EPA 855-R-00-003 

September 2000 

	





	











Invasive Species Focus Team 

Gulf of Mexico Program 

Version 4.0 

Established Invasive Species: 

Nutria (Myocastor coypus) 

Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) 

Potential Future Invasive Species:

Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)

Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata)
AN INITIAL SURVEY OF 

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ISSUES 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION 

September 2000 

Version 4.0 

Released on August 31, 2001 

Submitted to: 

Gulf of Mexico Program 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Bldg. 1003, Room 202 

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 

Submitted by: 

Battelle 

Coastal Resources and Ecosystems Management 

938 Lafayette Street, Suite 101 

New Orleans, LA 70113 

EPA/OCPD Contract No. 68-C-00-121 

Work Assignment 1-07 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page i 

 	



	

  


 

 

 	


1.1 Scope of this Report ...................................................................................................1 

1.2 Purpose of this Report ................................................................................................3 

 	 



 !

2.1 Key Concepts..............................................................................................................6 

2.2 Characterizing Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introductions to the U.S.................8 

2.3 Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species........................................................................13 

2.4 Control and Mitigation of Aquatic Invasive Species................................................14 

"  

#$$%&
 !

3.1 Aquatic Species Introductions in the Gulf of Mexico Region..................................16 

3.2 An Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region....19 

'  

%

"

 (#$


4.1 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Alabama.................................24 

4.2 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Florida ...................................25 

4.3 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Louisiana ...............................30 

4.4 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Mississippi.............................32 

4.5 Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in Texas .....................................34 

4.6 Summary Tables: Aquatic Invasive Species Management Priorities in the.............37 

 Gulf of Mexico Region 

) #$	


		

	*(+,-

 '

5.1 Overview of the Shrimp Viruses Issue.....................................................................40 

5.2 Shrimp Virus Sources and Pathways........................................................................43 

5.3 Management Framework Related to Shrimp Viruses...............................................47 
Version 4.0 

Page ii September 2000 

! #$	


		

	*(+,.
/ )"

6.1 Overview of the Ballast Water Issue ........................................................................53 

6.2 The Ballast Water Issue in the Gulf of Mexico Region ...........................................56 

6.3 Perspectives from Gulf of Mexico Region Stakeholders .........................................62 

6.4 The Management Framework for Ballast Water ......................................................63 

0 +%
($		



!1

 



#$$%&


7.1 General Analysis of the Available Management Framework ..................................68 

7.2 Federal Level ............................................................................................................71

7.3 Regional Level..........................................................................................................76 

7.4 Federal-State Relationships ......................................................................................79 

7.5 State Level: Alabama................................................................................................81 

7.6 State Level: Florida ..................................................................................................83 

7.7 State Level: Louisiana ..............................................................................................88 

7.8 State Level: Mississippi............................................................................................89 

7.9 State Level: Texas ....................................................................................................92 

7.10 Federal and Gulf State Agency Costs for Aquatic Invasive Species........................94 

 Management and Control 

7.11 Private Organizations ...............................................................................................97 

7.12 International Level: Reference to Information .........................................................98 

1 $&

22

2 &	&
$#$$%&


9.1 Inventory of Research Activities Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region ............100 

9.2 Invasive Species Research Needs for the Gulf of Mexico Region.........................104 

&		&
1

#



&$
 "
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page iii 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Numbers of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced into the U.S. ........................9 

Table 2. Principal Pathways of Introduction for Aquatic Species.............................................10 

Table 3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the U.S. by Pathway..........................11 

Table 4a. Generalized Characteristics of Successful Invasive Nonindigenous Species .............12 

Table 4b. Generalized Characteristics of Communities More Likely to be Invaded ..................12 

Table 5. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced to each Gulf State 

Compared to the U.S. 50 State Average......................................................................17 

Table 6. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring in the Five Gulf States ......20 

Table 7. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the 

Five Gulf States ...........................................................................................................20 

Table 8. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States...20 

Table 9. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States............21 

Table 10. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, 

September 2000: Aquatic Invasive and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species .........................37 

Table 11. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, 

September 2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species ...................................................38 

Table 12. Status of Ballast Water Treatment Technology Research Projects .............................55 

Table 13. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major 

Gulf of Mexico Ports ...................................................................................................56 

Table 14. National Ballast Water Clearinghouse Data Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico 

Region..........................................................................................................................58 

Table 15. Federal Laws Regulating Introduction and Movement of Nonindigenous Species ....71 

Table 16. Prohibited Plant Species in Alabama ..........................................................................82 

Table 17. Prohibited Fish and Aquatic Mammal Species in Alabama........................................82 

Table 18. Prohibited Marine Fish Species in Florida ..................................................................83 

Table 19. Restricted Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida ................................................84 

Table 20. Prohibited Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida................................................85 

Table 21. Prohibited Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species in Florida..................................85 

Table 22. Prohibited Fish Species in Louisiana...........................................................................87 

Table 23. Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Louisiana ...........................................................89 

Table 24. List of Prohibited Fish Species in Mississippi ............................................................90 

Table 25. List of Prohibited Invertebrate Species (Mussels and Crayfishes) in Mississippi ......91 

Table 26. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Mississippi .............................................91 

Table 27. List of Prohibited Fish and Shellfish Species in Texas ...............................................92 

Table 28. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Texas ......................................................94 

Table 29. Fiscal Year 1999 Expenditures by Florida State Agencies for Invasive Species 

Management and Control Activities............................................................................96 
Version 4.0 

Page iv September 2000 

Table 30. Keyword Phrases for Literature Searches on Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Gulf 

of Mexico Region ......................................................................................................101 

Table 31. Organization of the Research Inventory (Appendix I) ..............................................101 

Table 32. Distribution of References, by Research Category, for Each Species in the Research 

Inventory....................................................................................................................103 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of the Report Study Area: The Gulf of Mexico Region........................................2 

Figure 2. Pathways of Fish Species Introductions in the U.S. and Florida.................................19 

Figure 3. Origin of Introduced Fish Species in the U.S. and Florida .........................................19 

Figure 4. Aquaculture as an Introduction Vector for Shrimp Viruses........................................44 

Figure 5. Processing as an Introduction Vector for Shrimp Viruses ..........................................45 

Figure 6. Port Zone Boundaries of National Ballast Water Clearinghouse................................58 

Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico Shipping Routes.................................................................................59 

Appendices 

Appendix A Pathways of Aquatic Species Introduction 

Appendix B Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico 

Region 

Appendix C Ballast Water Reporting Form 

Appendix D Federal Laws Applicable to Invasive Species 

Appendix E Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to Invasive Species 

Appendix F Federal Agency Coverage by Major Species Groups 

Appendix G Federal Agency Responsibilities Applicable to Invasive Species 

Appendix H Inventory of Regional Actions in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

Appendix I Inventory of Research Activities Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page v 

 




 The Gulf of Mexico Program and the document authors would like to acknowledge the 

volunteer efforts of the many individuals that contributed to this report. 

 Technical direction throughout the development of the document was provided by the 

Characterization Report Workgroup, an ad-hoc working subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico 

Program Invasive Species Focus Team. Workgroup members volunteered an appreciable 

amount of their time and contributed directly to the report’s development. Workgroup members 

included: 

Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program 

Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Pam Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey 

Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program 

Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Ron Lukens, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Dan Roberts, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Many Gulf-region experts volunteered their time to provide information or review drafts of 

the document. They included: 

Jimmy Avery, Aquaculture Extension Specialist, MSU 

Paul Carangelo, Coastal Environmental Planner 

David Felder, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Joe Hendrix, GMP Citizens Advisory Committee Fisheries Representative (Texas) 

Jeffrey Hill, Dept. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, UF 

Dewayne Hollin, Texas Sea Grant Program 

Heidi Lovett, MRAG Americas 

Greg Lutz, Specialist and Professor, Aquaculture, LSU Ag Center 

John MacMillan, President, National Aquaculture Association 

Susan McCarthy, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Tom McIlwain, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Larry McKinney, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 

Benedict Posadas, MSU Coastal Research and Extension Center 

Granvil Treece, Texas Sea Grant Program 

Robert Stickney, Texas Sea Grant Program 

Edwin Theriot, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Sherman Wilhelm, Division of Aquaculture, FDACS 

Paul Zajicek, Division of Aquaculture, FDACS 
Version 4.0 

Page vi September 2000 

 This document is a product of the Invasive Species Focus Team, which guided the report’s 

development, reviewed drafts, and approved the final draft. Focus Team members include: 

Ron Bean, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Vince Cottone, Texaco 

Charles Biggar, Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fisheries 

Roland Ferry, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Douglas Fruge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pam Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey 

Tom Herrington, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program (Co-Chair) 

Doug Jacobson, Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service (Co-Chair) 

Marilyn Barrett O’Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program 

Ron Lukens, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Vernon Minton, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Cynthia Moncreiff, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory 

Dan Roberts, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Deborah Schultz, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program 

Thomas Schultz, Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University 

Robert Stender, Chief of Naval Education and Training, U.S. Navy 

Bruce Thompson, Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University 

Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

Cover photo credits: 

Giant salvinia – Rhandy Helton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (permission obtained 

from Colette Jacono, USGS/BRD, Gainesville, Florida) 

Nutria – Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (permission obtained from Kerry St. 

Pé, BTNEP, Thibodaux, Louisiana) 

Spotted jellyfish – Monty Graham, Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory, Alabama (permission 

obtained from Monty Graham) 

Zebra mussel – USGS/BRD (permission obtained from Colette Jacono, USGS/BRD, Gainesville, 

Florida) 

 Battelle prepared this document for the Gulf of Mexico Program under EPA/OCPD Contract 

No. 68-C-00-121, Work Assignments WA0-07 and WA1-07. The Principal Investigator was 

Brent Ache; other Battelle contributors included Debbie Tanis and Angela Walters. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page vii 

 



AAPA American Association of Port Authorities 

ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

AEC Aquaculture Executive Committee (Texas) 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

ANSTF Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

APCS Aquatic Plant Control Section (Louisiana) 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APMS Aquatic Plant Management Section (Florida) 

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980) 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

ASPEA Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992 

ATF Aquaculture Task Force (Mississippi) 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIPM Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (Florida) 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation 

CEC North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

DEA Drug Enforcement Agency 

DOD United States Department of Defense 

DOE United States Department of Energy 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPPC Exotic Pest Plant Council 

ERS Economic Research Service 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service 

FAWCA Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act 

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FHA Federal Highway Administration 

FICMNEW Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds 

FLEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 

FNPS Florida Native Plant Society 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FNAPCA Florida Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act 

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office 

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

GMP Gulf of Mexico Program 

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

ICES International Council for Exploration of the Seas 
Version 4.0 

Page viii September 2000 

IHHNV Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

ISC Invasive Species Council 

ISFT Invasive Species Focus Team 

JSA Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 

LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LMRCC Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

LWF Louisiana Wildlife Federation 

LWFC Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission 

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MDAC Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce 

MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks 

MDMR Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

MEPC Marine Environmental Protection Committee (United Nations) 

NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

NBWIC National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 

NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMI Northeast-Midwest Institute 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment 

PHS Public Health Service 

SERC Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

SPF Specified Pathogen Free 

SVW Shrimp Virus Workgroup 

TDA Texas Department of Agriculture 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPWC Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission 

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

TSV Taura Syndrome Virus 

UMRCC Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

WBCA Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

WMD Water Management District 

WSSV White Spot Syndrome Virus 

YHV Yellow Head Virus
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page ix 

 

/
$+
&3

 Humans have a long history of deliberately introducing terrestrial and aquatic species to new 

areas for agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, sport fishing, hunting, pets, and a host of 

other reasons. These nonindigenous species are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of 

the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors of our economy, offering recreational 

opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in our gardens. At the same time, 

human activities like travel, trade, and natural habitat alteration have caused many unplanned or 

accidental introductions of species to new areas. The contemporary massive transformation of 

the natural environment and worldwide transport of people and cargo now facilitate species 

introductions – both deliberate and accidental – at a rate that completely overshadows natural 

rates of species movement (OTA 1993), and makes large-scale range expansions across 

mountains and oceans common. For the purposes of this report, we focus on these humanfacilitated movements of species – both deliberate and accidental – to new areas: throughout this 

report such species are referred to as nonindigenous species. 

 For those nonindigenous species introduced to open ecosystems (i.e., outside of human 

control and confinement), only a portion will successfully establish one or more permanent, 

reproducing populations (Mack et al. 2000). These established nonindigenous species can be 

categorized by their impacts – ecologic and economic – in the new ecosystem: beneficial, 

harmful, unknown, or neutral (although, in many cases, impacts are a mix of beneficial and 

harmful) (OTA 1993). 

 Many intentionally established nonindigenous species provide great benefit to agriculture, 

horticulture, recreational fishing, biological control, etc. However, a small number of 

established nonindigenous species, including species both intentionally and unintentionally 

introduced, result in serious threats to the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological 

stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural, 

commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. The impacts of 

these few species is considerable; one study estimates that the overall economic impact of 

harmful nonindigenous species is a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). 

This report purposefully focuses on the small number of nonindigenous species that are harmful, 

or potentially harmful (i.e., those with unknown impacts), and does not further discuss beneficial 

nonindigenous species. Throughout this report, the term invasive species is used to denote those 

nonindigenous species with any form of harmful impact in open ecosystems. 
Version 4.0 

Page x September 2000 

Invasive Species: A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the 

ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, 

aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human 

health. Synonyms for invasive species include harmful species, injurious species, invader, 

noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and weed. 

 This report focuses on just those invasive species that are obligated to live in a waterbody for 

part or all of their lives: aquatic invasive species. Of all aquatic taxa, this initial survey 

concentrates on fish, non-insect aquatic invertebrates, aquatic mammals, aquatic microbes, and 

aquatic and semi-aquatic plants; it does not consider aquatic birds or aquatic insects. In order to 

adequately survey aquatic invasive species issues, including potential future aquatic invasive 

species issues, in the Gulf of Mexico region, the scope of this report covers: 

Invasive nonindigenous aquatic species (1) established in free-living populations, (2) in a 

captive or managed state in the Gulf of Mexico region, or (3) not yet introduced to the Gulf 

of Mexico region, but with an active introduction pathway. 

Indigenous aquatic species aggressively expanding their natural ranges or density in an area 

due to human activities (e.g., habitat alteration), to the detriment of other native species or 

ecosystems. 

Uncontrolled and unmonitored introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species, where there is 

no appropriate assessment of risks. 

 This report focuses only on the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The study 

area for this report includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf States –

Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas – and waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the 

seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

/

$+
&3

 The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Management Committee serves as the Gulf of Mexico 

Regional Panel (Gulf Panel) to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF). 

The Gulf Panel exists to coordinate prevention, research, management, control, and outreach 

efforts in the Gulf of Mexico region, and is responsible for submitting an annual report to the 

ANSTF. In addition, the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT) has committed to assisting 

the five Gulf States in developing invasive species management plans. To begin fulfilling these 

responsibilities in a coordinated manner, the ISFT has developed this report to: 

Compile background and technical information needed to generate the Gulf Panel’s first 

(2000) Annual Report to the ANSTF; 

Begin compiling information that will assist the five Gulf States in developing aquatic 

components of their invasive species management plan(s); 

Generate a regional information and coordination resource for aquatic invasive species 

management and research activities, targeting the GMP’s broad group of stakeholders. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xi 

 This report is current as of its completion date, September 2000. However, due to the highly 

dynamic nature of bioinvasions, new species introductions and management responses continue 

to occur. The ISFT intends this report to be a “living document,” to be expanded and updated at 

the discretion of the ISFT. 

/4	

 
5#$$

%&
3

 It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous aquatic 

species introductions to an area, as these introductions form the “pool” of established species 

from which a few harmful invasive species arise. The Gulf region is vulnerable to aquatic 

species introductions due to the magnitude and variety of viable pathways created by, for 

example: (1) large numbers of people, vessels, and airplanes, and large volumes of cargo, 

coming through multiple large-scale, international ports and airports; (2) year-round, cross-state 

recreational boating, fishing, and other aquatic recreational activities; (3) numerous industries 

import, breed, grow-out, and warehouse a large variety of nonindigenous aquatic species; and (4) 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi River, which provide the 5 Gulf states with an 

aquatic connection to more than half of the 48 states in the continental U.S. The subtropical 

climate and abundant aquatic habitats make the Gulf of Mexico region naturally hospitable to 

nonindigenous aquatic species (Devine 1998, Cox 1999). 

 Several descriptions of the occurrence and status of nonindigenous aquatic species in Florida 

have been published (McCann et al. 1996, Simberloff et al. 1997, Goodyear 2000), but similar 

descriptions for other Gulf States and the Gulf of Mexico region as a whole are less frequent. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an Internet-accessible database 

(http://nas.er.usgs.gov) of nonindigenous aquatic species that is searchable by state or by 

watershed drainage (USGS 2000). To date, nonindigenous freshwater species introductions have 

received more attention than estuarine and marine species; there are no systematic studies of 

nonindigenous estuarine and marine invertebrates or plants in Florida waters (Carlton and 

Ruckelshaus 1997), or for the Gulf region. 

 An inventory of nonindigenous aquatic species occurrences in the Gulf of Mexico region was 

prepared for this report. The inventory attempts to identify those nonindigenous species that 

occur or have occurred in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments in the Gulf of Mexico 

region, by Gulf State. This initial iteration of the inventory focuses on aquatic microbes, noninsect aquatic invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, aquatic mammals, algae, aquatic 

plants, and semi-aquatic plants; it does not address nonindigenous aquatic birds, aquatic insects, 

or any terrestrial species in the Gulf region. Information for the inventory was gathered via 

Internet-based and other databases, and Gulf-region experts (the primary information source was 

the USGS database described above). The complete Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region is provided in Appendix B, and summarized in Tables ES1, 

ES2, ES3, and ES4. 
Version 4.0 

Page xii September 2000 

Table ES1. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring (or Having Occurred at Least Once) in 

the Five Gulf States. 

State Shrimp Viruses Bacteria Protozoa Fungi TOTAL 

AL * 1 2 * 3 

FL 1 2 7 * 10 

LA * * 2 * 2 

MS * * 2 * 2 

TX 3 1 1 * 5 

* = None. 

Table ES2. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the Five Gulf States. 

State Tunicates Bryozoans 

Sponges Coelenterates 

Flatworms Roundworms Seg. 

Worms 

Mollusks Crustaceans 

TOTAL 

AL * * * 1 * * * 3 3 7 

FL 3 6 * 2 7 2 2 19 23 64 

LA * * * * * * * 3 5 8 

MS * * * 1 * * * 2 2 5 

TX 1 * * * * 1 * 9 5 16 

* = None. 

Table ES3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States. 

State Fishes Amphibians Reptiles Mammals TOTAL 

AL 51 * 1 1 53 

FL 117 13 18 1 149 

LA 27 2 * 1 30 

MS 22 * * 1 23 

TX 98 4 3 1 106 

* = None. 

Table ES4. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States. 

State Algae Aquatic Vascular 

Plants 

Semi-Aq. Vascular 

Plants 

TOTAL 

AL 1 25 6 32 

FL 2 45 23 70 

LA 1 34 10 45 

MS 1 25 7 33 

TX 2 30 12 41 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xiii 

/6 

%



$(#$
3

 Tables ES5 and ES6 present the results of interviews with Gulf State agency representatives 

on the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team to identify aquatic invasive species that are current 

management priorities or potential future management priorities in each of the five Gulf 

States (see Section 4.0 of the document for detailed interviewed results). In some cases, as noted 

below, the interviewed state agency representatives sought the input of a larger group of state 

stakeholders, while in other cases interview results represent the opinions of one agency 

representative. The interviews were intended to produce a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of Gulf-region management priorities. It has been recommended that a more 

formal and extensive survey be conducted for any future compilation of this information. 

 For the purposes of the interviews, “current management priority” is defined as an invasive, 

or potentially invasive, aquatic species that the state is most concerned with managing at the 

present time. “Potential future management priority” is defined as an invasive, or potentially 

invasive, aquatic species that (1) does not yet occur in the state, but that has an active 

introduction pathway, or (2) already has been introduced to the state, and is of concern due to the 

magnitude of adverse impacts experienced in similar ecosystems. It is critical to recognize that 

management priorities can be based on the actual or perceived threat a species poses, even 

though it does not yet occur in the state. Similarly, invasive or potentially invasive species that 

already occur in a state may not necessarily be a management priority in that state. 

/%
(
*		



 




3

 At the federal level, the current management framework for invasive species has its 

foundation in over 28 pieces of legislation and is dependent on activities of more than two dozen 

different federal agencies. In general, there are substantial gaps in federal laws and programs to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species, and it is clear that significant risks remain 

unaddressed (ISC 2000). 

 Existing legislation is targeted toward both controlling particular species and regulating 

specific vectors. Species-oriented legislation prohibits or regulates introduction of species that 

have caused problems, or have the potential to cause problems. Much of the current federal and 

state legislation contains lists of prohibited and restricted species. For prohibited lists, it is 

usually illegal to import, sell, possess, or transport those species; restricted species can usually be 

imported, cultured, sold, and/or transported with one or more permits from appropriate natural 

resource agencies. Agency rules, and associated permits, for restricted species often differentiate 

between releases to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture, ornamental fish farms, 

research facilities, public aquaria) and releases to open ecosystems. 
Version 4.0 

Page xiv September 2000 

 It has been suggested that many currently implemented vector-based controls are 

compromised by understaffing and time pressure (Ruesink et al. 1995). For example, for foreign 

imports, the volume of trade creates a tremendous burden on an understaffed federal inspection 

system and forces a strong reliance on self-reporting by the shipping industry (OTA 1993). 

Equally problematic, there has been little support for regulations addressing unintentional “byproduct” introductions (Corn et al. 1999). However, recent efforts to manage ballast water 

discharges represent a serious attempt to understand and control a high-risk introduction vector. 

Table ES5. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000: 

Invasive Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AL FL LA MS TX 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed   

Aureoumbra lagunensis brown tide algae  a

Brachiaria mutica paragrass  

Casuarina equisetifolia Australian pine  

Caulerpa toxifolia tropical green algae P 

Colocasia esculenta wild taro  

Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii blue-green algae P 

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth     

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla     

Hygrophila polysperma Indian swampweed  

Hymenachne amplexicaulis West Indian marshgrass  

Imperata cylindrica cogongrass P 

Ipomoea aquatica waterspinach  P 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife P P 

Melaleuca quinquenervia paperbark (melaleuca)  

Mimosa pigra catclaw mimosa  

Panicum repens torpedograss   

Pistia stratiotes waterlettuce   

Pueraria montana kudzu  P 

Salvinia minima common salvinia  

Salvinia molesta giant salvinia     

Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree   

Schinus terebinthifolius peppertree  

Solanum tampicense wetland nightshade  

Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of 

Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of management priorities. 

 = Current management priority in the state. 

P = Potential future management priority for the state. 

Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the 

unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management. 

a

 = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved)
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xv 

Table ES6. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000: 

Invasive Aquatic Animal Species. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AL FL LA MS TX 

Anguillicola crassus exotic nematode on American eels P 

Belonesox belizanus pike killifish  

Callinectes bocourti chocolate brown crab P 

Carcinus maenus green crab P P P 

Charybdis helleri marine swimming crab  P P 

Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Rio Grande cichlid  

Cichlasoma urophthalmus Mayan cichlid  

Cittarium pica West Indian trochid  

Clarias batrachus walking catfish  

Corbicula fluminea Asian clam P  P P 

Crassostrea gigas Japanese (or Pacific giant) oyster P 

Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp P P a  

Dreissena polymorpha zebra mussel  P P  P 

Drymonema dalmatinum jellyfish P 

Eriocheir sinensis Chinese mittencrab P P P 

Glossodoris sedna marine nudibranch  

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix silver carp P  P 

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis bighead carp   P 

Limnoperna fortunei freshwater mussel P 

Litopeneaus vannamei Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp P 

Monopterus albus swamp eel  P 

Mylopharyngodon piceus black carp P P P 

Myocastor coypus nutria   

Mytilopsis leucophaeata Conrad’s (or dark) falsemussel  

Mytilopsis sallei Salle’s (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel  b 

Neogobius melanostomus round goby P P 

Oreochromis aureus blue tilapia P 

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia  

Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia 

Perna perna brown (or Mexihalo) mussel P P 

Perna viridis green mussel  

Phyllorhiza punctata spotted jellyfish  P  P 

Pinctada margaritifera black-lipped (or Pacific) pearl oyster P 

Platychirograpsus spectabilis saber crab  

Pomacea canalicula channeled applesnail 

Rapana venosa veined rapa whelk P 

Sarotherodon melanotheron blackchin tilapia  

Taura Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 

Tilapia mariae spotted tilapia  

Tridacna spp. giant clams P 

White Spot Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 
Version 4.0 

Page xvi September 2000 

Table ES6, continued. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, 

September 2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species, cont. 

Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of 

Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of management priorities. 

 = Current management priority in the state. 

P = Potential future management priority for the state. 

Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the 

unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management. 

a

 = Diploid stocks only. 

b

 = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved) 

 Some researchers contend that a consensus is developing that the invasive species problem 

has reached proportions demanding a coherent national policy to guide future actions (Williams 

and Meffe 1999). In 1997, more than 500 scientists and natural resource managers wrote the 

Clinton Administration to express their deep concern about the damage done by invasive species 

every year (ISC 2000). This action resulted in the establishment of a national Invasive Species 

Council (ISC), through Presidential Executive Order, which issued a national invasive species 

management plan in January 2001. At the same time, the recognition of federal framework 

limitations has initiated state and regional management and planning (Fletcher 2000). 

 Universally it is recognized the prevention of new introductions of invasive species, and the 

immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive species, is the most effective, and cost 

effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al. 2000). Risk-based decision-making 

approaches, based on available information, can help managers to quantitatively evaluate the 

likelihood of an undesired event and the likelihood of harm or damage being caused (Hayes 

1998). At this time though risk-based decision criteria are currently absent from most U.S. 

policy for intentional introductions, although the ANSTF recently presented a generic 

nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk analysis review process (ANSTF 1996). Some researchers 

and managers advocate the implementation of zero-risk policies at national and international 

levels (Mack et al. 2000), assumably for species introductions to open ecosystems versus imports 

to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture). 

 Given the magnitude of active introduction pathways and the diversity of nonindigenous 

species and receiving ecosystems, an adaptive management approach will have to be adopted. 

This way the relative ecological, economic, and human health threats posed by invasive species 

will periodically re-prioritize prevention, management, control, and public education efforts to 

yield the most benefit for the environment, economic vitality, and human health. In addition, 

management of invasive species ultimately must be a global endeavor. Efforts to restrict 

invasive species introductions to the U.S. will be aided through coordination with the countriesof-origin for these species (ISC 2000). 

 All five Gulf States have statutory provisions applicable to nonindigenous species 

introductions, and specific provisions applicable to at least selected aquatic species (specific Gulf 

State statutes and regulations are described in Sections 7.5 through 7.9). Each Gulf State 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xvii 

maintains prohibited and/or restricted species lists, and conducts permit programs to regulate the 

import, possession, sale, and transport of selected species. 

 To date, none of the five Gulf States has established a comprehensive invasive species 

management plan, although plans for a few plant species have been developed in Florida 

(FEPPC 1997, FEPPC 1999). However, planning efforts are beginning at both the state and 

regional levels (Texas Sea Grant Program 1998). In the summer of 2000, the Louisiana Sea 

Grant Program sponsored the state’s first meeting to discuss development of an invasive species 

management plan (Barrett O’Leary, pers. comm.). Likewise, Florida Governor Jeb Bush 

recently requested that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection facilitate a meeting 

of Florida’s state agencies to determine the most effective way to develop a comprehensive 

invasive species management plan (Bush 2000). 

 Two primary statutes and a noxious weed program in Florida, Texas’s Statewide Vegetation 

Management Plan, and Alabama’s Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act, appear to 

adequately address invasive plants in those states. In fact, the Florida and Texas statutes and 

programs could serve as good models for state invasive species management plans, as they 

provide a lead executing agency, scientific research directives, prohibitions on introductions, and 

grant programs for local agencies (Fletcher 2000). However, in both of these cases, the states do 

not have provisions applicable to freshwater and saltwater animals: statutory authorities would 

have to be expanded for truly comprehensive planning. In Texas and Louisiana nonindigenous 

animal restrictions are basically a patchwork of aquaculture and wildlife provisions (Fletcher 

2000). 

 With respect to regional planning, Fletcher (2000) indicates that no Gulf State statutes 

provide (1) provisions to offer notice of identifications, introductions, or infestations to 

neighboring states or (2) any provisions for mitigation. Without such provisions, significant 

conflict can occur among states when a nonindigenous species introduction is intentional and 

controversial (Fletcher 2000). 

/&
&

*	/&



4		3

 An inventory of recent peer-reviewed scientific research relevant to selected Gulf-region 

aquatic invasive species issues was prepared for this report. The purpose of the inventory is to 

(1) serve as an initial regional scientific directory on key current and emerging invasive species 

issues and (2) begin identifying regional research gaps and needs. This iteration of the Research 

Inventory, found in Appendix I, contains over 400 individual references and contains references 

on over 37 key species. 

Research Needs 

 Initial lists of Gulf-region invasive species research needs prepared by various committees of 

the GMP are presented in Section 10.0. The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc 

Experts Panel for Invasive Species Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and Dr. Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute. 
Version 4.0 

Page xviii September 2000 

It is expected that the Expert Panel will complete a thorough invasive species research 

guidance/research needs report in 2001. 

#$	 




		

	*

#%

(
+,-

	

.
/

 To facilitate Gulf-wide communication and coordination on invasive species issues, the GMP 

sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the ISFT serves as a 

venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, it is currently focused on three 

issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an introduction pathway, and the 

prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the majority of the Focus Team’s 

efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues. 

Shrimp Viruses 

 Of the 14 penaied shrimp viruses known worldwide, three exotic viruses have been identified 

in the Gulf of Mexico region: White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), Taura Syndrome Virus 

(TSV), and Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV). Another exotic 

shrimp virus, Yellow Head Virus (YHV), usually co-occurs with WSSV (Lightner 1996a, 

Lightner 1996b), but has not been identified in live shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico region 

(McIlwain, pers. comm.). WSSV is endemic throughout much of Asia, and TSV and IHHNV 

are endemic in wild shrimp populations throughout much of Central and South America (JSA 

1997). It has been shown that all three viruses are carried by some live shrimp, but they also 

have been found in imported frozen shrimp, shrimp by-products, and in a number of non-penaied 

shrimp and other crustacean species (e.g., copepods, crabs, and crayfish) (Lightner 1996a, 

Lightner 1996b, JSA 1997). Note that none of these three exotic shrimp viruses are known to 

pose a threat to human health (Kumpf et al. 1999). 

 Shrimp consumption in the U.S. has increased while the average annual domestic harvest has 

remained steady at approximately 200 million pounds (Kumpf et al. 1999). Growing demand for 

shrimp has been met by increasing imports (from Asia and South America) and expanding 

domestic aquaculture capacity. Unfortunately these activities increase the threat of exotic shrimp 

viruses entering processing and aquaculture facilities: viruses can enter processing facilities 

through infected imported or domestic shrimp, and likewise, can enter aquaculture facilities 

through infected brood stock, contaminated feed, infected transport containers, or by migratory 

birds. 

 There are three native penaied shrimp species of commercial importance in the Gulf of 

Mexico – brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), 

and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). The Gulf-region native shrimp fishery is economically 

significant; in Texas alone, it generates $600 million in economic benefits annually and provides 

30,000 jobs (GMP 1999). All three exotic shrimp viruses described above have been shown 

experimentally to infect the Gulf’s three native penaied shrimp species (Kumpf et al. 1999). The 

presence of exotic shrimp viruses at processing and aquaculture facilities increases the threat of 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page xix 

infecting wild native shrimp populations in the Gulf, potentially harming associated harvesting 

and processing industries. 

 In 1996, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Shrimp Virus Workgroup conducted a 

workshop on the status of shrimp viruses in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean, and the results of that workshop established the baseline information and action plan for 

dealing with the virus issue. Since that time additional Gulf-region workshops have been held 

and considerable new scientific research on shrimp viruses in the Gulf region has been 

conducted. Thus it is recommended that a new shrimp virus workshop be carried out in 2001 to 

bring all stakeholders up to date and to re-evaluate the approaches needed to address this 

important issue. 

Ballast Water 

 Fundamental to world trade, ships have moved across the oceans for centuries and currently 

transport approximately 80 percent of the world’s commodities (NRC 1996). Ballast, normally 

in the form of water, is an integral part of the safe operation of ships under a wide range of 

conditions and loads. The uptake, transport, and subsequent discharge of water and sediment 

from ship ballast tanks can disperse aquatic organisms – including jellyfish, crabs, clams, fish, 

snails, bacteria, and viruses. Research has confirmed that plants, animals, and pathogens can live 

and grow over a long period in ballast tanks and cargo holds (Smith et al. 1996). It has been 

estimated that more than 3,000 species of animals and plants are transported daily around the 

world in ballast water (NRC 1996). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses through 

ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains virtually 

unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000). The potential for entire coastal planktonic 

assemblages to be introduced by international ballast water transfers, make bays, estuaries, and 

inland waters some of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world (Carlton and Geller 1993). 

 Because of the lack of alternative ballast water control strategies, open-ocean exchange –

exchanging ballast water loaded in port or in inshore waters with ocean water during passage 

between ports of call – is the only control option being implemented for reducing the risk of 

introduction. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of openocean exchange. This uncertainty combined with the fact that open-ocean exchange can 

compromise vessel safety and can be costly, particularly when exchange time exceeds voyage 

time, has led to the conclusion that open-ocean exchange is a short-term ballast water 

management approach. 

 This conclusion has prompted considerable research and investigations into other control 

options. Control options being investigated internationally include avoiding ballasting if water is 

likely to contain unwanted organisms (e.g., in areas of sewage discharge or high sediment loads) 

and shipboard and shore-based treatment of ballast water. Shore-based treatment of ballast may 

have some advantages, but centralized handling and treatment of such large volumes of water 

poses many economic and infrastructure challenges including, increased port congestion, lack of 

available land for treatment facilities, and delays in ship schedules. Although shipboard 

treatment also poses considerable challenges (e.g., space and energy limitations, shipboard 

safety), it currently provides the most flexibility in managing ballast water. 
Version 4.0 

Page xx September 2000 

 The diversity of potential introductions and the numerous environmental factors determining 

the fate of organisms discharged with ballast water make it difficult to predict what the next 

introduction will be or when and where it will occur (NRC 1996). To clarify the vulnerability of 

the Gulf of Mexico region, a better understanding is needed of (1) the nonindigenous species that 

have entered the Gulf region via ballast water and (2) each Gulf port’s potential to serve as a 

conduit for future invasions. To begin this process, one recent study has estimated ballast water 

discharges to five major Gulf of Mexico ports (Table ES7). In addition, Barrett-O’Leary (1999) 

has prepared a white paper detailing a process to assess the potential for nonindigenous species 

introduction through U.S. Gulf of Mexico ports, which considers the following factors: total 

tonnage and total export tonnage; types and proportions of transport vessels and cargos; trade 

partners; origin of ballast; natural environment and port water quality compared to water quality 

of trade partners; and location of known pests and foulants in port. 

Table ES7. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major Gulf of Mexico 

Ports 

Port Cargo 

(million tons) Type Vessel Ballast Water Exchange 

Houston 149 78% Tankers 3.7 million metric tons (1 billion gallons/yr) 

New Orleans 83 37% Tankers 

36% General Cargo 

21.8 million metric tons (5.8 billion gallons/yr) 

Gulfport 2.0 74% General Cargo 17.8 thousand metric tons (47 million gallons/yr) 

Mobile 50.8 70% Bulk Carriers 1.1 million metric tons (293 million gallons/yr) 

Tampa 51.3 52% Bulk Carriers 2.1 million metric tons (543 million gallons/yr) 

Source: Kumpf et al. (1999) 

 Detailed ballast water information is now being collected under the National Ballast Water 

Survey. This survey is being conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to evaluate the level of 

ship compliance with the voluntary at-sea exchange guidelines for foreign vessel arrivals. Upon 

entry into U.S. ports, foreign vessels are required to submit a ballast water reporting form 

indicating whether an exchange has been conducted, and the volume and location of exchange. 

All information reported on the ballast water reporting form is recorded in the National Ballast 

Water Information Clearinghouse (NBWIC), operated and maintained by the Smithsonian 

Environmental Research Center (SERC). This information, combined with assessments of 

individual Gulf-region port vulnerabilities and a solid understanding of the nonindigenous 

aquatic organisms and their active introduction pathways, should allow regional managers to 

better control the ballast water pathway. 

 Three ballast water workshops have been held in the Gulf of Mexico region. During each 

workshop, national and regional perspectives on ballast water were shared during presentations 

made by the ports, the shipping industry, environmental managers, and scientists. Workshop 

participants also shared their opinions on regional management of ballast water and provided 

suggestions for future actions. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 1 

 	

	

 	




 Human activities have and continue to introduce – both deliberately and accidentally – a 

large number of new species to the Gulf of Mexico region. Many such nonindigenous species 

are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors 

of our economy, offering recreational opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in 

our gardens. However, there is a harmful subset of these species – invasive species – that, when 

established as free-living populations beyond human control and confinement, can threaten the 

diversity of native species; the ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities 

dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. 

 This report focuses on just those invasive species that are obligated to live in a waterbody for 

part or all of their lives: aquatic invasive species. Of all aquatic taxa, this initial survey 

concentrates on fish, non-insect aquatic invertebrates, aquatic mammals, aquatic microbes, and 

aquatic and semi-aquatic plants; it does not consider aquatic birds or aquatic insects. 

 In order to adequately survey aquatic invasive species issues, including potential future 

aquatic invasive species issues, in the Gulf of Mexico region, the scope of this report covers: 

Invasive nonindigenous aquatic species (1) established in free-living populations, (2) in a 

captive or managed state in the Gulf of Mexico region, or (3) not yet introduced to the Gulf 

of Mexico region, but with an active introduction pathway. 

Indigenous aquatic species aggressively expanding their natural ranges or density in an area 

due to human activities (e.g., habitat alteration), to the detriment of other native species or 

ecosystems. 

Uncontrolled and unmonitored introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species, where there is 

no appropriate assessment of risks. 

 The large marine ecosystem that is the Gulf of Mexico contains two zoogeographic 

provinces, with tropical, subtropical, and temperate flora and fauna (Kumpf et al. 1999), shared 

among three countries, the U.S., Mexico, and Cuba. While Gulf-region managers must 

eventually consider this entire ecosystem and all three countries, this report focuses only on the 

U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The study area for this report includes the area 

within the political boundaries of the five Gulf States – Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and Texas – and waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the seaward boundary of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (Figure 1). 
Version 4.0 

Page 2 September 2000

Figure 1. Map of the Report Study Area: The Gulf of Mexico Region 


	



 Despite previous attempts at standardization, terminology used to describe invasive species 

issues has not been applied consistently (Nico and Fuller 1999), in either the peer-reviewed or 

gray literature. Key terms used in the report are defined as follows (also see Section 11.0 

Glossary): 

Aquatic Species 

All plants, animals, and microbes that are obligated to live in a freshwater, estuarine (i.e., tidallyinfluenced), or marine waterbody (including a freshwater or coastal wetland) during all or part of 

their lives (adapted from Benson 2000). 

Nonindigenous Species 

Any individual, group, or population of a species, or other viable biological material, that is 

intentionally or unintentionally moved by human activities, beyond its natural range or natural 

zone of potential dispersal, including moves from one continent or country into another and 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 3 

moves within a country or region; includes all domesticated and feral species, and all hybrids 

except for naturally occurring crosses between indigenous species. Introduced and non-native 

are synonyms for nonindigenous. 

Pathway 

The means by which a species enters an open ecosystem (adapted from McCann 1996). Vector 

is a synonym for pathway. 

Introduction 

The act of an organism being moved by either intentional and unintentional human-facilitated 

transference, including escape from confinement, to an area beyond its natural range or natural 

zone of potential dispersal. This definition does not include organisms imported and cultured in 

human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture or research facility, ornamental pond), unless 

it escapes. 

Established 

A species with one or more successfully reproducing or breeding (i.e., permanent) populations in 

an open ecosystem (i.e., outside of human control and confinement), which are unlikely to be 

eliminated by man or natural causes. Naturalized is a synonym for established. 

Invasive Species 

A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of 

impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural, commercial, or 

recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. Synonyms for invasive species 

include harmful species, injurious species, invader, noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and 

weed. 

Gulf of Mexico Region 

The Gulf of Mexico region includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf 

States – Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas – and waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

to the seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

 
	




 The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world, with a surface area of 

approximately 1.5 million square kilometers, over 200 estuaries, an extensive barrier island 

system, and 5 million acres of coastal wetlands – nearly one-half of the U.S. total coastal wetland 

acreage (Kumpf et al. 1999). The 33 major river systems that comprise the Gulf of Mexico’s 

U.S. watershed drain some 66 percent of the continental U.S. The Gulf of Mexico ecosystem 

provides one-third of all marine recreational fishing opportunities in the U.S., 72 percent of the 

U.S. shrimp harvest, and 66 percent of U.S. oyster production (Kumpf et al. 1999). It is a 

desirable place to live: population of the 50-mile-wide corridor along the entire Gulf coast is 

projected to increase by nearly 150 percent over the 50-year period ending in 2010 (Cato and 

Kumpf 1991). 
Version 4.0 

Page 4 September 2000

 The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) is a network of citizens dedicated to managing and 

protecting resources of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of 

the region (USEPA 1999). One goal of the GMP is to sustain living resources in the Gulf of 

Mexico. One mechanism to achieve this goal, the GMP will support implementation, by 2009, 

of voluntary or incentive-based practices and technologies that can prevent new introductions of 

invasive species, or reduce the impact or range of dispersal of known invasive species, as 

identified by the five Gulf States. By 2004, the GMP will assist each of the five Gulf States in 

developing a prevention, management, education, and monitoring plan to minimize introductions 

and impacts of invasive species. 

 To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP 

convened, beginning in 1997, a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While 

the Focus Team is a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is 

currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as a 

major introduction vector, and preventing new introductions of invasive species. The ISFT 

specifically assists the GMP by formulating technical characterizations, recommending annual 

program workplan goals, recommending priority projects, and developing a communication/ 

public education program to address Gulf-region invasive species issues. The ISFT has also 

committed to serving as a resource to Gulf States preparing invasive species management plans, 

in accordance with the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996. 

 In 1999, the GMP Management Committee was designated to serve as the Gulf of Mexico 

Regional Panel to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF). The Gulf 

Regional Panel provides the ANSTF with regional input on emerging invasive species issues, 

coordinates regional invasive species control programs, and develops recommendations on 

policy and program actions to be implemented at the national level. The Gulf Regional Panel is 

also responsible for submitting an annual report to the ANSTF describing invasive species 

management activities in the Gulf region. 

 To meet these program responsibilities in a coordinated manner, the ISFT has developed this 

report to: 

Compile background and technical information needed to generate the Gulf Regional Panel’s 

first (2000) Annual Report to the ANSTF; 

Begin compiling information that will assist the five Gulf States in developing aquatic 

components of their invasive species management plan(s); 

Generate a regional information and coordination resource for aquatic invasive species 

management and research activities, targeting the GMP’s broad group of stakeholders. 

The report is organized as follows: 

Section 2.0 provides an introduction to the aquatic invasive species issue. 

Section 3.0 provides a synthesis of aquatic species introduced to the Gulf of Mexico region, 

on a state-by-state basis (without regard to invasiveness). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 5 

Section 4.0 presents the results of a survey of aquatic invasive species management priorities 

in the five Gulf States. 

Section 5.0 provides an overview of shrimp viruses, an issue of Gulfwide importance. 

Section 6.0 provides an overview of ballast water as an introduction pathway, an issue of 

Gulfwide importance. 

Section 7.0 outlines the current invasive species management framework at federal, regional, 

and state levels in the Gulf region. 

Section 8.0 provides an inventory of recent major actions undertaken by regional 

stakeholders to address their aquatic invasive species issues. 

Section 9.0 provides an inventory of abstracts from recently completed and current scientific 

research on selected aquatic invasive species issues. It also provides broad guidance for 

further scientific research in the Gulf region. 

Section 10.0 provides specific recommendations for developing future versions of this 

document. 

Section 11.0 provides a glossary of terms used in this document. 

Section 12.0 provides bibliographic references. 

 In selected instances, this report incorporated recently published issue summaries to avoid 

duplication of effort. For example, descriptions of the shrimp virus sources and pathways in 

Section 5.2 were excerpted from JSA (1997). Similarly, descriptions of the federal-state 

management relationships in Section 7.4 and Appendices D, E, F, and G were adapted or 

excerpted from OTA (1993) and Corn et al. (1999). Now final, the Invasive Species Council 

report, National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge (the final version –

dated January 18, 2001 – is available at www.invasivespecies.gov), contains an extremely 

detailed description of the federal and international management framework for invasive species, 

and should serve as an excellent supplement to Section 7.0. 

 This report is current as of its completion date, September 2000. However, due to the highly 

dynamic nature of bioinvasions, new species introductions and management responses continue 

to occur. The ISFT intends this report to be a "living document," to be expanded and updated at 

the discretion of the ISFT. 
Version 4.0 

Page 6 September 2000

 	

 

				

 

 Humans have a long history of deliberately introducing terrestrial and aquatic species to new 

areas for agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, sport fishing, hunting, pets, and a host of 

other reasons. These nonindigenous species are greatly beneficial to society, providing much of 

the food we eat, sustaining significant sectors of our economy, offering recreational 

opportunities, and serving as pets in our homes and flora in our gardens. At the same time, 

human activities like travel, trade, and natural habitat alteration have caused many unplanned or 

accidental introductions of species to new areas. The contemporary massive transformation of 

the natural environment and worldwide transport of people and cargo now facilitate species 

introductions – both deliberate and accidental – at a rate that completely overshadows natural 

rates of species movement (OTA 1993), and makes large-scale range expansions across 

mountains and oceans common. For the purposes of this report, we focus on these humanfacilitated movements of species – both deliberate and accidental – to new areas: throughout this 

report such species are referred to as nonindigenous species. 

 For those nonindigenous species introduced to open ecosystems (i.e., outside of human 

control and confinement), only a portion will successfully establish one or more permanent, 

reproducing populations (Mack et al. 2000). These established nonindigenous species can be 

categorized by their impacts – ecologic and economic – in the new ecosystem: beneficial, 

harmful, unknown, or neutral (although, in many cases, impacts are a mix of beneficial and 

harmful) (OTA 1993). Many intentionally established nonindigenous species provide great 

benefit; see the sidebar “The Many Benefits of Nonindigenous Species Introduced to the U.S.”

on Page 7. However, a small number of established nonindigenous species both intentionally 

and unintentionally introduced result in serious threats to the diversity or abundance of native 

species; the ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, 

aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. 

The impacts of these few species is considerable; one study estimates that the overall economic 

impact of harmful nonindigenous species is a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et 

al. 1999). This report purposefully focuses on the small number of nonindigenous species that 

are harmful, or potentially harmful (i.e., those with unknown impacts), and does not further 

discuss beneficial nonindigenous species. Throughout this report, the term invasive species is 

used to denote those nonindigenous species with any form of harmful impact in open 

ecosystems. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 7 

The Many Benefits of Nonindigenous Species Introduced to the U.S. 

Excerpted from OTA (1993). 

 Almost all economically important crops and livestock in the U.S. are nonindigenous species. Nonindigenous 

plants have a similarly important role in horticulture and include such familiar mainstays as iris (Iris spp.), forsythia 

(Forsythia spp.), and weeping willow (Salix spp.). Many plants used to prevent erosion are also nonindigenous, 

such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.). Importation of new species and strains 

continues for the development of new varieties for agriculture, horticulture, and soil conservation. Nonindigenous 

insects also have important functions in agriculture. The European honey bee (Apis mellifera) forms the basis for 

the U.S. agriculture industry, providing bees to pollinate orchards and many other agricultural crops. 

 Nonindigenous organisms of many types have beneficial uses as biological control agents, frequently for 

control of nonindigenous pests. Insects and pathogens of plants and animals are most commonly used for control of 

weeds and insect pests. For example, a rust fungus (Puccinia chondrillina) was successfully introduced into 

California to control skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) in 1975. Fish have been introduced in some places to 

control aquatic weeds, mosquitoes, gnats, and midges. Some consider the introduction of barn owls (Tyto alba) to 

Hawaii to control mice and rats a success, although the use of land-dwelling vertebrates for biological control has 

generally caused great environmental damage. 

 A number of fish and shellfish cultured in the growing aquaculture industry are nonindigenous. Virtually the 

entire West Coast oyster industry is based on the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), originally from Japan. Fish 

species of tilapia, from Africa and the Middle East, are now commonly grown throughout the U.S., and shrimp 

farmers in southeastern and other regions of the country commonly raise Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus 

vannamei), a shrimp originally from Asia. 

 Sport fishing often means fishing for nonindigenous fish. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), striped 

bass (Morone saxatilis), and varieties of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), although indigenous to the U.S., 

have been widely introduced beyond their natural ranges for fisheries enhancement. A frequently stocked sport fish, 

the brown trout (Salmo trutta), originated in Europe. The Great Lakes salmon fishery is based on species 

indigenous to the Pacific coast of North America. Additional fish have been introduced to provide forage for game 

fish. Sport fishing not only provides recreational opportunities, but also stimulates the development of related 

businesses, such as boat rentals, charter fishing, and sales of fishing equipment and supplies. 

 Some of the most widely hunted game species, such as the chukar partridge (Alecloris chuckar) and ring-necked 

pheasant (Phasianus colchieus), originated outside of the U.S. Sizable businesses exist to provide supplies and 

services for recreational hunting. Some nonindigenous big-game animals, like Sika deer (Cervus nippon) from Asia, 

and South African oryx (Oryx gazella gazella), are grown on private ranches for hunting, and also to satisfy the 

growing market for "exotic" game meats. Nonindigenous fur-bearing animals support both the trapping industry 

and fur-bearer farms. 

 Most pet and aquarium industries are based on domesticated and other nonindigenous species, including cats, 

dogs, hamsters, goldfish, snakes, turtles, and chameleons. These animals are valued by owners for companionship, 

protection, and recreation. A number of nonindigenous animals, such as the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), 

are used in biomedical fields for experimental work or testing. 

 Restoration of habitats degraded by pollution, mining, and other human disruptions sometimes includes planting 

stress-tolerant nonindigenous species. Several trees, like the ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) from China, are common in 

urban landscaping, where few indigenous species can grow. Some nonindigenous sport fish serve a similar role in 

reservoirs and other artificial habitats less hospitable to indigenous species. Efforts to remedy environmental 

contamination from oil or other substances sometimes involve the release of nonindigenous microbes that accelerate 

contaminant degradation. Certain microbes help make nutrients available to plants through nitrogen fixation. These 

microbes also have been widely transferred and released around the world. 

 Paradoxically, nonindigenous species introductions are increasingly seen by some conservationists as a means 

to preserve certain endangered and threatened species that cannot be saved in their native habitats. Some 

conservationists have even suggested that introduction of large ungulates from Africa onto the American plains may 

be some species' best chance at survival. 
Version 4.0 

Page 8 September 2000

Invasive Species: A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the 

ecological stability of impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, 

aquacultural, commercial, or recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human 

health. Synonyms for invasive species include harmful species, injurious species, invader, 

noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and weed. 

 It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous species 

introductions to an open ecosystem, as these introductions form the “pool” of established 

nonindigenous species from which a few harmful invasive species arise. The remainder of 

Section 2.0 begins to explore these issues for the U.S., and Section 3.0 begins to explore these 

issues for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

 

 !



"




#

$
	
 !

"




#

 Researchers have documented a great increase in the number of nonindigenous aquatic 

species in the U.S. over the past 100 years (Benson 2000). Benson (2000) has inventoried 334 

exotic aquatic amphibian, bryozoan, coelenterate, crustacean, fish, mammal, mollusk, plant, and 

reptile species introduced into the U.S., and 428 similar species transplanted within the U.S. 

(Table 1). Researchers predict that the effects of nonindigenous fishes on aquatic biodiversity 

will probably increase during the next 25 years because of the great increase in introduced fishes 

over the past 45 years (Fuller et al. 1999, Williams and Meffe 1999). Ruiz et al. (1997) contends 

that nonindigenous species are a significant force of change in marine and estuarine 

communities, fundamentally altering population, community, and ecosystem processes. Even 

though the number of fishes introduced to estuarine and marine systems worldwide appears to be 

small compared to the number in freshwater systems (Baltz 1991), Cohen and Carlton (1998) 

found an accelerating rate of aquatic invasions in the San Francisco Bay estuary. 

%	
 !

"




#

 Introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species can be organized into two categories, based 

on where the species originates. The first is species having origins outside of the U.S. that enter 

the country, becoming established either under human cultivation (e.g., agriculture, horticulture, 

pets, etc.) or as independent, free-living populations. These species are defined as foreign or 

exotic species. The second category, defined as transplanted species, is a species having origins 

within the U.S. that is moved to an area beyond its native range. 

 At least one-half of all nonindigenous aquatic amphibians, crustaceans, fishes, mollusks, and 

reptiles introduced into U.S. waters, and more than 80 percent of the introduced aquatic plant 

species, are exotic (Table 1) (Benson 2000). Species from all taxonomic groups have come to 

the U.S. from South America, Central America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, the Caribbean, 

the South Pacific, and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Benson 2000). South America is the 

origin for the greatest number of U.S. nonindigenous aquatic species with 22 percent, followed 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 9 

by Asia with 20 percent, Eurasia with 16 percent, Europe with 13 percent, Africa with 12 

percent, Central America with 6 percent, and Australia with 2 percent (Benson 2000). 

Table 1. Numbers of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced into the U.S. 

Foreign to the U.S. Native to the U.S. 

Amphibians 13 24 

Bryozoans 1 2 

Coelenterates 4 1 

Crustaceans 15 15 

Fishes 176 331 

Mammals 1 0 

Molluscs 29 7 

Plants 74 15 

Reptiles 21 33 

 Source: Benson (2000) 

 Determining the origin of some aquatic species becomes more problematic in estuarine and 

marine environments. It is assumed that centuries of ship traffic have brought numerous marine 

organisms (e.g., fouling and wood-boring invertebrates) to the U.S. and the Gulf region. Such 

species, established before the first surveys of marine taxa, are traditionally considered native, 

but there is little evidence whether they are native or introduced (Carlton and Ruckelshaus 1997). 

Until paleontological, archaeological, historical, biogegraphic, systematic, or genetic evidence is 

available to further classify these organisms, they remain cryptogenic (i.e., a species whose 

status as indigenous or nonindigenous is not resolved) (Carlton and Ruckelshaus 1997). 


&
	
 !

"



#

 A pathway, or vector, is the means by which a species enters an open ecosystem. 

Introduction pathways can be divided into three categories: unintentional, intentional, and escape 

from confinement (Williams and Meffe 1999). As a generalization, most plant and vertebrate 

animal introductions have been intentional, whereas most invertebrate and microbe introductions 

have been unintentional (Pimentel et al. 1999). Table 2 presents the principal pathways for 

aquatic species introductions categorized by this scheme. These pathways are described in more 

detail in Appendix A. 

 It should be recognized that many species have been intentionally introduced for beneficial 

reasons (e.g., increasing recreational fishing opportunities), only to later realize serious 

ecological and economic repercussions. Some infamous examples are grass carp 

(Ctenopharyngodon idella), introduced for aquatic weed control, kudzu (Pueraria montana), 

introduced for erosion control, and Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), highly touted in 

Texas as fast growing shade trees during the 1970s (Stickney 2001). There are several such 

recreational fish species for which federal and state agencies established aggressive hatchery and 

distribution programs. 
Version 4.0 

Page 10 September 2000

Table 2. Principal Pathways of Introduction for Aquatic Species 

Pathway Category Pathway of Introduction 

Unintentional 

x Transported Commodities 

x Vessels: Dry Ballast, Ballast Water, and Hull Fouling 

x Boat Trailers 

x Recreational Activities 

x Habitat Alteration / Canals 

x Interbasin Transfers of Water 

x Nontarget Species / Stock Contamination 

x Unknown 

Intentional 

x Agriculture, Horticulture, and Soil Conservation 

x Recreational Sport Fishing / Forage Species 

x Bait Bucket Releases 

x New Food Sources 

x Intentional Aquarium and Pet Releases 

x Biological Control 

x Species Conservation 

x Unknown 

Escape from Confinement 

x Horticulture 

x Ornamental Pond and Pet Escapes 

x Aquaculture and Fish Farms 

x Imported Live Food 

x Research / Public Display 

'

(

	
 !



 Of all nonindigenous species introductions (terrestrial and aquatic) – both intentional and 

unintentional – only a subset persist and successfully reproduce (i.e., become established) in the 

new ecosystem (Mack et al. 2000). From the 50,000 terrestrial and aquatic nonindigenous 

species estimated by Pimentel et al. (1999) to have been introduced to the U.S., Williams and 

Meffe (1999) estimate that there are some 6,500 species of nonindigenous plants, animals, and 

microbes with established populations. Another study indicates that five to ten percent of 

introduced species (terrestrial and aquatic) become established, and two to three percent are able 

to expand their ranges (di Castri 1989). Nico and Fuller (1999) estimate that 38 percent of 185 

exotic fish taxa introduced to U.S. inland waters have established or possibly established 

populations. 

")
)

	'

(

 !



 Only a subset of established nonindigenous species becomes invasive (Mack et al. 2000), 

although the impacts of many established nonindigenous species are a mix of beneficial and 

harmful, or remain unknown. Williams and Meffe (1999) estimate that, of the 6,500 established 

nonindigenous taxa (terrestrial and aquatic) in the U.S., about 15 percent are ecologically or 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 11 

economically harmful. OTA (1993) estimates a range from 4 to 19 percent of nonindigenous 

terrestrial and aquatic species in the U.S. are harmful. Another study indicates that two to three 

percent of nonindigenous terrestrial and aquatic species expand their ranges (di Castri 1989). In 

Florida, 5 of the state’s 20 established nonindigenous aquatic plant species are considered 

invasive (McCann et al. 1996). 

 Table 3 presents the number of nonindigenous aquatic species introduced to the U.S. by 

pathway. As indicated in Table 3, a wide variety of pathways facilitate introductions of 

nonindigenous fishes. A common pathway for a large number of species across varied aquatic 

taxa is aquarium and pet releases. As expected, the pathway of introduction remains unknown 

for a large number of species. Ruiz et al. (1997) contend that the global movement of ballast 

water currently appears to be the largest single vector for nonindigenous species transfer. 

Table 3. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the U.S. by Introduction Pathway 

Pathway Amphibians Bryozoans Coelenterates Crustaceans Fishes Mammals Molluscs Reptiles 

Unintentional 

Shipping 0 0 0 2 53 1 2 1 

Ballast Water 0 0 4 5 7 0 3 0 

Stock Contamination 2 0 0 1 31 0 1 0 

Unknown 12 1 0 1 15 0 15 12 

Intentional 

Sportfishing 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 

Forage Species 0 0 0 1 47 0 0 0 

Bait Bucket Releases 3 0 0 7 84 0 0 0 

New Food Sources 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 2 

Stocked 7 0 0 4 21 0 2 6 

Aquarium and Pets 22 2 2 1 81 0 9 44 

Biological Control 6 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 

Conservation 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 

Unknown 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 

Escape from Confinement 

Ornamental 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 

Imported Live Food 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 

Aquaculture / Farms 0 0 0 2 54 1 1 0 

Source: Adapted from Benson (2000) 

 It is important to realize that an established nonindigenous species can remain relatively 

contained for long periods of time, only later becoming invasive. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum 

salicaria) existed at low population levels and in a limited geographic area for decades before 

greatly expanding its range and becoming a widely recognized invasive species (Williams and 
Version 4.0 

Page 12 September 2000

Meffe 1999). In other cases, the harmful effects of an established nonindigenous species can 

remain undetected for extended period (OTA 1993). Other nonindigenous species become 

problems only after an associated nonindigenous species is introduced (e.g., a plant’s pollinator 

insect) (OTA 1993). 

 The impacts of a nonindigenous aquatic species can also be unknown (and therefore 

potentially invasive). For example in aquatic environments, of 111 fishes introduced in the U.S., 

28 percent were found to have harmful effects, 30 percent to have beneficial effects, 17 percent 

both harmful and beneficial effects, and 25 percent unknown effects (OTA 1993). Of 88 

mollusks analyzed in the same study, 44 percent were found to have harmful effects, 3 percent 

beneficial effects, and 53 percent unknown effects (OTA 1993). Steirer (1992) contends that 

most intentional aquatic introductions result in a mix of benefits and detriments, but no 

unintentional aquatic introductions have been considered beneficial. 

 Williams and Meffe (1999) have summarized the characteristics of invasive species and 

ecosystems subject to invasion (Tables 4a and 4b). Note, however, that the predictability of 

invasions remains limited in spite of well-established patterns of invasion (OTA 1993, Howells 

1999). 

Table 4a. Generalized Characteristics of Successful Invasive Species 

x High rate of reproduction; pioneer species; short generation time 

x Long-lived 

x High dispersal rates 

x Single-parent reproduction (for example, a gravid or pregnant female can colonize) 

x Vegetative or clonal reproduction 

x High genetic variability 

x Phenotypic plasticity 

x Broad native range 

x Tolerant of wide range of conditions 

x Habitat generalist 

x Broad diet (polyphagous) 

x Gregarious 

x Human commensal 

Table 4b. Generalized Characteristics of Communities More Likely to be Invaded 

x Climatically similar to original habitat of invader 

x Early successional (recently disturbed) 

x Low diversity of native species 

x Absence of predators on invading species 

x Absence of native species morphologically (form or structure) or ecologically similar to the invader 

x Absence of predators or grazers in evolutionary history (naïve prey) 

x Absence of fire in evolutionary history 

x Low-connectance food web 

x Disturbed by humans 

Source: Williams and Meffe (1999) 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 13 

* "

	 !
")
)


 Invasive species are one of six major components of global environmental change, and a 

significant contributor to the loss of biological diversity (Vitousek et al. 1996, Mack et al. 2000). 

While only a small number of all nonindigenous species introductions cause severe harm, such 

invasive species occur in almost all regions of the U.S. (OTA 1993). The major ecological 

impacts of invasive species are (1) outright loss of native species or decline in abundance of 

native species due to competition for food and space, predation, and habitat alteration; (2) 

changes in ecosystem structure and function, such as nutrient cycling and hydrology; (3) 

rearrangement of trophic relations; or (4) the introduction of virulent plant and animal diseases 

and parasites (Williams and Meffe 1999, Benson 2000, Mack et al. 2000). For example, two 

invasive fish species, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) and common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), consume large quantities of aquatic vegetation, increase water turbidity, and generally 

destroy habitat for smaller fishes (Moyle et al. 1986). Genetic effects also occur through 

hybridization and interbreeding with native species (Mills et al. 1994). 

 Plants form the biological foundation of all terrestrial and freshwater communities, and 

invasive plant species can alter an ecosystem substantially, changing productivity, consumption, 

decomposition, water fluxes, nutrient cycling and loss, soil fertility, erosion, and frequency of 

fire (Schmitz et al. 1997). Invasive semi-aquatic trees such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus 

terebinthifolius) and Australian paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) often form dense, single 

species stands, and constitute a serious threat to open marshlands and coastal shrub and strand 

communities of the Gulf of Mexico region (Cox 1999). In addition, chemicals from invasive 

organisms can adversely impact ecosystems. For example, various tannins and phenols in 

decaying leaves of the highly invasive Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) are reported to be 

toxic to many aquatic invertebrates (Cox 1999). 

 Invasive species – both terrestrial and aquatic – can affect endangered and threatened species. 

Williams and Meffe (1999) report that invasive species contribute, at least in part, to the 

inclusion of about 315 U.S. native species and subspecies on federal endangered and threatened 

species lists. Of 30 extinct fishes in the U.S., invasive species were a factor in the extinction of 

24 (Williams and Meffe 1999). Within rivers and lakes of Alabama (a Gulf state with a 

relatively large number of endemic freshwater invertebrates), 65 percent of gill-breathing snails 

and 69 percent of mussels are considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Minton 

2000). It is feared that zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), now established in northern 

Alabama, might invade Alabama’s waters, displacing many of these endangered and threatened 

species (Minton 2000). Even seemingly insignificant species like the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) 

or mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) have threatened native fishes and been implicated in the 

extinction of others (Howells 1999). Impacts on other species also can be indirect: the spread of 

horsetail Australian pines (Casuarina equisetifolia) on sandy coasts and barrier islands has 

altered the beach profile, hampering the ability of endangered loggerhead and green sea turtles to 

nest (Cox 1999, Williams and Meffe 1999). 

 Aquatic species introductions have both adversely and positively impacted local, regional, 

and national economies. Sport fishing, greatly enhanced by introductions of nonindigenous 

species, contributes $69 billion annually to the U.S. economy. However, accounting for only 
Version 4.0 

Page 14 September 2000

selected adverse ecological effects, one study estimates overall economic losses due to invasive 

fish introductions at more than $1 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). This same study 

estimates that the overall economic impact of nonindigenous species has been negative, 

contributing to a loss of more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). Within the 

aquatic environment, the highly invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is expected to 

cost the power industry more than $3 billion during the ten year period ending in 2003 (OTA 

1993). It is estimated that $100 million is spent annually to control aquatic weeds in the U.S. 

(OTA 1993). Florida alone spends about $15.5 million each year on hydrilla (Hydrilla 

verticillata) control, yet infestations have caused an estimated $10 million in annual recreational 

losses in just two Florida lakes (Center et al. 1997). 

 Adverse effects of introductions are not relegated to ecological and economic impacts: 

aquatic invasive species also have the potential to impact human health. For example, the 

Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), a significant problem in South Florida, produces 

allergens that cause contact dermatitis and respiratory problems in many people (Williams and 

Meffe 1999). An issue of Gulfwide concern is the introduction of aquatic invasive species 

through ballast water exchange. While the population did not proliferate, an exotic strain of 

Vibrio cholerae, the bacteria that causes cholera, was introduced to Mobile Bay in 1991 by 

ballast water exchange (McCarthy, pers. comm.). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses 

through ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains 

virtually unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000). 

 History has demonstrated that those species with impacts to industry, commerce, and human 

health are the first to receive political attention, while species causing only ecological impacts 

remain unaddressed due to lack of financial incentives (OTA 1993). For example, water 

hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) are aquatic plants that 

significantly altered native ecosystems, but gained greater political visibility by being nuisances 

for recreational boaters and fishers (Benson 2000). 

+ 
$

	 !



 Once a nonindigenous aquatic species becomes established, eradication is almost impossible 

in large aquatic ecosystems (Howells 1999, Benson 2000, Mack et al. 2000). Usually managers 

can only hope to control populations at economically or ecologically acceptable levels. 

However, recent history has demonstrated that control efforts can be enormously expensive, 

technologically impossible, harmful to nontarget species, and politically controversial 

(Simberloff 1997b, Devine 1998, Cox 1999). 

 Control is usually site-specific, and several methods are usually necessary (Benson 2000). 

Management and control should follow an integrated plan with the following components: 

prevention, assessment, site specific management, evaluation, monitoring, and education 

(Madsen 1997). National control programs exist for several aquatic species; for example, three 

aquatic plants currently in the U.S. Army’s Corps of Engineer’s Aquatic Plant Control Program 

are hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), and Eurasian 

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) (Madsen 1997). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 15 

 Invasive species control techniques can be categorized as either biological or nonbiological. 

Biological control is accomplished through the introduction of natural predators, diseases, or 

parasites that help keep the nuisance species in balance with its new environment (Benson 2000). 

Host-specificity between the pest and the biological control agent is necessary for effective 

biological control (Center et al. 1997). Several invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth, 

hydrilla, alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) have 

been successfully controlled with introduced insects (Center et al. 1997). So far, though, 

researchers are having little success finding effective natural predators of other species, such as 

zebra mussels (Benson 2000). 

 Nonbiological control techniques can be categorized as either chemical or physical. 

Chemical control utilizes pesticides and herbicides to kill target organisms. In recent years fewer 

chemicals are available for aquatic use due to adverse effects on human health, aquatic 

ecosystems, and wildlife resources; there are currently six U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA)-approved herbicides for aquatic use (Madsen 1997). Physical techniques used 

to remove nonindigenous aquatic plants include hand-pulling, cutting, suction, rotovating, 

dredging, use of benthic barriers, light attenuation, and nutrient inactivation (Madsen 1997). 

Mechanical conveyors have long been used in South Florida to physically remove water 

hyacinth, one technique in an integrated control plan. Physical techniques used to control the 

zebra mussel include thermal, acoustic vibration, electrical current, filters and screens, coatings, 

toxic constructed piping, carbon dioxide injection, ultraviolet light, ozone, and anoxia/hypoxia 

(Benson 2000). 

 Control and management efforts should be an integral part of a comprehensive ecosystems 

restoration program. For example, a restoration project was undertaken at Hole-in-theDoughnut, Everglades National Park, beginning in the 1970s. After several limited-success 

efforts to control invading Brazilian pepper trees using fire and herbicides, the removal of “rockplowed soils” returned the area to a more natural state and significantly reduced Brazilian pepper 

infestations (Randall et al. 1997). 

 The need to address the adverse consequences of invasive species was officially recognized 

almost a century ago: the first legislation aimed at controlling unwanted introductions was the 

Lacey Act, passed in 1900. However, some researchers feel that current federal laws address 

only specific incidents and provide a remedy for only a small fraction of the invasive species 

problems (Williams and Meffe 1999). Even though southern Florida has been subject to 

relatively intense management for at least a decade, invasive species are currently invading every 

major ecosystem and converting large areas of natural ecosystems into new ecosystem types 

dominated by these new species (Cox 1999). Universally it is recognized that the prevention of 

new introductions of invasive species, and the immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive 

species, is the most effective, and cost effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al. 

2000). 
Version 4.0 

Page 16 September 2000

 
			

		 

 It is important to understand the magnitude, origins, and pathways of nonindigenous species 

introductions to an open ecosystem, as these introductions create the “pool” of established 

nonindigenous species from which harmful invasive species arise. Section 3.0 begins to explore 

these issues for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

* !

"




,		$-



"	

 



 !

"




,		$-



 While datasets suitable for assessing nonindigenous aquatic species introductions are 

currently rare for the U.S. (Cohen and Carlton 1998), documentation of these species and their 

impacts is increasing rapidly as the adverse effects of invasive species become better recognized 

and appreciated. Several descriptions of the occurrence and status of nonindigenous aquatic 

species in Florida have been published (McCann et al. 1996, Simberloff et al. 1997, Goodyear 

2000), but similar descriptions for other Gulf States and the Gulf of Mexico region as a whole 

are less frequent. 

 There are several existing and planned online resources. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) maintains an Internet-accessible database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov) of nonindigenous 

aquatic species that is searchable by state or by drainage (USGS 2000; see Fuller et al. 1999 and 

Benson 2000 for summaries of this dataset). The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains an extensive Internet-accessible database of 

plants that includes a searchable list of invasive species (USDA 1999). Both the USGS and 

NRCS websites provide access to digital distribution maps for selected species. The Center for 

Aquatic and Invasive Plants at the University of Florida maintains a descriptive online inventory 

of Florida’s invasive aquatic plant species (CAIP 2000). The GMP recently partnered with the 

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Museum to develop a detailed online database of nonindigenous 

species (terrestrial and aquatic) in the Gulf of Mexico region (USM 2000). 

$
	 !

"




,		$-

 Within the U.S., Florida and the Gulf Lowlands are second only to Hawaii in magnitude of 

nonindigenous species introductions (Cox 1999). The subtropical environment and abundant 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 17 

aquatic habitats of the five Gulf States is naturally hospitable to nonindigenous aquatic species 

(Devine 1998, Cox 1999). 

 In 1990, 19 nonindigenous aquatic plant species were reported in Florida's public waters, 

placing Florida behind only Hawaii and perhaps California (McCann et al. 1996). Fuller et al. 

(1999) reported the number of nonindigenous fish species introduced into inland waters of 

Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as 122, 53, 23, 28, and 105, respectively; at 

that time, the U.S. 50-state average was approximately 57 introductions per state. Table 5 

presents a recent inventory of nonindigenous aquatic species introduced in the five Gulf States. 

These studies indicate that the total number of aquatic species introductions to Florida and Texas 

is nearly 2-3 times the U.S. 50-state average. See Section 3.2 for an updated inventory of 

nonindigenous aquatic species (including microbes, invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants) in the 

Gulf of Mexico region. 

Table 5. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Introduced to each Gulf State Compared to the U.S. 50 

State Average 

State Amphib

-ians 

Bryozoans Coelenterates Crustaceans Fishes Mammals Molluscs Plants Reptiles TOTAL 

AL 0 0 0 2 53 1 2 17 1 76 

FL 13 0 0 3 123 1 9 60 16 225 

LA 2 0 0 2 28 1 2 25 0 60 

MS 0 0 0 2 23 1 2 10 0 38 

TX 4 0 0 2 107 1 7 21 3 145 

AVG. 1.5 0.1 0.3 2.6 59 0.4 3.3 8.7 1.8 ~ 78 

Source: Benson (2000) 

 Courtenay (1997) did not report any established nonindigenous marine fishes in Florida, 

noting that the complex life histories of these fishes may preclude colonization. However, 

several marine fishes, all released from aquariums, survive on coral reefs in Florida (Fuller, pers. 

comm.). For example, two orbiculate batfish (Platax orbicularus), a species from Indonesia, 

were collected from the Florida Keys; it was determined that these fish have resided here since 

1994, and perhaps since1989 (Fuller, pers. comm.). Some nonindigenous freshwater species 

established in Florida, such as blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron), have high salinity 

tolerance and have been reported in brackish waters (Baltz 1991). While numerous estuarine and 

marine invertebrates are established in the Gulf of Mexico region, there are no systematic studies 

of nonindigenous estuarine and marine invertebrates or plants in Florida waters (Carlton and 

Ruckelshaus 1997), or for the Gulf region. 

 Florida’s rapidly expanding population has increased demand for development and water 

supplies, thus altering most of the natural ecosystems of southern Florida (McCann et al. 1996). 

These trends exist for the other four Gulf States, especially coastal areas. As a result, disturbed 

areas – urban, suburban, and rural – are now ideal sites for the establishment of nonindigenous 

plants and animals (McCann et al. 1996). Cox (1999) estimates that 27 percent of Florida's 
Version 4.0 

Page 18 September 2000

current flora is nonindigenous. South Florida has proven particularly vulnerable to invasive 

species due to its insularity, tropical climate, and large area of disturbed habitat (Simberloff 

1997a, Devine 1998). For example, in 1992, the South Florida Water Management District 

estimated that 26,000 acres were covered with stands of the Australian paperbark (Melaleuca 

quinquenervia). Today this highly invasive tree infects more than 500,000 acres of Florida south 

of Lake Okechobee (Cox 1999). 


&
	"



,		$-

 The Gulf of Mexico region is vulnerable to aquatic species introductions due to the 

magnitude and variety of viable pathways created by, for example: 

Large numbers of people, vessels, and airplanes, and large volumes of cargo, coming through 

multiple large-scale, international ports and airports. 

Year-round, cross-state recreational boating, fishing, and other aquatic recreational activities. 

Due to the warm climate and proximity to tropical areas, numerous industries import, breed, 

grow-out, and warehouse a large variety of nonindigenous aquatic species. 

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi River, which provide the 5 Gulf states with 

an aquatic connection to more than half of the 48 states in the continental U.S. In addition, 

the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway established a direct aquatic link between the Tennessee 

River and the Gulf of Mexico. 

 Nonindigenous fish have entered Gulf-region waters through a variety of pathways, including 

ballast water, bait bucket transfers, discarded aquarium pets, biocontrol efforts, sportfish 

stocking and stock contamination, aquaculture escapes, and stocking for food (Benson 2000) (see 

Appendix A for descriptions of these pathways). Pike killifish (Belonesox belizanus) were 

released in Florida after laboratory experiments at the University of Miami (Fuller, pers. comm.). 

Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate Florida’s unique distribution of introduction pathways and species’

origin for fish, relative to the U.S. A reason for at least part of these unique distributions is 

related to the zoogeography of Florida. The nonindigenous fish base of most states consists 

primarily of transplanted species, not foreign species, while Florida either already has many of 

these transplanted species as natives or has an unsuitable climate or habitats for them (e.g., 

salmonids) (Hill 2001). 

 A pathway of concern in Alabama is the introduction of aquatic invasive species through 

ballast water exchange (Minton 2000). While the population did not proliferate, strong evidence 

indicates that Vibrio cholera, the bacteria that causes cholera, was most probably introduced to 

Mobile Bay by ballast water exchange in 1991 (Minton 2000). Awareness of the significance of 

this pathway is greatly increasing throughout the Gulf region, and the ballast water pathway is a 

Gulfwide issue currently being addressed by the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team. 

 One pathway of special concern in the State of Texas is interbasin transfers of water 

(McKinney 2000). With water development infrastructure being constructed throughout Texas, 

the potential for rapid transfers of biota between river basins, and thus coastal bays, is increasing. 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recently commissioned a study in an area where 

interbasin transfers will be likely, and found that risks were low for higher aquatic taxa (e.g., 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 19 

fish), but moderate for microbes and other lower taxa (McKinney 2000). This potential pathway 

exists in other parts of the Gulf of Mexico region, for example with the Tri-State Water Project 

for Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. 

Figure 2. Pathways of Fish Species Introductions in the U.S. and Florida 

Source: P.L. Fuller and L.G. Nico, USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, FL, from the South Florida 

Restoration Forum website (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/species/invasive/focus/). 

Figure 3. Origin of Introduced Fish Species in the U.S. and Florida 

Source: P.L. Fuller and L.G. Nico, USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, FL, from the South Florida 

Restoration Forum website (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/rooms/species/invasive/focus/). 

* ")
	
 !




,		$-

 An Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region of 

nonindigenous aquatic species occurrences in the five Gulf states was prepared for this report 

(Appendix B). This initial version of the inventory focuses on aquatic microbes, non-insect 

aquatic invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, aquatic mammals, algae, aquatic 

U.S. Florida 

U.S. Florida 
Version 4.0 

Page 20 September 2000

plants, and semi-aquatic plants; it does not inventory aquatic birds and aquatic insects, or any 

terrestrial species, in the Gulf region. The inventory compiles reports of nonindigenous aquatic 

species that occur or have occurred in all freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments in the 

Gulf of Mexico region, by Gulf State (note that an empty cell in the inventory does not 

necessarily mean that the species in question is not present in a given state). Information sources 

for each entry in the inventory are provided in the “Info Source” column in Appendix B. 

 Information for the inventory was gathered via Internet-based and other databases, and 

interviews with several Gulf-region experts (a primary information source was the USGS 

database described at the beginning of Section 3.1). The inventory is summarized in Tables 6, 7, 

8, and 9. 

Table 6. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Microbes Occurring (or Having Occurred at Least Once) in the 

Five Gulf States 

State Shrimp Viruses Bacteria Protozoa Fungi TOTAL 

AL * 1 2 * 3 

FL 1 2 7 * 10 

LA * * 2 * 2 

MS * * 2 * 2 

TX 3 1 1 * 5 

* = None. 

Table 7. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Invertebrates (Non-Insect) Occurring in the Five Gulf States 

State Tunicates 

Bryozoans Sponges Coelenterates Flatworms Roundworms Seg. 

Worms 

Mollusks Crustaceans TOTAL 

AL * * * 1 * * * 3 3 7 

FL 3 6 * 2 7 2 2 19 23 64 

LA * * * * * * * 3 5 8 

MS * * * 1 * * * 2 2 5 

TX 1 * * * * 1 * 9 5 16 

* = None. 

Table 8. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Vertebrates Occurring in the Five Gulf States 

State Fishes Amphibians Reptiles Mammals TOTAL 

AL 51 * 1 1 53 

FL 117 13 18 1 149 

LA 27 2 * 1 30 

MS 22 * * 1 23 

TX 98 4 3 1 106 

* = None. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 21 

Table 9. Number of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants Occurring in the Five Gulf States 

State Algae Aquatic Vascular Plants Semi-Aq. Vascular Plants TOTAL 

AL 1 25 6 32 

FL 2 45 23 70 

LA 1 34 10 45 

MS 1 25 7 33 

TX 2 30 12 41 

	

	


 In general, there is adequate information available about the occurrence of nonindigenous 

aquatic invertebrates (excluding insects) and vertebrates in the Gulf of Mexico region. Likewise, 

there is abundant information available for nonindigenous aquatic plants, with many 

government, university, and private websites listing, describing, and picturing species. 

 The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database, a primary information source for the 

Inventory, tracks the spatial and temporal distribution of all introduced aquatic organisms. This 

includes introductions of species from foreign countries as well as native species transplanted 

outside of their native range in the U.S. The database tracks all incidents of introductions, 

whether or not the introduction results in an established population. This allows for a better 

understanding of pathways, source regions, and spatial patterns of introductions. The majority of 

the data in the database is derived from published, peer-reviewed literature, but also includes 

reports from state and federal natural resource agencies and personal communications from 

knowledgeable field biologists. 

 It appears that much less effort has been expended to identify nonindigenous microbes 

occurring in the Gulf of Mexico region, probably due to the complexity of the task. As there are 

few Internet-based sources of information on the occurrence of nonindigenous microbes in the 

Gulf of Mexico region, the species included in the Inventory were compiled through the 

volunteer efforts of a number of regional microbiology experts. It is important to highlight 

several notes about these species. 

 According to Carol Shieh, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration virologist at the Gulf Coast 

Seafood Laboratory, little effort has been spent researching nonindigenous aquatic viruses; the 

obvious exceptions are the three nonindigenous shrimp viruses identified in the Gulf-region 

(Shieh, pers. comm.). Two bacteria with nonindigenous strains in the Gulf of Mexico region 

have been studied. There is a toxigenic strain of Vibrio cholerae that is indigenous to the Gulf of 

Mexico region. However, the epidemic strain, V. cholerae, serotype Inaba, biotype El Tor, is 

exotic, and was introduced in ballast water (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Similarly, Vibrio 

parahaemolyticus occurs ubiquitously. However, the O3:K6 serotype that caused the Texas and 
Version 4.0 

Page 22 September 2000

New York outbreaks is probably exotic since it was never reported in the U.S. before (McCarthy, 

pers. comm.). It has proven difficult to keep track of this strain because it undergoes frequent 

genetic changes (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Many terrestrial fungi are capable of living in aquatic 

environments and, as a generality, it is difficult to determine which fungi species are 

nonindigenous (McCarthy, pers. comm.). Protozoa listed in the inventory consist primarily of 

fish parasites. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 23 

! 

			

 	"	


		#	
	

"It has gone berserk. It’s like the Blob... The willows, the 

hollies, the cabbage palms – they’re being buried alive.” 

Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, July 30, 2000 

Of Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) in the Everglades 

 Sections 4.1 through 4.5 present the results of interviews with Gulf State agency 

representatives on the GMP Invasive Species Focus Team to identify aquatic invasive species 

that are current management priorities or potential future management priorities in each of 

the five Gulf States. Section 4.6 provides summary tables of information in Sections 4.1 to 4.5. 

In some cases, as noted below, the interviewed state agency representatives sought the input of a 

larger group of state stakeholders, while in other cases interview results represent the opinions of 

one agency representative. The interviews were intended to produce a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of Gulf-region management priorities. The ISFT intends to conduct a more 

formal and extensive survey for future compilations of this information. 

 For the purposes of the interviews, “current management priority” is defined as an invasive, 

or potentially invasive, aquatic species that the state is most concerned with managing at the 

present time. “Potential future management priority” is defined as an invasive, or potentially 

invasive, aquatic species that (1) does not yet occur in the state, but that has an active 

introduction pathway, or (2) already has been introduced to the state, and is of concern due to the 

magnitude of adverse impacts experienced in similar ecosystems. It is critical to recognize that 

management priorities can be based on the actual or perceived threat a species poses, even 

though it does not yet occur in the state. Similarly, invasive or potentially invasive species that 

already occur in a state may not necessarily be a management priority in that state. 

 Selected Gulf State agency representatives on the ISFT prepared and presented 

invasive/nonindigenous species “status presentations” at the Nonindigenous Species Focus 

Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000. 

In most cases, summaries from these presentations, distributed at the Panel Session, served as the 

foundation for follow-up interviews with these same representatives. 

 In all interviews the following information was requested for a each species recognized as a 

current or potential future management priority: species common name; species scientific name; 

place of origin; confirmed, suspected, or potential introduction pathway(s); biological and/or 

economic rationale for concern (potential impacts); impacts experienced; management status in 

the state; and current control/prevention strategies. However, only the information provided by 
Version 4.0 

Page 24 September 2000

the interviewee is documented in the following sections. In several cases only the species name 

was provided. 

+ !
")
)
$




 (

 Vernon Minton, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources (ADCNR) summarized Alabama’s aquatic invasive species management 

priorities as follows (Minton 2000; note that not all literature citations and personal 

communications in Minton 2000 are not provided in Section 12 References of this document). 

The list was supplemented with comments from Steve Health, Marine Resources Division, 

ADCNR, and Pam Fuller, USGS. 

")
(



The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has established itself in the Wheeler Reservoir of 

the Tennessee River in North Alabama and in the lower Mississippi River, and may in time 

reach the lower Mobile Delta. However, zebra mussels have not multiplied to the extent seen 

in northern parts of the country. Whether it can survive in Mobile Bay, where it will 

confront moderate to high salinities and predators such as black drum (Pogonias cromis), is 

unknown. A recent report by Deborah Wills stated that Alabama is home to 43 percent of the 

native freshwater gill-breathing snails and 60 percent of the native freshwater mussels found 

in the U.S. (Wills 2000). Of those, 77 percent of the snails and 34 percent of the mussels are 

endemic to Alabama, or the river system shared by Alabama and a neighboring state (Wills 

2000). Unfortunately, the report also states that 65 percent of the snails and 69 percent of the 

mussels are considered either endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Wills 2000). 

Research will have to determine if zebra mussel infestations would displace native mussels. 

Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata) (Fuller, pers. comm.) 

.



The bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) has been reported frequently in public 

waters. The biological impact of bighead carp is unknown; further research on the potential 

impacts on other filter-feeding fishes, such as the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), bigmouth 

buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), is needed. We 

have observed, however, that bighead carp is frequently caught with the paddlefish in main 

channel habitats. 

 !




Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is distributed throughout Alabama. 

Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) was identified in March 1999 in a 7-acre golf course pond 

in Auburn. It is likely that it existed here since at least 1997. A flood event in July 1999 

dispersed these plants to the drainage below the golf course; giant salvinia is now found at 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 25 

two impounded tributaries of Sougahatchee Creek. In August 1999, giant salvinia was 

reported from a 3.8 acre pond draining Uchee Creek, north of Seale, Alabama. By December 

1999, plants were believed to have been carried, perhaps by animals such as racoons or 

turtles, upslope from the Seale pond to a smaller pond nearby. 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Heath, pers. comm.) 



.
 !
")
)
	

 There are several potential invertebrate invaders of concern in Alabama: 

The chocolate brown blue crab (Callinectes bocourti) usually does not venture further north 

than Belize, but this species typically co-occurs with the blue crab (Callinectese sapidus) in 

its natural habitat. One individual was collected in Alabama coastal waters in the summer of 

2000 (Heath, pers. comm.). 

The jellyfish (Drymonema dalmatinum), colloquially referred to as the “pink meanie” or the 

“pink insullation jellyfish,” was collected in Alabama coastal waters in the summer of 2000 

(Heath, pers. comm.). 

The Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) has not yet been reported in Alabama, but it is a 

species of concern due to its highly invasive nature. 

While there is no record of green crab (Carcinus maenus) in Alabama, it is a potential future 

management concern. 

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) (Fuller, pers. comm.) 

Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (Fuller, pers. comm.) 

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (Fuller, pers. comm.) 

"


&
	

A management concern is the introduction of aquatic invasive species through ballast water 

exchange. While the population did not proliferate, strong evidence indicates that Vibrio 

cholera, the bacteria that causes cholera, was most probably introduced to Mobile Bay by 

ballast water exchange in 1991. 

+ !
")
)
$




.

")
(



 Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the 

Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized Florida’s invasive invertebrate species 

management priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is admittedly focused on estuarine 

and marine species; future versions of this report will give equal focus to Florida’s freshwater 

invasive species management priorities. 
Version 4.0 

Page 26 September 2000

The green mussel (Perna viridis), a marine mussel (>20 ppt), is a confirmed invasive species. 

Ecosystem effects include conversion of planktonic carbon to benthic carbon and possible 

competition for space with natural fouling organisms on red mangrove prop roots. 

Individuals were discovered in Tampa Bay in late 1999, but possibly were introduced in 

1998. A spawning population has been confirmed, as is the ability of this tropical mussel to 

overwinter in Tampa Bay. The green mussel has been found throughout Tampa Bay, in the 

Gulf of Mexico as far west as Anna Maria Island, and in Sarasota Bay. It is expected to 

populate many substrates in Tampa Bay and be exported to other Florida harbors. 

The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is currently found in many freshwater lakes and 

streams in north Florida. It is suspected to have been brought to the U.S. in the 1920s for use 

as a food source. Potential ecosystem effects include competition for space with native 

freshwater mussels, many of which are endangered or threatened. 

Conrad's (or dark) falsemussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeata) is native to Florida, but a 

facultative mollusk of concern. It occurs on hard substrates in coastal ponds, lakes, and 

rivers from 2-5 ppt. Recently, these mussels have been found throughout the Caloosahatchee 

river and in southern Lake Okeechobee. They have also been seen in the King's Bay region 

of Crystal River. Upstream invasions are likely because of increasing dissolved solids as a 

result of human activities (e.g., fertilizer). This problem will continue and expand unless 

discharges and runoff are controlled. 

Salle’s (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel (Mytilopsis sallei) may or may not be native to 

Florida (i.e., cryptogenic). It occurs in southeastern Florida and possibly was introduced by 

shipping sometime in the past 500 years. It has habitat requirements similar to those of 

Conrad’s falsemussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeata), and has invaded upstream in the 

Caloosahatchee River. 

The saber crab, or river crab, (Platychirograpsus spectabilis) is native to eastern Mexico and 

west Africa (Rathbun 1914, In: Marchand 1946). The crab was apparently introduced to the 

Hillsborough River by vessels delivering cedar logs for the manufacture of cigar boxes. It is 

known to be riverine, but some local scientists think part of its life cycle is estuarine. This 

crab is not found in large numbers and impact appears to be minimal. 

The West Indian trochid (Cittarium pica), a gastropod, was found at Marathon and Molasses 

Keys in the Florida Keys. The species may be established, but may disappear as it did in 

Bermuda. Natural recruitment might be responsible for appearance of this species, which 

may be recruiting from planktonic larvae spawned in the Caribbean basin (Abbott 1976). 

In April 1995, both male and egg-bearing female marine swimming crabs (Charybdis helleri) 

were caught in traps in the Indian River Lagoon. This crab lives throughout the Indo-Pacific 

area from the east coast of Africa to Hawaii. Juveniles and one ovigerous female in the 

Indian River leave no doubt that a reproducing population exists, if not an established one. 

This crab has not been found in the Gulf of Mexico yet. However, it’s aggressive nature and 

migration patterns in other parts of the world (e.g., through the Suez Canal to the 

Mediterranean Sea) have scientists anticipating further distribution and colonization into the 

Gulf of Mexico (Camp 1997). 

The marine nudibranch (Glossodoris sedna), native to the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, was 

found in Tavernier Key, Florida (Bertsch 1988). Only a few specimens were found. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 27 

.



 Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the 

Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized Florida’s invasive fish species management 

priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is admittedly focused on estuarine and marine 

species; future versions of this report will give equal focus to Florida’s freshwater invasive 

species management priorities. 

Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) are common in southeast Florida coastal 

canals and in Tampa Bay. They range west through the state, but east and west coast 

populations do not seem to be confluent. Each of the sites where Mozambique tilapia has 

been collected represent a different source of introduction (Courtenay et al. 1974; Shafland, 

pers. comm., June 9, 1997). 

The blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron) was the first tilapia species to become 

established in Florida (Springer and Finucane 1963 In: Shafland 1996). It is distributed in 

Brevard and Indian River Counties on the east coast, and Tampa Bay on the Gulf coast. It is 

extensively associated with brackish water. Although the Gulf coast population has been 

locally successful in Tampa Bay, it has not extended its range significantly for 30 years 

(Shafland 1996). 

The Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) is quite common in southwestern Florida, 

where they inhabit mangroves, and has spread south of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41). 

According to Shafland (1996) this species may contribute substantially to the forage base for 

tarpons and snooks, and they may prey on those same species as well depending on size 

interaction. Mayan cichlid supports a limited sport fishery in some areas as it readily takes 

artificial baits. In some areas it is the most common fish caught on hook-and-line. It fights 

hard and has an attractive snapper-like appearance (Shafland 1996). 

Two nonindigenous populations of the Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus) recently were 

discovered in Florida in 1997 (Tampa and Miami areas). USGS field data indicates that the 

species is locally abundant and reproducing (Nico 1999). Based on literature and preliminary 

findings, the swamp eel appears to have the potential to colonize and adversely affect natural 

wetlands in the Everglades and other systems in the southeastern U.S. (Nico 1999). 

Walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) 

Spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae) 

Pike killifish (Belonesox belizanus) 

 !




Eleven invasive aquatic plant species are listed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council as 

Category I plants, capable of disrupting aquatic ecosystems (FDEP 2000). These species are 

actively controlled in public waters by the Aquatic Plant Management Section, Bureau of 

Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

The highest priority species for control in Florida’s public waters are water hyacinth 

(Eichhornia crassipes) and waterlettuce (Pistia stratiotes). Managers brought these two 
Version 4.0 

Page 28 September 2000

species under control during the late 1980s and have sustained these low levels through the 

1990s (Schardt 1999). 

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is distributed statewide, highly invasive, and a current high 

priority species for control. Insufficient funding allowed hydrilla to expand from 50,000 to 

140,000 acres in the 1990s (FDEP 2000). 

Two occurrences of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) in Florida were identified and removed 

(Schardt, pers. comm.). While an herbicide eradication program exists for this species, there 

is considerable concern about its spread. Weed Alert, an awareness-building campaign, 

exists for giant salvinia. It is suspected that waterspinach is planted by some Asian 

communities for food. 

While an herbicide eradication program exists for waterspinach (Ipomoea aquatica), there is 

considerable concern about its spread. Weed Alert, an awareness-building campaign, exists 

for waterspinach. 

Aquatic nightshade (Solanum tampicense) 

Hygro, or Indian swampweed, (Hygrophilia polysperma) 

Paragrass (Brachiaria mutica) 

Torpedograss (Panicum repens) 

West Indian marshgrass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) 

Wild taro (Colocasia esculenta) 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeriodes), until recently a high priority invasive species, 

has been brought under control by a suite of three insects (Schardt 1999). 

/ !




 The Upland Plant Management Section, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection funds individual invasive plant removal projects on 

public conservation lands throughout the state. Several high priority species for management 

readily thrive in semi-aquatic habitats. 

Weed Alerts, an awareness-building campaign, are ongoing for catclaw mimosa (Mimosa 

pigra) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) (Schardt, pers. comm.). An herbicide 

eradication program exists for both species. 

Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) 

Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) 



.
 !
")
)


 Daniel Roberts, Dan Marelli, David Camp (retired), and William G. Lyons (retired), from the 

Florida Marine Research Institute, summarized some of Florida’s potential future invasive 

invertebrate and fish species management priorities as follows (Roberts 2000). This list is 

admittedly focused on estuarine and marine species; future versions of this report will give equal 

focus to Florida’s freshwater invasive species management priorities. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 29 

The veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) inhabits sandy substrates in estuaries and nearshore 

marine environments. It is a voracious marine predator that prefers bivalves such as the hard 

clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and the Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Research 

needs to determine if it will compete with native predators for food. It is presently limited to 

Chesapeake Bay, but is likely to be transported to the Indian River system. 

The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) [and the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis)] 

inhabit hard substrates in freshwaters to brackish waters less than 2 ppt. These mussels have 

caused over $400 million in human impacts in just over ten years of invasion of the Great 

Lakes, St. Lawrence, and Mississippi River systems. They also are interfering with native 

unionid freshwater mussels in many systems. Mussels are easily transported between water 

bodies on and in boats and other vessels and with bait, aquatic vegetation, diving gear, etc. 

They are unlikely to become widespread in Florida because of high summer temperatures 

and low pH in many waterbodies. However, some Florida lakes and spring run rivers are 

vulnerable to zebra mussel invasion. Efforts to prevent such invasions need to be initiated, 

including examining incoming boats and trailers and quarantining freshwater bait from areas 

where zebra mussels have become established. 

The black-lipped pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) is an extremely valuable organism, 

probably capable of surviving in South Florida and the Caribbean. It is reported to occur 

near Palm Beach off of southeastern Florida. Research needs to determine if it will compete 

with native fauna. 

Many attempts have been made to create sterile hybrids of the Japanese oyster (Crassostrea 

gigas) because of its excellent taste and rapid growth rate (adults of over 15 cm are not 

uncommon). Triploid hybrids have been generated and are in widespread aquaculture use in 

the Pacific Northwest; however, the production of triploids has not totally resulted in sterile 

populations. Research needs to determine if culture of these animals would increase the 

potential for release of viable oysters. Research also needs to determine if this species will 

directly compete with the native Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica). 

Giant clams (Tridacna crocea and Tridacna maxima) are valuable organisms for food, shells, 

and as an aquarium species. Trade in some species is restricted by international agreement. 

Others can be purchased live via the Internet. Potential impacts are unknown. 

An Asian mytilid freshwater mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) occupies lakes, ponds, and rivers 

attached to hard substrates. This species has been recently introduced to Argentina and 

Brazil; it appears to be the tropical and warm-temperate ecological equivalent of the zebra 

mussel. There is nothing to prevent this species from invading Florida freshwaters. The 

organism is causing widespread problems in South America; research needs to determine 

potential impacts in Florida. 

Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp (Litopeneaus vanammei) have not been reported in Florida 

waters. However, there is concern about an accidental release from a one billion post larval 

per year hatchery on Summerland Key. 

Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) has been documented throughout central and south 

Florida (smaller populations are found further north), and in estuarine waters on both the 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The species is tolerant of brackish water 

salinities and cool water. Shafland (1996) points out that the species is also successful in 

terms of standing crop: it often exceeds 20 percent of total fish biomass. While blue tilapia 
Version 4.0 

Page 30 September 2000

have occurred in Florida for about 40 years, there are few published data documenting 

adverse effects in Florida freshwaters (Hill 2001). It is a popular recreational and 

commercial species in freshwater and brackish areas. Wild and farmed tilapia are sold in 

restaurants and grocery store outlets throughout Florida. Weekend fishermen in Tampa Bay 

fish for tilapia for food and sport with both cast nets and hook-and-line gear. 

Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) (Roberts, pers. comm.). Triploid grass carp are 

widely used under permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for 

the control of aquatic macrophytes (Hill 2001). Diploid stocks may be maintained only 

under permit by aquaculture and research facilities (Hill 2001). 

Jeff Schardt, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, and Herb Kumpf, NMFS, identified Florida’s potential future invasive aquatic plant 

species management priorities as follows: 

A bloom of nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae (Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii), native to 

Australia, has persisted for at least two years in Lake Griffin (SJRWMD 1999). The St. 

John’s River Water Management District is working to restore this degraded lake (Schardt, 

pers. comm.). 

A tropical green algae (Caulerpa toxifolia) (Kumpf, pers. comm.) 

+* !
")
)
$




0


 The State of Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, assisted by the Louisiana Sea 

Grant Program and Louisiana State University, is in the process of convening an Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force (an organizational meeting was held in August 2000) (Biggar, pers. 

comm.). Once representation from other state agencies and organizations is established, the Task 

Force will begin to work on a state management plan. One of the first tasks of the Task Force 

will be to identify aquatic invasive species of concern: this list will be included in potential 

future versions of this document. 

$


 The adverse impact of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on Louisiana marshes is well documented 

(TNCL 1999). The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, working with state and 

federal agencies, as well as private companies, has developed a set of management 

recommendations for nutria. 

.



 Charlie Biggar (Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries) 

summarized Louisiana’s invasive fish species management priorities as follows: 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 31 

Rio Grand cichlid (Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum) 

Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) 

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 

Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) 

 !




 Richard Brassette (Aquatic Plant Control Section, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries), Charlie Biggar (Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries), and the Nature Conservancy of Louisiana (TNCL 1999) summarized Louisiana’s 

invasive aquatic plant species management priorities as follows: 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) (Biggar, pers. comm.) 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999) 

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999) 

Torpedograss (Panicum repens) (Biggar, pers. comm.) 

Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) (Biggar, pers. comm.) 

Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) (Brassette, pers. comm., TNCL 1999) 

Common salvinia (Salvinia minima) (Brassette, pers. comm.) 

/ !




Kudzu (Pueraria montana) (TNCL 1999) 

Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) (TNCL 1999) 



.
 !
")
)
	

 Potential future introductions of several species were identified as management priorities at a 

recent GMP-sponsored workshop (GMP 1997). The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana also 

identified some relatively new species expected to become serious problems in the near future 

(TNCL 1999). 

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) exist in the Mississippi River in southern Louisiana. 

There is concern about the potential spread of this species (TNCL 1999). The opening of the 

Bonne Carre spillway (Lake Pontchartrain) and other proposed freshwater diversions the 

species has new routes to the Gulf of Mexico (GMP 1997). 

Brown (or Mexihalo) mussel (Perna perna) (GMP 1997) 

Marine swimming crab (Charybdis helleri) (GMP 1997) 

Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) (GMP 1997) 

European green crab (Carcinus maenus) (GMP 1997) 

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) (Biggar, pers. comm.) 

Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata) (Biggar, pers. comm.) 
Version 4.0 

Page 32 September 2000

Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) (GMP 1997) 

Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) (GMP 1997) 

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) (TNCL 1999) 

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (TNCL 1999) 

++ !
")
)
$




$





 The following multi-agency group summarized Mississippi’s aquatic invasive species 

management priorities, presented in this section: 

Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

Ron Garavelli, Dennis Riecke, and Todd Slack, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries, and Parks 

Mark LaSalle, Mississippi Sea Grant Program 

Cynthia Moncrief, University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory 

David Felder, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

")
(



The spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata), native to Australia but present in the Caribbean 

Sea for several years now, showed up in the northern Gulf of Mexico in large numbers in 

2000. The organism grows to 2 to 3 feet in diameter and is a voracious feeder on plankton. 

These organisms may compete with other plankton feeding organisms, and at high densities 

could alter the composition of the plankton community. They have also caused fouling of 

fishing nets and propellers. First seen in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Mobile Bay area) in 

May of 2000, it remains to be seen if these organisms will successfully overwinter (Graham, 

pers. comm.). 

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) have been found in the Mississippi River, the 

associated oxbow lakes that form Mississippi’s western border, and in the Tennessee River in 

the northeast corner of the state. There are well documented problems with this species 

competing with native species, fouling water intakes, screens, and other structures. 

.



Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), an aquacultured species in Mississippi, have been 

collected in the wild. There is concern that they are able to overwinter in thermal discharges 

in the coastal rivers. Todd Slack, State Ichthyologist for Mississippi, and Mark Peterson, 

Gulf Coast Research Lab, have submitted a proposal to study the effect of tilapia on gamefish 

in coastal Mississippi. Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) and Mozambique tilapia 

(Oreochromis mossambicus) are both aquacultured species in Mississippi, but no officially 

documented species have been collected in the wild at this time (Slack, pers. comm.). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 33 

$


Nutria (Myocastor coypus) are widespread across the southern states, and compete with 

native muskrats and beavers. They cause problems by destroying wetland and crop 

vegetation, burrowing into levees, and carrying diseases. 

 !




The aquatic fern, giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) has been found in Mississippi, and is of 

concern because of problems observed in Texas, Louisiana, and other southern states with 

similar habitats. It shades out desirable native species, interferes with fishing, and may 

reduce the quality of wetlands as waterfowl habitat. 

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is a very aggressive invasive species forming thick mats that 

shade out native vegetation. It has been found in Aliceville Reservoir on the TennesseTombigbee Waterway, and is reported from other locations across the state. It is often 

accidentally transported from one waterbody to the next on boats or trailers. 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a free-floating plant much like giant salvinia, is 

present in several drainages of Mississippi. Water hyacinth infestations are of concern as 

they can reduce fisheries, block boat traffic, shade out submerged plants, and reduce 

biological diversity. 

/ !




The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) is extremely invasive in a variety of habitats, 

from upland to wetland. 



.
 !
")
)
	

The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), a fish native to Eurasia, was introduced into the 

Great Lakes Region, probably via ballast water around 1990. The species does well in both 

freshwater and saltwater, and is spreading rapidly in the Great Lakes. It is reported to be 

interfering with the walleye fishery in Lake Michigan. There is concern that the organism 

will spread south via the Mississippi River. 

The Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus) is spreading rapidly in south Florida and has been 

reported in the Chattahoochee River system in north Georgia. The swamp eel does well in 

lakes, ponds, rivers, and swamps. Because it has the ability to breathe out of the water, it can 

cross short distances of dry ground. 

Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) is an Asian carp that feeds predominantly on 

mollusks. This fish is being used by catfish farmers in the Mississippi Delta to control snails 

as part of an integrated management strategy to control a yellow grub disease. This species 

of fish has not been collected from Mississippi waterways, but there is concern that, if it 

escaped, it could further reduce populations of rare or endangered mollusks, and that it would 

compete with native fishes with a similar feeding habit. However, the Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and the Department of Agriculture and 
Version 4.0 

Page 34 September 2000

Commerce have an approved management plan for black carp (Avery 2001). In addition, 

black carp have been cultured in Arkansas since its importation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in the late 1960s, and there has not been a report of escapement (Avery 2001). 

+1 !
")
)
$




-


 Dr. Larry McKinney, Senior Director of Water and Resource Protection at Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department (TPWD) summarized Texas’ aquatic invasive species management 

priorities as follows (McKinney 2000). The list is supplemented, as noted, with input from Dr. 

Earl Chilton (TPWD), other TWPD staff, and other experts. 

$(


Introductions of diseases associated with nonindigenous shrimp (i.e., Taura Syndrome Virus, 

White Spot Syndrome Virus, and white-spot-like viruses), is an issue of concern in Texas. 

")
(



The Pacific giant (or Japanese) oyster (Crassostrea gigas) is of concern because of disease 

potential and potential competition with native oysters. 

Channeled applesnail (Pomacea canalicula) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

.



The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) is established in the Galveston Bay system. This 

species has been identified as the primary culprit in the failure of numerous marsh 

revegetation projects in the upper reaches of the system. Grass carp have been reported in 

several other coastal bay systems. The release of triploid grass carp are permitted by TPWD 

for vegetation control, and approximately 1,000 permits per year are issued (Chilton, pers. 

comm.). The release of diploid grass carp is prohibited, as is the release of triploid grass carp 

without a permit (Chilton, pers. comm.). 

Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) are 

established in many Texas power plant cooling reservoirs, but have not expanded outside 

those systems. Both of these species have been recorded in routine sampling of bayous 

emptying into the Galveston Bay system. 

The Rio Grande cichlid (Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum) in native to southern waters in Texas, 

but has been documented in other systems, such as Galveston Bay. 

Nutria (Myocastor coypus) 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 35 

 !




Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) 

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) 

A large infestation of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) was discovered and treated in eastern 

Texas in 1999. This infestation represents the first documented large-scale occurrence of this 

plant in Texas. 

While cryptogenic at this point, the persistent brown tide (Aureoumbra lagunensis) in the 

Laguna Madre system, the longest continuous algal bloom ever recorded, might be a aquatic 

invasive species issue requiring management 

The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) has invaded coastal prairies and freshwater 

wetland areas in Texas (Moulton, pers. comm.). 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Waterlettuce (Pistia stratiotes) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Common salvinia (Salvinia minima) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 



.
 !
")
)
	

In the past, the brown (or Mexihalo) mussel (Perna perna) has been widely distributed from 

the mid-Texas coast south into Mexico. Populations have fluctuated in past years, however, 

they seem to have more recently disappeared (Tunnell, pers. comm.). Past invasions appear 

to have been associated with currents bringing the mussels from Mexican waters (Tunnell, 

pers. comm.). 

American eels (Anguilla rostrata) were cultured in Texas on one occasion. The exotic 

nematode, Anguillicola crassus, was found in some eels imported from the U.S. east coast for 

use in culture ponds. To date, no native eels have been found to have this parasite. 

The potential introduction of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is of concern. 

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) (Fuller, pers. comm.) 

Marine swimming crab (Charybdis helleri) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir sinensis) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

European green crab (Carcinus maenus) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Successful establishment of waterspinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is of concern. 

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 

Kudzu (Pueraria montana) (Chilton, pers. comm.) 
Version 4.0 

Page 36 September 2000

New introductions of pathogens, viral and other, is an invasive species issue of concern. The 

cryptogenic nature of these organisms makes it difficult to know if the situation is one of 

introduction or observed manifestation of an indigenous species. Related to this concern are 

bacteria mixes used for biological control of oil spills. Because these are often proprietary in 

nature and their use is for emergencies, control is problematic unless addressed in advance. 

"


&
	

Interbasin transfers of water is a pathway of special concern in Texas. Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department has commissioned a study to assess that risk in one region of the state 

where interbasin transfers will be likely. Preliminary results indicate that risks are low for 

higher taxa, such as fish, but moderate for microbial and other aquatic taxa.
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 37 

+2 (
3 !
")
)
$





,		$-

 Tables 10 and 11 summarize the invasive aquatic plant and animal species identified as 

management priorities in Sections 4.1 to 4.5. 

Table 10. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000: 

Invasive Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AL FL LA MS TX 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed   

Aureoumbra lagunensis brown tide algae  a

Brachiaria mutica paragrass  

Casuarina equisetifolia Australian pine  

Caulerpa toxifolia tropical green algae P 

Colocasia esculenta wild taro  

Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii blue-green algae P 

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth     

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla     

Hygrophila polysperma Indian swampweed  

Hymenachne amplexicaulis West Indian marshgrass  

Imperata cylindrica cogongrass P 

Ipomoea aquatica waterspinach  P 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife P P 

Melaleuca quinquenervia paperbark (melaleuca)  

Mimosa pigra catclaw mimosa  

Panicum repens torpedograss   

Pistia stratiotes waterlettuce   

Pueraria montana kudzu  P 

Salvinia minima common salvinia  

Salvinia molesta giant salvinia     

Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree   

Schinus terebinthifolius peppertree  

Solanum tampicense wetland nightshade  

Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of 

Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of management priorities. 

 = Current management priority in the state. 

P = Potential future management priority for the state. 

Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the 

unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management. 

a

 = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved) 
Version 4.0 

Page 38 September 2000

Table 11. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 2000: 

Invasive Aquatic Animal Species. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AL FL LA MS TX 

Anguillicola crassus exotic nematode on American eels P 

Belonesox belizanus pike killifish  

Callinectes bocourti chocolate brown crab P 

Carcinus maenus green crab P P P 

Charybdis helleri marine swimming crab  P P 

Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Rio Grande cichlid  

Cichlasoma urophthalmus Mayan cichlid  

Cittarium pica West Indian trochid  

Clarias batrachus walking catfish  

Corbicula fluminea Asian clam P  P P 

Crassostrea gigas Japanese (or Pacific giant) oyster P 

Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp P P a  

Dreissena polymorpha zebra mussel  P P  P 

Drymonema dalmatinum jellyfish P 

Eriocheir sinensis Chinese mittencrab P P P 

Glossodoris sedna marine nudibranch  

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix silver carp P  P 

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis bighead carp   P 

Limnoperna fortunei freshwater mussel P 

Litopeneaus vannamei Pacific white (or whiteleg) shrimp P 

Monopterus albus swamp eel  P 

Mylopharyngodon piceus black carp P P P 

Myocastor coypus nutria   

Mytilopsis leucophaeata Conrad’s (or dark) falsemussel  

Mytilopsis sallei Salle’s (or Santa Domingo) falsemussel  b 

Neogobius melanostomus round goby P P 

Oreochromis aureus blue tilapia P 

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia  

Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia 

Perna perna brown (or Mexihalo) mussel P P 

Perna viridis green mussel  

Phyllorhiza punctata spotted jellyfish  P  P 

Pinctada margaritifera black-lipped (or Pacific) pearl oyster P 

Platychirograpsus spectabilis saber crab  

Pomacea canalicula channeled applesnail 

Rapana venosa veined rapa whelk P 

Sarotherodon melanotheron blackchin tilapia  

Taura Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 

Tilapia mariae spotted tilapia  

Tridacna spp. giant clams P 

White Spot Syndrome Virus shrimp virus 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 39 

Table 11, continued. Current and Potential Future Management Priorities in the Five Gulf States, September 

2000: Invasive Aquatic Animal Species, cont. 

Source: This information was provided by representatives of Gulf State agencies and organizations on the Gulf of 

Mexico Program Invasive Species Focus Team. At this time, it is intended to be a representative, rather than 

comprehensive, list of management priorities. 

 = Current management priority in the state. 

P = Potential future management priority for the state. 

Note: Designations are not based on occurrence in the state, but rather priorities for management. Some of the 

unchecked species exist in the state, but are not currently considered priorities for management. 

a

 = Diploid stocks only. 

b

 = Cryptogenic (a species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous remains unresolved) 
Version 4.0 

Page 40 September 2000

$ %				&'	

#()"*	

 To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP 

sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the Focus Team 

serves as a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is 

currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an 

introduction vector, and the prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the 

majority of the Focus Team’s efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues. Section 5.0 

provides an overview of the shrimp virus issue in the Gulf of Mexico region and highlights 

efforts to address the issue. 

 In 1996, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Shrimp Virus Workgroup conducted a 

workshop on the status of shrimp viruses in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean, and the results of that workshop established the baseline information and action plan for 

dealing with the virus issue. Since that time additional Gulf-region workshops have been held 

and considerable new scientific research on shrimp viruses in the Gulf region has been 

conducted. Thus it is recommended that a new shrimp virus workshop be carried out in 2001 to 

bring all stakeholders up to date and to re-evaluate the approaches needed to address this 

important issue. 

1 %))&	
4
"



 Of the 14 penaied shrimp viruses known worldwide, three exotic viruses have been identified 

in the Gulf of Mexico region: White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), Taura Syndrome Virus 

(TSV), and Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV). Another exotic 

shrimp virus, Yellow Head Virus (YHV), usually co-occurs with WSSV (Lightner 1996a, 

Lightner 1996b), but has not been identified in live shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico region 

(McIlwain, pers. comm.). WSSV is endemic throughout much of Asia, and TSV and IHHNV 

are endemic in wild shrimp populations throughout much of Central and South America (JSA 

1997). It has been shown that all three viruses are carried by some live shrimp, but they also 

have been found in imported frozen shrimp, shrimp by-products, and in a number of non-penaied 

shrimp and other crustacean species (e.g., copepods, crabs, and crayfish) (Lightner 1996a, 

Lightner 1996b, JSA 1997). Note that none of these three exotic shrimp viruses are known to 

pose a threat to human health (Kumpf et al. 1999). 

 Shrimp consumption in the U.S. has increased while the average annual domestic harvest has 

remained steady at approximately 200 million pounds (Kumpf et al. 1999). Growing demand for 

shrimp has been met by increasing imports (from Asia and South America) and expanding 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 41 

domestic aquaculture capacity. Unfortunately these activities increase the threat of exotic shrimp 

viruses entering processing and aquaculture facilities: viruses can enter processing facilities 

through infected imported or domestic shrimp, and likewise, can enter aquaculture facilities 

through infected brood stock, contaminated feed, infected transport containers, or by migratory 

birds. 

 In 1997, there were almost 400 shrimp harvesting and processing (non-aquaculture) 

businesses located in the five Gulf States, with more than two-thirds (268) located in Louisiana 

and Texas (JSA 1997). To date, no processing facilities in the Gulf region have reported the 

presence of exotic shrimp viruses. However, little testing for viruses of shrimp product, solid 

waste, or wastewaters from these facilities is undertaken (Treece and Johnson, pers. comm.). 

One recent study found WSSV in 8 of 10 samples from lots of imported frozen shrimp tails 

(Durand et al. 2000), and the study authors contend that because the U.S. imports thousands of 

tons of cultured shrimp each year, frozen imported shrimp are a probable source for the 

introduction of WSSV into the Americas. 

 Exotic shrimp viruses have decimated stocks at a few Gulf region aquaculture facilities, 

bringing economic hardship to those businesses. WSSV, first identified in Asia in 1992, 

appeared in cultured white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) in three Texas shrimp ponds in 1995 

(Kumpf et al. 1999, Treece, pers. comm.). These ponds were drained and dried, and WSSV has 

not been reported again in commercial facilities in Texas (Treece, pers. comm.). Outbreaks of 

TSV, first identified in Ecuador, occurred at shrimp farms in Texas in 1995 and 1996 (JSA 

1997). However, TSV has likely been eliminated in Texas' commercial channels of livestock 

through the USDA High Health and Genetically Improved stock program (Treece and Johnson, 

pers. comm.). One chapter in Fulks and Main (1992) reported IHHNV occurring in Texas and 

Florida shrimp aquaculture facilities (JSA 1997). 

 There are three native penaied shrimp species of commercial importance in the Gulf of 

Mexico – brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), 

and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). The Gulf-region native shrimp fishery is economically 

significant; in Texas alone, it generates $600 million in economic benefits annually and provides 

30,000 jobs (GMP 1999). All three exotic shrimp viruses described above have been shown 

experimentally to infect the Gulf’s three native penaied shrimp species (Kumpf et al. 1999). The 

presence of exotic shrimp viruses at processing and aquaculture facilities increases the threat of 

infecting wild native shrimp populations in the Gulf, potentially harming associated harvesting 

and processing industries. 

 There is little information on the presence of exotic shrimp viruses in populations of native 

shrimp in the Gulf region. Since initiating investigations in 1998, Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department has regularly found a white-spot-like virus in native Gulf shrimp (Treece, pers. 

comm.). However, the results have not been published and may be given an accurate 

presentation by TPWD in the future (Johnson, pers. comm.). A researcher at Texas A&M 

University looked at live shrimp from bait stands in three Texas ports and diagnosed at least one 

group as having a white-spot-like virus, however, further samples from these bait stands did not 

show the presence of virus (Treece, pers. comm.). In 1996, wild native white shrimp (L. 

setiferus) introduced to a Texas A&M University research facility in Port Aransas were found to 
Version 4.0 

Page 42 September 2000

be infected with a white-spot-like virus (Treece, pers. comm.). Fortunately the exotic shrimp 

(Litopenaeus vannamei) at the research facility were not exposed to the WSSV-infected wild L. 

setiferus and, therefore, did not develop the disease. Similar to concerns of processing and 

aquaculture facilities being a vector for virus transmission to wild shrimp populations, shrimp 

aquaculturists have fears of diseased wild native shrimp exposing their cultured stocks to viruses 

(Treece, pers. comm.). 

	

4
"

-


 Despite the fact that WSSV, TSV, and IHHNV have occurred at Texas aquaculture facilities, 

the history of the industry has demonstrated that aquaculture is viable in Texas and that a 

conservative regulatory approach is warranted in combination with a fundamentally adaptive 

management approach (Baker 1997, Ray et al. 1998). To date, the industry has done an excellent 

job of coordinating with the regulatory and conservation communities to develop best 

management plans and strategies (GMP 1999). In 1998, the following management response 

was established for any future outbreaks of either WSSV or YHV (GMP 1999): 

Quarantine facility and contact Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) immediately. 

Permit holders must send specimens to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory 

for testing. 

Conduct weekly pond-side clinical testing of all ponds and report findings to TPWD. 

Remove dead shrimp along the edges of the pond and bury or incinerate. 

Permit holders must make effort to drive birds away from infected ponds. 

Harvest affected ponds as soon as possible. 

Retain all harvest water on the premises until approved by TPWD for disposal. 

Infected shrimp of marketable size must be sent to a processor that disposes of the 

wastewater and by-products in a manner that eliminates vectors for virus transmission. 

Harvest non-infected ponds as soon as possible or manage in a highly protective manner as 

described in an approved management plan. 

Currently, there are 11 major coastal permits for exotic species of shrimp, 1 proposed coastal 

permit, 2 permits for inland facilities and 4 permits for research facilities (GMP 1999). Pacific 

white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is the only exotic shrimp species allowed for open 

mariculture systems. Blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris) are allowed in closed aquaculture 

systems outside an exclusion zone. 

	

4
"

.

 Aquaculture is Florida’s most diverse agribusiness. Over 800 aquaculturists produce the 

greatest variety of aquatic species of any state in the nation (FDACS 2000). The State of Florida 

operates an annual certification program for aquaculture operations. There are eight certified 

facilities to raise marine shrimp, and of these eight facilities, four currently possess and culture 

marine shrimp (Zajicek, pers. comm.). The shrimp species cultured at these facilities is the 

exotic Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). These facilities are not located in coastal 

areas, with the exception of one large shrimp hatchery on Summerland Key. This facility, which 

imports brood stock from Honduras, was subject to past outbreaks of TSV and IHHNV, but 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 43 

successfully eliminated the viruses by draining, drying, and disinfecting the facility (Treece, 

pers. comm.). More recently, no exotic shrimp viruses have been detected at any aquaculture 

facilities or in wild shrimp populations in Florida waters (three miles seaward on the Atlantic 

Ocean coast and nine miles seaward on the Gulf of Mexico coast) (Zajicek, pers. comm.). 

	

4
"

 (50
5$





 Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not have any coastal shrimp farms, and do not 

conduct any regular monitoring for exotic shrimp viruses in coastal areas. Tom Van Devender, 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), summarized the shrimp virus issue in 

Mississippi as follows (excerpted from Van Devender 2000): 

 Other than controlled research activities on shrimp viruses carried out at the Gulf Coast 

Research Laboratory, the State of Mississippi has no penaied shrimp mariculture operations. 

While some live bait shrimp camps may capture live shrimp in one bay system, transport 

them either by boat or truck to open seawater systems and hold the shrimp for a few days 

(usually less), these activities hardly can be considered mariculture, and disease outbreaks 

among these wild stocks, even though held for a short time in crowded bait tanks, has not 

been reported. 

 Pounds of shrimp processed by local dealers exceed pounds landed in Mississippi several 

times over. Shrimp are brought in from other Gulf States and also imported from a number 

of foreign suppliers. The possibility of viruses from these imports being discharged with 

peeling machine process water into local bays and infecting wild stock does exist, but has not 

been documented. Apparently neither has the presence of viruses introduced or evident in 

wild stocks been described or enumerated. One of the fundamental data gaps to be addressed 

in any impact assessment is the identification of viruses and their distribution in Mississippi’s 

native shrimp stocks. 

1 4


&


Section 5.2 was excerpted from JSA 1997. 

 Critical to evaluating the risks of shrimp viruses is understanding potential sources and 

pathways of virus. This section provides a discussion of the two primary virus sources – shrimp 

aquaculture and processing facilities. The Shrimp Virus Workgroup (SVW) of the Joint 

Subcommittee on Aquaculture considered these two sources as those with the greatest potential 

to introduce viral diseases into wild penaied shrimp populations. This section also includes 

several other potential sources and pathways that were considered less critical by the SVW. 

 !


Entry of Viruses into Aquaculture Facilities 

 Although there are few outbreaks with confirmed sources, there exist several ways in which 

viruses may enter aquaculture facilities: (1) infected broodstock/seed; (2) transfer by birds (i.e., 

by seagulls via feces); (3) transfer by non-shrimp animal species (e.g., crabs, crayfish, squid, 
Version 4.0 

Page 44 September 2000

other crustaceans, amphipods, isopods) as either carriers or transmitters; (4) contaminated feed; 

and (5) contaminated vehicles or transport containers (Figure 4). 

 For those viral outbreaks in Texas in 1995, it was speculated that viruses might have been 

transferred by birds to the affected aquaculture facilities. Though never confirmed, nearby 

shrimp packing plants, major importers and re-processors of large quantities of shrimp from 

Asia, were suspected as the ultimate source of the imported viruses. Reports that non-shrimp 

animal species may have been the source of some infections have been unsubstantiated. The 

1996 TSV outbreaks in Texas apparently resulted from broodstock that were contaminated after 

they arrived at a hatchery, although the original source of broodstock infection is unknown. 

Farmers purchased infected seed from this facility, although recommended procedures direct 

farmers to avoid purchasing seed from a supplier having a recent history of disease. 

Pathways to Wild Stock 

 Native shrimp species may be exposed to viruses through a number of pathways from 

aquaculture, including: (1) pond effluents; (2) pond flooding; (3) escape of infected shrimp; (4) 

spills or losses during transport to shrimp processing facilities; (5) disposal of pond sediment or 

solid waste; and (6) infected bait shrimp (Figure 4). Wild shrimp may be most susceptible to 

Figure 4. Aquaculture 

as an Introduction 

Vector for Shrimp 

Viruses 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 45 

these exposures during certain time periods. Wild penaied populations are most dense during 

immigration of postlarvae (e.g., usually spring and early summer) and immigration of juveniles 

(e.g., late summer into fall). In addition to these spatial and temporal relationships, other 

important factors in assessing potential exposures to native shrimp species include the volume of 

effluent discharged from shrimp farms and processors, as well as disinfection and quarantine 

procedures used in these facilities. Infected wild shrimp may contaminate aquaculture stocks 

through the use of infected wild broodstock and postlarvae or from contaminated materials 

entrained in local water supplies. 





Entry of Viruses into Processing 

 Shrimp viruses enter processing in two ways: infected domestic shrimp (aquaculture or wildcaught) and infected imported shrimp (Figure 5). Currently, there are over 60 countries 

exporting both pond-raised and wild shrimp to the U.S. Over 50 percent of the shrimp processed 

in the U.S. is imported from Thailand, India, and numerous other countries where viral diseases 

are a major problem. Some countries harvest shrimp during the early stages of a disease 

outbreak in order to minimize disease effects on cultured shrimp yield. This strategy effectively 

Figure 5. Processing as an 

Introduction Vector for 

Shrimp Viruses 
Version 4.0 

Page 46 September 2000

avoids high mortality and catastrophic economic losses in those countries, but increases the 

likelihood that shrimp imported into the U.S. will be contaminated with viable virus particles. In 

fact, virus-infected shrimp have been identified in retail stores in the U.S. Thus, importation of 

infected shrimp for processing by the U.S. shrimp industry significantly increases the potential 

for introduction of pathogenic viruses into coastal waters adjacent to the processing plants. 

Pathways to Wild Stock 

 Infected shrimp processed in the U.S. may infect wild shrimp through the following 

pathways: (1) solid waste; (2) effluents (treated or untreated); (3) bait shrimp (live or frozen); 

and (4) infected material from processing used in shrimp and fish feed (Figure 5). For example, 

solid wastes from processing facilities are often processed into meal at low temperature (i.e., not 

sufficient to inactivate pathogenic viruses). This meal is added as a protein source to shrimp 

feeds. If this feed is used for animals in aquaculture, and wastewater containing pathogenic 

viruses from culture facilities is discharged into local receiving waters, local wild shrimp stocks 

may be at risk from this pathway. Important factors to consider when evaluating risks to native 

shrimp and aquaculture populations include facility location, seasonal patterns, varying volumes 

of effluent discharges, the source of potentially contaminated shrimp for processing, and waste 

treatment procedures. 

%


&


Live or Frozen Bait Shrimp 

 Pathogenic viruses may be found in infected bait shrimp that could contaminate wild stocks 

through use in recreational and subsistence fishing. The bait shrimp industry is integral to the 

U.S. shrimp fishery, and it supports a large and economically-important sportfishing industry in 

the Gulf of Mexico region. Because the demand for bait shrimp is high, especially when local 

shrimp supplies are limited, many bait shrimpers haul live shrimp among different bays within a 

state or across state lines. At certain times of the year, the demand for bait shrimp has been so 

great that suppliers to the recreational fishery have had to depend on imported shrimp to meet the 

demand. When contaminated bait shrimp are discarded, wild stocks feeding on these discards 

could be vulnerable to infection, especially during the spring and summer when postlarval 

shrimp are migrating into the coastal nursery areas. 

Ballast Water 

 The transport of live shrimp in ballast water is well documented. It is estimated that 25 or 

more species of shrimp have been released to U.S. surface waters through ship ballast. The 

introduction of pathogenic viruses may be possible with the establishment of these new species. 

However, virus introduction to wild stock may result even if exotic shrimp species originating in 

ballast water do not become established (e.g., diseased, dead, or dying shrimp discharged from 

ballast may be eaten by or come in contact with wild crustaceans). Ballast water can include a 

mix of crustaceans (e.g., crab larvae, amphipods, and isopods), and the possibility of viral 

transmission from one crustacean species to another may be amplified under these conditions. 

Research and Public Display 

 Pathogenic viruses may be unintentionally released in association with wastes, feed, or 

organisms from research activities at public agencies, universities, or large public aquaria, or by 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 47 

discarded ornamental cultures of shrimp or other crustaceans. Many of these facilities are 

located in coastal areas in proximity to habitat for wild shrimp populations. Proper quarantine or 

disinfection procedures for new or exotic organisms (i.e., especially those known to carry 

pathogens) are critical for preventing the release of pathogenic organisms, but the extent of these 

procedures varies greatly among research and display facilities. 

Non-Shrimp Translocated Animals 

 Animals other than shrimp may carry viruses that could infect shrimp populations. Potential 

pathways for viral entry include international, national, or regional transport of infected live 

animals, bait, or feed materials. Important factors affecting exposure to wild shrimp include 

location, seasonality, the number of animals, and the proximity of their habitat relative to wild 

shrimp. All but the most basic information is unavailable for evaluating the potential exposures 

these animals represent to wild shrimp. 

Natural Spread 

 While anthropogenic pathways for the introduction of pathogenic viruses to wild shrimp are 

the primary concern, it is possible that the spread of a virus could be enhanced by natural 

processes. Examples include movements by large-scale water currents, hurricane or flood 

events, and translocation by birds or other animals. Little information is available on this 

potential pathway for exposure to pathogenic shrimp viruses. 

Other 

 Two other sources are considered less important than the preceding sources – fishing vessels 

and intentional introductions. When fishing vessels based in U.S. ports return from foreign 

waters, their nets and other equipment may be contaminated with organisms or materials that 

harbor pathogenic shrimp viruses. While intentional introduction of a virus is possible, it is not 

considered likely, and it would be difficult if not impossible to predict or control. 

1* $
.&6

4



.0)

 Because pathogenic shrimp viruses have the potential to be spread through interstate 

commerce, the federal government has regulatory authority in this area. Numerous federal 

agencies have statutory authorities, roles, and overlapping responsibilities for regulating the 

importation and movement of aquatic animals and products in commerce (see Section 7.0). 

Although human health and food safety are clearly provided for under existing federal statutes, 

the health of U.S. domestic shrimp, other crustaceans, and other susceptible “wild” animals may 

not be adequately protected from diseases that may result from the importation of aquatic 

animals or animal products. Under the Lacey Act, importation of plants or animals that are 

considered injurious to humans, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to the 

fisheries and wildlife resources of the U.S. is prohibited; however, current provisions do not 

address shrimp viruses. 
Version 4.0 

Page 48 September 2000

 To prevent future threats to aquaculture, indigenous species, and aquatic ecosystems, federal 

agencies need to better define and coordinate their roles in a number of areas, including 

importation, interstate movement, release of live animals, and waste management (JSA 1997). A 

variety of federal statutes give several different agencies responsibilities for managing risks 

associated with shrimp viruses; however, these statutes do not specifically reference shrimp 

pathogens. Federal agencies that have authority include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) 

 The JSA is a federal interagency advisory group formed under the auspices of the President’s 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. The JSA formed a Shrimp Virus Work Group in 

1996 in response to the growing threat to shrimp aquaculture and concerns for possible effects on 

wild shrimp populations from shrimp viruses. The primary task of the Work Group is the 

development of an interagency strategy to address the shrimp virus issue. As a first step, the 

Work Group identified existing authorities among federal agencies, as well as research underway 

on shrimp viruses, their mode of transmission, and potential for introduction into U.S. waters 

(JSA 1997). In addition, the following actions are being pursued: (1) support information 

exchange and education; (2) develop a risk assessment; and (3) determine actions needed by the 

U.S. to prevent introductions. 

U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program 

 Funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service, and other cooperating institutions, this program operates a Nucleus 

Breeding Center and quarantine centers, and supplies specified pathogen free (SPF) shrimp 

stocks to the U.S. shrimp aquaculture industry. 

0)

 The GMP and its federal agency partners have focused considerable effort on the exotic 

shrimp virus issue in the Gulf of Mexico. In the summer of 1996, a joint U.S./ Mexico shrimp 

virus workshop was held by the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group 

(co-sponsored by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USEPA). The purpose of the 

workshop was to compile knowledge about shrimp virus status, impact, and threats to the shrimp 

culture industry, as well as to wild shrimp populations. Recommendations resulting from the 

workshop included an assessment of disease and financial risks associated with the introduction 

and spread of shrimp viruses in the wild and to shrimp farms (Kumpf et al. 1999). The second 

Gulf-wide effort, in February 1998, was a NOAA/USEPA workshop organized to address the 

development and implementation of specific management strategies dealing with exotic shrimp 

viruses, ballast water pathways, and potential introduced species (Kumpf et al. 1999). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 49 



0)3.

This section was adapted from information available at the Division of Aquaculture, 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website (FDACS 2000). 

 During 1984 the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Aquaculture Policy Act (FAPA) to 

create a governmental framework conducive to the orderly growth of aquaculture. FAPA, 

codified in Chapter 597, Florida Statutes, has been amended almost every year since its passage 

to refine the working relationship between the industry and state government. FAPA directs the 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to carry out a variety of 

responsibilities. An important component of FAPA is a farmer advisory committee, the 

Aquaculture Review Council (ARC). The ARC provides guidance to the Commissioner of 

Agriculture and critical input on the annual development of the Florida Aquaculture Plan. The 

Act also requires all Florida aquaculturists to acquire a Certificate of Registration and abide by a 

set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) (outlined in Rule 5L-3). The FDACS is responsible 

for compliance with these BMPs and conducts annual compliance inspections of farm facilities. 

In the event of a farmer and agency conflict, FAPA directs the FDACS to provide assistance in 

the form of an Aquaculture Ombudsman to intercede on their behalf. 

 Chapter 597, Florida Statutes, states that “any person engaging in aquaculture in the State of 

Florida must be certified by the department.” The purpose of the Aquaculture Certification 

Program is to identify aquaculture producers and aquacultural products, and to implement 

appropriate BMPs at these aquaculture facilities. The appropriate Aquaculture Certification 

number must be on all aquaculture products from harvest to point of sale. An Aquaculture 

Certificate also exempts aquafarmers from certain requirements of wild-harvested species, offers 

tax advantages, and reduces the number of permits required from other regulatory agencies. 



0)3$





 Prevention of nonindigenous shrimp virus introductions could only be addressed through a 

broad interpretation of Mississippi’s Aquaculture Act (Mississippi Code Annotated §79-22-9 

(1972 & Supp. 1999)), passed in 1988 (Van Devender 2000). Most provisions of the act, 

including issuance of aquaculture cultivation and marketing permits, are administered by the 

Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC). Cultivation permits for any 

nonindigenous species are required. The Aquaculture Task Force (ATF), established in the act, 

is charged with advising the MDAC in its permit issuance responsibilities. The Mississippi 

Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is one member of the ATF, and Section 79-22-15(4), 

Mississippi Code of 1972 states: 

“The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks [more suitably MDMR (Van Devender 

2000)] may promulgate regulations which specify criteria to protect marine resources and to 

prevent the release of undesirable species from an aquaculture facility into the environment.”

 Mississippi has a list of prohibited species determined by the ATF to be detrimental to 

Mississippi's native resources, and their release into state waters is forbidden. Further 

aquaculture regulations require nonindigenous species to be cultured with a filter system to 
Version 4.0 

Page 50 September 2000

prevent passage of eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. However, neither the prohibited list nor 

filter requirements affect the possibility of viral releases. Prevention of viruses released from 

non-aquaculture activities would fall into a gray area of authority (Van Devender 2000). Tom 

Van Devender, MDMR, concludes: 

“Only after we can say with some degree of certainty which viruses are endemic, which 

may appear on an irregular periodic basis like the various influenza viruses, or which might 

be genuinely entirely new and introduced by man's activities, and then only after some 

analysis of the effects these viruses have on shrimp and all other important marine species 

can we begin to craft meaningful, enforceable regulations.” (Van Devender 2000). 



0)3-


The following sub-section was adapted from information provided 

by Larry McKinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, in Battelle (1999) 

 

 In 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 

authority to prohibit the introduction of nonindigenous fish species into Texas waters. The 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) began to actively recruit the mariculture industry 

in 1986, and in 1987, the Texas Legislature passed a law allowing an exemption from water 

rights permitting for mariculture facilities. The Fish Farming Act of 1989 transferred most 

aquaculture responsibilities from TPWD to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). TDA 

responsibilities include: (1) promote fish farming products; (2) license and regulate facilities; (3) 

provide technical assistance; (4) provide coordination for university and government entities; and 

(5) develop and expand the industry. TPWD responsibilities include: (1) adopt rules to regulate 

aquaculture of exotic species; (2) publish a list of prohibited exotic species; (3) prohibit the 

release of exotic species; and (4) enforce exotic species rules (Texas Agricultural Code §

134.001). 

 In addition to regulating exotic species for aquaculture use, TPWD is the state agency 

responsible for protecting fish and wildlife resources and managing wild shrimp populations. 

The TPWD management strategy attempts to be responsive to both the harvest and aquaculture 

industries, as well as to meet mandated resource protection responsibilities. Key elements of this 

strategy include allowable exotic species, disease management, native species management, and 

coordinated permitting. Specific policies and procedures include: 

Allowable exotic shrimp species include Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) for 

open mariculture systems, and blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris) in closed systems outside 

an exclusion zone. 

TPWD has worked with industry to develop management responses for IHHNV, TSV, 

WSSV, and YHV outbreaks. 

TPWD initially supported the use of native shrimp, however staff are no longer convinced 

that use of native shrimp is the best option. 

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and TPWD coordinate 

mariculture regulation through a Memorandum of Understanding. TPWD will not issue an 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 51 

Exotic Species Permit until a TNRCC discharge permit is obtained; TPWD has a formal role 

in the TNRCC permitting process. 

 The Fish Farming Act mandated that an Aquaculture Executive Committee (AEC) adopt 

rules for fish farming, advise TDA to suspend licenses for violations, and employ an aquaculture 

liaison to coordinate activities among the entities. However, the AEC is unable to carry out its 

directives due to budgetary constraints. Senate Bill 977 (1991) amended the Fish Farming Act 

by: (1) abolishing the aquaculture liaison position; (2) requiring the AEC to assist applicants 

seeking aquaculture permits; (3) requiring the AEC to coordinate the issuance of permits; (4) 

requiring the AEC to compile a strategic plan biennially; (5) requiring each member of the AEC 

to appoint a staff member as aquaculture coordinator; and (6) creating an industry advisory 

committee. 

 In 1995, TPWD and TNRCC enhanced their regulations to better address disease and 

discharge issues pertaining to mariculture facilities along the Texas coast. The goal of the 

resulting Aquatic Exotic Species Program, implemented in March 1995, is to prevent the 

introduction of nonindigenous aquatic fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants to the public waters of 

the State. Components included: 

Emergency Plans: Require the submission of a plan for all applicants within an exclusion 

zone, describe methods used to prevent release or escapement in the event of a natural 

catastrophe, and replace the rule to destroy exotic species with an approved biocide. 

Research Permits: Reduce the possibility for exotic species escaping and impacting the 

marine environment and permit new exotic marine species research outside the exclusion 

zone. The permit also requires research facilities within the exclusion zone to: (1) be fully 

quarantined; (2) have a closed life support system; (3) have an effluent treatment system 

designed to prevent escape of animals and release of disease-laden effluent; (4) have an 

approved emergency plan; (5) have secured facilities; (6) have an approved disposal method 

for exotic species; (7) agree not to promote the use of unapproved exotic species; and (8) 

have an approved research proposal. 

Health Certification: Required for all exotic shellfish possessed by individuals conducting 

research or displaying animals in public aquaria. 

Screening Requirement: Requires (1) a permanent screen (strong enough to prevent a 

“blowout”) in front of the final discharge pipe in the harvest structure and (2) a screen over 

the end of the discharge pipe of facilities discharging into public waters. 

 In November 1996, the purchase of live Pacific white shrimp was allowed by licensed retail 

or wholesale fish dealers without a permit if their place of business is located outside the 

exclusion zone. In January 1997, Exotic Species and Discharge Permits required (1) new 

applicants to obtain a discharge permit or an exemption from TNRCC prior to applying for an 

Exotic Species Permit and (2) existing Exotic Species Permit holders to demonstrate they 

possess or have applied for a TNRCC discharge permit or exemption. The following disease 

management components were added to the Aquatic Exotic Species Program in April 1998: (1) 

definitions and new rules concerning exotic and native shellfish; (2) a weekly clinical analysis 

checklist; and (3) a choice for permit holders between requesting an inspection from an approved 
Version 4.0 

Page 52 September 2000

examiner or submitting samples to a laboratory for disease analysis as a result of manifestation 

of disease or before discharging. 

 !
"



 A voluntary SPF broodstock and shrimp seed program is used in the U.S. to help prevent 

contamination of commercial aquaculture operations by pathogenic viruses. High Health 

facilities are an important part of the SPF-based industry – producing seed for growout with a 

documented history of pathogen surveillance. Other elements of disease prevention in the 

industry include farm biosecurity practices and quick response to disease outbreaks. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 53 

+ %				&'	

#(),

-
	

“Every minute, 40,000 gallons of foreign ballast water 

is dumped into U.S. harbors.”

James Baker, Under Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (ISC 2000)

"Transport of entire coastal planktonic assemblages 

across oceanic barriers to similar habitats renders 

bays, estuaries, and inland water among 

the most threatened ecosystems in the world.”

Carlton and Geller 2000, of international ballast water exchange 

 To support Gulf-wide coordination and communication of invasive species issues, the GMP 

sponsors a multi-stakeholder Invasive Species Focus Team (ISFT). While the Focus Team 

serves as a venue for all regional, state, and local invasive species problems, the ISFT is 

currently focused on three issues of Gulfwide importance: shrimp viruses, ballast water as an 

introduction vector, and the prevention of new introductions of invasive species. To date, the 

majority of the Focus Team’s efforts have been concentrated on the first two issues. Section 6.0 

provides a summary of the ballast water issue for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

2 %))&	
7

8
"



 Fundamental to world trade, ships have moved across the oceans for centuries and currently 

transport approximately 80 percent of the world’s commodities (NRC 1996). Ballast, normally 

in the form of water, is an integral part of the safe operation of ships under a wide range of 

conditions and loads. The uptake, transport, and subsequent discharge of water and sediment 

from ship ballast tanks can disperse aquatic organisms – including jellyfish, crabs, clams, fish, 

snails, bacteria, and viruses. Research has confirmed that plants, animals, and pathogens can live 

and grow over a long period in ballast tanks and cargo holds (Smith et al. 1996). It has been 

estimated that more than 3,000 species of animals and plants are transported daily around the 

world in ballast water (NRC 1996). While the introduction of bacteria and viruses through 

ballast water is a growing concern (Associated Press 2000), its potential remains virtually 

unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000). The potential for entire coastal planktonic 

assemblages to be introduced by international ballast water transfers, make bays, estuaries, and 

inland waters some of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world (Carlton and Geller 1993). 
Version 4.0 

Page 54 September 2000

 The effects from some introductions have resulted in expensive remedial actions and a broad 

range of adverse ecological repercussions resulting in government, public, and scientific 

attention on the role of shipping as a dispersal vector for nonindigenous aquatic organisms (NRC 

1996). Ports, states, and nations and the international community, under various international, 

national, regional, and local programs, are evaluating the potential impacts of the introductions 

and conducting scientific research to support the evaluation of appropriate management 

strategies and actions to control introductions from ballast water. 

 Appropriate management and control strategies designed to reduce the threat of 

nonindigenous species introductions must effectively address a complex diversity of multiple 

source and discharge environment pairings, and organism diversity in the ballast tanks. The task 

of developing control methods is complicated further by the need to address shipboard safety, 

technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and practicality. 

 Because of the lack of alternative ballast water control strategies, open-ocean exchange –

exchanging ballast water loaded in port or in inshore waters with ocean water during passage 

between ports of call – is the only control option being implemented for reducing the risk of 

introduction. This method is considered effective because most freshwater and estuarine 

organisms cannot survive when discharged into the open ocean environment and vice versa. 

 However, few studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of open-ocean 

exchange. A recent evaluation of the efficiency of ballast water exchange practices and degree 

of ship compliance concluded that although thousands of ships routinely conduct open-ocean 

exchanges, very few studies have directly measured the efficacy of the procedure, and more 

research on both reballasting and dilution procedures is needed on a wider range on ship types 

(Hay and Tanis 1998). Further, because of the complex biological diversity within the tanks, 

there is some question whether open-ocean exchange facilitates the survival of some organisms 

that would otherwise die off prior to port arrival. These uncertainties combined with the fact that 

open-ocean exchange can compromise vessel safety and can be costly, particularly when 

exchange time exceeds voyage time, has led to the conclusion that open-ocean exchange is a 

short-term ballast water management approach. 

 This conclusion has prompted research and investigations into other control options. Control 

options being investigated internationally include avoiding ballasting if water is likely to contain 

unwanted organisms (e.g., in areas of sewage discharge or high sediment loads) and shipboard 

and shore-based treatment of ballast water. A ballast water management plan developed in 

conjunction with the ship cargo plan could provide flexibility for meeting contingencies and 

avoiding ballasting in certain locations. However, without solid criteria and supporting science, 

it is difficult to determine which ports pose highest risk. As a result, development of risk 

assessment frameworks are now being recommended to assist mangers in targeting their 

resources and efforts on those ports of origin, vessels, and particular species that pose the most 

threat. 

 Current research has focused on ballast water treatment options. Shore-based treatment of 

ballast may have some advantages, but centralized handling and treatment of such large volumes 

of water poses many economic and infrastructure challenges including, increased port 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 55 

congestion, lack of available land for treatment facilities, and delays in ship schedules. Although 

shipboard treatment also poses considerable challenges (e.g., space and energy limitations, 

shipboard safety), it currently provides the most flexibility in managing ballast water. 

7

8


%



 In an evaluation of ten major categories of candidate shipboard treatment technologies, the 

National Research Council (NRC) identified several promising approaches including physical 

separation methods, the addition of low concentrations of biocides, and thermal treatment (NRC 

1996). Numerous research projects are underway that attempt to quantify the effectiveness of a 

wide variety of shipboard and shore-based treatment technologies (Table 10). In addition to 

those listed in Table 10, several foreign countries have shipboard treatment research underway 

(Cangelosi, 1999): 

Singapore: Repetitive Bench-Scale Trials of Various Technologies 

Norway: Biological Efficacy of UV 

Germany: Efficacy of Various Chemical Treatments 

Japan: Electrolytic Treatment 

Brazil: Ballast Tank Modifications to Facilitate BWE 

Canada: Thermal Treatment 

Australia: Decision Support System (Hazard Assessment) 

Table 12. Status of Ballast Water Treatment Technology Research Projects 

Technology Complete Underway Pending 

Waste Engine Heat 1996 (Australia) 

Backwash Filtration 1997-98 (GLBTDP) 

Gluteraldehyde 1997-99 (UM) 

Peracetic Acid 1998-2000 (SUNY) 

Shoreside Treatment 1998-20001 (SFBI) 

Cyclonic Separation/UV 1998-2000 (Velox) 

Excimer Ultraviolet 1998-2001 (Sea Grant) 

Ultraviolet (various) 2000 (GLBTDP) 

Full-Scale Design and Installation Plan 2000 (GLBTDP) 

Ultrasonics/Ozone 1999-2001 (Sea Grant) 

Ultrasonics 1999-2001 (Sea Grant) 

Electrically-Generated Ozone 1999-2001 (Sea Grant) 

Juglone 1999-2001 (Sea Grant) 

EVT: Voraxial Separator 2000-2002 (UMCBL) 

GLBTDP = Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project; UM = University of Michigan; UMCBL = 

University of Maryland Chesapeake Biological Laboratory; SFBI = San Francisco Bay Initiative; SUNY = 

University of New York Stonybrook. 

Source: Cangelosi 1999 and BusinessWire 2000 
Version 4.0 

Page 56 September 2000

 Another evaluation of three ballast water treatment technologies – ultraviolet (UV) radiation 

and thermal and acoustic techniques – concluded that ultraviolet radiation is currently the best 

suited technology for secondary treatment of ballast water, because it is well developed, has 

many vendors for producing equipment for a variety of applications, and shows the best potential 

for shipboard trials (Battelle 1998). Since that evaluation was completed, four treatment 

technologies have been developed and are being tested on vessels, including a combined 

filtration and UV treatment system developed by OptiMarin, a Norwegian company, in 

conjunction with Hyde Marine, Inc. This combined system was installed aboard the Princess 

Cruise Lines Regal Princess during the late spring of 2000. Performance data is not available at 

this writing, and it is unknown whether the technology can be effectively and efficiently applied 

as a treatment method for the trade shipping industry, which often requires more frequent 

ballasting operations per voyage. The Battelle (1998) evaluation also indicated that ultrasonics 

technology shows promise for application to ballast water treatment, but more research is needed 

to determine if the technology is suitable for large-scale volumes and high flows. Many of the 

technologies currently under investigation could prove effective in the future, and it is unlikely 

that one treatment technology or control strategy will suffice for all situations. 

2 7

8
"


,		$-

7

8

,		$-

 Ranked by tonnage, the Gulf of Mexico region is home to eight of the ten largest ports in the 

U.S. These include both coastal ports (e.g., Tampa, and Galveston) and riverine ports (e.g., 

Mobile, Houston, New Orleans, and South Alabama). These ports move a large volume of 

international trade, including a high portion from the countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico and 

the Caribbean Sea. Two of the largest inland waterway systems, the Mississippi River system 

and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, flow through these ports and into the Gulf of Mexico. 

Most of the coastal and riverine ports are linked by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). 

Table 13. Distribution of Cargo, Vessel Types, and Ballast Water Exchange for Five Major Gulf of Mexico 

Ports 

Port Cargo 

(million tons) Type Vessel Ballast Water Exchange 

Houston 149 78% Tankers 3.7 million metric tons (1 billion gallons/yr) 

New Orleans 83 37% Tankers 

36% General Cargo 

21.8 million metric tons (5.8 billion gallons/yr) 

Gulfport 2.0 74% General Cargo 17.8 thousand metric tons (47 million gallons/yr) 

Mobile 50.8 70% Bulk Carriers 1.1 million metric tons (293 million gallons/yr) 

Tampa 51.3 52% Bulk Carriers 2.1 million metric tons (543 million gallons/yr) 

Source: Kumpf et al. (1999) 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 57 

 Collectively, a very large volume of cargo is shipped through the ports of the U.S. Gulf 

Coast. A study of five major ports in the Gulf of Mexico calculated estimates of 1996 ballast 

water releases based on cargo volume and ship type (Table 13). The largest volume of ballast 

discharged across these five ports is released by bulkers calling on the Ports of Lower 

Mississippi, followed by tankers in the Port of Houston, and general cargo in the Lower 

Mississippi (Battelle 1998). 

 Detailed ballast water information is now being collected under the National Ballast Water 

Survey. This survey is being conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to evaluate the level of 

ship compliance with the voluntary at-sea exchange guidelines for foreign vessel arrivals. Upon 

entry into U.S. ports, foreign vessels are required to submit a ballast water reporting form 

(Appendix C) indicating whether an exchange has been conducted, and the volume and location 

of exchange. All information reported on the ballast water reporting form is recorded in the 

National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBWIC), operated and maintained by the 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC). 

 NBWIC data relevant to arrivals, ballast water discharge volumes, and vessel origin is 

summarized by USCG and is available via the Internet (http://invasions.si.edu/whats.htm). The 

data summary for all port zones completely included in the Gulf of Mexico region is shown in 

Table 14: port zone abbreviations in Table 14 can be cross-reference with the geographical 

coverage shown in the map provided in Figure 6. The MIAMS port zone was excluded from 

data summary provided in Table 14 as it is encompasses areas beyond the Gulf of Mexico 

region. Though only a summary of the information collected for the ballast water reporting 

forms is available via the Internet, all fields on the ballast water reporting form are recorded in 

the central database maintained by SERC. SERC will provide this dataset, organized by state, 

upon formal written request (Miller, pers. comm.). 

 The data presented in Table 14 is considered draft, but some general trends and conclusions 

can be drawn responsibly. For example, the data show that of the 1831 total vessels reporting, 

more than half reported that some exchange was conducted. More than half, 63 percent, of the 

approximate 4 million gallons of ballast water from all vessels was exchanged. 

The data also show that a large proportion of vessels reporting originate from the Caribbean and 

South and Central America. The summary data available through the NBIWC does not provide 

sufficient detail to allow an analysis of the proportion of ballast water discharge, after exchange, to 

the source region. However, transit time for traveling the major shipping routes (Figure 7) is often 

not long enough to conduct full exchange, and there are few areas along these routes that meet the 

criteria for open-ocean exchange. Further review of a more detailed dataset from the NBWIC could 

provide the needed data to assess exchanged discharge volumes in Gulf ports relative to ship 

sources. 
Version 4.0 

Page 58 September 2000

Table 14. National Ballast Water Clearinghouse Dataa Relevant to the Gulf of Mexico Region 

LOCATION 

REPORTING FORMS 

ARRIVALS/DISCHARGE 

VESSEL TYPES SOURCE REGIONS BY CONTINENT 

OR REGION 

U.S. Coast Guard District Captain of the Port Zone b

Total No. Vessels Reporting Arrivals Discharging Arrivals Discharging with Exchange  Discharge Volume following Exchange Total Discharge Volume Other/Unknown Tanker Passenger General Cargo Container Bulker Africa Asia Atlantic Islands Australia Caribbean Central America Europe Middle East North America c

Pacific Islands South America 

7 TAMMS 270 94 32 287901 392379 89 48 61 21 4 39 6 6 0 1 50 59 17 2 88 0 30 

8 CORMS 164 50 25 176544 430146 33 85 0 1 4 36 8 3 0 0 8 2 14 2 65 0 59 

8 HOUCP 628 223 128 492101 1092323 97 306 0 9 114 70 20 16 0 1 104 62 51 14 248 0 90 

8 MOBMS 118 39 22 135172 184334 43 16 1 7 16 29 6 10 0 1 6 23 7 4 31 0 21 

8 NEWMS 546 206 128 1200710 1527240 54 186 103 13 38 125 26 22 0 0 41 23 86 30 212 0 82 

8 PATMS 105 32 21 215962 324486 14 69 0 2 4 12 4 2 0 0 12 4 8 7 49 0 16 

Total 1831 644 356 2508390 3950908 330 710 165 53 180 311 70 59 0 3 221 173 183 59 693 0 298 

Source: SERC, http://invasions.si.edu/whats.html a

 Data collected in the period between July 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000. 

b

 There was no data reported for the MORMS port zone in the SERC data summary. 

c

 North American data includes vessels originating from Mexico and Canada. A request was made to SERC to 

provide the vessels information for each country. However, there was insufficient time to accommodate the request 

by the time of this submission. Data will be available by the end of September 2000. 

Figure 6. Port Zone Boundaries of National Ballast Water Clearinghouse

Source: SERC, http://invasions.si.edu/whats.htm
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 59 

 





6	7

8

"

4

,		

$-

 Many factors affect the likelihood of nonindigenous species introductions from ballast water 

and the survivability of the newly introduced organisms. To clarify the vulnerability of ports 

within the Gulf of Mexico, a better understanding is needed of each port’s potential to serve as a 

conduit for future invasions of nonindigenous species. One of the primary factors that should be 

considered is total volume of ballast discharged and total volume of ballast discharged after 

exchange. However, this factor alone can not be used to assess port vulnerability. Other factors 

that need to be considered in relation to one another and to ballasting operations and volumes 

discharged include: types and proportions of transport vessels and cargos; trade partners; origin 

of ballast; natural environment and port water quality compared to water quality of trade 

partners; and location of known pests and foulants in port (Barrett-O’Leary 1999). Data and 

information on shipping and ballasting operations can be obtained through the NBWIC and a 

more extensive analysis is recommended. Natural environmental and water quality data can only 

be obtained through research and field studies. Summarized below, is a discussion of these risk 

factors, which has been adapted from Barrett-O’Leary (1999) and discussed in context with the 

availability of NBWIC data. 

Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico Shipping Routes 

Source: Ministry of Defence (1987) 
Version 4.0 

Page 60 September 2000

Tonnage and Ballast Water Discharge Volumes 

 The three ports handling the highest amount of export tonnage in the U.S. are all located 

along the Gulf of Mexico – the Port of South Louisiana, the Port of Houston (number one in 

terms of foreign tonnage), and the Port of New Orleans (Barrett-O’Leary 1999). Review of 

export statistics assist in determining which ports should be evaluated further because it indicates 

which ports are likely to be receiving the highest volume of ballast discharge. However, total 

volume of ballast water discharge is not the only factor to be considered. 

 With the initiation of the National Ballast Water Survey, the NBWIC now contains data on 

the volume of ballast water discharge, the total volume of ballast on board, and total ballast water 

capacity. Using data in Table 14, within the Gulf of Mexico region, the NEWMS port zone that 

includes Southern Louisiana receives the highest volume of ballast water discharge; second is the 

GALMS/HOUCP area containing the ports of Galveston and Houston. These statistics alone 

would suggest that the NEWMS port zone is a higher risk area for the receipt of introduced 

species. However, the proportion and total volume of ballast water discharged after exchange in 

the NEWMS port zone is actually higher than that of the GALMS/HOUCP zone, indicating that 

the GALMS/HOUCP is the area of greater risk. A more detailed evaluation on ballast discharge 

volumes with and without exchange should be conducted to assess trends over time to assist 

individual Gulf ports in assessing and unexchanged ballast discharge volumes. 

Types and Proportions of Transport Vessels and Cargo 

 The risk to individual ports is related, first, to tonnage and ballast water discharge volumes, 

and second, to the ballast water exchange procedures associated with different vessel and cargo 

types. Of the known vessel types reporting (Table 14), the largest proportion of vessels arriving 

in all Gulf of Mexico ports are tankers (49 percent), followed by bulk carriers. Research 

suggests that bulk carriers exchange a large volume of ballast and thus, may be more likely to 

introduce nonindigenous species (Barrett-O’Leary 1999). Often bulkers carry a single 

commodity (e.g., ore, woodchips, etc.) that are loaded or unloaded in total at a particular port. 

Therefore, exporting vessels arrive in port fully ballasted and discharge full volumes while in 

port to take on cargo. In this situation, without any open-ocean exchange, the total volume of 

water and organisms discharged from the bulker would originate from the last port of call. There 

are times however, when bulkers load or unload cargo at a number of sequential ports before 

offloading the entire amount of cargo at a final destination port (Carlton et al. 1995). In these 

instances, similar to the ballasting operations of cargo or container ships, the ballast discharged 

at the final port is a mixture of water taken on in many different ports and may harbor organisms 

from several origins. Tankers tend to conduct ballasting operations in a similar manner to 

bulkers. 

 Container and general cargo vessels usually do not discharge the large volumes that bulkers 

and tankers do, however, they make faster, more direct voyages. This short transport pattern 

may provide better opportunities for plants and animals to live in ballast tanks, or even survive a 

short period in the saltwater environment following an open-ocean exchange (Barrett-O’Leary 

1999). In most cases container ships partially load and unload cargo at many different ports, 

taking on and discharging partial volumes of ballast to compensate for the cargo distribution. As 

a result, container ships often carry ballast water from many different ports and depending upon 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 61 

the loading and unloading pattern, ballast tanks can contain a homogenized mix of ballast water 

from several different ports (Carlton et al. 1995). 

 This information combined with the proportion of vessels types entering the Gulf of Mexico 

(Tables 13 and 14) suggests that more attention should be focused on bulk carriers and tankers. 

However, crucial data is lacking to make such determinations. More detailed data and 

information, by port, is needed on vessel types in conjunction with the volumes on ballast 

discharged with and without exchange to assess patterns and trends and to begin to assess and 

predict individual port risk. However, evaluation of these factors alone will not provide the 

necessary information for a full assessment. To fully understand the impacts and potential risk 

posed by ballast discharge, ballasting operations must be considered in context with the source of 

the ballast water to predict the likelihood of organism survivability in the receiving port. 

Trade Partners and Origin of Ballast 

 Disclosure of all ballast water sources for all tanks is a requirement of the ballast water 

reporting form (Appendix C) and is recorded in the NBWIC. Review and evaluation of this data 

in conjunction with ballasting data would indicate which ports are most vulnerable. It would 

seem likely that trade between neighboring ports would pose less of a risk of introduction than 

ports further away, since neighboring areas may share environments and species. However, this 

may not always be a valid assumption because sometimes species are very different in 

neighboring countries, but the environmental conditions may be quite similar; for example, the 

U.S. Gulf Coast and Mexico (Barrett-O’Leary, 1999). Therefore, it is more important to assess 

the similarities of the environmental conditions (e.g., geology, climate and water quality 

characteristics) and indigenous organisms of the trading ports. Species thriving in ports with 

extremely different water quality and climate characteristics are less likely to survive if 

transferred, and thus vessels carrying ballast from regions with different water quality 

characteristics present less risk. 

 Attention should be directed first to trade vessels with neighboring countries along the Gulf 

of Mexico and Caribbean with similar environments and significantly different species. 

Neighboring countries (South and Central America and the Caribbean) represent approximately 

40 percent of all entering the Gulf of Mexico vessels (Table 14). Trade with areas of the world 

like northern Russia or the Scandinavian countries should receive less research attention because 

the climate is so different that species arriving from those waters are more likely to die than 

becoming established (Barrett-O’Leary 1999). 

 Most of the time the U.S. port of call is the port perceived to be at the highest risk of 

receiving potential invaders. However, the risk for introductions also exists in subsequent U.S. 

ports. Ships, particularly foreign container or general cargo ships, taking on cargo sequentially 

from many different Gulf of Mexico ports may be discharging ballast water taken from previous 

foreign ports of calls, or may be a mixture of domestic and foreign ports. Additionally, in the 

Gulf of Mexico region, inland trade along the GIWW, as well as coastwise trade between 

neighboring Gulf ports, provides an opportunity to spread invasive species among ports. Florida, 

for example, has many aquatic invasive species not found in other Gulf states (Barrett-O’Leary 

1999). Data and information on the sources of ballast water being discharged and the trade 

patterns, both domestic and foreign, are necessary for a full evaluation of the risk of 
Version 4.0 

Page 62 September 2000

introductions. Foreign vessels are required to report their last port of call and their next port of 

call upon entering the U.S. However, no reporting is required in subsequent U.S. ports. As a 

result, ballasting volumes and operations and ballast water exchange information are accessible 

through NBWIC only for transit voyages from the foreign origin port to the first U.S. port of call. 

2* 

)
	,		$-
6


Over the past year three ballast water workshops have been held in the Gulf of Mexico 

region: 

Invasive Species and Ballast Water Management in the Gulf of Mexico Region, October 

1999, New Orleans, Louisiana 

Aquatic Invasive Species and Shipping in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico: A Workshop for the 

Maritime and Scientific Community, November 1999, Tampa, Florida 

Western Gulf Ballast Water Workshop, April 2000, Houston, Texas 

These workshops have either solely focused on the ballast water issue or have addressed it as 

a major component of invasive species management. During each workshop, national and 

regional perspectives on ballast water were shared during presentations made by the ports, the 

shipping industry, environmental managers, and scientists. Workshop participants also shared 

their opinions on regional management of ballast water and provided suggestions for future 

actions. The following highlights have been summarized from the workshop proceedings –

Grantham and Barrett-O’Leary (1999), Greening and Holland (1999), and Barrett-O’Leary 

(2000) – and reflect the perspectives and suggestions of the workshop participants. 

7

8
$
 


 The consensus of the participants was that non-regulatory approaches are not likely to be 

viable. Therefore, regulations are needed to drive ballast water management and treatment 

strategies. Future regulations should be national (or if possible international) in scope and 

should establish uniform standards for clean ballast and acceptable levels of risk, but should also 

allow for regional/local implementation and monitoring. A unified national approach is far 

superior to establishing varying regulations at local levels. The participants agreed that it is 

important to support the USCG voluntary approach and SERC efforts to record regional 

information on ballasting procedures and sources. 

 By comparison to other areas of the country, the Gulf of Mexico has received little attention 

for invasive species research. Participants agreed that more regional efforts are needed to raise 

the visibility of the potential impacts of ballast water introductions within the Gulf of Mexico. 

To accomplish this goal, the Gulf States need to work together, in the same way that the Great 

Lakes States do, to influence funding and research. 

 All workshop participants agreed that a risk assessment approach is necessary to identify and 

focus efforts on the most probable and damaging species, and the geographic areas within the 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 63 

Gulf of highest concern. Public health concerns as they relate to ballast water (i.e., imported 

viruses and bacteria) should be a top priority within the approach. A realistic, scientificallydefensible framework should be developed that accounts for the range and conditions for 

survival and tolerance levels of potential invaders; the origin of foreign vessels entering Gulf 

ports; and the environmental conditions of those ports. However, to develop a risk assessment 

approach, a substantial amount of baseline data needs to be collected to characterize port and 

ballast water quality and biology. 

7

8


%



 There is currently no cost-effective alternative to open-ocean exchange and because of the 

inherent problems with exchange, viable alternatives are needed. Most workshop participants 

agreed that shipboard systems that treat ballast water during ballasting operations were the 

preferred alternative; however, it may be necessary to provide incentives to ship owners for 

installing these systems. Portside facilities will increase port congestion and ultimately impact 

port economics. Additionally, construction of portside treatment facilities will require available 

space and land, both of which are difficult to secure at existing port terminals. The participants 

agreed that a critical review of all potential treatment options needs to be conducted and that all 

potential options should be considered, including alternative sources of ballast. 




 As a result of discussions during these workshops, the following regional needs were 

expressed by participants: 

Stronger action needs to be taken regionally to raise political awareness. 

Regional workgroups and forums need to be established to exchange scientific information 

and to develop management strategies. 

Additional research needs to be conducted to develop methods for preventing invasions. 

Baseline data to support a risk assessment approach is necessary. 

A Gulf-region information clearinghouse needs to be established. 

Educational campaigns targeted at vessel operators need to be initiated locally. 

Public outreach campaigns need to continue. 

2+$
.&6	7

8


"

0)

 Although open ocean exchange of ballast water is currently the best method of controlling 

nonindigenous species introductions, it is a voluntary practice in most countries. As such, it is 

impossible to enforce a particular level of exchange. Ballast water management will most 

effectively be accomplished by international regulations that provide consistent guidelines for all 

countries. 
Version 4.0 

Page 64 September 2000

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

 The IMO, a United Nations agency with jurisdiction over maritime affairs, is developing an 

international framework for ballast water management. In 1997, the members of the IMO 

adopted the resolution, “Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water to 

Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens.” These are voluntary 

guidelines that vessel masters and port states can adopt to minimize the risk of spreading 

nonindigenous species through ballast water. Many countries, including the U.S., have adopted 

these guidelines and some ships are carrying out open ocean exchanges, as called for in the 

guidelines. While these voluntary measures are a good first step, the Marine Environmental 

Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO is continuing to develop a binding legal agreement on 

ballast water management. Current plans are for a final agreement in the 2001-2002 time frame; 

however, it would still need to be ratified by member nations before it becomes effective, which 

could take until 2005. 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 

 MARPOL is an international treaty that addresses pollution from ships. Shipboard waste 

from a variety of sources is regulated under six MARPOL annexes, none of which address 

nonindigenous species in ballast water. The MEPC is promoting a seventh MARPOL annex that 

covers ballast water management. The IMO’s voluntary guidelines will be used as a basis for 

developing these mandatory regulations. The new MARPOL annex would include Ballast Water 

Management Guidelines as well as a Ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan. 

International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) 

 The ICES has convened sessions and symposia focused on reducing the risk of adverse 

effects from transport and introduction of nonindigenous species. Specifically, the ICES 

Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms has included ballast water 

issues on its agenda since 1988. ICES efforts are focused on the research that is needed to 

develop control and treatment techniques, understanding the conditions under which ballast 

water supports a diversity of aquatic organisms, and providing education on managing ballast 

water. 

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 

 The CEC’s “Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems” project has 

two initiatives, one of which is relevant to nonindigenous species and ballast water. The 

“Closing the Pathways of Aquatic Invasive Species across North America,” which will develop a 

coordinated, multinational prevention and control campaign aimed at eliminating pathways for 

the introduction of invasive species for inland and coastal waters of Canada, Mexico, and the 

U.S. 


0)

 The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 

focused on preventing the release of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes where there has 

been significant economic and ecological impacts associated with nuisance species introduced 

through ballast water. The Nonindigenous Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 amended the 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 65 

1990 Act and pertains to all ships that operate in foreign waters and enter U.S. ports. To comply 

with ballast water provisions of NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed both regulations and 

voluntary guidelines in April 1998. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Program 

 To implement the NISA, the USCG has developed regulations that (1) promote ballast 

management for operators of all vessels in waters of the U.S., (2) provide voluntary ballast water 

management guidelines for all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside the EEZ, and (3) require 

that all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the EEZ report ballast water management 

data. On July 1, 1999, the USCG published an interim rule establishing a program for the 

voluntary exchange of ballast water from ships prior to entering U.S. ports. 

 As discussed previously, the USCG, in cooperation with the Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center (SERC), has developed a nationwide program to measure ballast water 

management and delivery patterns for commercial vessels that arrive in U.S. ports from outside 

the EEZ. This National Ballast Water Survey is designed explicitly to create a national database 

on ballast water practices. USCG personnel are involved in the collection of data to verify the 

accuracy of data submitted under the new regulations. In addition, vessel owners and/or 

operators must submit ballast water management forms to the National Ballast Water 

Information Center, operated by SERC for the USCG. Results from the ballast water reports 

may be viewed on the Internet at www.serc.si.edu\invasions\ballast.htm. The USCG plans to 

implement a mandatory ballast management program if compliance with the voluntary program 

is determined to be inadequate. In addition to the value that the data from the survey provides to 

the USCG in evaluating the regulatory approach, the data, as discussed in Section 6.3, will also 

be invaluable to environmental managers and in assessing the potential risks of introductions to 

specific ports. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Review of Ballast Water Regulation 

 In response to a petition from a coalition of environmental groups, USEPA indicated that a 

final decision on whether to revise USEPA’s regulations to direct states to regulate ballast water 

as a point source would not be made until mid-2000. USEPA is currently drafting a white paper 

that will describe options for regulating the discharge of ballast water, and they plan to work 

with the USCG to develop possible options. USEPA then expects to coordinate the proposal 

with its regional offices before releasing it for public review. 

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) 

 The AAPA is working with ports and the USCG to identify opportunities for ports to 

encourage increased compliance among carriers, especially at private bulk-exporting terminals 

where most ballast water is discharged. The AAPA is working with government, industry, and 

private maritime stakeholders to address the problem of terrestrial pests as well as the emerging 

problem of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. The AAPA is currently working with the U.S. 

government and other maritime stakeholders to promote a binding international agreement that 

eliminates the spread of nonindigenous aquatic species with the least disruption to existing 

commercial shipping practices. 
Version 4.0 

Page 66 September 2000

Northeast-Midwest Institute (NMI) 

 The NMI is a private, non-profit, and non-partisan research organization dedicated to 

economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest states. 

Aquatic invasive species is one of NMI’s priority issues and has been active in four main arenas: 

congressional authorizing and appropriating legislation to prevent and control the spread of 

aquatic nuisance species; oversight of program implementation; ship-board ballast treatment 

technology development; and development of an international convention on ballast water 

management as part of the IMO. On December 2-3, 1999, NMI held a discussion forum, “The 

NISA Ballast Management Program: Opportunities to Add Value through Partnerships,” to 

attempted to outline opportunities for interested entities to cooperatively enhance the NISA 

Ballast Management Program. 

Gulf Coast Regional Maritime Technology Center 

 The Gulf Coast Regional Maritime Technology Center, headquartered at the University of 

New Orleans, is an organization established in late 1994 through a cooperative agreement with 

the Office of Naval Research. The main purpose of the Center is to enhance the competitiveness 

of the U.S. maritime industry in the international market by promoting and supporting the 

application of basic research processes in maritime technology development. 



0)

 A number of states are focusing attention on the issue of nonindigenous species and ballast 

water. For example: 

The California legislature passed a bill last year establishing a ballast water management 

program. Vessels entering a California port from outside the U.S. EEZ must pay a fee of 

$400 and submit the USCG’s ballast water management form to the State Lands 

Commission. 

The Maryland legislature considered a bill that would essentially adopt the USCG program. 

A bill similar to the USCG program was developed in the State of Washington, but this bill 

would make ballast exchange mandatory (except when safety is at risk) on all voyages 

including coastwide trades. Additionally, as an incentive to develop ballast water treatment 

technologies, all ballast water discharged into state waters after July 2000 would have to be 

treated. 

A bill introduced to the Michigan legislature required that ballast water be “sterilized” before 

discharge into state water. 

Ballast water legislation has been introduced to the Ohio legislature. 

To date, no ballast water management bills have been introduced in the legislatures of the five 

Gulf States. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 67 

")
"

)


 Several ports have implemented individual ballast water research, reporting, and 

management programs. For example, the Port of Oakland (California) recently proposed to 

require ships using its facilities to discharge ballast water at sea. The Port modeled their 

requirements after those being used in Vancouver (Canada). The Port is on record as favoring 

uniform national regulations for ballast water in order to provide a level playing field for all U.S. 

ports. In addition, the California Association of Port Authorities is sponsoring a study of ballast 

water management technologies. 

 In the Gulf region, the port authorities in Corpus Christi and Houston have made public 

statements at regional ballast water workshops about implementing some ballast water 

management plan, if warranted after their own internal research (Barrett-O’Leary, pers. comm.). 

Regional National Estuary Programs have also identified introductions of invasive species as a 

priority issue. The Coastal Bend Bays National Estuary Program (CCBNEP) included ballast 

water management planning as one of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

Actions. Under this action the CBBNEP plans to educate vessel owners and operators on the 

impacts of ballast operations and identify the vessels entering the port of Corpus Christi that pose 

the highest risk through the evaluation of trade partners, ballasting operations and compliance 

with the voluntary guidelines. 
Version 4.0 

Page 68 September 2000

. (	

 	"	#
"	%/

	 
				

			 

"In a global economy, we must fight a global war against 

invasive pests and diseases.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, March 17, 2000

 Section 7.0 describes the roles of government and private entities that contribute to the 

collective management of invasive species issues in the Gulf of Mexico region. Organizations 

discussed are not limited to those addressing only aquatic invasive species. While a thorough 

inventory of organizations is discussed in this section, it is by no means comprehensive. In fact, 

the Invasive Species Council report, National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species 

Challenge (the final version – dated January 18, 2001 – is available at 

www.invasivespecies.gov), contains an extremely detailed description of the federal and 

international management framework for invasive species, and augments and updates related 

information in this section. 

9 ,%))&	
 )($


.&6

 Invasive species problems arise in seemingly disconnected crises and species, and there is 

general consensus that both federal and state legislation have been developed in a reactionary 

fashion, as each crisis was addressed (ISC 2000). At the federal level, the current management 

framework has its foundation in over 28 pieces of legislation and is dependent on activities of 

more than two dozen different federal agencies. Some of these laws and activities only 

peripherally address invasive species; others cover related issues in a manner unintended in the 

original legislation. The laws addressing threats to agriculture – for centuries a well-developed 

U.S. industry whose risks from invasions were relatively clear – tend to be more developed than 

laws protecting ecosystems or other industries (Corn et al. 1999). For example, laws protecting 

industries such as tourism and electric power and water supplies are far less developed and, in 

some cases, do not exist. 

 With no single law, or coordinated group of laws, providing coordination among federal 

agencies in addressing invasive species concerns, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 

(1993) determined that “the current federal framework is a largely uncoordinated patchwork of 

laws, regulations, policies, and programs.” In general, there are substantial gaps in federal laws 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 69 

and programs to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species, and it is clear that significant 

risks remain unaddressed (ISC 2000). 

 Existing legislation is targeted toward both controlling particular species and regulating 

specific vectors. Species-oriented legislation prohibits or regulates introduction of species that 

have caused problems, or have the potential to cause problems. Much of the current federal and 

state legislation contains lists of prohibited and restricted species. For prohibited lists, it is 

usually illegal to import, sell, possess, or transport those species; restricted species can usually be 

imported, cultured, sold, and/or transported with one or more permits from appropriate natural 

resource agencies. Agency rules, and associated permits, for restricted species often differentiate 

between releases to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture, ornamental fish farms, 

research facilities, public aquaria) and releases to open ecosystems. 

 Hawaii is unique among the U.S. state for using a “clean list” approach, which prohibits all 

nonindigenous species introductions except those that are evaluated and determined not to be 

injurious (Fletcher 2000). However, the clean list approach can be overly restrictive to 

reasonable economic activity and would be difficult to implement in a state like Florida with its 

long-established ornamental fish industry (Hill 2001). 

 It has been suggested that many currently implemented vector-based controls are 

compromised by understaffing and time pressure (Ruesink et al. 1995). For example, for foreign 

imports, the volume of trade creates a tremendous burden on an understaffed federal inspection 

system and forces a strong reliance on self-reporting by the shipping industry (OTA 1993). 

Equally problematic, there has been little support for regulations addressing unintentional “byproduct” introductions (Corn et al. 1999). However, recent efforts to manage ballast water 

discharges represent a serious legislative attempt to control a high-risk introduction vector. 

 Some researchers contend that a consensus is developing that the invasive species problem 

has reached proportions demanding a coherent national policy to guide future actions (Williams 

and Meffe 1999). In 1997, more than 500 scientists and natural resource managers wrote the 

Clinton Administration to express their deep concern about the damage done by invasive species 

every year (ISC 2000). This action resulted in the establishment of a national Invasive Species 

Council (ISC), through Presidential Executive Order, which issued a national invasive species 

management plan in January 2001. At the same time, the recognition of federal framework 

limitations has initiated state and regional management and planning (Fletcher 2000). 

 Universally it is recognized the prevention of new introductions of invasive species, and the 

immediate eradication of new colonies of invasive species, is the most effective, and cost 

effective, method to control invasive species (Mack et al. 2000). Risk-based decision-making 

approaches, based on available information, can help managers to quantitatively evaluate the 

likelihood of an undesired event and the likelihood of harm or damage being caused (Hayes 

1998). At this time though risk-based decision criteria are currently absent from most U.S. 

policy for intentional introductions. However, the ANSTF recently presented a generic 

nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk analysis review process (ANSTF 1996), and Hayes (1998) 

has recently presented a suggested approach for an ecological risk assessment for ballast water 

introductions. Some researchers and managers advocate the implementation of zero-risk policies 
Version 4.0 

Page 70 September 2000

at national and international levels (Mack et al. 2000), assumably for species introductions to 

open ecosystems versus imports to human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture). 

 Given the magnitude of active introduction pathways and the diversity of nonindigenous 

species and receiving ecosystems, an adaptive management approach will have to be adopted. 

This way the relative ecological, economic, and human health threats posed by invasive 

nonindigenous species will periodically re-prioritize prevention, management, control, and 

public education efforts to yield the most benefit for the environment, economic vitality, and 

human health. In addition, management of invasive species ultimately must be a global 

endeavor. Efforts to restrict invasive species introductions to the U.S. will be aided through 

coordination with the countries-of-origin for these species (ISC 2000). 

, 

	,	

$
)



 All five Gulf States have statutory provisions applicable to nonindigenous species 

introductions, and specific provisions applicable to at least selected aquatic species (specific Gulf 

State statutes and regulations are described in Sections 7.5 through 7.9). Each Gulf State 

maintains prohibited and/or restricted species lists, and conducts permit programs to regulate the 

import, possession, sale, and transport of selected species. 

 To date, none of the five Gulf States has established a comprehensive invasive species 

management plan, although plans for a few plant species have been developed in Florida 

(FEPPC 1997, FEPPC 1999). However, planning efforts are beginning at both the state and 

regional levels (Texas Sea Grant Program 1998). In the summer of 2000, the Louisiana Sea 

Grant Program sponsored the state’s first meeting to discuss development of an invasive species 

management plan (Barrett O’Leary, pers. comm.). Likewise, Florida Governor Jeb Bush 

recently requested that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) facilitate a 

meeting of Florida’s state agencies to determine the most effective way to develop a 

comprehensive invasive species management plan (Bush 2000). 

 Two primary statutes and a noxious weed program in Florida, Texas’s Statewide Vegetation 

Management Plan, and Alabama’s Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act, appear to 

adequately address invasive plants in those states. In fact, the Florida and Texas statutes and 

programs could serve as good models for state invasive species management plans, as they 

provide a lead executing agency, scientific research directives, prohibitions on introductions, and 

grant programs for local agencies (Fletcher 2000). However, in both of these cases, the states do 

not have provisions applicable to freshwater and saltwater animals: statutory authorities would 

have to be expanded for truly comprehensive planning. In Texas and Louisiana nonindigenous 

animal restrictions are basically a patchwork of aquaculture and wildlife provisions (Fletcher 

2000). 

 With respect to regional planning, Fletcher (2000) indicates that no Gulf State statutes 

provide (1) provisions to offer notice of identifications, introductions, or infestations to 

neighboring states or (2) any provisions for mitigation. Without such provisions, significant 

conflict can occur among states when a nonindigenous species introduction is intentional and 

controversial (Fletcher 2000). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 71 

9 .0)

.0&


 The array of federal laws that affect invasive species management, prevention, and control 

generally fall into three categories: (1) statutes and treaties that restrict importation through trade 

regulation (and sometimes interstate movement) of intentional introductions or organisms 

brought into the U.S. for specific purposes; (2) statutes that address unintentional introductions 

of organisms as an adjunct to other commercial activity; and (3) environmental legislation for 

land management (organic acts) and other conservation and natural resources laws that require 

consideration of risks and cumulative impacts to natural resources and systems, including species 

at risk of extinction (ISC 2000). Table 15 provides summary descriptions of the applicable 

federal laws and Appendix D provides a more detailed description of most of these laws. 

Table 15. Federal Laws Regulating Introduction and Movement of Nonindigenous Species 

Federal Law Summary Description 

Lacey Act (1900) Strengthens and supports state wildlife conservation laws and promotes 

agricultural and horticultural interests by prohibiting importation of injurious 

wildlife. 

Plant Quarantine Act (1912) Regulates imports or interstate shipments of plants or their parts and 

propagates to prevent introduction of plant diseases and insect pests. 

National Park Service Organic Act 

(1916) 

Promotes the eradication and control of nonindigenous species and prohibits 

most introductions in national parks. 

Animal Damage Control Act (1931) Provides the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with the authority 

to control wildlife damage (including nonindigenous species) on federal, 

state, and private land. 

Federal Seed Act (1939) Authorizes U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for seed purity 

and to reduce the interstate movement and importation of nonindigenous 

plants. 

Public Health Services Act (1944) Regulates entry of living organisms that may carry or cause human diseases. 

Organic Act (1944) Forms the basis of the Animal and Plan Health Inspection Service’s 

domestic detection, eradication, control, and prevention efforts with regard 

to plant pests. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (1947) 

Controls movement of nonindigenous microbes into and through the U.S. 

Importation of Certain Mollusks 

(1951) 

Provides for the inspection and treatment of goods entering the U.S. from 

areas infested with any terrestrial or freshwater mollusks to control entry of 

such organisms. 

Department of Agriculture Organic 

Act (1956) 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is authorized to conduct an 

eradication program in countries adjacent to or near the U.S. 

Federal Plant Pest Act (1957) Restricts agricultural pests (pathogens, noxious weeds, animal, and plant 

pests) from importation and interstate movements. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(1970) 

Requires federal government agencies to consider the environmental effects 

of their actions through the preparation of environmental impact 

statements—possible applications to nonindigenous species. 

Marine Protection, Reserves, and 

Sanctuaries Act (1972) 

Releases of ballast water might be permitted or otherwise controlled under 

ocean dumping provisions. 

Endangered Species Act (1973) Protections for rare species may provide vehicle for regulation of 

nonindigenous species. 
Version 4.0 

Page 72 September 2000

Federal Law Summary Description 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974) Provides program support to control undesirable plants on federal lands. 

Executive Order 11987 Exotic 

Organisms (1977) 

Restricts the introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems under 

federal agency authority. 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 

(1978) 

Detects, identifies, surveys, and controls forest pests. 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

(1980) 

The Act, as amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control 

Act of 1987, requires ships in U.S. waters to comply with the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 

Clean Water Act (as amended in 

1987) 

Releases of ballast water might be permitted or otherwise controlled under 

sections 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and 303(d) 

Total Maximum Daily Load program. 

Agricultural Quarantine 

Enforcement Act (1989) 

Prohibits shipping of plants, fruits, and vegetables via first-class mail. 

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

and Trade Act (1990) 

Establishes Genetic Resources Program to collect, classify, preserve, and 

disseminate genetic material important to agriculture. 

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife 

Restoration Act (1990) 

Controls the sea lamprey. 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

(1990) 

Enables USEPA to regulate nonindigenous microbes. 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act (1990) 

Controls and reduces the spread of aquatic pest species. 

Alien Species Prevention and 

Enforcement Act (1992) 

Prohibits the shipping of certain categories of plants and animals through the 

mail. 

Wild Bird Conservation Act (1992) Regulates the importation of certain wild birds, which may reduce the 

associated importation of nonindigenous parasites and diseases. 

Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery 

Act (1992) 

Addresses the problems of the native forests of Hawaii, including the 

introduction of nonindigenous species. 

National Invasive Species Act 

(1996) 

Amended the NANPCA of 1990. Prevents the introduction and spread of 

aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through ballast water and other 

vessel operations. Encourages international program to prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive species in ballast water. 

Executive Order 13112 Invasive 

Species (1999) 

Prevents the introduction of invasive species, provides for their control, and 

then reduces impacts through improved coordinated federal agency efforts 

under a National Invasive Species Management Plan. 

Sources: Corn et al. (1999) and Williams and Meffe (1999). 

. 

(



 The OTA (1993) reports that federal activities occur in several areas: 

Movement of species into the U.S. Restricting entry of harmful nonindigenous species by 

regulation, inspection, and quarantine, or enhancing entry by intentional importation of 

desirable species, or by importation of materials that unintentionally harbor harmful 

nonindigenous species. 

Movement of species within the U.S. across state lines. Restricting movement of harmful 

nonindigenous species by regulation, inspection, and quarantine, or enhancing movement of 

desirable nonindigenous species by intentional transfers, or by transporting materials that 

unintentionally harbor nonindigenous species. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 73 

Regulating product content or labeling. Restricting entry or interstate movement of harmful 

nonindigenous species by regulating contamination or mislabeling of nonindigenous species 

in commerce. 

Controlling or eradicating harmful nonindigenous species. 

Introducing desirable nonindigenous species. 

Federal land management. Preventing, eradicating, or controlling harmful nonindigenous 

species on federal lands and introducing or maintaining desirable nonindigenous species on 

federal lands. 

Nonindigenous and invasive species research. Addressing prevention, control, and 

eradication of harmful nonindigenous species and beneficial uses of nonindigenous species. 

Aquaculture development. 

Biocontrol development. 

Appendix E is a matrix presenting the areas in which each federal agency is involved. Appendix 

F is a matrix that presents federal agency coverage as it relates to major species groups. 

Appendix G provides detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the following 

federal agencies: 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 

x Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

x Animal and Plant Health inspection Service (APHIS) 

x Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) 

x Economic Research Service (ERS) 

x Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

x U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

U.S. Department of 

Commerce 

x National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

x National Sea Grant College Program 

U.S. Department of 

Defense 

x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

U.S. Department of 

the Interior 

x Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

x U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

x National Park Service (NPS) 

x Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 

U.S. Department of 

State 

x Department of State 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

x U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

x Federal Highway Administration (FHA) 

Independent 

Agencies 

x Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

x National Science Foundation (NSF) 

x Smithsonian Institution 

Interagency Efforts x Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds (FICMNEW) 

 !



6.: . ;

 The NANPCA of 1990 created the ANSTF to provide, in an advisory capacity, an 

intergovernmental organization for the development of a coordinated federal program to control 
Version 4.0 

Page 74 September 2000

aquatic nuisance species. The ANSTF consists of seven federal agency representatives and ten 

ex-officio members. It is co-chaired by the USFWS and NOAA; other participating federal 

agencies are USEPA, USCG, USACE, USDA, and the U.S. Department of State. The ANSTF is 

responsible for all aspects of the Act other than those associated with Great Lakes ballast water 

and national shipping programs. Specific responsibilities are to: 

Develop a program for U.S. waters to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic 

nuisance species and the brown tree snake, to monitor, control and study such species, and to 

disseminate information. 

Establish and follow a protocol to ensure that research carried out under the Act does not 

result in the introduction of aquatic nuisance species to U.S. waters. 

Conduct a biological study and ballast exchange study and ecological surveys. 

Recommend allocation of funds authorized under the Act for competitive research grants to 

study all aspects of aquatic nuisance species. 

Develop voluntary guidelines to control the spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic 

nuisance species through recreational activities, including boating and fishing. 

Request the Great Lakes Commission to convene a panel of Great Lakes representatives to 

provide advice about and coordinate efforts devoted to aquatic nuisance species in the Great 

Lakes. 

Establish and use the Western Regional Panel and encourage the development and use of 

other regional panels. 

Provide technical assistance in the development and implementation of state and interstate 

aquatic nuisance species management plans, review and approve such plans, and make 

recommendations for grants to implement approved plans. 

Advise the Secretary of State regarding aquatic nuisance species infesting waters shared by 

the U.S. and other nations, as well as, planning and implementation programs to prevent, 

monitor, study, provide education about, and control those infestations. 

 The partnership that is the ANSTF has initiatives and activities underway in the following 

action categories: (1) biological case studies and ecological surveys; (2) control programs; (3) 

prevention initiatives; (4) risk assessments and reviews; (5) policies; and (6) protocols and 

guidance. Most of these activities are coordinated by the ANSTF through standing or ad-hoc 

committees and subcommittees. The following subsection highlights one of such activity. 

National Voluntary Aquatic Nuisance Species Guidelines for Recreational Activities 

 The ANSTF established a Recreational Activities Committee to draft voluntary guidelines to 

prevent the spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species through boating, fishing, 

and other recreational activities. The USCG must issue these voluntary guidelines, based on the 

recommendations prepared by the ANSTF, to comply with the NISA of 1996. 

 The purpose of the voluntary guidelines is to provide clear, concise information for 

dissemination to the public, identifying specific practices that can be undertaken to minimize or 

avoid transport of aquatic nuisance species. The Committee, chaired by the USFWS, is 

comprised of representatives from numerous other organizations and agencies. The Committee 

adopted the following strategy: (1) develop generic guidelines; (2) identify the potential 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 75 

recreational pathways of spread; (3) develop specific guidelines for the various recreational 

pathways; and (4) identify potential partners to participate in disseminating and implementing 

the guidelines. 

 The USCG is currently seeking comments on Voluntary Guidelines on Recreational 

Activities To Control the Spread of Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species. These 

voluntary guidelines are for persons engaged in water-related recreational activities (e.g., boating 

and fishing) to help control the spread of the zebra mussel and other aquatic nuisance species. 

")
)
:";

 The ISC was established by Executive Order 13112. It is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the 

Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; other members of the Council include the 

Secretaries of Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation, and the 

Administrator of USEPA. Other agencies and subcabinet offices may be added as necessary. 

The ISC is managed by an Executive Director and staff supplied by the U.S. Department of 

Interior. The ISC established an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

to provide information and advice in achieving the goals and objectives of the Executive Order. 

 The ISC provides national leadership regarding invasive species by: 

Overseeing implementation of the order in conjunction with the agencies and existing 

organizations such as the ANSTF, FICMNEW, and the Committee on Environment and 

Natural Resources; 

Encouraging planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels 

in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations; 

Developing recommendations for international cooperation; 

Coordinating with the Council on Environmental Quality; 

Developing guidance to federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

for inclusion of invasive species in Environmental Impact Assessments; 

Facilitating development of a coordinated federal agency network to document, evaluate, and 

monitor impacts from nonindigenous species; 

Establishing a coordinated information-sharing system that collects information on 

nonindigenous species including distribution and abundance of nonindigenous species; life 

histories; invasive characteristics; economic, environmental and human health impacts; 

management techniques; and laws and programs for management, research and public 

education; 

Preparing and issuing a National Invasive Species Management Plan. 

 The ISC issued the first draft of United States Invasive Species Draft Management Plan: 

Preparing for the Future on July 10, 2000. The draft Management Plan is divided into four 

sections. The first section briefly describes problems associated with invasive species and future 

trends that will impact the introduction of invasive species. The second section describes the 

federal response to date to the challenges presented by invasive species, providing a brief 

summary of authorities and management approaches and a discussion of gaps in those authorities 
Version 4.0 

Page 76 September 2000

and approaches. The Action Plan presents a vision and guiding principles and a series of 

recommendations for federal agencies that focus on the next few years, as well as measures that 

can be achieved over the longer term. This third section includes strategies to reduce the risk of 

invasive species introductions and identifies research priorities. The Council Progress and 

Action section, the fourth section, describes the work of the Council to date and actions that the 

ISC will take over the next few years prior to revision of the management plan. It also provides 

accountability measures that hold the ISC responsible for seeing that the plan is carried out. 

 The ISC will update the Management Plan biennially and will concurrently evaluate and 

report on success in achieving the goals and objectives described in the Management Plan. The 

Plan will identify the personnel, other resources, and additional levels of coordination needed to 

reduce the threat of nonindigenous species. 

#	
6.

 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has developed the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral 

Reefs (issued in March of 2000), which identifies invasive alien species as one of the specific 

and widely accepted threats to coral reefs requiring immediate action. The Plan calls for specific 

actions to address nonindigenous species threats to coral reefs utilizing existing authorities 

among various federal and state agencies. 

9* 0)

 The OTA (1993) determined that conflicts, particularly regarding nonindigenous aquatic 

species releases, arise among states because of their differing ecological, economic, and policy 

contexts. States lack the power to stop the importation and release of a potentially invasive 

nonindigenous species in a neighboring state. Since few federal laws compel states to cooperate 

with each other, and states have differing priorities, conflicts can and do occur. Sometimes no 

mechanism exists for resolving conflicts between states short of a federal lawsuit. 

 Regional approaches provide opportunities for states to resolve their differences and 

influence the actions of neighboring states. Such approaches have been used most frequently for 

evaluating aquatic releases, and several regional entities exist with a specific role to coordinate 

introduction policies across a particular region. For example, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commission provides the venue for state officials to agree on guidelines for releases, 

inspections, and permits. Expanding the use of regional approaches for other types of releases 

appears promising, but is limited by their voluntary nature. The regional organizations that exist, 

however, provide important forums for proactively addressing potential differences. 

,		$-

 Over the last decade, substantial progress has been made in documenting and responding to 

nonindigenous species and their associated impacts. The NANPCA of 1990 established the first 

institutional framework for national policy and programmatic response to the issue. The role of 

regional, multi-jurisdictional organizations has been growing significantly with the recognition 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 77 

that prevention and control efforts are more effective when administered on a hydrologic (i.e. 

ecosystem) basis, as opposed to a geopolitical basis. A regional, multi-jurisdictional approach to 

the aquatic nuisance species issue was further emphasized with the passage of the NISA of 1996 

which fosters and encourages the development of regional panels by the ANSTF to advance 

prevention and control efforts. These panels serve in a voluntary capacity to provide the ANSTF 

with (1) regional input on emerging invasive species issues, (2) coordination of regional 

programs involved in controlling invasive species, and (3) development of recommendations on 

policy and/or program actions that are recommended to be undertaken at the national level by the 

organizations represented by the ANSTF. 

 In 1998, the ANSTF invited the GMP to serve as the Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel. The 

structure of the GMP’s Management Committee is ideally suited, by virtue of its broad 

organizational management representation, to serve as the Gulf Regional Panel. The Invasive 

Species Focus Team provides the technical expertise in identifying, evaluating, and preparing 

characterizations of and recommendations on invasive species issues and initiatives in the Gulf 

of Mexico region. 

 The Management Committee’s responsibilities as Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel include the 

following: 

Identify Gulf regional priorities for responding to aquatic nuisance species; 

Make recommendations to the ANSTF regarding education, monitoring, and prevention of 

aquatic nuisance species in the Gulf region; 

Coordinate other Gulf aquatic nuisance species program activities not pursuant to the Act; 

Develop an emergency response strategy for federal, state, and local entities for the purpose 

of eliminating new invasions of aquatic nuisance species in the Gulf; 

Provide advice to public and private individuals and entities across the Gulf region 

concerning methods of preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species infestations; and 

Submit an annual report to the ANSTF describing the Gulf region’s invasive species 

management activities. 

 The first official meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel was held in October 1999 in 

Galveston, Texas. The Gulf Regional Panel is identifying regional priorities, developing a 

workplan, and developing an emergency response strategy for federal, state and local entities. In 

addition, the panel is developing comprehensive outreach and education strategies. 

<<
$"

)

 The USFWS initiated the 100th Meridian Initiative as a means of preventing the spread of 

zebra mussels west of the 100th meridian. Initial surveys of boats being transported through 

Texas indicate that boats may not be a significant vector for transport of zebra mussels across 

this meridian (McKinney 2000). The USFWS will probably reevaluate boat survey strategies 

over the next year and focus on other pathways for transport of zebra mussels west of the 100th

meridian. 
Version 4.0 

Page 78 September 2000

,	


$.



:,$.;

 The GSMFC is an organization of the five Gulf States. This compact, authorized under 

Public Law 81-66, was signed by representatives of the Governors of the five Gulf States on July 

16, 1949, at Mobile, Alabama. It has as its principal objective the conservation, development, 

and full utilization of the fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico, to provide food, employment, 

income, and recreation to the people of these United States. 

 During a recent GSMFC meeting, there was a discussion about the need for state plans for 

the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic species. Subtitle C, Section 1204(a) of the 

NANPCA of 1990 calls for the development of state plans to assist states and the federal 

government in establishing programs. As a result of those discussions, the GSMFC formally 

recommended that the Governors of the five Gulf States proceed rapidly to develop state plans 

(GSMFC 1999, Fletcher 2000). Through a variety of venues, including the GMP, the GSMFC 

Sport Fish Restoration Administrative Program will be engaged in planning activities to move 

this effort forward. 

0&$



)

 On March 20 to 23, 2000 the first joint meeting of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation 

Committee (UMRCC) and the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC) was 

held in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Resource professionals from the entire length of the 

Mississippi River met to discuss river resource issues. One of the most critical issues addressed 

was that of nonindigenous species. One of the primary reasons for the continuing influx of 

nonindigenous species to North America is a lack of federal legislation regulating intentional and 

accidental importation of these organisms. Both the LMRCC and UMRCC strongly advocate the 

need for federal action, in cooperation with the states and private industry, to alleviate this 

problem. Federal action is also needed to require that any imported species be proven innocuous 

before it is allowed to enter the country. 


.'






6.:.'
6.;

 In 1993 a federal Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was established by interagency 

agreement to develop “consistent policies, strategies, plans, and priorities for addressing the 

environmental concerns of the South Florida ecosystem.” The Task Force was later formalized 

and expanded to include tribal, state, and local governments by the 1996 Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA). The purpose of the expanded SFER Task Force is to develop and 

implement a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida 

ecosystem. In this capacity it serves as an information clearinghouse (for example, the Internetbased South Florida Restoration Science Forum) and a coordinating entity that guides the 

restoration effort and ensures fiscal accountability. Invasive species is one of the SFER Task 

Force’s priority issues. 

 The 1996 WRDA specified that the SFER Task Force establish a Florida-based working 

group, which includes representatives of the agencies and entities represented on the SFER Task 

Force as well as other governmental entities, for the purpose of formulating, recommending, 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 79 

coordinating, and implementing the policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and 

priorities of the Task Force. 

9+ ./






Section 7.4 was excerpted from OTA (1993). 

 Few generalizations can be made regarding federal-state relationships concerning 

nonindigenous species. The authority of the federal and state governments varies not only with 

the type of organism regulated, but also depending on the particular federal and state laws and 

agencies involved. Mainly, however, states control the entry of nonindigenous species across 

state borders and release of nonindigenous species within the state. Often these are pests, of 

either foreign or U.S. origin, that are already established elsewhere in the country. For fish and 

wildlife, states retain almost unlimited power, notwithstanding the Federal Lacey Act, to make 

decisions about which species are imported and/or released. Federal incursions on this 

traditional state control over fish and wildlife have been limited and controversial. In contrast, 

several major federal laws – such as the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Federal Noxious Weed 

Act – set national policy for weeds and other plant pests. 

 Where federal programs miss significant problems, states, in effect, determine the success of 

nationwide efforts to manage harmful nonindigenous species. There are important limits to the 

states’ capacities, however. The U.S. Constitution vests the power to regulate international and 

interstate commerce in Congress. Therefore, states cannot unnecessarily restrict such commerce. 

As a result of the Commerce Clause, states lack the power to stop the importation and release of 

a potentially invasive nonindigenous species in a neighboring state. 

 None of the Gulf States has sufficient geographical barriers against the interstate spread of 

nonindigenous species, and only Texas land bordering Mexico has border inspection stations to 

interdict pests in transit. Without these kinds of barriers, a state cannot do much to slow the 

influx of state-prohibited plants or seeds that were acquired legally in another state or country. 

Nor can a state effectively stop mail-order sales of plants or seeds it prohibits, as policing the 

mails is a federal function. In addition, states cannot legislate in direct conflict with federal law. 

Nor can they directly regulate activities on federal lands, absent a cooperative agreement. 

Occasionally, federal laws explicitly preempt state involvement. 

.
	

0&

 The finding of the OTA is that federal preemption of state law varies among categories of 

nonindigenous species; it is more common in agricultural laws than in those related to fish and 

wildlife – traditionally an area of state prerogatives. Cooperative programs are a more feasible 

way for the federal government to influence state actions. 

 A key issue in the relationship between federal and state authorities is whether an applicable 

federal law preempts state laws, keeping states from legislating in the area. This occurs when the 

federal law explicitly or implicitly provides for preemption, or regulates an area so 

comprehensively as to leave no practical state role. The Lacey Act required that a list of 
Version 4.0 

Page 80 September 2000

“injurious” species or groups be created and it preempts states from allowing foreign importation 

of the 23 “injurious” taxonomic categories of fish, wildlife, and fish pathogens on that list. The 

Lacey Act does not, however, forbid more restrictive state laws. 

 Similarly, no state may permit foreign importation of a weed species prohibited and listed 

under the federal Noxious Weed Act, although it does not otherwise preempt state weed laws. 

The federal Plant Quarantine Act also allows states to be more restrictive under certain 

circumstances, but it imposes a strong federal presence. For example, the federal government 

can quarantine an entire state under the Act. The federal Plant Pest Act similarly provides strong 

emergency authority to override state laws. 

 The federal power to preempt does not mean that the federal approach is always the best. 

Some state laws regulate more comprehensively than parallel federal laws and their 

implementation is more effective. Such states are, in effect, laboratories where different 

approaches are tested; their successes can spawn federal imitation. Nevertheless, when states 

adopt widely varying laws, the regulated industries may support federally imposed uniformity to 

facilitate commerce. 

 Using federal preemptive powers to implement a national approach is fraught with political 

difficulties – especially for fish and wildlife – and usually engenders resistance from the states. 

Thus, the trend is toward programs administered cooperatively by state and federal officials. In 

these the federal government provides incentives to pull, and sanctions to push, the states toward 

certain general goals or national minimum standards. Several points made in a 1987 USFWS 

discussion paper on aquatic introductions appear applicable to nonindigenous species 

introductions in general: 

“Introduced aquatic organism issues are inherently interjurisdictional and, thus, clearly national, 

indeed international in scope. Despite this federal interest, however, emergence of a fully effective 

program for avoiding undesirable introductions of aquatic organisms requires that involvement by the 

federal government not preempt state authority. Rather, the federal government should function as a 

catalyst/facilitator establishing incentives for action by the states and the other co-managers of the 

Nation’s fishery resources. However, it will also be imperative to ensure universal applicability of 

any action. Although it must be exercised as a last resort, a credible threat of federal sanctions 

against non-complying jurisdictions is essential to ensure uniform and, therefore, fair application of 

any corrective strategy.”

 Congress has previously recognized circumstances that justify overriding state management 

of nonindigenous species when it conflicted with federal goals. Under this reasoning, other 

states could be compelled to manage nonindigenous species to prevent conflicts with threatened 

or endangered species. Thus, there could be instances of federal preemption even in the 

traditionally state-dominated area of fish and wildlife management. 

./




 Cooperative programs serve several key functions in federal and state efforts. Many provide 

a means for developing consistent strategies in areas of common concern. Federal and state 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 81 

agricultural officials, for example, collaborate in the regulation of nonindigenous species 

importation, interstate commerce, and control. 

 Certain programs aim for consistent goals in the management and control of harmful 

nonindigenous species across a geographic region; it does little good for an invasive species to 

be controlled in one area but not in adjacent areas from which it can re-invade. The 1990 

amendment to the Noxious Weed Act acknowledged this by requiring federal land managers to 

control state-prohibited weeds. Several other cooperative programs for nonindigenous weeds are 

voluntary, for example, Florida’s Exotic Pest Plant Council, which enhances cooperation among 

control efforts primarily for non-agricultural weeds. 

 Some programs allow targeting of federal funds or technical assistance to the states for 

actions serving both national and state needs. The USACE oversees a program for the control of 

aquatic weeds in which state or local governments can partially recover costs for weed control in 

navigable waterways. The USFWS provides information and expertise on diseases affecting 

aquaculture, an area where no comprehensive federal program currently exists. 

 In some areas, the federal government assists or provides funds to address state needs. 

Sometimes these programs rely on federal powers. Also, federal inspectors at ports of entry in a 

particular state may help interdict species prohibited by that State, even if they are not federally 

listed. Federal assistance for local problems makes sense if, over the long run, they may become 

national ones (e.g., a rapidly spreading nonindigenous species) or if local problems are so 

common they become a national concern. The NANPCA of 1990 provides for state submission 

of comprehensive invasive species management plans. States with approved plans may receive 

federal matching grants for implementation. 

91 

0)3 (

 The Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act is Alabama’s primary nonindigenous species 

statute (Alabama Code §9-20-1 - 7 (1975 & Supp. 1999)). Section 9-20-1 states that “any person 

who introduces, places, or causes to be introduced or placed, any nonindigenous aquatic plant 

into any public waters of the state shall be in violation of this chapter.” Authority is given to 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) to carry out the act’s 

provisions and establish standards for it’s enforcement. Table 16 lists aquatic plant species 

prohibited under the act’s authority. 

 Section 9-2-13 gives the Commissioner of ADCNR the authority to “prohibit by duly 

promulgated regulation, the importation of any bird, animal, reptile, amphibian, or fish when the 

importation of such animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish would not be in the best interest of 

the state.” The ADCNR Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries has in place regulations 

prohibiting the placement or introduction of several fishes and one aquatic mammal that are 

nonindigenous to the state. However, in most instances, these regulations serve to control the 

spread of these species, not prevent their original introduction (Minton 2000). These regulations 

state that “no person, firm or corporation, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, 
Version 4.0 

Page 82 September 2000

bring or cause to be imported into the State of Alabama” certain species: Table 17 lists the fishes 

and mammal prohibited under these regulations. 

Table 16. Prohibited Plant Species in Alabama 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Aloe sp. Water-aloe 

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligatorweed 

Egeria densa Brazilian elodea 

Eichhornia azurea Rooted waterhyancith 

Eichhornia crassipes Floating waterhyancith 

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla 

Hygrophila polysperma Hygrophila 

Ipomoea aquatica Water spinach 

Lagarosiphon major African elodea 

Genus: Limnophila Limophila 

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife 

Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot-feather 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 

Najas marina Spinyleaf naiad 

Pistia stratiotes Water-lettuce 

Potamogeton crispus Curlyleaf pondweed 

Salvinia molesta Giant salvinia 

Trapa natans Water chestnut 

Source: Alabama Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control Act (1995, No. 95-767, p. 1813, §3) 

Table 17. Prohibited Fish and Aquatic Mammal Species in Alabama 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Fish of the genus Clarias Walking catfish 

Fish of the genus Serrasalmus Piranha 

Genus Mylopharyngodon Black carp 

Siniperca spp. Chinese perch 

Channa maculuta Channa 

Chirrhinus molitonella Chirrihinus 

Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring 

Acipenser spp., expect A. oxyrhynchus Non-native sturgeon 

Scardinius erythrophthalmus Rudd 

Rutilus rutilus Roach 

Myocastor coypus Nutria 

Source: Alabama Regulations 220-2-.26 and 220-2-.93 (1999-2000) 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 83 

92 

0)3.

..
8	
)


:..8;

 The FFWCC is charged with managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term wellbeing and the benefit of people of Florida. Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, 

Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 370 Saltwater Fisheries, Florida Statutes (1999) provides 

authority regarding nonindigenous species and protection of Florida’s living marine resources. 

According to § 370.081(2): 

“It is unlawful to import or possess any marine plant or marine animal, not indigenous to the 

state, which ... may endanger or infect the marine resources of the state or pose a human 

health hazard ...”

This section provides a list of marine organisms that may not be imported (Table 18). 

Table 18. Prohibited Marine Fish Species in Florida 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Family Hydrophiidae sea snakes 

Family Trachinidae weaverfishes 

Genus Synanceja stonefishes 

Source: § 370-081(2), Florida Statutes (1999) 

 Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 372 

Freshwater Fish Dealer’s License, Florida Statutes (1999), prohibits the importation of any 

exotic or nonindigenous fish without a fish sale license and fee payment through FFWCC (§

372.65(1)) (note that this statute does not apply to persons or businesses with an aquaculture 

permit for the same species). 

 According to the FFWCC Code, Chapter 68A Freshwater Fish and Wildlife (68A-23.008): 

“No person shall transport into the state, introduce, or possess for any purpose that might be 

reasonably expected to result in liberation into the waters of the state, any aquatic species not 

native to the state, without having secured a permit from the Commission ...”

 Subject to specific conditions and adequate safeguards to prevent escape or accidental 

release, permits for restricted species (and their hybrids) are available for research or 

aquacultural purposes, commercial import or export facilities, or public aquaria involved in 

educational efforts. Permits are not issued for display in private aquaria. Facilities and all 

records (e.g., shipping tickets, invoices, bills of lading, or other records of sales, 

purchases, or transfers) are subject to periodic inspection by the FFWCC. Table 19 presents 

restricted freshwater species that may be possessed only under permit from the Executive 

Director of the FFWCC. 
Version 4.0 

Page 84 September 2000

Table 19. Restricted Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Aristichthys nobilis Bighead carp 

Family Osteoglossidae, all species except 

Silver arowana (Osteoglossum 

bicirrhosum) 

Bony-tongue fishes 

Genus Salminus, all species Dorados 

Family Potamotrygonidae, all species Freshwater stingrays 

Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp * 

Genus Lates, all species Nile perches 

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp 

Mylopharyngodon piceus Snail or black carp 

Tilapia (Oreochromis) aureus, T. (O.) 

hornorum, T. (O.) mossambicus and 

Tilapia (O.) niloticus

Tilapia; T. (O. ) aureus may be possessed, cultured, and transported 

without permit in the following areas: North Central Region, Citrus 

and Hernando counties only; Northeast Region, all counties, except 

Duval and Nassau; South and Southwest regions. 

Clarias batrachus Walking catfish 

Cherax quadricarinatus Australian red claw crayfish; tank culture systems only 

Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish; except north and west of the Suwannee River blue catfish 

may be possessed without permit. 

Procambarus clarkii and P. zonangulas Red swamp crayfish and white river crayfish; except that pond 

aquaculture is prohibited; both species may be possessed west of the 

Apalachicola River or imported for direct sale to food wholesalers and 

food retailers for re-sale to consumers without permit. 

Source: FFWCC Code, Chapter 68A Freshwater Fish and Wildlife (68A-23.008, F.A.C.) 

* 68A-23.088, F.A.C. specifies detailed rules for possessing, stocking, selling, transferring, and transporting both 

triploid, and other than triploid (e.g., diploid), grass carp. 

 Several freshwater species (and their hybrids) are prohibited from import, sale, possession, or 

in-state transport. Table 20 presents the list of prohibited freshwater species in Florida. There 

are limited exceptions to this subsection that may be made by permit for viewing at large public 

aquaria or for research. However, no research or public aquaria permits shall be granted for 

piranhas and pirambebas (subfamily Serrasalminae, all species). 



	')


:.';

 Florida addresses nonindigenous aquatic plant species through two primary statutes, the 

Florida Aquatic Weed Control Act (FAWCA) and the Florida Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant 

Control Act (FNAPCA). FAWCA (Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, 

Reclamation, and Use, Chapter 369 Conservation, Part I Aquatic Plant Control, Section 369.20, 

Florida Statutes (1999)), provides FDEP authority to “direct the control, eradication, and 

regulation of noxious aquatic weeds and direct the research and planning” with the purpose of 

protecting human health, plant and animal life, and property. Under FAWCA, the FDEP Bureau 

of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM) coordinates and develops aquatic weed management 

programs in public waters, issues permits to control aquatic weeds in public waters, and 

disperses funds to agencies, local authorities, universities, or contractors for control and research 

activities. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 85 

Table 20. Prohibited Non-Native Freshwater Species in Florida 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Family Malapteruridae, all species African electric catfishes 

Subfamily Hydrocyninae, all species African tigerfishes 

Family Clariidae, all species except Clarias batrachus Airbreathing catfishes 

Family Trichomycteridae, all species Candiru catfishes 

Family Electrophoridae, all species Freshwater electric eels 

Family Petromyzonidae, all species Lampreys 

Subfamily Serrasalminae, all species Piranhas and pirambebas 

Family Channidae, all species Snakeheads 

Tilapia, Sarotherodon and Oreochromis genera, all species except Tilapia 

(Oreochromis) aurea, T. (O.) hornorum, T. (O.) mossambica and Tilapia 

(O.) nilotica 

Tilapias 

Family Erythrinidae, all species Trahiras or tigerfishes 

Family Heteropneustidae, all species Airsac catfishes 

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 

Genus Cherax, except for tank aquaculture of Cherax quardricarinatus Australian crayfish 

Dreissena polymorpha Zebra mussels 

Genus Eriocheir, or any part thereof. Mitten crabs 

Source: FFWCC Code, Chapter 68A Freshwater Fish and Wildlife (68A-23.008, F.A.C.) 

Table 21. Prohibited Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Plant Species in Florida 

Scientific Name Common Name State Weed Status 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Casuarina cunninghamiana river sheoak Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Casuarina equisetifolia beach sheoak Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Casuarina glauca gray sheoak Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Casuarina lepidophloia belah Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Crassula helmsii swamp stonecrop Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Cupaniopsis anacardioides carrotwood Noxious weed 

Dioscorea alata white yam Noxious weed 

Dioscorea bulbifera air potato Noxious weed 

Eichhornia azurea anchored waterhyacinth Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Eichhornia crassipes common water hyacinth Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Eichhornia diversifolia variableleaf water hyacinth Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Eichhornia paniculata Brazilian water hyacinth Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Hydrilla verticillata waterthyme Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Hygrophila polysperma Indian swampweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 2 

Imperata cylindrica cogongrass Noxious weed 

Ipomoea aquatica swamp morning glory Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Ipomoea fistulosa gloria de la manana Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Lagarosiphon major African elodea Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Limnocharis flava Sawah-flowering rush Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Limnophila sessiliflora Asian marshweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 2 

Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern Noxious weed 

Lygodium microphyllum old world climbing fern Noxious weed 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Melaleuca quinquenervia punktree Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 
Version 4.0 

Page 86 September 2000

Scientific Name Common Name State Weed Status 

Mimosa pigra black mimosa Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Monochoria hastata arrowleaf falsepickerelweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Monochoria vaginalis heartshape falsepickerelweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Nechamandra alternifolia none provided Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Oryza rufipogon brownbeard rice Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Paederia foetida skunk vine Noxious weed 

Pennisetum polystachyon missiongrass, thin napiergrass Noxious weed 

Pistia stratiotes water lettuce Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 2 

Pontederia rotundifolia tropical pickerelweed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Pueraria montana kudzu Noxious weed 

Salvinia auriculata eared watermoss Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Salvinia biloba giant salvinia Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Salvinia herzogii giant salvinia Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Salvinia molesta aquarium watermoss Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Salvinia natans eared watermoss Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree Noxious weed 

Schinus terebinthifolius peppertree Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Solanum tampicense wetland nightshade Noxious weed 

Sparganium erectum simplestem bur-reed Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Stratiotes aloides water soldiers Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Trapa bicornis horn nut Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Trapa natans water chestnut Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Trapa natans singhara nut Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Trapa natans caltrop Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Vossia cuspidata hippo grass Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1 

Source: Rules of FDEP, Chapter 62C-52.011 – Prohibited Aquatic Plants, and rules of FDACS, Chapter 5B-57 –

Introduction or Release of Plant Pests, Noxious Weeds, Arthropods, and Biological Control Agents (those listed in 

the table as “Noxious weed”). 

Class 1 - Plants that may not be possessed, collected, transported, cultivated, or imported without a special permit. 

Class 2 - Plants that can be cultured in-state for out-of-state sales only, but may not be imported or collected from 

the wild. 

 The FNAPCA (Title XXCIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use, 

Chapter 369 Conservation, Part I Aquatic Plant Control, Section 369.22, Florida Statutes (1999)) 

provides FDEP authority to supervise the control of any “floating, submersed, or ditch bank 

species, growing in, or closely associated with, an aquatic environment.” The statute has 

provisions for FDEP to permit importing, transporting, cultivating, collecting, selling, or 

possessing any aquatic plant on the prohibited plant species list. This list, cooperatively 

developed by the FDEP and the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (Schardt, pers. comm.) is 

presented in Table 21. Under this statute, BIPM issues permits to control, eradicate, remove or 

alter any nonindigenous aquatic plants in public waters. The Invasive Plant Control Trust Fund 

(§ 369.252(4)) provides resources for plant control activities on public lands and public waters 

(Fletcher 2000). 

 The BIPM has three sections. The Aquatic Plant Management Section (APMS) currently 

manages the control of 11 invasive aquatic plants in Florida’s 1.3 million acres of public waters: 

hydrilla, water hyacinth, water lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant salvinia, hygrophilia, paragrass, 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 87 

torpedograss, waterspinach, West Indian marshgrass, and wild taro (FDEP 2000). The APMS 

primarily disperses funds to private contractors for regular control of high priority species. The 

APMS budget was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY 2001 

(Schardt, pers. comm.). The Upland Plant Management Section similarly manages the control of 

several semi-aquatic, ditchbank species. The Field Operations Section permits importation and 

collection activities, and routinely examines retail facilities for prohibited species. The BIPM 

has a Weed Alert program to disseminate identification information to agencies, local authorities, 

universities, or contractors conducting control activities around the state. 

.

	 

)
:. ;

 The FDACS has promulgated rules (Chapter 5B-57) under the authority of § 570.07 (13), 

(23), Florida Statutes, to control the introduction into, or movement or spread within this state of 

any plant pest, noxious weed or arthropod, and to establish procedures under which the field 

release of plant pests, noxious weeds, arthropods, and biological control agents are permitted. 

Table 21 includes terrestrial weed species in these rules that readily grow in semi-aquatic and 

ditchbank habitats. 

 The FDACS regulates aquaculture activities under Title XXXV Agriculture, Horticulture, 

and Animal Industry, Chapter 597 Aquaculture, Florida Statutes (1999). A permit is required for 

raising or possessing nonindigenous species for aquaculture purposes. Florida has a very 

restrictive stocking policy, which prohibits the stocking of any species that is not native; 

however this policy does not apply to marine bivalve mollusks, which are transported throughout 

the state without regulatory restrictions. 

 Florida also mandates specific requirements for outdoor facilities that hold prohibited aquatic 

species. The primary requirement is that a surrounding levee must be at least one foot above the 

100-year flood level, have either no water discharge or a barrier system adequate to prevent 

escape of any life stage, and be inaccessible to the public. Though the 100-year floodplain was 

often cited by other review participants as an appropriate restriction, the important aspects of 

Florida's requirements are not its specific requirements so much as its clear recognition of the 

importance of effective containment. 

.'-



:.0';

 The FLEPPC’s goals are to build public awareness about the serious threat invasive plants 

pose to native ecosystems, secure funding and support for control and management of exotic 

plants, and develop integrated management and control methods to prevent the spread of exotic 

pest plants throughout the Florida. FLEPPC and FDEP coordinate closely to manage 

nonindigenous aquatic plant species control programs. 
Version 4.0 

Page 88 September 2000

99 

0)30


 Title 56, Section 319, Louisiana Revised Statutes, provides the Louisiana Wildlife and 

Fisheries Commission (LFWC) with the authority to control the importation, sale, transport, and 

possession of specified nonindigenous fish species. Table 22 lists the species prohibited in this 

statute, however the LFWC has the authority to issue renewable, one-year permits for the 

possession of these species (actual permitting is conducted for the LFWC by the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)). Title 56, Section 17 gives the Director of the 

LFWC the authority to introduce, or issue permits for such introductions, any kind of fish into 

any waters, for the purposes of science and of cultivation and distribution. Title 76, Section 901, 

Wildlife and Fisheries regulations, addresses LDWF permits for the possession and 

transportation of triploid grass carp for aquatic plant control. Section 903 outlines regulations 

for tilapia aquaculture. 

 Title 56, Section 328, Louisiana Revised Statutes, provides the LWFC with the authority to 

prohibit the importation of specified “noxious aquatic plants,” to protect fish habitat. Table 23 

lists aquatic plant species prohibited under this statute. The LWFC can issue permits for 

importation of these species for the purpose of conducting scientific investigations. 

 Title 33, Section 1791, Revised Louisiana Statutes, provides the Louisiana Department of 

Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) with the authority to regulate terrestrial plant introductions, 

and lists the Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), a species that readily grows in aquatic 

ecosystems, as a noxious weed. LDAF periodically inspects nurseries for prohibited 

nonindigenous species, both terrestrial and aquatic. The weak statute that provides LDAF with 

this authority only prohibits importation into the state, and once these organisms are in the state, 

there is no authority to regulate within-state distribution (Brassette, pers. comm.). Infestations of 

public waterbodies and other occurrences that cause citizen complaints become the responsibility 

of the LDWF Aquatic Plant Control Section (APCS). 

Table 22. Prohibited Fish Species in Louisiana 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Carassius auratus goldfish 

Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Rio Grande tetra 

Clarias batrachus carnero catfish 

All of the family Clariidae walking catfishes 

Cyprinus carpio common carp 

Electrophorus sp. freshwater electric eel 

Scardinius erythrophthalmus rudd 

Fish of the genus Serrasalmus piranha 

many carp 

many all species of tilapia 

Source: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 56, §319. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 89 

Table 23. Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Louisiana 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Elodea canadensis eloea 

Eichhornia azurea rooting or anchoring waterhyancith 

Eichhornia crassipes waterhyancith 

Hydrilla spp. hydrilla 

Lagarosiphon major and L. muscoides African elodea 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife 

Melaleuca auinquenvia kapok tree 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 

Najas marina marine naiad 

Najas minor slender naiad 

Panicum repens torpedograss 

Pistia stratiotes water lettuce 

Pontederia spp. pickerelweed 

Salinia spp. salvinia 

Spirodela oligorrhiza giant duckweed 

Trapa spp. waterchestnut 

Source: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 56, §328. 

 The APCS is primarily funded to control water hyacinth infestations statewide, with the 

purpose of maintaining boat access and improving habitat, but APCS is underfunded to complete 

this task (Brassette, pers. comm.). Extensive hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and common 

salvinia (Salvinia minima) infestations often go unaddressed due to funding shortages (there is 

no statewide funding to control hydrilla and the APCS has received only one allocation of 

funding to assess and control common salvinia (Brassette, pers. comm.)). Common salvinia 

infestations can seriously impact duck hunting: when the common salvinia infestation brown in 

the fall, ducks appear to avoid landing in these brown patches. Governor Mike Foster recently 

established May 23 as Salvinia Awareness Day for Louisiana, and LDWF convened an ongoing 

Giant Salvinia Task Force in 2000. 

9= 

0)3$





 Passed in 1998, Title 49 Conservation and Ecology (Mississippi Code Annotated §49-7-80 

(1972 & Supp. 1999)) contains Mississippi’s nonindigenous species provisions (Fletcher 2000). 

Authority is given to the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) to 

establish and maintain a list of approved, restricted, and prohibited nonindigenous species, and to 

establish rules governing their importation, possession, sale, and escape. Tables 24, 25, and 26 

list the nonindigenous fish, invertebrate, and aquatic plant species prohibited by MDWFP. 

 Title 49 prohibits stocking or releasing “any animal not indigenous to Mississippi” without a 

permit from MDWFP. Where applications are made to release nonindigenous species, MDWFP 

must “determine any detrimental effect the species might have on the environment.” 
Version 4.0 

Page 90 September 2000

Table 24. List of Prohibited Fish Species in Mississippi 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Family Petromyzontidae (includes sea lamprey) Lampreys 

Subfamily Serrasalminae (includes all piranhas) Piranha and pirambebas (all species) 

Astyanax fasciatus Banded tetra 

Astyanax mexicanus Mexican tetra or Silvery tetra 

Hoplias malabaricus Tiger characin or trahira 

Raphidon vulpinus Skinny Tiger characin or biara 

Family Trichomycteridae Pencil or parasitic catfishes 

Family Clariidae Airbreathing or Walking catfishes 

Family Osteoglossidae Bony-tongue fishes 

Genus Saliminus Dorados 

Family Potamotrygonidae Freshwater stingrays 

Genera Lates and Luciolates Nile perches 

Family Malapteruridae African electric catfishes 

Family Alestidae, Subfamily Hydrocyninae African tigerfishes 

Family Electrophoridae Freshwater electric eels 

Family Channidae Snakeheads 

Family Erythrinidae South American tigerfishes 

Family Heteropneustidae Airsac catfishes 

Cichla ocellaris Peacock bass or Peacock cicled 

Family Characidae, all species of the Genus Acestrorhynchus; Family 

Ctenolucidae, all species of the Genera Ctenolucious and Luciocharax 

(Boulengerella)

South American pike characoids 

Family Hepsetidae, all species of the Genus Hepsetus Family 

Ichthyboridae, all species 

African Pike characoids 

Family Characidae, Subfamily Rhaphiodontinae, all species of the 

Genera, Hydrolycus and Raphiodon (Cynodon)

Rhapiodontid characoids 

Gymnotus carapo Banded knifefish 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Cirrhinus and

Thynnichthys

Mud carp, Sandhkol carp 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Scardinius and Rutilus Rudd and Roach 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Abramis, Blicca, 

Megalobrama and Parabramis

Old World breams 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Leuciscus Old World chubs; ide and dace 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genera Aspius, Psedaspius, 

Aspiolucius, and Elopichthys

Asps and yellowcheek 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Tor and the species 

Barbustor and Barbus hexagonolepis

Giant Barbs and Mahseers 

Family Cyprinidae, all species of the Genus Catia Catla 

Family Cetopsidae, all species Whale catfishes 

Family Poeciliidae, Bilonesox belizanus Pike killifish 

Family Synanceiidae, all species Marine stonefishes 

Family Percidae, all species of the Genus Gymnocephalus Ruffes and Schraetzers 

Family Percidae, Stizostedion lucioperca, Stizostedion volgense 

(volgensis), Stizostedion marinum

Zanders 

Family Cichlidae, all species of the Genera Crenicichla and Batrachops Pike cichlids 

Family Luciocephalus, all species Asian pikehead 

Source: Van Devender (2000) 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 91 

Table 25. List of Prohibited Invertebrate Species (Mussels and Crayfishes) in Mississippi 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Cherax destructor Yabbie Lobster 

Dreissena polymorpha Zebra Mussel 

All species of the Genus Astacopsis Tasmanian Giant crayfish 

Source: Van Devender (2000) 

Table 26. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Mississippi 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla (Florida elodea) 

Egeria densa Egeria (African elodea) 

Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth * 

Eichhornia azurea Rooted hyacinth 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 

Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce 

Melaleuca quinquenervia Paperbark (melaleuca) 

Source: Van Devender (2000) 

* Use of water hyacinth in a controlled, filtered aquaculture system may be allowed. 

 Mississippi’s Aquaculture Act (Mississippi Code Annotated §79-22-9 (1972 & Supp. 1999) 

was passed in 1988, primarily to protect and aid the state’s farm-raised catfish industry (Van 

Devender 2000). Most provisions of the act, including issuance of aquaculture cultivation and 

marketing permits, are administered by the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and 

Commerce (MDAC). Cultivation permits for any nonindigenous species are required, with 

certain exceptions, for example, no permit is required for nonindigenous tropical fish that are 

maintained in closed systems. The Aquaculture Task Force (ATF), established in the 

Aquaculture Act, is charged with advising the MDAC in its permit issuance responsibilities. The 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is one member of the ATF (Van 

Devender 2000). Section 79-22-15(4), Mississippi Code of 1972 states: 

"The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks may promulgate regulations which specify 

criteria to protect marine resources and to prevent the release of undesirable species from an 

aquaculture facility into the environment ..." 

Given that MDMR has authority for regulating, and technical expertise, in marine fisheries, 

MDMR would assist MDWFP in any regulation development. 

 The State of Mississippi is currently taking initial steps to form a state-level Exotic Pest Plant 

Council (Holland, pers. comm., Matlack 2000). 
Version 4.0 

Page 92 September 2000

9> 

0)3-


 Under existing Parks and Wildlife Code (Texas Parks & Wildlife Code § 66.007), the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) has authority to prevent the importation, possession, 

sale, or introduction into state waters of exotic, harmful, or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or 

aquatic plants, except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department (TPWD). Table 27 lists the fish and shellfish species, and Table 28 lists the aquatic 

plant species, restricted by TPWC. TPWD issues Exotic Species Permits for these restricted 

species for a variety of situations, for example: (1) as experimental organisms in a TPWDapproved research program; (2) for exhibit in a public aquarium approved for display of harmful 

or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants; and (3) fish farming operations 

(TPWD Fisheries Regulations § 57.113). A fish farmer who holds a valid Exotic Species Permit 

may “possess, propagate, transport, or sell Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) provided 

the exotic shellfish meet disease free certification requirements” (TWPD Fisheries Regulations §

57.113). The statute in § 66.007 provides the authority to require similar certification for other 

farmed exotic shellfish species. The Texas Aquaculture Code (Texas Agricultural Code §

134.001) provides authority to control the importation, possession, propagation, and sale of 

harmful and potentially harmful exotic species by an aquaculturalist to the TPWC (Fletcher 

2000). 

 The State of Texas historically has promoted introductions of nonindigenous species to 

enhance hunting and fishing opportunities. That perspective has changed dramatically and 

exotic introductions are now viewed as potentially problematic, however the system remains 

permissive rather than restrictive (McKinney 2000). The current regulatory structure is under 

review and will likely be revised to reflect new perspectives on exotic introductions and to a 

lesser degree all nonindigenous species (McKinney 2000). In a state as diverse as Texas, 

intrastate movement of species, for example, from one river basin to another, can cause problems 

normally associated with exotic species: the political boundaries of the state mean nothing in this 

context (McKinney 2000). 

Table 27. List of Prohibited Fish and Shellfish Species in Texas 

Common Name Family Species Affected 

Freshwater Eels Anguillidae All species except Anguilla rostrata

Swamp Eels Synbranchidae All species 

Lampreys Petromyzontidae All species except Icthyomyzon castaneus and I. qaqei

Freshwater Stingrays Potamotrygonidae All species 

Araima Osteoglossidae Arapaima gigas 

South American Pike subfamily: Characoids All species of genus Acestrorhyncus

African Tiger Fish subfamily: Hydrocyniniae All species 

Piranhas and Priambebus subfamily: Serrasalminae All species 

Rhaphiodontid subfamily: Rhaphiodontinae All species of genera Hydrolycus and Rhaphiodon

(synonymous with Cynodon) 

Dourados subfamily: Bryconinae All species of genus Salminus

South American Tiger 

Fishes 

Erythrindae All species 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 93 

Common Name Family Species Affected 

South American Pike Ctenolucidae All species of genera Ctenolucius and Luciocharax 

(synonomous with Boulengerella and Hydrocinus) 

African Pike Characoids Hepsetidae & Ichthyboridae All species 

Electric Eels Electrophoridae Electrophorus electricus 

Carps and Minnows Cyprinidae All speciesand hybrid of species of genera: Abramis, 

Aristichthys, Aspius, Aspiolucius, Blicca, Catla, 

Cirrhina, Ctenopharyngodon, Elopichthys, 

Hypophthalmichthys, Leuciscus, Megalobrama, 

Mylopharyngodon, Parabramis, Pseudaspius, Rutiluc, 

Scardinus, Thynnichthys, Tor, and the species 

Barbustor (synonumous with Barbus hexoagoniolepis) 

Walking Catfish Claridae All species 

Electric Catfish Malapteruridae All species 

South American Parasitic 

Candirus Catfish 

subfamilies: Stegophilinae 

& Vandelliinae 

All species 

Pike Killifish Poeciliidae Belonesox belizanus 

Marine stonefishes Synanceiidae All species 

Tilapia Cichlidae All species of genus Tilapia and Oreochromis

Asian Pikeheads Luciocephalidae All species 

Snakeheads Channidae All species 

Walleye Percidae All species except of the genus Stizostedion except 

Stizostedion vitreum and S. canadense

Nile perch Centropomidae All species of genera Lates and Luciolates

Drums Sciaenidae All species of genus Cynoscion except Cynoscion

nebulosus, C. nothus, and C. arenarius

Whale Catfish Cetopsidae All species 

Ruff Percidae All species of genus Gymnocephalus

Air sac Catfish Heteropneustidae All species of genus Heteropneustes

Crayfishes Parastacidae all species of genus Astracopsis

Giant Ram's-horn Snails Piliidae all species of genus Marisa

Zebra Mussels Dreissenidae all species of genus Dreissena

Source: TPWD website (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish/regulate/exotics.htm), accessed in May 2000. 

 In 1999, the Texas Legislature enacted legislation that directs TPWD, in coordination with 

the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Texas Department of Agriculture, 

and water districts, to develop and adopt a Statewide Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (Act 

of June 19, 1999, ch. 1461, 1999 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 12 (West 1999)) (Fletcher 2000). The 

legislation provides the TPWD oversight in aquatic vegetation management and focuses on 

integrated pest management strategies (Parks and Wildlife Code § 11.081). The Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Commission will adopt rules implementing the statutes in June 2000. 

 TPWD staff have been active participants in Western Regional Panel activities. The Western 

Regional Panel has been an effective advocate in many issues relating to nonindigenous aquatic 

species, particularly in ballast water management, zebra mussel research, Chinese mitten crab 

control, and green crab research. 
Version 4.0 

Page 94 September 2000

Table 28. List of Prohibited Aquatic Plant Species in Texas 

Common Name Family Species Affected 

Giant Duckweed Lemnaceae Spirodela oligorhiza 

Salvinia Salviniaceae all species of genus Salvinia 

Waterhyacinth Pontederiaceae Eichhornia crassipes 

Waterlettuce Araceae Pistis stratiotes 

Hydrilla Hydrocharitaceae Hydrilla verticillata 

Lagarosiphon Hydrocharitaceae Lagarosiphon major 

Eurasian Watermilfoil Haloragaceae Myriophyllum spicatum 

Alligatorweed Amaranthaceae Alternanthera philozeroides 

Rooted Waterhyacinth Pontedericiaceae Eichhornia azurea 

Paperbark Myrtaceae Melaleuca quinquenervia 

Torpedograss Gramineae Panicum repens 

Water Spinach Convolvulaceae Ipomoea aquatic 

Source: TPWD website (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish/regulate/exotics.htm), accessed in May 2000. 

9< .,	

 


	 !


")
)
$



. '-



 The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) recently surveyed ten federal departments to 

determine national expenditures on invasive species activities (both terrestrial and aquatic). 

Eight agencies on the Invasive Species Council – representing the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, Treasury, and Transportation, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency – as well as the Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, 

collectively spent $513.9 million in fiscal year 1999 and $631.5 million in fiscal year 2000 to 

management and control invasive species (GAO 2000). The Department of Agriculture spent 89 

percent of this funding (GAO 2000). Prevention of the introduction of invasive species received 

the largest percentage of funding – about 51 percent and 49 percent in fiscal years 1999 and 

2000, respectively (GAO 2000). 

 The GAO also surveyed seven states – California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, 

Michigan, and New York – to determine selected state expenditures on invasive species 

activities. Florida spent the most at $ 94.5 million and $ 127.6 million in 1999 and 2000, 

respectively, on managing and controlling invasive terrestrial and aquatic species (GAO 2000). 

California reported the second highest expenditures at $ 82.6 million and $ 87.2 million in 1999 

and 2000, respectively (GAO 2000). 

 (

 The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries spent approximately $ 30,000 in 

fiscal year 2000 to manage invasive plant species in freshwater systems (Zolcynski, pers. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 95 

comm.). The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Alabama Power Company also manage 

programs to control invasive freshwater species in Alabama. There are currently no programs 

within Alabama state agencies devoted to the management of invasive species in marine systems 

(Minton, pers. comm.). 

.

 The GAO reported that Florida state agencies spent $ 94.5 million and $ 127.6 million in 

1999 and 2000, respectively, on managing terrestrial and aquatic invasive species (GAO 2000). 

The FDEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (WMD), South Florida WMD, and 

the St. Johns River WMD spent approximately $23.7 million on invasive aquatic plant 

management (see Table 29). The Aquatic Plant Management Section within FDEP currently 

manages the control 11 invasive aquatic plants in Florida’s 1.3 million acres of public waters: 

hydrilla, water hyacinth, water lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant salvinia, hygrophila, paragrass, 

torpedograss, waterspinach, West Indian marshgrass, and wild taro (FDEP 2000). The APMS 

budget was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY 2001 (FDEP 2000). 

The APMS primarily disperses funds to private contractors for regular control of high priority 

species. The Marine Fisheries Division of the FFWCC spent approximately $2 million in fiscal 

year 1999 (Table 29) for the control of invasive fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

0


 The LDWF Aquatic Plant Control Section, and the USACE together spent $ 1.5 million 

dollars in fiscal year 2000 to manage invasive aquatic plant species in Louisiana (Brassette, pers. 

comm. and Cali, pers. comm.). The USACE specified that 60 percent of those funds were spent 

on actual contractor activities (i.e., plant removal, clearing waterways) and the remaining 40 

percent of the funds were spent on program management. There are no programs devoted to 

management of invasive fish or aquatic invertebrates (Bigger, pers. comm.). 

$





 There are no programs within Mississippi state agencies entirely dedicated to management 

and control of aquatic invasive species (Van Devender, pers. comm.). The Mississippi 

Department of Marine Resources does administer a monitoring program for red tide, which is 

conducted for the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The program includes aerial flights and 

water sampling costing approximately $ 25,000 to $ 50,000 per year (Van Devender, pers. 

comm.). There are currently no comprehensive state agency efforts to control invasive 

freshwater plants (Van Devender, pers. comm.). 

-


 The TPWD Aquatic Vegetative Control Group spent approximately $ 750,000 per year on 

invasive aquatic plant management in the mid to late 1980s (Helton, pers. comm.). There is 

currently a proposal for a $ 1.5 to $ 2 million budget to continue management of these plant 

species, such as giant salvinia, hydrilla, water hyacinth, alligator weed, water lettuce, and 

Eurasian milfoil (Helton, pers. comm.). 
Version 4.0 

Page 96 September 2000

Table 29. Fiscal Year 1999 Expenditures by Florida State Agencies for Invasive Species Management and 

Control Activities 

Agency Species Group Itemized FY99 

Expenditures 

Total FY99 

Expenditures 

Florida Department of Plants 

Environmental Protection x Terrestrial non-crop $ 2 million 

x Aquatic $ 17.3 million $19.3 million 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Fish and aquatic invertebrates 

Terrestrial arthropods 

$2,001,000 

$100,000 $2,101,000 

Northwest Florida WMD Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $13,320 $13,320 

Southwest Florida WMD Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $185,765 

x Aquatic $48,185 

 Mammals $12,889 

 Expenditures that cut across or cover 

more than one type of invasive species 

$150,043 $396, 882 

South Florida WMD Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $3,154,587 

x Aquatic $5,689,805 $8,844,392 

St. Johns River WMD Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $409,600 

x Terrestrial crop $5,000 

x Aquatic $614,400 

 Mammals $229,675 $1,258,675 

Suwannee River WMD Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $25,500 $25,500 

Florida Department of 

Agriculture 

Animal/Plant Microorganisms and 

Diseases 

$23,965,920 

 Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop $11, 409, 768 

x Terrestrial crop $370,000 

 Terrestrial arthropods $9,409,667 

 Expenditures that cut across or cover 

more than one type of invasive species 

$741, 556 $45,896,911 

Florida Department of 

Transportation 

Plants 

x Terrestrial non-crop 

$13 million $13 million 

Source: Florida Governor’s Office (1999). 

WMD = Water Management District 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 97 

9 )
%





):;

 Founded in 1951, TNC is a leading private conservation organization. The mission of TNC 

is to preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on 

Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Conservancy resources are used 

to purchase or otherwise protect habitats that maintain endangered or threatened species and 

significant biological communities. Part of this management responsibility includes protecting 

preserves from nonindigenous species invasions. 

 TNC maintains and manages a number of preserves in the Gulf of Mexico region. There are 

four preserves in Alabama (Bibb County Glades, Grand Bay Savanna, Chitwood Barrens 

Preserve, Pratt's Ferry-Cahaba River, and Desoto Woods); ten in Florida (Rock Hill Preserve, 

Apalachicola Bluffs & Ravines Preserve, John S. Phipps Preserve, Janet Butterfield Brooks 

Preserve, Tiger Creek Preserve, The Disney Wilderness Preserve, Saddle Blanket Lakes 

Preserve, Blowing Rocks Preserve, Torchwood Hammock Preserve, and Terrestris); four in 

Louisiana (Cypress Island Preserve, Lake Ramsay Wetland Preserve, Mary Ann Brown Preserve, 

and White Kitchen Preserve); three in Mississippi (Charles M. Deaton Nature Preserve, Grand 

Bay Savanna, and Coonewah Creek Chalk Bluffs Preserve); and 35 in Texas (Wier Woods, 

Wilson Preserve, Roy E. Larsen Sandyland Sanctuary, Big Thicket Bogs & Pinelands, Little 

Rocky, Hookswood Preserve, North Boggy Slough, Sheff's Woods, Caddo Lake, Oak Woods 

and Prairies, Lennox Woods, Blackland Prairies, Tridens Prairie, Clymer Meadow, County Line 

Prairie, Matthews Prairie, Leonhardt Prairie, Rolling Plains, High Plains, Enron Matagorda 

Island Environmental Education and Research Center, Texas City Prairie Preserve, Pierce Marsh, 

Clive Runnells Family Mad Island Marsh Preserve, Shamrock Island, Redhead Pond, High 

Island, Mesquite Brushland, Chihuahua Woods, Eckert James River Bat Cave, Ruth P. M. 

Lehmann Preserve, Barton Creeek Habitat Preserve, Ezell's Cave, Elizabeth P. Hill Preserve, 

Gypsum Dunes, Madera Canyon Ranch, Davis Mountains Preserve, Sandia Springs, Diamond Y 

Spring Preserve, Brushy Canyon, Chandler Independence Creek, Dolan Falls Ranch, Cuatro 

Cienegas National Wildlife Refuge, Laguna Madre, and Sierra Madre Oriental). 

.
)

:.;

 The FNPS was organized in 1980 to promote the preservation, conservation, and restoration 

of the native plants and native plant communities of Florida. The FNPS represents the interest of 

individuals and organizations working towards the preservation, conservation, and restoration of 

the native plants and plant communities of Florida. Education and conservation are the primary 

goals of the FNPS. 

0
8	.
:08.;

 At the March 12, 200 meeting in Alexandria, Louisiana, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation 

adopted a resolution on controlling invasions of exotic fish species. It states that: 
Version 4.0 

Page 98 September 2000

Louisiana has been and continues to be invaded by exotic fish species released in other 

states; recent examples include grass carp, bighead carp, and silver carp. 

Two of Louisiana's sister states have legalized the introduction of exotic black carp, a species 

that will eventually invade Louisiana waters. 

Invasion and establishment of exotic aquatic species is often detrimental to native species 

and their habitats. 

Introduction and invasion of exotic aquatic species into Louisiana waters should be curtailed 

and the pathways of invasion closed. 

Preventative action should begin now at the regional, state, and local levels. 

The statement resolves that the LWF urges and requests the National Nuisance Species Task 

Force and the Invasive Species Council to form an interstate organization composed of states 

with common watersheds and river basins, and that the states prepare a cooperative plan 

addressing the release, control, and management of exotic species. 

9 "

0)3	
"	


 The Invasive Species Council has produced an excellent reference on the federal and 

international management framework for nonindigenous species, United States Invasive Species 

Draft Management Plan: Preparing for the Future (ISC 2000). While currently in its first draft 

stage, Appendix 3, International Legal Instruments With Programs/ Activities Pertaining to 

Invasive Species, and Appendix 4, Codes of Conduct/Guidelines Pertaining to Invasive Species, 

should serve as excellent references and will not be re-presented in this report. However, one 

organization is highlighted below. 


 ')

:';

 The CEC is an international organization created by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. under the 

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The CEC was established to 

address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental 

conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement 

complements the environmental provisions of North American Free Trade Agreement. 

 One of the CEC’s program areas is Conservation of Biodiversity. The mission of work in 

this program area is to promote cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. in fostering 

conservation, sound management and sustainable use of North American biodiversity. The 

”Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems” project has the objective of 

protecting marine and aquatic ecosystems from the effects of land-based human activity and 

aquatic invasive species. Effort on this project is divided into two initiatives, one of which is 

Closing the Pathways of Aquatic Invasive Species Across North America. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 99 

0 	'	 


"Eradication of an established invader is rare.”

(Mack et al. 2000)

 An inventory of actions, projects, and initiatives to address aquatic invasive species issues in 

each Gulf State, and across the Gulf of Mexico region, was developed. The inventory, presented 

in Appendix H, is not meant to be comprehensive, rather, it is intended to be a representative 

listing of recent major actions (with a focus on 1997 to present). The purpose of the inventory is 

to facilitate Gulf-region coordination and communication on the issues and methods to address 

the issues. 

 Actions included in the inventory were compiled by interviewing ISFT members and other 

Gulf-region invasive species managers, and searching the Internet. The inventory is loosely 

organized by actions taking place at the regional level and within each of the five Gulf states. 

Contact information is provided where available. The types of actions included in the inventory 

are: 

New species detection and taxonomic, life history, and biological descriptions 

Monitoring species distribution and rates of spread 

Developing and applying control technologies and strategies / minimizing impacts 

Restoring invaded habitats 

Assessing ecosystem impacts 

Assessing economic impacts 

Preventing introductions 

Conducting risk assessments 

Developing management plans 

Research initiatives 

Education and outreach 

Interagency coordination and cooperation 
Version 4.0 

Page 100 September 2000

1 	
			
	

		 

"These [invasive Asian] eels eat almost anything 

– worms, shrimp, crayfish, other fishes, and frogs –

and they eat in massive quantities.”

USGS Biologists, March 4, 2000 (Zaneski 2000)

 Section 9.0 presents an inventory of recent peer-reviewed research activities relevant to 

selected Gulf-region aquatic invasive species, selected potential future aquatic invasive species 

for the Gulf region, and ballast water management. The purpose of this inventory is to (1) serve 

as an initial regional scientific directory on key current and emerging invasive species issues and 

(2) begin the processes of identifying regional research gaps and needs. 

> ")
	
 
)

)


,		

$-

 Literature searches on selected aquatic species (selected by the ISFT) and ballast water issues 

were conducted by searching several online databases of peer-reviewed literature, searching the 

Internet, and surveying representatives from the five Gulf States. Only relatively recent research 

activities were selected for the inventory, stressing the period from the early-1990s to present 

(including ongoing research). Where several references existed for a specific subject, one or 

more of those references were selected to represent the group. Hence, the effort yielded a 

representative, rather than a comprehensive, inventory of research literature. 

 An attempt was made to include only research activities relevant to the Gulf of Mexico 

region in the inventory. However, when searching for more general research on the aquatic 

invasive species issue and several aspects of ballast water management, for example treatment 

technologies, non-regional research activities were included in the inventory. Thus the inventory 

includes an international range of research on managing aquatic invasive species in general, and 

provides a more thorough list of ballast water management techniques. 

 Literature searches on 37 aquatic species were guided by 6 categories of specific keyword 

phrases, presented in Table 30. These categories and keywords represent slightly modified 

versions of those used by the Great Lakes Regional Panel and the National Sea Grant Program 

for classifying basic and applied research activities on aquatic invasive species (GLPANS 1997). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 101 

 References, and abstracts when readily available, were added to the Research Inventory for 

each applicable research activity identified. Species-specific references selected for inclusion in 

the Research Inventory were organized by the six categories in Table 30 (note that categorizing 

references according to this scheme is inherently a somewhat subjective exercise). Individual 

references within each species/category section are organized by date, from most to least recent. 

Table 30. Keyword Phrases for Literature Searches on Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

Category 

Number Category Title Keyword Phrases 

1 Biology/life history Life history; Reproductive biology; Population dynamics; Environmental 

requirements and tolerances; Parasites and diseases; Genetics; Physiology and 

behavior 

2 Ecosystem effects Community structure; Habitat (physical, chemical); Nutrient/contaminant 

cycles; Food web structure; Predator/prey interactions 

3 Socioeconomic 

effects 

Human health aspects; Recreation/tourism impacts; Shipping and navigation; 

Water use - agricultural, industrial, municipal; Policy and law determination; 

Resource management issues 

4 Spread of established 

populations 

Identification of potential invaders; Definition of vectors of introduction –

shipping, bait, aquaria, canals, biological vectors; Determination of 

preventative measures; Establishment of international protocols 

5 Control/mitigation of 

established 

populations 

Habitat manipulation; Biological interactions – predator/prey, 

parasites/diseases; Physical measures; Chemical measures; Consequences of 

control; Integrated control strategy 

6 Prevention of 

population 

establishment 

Improvement in initial detection; Mechanisms of spread; Rate of spread; 

Range of spread; Natural barriers; Predictive models 

 This September 2000 version of the Research Inventory (Appendix I) contains over 400 

individual references and is organized according to Table 31. Table 32 presents the distribution 

of references for each of the 37 species, by category, in the Research Inventory. 

Table 31. Organization of the Research Inventory (Appendix I) 

1.0 Vascular Plants 

1.1 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 

1.2 Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) 

1.3 Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) 

1.4 Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) 

1.5 Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) 

1.6 Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) 

1.7 Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) 

1.8 Wetland nightshade (Solanum tampicense) 
Version 4.0 

Page 102 September 2000

2.0 Semi-Aquatic Plants 

2.1 Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) 

2.2 Torpedo grass (Panicum repens) 

2.3 Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) 

2.4 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) 

2.5 Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) 

2.6 Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) 

3.0 Mammals 

3.1 Nutria (Myocastor coypus) 

4.0 Fishes 

4.1 Multiple-species documents 

4.2 Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) 

4.3 Spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae) 

4.4 Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) 

4.5 Blackchin tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron or Tilapia melanotheron) 

4.6 Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) 

5.0 Invertebrates 

5.1 Multiple-species documents 

5.2 Chinese mittencrab (Eriocheir hepuensis or Eriocheir sinensis) 

5.3 Exotic penaied shrimps 

5.4 Green crab (Carcinus maenas) 

5.5 Veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) 

5.6 Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) 

5.7 Green mussel (Perna viridis) 

5.8 Brown mussel (Perna perna or Perna indica) 

5.9 Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) 

5.10 Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) 

5.11 A freshwater mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) 

5.12 Portunid crab (Charybdis hellerii) 

6.0 Amphibians 

6.1 Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) 

7.0 Algae 

7.1 Brown tide (Aureoumbra lagunensis) 

8.0 Microbes 

8.1 Multiple-species documents 

8.2 Shrimp viruses 

8.3 Vibrio cholerae

8.4 Vibrio parahaemolyticus

8.5 Gymnodinium pulchellum 

9.0 Ballast Water 

9.1 Ballast Water Research Summaries 

9.2 Ballast Water Treatment Research 

9.3 Ballast Water Sampling Research 

9.4 Ballast Water Risk Assessment Research 

9.5 Ballast Water Exchange Research 

10.0 General – Nonindigenous Aquatic Species 

10.1 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Research Summaries 

10.2 General Documents 

11.0 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Online Databases and Clearinghouses 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 103 

Table 32. Distribution of References, by Research Category, for Each Species in the Research Inventory 

Species Group Species No. of References Per Research Category* 

1-Biology 2-Eco Eff 3-Socio 4-Spread 5-Control 6-Prevent 

Eurasian watermilfoil 4 9 -- 4 11 -- 

Alligator weed -- -- -- -- 1 -- 

Water hyacinth 1 2 -- -- 3 -- 

Hydrilla 8 3 1 -- 11 -- 

Water lettuce 2 2 -- -- 5 -- 

Giant salvinia 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Purple loosestrife 3 3 -- -- 1 -- 

Vascular 

Plants 

Wetland nightshade -- 1 -- -- -- -- 

Chinese tallow tree 1 2 -- 1 -- -- 

Torpedo grass -- -- -- -- 5 -- 

Carrotwood -- -- -- 1 -- -- 

Brazilian pepper ** -- 1 -- -- 2 -- 

Melaleuca ** 4 1 -- 3 13 -- 

Semi-Aquatic 

Plants 

Australian pine -- 1 -- -- 1 -- 

Mammals Nutria 2 12 -- -- 1 -- 

Multiple-species docs Total of 10 

Grass carp 3 4 -- 3 2 -- 

Spotted tilapia 2 -- -- -- -- -- 

Blue tilapia 6 -- -- -- -- -- 

Blackchin tilapia 4 -- -- -- -- -- 

Fishes 

Mayan cichlid 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Multiple-species docs Total of 3 

Chinese mitten crab ** 2 -- -- -- -- -- 

Exotic penaied shrimps 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Green crab -- 2 -- 1 -- -- 

Veined rapa whelk 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Quagga mussel 8 -- -- 1 1 -- 

Green mussel 2 -- -- -- -- -- 

Brown mussel 3 1 -- 7 -- -- 

Zebra mussel 24 5 3 9 8 -- 

Asian clam 4 1 -- -- 3 -- 

Freshwater mussel 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 

Invertebrates 

Portunid crab 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Amphibians Cuban treefrog 1 -- -- -- -- -- 

Algae Brown tide 9 10 -- -- -- -- 

Multiple-species docs Total of 3 

Shrimp viruses ** 4 1 2 2 4 3 

Vibrio cholerae 2 -- -- 4 -- -- 

Vibrio parahaemolyticus 2 -- -- -- -- -- 

Microbes 

Gymnodinium pulchellum -- 1 -- -- -- -- 

Research Summaries Total of 4 

Treatment Research Total of 17 

Sampling Research Total of 3 

Risk Assessment Research Total of 17 

Ballast Water 

Exchange Research Total of 2 

Research Summaries Total of 3 

NAS General General Documents ** -- 4 6 12 10 7 

Online Databases Total of 9 

* See Table 30 for a description of these categories. ** In addition, one or more species summary references. 
Version 4.0 

Page 104 September 2000

> ")
)


	
,		$-



 This section describes the status of three efforts, all undertaken by various committees of the 

GMP, to compile and prioritize research needs related to invasive species (terrestrial and 

aquatic). It is expected that the ongoing GMP Experts Panel for Invasive Species Research will 

consider work from previous efforts, and produce a more definitive list of research needs. It is 

also expected that the Experts Panel will solicit comments on the initial draft(s) of their research 

needs list from related GMP committees and other appropriate stakeholders. 

,$'-

	")
)



 The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc Experts Panel for Invasive Species 

Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Dr. 

Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute. It is expected that the Expert Panel will 

complete a thorough invasive species research guidance / research needs report in 2001. Any 

future versions of this report will include the Panel’s findings. 


(

	,$$
5$5




 In March 2000, the Research Subcommittee of the GMP Monitoring, Modeling, and 

Research Committee, assisted by the Invasive Species Focus Team Co-Chairs, defined the 

Priority Research Questions for the GMP's invasive species focus area. These Priority Research 

Questions were further refined by the ISFT in June 2000 for this report. 

1. What methods, data, or models are required to assess the potential human health and/or 

ecological risks associated with nonindigenous species introductions? 

a. What predictive associations/models are required to assess species and source locations 

that pose a high risk to Gulf waters? 

b. What laboratory and field methods, data, and models are required to assess both human 

health and ecological risks associated with introductions of nonindigenous species? 

2. What is the ecological and economic extent and effects of invasive species in the Gulf of 

Mexico? 

a. What nonindigenous species are present in the Gulf of Mexico and what are their 

economic, human health, and ecological effects? 

b. What methods, models, and data are required to detect and track subsequent invasions 

and spread of nonindigenous species in Gulf watersheds and Gulf-wide? 

3. What non-invasive species are transported to and released into Gulf ports from ship ballast? 

a. What methods are needed to monitor compliance of ballast exchange in the Gulf of 

Mexico? 

b. What are the characteristics of biological (taxa and quantity) contamination of ballast 

discharges into major Gulf ports? 

c. What is the anticipated 10-year shipping forecast for Gulf ports? 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 105 

d. What methods are needed to detect unknown species in ballast water released into the 

Gulf of Mexico, or to monitor for worst case scenarios like human pathogens and/or plant 

pathogens? 

e. What are the ecological vulnerabilities, associated with nonindigenous species, of 

particular Gulf areas subject to shipping pressures? 

4. What are the ecological risks associated with the introduction of nonindigenous viruses into 

Gulf waters from aquaculture and seafood processing? At the same time, what are the risks 

associated with viruses that enter aquaculture facilities from a variety of sources, including 

stocked shrimp, processing wastes carried into ponds by birds, etc. 

a. What simple biological/chemical indicators are required to determine the 

presence/absence of shrimp viruses in environmental samples? 

b. What biological indicators are required to routinely monitoring for the presence of 

viruses in wild populations of commercially important species? 

c. What are the chemical and biological characteristics of effluent from aquaculture and 

seafood processing plants that might affect the Gulf of Mexico, or other areas receiving 

aquaculture products? 

5. What technologies might prevent and/or control invasive species introductions? 

a. What techniques are effective in the shipboard treatment of ballast water? 

b. What are the best management/treatment practices to identify and control the release of 

shrimp viruses and other microorganisms from aquaculture and seafood processing 

plants, or to other areas receiving aquaculture products? 

")
)
.


 The following specific research needs were defined by the ISFT Co-Chairs, and refined by 

the ISFT in June 2000. They are organized by generic topic areas, and listed without regard to 

priority. 

Risk Analysis 

Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of trade pathways 

and trade partner sources associated with invasive species introductions. 

Prevention of New Introductions 

Determine preventive strategies and develop model control mechanisms. 

Develop risk assessments for potential and initial presence of nonindigenous aquatic species. 

Inventory Gulf of Mexico marine waters for nonindigenous and invasive species. 

Reducing the Spread of Established Populations 

Develop basin specific and Gulfwide quantitative databases to pinpoint and track invasions 

and spread of aquatic invasive species. 
Version 4.0 

Page 106 September 2000

Conduct a Gulfwide status and trends analysis on invasive species (aquatic and terrestrial) to 

include, but not limited to, species, geographic distribution, habitat types(s) invaded, impacts, 

rate of spread, modes of spread, environmental requirements, etc. 

Develop monitoring protocols that can be incorporated into existing water quality monitoring 

to identify presence of unknown species or changes in ecology that might be attributed to an 

introduction. Data would be made available for local follow-up or agency follow-up, as 

appropriate. 

Inventory Gulf of Mexico marine waters for nonindigenous and invasive species. 

Ballast Water: Management and Treatment 

Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of ballast water 

pathways and trade partner sources associated with nonindigenous species introductions. 

Develop mechanisms to ensure that open ocean exchanges have been performed (a USCG 

research project). 

Develop mechanisms to regulate ballast water discharge. 

Refine methods/procedures for monitoring compliance of ballast exchange in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Characterize biological contents (taxa, levels) of ballast discharges in major ports. 

Establish a long-term database (10+ years) of shipping activities of Gulf Ports. 

Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (90 percent for commercial vessels 

and 2 times for military vessels) in achieving percent kill or removal of organisms in the 

ballast water column and sediments. 

Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (90 percent for commercial vessels 

and 2 times for military vessels) in preventing the establishment of reproducing, selfsustaining populations of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. The research question here is 

what critical population densities are needed for a successful invasion (establishment). 

Determine the effectiveness of alternate compliance technologies (ballast water treatments) 

in achieving percent kill or removal of ballast organisms and in the prevention of established 

populations of nonindigenous aquatic species. 

Ballast Water: Ecosystem Effects 

Determine what methods, data, or models are required to assess the risk of ballast water 

pathways and trade partner sources associated with nonindigenous species introductions. 

Determine the ecosystem vulnerability to aquatic invasive species of the major Gulf ports 

and adjacent inland waters. This might be done by comparing environmental parameters of 

Gulf ports with those of the primary foreign ports of origin (ports where ballast is collected) 

for the majority of shipping at each Gulf port destination. 

Determine similar vulnerabilities for aquaculture and water garden imports, handling, 

marketing, etc. through the Gulf region. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 107 

Shrimp Viruses 

Develop and test Best Management Practices (BMP) for identification and control of shrimp 

viruses during the delivery of seafood. 

Develop simple probe(s) for determining the presence/absence of shrimp viruses. 

Establish a monitoring program/protocol to test for the presence of virus in wild shrimp 

populations. 
Version 4.0 

Page 108 September 2000

	""			2
	"	

"Nonindigenous aquatic organisms continue to spread into 

new ecosystems throughout North America.”

(Claudi and Leach 2000)

 This version of An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico 

Region attempts to initially describe the occurrence, management, and impacts of aquatic 

invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico region. The ISFT intends to periodically update this 

report with current information and eventually expand the scope of the document to include 

invasive terrestrial species in the Gulf of Mexico region. With future versions of the document 

in mind, the ISFT maintained a list of recommended report enhancements throughout the report 

review process. Recommendations are organized by sections of the current document. 

%)? 



Expand the scope of the document to include invasive terrestrial species in the Gulf of 

Mexico region. 

Include the results of a rigorous study of the economic impacts of invasive species in the 

Gulf region. 

Add a major section to the document that discusses what future actions each Gulf State 

would like to undertake relevant to aquatic invasive species. This would help readers 

understand future Gulfwide management priorities and provide a list of initiatives that might 

require outside funding. 

Transfer inventories developed for this report (e.g., Inventory of Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Species Occurring in the Gulf of Mexico Region) from a word processor format to a database 

format, and then make these databases available on the Internet. 

+< !
")
)
$



.),	


 

For Sections 4.1 trough 4.5, which list current and potential future aquatic invasive species 

management priorities for each Gulf State, conduct intensive interviews with state and 

federal agencies, local organizations, university researchers, and industry representatives to 

get a better, consensus-generated list of what species and issues are priorities. Interviews 

should request, at minimum, the following information for each species: common name; 

scientific name; place of origin; confirmed or suspected introduction pathway; biological 

and/or economic rationale for concern (potential impacts); impacts experienced; management 

status; and control/prevention strategies. [suggested by the ISFT, June 20-21, 2000] 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 109 

Include results of a rigorous risk assessment of active invasive species pathways to the Gulf 

region (on a state-by-state or regional basis), and rank them for management focus. 

2<,	&"


 

(
".37

8
 

For Section 6.3, which discusses the management framework for ballast water, contact port 

authorities in the Gulf of Mexico region about ballast water management initiatives planned 

or underway at the port level. [suggested by Marilyn Barrett-O’Leary] 

9<$
.&6	 

")
)

,		

$-

Describe the management framework within each of the Gulf-region’s seven National 

Estuary Programs related to invasive species (e.g., CCMP Action Plans). [Suggested by Bill 

Holland] 

Describe the management framework within each of the Gulf-region’s four National 

Estuarine Research Reserves related to invasive species. [Suggested by Richard Wallace] 

><

	
,		$- 

The GMP is currently sponsoring meetings of an ad-hoc Experts Panel for Invasive Species 

Research. The Panel Co-Chairs are Dr. Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Dr. Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research Institute. It is expected that the Panel will 

complete a thorough invasive species research guidance / research needs report in 2001. Any 

future versions of this report will include the Expert Panel’s findings. 

In this version of the report, the Research Inventory was developed by (1) searching several 

online databases of peer-reviewed journal articles, (2) searching the Internet for gray 

literature sources, and (3) asking a few state and local officials about gray literature sources. 

A mail or e-mail survey should be prepared and extensively distributed to the research 

community to augment the contents of the Research Inventory. This will ensure that the 

Research Inventory includes more ongoing research. In addition, the species represented in 

the Research Inventory should be expanded as needed by the Gulf States. 

 -73")
	

%
,		

$-

Widely distribute the initial inventory to state agencies, local organizations, and university 

researchers to verify records and augment the inventory. Require and document source 

references for any changes or additions to the inventory. [suggested by the ISFT, June 20-21, 

2000] 

Improve the “reported/established” status column by differentiating whether the species 

identification was (1) single specimens or small numbers of scattered individuals that do not 

represent populations; (2) small, isolated populations that are unlikely to spread due to 

environmental constraints or barriers; or (3) established populations with no apparent barriers 

to expansion (Hill 2001). 
Version 4.0 

Page 110 September 2000

Create a column in the matrix that identifies the place of origin – country, state, region, area 

– for the species in question. [suggested by Paul Carangelo] 

Create a column in the matrix that identifies the pathway(s) of introduction for the species in 

question. [suggested by Paul Carangelo] 

Create one or more columns in the matrix that identify which species occur in the Gulf of 

Mexico Program’s 12 Priority Coastal Watershed Areas. [suggested by Bill Holland] 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 111 

 
'

Aquatic Species 

All plants, animals, and microbes that are obligated to live in a freshwater, estuarine (i.e., tidallyinfluenced), or marine waterbody (including a freshwater or coastal wetland) during all or part of 

their lives (adapted from Benson 2000). 

Cryptogenic Species 

A species whose status as indigenous or nonindigenous is not resolved (Carlton and Ruckelshaus 

1997). 

Ecosystem 

A community of organisms and their physical environment that interact as an ecological unit 

(McCann 1996). 

Established Species 

A species with one or more successfully reproducing or breeding (i.e., permanent) populations in 

an open ecosystem (i.e., outside of human control and confinement), which are unlikely to be 

eliminated by man or natural causes. Naturalized is a synonym for established. 

Exotic Species 

A species that is not indigenous to the geographic area under discussion, for the purposes of this 

report, the U.S. (OTA 1993, Fuller et al. 1999). Alien and foreign are synonyms for exotic. 

Extirpated 

Where a species is completely removed from an open ecosystem, either as a result of natural 

causes or eradication by humans (adapted from Fuller et al. 1999). 

Gulf of Mexico Region 

The Gulf of Mexico region includes the area within the political boundaries of the five Gulf 

States – Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas – and waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

to the seaward boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Indigenous Species

A species occurring naturally in an area or ecosystem; a species that is a member of the natural 

community (Fuller et al. 1999). Native is a synonym for indigenous. 
Version 4.0 

Page 112 September 2000

Introduction 

The act of an organism being moved by either intentional and unintentional human-facilitated 

transference, including escape from confinement, to an area beyond its natural range or natural 

zone of potential dispersal. This definition does not include organisms imported and cultured in 

human control and confinement (e.g., aquaculture or research facility, ornamental pond), unless 

it escapes. 

Invasive Species 

A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of 

impacted ecosystems; economic activities (e.g., agricultural, aquacultural, commercial, or 

recreational) dependent on these ecosystems; and human health. Synonyms for invasive species 

include harmful species, injurious species, invader, noxious species, nuisance species, pest, and 

weed. 

Nonindigenous Species 

Any individual, group, or population of a species, or other viable biological material, that is 

intentionally or unintentionally moved by human activities, beyond its natural range or natural 

zone of potential dispersal, including moves from one continent or country into another and 

moves within a country or region; includes all domesticated and feral species, and all hybrids 

except for naturally occurring crosses between indigenous species. Introduced and non-native 

are synonyms for nonindigenous. 

Note that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services does not support a 

definition of nonindigenous species that includes pathogens, as pathogens are in the 

regulatory province of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (human) and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (agriculture) (Zajicek, pers. comm.). 

Pathway 

The means by which a species enters an open ecosystem (adapted from McCann 1996). Vector 

is a synonym for pathway. 

Taxon 

A group of organisms of any taxonomic rank. The plural of taxon is taxa (Fuller et al. 1999). 

Transplanted Species 

A species native to the geographic area under discussion (for the purposes of this report the U.S.) 

that is intentionally or unintentionally released by humans, including escaping from confinement, 

into an area beyond its natural range, or natural zone of potential dispersal, within that country 

(adapted from Fuller et al. 1999). 

Waterbody 

Any ocean, sea, gulf, bay, lake, river, stream, bayou, wetland, or spring, or any reservoir, pond, 

canal, or drainage ditch considered to be outside the boundaries or control of captive conditions 

(e.g., aquaculture facility, research facility, fish farm, etc.). A waterbody may have a permanent, 

temporary, or intermittent water connection (e.g., via flooding) with other waterbodies (adapted 

from Fuller et al 1999). 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 113 

 				

Abbott, R.T. 1976. Cittarium pica (Trochidae) in Florida. The Nautilus. Vol. 90(1). January 

30. 

ANSTF (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force). 1996. Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process: For Estimating Risk Associated with the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms and How to Manage for that Risk. 

Prepared by the Risk Assessment and Management Committee, October 21, 1996. Accessed 

at http://www.ANSTaskForce.gov/gennasrev.htm on July 27, 2000. 

Associated Press. 2000. Ships’ ballast germs prompt warning. St. Petersburg Times, Science 

Section, November 2, 2000. 

Avery, J. 2001. February 9, 2001 letter from Jimmy Avery, Mississippi State University 

National Warmwater Aquacultural Center, to Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program. 

Baker, P. 1997. Case Study One: Coastal Shrimp Farming in Texas. In: Goldburg, R. and 

Triplett, T. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the United States. 

Pages 117-130. An online publication of the Environmental Defense Fund. Accessed from 

http://www.edf.org/pubs/reports/aquaculture/f_download.html in July 2000. 

Baltz, D.M. 1991. Introduced fishes in marine systems and inland seas. Biological 

Conservation 56: 151-177. 

Barrett-O’Leary, M. 1999. Assessing the Potential for Introduction of Nonindigenous Species 

through U.S. Gulf of Mexico Ports. A publication of the Louisiana Sea Grant College 

Program, Louisiana State University. 

Barrett-O'Leary, M. 2000. Summary: Western Gulf Ballast Water Workshop Concerning 

Aquatic Invasive Species and Shipping in the Western Gulf of Mexico Region. April 25-26, 

2000. Houston Port Authority, Houston, Texas. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. 

Petersburg, FL. 110 p. 

Battelle. 1998. Ballast water secondary treatment technology review. Final report to the 

Northeast Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C., under contract N003177. Duxbury, 

Massachusetts. 

Benson, A.J. 2000. Documenting Over a Century of Aquatic Introductions in the United States. 

In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, 

Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter 1, pp. 1-31. 
Version 4.0 

Page 114 September 2000

Bertsch, H. 1988. Anatomy and Zoogeography of Glossodoris sedna and Chromodoris grahami

(Opisthobranchia: Nudibranchia) in the tropical western Atlantic and Caribbean. Veliger

30(4): 395-399. 

BusinessWire. 2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -NOAA- Commits 

Funding for EVTN/Maritime Ballast Water Treatment System Test. August 2, 2000. 

Bush, J. 2000. August 21, 2000 letter from the State of Florida Office of the Governor to Mr. 

Larry B. Simpson, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

CAIP (Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants). 2000. Aquatic, Wetland and Invasive Plant 

Information System, Invasive Nonindigenous Plants of Florida website 

(http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/photos.html). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 

University of Florida. Accessed in July and August 2000. 

Camp, D.K. 1997. Notes on the Lesser-known benthos of Florida. Florida Benthological 

Newsletter. Vol. 11 No. 1. 7-8. Reprinted from: Lemaitre, R. 1995. Charybdis helleri

(MilneEdwards, 1867), a non-indigenous portunid crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) 

discovered in the Indian River lagoon system of Florida. Proceedings of the Biological 

Society of Washington, 108(4):643-648. 

Cangelosi, A. 1999. Status of Research and Development of Ballast Treatment Technologies. 

Presentation summary at http://www.nemw.org/NavyTalk.htm, accessed on July 19, 2000. 

Carlton, J.T. and J.B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: biological invasions and the global 

transport of non-indigenous marine organisms. Science 261: 78-82. 

Carlton, J.T., D. Reid, H. van Leeuwen. 1995. The role of shipping in the introduction of 

nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States (other than the 

Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options. The National Sea Grant College 

Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. 

Department of Transportation Report No. CD-D-11-95. 

Carlton, J.T and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 1997. Nonindigenous Marine Invertebrates and Algae. In: 

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Carlton, J.T., L.D. Smith, D. Reid, M. Wonham, L. McCann, G. Ruiz, and A. Hines. 1997. 

Ballast sampling methodology: an outline manual of sampling procedures and protocols for 

fresh, brackish, and salt water ballast. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (Washington, D.C.) and U.S. 

Coast Guard, Research and Development Center (Groton, Connecticut). National Biological 

Invasions Shipping Study, Williams College, Mystic, Connecticut and Smithsonian 

Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 115 

Cato, J.C. and H.E. Kumpf. 1991. The economic influence of population, growth, fisheries, 

coastal and marine industries, and tourism demand derived from use of the Gulf of Mexico. 

In: The Environmental and Economic Status of the Gulf of Mexico, pp. 154-160. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological Control. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. 

Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of 

Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, 

Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Cohen, A.W and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. 

Science 279: 555-558. 

Corn, M.L., E.H. Buck, J. Rawson, and E. Fischer. 1999. Harmful Non-Native Species: Issues 

for Congress. Congressional Research Service Issue Brief. Committee for the National 

Institute for the Environment. Washington, D.C. 

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., H. F. Sahlman, W.W. Miley, II, and D. J. Herrema. 1974. Exotic fishes in 

fresh and brackish waters of Florida. Biological Conservation. Vol. 6, No.4, p. 292-301. 

Applied Science Publishers Ltd., England. 

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1997. Nonindigenous Fishes. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. 

Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous 

Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Systems. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Crossman E.J. and B.C. Cudmore. 2000. Summary of Fishes Intentionally Introduced in North 

America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater 

Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter 

5, pp. 99-112. 

Dextrase A.J. and M.A Coscarelli. 2000. Intentional Introductions of Nonindigenous 

Freshwater Organisms in North America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. 

Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton, Florida. Chapter 4, pp. 61-98. 

Devine, R.S. 1998. Alien Invasion: America's Battle with Non-Native Animals and Plants. 

National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 

Durand, S.V., K.F.J. Tang, and D.V. Lightner. 2000. Frozen commodity shrimp: potential for 

introduction of white spot syndrome virus and yellow head virus. Journal of Aquatic Animal 

Health 12: 128-135. 
Version 4.0 

Page 116 September 2000

di Castri, F. 1989. History of biological invasions with special emphasis on the old world. In: 

Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. 

Williamson (eds.), Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New 

York. 

Felder, D.L. 1996. Coastal Gulf of Mexico – issues related to nonindigenous aquatic species. 

In: P. Cicero (compiler), Proceedings of the National Forum on Nonindigenous Species 

Invasions in U.S. Marine and Fresh Waters. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Pages 28-29. 

FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ). 2000. Aquaculture 

Division website at http://doacs.state.fl.us/aqua/index.htm, accessed in August 2000. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Status of the Aquatic Plant 

Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters: Annual Report 1998-1999. Division or 

State Lands, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Aquatic Plant Management Section. 

January 3, 2000. 

FEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council). 1997. Brazilian Pepper Management Plan for 

Florida. Ferriter, A. (ed). A report from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s Brazilian 

Pepper Task Force, Dan Clark (Chairman), July 1997. 

FEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council). 1999. Melaleuca Management Plan: Ten Years of 

Successful Melaleuca Management in Florida 1988-98. Laroche, F.B. (ed). A report from 

the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, 3rd edition, May 1999. 

Fletcher, K.M. 2000. If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em: legal methods to control aquatic nuisance 

species in the Gulf of Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 245-270. 

Florida Governor’s Office. 1999. Invasive species management and control cost data compiled 

by the Florida Governor’s Office for GAO (2000). Information provided by Don Shmitz, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, via personal communication on February 2, 

2001. 

Frank, J.H., and E.D. McCoy. 1990. Endemics and epidemics of shibboleths and other things 

causing chaos. Florida Entomologist 73:1-9. 

Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into Inland 

Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 27. 

Bethesda, MD. 613 pp. 

Fulks, W. and K. Main (eds.). 1992. Diseases of cultured penaeid shrimp in Asia and the United 

States. Oceanic Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. 392 pp. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 117 

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2000. Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State 

Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species. GAO/RCED-00-219. August 2000. 

Goodyear, C. 2000. Initial Status Survey of Nonindigenous Animals in South Florida. A report 

to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group. Third review draft, September 

2000. 

GLPANS (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species). 1997. Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Research Guidance and Descriptive Inventory. 

A publication of the Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. September 1997. 

Grantham, S. and M. Barrett-O'Leary (eds.). 1999. Workshop Summary: Invasive Species and 

Ballast Water Management in the Gulf of Mexico Region. October 6, 1999. New Orleans, 

LA. Technical Paper - 102. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Gainesville, FL. 57p. 

Greening H. and N. Holland. 1999. Aquatic Nuisance Species and Shipping in the Eastern Gulf 

of Mexico: A Workshop for the Maritime and Scientific Communities. November 9-10, 

1999. The Florida Aquarium, Tampa, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg. 9p. 

GSMFC (Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1999. Compact News. Executive 

Director’s Report, Volume, Number 3, December 1999. 

GMP (Gulf of Mexico Program). 1999. Meeting Summary: Shrimp Virus Management 

Workshop. July 28-29, 1998. New Orleans, Louisiana. April, 25, 1999 draft. 17p. 

Hay, C.H. and D. Tanis. 1998. Mid-ocean ballast water exchange: procedures, effectiveness, 

and verification. For BAL9701 examination of efficiency of ballast water exchange practices 

and degree of ship compliance with New Zealand ballast water mandatory controls and 

voluntary guidelines. Submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Prepared by 

Cawthron (Nelson, New Zealand) and Battelle (Duxbury, Massachusetts). 

Hayes, K.R. 1998. Ecological risk assessment for ballast water introductions: a suggested 

approach. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 55: 201-212. 

Hill, J. 2001. February 9, 2001 letter from Jeffrey E. Hill, University of Florida Department of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences to Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program. 

Howells, R.G. 1999. Guide to Identification of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Fishes, 

Shellfishes, and Aquatic Plants Prohibited in Texas. A publication of Texas Parks & 

Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Special publication number PWD BK T3200-376 

(11/99). 

ISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2000. United States Invasive Species Draft 

Management Plan: Preparing for the Future. July 10, 2000 Draft. Washington, D.C. 
Version 4.0 

Page 118 September 2000

JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Shrimp Virus Work Group). 1997. An Evaluation of 

Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf 

of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters. Prepared by the JSA Shrimp 

Virus Work Group. June 5, 1997. 

Kumpf, H.E., B. Holland, and A. Walters. 1999. Overview of the Nonindigenous Species of the 

Gulf of Mexico. From the Proceedings of the National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, 

January 24-27, 1999, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Leach, J.H. 2000. Climate Change and the Future Distribution of Aquatic Organisms in North 

America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: 

Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Lightner, D.V. 1996a. The penaied shrimp viruses IHHNV and TSV: epizootiology, production 

impacts and role of international trade in their distribution in the Americas. ‘Revues 

Scientifique et Technique Office International des Epizooties’ 15(2): 579-601. 

Lightner, D.V. (ed.). 1996b. A handbook of shrimp pathology and diagnostic procedures for 

diseases of cultured penaied shrimp. Section 3: Viruses. World Aquaculture Soc., Baton 

Rouge, LA.

Litvak M.K. and N.E. Mandrak. 2000. Baitfish Trade as a Vector of Aquatic Introductions. In: 

Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach (eds). 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, 

Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic 

invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications

10(3): 689-710. 

Madsen, J.D. 1997. Methods for Management of Nonindigenous Aquatic Plants. In: Luken J.O. 

and J.W. Thieret (eds.) Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. Springer, New 

York. 

Marchand, L.J. 1946. The saber crab, Platychirograpsus typicus, Rathbun, in Florida: a case of 

accidental dispersal. Q. Jour. Fla. Academy of Sci. 9: 93-100. 

Matlack, G. 2000. Meeting Summary: Exotic plant species in Mississippi: Critical issues in 

management and research. A summary of the August 17, 2000 meeting of the Mississippi 

Exotic Pest Plant Council. Prepared by Glenn Matlack, University of Southern Mississippi. 

McCann, J.A., L.N. Arkin, and J.D. Williams. 1996. Nonindigenous Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of Introduction, Present Distribution, and 

Significant Ecological and Economic Effects. Southeastern Biological Science Center, 

National Biological Service. Published on the Internet 

(http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html), March 1996, by the University of Florida, Center for 

Aquatic Plants. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 119 

McKinney, L. 2000. Nonindigenous Species in Texas: Status Report. Presentation summary 

distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico 

Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000. 

Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton, and C.L. Secor. 1994. Exotic species and the integrity of 

the Great Lakes. Bioscience 44: 666-676. 

Mills, E.L., J.R. Chrisman, and K.T. Holeck. The Role of Canals in the Spread of 

Nonindigenous Species in North America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H Leach (eds). 2000. 

Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton, Florida. 

Ministry of Defence. 1987. Ocean Passages of the World, Fourth Edition. Prepared by 

Lieutenant Commander CJ de C Scott RN, Hydrographer of the Navy. Hydrographic 

Department, British Ministry of Defence. Tauton, Somerset England. 314pp. 

Minton, R.V. 2000. Nonindigenous Species in Coastal Alabama. Presentation summary 

distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico 

Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000. 

Moyle, P.B., H.W. Li, and B.A. Barton. 1986. The Frankenstein effect: Impact of introduced 

fishes on native fishes in North America. In: Stroud, R.H. (ed.) Fish culture in fisheries 

management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of 

Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water. Committee on Ships’ Ballast Operations, 

Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

Nico L.G. 1999. The Asian Swamp Eel: A Recent Invader in the Southeastern United States. 

From the Proceedings from Aquatic Nuisance Species: A Focus on the Southeast, Charleston, 

South Carolina, October 12-14, 1999. 

Nico, L.G. and P.L. Fuller. 1999. Spatial and temporal patterns of nonindigenous fish 

introductions in the United States. Fisheries 24(1): 16-27. January 1999. 

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment), United States Congress. 1993. Harmful 

Nonindigenous Species in the United States. Washington D.C. 391 pp. 

Parker, I.M., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, P.M. Kareiva, M.H. 

Williamson, B. Von Holle, P.B. Moyle, J.E. Byers, and L. Goldwasser. 1999. Impact: 

toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological 

Invasions 1: 3-19. 
Version 4.0 

Page 120 September 2000

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and economic costs 

associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. A publication of the College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. June 12, 1999. 

Randall, J.M., R.R. Lewis III, and D.B. Jensen. 1997. Ecological Restoration. In: Simberloff, 

D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of 

Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Rathbun, M.J. 1914. The Grapsoid Crabs of America. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 97. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 461 pp. 

Ray, M., R. Silcox, J. Gray, D. Buzan, and L. McKinney. 1998. Exotic Shrimp Viruses in Texas 

– A History and Status. A publication of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. July 28, 

1998. 

Roberts, D. 2000. Management, Identification, and Coordination of Estuarine and Marine 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species along Florida's Gulf Coast. Presentation summary 

distributed at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel Session at the Gulf of Mexico 

Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000. 

Ruesink, J.L., I.M. Parker, M.J. Groom, and P.M. Kareiva. 1995. Reducing the risks of 

nonindigenous species introductions: guilty until proven innocent. Bioscience, Vol. 45, No. 

7, pp. 465-477. 

Ruiz, G.M., J.T. Carlton, E.D. Grosholz, and A.H. Hines. 1997. Global invasions of marine and 

estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. 

American Zoologist 37: 621-632. 

Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 

2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature, Vol. 408, November 2, 2000. 

Schardt, J. 1999. State Problems and Management Strategies: Florida. From the Proceedings 

from Aquatic Nuisance Species: A Focus on the Southeast, Charleston, South Carolina, 

October 12-14, 1999. 

Schmitz, D.C., D. Simberloff, R.H. Hofstetter, W. Haller, and D. Sutton. 1997. The Ecological 

Impact of Nonindigenous Plants. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 

1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Shafland, P.L. 1996. Exotic fishes of Florida - 1994. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 4(2): 101-

122. 

Simberloff, D. 1997a. The Biology of Invasions. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. 

Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous 

Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 121 

Simberloff, D. 1997b. Eradication. In: Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 

Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (eds). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and 

Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Smith, L.D., M. Wonham, L. McCann, D. Reid, J. Carlton. 1996. Biological invasions by 

nonindigenous species in United States waters: quantifying the role of ballast water and 

sediments (Parts I and II). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Report no.. CG-D02-97. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 

SJRWMD (St. John’s River Water Management District). 1999. Blue-green algae in Florida 

waters: Effects on water quality. A “Fast Facts” sheet produced by the St. John’s River 

Water Management District. August 1999. 

Steirer, F.S., Jr. 1992. Historical perspective on exotic species. Pages 1-4 in M.R. DeVoe, ed. 

Introductions and transfers of marine species. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Hilton 

Head Island. 

Stickney, R.R. 2001. Letter from Robert R. Stickney, Director, Texas Sea Grant Program, to 

Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program. January 30, 2001. 

Texas Sea Grant Program. 1998. Conference Report: Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Workshop 

for the Gulf of Mexico. March 4, 1998. Houston, Texas. Sponsored by the Gulf of Mexico 

Sea Grant College Programs. 

Thompson, B.A. 2000. Intruders in the House: An Update on Some of the Exotic Species of 

Louisiana. Slides from presentation at the Nonindigenous Species Focus Group Panel 

Session at the Gulf of Mexico Symposium, Mobile, Alabama, April 10-12, 2000. 

TNCL (The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana). 1999. “Invasion of Alien Species” in Louisiana 

Legacy, a publication of The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana. Spring 1999. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Resources Conservation Service. 1999. The 

PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, 

LA 70874-4490 USA. Accessed in August 2000. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Gulf of Mexico Program 1998 

Shareholder Report. EPA-885-R-99-001. March 1999. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Website. 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. Accessed in June and July 2000. 
Version 4.0 

Page 122 September 2000

USM (University of Southern Mississippi). 2000. USM’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory 

Museum, Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem website 

http://lionfish.ims.usm.edu/~musweb/invaders.html. Accessed in June and July 2000. 

Van Devender, T. 2000. Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Wild Shrimp Populations in 

Mississippi Coastal Waters. Presentation summary prepared for the Shrimp Virus 

Management Workshop, New Orleans, Louisiana, July 28-29,1998. 

Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, and R. Westbrook. 1996. Biological invasions as 

global environmental change. American Scientist 84: 468-478. 

Williams, J.D. and G.K. Meffe. 1999. Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources. 

Volume 1. Chapter "Factors Affecting Biological Resources – Nonindigenous Species". 

Pages 117-129. 

Wills, D. 2000. Alabama Mollusks Overview (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~dwills/alaview.html), 

website accessed in October 2000. 

Zaneski, C.T. 2000. Hungry eel threatens Glades. Miami Herald, March 4, 2000. 

Personal Communications

Marilyn Barrett-O’Leary, Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 3, 

2000. 

Charles Biggar, Inland Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 30, November 28, 2000, and February 1, 2001. 

Richard Brassette, Aquatic Plant Control Section, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 27, 2000 and February 1, 2001. 

Frank Cali, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1, 2001. 

Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, February 9, 2001 and May 7, 

2001. 

Pam Fuller, Biologist-Aquatic Introductions, Florida Caribbean Science Center, Biological 

Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida, May to September 2000. 

Monty Graham, Senior Marine Scientist, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, Alabama, 

August 24, 2000. 

Steve Heath, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, June 11, 2001. 
Version 4.0 

Gulf Region Aquatic Invasive Species Issues Page 123 

Rhandy Helton, Aquatic Vegetative Control Group, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

February 8, 2001. 

Bill Holland, Invasive Species Focus Team Co-Chair, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space 

Center, Mississippi, May to September 2000. 

Ken Johnson, Texas Veterinarian Medical Diagnostic Center, Texas A&M University, December 

14, 2000. 

Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, Florida, October 2000. 

Susan McCarthy, Research Microbiologist, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration, Dauphin Island, Alabama, July 17, 2000. 

Tom McIlwain, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi, August 31, 2000. 

Whitman Miller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, August 

31, 2000. 

Vernon Minton, Division of Marine Resources, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, February 1, 2001. 

Dan Moulton, Coastal Conservation Brach, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, 

November 11, 2000. 

Dan Roberts, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, St. Petersberg, Florida, August 2000. 

Jeff Schardt, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, August 4, 2000. 

Carol Shieh, Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dauphin 

Island, Alabama, July 11, 2000. 

Todd Slack, State Ichthyologist, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Department of 

Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks, Jackson, Mississippi, July 27, 2000. 

Granvil Treece, Texas Sea Grant Program, Bryan, Texas, November 21, 2000. 

Wes Tunnell, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, personal 

communication reported in Stickney 2001. 

Tom Van Devender, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, February 2, 2001. 

Richard Wallace, Director, Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center, Mobile, 

Alabama, August 2, 2000. 
Version 4.0 

Page 124 September 2000

Paul Zajicek, Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Tallahassee, Florida, August 8, 2000. 

Joe Zolcynski, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, February 1, 2001.