California 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Management Plan 

 

 

 

 

 

State of California 

Resources Agency 

Department of Fish and Game 

January 2008 
Funded in part by the 

Ocean Protection Council 

State Coastal Conservancy 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State of California 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 

Approved:______________________ Date:________ 

Resources Agency 

Mike Chrisman, Secretary 

Department of Fish and Game 

John W. McCamman, Acting Director 

Cover Photo, Caulerpa taxifolia, courtesy of SARDI Aquatic Sciences 

Greg Colling, Photographer 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................ IV

ACRONYM GLOSSARY ................................................................................ V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................... XI

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

2. AIS ECOLOGICAL & ECONOMIC IMPACTS.............................................7

3. VECTORS OF AIS.....................................................................................16

Vector 1. Commercial Shipping..........................................................19

Vector 2. Commercial Fishing ............................................................21

Vector 3. Recreational Equipment & Activities ...................................22

Vector 4. Trade in Live Organisms.....................................................23

Vector 5. Construction in Aquatic Environments ................................27

Vector 6. Water Delivery & Diversion System ....................................27

4. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK...............................................................29

General Framework ............................................................................29

An Overview of Current AIS Management Activities in California .......35

Gaps & Challenges .............................................................................45

5. SUMMARY OF AIS LAWS, REGULATIONS & AUTHORITIES ...............46

6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS...................50

OBJECTIVE 1: COORDINATION & COLLABORATION.....................53

OBJECTIVE 2: PREVENTION............................................................63

OBJECTIVE 3: EARLY DETECTION & MONITORING ......................75

OBJECTIVE 4: RAPID RESPONSE & ERADICATION.......................79

OBJECTIVE 5: LONG-TERM CONTROL & MANAGEMENT .............82

OBJECTIVE 6: EDUCATION & OUTREACH......................................86

OBJECTIVE 7: RESEARCH ...............................................................93

OBJECTIVE 8: LAWS & REGULATIONS...........................................96

7. PRIORITIES, IMPLEMENTATION & PLAN EVALUATION......................98

8. CASE STUDIES IN ERADICATION & CONTROL..................................117

1. CAULERPA...................................................................................117

2. SMOOTH CORDGRASS ..............................................................119

3. BRAZILIAN ELODEA....................................................................123

ii
4. EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL........................................................127

5. OTHER AIS SPECIES OF CONCERN .........................................129

9. LITERATURE CITED ..............................................................................132

FIGURES

 1: Nonindigenous Species Surveys from California Harbors & Bays....4 

 2: AIS Invasion Progression, Management and Cost.........................15 

 3: Wetted Surface Area......................................................................21 

 4: Ballast Water Reporting and Discharge Rates...............................42 

 5: AIS Coordinating Structure.............................................................58 

TABLES 

1: CAISMP Action Summary ...............................................................xi 

2: Common Bioinvasion Vectors ........................................................17 

3: Species Management Types..........................................................31 

4: Lead AIS Agency Contacts in California.........................................37 

5: CAISMP Implementation Table ....................................................100 

6: Funds Spent on Ongoing AIS Programs and Activities ................114 

APPENDICES 

A: Draft California Rapid Response Plan ............................................2 

B: Federal Authorities, Legislation & Agencies...................................26 

C: State Authorities, Legislation & Agencies ......................................37 

D: Other AIS Interests: Coordinating Committees, 

 Educational Initiatives & Special Interest Groups ........................46 

E: AIS Plan Development & Process .................................................53 

F: Executive Summary of Biological Invasions: 

 Recommendations for U.S. Policy and Management, 

 Position Paper of Ecological Society of America..........................71 

G: List of Regulated Species in California..........................................74 

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Management Plan was prepared by the DFG Invasive Species 

Program with support from many individuals and agencies and in two distinct 

stages over a period of three years. The first draft of the plan was completed in 

2004 by one team and the second in 2006 and 2007 by another. The 2004 draft 

was supported with funding from the California Department of Fish and Game 

(DFG) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The 2006 draft was 

supported by funding from the Ocean Protection Council, the State Coastal 

Conservancy (SCC) and DFG. 

2007 Plan 

This 2007 final plan was developed by Karen McDowell of the San 

Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP), with direction provided by Susan Ellis of DFG 

and Abe Doherty of the SCC. The Invasive Species Program staff, including 

Julie Horenstein and Dominique Norton, was instrumental to document 

completion. A number of other key people provided extensive and invaluable 

input into the plan: Maurya Falkner and Lynn Takata of the California State 

Lands Commission (SLC), Pat Akers of the California Department of Food and 

Agriculture (DFA), Marcia Carlock of the California Department of Boating and 

Waterways (DBW), Marian Ashe and Mary Ann Showers of DFG and Jeff Herod 

of USFWS. The three 2006 public meetings were ably facilitated by Austin 

McInery of the Center for Collaborative Policy. The report would not have been 

possible without the editorial services of Ariel Rubissow Okamoto and her team 

(including Darren Campeau, Kathryn Ankrum and Kathleen Wong). Additional 

editing and public meeting support was provided by Paula Trigueros, SFEP. 

Graphics design, layout and public meeting support was provided by Debbi Egter 

Van Wissekerke, SFEP. 

2004 Plan Draft 

Much of the original research, outreach and text for the 2006 plan were 

derived from the 2004 draft prepared for DFG by Holly Crosson under the 

direction of Dr. Edwin Grosholz, both of the Department of Environmental 

Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis (DESP-UCD). Others 

who helped with the research and provided insight and direction included 

Suzanne Olyarnik (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 

Program intern, UCD), and Ken Hashagen (DFG, retired). The authors of the 

other state AIS Management Plans, particularly Erik Hanson and Mark Sytsma in 

Oregon, Andi Shluker in Hawaii, and Jay Baker in Massachusetts, are gratefully 

acknowledged. Those who helped with stakeholder outreach and public 

meetings included Kelly Torrez (DESP-UCD) and Mike Fraidenburg (Dynamic 

Solutions). 

Grateful acknowledgement is also made to the Steering Committee for the 

2004 Plan Draft: Lars Anderson, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS); Robert Leavitt, DFA; Mark Sytsma, 

Portland State University; and Erin Williams, USFWS. 

iv
ACRONYM GLOSSARY

This section describes acronyms and other terms concerning entities involved in AIS management, 

species names used in this plan and a brief glossary. 

Acronyms* 

AE Agency Executives (Upper management of state agencies and departments)

AISWG Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group (see Action 1A3) 

ANSTF Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

BML Bodega Marine Lab 

BOE Board of Equalization 

CAAIST California Agencies Aquatic Invasive Species Team (see Action 1A2) 

CAC County Agricultural Commissioners 

CACASA California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association 

CAISMP California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan 

CALFED CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

CBC California Biodiversity Council 

CCC California Coastal Conservancy 

CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

CeNCOOS Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System 

DBW California Department of Boating and Waterways 

DESP-UCD Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis 

DFG California Department of Fish and Game 

 /OSPR /Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

DFA California Department of Food and Agriculture 

DHS California Department of Health Services 

DOE California Department of Education 

DPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

FA Federal Agencies 

FY State fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) 

ISAC United States Invasive Species Advisory Committee 

ISP San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

OPC California Ocean Protection Council 

PARKS California Department of Parks and Recreation 

PBWG Pacific Ballast Water Group 

PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

RCD Resource Conservation District 

RI Research Institutions, universities and affiliated programs 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SCC State Coastal Conservancy 

SCCOOS Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System 

Sea Grant California Sea Grant College Program 

SFEP San Francisco Estuary Project 

SH Stakeholders 

SLC California State Lands Commission 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

TRCD Tahoe Resource Conservation District 

UCCE University of California Cooperative Extension 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

v
 /ARS /Agricultural Research Service 

 /APHIS /Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WRP Western Regional Panel 

* Acronyms are used largely after the first appearance of an agency name within a chapter. Full 

names are often spelled out again in subsequent chapters if it has been many pages since the 

prior mention or if the full name is central to the information presented. 

Important Terms 

These terms are used throughout, but especially in Chapter 6 and in the Table 5: CAISMP 

Implementation Matrix. 

Implementing Entity: Since this is a state plan, these are state agencies, programs within state 

agencies, or groups that include state agencies that fund and have primary accountability and 

authority for an action being carried out. In Chapter 6, the Implementing Entity appears in BOLD. 

This term is also used in the Implementation Table in Chapter 7. 

Cooperating Organizations: Entities whose participation is needed or may be needed to 

conduct an action. In Chapter 6, cooperating organizations appear in regular, non-bold, type. 

Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs): Non-profit organizations directly involved in AIS 

research or control activities. 

Stakeholders: Relevant recreation, industry, local government, landowner representatives and 

special interest groups. 

Plan Implementation and Science Advisory Panels: Panels created per Action 1A5 to help 

the work of the CAAIST and AISWG. 

vi
Species Names 

All species names mentioned in this document appear below in full, with their scientific 

names for reference. Common names are used throughout the document, except in those cases 

where the scientific name has become the preference for common use (Arundo, Egeria, Hydrilla, 

Caulerpa, etc.). All names appear in full in Appendix G, the Regulated Species List, for the 

purposes of regulatory clarity. 

Invasive Species 

1. African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis

2. Alligatorweed, Alternanthera philoxeroides

3. Asian overbite clam, Corbula amurensis*

4. Asian swamp eel, Monopterus albus

5. Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar

6. Botrylloides diegensis

7. Brazilian elodea, Egeria densa (most commonly called Egeria) 

8. Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana 

9. Caulerpa taxifolia (most commonly called Caulerpa) 

10. Channeled apple snail, Pomacea canaliculata

11. Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis

12. Curly pondweed, Potamogeton crispus

13. Dwarf eelgrass, Nanozostera japonica

14. English cordgrass, Spartina anglica

15. Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum

16. European frogbit, Hydrocharis morsus-ranae

17. European green crab, Carcinus maenas

18. Giant reed, Arundo donax (most commonly called Arundo) 

19. Giant salvinia, Salvinia molesta 

20. Golden mussel, Limnoperna fortunei

21. Green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus

22. Hydrilla verticillata (most commonly called Hydrilla) 

23. Japanese seaweed, Sargassum muticum

24. Knotted wrack, Ascophyllum nodosum

25. Melaleuca, Melaleuca quinquenervia

26. Microcystis spp. 

27. Mosquitofish, poecliliids

28. New Zealand mudsnail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum

29. Northern Pacific seastar, Asterias amurensis

30. Northern pike, Esox lucius

31. Northern snakehead, Channa argus

32. Paleyellow iris, Iris pseudacorus

33. Parrot feather milfoil, Myriophyllum aquaticum

34. Perennial pepperweed, Lepidium latifolium

35. Purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria

36. Quagga mussel, Dreissena bugensis

37. Sabellid polychaete, Terebrasabella heterouncinata

38. Sacramento pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus grandis

39. Saltcedar, Tamarix ramosissima

40. Saltmeadow cordgrass, Spartina patens

41. Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus

42. Shimofuri goby, Tridentiger bifasciatus

43. Shipworm, Teredo navalis

44. Small cordgrass, Spartina maritima

45. Smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora

46. Wakame, Undaria pinnatifida

47. Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes

48. Water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes

49. Yellowfin goby, Acanthogobius flavimanus

vii
50. Yellow floating heart, Nymphoides peltata

51. Zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha

Native Species 

1. Brown turban snails, Tegula brunnea

2. California clapper rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus

3. Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

4. Dungeness crabs, Cancer magister

5. Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus

6. Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera

7. Green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris

8. Pickleweed, Salicornia spp

9. Salt marsh harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris

10. Soft bird’s-beak, Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis

11. Steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss

* This document refers to the locally known “Asian clam” as the “Asian overbite clam.” Many 

scientists have begun to call it the “overbite” clam to distinguish it from other invasive clams from 

the Far East. The species’ scientific name is due to be officially modified from Potamocorbula 

amurensis to Corbula amurensis in the forthcoming Light’s Manual and many scientists have 

begun to use the shorter species name. Other literature citations for the name change can be 

found on page 5 of the following: 

http://www.iep.ca.gov/report/newsletter/2005_newsletters/IEPNews_spring2005final.pdf 

viii
Glossary 

Accidental introduction: An introduction of nonindigenous species that occurs as the result of 

activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the 

transport of nonindigenous species in ballast water or in water used to transport fish, mollusks or 

crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes. 

Biocontrol: The use of living organisms, such as predators, parasites and pathogens, to control 

pest animals (e.g. insects), weeds or diseases. 

Ballast water: Any water and associated sediments used onboard a ship to increase the draft, 

change the trim, regulate the stability or maintain the stress loads of the vessel. 

Control: Eradicating, suppressing, reducing or managing invasive species populations, 

preventing spread of invasive species from areas where they are present and taking steps such 

as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to 

prevent further invasions. 

Cryptogenic species: An organism of unknown origin; may be introduced or native. 

Ecological integrity: The extent to which an ecosystem has been altered by human behavior; 

an ecosystem with minimal impact from human activity has a high level of integrity; an ecosystem 

that has been substantially altered by human activity has a low level of integrity. 

Eradicate: For the purpose of this plan, eradication is the complete elimination of an invasive 

species from a specific part of California or the entire state. 

Established: An introduced organism with a permanent population(s), i.e., one that has the 

ability to reproduce and is not likely to be eliminated by humans or natural causes. 

Exotic: Any species or other variable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its 

historic range, including such organisms transferred from one country to another. Also known as 

nonindigenous or non-native. 

Fouling: An accumulation of organisms that attaches to naturally occurring and manmade 

submerged hard surfaces such as rocks, shells, ships, intake pipes, and other submerged 

equipment or machinery. Mobile organisms that may be tucked in nooks created by the larger 

animals are also considered part of the “fouling community”. 

Genetic dilution: Genetic dilution occurs when introduced organisms add their genetic material 

to native populations through hybridization. This can result in populations that are less well 

adapted to their environment, potentially leading to the decline of those populations. 

Host: A living animal or plant that supports parasitic animals, plants or microbes, internally or on 

its surface. 

Incipient infestation: A small colony of an invasive species that has spread to a new area. 

Intentional introduction: All or part of the process by which a nonindigenous species is 

purposefully introduced into a new area. 

Introduction: The intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination or placement of a 

species into a California ecosystem as a result of human activity. 

Invasive species: For the purpose of this plan, the term refers to species that establish and 

reproduce rapidly outside of their native range and may threaten the diversity or abundance of 

native species through competition for resources, predation, parasitism, hybridization with native 

populations, introduction of pathogens, or physical or chemical alteration of the invaded habitat. 

Through their impacts on natural ecosystems, agricultural and other developed lands, water 

ix
delivery and flood protection systems, invasive species may also negatively affect human health 

and/or the economy. 

Keystone species: A species whose loss would have a disproportionately large effect on its 

ecosystem relative to its abundance. 

Native species: A species within its natural range or natural zone of dispersal, i.e., within the 

range it would or could occupy without direct or indirect introduction and/or care by humans. 

Non-native or Nonindigenous species: A species that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic 

geographic range. Also known as exotic or alien species. Other taxa can be considered nonnative or nonindigenous, such as families, genera, subspecies or varieties. 

Nuisance species: For the purpose of this plan, the term is synonymous with invasive species. 

Pathogen: A microbe or other organism that causes disease. 

Pathways: Natural and human connections that allow movement of species or their reproductive 

propagules from place to place. 

Pioneer infestation: See incipient infestation. 

Taxa: Taxa are groups used to classify organisms (e.g. kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, 

genus and species). Taxa is the plural form of taxon. 

Vector: Vector is synonymous with “pathway,” see definition above. As such, vector is defined 

more broadly in this report than in its narrower more common definition as a pathway solely for 

pathogens. 

Watershed: The geographic area that drains to a single water body or hydrographic unit such as 

a lake, stream reach or estuary. 

x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Invasion of California Waters 

Californians have benefited from the introduction to this state of various 

fish, plants and other species necessary for food or other human pursuits; 

however, there are many other introduced species that can wreak havoc on the 

state’s environment and economy. Those species that cause harm and spread 

quickly from their point of introduction are often called “invasive.” For these 

species, a single individual may produce thousands of seeds, masses of larvae 

or reproduce from nothing bigger than bits of stems, roots or leaves. Those that 

live in or near the water – aquatic invasive species – can be easily dispersed to 

distant water bodies or new ecosystems by currents, tides, river flows, streams, 

floods and other water flows. 

This plan proposes management actions for addressing aquatic invasive 

species (AIS) threats to the State of California. It focuses on the non-native 

algae, crabs, clams, fish, plants and other species that continue to invade 

California’s creeks, wetlands, rivers, bays and coastal waters. State surveys 

indicate that at least 607species of aquatic invaders can be found in California’s 

estuarine waters. These invaders cause major impacts: disrupting agriculture, 

shipping, water delivery, recreational and commercial fishing; undermining 

levees, docks and environmental restoration activities; impeding navigation and 

enjoyment of the state’s waterways; and damaging native habitats and the 

species that depend on them. As the ease of transporting organisms across the 

Americas and around the globe has increased, so has the rate of AIS 

introductions. 

Vectors & Entry Points 

Transoceanic shipping is a major source of AIS invaders. The state 

estimates that about 9.1 million metric tons of ballast water was discharged in 

California waters in 2005. Hull fouling may rival ballast water discharge as a 

leading historical cause of harmful AIS introductions. AIS can also be 

transported from place to place via other pathways or vectors. Invasive species 

can cling to recreational gear, fishing equipment, drilling platforms, floating debris 

and docks. They may escape or be released into state waters from aquaculture 

packing materials, ornamental ponds and aquariums. Shoreline restoration and 

construction projects, as well as water-based scientific research, also transport 

species. The threat of aquatic invasions poses major challenges to California’s 

aquatic systems managers and policy makers. Resources must be devoted to 

preventing new introductions as well as to containing existing populations. 

Current state resources and programs are far from adequate to perform this task. 

xi
Need for Statewide Action 

Though a number of state agencies have been individually addressing AIS 

concerns or coordinating on individual projects, the scope of the problem has 

now reached a scale, complexity and cost requiring a more comprehensive 

statewide approach. Thus, the main purpose of this new California plan is to 

coordinate state programs, create a statewide decision-making structure and 

provide a shared baseline of data and agreed-upon actions so that state 

agencies may work together more efficiently. While the plan recognizes and 

provides for coordination with the federal, regional, local, private and nonprofit 

efforts to manage AIS, its central actions concern internal state coordination. As 

such, the plan ensures state action on high priority activities, improves utilization 

of scarce state resources and helps bridge gaps in coverage. Plan development 

was directed by the California Department of Fish & Game and includes input 

from state agencies involved in AIS management, as well as from the public and 

stakeholders, over a period of five years. 

Plan Goals & Chapters 

The plan’s overall goal is to identify the steps that need to be taken to 

minimize the harmful ecological, economic and human health impacts of AIS in 

California. The plan contains background chapters on AIS environmental and 

economic impacts. It describes vectors of AIS entry into the state including, but 

not limited to, commercial shipping, trade in live organisms, construction in 

aquatic habitats, and water deliveries and diversions. Subsequent chapters 

explain how AIS are managed in general and what the state has been doing to 

manage them to date. In addition, case studies for managing four specific AIS 

appear in the last chapter of this plan. 

Beyond this background information and context, the heart of the plan lies 

in 163 different management actions organized under eight objectives (Table 1): 

1. Coordination & Collaboration 

2. Prevention 

3. Early Detection & Monitoring 

4. Rapid Response & Eradication 

5. Long-term Control & Management 

6. Education & Outreach 

7. Research 

8. Laws & Regulation 

The interagency process of developing and discussing each of these actions, 

and deciding which entities will undertake them, provides a strong foundation for 

improving state management and coordination in the years ahead. It also 

supports the state’s first rapid response process for high-risk invaders, which is 

detailed in Appendix A of this plan. 

xii
Current Priorities 

The highest priorities among the 163 actions identified in this plan are as 

follows: 

1. Formalize the creation of two major new coordinating entities, one 

entirely for state agencies and one for a broader range of AIS interests 

(Action 1A2 and 1A3). 

2. Formalize a process for the team of state AIS managers to share 

information with and get input from agency executives (Action 1A1). 

3. Secure funding for state AIS staff (Action 1C3). 

4. Conduct a statewide assessment of the risk from four specific AIS 

vectors: commercial fishing, recreational boating, live bait, and live 

imported seafood (Actions 2B7, 2C1, 2D1, and 2D4). 

5. Fund and launch early detection and rapid response actions, including 

efforts to coordinate various AIS monitoring programs and expand 

monitoring of freshwater systems (Strategies 3A and 4A, and Appendix 

A). 

If these core actions can be accomplished, it will provide a basis for 

pursuing the larger list of AIS management priorities in the future. 

Conclusion 

Aquatic invasive species are already a serious problem for California. 

Invasions around the world suggest that environmental and economic impacts 

from AIS will soon become much greater. This plan provides the state’s first 

comprehensive, coordinated effort to prevent new invasions, minimize impacts 

from established AIS and establish priorities for action statewide. In addition, it 

proposes a process for annual plan evaluation and improvement so that AIS can 

continue to be managed in the most efficient manner in the future. 

xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
1. INTRODUCTION

What are Invasive Species? 

An invasive species is “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem 

under consideration, and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health,” according to the 

National Invasive Species Management Plan (National Invasive Species Council 

2001). The characteristic of causing, or potentially causing, harm is central to the 

federal definition because it produces policy and management consequences. In 

other literature and in legislation, such invaders are also sometimes referred to 

as “nuisance” species. 

 

From a technical point of view, “invasive” refers to species that rapidly 

reproduce and spread outside their point of origin. The term “invasive species” is 

distinct from “non-native,” “nonindigenous,” “alien” or “exotic” species – the latter 

terms refer only to the origin of the species and not their rate of reproduction, 

dispersal or potential to cause harm (see Glossary for further definitions). 

This management plan focuses on aquatic invasive species – algae, 

insects, crabs, clams, fish, plants and other invaders to California’s creeks, 

wetlands, rivers, bays and coastal waters. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) 

threaten the diversity and abundance of native species and natural communities, 

the ecological stability and water quality of infested waters, and the commercial, 

agricultural, aquacultural and recreational activities dependent on these waters. 

The economic consequences of AIS impacts can be substantial, from decreased 

productivity of commercial fisheries to lowered property values and the 

expenditure of billions of dollars to alleviate AIS impacts in water bodies after 

they have already become infested (Pimentel et al. 2000). 

Geographic Scope 

This report proposes AIS management actions and a rapid response plan 

for the State of California. The diversity of California waters is extensive and 

includes: the rich coastal waters and estuaries of the Pacific Ocean 

(approximately 3,500 miles of tidal shoreline); over 210,000 miles of rivers and 

streams; over two million acres of freshwater wetlands, lakes, ponds and 

reservoirs; over 400,000 acres of saline lakes; and more than 22,000 miles of 

ditches and canals (RF3 computerized database; USGS Digital Line Graph 

traces; SWRCB’s 2002 WBS database). 

These diverse aquatic resources provide habitat for native marine and 

freshwater animals and plants including invertebrates, fish, and other aquatic or 

riparian-dependent species, aesthetic enjoyment, hydropower, irrigation, 

municipal and industrial water supplies and countless recreational and 

commercial opportunities. 

1
The authorities and programs outlined in this plan are generally limited to 

the political boundaries of California; however, it is recognized that there is a 

need for interstate and international cooperation to prevent the introduction and 

spread of AIS. The plan prescribes increased coordination with all Western 

states, Mexico and Canada, as rivers, water delivery systems, and water-based 

commerce and recreation cross state or national boundaries. 

History of Invasions 

The introduction of non-native species into the United States has been 

occurring for centuries, probably beginning with the introduction of human 

diseases and pests as a result of European settlement. The broad scale 

introduction of species into California waters most clearly begins with the 

shipment of tens of thousands of barrels of oysters from the East Coast after the 

establishment of the transcontinental railway (Barrett 1963). The huge influx of 

settlers, the establishment of maritime commerce and a multitude of other human 

activities through the 1900s contributed to continued invasions. 

Since then, hundreds of AIS have found their way into California waters, 

not only via transoceanic ships, but also by other vectors such as aquaculture, 

the aquarium trade, the bait industry, recreational activities, biological research, 

environmental restoration projects and even freshwater deliveries up and down 

the state. Statewide, researchers have now identified 607 introduced, or likely 

introduced, species in California’s estuarine waters (DFG/OSPR 2002 – see 

Figure 1). In San Francisco Bay, the rate at which AIS are becoming established 

increased from an average of one new species every 55 weeks prior to 1960, to 

one new species every 14 weeks between 1961 and 1995 (Cohen and Carlton 

1998). To date more than 250 non-native species have been found in the San 

Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary (Cohen, Pers. Comm. 2006). 

Some of the most problematic AIS that have become established in 

California include the European green crab, the Chinese mitten crab, the Asian 

overbite clam, and a plethora of aquatic plants with origins as far away as Brazil 

and Japan (for full scientific references see Acronym Glossary, Species Names 

page 7). More information on these invasions appears in subsequent chapters. 

Perhaps the most important issue is not the species that have already invaded 

but those that might invade in the future, such as the notorious zebra mussel. 

Quagga mussel, which poses a threat similar to the closely related zebra mussel, 

was found in Lake Mead, Nevada on January 7, 2007 and subsequently in Lake 

Havasu in California. Based on the damage caused in the Great Lakes region by 

zebra and quagga mussels, these European freshwater invertebrates could 

threaten California’s entire water delivery system, irrigation network and 

freshwater ecosystems. 

In general, it is extremely difficult to predict the impacts that most AIS may 

have on natural resources, human health, infrastructure and the economy. It is 

clear, however, that biological invasions of California are likely to continue, as 

global movements of goods and services continue to increase. 

2
In the United States, the number of non-native plant pathogens, insects, 

and mollusks discovered since 1920 strongly correlates with importation of goods 

over the same time period, and is forecast to increase by 16-24% over the next 

20 years. As the world’s largest economy and home to many of the world’s 

richest ecosystems, the United States is particularly vulnerable to additional 

biological invasions (Lodge et al. 2006). California is equally vulnerable as a 

Pacific Coast trade hub, immigration and recreation destination and major engine 

of the American economy. 

3
4
Benefits of a Statewide Plan 

AIS pose unique challenges to California’s water and resource managers, 

as well as to those developing policies affecting aquatic environments. Unlike 

other sources of pollution, established AIS populations can reproduce and 

spread. As a result, resources must be devoted to both the prevention of new 

introductions and the control of existing ones. The introduction of only a few 

organisms, or in the case of aquatic plants and algae, a tiny portion of an 

organism, can result in the infestation of an entire water body or watershed. 

These introductions can occur through a variety of vectors, further complicating 

preventative measures. 

California’s past efforts to address AIS focused on control of those species 

that most directly impacted boating, agriculture and other human activities. More 

recently, California’s focus has shifted toward prevention, with programs aimed at 

excluding plant pests and managing AIS-laden ballast water on ships. Current 

AIS activities involve prevention, eradication, management and education. 

These activities are not adequately coordinated throughout the state and do not 

comprehensively manage current established AIS or adequately prepare for new 

invasions. 

 The vital importance of California’s aquatic resources requires the creation 

of a more comprehensive management plan for responding to AIS. This 

management plan targets both marine and freshwater environments and 

highlights the need for aggressive action on many fronts. Although these pages 

describe the significant need for AIS management, there is currently no statutory 

mandate in California for the preparation of this management plan. 

The plan meets federal requirements to develop statewide Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans under Section 1204 of the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (amended 

as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 – see Appendix B). This Act 

authorizes a 75:25 federal to state match of funds required to achieve objectives 

and actions outlined in plans approved by the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Task Force (ANSTF, also established by the 1990 act). In developing this plan, 

the State of California has closely followed the Guidance for State and Interstate 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans developed by the ANSTF in 2000. 

Suggested actions contained in the Western Regional Panel’s Recommendations 

on State Actions to Improve Our Regional Capacity for Managing Aquatic 

Invasive Species (revised June 2003) were also incorporated. 

California Plan Goal & Objectives 

The California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan (CAISMP) 

provides a common platform of background information from which state 

agencies and other entities can work together to address the problem of aquatic 

invasive species. Beyond providing information, the goal of this planning 

process has been to identify the major objectives and associated actions that 

need to be attained in order to minimize the harmful ecological, economic and 

5
human health impacts of aquatic invasive species in California. 

Eight major objectives have been identified: 

1. Improve coordination and collaboration among the people, agencies, 

and activities involved with AIS. 

2. Minimize and prevent the introduction and spread of AIS into and 

throughout the waters of California. 

3. Develop and maintain programs that ensure the early detection of 

new AIS and the monitoring of existing AIS. 

4. Establish and manage systems for rapid response and eradication. 

5. Control the spread of AIS and minimize their impacts on native 

habitats and species.

6. Increase education and outreach efforts to ensure awareness of AIS 

threats and management priorities throughout California.

7. Increase research on the baseline biology of AIS, the ecological and 

economic impacts of invasions and control options to improve 

management. 

8. Ensure state laws and regulations promote the prevention and 

management of AIS introductions.

Each objective is supported by a series of strategic actions with the 

implementing entities and cooperating organizations identified, and costs 

included where appropriate. Detailed actions can be found in Chapter 6: 

Management Actions, Strategies and Objectives and in Table 5: CAISMP 

Implementation Matrix. 

The plan goal, objectives, strategies, and specific actions were developed 

with input from a series of stakeholder scoping meetings, interagency staff 

communications and public workshops held in 2002 and 2006 (see Appendix E). 

These meetings, as well as many individual conversations and extensive review, 

played a role in making the plan as comprehensive and responsive to AIS issues 

in California as possible. 

6
2. AIS ECOLOGICAL & ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

California currently faces a variety of significant and lasting impacts from 

aquatic invaders in both fresh and coastal waters. In general, these include: 

• Reduced diversity and abundance of native plants and animals (due to 

competition, predation, parasitism, genetic dilution, introduction of 

pathogens, smothering and loss of habitat to invasive species). 

• Degradation of wildlife habitat. 

• Stresses on rare, threatened, and endangered species.

• Alteration of the native food web and declines in productivity. 

• Changes in biogeochemical cycles (including nutrient cycling and energy 

flow). 

• Losses in fisheries production. 

• Impairment of recreational uses such as swimming, boating, diving and 

fishing. 

• Impairment of agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation canals. 

• Impairment of water delivery systems. 

• Degradation of water quality. 

• Threats to public health and safety (via parasites and disease). 

• Diminished property values.

• Loss of coastal infrastructure due to fouling and boring organisms.

• Erosion and destabilization of shorelines, banks and levees.

• Increased costs to business, agriculture, landowners and government of 

invasive pest control, treatment and clean up. 

Ecological Impacts 

In terms of ecological impacts, the introduction of invasive species is 

thought to be second only to habitat loss in contributing to declining native 

biodiversity throughout the United States. Nationwide, non-native species have 

contributed to 68% of the fish extinctions in the past 100 years and the decline of 

70% of the fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Wilcove et al. 

1998). 

California has been invaded by many aquatic plants and animals which 

have altered native ecosystems and taken a toll on recreation, commercial 

fishing and sensitive native species (i.e. species that are listed as endangered or 

threatened or otherwise considered rare or declining). 

7
California Examples 

• European green crab likely arrived in seaweed packed with bait worms 

shipped from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast. They were first detected on the 

West Coast in San Francisco Bay in the late 1980s. By 1996 the crab had 

spread along 300 miles of coastal California (Lafferty and Kuris, 1996). 

Green crabs may prey upon juvenile Dungeness crabs as well as cultured 

oysters, clams and mussels (McDonald et al. 2001 & Grosholz and Ruiz, 

1995). Clam and native shore crab populations in California have dropped 

significantly since the arrival of the green crab (Sea Grant 1998). Densities of 

native clams and shore crabs showed a five to ten-fold decline within three 

years of the green crab’s arrival (Grosholz et al. 2000). 

• Arundo is a plant native to the Mediterranean and tropical Asia. In California, 

it was planted as early as the late 1700s as a windbreak and for erosion 

control in flood channels. This reed grows in thick, bamboo-like stands that 

can reach a height of 30 feet. Its monotypic growth displaces native 

vegetation, increases flooding and siltation, increases water loss from 

underground aquifers and increases the susceptibility of riparian areas to fire. 

Despite its sizable height, it does little to shade in-stream habitat. The higher 

resulting water temperatures harm aquatic wildlife, including protected frogs, 

turtles and fish (see Appendix D, Team Arundo). 

• Asian overbite clam was introduced into San Francisco Bay via ballast water 

discharge and first collected in 1986. This Asian species has since become 

the most abundant clam in the northern part of the bay, ultimately reaching 

densities of nearly 50,000 clams per square meter (Peterson 1996), and has 

radically altered food-web dynamics and augmented contaminant transfer up 

the food web (Stewart et al. 2004). It is estimated that clams in the northern 

portion of San Francisco Bay have the capacity to filter the entire water 

column at least once and possibly more than twice in a single day (Thompson 

2005). 

• Wakame, an Asian seaweed, arrived in Los Angeles Harbor in 2000 and has 

since spread as far north as Monterey Bay (Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring 

Network 2007). One plant can release millions of spores capable of 

remaining dormant for many years before sprouting (Fisheries Global 

Information System 2007). Biologists fear it will either disrupt or hybridize 

with native giant kelp, endangering a keystone species of the California coast 

(Chapman 2005). 

• Japanese eelgrass first established itself in the Pacific Northwest in the 

1950s, probably arriving as packing material for oysters. It has since 

colonized hundreds of acres of bays in Washington and Oregon, growing in 

dense mats on formerly unvegetated mudflats. Studies suggest that the 

eelgrass displaces native burrowing shrimp and reduces habitat quality for 

feeding shorebirds (Posey 1988). It was discovered in California in 2002 

growing on the shores of Indian Island in Humboldt Bay. 

8
Most of these species are not the only invader in their newfound habitats. 

In combination, invasive species can have even larger scale impacts on the 

environment. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, for example, a clam 

and several plant species are all implicated in the sharp decline of endangered 

Delta smelt. In this small fish’s habitat, the Asian overbite clam has recently 

increased in abundance, possibly due to seasonal changes in outflows and 

salinity. This invader’s higher abundance and presence during more periods of 

the year than in the past, may be intensifying its impact on the pelagic food web 

which sustains Delta smelt. Young smelt, not to mention the popular sport fish, 

striped bass, may also be suffering from changes in habitat, water turbidity and 

predation levels caused by aquatic invasive weeds (Feyrer et al. in revision). 

In sum, AIS may not only have direct ecological impacts on habitats, 

species and food webs, but can also confound efforts to restore and protect 

these resources. More details on specific AIS impacts and efforts to manage 

them can be found in the case studies in Chapters 4 and 8. 

Economic Impacts: United States 

Most of the environmental impacts described above have associated 

economic costs as managers invest time and money trying to minimize AIS 

impacts on native species and habitats. Other economic losses are incurred 

when AIS invasions hamper or jeopardize human activities. For example, in just 

three years in the early 20th century, the invasion of a single organism, the 

shipworm, caused $615 million (1992 dollars) of structural damage to maritime 

facilities (Cohen, AN and JT Carlton 1995). On a national level, invasions are 

costing American taxpayers billions of dollars every year in environmental 

degradation, lost agricultural productivity, expensive prevention and eradication 

efforts and increased health problems. One nationwide estimate suggests that 

annual costs in environmental damage and losses, arising from the 50,000 

invasive species now in the United States, exceed $120 billion (Pimentel et al. 

2005). 

Invasives that spread into aquatic environments can be particularly costly 

to manage. The damage and costs associated with control of AIS in the United 

States are estimated to be $9 billion annually (Pimentel 2003). A breakdown by 

type of invader suggests annual costs as follows: 

Fish $5.4 billion 

Zebra & quagga mussels $1 billion 

Asiatic clams $1 billion 

West Nile virus $1 billion 

Aquatic plants $500 million 

Shipworm $205 million 

Green crab $100 million 

9
In an earlier study for the U.S. Congress, the Office of Technology 

Assessment (OTA) attempted to quantify economic impacts of 111 species of 

invasive fish and 88 species of invasive mollusks. Of these only four fish species 

and 15 mollusk species resulted in major negative impacts—including the sea 

lamprey, zebra mussel, and Asian overbite clam. OTA estimated that the 

cumulative loss to the U.S. for the period 1906-1991 from three harmful fish 

species was $467 million (1991 dollars) and $1.3 billion from three aquatic 

invertebrates. Invasive aquatic and riparian plants can also have costly impacts. 

OTA reports that spending on aquatic plant control in the U.S. is $100 million per 

year (Lovell and Stone 2005). 

Another indicator of economic impacts is government spending. In 1999 

and 2000, the federal government spent $459 million and $556 million, 

respectively on activities related to invasive species; however, federal funding to 

address fish and aquatic invertebrates was only $20.4 million in 1999. In 2004, 

federal funding to the U.S. Coast Guard, largely for programs to limit invasions 

via ballast water on ships, was $4.5 million (Lovell and Stone 2005). These 

numbers underscore how limited government spending on aquatic invasions is 

compared to spending on agricultural and forestry pests, despite the complexity 

and consequences of these invasions. 

One of the most costly and well-studied North American invasions has 

been the introduction of zebra mussel to the Great Lakes. In 1988, zebra mussel 

was first discovered in Lake Saint Clair, a small water body connecting Lake 

Huron and Lake Erie. By 2006, zebra mussels inhabited the waters of at least 20 

states. This prolific mussel colonizes pipes, constricting flow and thereby 

reducing water intake for heat exchangers, condensers, fire-fighting equipment 

and air conditioning and cooling systems. Zebra mussel densities were as high 

as 700,000 per square meter at one power plant in Michigan (Kovalak et al. 

1993). One estimate puts the cost of scraping mussels from pipes in the Great 

Lakes region alone at $50-100 million per year (Maryland Sea Grant 2003). 

Zebra mussels also attach to boat hulls, docks, locks, breakwaters and 

navigational aids, increasing maintenance costs, impeding transportation and 

increasing the likelihood of spread of the species. 

Economic Impacts: California 

AIS could threaten or undermine resources of great economic value to 

California. Recent statistics shed some light on the importance of California’s 

water resources to residents and visitors alike. 

• California has the largest ocean economy in the United States, ranking 

number one overall for both employment and gross state product. This 

economy (which includes coastal construction, living resources, offshore 

minerals, ship and boat building and repair, maritime transportation and 

ports, and coastal tourism and recreation) generated $42.9 billion in 2000 

and provided almost 700,000 jobs (Kildow and Colgan 2005). 

10
• Commercial fish landed in California in 2005 had a value of over $106 

million (DFG Marine Fisheries Statistical Unit). 

• Marine recreational fishing in California brought in an estimated $768 

million in expenditures in 2005 (NOAA Fisheries Service survey, formerly 

NMFS). 

• Sport fishing licenses issued in 2005 were 1,978,143 (DFG License and 

Revenue Branch). 

• In 2005, there were 965,892 boats registered in California. Recreational 

boating currently contributes $17 billion annually to the California economy 

(DBW). 

• California’s travel industry and associated recreation contributes 

approximately $55.2 billion annually to the state’s economy. Much of this 

recreational activity is centered on water or water-based activities 

(California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism). 

AIS can have dramatic impacts on these important state resources and 

activities. Recreational boating and fishing, in particular, have long been 

hampered by aquatic weeds. The control of weeds to facilitate the public’s 

enjoyment of these activities has required some of the state’s longest-lived and 

most expensive management programs. Over the past three decades state 

agencies have spent more than $60 million to keep a handful of aquatic weed 

species from impeding the navigation of rivers, lakes, bays and other waterways, 

not to mention their causing other problems for fish, wildlife, agriculture and water 

quality. 

11
• Water hyacinth was introduced into the United States in 1884 as an ornamental plant for 

water gardens, where its floating showy, lavender-blue flowers attracted many admirers. 

Water hyacinth can double its size every ten days in hot weather. By 1904, the water 

hyacinth had made its way into a Yolo County, California slough. Surveys in recent years 

indicate that by early summer, the infestation can cover up to approximately 4,000 acres 

of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. At present, aquatic herbicides remain the primary 

tools available to control water hyacinth. Two weevils and a moth have been introduced 

as biological controls but have not demonstrated much success. Programs to manage 

water hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, its tributaries and the Suisun Marsh 

have been the responsibility of the state’s Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW). 

Over the program’s 22-year history, DBW’s costs for water hyacinth control have 

mounted to approximately $25 million dollars, with annual spending currently around $2.5 

million. 

• Hydrilla was imported into the United States from Asia in the late 1950s for aquarium 

aficionados. The plant, which grows in dense mats, is most likely to spread when 

fragments are carried into new habitat by recreational watercraft. Hydrilla has been 

found in 17 of California’s 58 counties. Working to eradicate hydrilla – as well as 

managing other aquatic weeds and wetland plants such as purple loosestrife, giant 

salvinia, and alligatorweed – is the responsibility of the state’s Department of Food and 

Agriculture (DFA). Since the 1970s, DFA has spent approximately $30 million dollars on 

aquatic weed control, with most of that money being focused on hydrilla eradication, 

which costs about $1.5 million per year. Such expenditures have enabled DFA to 

eradicate the plant from 19 sites in 12 counties, but much work remains to be done. 

12
DBW and DFA expenditures on aquatic weed control are just the tip of the 

iceberg (see side bar). The two budgets described in the water hyacinth and 

Hydrilla programs do not take into account the cost of control efforts by other 

public agencies and private landowners, lost revenue due to decreased property 

values, impacts on fisheries or decreased use of water for swimming, boating, 

fishing and other recreational activities. Other costly current infestations of 

aquatic or riparian plants in California include saltcedar (tamarisk), purple 

loosestrife, perennial pepperweed, Brazilian elodea, and smooth cordgrass. 

Fish, clams, crabs and other AIS can be more costly to control than plants, 

and in many cases, they cannot be controlled once they become established. 

The troublesome zebra mussel has yet to be documented in California; however, 

it has been detected at border inspection stations on dozens of occasions. 

Research suggests the zebra mussel has a broad potential range in California. 

Of 160 sites assessed, 44% had a high potential for colonization due to sufficient 

calcium level, appropriate pH, temperature, salinity range, and constant 

submersion (Cohen and Weinstein 1998). Most coastal watersheds, the western 

portion of the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin River and the southern Delta, 

offer conditions suitable for zebra mussel proliferation. Areas with a high 

potential for colonization encompass many of the state’s most important water 

delivery facilities, including the Delta-Mendota Canal, the California and South 

Bay Aqueducts, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the Colorado River Aqueduct, the All 

American Canal and their reservoirs (Cohen and Weinstein 1998). 

In January 2007, quagga mussel, a close relative of zebra mussel, was 

found in Lake Havasu in the Colorado River in California. Quagga mussel 

prefers deeper, cooler water than zebra mussel but poses the same serious 

threat to California’s entire water delivery system and irrigation network. 

Prevention programs for these two species would be almost identical. Until there 

is time to develop species specific analysis, the economic analyses and potential 

distribution created for zebra mussel is being used as a guideline for quagga 

mussel. 

Damage to the water delivery system that provides drinking water to 

millions of southern Californians, or damage to the irrigation network that 

supports a $30 billion per year agricultural industry, could produce extraordinary 

economic and social consequences. A recent risk analysis, based on lakes in 

Michigan, compared optimal spending on zebra mussel prevention to estimated 

costs of reducing the impacts to local power plants, if it were to become 

established. The analysis suggests that it would be beneficial to spend up to 

$324,000 per year to obtain a modest reduction in the probability of a zebra 

mussel invasion into a single lake with a power plant (Leung et al. 2002). 

In spite of the warnings from states already battling zebra mussels and 

quantitative analyses such as those described above, relatively few resources 

were directed towards the pending threat to California posed by these and similar 

organisms. Indeed the first line of defense, border protection stations, where 

13
trailered boats arrive from infested states, were far below adequate staffing and 

operational hours for consistent inspection and interception, and provided little in 

the way of AIS information to travelers (see Management Examples, Chapter 5). 

After the quagga mussel was discovered in Lake Mead and the lower Colorado 

River, short-term emergency funding was provided to state agencies responding 

to the incident, and permanent funding was later authorized to provide additional 

staff for an ongoing program. These measures are a positive step, but additional 

long-term funding is needed to increase intervention at all border protection 

stations and provide staff to prevent further introductions. 

 

Conclusion 

The harm done by invasives is a challenge to quantify. Environmental 

economists have been struggling to find a systematic method of quantifying 

human health values, use values, existence values and ecosystem values for 

decades. Invasive species add a level of complexity to the task that increases 

difficulties involved in such valuations. Rates of biological propagation, for 

example, do not always conform neatly with economic variables. Nor do 

assessments of the level of risk from invasives. Equally challenging can be 

attempting to quantify the benefits of preventing or controlling invasives (Lovell 

and Stone 2005). 

Whatever the species or impacts, experts agree that the most costly 

response of all is inaction. Costs mount as management activities shift from 

prevention to rapid response to eradication to control (see Figure 2) and as 

invasions spread and become irreversible. While some control programs have 

been highly successful, many more have not even been attempted due to the 

perceived challenges and expense. On most management levels, the default 

response is adaptation – passively adjusting to the damages caused by new 

species – even when eradication or control would be more cost-effective. Even 

when the initial funding, the tools, and the political will to launch an AIS control 

program exists, resources must be made available in perpetuity – not an easy 

task in the context of government funding cycles (Lodge et al. 2006). California 

managers have attempted to address some of these challenges as they 

developed the state AIS action plan described in Chapter 6. 

14
15
3. VECTORS OF AIS 

Invasive species arrive in California via vectors – the means or agents that 

transport species from one place to the next. Vectors, also referred to as 

pathways, include ships, fishing vessels, recreational boats and gear, sea 

planes, diving gear, drilling platforms, dry docks, and industries that grow and sell 

fish, plants and other organisms for food, bait, aquariums, pets and water 

gardens (see Table 2). Shoreline restoration or construction projects and waterbased scientific research or monitoring can also inadvertently move organisms 

from one place to another. Invasive species cling to boat bottoms and 

recreational or research gear, construction equipment, floating debris and docks. 

They inhabit ballast water on ships, and escape or are released from aquaculture 

packing materials, ornamental ponds, and aquariums into the state's waters. 

Once a highly invasive species arrives, preventing its rapid spread can be 

difficult if not impossible. Plants can produce thousands of seeds, which may be 

carried by wind, water, animals or human activities to distant water bodies. 

Some aquatic plants can reproduce vegetatively, with small bits of leaves, stems 

or roots resulting in new plants. Water flows and currents may also deliver these 

AIS to new ecosystems. Chinese mitten crabs hatch into larvae that spend one 

to two months drifting as plankton. During this period, the tide can carry these 

invaders deep into vulnerable estuary systems. Quagga mussels traveled, most 

likely in their larval form, on trailered recreational boats from the Great Lakes to 

the Colorado River system. In the past, efforts to control such invasions have 

focused on managing individual problem species. More recently, however, the 

concept of focusing on vectors, rather than species, has begun to gain support 

as a more effective approach for addressing aquatic invaders. 

16
17
Analyzing the risk of specific AIS vectors to the environment, human 

health and the economy represents a critical first step in preventing invasions. 

Many factors contribute to the invasion risk posed by a given vector. These 

include: 

• number of nonindigenous species transported; 

• number of individuals of each species transported; 

• characteristics of the species (including their environmental tolerances); 

• number and characteristics of their hitchhiking species (including 

parasites, pathogens and other associated organisms); 

• likelihood and frequency of a species and its hitchhikers reaching suitable 

habitat; 

• feasibility and cost of eradication or control if a species becomes invasive 

(Lodge et al. 2006). 

Any quantitative analysis of invasion risks will not only examine these 

factors, but also seek the point source of invasions and evaluate opportunities for 

management of each vector. 

Large vectors, such as commercial shipping, are not the only source of 

large-scale invasions. Seemingly minor vectors can lead to major invasions. For 

example, the use of seaweed to pack bait worms from the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

brought the European green crab to the Pacific Coast (Carlton 2001). Preventing 

introductions from smaller vectors can therefore provide significant ecological 

and economic benefits. 

The live trade, including the pet, aquaculture and horticulture industries, 

introduces far fewer exotic species than ships and other transportation vectors; 

however, prevention efforts aimed at this sector are well worth their cost. 

Providing education and oversight to these purveyors tends to cost less than 

comparable efforts aimed at transportation vectors and can preclude the far 

larger costs of stopping an invasion. The burgeoning mail order/Internet trade 

has only increased the risk from these pathways. Meanwhile, the water garden 

and live food industries are growing rapidly and will likely become the source of 

more invasions in the future. These trades frequently put non-native species of 

plants and animals in close proximity to natural waterways where they are more 

likely to find conditions suitable for establishment (Lodge et al. 2006). 

Raising awareness of the invasion risks from ballast water discharge and 

hull fouling, as well as among aquarium, pet, nursery, aquaculture and seafood 

industry groups, has great potential to change public behavior and develop 

cooperative guidelines for industry practices. In the end, these measures may 

significantly reduce the likelihood of AIS introductions (Lodge et al. 2006). 

California's initial focus may have to be on vectors currently thought to 

pose the highest risk of invasion. The ultimate goal, however, is to assess all 

potential vectors and to manage those that present the highest risk of new 

18
invasions. The sections that follow seek to provide general information on some 

of the diverse vectors by which AIS enter California. Details on the regulation 

control and management of these vectors appears in subsequent chapters. The 

general vector categories described below are: 

 

Vector 1: Commercial Shipping 

Vector 2: Commercial Fishing 

Vector 3: Recreational Equipment & Activities 

Vector 4: Trade in Live Organisms 

Vector 5: Construction in Aquatic Environments 

Vector 6: Water Delivery & Diversion Systems 

Vector 1. Commercial Shipping 

In coastal environments, commercial shipping is the most important vector 

for the introduction of AIS (Ruiz et al. 2000, Hewitt et al. 2004). In one study, 

commercial shipping accounted for one half to three-quarters of nonindigenous 

introductions to North America (Fofonoff et al. 2003). The steady rise of global 

commerce, increased shipping activities and shorter transport times suggests 

that the threat of introductions through this vector is increasing. 

California, as a coastal state engaged in significant Pacific Rim trade, 

cruise-line tourism and commercial fishing, is vulnerable to the global rise in 

invasions. California hosts 11 major seaports: Hueneme, Humboldt Bay, Long 

Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San 

Diego, San Francisco and Stockton. Three of these ports are among the top four 

busiest ports in the United States. Two of these ports are located a significant 

distance inland and are slated for expansion, potentially importing more AIS 

deeper into the state. These 11 seaports handled 23% of the United State's 

waterborne trade in 2003. Almost 95% of containerized Asian cargo destined for 

central and mountain states entered through West Coast ports – highlighting 

California as a first national line of defense against AIS (PMSA 2004). 

Ballast Water 

Shipping vessels commonly fill their ballast tanks with water from harbors 

after unloading cargo and discharge it in another harbor when loading more 

goods. The added mass of ballast water improves stability, trim, maneuverability 

and propulsion in large, otherwise empty cargo vessels. Vessels may take on, 

discharge, or redistribute ballast water during cargo loading and unloading, in 

rough seas, or while moving through shallow waterways. Live marine organisms 

ranging from plankton to adult fish are regularly transported from source to 

destination ports when ballast water is discharged (Carlton and Geller 1993, 

Cohen and Carlton 1995). Estimates suggest that more than 7,000 species are 

moved around the world daily in ballast water alone (Carlton 2001). 

Ballast water teeming with a wide array of non-native organisms is 

discharged into U. S. waters at the rate of about two million gallons per hour. In 

2005, 9.1 million metric tons were reported to have been discharged in state 

19
waters (Falkner et al. 2006). California requires vessels arriving from outside the 

United States Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ), or engaged in coastal travel, 

to manage their ballast water. Federal regulations (USCG) also require ballast 

water management. See Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendices B and C for more 

information on state and federal regulations and programs. Actions in this AIS 

management plan recognize and support these ballast water management 

activities. 

Hull Fouling 

Hull fouling may rival ballast water discharge as the leading cause of 

harmful AIS introductions (Thresher 1999, Hewitt 2002). Organisms such as 

mussels, seaweed, anemones and sea squirts with sedentary life stages can 

attach themselves to the hulls of commercial vessels or become entangled in 

nets, anchors, and other gear. Barnacles, other seaweeds and bryozoans may 

in turn attach to mussel shells and seaweed fronds, while more mobile species 

such as shrimps, worms and sea snails may hide in crannies created by larger 

fouling species (Takata et al. 2006). These organisms can survive for extended 

periods of time once secured to a vessel. Fouling organisms may then be 

transferred from the vessel to coastal waters and ports via spawning or egg 

release, detachment (simply dropping off into the water) or mechanical removal 

(via scraping, in-the-water cleaning or blasting in dry dock depending on clean up 

procedures). 

Fouling organisms live on wet surface areas such as vessel hulls. One 

study analyzed the total "wetted surface area" (WSA) of all vessel hulls arriving 

on the West Coast between July 2003-June 2005 (Takata et al. 2006 – See 

Figure 3). The goal was to provide some indication of the rate and pattern with 

which individual organisms may arrive (propagule pressure), and how they may 

contribute to AIS establishment. The resulting two-year total of WSA entering 

California waters was 189.5 million square meters, which is 1.5 times the area of 

San Francisco County. 

20
 

In an expansion of California's ballast water management program, recent 

legislation directed a team of technical advisors to formulate recommendations to 

prevent introductions through vessel fouling, among other non-ballast shipping 

vectors. The team's report documents several factors concerning this vector. 

For example, the degree of fouling may be affected by environmental conditions, 

vessel maintenance practices, types of shipping traffic and vessel movement 

patterns, all factors which may differ from region to region. (Takata et al. 2006). 

See Chapter 4 and Appendix C. 

Vector 2. Commercial Fishing 

While commercial fishing vessels do not usually carry ballast water, they 

can be an important AIS vector. As these vessels sit in harbors, docks, and 

berths during the off-season for long periods, they are more subject to the hull 

fouling described under Vector 1 than commercial ships (which travel so 

constantly through waters of widely varying temperature and salinity that their 

hulls remain relatively clean). Commercial fishing vessels can also carry AIS from 

one harbor to another via their fishing gear, lines, tackle, buoys, traps and nets. 

Researchers believe the Japanese marine algae, wakame, may have been 

introduced to Monterey Bay by fishing vessels from other California ports. 

Though the state currently regulates ballast water and may soon regulate hullfouling, it has no authority over vessels under 300 gross register tons in size, 

such as commercial fishing vessels. More information is needed on the AIS risk 

from this vector. Actions in this management plan seek to address this need. 

21
Vector 3. Recreational Equipment & Activities 

Boating & Sea Planes 

The lakes, ponds, rivers and coastal waters of California provide 

recreational opportunities for a large population of boaters. The movement of 

boats along the coast, as well as the overland transport of boats and their trailers 

between water bodies, can introduce AIS that foul hulls, become entangled on 

motor propellers, and are small enough to be discharged in bilge pump water. In 

addition, aquatic invasive plants and other AIS can also be transported from one 

body of water to another through entanglement on aircraft pontoons. 

Recreational boats and sea planes can be both the source of an initial 

introduction (bringing in a species from its native location, into California), or a 

source of spread of a species once it arrives via other vectors such as ballast 

water or aquarium releases. This is the case with zebra mussel and quagga 

mussel, which were thought to have originally entered the US via ballast water, 

and now have spread throughout many areas in the United States via 

recreational boats. 

Fishing 

Recreational fishing is another vector in the introduction and spread of 

AIS. Initial introductions can occur when bait buckets and live tank contents are 

dumped. Gear used for fishing (boats, nets, floats, anchors, wading boots, tackle, 

etc.) can spread AIS. For example, fly fishing gear used in waters infested with 

New Zealand mudsnails, may be the primary vector associated with the spread 

of this AIS into California’s rivers. 

Other Water Sports 

Those engaged in California’s diverse variety of other water sports – 

swimming, jet-skiing, windsurfing, parasailing, scuba diving, waterfowl hunting – 

can all also be potential carriers of hitchhiking AIS as sports gear is moved 

among coastal and inland recreational spots. 

For all recreational water users, clear identification of AIS-infested waters 

through posted signs and by other means would reduce the risk of the transport 

of established invaders. This measure, along with vessel inspections and 

investigating the feasibility of installing washing stations for recreational 

watercraft, are actions in the management plan. Education of all recreational 

users – and for non-aquatic equestrians, hikers and cyclists crossing streams 

and rivers – is also recommended in this management plan. 

22
Vector 4. Trade in Live Organisms 

Live Bait Industry 

The shipment of live, non-native fishes or invertebrates into California for 

use as bait may serve as another vector of AIS introduction. Packing materials 

are frequently comprised of live plants that have the potential to become 

invasive. Knotted wrack, a seaweed native to the North Atlantic, is the primary 

packing material for marine baitworms (blood worms and pile worms) and 

American lobsters shipped to California. This seaweed often harbors a 

substantial number and variety of non-native marine organisms. Of further 

concern is live bait that harbors parasites or pathogens that could endanger the 

health of human populations or native species. The state regulates the culture, 

import, harvest and sale of fish species sold as bait; however, the sources of 

invertebrate imports to California for recreational fishing purposes are largely 

unknown and unregulated. Actions in the plan address the need to evaluate, 

improve and enforce regulations designed to minimize the invasion threats from 

both live and frozen bait. Frozen bait has recently gained more attention as a 

potential vector for AIS because the virus that causes hemorrhagic septicemia, a 

disease that causes fish to bleed to death, has been found to survive in frozen 

bait (Bergquist 2007). 

Live Imported Seafood 

The import, sale and distribution of fresh, live seafood are important 

component of California’s economy. The processing and sale of live fin and 

shellfish can result in the intentional or unintentional release of live organisms as 

well as their associated parasites and pathogens. Specific seafood-related 

introduction pathways include packing materials, as discussed in the prior 

section, and the following: 

Shellfish waste disposal: Shells and other unwanted materials discarded 

following shellfish processing might harbor shellfish pathogens or live 

epiphytes (plants that grow on organisms or objects, rather than on the 

ground), as well as embryos or other developing stages of the shellfish 

species. Disposal of this material in or near a water body could result in 

unwanted introductions, as well as other types of water quality impairment. 

Bivalve wet storage: Holding shellfish in flow-through systems subjects 

surrounding surface waters to pathogens and other organisms that may 

be discharged during tank flushing. Transporting shellfish in nests of 

algae or other plants also poses the risk of introductions when these 

packing materials are discarded. 

Creation of new fisheries: Several aquatic invaders, such as the Chinese 

mitten crab, may have been released intentionally in hopes of founding a 

new and commercially valuable fishery (Whitlatch et al. 1995). Seafood 

suppliers and commercial and recreational fishers and anglers, who are 

unaware of the detrimental impacts resulting from these introductions, 

23
may be tempted to release these species into local aquatic systems to 

establish a self-sustaining population that can be harvested for 

consumption. 

Aquaculture 

California has the most diverse aquaculture industry in the United States. 

Like the seafood industry, aquaculture is an important sector of the California 

economy and has the potential for significant growth as more limits are imposed 

on wild fish harvests. While intensive culture of both finfish and shellfish reduces 

the harvesting pressure on wild stocks, concerns related to water quality 

impairment, the growth and distribution of pathogens, the escape of non-native 

species, and genetic dilution indicate a need for careful planning in this industry. 

The following are examples of how non-native species introductions can occur 

through intensive aquaculture operations. 

Shellfish seed import: Shellfish seed is commonly grown in hatcheries 

and imported to California for use in commercial operations such as oyster 

culture. While the state regulates the sources of seed for this industry, 

there is the potential for the import of shellfish pathogens and other 

organisms associated with shellfish, such as boring organisms, from 

outside of the state. An enhanced capacity to identify and manage 

shellfish diseases will be necessary to minimize the loss of shellfish due to 

these threats. 

Abalone culture: Farmed commercial abalone is a small but productive 

industry that recently felt the sting of an introduced parasite. The 

industry’s struggles with the South African sabellid worm offer a good 

example of what can happen when shellfish are transferred among 

hatcheries across state and national boundaries (see also Management 

Examples, Chapter 4). Although both abalone aquaculture and stock 

importations are regulated by the state, new guidelines for the movement 

of live organisms may be needed. 

Shellfish waste: Several shellfish species cultured in California prefer 

clean, hard surfaces on which to settle and attach. Placement of shellfish 

waste as substrate in grow-out areas has raised concern over the source 

and proper disinfection of this waste material and the potential of this 

practice to transport shellfish pathogens or other associated non-native 

species. 

Finfish culture: Raising finfish in open systems such as raceways, flowthrough tanks and net pens exposes surrounding aquatic systems to 

pathogens commonly associated with cultured fish populations, and 

introduces the possibility of escape of the aquaculture species into 

adjacent waters. The state regulates this industry and requires that 

species cultured in watersheds where they are not already present be 

isolated from natural systems. 

24
Genetic dilution: Strains of shellfish and finfish used in aquaculture are 

often imported or represent stocks that have been genetically altered or 

selected for particular traits such as large size or disease resistance. 

Cultured stocks are usually at a disadvantage in competition with wild 

populations in the natural environment; however, farmed Atlantic salmon 

have been documented to escape and survive in the wild in Pacific Coast 

waters. 

California has addressed many of these concerns through existing laws 

and regulations; however, several actions related to the prevention of 

introductions through the shellfish and aquaculture industries have been included 

in the plan. 

Recreational Fisheries Enhancement 

It is common practice in the United States for federal and state agencies 

to import game fish to enhance recreational fishing. Private citizens have also 

illegally transported and released fish species into waterways in hopes that a 

viable population would survive. Non-native fish introductions in California 

peaked in the 1960s, when 13 new species were introduced (Moyle 2002). 

Illegal fish introductions, including species newly brought to the state and 

transfers of already-established species to new sites are of increasing concern in 

California. There are 51 non-native freshwater fishes currently found in 

California; the majority introduced deliberately, whether legally or illegally, in an 

attempt to enhance recreational fisheries (Moyle 2002). Non-native fish are now 

the most abundant fish in many waterways in California, raising concerns about 

increased competition, predation, habitat interference, disease and hybridization 

with native species. 

Aquarium & Aquascaping (Water Gardens) 

Non-native marine and freshwater organisms can be introduced 

accidentally or purposefully after being imported for use in aquaria and water 

gardens (Carlton 2001). Aquatic plants available through these industries are 

often native to temperate regions and are selected for 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 by the consumer. Careful inspection 

of stock shipped and received is important; aquatic plants such as water lilies 

have reportedly been shipped from nurseries still entangled in fragments of 

invasive hydrilla plants. 

Live rock – coral skeleton that has been colonized by marine plants, 

microorganisms, and algae – poses a similar threat as a means of invasive 

species transport. Imported from tropical reefs, live rock is becoming a favored 

means to decorate and improve water quality in aquaria. Live rock is currently 

not subject to quarantine or other biological regulations, and has the potential to 

25
transport small invasive species ranging from algae to jellyfish (Bolton and 

Graham 2006). 

The state monitors and regulates a limited number of aquarium and 

aquascaping species. Enforcement can be difficult, as California's nursery 

industry includes approximately 3,500 growers, 3,000 retail nurseries and 3,500 

incidental dealers such as supermarkets, drugstores and other chain-store 

markets. Many species of concern, particularly freshwater aquatic plants, are 

also now readily available via the Internet and through mail order catalogs for 

water gardening. Some of the most popular AIS still commonly sold include 

water hyacinth, parrot feather milfoil, Brazilian elodea, water lettuce, yellow 

floating heart, paleyellow iris and European frogbit. 

Widespread use of the Internet for commercial sales of non-native aquatic 

plants and animals is particularly troubling. Federal agencies have the authority 

to regulate sales of invasive plants and invertebrates through the aquarium and 

water garden trades; however, California's capacity to monitor and regulate the 

importation of species is limited to those restricted by statute. The state can play 

a more active role by encouraging providers to monitor their shipments and by 

providing recommendations for care and handling. Efforts can be made to 

provide information to Internet suppliers based in California about the risks of 

particular species. Educated consumers can provide an added level of security 

by carefully inspecting shipments, after they are received and prior to release, to 

make sure they are not contaminated by additional AIS. 

For all types of AIS imports – whether into stores, through catalogs or via 

the Internet – more education and outreach, inspections and enforcement are 

needed at both the state and federal level. Such steps are among the actions 

recommended in this management plan. 

Research & Educational Activities 

Marine and freshwater species can be ordered from research and 

education supply companies around the world through catalogs or Internet 

websites. While these organisms are generally supplied for research purposes, 

many companies also sell species for use in home aquaria. Few suppliers of live 

organisms, among them marine labs and research facilities, provide guidelines 

documenting use and handling practices. 

Once the organisms are delivered, improper handling techniques may 

result in the release of non-native species. Both lab and field practices routinely 

present the opportunity for AIS release through wastewater discharge, disposal 

of unwanted organisms, poorly contained studies, etc. The invasion of the 

colonial sea squirt, Botrylloides diegensis, in Massachusetts is believed to have 

occurred via this vector (Whitlach et al. 1995). 

26
Vector 5. Construction in Aquatic Environments 

Many types of construction are conducted in aquatic environments, 

including the maintenance of canals and water delivery systems, the creation of 

shoreline parks and developments, the dredging of shipping channels and 

marinas, the control of riparian and levee-bank erosion, and the restoration of 

wetland, riparian and shallow water ecosystems. All of these activities, and the 

equipment used to accomplish them, can transfer or introduce AIS. 

Construction Equipment: The use of contaminated construction 

equipment and the transport of sands and sediments during marine 

construction (building and installation of docks, platforms, bulkheads, 

breakwaters, artificial reefs, etc.) can lead to the introduction of unwanted 

AIS. Similarly, the use of heavy machinery, such as harvesters and 

dredges, to remove AIS and/or sediments from infested water bodies, can 

spread AIS from one site to another if the equipment is not properly 

cleaned between projects. 

Canals, Channels, and Aqueducts: The building of canals, channels and 

aqueducts creates artificial connections between waterways, allowing the 

free movement of species across physical barriers. Increasingly in 

California, fish are being introduced into new areas by aqueducts that 

bridge drainages (see below). 

Ecosystem Restoration and Erosion Control: Historical examples abound 

of non-native plants being introduced to California for habitat restoration 

and/or erosion control with disastrous results, including species of 

cordgrass, tamarisk and Arundo, to name a few. Awareness of this 

problem needs to be increased and alternative plant choices must be 

made available and encouraged or required. Equipment used during 

habitat restoration and subsequent monitoring should be cleaned to avoid 

transferring AIS from one site to another. 

Vector 6. Water Delivery & Diversion System 

The state's extensive water delivery, export, transfer and development 

system, which moves water not only from one watershed to another, but also 

from one end of the state to another, and even across state lines, can be an 

important vector of AIS. Water deliveries can spread freshwater-adapted AIS 

within and out-of-state, and carry species from infested areas to more pristine 

locales. For example, the yellowfin goby was first found in the San Francisco 

Estuary, and then in the Delta-Mendota Canal, a feature of the Central Valley 

Project. The yellowfin goby was later found further south, in the California 

Aqueduct, which is part of the State Water Project and transports water from 

northern and central California to the Los Angeles area. More recently, the 

yellowfin goby has been found in the San Luis Reservoir in the western San 

Joaquin Valley. The California Aqueduct has transported a number of species, 

both native and invasive. Scientists have already identified species they predict 

will travel to new locales on this waterway, such as the Shimofuri goby found in 

27
the Suisun Marsh northeast of San Francisco, and more recently in Pyramid 

Reservoir, 39 miles from downtown Los Angeles. 

A significant amount of water, and whatever AIS are in it, is moved around 

California each year to supply drinking, irrigation and other water supplies for 

human activities. The state's two largest water distribution systems, the State 

Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, can move up to four and 

seven million-acre feet of water each year, respectively. At least 7,000 other 

users also have permits to divert water. During the period 1998 and 2001, 

approximately 30-37 million acre feet of water were diverted from their original 

courses annually in California. Of these transfers, between 3.9 and 4 million acre 

feet of water transfers came from the Colorado River (Messer 2007). 

The likelihood of spreading aquatic invaders via water diversion is not 

proportional to the amount of water that is being transferred. Often, water is 

moved to a water treatment plant where it will be processed into safe drinking 

water or to agricultural fields inhospitable to aquatic species. Water turbines may 

be fatal to invasive species. When an invasive species arrives in a new location, 

it does not always establish. For instance, Chinese mitten crabs transported to 

an agricultural canal near Bakersfield, California by the Central Valley Project 

cannot establish a viable population because they need access to an estuary to 

complete their life cycle. 

Water managers are working to better track AIS in their equipment and 

systems. State and federal project managers, for example, monitor AIS by 

counting mitten crabs which clog the fish screens at fish collection facilities in 

Tracy, California, where water is diverted from the Delta. Native and non- native 

fish are counted, collected, and salvaged, and new fish species have been noted 

at these facilities. Less extensive sampling, mostly to determine fish loss, is 

conducted at other regional water diversion facilities. 

Intensive manipulation of natural water paths and flow rates, and other 

characteristics of the state’s aquatic and adjacent ecosystems, make California 

particularly vulnerable to AIS. Not only can AIS be more easily transferred via 

these diversions but they can also find it easier to colonize areas where native 

species are already stressed by dams, water diversion, altered hydrology and 

development in their habitats. 

Conclusion 

The above is only a discussion of the primary vectors of aquatic species 

invasions. In the past 200 years, the number of vectors available to transport 

marine species has steadily increased. In the year 1800, ships and the materials 

carried for ballast were the major mechanisms of introduction. By 2000, there 

were at least 16 known human-related vectors (Carlton 2001). The increasing 

diversity of vectors makes the prevention of introductions an even greater 

challenge. 

28
4. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Efforts to manage aquatic invasive species began more than a century 

ago when water hyacinth and alligatorweed began to clog navigable waterways. 

Early 1900s management efforts involved chemicals that generally proved either 

ineffective or poisonous to livestock and wildlife and mechanical removal, either 

by hand with a scythe or with the help of "crusher boats," which smashed floating 

vegetation between heavy rollers, and "saw boats" which shredded plants with 

rotating blades (Hoyer and Canfield 1997). Since then, management 

approaches have changed and become more diverse to include everything from 

hyperspectral remote sensing, ozone treatment and K-12 education curricula to 

herbicides, electro-fishing, Internet sales precautions, PowerPoint presentations 

and border inspections. Numerous international, federal and state laws have 

been passed aimed at preventing and controlling invasions, and numerous 

government agencies, NGOs, industry groups and other organizations have 

become involved in AIS management. 

Most long-established programs – both state and federal – are targeted at 

managing terrestrial agricultural pests, which can spread easily by wind, fog and 

through the air. Many of these programs are species specific. Efforts to manage 

invaders living in and around water present a different set of challenges for 

containment and control and focus on preventing vectors from bringing in new 

species and on developing early detection networks. This chapter: 

• explains the generally accepted management framework and control 

options for AIS; 

• provides a brief overview of AIS programs operating in California; 

• summarizes the responsibilities of California state agencies most 

involved in AIS work; 

• lists gaps and challenges in state AIS management. 

A summary of AIS-related state and federal laws and authorities can be 

found in Chapter 5, with a more comprehensive description and more extensive 

agency information appearing in Appendices B, C and D. A list of regulated AIS 

species can be found in Appendix G. 

General Framework 

On a general level, invasive species management involves five basic 

strategies, often in combination: 

• Prevention 

• Early Detection & Monitoring 

• Rapid Response & Eradication 

• Long-Term Control & Management 

• Education & Outreach 

29
This basic framework, well established on a national level, is also reflected 

in California’s existing pest prevention programs and weeds management plans. 

It forms the foundation of management actions described in Chapter 6 of this 

plan. 

In choosing management approaches within this framework, the nature of 

the invader itself comes into play (see Table 3). Some invaders (such as the 

zebra mussel) may be known troublemakers in other states or nations but have 

not yet arrived in California, suggesting a management response focused on 

monitoring, education and early detection. Other invaders (such as the water 

hyacinth choking boating channels and lakes) may be so well-established that 

eradication is infeasible and ongoing chemical and/or mechanical removal is 

selected to minimize the harmful effects of the infestations. Still others (such as 

the Asian overbite clam colonizing the floor of Suisun Bay) may present no 

management option whatsoever since there is no environmentally acceptable 

way to treat or remove widespread benthic invertebrates in open waters. 

Whatever the species, the possible human management responses generally 

narrow as any invasion progresses (Lodge et al. 2006). 

30
31
Prevention 

Preventing AIS introductions is the single most cost-effective and 

environmentally beneficial management approach and is the first line of defense. 

This approach focuses on preventing the release of AIS into state waters via 

ballast water, fouled hulls, marine equipment movements, aquatic recreation and 

research activities, and by the producers and buyers of bait, aquariums, seafood 

and other live organisms. Pest prevention programs for noxious weeds often 

refer to this type of prevention as “exclusion” (keeping the species out of the 

state). Many prevention programs focus on minimizing the introduction of all 

species into the environment via specific vectors. This is because it is very 

difficult to predict which species will invade and cause significant impacts. It is 

also very difficult to identify the actual species of potential aquatic invaders 

(especially very small invertebrates, internal parasites, and unicellular 

organisms). Inspection programs, such as those for smaller boats and retail and 

wholesale businesses, are also part of prevention, but generally target specific 

species rather than the entire range of species that those vectors could 

potentially introduce. 

Prevention programs may include everything from inspections of stores, 

industries or facilities that may be harboring or selling AIS to education and 

outreach. As prevention is the least expensive and most effective management 

response, every vector deserves state level consideration and coordination. 

Monitoring, Early Detection & Rapid Response 

Some species will evade prevention programs. A few of these will spread, 

after a certain lag time and become pests. The lag time between establishment 

and spread, which could be weeks to years, offers an opportunity for detection 

and eradication. Taking action while populations are small and localized is 

extremely important but the effort required to detect a species can be inversely 

proportional to its population size. Sound management must balance the high 

costs of surveys aimed at detecting small populations over a wide area against 

the high costs of eradication if a survey fails to catch an invasion early on. New 

surveillance technologies and web-based reporting and information networks 

may help increase the success of early detection efforts (Lodge et al. 2006). 

Enlisting the help of citizen monitors, watershed groups, professional diving 

associations, and others often in and out on the water may also prove effective. 

Once detected, rapid response often involves an attempt to eradicate the 

invader by chemical, mechanical or other means. This works best when the 

invader appears in an isolated lake, creek or other water body where spread can 

be contained and the environmental impacts of chemicals used to kill the invader 

is minimized. Eradication may be possible in isolated areas of one part of the 

state while larger scale control programs may be necessary in others where 

infestations have spread. For this reason, it is sometimes hard to categorize 

existing response programs as either “eradication” or “control.” Such measures 

often go hand-in-hand on a statewide scale. 

32
MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES: BALLAST WATER & HULL FOULING

California law began mandating ballast water management for ships arriving from foreign 

ports in 1999. During the ballast exchange process for vessels entering the state from outside 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ), biologically rich water loaded at the last port of 

call is flushed out of ballast tanks and replaced with the water from the open ocean, beyond 200 

nautical miles (nm) from land. For vessels moving along the coast, the exchange is done outside 

of 50 nm. Organisms are generally less numerous in the open ocean and it is expected that they 

will be poorly adapted to survive once discharged in the very different environmental conditions of 

a near shore port. Scientific research indicates that offshore ballast exchange typically eliminates 

70% - 95% of the organisms originally taken into a tank while at or near port (Zhang and Dickman 

1999, Parsons 1998). Other studies suggest that exchange efficiency is inconsistent and ranges 

from 50-90% (U.S. Coast Guard 2001). Most experts view ballast water exchange as a shortterm solution, with the final resolution being a combination of ship-board treatment technologies 

and management options such as ballast water retention or the use of freshwater as ballast, 

among others (Falkner et al. 2006). 

Minimizing the release of invasive organisms growing on or clinging to the hulls of 

oceangoing ships and commercial fishing vessels is also an important frontier of AIS 

management. Commercial vessel operators have long endeavored to keep fouling to a minimum 

on their ships for other reasons. Fouling creates drag, increasing fuel consumption, and/or 

straining the engine; it can also block pipes bringing in seawater to cool machinery. To prevent 

such problems, commercial vessels periodically clean their hulls and utilize antifouling coatings 

designed to discourage the attachment of organisms. While these measures do reduce the 

amount of fouling on a ship, consequently reducing the potential for AIS to be moved to new 

locations, they can create water quality problems. Most antifouling coatings slowly release toxic 

substances. Vigorous scraping of a hull while a vessel remains in the water can exacerbate the 

quantity of toxins and toxic debris released into surrounding waters. Biocide-free anti-fouling 

alternatives are currently being researched (Anderson). Recommendations for a new state 

program targeted at reducing the risk of AIS release from hull fouling (including consideration of 

some of the water quality concerns) were completed in 2006 (Takata et al. 2006). For more 

information on current California ballast water and hull fouling management programs see SLC 

section later in this chapter.

In order to effectively respond to the early detection of an AIS occurrence, 

several states have developed formal interagency rapid response plans. 

California has recently begun this process and written a draft rapid response plan 

(Appendix A). The goal of such plans is for agencies and other interests to work 

together as effectively and efficiently as possible through prior agreements about: 

roles and responsibilities, chains of command and communications, criteria for 

initiating rapid response actions, public safety, funding, regulatory permit 

processes, public information, data collection, implementation and follow-up 

evaluation. In other words, a rapid response plan lays out how federal, state and 

local officials should respond if an AIS of particular concern (such as the zebra 

mussel, see below, or the marine algae Caulerpa, see Chapter 8) is detected. 

Response can be delayed by permitting processes developed for maximum 

public input and thorough review, rather than for emergency response timelines. 

Both federal and California agencies have recognized the need for special levels 

of coordination and cooperation to facilitate rapid response. 

33
MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES: ERADICATION OF SABELLID WORMS & ZEBRA MUSSELS

 The South African sabellid worm was imported to the United States in the 1980s in an 

abalone shipment from South Africa. By 1993, abalone growers in Cayucos, California began to 

notice defects such as misshapen, stunted and brittle shells in their stock. The worm causes 

shell lesions that compromise the abalone’s overall health and marketability. The worm quickly 

spread to other abalone farms via seed stock and to rocky intertidal habitat nearby. The resulting 

infestation spread to native black turban snails. University of California, Santa Barbara 

researchers removed more than a million infected snails from the area, eradicating the worm from 

the wild in California. State agencies now closely regulate transfers of abalone between 

aquaculture facilities and have established a two-year certification program to ensure buyers that 

shellfish stocks are sabellid-free. 

 Though not in California, a 2006 success story in early detection marks the first successful 

extermination of zebra mussels. In 2002, the mollusks were discovered growing in a twelve-acre 

abandoned rock quarry in Virginia. With neither a native mollusk population nor any surface 

water outlets, the site was deemed ideal for mussel eradication. In 2006, the quarry was treated 

for three weeks with twice the concentration of potassium chloride found to be lethal to zebra 

mussels. Eradication was confirmed by a variety of measurements. Concentrations of potassium 

chloride in quarry water remained well below levels harmful to other wildlife; turtles, fish, aquatic 

insects, snails and other wildlife in the quarry do not appear to have been affected by the 

treatment. Unfortunately, the large volume of potassium chloride required makes the technique 

impractical to apply in large bodies of water. 

Slow the Spread & On-Going Control 

When eradication is not feasible, containment or at least a “slow the 

spread” strategy may be the best choice, particularly when management costs 

are likely to be exceeded by the environmental, public health or economic losses 

to businesses dependent on aquatic environments if an invasion is allowed to 

proceed unmanaged. Control programs often occur over many years, involve 

multiple sites and waterways, and present a daunting battle to manage the 

movements of small seeds, spores, larvae and specks of algae across huge 

landscapes and waterscapes. 

Education & Outreach 

Regardless of what the management response is, or the scale or type of 

invasion, it is critical to establish effective, ongoing communication with all those 

impacted, involved or potentially perpetrating the problem. Education and 

outreach – whether it is public service announcements and other media 

campaigns, species identity cards, volunteer training or school programs – play 

an important role. Education and outreach activities go hand-in-hand with all 

phases of AIS management, including prevention, early detection and 

monitoring, rapid response and eradication, and long-term control. 

34
MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES: PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE AND CHINESE MITTEN CRAB IMPACTS

Purple Loosestrife is a wetland invader imported from Europe in the early 1800s for its 

medicinal value and beautiful purple flowers. A large plant can produce more than two million 

viable seeds in one season. Purple loosestrife is still sold as an ornamental in nurseries in some 

states, though at least 24 states, including California, have listed it as a noxious weed and 

prohibit its sale. In California, it is rapidly expanding its range. State agencies have undertaken 

an effort to survey state populations and develop management plans. Eradication is the goal 

where feasible; however, preventing the spread of established populations may be the only 

alternative in other places. The plant is extremely difficult to eradicate, although a suite of insects 

has provided effective biological control in some areas. 

Although the Chinese mitten crab had previously been found elsewhere in the United 

States, San Francisco Bay was the first introduction that resulted in the establishment of a 

population. Burrows excavated by the crabs erode banks and could damage levees. The crab’s 

sharp claws can cut through commercial fishing nets and reduce or damage catch. The mitten 

crab can also host a human parasite known as the lung fluke, which can cause tuberculosis-like 

symptoms (the parasite has not been found in California crabs to date). In fall of 1998, as many 

as 1 million mitten crabs were collected at the federal and state fish salvage facilities in the south 

delta, which are associated with the California Aqueduct and State Water Project. The crabs 

clogged the screens, holding tanks and transport trucks used to salvage fish from the pumping 

stations. The state built “Crabzilla”, an 18-foot high traveling fish screen, at its Tracy fish 

collection facility to scoop up the crabs so they can be hauled off and ground up for fertilizer. 

Mitten crab numbers declined after 2001 and in 2005 were at very low numbers throughout the 

watershed (Hieb 2005 in press). 

MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES: NATIONAL AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS

Numerous education campaigns seek to improve public awareness of AIS issues on a 

national level. Habitattitude, for example, was started by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the 

national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the pet industry. This campaign focuses on 

promoting consumer awareness and responsible behaviors for aquarium and water garden 

hobbyists and in the industries that serve them. Other national campaigns are already working to 

educate water users about how to prevent the spread of AIS: Protect Your Waters & Stop 

Aquatic Hitchhikers is an educational campaign aimed at all recreational users; the 100th Meridian 

Initiative is a campaign aimed at stopping the spread of the zebra mussel and other AIS into the 

West. For more information on these national campaigns see Appendices B and D. 

An Overview of Current AIS Management Activities in California 

Seven state agencies are actively involved in large-scale ongoing AIS 

management programs. Numerous other local, state and federal agencies, 

NGOs, universities, research institutions and stakeholder groups, also play a 

role. Some management programs focus on a specific vector (commercial 

shipping, aquaculture, etc.), some on specific nuisance species or a group of 

species (such as agricultural pests) and some on minimizing AIS impacts on 

protected uses of the state’s waters (boating, fishing, wildlife habitat, etc.). More 

information about the activities of these diverse agencies appears later in this 

section and in Appendices B, C, and D. 

The seven state agencies with lead AIS responsibilities are the California 

Department of Fish & Game (DFG), the California Department of Food and 

35
Agriculture (DFA), the California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW), 

the California State Lands Commission (SLC), the California Department of 

Water Resources (DWR), the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine regional water quality control 

boards (RQWCBs) – see Table 4. 

At this time, DFG serves as the coordinating agency for AIS activities, 

represents the state on the Western Regional Panel (see Appendix D), and as 

such, has organized the development of this plan and other statewide initiatives 

to improve AIS management. State weed control programs are managed 

primarily by DFA, with federal help from the USDA and critical input and 

cooperation from research, education and related business organizations. As 

part of this program, DFA, with the help of County Agricultural Commissioners, 

also manages an exclusion program both at borders and at entry points. Other 

state agencies manage specific in-the-water and on-the-ground aquatic weed 

programs – including DBW and SCC. 

SLC is the lead implementing agency for the state’s ballast water 

management program. This program implements California regulations requiring 

vessels arriving from outside the U.S. EEZ and engaged in coastwise travel, to 

manage their ballast water. As part of this program, DFG/Office of Spill 

Prevention and Response (DFG/OSPR) conducts biological surveys in 

port/harbor areas and open coastal areas. 

Other state agencies undertake invasive species management activities to 

enforce mandates such as the protection of commercial fisheries and sensitive 

wildlife by DFG, in cooperation with federal agencies such as USFWS, the 

maintenance of state water supplies and protection from flooding by DWR and 

the protection of the beneficial uses of state waters and water quality by SWRCB 

and RWQCBs. Across the state, local districts work to control mosquito 

populations to protect human and livestock health. All these state efforts to 

manage AIS are supported by the cooperative work and research provided by 

universities, NGOs, federal agencies, local agencies and stakeholder groups.

36
37
As this plan is intended primarily for internal state coordination, the focus 

of the following sections of this chapter is on state agency activities. This section 

is intended as an overview. A more comprehensive description of state agency 

responsibilities appears in Appendix C and overlaps somewhat with the overview 

below. 

Biological Surveys, Environmental Planning & Enforcement 

DFG is the state trustee agency for fish, wildlife and native plants and 

plays a major role in managing invasive species that have negative impacts on 

these resources. Numerous programs and laboratories within DFG work on AIS 

detection and/or control, including DFG’s Invasive Species Program which 

coordinates statewide AIS activities and undertook the development of this 

statewide AIS management plan and the associated rapid response plan. DFG 

is responsible for enforcement of regulations concerning: the aquaculture 

industry; recreational fishing; commercial fishing; the importation and transport of 

live wild animals, aquatic plants and fish into the state; and the placement of any 

such animals in state waters. Recent programs have focused on Caulerpa (see 

Chapter 8), northern pike (see below), quagga mussel, and New Zealand 

mudsnail, among others. 

DFG is also responsible for conducting biological surveys to assess the 

amount and types of AIS present in state waters. Starting in 1999 with ballast 

management legislation, DFG/OSPR conducted biological surveys to determine 

the degree of success of ballast water management activities. The first survey of 

major ports, harbors and bays of California helped determine a baseline of 

nonindigenous aquatic species introduced from the ballast of ocean-going 

vessels. The survey revealed that all areas of the California coast have 

experienced some level of invasion by species not native to California. Since 

then, DFG/OSPR has revisited baseline monitoring sites and expanded 

monitoring to include intertidal and subtidal habitats at 22 outer coast sites. 

DFG/OSPR also manages the California Aquatic Non-Native Organism Database 

(CANOD) for marine and estuarine species and is working to establish 

consistency among the various major databases being used to analyze similar 

types of AIS-related information. Lastly, DFG has been an active manager or 

partner in numerous AIS eradication and control programs – especially those AIS 

that threaten or undermine the health of endangered species or the conservation 

and restoration of the aquatic ecosystem. 

Aquatic Weed Control & Plant Pests 

DFA has long regulated and managed aquatic and terrestrial weeds, with 

a particular emphasis on those that are agricultural pests or cause economic 

harm. DFA activities and regulatory authority include quarantine, exterior pest 

exclusion (border protection stations and inspections), interior pest exclusion 

(pet/aquaria stores, aquatic plant dealers, and nurseries), and detection and 

control/eradication programs. DFA maintains a rated list of noxious weed 

species, which, depending on the rating, require various levels of eradication, 

38
containment or holding actions. For all plants, the DFA Plant Pest Diagnostic 

Center identifies plant species and assigns plant pest ratings. In 2005, DFA and 

the California Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition completed the state’s first 

comprehensive Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan (CDFA and CALIWAC 

2005), whose recommendations as they relate to aquatic weeds have been taken 

into account in this AIS plan. One of DFA’s largest aquatic weed management 

programs is a statewide effort to eradicate the escaped aquarium plant Hydrilla

(see Chapter 2). The County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) work closely 

with the state’s pest prevention program. In northern California, CACs carry out 

many quarantine inspections and manage a weed eradication program. 

MANAGEMENT EXAMPLE: CONTROLLING NORTHERN PIKE 

California’s northern pike infestation is currently limited to just one lake. This native of 

northern waters from Asia to Europe and from Alaska to the Great Lakes Region, is a voracious 

predator that can grow up to 40 pounds in North America. It uses sharp teeth to eat creatures 

ranging from smaller fish such as juvenile salmonids to frogs, crayfish and even ducks. After 

introduction, it has the potential to dominate water bodies such as lakes, by both preying on and 

out-competing trout and other game fish. The northern pike poses a major threat to California’s 

aquatic ecosystems, in particular the freshwater species of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

The northern pike was introduced to California on at least two occasions, possibly by anglers 

hoping to establish a local population of this popular game fish. It was first found in Frenchman 

Lake, Plumas County, in 1988. 

In 1991, Frenchman Lake and its tributaries were treated with rotenone; subsequent 

testing indicated no pike survived. In 1994, the pike was discovered again in nearby Lake Davis, 

another Sierra Nevada reservoir. In 1995, DFG proposed to treat Lake Davis with rotenone in 

order to protect the area’s thriving trout fishery, as well as downstream aquatic resources, by 

eliminating the chance of pike escaping to other waters. Residents strenuously opposed the 

plan, citing contamination of their drinking water supply. By 1997, the lake’s trout population had 

been virtually eliminated by pike predation. Local businesses, many of which depend on visiting 

fishermen, began to suffer. Despite the controversy surrounding the proposed project, a 

treatment occurred in October 1997. Over 55,000 dead pike were removed from the lake and the 

treatment was declared successful. In 1999, just 17 months after treatment, more pike were 

found in Lake Davis. It is unknown whether fish survived the treatment or pike were illegally 

introduced after the treatment. After the fish were rediscovered in Lake Davis, DFG commenced 

trapping, electrofishing, netting, and increased law enforcement and education on the dangers of 

pike introduction. Yet fish numbers in the lake have continued to rise. In 2005, DFG proposed a 

project to eradicate northern pike in Lake Davis. The proposed project includes application of 

rotenone in combination with a significant reservoir drawdown; the drawdown would reduce the 

amount of chemical needed to kill the pike. DFG, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, 

Plumas National Forest, are currently engaged in a joint state and federal environmental review 

process for the proposed project and seven alternatives. Both agencies are working closely with 

the local community and local, state and federal agencies to avoid the controversial nature of the 

chemical treatment that occurred in 1997. 

39
MANAGEMENT EXAMPLE: QUARANTINES & INSPECTIONS

California has a long history of state-imposed quarantines and exclusionary practices 

dating back over a century. These quarantines have prevented or limited the entry of many 

invasive species and diseases such as Mediterranean fruit fly and exotic diseases that developed 

from farmed salmon and other fish. At the height of California’s quarantine and inspection 

programs, DFA operated 16 full-time Border Protection Stations (BPS), staffed by over 150 

inspectors, to inspect all vehicles entering the state for quarantine compliance. Additionally, the 

CACs conducted enforcement activities at plant and produce import sites and aquaculture 

facilities. In recent years, funding for these programs has diminished and resources are not 

available to keep up with increases in invasions due to growth in U.S. and global travel and mail 

order and Internet sales of live organisms and plants. DFA funding for BPS alone dropped from 

$11 million in 2002 to $9.2 million in 2005 and private vehicle inspections (including trailered 

boats and other watercraft) had until recently been eliminated. 

Zebra mussel infested watercraft were intercepted at the BPS 68 times between 1993 

and 2006. Over half of these finds were from private vehicles, which are not being inspected 

today. DFA is in the process of conducting a pilot project at one station (Needles on I-40) to 

determine the pest introduction risk presented by private vehicles. Since this project began on 

July 5, 2006, zebra mussel has been intercepted four times on private vehicles. Hydrilla has also 

been intercepted from a private vehicle during this pilot. Increased levels of inspection and 

enforcement are critical to the prevention of new AIS introductions (Leslie, Pers. Comm. 2007). 

The discovery of quagga mussel in Lake Mead in January 2007 allowed state agencies to access 

emergency funds to increase staffing, and permanent funding became available July 1, 2007. 

DBW manages the state’s largest and oldest aquatic weed control 

program, working with other public agencies to control the widespread water 

hyacinth (see Chapter 2) – and more recently Brazilian elodea – in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, its tributaries and the Suisun Marsh. In addition 

to managing these weed control programs and attempting to keep waterways 

free of the navigational problems they pose, DBW also manages the recreational 

boating vector of AIS in California (although currently there is not funding and 

staff for a comprehensive program). DBW leads the California Clean Boating 

Network – a collaboration of government, business, boating and academic 

organizations working to increase and improve clean boating education efforts, 

including invasive species education, across the state. 

SCC has been involved for over twenty years in the control and 

eradication of aquatic invasives, particularly plants. Most recently, its 

management focus has been on developing, funding and operating the Invasive 

Spartina Project in San Francisco Bay (see Chapter 8 and Appendix B). The 

project’s aim is to eradicate four invasive species of Spartina (and their hybrids), 

which threaten to destroy marsh and mudflats and clog drainage channels. SCC 

is also heavily involved in efforts to control Arundo in many coastal watersheds 

and has been a partner in developing this state AIS management plan. 

40
Commercial Shipping Management (Ballast Water and Vessel Fouling) 

SLC oversees management of AIS introductions through commercial 

shipping as directed by the 2003 Marine Invasive Species Act. This program 

implements regulations governing ballast water management for vessels arriving 

or operating on the West Coast of North America. Commission inspectors board 

approximately 25% of all vessels that arrive to California to verify compliance 

with regulations and to disseminate outreach materials to vessels and crews new 

to California (Falkner et al. 2007). Monitoring results suggest that vessel 

compliance with the requirement to report ballast management and discharge 

practices is very high (see Figure 4) and has risen dramatically since the 

inception of the program. The majority of non-compliant ballast water discharge 

originating from outside U.S. waters is from Mexico (Falkner et al. 2007). 

The high compliance rates are attributable to the multi-pronged outreach 

and communication activities undertaken by SLC. Inspectors distribute 

information about regulations verbally and in print to crews. Agents are notified 

monthly of their vessels’ reporting compliance or non-compliance. Multi-agency, 

multi-interest advisory groups are regularly convened and consulted regarding 

evolving policy considerations. New legislation (2006) directs SLC to develop 

regulations requiring vessel owners and operators to implement certain interim 

and final performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. In addition to 

the regulatory activities described above, SLC facilitates scientific research and 

technology development to enhance management efforts of the ballast water 

program and to inform policymakers. 

SLC has also developed recommendations for preventing AIS release 

from hull fouling on commercial vessels. In follow up to the Marine Invasive 

Species Act of 2003, which directed SLC to formulate these recommendations, 

SLC collaborated with the California Sea Grant Extension Program on a May 

2005 workshop. This workshop was designed to discuss the vessel fouling issue 

with stakeholders from both the recreational boating and commercial shipping 

communities (Gonzalez and Johnson 2005). Information gathered from this 

workshop and from several additional advisory group meetings, was incorporated 

into a set of final recommendations presented to the state legislature in 2006 

(Takata et al. 2006). In addition to its commercial shipping-related activities, SLC 

is also engaged in regional AIS projects that affect waters that fall under their 

jurisdiction, such as coordinating interagency efforts to manage Eurasian 

watermilfoil in Lake Tahoe (see Chapter 8). 

41
42
Monitoring & Managing AIS Impacts on Water Quality & Supply 

DWR addresses invasive species issues that impact water supply and 

delivery and flood control. Recent management activities have focused largely 

on monitoring AIS within the water column and food web, developing key early 

detection programs and undertaking structural improvements such as a barrier at 

Lake Davis (to prevent northern pike escape) and a screen at the State Water 

Project (to collect Chinese mitten crabs). In terms of monitoring, DWR conducts 

monthly monitoring of benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates, zooplankton and 

phytoplankton throughout the upper San Francisco Estuary. DWR also 

documents the distribution of the invasive algal species Microcystis spp. (both 

toxic and non-toxic strains) in this estuarine region. DWR is also investigating 

the impacts of the Chinese mitten crab on the benthic invertebrate community in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. On the early detection front, DWR was most 

recently responsible for implementing the California Zebra Mussel Watch 

Program (which included risk assessment, early detection, public outreach and 

the development of a rapid response plan for the Central Valley watershed and a 

centralized reporting system for mussel sightings). DWR also participates in 

programs aimed at controlling invasive weeds along eroding Sacramento River 

banks, within flood control and water conveyance structures and along urban 

streams. The agency coordinates its activities with other state and federal 

agencies as a member of the CALFED Non-Native Invasive Species Advisory 

Council.

The SWRCB, and the nine affiliated regional boards, have no specific 

policies and programs related to AIS but have been working in support of and in 

an advisory capacity to, other state agencies on various related activities such as 

hull fouling and ballast water management. AIS come under SWRCB purview as 

part of the state’s responsibilities under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA, see 

Appendix B). A 2005 federal court ruling defined nonindigenous species as 

“pollutants” present in discharges from vessels and found that such discharges 

are not exempt from permitting requirements (see National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits in discussion of the CWA in Appendix B). 

In terms of AIS management activities, some of the regional boards have 

also sought to place specific water bodies within their regions on the CWA’s 

303(d) list, as impaired by “exotics” (see Glossary). San Francisco Bay was 

listed in 1998. In 2006, the State Board also listed the Delta, the upper San 

Joaquin River and the Cosumnes River. Once on the 303(d) list, the regional 

boards are required to develop discharger/source based programs for managing 

pollutant loads (called Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs), which in the case 

of AIS have proved somewhat difficult to develop. Trying to allocate loads or 

goals for zero loads, among dischargers, water users and municipalities is 

challenging when most of the water bodies in question are already heavily 

invaded. Despite the implementation challenges, the S.F. Bay RWQCB’s work 

on the state’s first exotics TMDL did widely publicize the problem and led to other 

successful AIS management and legislative programs. 

43
Other regional boards have become involved in AIS-related water quality 

issues through watershed management projects, non-point source pollution 

management programs and wetland mitigation and restoration programs (raising 

issues about the use of non-native aquatic plant species for these programs, and 

the control of invasives, for example). The SWRCB has also participated in AIS 

management activities concerning the use of aquatic pesticides and the nine 

regional water quality control boards enforce the statewide NPDES permit for use 

of aquatic pesticides for weed and vector control. 

Education & Outreach 

Most of the AIS management programs described in this chapter involve 

some education and outreach. There are many other outreach activities, large 

and small, conducted by public and private organizations interested in the 

prevention and control of AIS infestations. The University of California 

Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and California Sea Grant Programs (Sea Grant), 

for example, are active and successful leaders in invasive species outreach and 

education. They have built substantial stakeholder networks and brought media 

attention to AIS concerns. Other groups engaged in AIS outreach and education 

include CALFED, the San Francisco Estuary Project, the San Francisco Estuary 

Institute, National Estuarine Research Reserves and Marine Sanctuaries, the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the California Invasive Plant 

Council, among others (see Appendix D). 

Partnerships with NGOs, Business & User Groups 

Many of the state’s AIS management activities are undertaken through 

partnerships with local agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 

private landowners and various interest groups. Those currently active range 

from large environmental and land-holding organizations such as the Nature 

Conservancy to smaller county land trusts, Native American tribes, watershed 

management organizations, and special interest groups (fishing, hunting, 

boating, etc.). Business groups affected by AIS management activities (shippers, 

aquarium trade, habitat restoration companies, etc.) have also been active 

partners in AIS management. A number of task forces and projects are 

dedicated to very specific invaders (see Appendix D). Such groups and 

organizations can greatly help state and federal efforts to manage AIS. 

Partnerships with Universities, Research Institutes, Industry & Consulting 

Firms 

The management activities mentioned in the preceding sections were 

possible because of the research conducted by universities, relevant industries 

public/private research and resource management organizations. Increased 

knowledge of the biology of invasive species and associated control methods 

allows for the most effective management of AIS. Research is needed to 

quantify and clarify the effects that non-native species are having on native 

plants, animals and their habitats. It is also important to know what economic 

effects AIS are having and whether there are any human health and safety 

44
concerns resulting from an infestation. These partnerships are necessary in 

order for agencies to develop their management programs with scientific input.

Gaps & Challenges 

Factors such as the large size of the state, the number of organizations/ 

constituencies involved and other geographic and water management issues 

complicate California’s efforts to prevent AIS introduction and manage their 

spread. California, like other states, suffers from the following challenges to 

effective AIS management: 

• Difficulty in balancing negative environmental impacts of chemical 

treatment with positive protection of native habitats and listed species 

• Difficulty in timely permitting for rapid response, eradication and control 

• Lack of adequate long-term funding 

• Difficulty coordinating diverse state activities, agencies and programs, 

and ensuring communication and high-level priority setting to optimize 

limited management resources 

• Lack of awareness of, and enforcement of, existing laws 

• Limited detection and treatment technologies, and coordination among 

detection efforts 

• Limited public awareness of the threats posed by AIS, and costs of 

managing AIS, versus the threats from pesticides used to control them 

 This management plan is a substantial step toward addressing these 

challenges. It emphasizes coordination, communication and prevention; 

suggests actions to fill management gaps and provides a foundation for 

California’s first comprehensive state-wide approach to AIS. 

45
5. SUMMARY OF AIS LAWS, REGULATIONS & AUTHORITIES

The primary authority for state efforts to prevent AIS introduction and 

manage the spread and impacts of AIS in state waters derives from California’s 

Fish and Game Code, the Food and Agriculture Code, and the Public Resources 

Code. Other significant statutes discussed below are found in the California 

Water Code and the Harbors and Navigation Code. These codes are the actual 

state laws passed by the legislature. Relevant state commissions are charged 

with adopting regulations that are necessary to carry out the intent of these laws. 

The regulations are added to the relevant divisions within the California Code of 

Regulations. Various federal laws also impact management activities. For a 

more comprehensive description see Appendices B & C. 

California Authorities 

Fish and Game Code & Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 

At least five code sections and their associated regulations address or 

relate to AIS. The intent of these code sections are to regulate the importation 

and transportation of live wild animals and plants; restrict the placement of live 

aquatic animals or plants in state waters; and regulate the operation of 

aquaculture industries. DFG is the state agency responsible for implementing 

these statutes. 

F & G Code §§ 2080–2089, 2118, 2270-2272, 2300, 6400-6403,15000 et seq. 

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/regs.html 

California Food and Agriculture Code 

Over 30 different code sections address the state’s mandates to prevent 

the introduction and spread of injurious animal pests, plant diseases and noxious 

weeds. These codes describe procedures and regulations concerning, among 

other things: plant quarantines; emergency pest eradications to protect 

agriculture; pests as public nuisances; vectors of infestation and infection; the 

sale, transport and propagation of noxious weeds; and the protection of native 

species and forests from weeds. Most of these statutes and their associated 

regulations (Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations) are enforced by DFA. 

F & A Code §§ 403, 461, 5004, 5021-5027, 5301-5310, 5321-5323, 5401-54204, 5421, 5430-

5432, 5434, 5761-5763, 7201, 7206-7, 7501-2 

www.leginfo.ca.gov 

California Water Code 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, 

Division 7) lists a number of types of pollutants that are subject to regulation. 

Section 13050, for example, specifically includes the regulation of "biological" 

pollutants by defining them as relevant characteristics of water quality subject to 

regulation by the SWRCB and the affiliated RWQCBs. AIS are an example of 

this kind of pollutant if they are discharged to receiving waters. The Water Code 

generally regulates more substances occurring in discharges and also defines 

discharges to receiving waters more broadly than the federal CWA. 

Water Code §13050 

46
Harbors & Navigation Code 

This code authorizes DBW to manage aquatic weeds impeding the 

navigation and use of state waterways. 

Article 2, Section 64

Public Resources Code 

Sections of this code address the state’s mandates to prevent 

nonindigenous species introductions through ballast water of commercial 

vessels. These sections were promulgated by the three laws described below. 

The SLC and the DFG have primary responsibility for carrying out these statutes 

and associated regulations. 

 

The Ballast Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act of 

1999 required that commercial vessels over 300 gross register tons (GRT) 

originating from outside the U.S. EEZ carry out mid-ocean exchange (at least 

200 nautical miles offshore) or use an approved ballast water treatment method, 

before discharging in California state waters. State enforcement of the act took 

the form of monitoring ballast discharges and reports, inspecting vessels for 

compliance and assessing vessel reporting rates and compliance. 

The Marine Invasive Species Act was passed in 2003, widening the scope 

of the original program. The 2003 act requires ballast water management for all 

vessels that intend to discharge ballast water in California waters, though the 

regulations differ depending on voyage origin. All qualifying vessels coming from 

ports within the Pacific Coast region must conduct an exchange (in waters at 

least 50 nautical miles offshore and 200 meters deep), or retain all ballast water 

and associated sediments. All vessels must complete and submit a ballast water 

report form upon departure from each port of call in California. They must also 

comply with good housekeeping practices, ranging from avoiding discharge near 

marine sanctuaries to rinsing anchors and removing fouling organisms from the 

hull. They must also keep logs of ballast management activities, conduct crew 

training and pay a fee for each qualifying voyage at their first port of call in 

California. To determine the effectiveness of the management provisions of the 

act, the legislation also requires state agencies to conduct a series of biological 

surveys to monitor new introductions to coastal and estuarine waters. 

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 deleted the sunset 

provision of the prior statute making the Marine Invasive Species Program 

permanent. The new law also requires adoption of regulations that will require 

vessel owners to implement certain interim and final performance standards for 

the discharge of ballast water and establishes an on-going coastal AIS 

monitoring program to be implemented by DFG. 

PR Code §§ 71200-72423; CC 2271; RT 44008 

Regulated Species 

For a list of AIS plant and animal species regulated by the state see 

Appendix G. 

47
Primary Federal Authorities & Agencies 

California’s AIS management efforts must also be coordinated with the 

federal government’s extensive efforts on the same front. No single federal 

agency has comprehensive authority for all aspects of aquatic invasive species 

management. Federal agencies with regulatory authority over the introduction or 

transport of aquatic species that may be invasive or noxious include the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG). Additionally, many other agencies have programs and 

responsibilities that address components of AIS, such as importation, interstate 

transport, exclusion, control and eradication. One of the earliest authorities 

derives from the 19th-century Rivers & Harbors Act, which enables the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to control aquatic weeds. 

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

(NANPCA) established the first major federal program to prevent the introduction 

and control the spread of introduced aquatic nuisance species. The act provides 

an institutional framework that promotes and coordinates research, develops and 

applies prevention and control strategies, establishes national priorities, educates 

and informs citizens and coordinates public programs. The act also calls upon 

states to develop and implement comprehensive state AIS management plans, 

such as this California plan. In 1996, the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) 

amended the 1990 act to mandate ballast water exchange for vessels entering 

the Great Lakes and to implement voluntary ballast water exchange guidelines 

for all vessels with ballast on board that enter U.S. waters from outside the U.S. 

EEZ. The act also authorized the USCG to toughen requirements if compliance 

proved unsatisfactory, which it did in 2004. As a result, the USCG has since 

established mandatory ballast water management requirements for all ships 

entering U.S. waters and penalties for non-compliance. 

The NANPCA/NISA does not affect state authority to adopt or enforce AIS 

control measures. Several states have elected to undertake such measures. In 

addition to reporting requirements, California, Oregon and Washington have 

ballast water exchange requirements. California law (2006) requires the state to 

adopt a ballast water discharge standard. 

The Executive Order on Invasive Species signed by President William J. 

Clinton on February 3, 1999, expanded federal efforts to address AIS. The order 

intended to build upon existing laws, such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, the Lacey 

Act, the Plant Pest Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act and the Endangered 

Species Act. The order creates a National Invasive Species Council charged 

with developing a comprehensive plan to minimize the economic, ecological and 

human health impacts of invasive species and determine the steps necessary to 

prevent the introduction and spread of additional invasive species. Federal 

48
activities are now coordinated through this council and through the National 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF). 

Beyond authorities and legislation, some of the other major federal 

activities related to AIS management in California include: 

• USFWS’ 100th Meridian Initiative to stop the zebra mussel from spreading 

west. 

• NOAA’s Sea Grant Program, and its support for the West Coast Ballast 

Outreach Project (which educates the maritime industry about the 

ecological impacts of aquatic invasive species), as well as funding 

research on key invasive species. 

• USDA’s federal noxious weed list, maintained through the APHIS 

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, and its Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) units at Davis and Albany, California, whose work includes 

improving management of invasive aquatic and riparian weeds affecting 

agriculture and natural resources. 

• USEPA’s recent commitment to providing federal coordination for AIS 

rapid response planning and associated permitting. 

• USGS’ ongoing research and data bases on invasive species. 

• NPS inventories and monitors invasive species and, where feasible, 

strives to eradicate them. 

For more detailed information on federal AIS authorities, agencies and 

programs, see Appendix B or visit http://www.anstaskforce.gov and 

www.invasivespecies.org. 

49
6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS 

PLAN GOAL: Minimize the harmful ecological, economic and human health 

impacts of aquatic invasive species. 

To assist in attaining the goal of the California AIS Management Plan 

(CAISMP), eight major objectives have been identified: 

1. COORDINATION & COLLABORATION: Improve coordination and 

collaboration among the people, agencies, and activities involved with 

AIS. 

2. PREVENTION: Minimize and prevent the introduction and spread of 

AIS into and throughout the waters of California. 

3. EARLY DETECTION & MONITORING: Develop and maintain 

programs that ensure the early detection of new AIS and the 

monitoring of existing AIS. 

4. RAPID RESPONSE & ERADICATION: Establish and manage 

systems for rapid response and eradication. 

5. LONG-TERM CONTROL & MANAGEMENT: Control the spread of 

AIS and minimize their impacts on native habitats and species. 

6. EDUCATION & OUTREACH: Increase education and outreach 

efforts to ensure awareness of AIS threats and management priorities 

throughout California. 

7. RESEARCH: Increase research on the baseline biology of AIS, the 

ecological and economic impacts of invasions, and control options to 

improve management. 

8. LAWS & REGULATIONS: Ensure state laws and regulations 

promote the prevention and management of AIS introductions.

Associated strategies and specific actions pertaining to each of the above 

objectives are presented in this chapter. These actions have been identified as 

being key tasks necessary to more effectively manage aquatic invasive species. 

The proposed objectives, strategies and actions in this plan should be regularly 

reviewed and incorporate annual opportunities for updates and adaptation to new 

knowledge and circumstances. 

50
Plan Development Process 

The plan goal, objectives, strategies, and specific actions were developed 

with input from a series of stakeholder scoping meetings, interagency staff 

communications and public workshops held in 2002 and 2006 (Appendix E). 

Implementing Entities & Cooperating Organizations 

The entities listed as acronyms, in bold type, in parentheses after each 

action represent the suggested key implementing entities (see the acronym list in 

the front material of this plan). In most cases, this refers to those state entities 

that have the responsibility and/or authority to implement the appropriate actions. 

Federal, regional and local agencies will, in most cases, not be listed as 

implementing agencies, since this is a state plan. The acronyms of cooperating 

organizations, who can participate in implementation efforts, are listed in normal 

type. 

State agencies will coordinate with federal, regional, and local agencies 

whenever appropriate. The need for particular coordination with federal agencies 

is noted with an “FA” in the list of implementing entities and cooperating 

organizations. When an action requires input or products from universities, 

colleges, academic institutions or research organizations, the generic label “RI” 

(research institutions) will be used. These include the state government’s 

primary research arms – California State Universities and the University of 

California – as well as the California Sea Grant program. Some of these entities 

are listed specifically after appropriate actions per their request, rather than being 

listed generically as RI. For many actions the Aquatic Invasive Species Working 

Group (AISWG) is included as a responsible entity. This implies that 

representatives of all AISWG entities will have the opportunity to be involved in 

these actions. 

The CAISMP Implementation Matrix (Table 5, Chapter 7) lists 

implementing entities and cooperating organizations. The listings presented here 

are only a guideline, and as implementation progresses, the implementing 

entities may change. 

Year & Funding 

The year associated with each of the tasks indicates the suggested year in 

which to begin implementation. Year 1 indicates that funding and personnel 

resources are already available for FY 2007/2008, or that the action is a high 

priority for which resources need to be secured as quickly as possible. For some 

of these actions, suggested implementation years may seem overly optimistic, 

especially those that require funding beyond what is currently available. Like 

many other states across the nation, California is currently undergoing budgetary 

restrictions and financial support for many of these actions is uncertain. The 

purpose of this plan however, is to represent what should, rather than what is 

likely to, happen if California is to adequately address its aquatic invasive species 

problems on a statewide basis. Actions aimed at securing more funding appear 

under Objective 1. 

51
Discussion 

Many details are included with the following actions. “Discussion” 

statements are included with many of the following actions to provide more 

specific direction to implementing agencies. 

52
OBJECTIVE 1: COORDINATION & COLLABORATION

Improve coordination and collaboration among the people, agencies 

and activities involved with AIS. 

AIS management activities conducted by the state spread across multiple 

agencies. State managers coordinate specific AIS activities through a variety of 

venues and networks, but without the benefit of a formal coordinating framework. 

The actions under this objective seek to describe a new coordinating framework 

that will allow for the comprehensive assessment of AIS activities and ensure 

action on high priorities. This coordinating framework includes: an executive 

level consultation process through which state agencies may gain policy level 

direction and support for AIS management; the establishment of an Aquatic 

Invasive Species Working Group (AISWG) made up of representatives from 

various agencies, research institutions and stakeholder groups; and the formal 

creation of a California AIS Team (CAAIST) of lead AIS managers from each 

state agency and/or department. The work of the AISWG and the CAAIST will 

be assisted by the development of technical advisory panels. These panels will 

provide forums for federal agencies, local agencies, research institutions, NGOs, 

Native American organizations, and stakeholders to address questions within a 

specific topic (such as management techniques, specific species or particular 

geographic areas). In addition to these standing technical advisory committees, 

several ad hoc committees are likely to be formed. 

STRATEGY 1A: INTERNAL STATE COORDINATION

Identify and coordinate agencies, programs and representatives within 

state government involved with AIS. 

ACTIONS 

1A1. Develop an executive level consultation process for state agencies 

involved with AIS management. 

(AE, CAAIST, RI, NGOs, SH) Year 1

Discussion: Coordination and consultation at the executive level are 

central to statewide policy level direction and planning. This direction

could include legislation, funding and program direction for all state 

departments responsible for addressing invasive species issues. This can 

be accomplished by regular briefings to agency and department directors 

by key state AIS managers. Alternatively, it could be accomplished by the 

formation of an AIS or Invasive Species Council made up of department 

and agency upper management. If such a council for executive level 

coordination and consultation were pursued, the costs and benefits should 

first be assessed. In the absence of an AIS or Invasive Species Council, 

coordination could be accomplished through the California Biodiversity 

Council. In addition, periodic briefings should be made to the Ocean 

Protection Council and Fish and Game Commission. Briefing agency and 

53
department executives and involving them more routinely in decision 

making should improve statewide coordination. 

1A2. Formalize the California Agencies AIS Team (CAAIST) made up of 

representatives from each state agency involved with AIS, and have 

the team meet regularly. 

(AE) Year 1 

Discussion: Each state agency and/or department has identified a lead 

representative for AIS work. This team will meet regularly to coordinate 

implementation of the state AIS plan. This team will report to executive 

level managers to implement actions in the plan (Action 1A1) and be led 

by DFG’s State Invasive Species Coordinator. 

1A3: Establish, fund and staff an Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group 

(AISWG) made up of representatives from state and federal agencies, 

NGOs, stakeholder groups and research institutions, and have the 

group meet regularly. 

(AE, CAISST, RI, NGOs, SH) Year 2 

Discussion: The complexity of aquatic invasive species management 

demands regular peer review to ensure that research, monitoring, 

prevention and management actions are using the best available 

approaches. It also demands some broader public and private 

involvement in forums in which the status of invasive species, control 

efforts, funding opportunities and criteria for setting priorities are 

discussed. Forming this new working group could increase the level of 

collaboration and coordination on AIS throughout the state by creating a 

regular venue to discuss priorities, pool expertise and reduce 

redundancies. Any such group would require staff to set up meetings, 

follow up on action items and handle time-sensitive inquiries and issues 

that need to be addressed between scheduled meetings. The AISWG is

listed as an implementing entity or cooperating organization for many

actions in this plan. If the AISWG is not formed, the CAAIST (see 1A2) 

will become the responsible entity and integrate input from research 

institutions, NGOs and stakeholder groups into appropriate actions. 

1A4. Evaluate the need for an invasive species center. 

(AE, NGOs, RI, SH, CAAIST) Year 1 

Discussion: Statewide coordination of research and outreach activities 

could improve by establishing a research network which could incorporate 

an invasive species center. Defined goals and roles and dedicated 

funding would be essential to the success of any such entity. 

54
1A5. Form and fund technical advisory panels to provide input to the 

AISWG and CAAIST and to address specific issues within the plan. 

(CAAIST, AISWG) Year 2 

Discussion: This plan proposes to convene technical advisory panels to 

address specific research, management and implementation issues. In 

addition to state agency staff, the panels will be made up of 

representatives from the following groups: federal agencies, local 

agencies, research institutions, NGOs, Native American organizations and 

stakeholders. It is anticipated that Plan Implementation and Science 

Advisory panels will be the first to be formed, with other panels created as 

necessary over time. 

1A6. Draft and regularly review working lists of AIS of high-priority 

concern for early detection actions 3A1-6, rapid response action 4A3 

(also see Appendix A, Section IV, Task 7) and control actions such 

as 5B4. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI, Sea Grant, UCCE, NGOs, SH) Year 1 and ongoing 

Discussion: One approach would be for the appropriate technical advisory 

panel (Action 1A5) to review existing national lists, filter these lists through 

state screening criteria and edit the list based on California-specific 

conditions and constraints. Draft lists could be circulated for peer review, 

subsequently finalized by the panel, and submitted to the CAAIST and the 

AISWG for approval. Lists could then be posted on state websites and 

updated biennially. 

1A7. Clarify which state agencies have lead jurisdiction for more specific 

AIS issues related to particular species, habitats, water bodies or 

invasion vectors. 

(AE, CAAIST) Year 1 

Discussion: Current agency mandates and jurisdictions need to be 

reviewed, clarified and documented in the context of this statewide plan 

and discussed by the CAAIST, AISWG and Agency Executives. State AIS 

managers, local governments, NGOs, stakeholders and others involved in 

AIS activities, need to be clear about which state agency handles what 

and why. Such a clarification exercise is an important step in 

documenting different agency mandates, integrating the many different 

programs addressing diverse AIS issues, avoiding duplication and 

ensuring cost-effective use of limited resources. The results of this 

clarification exercise will be documented and distributed in a report. 

55
1A8. Identify personnel needs within appropriate agencies. Employ 

needed personnel, to focus on high priority AIS issues and plan 

implementation. 

(AE, CAAIST) Years 1-3 

Discussion: This action is already underway. The Governor approved an 

allocation of $5.7 million that includes the establishment of 16 new 

positions in DFG and a $2.5 million allotment to DFA to work on aquatic 

invasive species, focusing on quagga mussel prevention, control, 

eradication, research and outreach. 

1A9. Improve state websites to make information on AIS management 

activities, and research and data, more accessible. 

(CAAIST) Year 2 

Discussion: State websites and databases on AIS are diverse and reflect 

different agency mandates and capabilities. To the extent possible, state 

websites should be improved and linked to facilitate access to current 

information on management activities statewide, as well as on the latest 

AIS related technological improvements, data and research. Such 

accessibility improvements to websites and databases, and linkages 

among state and other AIS databases, will improve statewide coordination 

and assist managers and researchers with revisions of this plan and 

setting action priorities. Efforts under this action will be coordinated with 

early detection and monitoring actions under Objective 3 and with 

education and outreach actions under Objective 6, to the greatest extent 

possible. In addition, whenever possible and useful, biological surveys 

and other data collected in California databases should be provided, and 

or developed in compatible formats with, national AIS databases managed 

by USGS and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. 

 

1A10. Assess the effectiveness of AIS programs and projects undertaken 

by state agencies. Identify and address any gaps in these activities. 

(AISWG, Plan Implementation Panel) Year 2 

Discussion: The Implementation Panel will review and assess the 

effectiveness of ongoing AIS management activities in the context of the 

plan, and in subsequent years (2 and 5) the effectiveness of the plan itself. 

This assessment will bring together the more program-specific 

assessments called for in Actions 3A1, 3B1, 4A2, 4B1, 5A1-3, 6A1, 7A1 

and 7C1. The Implementation Panel will make recommendations to 

CAAIST and AISWG. The CAAIST or AISWG will forward the 

recommendations to the executive managers, the Biodiversity Council, the 

Ocean Protection Council, and the AIS or Invasive Species Council (if 

formed). 

56
1A11. Coordinate state AIS management activities with the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality 

(RWQCBs) Control Boards. 

(CAAIST, SWRCB, RWQCBs) Year 2 

Discussion: AIS often exacerbate or complicate pollution control and 

water quality management. State AIS management activities should be 

coordinated, through CAAIST, SWRCB and RWQCBs, with state 

Watershed and Basin Plans, TMDLs for water bodies on the 303 (d) list, 

and the NPDES permitting process. 

1A12. Develop and annually or biennially update a list of AIS experts in 

California. 

(CAAIST, Science Advisory Panel) Year 1 

Discussion: The federal ANSTF, USGS, USFWS and NOAA are currently 

working on developing a list of experts. State agencies should collaborate 

with the federal agencies on developing and updating the list and making 

it available to AIS resource managers. Experts are needed in taxonomy, 

vector management, eradication techniques and ecological impacts. 

 

1A13: Develop boilerplate AIS language for agency comments on project 

plans and other activities. 

(CAAIST) Year 2 

Discussion: Boilerplate language addressing the need to prevent AIS 

introduction, or control AIS spread, should be available to agencies 

commenting on environmental documents, landscape plans, restoration 

plans and research proposals. Such language should be distributed to all 

appropriate state, federal and local agency staff. 

57
58
STRATEGY 1B: LOCAL, NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION

Continue and improve collaboration among local, regional, state and 

federal agencies addressing AIS issues; communication with nongovernmental organizations, community groups and business interests 

affected by AIS management; and participation in local, national and 

international AIS task forces and conferences. 

1B1. Identify AIS representatives within key regional agencies, federal 

agencies and NGOs and provide this information to state managers. 

(CAAIST, RI, FA, NGOs, SH) Year 1 

Discussion: This action should be completed in collaboration with regional 

agencies, federal agencies and NGOs. The resulting information should 

then be posted or distributed to facilitate greater federal, state and local 

coordination and to provide a springboard for 1B2. 

1B2. Identify conflicts and overlaps between state programs and local and 

federal programs, and between state programs and NGOs, if any. 

(CAAIST, RI, FA, NGOs, SH) Year 1 

Discussion: This task should be completed in collaboration with regional 

and federal agencies, NGOs and local watershed management groups. 

Any significant conflicts and overlaps should be brought to the attention of 

agency executives and department managers. 

1B3. Invite community groups (Native American organizations and 

industry, business, professional and other groups impacted by AIS 

management efforts) to participate in planning activities, and to learn 

more about their role in AIS introduction and dispersal.

(AISWG, SH) Year 2 and Ongoing 

1B4. Continue and expand participation in localized efforts and task 

forces focusing on AIS issues. 

(AISWG) Ongoing

Discussion: Participation should extend to the Southern California 

Caulerpa Action Team, the Lower Colorado River Giant Salvinia Task 

Force, Team Arundo, and the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority Non-native 

Invasive Species Program, among others (see Appendix D). 

59
1B5. Continue and expand participation in regional, national and 

international efforts and task forces focusing on AIS issues. 

(AE, CAAIST, RI) Ongoing

Discussion: Participation should extend to the federal ANSTF, the 

Western Regional Panel, federal ballast water and hull fouling activities, 

the Pacific Ballast Water Group, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, the Global Invasive Species Programme, the Invasive 

Species Advisory Council, the 100th Meridian Project, among others (see 

also Appendix D). 

1B6. Form partnerships with Mexico, Canada, Oregon, Washington, 

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado River states and secure their input 

and assistance with AIS issues affecting the Pacific Coast. 

(AE, RI, AISWG) Ongoing 

1B7. Participate in national and international conferences concerning the 

management and control of AIS. 

(AE, CAAIST, RI) Ongoing 

Discussion: AIS conferences increase knowledge of efforts and 

successes elsewhere, as well as ensure out-of-state awareness of 

California’s issues and activities. Authorization for key out-of-state and 

out-of-country travel should be promoted. 

STRATEGY 1C: FUNDING

Increase funding sources for AIS management and obtain dedicated longterm funding to implement AIS Management Plan tasks and provide 

matching funds for federal grants. 

1C1. Identify and apply for grant funding available in California and 

nationally. 

(CAAIST, RI, NGOs) Year 1-5 

Discussion: The federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act enables state governors to request federal assistance for up to 

75 percent of the cost incurred to implement state aquatic invasive 

species management plans. Currently, the USFWS has a limited budget 

for grants for this purpose. California should also identify other federal 

programs that can be used to address invasive species issues (Coastal 

Zone Management Act etc.), pursue diverse sources of state funding 

(State Bonds, Sea Grant, etc.) and NGO support (conservation 

organizations etc.). 

60
1C2. Establish stable, long-term funding to assist in the implementation of 

the AIS management activities identified in this plan. 

(AE, CAAIST) Year 1-3 

Discussion: This action should be coordinated with the identification of 

gaps in 1A10 and 1B2. 

1C3. Provide state funding for the AIS positions as detailed in Action 1A8. 

(AE, CAAIST) Year 1 

Discussion: As noted in 1A8, significant funding has already been 

allocated. 

1C4. Provide funding for AIS rapid response actions when warranted. 

(AE) Year 1 

Discussion: In Year 1, the Governor approved the expenditure of money 

for the Quagga Mussel Incident Command. The state’s proposed rapid 

response programs, and some funding issues, are described under 

Strategy 4A and in Appendix A. 

1C5. Finance the hiring of a funding development specialist. 

(AE, CAAIST) Year 2 

Discussion: Hiring a specialist for 2-3 years to explore and develop 

funding sources would free up the AIS coordinator to focus on establishing 

the program necessary to carry out the plan. 

1C6. Provide a mechanism to obtain funding to implement additional 

tasks referred to in this AIS Management Plan, including education, 

control, monitoring and research. 

(AISWG) Years 2-5 

Discussion: This mechanism could draw on user fees, visitor taxes, 

general funds, etc., and build on participation from industries that 

contribute to, and/or are impacted by, AIS. 

61
The Case for Permanent Funding 

Dedicated permanent funding to support permanent staff and agency programs 

will be a key to effectively addressing AIS issues in California. Though many AIS 

activities are currently underway throughout the state, almost all of these are 

operating on ‘soft’ (short-term/grant) money – a very inefficient approach in the 

long-term because so much time and effort must be spent soliciting grants rather 

than managing invasive species. Such grants also result in high staff turnover 

(including short-term hiring and rehiring); the need to write various status reports 

to comply with grant requirements; and gaps in eradication and control efforts 

between funding opportunities, allowing for the recovery of AIS. Thus while soft 

monies can be very effective for short-term projects such as research studies, 

they may compromise long-term program operations. There is a clear need for 

dedicated permanent funding to address aquatic invasive species issues in 

California. 

62
OBJECTIVE 2: PREVENTION 

Minimize and prevent the introduction and spread of AIS into and 

throughout California waters. 

Prevention is the most cost effective and environmentally sensitive 

method of managing AIS. Prevention revolves around the interception of AIS at 

the point of entry or release. The movement of AIS into and within California not 

only takes place via transoceanic ships, but also via other vectors such as 

aquaculture, the aquarium trade, the bait industry, recreational activities, 

biological research, environmental restoration projects, and even freshwater 

diversions to farms and cities up and down the state. California management 

occurs on both the species and vector level. The actions suggested below seek 

to: identify high priority vectors and improve programs aimed at addressing 

them; strengthen enforcement and inspection at entry points; and sustain and 

expand the state’s current ballast water management program and proposed 

hull-fouling control program. Prevention is a central focus of this plan and it is 

expected that universities, research institutions and stakeholder groups will be 

integrally involved in state activities. In addition, prevention efforts targeted at 

specific vectors will be coordinated with broader outreach and education efforts 

described under Objective 6. 

STRATEGY 2A: REGIONAL VECTOR ASSESSMENT 

Identify possible vectors and pathways of AIS introductions into and 

throughout California and assess the risks and impacts of each.

ACTIONS 

2A1. Develop comprehensive regional vector assessments to rank the 

importance of different AIS vectors in different regions of California. 

(RI, DFG) Year 3 

Discussion: Some of the vectors California must manage are described in 

the “Pathways Report” developed by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force and National Invasive Species Council (National Invasive Species 

Council 2005). The report not only provides a comprehensive vector list, 

but also criteria for ranking their importance. The information in this report 

will be used as a foundation for California’s regional vector assessment. 

Comprehensive analysis of vectors in California have occurred for noxious 

weeds and in areas potentially impacted by ballast water discharges. 

DFG/OSPR conducts the biological surveys in port/harbor areas and in 

open coastal areas as directed by the Marine Invasive Species Act. The 

results of the biological surveys are analyzed for possible vectors of 

introduction so that high risk vectors can be identified and targeted by 

prevention programs. Surveys and assessments should be extended to 

include all waters of the state (i.e. lakes, rivers and streams) so that all 

potential high risk vectors can be identified. Once a high risk vector is 

63
identified, a detailed assessment of that specific vector is usually needed 

to quantify the risks and identify potential management options. 

STRATEGY 2B: COMMERCIAL VESSELS & MARITIME ACTIVITIES

Reduce the introduction and transfer of marine AIS via ballast water, 

ballast sediment and hull fouling from commercial vessels and maritime 

structures. 

2B1. Quantify the ballast water and hull fouling vectors, and assess the 

risk of introduction and dispersal of AIS throughout California from 

these vectors. 

(SLC, RI) Ongoing 

Discussion: In 2000, SLC began collecting ballast water report forms from 

all vessels coming into California from outside the U.S. EEZ. These 

reports include information about port of origin, how the ballast water was 

managed (e.g. open ocean exchange) and how much ballast water was 

discharged. In 2004, SLC expanded their program to require ballast water 

reports from all vessels, regardless of the last port of call. This 

comprehensive reporting program is essential to help quantify the extent 

of the ballast water problem and how it may change over time due to 

changes in trade routes and/or ballast water management requirements. 

In addition, in April 2006, SLC approved the following report: “Commercial 

Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation and Recommendations 

to Reduce Nonindigenous Species Release from the Non-Ballast Water 

Vector” (Takata et al. 2006). This report includes recommendations on 

how commercial vessel fouling should be managed. The 

recommendations in this report should be adopted. See also Chapter 3. 

2B2. Continue to implement and improve California’s current ballast water 

inspection and enforcement program. 

(SLC) Ongoing 

Discussion: SLC should continue current ballast water inspection and 

enforcement program. Training for inspectors should be evaluated and 

updated as necessary. Technologies such as the handheld Ballast 

Exchange Assurance Meter, now being developed and tested by the 

USCG, may prove useful to California’s programs. 

2B3. Implement performance standards for the discharge of treated 

ballast water. 

(SLC) Ongoing 

Discussion: In January 2006, the SLC approved the report titled 

“California State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for 

Ballast Water Discharges in California Water” (Falkner et al. 2006). This 

64
report includes interim performance standards, an implementation 

schedule, final discharge standards and other programmatic 

recommendations. The report was forwarded to the California Legislature 

on January 30, 2006 for consideration. In September 2006, legislation 

based on the report, Senate Bill 497, became law and requires SLC to 

adopt the interim standards and implementation schedule outlined in the 

report. Regulations now need to be created and implemented based on 

the new legislation. 

2B4. Identify and address gaps in the Marine Invasive Species Program 

not addressed by either federal or state law.

(AISWG, SLC, DFG) Ongoing 

Discussion: The 2003 Marine Invasive Species Act charged SLC with 

oversight of the state’s program to prevent nonindigenous species 

introductions through commercial shipping. In recognition of the 

uncertainties surrounding the development of an effective ballast water 

management program for the state, the law requires that on or before 

January 2005, and updated biennially, SLC submit to the legislature and 

make available to the public, a report that summarizes vessel ballast water 

activities as they relate to the act and put forward recommendations to 

improve the state’s program. Likewise, DFG is charged with oversight of 

studies to determine the location and geographic range of AIS in California 

estuaries and coastal areas and to assess the effectiveness of the ballast 

water controls implemented pursuant to the law. DFG reports their study 

results to the public annually. 

2B5. Develop a commercial vessel fouling outreach and management 

program based on results from action 2B1. 

(SLC, Sea Grant) Year 1 

Discussion: The recommendations of the fouling report described under 

2B1 should be adopted and implemented. Options for resolving policy 

conflicts between efforts to control hull fouling with copper-based antifouling paints and efforts to protect water quality need to be explored. 

Such a resolution may also benefit the implementation of actions related 

to recreational boats under Strategy 2C. 

2B6. Investigate the degree to which moving maritime industry structures, 

such as oil drilling platforms and barges, may contribute to AIS 

dispersal. 

(DFG, SLC, RI, FA) Year 3 

65
2B7. Quantify and assess the role of commercial fishing vessels as AIS 

vectors and identify potential management options. 

(DFG, RI, NGOs, SH, FA) Year 1 

2B8. Develop commercial fishing outreach and management program 

based on results from action 2B7. 

(DFG, AISWG, FA) Year 2 

STRATEGY 2C: RECREATION 

Limit new AIS introductions through recreational boating, fishing, diving 

and other water-based activities. 

2C1. Quantify and assess the role of recreational boating as an AIS vector 

and identify potential management options. 

(DBW, DFG, RI, SH) Year 1 

Discussion: The assessment should examine both the movement of boats 

over land (trailered boats) and the movement of boats in the water. The 

assessments should make use of existing data from border protection 

stations (DFA) and boater surveys (DBW and 100th Meridian Initiative); 

determine patterns and frequency of watercraft use and transport routes 

between waterways; and link boater survey results to hull fouling studies 

(amount of fouling, type of antifouling paint, etc). Information derived from 

DBW’s Boating Facility Needs Assessment may also prove useful. 

2C2. Develop a comprehensive recreational boating outreach and 

management program based on results from action 2C1. 

(DBW, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 2 

2C3. Develop a watercraft inspection program for high priority boat 

launch sites. 

(DBW, DFG, DPR, SH) Year 1 

Discussion: Unless new funding for agency staff is provided, such a 

program may need to be volunteer- or NGO-based, or undertaken by a 

citizen monitoring network as described in 3A5. 

2C4. Quantify and assess the role of recreational fishing as an AIS vector 

and identify potential management options. 

(DFG, DBW, RI, SH) Year 3 

66
2C5. Develop a recreational fishing outreach and management program 

based on results from action 2C4. 

(DFG, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 3 

2C6. Develop and distribute guidelines for: disposal of invasive species 

removed from marina areas (including from hull cleaning); the 

cleaning of fishing gear and equipment; and disposal of bait. 

(DFG, DBW, Sea Grant) Ongoing 

Discussion: Collecting fouling organisms removed from larger vessels 

that are kept in the water poses significant infrastructure and economic 

challenges that this plan’s commitment to statewide collaboration can help 

address (hauling boats for hull cleaning is nine times more expensive than 

in-water cleaning). In terms of fishing, contaminated recreational fishing 

gear and waders function as mechanisms for the introduction and 

dispersal of AIS throughout California. The angling community is 

particularly interested in curbing the dispersal of AIS. DFG and DBW will 

continue to work closely with these stakeholders to identify and publicize 

methods to decontaminate equipment. 

STRATEGY 2D: BAIT, LIVE SEAFOOD, AQUACULTURE & AQUARIUM 

Work with appropriate industry representatives to ensure awareness of the 

threats and prevent introductions. 

 

Discussion: The definition of aquarium may include hobby aquarists, public 

aquaria (such as Monterey Bay Aquarium) and research aquaria (such as UC 

Davis Bodega Marine Lab) 

2D1. Quantify and assess the role of bait as an AIS vector and identify 

potential management options. 

(DFG, RI) Year 1 

2D2. Work with the bait industry to develop preventative strategies, 

identify education needs and implement permitting of bait imports, 

collection and sales. 

(DFG, UCCE, SH) Year 2 

Discussion: Guidelines need to be developed on the use of packing 

materials for live bait transport. An implementation plan needs to be 

developed to facilitate permitting bait imports. Input from pathologists is 

needed to develop prevention strategies and the management program 

referred to in action 2D3.

67
2D3. Develop a bait outreach and management program based on results 

from actions 2D1 and 2D2. 

(DFG, UCCE, SH) Year 3 

2D4. Quantify and assess the role of live imported seafood as an AIS 

vector and identify potential management options. 

(DFG, DFA) Year 1 

2D5. Work with the live imported seafood industry to develop preventative 

strategies and identify education needs.

(DFG, DFA, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 2 

Discussion: Guidelines need to be developed for use of plants and other 

live packing materials for seafood transport and linked to education and 

outreach efforts under Objective 6. Input from pathologists is needed to 

develop prevention strategies and the management program referred to in 

action 2D6. 

2D6. Develop a live imported seafood outreach and management program 

based on results from actions 2D4 and 2D5. 

(DFG, DFA, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 3 

2D7. Perform an inventory and associated risk assessment of the 

discharge, overflow systems and storm/flood containment systems 

of aquaculture, public aquariums and research facilities to determine 

the potential risks of effluents and propose remedies for remediation 

and monitoring requirements. 

(SWRCB, DFG, RI, SH) Year 3

Discussion: The level of risk currently posed by these facilities in not 

known and must be more accurately assessed. Though containment 

procedures must be outlined in the permit process of such facilities, followup has been inadequate to ensure procedures and systems are in place 

and effective. Methods already exist to evaluate the risks associated with 

this pathway such as those presented in the Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (ANS-HACCP) planning process. 

USFWS has adopted ANS-HACCP as a national tool for use by federal 

fish hatcheries and developed guidance materials and training to facilitate 

its use. 

68
2D8. Work with the aquaculture industry to ensure understanding of the 

importance of containment systems as well as the threat escapees 

may pose to native species and habitats. 

(DFG, SH, UCCE) Year 2 

Discussion: DFG should provide ANS-HACCP training and assist in 

development of ANS-HACCP plans. 

2D9. Develop an aquaculture outreach and management program based 

on results from actions 2D7 and 2D8. 

(DFG, UCCE) Year 4 

2D10. Quantify and assess the ways the aquarium and aquascaping (water 

garden) trades contribute to AIS introductions in addition to the 

discharge issue addressed in 2D7 and evaluate potential 

management options.

(DFG, DFA, RI) Year 1 

2D11. Work with aquarium, water garden, and other target industries to 

ensure that there are easily accessible, appropriate locations and 

methods for disposal of aquatic organisms. 

(DFA, DFG, UCCE, FA) Year 1 

2D12. Implement an aquarium and aquascaping outreach and management 

program based on results from action 2D10. 

(DFA, DFG, UCCE, FA) Year 2 

STRATEGY 2E: FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT 

Assess and minimize activities related to planned, authorized introduction 

of non-native species into inland water systems. 

2E1. Quantify and assess the role of fisheries enhancement as an AIS 

vector and identify potential management options. 

(DFG, RI) Year 1-3 

2E2. Review DFG’s authorized practice of intentional introductions of 

non-native species into aquatic habitats for recreational purposes. 

(DFG, RI) Year 1-3 

69
Discussion: DFG is currently writing an Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR) that will examine DFG operated hatchery stocking throughout the 

State. The anticipated completion date is December 2008. 

2E3. Explore ways to reduce the amount of unauthorized stocking of nonnative species into aquatic habitats. 

(DFG) Year 2 

2E4. Assess the efficacy of, versus threats from, authorized introductions 

of Poecliliids into native habitats for mosquito control. 

(DFG, RI) Year 2 

Discussion: The practice of stocking streams, ditches and other inland 

waterways with Poecliliids (i.e. mosquitofish) to control mosquitoes should 

be evaluated. Though mosquito control to address human health 

concerns is certainly important, Poecliliids may not be the most effective 

method, harbor parasites and can be harmful to native insect and fish 

species. 

STRATEGY 2F: RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT & EDUCATION 

Minimize AIS introductions and transfers by researchers, resource 

managers and others involved in field activities.

2F1. Quantify and assess the role of research, resource management and 

educational activities as AIS vectors and identify potential 

management options. 

(AISWG) Year 2 

2F2. Establish and make available protocols to minimize the spread of AIS 

into the wild from research, monitoring and control activities, and 

incorporate protocols into permits and funding requests. 

(DFG, AISWG, RI) Year 3 

Discussion: With the rise in AIS work suggested by this plan, there will be 

a corresponding increase in the chance of transferring AIS during 

research or management activities. Protocols addressing this task have 

been developed by the ANSTF and could be adapted to meet the state’s 

needs. Such protocols should be a standard component of all field 

activities that involve AIS or infested waters, as well as a required 

component of AIS grant proposals. Other protocols already exist such as 

those presented in the ANS-HACCP planning process. 

70
2F3. Evaluate existing, or establish new, regulations and protocols for inwater (non-lab) based research experiments that could potentially 

introduce or involve the culture or movement of non-native species 

into areas where they do not currently exist. 

(DFG, SWRCB, RI) Year 4 

Discussion: Information on gaps in existing protocols and any new 

protocols developed under this action should be distributed to researchers 

in coordination with 6C1 and 6C2. Researchers also need to understand 

that these activities are regulated by Private Stocking Permits. In addition, 

permit evaluation should include scrutiny of potential AIS issues. 

2F4. Quantify and assess the role of the shipment of live aquatic species 

for use in research or educational activities as an AIS vector. 

(DFG, RI) Year 4 

Discussion: Marine and freshwater species can be ordered from research 

and educational supply companies around the world through catalogs or 

the Internet. Once the organisms are delivered, improper handling 

techniques may result in the release of non-native species. 

STRATEGY 2G: CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION 

Limit new introductions of AIS as a result of restoration, landscaping and 

construction activities. 

2G1. Quantify and assess the role of construction activities as an AIS 

vector and identify potential management options. 

(DFG, RI) Year 3 

2G2. Work with industry and consultants to develop guidelines for 

decontamination of construction equipment, tools and protective 

clothing. 

(DFG, SLC, DPR, FA) Year 2-3 

2G3. Develop a construction outreach and management program based 

on results from actions 2G1 AND 2G2. 

(DFG, SLC, DPR, FA, UCCE) Year 4 

2G4. Quantify and assess the role of restoration activities as an AIS vector 

and identify potential management options. 

(AISWG, RI) Year 2 

71
Discussion: Construction equipment used for restoration work, as well as 

soil from nurseries and dredged material used for restoration, can be 

vectors for AIS. 

2G5. Work with consultants and other groups conducting habitat 

restoration projects or landscaping projects to encourage the use of 

native species (with propagules from appropriately local stock) or 

noninvasive non-native species to minimize the transfer of AIS. 

(DFG, SCC, AISWG) Year 2-3 

Discussion: Non-native species should not be used in habitat restoration 

and mitigation projects. Approved mitigation and restoration projects 

should include a program for periodic site monitoring for non-native 

species and a program for control and, if appropriate and feasible, 

eradication if an introduction occurs. The use of non-native plant species 

in public access landscape improvements should be avoided where a 

potential exists for non-native plants to spread into waterbodies or 

transition zones between tidal and upland habitats. 

2G6. Develop a restoration outreach and management program based on 

results from actions 2G4 and 2G5. 

(AISWG, UCCE) Year 3 

STRATEGY 2H: WATER DELIVERY & DIVERSION SYSTEM 

Limit new introductions of AIS as a result of water delivery systems. 

2H1. Quantify and assess the role of the water delivery and diversion 

system as an AIS vector and identify potential management options. 

(DWR) Year 2 

Discussion: The state's extensive water delivery, export, transfer and 

development system, which moves water not only from one watershed to 

another, but also from one end of the state to another, and even across 

state lines, can be an important vector of AIS. Water deliveries can 

spread freshwater-adapted AIS within and out of state, and carry species 

from infested areas to more pristine locales. Intensive manipulation of 

natural water paths and flows in support of these water diversions and 

deliveries, and of the aquatic ecosystem in general, makes California 

particularly vulnerable to AIS. Not only can AIS be more easily transferred 

via all these diversions, but they may also find it easier to colonize areas 

where native species are already stressed by the loss of habitat caused by 

dams, water diversion, altered hydrology and development. 

72
2H2. Develop an outreach and management program for the water 

delivery and diversion system based on results from actions 2H1. 

(DWR, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 3 

STRATEGY 2I: ENFORCEMENT & INSPECTION

Increase enforcement of existing regulations controlling the transport, 

propagation, sale, collection, possession, importation, purchase, 

cultivation, distribution and introduction of AIS. 

Discussion: State resources directed toward interdiction and inspections at major 

points of entry for invasive species are inadequate. This plan seeks to improve 

inspections at both interior and coastal borders and increase monitoring efforts to 

ensure compliance with current regulations. 

2I1. Increase staffing and hours of operation at DFA Border Protection 

Stations. 

(DFA, SH) Year 1 

Discussion: DFA operates 16 border protection stations (BPS) on major 

highways entering California. When BPS stations perform boat 

inspections, they remove any quagga or zebra mussels found on infested 

boats, place the boat under quarantine and coordinate with DFG 

personnel to supervise final cleaning at destination points. Before 2003, 

DFA inspectors checked all watercraft entering California through these 

stations for AIS, including zebra mussel and Hydrilla. However, in 2003, 

the program was subject to severe budget cuts and the ability to inspect 

small, privately transported watercraft was lost. At 15 of the 16 BPS, only 

watercraft transported by commercial vehicles were inspected from 2003 

through the end of 2006. At the end of December, 2006, only nine of the 

stations were open 24/7, while the other seven were open only eight hours 

a day. DFA suggests that in order to prevent AIS invasions, all boats 

should be inspected, all check stations should be open 24 hours a day 

and all staff (and the CHP) should be trained in zebra mussel, quagga 

mussel, aquatic weed and other AIS identification, disposal and reporting 

to other state agencies. The recent quagga mussel discovery in January 

2007 in Lake Mead allowed state agencies to get funds to increase 

staffing in southern California. Additional funding and staff are needed to 

reopen all stations and inspect private vehicles. 

2I2. Develop and distribute comprehensive guidelines for border 

inspections of boats, boat trailers and water-based equipment 

entering California. 

(DFA, DFG) Year 1 

73
2I3. Increase DFG staffing to more effectively enforce current regulations 

on prohibited and restricted species, and on movement of aquatic 

species. 

(DFG, SH) Year 1-2 

Discussion: Various regulations exist to protect valuable resources 

against the introduction of prohibited and restricted species. In Year 1, the 

Governor approved additional staffing for enforcement laws related to 

quarantine of vessels infested with prohibited species. 

2I4. Ensure adequate staffing and clear cargo inspection guidelines for 

inspectors and enforcement officers at maritime ports and at 

airports. 

(FA, AISWG, SLC) Year 3-5 

Discussion: Inspecting cargo is a critical step in preventing unwanted 

species from entering the state. Adequate staffing and clear guidelines 

are needed for inspectors to be effective. Close coordination and 

collaboration with federal inspectors (including USCG, USFWS, USDA, 

and DHS) will be required. Training for inspectors should be evaluated 

and updated as necessary. 

 

2I5. Continue disease sampling for shipments and stocks of live fish and 

other species. Assess whether current systems are adequate to keep 

contaminated stocks from being distributed via aquaculture, the 

aquarium and bait trade, terminal food markets, research activities 

and government stocking programs. 

(DFG) Ongoing 

2I6. Develop a program to identify mail order and online vendors who are 

selling California prohibited and restricted species, and work with 

these vendors to keep AIS from being imported into the state. 

(AISWG, RI) Year 2 

Discussion: There are multiple cases of restricted and prohibited stocks 

being sold without detection by government regulators, not only in local 

venues, but also through mail order or from on-line sources. Any 

California enforcement should integrate with efforts such as USDA’s 

current development of a WebCrawler designed to identify online vendors 

of federally listed noxious weeds and regulated plant species. 

74
OBJECTIVE 3: EARLY DETECTION & MONITORING

Develop and maintain programs that ensure the early detection of 

new AIS and the monitoring of existing AIS. 

Early detection of introductions and quick, coordinated responses can 

eradicate or contain invasive species at much lower cost than long-term control. 

In many cases, control may not only be prohibitively expensive but also 

infeasible. Thus detection of non-native arrivals, before they become 

established, should be a priority for any AIS management effort. The purpose of 

this section is to acknowledge the importance of continuing current monitoring 

programs and to identify gaps and areas for improvement. Significant 

improvements will clearly come from coordination at multiple levels in both 

planning and implementation. As such, some of the following actions aim to 

better link the many different natural resource and AIS monitoring programs 

conducted by diverse agencies and academic institutions to improve AIS 

detection. Actions also seek to better integrate Geographic Information System 

(GIS) mapping into AIS management, and to make state databases more 

compatible with, and responsive to, AIS management needs. Actions under 

Objective 3 should be coordinated with research efforts under Objective 7 and 

with priority lists developed under 1A6. 

STRATEGY 3A: EARLY DETECTION

Develop a standardized monitoring system focused on early detection for 

high priority AIS. 

ACTIONS 

3A1. Assess all current monitoring of the state’s coastal, marine and 

inland waters for opportunities to incorporate early detection of AIS. 

(CAAIST, RI, CeNCOOS, SCCOOS) Year 1

Discussion: High priority AIS for early detection may include zebra mussel, 

quagga mussel, Northern Pacific seastar, snakehead, Caulerpa, Hydrilla, 

Salvinia, golden mussel and others. A more complete and up-to-date list 

for use in any assessment will be developed under Action 1A6. 

3A2. Assess how current monitoring under the state’s Marine Invasive 

Species Program could assist with early detection. 

(SLC, DFG, RI) Ongoing

75
3A3. Develop a statewide integrated approach to early detection based on 

the assessment in 3A1 and 3A2. The approach should address any 

gaps and link directly with the centralized reporting system and rapid 

response program described in 4A2 and Appendix A. 

(CAAIST, AISWG) Year 1 

3A4. Conduct outreach to entities regularly sampling coastal, marine and 

inland waters for other purposes so they can easily identify and 

report high priority AIS. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 2-3 

Discussion: Those already conducting field work or surveys – 

researchers, graduate students, resource managers, water quality 

monitors, law enforcement personnel and others – should be encouraged 

and trained to identify high priority AIS (as defined under 1A6). Special 

identification materials for high priority AIS should be developed and 

distributed to support the early detection effort. 

3A5. Create and train a statewide citizen monitoring network to assist in 

the detection and monitoring of AIS distribution. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, SH) Year 3

Discussion: Trained volunteers and knowledgeable water users already 

working near or in the water can provide relevant information on the 

occurrence of new species. To be effective, this network will need a direct 

link into an early warning system that incorporates follow-up. Some 

elements necessary to the development of an effective citizen-monitoring 

network may include: a structured training program; expansion of current 

monitoring and restoration programs to better engage community groups; 

outreach to existing watershed councils, diver associations, flood control 

districts, reclamation districts and other monitoring efforts; distribution of 

key species pictures and descriptions (as defined under 1A6); and the 

creation of a website to allow volunteers and water users to report their 

AIS sightings (see 4A2). 

3A6. Create a program to engage professional divers in the early 

detection network. 

(CAAIST, AISWG, NGOs) Year 1 

Discussion: Involve and educate professional divers – who are frequently 

in the water and under boats cleaning hulls – in AIS detection and 

management, among them the California Professional Divers Association. 

Link with 3A5 and with appropriate educational and outreach activities in 

Objective 6 (such as 6A9 and 6A13). 

76
3A7. Regularly review the efficacy of the state’s AIS early detection 

monitoring systems and pursue any necessary improvements, in 

conjunction with 3B7. 

(AISWG) Ongoing 

Discussion: State AIS staff should review the type, intensity, frequency 

and distribution of monitoring activities on a regular basis to assess 

continued relevance and effectiveness. Such a review should occur at a 

minimum on a biennial basis. 

STRATEGY 3B: LONG-TERM MONITORING 

Improve and standardize the long term monitoring program for AIS. 

3B1. Assess current long-term AIS monitoring efforts for the state’s 

coastal, marine and inland waters; identify gaps, and recommend 

improvements for a more integrated approach. 

(AISWG, CeNCOOS, SCCOOS, DFG/OSPR) Year 2-3 

Discussion: Within the current agency management framework, 

monitoring occurs, and will continue to occur, on two parallel tracks: DFA 

monitors specific target species in order to undertake early detection or 

eradication; DFG/OSPR monitors populations over time, and notes new 

populations or changes in species abundance. Both types of monitoring 

are critical to sound management and provide building blocks for a more 

integrated approach. 

3B2. Coordinate with ocean observing groups. 

(AISWG, CeNCOOS, SCCOOS) Ongoing 

Discussion: Monitoring of invasives in the marine and coastal areas of 

California should be coordinated with the regional ocean observing 

systems (SCCOOS-Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System 

and CeNCOOS-Central and Northern California Coastal Ocean Observing 

System). 

3B3. Identify and monitor locations with a high invasion rate. 

(AISWG, DFG/OSPR, RI) Ongoing

Discussion: High risk locations may include ports, ballast water release 

sites, popular recreational lakes and marinas near state borders, as well 

as areas with high density AIS populations. 

77
3B4. Identify and monitor the population growth and dispersal of 

established AIS. 

(AISWG, DFG/OSPR, RI) Ongoing

Discussion: Species-specific monitoring is needed for those species 

identified as high risk or high priority (see 1A6). Examples of established 

species that may require monitoring appear in Table 3 and Chapter 8. 

3B5. Obtain funding to incorporate DFG’s historical stream surveys and 

report findings into a central database. 

(DFG) Year 1 

Discussion: These historical surveys document areas where rare or 

native fish occur, and where incipient populations of AIS could cause 

extirpation of local fish populations. Funding has been obtained for new 

surveys of some streams in southern California in 2007. 

3B6. Include maps of existing AIS in California’s coastal and inland waters 

in the DFG Biogeographic Information and Observation System 

(BIOS). 

(DFG, DFA) Year 2-5

Discussion: Mapping is an important step in determining the spatial 

distribution of AIS, and could help with the completion of other early 

detection and monitoring tasks. BIOS is available to the public and 

contains user-friendly, Internet-based maps. 

3B7. Regularly review the efficacy of the state’s AIS long-term detection 

and monitoring systems, and pursue any necessary improvements, 

in conjunction with 3A7. 

(AISWG) Year 2-5 

Discussion: Such a review such should occur at a minimum on a biennial 

basis. 

78
OBJECTIVE 4: RAPID RESPONSE & ERADICATION

Establish and manage systems for rapid response and eradication. 

Once AIS are established, complete eradication is often infeasible. 

Eradication or containment of pioneering populations is generally much more 

feasible, making rapid response a key AIS management strategy. Rapid 

response is facilitated by formal advance agreements between likely participants 

that address roles, responsibilities and procedures. As such, it requires a preplanned collaborative effort on the part of government agencies, academic 

institutions and private interest groups. 

STRATEGY 4A: RAPID RESPONSE

Implement a coordinated system for rapid response efforts to contain 

newly detected AIS. 

ACTIONS 

4A1. Develop and implement a statewide rapid response plan. 

(DFG, AISWG) Year 1

Discussion: The Rapid Response Plan for AIS in California appears in 

Appendix A. This DRAFT plan was written in accordance with the federal 

guidelines for rapid response systems (USEPA 2005) and includes 

concepts presented in DFA’s Model Rapid Response Plan for Aquatic 

Nuisance Species (see bibliography in Appendix A for references). It 

includes a proposed rapid response procedure that is based on formal 

interagency agreements. It also includes a planning section that 

discusses coordination among interested parties, issues that must be 

addressed to finalize the plan, funding and the need to develop interim 

rapid response protocols prior to plan completion. 

4A2. Evaluate how existing systems for reporting AIS sightings or other 

natural resource problems (e.g. poaching, pollution discharge, birds 

infected with West Nile Virus) can either be used directly or as a 

blueprint for an AIS reporting system in California and coordinate 

systems as in 3A3. 

(CAAIST, AISWG) Year 1 

Discussion: Based on the results of this evaluation, utilize an existing 

system or develop a new system for the public to report AIS sightings. 

This reporting system needs to feed into the first steps of the rapid 

response procedure (Appendix A) which requires obtaining a definite 

identification of the species, determining whether it is a detrimental 

invasive species and notifying the appropriate authorities. Currently there 

are a number of options for submitting reports of possible aquatic invasive 

79
species sightings, but focusing outreach efforts on one website/hotline 

destination may prove more efficient in the future. Current general 

reporting options include: 1) sending an e-mail to invasives@dfg.ca.gov; 

2) submitting a form to the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Species 

Program – http://nas.er.usgs.gov (click on Alert System); 3) calling their 

hotline – 1-877-STOP-ANS. The federal system passes information on to 

DFG and USFWS. 

4A3. Develop species- and/or location-specific rapid response plans. 

(AISWG) Ongoing 

Discussion: A generic plan, described in Task 4A1, is necessary because 

it is not possible to write a plan for every species or location that may 

require rapid response to an AIS infestation. Species or location specific 

rapid response plans can include information that makes them more 

efficient to implement than a generic plan. The state needs to prioritize 

which species (using the list developed in 1A6) and locations warrant 

specific rapid response plans and develop these plans. Models already 

developed, such as the Non-Native Invasive Pest Intervention Team 

model (Anderson 2005) may be of value in creating such plans. 

4A4. Explore the establishment and administration of permanent funding 

to implement rapid response plans, in conjunction with 1C4. 

(AE, NGOs, SH) Year 2 

Discussion: Washington, Massachusetts and other states have 

established emergency funds reserved for the containment/eradication of 

pioneering AIS infestations. California lacks emergency funding for 

immediate species identification and control actions. Without such 

funding, rapid response may not occur. The Ocean Protection Council’s 

Strategic Plan identifies establishment of such a fund for coastal AIS as a 

high priority. 

STRATEGY 4B: ERADICATION

Eradicate targeted populations of AIS.

4B1. Review and evaluate the effectiveness of eradication programs. 

(AISWG) Year 2 

Discussion: Eradication programs often compete for limited resources, 

and sometimes result in conflicts and trade offs among different public 

mandates. Regular evaluation and discussion among state agencies and 

the AISWG, with major conflicts brought to the attention of agency 

executives, will help streamline state eradication efforts. Findings and 

recommendations from research on the economic benefits and efficacy of 

80
various management and prevention approaches developed under 

Actions 7B1-2 and 7C1-2 and 7C4 would be incorporated in the review. 

4B2. Continue and complete effective current eradication efforts, in 

coordination with 4B1 and conduct follow-up monitoring to ensure 

eradication. 

(AISWG) Ongoing 

Discussion: As of fall 2006, recent or ongoing eradication programs within 

the state of California included, but were not limited to, Hydrilla, giant 

salvinia, smooth cordgrass, Arundo, alligatorweed, Japanese eelgrass and 

Northern pike. More information on some of these eradication efforts and 

species appears in Chapters 2, 4 and 8. 

4B3. Standardize and apply sets of criteria that can be used to identify 

priority species for eradication under rapid response scenarios or 

more long-term efforts. 

(CAAIST, RI, Science Advisory Panel) Year 1-2 

Discussion: It would be helpful establish criteria to answer questions such 

as: Is it feasible and appropriate to attempt to eradicate a particular AIS 

infestation? Is it worthwhile to attempt a statewide eradication effort for a 

given species? These criteria would provide tools for DFA and DFG to 

reconcile their current screening strategies for AIS importation, help 

streamline decision making during the rapid response process and 

categorize AIS species into different management classes for planning 

purposes. 

4B4. Develop and implement a method to identify priority sites of AIS 

invasion concern, in order to better prepare for rapid response and 

eradication. 

(AISWG, Science Advisory Panel) Year 2 

4B5. Identify ecologically sensitive waters as targets of additional 

precautionary protocols. 

(AISWG, Science Advisory Panel) Year 2 and Ongoing 

Discussion: To the extent possible, existing designations (e.g. National 

Estuarine Research Reserves, National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine 

Reserves, Critical Coastal Areas, etc.) should be used to compile 

locations and maps of ecologically sensitive waters. This action should 

also be coordinated with BIOS mapping efforts under 3B6. 

81
OBJECTIVE 5: LONG-TERM CONTROL & MANAGEMENT 

Control the spread of AIS and minimize their impacts on native 

habitats and species. 

Long-term control and management activities should be focused on 

populations of established species where there is a clear and significant impact 

on economically important species, native species, human health, infrastructure, 

recreation and navigation, and where the control of specific populations is both 

technically and economically feasible. In many cases, past control efforts 

occurred as the result of a local management priority such as a weed clogging a 

favorite fishing spot, swimming hole or creek habitat, and the control measures 

undertaken by local groups and entities, sometimes with state support. State 

control programs tend to focus on larger scale impacts (water hyacinth in Delta 

waterways, for example), or AIS that threaten sensitive species, protected areas 

or water conveyance systems. As such, some control programs are coordinated 

among state, regional and local agencies, and some are not. The actions in this 

objective seek to prioritize control efforts; coordinate state control efforts with 

local and federal efforts; interface with appropriate researchers; provide technical 

assistance to local watershed groups, irrigation districts and others undertaking 

AIS management; and address AIS concerns in habitat restoration planning, 

landscape construction and maintenance projects. 

STRATEGY 5A: CONTROL

Control known AIS populations where economically and technically 

feasible. 

ACTIONS 

5A1. Develop a method or criteria to prioritize control actions based on 

both the threat level and the anticipated efficacy of control actions. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI) Year 2 

Discussion: Criteria developed under 4B3 may be of some help in this 

endeavor. 

5A2. Prioritize control efforts for all organisms, including new organisms 

of concern. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI) Year 2 

Discussion: With limited resources, prioritization of control efforts is a 

necessary part of addressing AIS issues throughout California. Statewide 

staff must coordinate priorities with local and regional staff and other 

agencies. A decision tree should be developed for determining whether to 

implement a control program, what types of control actions to use and how 

to accomplish the necessary permitting. Species could be placed in the 

82
species management categories mentioned in Table 3, in coordination 

with lists developed under 1A6. 

5A3. Continue ongoing control programs, following program review and 

in coordination with 5A1, 5A2 & 5A4. 

(DFA, DFG, SCC, FA, RI) Ongoing 

Discussion: Agencies can request that one of the AIS technical panels 

review an ongoing program and provide advice on what future actions 

should be. In addition, panels and agencies should take into 

consideration any findings from the Action 5A1 and 5A2 prioritization, the 

high-priority species lists developed under 1A6 and any findings and 

recommendations from research on efficacy of various management 

approaches developed under Objective 7. 

5A4. Develop new species- and site-specific control plans as necessary 

for projects that are implemented by state agencies based on 5A1-3 

above and on lessons learned from relevant projects inside and 

outside California. Coordinate with AISWG regarding plans being 

developed for entities other than state agencies. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI) Year 2 

5A5. Provide technical assistance to watershed councils, irrigation 

districts and other local boards for development of AIS management 

plans. 

(AISWG, UCCE, CACASA, RCD) Year 3-5 

STRATEGY 5B: LIMIT DISPERSAL TO NEW AREAS

Limit the dispersal of established AIS to new water bodies or to new areas 

within inland water bodies. 

5B1. Establish boat washing stations and disposal facilities at infested 

water bodies. 

(DFG, DBW, DFA, SH) Year 1 

5B2. Install warning and information signs in infested areas at local 

kiosks, boat ramps and on floating buoys to limit the spread of 

existing AIS by boats, personal watercraft, movement of live fish and 

bait buckets. 

(DBW, DFG, DPR, SH) Year 1 

83
5B3. Use volunteer monitors to conduct AIS inspections at heavily used 

boat access areas. 

(DFG, DBW, NGOs, SH, FA) Year 1 

5B4. Develop criteria and a plan for enforcing the temporary or long-term 

closure of specific areas infested with high priority AIS, as defined in 

1A6.

(DFA, DFG, DBW, SH) Year 2 

STRATEGY 5C: PROTECT NATIVES

Protect areas of special ecological significance, and state and federally 

listed rare, threatened and endangered species, from AIS invasions. 

5C1. Coordinate among appropriate state, federal and local government 

agencies, existing relevant coalitions such as the Weed Management 

Areas and private land management organizations, to prioritize 

ecologically sensitive areas most at risk due to AIS impacts. 

(AISWG) Years 2-5 

5C2. Coordinate the entities discussed in 5C1 to meet protection and 

restoration objectives with respect to AIS. 

(AISWG) Years 3-5 

5C3. Develop GIS-based maps that show coincidence of AIS and critical 

ecosystems. 

 (DFG, DFA, RI, DFG/OSPR) Years 3-5 

Discussion: Mapping should be in coordination with other mapping 

actions under 3B6 and 4B5. These GIS layers will assist in setting 

priorities for eradication and control projects. 

5C4. Establish and disseminate clear guidelines for action when AIS 

eradication or control efforts will take place in areas of special 

ecological significance. 

(AISWG) Year 2 

5C5. Adopt guidelines on best management practices for timber, crop 

production and livestock activities around water in order to prevent 

invasions. 

(AISWG) Year 2 

84
5C6. Assess any existing guidelines, and where necessary develop new 

guidelines, for preventing AIS spread through projects involving 

riparian, wetland and shallow water habitat restoration and/or 

shoreline landscaping. 

(CAAIST) Year 1

Discussion: Newly cleared and created habitats can easily and 

immediately be colonized by opportunistic invasives. Measures are often 

necessary to prevent such invasions. Some work to gather existing 

guidelines for invasive plant species has been conducted by USFWS’ 

Non-Native Invasive Species Program on behalf of the California 

Interagency Noxious and Invasive Plant Committee (L. McLaughlin, 

Personal Communication). 

85
OBJECTIVE 6: EDUCATION & OUTREACH 

Develop a comprehensive education and outreach program to ensure 

awareness of AIS threats and management priorities throughout 

California. 

Most people do not recognize the threat that aquatic invasive species 

pose and how their own actions may lead to new infestations. The strategies 

and actions listed below are some of the elements that should be included in a 

comprehensive AIS education and outreach program. For many of these 

strategies and associated tasks, similar efforts are being undertaken in other 

states and on an international level. California should link with these existing 

efforts and use tools and methods proven effective elsewhere. Many outreach 

efforts and materials are developed outside of state or federal agencies, 

particularly by University of California and Sea Grant extension programs. 

Agencies should utilize the expertise and products available as much as 

possible. These programs should, in turn, seek agency input in product 

development. In addition to the many general outreach actions described below, 

several targeted outreach actions are listed under other objectives in this plan 

(2C6, 2D2-3, 2D5-6, 2D9, 2D12, 2G2-3, 2G5-6, 2H2, 3A4-6, 5B2, 5C1 and 5C5-

6). 

STRATEGY 6A: OUTREACH

Increase education of, and outreach to, those who may be potential 

sources for AIS introductions. 

ACTIONS 

6A1. Inventory existing education and outreach efforts in order to 

prioritize future strategies and develop a statewide AIS 

communication strategy. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 2 

Discussion: A dedicated effort is needed to inventory diverse existing 

education and outreach programs so that gaps and overlaps can be 

addressed and priorities for new programs identified. This effort should be 

closely coordinated with activities under Objective 2: Prevention. 

6A2. Partner with ongoing outreach campaigns. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 1 

Discussion: National campaigns now underway include Habitattitude (pet 

industry and pet owner outreach) and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers (boating 

and recreational outreach). Other state and NGO programs have 

established AIS outreach efforts and campaigns within California or in 

specific regions. Future partners for state education efforts may include 

industry groups, UCCE, Sea Grant and NGO programs. See Appendix D. 

86
6A3. Develop a DFG Communications Plan. 

 (DFG) Year 2 

Discussion: Currently, DFG staff develops brochures, posters, articles 

and press releases in an ad hoc manner. A communications plan will 

provide stakeholders and the general public with ongoing coordinated 

exposure to AIS issues. 

6A4. Develop and distribute printed material (posters, brochures and 

articles) for specific industry sectors and user groups. 

(AISWG, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 1-5

Discussion: Target audiences may include the owners and employees of 

pet and aquarium stores, nurseries; wholesalers and shippers dealing in 

aquarium organisms; operators of water-based businesses (such as boat 

charter operators, marinas, angling guides, fishing tournament organizers, 

harbormasters, dive shops, seaplane operators, and dredging 

contractors). 

6A5. Develop permanent interpretive displays at appropriate marinas, 

boat ramps and state fishing access sites. 

(AISWG, SH) Year 2-5 

Discussion: Educational signage should also be developed for important 

stream/river crossings on major recreational trails. Non-aquatic outdoor 

sports that involve aquatic crossings (equestrian trails, hiking and bicycle 

trails, 4-wheel drive dirt roads) can be targeted through information posted 

at trailheads and other high use areas. 

6A6. Work directly with promoters of industry trade shows to deliver the 

AIS message. 

(DFG, DFA, DBW, SLC, Sea Grant, RI, SH) Ongoing 

Discussion: Some initial work done by DFG, DFA, DBW, SLC, Sea Grant, 

UCCE, and other organizations, can contribute to a comprehensive 

outreach program.

6A7. Present and distribute AIS information at various conferences, 

tournaments, fairs and other public gatherings. 

(AISWG, Sea Grant, SH) Ongoing 

Discussion: The ongoing efforts should reach as many venues as 

possible and avoid duplication. 

87
6A8. Continue to include information on AIS in state hunting, fishing and 

boating regulations and licenses. 

(DFG, DBW) Ongoing 

6A9. Publish information about AIS in fishing and recreational 

newspapers, magazines, and newsletters. 

(DFG, DBW, UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs) Year 2-5 

6A10. Develop AIS identification cards to be distributed to all appropriate 

audiences. 

(AISWG, SH, Sea Grant) Ongoing 

6A11. Encourage industries to offer noninvasive alternatives to AIS 

whenever possible and to educate their consumers about the 

availability of such alternatives. 

(AISWG, SH) Year 3-5 

Discussion: To aid with this effort, develop “California-friendly” or “green 

species” lists for specific user groups and industries. 

6A12. Partner with diverse stakeholders and interest groups to multiply 

education efforts and distribute some of the materials developed in 

6A4-6A10. 

(AISWG, SH) Ongoing 

Discussion: Work can be done, for example, with aquarium, water garden 

and other target industries to educate consumers, retailers and 

wholesalers of the importance of preventing the release of unwanted 

organisms into aquatic systems. 

6A13. Educate waterfront and shoreline property owners, including those 

on lakes, rivers and streams, about AIS. 

(DBW, SCC, NGOs, SH) Year 3-5 

6A14. Develop and offer AIS management classes for professional 

organizations. 

(AISWG, UCCE, SH) Year 4 

Discussion: Training programs are needed for professionals such as pest 

control applicators, diving instructors, water/irrigation engineers and 

habitat restoration planners. 

88
6A15. Continue state education measures concerning ballast water. 

(SLC, Sea Grant) Ongoing 

STRATEGY 6B: POLICYMAKERS

Engage policymakers and legislative staff in AIS policy and outreach 

efforts. 

6B1. Provide decision makers and legislators with educational briefings 

on AIS threats and economic impacts, site visits showcasing 

impacts and controls and regular updates on AIS management 

progress. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI, NGOs, SH) Years 1-3 

6B2. Periodically update the Fish and Game Commission, SLC, OPC, SCC 

and CCC on invasive species activities. 

(DFG, CAAIST) Years 1-5 

STRATEGY 6C: RESOURCE MANAGERS & RESEARCHERS

Increase AIS awareness and support for management within the scientific 

community and natural resource agency staff. 

6C1. Increase awareness of AIS among scientific and natural resource 

management interests. 

(RI, CAAIST, FA, NGOs, SH) Ongoing 

Discussion: This effort should promote greater awareness and 

information-sharing among those working in the field and in resource 

management projects that may be impacted by AIS. Possible avenues for 

this networking include: supporting symposia, workshops and 

conferences (highlighting new findings and activities discussed at local, 

national and international conferences); developing a centralized AIS 

communication forum for California (such as a species-specific list serve); 

and engaging managers and scientists in identifying, monitoring and 

reporting AIS as described in 3A4. Classes in AIS management (such as 

those offered by UCCE and Sea Grant) should be offered through public 

agency training programs, and held in locations resource managers can 

easily attend, or be offered on-line or in video. 

6C2. Work with institutions and agencies conducting scientific research 

to ensure awareness of proper AIS containment and disposal 

methods, as well as legal restrictions. 

(DFA, DFG, RI) Year 2 

89
Discussion: Such an effort may be coordinated with the interests listed 

under 3A4. 

6C3. Develop an AIS regulatory handbook. 

(CAAIST, FA) Year 3 

Discussion: The handbook should explain laws, regulations and 

permitting processes aimed at people that plan or practice various AIS 

control measures. 

6C4. Share and disseminate information on current mechanical, chemical, 

biological and physical control methods. 

(AISWG, SH) Ongoing 

6C5. Disseminate guidelines developed in 5C4-6 and promote the use of 

native plants and/or non-invasive species in restoration, shoreline 

landscaping, and for timber, agricultural, or livestock activities 

around waterways. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant) Year 2 

Discussion: California-friendly species lists developed under 6A11 can be 

used. 

6C6. Encourage the training of more taxonomists. 

(AISWG, NGOs, SH, RI) Year 3 

Discussion: A lack of professionally trained taxonomists is becoming a 

bottleneck in early detection efforts. Universities and colleges have 

significantly cut taxonomist positions and classes in recent years. AISWG 

and stakeholder groups, with a vested interest in protection from AIS, 

should address this problem and seek funding for training. 

90
STRATEGY 6D: SCHOOLS

Increase AIS awareness within the educational system.

6D1. Train speakers to give guest presentations on AIS issues at schools, 

and develop resource packets for them to use when visiting 

classrooms, in coordination with 6E5. 

(AISWG, NGOs, SH) Year 2-5 

6D2. Assess existing K-12 environmental education curricula for 

opportunities to integrate AIS information, and develop new curricula 

as necessary. 

(UCCE, Sea Grant, DOE) Year 3-5 

Discussion: AIS related curricula should be integrated into in-service 

training and continuing education programs for teachers. California may 

be able to build on existing curricula, and other school and educational 

materials, developed through Sea Grant programs in other states. 

6D3. Further integrate AIS issues into service and education projects that 

involve students as part of a science class, science club or for 

community service credit offered at some schools. 

(UCCE, Sea Grant, DOE) Year 3-5 

6D4. Educate teachers about proper disposal methods for organisms 

used in the classroom and at science fairs to prevent release or 

transfer of AIS. 

(UCCE, Sea Grant, DOE) Year 2 

Discussion: ANSTF protocols for science fairs can be adapted to inclassroom disposals and other education activities. 

STRATEGY 6E: GENERAL PUBLIC

Raise awareness, concern and achieve buy-in on AIS issues by all 

California residents and visitors. 

6E1. Develop a press kit and work with the media to ensure the accuracy 

of any information published. 

(DFA, DFG) Year 1 

91
6E2. Increase local television, radio and newspaper media coverage of 

California’s AIS threats and management priorities using the press 

kit described in 6E1 and other outreach techniques. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs, RI) Year1 

6E3. Identify key state publications and websites to which AIS information 

can be added. 

(CAAIST, UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs, RI) Ongoing 

Discussion: Ensure website links are established so that public 

information on AIS is easy to find and gets wide exposure. Coordinate 

with efforts under 1A9. 

6E4. Develop multi-cultural educational materials on AIS that can engage 

California’s diverse population. 

(UCCE, Sea Grant, AISWG) Year 2-5 

6E5. Develop a variety of presentations, including AIS traveling trunks 

and portable presentation boards, for use in both public and private 

venues, and train presenters.

(UCCE, Sea Grant, AISWG) Year 1 

Discussion: Venues might include state parks, schools, libraries, natural 

history museums, aquariums, coastal access points and other recreational 

facilities. 

92
OBJECTIVE 7: RESEARCH 

Increase research on the baseline biology of AIS, the ecological and 

economic impacts of invasions, and options for control to improve 

management. 

Increased knowledge of the biology of invasive species and associated 

control methods will improve AIS management. The state would benefit from the 

development of a comprehensive research agenda that sets priorities and guides 

researchers towards important topics. Such important topics include: quantifying 

and clarifying the effects of non-native species on native plants and animals and 

their habitats; examining economic effects of AIS; pinpointing any human health 

and safety concerns resulting from infestations; and exploring improved methods 

of restoring invaded habitats to their native condition, during and after the 

effective management of AIS. Partnerships with universities, research institutes, 

consulting firms and others conducting such research are necessary so that 

agencies can develop their management programs with scientific input. In 

addition, given the plethora of organizations involved in AIS issues in California, it 

is important that any available research funds are allocated competitively, based 

on a research group’s specialized ability. Actions under Objective 7 should be 

coordinated with monitoring efforts under Objective 3. 

STRATEGY 7A: BASELINE BIOLOGY 

Increase our knowledge about AIS in order to develop effective prevention, 

control and management programs. 

Discussion: Management must be based on solid scientific information on AIS 

population dynamics, reproductive biology and ecological conditions fostering 

growth. Many of these factors are not yet fully understood for both the AIS that 

are already in California and the AIS that are at high risk of being introduced in 

the foreseeable future. 

ACTIONS 

7A1. Host workshops to develop AIS research priorities and identify 

research gaps. 

(RI, AISWG) Ongoing 

Discussion: In 2005, two research priority workshops were held, one that 

addressed freshwater invasive plants and another that looked at invasive 

seaweed research needs. 

7A2. Baseline biological studies on AIS and biological invasions should 

continue in coordination with 7A1 and 7C4. 

(RI, AISWG) Ongoing 

93
7A3. Develop a strategy to communicate and support research needs. 

(AISWG, RI) Year 3 

Discussion: Research needs could be communicated to the scientific 

community and institutions that support research in several ways: through 

networking among existing or new interagency committees, through a new 

research center that deals specifically with AIS or, through an existing 

center with an AIS component or emphasis. 

STRATEGY 7B: ECONOMICS

 Increase knowledge of economic impacts of AIS. 

7B1. Perform economic impact studies on the effects of AIS on California, 

including costs and benefits of vector prevention. 

(CAAIST, RI) Year 1 

Discussion: A small number of studies around the world have begun to 

document the economic impacts of AIS but California-specific studies are 

needed. In many cases, economic impacts will be the driving force for 

change in personal and business actions, management and policy. 

Prevention is often more cost-effective than control when addressing AIS 

concerns. Economic analysis can help determine priorities for use of 

limited funds. Results of these studies should be communicated to those 

responsible for 4B1-2, and 5A1-3, and 6A1. 

7B2. Conduct an economic assessment of different AIS management 

techniques, in support of Strategy 7C. 

 (RI, AISWG) Year 2 

STRATEGY 7C: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Research current and potential management alternatives and determine 

their efficacy in controlling invasions and their effects on native species. 

7C1. Evaluate and research current AIS management methods to improve 

their efficacy, safety and efficiency. 

(AISWG, RI) Ongoing 

Discussion: This should include a review of public health and 

environmental risks associated with various management options so that 

decision makers can take those constraints into account and be better 

prepared to answer inquiries about any risks. Results of these studies 

should be communicated to those responsible for Actions 4B1-2, and 5A1-

3, and 6A1. 

94
7C2. Investigate the efficacy of invasion prevention techniques. 

(AISWG, RI) Year 2 

Discussion: Different prevention techniques need to be investigated in 

terms of their efficacy in achieving the goals of this plan. For example, 

antifouling techniques available for larger ships are often inappropriate for 

smaller recreational boats and boats that travel different routes. Antifouling techniques need to be examined, compared and tested, as one 

method is unlikely to work in all instances. Results of these studies should 

be communicated to those responsible for developing prevention 

programs under Objective 2. 

7C3. Consider the establishment of a testing and evaluation center for 

shipboard ballast water treatment technology. 

(SLC) Year 1 and Ongoing 

Discussion: The existing state program does not have the expertise, 

equipment, facilities or financial resources necessary for the testing and 

certification of treatment technologies for discharged ballast water. A new 

center would substantially improve the implementation of performance 

standards and the ongoing evaluation of technologies once approved. 

USCG and Naval Research Labs have recently established a testing and 

evaluation center in Key West, Florida; however, this single facility will 

only be able to consider three or four systems annually, once testing and 

verification protocols are established. Discussions between SLC staff and 

USCG have identified the need for additional testing and evaluation 

centers. Complementary California and Key West facilities could subject 

technologies to an array of environmental conditions that may be more 

reflective of the range of conditions vessels encounter during the course of 

international trade. The budget to establish such a facility, including 

capitol start-up cost, personnel, operating expenses and equipment is 

estimated at approximately $10 million over three years. 

7C4. Identify and communicate opportunities for interagency funding of 

research necessary for improved management. 

(AISWG) Year 3 

Discussion: Consider developing a grant program administered by 

managers that pools money on an annual basis to do directed research 

studies. 

95
OBJECTIVE 8: LAWS & REGULATIONS 

Ensure state laws and regulations promote the prevention and 

management of AIS introductions. 

Currently, California has numerous laws, regulations and policies that 

pertain to the introduction, distribution, importation, transportation, possession, 

propagation, planting, sale and release of non-native plants and animals. These 

authorities are spread over several agencies. This objective aims to review 

regulations for gaps and overlaps, and explore the need for new AIS laws and 

regulations. This section will likely be expanded in the next version of the plan to 

include specific legislative and regulatory actions, as well as new policy 

directions. 

STRATEGY 8A: LAWS & REGULATIONS 

Review the laws and regulations governing AIS in California for gaps and 

overlaps, compare them to other state and federal AIS laws, and 

recommend changes to improve our ability to protect California’s waters 

from the introduction and spread of AIS. 

ACTIONS 

8A1. Establish a regulatory review committee. 

(CAAIST, FA, RI, SH) Year 2 

Discussion: This committee, to be comprised of representatives from 

agencies and non-governmental organizations, among others, will 

emphasize working in a coordinated fashion with existing state, federal 

and international programs. The committee will invite input from all groups 

affected by any proposed vector control measures and undertake step 

8A2. 

8A2. Identify the potential for improved regulatory coordination among 

state agencies. 

(CAAIST) Ongoing 

Discussion: The regulatory review committee will also coordinate this 

effort with tasks under Objective 1. 

8A3. Pursue the authority to establish an interagency California AIS rapid 

response program, as detailed in Strategy 4A. 

(AE, SH) Year 1 

96
8A4. Explore the need for new legislation to address gaps in the state’s 

authority to manage AIS and to strengthen California’s AIS-related 

statutes. 

(CAAIST, AISWG) Ongoing 

Discussion: Legislation may be needed to address the results of the 

vector assessments and resulting management recommendations, 

developed under Objective 2. 

8A5. Perform an interagency review to assess the current system for 

regulating plant and animal importations and the necessity of further 

restrictions. 

(DFA, DFG, FA, AISWG) Year 1 and Ongoing 

8A6. Explore the need for new or modified regulations to address gaps in 

the state’s authority to manage AIS and to strengthen California’s 

AIS-related statutes, taking into account any findings of Action 8A6. 

(CAAIST, AISWG) Ongoing

8A7. Based on findings from Action 8A7, develop new regulations and 

pursue adoption. 

(AE, DFA, DFG) Ongoing 

97
7. PRIORITIES, IMPLEMENTATION & PLAN EVALUATION

Priorities 

During the development of this plan, the state agencies with primary AIS 

responsibilities discussed their priorities for AIS management. They considered 

the more than 80 actions identified (out of 163 total) that were identified as high 

priorities by various attendees at the three 2006 public meetings (see Appendix 

E). The priorities of agencies and public meeting attendees overlapped. 

In December 2006, representatives of these agencies met to determine 

which actions should be implemented during state fiscal years 2007-2008 and 

2008-2009 (i.e. July 2007 through June 2009) and which entities should have 

primary responsibility for each of the actions. The results of that meeting are 

shown in the CAISMP Implementation Matrix (Table 5). At that meeting it was 

also decided to develop a separate table showing the amount of funds expended 

on actions during fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This information is 

shown in Table 6. Both tables are included at the end of this chapter. DFG’s 

effort to collect expenditure information for ongoing projects met with limited 

success, and therefore, Table 6 is not complete. It is, however, a start at tracking 

this information in a comprehensive manner. A more thorough table will be 

developed in future years to assist with assessment and planning. 

In more general terms, the highest priorities of this plan are as follows: 

1. Formalize the creation of two major new coordinating entities, one 

entirely for state agencies and one for a broader range of AIS interests 

(Action 1A2 and 1A3). 

2. Formalize a process for the team of state AIS managers to share 

information with, and get input from agency executives (Action 1A1). 

3. Secure funding for state AIS staff (Action 1C3). 

4. Conduct a statewide assessment of the risk from four specific AIS 

vectors: commercial fishing, recreational boating, live bait, and live 

imported seafood (Actions 2B7, 2C1, 2D1, and 2D4). 

5. Fund and launch early detection and rapid response actions, including 

efforts to coordinate various AIS monitoring programs and expand 

monitoring of freshwater systems (Strategies 3A and 4A, and 

Appendix A). 

If these core actions can be accomplished, it will provide a basis for 

pursuing the larger list of AIS management priorities in the future. 

98
Plan Evaluation 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, formal evaluation will be 

conducted on a regular basis. Systematic monitoring and evaluation of the 

progress made toward implementation of actions and their effectiveness will be 

undertaken by the agencies designated as leads on the implementation table. 

Updates will be compiled by DFG on an annual basis. 

In addition to an evaluation of efforts and implementation, the objectives, 

strategies and actions will also come under regular review, as this plan is 

intended to adapt to changing circumstances. It is envisioned that this evaluation 

will be conducted by a Plan Implementation Panel under the direction of the 

CAAIST. Evaluations will be conducted following years one, two and five; and on 

an “as needed” basis after that. Before updating the plan and Implementation 

Matrix, performance based criteria will be established to determine if the 

agencies and entities included are appropriate. 

99
Table 5 

California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan 

IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 

(see Chapter 6 for complete descriptions of actions) 

Explanation of Terms

1) Implementing Entity: Since this is a state plan, these are state agencies, entities within 

state agencies, or groups that include state agencies that fund and have primary 

accountability and authority for an action being carried out. 

2) Cooperating Organizations: Entities whose participation is needed or may be needed to 

conduct an action. 

3) Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs): Non-profit organizations directly involved in 

AIS research or control activities. 

4) Stakeholders: Relevant recreation, industry, local government, landowner representatives 

and special interest groups. 

5) Plan Implementation and Science Advisory Panels: Panels created per Action 1A5 to 

help the work of the CAAIST and AISWG. 

Acronyms

AISWG Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group (see Action 1A2) 

BOE Board of Equalization 

CAAIST California Agencies Aquatic Invasive Species Team (see Action 1A3) 

CACASA California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association 

CAISMP California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan 

CALFED CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

CeNCOOS Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System 

DBW California Department of Boating and Waterways 

DFA California Department of Food and Agriculture 

DFG California Department of Fish and Game 

 /OSPR /Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

DOE California Department of Education 

DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

RCD Resource Conservation District 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SCC State Coastal Conservancy 

SCCOOS Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System 

Sea Grant California Sea Grant College Program 

SLC California State Lands Commission 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

UCCE University of California Cooperative Extension 

WCB Wildlife Conservation Board 

Other Abbreviations

AE Agency Executives (Upper management of state agencies and departments) 

SH Stakeholders 

FA Federal Agencies 

FY State fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) 

RI Research Institutions (e.g. Public and private universities, government research 

organizations, etc) 

Implementation Year

Starts Year 1 (FY 2007/2008) 

Ongoing (started during or before FY 2006/2007) 

100
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 1. COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION Improve coordination and collaboration among the people, agencies and activities involved with AIS. INTERNAL STATE COORDINATION 

1A1 Develop an executive level consultation process. AE CAAIST, RI, NGOs, SH 1A2 Formalize the California Agencies AIS Team (CAAIST). AE 1A3 Establish, fund and staff an Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group (AISWG). AE CAAIST, RI, NGOs, SH 1A4 Evaluate the need for an invasive species center. AE NGOs, RI, SH, CAAIST 1A5 Form and fund technical advisory panels. CAAIST, AISWG 1A6 Draft and update a list of AIS at high risk for introduction. CAAIST FA, RI, Sea Grant, UCCE, NGOs, SH 1A7 Identify lead state agency for particular AIS, water bodies and invasion vectors. AE CAAIST 1A8 Identify agency personnel required for AIS management. AE CAAIST 1A9 Improve state websites related to AIS. CAAIST 

1A10 Assess effectiveness of and gaps in state AIS programs. AISWG Plan Imp. Panel 1A11 Coordinate AIS management with SWRCB & RWQCBs. CAAIST SWRCB, RWQCBs 1A12 Develop and update AIS expert list. CAAIST Science Advisory Panel 1A13 Develop boilerplate AIS language for official agency review. CAAIST 

101
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 1. COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION (continued)LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION 

1B1 Identify AIS reps in government agencies and NGOs. CAAIST RI, FA, NGOs, SH 1B2 Identify conflicts and overlaps among government and NGO AIS programs. CAAIST RI, FA, NGOs, SH 1B3 Invite community groups for AIS planning and education. AISWG 1B4 Expand participation in local AIS efforts and task forces. AISWG SH 1B5 Expand participation in regional, national and international AIS task forces. AE, CAAIST, RI1B6 Partner with Mexico, Canada, Pacific Coast and Colorado River states. AE, RI AISWG 1B7 Participate in national and international conferences. AE, CAAIST, RI

FUNDING 

1C1 Identify and apply for state and national grant funding. CAAIST, RI, NGOs 1C2 Establish stable, long-term funding to help implement this plan. AE CAAIST 1C3 Provide state funding for AIS positions. AE CAAIST 1C4 Provide state funding for rapid response actions. AE 1C5 Hire a funding development specialist. AE CAAIST 1C6 Provide new funding mechanisms. AISWG 

102
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 2. PREVENTION Minimize the introduction and spread of AIS into and throughout California waters. REGIONAL VECTOR ASSESSMENT 

2A1 Rank AIS vector importance in different regions of California. RI DFG 

COMMERCIAL VESSELS & MARITIME ACTIVITIES 

2B1 Quantify ballast water and hull fouling vectors and assess invasion risk. SLC RI 2,013* 2,593*

2B2 Continue and improve state ballast water inspection and enforcement program. SLC 2B3 Implement discharge standards for treated ballast water. SLC 2B4 Identify and address gaps in the Marine Invasive Species Act. AISWG SLC, DFG 2B5 Develop a commercial vessel fouling outreach and management program. SLC Sea Grant 2B6 Investigate how moving maritime structures can contribute to AIS dispersal. DFG, SLC RI, FA 2B7 Quantify and assess the role of commercial fishing vessels as AIS vectors. DFG RI, NGOs, SH, FA 100 2B8 Develop a commercial fishing outreach and management program. DFG AISWG, FA 

*SLC contracts with BOE to collect the Fee from qualifying voyages. The numbers above do NOT include BOE's budget. RECREATION 

2C1 Quantify and assess recreational boating as an AIS vector. DBW, DFG RI, SH 150 2C2 Develop a recreational boating outreach and management program. DBW UCCE, Sea Grant 2C3 Develop a watercraft inspection program for high priority boat launch sites. DBW, DFG, DPR SH 

103
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 2. PREVENTION (continued)

2C4 Quantify and assess recreational fishing as an AIS vector. DFG, DBW RI, SH 2C5 Develop a recreational fishing outreach and management program. DFG UCCE, Sea Grant 2C6 Develop guidelines for: disposal of invasive species, cleaning of gear and equipment, disposal of bait. DFG, DBW Sea Grant 

BAIT, LIVE SEAFOOD, AQUACULTURE & AQUARIUM 

2D1 Quantify and assess bait as an AIS vector. DFG RI 125 2D2 Work with the bait industry to develop prevention strategies. DFG UCCE, SH 2D3 Develop a bait outreach and management program. DFG UCCE, SH 2D4 Quantify and assess imported live seafood as an AIS vector DFG, DFA 125 2D5 Work with live seafood industry to develop preventative strategies. DFG, DFA UCCE, Sea Grant 2D6 Develop an imported live seafood outreach and management program. DFG, DFA UCCE, Sea Grant 2D7 Assess risks posed by water handling systems. SWRCB, DFG RI, SH 2D8 Educate aquaculture industry on containment systems. DFG SH, UCCE 2D9 Develop an aquaculture outreach and management program. DFG UCCE 

2D10 Quantify and assess how aquarium and aquascaping trades contribute to AIS introductions. DFG, DFA RI 125 2D11 Work with aquarium, water gardens and other industries on accessible disposal. DFG, DFA UCCE, FA 20 

104
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 2. PREVENTION (continued)

2D12 Implement an aquarium and aquascaping outreach and management program. DFG, DFA UCCE, FA 

FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT 

2E1 Quantify and assess fisheries enhancement as an AIS vector. DFG RI 50 2E2 Review DFG practice of intentional introduction of non- native species for recreational purposes. DFG RI 2E3 Reduce unauthorized stocking of non-natives species. DFG 2E4 Weigh benefits of mosquitofish introduction. DFG RI 

RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT & EDUCATION 

2F1 Quantify and assess research, resource management and educational activities as AIS vectors. AISWG 125 2F2 Establish protocols to minimize spread of AIS by these activities. DFG, AISWG RI 2F3 Evaluate regulations and protocols for in-water research. DFG SWRCB, RI 2F4 Quantify and assess live aquatic species shipments for research as an AIS vector. DFG RI 

CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION 

2G1 Quantify and assess construction activities as an AIS vector. DFG RI 2G2 Work with industry to develop equipment decontamination guidelines. DFG, SLC, DPR, FA RI 2G3 Develop a construction outreach and management program. DFG, SLC, DPR, FA UCCE 2G4 Quantify and assess restoration activities as an AIS vector. AISWG RI 

105
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 2. PREVENTION (continued)

2G5 Encourage the use of native species. DFG, SCC AISWG 2G6 Develop a restoration outreach program. AISWG UCCE 

WATER DELIVERY & DIVERSION SYSTEM 

2H1 Quantify and assess the water delivery and diversion system as an AIS vector. DWR 2H2 Develop an outreach and management program for the system. DWR UCCE, Sea Grant 

ENFORCEMENT & INSPECTION 

2I1 Increase staffing and hours at DFA Border Protection Stations. DFA SH 2I2 Develop guidelines for border inspections. DFA, DFG 12I3 Increase DFG enforcement of current regulations on prohibited and restricted species. DFG SH 2I4 Ensure adequate staffing and cargo inspection guidelines for port and airport enforcement. FA AISWG, SLC 2I5 Continue disease sampling for shipments and stocks of live aquatic species. DFG 2I6 Identify mail order, online vendors selling CA prohibited and restricted species. AISWG RI 

OBJECTIVE 3. EARLY DETECTION & MONITORING Develop and maintain programs that ensure the early detection of new AIS and the monitoring of existing AIS. EARLY DETECTION 

3A1 Assess current monitoring of state waters for early detection opportunities. CAAIST RI, CeNCOOS, SCCOOS 100 

106
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 3. EARLY DETECTION & MONITORING (continued)

3A2 Assess how the state's Marine Invasive Species Program monitoring can aid early detection. SLC DFG, RI 3A3 Develop a statewide approach to early detection. CAAIST AISWG 100 3A4 Outreach to those regularly sampling state waters. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant 3A5 Create and train a statewide citizen monitoring network. CAAIST UCCE, SH 3A6 Engage professional divers in the early detection network. CAAIST AISWG, NGOs 100 3A7 Review efficacy of the state's AIS early detection systems. AISWG 

LONG-TERM MONITORING 

3B1 Assess long-term AIS monitoring of state waters. AISWG CeNCOOS, SCCOOS, DFG/OSPR 3B2 Coordinate with ocean observing groups. AISWG CeNCOOS, SCCOOS 3B3 Monitor locations with a high invasion rate. AISWG DFG/OSPR, RI 3B4 Monitor the population growth and dispersal of established AIS. AISWG DFG/OSPR, RI 3B5 Fund the incorporation of DFG's historical stream surveys and report findings into a central database. DFG 3B6 Include maps of existing AIS in California waters in DFG BIOS system. DFG DFA 3B7 Review the efficacy of long-term monitoring systems. AISWG 

107
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 4. RAPID RESPONSE & ERADICATION Establish systems for rapid response and eradication. RAPID RESPONSE 

4A1 Develop and implement a statewide rapid response plan. DFG AISWG 4A2 Evaluate and coordinate existing systems for reporting AIS sightings. CAAIST AISWG 4A3 Develop species- and/or location-specific rapid response plans. AISWG 4A4 Explore permanent funding to implement rapid response. AE NGOs, SH 

ERADICATION 

4B1 Review effectiveness of eradication programs. AISWG 4B2 Continue and complete current eradication efforts. AISWG 4B3 Standardize criteria for identifying priority species for eradication. CAAIST RI, Science Advisory Panel 4B4 Develop a method to prioritize sites of AIS invasion concern. AISWG Science Advisory Panel 4B5 Identify ecologically sensitive waters requiring additional precautions. AISWG Science Advisory Panel 

OBJECTIVE 5. LONG-TERM CONTROL & MANAGEMENT Control the spread of invasives and minimize their impacts on native habitats and listed species. CONTROL 

5A1 Develop a method or criteria to prioritize control actions. CAAIST, FA RI 5A2 Prioritize control efforts for existing and new organisms of concern. CAAIST, FA RI 

108
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 5. LONG-TERM CONTROL & MANAGEMENT (continued)

5A3 Continue ongoing control programs. DFA, DFG, SCC, FA RI 5A4 Develop species- and site-specific control plans. CAAIST, FA RI 5A5 Provide technical assistance to watershed councils, irrigation districts and other groups. AISWG UCCE, CACASA, RCD 

LIMIT DISPERSAL TO NEW AREAS 

5B1 Establish boat washing stations and disposal facilities at infested waters. DFG, DBW, DFA SH 5B2 Install AIS warning and information signs in infested areas. DBW, DFG, DPR SH 5B3 Use volunteer monitors to conduct AIS inspections. DFG, DBW NGOs, SH, FA 5B4 Develop criteria for enforcing closure of infested areas. DFA, DFG, DBW SH 

PROTECT NATIVES 

5C1 Prioritize ecologically sensitive areas at risk of AIS impacts. AISWG 5C2 Coordinate entities to meet AIS protection and restoration objectives. AISWG 5C3 Develop GIS maps showing coincidence of AIS and critical ecosystems. DFG, DFA DFG/OSPR, RI 5C4 Establish guidelines for when AIS eradication or control will occur in sensitive areas. AISWG 5C5 Adopt guidelines on best practices for timber and agricultural activities. AISWG 5C6 Assess guidelines for preventing AIS spread in habitat restoration and shoreline landscaping projects. CAAIST 10 

109
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 6. EDUCATION & OUTREACH Increase education and outreach efforts to ensure awareness of AIS threats and management priorities throughouOUTREACH 

6A1 Inventory education and outreach efforts and develop a state AIS communication strategy. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant 6A2 Partner with ongoing outreach campaigns. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant 6A3 Develop a DFG Communications Plan. DFG 6A4 Develop posters, brochures and articles for industry sectors and user groups. AISWG UCCE, Sea Grant 6A5 Develop permanent interpretive displays at marinas, boat ramps and fishing sites. AISWG SH 6A6 Work directly with industry trade shows to deliver the AIS message. DFG, DFA, DBW, SLC Sea Grant, RI, SH 6A7 Present AIS information at public gatherings. AISWG Sea Grant, SH 6A8 Include AIS information in state hunting, fishing and boating regulations and licenses. DFG, DBW 6A9 Include AIS information in local fishing and recreational publications. DFG, DBW, UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs 

6A10 Develop and distribute AIS identification cards. AISWG SH, Sea Grant 6A11 Encourage industries to offer noninvasive alternatives to AIS. AISWG SH 6A12 Partner with stakeholders and interest groups to broaden education efforts. AISWG SH 6A13 Educate waterfront and shoreline property owners about AIS. DBW, SCC NGOs, SH 

110
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 6. EDUCATION & OUTREACH (continued) 

6A14 Develop and offer AIS management classes for professional organizations. AISWG UCCE, SH 6A15 Continue state education measures concerning ballast water. SLC Sea Grant 

POLICYMAKERS 

6B1 Brief decision makers and legislators on AIS management progress. CAAIST, FA RI, NGOs, SH 6B2 Brief the Fish and Game Commission, SLC, OPC, SCC and CCC. DFG CAAIST 

RESOURCE MANAGERS & RESEARCHERS 

6C1 Increase AIS awareness among scientific and natural resource managers. RI CAAIST, FA, NGOs, SH 6C2 Educate researchers on AIS containment, disposal methods and legal restrictions. DFA, DFG RI 6C3 Develop an AIS regulatory handbook. CAAIST, FA 6C4 Share information on current mechanical, chemical, biological and physical control methods. AISWG SH 6C5 Disseminate guidelines to promote use of native plants. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant 6C6 Encourage the training of more taxonomists. AISWG NGOs, SH, RI 

SCHOOLS 

6D1 Train speakers to give guest presentations at schools. AISWG NGOs, SH 6D2 Assess existing K-12 environmental education curricula. UCCE, Sea Grant DOE 

111
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 6. EDUCATION & OUTREACH (continued)

6D3 Integrate AIS issues into service and education projects. UCCE, Sea Grant DOE 6D4 Inform teachers about proper disposal methods for organisms. UCCE, Sea Grant DOE 

GENERAL PUBLIC 

6E1 Develop press kits. DFA, DFG 

100 

6E2 Increase local TV, radio and newspaper media coverage. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs, RI 6E3 Identify state publications and websites to add AIS information. CAAIST UCCE, Sea Grant, NGOs, RI 6E4 Develop multicultural educational materials. UCCE, Sea Grant AISWG 6E5 Develop AIS traveling trunks and portable presentation boards. UCCE, Sea Grant AISWG 

OBJECTIVE 7. RESEARCH Increase research on the baseline biology of AIS, the ecological and economic impacts of invasions, and control omanagement. BASELINE BIOLOGY 

7A1 Host workshops to develop AIS research priorities and identify gaps. RI AISWG 7A2 Assess, continue and complete current studies. RI AISWG 7A3 Develop a strategy to communicate and support research needs. AISWG RI 

ECONOMICS 

7B1 Perform economic impact studies on AIS effects. CAAIST RI 

200 

112
Table 5. CAISMP Implementation Table 

Tasks Year 1 Planned Efforts (FY07-08) Y

Dedicated Requested Ded

Number Title/Summary Priority * Implementing Entity Cooperating Organizations 

$1,000 $1,000 $

OBJECTIVE 7. RESEARCH (continued)

7B2 Assess and compare costs of different management techniques. RI AISWG 

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 

7C1 Evaluate efficacy of AIS management methods. AISWG RI 7C2 Investigate the efficacy of invasion prevention techniques. AISWG RI 7C3 Consider test center to evaluate ballast water treatment technologies. SLC 7C4 Identify opportunities for interagency funding of AIS management research. AISWG 

OBJECTIVE 8. LAWS & REGULATIONS Ensure State laws and regulations promote the prevention and control of AIS. LAWS & REGULATIONS 

8A1 Establish a regulatory review committee. CAAIST, FA RI, SH 8A2 Identify the potential for improved regulatory coordination. CAAIST 8A3 Pursue the authority to establish an interagency rapid response program. AE SH 8A4 Explore the need for additional state authority for AIS management. CAAIST AISWG 8A5 Review current system for regulating plant and animal importations. DFA, DFG, FA AISWG 8A6 Explore how new or modified regulations can bridge authority gaps. CAAIST AISWG 8A7 Develop and pursue the adoption of new regulations. AE DFA, DFG 

113
Table 6 – Funds Spent on Ongoing AIS Programs and Activities 

Name of Program or Activity Implementing 

Entity1

CAISMP 

Action 

Number(s) 

 FY 05/062 FY 06/07 

Aquatic and Riparian Invasive 

Species Control on DFG Lands 

(One Time Funding) 

DFG 5A2 $720,000 

Aquatic and Riparian Invasive 

Species Control on DFG Lands 

(Regular Funding) 

DFG 5A2 $160,000 $160,000 

Wetlands Invasive Plant Control WCB 5A2 $3,610,000 

Riparian Invasive Plant Control WCB 5A2 $1,000,000 

Santa Clara River Invasive Species 

Control (Santa Clara River Trustee 

Council Grants) 

DFG 5A2 $507,700 

Santa Clara River Invasive Species 

Research (Santa Clara River 

Trustee Council Grants) 

DFG 7C1 $100,000 

Santa Clara River - Education for 

Restoration Workers DFG 2G2, 2G3 $24,734 

Santa Clara River Invasive Species 

Monitoring DFG 3B4 $200,285 

Santa Clara River - Public 

Outreach and Education (est. 

portion for Invasive Species) 

DFG 6E5,6A4, 6A7 $25,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2D1 $10,000 $10,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2D4 $10,000 $10,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2D7 $70,000 $70,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2D8 $10,000 $10,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2D10 $20,000 $20,000 

Shellfish Health Laboratory DFG 2F2 $10,000 $10,000 

Marine Invasive Species Program 

– Invasive Species Monitoring DFG/OSPR 3B3, 7C2 $1,080,000 $1,080,000 

Marine Invasive Species Program 

– Commercial Vessel Vectors SLC 2B1 $1,531,000 $2,013,000 

Quagga Mussel Response – 

Unified Command participation, 

planning and logistics, dive and 

surface surveys, border inspection 

stations, public outreach 

DFG, DFA 4A3, 2I1 & 

many others $1,048,119 

Quagga Mussel Response – 

Unified Command participation, 

eradication planning, dive 

inspections 

DWR 4A3, 5A4,2H1 $36,320 

1

 See “Explanation of Terms” and “Acronyms” above Table 5. 2

 This table shows funds that were allocated in the 05/06 and 06/07 fiscal years. There were additional AIS 

projects being worked on in 05/06 and 06/07 that were not included in the table because they were funded in 

previous years. 

114
Table 6 – Funds Spent on Ongoing AIS Programs and Activities 

Name of Program or Activity Implementing 

Entity1

CAISMP 

Action 

Number(s) 

 FY 05/062 FY 06/07 

Quagga Mussel Response – 

Training surface survey units DWR 4A3 $3,624 

Quagga Mussel Response – 

Outreach to boaters DBW 4A3 $400,000 

Aquatic Weed Control 

(water hyacinth and Egeria densa) DBW 5A3 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 

Hydrilla Eradication Program DFA 3B4, 4B2,5A3 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 

Coordination and Collaboration 

Activities Sea Grant 1A4, 1C1, 1C2, 1C3 $9,000 $9,000 

Commercial Vessels and Maritime 

Activities Sea Grant 2B1, 2B2, 2B3, 2B6 $137,250 $137,250 

Reduce AIS introductions 

related to recreational activities Sea Grant 2C1, 2C4, 2C6 $9,000 $9,000 

Reduce AIS introductions 

related to the live seafood industry Sea Grant 2D5, 2D6 $4,500 $4,500 

Early detection program 

development Sea Grant 3A4, 3A6 $11,250 $11,250 

Identify and monitor locations with 

high AIS invasion rates Sea Grant 3B3 $50,000 $50,000 

Work with volunteers to conduct 

AIS inspections at heavily used 

boat access areas 

Sea Grant 5B3 $4,500 $4,500 

Education and outreach to groups 

that may be a source of AIS 

introductions 

Sea Grant 

6A1, 6A2, 

6A4, 6A5, 

6A6, 6A7, 

6A10, A12, 

6A13 

$29,250 $29,250 

Increase awareness of AIS among, 

and share information on control 

methods with, scientific and 

natural resource management 

interests 

Sea Grant 6C1, 6C4 $4,500 $4,500 

Increase awareness of AIS in the 

educational system Sea Grant 6D2, 6D4 $4,500 $4,500 

Increase awareness and 

knowledge of AIS by the general 

public 

Sea Grant 6E2, 6E3, 

6E4, 6E5 $9,000 $9,000 

Baseline biological studies on AIS Sea Grant 7A2 $60,000 $60,000 

Economic assessment of different 

AIS management techniques Sea Grant 7B2 $9,000 $9,000 

1

 See “Explanation of Terms” and “Acronyms” above Table 5. 2

 This table shows funds that were allocated in the 05/06 and 06/07 fiscal years. There were additional AIS 

projects being worked on in 05/06 and 06/07 that were not included in the table because they were funded in 

previous years. 

115
Table 6 – Funds Spent on Ongoing AIS Programs and Activities 

Name of Program or Activity Implementing 

Entity1

CAISMP 

Action 

Number(s) 

 FY 05/062 FY 06/07 

Northern Pike Containment System 

at Lake Davis CALFED 5A3 $2,000,000 

Lake Davis Pike Eradication 

Project: Planning Feasibility Phase CALFED 4B2 $5,800,000 

Lake Davis Pike Eradication 

Project: Implementation Phase CALFED 4B2 $11,700,000 

Invasive Spartina Monitoring CALFED 3B4,5A3 $1,234,396 

Total of Reported Activities $14,342,750 $39,234,928 

1

 See “Explanation of Terms” and “Acronyms” above Table 5. 2

 This table shows funds that were allocated in the 05/06 and 06/07 fiscal years. There were additional AIS 

projects being worked on in 05/06 and 06/07 that were not included in the table because they were funded in 

previous years.

116
8. CASE STUDIES IN ERADICATION & CONTROL

See also the explanation of species names in the introductory matter. 

1. RAPID RESPONSE IN SAN DIEGO: CAULERPA 

Invasion: Caulerpa taxifolia is a marine alga native to the warm waters of the 

Red, Indo-Pacific and Caribbean seas. The bright-green plant, which has 

feathery, fern-like fronds extending upward from a main stem, is fast-growing and 

easy to cultivate. C. taxifolia gained popularity as an aquarium plant in the 

1970s. In the early 1980s, a strain of C. taxifolia that had adapted to temperate 

waters escaped from Germany's Stuttgart Aquarium into the northern 

Mediterranean. By 2001, the temperate strain of C. taxifolia carpeted more than 

30,000 acres of coastal waters from Spain to Italy, moved into the Croatian 

Adriatic, and from there, spread to Northern Africa. As the plant spread, it 

excluded native plants and animals. 

Nearly twenty years after it’s introduction into the Mediterranean Ocean, 

C. taxifolia was observed in the Americas. In July 2000, biologists conducting an 

eelgrass restoration project in Carlsbad, California, near San Diego, found 

monoculture patches of C. taxifolia covering approximately 1,100 square meters 

of a coastal estuary known as Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The resulting press 

coverage brought attention to a previously known second infestation of scattered 

individual plants over seven acres of Huntington Harbour near Los Angeles. 

Genetic tests confirmed that both areas had been invaded by clones of the 

aquarium strain, suggesting aquarists had dumped the contents of their saltwater 

tanks into California waters. 

Concern: C. taxifolia is one of the world's most notorious marine invasives. 

Though tropical in origin, the clone cultivated in home aquaria has adapted to 

waters as cool as 50 degrees F. The aquarium strain can grow on rock, sand 

and mud, and increase in size by an inch per day, developing in monoculture 

patches that are both taller and more vigorous than its wild ancestor, which is 

genetically distinct from the aquarium strain and is not known to be invasive. 

Sexual reproduction has not been documented, but C. taxifolia reproduces 

easily, regenerating from small fragments broken off from the main plant. C. 

taxifolia is not particularly vulnerable to predation. Chemicals in its tissues make 

it unpalatable to most animals. In the laboratory, C. taxifolia has survived a wide 

array of kill techniques, including high doses of herbicides and algicides as well 

as light exclusion for more than one month. 

Response: The plant's notoriety helped galvanize an immediate response to the 

California infestations. Plant samples taken from Agua Hedionda Lagoon were 

identified literally overnight as C. taxifolia. A task force consisting of 

representatives from more than ten state, federal and local agencies plus local 

stakeholders and experts met within days to determine how to manage the 

outbreaks. Given the speed with which C. taxifolia had invaded the 

117
Mediterranean and the ecological havoc that ensued, the task force approved a 

plan calling for an immediate eradication response. Regulatory agencies agreed 

in advance to green-light permits for eradication work to begin within two weeks. 

 Both infestations occurred in bodies of water with restricted ocean access. 

This enabled kill procedures to take place in areas sheltered from ocean waves, 

and made surveys for regrowth safer and easier to conduct. In Agua Hedionda, 

divers surveyed the lagoon and mapped patches of the alga. The patches were 

covered by tarpaulins and the edges secured by sandbags and rebar. Solid 

chlorine pucks were placed beneath the tarps to make up a five percent bleach 

solution. Before the tarpaulins were lifted, sediment cores were grown out in the 

laboratory to determine whether any viable C. taxifolia remnants remained. 

Meanwhile, teams of divers continuously resurveyed the 200-acre lagoon to 

ensure no other plants had been missed. A similar tarp, bleach, and survey 

protocol was followed at Huntington Harbour. The last specimens of C. taxifolia

were found outside the tarpaulins at both sites in fall of 2002. The alga was 

officially declared eradicated in July 2006. All told, the eradication effort cost 

$7.7 million, including planning, field work, monitoring and reports. 

Lessons: Several factors contributed to the success of C. taxifolia eradication in 

southern California. Rapid identification, an expedited process and cooperation 

among stakeholders, plus adequate funding and follow-up, all contributed to 

eradication. Biologists were aware of C. taxifolia’s invasion of the Mediterranean 

and rapidly identified the problem. Concern over a similar outbreak in California 

spurred the prompt formation of an invasion task force. Stakeholders were 

identified within days and agreed to participate in response plan discussions. 

The specter of the alga's escape prompted task force members to aim for 

eradication despite the fact that some native species, such as eelgrass and 

estuary invertebrates, would be harmed. Team members divided tasks, some 

turning their full attention to eradication while others concentrated on permitting 

applications and approval. Regulatory agencies agreed to cooperate with the 

eradication plans and expedite permitting. Financing was adequate to maintain a 

sustained response. Intensive monitoring surveys were conducted for least three 

years to guard against any regrowth. 

Background Studies: 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2006. Final report on eradication of the invasive 

seaweed Caulerpa taxifolia from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington 

Harbour, California. Prepared for the Steering Committee of the Southern 

California Caulerpa Action Team. 

118
2. ERADICATION EFFORT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY: 

SMOOTH CORDGRASS

Invasion: Intentionally introduced to the San Francisco Bay Estuary in the 

1970s to stabilize shorelines, smooth cordgrass spread rapidly, hybridized with 

Pacific cordgrass and today threatens thousands of acres of tidal marshes and 

restoration projects around the Bay. In 2000, surveyors tallied 470 acres of 

hybrid smooth cordgrass, while the original introduced parent had become quite 

rare. By 2003, the hybrids covered 2000 acres. The smooth cordgrass was not 

confined to certain areas; the invader was widely dispersed through 69,000 acres 

of tidal marsh and mudflats and had invaded every marsh restoration project in 

the Bay. 

Concern: The hybridization between smooth and Pacific cordgrass resulted in a 

high degree of genetic variation, which allowed individual plants to survive in 

different parts of the marsh and to exploit open niches. Some hybrids grow well 

in higher marsh elevations while others flourish on open mudflats. Other 

adaptive qualities of the smooth cordgrass hybrids include the ability to produce 

up to 23 times more seed than the native, to grow taller and/or faster, and to 

tolerate higher or lower salinity. The hybrid cordgrass tends to grow in dense 

stands, turning diverse marshes into monocultural meadows, crowding out the 

meandering tidal channels used by native salt marsh species, and reducing fish 

habitat. This invasion sequence can also transform open mudflats into uniform 

expanses of cordgrass, destroying foraging habitat for shorebirds. Flood control 

channels are also threatened, as the cordgrass can significantly impede flow with 

increased siltation rates and biomass accumulation, threatening adjacent 

residential and commercial areas with flooding. 

Response: In 2000, SCC began to organize a multi-agency, region-wide control 

effort in the San Francisco Estuary called the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP). 

With substantial funding from CALFED Bay Delta Program (CALFED), ISP 

surveyed and mapped the invasive cordgrass, evaluated a wide range of 

potential treatment strategies and methods, prepared environmental review 

documents under CEQA and NEPA, developed extensive partnerships with 

regional marsh owners and managers, obtained necessary permits (e.g., ESA 

Section 7 and CWA Section 402/NPDES), and prepared site-specific treatment 

plans for over 130 known infested marshes. ISP also coordinated funding from 

CALFED through SCC to the land owner/manager partners. In 2004, ISP 

partners initiated treatment efforts, which consisted of spraying selected infested 

marshes with glyphosate (Aquamaster(r), the aquatic version of Roundup(r)), and 

using light mechanical removal methods. 

ISP faced a number of constraints as it attempted to respond to the fastmoving invasion of hybridized smooth cordgrass. Mechanical removal methods, 

such as mowing, sometimes aggravated the problem. Spraying was slow, 

difficult work. It had to be limited to days with no rain, low wind and periods of 

low tides, so as to minimize drift issues and keep the herbicide from washing off 

119
of the surface of the plants. Targeted plants had to be entirely coated with the 

glyphosate herbicide to achieve maximum efficacy, which in most cases proved 

to be around 50% at best. Another problem was that glyphosate tends to 

become deactivated when it binds with sediment; since these bay waters contain 

a great deal of suspended sediment which is deposited on the cordgrass twice 

daily, much of the applied herbicide was rendered inactive before it even entered 

plant tissue. 

To add to the difficulty, herbicide application had to take place in the late 

summer before the plants set seed and go dormant, but also had to be 

scheduled so as not to interfere with the breeding season of a federally 

endangered species, California clapper rail (February through August). Mowing 

and other mechanical removal methods could not be used in marshes frequented 

by the clapper rail. 

In November 2004, ISP and USEPA hosted the Third International 

Conference on Invasive Spartina, where ISP shared its experiences with 

Spartina experts from around the world. At this meeting, ISP requested guidance 

regarding the feasibility and approach to controlling the hybrid cordgrass 

invasion. Conference participants were impressed by the level and complexity of 

the invasion problem and advised that control could potentially be achieved if the 

ISP proceeded immediately with an aggressive regional control program. 

Before such a program could get underway, surveys for California clapper 

rails in the infested marshes had to be performed, as well as an analysis of the 

potential impacts of treating each site where the rail was present. ISP partnered 

with local bird, park and fish and wildlife groups to conduct coordinated annual 

Bay-wide clapper rail surveys. Their results directly informed treatment 

approaches. 

In 2005, ISP targeted 132 infested areas, with a goal of treating 70-80 

percent of the infestation in that year. ISP began using a new herbicide, 

imazapyr (Habitat(r)), which had been registered for use on August 30, 2005 in 

California and was known to be highly effective in eradicating invasive cordgrass 

in Willapa Bay, Washington. Imazapyr has several advantages over glyphosate. 

It does not require a 6-12 hour post-application period without tidal inundation, it 

is less toxic to aquatic organisms than glyphosate, and it can be used more 

sparingly and with greater success. One drawback is that it can damage nontarget plants if it is over-sprayed, though preliminary observations of treated sites 

show normal seasonal regrowth of native marsh plants such as pickleweed. 

In 2005, imazapyr was applied to 1,010 acres of invasive cordgrass, 

sprayed from amphibious tracked vehicles, helicopters, airboats, backpacks and 

trucks. Because the new herbicide requires less spray volume than glyphosate, 

application time was reduced by as much as one-third, and 2006 monitoring 

showed that it killed from 40-90% of the treated plants. Also, the 2005 results 

showed that helicopter application provided the best efficacy (up to 90% kill) and 

120
lowest cost ($250-$350 per acre). In 2006, ISP partners treated more than 1,700 

acres (including retreatment of the previous years sites), with 60% of that by 

helicopter. Based on the 2005 results and the demonstrated coordination and 

aggressive action of ISP partners in 2006, ISP envisions that, given continued 

adequate funding, non-native cordgrass could be effectively eradicated from the 

San Francisco Estuary within the next several years. 

ISP and affected resource agencies are also starting to develop an "exit 

strategy" for ISP, whereby long-term monitoring and treatment responsibilities will 

be turned over to a network of informed land managers around the S.F. Bay 

Estuary. 

Lessons: Years of frustrated attempts by individual landowners to manage 

invasive cordgrass on their properties demonstrated the need for a coordinated 

regional approach. Landowners could not control reinfestation from adjacent 

properties and had nearly given up by the time SCC initiated efforts through ISP. 

At the outset of ISP in 2000, non-native cordgrass infestation in the Bay was 

roughly one-third the area mapped in 2005. In the five years it took to develop 

the necessary budgeting, permitting and scientific framework to comprehensively 

tackle the problem, the infestation grew significantly. Because of substantial and 

reliable support from SCC, CALFED, the Bay Area environmental community and 

regional land managers, the ISP was able to adapt to the expanding scope of the 

problem, despite setbacks along the way. 

One of the most difficult aspects of controlling an invasive species in a 

region that is highly urbanized and carefully monitored for its unique 

environmental values is coming up with a sufficiently rapid response. 

Environmental regulation around sensitive tidal marshlands had been instituted in 

response to urban growth, or in some cases, was designed to reflect specific 

issues: endangered species protection, or water use. By contrast, the cordgrass 

invasion in the Bay encompassed multiple jurisdictions, habitat types, 

developmental zones, political mindsets, animal and plant species and levels of 

enthusiasm. Currently there is no overarching mechanism to cut through the 

permitting process for an effort that is, in essence, aimed at controlling the rapid 

spread of a biological pollutant, and enhancing and maintaining the health of the 

environment. The experience of ISP shows that having a coordinated regional 

effort is critical for overcoming budgetary and regulatory obstacles. When that 

kind of alignment is absent, worthy projects of lesser scale would likely be 

unsuccessful. 

Background Studies: 

Daehler, CC and DR Strong. 1997. “Hybridization between introduced smooth 

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; Poaceae) and native California cordgrass (S. 

foliosa) in San Francisco Bay”. American Journal of Botany 84(5): 607-611. 

121
Daehler, CC, CK Antilla, DR Ayres, DR Strong and JP Baily. 1999. “Evolution of 

a new ecotype of Spartina alterniflora in San Francisco Bay.” American Journal 

of Botany 86, 543-544. 

Leson & Associates. 2005. “Use of imazapyr herbicide to control invasive 

cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in the San Francisco Estuary: Water quality, biological 

resources, and human health and safety.” Prepared for the San Francisco 

Estuary Invasive Spartina Project/State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, 

California. May 4, 2005. 

Patten, K. 2002. “Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) control with imazapyr”. 

Weed Technology 16, pp. 826-832, 2002. 

Patten, K. 2003.” Persistence and non-target impact of imazapyr associated with 

smooth cordgrass control in an estuary”. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management

41, pp. 1-6. 

San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project. 2004-2006 Studies covering 

site specifics, tidal marsh carrying capacity for clapper rails, rail distribution, field 

operations and an aquatic pesticide application plan, as well as EIRs and 

endangered species consultations, among other topics. Go to 

www.spartina.org/project_documents/. 

122
3. CONFOUNDING COMPLICATIONS IN THE DELTA: BRAZILIAN ELODEA 

Invasion: Brazilian elodea, commonly referred to as Egeria, is a fast-growing 

shallow-water submerged aquatic plant that now infests approximately 12,000 

acres of the 50,000 surface acres of the San Joaquin/Sacramento River Delta 

(Delta). This species is a native of Brazil and Argentina, has also become 

widespread in New Zealand, Australia, Japan and Chile. In the U.S., it has 

invaded lakes and ponds along the western coast from Washington to California, 

through the South, and as far north as New Hampshire and Vermont in the 

Northeast. The plant, which has individual strands that resemble a long, furry 

brush, was identified in the Delta approximately 40 years ago. Egeria’s 

introduction is believed to have resulted from someone cleaning an aquarium 

and discarding the plant into the Delta. 

The first recorded complaints by boaters in the Delta about Egeria mats 

impeding navigation are from 1988. The initial infestation appeared limited to a 

relatively small area. In 1999 aerial surveys indicated Egeria covered 

approximately 4,000 surface acres, or about 8% of the Delta. Six years later, in 

2005, Egeria coverage had tripled to 12,000 acres, or about 24 percent of the 

Delta. Egeria is currently estimated to be spreading at a rate of about 1,000 

acres per year. Some of the most heavily infested areas of the Delta are Rhode 

Island, where almost the entire 66 acres of the island are covered, and Franks 

Tract State Recreation Area, where the invader covers approximately 700 of the 

900 acres. Thousands of acres of the Delta remain at risk; much of the 

ecosystem consists of freshwater areas less than 10 feet deep, the habitat in 

which Egeria thrives. 

Concern: Egeria grows in subsurface mats that can be several feet thick. 

Egeria is a visible and immediate problem for boaters but an Egeria infestation 

also has a host of broader impacts. Egeria can obstruct waterways -- forcing 

boaters to stop frequently to clear propellers – or in more extreme cases, prevent 

passage of large and small vessels. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office 

has reported that underwater vegetation may have contributed to a fatal boating 

accident. The plant can also impede migration of anadromous and pelagic fish. 

Egeria changes the architecture of shallow water ecosystems, forming walls 

between deepwater and inter-tidal habitat. Impenetrable mats of Egeria can 

force fish such as salmon and Delta smelt into more open waterways, where food 

resources may be scarce and where fish are more vulnerable to predators. The 

mats of Egeria can also impede water flows, crowd out native plants, entrap 

sediments, alter the food web by impeding light access, and clog agricultural and 

municipal water intakes. 

Response: Legislative delays, treatment complexity and conflicts between 

herbicide application and native species protection have all been ongoing 

problems in the effort to eradicate Egeria. The initial response to the Egeria

invasion was not rapid. Complaints of waterway obstruction by Egeria went on 

for nine years before state legislation authorizing DBW to address the invasion 

123
passed in 1997. Two additional years passed before the legislature authorized 

funding to study Egeria. During this period, Egeria continued to expand in the 

Delta. A plant that had once been a localized nuisance soon became the most 

widespread aquatic weed in the Delta. 

Once it was authorized to deal with the problem, DBW explored many 

different treatment and control options. These included a variety of herbicide 

types as well as mechanical harvesting. Department officials discovered that the 

harvesting of Egeria causes fragments to escape and freely float to new areas 

where they can take hold and sprout new growth elsewhere. Mechanical 

harvesting’s unintended consequences made it a tool only to be used in an 

emergency. 

Herbicides based on chelated copper have proven the most effective at 

destroying Egeria. Chelation helps prevent copper from entering the food web, 

and causing preferential binding to sediments; however, concerns over adding 

more heavy metals to the Delta forced DBW to turn to another herbicide, 

fluridone. 

Fluridone treatment had its share of problems too. The herbicide is most 

effective against Egeria during the growth cycle of the plant. The peak growth 

period for Egeria is in early spring; however, spring in the Delta coincides with 

the spawning and migration of several protected species, including chinook 

salmon (out migration), steelhead trout (in-migration, spawning and outmigration), delta smelt (spawning) and candidate species green sturgeon 

(spawning). 

Federal agencies, including NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries Service) and USFWS have requested numerous toxicity tests 

to ascertain whether fluridone is harmful to these species. Research thus far has 

confirmed that the concentration of fluridone used to treat Egeria does not harm 

these species. For example, Chinook salmon fingerlings showed no toxic effects 

at or below concentration levels used by DBW. However, continued concern 

over the health of migrating and spawning species has led to limitations in 

fluridone treatment timing. 

During the 2001 treatment season, DBW applied the herbicide during the 

summer months of July through September instead of during the optimum time 

frame of April through June as recommended by the manufacturer and other 

scientific studies. While the herbicide did prevent proliferation of some of the 

Egeria, it failed to substantially reduce the total acreage covered. 

Monitoring during applications has been extensive. The fluridone 

treatments at each site are monitored using immunoassays analyzed to ensure 

applications are occurring at an efficacious rate and are within all published 

(agricultural and municipal) limits. The immunoassays are collected within the 

124
treatment area, receiving waters and at all agricultural and municipal water 

intakes on a bi-weekly basis. DBW also takes water samples and monitors water 

quality of the treatment area to comply with its NPDES General Permit. 

In 2005, NOAA Fisheries agreed for the first time to permit Egeria

treatment to begin in spring in a few select sites. The new treatment schedule 

proved extremely effective. At one site, the treatment appears to have eliminated 

populations of Egeria, suggesting fluridone may only need to be applied in the 

future every second or third year to maintain control of the plant. 

Treatment success has been measured using two relatively new methods. 

The plant grows in dense mats just below the surface of the water, where it is 

difficult to determine whether treatments have had an effect. DBW uses 

hydroacoustic measurements to determine biomass/volume of the plants prior to 

and after treatments have occurred. In addition, a new technique known as 

hyperspectral analysis now permits more refined estimates of Egeria coverage in 

the Delta. Each type of plant species, including Egeria, produces a unique 

spectrum of infrared reflectance. Aerial images of the Delta are taken before and 

after treatment using digital broad spectrum photographs. The light wavelengths 

captured in these images are then analyzed to determine a percentage of Egeria

in a given waterway. Some analysis has been completed on watermilfoil, 

pepperweed, and purple loosestrife, as well. DFA, DFG, and DBW have all used 

hyperspectral analysis to measure the extent of coverage for these plants and 

other species since 2002. 

In 2005, DBW treated 14 sites comprising 648 acres. The relatively small 

area reflects treatment crew limitations and other restrictions placed on the 

program. Additional funding for application crews and continued easing of 

restrictions on start dates could enhance DBW Egeria Control Program. 

Lessons: First, delays in early identification, authorization and funding permitted 

Egeria to expand from a local waterway nuisance to an invasion widespread 

throughout the Delta. Second, new analytical tools have allowed scientists to 

gather basic data about the plant's growth characteristics and response to 

herbicide application. The information should help managers fine-tune future 

treatment methods. Third, toxicity testing is critical to prevent damaging resident 

wildlife populations and municipal water supplies and should be balanced against 

the need to control an invader known to be detrimental. 

Background Studies: 

Residues of Fluridone in Chinook Salmon Smolts from the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 2005 conducted for DBW by the 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

125
Fluridone (4AS) Dissipation During Typical Applications of Sonar 

(4AS), December 2004, Lars W.J. Anderson, Ph.D, conducted for DBW by the 

USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive Weed Research, Davis, CA. 

Residues of Fluridone and Diquat Dibromide in Sediment from the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 2002-2005 - conducted for DBW 

by the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Monitoring Aquatic Herbicide Treatment Efficacy on Egeria densa, 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California 2004-2006, conducted for DBW by 

ReMetix LLC. 

126
4. STRATEGY FOR TAHOE BASIN: EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL 

Invasion: Eurasian watermilfoil was first found to occur on the south shore of 

Lake Tahoe in 1975. By 1980, it became well established in the Tahoe Keys, a 

large marina complex on the south shore built out of a marshland. From 1994 to 

1997 USDA/ARS confirmed the presence of Eurasian watermilfoil outside the 

Keys and found it to be spreading rapidly elsewhere in the lake. In 1997, it was 

reported that out of 200 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake Tahoe, 170 acres 

were in the Tahoe Keys. Aerial and boat surveys since 1995 indicate the plant 

continues to spread to new locations in the near shore zone and has established 

in several marinas and natural areas including Emerald Bay, which is leased to 

the California Department of Parks and Recreation (PARKS) as an underwater 

park. In addition to Eurasian watermilfoil, an equally aggressive aquatic weed, 

curly pondweed has recently been detected in Lake Tahoe. 

Concern: Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive aquatic weeds grow 

prolifically and aggressively invade native aquatic plant communities. Native 

aquatic plant communities provide many ecological benefits such as food and 

habitat for waterfowl, fish and other aquatic organisms. They also help maintain 

water quality by absorbing nutrients, providing oxygen and reducing shoreline 

erosion; however, when Eurasian watermilfoil is introduced, it dominates fresh 

water ecosystems quickly by way of buds and surface runners when fragmented 

by boat propellers. It also tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions, 

including low light levels, high or low nutrient waters, and freezing water 

temperatures. Eurasian watermilfoil also creates its own habitat by trapping 

sediment and initiating a favorable environment for further establishment. For 

these reasons, Eurasian watermilfoil can out-compete and eliminate native 

aquatic plants. 

Aquatic weeds in Lake Tahoe impact several of Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency (TRPA) thresholds including water quality, fish habitat, vegetation and 

recreation. Impacts pushing the limits of these thresholds include accelerated 

nutrient cycling, contributing to algae growth and decreased water clarity; lost or 

impaired fisheries habitat, including feed and cover; threats to native aquatic 

vegetation; and restrictions to boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming due to 

dense matting (Eurasian watermilfoil has been linked to drowning deaths in other 

areas of the U.S.). 

Response: In 2002, the Lahontan RWQCB began providing fact sheets to 

interested parties and agencies to promote awareness of Eurasian watermilfoil in 

Lake Tahoe, share information about options for controlling the growth and 

proliferation of this weed, and present the regulatory requirements applicable to 

weed management activities. Because Lake Tahoe is a bi-state water of the 

U.S. that has been federally adopted as an Outstanding National Resource 

Water, Lahontan RWQCB has taken the position that chemical treatment to 

control invasive aquatic weeds is not justified at this time and other non-chemical 

means of control should be explored. Currently, the only efforts to control 

127
Eurasian watermilfoil have been mechanical harvesting in the Tahoe Keys to 

clear areas for boat traffic. This method, however, is likely one of the contributing 

factors to the increased spread watermilfoil in Lake Tahoe. 

In 2005, SLC funded and implemented a pilot project in Emerald Bay to 

examine control methods outside of the Tahoe Keys. The methods included 

diver-assisted hand and suction removal in the infested portions of Emerald Bay. 

The initial effort had limited success because the work was conducted too early 

in the season (late May). Many plants were not observed and emerged later in 

the season following the removal efforts. Follow-up surveys in the fall, however, 

found that areas where plants were removed previously were free of Eurasian 

watermilfoil. Removal activities in Emerald Bay will continue in 2006 and will be 

expanded to include an infestation in one of the smaller south shore marinas. 

The Tahoe Resource Conservation District (TRCD) is currently applying 

for an approximate $500,000 multi-year grant (2007-2010) to survey and remove 

invasive aquatic weeds throughout Lake Tahoe using the methodology of the 

pilot project. 

Lessons: The initiative of one agency to fund and implement efforts to remove 

an invasive weed in a sensitive environment like Lake Tahoe through a pilot 

removal project has encouraged other key agencies (e.g. TRPA and TRCD) to 

increase their role in the management of invasive aquatic weeds in Lake Tahoe. 

This has expanded participation and increased cooperation within the existing 

Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group and led to the formation of an 

Aquatic Weed Subcommittee. 

Background Studies: 

Lahontan RWQCB. 2002. Fact Sheet: Control of the invasive aquatic weed 

Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lake Tahoe. South Lake Tahoe, California. 

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 2002. Fact Sheet: Eurasian 

watermilfoil. FS-02-09. Reno, NV. 

Walter, K. 2000. Ecosystem effects of the invasion of Eurasian watermilfoil 

(Myriophyllum spicatum) of Lake Tahoe, CA-NV. M.S. Thesis in Ecology, 

University of California, Davis. 

For more information and contacts on some of these case studies, see 

Appendices B-D. 

128
OTHER AIS SPECIES OF CONCERN 

The following is a representative, rather than comprehensive, list of AIS species not 

previously mentioned in this report. Some are already here in California and widespread, 

some are fairly limited in their distribution and some are yet to arrive. The list is merely 

meant to convey some of the variety of challenges that must be addressed by state 

management programs. Full scientific names appear in the “Species Names” section of the 

introductory pages of this plan. 

African clawed frog: Shipped around the globe for use in human pregnancy testing during 

the 1940s and 1950s, populations of African clawed frogs have been introduced into parts of 

Europe, North America, and South America. Although its impacts to native fauna have 

undergone little scrutiny, this voracious and prolific frog has shown a remarkable capacity to 

colonize a broad range of aquatic habitats. In southern California, it occupies more than a 

300-mile long range through seven counties. In 2003, the African clawed frog was found in a 

pond at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. 

Asian swamp eel: The swamp eel is a fish found in brackish and fresh waters from South 

America, Africa, and India east to Australia. U.S. populations have been found in Hawaii, 

Florida and Georgia. It is a voracious predator that poses a threat to native frogs, fish, and 

aquatic insects. The Asian swamp eel has the ability to live out of water for a considerable 

length of time, allowing it to move from one body of water to another. The Asian swamp eel 

was most likely introduced through the Asian food market and/or as an aquarium pet later 

released. There are no known populations in California. 

Bullfrog: The North American bullfrog was introduced to California in the early 1900s. A 

voracious predator, the bullfrog feeds on snakes, worms, insects, crustaceans and other 

frogs and tadpoles. The female can lay as many as 20,000 eggs in a single breeding 

season. The bullfrog may be having impacts on native frogs, such as the red-legged frog and 

has also been implicated as a leptospirosis vector and may pose a threat to human health. 

Channeled apple snail: In the United States, this South American apple snail has invaded 

the southern states of Florida, North Carolina, Texas and central Ohio. There have been 

reports of at least two populations in California. The apple snail is a common aquarium snail 

also cultured for sale to restaurants, making its spread through these pathways likely. It has 

a voracious appetite and will eat most types of vegetation. In Hawaii, the apple snail is 

considered to be problematic in some natural and agricultural wetlands, most notably in the 

taro fields which play an important role in Hawaiian culture. The snail’s potential as a rice 

pest as well as a pest of natural wetland ecosystems has spurred the USDA to list them as a 

high priority threat should they spread or be introduced more widely. 

Golden Mussel: A freshwater mussel native to the rivers and streams of China and 

southeast Asia, the golden mussel was first found in the Americas in 1991, at the mouth of 

Argentina’s Rio de la Plata. It has subsequently spread up the river basin into Uruguay, 

Paraguay and Brazil. The first colonies are thought to have arrived as larvae in the ballast 

water of shipping vessels. Like its relative the zebra mussel, the golden mussel readily 

colonizes hard surfaces including logs and silt, colonies of other bivalves, walls, and piers. 

Because it settles on floating vegetation, fouls boat hulls and fishing equipment, and can 

survive for more than 120 hours out of water, it is easily transported to new waterways. 

Though primarily aquatic, the golden mussel also tolerates slightly brackish waters. It has 

been found in aggregations of more than 80,000 mussels per square meter. At such high 

densities, these filter feeders can deplete local waters of plankton and starve or suffocate 

native filter feeders. Golden mussel infestations can also clog or foul and cooling pipes, 

intake screens and other aquatic machinery. 

129
Green sunfish: The green sunfish was mistakenly introduced to California from the Midwest 

in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Green sunfish spawn in shallow waters and have enormous 

reproductive potential. They compete with native fishes by feeding on insects and small fish 

and are adaptable to varying lake conditions and climates. 

New Zealand mudsnail: Native to freshwater lakes and streams of New Zealand, this snail 

has spread to six Western states, reaching California’s Owens River in the Eastern Sierra in 

1999. Since then, it has spread up and down the Owens River as well as into seven other 

sites scattered throughout Northern California and to multiple sites in southern California. 

The snail’s tight-fitting operculum permits it to survive out of water in damp conditions for 

several weeks. It likely hitchhiked into California within waders or other equipment used in 

infested streams. The New Zealand mudsnail has a prodigious reproductive capacity, 

competes with native mollusks for resources, and offers virtually no nutritional value to 

aquatic predators. Population levels in California’s Putah Creek have been estimated excess 

of 100,000 snails per square meter. To date, limited research has documented decreases in 

native macroinvertebrate populations in several rivers where the mudsnail has invaded. 

Northern Pacific seastar: Native to the coasts of northern China, Korea, Russia and Japan, 

this five-armed seastar has spread to many other countries. Its arrival has been linked to 

ballast water discharges. It is a voracious predator, attacking fleshy organisms such as 

shellfish. Able to detect food from a distance, it digs shallow pits into the seabed to extract 

prey. The northern Pacific seastar was the focus of extensive eradication efforts by the 

Australian government in the mid-1990s and remains on their watch list because of the threat 

it poses to shellfish production. 

Saltcedar (Tamarisk): Saltcedar is native to southeastern Europe and much of central Asia 

and was introduced to the United States as a landscape ornamental and soil stabilizer. In 

California, it occurs in the southern Klamath Ranges, Central Valley, eastern Sierra Nevada, 

Tehachapi Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, South Coast deserts to over 6,000 ft in 

elevation (DiTomaso and Healy 2003), and the southeastern corner of the state. It is now the 

dominant plant in the riparian forests of the lower Colorado River. Saltcedar is able to 

colonize small stream channels where it traps sediments and alters the hydrology. True to its 

name, the tree concentrates salts in its leaves, and when the leaves drop, local soil salinities 

may increase. Saltcedar’s ability to colonize degraded river systems has allowed it to grow in 

places where cottonwood and other native riparian vegetation may not. Yet its presence also 

offers cover, shade and nesting habitat to the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and 

other native animal species. 

Salvinia: Native to tropical South America, Salvinia Complex consists of four closely-related, 

free-floating aquatic fern species that can be difficult to distinguish from one another. Giant 

salvinia is considered one of the world’s worst aquatic pests: in favorable environments, 

plants may double in volume within a week. Giant salvinia forms extensive mats that can 

completely cover water surfaces, shadowing out native plants, reducing available dissolved 

oxygen, and creating large amounts of decaying plant material. It can also clog water 

intakes, interfering with irrigation, drainage and electric power generation. Its arrival in the 

U.S. has been linked to commercial nurseries and pet stores, where it is sold for ornamental 

ponds and aquariums. Giant salvinia tends to spread locally because the plants adhere to 

boats, wheels, and recreational gear entering infested waters. It reproduces so rapidly that 

infestations quickly become impossible to eradicate. Giant salvinia mats may grow up to 

three feet thick, hindering the effectiveness of chemical controls. In California, giant salvinia 

populations have naturalized in the Colorado River drainage and have invaded some canals 

in the Sonoran Desert and San Luis Obispo County (DiTomaso and Healy 2003). It has also 

been detected in two ponds in San Diego County. 

130
Northern snakehead: The northern snakehead is a fish native to China that was most likely 

imported from Asia to the United States as a food fish. It is also sold in the aquarium trade. It 

can be found in a variety of habitats, and can breathe air with a bladder that works like a 

primitive lung. The northern snakehead is a voracious predator with no natural enemies. It 

disrupts native aquatic ecosystems and transmits diseases and parasites, including several 

species that can infect humans. Its impact on local economies dependent on fishing and 

other related resources is significant. All 28 species of snakehead are on the federal list of 

injurious wildlife species, and their importation and transportation across state lines is illegal. 

See also federal risk assessment at 

http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Snakehead_circ_1251/html/risk_assessment_process.html. 

Waterlettuce: Waterlettuce is a floating aquatic plant native to South America and is 

considered to be one of the worst weeds in subtropical and tropical regions of the world. 

Under optimal environmental conditions, waterlettuce can double its population size in less 

than three weeks. Seed production makes this plant resilient to adverse environmental 

conditions such as drought. Waterlettuce populations often form large, impenetrable floating 

mats, limiting boat traffic, recreation, flood control and wildlife use. It is a popular species for 

pond landscaping and is frequently sold through nursery mail order catalogs and on the 

Internet. In California, it has only been reported from the eastern Sonoran Desert (Colorado 

River drainage), but its range is expected to expand (DiTomaso and Healy 2003). 

Paleyellow Iris (Yellowflag Iris): A hearty perennial that grows from tuberous rhizomes, 

yellowflag iris can grow to 5 feet tall. It is a European native that has adapted well to 

conditions throughout the U.S., where it can now be found in at least 40 states. It typically 

grows in wetlands, along river and stream banks, in irrigation ditches and on the margins of 

lakes and ponds. It was first found in California in the 1970s. It now occurs in the San 

Francisco Bay region, southern San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast, and South Coast 

(DiTomaso and Healy 2003). When consumed in large quantities, paleyellow iris can be toxic 

to livestock. A resinous substance from the leaves and rhizomes can irritate the skin of those 

removing the rhizomes by hand. Pulling the rhizomes can cause extensive damage to the 

substrate, inviting the establishment of other unwanted plants. Control techniques such as 

burning are not recommended because the rhizomes re-sprout. Cutting followed by herbicide 

applications may be the best method to control this plant.

131
9. LITERATURE CITED 

Anderson, CD. “TBT Free Antifoulings and Foul Release Systems.” www.internationalmarine.com/antifoulings/TBT_FreeAF_TechPaper.pdf. 

Anderson, LWJ. 2005. “California’s Reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: A Model for Invasive Species 

Rapid Response Actions.” Biological Invasions 7 (6): 1003-1016. 

Barrett, EM. 1963. “The California Oyster Industry.” Department of Fish and Game Bulletin 123: 

1-103. 

Bolton, T and WM Graham. 2006. “Jellyfish on the Rocks: Bioinvasion Threat of the International 

Trade in Aquarium Live Rock.” Biological Invasions, 8 (4): 1387-3547. 

Bergquist, Lee. 2007 “Fighting a fish killer: DNR to instill new rules to combat virus believed to be 

in Lake Michigan”. JS Online. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Posted April 1, 2007 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=585050. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (DFG/OSPR). 

2002. “A survey of non-indigenous aquatic species in the coastal and estuarine waters of 

California.” Submitted to the California Legislature as required by the Ballast Water Management 

Act of 1999. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Invasive Weed Awareness 

Coalition. 2005. “California Noxious & Invasive Weed Action Plan.” 

www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/noxweedinfo/noxweedinfo_hp.htm. 

Carlton, JT and JB Geller. 1993. “Ecological roulette: The Global Transport of Nonindigenous 

Marine Organisms.” Science 261: 78-82. 

Carlton, JT. 2001. “Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and 

Management Priorities.” Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Chapman, DJ. 2005. “Controlling Undaria and invasive kelps through management of the 

gametophyte.” California Sea Grant College Program Research Completion Reports, University 

of California, San Diego, Paper Coastal05_03. 

http://repositories.cdlib.org/csgc/rcr/Coastal05_03/. 

Cohen, AN, Director Biological Invasions Program, S.F. Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. Email 

communication December 15, 2006. 

Cohen, AN and JT Carlton. 1995. “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A 

Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta.” U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Cohen, AN and JT Carlton. 1998. “Accelerating Invasion Rate in a Highly Invaded Estuary.” 

Science 279: 555-558. 

Cohen, AN and A Weinstein. 1998. “The Potential Distribution and Abundance of Zebra Mussels 

in California.” San Francisco Estuary Institute. 

Daehler, CC and DR Strong. 1997. “Hybridization between introduced smooth cordgrass 

(Spartina alterniflora; Poaceae) and native California cordgrass (S. foliosa) in San Francisco Bay, 

California, USA”. American Journal of Botany 84(5): 607-611. 

132
Daehler, CC, CK Antilla, DR Ayres, DR Strong and JP Baily. 1999. “Evolution of a new ecotype of 

Spartina alterniflora in San Francisco Bay, California, USA.” American Journal of Botany 86, 543-

544. 

DiTomaso, JM and EA Healy. 2003. “Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West.” Sponsored by 

the California Weed Science Society. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

Publication 3421. 

Falkner, M, L Takata and S Gilmore. 2006. “Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges 

in California Waters.” California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division. 

Falkner, M and L Takata, S Gilmore & N Dobroski. 2007. 2007 Biennial Report on the California 

Marine Invasive Species Program. California State Lands Commission. 

Feyrer, F, M Nobriga and T Sommer. In revision. “Multidecadal trends for three declining fish 

species: habitat patterns and mechanisms in the San Francisco Estuary, California, U.S.A.” 

Fisheries Global Information System. “Species Fact Sheet: Undaria pinnatifida.” Web page 

www.fao.org/figis/servlet/species?fid=2777. Accessed January 1, 2007. 

Fofonoff, PW, GM Ruiz, B Steves and JT Carlton. 2003. “In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of 

transfer and invasion for non-native species to the coasts of North America.” pp. 152-181. In GM 

Ruiz and JT Carlton (eds.) Invasive species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Island Press, 

Washington, DC, 2003. 

Gonzalez, JA and LT Johnson (eds.). 2005. “Managing Hull Transport of Aquatic Invasive 

Species: Proceedings of May 11, 2005 Workshop in San Francisco, CA.” California Sea Grant 

College Program Report No. T-059. 

Grosholz, ED and GM Ruiz. 1995. “Spread and potential impact of the recently introduced 

European green crab, Carcinus maenus, in central California.” Marine Biology 122:239-247. 

Grosholz, ED, GM Ruiz, CA Dean, KA Shirley, JL Maron, and PG Connors. 2000. “The impacts of 

a nonindigenous marine predator in a California bay.” Ecology 81 (5): 1206-1224. 

Hewitt, CL. 2002. “The distribution and diversity of tropical Australian marine bioinvasions.” 

Pacific Science 56: 213-222. 

Hewitt, CL, ML Campbell, RE Thresher, RB Martin, S Boyd, BF Cohen, DR Currie, MF Gomon, 

MJ Keough, JA Lewis, MM Lockett, N Mays, MA McArthur, TD O’Hara, GCB Poore, DJ Ross, MJ 

Storey, JE Watson and RS Wilson. 2004. “Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay, 

Victoria, Australia.” Marine Biology 144 (1): 183-202. 

Hieb, K. 2005. “2005 Annual Status and Trend Report – Common Crabs of the San Francisco 

Estuary.” Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary, Spring 2006 IEP 

Newsletter in press. 

Hoyer, MV and DE Canfield, Jr, editors. 1997. Aquatic Plant Management in Lakes and

Reservoirs. Prepared by the North American Lake Management Society (P.O. Box 5443, 

Madison, WI 53705-5443) and the Aquatic Plant Management Society (P.O. Box 1477, Lehigh, 

FL 33970) for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. 

Kildow, J and CS Colgan. 2005. “California’s Ocean Economy: Report to the Resources Agency, 

State of California.” National Ocean Economics Program. noep.csumb.edu/Download/. 

Kovalak, WP, GD Longton and RD Smithee. 1993. “Infestation of power plant water systems by 

the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).” pp. 359–380. In TF Nalepa and DW Schloesser 

133
(eds.) Zebra mussels: Biology, impact and control. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 

Lafferty, KD and AM Kuris. 1996. “Biological Control of Marine Pests.” Ecology 77 (7): 1989-2000. 

Leslie, G. 2007. Program Supervisor, Pest Exclusion, Exterior Program, California Department of 

Food and Agriculture. Email communication January 8, 2007. 

Leson & Associates. 2005. “Use of Imazapyr Herbicide to Control Invasive Cordgrass (Spartina

spp.) in the San Francisco Estuary: Water Quality, Biological Resources, and Human Health and 

Safety.” Prepared for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project/State Coastal 

Conservancy, Oakland, California. May 4, 2005. 

Leung B, DM Lodge, D Finnoff, JF Shogren, MA Lewis and G Lamberti. 2002. “An ounce of 

prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species.” Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269 (1508): 2407-2413. 

Lodge DM, S Williams, H MacIsaac, K Hayes, B Leung, S Reichard, R Mack, P Moyle, M Smith, 

D Andow, JT Carlton and A McMichael, 2006. “Biological Invasions: Recommendations for U.S. 

Policy and Management.” Position paper of the Ecological Society of America. See also 

Appendix F. 

Lovell, SJ and SF Stone. 2005. “The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species: A Review of 

the Literature.” National Center for Environmental Economics, Working Paper Series, Publication 

2005-02, January 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Maryland Sea Grant Zebra Mussel website. Accessed September 2003. 

http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/issues/restoration/non-natives/zebramussel/. 

McDonald, PS, GC Jensen and DA Armstrong. 2001. “The competitive and predatory impacts of 

the nonindigenous crab Carcinus maenas (L.) on early benthic phase Dungeness crab Cancer 

magister Dana.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 258:39-54. 

McLaughlin, L. Non-Native Invasive Species Program, USFWS, Stockton, CA. August 29, 2006. 

E-mail to Julie Horenstein, Invasive Species Program, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, 

DFG and other members of California Interagency Noxious and Invasive Plant Committee. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2006. Final report on eradication of the invasive seaweed Caulerpa 

taxifolia from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour, California. Prepared for the 

Steering Committee of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team. 

Messer, DF. personal communication. August 2007. 

Minnesota Sea Grant website. Accessed September 2003. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/.

Moyle, PB. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

National Council for Science and the Environment.1999. “Harmful Non-Native Species: Issues for 

Congress.” Washington, DC. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-26.cfm. 

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. “National Invasive Species Management Plan: Meeting 

the Invasive Species Challenge”. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/nmp.shtml. 

National Invasive Species Council. 2005. “Focus Group Conference Report and Pathways 

Ranking Guide (June-August 2005).” pp. 1-66. National Invasive Species Council/Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force/NISC Prevention Committee Pathways Work Team. 

http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/2006%20Pathways%20Guide.pdf. 

134
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. 2004. “Trade and the Economy. Economic Impacts. 

California.” (fact sheet). http://www.pmsaship.com/economic_impact.html. 

Parsons, MG. 1998. “Flow-through ballast water exchange.” Society of Naval Architects and

Marine Engineers Transactions 106: 485-493. 

Patten, K. 2002. “Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) Control with Imazapyr”, Weed 

Technology 16, pp. 826-832. 

Patten, K. 2003.” Persistence and non-target impact of imazapyr associated with smooth 

cordgrass control in an estuary”, Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41, pp. 1-6. 

Peterson, H. 1996. “Potamocorbula amurensis Spatial Distribution Survey.” IEP Newsletter 

Winter 1996: 18-19. California Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 

www.iep.water.ca.gov/report/newsletter/1996winter/. 

Pimentel, D, L Lach, R Zuniga, and D Morrison. 2000. “Environmental and Economic Costs of 

Nonindigenous Species in the United States.” Bioscience 50: 53-65. 

Pimentel, D. 2003. “Economic and Ecological Costs Associated with Aquatic Invasive Species.” 

pp. 3-5. In K Wakefield and A Faulds (eds.) Proceedings of the Aquatic Invaders of the Delaware

Estuary Symposium, Malvern, Pennsylvania, May 20, 2003. 

http://www.sgnis.org/publicat/proceed/aide/pime2003.htm. 

Pimentel, D, R Zuniga and D Morrison. 2005. “Update on the environmental and economic costs 

assoicated with alien invasive species in the United States.” Ecological Economics 52 (3): 273-

288. 

Posey, MH. 1988. “Community Changes Associated with the Spread of an Introduced Seagrass, 

Zostera japonica.” Ecology 69 (4):974-983. 

Ruiz, GM, PW Fofonoff, JT Carlton, MJ Wonham and AH Hines. 2000. “Invasion of Coastal 

Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes and Biases.” Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531. 

Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network. “Monitoring and Management of the Invasive Alga 

Undaria pinnatifida.” Web page Accessed January 1, 2007. http://www.mbnmssimon.org/sections/rockyShores/project_info.php?pid=100184&sec=rs. 

San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project. 2004-2006 Studies covering site specifics, tidal 

marsh carrying capacity for clapper rails, rail distribution, field operations and an aquatic pesticide 

application plan, as well as EIRs and endangered species consultations, among other topics. 

http://www.spartina.org/project_documents/. 

Sea Grant. 1998. “Bio-invasions: Breaching Natural Barriers.” Washington Sea Grant. University 

of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

http://wsg.washington.edu/communications/online/bioinvasions/bioinvasions.pdf. 

Stewart, AR, SN Luoma, CE Schlekat, MA Doblin and KA Hieb. 2004. “Food Web Pathway 

Determines How Selenium Affects Aquatic Ecosystems: A San Francisco Bay Case Study.” 

Environmental Science & Technology 38 (17): 4519-4526. 

Takata L, M Falkner and S Gilmore. 2006. “California State Lands Commission Report on 

Commercial Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations to Reduce 

135
Nonindigenous Species Release from the Non-Ballast Water Vector.” California State Lands 

Commission, Marine Facilities Division. 

Thompson, JK. 2005. “One Estuary, One Invasion, Two Responses: Phytoplankton and Benthic 

Community Dynamics Determine the Effect of an Estuarine Invasive Suspension-Feeder.” pp. 

291-316. In RF Dame and S Olenin (eds.), The comparative roles of suspension-feeders in

ecosystems. NATO Science Series. IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences 47: 1-10. 

Thresher, RE. 1999. “Key threats from marine bioinvasions: A review of current and future 

issues.” pp. 24-34. In J Pederson (ed.) Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First International

Conference, January 24-27. MIT Sea Grant. MIT-W-99-004. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2001. “Report to Congress on the Voluntary National Guidelines for Ballast 

Water Management.” Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. “Overview of EPA Authorities for Natural Resource 

Managers Developing Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response and Management Plans.” 

EPA842-B-05-002 December 2005. 

Whitlatch, RB, RW 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.” pp. 29-48. In N Balcom (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeast Conference on NonIndigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species. 1997. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program. CT-SG9504. 

Wilcove, DS, D Rothstein, D Dubow and J Phillips. 1998. “Quantifying Threats to Imperiled 

Species in the United States.” Bioscience 48 (8): 607-615. 

Zhang, F and M Dickman. 1999. “Mid-ocean exchange of container vessel ballast water. 1: 

Seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and dinoflagellates.” Marine Ecology

Progress Series 176: 243-251. 

136