Download 2 OBJECTIVE: Prevent the introduction of ANS into CT

Rev. April 25 2004
Connecticut Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
2.
Introduction
Scope of the ANS Problem in Connecticut
Proposed Management Actions
Relationship with other ANS Plans
The Development of the CT ANS Plan (Process and Participants)
Problem Definition and Ranking
2.1. History and Biogeography of ANS in CT
2.2. Current and Potential Impacts of ANS in CT
2.2.1. Human Health Impacts
2.2.2. Economic Impacts
2.2.3. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Impacts
2.2.4. Aesthetic Impacts
2.3. Current and Potential Aquatic Nuisance Species
2.4. Current and Potential Vectors
2.4.1. Natural Vectors
2.4.2. Managed Aquatic Resources
2.4.3. Transportation Vehicle Vectors
2.4.4. Other Equipment Vectors
2.4.5. Organism Handlers
2.5. Management Priorities
2.5.1. Priority Vectors for CT ANS
2.5.2. Priority Species
2.5.2.1.
Priority Plant Species
2.5.2.2.
Priority Freshwater Species
2.5.2.3.
Priority Marine Species
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
Existing Authorities and Programs
International Authorities and Programs
Federal Authorities and Programs
Regional Authorities and Programs
State Authorities and Programs
Local Authorities and Programs
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
12
12
12
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
19
19
23
23
23
23
24
25
31
31
31
34
37
38
4.
Goals
40
5.
Objectives, Strategies, Activities and Costs
41
1
OBJECTIVE 1 : Coordinate the activities of the various authorities.
42
1.1
SA: Establish coordinating entities.
42
1.2
SA: Coordinate Connecticut ANS management activities.
42
1.3
SA: Coordinate with other states and nations to prevent interstate and
international transport of ANS.
43
1.4
SA: Coordinate with federal agencies to develop regional priorities and sound
management activities at the federal level.
43
2
OBJECTIVE: Prevent the introduction of ANS into CT
45
Rev. April 25 2004
2.1
SA: Assess the risks and types of introduction through priority transport
vectors.
45
2.2
SA: Coordinate with industry representatives to minimize introductions of
invaders through priority transport vectors.
45
2.3
SA: Educate industry representatives regarding possible means of introductions
through development and dissemination of targeted outreach materials.
46
2.4
SA: Improve data management as it relates to ANS distribution in Connecticut
watersheds and in the Northeast Region.
46
2.5
SA: Reduce the threat of introductions via commercial shipping (ballast water
and hull fouling).
46
2.6
SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS via recreational boating and fishing. 47
2.7
SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS through the seafood industry and the
freshwater fish market.
48
2.8
SA: Prevent the introduction and spread of organisms and pathogens through
the aquaculture industry.
48
2.9
SA: Prevent introductions of ANS to freshwater and marine systems via the bait
industry.
48
2.10 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS through the aquarium trade, nurseries
and water garden suppliers and other wetland vegetation growers.
48
2.11 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS by aquatic research facilities and public
aquaria.
49
2.12 SA: Prevent new introductions of AIS to freshwater and marine systems
through aquatic organism supply companies (including internet sales).
49
2.13 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS to freshwater systems through water
resources projects and fish ladders.
49
2.14 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS to freshwater systems through
commercial construction operators (weed harvesters, water transporters, dredgers,
etc.) 49
3
OBJECTIVE: Detect new and monitor existing occurrences of ANS in CT.
51
3.1
SA: Develop a strategy, framework for collecting and assessing
monitoring/detection information.
51
3.2
SA: Develop a coordinated program to monitor the introduction and spread of
ANS in Connecticut coastal and freshwater systems (include lakes and streams).
51
3.3
SA: Develop training programs for inspectors/monitors. [[NOT THE SAME AS
PUBLIC AWARENESS / EDUCATION??]]
52
3.4
SA: Assist in the development of improved technology for monitoring the
spread of nonindigenous organisms.
52
3.5
SA: Evaluate the risk of introductions of priority species not yet established in
Connecticut
52
4
OBJECTIVE: Control the spread of ANS in CT.
54
4.1
SA: Identify priority marine and freshwater invasive species for management
actions.
54
4.2
SA: Expand funding for local invasive species management and related
projects.
54
4.3
SA: Identify funding and personnel resources for the eradication of new
introductions to previously un-infested waters.
54
Rev. April 25 2004
4.4
SA: Develop and implement early response protocols for newly detected
infestations of ANS.
54
4.5
SA: Continue to implement efforts to control established populations of ANS. 55
4.6
SA: Identify and disseminate information on existing control mechanisms for
priority species.
55
4.7
SA: Support development of improved control technologies for established
populations of ANS.
55
4.8
SA: Monitor and document the effectiveness of ANS control efforts.
56
5
OBJECTIVE: Increase public awareness and knowledge of ANS.
58
5.1
SA: Develop an active publicity campaign to engage public,
58
5.2
SA: Develop and Distribute Educational Materials Related to Regional Invasive
Species Issues.
58
5.3
SA: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at Designated Priority ANS. 59
5.4
SA: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at ANS Transport Vectors. 60
5.5
SA: Develop and distribute ANS materials to other state regulatory agencies
and state legislators.
60
5.6
SA: Develop training program for field staff and inspectors (including water
company biologists).
61
6
6.1
6.2
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8
OBJECTIVE: Identify and address research needs.
SA: Identify research priorities for Connecticut and the region.
SA: Encourage research on ANS and their impacts in Connecticut.
OBJECTIVE: Secure adequate funding and staff to implement management objectives.
SA: Get legislative support for funding.
SA: Green Industries – funds for education.
SA: Set up and SEP account for invasives funding.
SA: Ask chemical companies to fund demonstration projects.
SA: Federal WHIP
SA: State Boating Fee
SA: Municipal Lake Associations
SA: Non-profit groups
SA: Develop funding to take “control” actions.
OBJECTIVE: Introduce legislation / adopt regulations to implement management objectives.
63
64
64
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
68
8.1
SA: Evaluate Connecticut’s authority to restrict the introduction of specific
aquatic species designated as threats to the ecology and economy of the state.
68
8.2
SA: Make general recommendations for additional state and federal legislative
needs to minimize impacts from ANS.
68
8.3
SA: Make general recommendations for additional state and federal legislative
needs to minimize impacts from ANS.
68
8.4
SA: Introduce a funding bill to provide seed money for selected management
actions.
68
8.5
SA: Develop a system of enforcement actions / fines.
68
8.6
SA: Mandate that water companies do monitoring.
68
8.7
SA: Have invasive species be declared a form of biological pollution.
68
8.8
SA: Streamline the permitting process.
68
8.9
SA: Prohibit sales from out-of-state.
68
Rev. April 25 2004
8.10
8.11
SA: Determine what actions can be done about invasives on private property. 68
SA: Determine who owns the priority lake bottom.
68
6.
Implementation Table
69
7.
Program Monitoring and Evaluation
71
Acknowledgments
Rev. April 25 2004
We’d like to thank1:
 Jason Baker, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management and primary
author of the Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, for giving
us permission to use some of the structure and content of the MA plan in our own. 2
 Members of the Connecticut Aquatic Nuisance Species Working Group
 Funding support for the development of the Connecticut ANS Management Plan was
provided by NOAA National Sea Grant, US Department of Commerce, Grant No.
NA16RG2253; the Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, University of
Connecticut; and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
1
2
TODO: Who else to thank?
TODO: Add citation for MA plan
Executive Summary
Rev. April 25 2004
[[PAB NOTE: WILL BE WRITTEN WHEN DOCUMENT IS FULLY DEVELOPED]]
Rev. April 25 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scope of the ANS Problem in Connecticut3
The introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (ANS) in the marine and freshwater
environments of Connecticut pose a serious threat to the ecology of native systems, and can
effect the health and economic interests of the people of the state of Connecticut. These species,
most of which are nonindigenous, have the potential to establish and spread rapidly, due to a lack
of physical and biological constraints in the habitats to which they have been introduced. The
range of impacts these organisms can have on aquatic systems is extensive, including the loss of
habitat and community diversity, the localized or complete extinction of rare and endangered
species, the spread of pathogens, and the choking of waterways, water intakes, and wetland
systems.
1.2. Proposed Management Actions4
1.3. Relationship with other ANS Plans
While the authority and programs outlined in this plan are generally limited to the political
boundaries of Connecticut, it is recognized throughout that there is a need for interstate and
international cooperation to prevent the introduction and spread of ANS. In particular, this plan
describes efforts to coordinate with Northeastern US states through the recently formed
Northeast Regional Panel of the Federal ANS Task Force.
1.4. The Development of the CT ANS Plan (Process and Participants)
The Connecticut Aquatic Nuisance Species Working Group (the ANS Working Group)was
established in February of 2004 to coordinate and enhance efforts for the prevention and
management of ANS through the development of this management plan. The Working Group is
made up of representatives from state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and a
consulting group (Appendix C) and has worked to coordinate existing management efforts,
identify priority invasive species to target for prevention and control, and develop specific
objectives and actions focused on management, research, and outreach/education.
3
4
TODO: More will be added later. This will eventually be a summary of Section 2.1
TODO: Write this section when Objectives and Tasks are finalized
Rev. April 25 2004
Many Working Group members serve on additional committees involved in invasive species
management initiatives in Connecticut and the region5, and the Northeast Regional Panel of the
ANS Task Force (each described below). Integration of these committees into the ANS Working
Group has ensured that management measures outlined in this plan represent a fully coordinated
approach.
Comments received from state agencies, subject matter experts and the general public during
the development of this document have been an important component of the planning
process, and wherever possible comments received have been incorporated into this plan.
1.4.1. The CT ANS Subcommittees
The CT ANS Working Group was divided into three subcommittees to facilitate the
development of the plan. The Marine Subcommittee focused on fish, invertebrates, algae
and pathogens found in coastal aquatic communities, the Freshwater Subcommittee on
freshwater fish, invertebrates, algae and pathogens found in inland lakes, rivers and streams
and the Plants Subcommittee on freshwater and brackish vascular plants. Each
subcommittee met monthly between February and June of 2004 to discuss and develop the
content of this plan.
1.4.2. Scientific Review Process
Faculty members of several CT colleges and universities served as members of the ANS
Working group. In addition, drafts of this plan were submitted to other academic subject
matter experts for review.
1.4.3. Agency Review Process
In June of 2004, a draft of this plan was submitted to several state agencies for review
(Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Aquaculture, Department of Public Health, Department of Transportation, Office of Policy
and Management). In July of 2004, the ANS Working Group met to discuss agency
comments and make any necessary modifications to the CT ANS plan. A list of major
points raised by the agencies, and responses of the ANS Working Group is provided in
Appendix D.
1.4.4. Public Review Process
In August of 2004, the ANS Working Group released the revised plan for a four-week
period of public review. A draft of the plan was posted on several web sites.6 At the end of
this period, in September 2004, a public meeting was held, where the plan was discussed
and members of the public were given an opportunity to speak about the plan. A list of
major points that were raised during the four-week public review, and at the public meeting,
and responses ANS Working Group are shown in Appendix E.
5
6
TODO: enumerate affiliations
TODO: plan for several public hearings around the state, email lists, other publicity.
Rev. April 25 2004
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND RANKING7
The problem of aquatic invasions poses unique challenges to managers of aquatic systems as
well as those developing policy affecting aquatic environments. Unlike other sources of
pollution, established populations of aquatic invaders are self-sustaining. As a result,
resources must be devoted to both prevention of new introductions and to the control of
existing populations of invaders. The introduction of only a few organisms or, in the case of
aquatic plants and algae, a fraction of an organism, can result in the infestation of a water
body, watershed, or an entire biogeographic region. These introductions can occur through
any number of transport vectors, further complicating preventative measures. The following
section highlights some of the major impacts of past introductions, identifies priority
pathways by which these species may have been imported, and identifies established and
threatening species of greatest concern to the Commonwealth. The discussion and
identification of the major problems and concerns outlined below have served as the
foundation for the development of detailed Management Objectives and Actions outlined in
Section IV.
2.1. History and Biogeography of ANS in CT
A wide range of aquatic environments exists in the state of Connecticut. The state is
bisected by the Connecticut River, whose watershed extends into the states of
Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, as well as Canada. The Connecticut River
watershed and seven other major basins (some of which also extend into New York and
Rhode Island, (see Figure 1) empty into Long Island Sound (LIS), the state’s southern
border. The Sound is an estuary, supporting a variety of coastal and marine habitats and
organisms. The state is home to approximately (#)8 major lakes, and many smaller lakes,
ponds, rivers, streams and wetlands.9
The Long Island Sound estuary is 110 miles long and 21 miles wide at its widest point.
There is 600 miles of coastline, almost half of which is in Connecticut. The Sound is
unusual in that it is located near the boundary of two biogeographic provinces (the Virginia
Province to the south, and the Boreal Province to the north, of Cape Cod.) As a result, both
coldwater and warm water estuarine and marine species are supported. Ocean water from
the Atlantic enters from the eastern end, while fresh water inputs are received from the
Connecticut, Thames, Quinnipiac, and Housatonic Rivers in Connecticut. The Sound has a
second connection to the ocean, through the East River/New York Harbor at the Sound’s
westernmost point.
7
The purpose of this section is to document the scope and seriousness of the ANS problem in CT. Impacts
need to be described and documented, priority species and vectors need to be listed, and their selection
justified.
8
TODO: How many major lakes?
9
TODO: Discuss other major rivers: Thames, Quinnipiac, Housatonic
Rev. April 25 2004
Figure 1. Major drainage basins in Connecticut. 1:Pawcatuck, 2:Southeast Coast, 3:Thames, 4:Connecticut, 5:South Central
Coast, 6:Housatonic, 7:Southwest Coast, 8: Hudson (Source: CT DEP,
http://www.dep.state.ct.us/gis/dataguides/dep/layers/basinm.htm)
Long Island Sound’s environmental conditions can vary widely throughout the course of a
year; for example, water temperatures range from 1oC in winter to 22 oC during late
summer. Climate change shifts of just a degree or two can have a profound influence on the
species living in the Sound, some of which are at the northernmost limits of their ranges, and
others that are at the southernmost limits of their ranges. For example, species like Caulerpa
taxifolia, which is not expected to be problematic at this point in time, could become
problematic in the future if our local climate warms over time (J. Carlton, personal
communication, Feb. 2004). There are two tidal cycles per day, with the tidal range the
greatest in the western Sound and the currents strongest in the eastern end. Salinity ranges
from about 23 ppt to 33 ppt; the more saline waters found near the Race at the eastern end.
Long Island Sound is an important estuary in the region, serving as spawning, nursery, and
feeding grounds for many species, including those that are year-round residents, seasonal
visitors, and occasional “tourists.” These species form the basis of important bi-state
commercial and recreational fisheries, which in 1992 were calculated to contribute $150
million and $1 billion to local economies, respectively (Long Island Sound Study, 1992).
Salt marshes provide the coastline with some protection against storm waves and floods, and
filter out silts and pollutants from run-off. As with most estuaries, the Sound is valued for
its recreational, commercial, economic, and aesthetic values. It is sometimes referred to as
the “Urban Sea,” as more than 15 million people live within the Sound’s watershed, and
more than 5 million people live within 15 miles of its coast (Long Island Sound Study,
1996). There are more than 600,000 registered boats in Connecticut, and creel surveys
support estimates of 450,000 marine anglers fishing in the state as well (D. Molnar, CTDEP,
personal communication, Feb. 2004).
The Sound also supports heavy commercial shipping traffic, traveling to ports in New
London, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford; some travel up the Connecticut River as far
as Hartford. Vessels such as those that transport bananas from Panama in Central America,
Rev. April 25 2004
travel slowly through coastal waters and eventually dock in Bridgeport. Other ships include
oil tankers, cruise ships, and U.S. Navy submarines. These vessels may serve as a source of
introductions through hull fouling. Some of these ships may be subject to current voluntary
ballast water exchange regulations issued by the USCG.
Currently 84 non-native or introduced and 66 cryptogenic species have been identified in the
Northeast marine waters, from Nova Scotia to Long Island Sound (Carlton, XXXX13;
Appendix SPECAPPNUM). Some, including the green crab, Carcinus maenus, and the
periwinkle snail, Littorina littorea, arrived 150-200 years ago with explorers and colonists,
brought either intentionally or inadvertently on wooden-hulled ships or in the ships’ ballast.
The periwinkle has long dominated the rocky intertidal zone of New England, intermingling
with and overshadowing its native cousins, L. obtusa and L. saxatilis. It is likely that few
people visiting the coast have any idea that this common snail was introduced from Europe,
as it has long been part of the New England coast landscape.
The green crab, fished and sold for bait in some areas, is responsible for the decimation of
the soft clam industry in Maine (and possibly Long Island Sound), due to its voracious
appetite. Once common to the intertidal zone, this non-native invader has been recently
replaced by the Asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus, first reported in Connecticut
coastal waters in 1993. The Asian shore crab is now the prevalent crustacean in the intertidal
zone, having displaced both native mud crabs and the non-native green crab.
While many of the introduced marine and estuarine species in Long Island Sound are well
below the radar of most people, some species are better known because of the problems they
cause, such as fouling pilings, docks, lines, and boat hulls. For example, a number of solitary
and colonial tunicate species or ascidians have appeared periodically over the past 200
years. These include:
Botryllus schlosseri
early 1800s
Styela canopus
early 1800s
Molgula manhattensis
early 1800s
Ciona intestinalis
early 1800s
Botrylloides violaceus
1970s
Styela clava
1970s
Diplosoma listerianum 1980s
Ascidiella aspersa
1980s
Didemnum lahillei
1990s
(from J. Carlton, Feb 19, 2004, presentation)
While some habitats of Long Island Sound are well-studied, there are many habitats,
particularly the upper brackish habitats, that are not as well-studied. Little is known about
the species composition in those areas, and there well may be more cryptogenic and nonnative species present that are currently unknown.
13
Need Carlton citation
Rev. April 25 2004
2.2. Current and Potential Impacts of ANS in CT
Connecticut currently faces a variety of impacts from aquatic invaders in both fresh and
coastal waters, which can have significant and lasting impacts upon human health, economic
interests, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
2.2.1. Human Health Impacts
2.2.2. Economic Impacts

Recreational and commercial boating industry impacts14

Recreational and commercial fishing industry impacts
A Cornell University study compiled estimates of the environmental and economic costs
of nonindigenous species in the U.S. from a wide variety of sources (Pimental et al.,
2000). The introduction of the green crab, Carcinus maenus, has resulted in losses and
damages totaling approximately $44 million per year nationally, primarily due to
predation on commercially valuable soft-shell clams.
Oyster parasites, primarily MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and, to a lesser degree,
Dermo (Perkinsus marinus), caused the commercial oyster aquaculture industry in Long
Island Sound to suffer heavy losses in the late 1990s (Sunila et al., 1999). Harvest and
market data provided by the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Aquaculture (which oversees the shellfish industry) demonstrates the devastating effects
these diseases have had on the 100+ year old oyster farming industry in Connecticut.
Annual harvests of oysters averaged more than 686,000 bushels during the period 1991 –
1996. However, after MSX struck in 1997 and 1998, oyster harvests during the period
1997-2002 dropped to an annual average of 119,000 bushels, with a low of 32,000
bushels in 2002. As the harvests plummeted, the overall ex-vessel value of oyster
farming also dropped 96% in ten years, from a $45 million in 1992 to a $2 million in
2002.

Water and power industry impacts
A 1995 survey by New York Sea Grant solicited information on the economic impact of
zebra mussels on electric power generation stations, public and private drinking water
treatment plants, industrial facilities, navigation lock and dam structures, marinas,
hatcheries, and other facilities in the eastern half of the United States and Canada (O’Neill,
Jr., 1996). More than 330 facilities reported zebra mussel-related expenses for the period
14
TODO: Discuss fouling and maintenance costs
Rev. April 25 2004
from 1989 to 1995, exceeding $69 million, with an average individual expense of about
$200,000 (O’Neill, Jr., 1996). Nuclear power plants reported the greatest expenditure, along
with drinking water plants and other industries. Golf courses reported the lowest
expenditures. Overall, total zebra mussel-related expenditures increased annually, from
$234,000 in 1989 to $17.8 million in 1995 (O’Neill, Jr., 1996). More recently, estimates for
the expenditures occurring as a result of zebra mussel monitoring, planning and engineering,
preventive measures, retrofitting of equipment or facilities, treatment and control measures,
and research, may be approaching $100 million per year.
No data from Connecticut or any other New England state contributed to the survey,
although some Connecticut water companies during that period of time were both active in
the state’s ad hoc zebra mussel task force and spending time and money on monitoring and
planning for possible zebra mussels infestations (N. Balcom, personal communication,
March 2004).
The Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea, is a serious biofouler of raw water intake pipes, and
has plagued nuclear power plants all over the country. Asiatic clams brood their larvae in
their gills, releasing them into the water column as post-larval juveniles with the ability to
resist downstream transport by currents (Balcom, 1994). The clams and their larvae can be
drawn into intake pipes, and the live animals or empty shells and body tissues obstruct water
flow through condenser tubes, intake screens, valves, and service water (fire protection)
systems (Balcom, 1994). Costs associated with the fouling of Asiatic clams are estimated to
be $1 billion annually (Pimental et al., 2000). In the lower Connecticut River, personnel
found a population of Asiatic clams fouling systems of the now-closed Yankee Atomic
Power plant in 1990, and controlled them with continuous low-level chlorination (Balcom,
1994).

Property value impacts
An economic study that compared the percentage drop in value of waterfront property and
public sites on suburban Connecticut lakes with hypothetical declines in water quality
showed a greater drop in values when there is a loss of swimmability as compared to a loss
of edibility of fish caught (Fishman et al., need date). The survey of waterfront property
owners and users of public sites on several Connecticut lakes showed that water quality
declines that make swimming inadvisable (caused, for example, by increased populations of
waterfowl such as Canada geese) could result in percentage losses in value ranging from
31% - 36% for property owners, and 44% - 65% for users of public sites (Fishman et al.,
XXXX). Aquatic weeds can also lead to a loss of swimmability, and a concomitant loss of
value.
In fact, a 2003 University of New Hampshire analysis indicates that infestations of an exotic
aquatic weed, specifically variable milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum), may reduce
Rev. April 25 2004
lakefront property values by as much as 20-40% as compared to similar properties on
uninfested lakes (Halstead et al., 2003).
2.2.3. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Impacts

Reduced diversity of native plants and animals.
In addition to economic costs, invasions of nonnative species in general can also have
ecological costs. “Ecosystems around the world are becoming increasingly similar as the
rate and scope of invasions increase, and local unique diversity is lost” (Ruesink, 1998).
Certain alien species are being introduced into many ecosystems worldwide where the
environmental conditions suit their survival, and the result is global homogenization
(Ruesink, 1998).
“Invasions of marine systems are of such magnitude that marine invasions may be leading to
profound ecological changes in the ocean” (Carlton and Geller, 1993). “Transports of entire
coastal planktonic assemblages across oceanic barriers to similar habitats renders bays,
estuaries, and inland waters among the most threatened ecosystems in the world” (Carlton
and Geller, 1993). “Many introduced species may be cryptic, having invaded and gone
unrecognized or been mistaken as native species”, and “the composition of aquatic
communities may be influenced by both recognized and cryptic invasions” (Carlton and
Geller, 1993).
“The structure and biodiversity of the ecosystem itself is also affected through the
introduction of new predators, competitors, disturbers, parasites, and diseases” says Carlton
(2001). “These introductions, playing a game of ecological roulette, lead to vast alterations
in species interactions and changes in nutrient cycling and energy flow, which results in
cascading and unpredictable effects throughout entire communities” (Carlton, 2001).
Further, “the rate of marine introductions in U.S. waters has increased exponentially over
the past 200 years, and there are no signs of leveling off” (Carlton, 2001). In Connecticut,
since 1990, the more prominent new aquatic invasions include:
Asiatic Clam, 1990, lower Connecticut River
Asian shore crab, 1993, Long Island Sound
Hydrilla, 1996 southeastern CT
Zebra mussels, 1998, northwest CT
Water chestnut, 1998, Connecticut and Hockanum Rivers
Tunicate, Didemnum vexillum, 2002, eastern LIS
Parrotfeather, 2003, Madison
Rev. April 25 2004

Degradation of wildlife habitat.
2.2.4. Aesthetic Impacts
2.3. Current and Potential Aquatic Nuisance Species
A list of current and potential aquatic nuisance species for the state of Connecticut was
developed by the three working subcommittees and is provided in Appendix G.15 Section
SELPROTSECNUM below describes the selection of species for priority management
activity.
2.4. Current and Potential Vectors
A number of current and potential vectors were identified by the ANS Working group. A
summary of these vectors is provided in the table below, followed by a comprehensive
discussion. 16
Vectors for CT Aquatic Nuisance Species
General Category
Examples
Natural
Wind
Water fowl, birds
Managed Aquatic Resources
Transportation
WaterDiversions
Fish Ladders
Boats
Hull Fouling
Ballast Water
Seaplanes
Equipment
Dredgers
15
16
Priority
(1:High
2:Med
3:Low)
TODO: once list is finalized, briefly summarize the number and types of taxa
Might want to check with FW group as to whether stocking practices by clubs and state
agencies could potentially have bearing, cleaning and sanitizing stocking equipment, dive
equipment, nets, boat hulls, etc. Need to add in bait buckets and live wells, fouling of hulls,
trailers, and equipment with weeds
Rev. April 25 2004
Construction
Harvesters
Organism Handlers
Bait Trade/Anglers
Aquaculture
Seafood Industry
Aquarium Industry/Owners
Garden Industry/Gardeners
Research Facilities
2.4.1. Natural Vectors
Some spreading of aquatic nuisance species can occur naturally. One known
example are the seeds of the water chestnut, Trapa natans, floating downstream in the
Connecticut River from Massachusetts to Connecticut and forming new populations. Zebra
mussel larvae in their planktonic or veliger form can also be spread by water currents, as can
fragments of various aquatic weeds. However, some natural vectors pose a far lesser risk;
for example, one study shows that it is very unlikely that waterfowl will serve as a transport
vector for zebra mussel larvae17 (Johnson etc, XXXX).
2.4.2. Managed Aquatic Resources18
2.4.3. Transportation Vehicle Vectors
Commercial Shipping
Commercial shipping is often considered the most important means of unintentional
introductions of ANS to coastal and estuarine waters of the United States and worldwide
(Thresher, 2000). The steady rise of global commerce, increased shipping activities, and
shorter transport times suggest that the threat of introductions through this pathway is likely
increasing. To date, the shipping industry has dominated the field of ANS research in the
United States.
Ballast Water: Shipping vessels commonly fill and release ballast tanks with seawater from
harbors as a means of stabilizing loads. Research clearly indicates that live marine
organisms ranging from plankton to adult fish are regularly transported and released via this
pathway (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). US Coast Guard regulations recommending ballast
17
NCB: Need citation for Ladd Johnson study
PAB: Especially for Freshwater Committee. This needs to be developed. Brief description of the role of
fish ladders and water diversions, stocking practices,
18
Rev. April 25 2004
water exchange at sea are currently largely voluntary, with the exception of ships entering
the St. Lawrence Seaway for the Great Lakes, and the Hudson River). However, there is
generally low compliance with these guidelines; in the Northeast, compliance is around 30%
(Pederson, 2003). This has resulted in new rules being promulgated by the USCG, which are
currently undergoing public comment. 19 Meanwhile, the Ballast Water Sub-committee of
the Northeast Regional ANS Panel is working towards the development of a MOU among
the Northeast states and Canadian provinces that will address sensitive areas that should be
‘no discharge’ or ‘no pickup’ zones, delineates alternative exchange sites, addresses the
treatment of sediments in NOBOBs (vessels with no ballast on board), and improves
reporting and communication within the region (J. Pederson, personal communication, May
2004).
Although Connecticut recognizes the threat from ballast water discharge, ports in the state
may receive relatively little ballast water as compared to other major ports in the US due to
local trade patterns (Smith et al., 1999) and Connecticut may actually be a net exporter of
ballast water. According to U.S. Maritime Administration data, two Connecticut ports, New
Haven and Bridgeport, ranked 55th and 86th respectively, among the 100 leading U.S.
coastal, Great Lakes, and inland ports in terms of short tons in 2000 (Pederson, 2003).
Concern over new ANS introductions to Connecticut through ballast water discharge,
limited knowledge of current ballast water practices, and questions regarding the
effectiveness of ballast water exchange point to the following needs:




Assessment of the vessel types currently using Connecticut ports and their ports of
origin
Assessment of the compliance with US Coast Guard ballast water exchange
guidelines among vessels using Connecticut ports.
Risk assessments of threats posed by different shipping facilities in Connecticut.
Increased awareness of the ANS issue to the shipping community.
Hull fouling: Hull fouling may rival ballast water discharge as the leading historical cause
of harmful ANS introductions (Thresher, 2000). Organisms with sedentary life history
stages can attach themselves to the hulls of commercial vessels or become entangled in
submerged ship components. These organisms can survive for extended periods on vessels
of any size and be introduced through dislodging, disentanglement, or by spawning in the
ports to which they are transported.
Increased awareness by the commercial shipping industry of the threats posed by transported
fouling organisms will be necessary to limit introductions through this pathway. In addition,
research into environmentally safe and effective antifouling methods will be necessary as
traditional tributyltin (TBT) antifouling agents are gradually phased out in many countries
worldwide.
A new study to assess recreational boats traveling along Atlantic Coast as vector of ANS
due to hull fouling is on-going (Whitlatch, Osman, and Balcom, 2003). When the results of
19
NB: Need to check Federal Regsiter – recently or soon to be put out for public comment
Rev. April 25 2004
this study become available, the implications of this vector for Long Island Sound will be
further assessed.
Recreational Boating and Fishing
Lakes, ponds, and coastal waters of Connecticut provide recreational opportunities for a
large population of boaters. The transportation of boats and their trailers between water
bodies presents a risk of introduction through hull fouling, entanglement, and water
discharge from bilge pumps and bait buckets (Helquist, 2001; Thresher, 2000). The use of
recreational boats for fishing poses the additional risk of the release of imported bait species
or species that serve as hosts for nonindigenous organisms.
In Connecticut, with a few exceptions, the concern about the spread of zebra mussels from
other states and infested areas in Connecticut is by overland dispersion as opposed to
downstream transport and dispersal of planktonic larvae within connected bodies of water,
which can occur more rapidly (Kraft and Johnson, 2000). An evaluation of the rates of zebra
mussel dispersal to inland lakes separated from source populations by dispersal barriers was
conducted for lakes in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin over a three-year period (Kraft and
Johnson, 2000). The researchers found that lakes with surface areas less than 100 ha had
lower infestation rates than larger lakes, and that regional conditions also affected the
colonization rates, which ranged from 0% to 12% per year among the three states (Kraft and
Johnson, 2000). The priority vector for overland dispersal is the movement of trailered
recreational boats from lake to lake.
Three lakes in western Connecticut – Lake Candlewood, Lake Zoar, and Lake Lillinonah are
part of the Housatonic River drainage basin. These lakes are utilized to generate
hydroelectric power through dams and an aqueduct that feeds Candlewood Lake. Based on
water chemistry and high popularity among boaters and fishermen from Connecticut as well
as from other states, these three lakes are considered “high risks” for zebra mussel
introductions (Balcom and Rohmer, 1994). A 1994 survey by Balcom and Rohmer assessed
the awareness of zebra mussels by boaters or fishermen using the lakes, and assessed their
boat use patterns. Fishermen (95%) had the highest awareness of zebra mussels and threequarters knew that their boats and fishing activities could be a means for spreading zebra
mussels (Balcom and Rohmer, 1994). Pleasure boaters and jet ski operators were far less
aware of the mussels and how they can be spread. The between-uses “drying out” periods
for boats and jet skis ranged from two to eight days on average, although some boats were
used on different water bodies on the same day (Balcom and Rohmer, 1994). Most
fishermen surveyed were not using live bait. 21
Recreational boats are also vectors for aquatic weed fragments – on lines, trailers,
equipment. This has been addressed through new regulation passed in 2003 and has been
for many years the subject of numerous educational efforts focused on the cleaning of boats
21
Does DEP fisheries put any stipulations on fishing derbys that safeguard against introduced species? Bill- didn’t you look into the
sources of the live baitfish in CT with respect to zebra mussels? All came from aquaculture farms in south – no zebra mussels.
Rev. April 25 2004
before leaving any lake launch area, using tools such as a CT Sea Grant video, posters and
signs, stickers, cards inserted in boat registration renewal notices, and alerts included in the
CT DEP boating and fishing annual guides.
2.4.4. Other Equipment Vectors
2.4.5. Organism Handlers
A coalition of scientists from MIT Sea Grant, Williams College, Northeastern University,
and Smith College assessed the risk of introduction through a variety of potential pathways
including seafood companies, aquaculture facilities, bait shops, pet stores, public aquaria,
marine research facilities, and wetland restoration efforts22 . The research team has
developed a database of companies and organizations involved in the transport and trade of
both native and nonindigenous organisms and distributed a survey to industry
representatives to determine the type, quantity, and frequency of nonindigenous species
imports and exports. The survey also inquired about the industry specific handling
techniques that could result in ANS introductions.
Bait Industry/Recreational Fishing: The shipment of live organisms into (and out of) the
state for use as bait may serve as pathways of introduction through their release (fish or
invertebrates). Packing materials are often comprised of plant or algal matter and could
harbor additional organisms.
Anglers sometimes use the Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea, as bait, and whole clams
sometimes survive. These clams, known in the aquarium trade as “pygmy” or “gold” clams,
could also be released by private aquarists into lakes or rivers, or be introduced intentionally
by individuals seeking to start a new fishery (Balcom, 1994).
Researchers believe that it is likely that green crabs were introduced into San Francisco Bay
about 1989 (and the marine snail, Littorina saxatilis, in 1992) when seaweed such as the
brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum─used to pack either live lobsters or bait worms, and
harboring green crabs and other unknown organisms―was discarded (Cohen et al, 1995;
Carlton, 2000).
Seafood Import and Sale
The import, sale, and distribution of live and fresh seafood is a historically important
component of the Connecticut economy. Processing and sale of live fin and shellfish
constitute a risk of ANS introduction through intentional or unintentional release of live
22
Need to cite report – will get from Jim Carlton The New England Transport Vector Study, Smith et al., 1999
Rev. April 25 2004
organisms, parasites, and pathogens. Specific seafood related pathways of introduction
include:
Shellfish waste disposal: Shells and other unwanted materials discarded following shellfish
processing (shucking) might harbor shellfish pathogens or live epiphytes. Disposal of this
material in or near a water body could result in unwanted introductions as well as other
types of water quality impairment, depending on the origin of the shellfish
Live Seafood market: The risk of introduction to local northeast Pacific environments of
nonindigneous marine and estuarine bivalve species commercially available as live seafood
has been shown to be significant (Chapman et al., 2003). Of 24 nonindigenous marine and
estuarine species that were commercially available, 11 have established, self-sustaining
populations in northeast Pacific environments (Chapman et al., 2003). While the use of nonnative species for culturing purposes is weighed based on concerns over the potential escape
and establishment of these species in the wild, displacing or corrupting native species, the
import of live seafood for commercial markets does not receive this same consideration. The
viability of the seafood species was tested by looking at their competence to feed (Chapman
et al., 2003).
In addition to the introduction of the nonnative species themselves, concerns are also raised
about what parasites, diseases, and other organisms these non-native species could be
harboring. The Communications, Education, and Outreach Sub-committee of the Northeast
Regional ANS Panel is planning to investigate and address ANS concerns connected to the
live seafood market through educational materials as part of its 2004-2005 work plan (A.
Smagula, personal communication, May 2004). Connecticut can make use of these
materials when they become available.
Bivalve wet storage: Holding of shellfish in flow-through systems subjects the surrounding
surface waters to pathogens and other organisms that may be contained in discharged
waters. Packing and transport of shellfish in algal or plant material also poses the risk of
introductions through the dispersal of packing materials.23
Creation of new fisheries: Several introductions of aquatic invaders in the United States,
such as the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) on the west coast, and the Northern
snakehead fish (Genus, species) in the Northeast, may have resulted from the intentional
release of species that constitute commercially valuable fisheries in other countries
(Whitlatch et al., 1995)24. Seafood suppliers and commercial and recreational fishers,
unaware of detrimental impacts resulting from their introduction, may be tempted to release
these species into local aquatic systems to establish a self-sustaining population that can be
harvested for consumption, pointing to the need for additional educational efforts specific to
this pathway.
23
24
NB: Dept of Ag will clarify this section
Add citation for snakehead fish
Rev. April 25 2004
Chapman et al. (2003) note that “improved assessments of the live seafood trade as a
potential mechanism for introductions of nonindigenous species are needed”, including the
“development of measures to limit introductions” and “screening of imported species for
invasiveness’. There are people who would sooner release live seafood into the ocean as
eat them, or may intentionally introduce them to start a new fishery without being aware that
permits are required and unlikely to be issued for that purpose.
Aquaculture
Like the seafood industry, aquaculture is an important and growing sector of the Connecticut
economy. It will likely continue to grow as commercial fishermen seek new opportunities in
the face of increasing constraints on wild harvests. For example, a number of lobstermen,
displaced by the lobster die-off of 1999, have diversified their operations and taken up
shellfishing in addition to lobstering, to stabilize their income and enable them to remain
active on the water. Shellfish farming has been occurring in LIS for more than 100 years
and currently about 67,000 acres of leased shellfish grounds are in cultivation in Connecticut
state waters. While intensive culture of both finfish and shellfish reduces environmental
impacts resulting from the harvest of wild stocks, concerns related to water quality
impairment; growth and distribution of pathogens, escape of nonindigenous species, and
genetic dilution indicate the need for careful planning for this industry. The following are
examples of mechanisms for nonindigenous species introductions through intensive
aquaculture operations.
Shellfish seed import: Increasingly, due to poor natural sets of oysters and clams in Long
Island Sound, shellfish seed are commonly grown in local hatcheries or purchased from
approved out-of-state hatcheries. The CT Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Aquaculture
regulates the species of shellfish that may be imported for aquaculture in Connecticut and
the sources of those shellfish. The restrictions in place are to minimize the likelihood of
introducing non-native species of shellfish and any associated pathogens or parasites. There
is the potential for the import of shellfish pathogens and other organisms associated with
shellfish, such as boring organisms, from out of state. Enhanced culture of local seed stocks
in Connecticut, and an enhanced capacity to identify and manage shellfish diseases will be
necessary to minimize the loss of shellfish due to these threats26.
Use of cultch: The Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, needs a clean,hard surfaces on
which to settle and attach, and are particularly attracted to oyster shell. Placement of clean,
dry cultch (shells) in grow-out areas attracts settling juveniles of the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica). The Department of Agriculture has established a program to
purchase shell or other cultch material for deposit on state shellfish beds to enhance the
natural set of oysters. Concerns have been raised over the source and proper disinfections
of cultch material and the potential transport of shellfish pathogens or other associated
nonindigenous species.
26
.Researchers at UCONN developing rapid assessment tools for shellfish parasites??/
Check with de Guise and Frasca.
Rev. April 25 2004
Finfish culture: : Growth and maintenance of finfish in open systems such as raceways,
flow-through tanks, and net pens could expose surrounding aquatic systems to pathogens
associated with cultured fish populations. Cultured fin and shellfish sometimes represent
imported or altered genetic stocks that are selected for maximum growth or some other
desirable trait (i.e., shell shape and color, faster growing). Cultured stocks are usually at a
disadvantage in competing with wild populations. However, interbreeding may dilute the
wild genetic pool, making offspring more poorly adapted to life in natural systems.
Safeguards must be in place to prevent releases of organisms from land-based or marinebased aquaculture systems to prevent threats to the marine resources of the state.
Aquarium/Water Garden Trade
Nonindigenous marine and freshwater organisms can be introduced accidentally or
purposefully after being imported for use in public or private aquaria and water gardens
(Carlton, 2001[[1997??]]; Crow & Hellquist, 2000). The CT DEP [[ TRUE???] prohibits
the sale of most freshwater fish that can over-winter in the wild in temperate climates.
However, freshwater macrophytes available through these industries are often native to
temperate regions, and are selected due to their ability to thrive under adverse environmental
conditions. Of additional concern is the mislabeling of imported organisms, particularly
aquatic plants, which may then be confused with native or innocuous species and released.
Currently, Connecticut’s authority to monitor and regulate sales of invasive plants and
invertebrates through the aquarium and water garden trades is unclear or non-existent.
While [[[???WHO???]] has authority over pet stores, inspections focus on animal health
and safety.
Purchases of species can be made by the Internet – concerns about this vector- who is
regulating this? Can purchase prohibited species, even noxious weeds – under misleading or
different common names, etc.
Research and Supply
Marine and freshwater species can be ordered from research and education supply
companies around the world through catalogue or Internet web sites. While these organisms
are generally supplied for research purposes, multiple companies supply species for use in
home aquaria. Few organism suppliers, including marine labs and research facilities, require
documentation of use and handling practices prior to shipping. Connecticut has limited
capacity to monitor and regulate the import of these species, particularly those that are
obtained through mail order or via the Internet. Control of introductions via this pathway is
likely a federal responsibility, though states can play a role by ensuring that providers
carefully monitor their shipments and provide recommendations for care and handling.
Once organisms are delivered, improper handling techniques may result in the release of
nonindigenous imports. Both lab and field routines present the opportunity for accidental or
Rev. April 25 2004
purposeful release through wastewater discharge, disposal of unwanted organisms, poorly
contained studies, etc. At least one invasion has been documented in Massachusetts via this
pathway (Whitlatch et al., 1995).
The Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, is currently developing guidelines for both
distribution and handling of nonindigenous organisms. Through the implementation of this
plan, Connecticut and the Northeast Regional Panel will undertake steps to ensure that such
management practices are considered for implementation by research facilities and
laboratories maintaining and distributing live aquatic organisms in the region.
2.5. Management Priorities
[[TODO: Develop this section once objectives and tasks finalized.]].
2.5.1. Priority Vectors for CT ANS28
Several of the vectors listed in Section 2.3 above have been given a “High Priority”
designation by the ANS Working Group.
2.5.2. Priority Species29
Based on the analysis in Section 2.1 and 2.2 above, the following taxa have been selected as
priority species for this plan.
2.5.2.1.
Priority Plant Species
Priorities for ranking plant species are based on:
1. Species must be non-indigenous to CT
2. Adequate evidence of naturalization in CT
3. Potential for severity of infestation
4. Difficulty of control; associated costs and benefits of management actions
In addition, species lists from other New England states and New York were reviewed along with
their criteria for listing. IPANE data was also consulted. Federal species lists, publications and
programs were also consulted during this process.
Priority Invasive Species
Cabomba caroliniana
*Egeria densa
*Hydrilla verticillata
Iris pseudocorus
28
Fanwort
Brazilian water-weed
Hydrilla
Yellow Iris
PAB: For each selected vector, need to explain why it was selected as a priority
PAB: For each selected species, need to explain why it was selected as a priority
29
Rev. April 25 2004
Lythrum salicaria
*Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
hybrids
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas minor
Phragmites australis
Potamogeton crispus
*Trapa natans
Purple Loosestrife
Parrot feather
Variable-leaf watermil-foil
Eurasian watermil-foil
Eutrophic water-nymph
Common reed,
(non-indigenous genotypes)
Crispy-leaved pondweed
Water chestnut
* Invasive Species with highest potential for eradication
Potentially Invasive Plant Species
*Butomus umbellatus
Callitriche stagnalis
Glossostigma diandrum
Marsilea quadrifolia
Myosotis scorpiodes
*Nelumbo lutea
Rorippa (Nasturium) microphylla
Rorippa (Nasturium) nasturtium-aquaticum
Flowering rush
Pond water-starwort
Mud mat
European waterclover
Forget-me-not
American water lotus
Onerow watercress
Watercress
* Invasive Species with highest potential for eradication
Potentially Invasive Plant Species If Naturalized in CT; Invasiveness in Connecticut
not yet determined
Eichhornia crassipes
Common water-hyacinth
Nymphoides peltata
Yellow floating heart
Pistia stratiotes
Water lettuce
Salvinia molesta
Giant salvinia
Priorities for site-specific actions:
New non-native invasive plant species detected/found in CT
New locations of already established non-native invasive species.
Populations of already established non-native invasive species under certain circumstances
including: protection of State listed species, protection of significant habitat types (add other
reasons).
2.5.2.2.
Priority Freshwater Species
Zebra mussels
Water quality data has been utilized to determine the invasion potential of zebra mussels in
Connecticut (Murray et al., 1993). Using calcium ion concentration in surface waters to
predict potential habitat and invasion rates, Murray et al. (1993) classified Connecticut’s
Rev. April 25 2004
fresh waters into zones of potential zebra mussel threat. They determined that the
Housatonic River drainage basin and its associated hardwater lakes in western Connecticut,
which run along a limestone valley, are most likely to support and sustain a population of
zebra mussels. Indeed, in 1998, a sustainable population of zebra mussels was found in East
Twin Lake, Salisbury, a waterbody that has the highest calcium levels of all lakes in
Connecticut (N. Balcom, personal communication, March 2004).
The Connecticut River is considered to be the easternmost water body in Connecticut that
could support zebra mussels, even though the calcium levels were less than optimal (10-12
mg/L). Other waterbodies with marginal Dreissena habitat are located in the southwestern
and southcentral parts of the state (Murray et al., 1993).
A 1994 survey by Balcom and Rohmer assessed the awareness of zebra mussels by boaters
or fishermen using the lakes, and assessed their boat use patterns. Fishermen (95%) had the
highest awareness of zebra mussels and three-quarters knew that their boats and fishing
activities could be a means for spreading zebra mussels (Balcom and Rohmer, 1994).
Pleasure boaters and jet ski operators were far less aware of the mussels and how they can
be spread. The between-uses “drying out” periods for boats and jet skis ranged from two to
eight days on average, although some boats were used on different water bodies on the same
day (Balcom and Rohmer, 1994).
2.5.2.3.
Priority Marine Species
Established Coastal and Estuarine Species in Connecticut
1. European Green Crab, Carcinus maenus
The green crab was introduced to the western shores of the Atlantic more than 150 years
ago. In Connecticut, it is currently sold for bait, providing some economic benefit. However,
the green crab has been blamed for the collapse of the soft-shell clams resource in New
England and the maritime provinces of Canada, and more recently has caused losses as high
as 50% in Manila clam stocks in California (Lerner and Heimowitz, 2000). Once quite
abundant in Long Island Sound, this introduced species has been replaced by the Asian
shore crab as the most abundant crab species in Long Island Sound. Nevertheless, should
Connecticut develop a soft-shell clam industry in the future, the green crab would pose a
predatory threats, and therefore remains a priority species.
2. Asian Shore Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus
The Asian shore crab, first found in Long Island Sound in 1993, is now the dominant crab
species in the rocky intertidal zone, with densities exceeding 100 crabs m-2 (Lohrer et al.,
2000). Researchers surmise that it most likely did not competitively displace resident crabs
from the Sound’s rocky intertidal habitat, but instead appears to occupy a habitat that is
Rev. April 25 2004
marginal to and/or underutilized by other resident species, very similar to its native habitat
of cobble and boulders (Lohrer et al, 2000; Lohrer, 2000). Densities of green crab recruits
and juveniles have declined in the rocky intertidal of Long Island Sound, as the numbers of
Hemigrapsus have increased (Lohrer, 2000). The Asian shore crab is tolerant of a wide
range of physical conditions and is an opportunistic omnivore feeder with a large
reproductive capacity, producing several broods per year of >40,000 eggs per brood (Lohrer
et al., 2000). The crab can readily consume juvenile bivalves (hard clams, soft-shell clams,
oysters, and blue mussels less than < 20mm in shell length), as well as tiny snails, worms,
crabs, barnacles, and red (Chondrus crispus) and green algae (Enteromorpha spp.)
(Brousseau et al., 2000; Lohrer et al., 2000; Lohrer and Whitlatch, 1997).
3. Codium, Codium fragile spp. tomentosoides
Codium (Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides): The green algae Codium fragile was first
documented in the Gulf of Maine in 1964 at Boothbay Harbor, Maine (Harris and
Mathieson, 1999; Boerner 1972; Coffin and Stickney 1966). Codium can now be found in
rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada to North
Carolina. Where found, Codium can radically change community composition, structure,
and function (Harris and Mathieson, 1999). It has been blamed for lower abundances of
limpets, chitons, and brittle stars in Nova Scotia (Scheibling, 2001). This algae has also
devastated kelp beds off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Maine, and disrupted cyclical
synergistic interactions between kelp and several sea urchin species (Scheibling, 2001).
These disruptions are expected to have major impacts on subtidal systems, but they are not
yet well documented or understood (Harris and Mathieson, 1999). Impacts may also include
change in water flow and sedimentation rate, lower water and light qualities, altered food
webs, and lowered productivity. Ecologically and economically important species such as
finfish, sea urchins, and lobsters may be affected, as they utilize kelp for food, habitats, and
nurseries (Scheibling, 2001).
4. Ascidians (Tunicates)
Ascidians: Also called tunicates or sea squirts, ascidians are encrusting organisms that are
able to rapidly colonize marine substrates as solitary organisms or in colonies. Impacts of
these organisms include competition with native species for suitable substrate, direct
impacts to organisms on which they settle and attach, consumption of planktonic larval
forms of other species including oysters, and fouling of vessels and coastal infrastructure
(docks, hulls, lines, pipes, traps, etc.). Seven nonindigenous species of tunicates have been
documented in Long Island Sound, predominantly east of the Connecticut River: Styela
clava, Styela canopus, Diplosoma listerianum, Ascidiella aspersa, Botryllus schlosseri,
Botrylloides violaceous, and Didemnum vexillum.
Concern has been raised by these tunicates’ ability to rapidly spread over vast geographic
areas. Styela and Botrylloides were documented to have spread from Connecticut to Maine
Rev. April 25 2004
in fewer than 10 years (Whitlatch and Osman, 2000). Research into means of transport and
control technologies will be necessary to manage impacts from these organisms.
The sea squirt, Didemnum vexillum, was discovered in eastern Long Island Sound in 2002
(R. Whitlatch, personal communication, February 2004). It is a highly invasive colonial
tunicate that alters marine habitats and threatens to interfere with fishing, aquaculture, and
other coastal and offshore activities. The first documentation of this species in offshore
waters occurred in 2003 when researchers found an extensive and dense mat of the animals
on the northern edge of Georges Bank, about 160 miles off Cape Cod (NOAA News Online,
2003). The 6.5 sq. mile mat of sea squirts, at a depth of 135 feet, is covering the hard sea
bottom and the organisms that live there. In coastal waters of New England and California,
Didemnum fouls coastal structures and seabeds. In New Zealand, an infestation by a similar
tunicate threatened green mussel aquaculture operations in 1991 (NOAA News Online,
2003). This species of tunicate reproduces both sexually and asexually. While the larvae are
fragile and short-lived, fragments of the mats can float and reattach to a hard surface
somewhere else. The sea squirts also exude a noxious substance that discourages predation
and fouling of the mat (NOAA News Online, 2003).
5. Pathogens (include all shellfish pathogens)
Shellfish Pathogens: Not only is there concerns about pathogens themselves,there are
concerns about non-native species of shellfish that may serve as reservoirs for other nonnative organisms or pathogens. The following are several examples of important shellfish
pathogens in Connecticut:

MSX (Haplosporidian nelsoni) first documented in Long Island Sound in ….

Dermocystidium (Perkinsus marinus): Another eastern oyster pathogen,
Dermocystidium, or Dermo, was first documented in Long Island Sound in ----As with MSX and SSO, eradication of this pathogen is likely impossible. Minimizing
contamination will require careful screening of oyster seed, approval of sources, and
monitoring of existing oyster growing areas.



QPX (Quahog Parasite Unknown) was first documented – In LIS?
SSO (Haplosporidian costalis) -in LIS?
QPX, Quahog Parasite X – recently recognized disease agent in hard clams,
Mercenaria mercenaria, not yet named, member of phylum Labyrinthulomycota, a
group of microorganisms that live in marine and estuarine environments on micro
and macro algae and detritus (National Academy of Sciences, 2004). Sometimes
pathogenic, associated with mortality of mollusks in captivity or under culture,
particularly in more northern culture areas (Ford, 2001).QPX outbreaks appear to be
caused by an enzootic parasite, which may cause no obvious problems in its resident
hosts, but is highly pathogenic to nonlocal stocks of same species (National
Academy of Sciences, 2004). Currently, its range extends from New Brunswick,
Rev. April 25 2004

Canada, where it was first documented in 1960, to New Jersey and Virginia where it
has been found within the last five years (Ragone et al., 1997).
Neoparamoeba pemiquidensis (Paramoeba) – this parasitic paramoeba was
discovered in the nervous tissues of dead and dying American lobsters, Homarus
americanus, in 1999 as the lobster resource in Long Island Sound suffered a
significant mortality event (Van Patten and French, 2000 – get proper citation). It
has subsequently been found in water samples and its origin is cryptogenic. (Add
more??)
Threatening Coastal and Estuarine Species
Need to prioritize species – high, medium, low
1. Veined Rapa Whelk, Rapana venosa
This predatory gastropod was first found in 1998, in the Virginia waters of the lower
Chesapeake Bay near Hampton Roads (Mann and Waters, 1998). The snail is a predator
of bivalve mollusks. Even at a young age, rapa whelks are able to consume mussels,
oysters, razor clams, and young hard clams, and will prey on increasingly larger sizes of
oysters and hard clams as they mature (Harding et al., 2003).
The rapa whelk’s native range includes the East China Sea to the Yellow Sea to the Sea
of Japan, and the snail was most likely introduced into the Chespeake Bay through
ballast water discharge (Harding et al. 2003). Egg masses have been found, indicating
the snails are reproducing (Harding et al., 2003). The rapa whelk begins to reproduce in
its first year, producing millions of larval snails. This is in contrast to the native
predatory gastropods, the channeled and knobbed whelks, which begin reproducing after
seven years and only produce 100s of offspring each year (Harding et al., 2003). Another
difference between the native and invader snails is that the rapa whelk’s thick shell
makes it essentially safe from predators at a shell length of 100-120 mm, while the
native snails have thinner shells and are subject to predation throughout their lives
(Harding et al., 2003).
This species prefers salinities greater than 15 ppt, and can inhabit environments with
water temperatures ranging from 4o to 30o C; requiring several weeks to a few months at
temperatures between 18o – 20o C in order to reproduce (Harding et al., 2003) VIMS
researchers predict that these snails could survive in coastal waters from southern
Florida to north of Cape Cod, including Long Island Sound (Harding et al., 2003).
2. European Flat Oyster, Ostrea edulis
This oyster species is present in the North Shore waters of Massachusetts as well as in
Rhode Island (DMF News, 1996; J. Carlton, personal communication, 2004) and is
likely to spread to Long Island Sound. There are questions about how Ostrea edulis and
the native Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica might compete for space and food. More
importantly, flat oysters such as O. edulis are hosts for Bonamia ostreae, a parasite that
infects and kills the oysters (Bay Journal, March 2004). While Bonamia at this time
does not appear to affect the Eastern oysters, scientists, resource managers, and shellfish
Rev. April 25 2004
growers are concerned that the parasite might “jump” over to C. virginica in time, as it
apparently has with Crassostrea ariakensis (see below).
3. Suminoe Oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis
As the populations and harvests of the native Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica¸have
dropped to all-time lows, the states of Virginia and Maryland are seeking ways to restore
the oyster industry in the Chesapeake Bay. Thepossibility of introducing the Suminoe
oyster is being considered because limited laboratory tests on sterile Suminoe oysters
have shown that the foreign species grows faster and does not seem to be affected by
Dermo or MSX, oyster diseases that devastated the native Eastern oyster (Blankenship,
2004). Studies show that C. ariakensis has rapid growth, high survival and low infection
rates after exposure to H. nelsoni and P. marinus in various Virginia waters (National
Academy of Sciences, 2004). However, scientists are concerned about a number of
unanswered questions, including: how will C. ariakensis react in the Bay, whether an
introduction will succeed, and how the Suminoe oyster and Eastern oyster might
compete for space and food (Blankenship, 2004). Two reviews of existing data have
been conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in 2003 (National Academy of
Sciences, 2004) and the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Advisory Committee
in February 2004 (Blankenship, 2004). In both cases, researchers felt that it would be
about five years before relevant research could be completed. Researchers also noted
that an introduction of C. ariakensis into the Bay would “likely to be irreversible” and
that it is inevitable that C. ariakensis, once established in the Bay, would spread beyond
the Bay.
If C. ariakensis is introduced into the Chesapeake Bay, it is quite likely it will at some
time make its way to Long Island Sound. The concerns are similar to those for O. edulis,
and include competition for space and food with native Eastern oyster, and possible
transmission of parasites and diseases that would harm our native oyster industry.
Scientists are concerned that even if C. ariakensis is not directly affected by the oyster
diseases MSX and Dermo, they might act as a reservoir or a sink for those diseases
(Blankenship, 2004). Further cause for concern is that C. ariakensis was recently found
to be affected by one or more previously unknown species of the parasite, Bonamia, by
researchers at VIMS (Bay Journal, March 2004). These species are implicated in the
massive die-off of C. ariakensis oysters being used in an aquaculture experiment in
North Carolina in 2003 (Bay Journal, March 2004). Additional questions raised about
these species include how the parasites spread to and from the Suminoe oyster, and
whether they can survive in low salinity or only high salinity (Bay Journal, March
2004). Vectors include humans, boat hulls, and currents.
4.
Wakame, Undaria pinnatifida
This coldwater kelp is currently found along the U.S. west coast, Japan, and New
Zealand. If it is introduced to the northwest Atlantic, it has the potential to displace the
native sugar kelp, Laminaria saccarina. This could change the benthic structure and
ecosystem. It has both macroscopic and microscopic stages. Transport vectors include
Rev. April 25 2004
humans and boats.. This kelp species was intentionally introduced off the coast of
Normandy. Worried about naitv shellfish populations, recently, New Zealand spent
$500,000 to eradicate the alga when it was found on the wooden hull of a Korean vessel
traveling in New Zealand waters. A wooden Korean vessel likely introduced this kelp
species to Argentina also.
5. Grateloupia turtuturu
This red algae can grow up to 1 m in length, smothering out resident fauna like the red
algal Irish moss, Chondrus crispus. It is currently found throughout Narragansett Bay,
and also at Montauk Point, Long Island, NY. Vectors include boat hulls, and humans.
6. Sargassum muticum
This Asian species of seaweed was introduced intentionally, and is now found in Europe
and the west coast of the U.S. It dominates the low littoral communities and upper
subtidal region, and has a smothering effect.
7. Hemigrapsus penncillatus
8. Styela plicata
A big Asian tunicate species, it grows to be about 3” long and golf ball size. A
bioflouling organism, it is currently found on the U.S. west coast and in Chesapeake
Bay.
9. Pathogens posing Fish or Human Health Hazards?
10. Harmful Algal Blooms
Brown tide (potential) – also affect bird populations (S. Shumway)
Red Tide – public health hazard
11. Pfiesteria (potential) – Senjie Lin has found cysts in LIS although there have been no
outbreaks (possible if climate changes also talk to S Shumway)
12. Cyanobacteria on stripers in Chesapeake Bay (potential – only affect stripers); also carry
fish TB – striper is the vector, humans handling the fish could be affected
13. Ship worms,Teredo navalis? – causes damage to wood docks and ships – about $200
million per year (Cohen and Carlton, 1995)
Rev. April 25 2004
3. EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS31
Relevant programs that currently address the ANS problem at the federal, regional, and state
level are described briefly in the following paragraphs with emphasis on those that have been
active in Connecticut and are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this plan. Where
possible, the ANS Working Group has developed management actions based on expansion of the
capabilities of these existing programs, particularly at the state and regional level.
A table of relevant laws and regulations can be found in Appendix X.
A table of existing organizations that are or may become involved in the management of
ANS can be found in Appendix XX.
3.1. International Authorities and Programs
While international organizations have limited authority in the United States and countries
worldwide, organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (below) have
taken a lead role in developing policies and guidelines relating to international trade and
commerce. Clearly, invasive species management is an international issue, and limiting
uncontrolled global transport of ANS will require some reliance on these agencies to shape
and implement management strategies.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
The IMO was established in 1948 to address safety and pollution mitigation measures for the
international shipping industry. The United States plays a leadership role on the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which is comprised of all 161 Member States, 37
Intergovernmental Organizations, and 61 Non-Governmental Organizations. The MEPC is
empowered to consider any matter within the scope of the IMO concerned with prevention and
control of pollution from ships, including ballast water management and the transport of ANS.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.868(2) was adopted in 1993 and establishes international
guidelines for the control of ballast water, which have served as a model for ballast water
management in many countries.
3.2. Federal Authorities and Programs
At the federal level, no single agency has authority over the management of ANS. Rather,
multiple agencies have developed invasive species programs, largely in reaction to severe
31
[[PAB NOTE: The purpose of this section is to describe the status quo. What resources are and are not
currently available to address the problems described in Section 2 above. Most of the current text related to
international federal level has been lifted directly from the MA plan. ]
Rev. April 25 2004
ANS issues. Effective invasive species management in the United States will require federal
agencies to expand existing efforts to deter nonindigenous species introductions through the
oversight of international and interstate trade and commerce and associated transport vectors
such as commercial shipping and the trade of organisms via mail order and the Internet
(Section III).
The federal government first responded to the invasive species issue in reaction to the
devastating economic and ecological impacts of the zebra mussel introduction to the Great
Lakes. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA,
PL 101-646), amended and broadened in scope as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,
calls for the development of state aquatic nuisance species management plans and outlines the
following objectives (Section 1002):
1) To prevent further unintentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species.
2) To coordinate federally funded research, control efforts and information dissemination.
3) To develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent, monitor,
and control unintentional introductions.
4) To understand and minimize ecological damage.
5) To establish a program of research and technology development to assist state
governments.
Section 1201 of NANPCA establishes the federal interagency ANS Task Force. The ANS Task
Force is charged with coordinating federal aquatic nuisance species management efforts with the
efforts of the private sector and other North American interests. The ANS Task Force is
responsible for initiating research programs, planning initiatives, and policy direction for the
prevention, detection and monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species, and operates
through regional panels as well as issue-specific working groups that address particularly
problematic invaders.
An additional element of NANPCA is the establishment of ballast management regulations.
Under Section 1101 of the Act, the US Secretary of Transportation is charged with developing
mandatory ballast water guidelines for the Great Lakes (and later for the upper Hudson River).
This task was delegated to and completed by the US Coast Guard, the lead federal agency for
ballast water management issues. Amendments to NANPCA in 1996 directed the Secretary to
extend ballast water management regulations to the remainder of US waters. Developed and
implemented by the Coast Guard in July of 1999, the Voluntary National Guidelines apply to
waters outside of the Great Lakes Ecosystem. This voluntary program consists of a suite of
ballast water management (BWM) guidelines, and includes a requirement that all vessels
entering US waters from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone file a BWM report. A third
Coast Guard related element of the 1996 amendments was the publication of voluntary
guidelines aimed at controlling the spread of ANS through recreational activities (i.e., boating,
fishing, SCUBA diving, etc.) The Coast Guard worked with the ANS Task Force to complete
these guidelines in December of 2000. Need to update – are regulations going mandatory in
2005?
Federal programs dealing with nonindigenous species that existed prior to the passage of
NANPCA are largely related to interstate and international transport of known pest plants and
Rev. April 25 2004
animals and the protection of valuable horticultural, aquacultural, or endangered species. These
laws include:




The Lacey Act of 1900 (and amendments): The Lacey Act establishes a permitting
process administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regulating the importation and
transport of vertebrates, mollusks, and crustacea that are "injurious to human beings, to
the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of
the United States.” The Secretary of the Interior maintains the Injurious Species List.
The Federal Seed Act of 1939 (and amendments): This act prohibits the importation of
seeds of unknown type and origin by ensuring the purity and proper labeling of seed
imports.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (and amendments): The Endangered Species Act
can be used to authorize the eradication or control of ANS in the case that a listed species
is threatened by the invader's presence or spread.
The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (amending the Noxious Weed Act of 1974). The
Plant Protection Act gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) the authority to prohibit the import and interstate
transport of species included on the Noxious Weed List developed by the USDA. In
cooperation with state agricultural departments, APHIS annually designates priority
agricultural pest species for annual intensive monitoring efforts.
The most recent invasive species initiative developed at the federal level came in February of
1999 with Executive Order 13112. This order establishes the National Invasive Species Council,
a federal interagency organization charged with the biennial development of a National Invasive
Species Management Plan.
Federal Programs and Activities
In addition to the regulations outlined in the above legislation, several government agencies have
recognized the severity of the invasive species problem, and have adopted the management and
control of invasive species as priority programs areas.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS has traditionally been the lead in dealing with invasive species at the federal level
and is co-chair of the federal ANS Task Force. Thus, the USFWS provides technical assistance
to states in developing invasive species control plans. The USFWS has been active in ANS
management activities in Massachusetts through the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge
Invasive Plant Control Initiative and control efforts at other refuges within Massachusetts. In
addition to these activities, the USFWS administers grants that can be used for invasive species
management through the Wildlife Restoration Program (Appendix C).
The US Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS has acknowledged its role in nonindigenous species management in a White Paper on
Invasive Species, in which the goal of developing new strategies for the prevention, early
detection, and prompt eradication of new invaders is identified. The USGS further identifies
Rev. April 25 2004
information management and documentation of invasions as a priority for the agency. In
keeping with this objective, the USGS has developed and maintains an extensive, spatially
referenced database of nonindigenous species, which is accessible via the Internet
(http://nas.er.usgs.gov/).
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Through the APHIS Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS), the USDA works with state
agricultural agencies to monitor for agricultural pests and noxious weeds. Individual state
monitoring programs are directed by a state survey committee, which is made up of
representatives from state agencies and scientific institutions. Each year, the state survey
committee reviews an APHIS recommended list of potential pests for survey (the Noxious Weed
List), and chooses one or more for annual surveillance efforts. Target species may include
weeds, plant diseases, insects, and other invertebrates. APHIS also cooperates with the US
Customs Service to limit the import of specified plant pests and their hosts into the country.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Long Island Sound National Estuary
Program
Insert info – from CCMP
Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, NOAA National Sea Grant / University of
Connecticut
The National Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 to foster research, outreach,
and education for the promotion of sustainable development of coastal regions. The Program has
played an active role in research on invasive species issues in the United States through projects
such as the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse, the National Zebra Mussel
Training Initiative, and a competitive grant program for invasive species research and outreach
projects.
Connecticut Sea Grant has been a leader for aquatic invasive outreach and education efforts in
Connecticut since 1991, coordinating the ad hoc state Zebra Mussel Task Force, producing the
Northeast regional newsletter, Aquatic Exotics News, and co-sponsoring two Northeast regional
conferences on nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in held in Connecticut in 1995 and in
Vermont in 1997. Connecticut Sea Grant is an active member of the Northeast Regional ANS
Panel, serving on both the Communication, Education and Outreach and Ballast Water subcommittees, participated in the National Zebra Mussel Training Initiative, and has produced
signs, fact sheets, and a video on zebra mussels and aquatic weeds. Connecticut Sea Grant, along
with CT DEP, secured the federal grant funding that served as the impetus for the development
of this management plan for Connecticut.
3.3. Regional Authorities and Programs
Rev. April 25 2004
Northeast Regional Panel of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Section 1203 of the National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 directs the
federal ANS Task Force to encourage the development and use of regional panels to:
1) Identify priorities for each region with respect to aquatic nuisance species.
2) Make recommendations to the Task Force regarding education, monitoring
(including inspection), prevention, and control of nuisance species.
3) Coordinate, whenever possible, other aquatic nuisance species program activities in
each region.
4) Develop an emergency response strategy for federal, state, and local entities for
stemming new invasions of aquatic nuisance species in the region.
5) Provide advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of
preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species infestations.
6) Submit an annual report to the Task Force describing activities within the region
related to aquatic nuisance species prevention, research, and control.
The Northeast Panel was recognized by the federal ANS Task Force in July of 2001. It
includes state, federal and regional government representatives, as well as non-government
organizations from the states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, and Quebec. Once formally recognized by the federal ANS Task Force, each
regional panel becomes eligible for limited funding for implementation.
The Panel’s Mission is to protect the marine and freshwater resources of the Northeast from
invasive ANS through commitment and cohesive coordinated action. The goals of the Panel
are:
1) Prevent the introduction, establishment, and dispersal of invasive ANS in the Northeast.
2) Control the spread of invasive ANS already introduced into the Northeast.
3) Mitigate the harmful ecological, economic, social, and public health impacts associated
with the introduction, establishment, or spread of invasive ANS in the Northeast.
The Panel currently has active sub-committees addressing Policy and Legislation, Science
and Technology, Communications, Education, and Outreach, and Ballast Water.
The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Invasive Plant Control
Initiative
The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge developed an Invasive Plant Control
Initiative in response to the threat to natural diversity posed by invasive plant species. This
initiative examines the problem of freshwater invasive plants from a regional perspective and
identifies tasks that will enhance the capability within the region to address identified issues.
In cooperation with a number of partners, the Refuge used a grant from the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to develop a strategic plan discussing the state of the issue, outlining future
Rev. April 25 2004
actions for the Connecticut River Watershed and Long Island Sound, and recommending funding
for high priority invasive plant control projects in 1998. The Connecticut River Watershed/Long
Island Sound Invasive Plant Control Initiative Strategic Plan was completed and distributed in
March of 1999. This plan identifies problem plants in the watershed, gives a detailed description
of the efforts of agencies and organizations working to mitigate the problem, and makes
recommendations for additional management activities.
As part of the initiative, a partnership of federal, state, municipal, business and non-profit
groups formed to control water chestnut (Trapa natans), a recent invader to the watershed.
Components of the strategy include mechanical harvesting of the source population and
organizing volunteers to monitor water bodies for satellite populations within the watershed,
hand-pulling them when found.
The USFWS has also initiated a focus on zebra mussels for the Connecticut River watershed
(M. Babione, personal communication, May 2004). Water quality data were compared to
ranges identified as suitable for zebra mussels, and a GIS model constructed that included
water quality, river width, boat access, and distance to other infestations to assess invasion
potential, and then included other factors such as distance downstream that could be
affected, presence of special focus areas, and sensitive aquatic invertebrates to assess
invasion importance. The model highlighted a number of areas along the Connecticut River
and tributaries within its watershed that could support zebra mussels. There are more than
1,000 dams with in the watershed, which could provide ideal substrate for zebra mussel
reefs. The model is being used to identify areas for early detection and monitoring.
The AIS Working Group has incorporated actions in the Connecticut AIS Plan that address needs
identified in the Connecticut River Watershed/Long Island Sound Strategic Plan including the
development of priority species lists, education of specific stakeholders regarding the invasive
plants problem, and coordination of resources within and across New England States. The AIS
Working Group will continue to work with proponents of the Invasive Plant Control Initiative
and the zebra mussel program to ensure that management efforts in the Connecticut River
Watershed are coordinated with state and regional initiatives.
The New England Invasive Plant Group (NIPGro)
In keeping with its aquatic invasive plant management priorities, the Silvio O. Conte Refuge has
taken the lead in the establishment and administration of both MIPG (above) and the New
England Invasive Plant Group (NIPGro). NIPGro is a networking link among the organizations
and agencies involved with terrestrial and freshwater aquatic invasive plant issues in the region.
Priorities of the group include:
1) Minimizing new introductions to the region by instituting an early warning and response
system.
2) Using the NIPGro network to exchange information, share educational materials, identify
research needs, and establish links with researchers.
3) Developing standardized criteria for creating priority species lists.
4) Coordinating control efforts.
Rev. April 25 2004
Funding from the US Department of Agriculture is supporting the development of an Invasive
Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE; <http:ipane.org>), which will be the foundation of an early
warning and response system for the region. The University of Connecticut is overseeing the
Atlas work, assisted by the New England Wild Flower Society. Connecticut and the Northeast
Regional Panel will work closely with NIPGro on various AIS management issues, and, in
particular, on the sharing and organization of invasive species distribution information.
3.4. State Authorities and Programs
The Connecticut State Legislature has banned 7 aquatic plants and has authorized the
formation of the Invasive Plant Council (IPC). The Council will recommend a list of
invasive plants in Connecticut and a list of additional plants recommended for banning. The
Council will also be studying how a ban on sale of plants can be implemented to extend to
mail order or Internet sales. The current proposal to the state includes a funding
recommendation to provide for money needed to publish and distribute the list of invasive
and potentially nvasive plants as adopted by the Council. It also recommends that funds be
provided to the DEP to extend its Emergency Rapid Response Plan to eliminate new
infestations of invasives. Additional legislation may be sought (if needed) to authorize the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) to inspect nurseries and water garden
outlets for invasive aquatic plants and sale of invasive plants that may be recommended and
approved for banning. The IPC has recommended that the legislature authorize the Dept of
Agriculture to inspect pet stores for sale of invasive aquatic plants for aquarium use.
CT Department of Environmental Protection
CT Department of Agriculture
The Connecticut Department of Agriculture is the lead state agency responsible fore
shellfish and aquaculture. The Bureau of Aquaculture and Laboratory administers the
following programs:
Shellfish Sanitation:
 This program is required to assure safe shellfishing areas for commercial and
recreational harvesting, protection of public health, and to maintain certification and
compliance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Shellfish
Sanitation Program.
 The Bureau performs coastal sanitary surveys along Connecticut’s 250 mile
shoreline and monitors shellfish growing areas in Long Island Sound for the
protection of public health by collecting and testing seawater and shellfish meat
samples in order to determine levels of bacteria, toxins, and Paralytic Shellfish
Poisoning.



Rev. April 25 2004
The Bureau, in response to sanitary survey results, posts areas closed to shellfishing,
performs hydrographic dye dilution studies, performs environmental investigations,
prepares memorandum of understanding for conditional shellfishing areas, reviews
applications for shellfish harvest operations, and initiates emergency closures.
The Bureau is responsible for the sanitary inspection and certification of shellfish
dealers involved in harvesting, shucking, depuration, repacking and reshipping of
fresh and frozen oysters, clams, and mussels. All shellfish processing and handling
operations are inspected at least twice a year as required by FDA. Harvesting boats,
vehicles, facilities, equipment, product handling procedures and recordkeeping are
checked for compliance and operational licenses are reviewed and appropriate action
taken.
The Bureau assists other state, municipal, and federal heaqlth officials in
investigating foodborne illnesses, product recall, and embargo.
Laboratory:
 Tests and analyses performed by the laboratory include bacterial levels in
seawater and shellfish, various contaminants, marine biotoxin analysis, and
shellfish and fish pathology.
Shellfish Habitat Management & Restoration
 Program provides a mechanism for shellfish aquaculturalists to obtain
underwater lands in Long Island Sound for the purpose of planting,
cultivating,and harvesting shellfish and serves as a foundation for the State’s
multi-million dollar shellfish industry.
 The Bureau provides for the cultivation and propagation of shellfish through the
management and restoration of state-owned natural clam and oyster beds. As part
of this program, the Bureau plants cultch, maintains spawn stock, monitors
predators and disease, and makes assessments of natural disaster impacts.
Aquaculture Development and Coordination:
 This program is responsible for planning and coordinating aquaculture development
including development and oversight of legislation, review of NPDES and Coastal
Zone applicatios, liaison between industry and the regulatory community, promotion,
marketing technology transfer and assistance, communications, and addressing
issues of regional and national concern.
CT Department of Health & Public Services
CT Ag Experiment Stations???
CT Department of Transportation
Connecticut General Assembly/
3.5. Local Authorities and Programs
Municipal Shellfish Commissions?
Harbor Management Commissions?
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
4. GOALS
[[ PAB NOTE: The purpose of this section is to articulate the societal values being
supported by this plan, and the general framework of the plan. ]]
The overarching goal of the CT Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan is to implement a
coordinated approach to minimizing the ecological and socio-economic impacts of aquatic
invasive species in the state of Connecticut.
OR
The overarching goal of the CT Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan is to fully implement a
coordinated approach to minimizing the ecological, socioeconomic, and public health
impacts of aquatic nuisance species in the marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments of Connecticut by 2009.
In order to address this goal, specific actions will be undertaken that will be focused on a
key set of objectives. These are listed below, and described more fully in Section 5.
Objectives of the CT ANS Management Plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Coordinate the activities of the various authorities.
Prevent the introduction of ANS into CT
Detect new and monitor existing occurrences of ANS in CT
Control the spread of ANS in CT
Increase public awareness and knowledge
Address research needs
Introduce legislation / adopt regulations
Secure adequate funding and staff to implement management objectives
Rev. April 25 2004
5. OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, ACTIVITIES AND COSTS
Rev. April 25 2004
1 OBJECTIVE 1 : COORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
VARIOUS AUTHORITIES.
1.1
SA: Establish coordinating entities.
Issue Addressed: Current ANS management efforts in Connecticut have not been fully
coordinated across agencies. Dedicates staff will be necessary for effective implementation
of ANS control strategies.
1.1.1 TASK: Establish a permanent ANS Coordinating Committee. This
committee would be composed of representatives of authorities and
programs in CT dealing with ANS, as well as representatives of
constituency groups likely to be affected by such programs. This
group would meet semi-annually to review priority species and sites for
management and to coordinate overall species control efforts.
Establish a full-time, statewide ANS coordinator. The person in this
position, (most likely to be a CT DEP employee), will be responsible for
coordinate the efforts of agencies and other programs.
1.2 SA: Coordinate Connecticut ANS management activities.
Issue addressed: Allocation of limited resources for ANS management will require the
ongoing designation of priority species. As this plan is implemented and monitoring efforts
enhanced, improved knowledge of ANS distribution and impacts must be used to
continually update management priorities.
1.2.1 TASK: Develop statewide ANS lists. Work with the IPC, state agencies
and other ANS related organizations in CT to develop an initial list of
ANS. Develop a list of species pending evaluation. Develop a list of
species to be banned. Annually review the species lists and update as
needed.
1.2.2 TASK: Develop statewide vector lists. Work with the IPC, state
agencies and other ANS related organizations in CT. Annually review
the species lists and update as needed.
1.2.3 TASK: Develop statewide ANS research priorities. Work with the IPC,
state agencies and other ANS related organizations in CT. Annually
review the species lists and update as needed.
1.2.4 TASK: The ANS Coordinating Committee will develop protocols for
additions and deletions to the priority ANS lists and appoint a
Rev. April 25 2004
subcommittee of biologists with expertise in aquatic organisms to
make recommendations for list changes.
1.2.5 TASK: The ANS Coordinating Committee will work with the DEP Natural
Diversity Data Base, Lakes and Ponds Management Program, Fisheries
Division, academics and non-profit environmental organizations to
develop protocols for developing a priority list of sites for management
action each year in order to control marine and freshwater ANS.
Control of invasive species on sites where they co-exist with federal or
state endangered and threatened species will constitute high priorities
for action. YEAR ONE.
1.3
SA: Coordinate with other states and nations to prevent interstate and
international transport of ANS.
1.4
SA: Coordinate with federal agencies to develop regional priorities and
sound management activities at the federal level.
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
2 OBJECTIVE: PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF ANS INTO CT
2.1
SA: Assess the risks and types of introduction through priority transport
vectors.
Issue addressed: Currently, little is known regarding the specific role transport vectors play
in ANS introduction and spread in Connecticut and the region. Careful study of species
introductions through these vectors, followed by efforts to communicate with related
industry representatives, will be a critical first step in reducing ANS transport.
2.1.1 TASK: Assess information on vectors from the New England Transport
Vector Study conducted in 2002 (YEAR ONE). Adapt the information to
Connecticut. Identify additional research that is needed to fully assess
Connecticut’s current and expected vectors. Develop lists of species
imported to and exported from Connecticut as well as handling
practices that pose a risk of introductions through:
The seafood industry
Trade of species for bait (fish and invertebrates).
The aquarium trade
Marine research
Aquatic organism suppliers
2.2
SA: Coordinate with industry representatives to minimize introductions
of invaders through priority transport vectors.
Issue addressed: Effective management of AIS will require that industries that may serve as
transport vectors be involved in AIS prevention efforts.
2.2.1 TASK: Convene focus groups made up of representatives from
industries identifies as potential pathways for introduction (Section III)
as well as the commercial shipping industry to identify priority
preventative strategies and educational needs. YEAR ONE.
2.2.2 TASK: Work with a subcommittee of the ANS Coordinating Committee
to establish ongoing working groups made up of industry
representatives to carry out strategies identified in Task 2B2.
Rev. April 25 2004
2.3
SA: Educate industry representatives regarding possible means of
introductions through development and dissemination of targeted
outreach materials.
Issue addressed: Representatives of industries that pose the risk of ANS transport may be
unaware of the problems associated with ANS introductions and existing options for
management.
2.3.1 TASK: (ANS Working Group). The ANS Working Group will identify
educational needs through the above focus and working groups and
develop educational strategies for representatives of priority industries.
(Also see the EDUCATION objective ). YEAR TWO.
2.4
SA: Improve data management as it relates to ANS distribution in
Connecticut watersheds and in the Northeast Region.
Issue addressed: ANS distribution information is currently housed in multiple databases and
formats, making comprehensive assessments of introduction and the spread of established
populations difficult or impossible.
2.4.1 TASK: (IPANE/DEP/CT AG EX Station). The DFW will coordinate with
the DEM and DEP to develop a framework for a comprehensive
freshwater invasive species database for Connecticut. The database
will include information developed through ongoing efforts led by these
agencies and will incorporate data generated through enhanced
monitoring efforts led by these agencies and will incorporate data
generated through enhanced monitoring of aquatic systems known to
contain rare species or represent diverse and pristine habitats.
Develop a strategy and identify budgetary needs creating a
comprehensive database and integrating existing data. YEAR ONE
2.5
SA: Reduce the threat of introductions via commercial shipping (ballast
water and hull fouling).
2.5.1 TASK: (Sea Grant, academic institution?). Funds will be sought to
support a thorough investigation of the significance of ballast water as
a potential vector of ANS in or out of Connecticut . YEARS ONE –
THREE.
2.5.2 TASK: (Sea Grant). Based on the results of 2.5.1, appropriate action
will be taken to build local awareness of the problem and to institute
Rev. April 25 2004
some best management practices to minimize the potential risks.
(YEARS FOUR and continuing.
2.6
SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS via recreational boating and
fishing.
Issue addressed: Continued and enhanced education and outreach efforts will be necessary
to control the spread of fouling organisms and aquatic weeds to uninfested water bodies via
recreational boating and fishing. Connecticut must evaluate its capacity to facilitate the
cleaning of boats and their trailers at infested water bodies, and require the removal of plant
and algal species from recreational vehicles.
2.6.1 TASK: (CT Sea Grant/ DEP) DEP will update and distribute signage
relating to boat and trailer ANS transport to all ponds and boat ramps in
Connecticut. YEARS ONE AND TWO.
2.6.2 TASK: (CT Sea Grant/ DEP) DEP will continue to distribute ANS
educational materials to lake and pond associations. Funding source
is needed. ONGOING.
2.6.3 TASK: (DEP) DEP Boating Division and Fisheries Division will develop
a pamphlet detailing the potential transport of ANS with boats and their
trailers for distribution with boater registration forms and/or
commercial fishing licenses. This may already be in the works. YEAR
ONE.
2.6.4 TASK: (DEP, others). The DEP Lakes and Ponds Program and CZM and
MBP Coastal ANS Coordinators will assemble ANS educational
materials for distribution to local lake associations and marinas. YEAR
ONE AND TWO.
2.6.5 TASK: (DEP) DEP will work to evaluate Connecticut’s capacity to
develop an ANS inspection program for recreational boats.
Connecticut should seek funding to support study to scope and
develop a boat inspection program in Connecticut, and a feasibility
study of program implementation. YEAR ONE.
Rev. April 25 2004
2.7
SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS through the seafood industry and
the freshwater fish market.
2.8
SA: Prevent the introduction and spread of organisms and pathogens
through the aquaculture industry.
2.9
SA: Prevent introductions of ANS to freshwater and marine systems via
the bait industry.
2.9.1 TASK: (DEP?) The species and sources of baits sold commercially for
saltwater angling will be investigated and documented. Action may be
pending, based on results. YEAR ONE.
2.10 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS through the aquarium trade,
nurseries and water garden suppliers and other wetland vegetation
growers.
Issue addressed: Species distributed for use in aquaria and water gardens are often selected
due to their ability to survive and grow with minimal care under a range of environmental
conditions. Intentional or unintentional release of these organisms is common, and several
harmful introductions have been documented through these pathways worldwide.
2.10.1 TASK: (ANS Coordinating Committee, CT Invasive Species Council)
The ANS Coordinating Committee will establish a subcommittee to
develop a strategic plan and guidelines for limiting the introduction of
potentially invasive species through the aquarium and water garden
trade. Issues addressed by this committee will include:








Import and sale of potentially invasive invertebrate species.
Import and sale of potentially invasive plant species and organisms that may be
transported with these species.
Proper labeling and species identification of plant and animal species sold by pet
stores and water garden suppliers.
Inspections of pet stores and water garden suppliers for priority AIS.
Best management practices for the disposal of diseased or unwanted organisms and
wastewater.
Restricting the sale of water garden invasive plants.
Requiring that water garden plants be inspected before shipment.
Have nursery inspections include invasives (CT Ag Experiment Station).
Rev. April 25 2004
2.10.2 TASK: (DEP/ANS Coordinating Committee/ CIPWG) DEP will annually
update the list of aquatic invasive plant species in consultation with the
Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group and the ANS Coordinating
Committee. YEAR TWO ONGOING.
2.11 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS by aquatic research facilities and
public aquaria.
2.11.1 TASK: Sea Grant, others?) Protocols and procedures being developed
by the Northeast regional ANS Panel will be distributed and promoted
widely within Connecticut. Timeframe depends on availability through
NEANS Panel.
2.12 SA: Prevent new introductions of AIS to freshwater and marine systems
through aquatic organism supply companies (including internet sales).
2.13 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS to freshwater systems through
water resources projects and fish ladders.
2.14 SA: Prevent new introductions of ANS to freshwater systems through
commercial construction operators (weed harvesters, water
transporters, dredgers, etc.)
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
3 OBJECTIVE: DETECT NEW AND MONITOR EXISTING
OCCURRENCES OF ANS IN CT.
3.1
SA: Develop a strategy, framework for collecting and assessing
monitoring/detection information.
3.1.1 TASK: Develop a monitoring/detection information management
system.
3.1.2 TASK: Develop a contact list of “experts” to be notified.
3.1.3 TASK: Develop a protocol for reporting new occurrences and updates
on known occurrences.
3.1.4 TASK: Develop a protocol for responding to newly reported
occurrences.
3.1.5 TASK: Ensure access to lakes and streams for state agency and private
monitors.
3.2
SA: Develop a coordinated program to monitor the introduction and
spread of ANS in Connecticut coastal and freshwater systems (include
lakes and streams).
3.2.1 TASK: Identify potential groups or organizations willing and able to
conduct monitoring.
3.2.2 TASK: Establish an industry inspection system using existing state
agency personnel.
3.2.3 TASK: Develop water company monitors.
3.2.4 TASK: Develop Lake Association monitors.
3.2.5 TASK: Develop a network of resident monitors who live near potentially
invaded sites and would be willing to undertake training and monitor
their site.
Rev. April 25 2004
3.3
SA: Develop training programs for inspectors/monitors. [[NOT THE
SAME AS PUBLIC AWARENESS / EDUCATION??]]
3.4
SA: Assist in the development of improved technology for monitoring
the spread of nonindigenous organisms.
3.5
SA: Evaluate the risk of introductions of priority species not yet
established in Connecticut
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
4 OBJECTIVE: CONTROL THE SPREAD OF ANS IN CT.
4.1
32
SA: Identify priority marine and freshwater invasive species for
management actions.
Issue addressed: Invasive species will be prioritized to reflect the distribution of the species
and the realistic potential for control. Species that have high invasive potential but are not
widely established in Connecticut will be given a high priority for intervention to prevent
their spread. Established species, even if invasive, will of necessity receive a lower priority
for direct action, although efforts to prevent further spread will continue.
4.2
SA: Expand funding for local invasive species management and related
projects.
Issue addressed: As funding becomes available, it will be used to give grants to towns and
land organizations to control invasive aquatic species on their respective properties. Control
of species on state properties will remain a high priority for funding and activity.
Cooperative control efforts between private landowners, conservation organizations, and
towns will be encouraged.
4.3
SA: Identify funding and personnel resources for the eradication of new
introductions to previously un-infested waters.
Issue addressed: Creative sources of funding will be of primary importance to finance
control activities. In addition to seeking funding through the traditional methods of state
budget allocations and federal grants, an account has been established for the deposit of
supplemental environmental project (SEP) funds. Payments are made to this account in lieu
of civil penalties from violators of environmental laws. The monies from this account are
dedicated to projects involving the control of invasive species, and are controlled by the CT
DEP.
4.4
32
SA: Develop and implement early response protocols for newly detected
infestations of ANS.
Incorporates recent text provided by Brad Robinson
Rev. April 25 2004
Issue addressed: An early response team will be established in the DEP, with members from
various programs as appropriate, but with a core of personnel from the Environmental and
Geographic Information Center (EGIC) group. There will be a contractor retained capable of
using a variety of methods to control aquatic invasives, and available for rapid response
situations.
A series of protocols to respond to aquatic invasions will be established to reflect relative
importance and appropriate response to the species involved. As noted in action 4A, priority
will be given to infestations that are not yet widespread or otherwise established.
4.5
SA: Continue to implement efforts to control established populations of
ANS.
Issue addressed: As noted in item 4.A, established populations of aquatic invasives will not
have the same urgency of control as new invasions, but maintenance control will be
necessary to preserve the recreational and biodiversity value of aquatic environments
already infested. State funds, when available, will be concentrated on public waters that
have high use and a high potential for controlling invasives for more than a very short time
period.
4.6
SA: Identify and disseminate information on existing control
mechanisms for priority species.
Issue addressed: The DEP has and will continue to identify and evaluate control methods for
aquatic invasives. Some methods, such as pesticides, require regulatory approval so that all
of these products must be reviewed by the pesticide control program prior to registration and
use. Herbicides also require site permits for their use. This registration and permitting
process provides an avenue for evaluation of the use of herbicides to control invasive plants.
Non- pesticidal methods, such as harvesting or hand pulling are not closely regulated. The
DEP lakes program does provide information on all methods of weed control to lake
associations and others interested in vegetation control. Both DEP programs have
guidebooks on lake and weed management that are provided to the public upon request.
4.7
SA: Support development of improved control technologies for
established populations of ANS.
4.7.1 TASK: (ANS Coordinating Committee). The ANS Coordinating
Committee will work on developing a strategy to encourage research
and development of biological controls for ANS in the state and region.
Research priorities will include further evaluation of potential non-
Rev. April 25 2004
target impacts from the release of biological control measures (Also
see EDUCATION objective). ONGOING.
4.8
SA: Monitor and document the effectiveness of ANS control efforts.
Issue addressed: Any project to control invasive plants undertaken by the DEP will involve
post-control monitoring and follow-up to assure that the control goals have been met. Weed
control projects in public lakes that require pesticide permitting usually have postapplication monitoring requirements as well. Smaller efforts in private water bodies do not
usually receive the same level of scrutiny unless the plant being controlled is a recent
invader with a high control priority (e.g. Hydrilla).
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
5 OBJECTIVE: INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND
KNOWLEDGE OF ANS. 33
5.1
SA: Develop an active publicity campaign to engage public,
Issue addressed: Many of the general public may be unaware of the problems caused by
ANS and will not have access to the educational materials.
5.1.1 TASK: A full-time Information Technology person is needed to
complete the Tasks specified under this objective.
5.1.2 TASK: Workshop member agencies will issue periodic and timely news
releases on general topic of ANS (including economic costs) and
specific species of interest/concern. ONGOING.
5.1.3 TASK: Workshop member agencies will issue periodic and timely news
releases on progress of implementation plan. YEAR 1/ONGOING.
5.2
SA: Develop and Distribute Educational Materials Related to Regional
Invasive Species Issues.
5.2.1 TASK: Appropriate materials and resources available through the
NEANS panel, other regional panels, and the federal ANS Task Force
will be shared with the ANS Working Group members and other
interested parties. ONGOING
Issue addressed: Continued education of the general public and resource managers regarding
threats from AIS and as preventative measure will be necessary to limit the introduction and
spread of aquatic invaders to Connecticut.
5.2.2
33
TASK: Develop and maintain a Connecticut ANS website. The site
should serve as the primary clearinghouse for information and will
contain introductory pages on the ANS problem, invasive and
potentially invasive species of concern to CT, contact information to
report ANS occurrences, a field reporting form to report ANS
occurrences, a field reporting form to submit observations of potential
Includes recent text contributed by Donna Ellis
Rev. April 25 2004
ANS occurrences, ANS management options, periodic updates and
timely ANS news releases, and a calendar of events. Well organized
links to regional sites and federal, state, NGO websites; lake
management sites should also be included. The ANS website should be
linked to other invasive plant, aquatic and environmental websites,
including the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group (CIPWG), the
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE), the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), and the marine
invasives website currently under development by CT Sea Grant with
funding from the EPA Long Island Sound Study Office. It should also tie
into the marine invasives database that the Northeast Regional ANS
Panel is developing.
5.2.3 TASK: Introduce or enhance ANS information in DEP Angler’s Guide,
Boater’s Guide and Hunting & Trapping guides. Materials can also be
included with approved fishing tournament and other permits. The
information can be disseminated via training classes and workshops
prior to the issuance of permits or licenses.
5.2.4 TASK: Review, collate and/or develop library of print materials for
distribution. Extensive materials are currently available for many
organisms, this will avoid duplication of efforts. Website URLs will be
included for Internet references.
5.2.5 TASK (Sea Grant, others): Develop slide presentation that outlines ANS
problem and potential management approaches. This can also be used
on the central website. The slides will be made available as a
PowerPoint presentation on a CD upon request and may also be posted
on the website to view online.
5.3
SA: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at Designated Priority
ANS.
Issue addressed: Assistance from the general public will be necessary to limit the spread of
ANS and for effective monitoring of priority invaders.
Rev. April 25 2004
5.3.1 TASK: Expand postings concerning ANS at boat launches. Develop
and print informative signs to post on state and town boat launches
with ANS identification information, removing all aquatic vegetation
from boats, penalties for noncompliance, and who to contact to report
ANS occurrences.
5.3.2 TASK: Identify primary public contacts for ANS observations from
Public (one each for macrophytes, freshwater vertebrates &
invertebrates, marine organisms). Contact information will be readily
available and publicized. Contacts should also be able to accept
samples.34
5.3.3 TASK: Develop and disseminate species fact sheets. The fact sheets
will be available on the ANS web site.
5.4
SA: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at ANS Transport Vectors.
Issue addressed: The diffuse nature of the ANS problem and the wide variety of transport
vectors will require that resource managers, industry representatives, and the general public
are informed about potential pathways of introduction and spread.
5.4.1 TASK: Develop outreach materials specific to the aquarium and water
garden trades. Collaborate with other states or organizations that have
developed similar materials and adapt for Connecticut. Include
disposal options.
5.4.2 TASK: Develop portable display for landscape, home and garden and
aquaria (retail and hobbyists). Include color photos and descriptive
information for ANS and contact information.
5.5
SA: Develop and distribute ANS materials to other state regulatory
agencies and state legislators.
Issue addressed: Communication between and within state agencies is often inconsistent,
and in some cases contentious. Appropriate staff should receive ANS materials. Many
legislators are at best, only somewhat aware of the problem.
34
DE: Who? DEP? Don Les? Les Mehrhoff?
Rev. April 25 2004
5.5.1 TASK: Identify appropriate agency
date email list.
35staff/managers,
maintain up-to-
5.5.2 TASK: Periodic email communications to identified staff/managers
providing updates, new observations, etc.
5.6
SA: Develop training program for field staff and inspectors (including
water company biologists).
Issue addressed: To identify species of interest/threat field staff will need to be 1) aware of
problem, 2) trained to identify organisms (when possible, often will entail simply
recognizing an unusual organism) and 3) Properly collect, store and transport samples.
5.6.1 TASK: Identify appropriate staff/managers, maintain up-to-date list.
5.6.2 TASK: Develop and provide training seminars appropriate to
disciplines encountered by field staff and inspectors. Training will be
conducted by qualified individuals with expertise in ANS, including CT
DEP and UCONN faculty or staff.
5.6.3 TASK: Identify primary contacts for ANS observations from field
staff/inspectors (one each for macrophytes, freshwater vertebrates and
invertebrates, marine organisms). Contacts should be readily available
and able to accept samples. Organizations involved in this task
include: CT DEP, IPANE, CIPWG and UCONN.
35
DE: DEP?
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
6 OBJECTIVE: IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS RESEARCH NEEDS.
Rev. April 25 2004
6.1
SA: Identify research priorities for Connecticut and the region.
Issue addressed: As ANS populations change in size and new invaders are introduced to
CT, priorities for management will change as will research needs. effective management
will require that research priorities are re-evaluated periodically and that the priorities are
recognized and addressed by scientists and managers in the region.
6.1.1 TASK: (AIS Working Group/ CT Sea Grant ) The ANS Coordinating
Committee will sponsor a biennial symposium of researchers for the
development of regional ANS research priorities (in conjunction with
Northeast regional ANS Panel?). A subcommittee of the ANS
Coordinating Committee will develop a scope for the meeting, estimate
resource needs and identify potential funding sources for the research
symposium. YEAR TWO.
6.2
SA: Encourage research on ANS and their impacts in Connecticut.
6.2.1 TASK: (ANS Coordinating Committee). The ANS Coordinating
Committee is seeking $20,000 per year to support a graduate fellowship
for ANS research based on research priorities identified above. YEAR
TWO.
6.2.2 TASK: (ANS Coordinating Committee) The ANS Coordinating
Committee will develop a strategy to communicate ANS research needs
to the scientific community and research supporters. YEAR
ONE/ONGOING.
6.2.3 TASK: Conduct experimental management projects using integrated
control actions and evaluate effectiveness of actions. Consider several
year plans for implementation using an integrated approach.
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
7 OBJECTIVE: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING AND STAFF TO
IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.
Issue addressed: Currently CT has little-to-no funding allocated to deal with invasive
species issues and necessary actions. WE need to develop reliable and sustainable sources
of funding.
7.1
SA: Get legislative support for funding.
7.2
SA: Green Industries – funds for education.
7.3
SA: Set up and SEP account for invasives funding.
7.4
SA: Ask chemical companies to fund demonstration projects.
7.5
SA: Federal WHIP
7.6
SA: State Boating Fee
7.7
SA: Municipal Lake Associations
7.8
SA: Non-profit groups
7.9
SA: Develop funding to take “control” actions.
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
8 OBJECTIVE: INTRODUCE LEGISLATION / ADOPT
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.
8.1
SA: Evaluate Connecticut’s authority to restrict the introduction of
specific aquatic species designated as threats to the ecology and
economy of the state.
8.2
SA: Make general recommendations for additional state and federal
legislative needs to minimize impacts from ANS.
8.3
SA: Make general recommendations for additional state and federal
legislative needs to minimize impacts from ANS.
8.4
SA: Introduce a funding bill to provide seed money for selected
management actions.
8.4.1 TASK: Institute a boating registration fee (invasives fee).
8.5
SA: Develop a system of enforcement actions / fines.
8.6
SA: Mandate that water companies do monitoring.
8.7
SA: Have invasive species be declared a form of biological pollution.
8.8
SA: Streamline the permitting process.
8.9
SA: Prohibit sales from out-of-state.
8.10 SA: Determine what actions can be done about invasives on private
property.
8.11 SA: Determine who owns the priority lake bottom.
Rev. April 25 2004
6. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE
[[ PAB: This table is required by the federal ANS program. We will work on this for the
next draft, when, hopefully, the tasks have been narrowed down a bit more. It requires
detailed information on who will be contributing how much time and funding. ]]
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
7. PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION
[[ PAB NOTE: The purpose of this section is to describe how CT will monitor progress
towards meeting the Goals and Objectives outlined above. Any thoughts yet? ]]
Glossary
Rev. April 25 2004
[[NOTE: Current Source: Massachusetts Invasive Plant Working Group, 2003]]
[[NOTE: make sure use is consistent throughout the plan. I will be working on this more for
the next draft. Please contribute your suggestions. ]]
cultivar: [[need definition]]
enzootic: affecting or peculiar to animals fo a specific area or limited district; analogous to the term
“endemic” used to describe human diseases
invasive species: plants that have spread into native or minimally managed plant systems in Connecticut.
These plants cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming
dominant and/or disruptive to those systems. (Under this definition all synonyms, species, subspecies,
varieties, forms, and cultivars of that species are included unless proven otherwise by a process of scientific
evaluation).
indigenous species: otherwise a species that occurs natively in Connecticut. Indigenous species often have a
pre-colonial presence (pre 1500) or have arrived in the region more recently without the aid of human
intervention, Synonymous with native species.
non-indigenous species: a species that is non native or naturally occurring (based on its biology, phylogeny,
distribution and current knowledge about the species) within Connecticut. A species may be indigenous to
North America but nonindigenous in Connecticut. Synonymous with non-native species.
naturalized species: a non-indigenous taxon that occurs without the aid and benefits of cultivation in
Connecticut. Further, it implies two biological points: it freely and regularly reproduces in the wild, sexually
or asexually, and occurrences persist over time.
biologic potential: the ability of a species to increase its number, either sexually and/or asexually.
spatial gaps: this term is used in reference to the ability of a species to disperse away from existing
occurrences. The concept of crossing spatial gaps is sued to distinguish those species that can disperse over
discontinuities and become established elsewhere form species that spread across a habitat only by continual,
uninterrupted growth.
minimally managed habitats: Minimally managed habitats are habitats where management efforts and
investments of time, money and labor are infrequent or non-existent. These habitats may have been intensively
managed for anthropogenic reasons at one time in their history. In some instances, management may be more
intense but management id done for conservation purposes and is primarily aimed at preserving elements of
biological diversity such as imperiled species or critical natural communities. Minimally managed habitats are
similar to “natural areas” but the distinction is made in order to remove bias, misconceptions or ambiguities
that surround the term “natural area.”
intensively managed habitats: intensively managed habitats are habitats or land systems where management
efforts and investments of time, money and labor occur frequently. Examples include manicured lawns,
landscaped grounds, gardens, roadsides or agricultural lands for crops or livestock.
occurrence: existing example of a species on the landscape.
natural plant community: a natural plant community is an association or assemblage of plant species that
repeatedly occur together in reoccurring patterns in a specific type of habitat. This assemblage can be
characterized by dominant species and biological properties. A natural plant community implies a minimally
Rev. April 25 2004
managed situation where all or most of the species that make up the assemblage are indigenous to the defined
area.
Literature Cited
Rev. April 25 2004
ANS Task Force, “Guidance for State and Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management
Plans. “ http://www.anstaskforce.gov/state_guidance.htm
Balcom, N. 1994. Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea. Aquatic Immigrants of the Northeast
fact sheet No. 4. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication No. CT-SG-94-05. 2 pp.
Balcom, N. and E. Rohmer. 1994. Zebra Mussel Awareness and Boat Use Patterns Among
Boaters using Three “High Risk” Connecticut Lakes. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication No.
CT-SG-94-03. 17pp.
Bay Journal. 2004. 2nd Strain of Bonamia parasite found, may pose threat to ariakensis. The
Cheapeake Bay Newsletter, Alliance of the Chesapeake Bay. 14(1):7. March.
Blankenship, K. 2004. Scientists urge officials to proceed slowly with ariakensis. Bay
Journal. The Cheapeake Bay Newsletter. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 14(1):1,6-7.
March.
***Brousseau, D., P. Korchari, and C. Pflug. 2000. Food Preference Studies of the Asiatic
Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) from Western Long Island Sound. Pp. 200-207 In:
Marine Bioinvasions, Proceedings of the First National Conference. 24-27 January 1999.
MIT Sea Grant Program 00-2.
Burke, Tina. 2001. Identifying Ballast Water Management Practices in Massachusetts - A
Step Toward Assessing the Risk of Shipboard Introductions of Aquatic Invasive Species
into the Waters of Massachusetts. A report to the Massachusetts Port Authority 15 pp.
Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and
Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
***Carlton, J. and J. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: the Global transport of
Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science 261:78-82.
Chapman, J., T. Miller, and E. Coan. 2003. Live Seafood Species as Recipes for Invasion.
Conservation Biology 17(5):1386-1395.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States
Estuary: A Case Study of Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta.
Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and the National
Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant. NTIS Report No. PB96-166525. 246
pp.
Rev. April 25 2004
Cohen, A., J. Carlton, and M. Fountain. 1995. Introduction, dispersal, and potential impacts
of the green crab Carcinus maenus in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Biology
122:225-237.
Crow, G.E. and C.B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North
America, Vol. 1 and 2. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.
***DMF News. 1996. European Oysters: harmful invader or potential new fishery on the
North Shore? MA Division of Marine Fisheries, Publication No. 17020-12-7000. Pp. 6-7.
Fishman, K., R. Leonard, and F. Shah. XXXX. Economic Evaluation of Connecticut Lkaes
with Alternative Water Quality Levels. University of CT (Funded by CT DEP and Storrs Ag
Exp Station) – need rest of citation….)
Ford, S. 2001. Pests, parasites, diseases, and defense mechanisms. Pp. 591-628 in The
Biology of the Hard Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne), eds. J. Kraeuter and M. castagna,
eds., Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam.
***Halstead, J., J. Michaud, S. Hallas-Burt, and J. Gibbs. 2003. Hedonic Analysis of Effects
of a Nonnative Invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) Lakefront
Properties. Environmental Management 32(3):391-398.
Harding, J., R. Mann, and V. Clark. 2003. Veined Rapa Whelks: Aliens in the Chesapeake.
(CD-ROM). VIMS Educational Series Publication No. 56, VA Sea Grant Publication No.
VSG-03-14.
Hellquist, B.C. 2001. A Guide to Selected Non-Native Aquatic Species in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. 18 pp.
Interagency Task Force On Invasive Aquatic Plants and Nuisance Species. October 10,
2002. State of Maine Action Plan for Managing Invasive Aquatic Species.”
http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/topic/invasives/invplan.htm
Kraft, C. and L. Johnson. 2000. Regional differences in rates and patterns of North
American inland lake invasions by zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). Can .J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 57:993-1001.
***Lerner, N. and P. Heimowitz. 2000. Aquatic Invasive Species: A guide to Least-Wanted
Aquatic Organisms of the Pacific Northwest. Washington Sea Grant Publication No. WSGMR 00-02. 8pp.
***Lohrer, A. 2000. Mechanisms and Consequences of an Exotic Crab Species Invasion.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 164 pp.
Rev. April 25 2004
***Lohrer, A., R. Whitlatch, K. Wada, and Y. Fukui. 2000. Using Niche Theory to
Understand Invasion Success: A Case Study of the Asian Shore Crab, Hemigrapsus
sanguineus. Pp. 57-60
***Lohrer, A. and R. Whitlatch. 1997. Ecological studies on the recently introduced
Japanese shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus), in eastern Long Island Sound. Pp. 49-60 In:
Balcom, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Northeast Conference on Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, Groton, CT.
Mann, R. and S. Waters. 1998. The veined rapa whelk, Rapana venosa, found in Virginia
waters. Virginia Sea Grant Marine Advisory No. 69.
Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group. December 2002. “Massachusetts
Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan.”
http://www.state.ma.us/czm/invasivemanagementplan.htm
McMahon, Robert. 1992. Personal communication.
Murray, T., P. Rich, and E. Jokinen. 1993. Invasion Potential of the Zebra Mussel,
Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas), in Connecticut: Predictions from Water Chemistry Data.
Connecticut Insitute of Water Resources, Special Report No. 36. 33pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 325 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
November 1993. “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan.”
(http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/noninsp.pdf)
***NOAA News Online. 2003. Story 2125, Invasive Species found on Georges Bank.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2003/s2125.htm
O, Neill, Jr., C. 1996. Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels: the 1995 National Zebra Mussel
Information Clearinghouse Study. Reprinted with modifications from: Dreissena! 7(2):1-5,
summer 1996, and Dreissena! 7(3):1-12, Fall 1996. Dreissena polymorpha Technical
Collection Reprint. New York Sea Grant. 18pp.
Pederson, J. (Ed.). 2003. Ballast water management workshop: regional solutions.
Workshop proceedings. MIT Sea Grant Publication No. 03-23. Boston, MA, 26 September
2002. 52pp.
Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic
costs associated with nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50(1):53-65.
***Ruesink, J. 1998. Scope and History of Biological Invasions. Yale Forest Forum
Review: Invasive Alien Species 1(2):11-14.
Rev. April 25 2004
Smith, L.D, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 1999-2001. Research and Outreach to Prevent and
Control Aquatic Nuisance Species Invasions: Identification and Ranking of Transport
Vectors of Marine Bioinvaders To and From New England: A Proposal to the Office of Sea
Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 8
pp.
***Sunila, I., J. Karolus, and J. Volk. 1999. A new epizootic of Haplosporidium nelsoni
(MSX), a haplosporidian oyster parasite, in Long Island Sound, Connecticut. J.Shellfish Res.
18(1):169-174.
Thresher, R.E. 2000. Key Threats from Marine Bioinvasions: A Review of Current and
Future Issues. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National
Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. pp.24-34.
***Whitlatch, R. R. Osman, and N. Balcom. 2003-2005. Evaluation of the Importance of
Ship Hull Fouling by Privately-Owned Vessels as a Vector for the Transport of invasive
Species along the Eastern Seaboard. Two-year proposal to the National Sea Grant College
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. In
progess.
Whitlatch, R.B., R.W. Osman, A. Frese, R. Malatesta, P. Mitchell, and L. Sedgewick. 1995.
The ecology of two introduced marine ascidians and their effects on epifaunal organisms in
Long Island Sound. Proceedings of the Northeast Conference on Non-Indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Species. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program. CT-SG-95-04. pp. 29-48.
Appendices
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix A. Table of Existing Agreements, Laws and Regulations
[[Cite the MA plan ]]
[[NEEDED: relevant state regs ]]
Scope
Year
Identification
Code
A.868(2)
Title
Description
International
1993
IMO Assembly Resolution
Establishes international guidelines for the control of ballast water.
Federal
1990
NANPCA, PL
101-646
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act
Ballast water management, recreational activity guidelines.
Federal
1996
National Invasive Species Act
Amended and broadened the 1990 act.
Federal
1900
The Lacey Act
Federal
1939
The Federal Seed Act
Requires proper labeling of seed imports.
Federal
1973
The Endangered Species Act
Can be used to authorized eradication or control of ANS in some
cases.
Federal
1974
Noxious Weed Act
Federal
2000
The Plant Protection Act
Amends the Noxious Weed Act. Gives USDA the authority to
prohibit interstate transport of species on the Noxious Weed List.
Clean Water Act
Washington state plan states that this act which could potentially be
relevant if ballast water is considered pollution.
Federal
State
General
Statute 22-11f
Licensing of aquaculture operation.
Regulations. Control of importation and
cultivation of nonnative plants or
animals.
Established a permitting process administered by the USFWS
regulating the importation and transport of vertebrates, mollusks, and
crustacea.
Rev. April 25 2004
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
General
Statute 22-11g
General
Statute 22a339g
General
Statute 22a66z
General
Statute 26-22
General
Statute 26-55
General
Statute 26-55a
General
Statute 26-119
General
Statute 26-149
General
Statute 26-224
Gneral Statute
26-224a
General
Statute 26237a
Public Act 03136
Release from aquaculture systems
Control of nonnative invasive plant
species
Permnits for use of pesticides in state
waters
Control of aquatic plants and animals
Permit for importing, possessing, or
liberating fish, wild birds, wild
quadrupeds, reptiles, and amphibians
Possession of diploid grass carp
Use of explosives or poisons
Commercial hatcheries
Deposit of injurious substances in tidal
waters or on oyster ground. Penalty.
Depositing of shellfish in tidal waters.
Regulations.
Deposit of cultch material on state
shellfish beds
An Act Concerning Invasive Plants
Need to review this one – there are changes to a bunch of sections
and new additions as well that form Invasive Plant Council, etc.
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix B. Table of Authorities and Programs
Scope
Type
Department
Academic
Academic
Organization
Name
CIPWG
Invasive Plant Council
UCONN
UCONN
Unknown
Unknown
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Academic
Academic
Academic
Government
Government
UCONN
UCONN
UCONN
CT Ag. Experiment Station
Dept. Ag.
NRME
Plant Science
Sea Grant
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Government
Government
Government
DEP
DEP
DEP
Statewide
Government
DEP
Statewide
Government
DEP
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
DEP
DEP
DEP
DEP
DPH
Boating
Education
Marine
Fisheries
Advisory
Group
Conservation
Officers
Marine
Fisheries
Fisheries
G&NHS
OLISP
Waste Bureau
Drinking
Water
Program
EEB
Master
Gardeners
Bureau of
Aquaculture
Shellfish
Sanitation;
Laboratory,
Shellfish
Habitat
Management
and
Restoration
Existing or
Potential?
Summary of Relevant Activity
Rev. April 25 2004
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Legislature
Government
Industry
Environment Committee
DOT
[[Aquarium Trade]]
Statewide
Industry
[[Energy Utilities]]
Statewide
Industry
[[Nursery, Green Industry]]
Statewide
Industry
[[Water Utilities]]
Statewide
Industry
Northeast utilities
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
NGO
NGO
NGO
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Regional
Regional
Regional
NGO
NGO
Tribal
Government
NGO
NGO
Regional
NGO
Regional
NGO
Regional
NGO
Regional
Regional
NGO
Government
Regional
NGO
ACOE
CT Federation of Lakes
CT Invasive Plant Working
Group
Rivers Alliance
The Nature Conservancy
[[missing]]
EPA
IPANE
NE Aquatic Nuisance Species
Panal (ANS Task Force)
NE Aquatic Plant Management
Society
NE Assoc. of Aquatic
Biologists
NE Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
NE Wildflower Association
Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission
North American Lake
Management Society, NE
Chapter
Rev. April 25 2004
National
Legislature
National
National
Government
Government
Federal Congressional Coastal
Delegation
EPA
USDA
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
FWS
NOAA
USDA
USDA
Army Corp of Engineers
Homeland Security
Coast Guard
NOAA
National
National
National
Local
Local
Government
Government
NGO
Government
Lake
Association
Sea Grant Extension Program
USGS
Federated Garden Clubs
Shellfish Commissioners
NGO
Nature Conservancy
International
National/Statewide
LISS
Ag. Exp.
Station
NRCS
NRCS
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Sea Grant
CAPS
APHIS
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix C. Participants
Appendic D. Agency Comments and Review
Appendix E. Public Comments and Review
Appendix F. Comprehensive Aquatic Nuisance Species List
Rev. April 25 2004
Rev. April 25 2004
[[ PAB NOTE: This is a subset of the information in the SpeciesList0315.mdb Access database on our Temp web page. I do not know the correct
taxonomic categories for some of these creatures. Let me know how you’d like this reformated and organized for the final document, what info you
want me to include, any updates or corrections, etc ....]]
List of Current or Potential ANS in Connecticut
HabitatType
TaxaGroup
Status
Family
Genus
Species
CommonName
ID
Coastal and Estuarine
ALGAE MISC
Established
Established
NA
NA
NA
Brown tide
67
NA
NA
NA
Red tide
68
Codium
fragile spp. Tomentosoides
Codium
52
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Ascidiella
aspersa
European sea squirt.
61
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Botrylloides
violaceus
Compound sea squirt
56
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Botryllus
schlosseri
Star tunicate
55
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Ciona
intestinalis
Sea Squirt
63
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Didemnum
vexillum
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Diplosoma
listerianum
Compound sea squirt
57
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Molgula
manhattensis
Sea squirt
62
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Styela
canopus
Sea squirt
59
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Styela
clava
Stalked Sea Squirt.
58
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Styela
plicata
NA
53
Ascidiacea (sea squirts)
Styela
plicata
Sea squirt
60
CHLOROPHYTA
Established
CHORDATA
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
54
Invertebrates
Established
Established
Hemigrapsus
sanguineus
Asian Shore Crab
51
NA
Carcinus
maenus
European Green Crab
50
NA
Undaria
pinnatifida
Wakame
76
NA
NA
NA
Cyanobacteria
70
NA
NA
NA
Fish TB
71
Kelp
Threatening
NA
Established
Established
Rev. April 25 2004
Established
Established
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
NA
NA
NA
Lobster paramoeba
72
NA
NA
NA
Pfiesteria
69
NA
Crassostrea
ariakensis
NA
75
NA
Hemigrapsus
penncillatus
NA
79
NA
NA
NA
Veined Rapa Whelk
73
NA
Ostea
edulus
European Flat Oyster
74
NA
Dermocystidium
NA
QPX
66
NA
NA
NA
MSX
64
NA
NA
NA
SSO
65
NA
Grateloupia
turtuturu
NA
77
NA
Sargassum
muticum
NA
Alosa
psuedoharengus
Landlocked Alewife
1
NA
Amia
clava
Bowfin
3
NA
Carassius
auratus
Goldfish
5
NA
Cyprinus
carpio
Koi
6
NA
Dorosoma
cepedianum
Gizzard Shad
7
NA
Lepomis
cyanellus
Green sunfish
8
NA
Leuciscus
idus
Ide or Orfe
4
NA
Tinca
tinca
Tench
Characidae
NA
NA
Piaranah spp.
25
NA
Aristichthys
nobilis
Bighead carp
16
NA
Carassius
carassius
Crucian carp
17
NA
Clarias
batrachus
Walking catfish
23
NA
Ctenopharyngodon
idella
Grass carp
18
NA
Hypophthamicthys
molitrix
Silver carp
15
NA
Lepisosteidae
spp.
Gars
22
NA
Morone
saxatilis X Morone spp.
Hybrid Striped bass
24
NA
Mylopharyngodon
picues
Black carp
14
NA
NA
NA
Miscellaneous aquarium fish
26
NA
NA
NA
Round Doby
20
NA
NA
NA
Ruffe
21
Pathogens
Established
Established
Established
Red Algae
Threatening
Seaweed
Threatening
78
Freshwater
Fish
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Established
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
2
Rev. April 25 2004
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
NA
NA
NA
Snakeheads
13
NA
NA
NA
Unidentified bait fish
27
NA
Scardinius
erythrophthalmus
Rudd
19
NA
Corbicula
fluminea
Asian clam
10
NA
Dreissena
polymorpha
Zebra mussel
NA
Mytilopsis
leucophaeata
Brackish water mussels
11
NA
NA
NA
Crayfish sp.
12
NA
Echino
gammauarus
Shrimp
34
NA
NA
NA
Amphipods
32
NA
NA
NA
Bait
36
NA
NA
NA
Fishhook water flea
30
NA
NA
NA
Isopods
33
NA
NA
NA
Miscellaneous aquarium organisms
35
NA
NA
NA
New Zealand Mud snail
31
NA
NA
NA
Quagga mussel
28
NA
NA
NA
Spiney water flea
29
NA
NA
NA
Gill maggots
38
NA
NA
NA
Whirling Disease
37
NA
NA
NA
Bacterial kidney disease
40
NA
NA
NA
Enteric red mouth
41
NA
NA
NA
ISA
42
NA
NA
NA
Largemouth bass virus
39
NA
Channa
micropeltes
Northern snakehead fish
43
NA
Gymnocephalus
cernuus
Ruffe
45
NA
Neogobius
melanostomus
Round goby
44
NA
Bythotrephes
cederstoemi
Spiny water flea
47
NA
Cercopagis
pengoi
Fishhook water flea
48
NA
Dreissena
bugensis
Quagga mussel
46
NA
Potamopyrgus
podarum
New Zealand Mud snail
49
Invertebrates
Established
Established
Established
Established
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
9
Pathogens
Established
Established
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Threatening
Marine
Fish
NA
NA
NA
Invertebrates
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rev. April 25 2004
Plants
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Potentially Invasive
Unknown
NA
Cabomba
caroliniana
Fanwort
80
NA
Hydrilla
verticillata
Hydrilla
81
NA
Iris
pseudocorus
Yellow Iris
82
NA
Lythrum
salicaria
Purple Loosestrife
83
NA
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum (hybrids)
Variable-leaf watermil-foil
84
NA
Myriophyllum
spicatum
Eurasian watermil-foil
85
NA
Phragmites
australis (hybrids)
Common reed
86
NA
Potamogeton
crispus
Crispy-leaved pondweed
87
NA
Trapa
natans
Water chestnut
88
NA
Butomus
umbellatus
Flowering rush
89
NA
Callitriche
stagnalis
Pond water-starwort
90
NA
Egeria
densa
Brazilian water-weed
91
NA
Marsilea
quadrifolia
European waterclover
92
NA
Myosotis
scorpiodes
Forget-me-not
93
NA
Nelumbo
lutea
American water lotus
94
NA
Rorippa (Nasturium)
microphylla
Onerow watercress
95
NA
Rorippa (Nasturium)
nasturtium-aquaticum
Watercress
96
NA
Eichhornia
crassipes
Common water-hyacinth
97
NA
Nymphoides
peltata
Yellow floating heart
98
NA
Pistia
stratiotes
Water lettuce
99
NA
Salvinia
molesta
Giant salvinia
100
NA
Myriophyllum
aquaticum
NA
101
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix G. Prior Activities and Analyses
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix H. Acronym List
Acronym
Definition
ANS
APHIS
CAES
DEP
DOT
IPC
NRCS
USDA
USFWS
USGS
Aquatic Nuisance Species
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Transportation
Invasive Plant Council (CT)
Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
FDA
NEANS Panel
IPANE
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Northeast regional Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix I. Education and Outreach Groups
Citizen watch groups – water quality
Soundkeeper
Project Oceanology
Schooner, Inc.
Soundwaters
Recreational boaters
Fishermen (recreational and commercial)
Beach clubs
Long Island Sound Foundation / Councils
Save the Sound
CT Fund for the Environment
CT Audubon (Coastal center, Milford)
LISS – use Citizens Advisory Committee distribution lists
CT Marine Trades Association
Maritime Coalition
Power Squadrons
Coast Guard Auxiliary
Rev. April 25 2004
Appendix J. Research Organizations
Rev. April 25 2004
Universities
Diane Brousseau (Fairfield U / NMFS-Milford) – Hemigrapsus
[email protected]
Jim Carlton, Williams College – Mystic Seaport
Bob Whitlatch, UCONN
Charlie Yarish, UCONN
French, Frasca, De Guise – pathologists, UCONN
NMFS Milford Lab – Gary Wikfors, Sheila Stiles
CT Dept Ag/ Bureau of Aquaculture – Inke Sunila
Yale – Leon Buss possibly
No one at UNH, Southern CT
USCG Academy?
Mohegan Shellfish Lab?
Rob Johnston, Bob Pomeroy - socioeconomics
Grad student to sample bait sources and species, AQ trade, possibly live fish for food
- need to look at Jim Carlton’s / MA vector study (non-ballast water)
Sea Grant
EPA LISS
DEP possibly
Appendix K. Potential Monitoring Groups
DEP Fisheries – trawl surveys, seine surveys
DA/BA (CT Dept Ag, Bureau of Aquaculture)
Millstone Environmental Lab
Project Oceanology (logs of trawl catches)
Maritime Aquarium – keep logs of catches
Cedar Island Marine Research, Clinton
Citizen water quality groups
Commercial and recreational fishermen
School groups
Conte Wildlife refuge
McKinney Wildlife Refuge
Rev. April 25 2004