends analysis on invasive species (aquatic and terrestrial) to
include, but not limited to, species, geographic distribution, habitat types(s) invaded, impacts,
rate of spread, modes of spread, environmental requirements, etc.
• Develop monitoring protocols that can be incorporated into existing water quality monitoring
to identify presence of unknown species or changes in ecology that might be attributed to an
introduction. Data would be made available for local follow-up or agency follow-up, as
appropriate.
• Inventory Gulf of Mexico marine waters for nonindigenous and invasive species.
Ballast Water: Management and Treatment
• Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of ballast water
pathways and trade partner sources associated with nonindigenous species introductions.
• Develop mechanisms to ensure that open ocean exchanges have been performed (a USCG
research project).
• Develop mechanisms to regulate ballast water discharge.
• Refine methods/procedures for monitoring compliance of ballast exchange in the Gulf of
Mexico.
• Characterize biological contents (taxa, levels) of ballast discharges in major ports.
• Establish a long-term database (10+ years) of shipping activities of Gulf Ports.
• Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (90 percent for commercial vessels
and 2 times for military vessels) in achieving percent kill or removal of organisms in the
ballast water column and sediments.
• Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (90 percent for commercial vessels
and 2 times for military vessels) in preventing the establishment of reproducing, self-
sustaining populations of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. The research question here is
what critical population densities are needed for a successful invasion (establishment).
• Determine the effectiveness of alternate compliance technologies (ballast water treatments)
in achieving percent kill or removal of ballast organisms and in the prevention of established
populations of nonindigenous aquatic species.
Ballast Water: Ecosystem Effects
• Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of ballast water
pathways and trade partner sources associated with nonindigenous species introductions.
• Determine the ecosystem vulnerability to aquatic invasive species of the major Gulf ports
and adjacent inland waters. This might be done by comparing environmental parameters of
Gulf ports with those of the primary foreign ports of origin (ports where ballast is collected)
for the majority of shipping at each Gulf port destination.
• Determine similar vulnerabilities for aquaculture and water garden imports, handling,
marketing, etc. through the Gulf region.
Page 106 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Shrimp Viruses
• Develop and test Best Management Practices (BMP).for identification and control of shrimp
viruses during the delivery of seafood.
• Develop simple probe(s) for determining the presence/absence of shrimp viruses.
• Establish a monitoring program/protocol to test for the presence of virus in wild shrimp
populations.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 107
-------
Version 4.0
10.0 Recommended Report Enhancements
"Nonindigenous aquatic organisms continue to spread into
new ecosystems throughout North America."
(Claudi and Leach 2000)
This version of An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico
Region attempts to initially describe the occurrence, management, and impacts of aquatic
invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico region. The ISFT intends to periodically update this
report with current information and eventually expand the scope of the document to include
invasive terrestrial species in the Gulf of Mexico region. With future versions of the document
in mind, the ISFT maintained a list of recommended report enhancements throughout the report
review process. Recommendations are organized by sections of the current document.
Overall / Additions
• Expand the scope of the document to include invasive terrestrial species in the Gulf of
Mexico region.
• Include the results of a rigorous study of the economic impacts of invasive species in the
Gulf region.
• Add a major section to the document that discusses what future actions each Gulf State
would like to undertake relevant to aquatic invasive species. This would help readers
understand future Gulfwide management priorities and provide a list of initiatives that might
require outside funding.
• Transfer inventories developed for this report (e.g., Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic
Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region) from a word processor format to a database
format, and then make these databases available on the Internet.
4.0 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States
• For Sections 4.1 trough 4.5, which list current and potential future aquatic invasive species
management priorities for each Gulf State, conduct intensive interviews with state and
federal agencies, local organizations, university researchers, and industry representatives to
get a better, consensus-generated list of what species and issues are priorities. Interviews
should request, at minimum, the following information for each species: common name;
scientific name; place of origin; confirmed or suspected introduction pathway; biological
and/or economic rationale for concern (potential impacts); impacts experienced; management
status; and control/prevention strategies, [suggested by the ISFT, June 20-21, 2000]
Page 108
September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
• Include results of a rigorous risk assessment of active invasive species pathways to the Gulf
region (on a state-by-state or regional basis), and rank them for management focus.
6.0 Culfwide Issues Addressed by the ISFT: Ballast Water
• For Section 6.3, which discusses the management framework for ballast water, contact port
authorities in the Gulf of Mexico region about ballast water management initiatives planned
or underway at the port level, [suggested by Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary]
7.0 The Management Framework for Addressing Invasive Species in the Gulf of
Mexico Region
• Describe the management framework within each of the Gulf-region's seven National
Estuary Programs related to invasive species (e.g., CCMP Action Plans). [Suggested by Bill
Holland]
• Describe the management framework within each of the Gulf-region's four National
Estuarine Research Reserves related to invasive species. [Suggested by Richard Wallace]
9.0 Related Research for the Gulf of Mexico Region
• The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc Experts Panel for Invasive Species
Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Dr. Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute. It is expected that the Panel will
complete a thorough invasive species research guidance / research needs report in 2001. Any
future versions of this report will include the Expert Panel's findings.
• In this version of the report, the Research Inventory was developed by (1) searching several
online databases of peer-reviewed journal articles, (2) searching the Internet for gray
literature sources, and (3) asking a few state and local officials about gray literature sources.
A mail or e-mail survey should be prepared and extensively distributed to the research
community to augment the contents of the Research Inventory. This will ensure that the
Research Inventory includes more ongoing research. In addition, the species represented in
the Research Inventory should be expanded as needed by the Gulf States.
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Species Occurring in the Gulf of
Mexico Region
• Widely distribute the initial inventory to state agencies, local organizations, and university
researchers to verify records and augment the inventory. Require and document source
references for any changes or additions to the inventory, [suggested by the ISFT, June 20-21,
2000]
• Improve the "reported/established" status column by differentiating whether the species
identification was (1) single specimens or small numbers of scattered individuals that do not
represent populations; (2) small, isolated populations that are unlikely to spread due to
environmental constraints or barriers; or (3) established populations with no apparent barriers
to expansion (Hill 2001).
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 109
-------
Version 4.0
Create a column in the matrix that identifies the place of origin - country, state, region, area
- for the species in question, [suggested by Paul Carangelo]
Create a column in the matrix that identifies the pathway(s) of introduction for the species in
question, [suggested by Paul Carangelo]
Create one or more columns in the matrix that identify which species occur in the Gulf of
Mexico Program's 12 Priority Coastal Watershed Areas, [suggested by Bill Holland]
Page 110 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
11.0 Glossary
Aquatic Species
All plants, animals, and microbes that are obligated to live in a freshwater, estuarine (i.e., tidally-
influenced), or marine waterbody (including a freshwater or coastal wetland) during all or part of
their lives (adapted from Benson 2000).
Cryptogenic Species
A species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous is not resolved (Carlton and Ruckelshaus
1997).
Ecosystem
A community of organisms and their physical environment that interact as an ecological unit
(McCann 1996).
Established Species
A species with one or more successfully reproducing or breeding (i.e., permanent) populations in
an open ecosystem (i.e., outside of human control and confinement), which are unlikely to be
eliminated by man or natural causes. Naturalized is a synonym for established.
Exotic Species
A species that is not indigenous to the geographic area under discussion, for the purposes of this
report, the U.S. (OTA 1993, Fuller et al. 1999). Alien and foreign are synonyms for exotic.
Extirpated
Where a species is completely removed from an open ecosystem, either as a result of natural
causes or eradication by humans (adapted from Fuller et al. 1999).
Gulf of Mexico Region
The Gulf of Mexico region includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf
States - Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas - and waters of the Gulf of Mexico
to the seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
Indigenous Species
A species occurring naturally in an area or ecosystem; a species that is a member of the natural
community (Fuller et al. 1999). Native is a synonym for indigenous.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 111
-------
Version 4.0
Introduction
The act of an organism being moved by either intentional and unintentional human-facilitated
transference, including escape from confinement, to an area beyond its natural range or natural
zone of potential dispersal. This definition does not include organisms imported and cultured in
human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture or research facility, ornamental pond), unless
it escapes.
Invasive Species
A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of
impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural, commercial, or
recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. Synonyms for invasive species
include harmful species, injurious species, invader, noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and
weed.
Nonindigenous Species
Any individual, group, or population of a species, or other viable biological material, that is
intentionally or unintentionally moved by human activities, beyond its natural range or natural
zone of potential dispersal, including moves from one continent or country into another and
moves within a country or region; includes all domesticated and feral species, and all hybrids
except for naturally occurring crosses between indigenous species. Introduced and non-native
are synonyms for nonindigenous.
Note that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services does not support a
definition of nonindigenous species that includes pathogens, as pathogens are in the
regulatory province of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (human) and U.S. Department
of Agriculture (agriculture) (Zajicek, pers. comm.).
Pathway
The means by which a species enters an open ecosystem (adapted from McCann 1996). Vector
is a synonym for pathway.
Taxon
A group of organisms of any taxonomic rank. The plural of taxon is taxa (Fuller et al. 1999).
Transplanted Species
A species native to the geographic area under discussion (for the purposes of this report the U.S.)
that is intentionally or unintentionally released by humans, including escaping from confinement,
into an area beyond its natural range, or natural zone of potential dispersal, within that country
(adapted from Fuller et al. 1999).
Waterbody
Any ocean, sea, gulf, bay, lake, river, stream, bayou, wetland, or spring, or any reservoir, pond,
canal, or drainage ditch considered to be outside the boundaries or control of captive conditions
(e.g., aquaculture facility, research facility, fish farm, etc.). A waterbody may have a permanent,
temporary, or intermittent water connection (e.g., via flooding) with other waterbodies (adapted
from Fuller et al 1999).
Page 112 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
12.0 References
Abbott, R.T. 1976. Cittarium pica (Tiochidao) in Florida. The Nautilus. Vol. 90(1). January
30.
ANSTF (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force). 1996. Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic
Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process: For Estimating Risk Associated with the
Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms and How to Manage for that Risk.
Prepared by the Risk Assessment and Management Committee, October 21, 1996. Accessed
at http://www.ANSTaskForce.gov/gennasrev.htm on July 27,2000.
Associated Press. 2000. Ships' ballast germs prompt warning. St. Petersburg Times, Science
Section, November 2, 2000.
Avery, J. 2001. February 9, 2001 letter from Jimmy Avery, Mississippi State University
National Warmwater Aquacultural Center, to Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program.
Baker, P. 1997. Case Study One: Coastal Shrimp Farming in Texas. In: Goldburg, R. and
Triplett, T. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental Effects ofAquaculture in the United States.
Pages 117-130. An online publication of the Environmental Defense Fund. Accessed from
http://www.edf.org/pubs/reports/aquaculture/f_download.html in July 2000.
Baltz, D.M. 1991. Introduced fishes in marine systems and inland seas. Biological
Conservation 56: 151-177.
Barrett-O'Leary, M. 1999. Assessing the Potential for Introduction of Nonindigenous Species
through U.S. Gulf of Mexico Ports. A publication of the Louisiana Sea Grant College
Program, Louisiana State University.
Barrett-O'Leary, M. 2000. Summary: Western Gulf Ballast Water Workshop Concerning
Aquatic Invasive Species and Shipping in the Western Gulf of Mexico Region. April 25-26,
2000. Houston Port Authority, Houston, Texas. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St.
Petersburg, FL. 110 p.
Battelle. 1998. Ballast water secondary treatment technology review. Final report to the
Northeast Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C., under contract N003177. Duxbury,
Massachusetts.
Benson, AJ. 2000. Documenting Over a Century of Aquatic Introductions in the United States.
In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors,
Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter 1, pp. 1-31.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
Page 113
-------
Version 4.0
Bertsch, H. 1988. Anatomy and Zoogeography of Glossodoris sedna and Chromodoris grahami
(Opisthobranchia: Nudibranchia) in the tropical western Atlantic and Caribbean. Veliger
30(4): 395-399.
Business Wire. 2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -NOAA- Commits
Funding for EVTN/Maritime Ballast Water Treatment System Test. August 2, 2000.
Bush, J. 2000. August 21, 2000 letter from the State of Florida Office of the Governor to Mr.
Larry B. Simpson, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
CAP (Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants). 2000. Aquatic, Wetland and Invasive Plant
Information System, Invasive Nonindigenous Plants of Florida website
(http://aquatl.ifas.ufl.edu/photos.html). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida. Accessed in July and August 2000.
Camp, D.K. 1997. Notes on the Lesser-known benthos of Florida. Florida Benthological
Newsletter. Vol. 11 No. 1. 7-8. Reprinted from: Lemaitre, R. 1995. Charybdis helleri
(MilneEdwards, 1867), a non-indigenous portunid crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura)
discovered in the Indian River lagoon system of Florida. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, 108(4):643-648.
Cangelosi, A. 1999. Status of Research and Development of Ballast Treatment Technologies.
Presentation summary at http://www.nemw.org/NavyTalk.htm, accessed on July 19, 2000.
Carlton, J.T. and J.B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: biological invasions and the global
transport of non-indigenous marine organisms. Science 261: 78-82.
Carlton, J.T., D. Reid, H. van Leeuwen. 1995. The role of shipping in the introduction of
nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States (other than the
Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options. The National Sea Grant College
Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Department of Transportation Report No. CD-D-11-95.
Carlton, J.T and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 1997. Nonindigenous Marine Invertebrates and Algae. In:
Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact
and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Carlton, J.T., L.D. Smith, D. Reid, M. Wonham, L. McCann, G. Ruiz, and A. Hines. 1997.
Ballast sampling methodology: an outline manual of sampling procedures and protocols for
fresh, brackish, and salt water ballast. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation,
U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (Washington, D.C.) and U.S.
Coast Guard, Research and Development Center (Groton, Connecticut). National Biological
Invasions Shipping Study, Williams College, Mystic, Connecticut and Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland.
Page 114 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Cato, J.C. and H.E. Kumpf. 1991. The economic influence of population, growth, fisheries,
coastal and marine industries, and tourism demand derived from use of the Gulf of Mexico.
In: The Environmental and Economic Status of the Gulf of Mexico, pp. 154-160.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS.
Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological Control. In: Simberloff, D., D.C.
Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of
Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors,
Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Cohen, A.W and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary.
Science 279: 555-558.
Corn, M.L., E.H. Buck, J. Rawson, and E. Fischer. 1999. Harmful Non-Native Species: Issues
for Congress. Congressional Research Service Issue Brief. Committee for the National
Institute for the Environment. Washington, D.C.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr., H. F. Sahlman, W.W. Miley, II, and D. J. Herrema. 1974. Exotic fishes in
fresh and brackish waters of Florida. Biological Conservation. Vol. 6, No.4, p. 292-301.
Applied Science Publishers Ltd., England.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1997. Nonindigenous Fishes. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C.
Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous
Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Systems.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Grossman EJ. and B.C. Cudmore. 2000. Summary of Fishes Intentionally Introduced in North
America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater
Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter
5, pp. 99-112.
Dextrase A.J. and M.A Coscarelli. 2000. Intentional Introductions of Nonindigenous
Freshwater Organisms in North America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000.
Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter 4, pp. 61-98.
Devine, R.S. 1998. Alien Invasion: America's Battle with Non-Native Animals and Plants.
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Durand, S.V., K.F.J. Tang, and D.V. Lightner. 2000. Frozen commodity shrimp: potential for
introduction of white spot syndrome virus and yellow head virus. Journal of Aquatic Animal
Health 12: 128-135.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 1 IS
-------
Version 4.0
di Castri, F. 1989. History of biological invasions with special emphasis on the old world. In:
Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M.
Williamson (eds.), Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Felder, D.L. 1996. Coastal Gulf of Mexico - issues related to nonindigenous aquatic species.
In: P. Cicero (compiler), Proceedings of the National Forum on Nonindigenous Species
Invasions in U.S. Marine and Fresh Waters. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C.
Pages 28-29.
FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). 2000. Aquaculture
Division website at http://doacs.state.fl.us/aqua/index.htm, accessed in August 2000.
FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Status of the Aquatic Plant
Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters: Annual Report 1998-1999. Division or
State Lands, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Aquatic Plant Management Section.
January 3, 2000.
FEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council). 1997. Brazilian Pepper Management Plan for
Florida. Ferriter, A. (ed). A report from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's Brazilian
Pepper Task Force, Dan Clark (Chairman), July 1997.
FEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council). 1999. Melaleuca Management Plan: Ten Years of
Successful Melaleuca Management in Florida 1988-98. Laroche, F.B. (ed). A report from
the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, 3rd edition, May 1999.
Fletcher, K.M. 2000. If you can't beat 'em, eat 'em: legal methods to control aquatic nuisance
species in the Gulf of Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 245-270.
Florida Governor's Office. 1999. Invasive species management and control cost data compiled
by the Florida Governor's Office for GAO (2000). Information provided by Don Shmitz,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, via personal communication on February 2,
2001.
Frank, J.H., and E.D. McCoy. 1990. Endemics and epidemics of shibboleths and other things
causing chaos. Florida Entomologist 73:1-9.
Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into Inland
Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 27.
Bethesda, MD. 613pp.
Fulks, W. and K. Main (eds.). 1992. Diseases of cultured penaeid shrimp in Asia and the United
States. Oceanic Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. 392 pp.
Page 116 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2000. Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State
Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species. GAO/RCED-00-219. August 2000.
Goodyear, C. 2000. Initial Status Survey ofNonindigenous Animals in South Florida. A report
to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group. Third review draft, September
2000.
GLPANS (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species). 1997. Aquatic Nuisance Species
Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Research Guidance and Descriptive Inventory.
A publication of the Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. September 1997.
Grantham, S. and M. Barrett-O'Leary (eds.). 1999. Workshop Summary: Invasive Species and
Ballast Water Management in the Gulf of Mexico Region. October 6, 1999. New Orleans,
LA. Technical Paper-102. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Gainesville, FL. 57p.
Greening H. and N. Holland. 1999. Aquatic Nuisance Species and Shipping in the Eastern Gulf
of Mexico: A Workshop for the Maritime and Scientific Communities. November 9-10,
1999. The Florida Aquarium, Tampa, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg. 9p.
GSMFC (Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1999. Compact News. Executive
Director's Report, Volume, Number 3, December 1999.
GMP (Gulf of Mexico Program). 1999. Meeting Summary: Shrimp Virus Management
Workshop. July 28-29, 1998. New Orleans, Louisiana. April, 25, 1999 draft. 17p.
Hay, C.H. and D. Tanis. 1998. Mid-ocean ballast water exchange: procedures, effectiveness,
and verification. For BAL9701 examination of efficiency of ballast water exchange practices
and degree of ship compliance with New Zealand ballast water mandatory controls and
voluntary guidelines. Submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Prepared by
Cawthron (Nelson, New Zealand) and Battelle (Duxbury, Massachusetts).
Hayes, K.R. 1998. Ecological risk assessment for ballast water introductions: a suggested
approach. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 55: 201-212.
Hill, J. 2001. February 9, 2001 letter from Jeffrey E. Hill, University of Florida Department of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences to Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program.
Ho wells, R.G. 1999. Guide to Identification of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Fishes,
Shellfishes, and Aquatic Plants Prohibited in Texas. A publication of Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Special publication number PWD BK T3200-376
(11/99).
ISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2000. United States Invasive Species Draft
Management Plan: Preparing for the Future. July 10, 2000 Draft. Washington, D.C.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 117
-------
Version 4.0
ISA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group). 1997. An Evaluation of
Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf
of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters. Prepared by the JSA Shrimp
Virus Work Group. June 5, 1997.
Kumpf, H.E., B. Holland, and A. Walters. 1999. Overview of the Nonindigenous Species of the
Gulf of Mexico. From the Proceedings of the National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions,
January 24-27,1999, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Leach, J.H. 2000. Climate Change and the Future Distribution of Aquatic Organisms in North
America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms:
Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lightner, D.V. 1996a. The penaied shrimp viruses IHHNV and TSV: epizootiology, production
impacts and role of international trade in their distribution in the Americas. 'Revues
Scientifique et Technique Office International des Epizootics' 15(2): 579-601.
Lightner, D.V. (ed.). 1996b. A handbook of shrimp pathology and diagnostic procedures for
diseases of cultured penaied shrimp. Section 3: Viruses. World Aquaculture Soc., Baton
Rouge, LA.
Litvak M.K. and N.E. Mandrak. 2000. Baitfish Trade as a Vector of Aquatic Introductions. In:
Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors,
Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic
invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications
10(3): 689-710.
Madsen, J.D. 1997. Methods for Management of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants. In:LukenJ.O.
and J.W. Thieret (eds.) Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. Springer, New
York.
Marchand, L.J. 1946. The saber crab, Platychirograpsus typicus, Rathbun, in Florida: a case of
accidental dispersal. Q. Jour. Fla. Academy ofSci. 9: 93-100.
Matlack, G. 2000. Meeting Summary: Exotic plant species in Mississippi: Critical issues in
management and research. A summary of the August 17, 2000 meeting of the Mississippi
Exotic Pest Plant Council. Prepared by Glenn Matlack, University of Southern Mississippi.
McCann, J.A., L.N. Arkin, and J.D. Williams. 1996. Nonindigenous Aquatic and Terrestrial
Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of Introduction, Present Distribution, and
Significant Ecological and Economic Effects. Southeastern Biological Science Center,
National Biological Service. Published on the Internet
(http://aquatl.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html), March 1996, by the University of Florida, Center for
Aquatic Plants.
Page 118 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
McKinney, L. 2000. Nonindigenous Species in Texas: Status Report, Presentation summary
distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico
Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton, and C.L. Secor. 1994. Exotic species and the integrity of
the Great Lakes. Bioscience 44: 666-676.
Mills, E.L., J.R. Chrisman, and K.T. Holeck. The Role of Canals in the Spread of
Nonindigenous Species in North America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H Leach (eds). 2000.
Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Ministry of Defence. 1987. Ocean Passages of the World, Fourth Edition. Prepared by
Lieutenant Commander CJ de C Scott RN, Hydrographer of the Navy. Hydrographic
Department, British Ministry of Defence. Tauton, Somerset England. 314pp.
Minton, R.V. 2000. Nonindigenous Species in Coastal Alabama. Presentation summary
distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico
Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
Moyle, P.B., H.W. Li, and B.A. Barton. 1986. The Frankenstein effect: Impact of introduced
fishes on native fishes in North America. In: Stroud, R.H. (ed.) Fish culture in fisheries
management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of
Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water. Committee on Ships' Ballast Operations,
Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C.
Nico L.G. 1999. The Asian Swamp Eel: A Recent Invader in the Southeastern United States.
From the Proceedings from Aquatic Nuisance Species: A Focus on the Southeast, Charleston,
South Carolina, October 12-14, 1999.
Nico, L.G. and P.L. Fuller. 1999. Spatial and temporal patterns of nonindigenous fish
introductions in the United States. Fisheries 24(1): 16-27. January 1999.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment), United States Congress. 1993. Harmful
Nonindigenous Species in the United States. Washington D.C. 391 pp.
Parker, I.M., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, P.M. Kareiva, M.H.
Williamson, B. Von Holle, P.B. Moyle, J.E. Byers, and L. Goldwasser. 1999. Impact:
toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological
Invasions 1: 3-19.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 119
-------
Version 4.0
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and economic costs
associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. A publication of the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. June 12, 1999.
Randall, J.M., R.R. Lewis III, and D.B. Jensen. 1997. Ecological Restoration. In: Simberloff,
D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of
Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Rathbun, MJ. 1914. The Grapsoid Crabs of America. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 97.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 461 pp.
Ray, M., R. Silcox, J. Gray, D. Buzan, and L. McKinney. 1998. Exotic Shrimp Viruses in Texas
- A History and Status. A publication of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. July 28,
1998.
Roberts, D. 2000. Management, Identification, and Coordination of Estttarine and Marine
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species along Florida's Gulf Coast. Presentation summary
distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico
Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
Ruesink, J.L., I.M. Parker, MJ. Groom, and P.M. Kareiva. 1995. Reducing the risks of
nonindigenous species introductions: guiltyMntil proven innocent. Bioscience, Vol. 45, No.
7, pp. 465-477.
Ruiz, G.M., J.T. Carlton, E.D. Grosholz, and A.H. Hines. 1997. Global invasions of marine and
estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences.
American Zoologist 37: 621-632.
Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell.
2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature, Vol. 408, November 2, 2000.
Schardt, J. 1999. State Problems and Management Strategies: Florida. From the Proceedings
from Aquatic Nuisance Species: A Focus on the Southeast, Charleston, South Carolina,
October 12-14, 1999.
Schmitz, D.C., D. Simberloff, R.H. Hofstetter, W. Haller, and D. Surton. 1997. The Ecological
Impact of Nonindigenous Plants. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds).
1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Shafiand, P.L. 1996. Exotic fishes of Florida - 1994. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 4(2): 101-
122.
Simberloff, D. 1997a. The Biology of Invasions. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C.
Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous
Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Page 120 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Simberloff, D. 1997b. Eradication. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds).
Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management ofNonindigenous Species in Florida. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and
Management ofNonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Smith, L.D., M. Wonham, L. McCann, D. Reid, J. Carlton. 1996. Biological invasions by
nonindigenous species in United States waters: quantifying the role of ballast water and
sediments (Parts I and II). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Report no.. CG-D-
02-97. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
SJRWMD (St. John's River Water Management District). 1999. Blue-green algae in Florida
waters: Effects on water quality. A "Fast Facts" sheet produced by the St. John's River
Water Management District. August 1999.
Steirer, F.S., Jr. 1992. Historical perspective on exotic species. Pages 1-4 in M.R. DeVoe, ed.
Introductions and transfers of marine species. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Hilton
Head Island.
Stickney, R.R. 2001. Letter from Robert R. Stickney, Director, Texas Sea Grant Program, to
Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program. January 30, 2001.
Texas Sea Grant Program. 1998. Conference Report: Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Workshop
for the Gulf of Mexico. March 4, 1998. Houston, Texas. Sponsored by the Gulf of Mexico
Sea Grant College Programs.
Thompson, B.A. 2000. Intruders in the House: An Update on Some of the Exotic Species of
Louisiana. Slides from presentation at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel
Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
TNCL (The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana). 1999. "Invasion of Alien Species" in Louisiana
Legacy, a publication of The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana. Spring 1999.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Resources Conservation Service. 1999. The
PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge,
LA 70874-4490 USA. Accessed in August 2000.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Gulf of Mexico Program 1998
Shareholder Report. EPA-885-R-99-001. March 1999.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Website.
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. Accessed in June and July 2000.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 121
-------
Version 4.0
USM (University of Southern Mississippi). 2000. USM's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Museum, Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem website
http://lionfish.ims.usm.edu/~musweb/invaders.html. Accessed in June and July 2000.
Van Devender, T. 2000. Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Wild Shrimp Populations in
Mississippi Coastal Waters. Presentation summary prepared for the Shrimp Virus
Management Workshop, New Orleans, Louisiana, July 28-29,1998.
Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D'Antonio, L.L. Loope, and R. Westbrook. 1996. Biological invasions as
global environmental change. American Scientist 84: 468-478.
Williams, J.D. and G.K. Meffe. 1999. Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources.
Volume 1. Chapter "Factors Affecting Biological Resources - Nonindigenous Species".
Pages 117-129.
Wills, D. 2000. Alabama Mollusks Overview (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~dwills/alaview.html),
website accessed in October 2000.
Zaneski, C.T. 2000. Hungry eel threatens Glades. Miami Herald, March 4,2000.
Personal Communications
Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 3,
2000.
Charles Biggar, Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 30, November 28, 2000, and February 1, 2001.
Richard Brassette, Aquatic Plant Control Section, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 27, 2000 and February 1, 2001.
Frank Cali, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1, 2001.
Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, February 9, 2001 and May 7,
2001.
Pam Fuller, Biologist-Aquatic Introductions, Florida Caribbean Science Center, Biological
Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida, May to September 2000.
Monty Graham, Senior Marine Scientist, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, Alabama,
August 24, 2000.
Steve Heath, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, June 11, 2001.
Page 122 September 2000
-------
Version 4.0
Rhandy Helton, Aquatic Vegetative Control Group, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
Februarys, 2001.
Bill Holland, Invasive Species Focus Team Co-Chair, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space
Center, Mississippi, May to September 2000.
Ken Johnson, Texas Veterinarian Medical Diagnostic Center, Texas A&M University, December
14, 2000.
Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, Florida, October 2000.
Susan McCarthy, Research Microbiologist, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, Dauphin Island, Alabama, July 17, 2000.
Tom Mcllwain, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi, August 31, 2000.
Whitman Miller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, August
31,2000.
Vernon Minton, Division of Marine Resources, Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, February 1, 2001.
Dan Moulton, Coastal Conservation Brach, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas,
November 11,2000.
Dan Roberts, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, St. Petersberg, Florida, August 2000.
Jeff Schardt, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, August 4, 2000.
Carol Shieh, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dauphin
Island, Alabama, July 11, 2000.
Todd Slack, State Ichthyologist, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Department of
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks, Jackson, Mississippi, July 27, 2000.
Granvil Treece, Texas Sea Grant Program, Bryan, Texas, November 21, 2000.
Wes Tunnell, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, personal
communication reported in Stickney 2001.
Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, February 2, 2001.
Richard Wallace, Director, Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center, Mobile,
Alabama, August 2, 2000.
Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 123
-------
Version 4.0
Paul Zajicek, Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Tallahassee, Florida, August 8, 2000.
Joe Zolcynski, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, February 1, 2001.
Page 124 September 2000
-------
Appendix A
Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Version 4.0
A.I Introduction
A pathway, or vector, is the means by which a species enters an ecosystem. Pathways for
nonindigenous species introductions (i.e., human-facilitated) can be divided into three categories:
unintentional, intentional, and escape from confinement (Williams and Meffe 1998). As a
generalization, most plant and vertebrate animal introductions have been intentional, whereas
most invertebrate and microbe introductions have been unintentional (Pimentel et al. 1999).
Table 1 presents the principal pathways of aquatic species introductions categorized by this
scheme. This table includes pathways used for intentional beneficial introductions. These are
included to understand the full range of pathways. In addition, the impacts of a nonindigenous
species can change over time or as it enters new areas: some introductions that appear benign
today may cause future harm (OTA 1993).
Table 1. Principal Pathways of Introduction for Aquatic Species
• Pathway Category »'v
Pathway of Introduction
Unintentional
• Transported Commodities
• Vessels: Dry Ballast, Ballast Water, and Hull Fouling
• Boat Trailers
• Recreational Activities
• Habitat Alteration / Canals
• Interbasin Transfers of Water
• Nontarget Species / Stock Contamination
• Unknown
Intentional
Agriculture, Horticulture, and Soil Conservation
Recreational Sport Fishing / Forage Species
Bait Bucket Releases
New Food Sources
Intentional Aquarium and Pet Releases
Biological Control
Species Conservation
Unknown
Escape from Confinement
Horticulture
Ornamental Pond and Pet Escapes
Aquaculture and Fish Farms
Imported Live Food
Research / Public Display
Evaluating the relative importance of the many and varied pathways is complicated due to a
number of factors. First, since time lags are common between actual introduction of an invasive
species and subsequent establishment and detection, tracing the exact pathway is often difficult.
For example, one estimate is that invasive weeds usually have to be in the U.S. for 30 years or
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction
Page 2
-------
Version 4.0
have spread to at least 10,000 acres before detection occurs (OTA 1993). Second, while federal
port inspections provide valuable information on pathways (especially for agricultural pests),
data are available only on whether species enter via specific routes, not on whether and how
species enter via currently undetected routes. Finally, some comparisons between pathways defy
quantitative analysis; for example, which is more important, the entry pathway of one very
harmful invasive species or a pathway by which many less harmful species enter the U.S. (OTA
1993). For these reasons, this section does not attempt to rank the pathways by relative
importance.
A.2 Unintentional Pathways
Transported Commodities
Many aquatic species enter the U.S. each year as unintentional contaminants of global trade.
A variety of aquatic species can contaminate agricultural produce, nursery stock, cut flowers, and
timber, and bulk commodities. At least 45 percent of the snails and slugs intercepted by
agricultural inspectors between 1984 and 1991 were found on plants or plant products (OTA
1993). Transported commodities were the single greatest source of federal noxious weed
interceptions from October 1987 through July 1990 (OTA 1993).
A considerable volume of transported freight is packed into standardized, boxcar-sized
containers for ease of shipping and handling. This containerized freight is viewed as a
significant pathway for the entry of insects, weed seeds, slugs, and snails into the U.S. (OTA
1993). Such containers can sit idle at ports for long periods of time, during which nonindigenous
organisms can board. Usually containers are not cleaned between shipments. Inspecting
containerized freight requires costly unloading and reloading of the contents. Consequently,
inspections tend to occur only when there is good cause to suspect illegal imports or
contamination by pests. Since containerized freight is frequently not unloaded until it reaches its
inland destination, any nonindigenous species contained within are released inland rather than at
a port of entry. This factor reverses the historical pattern wherein nonindigenous species
generally first appeared at port of entry.
Similar to civilian commodities, military freight enters the U.S. continuously from all over
the world. Vehicles, equipment, and supplies can contain soil or water from the field and can be
an unintended source of weed seeds, insects, and plant pathogens. Several agricultural pests
returned from Europe with military cargo and supplies following World War II (OTA 1993).
Vessels: Dry Ballast. Ballast Water, and Hull Fouling
Ballast is the material used to maintain stability and maneuverability when a vessel has little
or no cargo on board. Solid or dry ballast, historically stone, sand, lead ingots, or practically
anything that was available near shore, was used as nonpermanent ballast for sail or early steam
ships. At the cargo loading port this material was removed, and stored or discarded. The
appearance of certain nonindigenous organisms in the U.S., most notably species of plants and
snails, has been attributed to this pathway (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000).
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 3
-------
Version 4.0
The opportunity for transport and introduction of aquatic organisms increased greatly when
ships began carrying ballast water instead of dry ballast. Ballast water, taken on by large cargo
vessels when they are empty, is pumped out of ballast tanks when the ship is loaded at a different
port. If environmental conditions are similar between ports, species in the ballast water from the
first port may become established at the port where it is released. It was estimated in 1995 that
transoceanic cargo vessels release over 2 million gallons of ballast water into U.S. waters every^
hour (Carlton et al. 1995).
For centuries, wooden sailing ships served as the main mode of global transportation and
trade. During this time the most common form of unintentional transfer of aquatic organisms
were those attached to or burrowed into the hulls of these ships (Benson 2000). Historical
records exist about the great quantities of living material fouling the hulls of sailing ships: it was
common practice to scrape off this mass, often many thousands of miles from where the ship
originated (Benson 2000). Even through the materials used to construct hulls have changed, hull
attachment continues to serve as a pathway for unintentional transfer across the globe.
Boat Trailers and Recreational Activities
Overland transport of boats on boat trailers is a common pathway for the unintentional
introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species (OTA 1993). This would appear to be a
significant pathway in the Gulf region, as warm weather makes year-round boating and fishing
possible. In addition to boating and fishing, SCUBA diving, harvesting of bait, jet skiing,
seaplanes, and waterfowl hunting serve as pathways. The U.S. Coast Guard is developing
Voluntary Guidelines on Recreational Activities To Control the Spread of Zebra Mussels and
Other Aquatic Nuisance Species, with guidelines for persons engaged in water-related
recreational activities to help control the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Habitat Alteration / Canals
Man-made canals and diversions have facilitated the introduction of several fish species and
probably some plants (Mills et al. 2000). The Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway and the extensive
canal system in southern Florida serve as active canal pathways in the Gulf of Mexico region
(Mills et al. 2000).
Interbasin Transfers of Water
One vector of special concern in the State of Texas is interbasin transfers of water
(McKinney 2000). With water development infrastructure being constructed throughout Texas,
the potential for rapid transfers of biota between river basins, and thus coastal bays, is increasing.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recently commissioned a study in an area where
interbasin transfers will be likely, and found that risks were low for higher aquatic taxa (e.g.,
fish), but moderate for microbes and other lower taxa (McKinney 2000). This potential pathway
exists in other parts of the Gulf of Mexico region, for example, the Tri-State Water Project for
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 4
-------
Version 4.0
Nontarget Species / Stock Contamination
A tremendous array of fishes and other aquatic organisms have been introduced as
"contaminants" or "by-products" associated with the intentional introduction of target species
(Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000). Although these introductions are unintentional, they are
integrally linked to intentional introductions. These introductions occur in several ways:
accidental inclusion in transport containers, misidentification of species, transport in water or
packing materials, or as parasites or pathogens in or on the target organism. A number of fish
and shrimp pathogens and parasites have entered the U.S. in infected stock for aquaculture,
commercial processing, or fisheries enhancement (OTA 1993). Fish imported into the aquarium
trade can harbor parasites: one 1984 study of hundreds offish shipped from Southeast Asia and
South America found infestation rates from 61 to 98 percent (OTA 1993).
Baitfish harvesting processes may also lead to baitfish species being introduced to new
waterbodies. When multiple sites are harvested, species caught at one harvesting site might be
inadvertently released at the next harvesting sight. Harvesters also may remove non-target fish
species from their catch while traveling between sites and release them into non-native waters.
A.3 Intentional Pathways
For centuries nonindigenous species have been intentionally introduced to support
agriculture, landscaping, soil stabilization, recreational fishing, bait production, and aquaculture.
Many of these introductions have improved the quality of our lives and sustain significant sectors
of the world's economy. Intentional introductions are conducted with a specific purpose and
presumably with some forethought into the likely success (and potential impacts) of the
introduced organisms (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000). However, history has demonstrated
unintended consequences. As discussed above, intentional introductions can also result in
unintentional introductions of nontarget species.
Agriculture. Horticulture, and Soil Conservation
Nonindigenous plants are used extensively for agriculture and horticulture in the U.S.; related
industries generate a large portion of the U.S. Gross National Product. Many horticultural plants
are introduced for aesthetic reasons, and numerous terrestrial and aquatic species are widely
available at nurseries, garden centers, and seed distributors. Other nonindigenous plants are
introduced for ecological reasons. For example, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervid), a highly
invasive tree, was planted in southern Florida to dry out wetland areas (McCann et al. 1996).
Kudzu (Pueraria lobatd), another highly invasive species, was initially introduced for soil
conservation purposes.
Although the majority of nonindigenous plant introductions are legal, others occur illegally.
Some seeds are sent to plant breeders in the U.S. through international first-class mail to avoid
inspection or quarantine at the port of entry (OTA 1993). More than 80 percent of the
nonindigenous plants and noxious weed seeds intercepted at U.S. ports of entry between October
1987 and July 1990 occurred in the baggage of international travelers (OTA 1993). Asian
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 5
-------
Version 4.0
waterspinach (Ipomoea aquaticd) is a federal noxious weed and a prohibited aquatic weed in the
State of Florida. However, from 1979 through 1990, Florida officials recorded 20 cases of
illegal possession of seeds or deliberate plantings (OTA 1993).
Intentional Fish and Shellfish Introductions
There is a long history of intentional fish and shellfish introductions in the U.S., including
both exotic species and native transplants. Large-scale, government-sponsored fish stocking for
recreational fishing purposes began in the late 1800s. Such stocking programs are less common
today, but continue still. For example, the State of Texas tried unsuccessfully to introduce the
Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and bigeye lates (Lates mariae) in 1979 and 1983, respectively
(Fuller etal. 1999).
Extensive commercial networks that sell and ship nonindigenous species are common in the
U.S. For example, various organisms such as water fleas, freshwater shrimp, crayfish,
freshwater clams, turtles, and bull frogs, are available through the mail for wildlife enhancement
nationwide (OTA 1993). Whether these species are nonindigenous in some regions where they
are marketed and sold is impossible to track, since species names are not always listed (OTA
1993).
Recreational Sport Fishing
Nearly one-half of the nonindigenous freshwater fishes that have been intentionally
introduced in North America were released to establish sport fisheries and to diversify angling
opportunities (Fuller et al. 1999, Grossman and Cudmore 2000). Sport fishes are introduced to
address a number of recreational issues - absence of sport fish species in a particular water body,
demand to introduce more desirable and familiar sport species, and introduction of hardier
species when native habitats become unsuitable for indigenous species. Stock contamination and
stock misidentification has caused unintended species releases.
Forage Species
To compensate for potential inadequacies in the natural food supply for introduced sport
fishes - both native and non-native - forage fishes and other prey species (e.g., mysid shrimp)
have been introduced into numerous U.S. lakes, reservoirs, and rivers since the 1950s (Dextrase
and Coscarelli 2000).
Baitflsh Production
Commercial baitfish harvesters have "seeded" ponds and small lakes with nonindigenous
baitfish species to create a population that can be regularly, and often exclusively, harvested
(Litvak and Mandrak 2000).
Bait Bucket Releases
Bait buckets have served as an active pathway for fish introductions for much of U.S history.
More recent introductions of baitfish can be attributed to many newly developed sport fisheries
(Litvak and Mandrak 2000). Many anglers dump bait buckets at the end of the day as a way of
disposing of bait or with the assumption that it will become food for sport fish (Benson 2000). It
is estimated that 109 fish species have been introduced to U.S. waters through bait-bucket
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 6
-------
Version 4.0
releases (Litvak and Mandrak 2000). Nonindigenous salamanders and crayfish have also been
released as unused bait (Fuller et al. 1999).
New Food Sources
Both fish and shellfish have been intentionally introduced to provide new food sources and
occasionally to develop commercial fisheries (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000). Nonindigenous
clams and oysters have been intentionally imported and released in U.S. waters for commercial
exploitation (OTA 1993).
Intentional Aquaria and Pet Releases
Given the high volume of U.S. pet imports - estimated to be hundreds of thousands to
millions of wild birds, aquarium fish, and reptiles annually - the potential exists for both
intentional releases of unwanted plants and animals and unintentional pet escapes (OTA 1993).
Illegal imports further expand the total numbers and types of organisms brought into the country.
Both individual aquarium hobbyists and commercial aquarium operations have been the
intentional source of several nonindigenous aquatic species now established as reproducing
populations in U.S. waters (Grossman and Cudmore 2000). Many intentional introductions
occur when individual aquarium and ornamental pond keepers release their fish once they are too
large or too numerous to be maintained (Benson 2000). In addition, several freshwater fish
species have been introduced by immigrants trying to recreate the ambiance of their home
countries (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000).
Biological Control
Biological control is often viewed as an inexpensive and environmentally safe way to control
invasive species, especially when compared to mechanical control and pesticides. Intentional
release of biological control organisms has been, and continues to be, a source of nonindigenous
insects, snails, fish, plant pathogens, and nematodes in the U.S. It is estimated that a total of 722
nonindigenous insect species have been purposely introduced in the U.S. for biological control
purposes; of these, 237 have become established (OTA 1993).
The success of insects as biological control agents has encouraged the use of fishes for this
purpose (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000). Some predator fish species have been intentionally
introduced to reduce numbers of overpopulated prey fish while simultaneously providing sport
fisheries (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000). While usually well researched prior to release,
biological control introductions can still have unintended consequences. The grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idelld), an Asian fish, was introduced into the Gulf of Mexico region for the
purpose of vegetation control, however, it has concurrently destroyed habitat for native
freshwater fishes. Worldwide, biological control agents have been implicated in the extinction
of almost 100 animal species (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000).
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 7
-------
Version 4.0
Species Conservation
Introductions of nonindigenous species for conservation purposes are conducted to provide a
refuge for species that are threatened with extinction in their native habitats. Such efforts have
usually resulted in introductions into refuges near native areas or waters with the endpoint of
reintroduction into native habitats when they become suitable (Dextrase and Coscarelli 2000),
usually as part of a formal recovery plan.
A.4 Escape from Confinement Pathways
Another form of introduction occurs when a nonindigenous species, intentionally imported
and/or cultured in human control and confinement, accidentally escapes. Escape of aquatic
species can occur from research facilities, public aquaria, aquaculture facilities, ornamental fish
farms, aquaria supply centers and pet stores, ornamental ponds, etc. How this category of
pathways differs from intentional and unintentional pathways is that often the associated
operation is licensed and/or permitted to import, maintain, distribute, or sell the species in
question. The obvious exception is escape of ornamentals and pets from private citizens.
Aauaculture and Ornamental Fish Farms
Each year more than $170 million of nonindigenous tropical fishes and aquarium plants are
imported into Florida (OTA 1993). Fish farms are the source of at least 27 nonindigenous fish
species now established in the continental U.S. (OTA 1993), and a source of the several tropical
aquarium species now found in Florida's waters (McCann et al. 1996, Fuller et al. 1999).
However, given the large number of species cultivated and the large number of producers
involved, established populations of fishes resulting from escapes from ornamental fish farms are
rare (Hill 2001).
Aquaculture species, such as fish and shrimp, can escape from confinement due to improper
screening of the outfall, high water events that flood facilities, and birds that transport and drop
organisms outside of the confined area. For the aquaculture industry, increased awareness about
the harmful effects on invasive species have resulted in management practices, both mandated
and volunteer, that greatly reduce the probability of any single species escaping and becoming
established in the new ecosystem.
Research and Public Display
Several nonindigenous species imported for medical diagnostic or research purposes have
escaped from research facilities (OTA 1993). Pike killifish (Belonesox belizanus) were released
in Florida after laboratory experiments at the University of Miami (P. Fuller, pers. comm.).
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 8
-------
Version 4.0
Ornamental Pond and Pet Escapes
Ornamental fish ponds are often stocked with nonindigenous species, for example goldfish
(Carassius auratus) and water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes). While infrequent, these ponds
can flood and/or fail, introducing species to the surrounding ecosystem.
A.5 Factors Affecting Pathways and Rates of Introduction
Changes to Native Habitat
Changes or alterations in natural habitat create opportunities that are beneficial to the
establishment of both terrestrial and aquatic nonindigenous species. The majority of these
habitat changes are the result of or influenced by human activities, and include the following
general modifications:
• Soil disturbances from construction and agriculture provide an environment conducive to
colonization by nonindigenous plants, including many species of weeds. These plants may
then provide ideal habitat for nonindigenous insects that evolved with them.
• Irrigation of arid regions provides new habitat for species that normally do not tolerate dry
conditions.
• Fire frequency.
• Grazing intensity.
• Changes in nutrient levels.
• Thermal effluents from power stations and industries create new habitat for tropical
nonindigenous species.
• Pollution and degradation make some environments inhospitable for indigenous species,
causing natural resource managers to introduce nonindigenous species that are more tolerant
of the degraded conditions (OTA 1993).
Human changes to natural environments can span large geographical areas and can provide
effective conduits for species movement between previously isolated locations. Large-scale
modifications, such as railways, highways, roads, backcountry trails, irrigation systems, and
water canals, play an important role in facilitating the spread of nonindigenous species.
Technological. Social, and Political Factors
This section was adapted from OTA 1993.
Pathways and rates of species introductions to the U.S. are influenced by technological
innovations and social and political factors (Table 2). Many pathways that were significant
sources of nonindigenous species in the past have either declined in importance or ceased to
function. Such pathways, nevertheless, frequently are mentioned in discussions of
nonindigenous species and can confuse attempts to identify current problems.
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 9
-------
Version 4.0
Some technological innovations enhance introduction rates. For example, the advent of
commercial air traffic in the 1930s greatly facilitated the transport of small birds and fish that
previously had been difficult to keep alive and healthy on longer voyages. It had a similar effect
on the successful number of insect introductions for biological control. Other new technologies
have slowed introduction rates. Many important weeds entered and spread throughout the U.S.
as contaminants of agricultural seed in the 1700s and 1800s. Improvements in threshing and
harvesting machinery beginning in the 1800s decreased seed contamination.
Table 2. Factors Affecting Species Movements
Illustrative Technological Innovations
Innovation
Effect
Switch from dry to wet ballast in 1800s
Changed from transport of insects, seeds, and plant pathogens to
transport offish and invertebrates
Increased rate of transit via steam ships and
airplanes
Increased survival of insects, mammals, birds, and fish during
transfer; increased success of introductions
Improvements in threshing and harvesting
machinery
Decreased contamination of seed lots and entry and spread of
weeds
Styrofoam coolers
Increased number offish species amenable to transfer and their
survival
Containerized shipping of freight
Created new mechanism for unintentional transfer of plant,
insect, snail, and slug species; direct rout to country interior (i.e.,
away from shipping port)
Importation of used tires for retreading
Created new pathway for entry of mosquitoes
Illustrative Social and Political Factors
Social or Political Factor
• < ;< * ' '
New patterns of immigration and tourism
Wars and military movements
Globalization of trade
Free trade agreements
Increased interest in exotic pets
Continued interest in new ornamental plants
^ Effect
Change pathways for spread of species
Create new pathways for species spread
Create new pathways for species spread
Increase opportunity for species entry
Affect kind and number of species imported in the pet trade
Provide incentive for continued plant exploration and
importation
Source: OTA 1993
Changing fashions in species preferences can drive importation, especially of organisms
valued for their aesthetic qualities. Rates of introduction of aquatic snails accelerated during the
1970s, apparently because of expansion of the aquarium trade and renewed interest in freshwater
aquaculture. Some preferences relate to patterns of human immigration.
Political and economic factors are also significant. The location and size of military actions
determine their potential for species transfer. State and federal plant quarantine laws slowed
rates of introduction of insect pests and plant pathogens after 1912. A reversal of this trend for
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction
Page 10
-------
Version 4.0
plant pathogens after 1970 may relate to globalization of agriculture and increased plant imports.
The Federal Seed Act diminished the flow of weed species into the U.S. that previously had
entered as seed contaminants.
Actions of interested constituencies can have an effect insofar as they influence laws and
regulations restricting species flow. Conferences, position statements, and other activities of the
American Fisheries Society since 1969 helped motivate states to regulate releases of
nonindigenous fish. Conversely, effective lobbying by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
helped halt federal efforts to tighten regulation offish and wildlife imports during the 1970s.
Finally, the magnitude of opportunity plays a role in introductions. As the shipping industry
has grown in specific regions, so too has the number of nonindigenous species introductions.
Construction of roads into new areas similarly increases the opportunity for species movement
and urbanization contributes to an increase in the establishment of nonindigenous plants.
A.6 The Spread of Invasive Species
Invasive species can spread after becoming established in a new ecosystem. For such
species, the pathways of spread within the U.S. become important from a management or
regulatory perspective. Most invasive species spread within the U.S. via pathways associated
with human activities. Many of these are the same pathways that bring new species into the
country, like ballast water, while others are unique to the domestic movement of species, like
boats and boat trailers used at multiple waterbodies. A number of the domestic pathways are
linked to national distribution systems that enable an invasive species to become widely
disseminated and introduced many times throughout the country. Multiple introductions speed
dispersal and have significant consequences for the choice of appropriate management strategies.
Unassisted Spread
Established invasive species can disperse in the absence of human facilitated transference.
For example, few geographic barriers block transcontinental expansion for species like the Asian
tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus). Wind and water can disperse a nonindigenous plant's seeds,
and plants like the Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) in Florida have been spread by
wildlife that consume the tree's seeds (OTA 1993). For mobile aquatic species, rivers and the
natural connections between lakes serve as the principle pathways of spread. Striped bass
introduced to the Sacramento River spread from southern California to Alaska (P. Fuller, pers.
comm.) A nonindigenous fish introduced to the Mississippi River, or one of its tributaries, could
theoretically spread to two-thirds of the U.S. Man-made canals provide an aquatic route where
one would not naturally exist. The range of certain fish parasites has expanded as infected fish
have migrated within and between watersheds (OTA 1993).
Natural disasters have provided new opportunities for the establishment of nonindigenous
species. For example, Hurricane Andrew, passing over southern Florida in 1992, knocked down
indigenous trees, which spurred the growth of nonindigenous vines in some natural areas; state
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 11
-------
Version 4.0
officials fear such an opportunity may result in permanent domination of certain indigenous plant
communities by nonindigenous species (OTA 1993).
Assisted (Unintentional and Unintentional) Spread
Similar to internationally-transported commodities, domestic shipments of plants and
animals, bulk cargo, and manufactured products have harbored invasive species (OTA 1993),
even though interstate trade in agricultural products is often subject to domestic quarantines by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Both government-sponsored and illegal releases offish and
shellfish for recreational purposes have increased the range of invasive species
The Effect of Global Climate Change on the Spread of Nonindigenous Species
The predicted warming trends associated with global climate change adds greatly to the
complexity of defining and managing invasive species. It is predicted that increases in
atmospheric temperature would allow established species to extend their ranges northward across
the United States. The thermal structure in aquatic environments will follow the trend in
atmospheric temperatures, providing opportunities for species to invade North America from
Central and South America, and other warmer regions (Leach 2000). Incidences of diseases and
parasites could also increase as vector organisms extend their ranges (Leach 2000).
Appendix A: Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction Page 12
-------
Appendix B
Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the GulfofMexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
GulfofMexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Version 4.0
Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
September 2000
This inventory attempts to comprehensively identify those nonindigenous species that exist in all freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments in
the Gulf of Mexico region, by Gulf State. This initial iteration of the inventory focuses on aquatic microbes, non-insect aquatic invertebrates, fishes,
amphibians, aquatic reptiles, aquatic mammals, algae, aquatic plants, and semi-aquatic plants; this iteration does not inventory nonindigenous aquatic
birds and aquatic insects, or any terrestrial species, in the Gulf region. It is anticipated that the inventory will be expanded and updated for future versions
of this "living document." Information sources for each entry in the inventory are provided in the Info Source column. Note that an empty cell in the
inventory does not necessarily mean that the species in question does not occur in the given state.
"Aquatic Ecosystem" Legend
FW = Freshwater
E = Estuarine (i.e., tidally influenced)
M = Marine
B = Beach/barrier island
Occurrence Legend
X = Reported, but not known to be established
E = Established
E1 = Formerly established but extirpated
N = Native to the state
N/T = Native to one area of the state but transplanted to a non-native area
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 2
-------
Version 4.0
"Info Source" Legend
Byrd Byrd, Jr., J.D. and C.T. Bryson. 1999. Biology, Ecology, and Control of Cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.]. Fact Sheet 1999-01
published by the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Bureau of Plant Industry in cooperation with USDA, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Plant Pest Quarantine.
Carlton Carlton, J.T. and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 1997. Nonindigenous Marine Invertebrates and Algae. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown
(Des). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Cox Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
DISL Dauphin Island Sea Lab website (http://www.disl.org/%7Emgraham/phyllorhiza.htm).
FEPPC Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council website (http://www.fleppc.orq/)
Fuller Fuller, P.L., LG. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into Inland Waters of the United States. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 27. Bethesda, MD. 613pp.
IFAS University of Florida, IFAS, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Aquatic, Wetland and Invasive Plant Information System, Invasive
Nonindigenous Plants of Florida website (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/photos.html)
JSA JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group). 1997. An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured
Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters. Prepared by the JSA Shrimp Virus
Work Group. June 5, 1997.
McCann McCann, J.A., Arkin, L.N., and Williams, J.D. Nonindigenous Aquatic and Terrestrial Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of
Introduction, Present Distribution, and Significant Ecological and Economic Effects. Southeastern Biological Science Center, National
Biological Service. Published on the Internet (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html), March 1996, by the University of Florida, Center for
Aquatic Plants.
McCarthy Susan McCarthy, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, personal communication.
Minton Minton, R.V. 2000. Nonindigenous Species in Coastal Alabama. Presentation summary distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus
Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. 1999. The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants).
National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
Peterson Peterson, P. Jellyfish scourge invades sound. The SunHerald. July 20, 2000.
SJRWMD SJRWMD (St. John's River Water Management District). 1999. Blue-green algae in Florida waters: Effects on water quality. A "Fast Facts"
sheet produced by the St. John's River Water Management District. August 1999.
Thompson Thompson, B.A. 2000. Intruders in the House: An Update on Some of the Exotic Species of Louisiana. Presentation summary distributed at
the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000.
USM University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Museum, Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem
website (http://lionfish.ims.usm.edu/~musweb/invaders.html).
USGS USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species website (http://nas.er.usqs.gov).
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page3
-------
Version 4.0
Internet-Based "Summary Citation" Legend
FEPPC Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council website (http://www.fleppc.org/).
IFAS University of Florida, IFAS, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Aquatic, Wetland and Invasive Plant Information System, Invasive
Nonindigenous Plants of Florida website (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/invasive.html).
McCann McCann, J.A., L.N. Arkin, and J.D. Williams. Nonindigenous Aquatic and Terrestrial Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of
Introduction, Present Distribution, and Significant Ecological and Economic Effects. Southeastern Biological Science Center, National
Biological Service. Published on the Internet (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html), March 1996, by the University of Florida, Center for
Aquatic Plants.
NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. 1999. The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants).
National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
USM University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Museum, Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem
website (http://lionfish.ims.usm.edu/~musweb/invaders.html).
USGS USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species website (http://nas.er.usgs.gov).
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 4
-------
Version 4.0
1.0 MICROBES
1.1 Shrimp Viruses
Name
Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV) *
Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV) *
White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) *
A
Ec<
FW
quat
isyst
E
V
•syst
E
V
v
c
em
M
V
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
^ ' X
X
AL
X
MS
LA
TX :
•' - --'. r-..
> ,t
X *
Info
. Source
McCann
McCarthy
McCarthy
Summary
Citation}
* = exotic
C = cryptogenic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Pages
-------
Version 4.0
1.3 Protozoa
Scientific Name
Dermocystidium koi *
Ichthyophithirius multifilis *
Mitraspora cyprini *
Myxosoma (Lentospora) cerebralis *
Oodinium pilutaris
Pleistophora hyphessobryconis
Protopalina symphysodonis
Sphaerospora carassii *
Spironucleus elegans
Trichodina reticulata *
Trichodina subtilis *
Thchodinella epizootica *
Common Name
a common carp parasite
ich
whirling disease
rust or gold disease
a fish muscle parasite
a gill pathogen
a goldfish parasite
a gill parasite
a goldfish parasite
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
A/
V
V
V
E
»s
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
X
X
; X
I,' '-> • '••''
.*r x *$•
X
f • f;
X
... X : ;
AL
X
X
MS
X
< *
- * -"
j«i - -ft
: X
n- >•
LA
X
X
TX
X
: 'f- 'V
' '" \ • ' *
Info
Source
McCann
McCann
McCann
USM
USM
USM
USM
McCann
McCann
McCann
McCann
McCann
Summary
Citation
USM
* = exotic
1.4 Fungi
None identified in this survey.
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 6
-------
Version 4.0
2.0 INVERTEBRATES
2.1 Tunicates
Scientific Name
Botryllus niger (C)
Botryllus schlosseri *
Diademnium perieucidum *
Styela plicata *
Common Name
a sea squirt
a sea squirt
a tunicate
a sea squirt
A
Ec<
FW
quati
>syst
E
c
em
M
V
V
V
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
X
E
. , *
:-./ E
AL
MS
LA
TX
£', E
-£Nf •
Info
Source
Carlton
uses
uses
USGS
Summary
Citation
' = exotic
C = cryptogenic
2.2 Bryozoans
! Scientific Name ?;
.•3> •• ,<,<
Conopeum "seurati" (C)
Cryptosula pallasiana *
Sundanella sibogae '
Victorella pavida *
Watersipora subovoidea *
Zoobotryon verticillatum (C)
Common Name
a bryozoan
a bryozoan
a bryozoan
a bryozoan
a bryozoan
a bryozoan
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
E:
M
V
V
V
V
>/
V
FL
X
X
E
E
X
X
Reporte(
AL
i (X), Establi
}•. •
2 , -
ty,-' MS
shed(E)
LA
TX
Info
Source
Carlton
Carlton
USGS
USGS
Carlton
Carlton
Summary
Citation
* = exotic
C = cryptogenic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page?
-------
Version 4.0
2.3 Sponges
None identified in this survey.
2.4 Coelenterates
Scientific Name
Cordylophora caspia *
Diadumene lineata *
Phyllorhiza punctata *
Common Name
a hydriod
orange-striped anemone
a scyphoid jellyfish
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
E
M
V
A/
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
" E
AL
X
MS
- , „.*>
X
LA
X
TX
Info
Source
uses
uses
Peterson,
DISL
Summary
Citation
uses
uses
uses
= exotic
2.5 Flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes)
Scientific Name lju
Anacanthorus anacanthorus *
Bolbophorus confusus *
Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis *
Cichlidogyrus spp. *
Cleidodiscus amazonensis
Cryptocotyle lingua *
Dactyogyrus vastator
Gyrodactylus elegans
Longihaptor longihaptor *
Pseudocolpenteron pavlovskyi
Taenioplana teredini
Urocleidoides amazonensis *
Urocleides crescentis *
Urocleidoides reticulatus
: \ • -'»m
• ' .i
* Common Name
red piranha gill parasite
Eurasian strigeid trematode
great Asian tapeworm
tilapia gill parasite
gill fluke
marine blackspot
goldfish gill parasite
goldfish skin fluke
common carp gill parasite
common carp parasite
a flatworm
redtail catfish gill parasite
red piranha parasite
guppy parasite
H
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
2,
quat
>syst
E
V
c
em
M
V
V
FL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. •' 'Re'pofte.i
_Li ""'-\§
AL
jpX)jEstabl
f,IN^-
r t i ?•'•'• •
' - s MS
Vr
' •
shed(E)
LA
TX
H'lnfP '
Source
McCann
McCann
USM
McCann
USM
USM
USM
USM
McCann
McCann
Carlton
McCann
McCann
USM
Summary
Citation
USM
USM
* = exotic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 8
-------
2.6 Roundworms (Phylum Nematoda)
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Anguillicola crassus '
Camallanus cotti *
Philometra sanguined *
Common Name
eel parasite
goldfish parasite
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
E
V
M
V
Reported (X), Established (E) ,; *
FL
••- -. x
X
AL
.-/.MS
- ••>'',
'':< -
LA
.CTXI,:,
E -7 -' •
-: ", * - ., '- ,
'-. ' -
/^infbj^'
Source^'
- «'!*- ;"* ','
USM
McCann
McCann
Summary
Citation
*- *C.,,
USM
' = exotic
2.7 Segmented Worms (Phylum Annelida)
Scientific Name;
Boccardiella ligerica *
Hydroides elegans *
* $& ^
1 ";%' , '**'"
Common Name
a polychaete worm
a polychaete worm
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
E •
M
V
V
*'
"- -I1-: :>
- -E':-
: ;E^
|; Reporte<
AL
J (X), Establi
ll' MS.'-<%
i '
'"/ ^ ~
shed (E)
LA
i'/i ' ' ••
^. ? '•" i
;ii'Tx-.'s
T>;,{ <. /
*,i i ----- "/
1 1-.; ,. "„ .
t^lnfo-.
r?|Source
uses
uses
" '' y '» < i
Summary
•fCitation
||'1|«,>
t ^ PX * * *?• * rf
= exotic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 9
-------
2.8 Mollusks
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Biomphalaria glabrata
Cipangopaludina chinensis *
Corbicula fluminea *
Cuthona perca
Dreissena polymorpha *
Ercolania fuscovittata
Lyrodus medilobatus
Marisa cornuarietis *
Melanoides tuberculata *
Melanoides turriculus
Myosotella myosotis
Mytella chamiana *
Ovatella myosotis *
Pema perna *
Perna viridis *
Pinctada margaritifera
Pomacea bridges!
Pomacea canaliculata
Pomacea paludosa
Rangia cuneata
Siphonaria pectinata
Stenophysa marmorata
Stenophysa maugeriae
Tarebia granifera *
Tridacna crocea *
Tridacna maxima *
Common Name
bloodfluke planorb
Chinese mysterysnail
Asian clam
Lake Merrit cuthona
zebra mussel
a California nudibranch
an Indo-pacific shipworm
giant rams-horn snail
red-rimmed melania
fawn melania
marsh snail
charru mussel
European salt-marsh snail
brown mussel
green mussel
black-lipped pearl oyster
spiketop applesnail
channeled applesnail
Florida applesnail
Atlantic rangia
striped falselimpet
marbled aplexa
twany aplexa
quilted melania
giant clam
giant clam
A
Ec<
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
quati
jsyst
E
•>•
;-;
f-
,,
V
?::
'*"
-M
C
em
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Report
FL
E
E
' :E
E
if -i
N
E
?€ ;>
E
-fE ' ft
"E .
•JE1 .Ai|
V!.X J!
' ^
• -!€ -H
: E
; E •;
PE i»
N
, ; E
E
E
X
X
ed (X), Established (E), Native (N), Formerly
established but extirpated (E1)
AL
E
E
E
MS
: E?
C rt t
•%i c^ i
r
i- - "1 -
i' ; s ,
|1f 5ff'
?•. " i
hi ;lr.
I ? - 11 '
N .;«?•-'
• ~
; ' -5
: -
£ , • 4 ^
^
LA
E
E
X
TX
E
E '
-si ' -.',
• f - j
^ "E ' r ^
E
s t - - '>
. J f . j- • j t
; t : ;•!
- -, -E
-------
Version 4.0
2.9 Crustaceans
Scientific Name
Argulus japonicus *
Artystone japonicus *
Balanus amphitrite *
Balanus reticulatus *
Balanus trigonus *
Centropages typicus *
Charybdis hellerii *
Chelura terebrans *
Daphnia lumholtzi '
Eriocheir sinensis *
Gnathophyllum modestum
Lemaea cyprinacea
Ligia exotica *
Limnoria pfefferi (C)
Limnoria saseboensis (C)
Lironeca symmetries *
Litopenaeus vannamei *
Macrobrachium olfersii
Orconectes virilis
Palaemon africanus *
Petrolisthes armatus *
Penaeus monodon *
Platychirograpsus spectabilis *
Polyacanthorhynchus kenyensis *
Scylla senrata *
Sphaeroma terebrans *
Sphaeroma walkeri *
Zeuxo maledivensis *
Common Name
a branchiuran
a parasitic isopod
striped barnacle
a barnacle
a barnacle
a copepod
Portunid crab
an amphipod
water flea
Chinese mitten crab
potted bumblebee shrimp
anchorworm; parasitic
copepod
an isopod
an isopod
an isopod
a parasitic isopod
Pacific white shrimp
bristled river shrimp
virile crayfish
African prawn
anomuran crab
jumbo tiger prawn
saber crab
liver parasite
serrated swimming crab;
Somoan crab
a wood-boring isopod, gribble
an isopod
a tanaid
A
Ec<
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
quat
>syst
E
V
V
V
c
em
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
X
X
X
X
E
E
X
E ;t-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AL
X
E
X
MS
} E
•
X
f •<
LA
E
E
X
X
X
TX
E
X
E;.,
;'
:.•• 4 -
p
n-"
~ •!• :
X
Info
Source
McCann
McCann
USM
USM
USM
uses
USM
USGS
uses
USM
USGS
USM
USGS
Carlton
Carlton
McCann
USM
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS
USM
USM
McCann
USM
USGS,
Thompson
USGS
USGS
Summary
Citation
USM
USM
USM
USM
USGS
USM
USM
USM
USM
USM
USM
USM
* = exotic
C = cryptogenic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 11
-------
Version 4.0
3.0 VERTEBRATES
3.1 Fishes
Scientific Name
Aequidens pulcher *
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa sapidissima
Ambloplites rupestris
Ameiurus catus
Ameiurus me/as
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ammocrypta bifascia
Anabas testudineus *
Aphyocharax anisitsi *
Archoplites interruptus
Astronotus ocellatus *
Astyanax mexicanus
Belonesox belizanus *
Betta splendens *
Brachydanio rerio *
Callichthys callichthys *
Campostoma oligolepis
Carassius auratus *
Carassius carassius
Chirostoma Jordan!
Chitala ornate *
Cichla ocellaris *
Cichla temensis *
Common Name
blue acara
blueback herring
American shad
rock bass
white catfish
black bullhead
brown bullhead
Florida sand darter
Climbing perch
bloodfin tetra
Sacramento perch
oscar
Mexican tetra
pike killifish
Siamese fighting fish
zebra danio
cascarudo
largescale stoneroller
goldfish
crucian carp
charal
clown knife
peacock cichlid; butterfly
peacock
speckled pavon
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
.-*
* i'~' '
*; '
^'
M
Reported
extirpated
bul
FL
X
- N
N
, E, N/T
>i=
;? N
E, N/T
,, E1
ib. x . -
R* ' '•
>% ,1:
-••' E
|v,E :,
X
X
X
X
E
E
X
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
: transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
E
N
E, Nfi-
N
E, NfT
N
x, Nrr
E
MS
E1
N
E, N/T
: N
N
^ ,
.jM •
' , ' i
ffp ' '-{
X
If..
N
E
LA
E1
N
E, N/T
X
X
E
TX
' E
E1
E
i-"
J|JE,N/T
--?"-•
, 7' '^-
M-'-'X
X
. , E, N/T
4§i::- • •.
E
x
x
x
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses,
USM
uses
uses
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 12
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Cichlasoma bimaculatum *
Cichlasoma citrinellum *
Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum
Cichlasoma managuense *
Cichlasoma meeki '
Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum "
Cichlasoma octofasciatum *
Cichlasoma salvini *
Cichlasoma trimaculatum *
Cichlasoma urophthalmus *
Clarias batrachus *
Colisa labiosa *
Colisa lalia *
Colossoma macropomum *
Colossoma/Piaractus sp. *
Corydoras sp. *
Ctenopharyngodon idella *
Ctenopharyngodon idella " x
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis *
Culaea inconstans
Cynoscion nebulosus
Cynoscion nebulosus x C. xanthulus
*
Cynoscion xanthulus '
Cyprinella lutrensis
Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis
Common Name
black acara
Midas cichlid
Rio Grande cichlid
jaguar guapote
firemouth cichlid
convict cichlid
Jack Dempsey
yellowbelly cichlid
threespot cichlid
Mayan cichlid
walking catfish
thicklipped gourami
dwarf gourami
tambaqui
unidentified pacu
corydoras
grass carp
grass carp x silver carp
brook stickleback
spotted seatrout
spotted seatrout x
orangemouth corvina
orangemouth corvina
red shiner
Red River pupfish
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
%/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
V
M
V
V
Reported
extirpated
bu
FL
E
E
E
~,p.-' ',- ' • •
f •' E
V E
X
"'••• E
'i-:'E
-'•>~"i1 '
--/•>E
' E^
X
X
X
X
X
^ ' X
''.":'.
N
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
: transplanted to a non-native area (N/T) , ,
AL
X
X
N
E
MS
' '*
.;
••$ ':•
??;-/'; "
* E •
;' ./'• ,
N
N
LA
E
X
E
N
N
TX
E.N/T
•" ; - -.;, -
'• '-. .-.
'"' :X
> --*;" ;'
;,'. ''...'' -t:i •
'••:. '{'I-''-
'*'• *•
•' • i
X
X
'•/ !•
;:fre
:'^ x' ' '
X.N/T
X
X
N
E, N/T
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
uses,
USM
uses,
USM
uses,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 13
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinus carpio *
Danio malabaricus *
Dorosoma petenense
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Esox lucius
Esox lucius x E. masquinongy
Esox masquinongy
Esox niger
Etheostoma edwini
Etheostoma nuchale
Fundulus chrysotus
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus lineolatus
Fundulus seminolis
Fundulus zebrinus
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia geiseri
Gambusia holbrooki
Geophagus brasiliensis
Geophagus surinamensis *
Gobiosoma bosc
Gymnocorymbus temetzi *
Helostoma temminckii *
Hemichromis letoumeauxi *
Heros severus '
Hoplias malabaricus *
Hoplostemum littorale *
Hybopsis winchelli
Hyphessobrycon serpae *
Common Name
sheepshead minnow
common carp
Malabar danio
threadfin shad
bluespotted sunfish
northern pike
tiger muskellunge
muskellunge
chain pickerel
brown darter
watercress darter
golden topminnow
gulf killifish
lined topminnow
Seminole killifish
plains killifish
western mosquitofish
largespring gambusia
eastern mosquitofish
pearl eartheater
redstriped eartheater
naked goby
black tetra
kissing gourami
jewelfish
banded cichlid
trahira
brown hoplo
clear chub
serpae tetra
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
>/
V
V
V
•J
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
V
V
M
V
V
V
Reported
extirpated
but
FL
N
E
X
N
N
•j <
E.N/T
E, N/T
N
. N
, X, N/T
; X, N/T
^ -
E, N/T
N
X
E
N
X
.:*# -,
'^ X
E
E
E
X, N/T
X
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
: transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
N
E
E, N/T
N
E
N
N
E, N/T
N
N
E, N/T
E, N/T
N
N
MS
N
E
N
E, N/T
- 1 •
•l
;. N
. N
7 N
' £ ,;
'* '-'I'
i:-.\
? E, N/T
' t ' '
: E.N/T
N
LA
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
TX
E, N/T
E
N
: _{
• • •- x
X
1 !'X
:E, N/T
E, N/T
E, N/T
•t!f: '
-iJII^I-" S
li'BUN/T •
;|E,;N/T
!|E, N^"
'*;.
:X, N/T
-it f ;
' -^
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
uses
uses,
USM
uses
USGS
USGS
uses
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 14
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix *
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix * x H.
nobilis *
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis *
Hypostomus spp. *
Ictalurus furcatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Jordanella floridae
Labeotropheus sp.
Lates angustifrons *
Lates mariae *
Lates niloticus *
Leiostomus xanthurus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis cyanellus x L macrochirus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis macrochims
Lepomis microtophus
Lepomis miniatus
Leporinus fasciatus *
Leuciscus idus *
Lucania pan/a
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Luxilus zonistius
Lythrurus ardens
Lythrurus atrapiculus
Macropodus opercularis *
Megalops atlanticus
Membras martinica
Menidia beryllina
Metynnis sp. *
Common Name
silver carp
silver carp x bighead carp
bighead carp
suckermouth catfish
blue catfish
channel catfish
bigmouth buffalo
flagfish
scrapermouth cichlid
Tanganyika lates
bigeye lates
Nile perch
spot
redbreast sunfish
green sunfish
green sunfish x bluegill
orangespotted sunfish
bluegill
redear sunfish
redspotted sunfish
banded leporinus
ide
rainwater killifish
striped shiner
bandfin shiner
rosefin shiner
blacktip shiner
paradisefish
tarpon
rough silverside
inland silverside
metynnis
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
A/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
V
V
V
A/
V
A/
E
A/
A/
M
A/
V
V
Reported
extirpated
bu
FL
X
X
X
' E
N
X, N/T
X
N
N
E
E
N
N
X
N
X, N/T
N
N
X
N
N
N
X
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
t transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
X
X
X
E, N/T
N
X, N/T
N
E, N/T
E, N/T
E, N/T
N
N
N
N
X, N/T
E, N/T
E, N/T
X, N/T
N
N
N
MS
E
N
? N
N
' £'
N
N
X
N
N
,* N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LA
E
E
X
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
X
N
N
N
TX
X
E
N
E.N/T
N
X
X
X
E1,N/T
'- E ,
N
N
E.N/T
E, N/T
E, N/T -
X
E, N/T
N
X.N/T
E, N/T
E, N/T
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
uses,
USM
uses
uses,
USM
uses,
USM
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
USGS
uses
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 15
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Micropogonias undulatus
Micropterus coosae
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus treculi
Misgumus anguillicaudatus *
Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae *
Monopterus albus *
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops x M.
mississippiensis
Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis
Morone mississippiensis
Morone mississippiensis x M.
saxatilis
Morone saxatilis
Morulius chrysophekadion *
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis baileyi
Notropis buccula
Notropis chrosomus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis oxyrhynchus
Notropis potteri
Notropis shumardi
Notropis texanus
Noturus gyrinus
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oreochromis a u re us *
Common Name
Atlantic croaker
redeye bass
smallmouth bass
spotted bass
largemouth bass
Guadalupe bass
Oriental weatherfish
redeye tetra
Asian swamp eel
white bass
white bass x yellow bass
wiper
yellow bass
yellow bass x striped bass
striped bass
black sharkminnow
shorthead redhorse
bluehead chub
golden shiner
rough shiner
smalleye shiner
rainbow shiner
sand shiner
sharpnose shiner
chub shiner
silverband shiner
weed shiner
tadpole madtom
coho salmon
rainbow trout
chinook salmon
blue tilapia
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
A/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
y"
» ' "^ •*
H*.
*'- |'
•r.:i«|||
E .' L' *
XLN/T
E, N/T
X, N/T
N
E, N/T
E.N/T
X, N/T
N
X, NAT
X
X
X
E
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
uses
uses
uses
uses
USGS
uses
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS,
USM
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS,
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 16
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Oreochromis mossambicus *
Oreochromis niloticus *
Osmerus mordax
Oxydoras niger * .
Pangio kuhlii *
Paralichthys albiguttata
Paralichthys lethostigma
Perca flavescens
Perrunichthys perruno *
Phractocephalus hemiolioptews *
Piaractus mesopotamicus
Piaractus brachypomus *
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales vigilax
Platax orbicularus *
Platydoras costatus *
Poecilia formosa
Poecilia latipinna
Poecilia latipinna * x P. velifera *
Poecilia latipunctata *
Poecilia mexicana *
Poecilia petenensis *
Poecilia reticulata *
Poecilia sphenops *
Pogonias cromis
Pogonias cromis x Sciaenops
ocellatus
Polydon spathula
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis annularis x P.
nigromaculatus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Pseudotropheus sp. *
Pterodoras granulosus *
Common Name
Mozambique tilapia
Nile tilapia
rainbow smelt
ripsaw catfish
coolie loach
gulf flounder
southern flounder
yellow perch
leopard catfish
redtail catfish
small-scaled pacu
pirapatinga
fathead minnow
bullhead minnow
Pacific batfish
Raphael catfish
Amazon molly
sailfm molly
black molly
broadspotted molly
shortfin molly
swordtail molly
guppy
liberty molly
black drum
black drum x red drum
paddlefish
white crappie
crappie hybrid
black crappie
African Lake cichlid
granulated catfish
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
>/
V
>/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
>/
V
V
V
M
V
V
V
V
V
Reported
extirpated
bin
FL
E.
E
r^'. •• x
X
N
N
E
."; X
-•-• x •
x
T- " :E
Mi
*!?''•'" '• y ' ' '
$,**;>' A
If*- X
N
X
X
X
i- E •
ft •-- E
N
'. :'<: " " • '
X
E
N
X
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
t transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
X
X
N
N
E
X
E, WT
N
N
N
N
E, N/T
N
MS
$-
N
N
E*
• \ .. -
X
E.N/T
i*. H
K '•:' f\ ' .
;. J ?r- • '.
N
- •
N
N
N
N
LA
X
N
N
E, N/T
N
N
N
N
N
N
TX
- E
E1.N/T
; X.N/T
- ? E
'•:>..-x
; '• c
» ^
~; ',; •, w
J ii'-.." A ' •
fl^N/T
1|E,;N/T
s?fe"--'i
-Jr.:/
E.N/T
E.N/T
X ,v '
X
, . • E
f«4'x •'
-X.N/T
X
N
E.N/T
X
E, N/T
X
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
USM
uses,
USM
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
USGS
uses
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 17
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Pterodoras sp.
Pterophyllum scalare *
Pterophyllum sp. *
Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus *
Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus *
Puntius conchonius *
Puntius gelius *
Puntius schwanenfeldii *
Puntius tetrazona *
Pygocentrus nattereri *
Pygocentrus/Serrasatmus sp. *
Pylodictis olivaris
Rhamdia quelan *
Salmo salar
Salmo trutta *
Salvelinus fontinalis
Sarotherodon melanotheron *
Scardinius erythrophthalmus *
Sciaenops ocellatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Stizostedion canadense
Stizostedion vitreum
Telmatochromis bifrenatus *
Tilapia mariae *
Tilapia spanrmannii *
Tilapia zillii *
tilapine cichlids *
Tinea tinea *
Trichogaster teem *
Trichogaster trichopterus *
Trichopsis vittata *
Common Name
thorny catfish
freshwater angelfish
freshwater angelfish
vermiculated sailfin catfish
Orinoco sailfin catfish
rosy barb
dwarf barb
tinfoil barb
tiger barb
red piranha
unidentified piranha
flathead catfish
bagre
Atlantic salmon
brown trout
brook trout
blackchin tilapia
rudd
red drum
creek chub
sauger
walleye
Lake Tanganyika dwarf cichlid
spotted tilapia
banded tilapia
redbelly tilapia
unidentified tilapias
tench
pearl gourami
blue gourami
croaking gourami
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
>/
>/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
-1
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
v=
V
M
V
V
Reported
extirpated
but
FL
X
X
X
E
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
. E
X
'- -X
E
N
N
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
E
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(E1), Native
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Xiphophorus helleri * x X. maculatus
*
Xiphophorus helleri ' x X. variatus *
Xiphophorus hellerii *
Xiphophorus maculatus *
Xiphophorus maculatus * x X.
variatus *
Xiphophorus variatus *
Common Name
red swordtail
swordtail/platyfish
green swordtail
southern platyfish
variable platyfish
A
Ec<
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
quati
>syst
•E
c
em
M
Reported
extirpated
bin
FL
X
X
E
E
X
E
(X), Established (E), Formerly established but
(El), Native (N), Native to one area of the State
t transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
MS
, • >
',""'-• -
'-';] "•
LA
JX .
•:.', :
'E
X
Info
Source
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Fuller
Summary
Citation
USM
uses
uses
uses,
USM
uses
uses
uses
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 19
-------
3.2 Amphibians
Version 4.0
Scientific Name <: f
~ - \>' *
Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium
Atelopus zeteki *
Bufo blombergi *
Bufo marinus
Cynops pyrrhogaster *
Eleutherodactylus coqui *
Eleutherodactylus planirostris *
Eleutherodactylus portoricensis *
Hy/a cinerea
Hymenochirus boettgeri *
Notophthalmus viridescens
Osteopilus septentrionalis '
Pachymedusa dacnicolor*
Rana catesbeiana
Syrrhophus cystignathoides camp/
Xenopus laevis *
; ':', :'" , Common Name
barred tiger salamander
Panamanian golden frog
Columbian giant toad
giant marine toad
Japanese fire-bellied
salamander
Puerto Rican coqui
greenhouse frog
Puerto Rican robber frog
green treefrog
Zaire dwarf clawed frog
red spotted newt
Cuban treefrog
Mexican leaf-frog
bullfrog
Rio Grande chirping frog
African clawed frog
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
>/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
-!*"''
'
,.
.,
'i *
If- ,'
If;', I
s"i-'i
if Xs
'li
I
M
Reported (>
of the sfc
FL
X
X
E
•"•;/ x> .
' ' E -
E
X
N
X
X
•;.>.'• ./:£':> '*
*---;,'X- j. : .
., E,; N/T
•• ••
X
C), Established (E), Native (N), Native to one area
ite but transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
N
N
MS
• , '- v,
"•'-
- „ N
, J'- •< % * s *
T-fli^ '; -1
rtiiN-nr
K :, :
'
LA
E
E
N
N
; ;fx^ '-.;;
X, N/T
N
-- • ' i'? •,; •
x.,' '"
• ••• ••••••.
X, N/T
' ' ,'; " ^ '" •-. f
- , •> •" s &.
. v«-* *¥;t
E, N/T*'!
X, N/T
Info
;. ^Source
J f'"'/, n u' „ * •-
uses
uses
uses
uses
USGS
uses
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Summary
Citation
USM
USM
USM
USM
= exotic
Appendix B: Inventoiy of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 20
-------
3.3 Reptiles
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Apalone ferox
Caiman crocodilus *
Chelus fimbriatus *
Chrysemys picta belli!
Chrysemys picta dorsalis
Deirochelys reticularia chrysea
Graptemys barbouri
Graptemys kohnii
Graptemys ouachitensis
Graptemys pseudogeographica
Kinosternon scorpiodes
Nerodia fasciata pictiventris
Platemys platicephala *
Podocnemis lewyana *
Podocnemis sexituberculata *
Podocnemis unifilis *
Pseudemys concinna
Pseudemys nelsoni
Trachemys dorbigni *
Trachemys scripta callirostris *
Trachemys scripta elegans
Trachemys stejnergeri malonei *
Common Name
Florida softshell
common caiman
matamata
western painted turtle
southern painted turtle
Florida chicken turtle
Bar/hour's map turtle
Mississippi's map turtle
Ouachita map turtle
false map turtle
scorpion mud turtle
Florida water snake
twistneck turtle
Magdalena River turtle
six-tuberded Amazon River
turtle
yellow spotted Amazon River
turtle
eastern river cooter
Florida red-belly turtle
Brazilian slider
South Amercian red-lined
turtle
red-eared slider
central Antillean slider
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
>/
V
V
V
V
V
•V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
«;'*!
•> ,~ •?'•#-'
••-.•?!
r
M
Reported (>
oftneSfc
FL
X.N/T
X
X
X
X
X, N/T
X. N/T
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
E
X
(), Established (E), Native (N), Native to one area
ate but transplanted to a non-native area (N/T)
AL
N
N
X, N/T
N
MS
N
N
. : „
,- , .
7 ^
N
LA
N
N
N
TX
|.
N
N '-..-w
-'v|S;
' ; ^' '.
X
• /,
: X
X
N
Info
Source
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
USGS
uses
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Summary
Citation
USM
USM
= exotic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 21
-------
Version 4.0
3.4 Mammals
Scientific Name
M/ocastorcoypus *
Common Name
nutria
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
' E
V
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
AL
E
MS
E
LA
E
TX
E
Info
; Source
USM
Summary
Citation
USM
* = exotic
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 22
-------
Version 4.0
4.0 PLANTS
4.1 Algae
Scientific Name
Caulerpa taxifolia
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii *
Prionitis sp.
Common Name
a green tropical alga
a blue-green alga
a red alga
A
EC*
FW
>/
quat
jsyst
E
c
em
M
V
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
X
E
AL
X
MS
X
LA
X
TX
X
X
Info
Source
Carlton
SJRWMD
Carlton
Summary
Citation
* = exotic
4.2 Vascular Plants
Scientific Name
Altemanthera philoxeroides *
Arundo donax *
Bacopa egensis *
Blyxa aubertii *
Brachiaria mutica *
Ceratopteris thalictroides
Co/ocas/a esculenta *
Cyperus alopecuroides *
Cyperus difformis *
Cyperus iria
Common Name ;
,, . #-
alligatorweed
giant reed
Brazilian waterhyssop
blyxa
paragrass
watersprite
wild taro
foxtail flatsedge
variable flatsedge
ricefield flatsedge
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E .,
V
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
•'I
„•?
E
E
E
E
E
E
AL
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
MS
E
' E
E
E
E
E
LA
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TX j:; ;,
E
E
- '$ ^
E.
- E
E
E'
E
Info
Source
•11-
NRCS,
USGS
NRCS,
IFAS
IFAS
Thompson
USGS
USGS,
Thompson
NRCS,
USGS
USGS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
Summary
Citation
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 23
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Cyperus prolifer *
Dopatrium junceum *
Egeria densa *
Eichhornia azurea *(1)
Eichhomia crassipes *
Hydrilla verticillata "(1)
Hydrocleys numphoides *
Hygrophila polysperma "(1)
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Ipomoea aquatica "(1)
Iris pseudacorus
Limnophila indica
Limnophila sessiliflora * (1)
Limnophila x ludoviciana
Ludwigia uruguayensis * (Also L.
grandiflora and L exapetala)
Lythrum salicaria *
Melaleuca quinquenervia *(1)
Common Name
dwarf papyrus
dopatrium, horsefly's eye
Brazilian elodea, South
American waterweed
anchored waterhyacinth
waterhyacinth
hydrilla, Florida elodea, water
thyme, toothed waterweed
waterpoppy
Indian hygrophila, green
hygro, Miramar weed
West Indian marsh grass
Chinese waterspinach
yellow iris
Indian marshweed
Asian marshweed
hybrid of Indian and Asian
marsh weeds
Uruguay waterprimrose
purple loosestrife
melaleuca, Australian
paperbark, punk tree
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
f
A/
4
V
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
E
' • '> : ' ^ *
' v 1
'£
E-
Et:
i • ";••
E
E
. ,E; ; -
E
E
E
E
E
AL
E
E
E
E
E
E
MS
E
•y E
: E
;^''
;*r
- *
? s
. '!•
'; E
E
E
E
LA
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TX
E
E
E
E ' :
! |
E
E
E
E
E
E
Info
Source
NRCS,
uses
Thompson
NRCS,
uses
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
uses
NRCS,
uses
uses
NRCS,
USGS
NRCS,
USGS
NRCS,
USGS
NRCS,
USGS
USGS
NRCS,
USGS
Thompson
USGS,
Thompson
NRCS
NRCS,
USGS
Summary
Citation
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
USGS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
USGS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS
NRCS,
USGS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS,
IFAS,
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 24
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Murdannia keisak *
Myriophyllum aquaticum *
Myriophyllum spicatum *
A/a/as ancistrocarpa *
A/a/as m/nor *
Nasturtium officinale
Nelumbo nucifera *
Nymphaea ampla
Nymphaea blanda
Nymphaea capensis *
Nymphaea jamesoniana
Nymphaea lotus *
Nymphaea x daubeniana
Nymphoides peltata *
Ofte//a alismoides *(1)
Panicum repens *
Pennisetum purpureum *
P/ste stratiotes
Potamogeton crispus *
Sagittaria guyanensis
Sagittaria montevidensis *
Common Name
marsh dewflower
parrotfeather
Eurasian watermilfoil
needleleaf water nymph
brittle naiad
watercress
sacred lotus
dotleaf wateriily
sleeping beauty wateriily
cape-blue wateriily
James wateriily
white Egyptian lotus
yellow floatingheart
duck lettuce
torpedo grass
Napier grass
water lettuce
curly-leaved pondweed
Guyana arrowhead
long-lobed arrowhead
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
'•$•)•
V
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
E
E
E
• •-••£•
E
' E
E
E
-tE
TE
E
>',;;
E
E
E
E
E
AL
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
MS
E
E
E .„
E
E--'-
E
'/$."„'
"'v.'
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Salvinia minima
Salvinia molesta *(1)
Scirpus cubensis
Solarium tampicense *(1)
Spriodela punctata
Common Name
water spangles
giant salvinia
burhead sedge
wetland nightshade, aquatic
soda apple
dotted duckweed
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
E
V
M
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
E
:; E
E
AL
E
E
E
MS
E
E
";fc
E
LA
E
E
E
TX
E
E
:s ,
il-
•i E
Info
Source
uses
NRCS,
uses
NRCS,
uses
IFAS
NRCS,
USGS
USGS
Summary
Citation
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
USGS
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS
* = exotic
1 = On the Federal Noxious Weed List as of June 7, 1999 (USDA/APHIS/PPQ. Part 360 - Noxious Weed Regulations. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2803 and 2809;
7 CFR 2.17, 2.51 and 371.2(C)).
4.3 Semi-Aquatic Vascular Plants
Vascular Plants that Readily Grow in Estuarine and Riverine Riparian Habitats, Ditchbank Habitats, Coastal Hammocks, and Beach/Barrier
Island Habitats
Scientific Name "if *'
Ardisia elliptica
Carica papaya *
Casuarina equisetifolia *
Casuarina glauca *
Colubrina asiatica
Cupaniopsis anacardioides *
Cyperus altemifolius *
Dioscorea alata *
Common Name :
shoebutton ardisia
papaya
horsetail Australian pine,
beach sheoak
suckering Australian pine
latherleaf
carrotwood
umbrella flat sedge
winged yam
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
E
V
V
•y
•y
B
v
V
v
V
.if Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
•H
E
E
E
E
E
E
AL
MS
-..
LA
E
TX
E
Source
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS,
Cox
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
Summary
Citation^
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 26
-------
Version 4.0
Scientific Name
Dioscorea bulbifera *
Imperata cylindrica * (1)
Lygodium japonicum *
Lygodium microphyllum *
Macfadyena unguis-cati *
Mimosa pigra * ( 1)
Neyraudia reynaudiana *
Paederia foetida "
Paspalum urvillei
Pueraria montana *
Sapium sebiferum
Scaevola sericea
Schinus terebinthifolius *
Sorghum halepense *
Thespesia populnea *
Common Name
air yam
cogon grass
Japanese climbing fem
old world climing fem
catclaw vine
catclaw mimosa
Burma reed; cane grass
skunk vine
vasey grass
kudzu
Chinese tallow tree, popcorn
tree
half-flower, beach naupaka
Brazilian pepper tree
Johnson grass
seaside mahoe, portia tree
Aquatic
Ecosystem
FW
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
A/
V
V
E
V
V
B
V
V
Reported (X), Established (E)
FL
E
E
.' E
E
E
E
E
E
: ' E
E
E
1
E
E
E
E
AL
E
E
E
E
E
E
MS
. '• ' • E
E
E
~'-', ••'•'.'
'•'*"' E
E
E
E
LA
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TX
E
X
'. ;E
»- , ;
E
;. E '
*",' '
''•' E
• '^"P\ ;- p
" ,.' " C
;:- E
iv*'
E
E
Info
Source
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS, Byrd
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
IFAS
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
FEPPC
Summary
Citation
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
McCann
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
IFAS
IFAS
NRCS,
FEPPC
NRCS,
IFAS,
McCann
NRCS,
IFAS
NRCS,
FEPPC
* = exotic
1 = On the Federal Noxious Weed List as of June 7, 1999 (USDA/APHIS/PPQ. Part 360 - Noxious Weed Regulations. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2803 and 2809;
7 CFR 2.17, 2.51 and 371.2(C)).
Appendix B: Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Page 27
-------
Appendix C
Ballast Water Reporting Form
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM
IS THIS AN AMENDED BALLAST REPORTING FORM? YES Q NO D
1. VESSEL INFORMATION 2. VOYAGE INFORMATION
3. BALLAST WATER USAGE AND CAPACITY
Vessel Name:
IMO Number
Owner:
Type:
GT:
Call Sign:
Flag:
Arrival Port:
Arrival Date:
Agent:
Last Port:
Next Port:
Country of Last Port:
Country of Next Port:
Specify Units Below (m*, MT, LT, ST)
Total Ballast Water on Board:
Volume Units
No. of Tanks in Ballast
m3 |
Total Ballast Water Capacity:
Volume Units
m3
Total No. of Tanks on Ship
4. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT Total No. Ballast Water Tanks to be discharged:
Of tanks to be discharged, how many: Underwent Exchange:
Please specify alternative method(s) used, if any:
If no ballast treatment conducted, state reason why not
Ballast management plan on board? YES D NO D Management plan implemented? YES D NO D
IMO ballast water guidelines on board [res. A.868(20)]? YES D NOD
Underwent Alternative Management:
5. BALLAST WATER HISTORY: Record all tanks to be deballasted in port state of arrival;
IF NONE, GO TO #6 (Use additional sheets as needed)
Tanks/
Holds
LicttrajMipto
sourcortlnks
Mpa»tdy
BW SOURCES
PATE
DD/MM/YY
PORTot
LAT. LONG.
VOLUME
(mb)
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
TEMP
(wxit»)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
BW MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
DATE
DOAIM/YY
ENDPOINT
LAT. LONG.
VOLUME
(un*»)
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
%
Exch
METHOD
(EWFTV
ALT)
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
SEAHT.
M
BW DISCHARGES
DATE
DOMU/VY
PORT 01
LAT. LONG.
VOLUME
(unts)
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
SALINITY
(unM*)
sg
sg
Sg
sg
sg
sg
sg
Ballast Water Tank Codes: Forepeak = FP, Aftpeak = AP, Double Bottom = DB, Wing = WT, Topside = TS, Cargo Hold = CH, Other = O
6. RESPONSIBLE OFRCER'S NAME AND TITLE, PRINTED AND SIGNATURE:
-------
Appendix D
Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Version 4.0
Federal Laws Applicable to Nonindigenous Species
Arranged by date of enactment.
This appendix was excerpted from Corn el al. 1999.
LacevAct (1900)
Originally enacted in 1900, the Lacey Act, as amended in 1998 (P.L. 97-79, 16 U.S.C. 3371 -
3378), makes it illegal to import, export, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or
plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of U.S. or tribal law. In addition, this
Act makes it unlawful to engage in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife,
or plant material taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of state or foreign law.
Specific provisions authorize the federal government to prescribe requirements and issue permits
for importing of wild animals and birds under humane and healthful conditions. This law may
be useful in regulating some instances of non-native species introduction, if only indirectly. For
example, if a plant whose sale is illegal in one state is purchased in that state and then taken to
another state, the purchaser/transporter may have violated the Act, since the federal Lacey Act
can be triggered by violations of certain state laws combined with interstate transport. However,
if the non-native plant is purchased in a state where its sale is allowed, and then simply brought
into another state (e.g. as household effects), it is unclear whether the Lacey Act would apply,
unless other federal law prohibited that act.
Plant Quarantine Act (1912)
The Plant Quarantine Act, originally enacted in 1912 (7 U.S.C. 15 l-164a, 167), gives the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) the authority to regulate the importation
and interstate movement of nursery stock and other plants that may carry harmful pests and
diseases. Nursery stock is defined in part to include all field-grown florists' stock (trees, shrubs,
vines, etc). The authority to regulate interstate movement is particularly important to the
agency's ability to prevent or limit the spread of a harmful non-native species within or to a state
or region of the U.S. All states have some type of domestic quarantine laws as well, but under
the Plant Quarantine Act, federal quarantines preempt state quarantines in interstate commerce.
History indicates that the success of domestic quarantines is highly variable. Under this Act and
the Plant Pest Act, APHIS for 30 years has imposed quarantines intended to prevent the spread
of imported fire ants, which can be harbored in the root balls of nursery plants or in sod and soil;
however, this pest continues to expand its territory. On the other hand, the successful effort to
prevent witchweed from spreading into Midwestern states is largely due to a quarantine on
certain agricultural shipments out of North and South Carolina.
National Park Service Organic Act (1916)
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 promotes the eradication and control of
nonindigenous species and prohibits most introductions in national parks.
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 2
-------
Version 4.0
Animal Damage Control Act (1931)
The Animal Damage Control Act, originally enacted in 1931 (7 U.S.C 426), is the primary
statute under which APHIS operates its Wildlife Services program, known until 1997 as the
Animal Damage Control program. The Act gives APHIS the authority to control wildlife
damage on federal, state, or private land. Wildlife Services is involved in the protection from
wildlife damage: (1) field crops, vegetables, fruits, nuts, horticultural crops, and commercial
forests; (2) freshwater aquaculture ponds and marine species cultivation areas; (3) livestock on
public and private range and in feedlots; (4) public and private buildings and facilities, such as
houses, commercial properties, swimming pools, golf courses, reservoirs, levies, and landfills;
(5) civilian and military aircraft (against collisions with birds); and (6) public health (against
wildlife-borne diseases such as rabies and plague). Wildlife Services control methods include
providing advice to individuals and municipal, state or federal agencies on a wide variety of
preventive, non-lethal damage control methods. Control of predatory animals, native or non-
native, is largely carried out by lethal means, including hunting, trapping, and poisoning.
Wildlife Services also has cooperative agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Park Service, and state natural resource agencies to help protect natural
resources, including wildlife and threatened or endangered species, from loss of life, habitat, or
food supply due to the activities of other species. Under the authority of the Act, APHIS
addresses damage problems caused by such nonindigenous species as nutria, blackbirds,
European starlings, and monk parakeets. In 1991, Congress passed P.L. 102-237, which, among
other things, amended the Animal Damage Control Act specifically to add the brown tree snake
to the list of animals that the Wildlife Services program is to monitor and control.
Federal Seed Act (1939)
The Federal Seed Act, originally enacted in 1939 (7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.), requires accurate
labeling and purity standards for seeds in commerce. Among other things, the Act prohibits the
importation and movement of adulterated or misbranded seeds and imposes labeling
requirements for seeds that fall within the purview of the Act. The Act also authorizes *
enforcement activities and rulemaking functions.
The law works in conjunction with the Federal Noxious Weed Act to authorize APHIS to
regulate the importation of field crop, pasture and forage, or vegetable seed that may contain
noxious weed seeds. Critics of the government's policies concerning noxious weeds maintain
that inconsistencies between seeds listed for regulation under the two laws have allowed
undesirable weeds to enter the country. Furthermore, they assert that the Federal Seed Act's
exclusion of horticultural seeds has permitted weed seeds to be imported along with ornamental
crop seeds for urban and suburban use.
Public Health Services Act (1944)
The Public Health Services Act of 1944 regulates the entry of living organisms that may
carry or cause human diseases.
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 3
-------
Version 4.0
Organic Act (1944)
The Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a, 148,148a-148e) is the basis of APHIS's domestic
detection, eradication, control, and prevention efforts with regard to plant pests. The Act
operates in conjunction with other APHIS statutes, which regulate imports and control interstate
movement. The Act authorizes the Secretary to act independently or in cooperation with states
in order to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests.
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947)
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 controls the movement of
nonindigenous microbes into and through the U.S.
Importation of Certain Moll us ks (1951)
This 1951 legislation provides for the inspection and treatment of goods entering the U.S.
from areas infested with any terrestrial or freshwater mollusks to control entry of such
organisms.
Department of Agriculture Organic Act (1956)
The Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1956 authorizes APHIS to conduct an
eradication program in countries adjacent to or near the U.S.
Federal Plant Pest Act (1957)
The Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957 (7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj) prohibits the movement of plant
pests from a foreign country into or through the U.S. unless authorized by the Secretary of
Agriculture. The law gives APHIS broad authority to inspect, seize, quarantine, treat, destroy or
dispose of imported plant and animal materials that are potentially harmful to U.S. agriculture,
horticulture, forestry and, to a certain degree, natural resources. (FWS has some limited
authority to prevent the introduction offish and wildlife that could be potentially harmful to
nonagricultural interests.) APHIS inspectors at U.S. international airports, seaports, and border
stations conduct surveillance of travelers, baggage, and cargo entering the country. APHIS
inspectors also inspect incoming international rail and truck freight and mail. In FY1997,
APHIS reported that it intercepted 1.6 million plant materials and 295,000 meat and poultry
products suspected of harboring potentially harmful pest and disease organisms; 63,000 insect
pests and other types of pests also were intercepted.
In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that "while APHIS has kept
thousands of potential agricultural pests from becoming established, it has done little explicit
analysis of risks to natural areas." The OTA also criticized APHIS for too readily accepting
imports of unregulated items, for example, raw logs, wood packing and shipping materials, and
containers and ships from known high-risk areas on the presumption of harmlessness. The first
of these criticisms stems from APHIS's role as the protector primarily of U.S. agriculture:
broader responsibility for protecting U.S. natural resources historically has not been part of the
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 4
-------
Version 4.0
agency's charter. While some authority over pests that are threats to other sectors of the
economy might be inferred from APHIS's authorizing legislation, and used to expand its role in
those areas, agency officials assert that rapidly expanding globalization of agricultural trade over
the past decade has made it difficult for the agency to fulfill even its current responsibilities
concerning agriculture within its budget ($514 million in FY1999).
The second criticism relates to U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) role as both a
promoter and regulator of agriculture. When responding to new non-native pest and disease
problems, APHIS and USDA officials weigh trade and economic considerations along with
biological ones. This may result in less or slower action than those who suffer economic damage
from those pests may desire.
National Environmental Policy Act (1970)
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) (P.L. 91-190, as amended; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that federal government agencies consider the environmental
effects of their actions. The primary mechanism to achieve this end is the preparation of
environmental impact statements (EIS) for major federal actions affecting the environment.
Agencies are expected not only to prepare EISs, but also to comment on the EISs prepared by
other agencies.
This law could apply to some introductions of non-native species. If a federal action might
affect the risk of introducing of non-native species, and thereby have a significant impact on the
human environment, the associated EIS would have to address this possibility. The limitations
of NEPA vis-a-vis its application to nonindigenous species include: (1) the limited applicability
to actions without a federal nexus; (2) the inapplicability to completed federal actions, though
these actions may have effects that continue into the present; (3) the limited utility if the
possibility of introduction of non-native species is not foreseen; and (4) the inability of scientists
to provide agency administrators with the information necessary for a full understanding of the
risks or consequences of the introduction of most non-native species.
If NEPA is triggered, the opportunity for significant analysis of the proposed action via an
EIS is great. The analysis may result in modification or abandonment of some actions or
alternatives. However, because NEPA has been held to be essentially procedural, it does not, by
itself, prevent the activity from going forward even if the risk of unfavorable environmental
outcomes is high. Nonetheless, failure to consider the issue of non-native introduction could be
grounds for requiring an agency to amend its EIS, thereby delaying the introduction and risk
while the revision is prepared.
Endangered Species Act (1973)
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (P.L. 93-205 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) focuses
its attention on species that are rare, not those that are common to the point of being weeds or
pests. However, the strong protections offered under the ESA for rare species may create some
vehicle for regulation of nonindigenous species. For example, the threat to resident fish species
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 5
-------
Version 4.0
protected under ESA could be a major argument against the introduction or expansion of
aquaculture for certain species.
ESA could provide protection in two ways. First, if the introduction were to be carried out
by a federal agency or require licensing, financial support, permits, etc., from a federal agency,
the agency involved would have to consult with USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) to determine whether the introduction (or action leading to introduction) would
tend to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. If so, the introduction would
usually be prevented or modified to reduce the risk. Second, if the action had no federal nexus,
but its effects could result in a taking (as defined in the Act) of a listed species, the party carrying
out the action would have to seek an incidental take permit from FWS or NMFS.
Questions of knowledge, intent, and causality affect whether penalties under the ESA are
available. Therefore, as a practical matter, ESA is unlikely as an appropriate alternative for
penalizing the introduction of non-natives because the persons responsible for introducing many
non-native species may never be known and introduction is often inadvertent. For example, it is
not known who introduced zebra mussels, and it is likely that their probable introduction via
ballast water was unintentional. In addition, introductions may go unnoticed for a long time,
compounding the difficulty in determining responsibility. For example, the introductions of the
brown tree snake and Formosan termites went unnoticed for years after their arrival, though the
brown tree snake is strongly suspected of being directly responsible for the extinction of several
species. Consequently, enforcement actions in the usual sense are unlikely.
However, the policies of the ESA and the duty of federal agencies to ensure that federal
actions will not jeopardize listed species may result in changes in certain practices and the
tightening of regulation of potential pathways, e.g., greater regulation of ballast water practices
or redesign requirements for aircraft cargo holds to reduce the chance of biological stowaways.
Although there may be some circumstances in which the ESA will play a role, new laws more
directly and better suited to the prevention of introductions may also be desirable.
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974)
The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629, 7 U.S.C. 2801-2814) authorizes port-
of-entry and follow-up activities (quarantine, treatment, disposal, control or eradication
programs, etc.) by APHIS to restrict the introduction and spread of non-native noxious weeds.
Under the Act, no person shall import or enter any noxious weed identified in regulation, into or
through the U.S., or move any noxious weed interstate, unless done in accordance with
regulations issued by the Secretary. The Act also authorizes permanent restrictions, after a
hearing on the issue, and emergency regulations for temporary quarantines.
The law currently defines noxious weeds as "any living stage (including, but not limited to,
seeds and reproductive parts) of any parasitic or other plant of a kind, or subdivision of a kind,
which is of foreign origin, is new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S., and can directly or
indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, or poultry or other interests of agriculture,
including irrigation, or navigation or the fish and wildlife resources of the U.S. or the public
health." On an annual basis, APHIS works actively with other federal, state, and private
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 6
-------
Version 4.0
organizations to detect and control a dozen or more invasive plants with several infestation sites
in several states.
Some critics of APHIS's administration of the Act assert that the agency does not focus
adequately on weeds that affect natural resources, although the Act's definition appears to allow
such efforts. Also, the legislative history indicates that APHIS does not quarantine a noxious
weed unless it is conducting a control or eradication program for that species.
Executive Order 11987 Exotic Organisms (1977)
Executive Order 11987, signed in 1977, restricts the introduction of exotic species into
natural ecosystems under federal agency authority.
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (1978)
The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to
detect, identify, survey, and control forest pests.
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980) [Relevant to Ballast Waterl
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1912, October 21,
1980, as amended 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1996), enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), regulates pollution from ships, U.S. flag ships and vessels in U.S. waters. Various
sections of the Act implement the corresponding MARPOL Annexes to which the U.S. is a party
and apply to various vessels differently depending upon their location. For example, Section
3(c) which addresses shipboard solid waste control implements Annex V of MARPOL,
Specifically, APPS and MARPOL address the prevention of pollution by oil, the control of
pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk, the prevention of pollution by harmful substances
carried by sea in packaged for-ms/freight containers, portable tanks, or road and rail wagons, and
the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships. Other annexes to which the U.S. is not a
party include the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships and the control of emissions from
ships. Other annexes being discussed look at anti-foulants and controls for ballast water and
nonindigenous species.
Clean Water Act (1987) [Relevant to Ballast Waterl
Total Maximum Discharge Loads
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, States must develop Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL) for impaired waters. The California State Water Resources Control Water Board
and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board have listed waters of San
Francisco Bay impaired by exotic species as a high priority for TMDL development. Existing
regulations define a TMDL as a quantitative assessment of a water quality problem, The TMDL
specifies the amount of a particular pollutant that may be present in a waterbody, allocates
allowable pollutant loads among sources, and provides the basis for attaining or maintaining
water quality standards. TMDLs are established for waterbody and pollutant combinations for
waterbodies impaired by point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of both point and
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 7
-------
Version 4.0
nonpoint sources (40 CFR § 130). Once a TMDL has been developed, effluent limits established
in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits must be "consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any wasteload allocation for the discharge"(40 CFR §
122.44(d)(vii)(B)).
Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces
The U.S. EPA and the Department of Defense have published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register, identifying discharges to be regulated under Section 312(n) of the Clean Water Act,
Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. The definition of
"discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" in Section 312 explicitly includes
ballast water. In the proposed rule, ballast water discharges are identified as needing regulation
because of the risk of transferring invasive species (40 CFR 1700 as proposed).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
NPDES authority over discharges of aquatic nuisance species in ballast water is restricted by
law and under current regulation. By regulation "any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent
from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower and galley sink wastes, or any other
discharge incidental to normal operation of a vessel" does not require an NPDES permit (40 CFR
122.3). USEPA has not directly spoken to the definition of the term "discharge incidental to
normal operation of a vessel" in the context of this regulation.
Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act (1989)
The Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act of 1989 prohibits the shipping of plants, fruits,
and vegetables via first-class mail.
Food. Agriculture. Conservation, and Trade Act (1990)
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 establishes the Genetic
Resources Program to collect, classify, preserve, and disseminate genetic material important to
agriculture.
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (1990)
The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 controls the sea lamprey.
Toxic Substances Control Act (1990)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1990 enables the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to regulate nonindigenous microbes.
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (1990)
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) (Title
I of P. No.101-646, 16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) established a federal program to prevent the
introduction of, and to control the spread of, introduced aquatic nuisance species and the brown
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 8
-------
Version 4.0
tree snake. The USFWS, USCG, USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) share responsibilities for the
implementation of this effort, acting cooperatively as members of an Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force to develop a program for protection, monitoring, control, and research. The Task
Force conducts studies and reports to Congress: (1) to identify areas where ballast water
exchange does not pose an environmental threat; (2) to assess whether aquatic nuisance species
threaten the ecological characteristics and economic uses of U.S. waters other than the Great
Lakes; (3) to determine the need for controls on vessels entering U.S. waters other than the Great
Lakes; and (4) to identify and evaluate approaches for reducing the risk of adverse consequences
associated with intentional introduction of aquatic organisms. This law has been criticized as
inadequate due to the voluntary nature of some of its provisions.
Under NANPCA, state governors are authorized to submit: (1) comprehensive management
plans to the Task Force for approval, which identify areas or activities for which technical and
financial assistance is needed; and (2) public facility management plans to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for approval identifying public facilities for which technical
and financial assistance is needed. Grants are authorized to states for implementing approved
management plans, with a maximum federal share of 75 percent of the cost of each
comprehensive management plan and 50 percent of each public facility management plan.
This Act directs the USCG to issue regulations (33 CFR Part 151) to prevent the introduction
and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through the ballast water of vessels,
setting civil and criminal penalties for violation of these regulations. The Act also encouraged
the Secretary of Transportation, through the International Maritime Organization, to negotiate
with foreign countries on the prevention and control of the unintentional introduction of aquatic
nuisance species. In addition, the Act directed the USAGE to: (1) develop a program of research
and technology for the environmentally sound control of zebra mussels in and around public
facilities; and (2) make available information on the control methods. The Corps responded by
establishing a zebra mussel facility research program, including annual technical conferences and
a publication series.
Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act (1992)
The Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992 (ASPEA) (P.L. 102-393, 39
U.S.C. 3015; 106 Stat. 1774) makes it illegal to ship certain categories of plants and animals
through the mail. The prohibited species are: (1) those injurious animals whose movement is
prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 42;32; (2) those plant pests whose movement is prohibited under the
Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150bb or 150cc); (3) those plants, articles, or plant matter whose
importation or interstate shipment is prohibited under the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.); and (4) plants and animals whose shipment is prohibited under the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C.
3372).
ASPEA does not make any new categories of plants or animals illegal to ship, but rather
makes it clear that the use of the U.S. mail is to be included among those forms of transport
whose use is illegal for their shipment. ASPEA appears to do very little to prevent the
introduction of non-native species especially if the sender is unaware of the inclusion of the
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 9
-------
Version 4.0
items to be shipped under the prohibitions of the above laws, short title is given for this law. It
refers to importation or shipment of but ASPEA does appear to add one more law to the arsenal
under which prosecutors might bring certain cases involving shipment of various species,
including nonindigenous species, to court.
Wild Bird Conservation Act (1992)
The Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA) (P.L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)
does not focus on the prevention of invasions by non-native species, but rather on the
conservation of birds caught in the wild in foreign countries and imported into this country. By
regulating the importation of certain wild birds, the WBCA may reduce imports of
nonindigenous parasites and diseases, which could affect wild populations of native birds.
Prevention of invasions would therefore be a potential effect of the law, rather than its purpose.
It also could reduce the chance that a wild bird species introduced into the U.S. could escape,
breed, and increase to pest levels. Ten families of birds are specifically exempted from the
provisions of the law, and could be imported subject only to other U.S. laws.
Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act (1992)
The Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-574, 106 Stat. 4593, 16 U.S.C.
4502-4503) amended the International Forestry Cooperation Act to create a variety of measures
to address the problems of the native forests of Hawaii. Since the introduction of such non-
native species as pigs, goats, and mosquitoes has been a major threat to the integrity of native
Hawaiian forest ecosystems, the Act has several features, which address these issues. The
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to develop a program to assist Hawaii and U.S. territories,
through the Forest Service, to protect native species from non-native species, and to establish
biological control agents for the non-natives. The Secretary must also develop plans for the
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry and the Hawaiian tropical forests, which must, among other
things, provide for the study of biological control of non-native species.
In addition, the Act created a short-term task force of specified federal, state, and other
individuals. Among their other responsibilities, the task force was to develop an action plan to
"promote public awareness of the harm caused by introduced species" and develop
recommendations on "the benefits of fencing or other management activities for the protection of
Hawaii's native plants and animals from non-native species, including the identification and
priorities for the areas where these activities are appropriate." The report has since served as the
framework for Forest Service management and research budget requests in this area. There has
been a modest increase in funds to support invasive species research and eradication efforts, as
well as a specialist to oversee management activities on invasive species.
National Invasive Species Act (1996)
In 1996, the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) (P. No. 104-332) amended NANPCA to
mandate regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the
Great Lakes through ballast water and other vessel operations. It encouraged negotiations with
foreign governments to develop and implement an international program for preventing the
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 10
-------
Version 4.0
introduction and spread of invasive species in ballast water. This Act required a USCG study
and report to the Congress on the effectiveness of existing shoreside ballast water facilities used
by crude oil tankers in the coastwise trade off Maska as well as studies of Lake Champlain, the
Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Honolulu Harbor, the Columbia River system, other
estuaries of national significance, and other waters. It authorized funding for research on aquatic
nuisance species prevention and control in the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific
Coast, the Atlantic Coast, and the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.
In addition, the Act required a ballast water management program to demonstrate
technologies and practices to prevent aquatic nonindigenous species from being introduced into
and spread through ballast water in U.S. waters. It modified: (1) the composition and research
priorities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and (2) zebra mussel demonstration
program requirements. Research grants were required on environmentally sound methods for
controlling the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species as well as specifically for preventing and
reducing dispersal between the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence drainage and the Mississippi River
drainage through the Chicago River Ship and Sanitary Canal. In addition, research was
authorized on the prevention, monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species in Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island.
Finally, the Task Force was required to develop and implement a comprehensive program to
control the brown tree snake in Guam and other areas where the species has spread outside of its
historic range.
Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species (1999)
President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (64 Fed. Reg. 6183,
Feb. 8, 1999), on February 3, 1999, revoking President Carter's 1977 Executive Order 11987 on
exotic species. The new Executive Order seeks to prevent the introduction of invasive species
and provide for their control and minimize their impacts through better coordination of federal
agency efforts under a National Invasive Species Management Plan to be developed by an
interagency Invasive Species Council. The Order directs all federal agencies to address invasive
species concerns as well as refrain from actions likely to increase invasive species problems.
The Invasive Species Council, supported by an advisory committee, is also to develop
recommendations for international cooperation, promote a network to document and monitor
invasive species impacts, and encourage development of an information-sharing system on
invasive species.
The Council is to complete the first edition of its National Plan by August 2000, and
recommend goals and objectives for invasive species management, research need, and measures
to minimize the risk of species introductions. This plan is to be updated biennially to report on
progress toward achievement of recommended goals and objectives. The effectiveness of this
Order is to be assessed at least once every five years, with a report to the Office of Management
and Budget on whether the Order should be revised.
Some constituencies have expressed concern about how this Executive Order might affect
their interests. Although rural agricultural groups have long been involved in the control of
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 11
-------
Version 4.0
invasive species, some elements of this constituency have criticized the Executive Order as an
attempt to rule by decree and a threat to rural life and property. Environmental groups have
given less attention to the Order than might be expected, given its potential impacts on
biodiversity.
Appendix D: Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species Page 12
-------
Appendix E
Areas of Federal Agency Activities
Related to Invasive Species
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to Invasive Species
Federal Land
Management
Movement into U.S.
Interstate
Movement within
U.S.
Regulate
product
content or
labeling
Control or
eradication
programs
Prevent
Fund or do eradication
introductions or control
Introduce
or maintain
Fund or do research
Prevention
control
eradication
Uses of
species
Aqua-
culture
develop-
ment
Bio-
control
develop
-ment
Agency Restrict Enhance Restrict Enhance
APHIS S / " / /
AMS / /"
FAS a
USFS
ARS / / /
NRCS / /
CSREES
FWS / / /
NPS
BLM
BIA
BOR
NOAA /
DOD / / /
USEPA / /
PHS /" b
Customs /
USCG /
DOE
DEA /
/ / / / ^ /
/
/ / / / / V
S S S S S
S / /
/ /• / /
/ / //////
/ / / / /
/ / / /
/
/ / / /
/ / s s /
/ / / / / /
/ c
/
/
d d
'Monitors animal diseases abroad.
""Monitors spread of human disease vectors within the United States.
cRegulates experimental releases of microbial pesticides.
"DOE lacks policies on NIS.
SOURCE: Adapted from OTA (1993).
-------
Appendix F
Federal Agency Coverage of Major Species Groups
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Federal Agency Coverage of Major Species Groups
Plants
Terrestrial
vertebrates
Insects (and
arachnids)
Fish
Invertebrates
(non-insect)
Microbes
Regulate
Interstate Movement product
Movement into U.S. within U.S. content or
Restrict Enhance Restrict Enhance labeling
APHIS ARS" APHIS ARS APHIS
DOD DOD Customs NRCSb DOD'
Customs AMS
DEA
APHIS APHIS APHIS USFWS
USFWS USFWS
DOD
PHS
Customs
APHIS ARS APHIS ARS"
FAS DOD° DODb
ARS
DOD
PHS
Customs
USFWS USFWS USFWS USFWS
Customs
USCG
APHIS APHIS APHIS USFWS
ARS USFWS
USFWS
DOD
PHS
Customs
USCG
APHIS ARSC APHIS USEPA
FAS DOD'
ARS
USFWS
NOAA
DOD
USEPA
PHS
Customs
USCG
Control or
eradication
programs
APHIS
AMS
BOR
NOAA
DOD
APHIS
USFWS
APHIS
USFS
USFWS
BOR
APHIS
APHIS
USFS
USFWS
Fund or do
introductions
ARS"
NRCS"
USFWS
ARSC
USFS'
DOD'
USFWS
BOR'
ARS
USFS
Federal Land
Prevent
eradication
or control
USFS
USUSFWS
NPS
BLM
DOD
USFWS
NPS
USFS
NPS
BLM
NPS
BLM
USFS
NPS
Management
Introduce
or
maintain
USUSFWS
NPS
DOD
USFS
USFWS
NPS
BLM
DOD
USFS'
NPS'
BLM'
USFS .
USFWS
NPS
BLM
DOD
USFS"
NPSd
Fund or do
Prevention
control
eradication
APHIS
ARS
SDS
CSREES
USFWS
NPS
BLM
BOR
DOD
APHIS
USFWS
NPS
APHIS
USFS
ARS
CSREES
NPS
PHS
USFS
NPS
NOAA
USEPA
USCG
ARS'
NOAA
USEPA
USCG
APHIS
USFS
ARS
CSREES
USFWS
NPS
NOAA
USCG
research
Uses of
species
USFS"
ARSb
NRCS"
APHIS'
ARS'
ARS
NPS'
DOD'
ARS"
CSREES d
USFWS d
NOAA"
ARSb
NOAA"
CSREES "
ARW
CSREES'
NPS'
Assist
industry
uses
ARS6
NRCS"
ARS
CSR'
ARS"
CSREES d
USFWS'"
NOAA*
ARS"
CSREES d
DOD"
ARS'
• Pests move unintentionally with equipment or due to construction.
SOURCE: Adapted from OTA (1993)
' Plants for agriculture, horticulture, or soil conservation. c Biological control agents. d Aquaculture.
-------
Appendix G
Federal Agency Responsibilities
Applicable to Invasive Species
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Version 4.0
Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
With Respect to Invasive Species
This appendix was excerpted from Corn et al. 1999.
Department of Agriculture
At least six separate agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have
responsibilities related to nonindigenous species.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
ARS provides scientific and technical support for other USDA agencies, among them
Agricultural Plant Health Inspection Service. Such support has focused on detection technology
for ports of entry, systematics for rapid identification of invading species, and pesticide
application technology. ARS conducts research on biologically based pest management
programs at more than 40 locations, involving more than 200 researchers and expending more
than $100 million annually. In addition, ARS helps monitor target pests of integrated pest
management programs (e.g., ground, aerial, and satellite monitoring of leafy spurge and other
weed species). ARS operates grazing lands research at 16 locations where restoration is an
element.
Animal and Plant Health inspection Service (APHIS)
Through an agriculture quarantine inspection program conducted at 178 U.S. ports of entry,
APHIS conducts pre-clearance activities, permit decisions, treatment efforts, detection surveys,
and eradication efforts to prevent the introduction of specific foreign pests that would threaten
U.S. agricultural production and natural ecosystems. Significant foreign pests include insects,
plant and animal diseases, mollusks, mites, and invasive plants. Domestically, APHIS
cooperates with federal and state agencies as well as non-governmental organizations to detect,
contain, and eradicate infections of selected foreign pests before they become well-established
and spread. APHIS may use integrated management approaches including biological control to
address widespread insects, diseases, and selected weeds that cannot otherwise be eradicated.
Under agency interpretations of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), APHIS
may approve and issue permits for importing nonindigenous species (7 CFR 372.5(b)(4))
following preparation of an environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact
statement. Permits for importing nonindigenous species into containment facilities (7 CFR
372.5(c)(3)(iii)(A)) and for interstate movement of nonindigenous species between containment
facilities (7 CFR 372.5(c)(3)(iii)(B)) are categorically excluded by the agency from NEPA
requirements.
In 1997, APHIS initiated the "Campaign Against Non-Native Invasive Species: A Strategy
for the Nation." The purpose of this strategy are to: (1) set national goals and direction for
addressing non-native invasive species issues and concerns; (2) identify federal actions; (3)
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 2
-------
Version 4.0
develop a comprehensive, coordinated federal approach; and (4) raise the profile of
nonindigenous species issues and problems and emphasize prospective solutions.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
Although CSREES's National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program does not
currently identify' specific topics with a research focus on invasive species, several programs
support research relevant to improving understanding of invasive species. In addition, other
CSREES initiatives fund research on best management practices for cost-effective,
environmentally safe control of invasive species using biological, chemical, cultural, and
mechanical practices as well as invasive species management to maximize effective and cost-
effective pest control and exclusion.
Economic Research Service (ERS)
ERS's work on non-native species focuses on developing decision-making tools for
comparing the consequences of alien plant invasions with possible control costs. ERS considers
both direct and indirect human costs of ecosystem disruptions as well as the costs and potential
adverse consequences of alternative weed treatments.
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
In managing the Conservation Reserve Program, FSA requires all participants to control
weeds (including noxious weeds), insects, pests, and other undesirable species on enrolled lands.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
The USFS conducts several research programs focused on invasive plant species, including
ecological studies to support restoration of sites after treatment of exotic weeds as well as control
ofMiconia sp. and other invasive plants in Hawaii; kudzu in the southern United States; and
yellow starthistle, spotted knapweed, and leafy spurge in Idaho. In addition, the USFS seeks to
control and mitigate the impacts from non-native insects, such as the Asian long-horned beetle,
gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, and browntail moth. The agency conducts disease
research, such as to control butternut canker and to select trees genetically resistant to Dutch elm
disease, pitch canker, and white pine blister rust.
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's involvement with nonindigenous species originates from its role in the management
of the Great Lakes and coastal resources. NOAA has conducted much of the federal research
and funded much of the outside research on the zebra mussel. The agency also co-chairs the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
NOAA has funded research in several program areas, including outreach to prevent and
control invasions in marine environments, Chesapeake Bay ballast water management, and an
economic evaluation of the costs of non-native species. Under the National Invasive Species
Act, NOAA funds research on such topics as identifying pathways of introduction, developing
cost-effective prevention methods, developing effective controls that minimize ecological
damage, and identifying dispersal mechanisms of established species that might lead to
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 3
-------
Version 4.0
safeguards and protocols to prevent or slow the spread of nonindigenous species. NOAA's Great
Lakes Environmental Research Lab has spent millions of dollars on research on invasive species
impacts in the Great Lakes, focusing on zebra mussels. In addition, NOAA laboratories conduct
research on introduced oyster diseases and shrimp viruses. NOAA also funds graduate student
fellowships related to aquatic nuisance species research with an emphasis on training marine
taxonomists.
Regulations for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary define exotic species as any
species of plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile or mammal whose natural range would not
have included the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico without passive or
active introduction to such area through anthropogenic means (15 CFR 922.162(a)) and
specifically prohibit introducing or releasing an exotic species of plant, invertebrate, fish,
amphibian, or mammals into the Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.163(a)(7)).
Regulations implementing the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources for the United States (50 CFR 300.1 12(d)(3)) authorize NOAA's Assistant
Administrator to issue harvesting permits to U.S. vessels desiring to fish in Antarctic waters.
However, the harvesting described in the application must not change or increase the risk of
changing the marine ecosystem that is not potentially reversible within 2 to 3 decades, taking
into account the state of available knowledge on the effect of the introduction of alien species.
The aim is to make possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.
National Sea Grant College Program
This program funds research, education, and outreach to address threats from invasive
species, with specific research supported on the biology and life history of non-native species;
impacts of invasive species on ecosystems, including socioeconomic analysis of costs and
benefits; control and mitigation options; prevention of new introductions; and reduction in the
spread of established populations of non-native species.
Department of Defense
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) engages in non-native species activities through
development and implementation of the Navy's ballast water management policy; in partnership
with the Armed Forces Pest Management Board and the National Wildlife Research Center, to
control brown tree snakes chemically; and through maintenance of a noxious and nuisance plant
management information system. A DOD Invasive Species Management Program seeks to
prevent the entry of invasive species into the United States, to control invasive species present on
DOD installations, and to restore DOD lands using native plants.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
The USAGE supports an aquatic plant control research effort within an Aquatic Plant
Management Program as well as a zebra mussel research effort within Zebra Mussel Operations
Management. In addition, the USAGE is conducting a Chicago Channel Dispersal Barrier Study
to determine effective measures to limit the dispersal of non-native species. The USAGE also
supports broader DOD initiatives described above.
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 4
-------
Version 4.0
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM focuses its non-native species efforts primarily on controlling invasive plants.
BLM has implemented an action plan, Partners Against Weeds, as a strategy to prevent and
control the spread of noxious weeds on public lands. In addition, BLM has instituted a
Communication and Environmental Education Plan to help prevent and control the spread of
noxious weeds on public lands. BLM has adopted specific policies to address weed infestation,
and BLM's Director has identified invasive weeds as a top priority for the agency. Current BLM
studies seek to address biological, chemical, and physical treatment protocols for invasive plants
in the western United States. In addition, BLM is responsible for protecting and managing wild
horses and burros which, although non-native, have been given a protected status. Furthermore,
APHIS regulates animal pests on BLM land under a Memorandum of Understanding between
APHIS and BLM.
BLM requires that non-native plant species be used on its grazing lands only in situations
where native species are not available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or
achieving properly functioning conditions and biological health.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS focuses on efforts to prevent introductions and spread of invasive species and,
where feasible and warranted, to control those species that have become established. Its
authority to protect domestic ecosystems is indirect or general, and the agency sometimes finds
itself at odds with other interests, particularly those wishing to introduce various species for sport
fishing or hunting. Its broad authority under the Endangered Species Act gives it some authority
if a proposed introduction of a non-native species or other activity seems likely to harm a species
protected under the Act.
USFWS regulations (50 CFR 12.34(c)) concerning the seized or forfeited organisms prohibit
the release of any live exotic species to the wild in the U.S. Such species may be returned to
suitable habitat in (1) the country of export (if known) after consultation with and at the expense
of the country of export, or (2) a country within the historic range of the species which is party to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora after
consultation with and at the expense of such country, if the organism is capable of surviving.
Under the Wild Bird Conservation Act, USFWS regulates (50 CFR Part 15) the management
and imports of exotic birds, defined as any live or dead member of the Class Aves that is not
indigenous to the 50 States or the District of Columbia, including any egg or offspring thereof,
excluding domestic poultry, dead sport-hunted birds, dead museum specimens, dead scientific
specimens, products manufactured from such birds, or birds in ten taxonomic families specified
in the Act.
Under the Lacey Act, USFWS regulates (50 CFR Part 16) imports of "injurious" wildlife,
with specific prohibitions noted for certain named species of mammals, birds, fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles.
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 5
-------
Version 4.0
Geological Survey (USGS)
The Biological Resources Division of USGS focuses on researching factors influencing the
invasion by non-native species and the effects of invasive species on ecosystem processes, native
species, and landscape dynamics, especially on Department of the Interior lands. Through the
National Biological Information Infrastructure, USGS facilitates documentation, dissemination,
and integration of nonindigenous species information. USGS currently focuses on a small
number of highly invasive species in the Great Lakes and eastern waterways and wetlands,
riparian ecosystems, and Hawaii as well as invasive plants on western rangelands. USGS also
manages the national Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Database as well as several
regional databases (e.g., Hawaii, Colorado plateau, and northern prairie).
National Park Service (NFS)
The NFS works to remove or control exotic species on NFS units, using fences to limit the
movement of large exotic animals, as well as other techniques. More than 100 NFS units have
specifically identified exotic species as significant resource management threats. In Florida, the
NFS is cooperating with federal and state agencies to develop biocontrol agents for the
melaleuca tree. The NFS is also experimenting with a SWAT team to seek out and eradicate
small, localized infestations of exotic species.
The NFS has special regulations to minimize the potential for spreading zebra mussels and
other aquatic nuisance species at the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (36 CER 7.9), where
the term aquatic nuisance species is defined as meaning the zebra mussel, purple loosestrife, and
Eurasian watermilfoil.
The NFS regulates fishing on its lands (36 CFR 2.3(d)(2)) and prohibits the possession or
use, in fresh waters, of live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, non-preserved fish
eggs or fish roe, as bait for fishing, except in designated waters. Waters which may be so
designated are limited to those where non-native species are already established, where scientific
data indicate that the introduction of additional numbers or types of non-native species would not
hurt populations of native species, and where park management plans do not call for elimination
of non-native species.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
The OSM, in certain situations, allows the use of introduced species in revegetating
reclamation sites (30 CFR 715.20(b); 30 CFR 717.20(b); 30 CFR 816.11 l(b)(5); and 30 CFR
817.11 l(b)(5)), directing that introduced species be substituted for native species only if
appropriate field trials have demonstrated that the introduced species are of equal or superior
utility for the approved post-mining land use, or are necessary to achieve a quick, temporary, and
stabilizing cover. Such species substitution must be approved by OSM. Introduced species must
meet applicable state and federal seed or introduced species statutes, and must not include
poisonous or potentially toxic species.
Department of State
The Department of State engages in negotiations, international treaty activities, and regional
and bilateral efforts related to invasive species, such as participation in bilateral efforts with
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 6
-------
Version 4.0
China to address the invasion of the Asian long-horned beetle, work with South Pacific countries
to raise awareness of the need to control the spread of the brown tree snake, and negotiations in
the International Maritime Organization to develop a treaty to address the introduction of
invasive species through ballast water. Efforts of the Department of State focus on safeguarding
biodiversity values and reducing ecological impacts, reducing economic impacts, managing trade
and other economic consequences of actions taken to control invasive species, and reconciling
the need to identify and restrict pathways of entry for invasive species with the necessity of
maintaining human commerce.
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act the USCG is
responsible for developing and implementing a ballast water management program to minimize
the likelihood that invasive species can be transported to the United States in the ballast water of
long-distance ocean vessels. Relevant regulations are published at 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart C.
Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
The FHA focuses primarily on vegetation management, including developing guidelines for
combating roadside invasive species. Initiatives include dispersal of biocontrol research on
purple loosestrife, and support of an inventory of invasive plant species and assessment of their
spread rate on eastern roadsides.
Independent Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
The Council on Environmental Quality assists in formulating agency guidance in integrating
issues involving non-native invasive species in the process of implementing NEPA.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
The USEPA completed a 1996 report entitled Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms
Risk Analysis Review Process for use in reviewing proposed intentional introductions of aquatic
species. In 1998, ecological risk assessment guidelines were developed, including a discussion
of biological stressors, based on the 1996 report. With the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
USEPA sponsored a workshop and developed a report on risks associated with shrimp viruses.
USEPA developed a website publicizing the activities of the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force. USEPA wrote the draft guidance for use by states and interstate planning entities in
developing management plans to qualify for federal funding under the authority of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. USEPA funded efforts by the
USAGE to design a nonindigenous species dispersal barrier for use in the Chicago Shipping and
Sanitary Canal. Invasive species coordinators in USEPA Regional Offices advise the Regional
Administrators on invasive species issues, such as regulation of ballast water discharges.
USEPA regulates introduced species by establishing criteria for the issuance of permits to
operate aquaculture projects (40 CFR 125.1 l(a)(3)). USEPA requires that the applicant
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the USEPA Director, that if the species to be cultivated in the
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 7
-------
Version 4.0
aquaculture project is not native to the immediate geographical area, there will be minimal
adverse effects on the flora and fauna indigenous to the area, and the total commercial value of
the introduced species is at least equal to that of the displaced or affected indigenous flora and
fauna.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation funds basic and applied research on invasive species,
including their roles in population and ecological processes, their relationship to biological
conservation activities, and their role as a disturbance agent in ecosystems.
Smithsonian Institution
Research by the Smithsonian Institution often addresses the pattern, impact, and management
of alien species invasions. Programs at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC)
measure the patterns of transfer, invasion, and impact of alien species on coastal marine and
estuarine systems. Specific projects test methods to reduce the risk of species transfer in ship
ballast water; document the history of alien species invasions for Chesapeake Bay; analyze alien
species transfer and invasion patterns in Prince William Sound (AK) and Indian River Lagoon
(FL); establish a national database on nonindigenous marine and estuarine species; initiate
surveys to measure rates and patterns of invasion in selected coastal regions; and implement
studies to quantify the ecological and economic impacts of alien species. SERC also cosponsors
workshops and symposia on invasive species. In cooperation with the USCG, SERC established
the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse to measure the changing patterns of
ballast water delivery and management for vessels arriving in U.S. ports and to synthesize
national data on patterns and impacts of alien species in coastal ecosystems. Systematists at the
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History assist in the detection and identification of
many alien species.
Interaqencv Efforts
Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
This Committee is composed of various agency representatives from the Departments of
Agriculture, the Interior, Transportation, Defense, and Energy. The Committee fosters
cooperative work on integrated ecological approaches to management of noxious and exotic
weeds on federal lands and provides technical assistance on private lands. Recent
accomplishments include publication of a weed fact book, "Invasive Plants: Changing the
Landscape of America," the document "Pulling Together: National Strategy for Invasive Plant
Management," and documentary video on the problem of noxious and exotic weeds.
Appendix G: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies with Respect to Invasive Species Page 8
-------
Appendix H
Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region
An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Invasive Species Focus Team
Gulf of Mexico Program
Version 4.0
-------
Version 4.0
1.0 Gulfwide Actions
Ongoing
Further Development of the Nonindigenous Species Website / Phase II
Sponsors: University of Southern Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico Program
Date: Ongoing; December 1998 to August 2000
Abstract: This project expanded and enhanced the nonindigenous website created for the Gulf of Mexico
Program by the University of Southern Mississippi (available via the Internet at
http://lionfish.ims.usm.edu/~musweb/invaders.html). This phase specifically incorporated GIS-
enabled mapping tools into the website. It is hoped that this feature may lead to a better
understanding of what aspects of the physical environment influence the spread of nonindigenous
species and what changes might be made to mitigate their adverse effects.
Approaching Nonindigenous Species Outreach by Consensus
Sponsors: Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Florida Sea Grant Program, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, Texas Sea Grant Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The four Gulf of Mexico region Sea Grant programs are conducting public outreach designed
to make the concept of nonindigenous species familiar to the general public. By targeting various
audiences through consensus, rather than crisis, education, these programs are attempting to stimulate
individual responsibility for local ecosystems and to reduce the possibility of accidental introduction
of new nonindigenous species. The target audiences include aquarium and aquatic garden hobbyists,
inland navigators, port and terminal boards, recreational boaters, industrial surface water users,
aquaculture surface water users, and selected government officials. Public understanding of the
impacts of nonindigenous species in the past, present, and future are necessary to incorporate
nonindigenous species management in public policy. The outreach effort might also develop a
support for study of nonindigenous and nuisance species in North American ecosystems
Contact: Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana State University, Louisiana State Grant Program, 103 Sea
Grant Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7507
Gulf of Mexico Program Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Committee, Expert Panel for
Nonindigenous Species Research
Sponsor: Gulf of Mexico Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Gulf of Mexico Program sponsors meetings of the Expert Panel for Nonindigenous
Species Research on a periodic basis. Expert Panel Co-Chairs are Herb Kumpf, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute.
Gulf Conservation Challenge
Sponsor: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), in cooperation with the Gulf of Mexico
Program, launched the Gulf Conservation Challenge to support fish and wildlife conservation projects
along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The Challenge is a voluntary, cooperative effort to enlist the
support of corporations, small businesses, local, state and federal agencies, and private foundations
that benefit from the diverse fish and wildlife resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Under the Challenge,
the NFWF pools financial contributions from these partners and awards grants, on a competitive
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 2
-------
Version 4.0
basis, for priority conservation projects that meet the criteria of the Challenge program. Among the
funding priorities are projects that eradicate or control invasive nonindigenous species.
National Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database
Sponsor: U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Caribbean Science Center
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The U.S. Geological Survey's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database got its start in
1978, when researchers in Gainesville, Florida, began collecting information on introduced fishes in
southern Florida. In 1990, the program took on the role of tracking the spread of the zebra mussel. In
recent years, the database has been further expanded to include all nonindigenous freshwater and marine
aquatic species known or reported from waters of the United States. The NAS Program is intended to
serve as a high availability server of information on nonindigenous aquatic organisms within U.S. waters.
The database, currently containing more than 600 species, can be accessed on the World Wide Web at
.
Gulf of Mexico Program Priority Project Identification
Sponsor: Gulf of Mexico Program
Date: Ongoing; 2000-2001
Abstract: As part of implementing their Annual Workplan, the Gulf of Mexico Program has identified 78
high priority projects for consideration during FY2000-2001. The following nine nonindigenous
species projects are in thjs high priority projects list:
• Mobile Bay, Alabama: Scope and impact of invasive species (characterization).
• Tampa Bay, Florida: GEMS exotic plant management.
• Tampa Bay, Florida: "Eyes on the Bay" (invasive species citizen monitoring program).
• Charlotte Harbor, Florida: GEMS exotic plant management.
• Charlotte Harbor, Florida: Invasive species plant removal by Sanibel-Captiva Conservation
Foundation.
• Corpus Christi Bay, Texas: Preliminary assessment of the potential for introduction of
nonindigenous aquatic species from ballast water from deep-draft ships trading with Corpus
Christi, Texas.
• Galveston Bay, Texas: Conference on the impact and control of invasive species within the
Galveston Bay watershed.
• Gulfwide: State invasive species management plan development support.
• Gulfwide: Documentary on the prevention, control, and management of invasive plants.
The GMP is currently developing approaches to implement, or at least significantly advance, these
projects within the next 18 months.
Gulf of Mexico Program - Coastal America Regional Implementation Team Resolution
Sponsors: Gulf of Mexico Program and Coastal America
Date: Ongoing; 2000-2001
Abstract: The resolution advances those priority projects identified through the Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP) Annual Workplan process that meet Coastal America's criteria for support. Two
nonindigenous species projects, endorsed by the GMP Management Committee, are being formerly
transmitted to Coastal America for implementation:
• Tampa Bay, Florida: GEMS exotic plant management.
• Charlotte Harbor, Florida: GEMS exotic plant management.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 3
-------
Version 4.0
2000
Western Gulf Ballast Water Workshop
Sponsors: Port of Houston Authority, Galveston Bay Estuary Program, Texas Sea Grant Program,
Louisiana Sea Grant Program, NOAA, USEPA, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Date: April 25-26,2000
Abstract: The challenges of controlling nonindigenous species in the Gulf of Mexico region was the
theme for this two-day workshop in Houston, Texas, that brought together regulators, researchers, and
the shipping community. The first day's presentations clarified the Coast Guard's Ballast Water
Management Regulations and Guidelines, the concerns of both ports and shippers, and the ballast
water research agenda of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. The second day focused
on the state of technology research to augment or replace open ocean ballast exchange as a method
for controlling invasive species. This was the first of three workshops held in the region during 1999-
2000 to stimulate dialogue and further research on ballast water management to control
nonindigenous species.
1999
Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Website / Phase I
Sponsors: University of Southern Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico Program
Date: September 1997 to September 1999
Abstract: The University of Southern Mississippi, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs received
assistance to expand the Gulf of Mexico endangered species website to include nonindigenous
species. The project identified nonindigenous species in the five Gulf States. This initial effort
focused on marine and near coastal fishes, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Select
freshwater animals and coastal plants were included, but coverage was not comprehensive.
Information about each species included correct scientific name, official common name, features that
permit correct identification, similar species, biology of the species, and historical distribution. This
information is available via the Internet at http://lionfish.ims.usrn.edu/~musweb/invaders.html.
Aquatic Invasive Species and Shipping in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
Sponsors: Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Tampa Port Authority, Gulf of Mexico Program, Louisiana Sea
Grant Program, Florida Sea Grant Program, USEPA, USGS, The Florida Aquarium, NMFS, Center for
Marine Conservation, Florida Ports Council
Date: November 9-10, 1999
Abstract: This two-day workshop covered policy and science. The first day focused on the Coast
Guard's Ballast Water Management Regulations and Guidelines, the concerns of both ports and
shippers, and the law as it relates to ballast water management. The second day focused on some of
the species invading the Gulf of Mexico, the region's potential for invasion, and the challenges of
ballast water management technologies other than open ocean exchange. This was the second of
three workshops held in the region during 1999-2000 to stimulate dialogue and further research on
ballast water management to control nonindigenous species. The input provided by workshop
participants will help the Tampa Bay Estuary Program refine its monitoring program to more rapidly
detect potentially harmful aquatic invasive species and develop policies to minimize the risks posed
by such species.
Invasive Species and Ballast Water Management in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Sponsors: USEPA, NOAA, Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: October 6, 1999
Abstract: "What approaches are best in the Gulf of Mexico region to control nonindigenous invasive
species?" was the theme for this one-day workshop in New Orleans, Louisiana, that brought together
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 4
-------
Version 4.0
regulators, researchers, and the shipping community. Presentations clarified the Coast Guard's
Ballast Water Management Regulations and Guidelines, the concerns of both ports and shippers, and
the ballast water research agenda of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. This was the
first of three workshops held in the region during 1999-2000 to stimulate dialogue and further
research on ballast water management to control nonindigenous species
Aquatic Nuisance Species: A Focus on the Southeast
Sponsors: Florida Sea Grant Program, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Louisiana Sea
Grant Program, North Carolina Sea Grant Program, North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health, and Natural Resources, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina Sea
Grant Consortium, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, USGS,
USACE, USFWS
Date: October 12-14,1999
Abstract: This two-day conference, held in Charleston, South Carolina, provided focused presentation on
aquatic nonindigenous species in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico region.
Workshop on Nonindigenous Species Management Plans
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Florida Sea Grant Program, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, Texas Sea Grant Program
Date: April 20, 1999
Abstract: This one-day workshop, held at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in Ocean Springs,
Mississippi, was an introduction to the concept and process of state nonindigenous species
management planning. Participants learned about new approaches to nonindigenous species
management that have been established in other states, and then gathered in groups to identify needs
and obstacles to beginning development of management plans in their own states. More workshops
of this nature are needed.
Report to first International Marine Bioinvasions Conference
Sponsor: GMP Nonindigenous Species Focus Team
Date: January 24-27,1999
Abstract: The NSFT presented a characterization report on the Gulf of Mexico's nonindigenous aquatic
species, highlighting the major aquatic nuisance species. The NSFT plans to make a follow-up
presentation at the second International Marine Bioinvasions Conference in April 2001.
1998
Introduction of Nonindigenous Species Workshops
Sponsor: NOAA and USEPA
Date: 1997-1998
Abstract: A workshop in 1997 worked to characterize the status of nonindigenous species introductions,
their potential pathways on a state-by-state basis, educational and outreach efforts, risk assessment
application, and recommendations for development of management strategies. A second workshop in
1998 addressed the development and implementation of specific management strategies dealing with
shrimp viruses, ballast water pathways, and potential new nonindigenous species.
Shrimp Virus Management Workshops
Sponsor: NOAA, USDA, and USEPA
Date: 1996-1998
Abstract: The first Gulfwide effort to address shrimp viruses was a joint U.S./Mexico Shrimp Virus
Workshop co-sponsored by the NOAA, USDA, and USEPA in 1996. The purpose of the workshop
was to compile knowledge of shrimp viruses and their status, impact, and threat to the shrimp
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 5
-------
Version 4.0
aquaculture industry and wild shrimp populations. A second workshop was co-sponsored by NOAA,
USDA, and USEPA in 1998 to continue the shrimp virus work of the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture and develop management options and strategies to address the threat of shrimp viruses to
cultured and wild stocks of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S.
1997
Determination of the Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) and/or Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) Effluent Limitations for Shrimp Farm Operations
Sponsor: USEPA Region 6
Date: September 5,1997
Abstract: The NPDES Permits Branch of USEPA Region 6 is currently pursuing permit issuance for
shrimp farms, as these operations currently operate without NPDES permits. This project (1)
identified and characterized shrimp farm effluent discharged to the Arroyo Colorado River and the
Laguna Madre Bay, and (2) researched treatment methods so that permit limits and conditions can be
established. The project identified permit conditions and management practices that would assist in
the control of viral outbreaks and the possible escape of exotic shrimp species. This technology can
be shared with Mexico and other states for use in their existing shrimp farm operations.
2.0 Alabama Actions
1999
Zebra Mussel Awareness and Information for Alabama Youth
Sponsor: Alabama Cooperative Extension Service
Date: 1999
Abstract: This project developed educational materials for school children, environmental center visitors
in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, 4-H members, and 4-H campers. Alabama Cooperative Extension
Service personnel, plus a 4-H Agent from each county, participated in reviewing, screening, and as
appropriate, modifying existing zebra mussel information for use by youth. Materials were field
tested in the two coastal county programs. County personnel conducted the 4-H presentations and
school enrichment programs.
Contact: E. Kling, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, 25 Hand Avenue, Bay Minette, AL 36507,
(334) 937-0222 or ekling@acenet.auburn.edu.
1998
Gulf of Mexico Region Outreach Project Relative to Invasions of Zebra Mussels and Other
Nonindigenous Species
Sponsor: Alabama Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: 1997-1998
Abstract: This project developed and disseminated materials on the proper disposal of nonindigenous
species used in water gardens, aquariums, and other aquatic hobbies. It developed and distributed a
pamphlet for the general public and a poster for commercial water users on the problems posed by
aquatic nuisance species. The project funded five slide presentations to public audiences including
high schools.
Contact: W. Hosking, Alabama Sea Grant Extension Program, 4170 Commanders Drive, Mobile, AL
36615, (205) 438-5690, whosking@seagrant.acenet.auburn.edu.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 6
-------
Version 4.0
Development of Educational Materials
Sponsor: Alabama Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: In the summer of 1998, Alabama Sea Grant developed an ornamental plant industry brochure
(with the assistance of Florida Sea Grant) targeting nurseries, water-garden distributors, pet stores, 4-
H programs, fish farms, and pet media. Alabama Sea Grant also developed and distributed a generic
poster for aquatic nuisance species for the navigation and shipping industry. As a cross-program
initiative, Alabama Sea Grant is transitioning the scope of its educational efforts from only zebra
mussel to all aquatic nuisance species.
1997
Integrated Regional Program of Research, Education, and Outreach on Zebra Mussels in Southern
Waters
Sponsor: Alabama Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: 1997
Abstract: This project developed the Alabama component of a research, education, and outreach program
for zebra mussels. Educational materials previously developed by Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs
were modified for the southern region and disseminated to the general public, recreational boaters,
and citizen monitoring groups. Developed materials included two pamphlets, a zebra mussel
identification card, a newsletter and mailing list, an educational presentation and slides, and a poster.
The effort was coordinated with the Mississippi Sea Grant Program, the Louisiana Sea Grant
Program, the Department of Conservation, USAGE, Tennessee Valley Authority, and appropriate
local water boards through the existing Alabama Zebra Mussel Network and Lower Mississippi
Valley Zebra Mussel Newsletter. Establishing and maintaining a regional zebra mussel information
base accessible through the Internet enhanced coordination.
3.0 Florida Actions
Ongoing
Florida Implements On-Farm Nonindigenous Aquatic Species BMPs
Sponsor: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Florida Legislature created a program of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a means
of assuring that aquafarms do not negatively impact the environment. Aquaculturists certified by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and implement the BMPs will be
presumed to be in compliance with state groundwater and surface water standards as well as for the
culture of non-native aquatic species. During FY 2000, the Department certified and spot inspected
850 aquafarms.
Statewide Invasive Plant Management Plan
Sponsor: State of Florida
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: A statewide invasive plant management plan is under development, scheduled for completion
in early 2000.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 7
-------
Version 4.0
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group
Sponsor: NOAA/NMFS
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project has many environmental goals, one of which
is to address invasive species issues. The Project's Working Group, assisted by Carol Goodyear, is
compiling the report Initial Status Survey ofNonindigenous Animals in South Florida. A working
draft of the report is currently in review.
Zebra Mussel Prevention through Low-Power Radio, ID Cards, and Fact Sheets
Sponsor: Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Florida Sea Grant Extension Program has designed a proactive program to address zebra
mussels being transported into Florida via trailered boats. If a boat has been in zebra mussel infested
waters within four days of being launched in one of Florida's water bodies, there is a good chance that
these mussels could become the next notorious aquatic nuisance species for Florida. To date, two
low-power radios have been installed just inside Florida's border on 1-95 (1610 AM) and 1-75 (1300
AM). Both radios broadcast a brief segment targeting both tourists and residents returning to Florida
who are trailering boats that may have recently been in zebra mussel invested waters. The drivers are
advised to stop at the Welcome Stations to pick up information materials. Both Welcome Stations
stock a supply of the "Could Your Boat and Motor be in Trouble? Maybe!" brochure (SGEF-74, over
100,000 distributed). This 4-page brochure contains simple how-to steps to protect both their boat
and the environment. Florida Sea Grant also produces a "Zebra Mussel Alert" identification card
(SGEF-75, 900 distributed) and a "Zebra Mussels - A Florida Perspective" fact sheet (SGEF-73, over
7,000 distributed) in conjunction with the USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center. In addition,
zebra mussel prevention is addressed in the more general fact sheet "What Responsible Boaters Can
do to Keep Florida's Waters Clean" (SGEB-27, 15,000 distributed).
2000
Invasive Plant Summit
Sponsor:
Date: 2000
Abstract: The Invasive Plant Summit sought input from approximately 100 key stakeholders regarding
invasive plant management strategies under Florida's increased funding allocation for invasive plant
management and eradication.
Control of Kudzu Using Sheep
Sponsors: Leon County, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Florida A&M University
Date: 2000
Abstract: Three hundred sheep were released in Tom Brown Park in Tallahassee, Florida as a pilot
project to control kudzu. Researchers at Florida A&M University are conducting the project, with
funding from Leon County and the Department of Environmental Protection. The purpose of the
project is to determine whether sheep might help control the millions of acres of kudzu that have
grown across the southeastern U.S. (kudzu was released in the 1870s in an effort to control soil
erosion).
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 8
-------
Version 4.0
1999
Melaleuca Management Plan
Sponsor: Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council
Date: July 1997
Abstract: The third edition of the Melaleuca Management Plan outlines an integrated management plan
for melaleuca in Florida.
1998
Florida Forever Act
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Date: 1998
Abstract: The Florida Forever Act was passed in 1998 providing $25 million in additional funds for
invasive plant management efforts in Florida. Eighty percent of these funds were dedicated to aquatic
plant control and 20 percent for upland plant control.
A Protocol for the Release of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Sponsor: Florida A&M University
Date: 1998
Abstract: Over time biologists have devised protocols to reduce the likelihood of harmful releases of
nonindigenous species. These efforts have been largely ignored because they fail to adequately
address the fundamental problem of all intentional introductions - human preferences and incentives.
To address this issue, this project developed a release protocol from an economic model. It
recommended a permitting system enforced by an independent oversight authority, with the ex ante
assignment of liability to agents releasing nonindigenous species. When risks and benefits of a
release are private and the number of affected parties few and known, markets will internalize the
external diseconomy. When affected parties are numerous and/or unknown, the oversight authority
should require the private beneficiary insure against public losses providing the agent incentives to
contribute the socially optimal level of revocability. An exception exists when the expected benefits
of the release are disproportionately larger than the expected social loss. Here the release may
proceed in a careful stepwise process with strict public oversight. Research efforts should focus only
on methods for species eradication and control.
Contact: M.H. Thomas, The Economics Department, Tucker Hall, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee,
FL 32307-4800
Florida Zebra Mussel Awareness and Prevention Program
Sponsor: Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: April 1998
Abstract: The objective of this project was to generate awareness and knowledge in Florida and the
Southeast Region that would retard, and if possible prevent, the infestation of Southern waters by the
zebra mussel. A statewide advisory committee was established with representation from
environmental interest groups, regulatory agencies, relevant industries, academic interests, and key
experts knowledgeable about zebra mussels and other potential problem exotic mollusk species.
Publications were modified and updated to meet the needs of Florida and the Southeast. Materials
were distributed through the Florida Boaters and Anglers Pledge Program and Lake Watch Program.
The Florida Lake Watch Program included a zebra mussel element in their monitoring program.
Other organizations were solicited to begin zebra mussel alert programs. The Florida Department of
Transportation was approached to explore alternatives for monitoring and education programs at
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 9
-------
Version 4.0
Agriculture Inspection Stations and Welcome Centers. Workshops were held at logistically
appropriate locations around the State of Florida.
Contact: M. L. Clarke, Florida Sea Grant Extension, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110405,
Gainesville, FL 32611-0405 or mlc@,gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.
Nonindigenous Species Outreach for Aquarium Hobbyists and Water Gardeners
Sponsor: Florida Sea Grant Program
Date: March 1998
Abstract: Due to the number of nonindigenous species that pass through Florida each year, it is important
to educate residents and tourists on appropriate ways to handle these organisms. Aquariums are
typically filled with nonindigenous fish, reptiles and plants, and are frequently dumped into nearby
water bodies or ditches. As part of a Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant outreach project, the Florida Sea
Grant Extension Program designed a colorful brochure ("Don't Release Nonnative Species!
Aquarium Hobbyists) to inform and educate aquarium hobbyists about the consequences of dumping
their tank. Over 20,000 brochures have been distributed through the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant
programs, USFWS, Federation of American Aquarium Societies, 67 Cooperative Extension Service
offices in Florida, and various aquarium hobbyist newsletter editors. A similar effort was undertaken
to target water gardeners. Over 20,000 brochures entitled "Don't Release Non-native Species! Water
Gardeners" were distributed.
Educational Materials from Florida Sea Grant
Sponsor: Florida Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: The Florida Sea Grant Program developed a brochure targeting pet stores, 4-H programs, fish
farms, and the pet media to educate them about the pet industry's contribution to nonindigenous
species introductions. The Florida Sea Grant Program also initiated a training program for
agricultural inspectors.
1997
Brazilian Pepper Management Plan for Florida
Sponsor: Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council
Date: July 1997
Abstract: This first edition of the Brazilian Pepper Management Plan was developed to provide criteria
to make recommendations for the integrated management of Brazilian pepper in Florida.
Suitability of Florida Waters to Invasion by the Zebra Mussel
Sponsor: Mote Marine Laboratory
Date: 1997
Abstract: To assess the suitability of Florida waters for zebra mussel habitation, existing literature on
mussel requirements was compared to water quality and habitat data for seven parameters
(temperature, pH, calcium content, dissolved oxygen, salinity, transparency, and substratum). Habitat
suitability indices (HSI) were defined for each parameter. Site specific and regional composite HS1
values were calculated. Overall suitability of Florida waters for zebra mussel success was shown to
be relatively low, spatially heterogeneous, and potentially great in specific systems smaller in scale
than the hydrologic unit. The susceptibility of Florida waters to zebra mussels is neither remote nor
absolute. This assessment was based on mussel requirements as known from their study in temperate
climates, and made no assumption regarding the capacity of zebra mussels to accommodate to Florida
conditions through physiological acclimation or genetic adaptation. This study recommends risk
assessment, monitoring, education, and research.
Contact: D. Hayward, Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Pkwy, Sarasota, FL 34236
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 10
-------
Version 4.0
4.0 Louisiana Actions
Ongoing
Louisiana Salvinia molesta Task Force
Sponsor: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is in the process of creating the Task
Force.
Nonindigenous Species Database for Louisiana
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Louisiana Sea Grant Program is currently developing a database of nonindigenous species
in Louisiana, at the Louisiana State University's Coastal Ecology Department. The database,
containing all known nonindigenous species in Louisiana, will become the baseline for state
management.
Zebra Mussel Newsletter
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: This project continues to produce and distribute the Zebra Mussel Newsletter.
Contact: Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Louisiana State University, 103 Sea
Grant Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803, moleary(g),lsu.edu.
2000
Louisiana Invasive Species Task Force
Sponsor: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: August 24,2000
Abstract: An organization meeting of the Louisiana Invasive Species Task Force was held. Charlie
Biggar, LDWF, was designated as the task force chair. The task force was mandated by Governor M. J.
Mike Foster Jr. to develop a state invasive species management plan.
Salvinia Awareness Day
Sponsor: Louisiana Governor Mike Foster
Date: May 23, 2000
Abstract: Governor M. J. Mike Foster Jr. declared May 23 as Salvinia Awareness Day. Foster made the
proclamation as a means to better educate the public about this invasive, exotic aquatic plant.
1999
State Nonindigenous Species Plan: First Coordination Meeting
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: April 20, 1999
Abstract: The Louisiana Sea Grant Program sponsored the first meeting of state officials to discuss the
development of a state nonindigenous species plan.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 11
-------
Version 4.0
Instructional Brochure for Sampling for Zebra Mussels in Industrial Facilities
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1999
Abstract: This project developed a brochure about the habits of the zebra mussel as they affect industrial
facilities. It outlined quick methods for monitoring both veliger and settled stages within a facility. It
did not give exhaustive information about sampling for zebra mussels, nor did it recommend a
specific sampling protocol for all industrial facilities. Such detailed information is provided in the
references at the end of the brochure, particularly in the Zebra Mussel Information CD produced by
the USAGE.
1998
Assessing the Potential for Introduction of Nonindigenous Species Through U.S. Gulf of Mexico
Ports
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed a qualitative method for assessing a port's potential vulnerabilities to
introductions of nonindigenous species from shipping activities. Methods include consideration of
total tonnage qualified by vessel type, type of cargo, total export tonnage, trade partners, origin of
ballast, water quality factors, and the location of known pests and foulants in a port. LSU-T-98-001 /
57 pages / free.
Contact: Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Louisiana State University, 103 Sea
Grant Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803, moleary@lsu.edu.
Don't Release Non-Native Species - Aquarium Hobbyists / Water Gardeners
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed and distributed a brochure explaining reasons to refrain from releasing
nonindigenous plants and animals no longer desired by aquarium hobbyists. It suggests safe, easy
alternatives to release. LSU-G-98-003 / brochure / free. A similar brochure was developed for water
gardeners. LSU-G-98-004 / brochure / free.
Zebra Mussels in Commercial Vessels on Inland Waterways
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed a fact sheet about zebra mussel infestation locations on inland towing
and other commercial vessels plying U.S. inland waterway systems: it identifies vulnerable places on
vessels for settlement. The fact sheet provides guidelines for estimating potential infestation based on
location of operations, and suggests alternative treatments. The fact sheet was based upon a survey of
operating vessels and monitoring research. LSU-G-98-006 / fact sheet / free.
Subprogram Coordination and Outreach to Reduce or Control the Spread of Zebra Mussels for
Surface Water-Using Industries and Commercial Inland Navigation
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1988
Abstract: This project attempted to regionalize efforts to educate and inform navigation firms and surface
water users along southern waterways about (1) the threat that zebra mussels pose to operations and,
indirectly, to the general welfare, (2) the need for monitoring, (3) possibilities for prevention,
mitigation, and control, and (4) coordinating efforts to study and assist southern interest groups with
zebra mussel issues. After the development of a database of surface water using industries for the
States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and establishment of the project's coordinating unit,
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 12
-------
Version 4.0
the outreach program was conducted. Educational materials were disseminated through general and
monitoring workshops, newsletters, information cards, and brochures to both commercial navigation
and surface water using industries. Coordination was enhanced by a regional coordinating unit,
maintained at Louisiana State University, to receive, analyze, and disseminate the results of industrial
monitoring and academic research.
Contact: M. Liffmann, LA Sea Grant College Program, 107 Wetland Resources Building, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7507 or coslif(g),lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu
1997
Sampling for Zebra Mussels in Industrial Facilities
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1997
Abstract: This project outlined a simple sampling procedure to identify the presence and density of zebra
mussel veligers and adults at industrial facilities. It was developed in partnership with technicians at
various industrial facilities. LSU-G-97-005 / 8 pages / free.
Zebra Mussel and Bait Fish, Catfish, Crawfish, Hybrid Striped Bass, and Tilapia Aquaculture
(Pamphlet Series)
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1997
Abstract: This project developed a series of pamphlets identifying the critical control points in
aquaculture production processes and product reception/delivery processes vulnerable to zebra mussel
invasion or dispersal. Each pamphlet is species-specific. Treatment alternatives are provided. LSU-
G-97-006 / free.
Zebra Mussel Awareness Survey on Toledo Bend Reservoir
Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant Program
Date: 1997
Abstract: This project surveyed recreational boaters and anglers for awareness of zebra mussels at
Toledo Bend Reservoir, a large and popular boating-recreation facility on the Louisiana-Texas
border. The survey was conducted just as zebra mussels were first invading Louisiana waters. The
survey targeted tournament anglers, and frequent and occasional boaters. LSU-S-97-002 / 23 pages /
free.
5.0 Mississippi Actions
2000
First Meeting of the Mississippi Exotic Pest Plant Council
Sponsor: Mississippi Exotic Pest Plant Council
Date: August 17, 2000
Abstract: The first meeting of the Mississippi Exotic Pest Plant Council was held, to discuss critical
issues in managing and research exotic plant species in Mississippi. A summary of the meeting is
available from Glenn Matlack at the University of Southern Mississippi.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 13
-------
Version 4.0
1998
Aquaculture Education Program
Sponsor: Mississippi Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed a comprehensive education program, including media alerts and public
service announcements, targeted to the aquaculture audience. A regional media directory was
prepared as part of the project.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Critical Control Point Sheets
Sponsor: Mississippi Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed educational materials, and disseminated these materials at regional and
national aquaculture trade shows. A link to the Mississippi State University aquaculture website was
established.
An Integrated Regional Program of Research, Education, and Outreach on Zebra Mussels in
Southern Waters
Sponsor: Mississippi Sea Grant Program
Date: 1998
Abstract: This project developed the Mississippi component of a research, education, and outreach
program for zebra mussels. After training the existing network of county agricultural and 4-H agents
throughout the region, educational workshops were conducted for all sectors of the general public
with special emphasis on agricultural and aquacultural users of surface water. Educational materials
were distributed at these workshops. The purpose was to stimulate uniform monitoring and reporting
efforts. Project personnel worked closely with other researchers, agencies, and organizations in the
region to develop a standardized monitoring protocol, with county agricultural agents then training
those who may be impacted by the zebra mussels. 4-H agents developed information and teaching
techniques on nonindigenous species, directed toward grades K-12, using zebra mussels as the first
unit.
Contact: D.C. Veal, Coastal Research/Extension Center, 2710 Beach Blvd., Suite 1-E, Biloxi, MS 39531.
6.0 Texas Actions
Ongoing
Invasive Species in Galveston Bay Workshop
Sponsor: Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Date: Spring 2001
Abstract: GBEP is planning an invasive species workshop for the spring of 2001.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Outreach
Sponsor: Texas Sea Grant Program
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: The Texas Marine Advisory Service, the outreach component of the Texas Sea Grant Program,
concentrates its efforts on increasing the public's general awareness of the overall aquatic nuisance
species problem, as well as on introductions of shrimp viruses frequently associated with aquaculture.
More than 2,000 fliers entitled "Don't Release Non-Native Species," targeting aquarium hobbyists
and water gardeners, have been released and 10,000 fliers on giant salvinia are being printed in
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 14
-------
Version 4.0
partnership with the USGS, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the USFWS. Texas Sea Grant
Program personnel have co-chaired the shrimp virus sessions at three nonindigenous workshops
cosponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Gulf of Mexico Program. In addition,
Texas Sea Grant produced and distributed summaries of each session.
Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society
Sponsor: Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society
Date: Ongoing
Abstract: Annual meetings bring together resource managers and researchers focusing on
aquatic/wetland plants across Texas. One concern is nonindigenous species. Additional information
is available from their website at www.tapms.org.
2000
Annual Meeting of the Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society
Sponsor: Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society
Date: September 25-27, 2000
Abstract: The Society will hold its annual meeting in Denton, Texas. Meeting topics include invasive
aquatic plants, such as giant salvinia and hydrilla.
The Brown Tree Snake Conference
Sponsor: USFWS
Date: June 2000
Abstract: The USFWS hosted a conference in Houston, Texas to prevent, through cooperative
partnerships, the spread of the brown tree snake.
1999
Guide to Identification of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Fishes, Shellfishes, and Aquatic Plant
Prohibited in Texas
Sponsor: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Date: 1999
Abstract: This project developed a comprehensive resource for the identification of prohibited
nonindigenous fishes, shellfishes, and aquatic plants in Texas. The manual includes a review of
prohibited list regulations and a detailed identification guide.
Contact: Bob Howells, Heart of the Hills Research Station, HRC-7, Box 62, Ingram, TX 78025, (210)
866-3356.
Gulf of Mexico Region Outreach Project Relative to Invasions of Zebra Mussels and Other
Nonindigenous Species
Sponsor: Texas Sea Grant Extension Program
Date: 1997-1999
Abstract: Segments of the Texas population are involved in mitigation and control of aquatic nuisance
species, but the public as a whole has little understanding of the concept of managing nuisance
species on a regular, cooperative basis. This project developed and distributed many educational
products including workshop summary reports, of which more than 500 copies have distributed
throughout the Gulf region. A recent issue of Texas Sea Grant's quarterly magazine Texas Shores,
titled "Corporate Raiders of Nature," focused on those nonindigenous species commonly found in the
Texas. Approximately 6,000 copies of Texas Shores were circulated in the state and region.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 15
-------
Version 4.0
1998
Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Workshop for the Gulf of Mexico
Sponsor: Texas Sea Grant Program
Date: March 1998
Abstract: The Texas Sea Grant Program hosted a workshop in Houston, Texas to (1) increase awareness
of potential problems associated with the introduction of nonindigenous species in the Gulf region
and (2) stimulate cooperative efforts in the management of aquatic nonindigenous species.
Appendix H: Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region Page 16
-------
|