# Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan

A Supplement to Idaho’s Strategic Action Plan For Invasive Species

Prepared for

Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter

And the Idaho Invasive Species Council

By

The Idaho Invasive Species Council

Technical Committee

20072 

# Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... 7 List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................... . 8 Introduction - Managing Aquatic Nuisance Species in Idaho ............................................ 9 Invasive Species in Idaho................................................................................................ 9 The Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan for Idaho.............................................................. 10

What is At Stake?.............................................................................................................. 14 Facing the Enemy—What is out there a nd how might it arrive in Idaho? ....................... 17 Types of ANS ............................................................................................................... 17

The Known Threats................................................................................................... 20 The Framework for Aquatic Nuisance Species Management in Idaho ............................ 23

Federal Policies and Efforts.......................................................................................... 23 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preven tion and Control Ac t and the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force...................................................................... 23 National Invasive Species Act .................................................................................. 23 Invasive Species Executive Order ............................................................................ 24 Individual Federal Agency Programs ....................................................................... 24 Regional Organization and Efforts ............................................................................... 26 The Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species..................................... 26

Western Governors Association ............................................................................... 26

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Co mmission/Bonneville Power Administration Aquatic Nuisance Species Program for the Columbia River Basin.......................... 27

100 th Meridian Initiative ........................................................................................... 27 Current State Programs................................................................................................. 28

Current Efforts and How We Can Be More Effective.................................................. 33 1. Early Intervention – Prevention, Earl y Detection, & Rapid Response............. 33 2. Containment, Contro l and Restoration ............................................................. 37 3. Reaching Important Audiences th rough Education and Training..................... 40 4. Broadening Knowledge through Res earch and Technology Transfer.............. 42 5. Assuring Adequate Funding ............................................................................. 43 6. Creating an Adequate, Eff ective Legal Structure ............................................. 44

7. Coordination of efforts...................................................................................... 46 Closing the Net on ANS—Idaho’s Plan ........................................................................... 47 Glossary ....................................................................................................................... ..... 56

Sources........................................................................................................................ ...... 58 Appendix A. Idaho’s ANS Tec hnical Advisory Committee ...................................... 61 Appendix B. Species and Categories ......................................................................... 62 Appendix C. List of Known Nonindige nous Aquatic Species in Idaho................... 127 Appendix D. Idaho’s Rapid Response Strategy ....................................................... 1313 

# Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan

Executive Summary

The Plan and why it is Necessary In 2005, the Governor approved Idaho’s “Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species”, prepared by the Idaho Invasive Species Council (IISC) as a statewide effort to limit the introduction and spread of inva sive species. Invasive specie s are generally those plants and animals that are not native to an area, ha ve the potential to sp read uncontrollably, and when they do, cause significant economic or ecological harm. They include noxious weeds that invade all lands ranging from cultivated farms to vacant city blocks, as well as

unwanted insects and some animals. Their economic impacts of these species nationwide in terms of the costs of treatment and preven tion, in lost agricultu ral production and in restoring infested areas have been esti mated in the billi ons of dollars.

A special class of invasive species that de serve particular attention are the “aquatic nuisance species” (ANS). ANS are those plants and animals that are dependent upon aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Here, as is the case with all other invasive species, introductions and uncontrollable spreads wr eak havoc with native fish and ecological communities as well as the importance our streams, rivers and lakes have for recreation, irrigation and power generation.

By definition, ANS are those non-native plant and animal species that threaten the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecologi cal stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activities dependent on such

waters. While ANS are defined as non-na tive or nonindigenous, not all nonindigenous species are nuisance species since many a lien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.

Despite the fact that Idaho is a landlocked semi-arid state, th ere are factors that make it extremely vulnerable to the impacts of ANS. Indeed the scarcity of water in many parts

of the state and the overall va lues associated with aquatic resources demand actions to protect this resource. Here is why Idaho must be particularly vigilant:

• Impacts to and from an agricultural economy that depends upon a complex irrigation system and which also has a flourishing aquacult ure industry depending on quality supply waters

• Fishing and boating opportunitie s on Idaho’s lakes, rivers and streams that attract enthusiasts from all parts of the United States

• A growing population of new and part time residents with second homes in Idaho that spend part of the year pursui ng recreational interests on our waters4 • Migratory steelhead and salmon runs in the Lower Snake, Salmon and Clearwater drainages that are vital to the recove ry of these populations throughout the

Northwest

• A seaport in Lewiston where barges and t ugs are exposed to international ships and the species that live in their holds and ballast water.

Add to these factors the ease of buying and transporting plants for aquatic landscaping or exotic fish for ponds. In addition, there is a tendency for ANS to “hitchhike” on boats or fishing gear commonly moved between all stat es. For these reasons, the IISC believes that a separate set of acti ons and emphasis on ANS as a component of the state’s Strategic Action Plan for Invasi ve Species is not only justifie d but also essential. In addition, development of this ANS plan fulf ills the mandate of the federal “National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act fo r individual state plan s as part of the national strategy on ANS and qualifies Idaho for federal funding under this Act.

What is Idaho’s ANS Plan? Idaho’s ANS plan has a clear goal:

“Minimize the harmful ecological, econo mic, and social impact of ANS through prevention of introduction. If ANS are established, manage population growth and prevent dispersal, within, and from Idaho.”

The ANS plan complements the current Idaho Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species and is intended to help the state coordina te efforts and secure cooperative funding to prevent, eradicate or control new introductions more effectiv ely, before they cause major environmental and economic damage. An advisory committee consisting of state, federal, tribal, and private sector members, developed this plan with interagency and public support. This ANS plan, including its goals and objectives, is a dynamic

document to be reviewed and revised as necessary and as situations change.

Like the Idaho Strategic Acti on Plan for Invasive Species, the ANS plan recognizes that prevention is, in the long term, easier and less expensive than eradi cation and restoration. It is also based upon a thorough understanding of the types of ANS we might expect and the invasion pathways that might facilitate their entry and spread. Idaho’s ANS plan takes a streamlined view of categories of AN S and the threats that might be associated with each. There are two categories of ANS: those that are in the state now and further spread is undesirable, and those that are not here and which must be kept out. Granted, within those broad categories, there are indi vidual species that pos e greater risks than others. Therefore, assigning risks in each ca tegory for species helps guide rapid response actions, risks are based upon the following criteria:

• High-Not Present —Species which are not presen t in Idaho but which would likely have a high adverse impact if they were to arrive.5 • High-Present — Those which are present in Id aho and likely to have a high adverse impact but are still in a potentially containable state, with areas of local eradication possible.

• Medium-Present —Established species which warra nt long-term control actions to prevent further spread.

• Low-Not Present —Those species which may not be in Idaho but which present

low risks of establishment or adverse impacts.

• Low- Present —Established species where contro l is unlikely or which present

low risks to the state.

As noted in Idaho’s Strategic Action Plan fo r Invasive Species, th ere is a myriad of existing programs and other efforts at the fede ral and regional level that are in place to control ANS. These range from the work of the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (Task Force) which is responsible fo r reviewing and approving state plans to the individual programs of agenci es to manage such prominent invasion pathways as the discharge of ballast water. They also include regional effo rts such as the 100th Meridian

Initiative directed at zebra mussel or th e “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” campaign, which empowers recreational users to become part of the solution in stopping the transport and spread of these harm ful hitchhikers

There are state programs in Idaho, with the state departments of Agriculture, Environmental Quality, Fish and Game, Lands , Parks and Recreation, and Transportation all engaged through various initiatives of thei r own or through cooperative efforts at the state, regional or national levels. Th ese fall into seven broad categories:

• Early Intervention – Prevention, Earl y Detection, and Rapid Response

• Containment, Contro l and Restoration

• Reaching Important Audiences through Education and Training

• Broadening Knowledge through Res earch and Technology Transfer

• Assuring Adequate Funding

• Creating an Adequate, Effective Legal Structure

• Coordination of Efforts

It is noteworthy that despite the development of the overall st ate strategic action plan and the ongoing actions of not only federal but st ate agencies, Idaho’s ANS plan currently identifies 21 gaps in those programs which need to be filled by completing 43 separate tasks if we are to fully prevent and cont rol ANS in the state. These actions are summarized in the “Implementation Table”, which also includes the major resources needed, the lead entity and a timetable for completing the individual tasks.

One final component of the state’s ANS plan is a plan for early detection and rapid response (EDRR) to a new or spreading invasi on of an unwanted sp ecies. This EDRR plan mirrors a similar Columbia Basin rapid re sponse plan that is be ing developed for the6 control of zebra\quagga mussels, which have been recently detected in the nearby Colorado River system. This unfortunate event, underscore s the importance of vigilance and the ability to respond. It also provides a model for rapid response and a test of that model upon which Idaho’s rapid re sponse plan is based.7 

### Acknowledgements

The Idaho Invasive Species Council Techni cal Committee with support from Idaho state agencies and universities, fede ral land management agencies, tribes and numerous private parties, companies, and interested pa rties prepared this plan for Idaho.

We would like to thank Stephen Phillips and the Pacific States Ma rine Fish Commission for providing resources and encour agement to complete this plan.

We would like to thank the Northwest Natura l Resource Group, LLC fo r their preparation of preliminary drafts.8 

## List of Acronyms

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

BOR Bureau of Reclamation CRANSI Columbia River Aquatic N onindigenous Species Initiative CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality EDRR Early Detection, Rapid Response

ELI Environmental Law Institute FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDL Idaho Department of Lands IISC Idaho Invasive Species Council IPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation ISDA Idaho State Department of Agriculture ISSG Invasive Species Specialist Gr oup (Global Invasive Species Database) ITD Idaho Transportation Department MOU Memo of Understanding NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuis ance Prevention and Control Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NISA National Invasive Species Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

PSMFC Pacific States Ma rine Fisheries Commission PSU Portland State University Task Force Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (national) TNC The Nature Conservancy U of I University of Idaho USAID United States Agency for International Development USBLM United States Bureau of Land Management

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 USGS United States Geological Survey

WGA Western Governors’ Association9 

## Introduction - Managing Aquati c Nuisance Species in Idaho

Invasive Species in Idaho

In 2003-2005, Idaho adopted both a comprehensive assessment in 2003 and the subsequent Idaho’s Strategi c Action Plan for Invasive Species in 2005 to limit the introduction and spread of invasive speci es within the state (IISC 2003 and 2005). Invasive species are generally t hose plants and animals that ar e not native to an area, have the potential to spread uncontrollably, and when they do, to cause significant economic or ecological harm (IISC 2005). Idaho’s invasive species action plan recognized that these undesirable invaders occupy city lots and resi dential areas, farms and rangelands as well as aquatic environments, such as lakes, st reams and riparian areas. While there have been many separate efforts to prevent and cont rol these invasive speci es in the state, the

assessment of current conditions and future efforts to manage or prevent their introduction to the state were based upon these premises:

• Invasive species management in Idaho is fragmented. Responsibilities and authorities for invasive species manage ment are not clearly defined for most agencies. There is no clear relationship among budgets, needs, and results. There is a need to set prioriti es and measure results.

• Levels of education and awareness among landowners, policy-makers, and the public are not commensurate with the degree of the problem. Landowners need to understand their obligations to control inva sive species and the costs associated with failure to manage them. Political leaders need to ensure adequate funding, appropriate legal authoriti es, and agency accountability. The public needs to understand invasive species so they become mindful of actions they can take, and help build broad public and political support for adequate programs.

• Idaho has expanded significant prog rams for managing noxious weeds, agricultural pests, forest insects, and i nvasive species that threaten human or animal health. Other invasive species, such as aquatic inva ders, have received

little attention to date.

• Resources are scarce so we must ensure that we expend them wisely. Applied science can help us set priorities and develop cost-effective methods for managing invasive species.

• There is a need for adequate resources to do the job, includin g funding. This was perceived as the greatest barrier to effective invasive species management in 2004, when Idaho’s invasive species ac tion plan was being considered.

• It is less expensive to prevent introducti ons of invasive species than to control them because of our limited ability to er adicate or control invasive species once they become established. Idaho’s land managers place a high premium on10 prevention i.e., actions to keep an invasi ve species from ever arriving here and on early detection and rapid response on ce an invasive species arrives.

Idaho’s Invasive Species Council (IISC), th e sponsor of the statewide assessment and strategic plan, anticipated s ubsequent detailed action strate gies for invasive species by those entities responsible fo r various aspects of invasive species management and prevention. The specialized efforts of th e “Cooperative Weed Management Areas” (CWMA) and the statewide coordination of th is work by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) are an excellent exampl e of an “on the ground” program. This aquatic nuisance species (ANS) plan is both a logical and a necessary refinement of the

state’s overall strate gic action plan.

By definition, ANS are those non-native plant and animal species that threaten the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecologi cal stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activities dependent on such

waters. While ANS are defined as non-na tive or nonindigenous, not all nonindigenous species are nuisance species since many a lien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life. ANS are the cause of significant ecological and socio-economic problems th roughout North America. Populations of invasive species, such as zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha , New Zealand mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum , Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum , and the parasites that cause whirling disease are in creasing in prevalence nationwide. After introduction, these populations can expand and spread rapidly due to lack of natural controls and their ability to adapt to a variety of habitats. ANS can displace native species, clog waterways, impact municipal and industrial irrigation and power systems, degrade ecosystems, reduce or threaten recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, and can cause wildlife and public health problems.

Many governmental agencies have recognized the threat posed by ANS. In 1990, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) was passed by Congress and enacted to address ANS problems in the United States. This legislation provided federal cost-share support for impl ementation of state ANS plans. While programs created by this national legislation initially were ai med at problems in the Great Lakes region, the reauthoriz ation of NANPCA in 1996 as th e National Invasive Species Act (NISA) established a national goal of preventing new ANS introductions and limiting the dispersal of existing ANS in all of the states. NISA specifies that state ANS plans identify feasible, cost-effective manageme nt practices and measures that can be implemented by the state to prevent and cont rol ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound.

The Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan for Idaho

Most of Idaho’s eastern bor der is a mountainous wall thro ugh which only four major

rivers flow from the east. Three of the ri vers, the Kootenai, th e Clark Fork, and the Snake, are major components of the Columbia Ri ver Basin. The fourth, the Bear River in southeast Idaho crosses the Utah, Wyoming a nd Idaho borders before returning to Utah11 and ending in Great Salt La ke. Except for three smaller Snake River tributaries originating in Nevada, most of the other rivers in the state arise fr om within its borders, and virtually all of them flow into the Colu mbia River. These watercourses represent ready-made invasion pathways. The Pacific O cean is 465 river miles away from the Port of Lewiston; commercial barges and tugs regul arly travel the Snake and Columbia rivers

to and from the Pacific Ocean. Recreational boating and fishing enthusiasts from across the country use the waterways of Idaho and neighboring states, incr easing the potential for unwanted invasions or spread of ANS. Th ere is a need to be doubly vigilant with respect to ANS in Idaho—the results of our e fforts are reflected in what happens to the

states downstream of our major rivers (Figure 1).

Idaho has temperate to alpine climates, ra nging from warmer, usually snow free river canyons and lower valleys to high mountain rang es with much colder water and severe winter conditions. However, cold-water temperatures canno t always be counted upon to prevent exotic species that are intolerant of cold. The state has 2,614 documented geothermal sources of water, primarily sp rings or wells (IDWR //idahogeothermal.org/) (Figure 2). While these generally have a negl igible effect on the ambient temperature of larger streams, they do represent small pockets of warm water where tropical species can and do survive. These geothermal waters cont ribute to a significan t portion of Idaho's aquacultural economy.12 Figure 1. Potential ANS Migration Routes between Idaho and Neighboring States.13 The goal of the ANS plan and the actions outlined in it are:

“Minimize the harmful ecological, econo mic, and social impact of ANS through prevention of introduction. If ANS are established, manage population growth and prevent dispersal, within, and from Idaho.”

The ANS plan is based on these assumptions:

• Prevention is the best course of action. Species management plans, education programs, and regulations are strategies th at can help in the prevention and spread

of ANS

• There are many pathways of introduction and spread for ANS, virtually all of

which are related to human activitie s, both accidental and intentional

• New introductions and the spread of exis ting infestations have many associated costs. There are the economic impacts su ch as lost recreational opportunities or damage to water conveyance systems, as we ll as the ecological costs of the loss of desirable native species and the degradation of aquatic habitats

• Often there are few control methods avai lable for use in water bodies once ANS

become established.

• Once species become established and widespread, any control efforts will usually be very expensive and the potential fo r eradication become s very unlikely.

The coordinated efforts contained within this ANS plan are designed to protect Idaho and its aquatic resources from the multitude of potential losses associated with ANS. It complements and adds to the current Idaho Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species (IISC 2005). The ANS plan is intended to help the state coordinate efforts and secure long term cooperative funding to prevent, control, and hopefully, eradicate new introductions before they cause major envir onmental and economic damage. An advisory committee consisting of state, federal, tribal , and private sector members developed this plan with interagency and public support. This ANS plan, including its goals and objectives, will be reviewed and revised as nece ssary. Interested or impacted parties are welcome to participate in plan revisions a nd public comments will help provide guidance and support of the ANS plan’s goals, object ives and implementation strategies.

The draft ANS plan was made available for publ ic review from June 26 to July 27, 2007. Notices of its availability were provided to interested groups a nd published in local papers. Copies of the ANS plan were availabl e in electronic or hard copy formats. Open houses were held in Boise, Coeur d'Alene, and Pocatello during July 2007. Public

comments were limited and related to cont rolling Eurasian watermilfoil. Primary

editorial comments were made from memb ers of the national Task Force and IISC Technical Advisory Committee (Appendix A).14 

## What is At Stake?

Despite the state, regional and federal res ponses to the growing ch allenge of invasive species, Idaho remains vulnerable to new intr oductions and unmanage d spread of existing ANS. Physical, social and economic factors within the state heighten the threat of unwanted species. Among these are:

• Impacts to and from an agricultural economy that depends upon a complex irrigation system, including numerous impoundments, canals and diversion

structures

• Impacts to and from a flour ishing aquaculture industry

• A growing population of new and part time residents with second homes in Idaho that spend part of the year pursui ng recreational interests on our waters

• Fishing and boating opportunitie s on Idaho’s lakes, rivers and streams that attract enthusiasts from all parts of the Unite d States, who bring their own boats and fishing gear, which may have some unwanted ANS“hitchhikers”

• Access to maritime trade through the Port of Lewiston, via barges and tugs that come in contact with international ships a nd the species that arrive in their holds

and ballast water

• Migratory steelhead and salmon runs in the Lower Snake, Salmon and Clearwater drainages that are vital to the recove ry of these populations throughout the

Northwest

• Impacts to ESA “threatened”, “endangered” or “candidate” species that are either aquatic or partially depe ndent on riparian areas

• A wide variety of aquatic habitats, in cluding mountain streams, natural lakes, reservoirs, and desert ripari an areas, along with a large number of hot springs that provide unique warm water “micro-sites”

• Expansion of private ornamental ponds, waterscapes and other water features

• Ease of sale and rapid shi pping of live organisms from anywhere in the world to

Idaho.

Figure 2 illustrates the important streams, lakes and other water bodies in Idaho. Their value for recreation, irrigation, wildlife, scen ic beauty and aquacu lture increases the potential for ANS to be a threat. An exampl e is the undeniable value of springs in the Hagerman area for aquaculture, which by the nature of the industr y makes the springs15 potential waters where ANS cab become estab lished. One of the ways ANS might arrive

in Idaho and infect wild fish and their habita ts is through the moveme nt of fish eggs, live fish or their food. Similarly, boaters attracted to our magnificent ri vers and lakes, can inadvertently introduce invasive i nvertebrates, parasites or plan ts that adhere to boats or trailers. One of the greatest potential losses to Idaho from ANS is the intangible but incalculable value of the complex aquatic a nd riparian ecosystems that characterize the state and upon which much of our economy and lifestyles depend.

The economic and environmental costs of harmful ANS in Idaho have not been adequately determined. Costs can be incurr ed through the loss of economic output, such as reductions in aquaculture, fisheries, or crop production, and also through the direct cost of combating and mitigating the impacts of the species (Mack et. al. 2000). Profitability in agriculture for example is redu ced by the costs associated with controlling aquatic nuisance plants that clog irrigation canals. If zebra mussel or quagga mussel Dreissena rostriformis bugensis become established in Idaho, substantial expenses would

be involved for the maintenance of industr ial, hydropower, irrigation, and water supply systems. The impacts of the zebra mussel in the United States have been an estimated in the billions of dollars annually (Khalanski 2005).16 Figure 2. Main waterways of Idaho.17 

## Facing the Enemy—What is out there and how might it arrive

in Idaho?

When species are introduced into a new enviro nment, there is the potential for significant ecological, economic, and social effects. Non-native species may have few natural enemies, such as parasites or predators. L ack of natural enemies and the ability to adapt to new environments may allow a population to increase rapidly. Not all nonindigenous species pose an identified threat and some, such as warm water game fish can provide significant economic and recreational bene fits in appropriate habitats.

We cannot know what new and unanticipated ANS might surface in Idaho or surrounding states. Some threats are known given the impact s certain species have had in other states. We can anticipate their points of possible entry into Idaho, along with the areas of likely establishment (Figure 3).

Types of ANS

In general, there are three basic types of ANS: 1) harmful nonindige nous aquatic animals, 2) harmful nonindigenous aquatic plants , and, 3) harmful nonindigenous pathogens, diseases and micro parasites. These organism s have the potential fo r significant negative ecological, economic, and social effects. Once introduced, the lack of natural controls allow a population to increase at an exponential rate. Esta blishment of new species can cause the disruption of native species in the ecosystem as the introduced species may prey upon, out-compete, or transmit di sease to the native species.

Animal ANS have arrived in Idaho from a vari ety of intentional or unintentional actions (Figure 3). ANS such as zebra and quagga mussels can attach to boats, fishing gear, be moved in the live wells, and\or bait buckets from one body of water to another. Water

diversions allow fish or other ANS from di fferent drainages to i nvade new habitats. Although not intentional, the ability of some ANS to "hitchhike" during importation of approve species can put bodies of water at risk for invasion. Although aquaculture is well regulated in Idaho, the out of state propagation of animals for commercial or recreational purposes provides a potential source for ANS. ANS may also be introduced through intentional, unpermitted re leases of fish, baits or plants by anglers and aquarium

owners.18 Figure 3.19 Nonindigenous aquatic plants cause si gnificant economic and ecological problems throughout North America. Pathways for intr oduction of aquatic plant species include boats and trailers, the aquari um trade, nursery and garden centers, and mail order and internet suppliers. Many nonindigenous aquatic plant species have become established in

the United States outside of their natural range. Vascular species such as hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata and Eurasian watermilfoil are ex amples well known for their ability to alter physical and biological functions of aquatic systems. They affect water quality, recreational uses of water, and fisheries in many states. A wide variety of pondweed Potomogeton spp. species clog irrigation and drai nage ditches. Filamentous and planktonic algae can clog waterways, imp act water quality, and produce toxic blooms in lakes and ponds. Emergent spec ies such as purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria and Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum reduce wildlife cover and habitat. Saltcedar

or tamarisk Tamarix spp. seriously degrades wetlands, completely drying up some lakes, ponds, and river areas along w ith altering soil chemistry.

Microorganisms include pathogens, diseas es, bacteria, viruses fungi and related microbes. They can enter Idaho on plants or animals imported into the state or through the water in which plants or animals are tr ansported. When microorganisms are allowed into a new aquatic environment, they also have the ability of infec ting native or existing plants or animals. Importation of pathogenic organisms must be regulated and the spread of these microorganisms must be co ntrolled. Parasites, such as Myxobolus cerebralis , the cause of salmonid whirling disease, may affect wild trout fisheries in Idaho, resulting in

serious loss of recreational activ ity and financial loss to Idaho. Other parasites and viral or bacterial pathogens like Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia can cause heavy mortalities of trout and salmon, plus other fish species, both those in the wild or in Idaho’s aquaculture industry. These viruses must be kept out of Idaho through comprehensive efforts to identify and control sources of their entry. Although include d in this plan as ANS, many aquatic micro-organisms associated with fish and aquaculture are addressed through other state and regional programs such as the M odel Comprehensive Fish Health Protection Program (PNFHPC 2007) and the policies of the Columbia Basin Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (Shelldrake et al. 1993).

The ability to prevent entry or manage the sp read of each species varies and the resources available are limited. Management efforts mu st be focused on species for which actions can produce the greatest benefit. In rec ognition of the known threats, impacts, and potential problems of certain ANS and th e state’s current management capabilities, management actions should be directed to ward species for which the threats are the highest. Idaho’s ANS plan is ba sed on the categories of threat s and risks described in this

section.

Although this plan is directed towards introduced ANS, information and actions in the plan and from future ANS work in Idaho can also be applicable for native species, which can become "nuisances" in our changing and al tered environments. One such species that

is native to Idaho is the stalked diatom, Didymosphenia geminate, more commonly

known as "rock snot". This diatom can become abundant to the point of being a nuisance (resembling whitish-gray sewage fungus) in ri vers and streams where it can form thick20 gelatinous mats under certain environmental conditions (Stevenson et al. 1996 as cited by Holderman, et. al. 2004). Actions such as cleaning equipment, taken to prevent movement of new species into Idaho should al so be taken to prevent the movement of native species out of the state or into other draina ges within Idaho.



### The Known Threats

It is possible to place too much emphasis on id entifying the species most likely to arrive or spread in Idaho and calcula ting the relative risks of damage if they do. It is tempting to do so as the basis for formulating preven tion strategies and cont rol actions that are based upon threats and risks. However, so me species may not be obvious threats. Consider the appearance of “sudden oak deat h syndrome” in Oregon and California. Before it appeared, the pathogenic cause for the disease was not on any list of potentially invasive species. In Washington, piranhas and a potentially invasive member of the “tunicate” family of marine organisms from the East Coast were recently found, neither of which would have appeared on a watch li st for that state (Joan Cabreza, USEPA, personal communication). While existing authorization was apparently either sufficient to allow funds to be spent on control measur es or was quickly amended to allow this, valuable time can be lost if there is a requi rement to modify lists of species for which funds can be legally directed.

For these reasons, Idaho’s ANS plan takes a streamlined view of categories of ANS and

their associated threats. There are two basi c categories of ANS: Those that are in the state now and where their spread is undesi rable, and those that have not yet been introduced and must be kept out. Within these broad categories there are individual species that pose greater risks than others do. Therefore, assigning risks in each category for species helps guide rapid response actions , risks are based upon th e following criteria:

• “High-Not Present” — Species which are not presen t in Idaho but which would likely have a high adverse impact if they were to arrive.

• "High-Present" — Those which are present in Idaho and likely to have a high adverse impact but are still in a potentially containable state, with areas of local eradication possible.

• “Medium-Present” — Established species which warrant long-term control actions to prevent further spread.

• “Low-Not Present” — Those species which may not be in Idaho but which present low risks of establishm ent or adverse impacts.

• "Low- Present" — Established species where control is unlikely or which present low risks to the state.21 Appendix B includes detailed descriptions of hi gh priority species currently established in Idaho, and those that are not currently present here but likely to have a high adverse impact. Those species are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Appendix C contains a list of all known aqua tic nonindigenous species in Idaho. Species in this list include not only those that would rank in the hi gh, medium and low criteria as ANS species, but also species th at are currently considered be neficial in some waters of

the state.22 Table 1. High-Priority Aquatic Nuisance Spe cies known to be in Idaho

These species are defined as presen t in Idaho, but still in a pot entially containable state in known waters or with local eradication possible.

Scientific Name Common Name

Animals
Potamopyrgus antipodarum New Zealand mudsnail
Corbicula fluminea Asian clam
Myxobolus cerebralis Whirling disease

Plants Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil
Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot feather milfoil
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris
Potamogeton crispus Curly leaf pondweed
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife
Tamaricaceae spp. Saltcedar

Table 2. High Priority Speci es Not Currently Found in Idaho

These species are defined as not currently p resent in Idaho, and likely to have a high adverse impact.

Scientific Name Common Name

Animals

Dreissena polymorpha / Drei ssena rostriformis bugensis Zebra mussel/Quagga mussel

Mylopharyngodon piceus, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, H. nobilis, Ctenopharyngodon idella Asian Carp (black, silver, bighead, grass (fertile variety))

Orconectes rusticus Rusty crayfish

Neogobius melanostomus Round goby

Gymnocephalus cernuus Eurasian ruffe

Rhinogobius brunneus Amur goby

Channa argus, C. maculata, C. marulius, C. micropeltes Snakehead fish, sp.

Bythotrephes cederstroemii / Bythotrephes longimanus Spiney/fishhook water flea

Myocastor coypus Nutria

Viral hemorrhagic septicemia

Plants

Eichhornia sp. Water hyacinth

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla

Egeria sp. Brazilian elodea

Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frog's bit / European frogbit

Trapa natans Water-chestnut

Cabomba sp. Carolina fanwort23 

## The Framework for Aquatic Nuisance Species Management in

Idaho

Federal Policies and Efforts

Generally, federal programs have sought to eith er coordinate or en courage the roles and

activities of the individual st ates, although federal programs are responsible for interstate commerce and other related potential invasion pa thways that transce nd state borders. For example, the regulation of ballast water discha rges in the Great Lakes or in coastal ports is a responsibility of the USGC. The grow ing challenge posed by ANS and the role of the federal government in coordination and re gulation of activities that cross state or international borders, Congress has authorized a number of specific actions. While no single federal agency has clear authority over all aspects of ANS management, many agencies have programs and responsibilities th at address aspects of the problem, such as importation, interstate transport, ex clusion, control, and eradication.



### Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Pr evention and Control Act and the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preven tion and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 established a federal program to prevent or control introduced ANS and the brown tree snake. The mandate is prevention, mon itoring, and control with these activities supported by research and education. Unde r NANPCA, state governors are authorized to submit comprehensive ANS management plans to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (Task Force) for approval. The plans identify areas or activities for which

technical and financial assistance is neede d. Grants are authorized to states for implementing approved ANS management plans. The federal share cannot exceed 75% of cost incurred by the State and the non- federal share must come from non-federal sources (www.anstaskforce.gov).

Federal activities on ANS management are coordinated through the Task Force as authorized by the NANPCA. The Task For ce is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to prevention and control of ANS, and implementing the NANPCA. The various NANPCA mandates were expanded la ter with the passage of the National Invasive Species Act NISA, (see below) in 1996. The Task Force consists of 10 Federal agency representatives and 12 Ex-officio me mbers, and is co-chaired by the USFWS and NOAA. The Task Force coordinates federal go vernmental efforts dealing with ANS with those of the private sector and other North American inte rests via regional panels and issue-specific committees and work groups (www.anstaskforce.gov). When appropriate, the Task Force develops national species spec ific management and control plans. The current plans can be found at ht tp://anstaskforce.gov/control.php.



### National Invasive Species Act

In 1996, National Invasive Species Act (NISA) amended NANPCA to mandate regulations to prevent the introduction and sp read of ANS into th e Great Lakes through24 ballast water and other vessel operations. This Act required a USCG study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of existing near-shore ballast wa ter facilities used by crude oil tankers. It also authorized funding for research on ANS preventi on and control in the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacifi c Coast, the Atlantic Coast, and the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. In addition, NISA required a ballast water management program to demonstrate technologies and pr actices to prevent aquatic nonindigenous species from being introduced into and spread through balla st water in United States waters. The Act also modified: 1) the com position and research priorities of the Task Force; and 2) zebra mussel de monstration program requirements (www.invasivespecies.gov).



### Invasive Species Executive Order

In addition to these authorit ies, in February 1999, Pres ident Clinton signed Executive Order 13112, which requires all federal agencies to collaborate in developing a national invasive species management plan that will include terrestrial and aquatic species. This seeks to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and minimize their impacts through better coordi nation of federal agency efforts under a National Invasive Species Management Plan to be developed by a national interagency Invasive Species Council. Th e Order directs all federal ag encies to address invasive species concerns as well as refrain from actions likely to increase invasive species problems (Federal Register 1999). The Nationa l Invasive Species Management Plan was finalized on January 18, 2001 and is on the national Invasive Species Council website at www.invasivespecies.gov.

The response of the federal government toward the increasing threat of invasive species and the mandates of Congress has been to cr eate a wide variety of federal programs. While not all of these directly relate to aqua tic species, more than 20 federal agencies in 10 cabinet level Departments have some res ponsibility for some aspect of invasive species management, including responsibili ties for ANS (General Accounting Office 2002). These range from the regulation of balla st water of ships coming to United States ports to customs inspections to the interstate shipments of animals and plants. The State Department even negotiates provisions aime d at preventing the movement of invasive species in various trade and other agr eements with foreign governments.



### Individual Federal Agency Programs

One of the lead federal agencies battling the spread of ANS is the USFWS. This agency, as co-chair of the ANS Task Force, provide s federal funding for implementation of state and regional ANS management plans and maintains a number of “hands on” efforts for controlling ANS through training of field manage rs and research. Other agencies that maintain or support ANS programs incl ude: NOAA, ACOE, Customs Bureau, USCG, plus agencies of the Departments of Energy and Agriculture (Gener al Accounting Office 2001).

Table 3 summarizes the various roles of many federal agencies and the authorities provided to carry out these effort s (but are not exhaustive).25Table 3. Examples of Federal Roles in Invasive Species ManagementInvasive Species FunctionAuthoritiesAgenciesKey ResponsibilitiesPrevention Plant Protection Act; Animal quarantine laws;Lacey Act; Federal Seed Act; NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act;National Invasive Species ActAPHIS; USFWS; NOAA, USEPA, USCG, Depts. ofDefense, State and Transportation (for aquatic noxiousweeds)Prohibit or restrict imports or movements of plant pests,including noxious weeds; Control interstate movement ofinvasive animals and those with communicable diseases;Control weed infested seeds; Regulate the movement ofinjurious animals; Prevent and control noxious aquaticweedsEarly Detection and Rapid ResponsePlant Protection Act; Animal quarantine laws;NUSEPA;Various agencies have the emergency authority to dealwith incipient invasionsSeize, hold, quarantine and treat prohibited speciesimported into the United States or transported betweenstatesControl, Management and Restoration Such acts and NFMA, FLPMA and those thatguide the management oflands or waters undervarious agency jurisdiction; the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act;Clean Water Act; FIFRA; NUSEPA; PlantProtection Act; Emergency Watershed ProgramForest Service, NOAA, USEPA, BOR,ACOE, NRCS; No single agency has overallresponsibilityControl and manage invasivespecies and restore affectedareas on federal lands and watersResearch and Monitoring Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey;Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act, various organic actsVarious USDA, Interior agencies, NOAA, USEPA Developdatabases on various invasives, research invasivespecies and micro-organisms of concern to forests,agricultural lands, rangelands and wetlands. Researchrisks associated with invasive speciesInformation Management International Plant Protection Convention;NAFTA; Convention on International Trade inEnd. Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;Convention on Biological Diversity; N.American Agreement for EnvironmentalCooperationUSDA agencies, Office of the U.S. TradeRepresentative, World Trade Organization, Depts. ofInterior, Transportation, State; International MaritimeOrganization, USEPA, U.S. AIDDevelop strategies for international control of invasivespecies and share information; Capacity building in othercountries; treaty and trade negotiations; ballast watermanagement;Public Outreach and PartnershipEffortsVarious statutory authorities USDA, Dept. of Interior, NOAA Dissemination of public information; Cooperate with state,local and tribal governmentsInteragency Efforts Various statutory authorities Task Force, NationalInvasive Species Council, FederalInteragency Committee on the Management ofNoxious and Exotic Weeds, Committee onEnvironment and Natural Resources of the NationalScience and Technology CouncilProblem specific cooperative efforts and the coordinationof control and research efforts26 

### Regional Organization and Efforts

The Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species

The Western Regional Panel (WRP) on Aquatic Nuisance Species was formed under a provision of the NISA in 1997 to help limit the introduction, spread, and impacts of ANS into western North America. The panel incl udes representatives from federal, state and local agencies and private environmental and commercial interests. The purposes of the WRP, as described in NISA, are to:

• Identify regional prioriti es for responding to ANS;

• Make recommendations to the Task For ce, including an education, monitoring (including inspection), prevention, and cont rol program to prevent the spread of the zebra mussel west of the l00th Meridian;

• Coordinate, where possible, other ANS program activities in the West not conducted pursuant to the Act;

• Develop an emergency response strategy for federal, state, and local entities to stem new invasions of ANS in the region;

• Provide advice to public and private indi viduals and entities concerning methods of preventing and controlli ng ANS infestations; and

• Submit an annual report to the Task For ce describing activities within the western region related to aquatic nuisance spec ies prevention, research and control.

Idaho IDFG staff have attended the annual WRP meetings and provided reports on state activities since the formation of the panel. Currently the state Invasive Species Coordinator is the official Idaho representative.



### Western Governors Association

The Western Governors’ Asso ciation (WGA) is involved with programs to address undesirable aquatic and terrest rial invasive species in the West. In 1998, the WGA passed Resolution 98-018, “Undesi rable Aquatic and Terrestrial Species”; which in part directs states to develop a nd coordinate Western strategi es and to support management actions to control and prevent the spread a nd introduction of undesirable species. In 2005, Resolution 05-11, "Undesirable, Inva sive Aquatic and Riparian Species" recognizes the importance of, and need for, a coordinated Western re gional approach to all invasive species. It also directed the WGA to convene an Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group to develop, fund, and implement a comprehensive program to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species in the water resources of the Western states. The Working Group shall partner with the WRP and other western groups to coordinate invasive species lists and efforts across the re gions, establish model legislation to prevent the transport, sale, and dispersal of undesi rable species, and deve lop the needed public27 outreach and education tools as identified by th e regional working groups. (Western

Governor’s Associati on, www.westgov.org).



### Pacific States Marine Fisher ies Commission/Bonneville Power Administration Aquatic Nuisance Spec ies Program for th e Columbia River

Basin

In 1999, the Bonneville Power Administration (B PA), recognizing the potential impact to its operations, funded the Pacific States Ma rine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) to carry out an ANS prevention program for the Columbia River Basin. The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries also provide program support. In addition to species-specific projects, the PSMFC coordinate regional ANS activities and some support funding to regional states in conjunction with the 100th Meridian Initiative and the Columbia River Basin ANS Coordinating Group. A primary emphasis is to assist states in the development of state ANS plans. An additional goal of this regional program is to include ANS public outreach in Montana, Washington, Idaho, a nd Wyoming in the prevention of zebra

mussel movement.



### 100 th 

### Meridian Initiative

One major regional ANS partnership is the 100th Meridian Initiative, a cooperative effort among federal, state, provincial and tribal en tities, potentially aff ected industries, and other interested parties to be gin addressing the threat of th e spread of zebra mussels and other ANS in the western United States. The goa ls of the Initiative are to be attained through the implementation of the followi ng six components: 1) information and education, 2) voluntary boat inspections and boa ter surveys, 3) involvement of those who haul boats for commercial purposes, 4) monitori ng, 5) rapid response, and 6) evaluation.

The 100 th Meridian Initiative has three subgroups or “Teams” for the Colorado, Columbia and Missouri Basins. Idaho pa rticipates in the Columbia River basin team, which is administered by the PSMFC with funding support from the USFWS and Bonneville

Power Administration. The Columbia River ANS Team includes representation from the IDFG, PSMFC, Portland State University (PSU ), tribal agencies, and state and federal entities in Oregon, Washington, Id aho and Montana. This team has developed a working draft rapid response plan for zebra and qua gga mussels in the Columbia River Basin (www.100thmeridian.org/ColumbiaRT). Idaho is a participant in the Initiative and has conducted surveys of boater movement, develo ped a statewide cooperative sign program for marinas and is conducting early detecti on monitoring for zebra and quagga mussel on

lakes and reservoirs throughout the state.28 

### “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!”

The USFWS leads the Task For ce national campaign known as Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! TM . Using strategic communications, social marketing and branding processes, th e intent of the campaign is to unify the entire conservation community to provide consistent messaging about this complex issue. The campaign can empower all recreational users to adopt environm entally responsible behaviors to prevent the spread of harmful species. By targeting aquatic recreation users, Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! TM strives to make stewardship inherent in all recreational experiences.

A part of the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers progr am has focused on the Greater Yellowstone Area. The focus is on attracting public-sector groups to join federal, state and county agencies to promote the conservation me ssage. This public-sector momentum has attracted numerous nonprofit organizations lik e local lake homeowner associations, Trout Unlimited and BASS chapters, statewide marine trade associations, and local, regional

and national environmental and conservation or ganizations. All of these organizations are complemented by diverse private sector interests including fish ing tackle and boat manufacturers, consumer travel product companies, recreational and multi-media companies, regional internet publishers, hotel chains, chambers of commerce, lodges and full-service resorts, fly and tackle shops, ma rinas, dive shops and resource restoration businesses. Over forty businesses and nonpr ofits from Jackson Hole, Cody, Livingston, Bozeman, Ennis, West Yellowstone, Island Pa rk and other communities of the Greater Yellowstone area have joined the cam paign (www.protect yourwaters.net/).



### Current State Programs

Idaho is a leader in managing invasive speci es, with a number of programs, task forces, studies, organizations and partnerships designe d to identify, prevent, eradicate or manage various harmful species. A model for cooperati on in dealing with invasive species is the Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) which originated in Idaho. The CWMA concept focuses on involving all landowne rs in a watershed or region, developing integrated management plans, and defining roles and partnerships that allow for the blurring of jurisdictional lines of ownership. CWMA now cover more than 82 percent of

the state. Due to the suc cess achieved in Idaho, CWMA ha ve become a national model for successful weed management across the country.

State and local programs often work in c oncert with the implementation of federal programs, frequently sharing funding and expe rtise. Idaho’s current laws and programs address both established and potential invasive species, and combine education, regulation, prevention, detection and control act ions as the needed basis for managing all invasive species, including those associated with aquatic or riparian habitats.

A variety of Idaho laws has been passed and programs established to address each of these classes of invasive speci es (IISC 2003). They include:29 • Idaho’s Noxious Weed Law that addresse s weed control on public and private lands and is administered by the ISDA and individual counties

• IDFG authorities to gover n the importation, release, sale, possession and transportation of any species of wild life, which by definition includes non domestic fish species

• ISDA authorities that require weed free seeds, straw for revegetation projects, and livestock feed, and regulate the propagation of species not classed as “wildlife”

• Idaho’s Plant Pest Act, with its broa d authorities to in spect nursery and horticultural operations and to quarantine ar eas or articles that may spread plant pests or plant diseases

• IDL authorities to manage and control forest pests

• The ability of the state or i ndividual counties to take st eps on private or state lands to suppress insect outbreaks or weeds or control unwanted animals

• Broad county authority to quarantine or undertake other control mechanisms for a variety of invasive species.

In 2002, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) published “H alting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species Management”, a comprehensive review of the laws, policies and programs related to invasive species management in each state. Their work considered state efforts to identify, prevent or control invasive species, as well as state

level mechanisms to coordinate efforts and enforce existing laws. Among their findings for Idaho, ELI noted several shortcomings in Idaho’s statutory framework for invasive species management, including a lack of specifi c authority to identify future threats and the absence of a comprehensive statewide inva sive species management plan. However, since ELI’s report, the state has enacted th e Plant Protection Act (2002) and a new law addressing “deleterious animals” passed in 2003. Perhaps equally importantly, Idaho has attempted to address all invasive species issues in a comprehensive fashion by the creation of a statewide Idaho Invasive Sp ecies Council (IISC) created by Executive Order No. 2001-11 in 2001 (Office of the Governor 2001) and reauthorized in 2006 by Executive Order No. 2006-28 (Offi ce of the Governor 2006).

This IISC includes representatives of state, local, federal and tribal governments as well as private entities who “pr ovide policy level direction and planning for combating harmful invasive species infestations throughout the state an d for preventing the introduction of others that may be potentially harmful” IISC (2005). The overall goals of the IISC include using the ex isting authorities to minimi ze the effects of harmful nonnative species, to serve as a non-partisan forum to build understanding of invasive species, to encourage control and prevention, to organize and streamline the process for identifying and controlling inva sive species, and to find ways to bring current problems under control (IISC 2005). The role of the IISC is to coordinate among the various30 public agencies and tribes toward achieving the goals outlined above, and active participation in the IISC is largely voluntar y, except for state ag encies. It operates without a dedicated budget, but leadership is provided by a full time statewide “invasive species coordinator”, established in 2004 and housed in ISDA.

The IISC addresses all categories of invasive species, both te rrestrial and aquatic. The purpose of the IISC is to provide policy level direction and planning for combating harmful invasive species infestations throughout the state an d for preventing the introduction of others that may be potenti ally harmful. The IISC is charged to:

• Minimize the effects of harmful non-nati ve species on Idaho citizens and to

ensure the economic and environmental we ll being of the State of Idaho;

• Serve as a nonpartisan forum for identif ying and understanding invasive species issues from all perspectives;

• Take measures that will encourage cont rol and prevention of harmful non-native species;

• Organize and streamline the process fo r identifying and controlling invasive species; and consider ways to halt the spread of invasive species as well as finding possible ways to bring current problems under control.

Table 4 summarizes the existing statutory author ities for state agencies related to invasive species management in Idaho (highlighted in blue) and the actions of the agencies charged with administering the law, including efforts directed at ANS. It should be noted that several other agencies ha ve responsibilities for either assisting in the implementation of existing laws or for cooperating with overa ll efforts. For example, the IDEQ does not have specific statutory aut hority for managing invasive sp ecies even though the agency does monitor and report infestations of a quatic weeds or animals as part of its responsibilities to protect wate r quality within the state.31Table 4. Summary of Idaho's Invasive Species Regulatory AuthoritiesNon-Native Species:Authority StatuteImport Introduction ReleaseIDFG36-104 Fish andGame AuthoritiesPermits for allowablespecies. Prohibitions againstspecific speciesPermits for allowablespecies based uponAmerican FisheriesSociety protocols.All releases or abandonment ofdomestic or exotic animals areprohibitedISDA 22-2016, Plant PestActPermits for allowable species Permits for allowablespeciesProhibited except by permitImport/Introduction/Release:What are the general requirements for theimport, introduction or release of nonnative or imported species?ISDA25-3900, DeleteriousAnimalsProhibitions and permitsProhibitions and permitsProhibitedAuthority Statute Quarantine RegulationsISDA 22-2012, Plant PestActBroad authority, but specific to "plant pests".Authorizes cooperation with federally imposedquarantinesISDA, except fordomestic sheep25-218, AnimalmanagementBroad authority for control of livestock diseasesIDL, in cooperation withISDA36-106, Forest pests IDL, through the Forest Pest Act and ISDA,through the Plant Pest Act, can survey for forest pestsand have broad authorities for control and prevention.Quarantines:Is there authority forquarantines of potentially invasivespecies, either for an area or fortransportation through the state?ISDA, Counties22-2404, NoxiousWeed LawBroad authority in the case of actual or potential noxious weed emergenciesAuthority Statute Shipping/Transportation RegulationsISDA 25-214 It is unlawful to transport animals infected with communicable diseases into or through the state.The law gives the Ports of Entry and the ITD authority to inspect for compliance with rules.Federal laws govern most aspects of interstate commerce.Interstate Transportation andShipping:Are there requirements forshipping or transportation of invasivespecies through the state?IDFG, in cooperationwith ISDA36-106 Wildlife that is transported is generally subjectto the same rules that govern livestock for transportor importation.32Table 4. Continued.Biological Control Agents:Authority StatuteImport Introduction ReleaseIDFG36-104 Fish andGame AuthoritiesPermits for allowablespecies. Prohibitionsagainst specific speciesPermits for allowable speciesbased upon AmericanFisheries Society protocolsAll releases or abandonment ofdomestic or exotic animals areprohibited.ISDA 22-2016, Plant PestActPermits for allowablespeciesPermits for allowable species Prohibited except by permitISDA 25-3900, DeleteriousAnimalsProhibitions and permits Prohibitions and permits ProhibitedManagement of BiologicalControl Agents:Are thererequirements for approval, permit or alicense to use biological control agentsand standards for using them?Authority StatuteEmergency PowersISDA 22-2404, NoxiousWeed LawEmergency Powers:Is thereauthorization of emergency powers toaddress invasive species outbreaks?ISDA 22-2009, Plant PestActThe Noxious Weed Law and the Plant Pest Act contain specific references to the ability of anystate agency to take emergency actions. This authority may be implied inother statutes regulatingpublic health, animal health,or agricultural pests.Authority StatuteEnforcement MechanismsISDA 22-2009, Plant PestActThe Plant Pest Act allows the ISDA to stop sales ofinfectious materials and take other emergencyactions. If landowners refuse to control pestson their lands, the ISDA may take control actionsand impose liens on the property in the amount of thecontrol costs. Violations of the Plant PestAct or misdemeanors are punishable by fines, civil penalties or imprisonment.ISDA 22-2409, NoxiousWeed LawViolations of the Noxious Weed Law are misdemeanors punishable by fines or imprisonment.Counties may impose liens and collect control costs,if they must take actions to control weeds onprivate lands.ISDA 25-3905, Animals Violations of the Deleterious AnimalAct can result in the assessment and collection of civilpenaltiesEnforcement Mechanisms:Whatauthorities help assure the enforcement ofvarious laws that regulate invasivespecies?ISDA 25-219, Animals Failure to control animal diseases asspecified in 25-200 are misdemeanor violations, punishableby fines or imprisonment.Blue highlights are authorities related to invasive species management.33 

### Current Efforts and How We Can Be More Effective

Idaho has a comprehensive program to preven t new introductions and spread of unwanted invasive species, as described in the Ida ho Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species (IISC 2005). Virtually all of them are releva nt for the management of ANS and many are already being implemented by various agenci es. In addition, the state’s efforts on invasive species management are coordina ted through the IISC and the work of a fulltime invasive species coordinator.

The responsibilities for invasive species management, including those for ANS, are seldom the domain of a single agency and th ere are overlaps and pot ential duplications. For example, new additions to the state code that address delete rious exotic species specifically calls for cooperation between th e departments of Agriculture and Fish and Game in implementing the sections of the ne w law concerning threats to fish, wildlife or the environment. While many agencies ha ve some authority to regulate ANS, no centralized authority or management structur e exists to coordinate ANS activities in Idaho. In Idaho, there are a number of progr ams dedicated solely to the prevention of new introductions and spread of ANS. Some of these progra ms reside exclusively with state agencies. Others, like the state’s pa rticipation in the previously mentioned “100 th
Meridian Initiative”, take the form of regi onal programs conducted in cooperation with other states or with various federal agen cies. This section describes the existing programs in Idaho for managing ANS, including bot h those that are specific to individual state agencies along with those that cro ss agency boundaries and are administered through cooperative actions.



### 1. Early Intervention – Prevention, Early Detection, & Rapid Response

One point of consensus from the “Invasive Species Summit”, held at the request of Governor Kempthorne in 2004, is that it is mo re desirable and cost effective to prevent new invasions of unwanted species than to atte mpt to eradicate or control them once they

become established. Prevention is a multi-face ted task that includes actions ranging from education of those who might inadvertently introduce unwanted spec ies to enforcement of laws for inspections and quarantines.

By far, the most effective method to contro l ANS and their impacts is to prevent their introduction in the first place. New speci es can arrive in Idaho by many different pathways. Species that provide sport fishing opportunities, er osion control, food, fur, and aesthetic enjoyment have been intentionally brought to Idaho and released into the wild or escaped from private ponds or holding facilities. Common carp Cyprinus carpio

, goldfish Carassius auratus , nutria Myocastor coypus , Eurasian watermilfoil, and parrot

feather milfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum can and some have become established through these pathways. Humans, through recreational, development, and management activities can unintentionally introduce ANS. ANS in troduced and established in neighboring states and Canada may be dispersed into and throughout Idaho by na tural means such as "hitchhiking" on domestic or wild birds and anim als. Even firefighting efforts can spread34 ANS, when equipment used to move water to fires is not cleaned between drainages. Understanding how various pathways function as conduits for ANS into Idaho is critical for intercepting species and preventing introductions.

Once ANS have arrived, there is usually a window of opportunity to eradicate small pioneering populations before they become wide spread, however species are not often detected until large populations are formed. Us ually, it is too late or too expensive to eradicate a species once it has reached these levels, and when management is conducted after a population is well-estab lished, long-term routine activ ities will often be required to control the population and reduce environm ental impacts. By initiating an early detection, rapid response and monitoring progr am, hopefully the state will be able to discover and manage pioneering infestations at a point when the species can be

eradicated in a cost effective manner. This has been successful is several recent

terrestrial instances such as gypsy moth Lymantria dispar in north Idaho and the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida in eastern Idaho.

Some examples of early dete ction and rapid response to ANS or undesired fish species

introductions into Idaho include such actions as IDFG’s efforts to: 1) Aggressively pursuing eradication of undesirabl e and non-native species of fish in select locations or as a result of illegal introductions, 2) Modi fying fish stocking from state and federal hatcheries to prevent releas ing fish from hatcheries with New Zealand mudsnail into

waters where the snail is not present, and, 3) Establishing a whirling disease research and management program. As a partner in the 100 th Meridian Initiative, IDFG made a special

effort to communicate with boat owners and anglers in the state by providing

informational articles to the media a nd in Department rule booklets.

Responsible agencies: ISDA, IDFG, IDEQ, USFWS, PSMFC, U of I

Major current initiatives:

• Major initiatives coordinated at the regi onal level to survey for the spread of quagga mussel in the Columbia Basin and to educate boaters on this new threat;

• Along with the Task Force, develop and maintain a list of taxonomic experts for ANS identification;

• In 2001, with PSMFC, USFWS, and BPA funding, PSU began to recruit and enlist volunteers to deploy zebra mussel colonization substrates. By 2002, about

200 substrates had been distributed in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Utah and other states . The PSU program also now has the capability to process zebra mussel veliger (larvae) samples (Stephen Phillips, PSMFC, personal communication).

• Further development of the “ Columbia River Basin Rapid Response Plan for Zebra Mussels and other Dreissena species.”

Gaps:

• New aquatic species may not be reviewed before importation;

• Limited inspection programs;35 • No agency is actively, routinely and syst ematically monitoring or surveying for new or spreading ANS;

• Response time to an invasion is slow due to a lack of contingency plans, advance environmental compliance arrangements, and funding.

Tasks 1A). Identify high-risk invasion pathways a nd water bodies. With this information, create early intervention strategies that reflect the risk and values of each. For example, where the risk of zebra mussel is high, deve lop an inspection and control program for trailered boats and water-based equipment, wh ich includes appropriate wash stations for boats and equipment;

1B). Conduct an annual survey of high-risk waters, utilizing both existing state and federal field personnel and crews specifically targeting ANS;

1C). Work with agencies and industries to de velop protocols to guide the importation and transport of non-native species;

1D). Develop a “watch list” of all species where introduction or spread is unwanted, along with management strategies for dealing wi th them according to th eir priority class;

1E). Refine and implement the Rapid Res ponse Plan as outlined in Appendix D

1F). Encourage and train volunteer groups to wo rk in cooperation with state agencies to monitor for new invasions or spreads by such methods as distributing zebra mussel substrates;

1G). Develop a response program that can be quickly invoked for various species when there is imminent threat of their introduction;

1H). Develop, maintain and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans for hatcheries, field, and survey crews.36 

### ...And Now There Is Another One

Ironically, during the development of this pla n, a new aquatic species that promises to truly be a nuisance found its wa y into waters in the Southw est, with the discovery of invasive quagga mussel in Lake Mead in Ja nuary 2007. Like its better known cousin the zebra mussel, the freshwater quagga mussel can grow on many surfaces and form dense colonies that clog water pipes, foul irrigation screen s and fish ladders, restrict water recreation, harm native a quatic life, and result in costly maintenance. In the event of a quagga or zebra mussel invasi on, estimated maintenan ce and control costs to the Federal Columbia River Power System could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, which would pass down to Pacific Northwest consumers. After the initial discovery of quagga mussel in Lake Mea d, biologists found the invasive shellfish growing in the Lake Mead Fish Hatchery. Although that hatchery normally releases fish within the Lake Mead region, it did tran sport fish into Northeast Nevada’s Wild Horse Reservoir in April and May 2006. Wild Horse Reservoir drains into the Owhyee River, which flows into the Snake River. So far, surveys conducted in 2007 in Wild Horse Reservoir have not found any quagga mussel; however, a small number of zebra or quagga mussel veligers were detected in Lake Powell, Utah in July 2007.

Cross-country transport from the Great Lake s on a recreational boa t is the likely route that recently brought quagga mussel to the Colorado River drainage. “Stopping the quagga mussel from entering the waters of Columbia River Basin will require the cooperation and vigilance of the general pub lic,” says Randy Fisher of the Pacific

States Marine Fisheries Co mmission. “Anglers, people at gas stations, and people using lakes, marinas, and beaches can all help by being lookouts for this invasive

mussel.”

Below is a list of actions boaters including personal watercraft, canoe, and kayak) and anglers can take to ensure that their boat s, vehicles, trailers and other equipment do not become the means of infecting other waters:

• Drain the water from your motor, live well, and bilge on land before leaving

the immediate area of the lake.

• Wash the hull, live well, equipment, and any other exposed surface, and flush the motor and bilges, using hot over 140 degrees F) soapy water or use a solution of 1 part household bleach to 19 parts water.

• Completely inspect your vessel and tr ailer, removing any visible mussels, but also feel for any rough or gritty spots on the hull. These may be young

mussels that can be hard to see.

• Clean and wash your trailer, truck or any other equipment that comes in contact with water. Mussels can live in small pockets anywhere water collects.

• Air-dry the boat and other equipment for at least five days before launching in any other waterway.37 

### 2. Containment, Control and Restoration

Some unwanted species are alr eady here and have proven to be truly invasive. Others will arrive despite our efforts to prevent them. It is important to control ANS by eradicating small, incipient populations and by preventing the spread of larger populations where eradication will no longer be possible. This might be viewed as the instate version of prevention, early detection a nd rapid response, where the object is not to keep the unwanted species from our state but rather to keep those that are already here from spreading into other drainages.

Aquatic Weed Efforts An important outgrowth of the successful approach of the CWMA has been the development of a parallel effort to addr ess aquatic weeds, particularly Eurasian watermilfoil. Between 2003 and 2005, the Ida ho Eurasian Watermilfoil Task Force (a subcommittee of the IISC) used almost $30,000 of ISDA CWMA f unding to survey 107 sites on 75 water bodies to provide the much needed basis for a statewide Eurasian watermilfoil control program (Idaho Milfoil Task Force 2006). In addition, the Idaho Milfoil Task Force developed educational materials and be gan a database of Idaho’s waters to help guide future survey and cont rol efforts. Finally, the Idaho Milfoil Task Force is sponsoring research by the Universi ty of Idaho on control methods in small impoundments. There are also cooperative ag reements between the Department of Fish and Game and the counties for controlling purple loosestrife.

In 2006, the Legislature appropriated four million dollars for the 2006-07 treatment

seasons to control Eurasian watermilfoil in Id aho. As directed by the Legislature, ISDA is using the appropriated funds to support on- the-ground eradication and control efforts. This included approval of 13 locally develope d projects totaling $2.5 million. Over 5,000 acres were treated, mostly with herbicides spec ifically approved for aquatic use. In 2007, the Idaho Legislature approved another $4 million for additional survey and control

work.

An additional program of cooperative agreem ents between the IDFG and CWMA is in place for controlling purple loosestrife along the Snake River in southern Idaho. With funding from CWMA, the IDFG pr ovides boats and staff to chem ically treat or to release and monitor biological control agents in area s infested with purple loosestrife. The biocontrol agents are significantly reducing large stands of this plant. In conjunction with this program IDL has provided funding to IDFG to help contain other noxious weeds on inaccessible IDL managed islands along the Snake River.

Responsible Agencies: CWMA, IDFG, ISDA, IDL

Major Current Initiatives:

• Idaho agencies are using two biocontrol ag ents to control pur ple loosestrife;

• IDFG is pursuing the eradication of undesi rable and non-native species of fish in

select locations or as a re sult of illegal introductions

• IDFG has established a whirling diseas e research and management program;38 • ISDA is leading a statewide effort to control or, where possible, eradicate

Eurasian watermilfoil from Idaho’s waters.

• University of Idaho, USGS, and USFWS are collaborating on research and development of New Zealand mudsnail tr eatment systems for fish hatcheries.

Gaps:

• Current efforts are directed at indivi dual populations and not at controlling species in their entirety.

• Restoration techniques a nd\or acceptable vegetation are lacking for artificial habitats such as ponds establ ished in gravel quarries.

Tasks: 2A). Continue surveys and cont rol actions associated with Eurasian watermilfoil, including grants for local actions;

2B). Continue current management program s for New Zealand mudsnail and whirling disease. Develop and implement an eradi cation and management program for saltcedar

and other unfunded ANS.39 New Plant, Bigger Headache

If ever an individual aquatic nuisance species illustrates both the problems it causes if left unchecked and the costs of control, it is Eurasian watermilfoil. Eurasian watermilfoil is an attractive plant with feathery underwater foliage. It was once commonly sold as an aquarium plant, in troduced to North America many years ago

and is now found over much of the United States.

The spread of this plan t can drastically alter a water body’s ecology. Eurasian watermilfoil forms very dense mats of vegetation on the surface of the water. These

mats interfere with recreati onal activities such as swimming, fishi ng, water skiing, and boating. In eastern Washington, it interferes with power genera tion and irrigation by clogging water intakes. The sheer mass of plants can cause flooding and the stagnant mats can create good habitat for mosquito es. Eurasian watermilfoil mats can rob oxygen from the water by preventing th e wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water.

Eurasian watermilfoil reproduces extremely rapidly and can infest an entire lake within two years of introduction to th e system. Break a plant and the portion remaining in the lakebed continues to grow , while the piece that was broken off will sprout roots and grow equally well, whether in the orig inal water body or a new one, transported there by the boat trailer that broke the piece off in the first place. This is why Eurasian watermilfoil can so easily be transported from lake to lake on boat trailers or fishing gear. Once established in its new home, water currents may carry Eurasian watermilfoil fragments and start new colonies within the same water body.

Eurasian watermilfoil is gaining a foothold in Idaho's lakes, ponds, rivers and other waterways, with infestations in Idaho’s Panhandle, Payette Lake and other lakes in Ada, Canyon and Payette Counties. There has been approximately 4,000 surface acres of the plant identified through surveys that have been conducted in the state. In 2006, the Idaho State Legislature passed a bill that allows for $4 million in funding to

control Eurasian watermilfoil in Idaho. An additional $4 million was approved by the Legislature for more control measures in 2007 and beyond.

How do we control Eurasian wa termilfoil once it has become established? Only with great difficulty and at great expense. The list of options narrows, ranging from using herbicides to installing plas tic sheets on the lakebed and employing divers to hand pull the plants or dredge them so they can be brought to the surface and removed. IISC is currently developing a statew ide management strategy for Eurasian watermilfoil in

Idaho.40 

### 3. Reaching Important Audiences through Education and Training

There is a consensus that education lies at th e heart of most successful efforts to prevent and control unwanted invasive species. The resources and the political will necessary to inspect, regulate and mandate control actions for all potential inva sive species and all invasion pathways do not exist now and likely wi ll not exist in the future. People will only change their behavior because they unde rstand the risks and they want to do their part. Creating that climate is a function of education.

ANS information

IDFG has included information on ANS in the st ate fishing regulations , posting of signs, purchase and distribution of videos, video segments in IDFG “Idaho Outdoors”, and conducted direct mailings to permit holders. U of I provides research-based invasive species information, including aquatic species , and informal education programs to individuals, businesses, and co mmunities. Some of the work of the U of I is disseminated through individual agencies, including an arra y of pamphlets, papers and other various print materials that help inform various a udiences about invasive species and why they need to be addressed. One example of an ongoing educational effort involves the cooperative program to help make boaters awar e of harmful aquatic invasive species like Eurasian watermilfoil, parrot feather milfoil, and New Zealand mudsnails that have already spread to ma ny parts of Idaho.

Marina Signage Project In 2004, a number of partners joined together to prevent the spread of aquatic invaders by posting signs at boat access si tes around the state. The eye-catching signs provide

information on the threat of ANS and ask boate rs to clean their vessels before entering and after leaving any water body. Participan ts include the ISDA, IDFG and IDPR. Federal partners include the ACOE, USBLM, USFS and the USFWS. Private and local participants include Ada County, the Id aho Weed Awareness Campaign, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), PSMFC, and the Wester n Whitewater Association, together with the USEPA, which provided funding for the signs and accompanying brochures. Together, the partners have raised ap proximately $27,000 to distribute and erect 1,500 aluminum signs and 2,000 laminated posters (Andy Brunelle USFS and Bas Hargrove TNC, personal communication).

Responsible agencies: IDFG; ISDA; IDPR, USFS, USBLM, USDA; U of I; ACOE; USFWS; PSMFC

Major current initiatives:

• IDFG has included information on ANS in the state fishing regulations, posted informational signs, purchased and distribut ed videos, published articles in “Idaho Outdoors” and conducted direct mailings;

• U of I through the statewide Cooperative Extension Service provides researchbased weed information and informal education programs to individuals, businesses, and communities. A variety of extension programs include invasive species issues including ANS;41 • USFWS provides training, signs, and informational brochures;

• The PSMFC is completing an ANS boa ter survey and has been conducting

outreach and education efforts of marinas in the state of Idaho and other states for the past four years. With partners such as the USFWS and BPA, PSMFC has been conducting watercraft inspection tr aining for boating law enforcement/safety staff professionals. A watercraft in spection training video has also been developed. The PSMFC also prints and distributes ANS educational materials (brochures, cards, key chains) to recreati onal boaters in the Columbia River basin at sport and outdoor shows. The PS MFC also supports Portland States University’s zebra mussel monitoring program activities (Stephen Phillips, PSMFC, personal communication).

Gaps:

• There is no systematic effort to identi fy all audiences with a stake in ANS prevention and control and then to deve lop a comprehensive strategy across state and federal agencies to reach those audiences;

• Little training is provided to agency a nd private personnel to identify ANS and to provide avenues to re port new sightings.

Tasks: 3A). Develop a comprehensive education pr ogram to raise the awareness of ANS introduction and spread for such businesses as nurseries, aquatic pet stores, bait dealers, private pond management firms, fish hatche ries, irrigation manage rs and entities with watershed management responsibilities;

3B). Develop a comprehensive education pr ogram to raise the awareness of ANS introduction and spread for county, state and federal agency field staffs;

3C). Provide information on ANS to managers of fishing tournament and various sportsmen or recreational groups;

3D). Build and maintain a comprehensive website on ANS in Idaho highlighting high risk water bodies, high risk sp ecies and high risk actions that might lead to introduction or spread. Incorporate ways to report new sightings of ANS through this website;

3E). Train enforcement personnel on ANS regulations and the field workers of all county, state and federal agencies to better e quip them to identify new or spreading ANS; Use IDPR boat safety education training program as a foundation,

3F). Develop an annual report focused on ANS in Idaho and use it as an opportunity to reach decision makers and opinion leaders on the need for proper policies and funding for ANS efforts;

3G). Develop and maintain statewide adve rtisements, PSAs, signing programs and other methods of communication with the public to remind them of ANS threats and the need for such personal actions as cleaning fishing or boating equipment;

3H). Create an ANS component to the established Project Wild and Project Wet curricula for students;

3I). Assign state employees to public education and outreach activities;42 3J). Increase the capabilities of those who interact with invasion pathways (aquatic pet dealers, live plant distributors , irrigation districts, others) to understand the potential harm from the introduction and spread of ANS into uncontrolled environments.



### 4. Broadening Knowledge through Research and Technology Transfer

Little is known about the extent and magnit ude of the ANS problem in Idaho. In fact many more nonindigenous species may occur in Idaho than are recognized (Appendix C). Of these nonindigenous species, we still do not know which have the potential to become

ANS. Information and research is needed to quantify and clarify the effects that nonindigenous species are having on native speci es and habitat. Research can identify the threat posed by ANS and the mechanis m responsible for their movement. By compiling available information and by pr oviding quick access to information on taxonomy, management methods, and experts to contact; the response to new ANS can be quick, and existing ANS can be readily recognized and managed.

It is not enough, however, to simply compile data and conduct res earch. The lack of awareness concerning ANS impacts is one of the largest obstacles to preventing the introduction and spread of unwanted speci es. Few people understand the threat ANS pose and how their actions might introduce them. Uninformed people, through the dumping of an aquarium or a bait bucket, launching of a contaminated boat, or stocking of a private pond have introduced many speci es. The improper importation and holding of plants and animals have allowed species to escape, or caused the receipt of unwanted species mixed in with intentionally importe d ones. In the past, many policy makers, natural resource administrators, and private interest groups have facilitated the intentional introductions of species for economic or recreational purposes without fully understanding the effects these species would have on native species. Currently, IDFG requires a review of new sp ecies using the American Fisheries Society's introduction policy (IDFG 2007). These inte ntional and unintentional methods of introduction can be eliminated or curtailed by educating people about their potential to transfer ANS into

Idaho.

There is much to be learned about invasive sp ecies. Legitimate areas of inquiry include their biological parameters, how they can best be controlle d and the assessment of the risks of their arrival, spread and potential dama ge. We must also increase our ability to predict their occurrence, detect, map and monito r their presence. It is equally important

that the results of research a nd the practical experience of ot hers be synthesized and made

available to Idahoans. There are excellent m odels for research and technology transfer in the agricultural research and extension pr ograms carried out by land grant universities across the country. Many of these programs ar e directly applicable or could be easily expanded to include invasive species.

Responsible Agencies: IISC, U of I, IDFG research, federal agency research programs

Major Current Initiatives:43 • The U of I, has two graduate student s working on New Zealand mudsnails research, including testing a device to rid hatcheries of New Zealand mudsnails;

• U of I is involved in the development of biological control agents for Common Reed and potentially Eurasian watermilfoil

• U of I researchers are exploring devel opment of a risk as sessment model for ANS;

• The IISC has requested that U of I conduct a review of invasive species research in Idaho;

Gaps:

• There are no risk analysis protocols for aquatic species;

• There is limited understanding of the impacts of ANS.

Tasks: 4A). Using nationally developed risk assessm ents and research as a basis, focus necessary additional research efforts on th e potential harm and control methods for specific ANS for Idaho,

4B). Evaluate the potential for aquarium a nd live food fish to serve as vectors of disease and parasites to native fish populations;

4C). Continue investigation on th e effects of such established ANS as the New Zealand mudsnails or whirling disease on native species;

4D). Research the impacts management altern atives have on ANS and native species;

4E). Investigate and develop new and innovative methods of managing ANS, including the efficiency of herbicides and va rious other management practices in aquatic and riparian habitats;

4F). Facilitate the coll ection and dispersal of informat ion, research, and data on ANS in Idaho through a central source fo r reference information and data;

4G). Using nationally developed risk assessm ents as a basis, develop ANS risk assessment guidelines that will help local government and other managers understand the potential impacts and the need to manage ANS;

4H). Develop a set of uniform definitions and terms to describe ANS.



### 5. Assuring Adequate Funding

There are three certainties. First, most ANS efforts are public sector programs and these must have sufficient dollars to support them. Second, the costs of preventing and controlling ANS will increase as commerce and travel increase. Mounting an adequate defense against ANS will require more funds and most of those will come from either federal or state sources. Third, it is far less expensive to prevent rather than control, and dollars can be saved in the long term through adequately funded prev ention measures.44 Responsible Agencies: The Idaho Legislature and th e United States Congress provide funding for state and federal agency efforts. Other funds are available through grant programs and the collection of user fees.

Major Current Initiatives:

• The Idaho Legislature provided funding for Eurasian watermilfoil control;

• Legislation to increase boat er registration fees has been approved. A portion of those fees could go to ANS efforts.

Gaps:

• Limited funding to implement laws relating to ANS, particularly the lack of a

dedicated fund that is stable and co ntinually available for ANS efforts.

Tasks: 5A). Identify possible funding sources for implementing Rapid Response Plan actions;

5B). Increase existing funding and resources for ANS management and explore new funding possibly through permit fees or other sources;

5C). Create stable funding sources for ANS ma nagement in Idaho by seeking federal funding from the NANPCA and other potential funding sources



### 6. Creating an Adequate, Effective Legal Structure

Laws are needed to address management effort s to prevent the introduction and spread of

ANS. Those laws fall into tw o categories—those that seek to shape behavior and those that spell out the role and functions of government for ANS . In Idaho, there is a strong existing legal framework but there is perhap s a need for some adjustments that would markedly increase our effectiveness, as summarized in Table 4.

At least five separate statut es provide some authority for state departments, primarily Fish and Game and Agriculture, to take actions to prevent the introdu ction or spread of aquatic nuisance species (IISC 2005).

They are:

• 36-100, Fish and Game authorities;

• 25-3900, Deleterious Animals;

• 25-2600, Extermination of Wild Animals and Pests;

• 22-2400, Noxious Weed Act;

• 22-2001, Plant Pest Act.

These authorities provide most regulatory pow ers that might be necessary to detect, prevent or control most ANS. There are some gaps in needed authorities and questions to be answered. For example, it is not clear whether any agency has the authority to45 impound or order the cleanup of a boat entering the state with zebra mussel or other ANS attached to it. There are also some appare nt overlapping au thorities. IDFG’s general authorities to control imports of various wildlife species would seem to overlap the authorities given the ISDA under the “D eleterious Animals” statute.

Granted, much of what can be accomplished is a function of education and coordination among the various agencies. A first step in detecting an undesirable species or pathway that might harbor ANS is to make sure t hose who encounter them know how to recognize them. This requires that those in the IDFG, IDPR, IDT or other agen cies help train port of entry personnel, conservation officers or la w enforcement officials on what to look for and what actions to take. However, the regulat ory authorities are impor tant as well, for if someone is trained to recognize a dangerous situation from an ANS standpoint but cannot take the necessary control actions, th e detection holds little value.

Responsible agencies: IDFG; ISDA, IDPR, IDT

Current initiatives:

• Implementation of Plant Pest Act and Dele terious Animal Act, as they apply to

ANS.

Gaps:

• Limited authority and funding to quaran tine species and infested waters;

• Limited ability to monitor direct mail shipments or internet sales that might introduce or spread ANS;

• Limited authority to inspect, regulat e or control ANS in private ponds;

• Agencies lack the authority to inspec t and quarantine a sp ecific water body once an ANS is detected;

• Vague authority for search, detention a nd seizure for suspected carriers of ANS.

Tasks: 6A). Promote legislation and regulatory rules that establish or increase the state's authority to control the in troduction of new species, incl uding such authorities for detaining and require cleaning of any vehi cle, vessel or water based equipment containing or infested with ANS that is traveling in Idaho;

6B). Increase the ability of the State to regu late the importation of aquatic organisms, including requirements that imported aquatic organisms are disease and parasite free;

6C). Establish the authority to quarantine wa ter bodies to prevent ANS from spreading and to contain ANS for future eradication;

6D). Develop policies, rules and if needed le gislation to prevent the introduction of ANS into private ponds, incl uding increased au thority to inspect ponds, remove ANS species and provide penalties for illega l introductions of ANS into private ponds;

6E). Assure that existing laws controlling the transport, propaga tion, sale, collection, possession, importation, purchase, cultivation, di stribution, and introduction of ANS are enforced;46 6F). Establish and administer a program for ANS management efforts that allow state agencies to quickly respond to ne w detections of ANS in Idaho.



### 7. Coordination of efforts

The proposals in this ANS plan envision addi tional efforts that must be efficient and coordinated, which poses a significant challe nge. While more work is clearly needed, it is difficult for those who currently have inva sive species responsibilities to find time to assume new duties. In addition, each of those managers works within an existing program such as weed management, plant or forest pests or fisheries management. Therefore, it is impossible for any one of them to assume a statewide role for the management of all invasive species. Finally, a myriad of federal actions also affects state efforts. An ANS coordinator would help unify Idaho’s efforts and add to them.

The IISC developed the previously menti oned statewide assessment and a Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Sp ecies and, in 2007, hired an Idaho Invasive Species Coordinator to improve the coordination of inva sive species activities within the State of

Idaho. Staff works to coordinate effort s throughout Idaho by working with state agencies, federal agencies, local governmen ts and non-governmental organizations to

address the IISC’s recommendation to ensure that a comprehensive invasive species program in Idaho is not diluted by comp eting efforts among various agencies.

Responsible agencies: IISC, ISDA

Current initiatives:

• An implementation plan for Idaho’s Acti on Plan for Invasive Species has been developed to set program priorities for developing work plans, assign accountability, prepare budgets , and report activities;

• The IISC is working with the U of I to conduct a Research Review for invasive species in Idaho;

• The IISC is developing a list of unwanted a nd high risk species that should trigger rapid responses in Idaho;

• The IISC is developing a system to displa y location data on invasive species in

Idaho:

• The IISC is identifying key audiences a nd educational efforts needed to reach them;

• The IISC is establishing a single statewid e point of contact and clearinghouse for reporting new or spreading invasive species and for disseminating information about them;47 • The IISC is coordinating USEPA Wetlands Grant efforts with the Idaho Milfoil Task Force and the development of the ANS Management Plan.

Gaps:

• There is no clear authority or agency charged with limiting and managing ANS;

• Most management activities are focuse d on isolated problems or are speciesspecific and do not address the issue of ANS strategically;

• ANS activities are currently uncoordin ated in Idaho and the region;

• The lack of a strategic plan to deal w ith some ANS has allowed some species to become established in Idaho, and new introductions are not being monitored, prevented or eradicated;

• No single state agency has a clear program directed at controlling or eradicating

ANS across taxa.

Tasks: 7A). Develop cooperative agreements and or MOUs with states and provinces that share common waters;

7B). Participate in monitoring and/or rapid response efforts for high priority ANS in Idaho;

7C). Develop partnerships with private gr oups to fund prevention and eradication efforts;

7D). Coordinate all ANS management progr ams and activities wi thin Idaho through the IISC;

7E). Create and fund a state ANS coordinator position using Task Force monies and matching funds;

7F). Continue participation in the Task Force’s Western Regional Panel and support for such regional or national efforts as the 100th Meridian Project or the Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Initiative (CRANSI).



## Closing the Net on ANS—Idaho’s Plan

The purpose of this plan for ANS is to create a clear focus on those species and to spell

out additional actions needed within the state to effectiv ely prevent new or spreading invasions. It is meant to supplement the overall invasive species strategy for the state. In order to do this, it is necessary to focus atte ntion on those existing ANS efforts as well as to review the progress toward implementing re levant actions that were adopted through the statewide invasive species strategy. Thus, the ANS plan can serve as both a review of progress to date and an identific ation of any shortcomings in current or proposed efforts, which, if corrected, would streng then Idaho’s ANS programs. The advisory group charged with the devel oping Idaho’s plan for ANS has identified changes, which need to take place if we ar e to have an effective program of managing these unwanted species. The elements of th is ANS plan, together with the agency or other entity responsible for init iating the action items and what will be necessary for them48 to meet those responsibilities are summarized in Table 5. In addition to funding, there is a primary need for prioritization of staff ti me by agencies to meet the ANS challenge. With finite resources available to agencies, a greater prioritization will be dependent on

increased education and awareness of ANS issues.49 What Does it Take to Close the Net?

It might be easy to assume that preventi ng the entry and spread of aquatic nuisance species is something a “government agency” does. Federal and state agencies do have a clear role, whether is it inspecting intersta te shipments of plants or animals, surveys of streams or control of speci es that have escaped to areas where they are not wanted. However, there is an equally important ro le that individuals not only can play, but must, if we are to achieve the goals of this plan. Often the actions that individuals take

tell the tale of whether a quatic nuisance species are not introduced or their spread prevented. Here are a few simple steps th at sportsmen, homeowners and farmers can take in order to do their part in controlling aquatic nuisance species.

• Use only bait that is approved by the Id aho Department of Fish and Game and never dump unused bait or liv e fish, crawfish or insect larvae into a lake or

stream,

• Always check your boat and trailer for strings of aquatic weeds or strange mollusks that might adhere to fenders or transoms, when leaving an area or before moving to a new stream or lake. Remove those you find.

• Watch for strange or new mollusks or weeds in irrigation ditches, storage ponds or on headgates. Call a representati ve of Idaho Department of Fish and Game or the Idaho Department of Agri culture if something seems out of the ordinary.

• Clean the mud off the soles of your waders after you leave a stream, particularly if you are going to a new area. Wash and if possible, complete dry equipment between waters.

• Never dump aquarium plants or fish in an area where they might enter a stream or pond. Never use live tropical fish like goldfish as bait.

• Be cautious when planning for an or namental outdoor pond or fountain to make sure the plants and fish you want in it cannot follow a downstream flow into a neighboring stream.

• Coordinate with neighboring states a nd provinces on the permitted introduction of any new species and species which are on the ANS watch lists.50Table 5. Summary of Needed Implementation ActionsCategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget1AIdentify high-risk invasion pathways and water bodies.With this information,create early interventionstrategies that reflect the risk and values of each. Forexample, where the risk of zebra mussel is high,develop an inspection and control program for traileredboats and water-based equipmentIISCAgency commitmentsfor staff and fundingFall 07Summer 091BConduct an annual survey ofhigh-risk waters, utilizingboth existing state and federal field personnel andcrews specifically targeting ANSISDA, IDFG,IDEQANS Coordinator, .66FTE, $100,000annually, training andcoordinationSpring, 08Ongoing1CWork with agencies, industries to develop protocols toguide the importation and transport of non-nativespecies that might become nuisances if they spread touncontrolled environmentsISDA, IDFG1DDevelop a “watch list” of all species whereintroduction or spread are unwanted, along withmanagement strategies for dealing with them accordingto their priority classISDA, IDFG1ERefine and implement the Rapid Response Plan asoutlined in Appendix DIDFG, IPR,ISDAOngoing1. Early Intervention– Prevention, EarlyDetection, & RapidResponse1FEncourage and train volunteer groups to work incooperation with state agencies to monitor for newinvasions or spreads by such methods as distributingzebra mussel substratesISDA, IDPR,IDFGI51Table 5. Continued.CategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget1GDevelop a system that can be quickly invoked forvarious species when there isimminent threat of theirintroductionIDFG, IDEQ Training Fall, 07 OngoingIHDevelop, maintain and implement Hazard Analysis andCritical Control Points (HACCP) plans for hatcheries,field, and survey crewsIDFG, ISDA,IDEQTraining Ongoing Ongoing2AContinue surveys and control actions associated withEurasian watermilfoil, including grants for localactionsISDA, IISC Funding Ongoing Ongoing2. Containment,Control andRestoration2BContinue current management programs for NewZealand mudsnail and whirling disease. Develop andimplement an eradication and management programfor saltcedar and other unfunded ANSIDFG, ISDA,IDEQ, IDPRFunding Spring, 08 Ongoing3ADevelop a comprehensive education program to raisethe awareness of ANS introduction and spread for suchbusinesses as nurseries, aquatic pet stores, bait dealers,private pond management firms, fish hatcheries,irrigation managers and entities with watershedmanagement responsibilitiesIISC Funding Fall, 07 Ongoing3BDevelop a comprehensive education program to raisethe awareness of ANS introduction and spread forcounty, state and federal agency field staffsIISC Funding Fall, 07 Ongoing3. ReachingImportant Audiencesthrough Educationand Training3CProvide information on ANS to managers of fishingtournament and various sportsmen or recreationalgroupsIDFG Funds for brochures Fall, 07 Ongoing52Table 5. Continued.CategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget3DBuild and maintain a comprehensive website on ANSin Idaho, highlighting highrisk water bodies, high riskspecies and high risk actions that might lead tointroduction or spread. Incorporate ways to report newsightings of ANS through this websiteIISC3ETrain enforcement personnel on ANS regulations andthe field workers of all county, state and federalagencies to better equipthem to identify new orspreading ANS. Use the IDPR Boat Safety Educationtraining program.IDPR, IDFG,ISDA,Winter 07, 083FDevelop an annual report focused on ANS in Idaho anduse it as an opportunity to reach decision makers andopinion leaders on the need for proper policies andfunding for ANS efforts.IISC, IDFG,ISDAFall Ongoing3GDevelop and maintain statewide advertisements, PSAs,signing programs and other methods of communicationwith the public to remind them of ANS threats and theneed for such personal actions as cleaning fishing orboating equipmentIISC, IDFG,IDPR3HCreate an ANS component to the established ProjectWild and Project Wet curricula for students.IDFG Summer 083IAssign state employees to public education andoutreach activities.IDPR, IDFG,U of I3JIncrease the capabilities ofthose who interact withinvasion pathways (aquatic pet dealers, live plantdistributors, irrigation districts, others) to understandthe potential harm from the introduction and spread ofANS into uncontrolled environmentsISDA53Table 5. Continued.CategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget4AUsing nationally developed risk assessments andresearch as a basis, focus necessary additional researchefforts on the potential harm and control methods forspecific ANS for IdahoU of I4BEvaluate the potential for aquarium and live food fishto serve as vectors of disease and parasites to nativefish populationsU of I, IDFG,ISDAFunding Fall, 07 Summer, 084CContinue investigation on the effects of suchestablished ANS as New Zealand mudsnails orwhirling disease on native species.U of I Funding Fall, 07 Ongoing4DResearch the impacts management alternatives have onANS and native species.U of I4EInvestigate and develop new and innovative methodsof managing ANS, including the efficiency ofherbicides and various other management practices inaquatic and riparian habitats.U of I4FFacilitate the collection anddispersal of information,research, and data on ANS in Idaho through a centralsource for reference information and data.IDFG, ISDA4GUsing nationally developed riskassessments as a basis,develop ANS risk assessment guidelines that will helplocal government and other managers understand thepotential impacts and the need to manage ANSIISC4. BroadeningKnowledge throughResearch andTechnology Transfer4HDevelop a set of uniformdefinitions and terms todescribe ANSIDFG, IISC Ongoing Spring, 085. AssuringAdequate Funding5AIdentify possible funding sources for implementingRapid Response Plan actions.IISC Fall, 0754Table 5. Continued.CategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget5BIncrease existing funding and resources for ANSmanagement and explore new funding possiblythrough permit fees or other sources.IDFG, IDPR,IISCFall, 07 Winter, 085CCreate stable funding sources for ANS management inIdaho by seeking federal funding from the NANPCAAct and other potential funding sources.IDFG, IISC Fall, 07 Winter, 086APromote legislation and regulatory rules that establishor increase the state's authority to control theintroduction of new species, including such authoritiesfor detaining and require cleaning of any vehicle,vessel or water based equipment containing or infestedwith ANS that is traveling in Idaho.ISDA, IDFG,ITD, IDPRFall, 07 Ongoing6BIncrease the ability of theState to regulate theimportation of aquatic organisms, includingrequirements that imported aquatic organisms aredisease or parasite free.IDFG, ISDA6CEstablish the authority to quarantine water bodies toprevent ANS from spreading and to contain ANS forfuture eradication.IISC6. Creating anAdequate, EffectiveLegal Structure6DDevelop policies, rules and ifneeded legislation toprevent the introduction of ANS into private ponds,including increased authority to inspect ponds, removeANS species and provide penalties for illegalintroductions of ANS into private ponds.IDFG Fall, 0755Table 5. Continued.CategoryTaskNumberRecommendationLead EntityMajor ResourceNeedsStart DateCompletionTarget6EAssure that existing laws controlling the transport,propagation, sale, collection,possession, importation,purchase, cultivation, distribution, and introduction ofANS are enforcedIDFG, ITD, ISP6FEstablish and administer a program for ANSmanagement efforts that allow state agencies to quicklyrespond to new detections of ANS in IdahoIISC7. Coordination ofefforts7ADevelop cooperative agreements and or MOUs withstates and provinces that share common waters.IISC7BParticipate in monitoring and/or rapid response effortsfor high priority aquatic nuisance species in IdahoIDFG, ISDA,IDEQ, IDPR7CDevelop partnerships with private groups to fundprevention and eradication effortsIISC7DCoordinate all ANS management programs andactivities within Idaho through the IISCIISC7ECreate and fund a state ANS coordinator position usingTask Force monies and matching fundsIDFG, IISC Fall, 077FContinue participation in the Task Force’s WesternRegional Panel and support for such regional ornational efforts as the 100th Meridian Project or theColumbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous SpeciesInitiative (CRANSI)IDFG, IISC Fall, 07 Ongoing56 

## Glossary

Accidental introduction: an introduction of nonindigenous a quatic species that occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of nonindigenous species in ballast wate r or in water used to transport fish, mollusks, or crustacean s for aquaculture or other purposes.

Aquatic nuisance species: a plant or animal species th at threatens the diversity or abundance of native species, th e ecological stability of infe sted waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activ ities dependent on such waters. (Note: for the purposes of the State manage ment plans, reference to an aquatic nuisance species will imply that the species is nonindigenous.)

Biocontrol: The use of living organisms, such as predators, parasites, and pathogens, to control pest insects, weeds, or diseases.

Control: eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing nuisance species populations, preventing spread of nuisance species from ar eas where they are present, and taking steps such as restoration of native species and hab itats to reduce the eff ects of nuisance species and to prevent further invasions.

Ecological integrity: the extent to which an ecos ystem has been altered by human behavior; an ecosystem with minimal impact from human activity has a high level of integrity; an ecosystem that has been subs tantially altered by human activity has a low level of integrity.

Eradicate : the act or process of eliminati ng an aquatic nuisance species.

Established: An introduced organism with a perman ent population(s), i. e., one that has the ability to reproduce and is not likely to be eliminated by humans or natural causes.

Exotic : (same as nonindigenous and non-native) any species or other va riable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including such organisms transferred from one country to another. Species may or may not be classified as a nuisance species.

Fouling: entanglement, clogging, or obstruction by an undesired organism often resulting in diminished functioning of ships, intake pipes, and other submerged equipment or machinery.

High Risk species: an ANS that is considered to be a significant threat to Montana

waters and is recommended for immediate or continued management action to minimize or eliminate their impact.57 Intentional introduction : all or part of the process by which a nonindigenous species is purposefully introduced into a new area.

Introduction: The intentional or unintentional es cape, release, dissemination, or placement of a species into a Idaho eco system as a result of human activity.

Invasive : (same as nuisance) a species that ta kes over a new habita t where it was not previously found, often to the detriment of species which were there before.

Native species: A species within its natural range or na tural zone of dispersal, i.e., within the range it would or could occ upy without direct or indirect introduction and/or care by humans. Existing within a hist orical ecological range, usually within a balanced system of coevolved organisms.

Nonindigenous species : any species or other variable bi ological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, includi ng such organisms transferred from one country to another. Species may or may not be classified as a nuisance species.

Pathogen: a microbe or other organi sm that causes disease.

Pioneer infestation: a small ANS colony that has sp read to a new area from an established colony.

Watershed: an entire drainage basin includ ing all living and nonliving components.58 

## Sources

100 th Meridian Initiative; (www .100thmeridian.org/ColumbiaRT)

Cabreza, J. 2002. Invasive Species: I ssue Evaluation and Proposed Region 10 Approach. Unpublished USEPA internal memorandum. Seattle.

Environmental Law Institute. 2002. Halting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species Management. Washington, D.C.

Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force. 2006. report.

Federal Register. 1999. I nvasive Species. Executive Order No. 13112. Vol. 64, Pgs. 6183-6186. Washington, D.C.

General Accounting Office. 2001. Invasive Sp ecies: Federal and Se lected State Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species. Report to Congress. Washington, D.C

General Accounting Office. 2002. Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. Report to Executive Agency Officials No. 03-01. Washington, D.C.

Global Invasive Species Da tabase: www.issg.org/database

Holderman, C., R. Hardy, P. Anders, H. Andrusak, K. Ashley, J. Hammond, and B. Shafii. 2004. Kootenai River Ecosystem Proj ect; An Ecosystem Approach to Evaluate and Rehabilitate a Degraded, Large Riverine Ecosystem. 2005-2004 Technical Report, Project No.199404900, 269 electronic pages, BPA Report DOE/BP-00004029-1.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Fisheries Management Plan 2007-2012.

Boise.

Idaho Interactive Geothermal Map, Idaho Department of Water Resources, (www. idahogeothermal.org).

Idaho Invasive Species Council. 2003. Prepar ing to Meet the Challenge: An Assessment of Invasive Species Management in Ida ho. Northwest Natural Resource Group, LLC. Idaho Department of Agriculture. Boise.

Idaho Invasive Species Council and the Nort hwest Natural Resource Group, LLC. 2005. Idaho’s Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Spec ies. Idaho Department of Agriculture. Boise, Idaho.

Khalanski, M. 2005. Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species. Workshop, July

2005. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Unpublished Report.59 Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale , H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazazz. 2000. Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiol ogy, Global Consequences, and Control. Issues in Ecology 5. Washington: Ecological Society of America. McAllister, P. E. 1990. Viral Hemorrhagic Sept icemia of Fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Disease Leaflet 83. Accessed online at www.lsc.usgs.gov/fhb/leaflets/83.asp

National ANS Task Force; www.anstaskforce.gov.

National Invasive Species Council, www.invasivespecies.gov

.

New Zealand Mudsnails: www.esg.montana.edu/aim/mollusca/nzms

NOAA VHS factsheet: www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/resources/VHSVfactsheet.pdf

Office of the Governor. 2001. Executive Order No. 2001-11 Establishing the Idaho Invasive Species Council. Boise, Idaho.

Office of the Governor,. 2006. Executive Order No. 2006-28 Continuing the Idaho Invasive Species Council. Boise, Idhao.

Protect Your Waters and Stop Aquatic H itchhikers, (www.protectyourwaters.net/).

Shelldrake, T., C. Christianson, L. Peck, B. Hutchison. 1993. Integrated Hatchery Operations: Existing Policy Affecting Ha tcheries In The Columbia River Basin Combined Reports. Report to Bonnevill e Power Administration. Contract No. 1991BP60629, Project No. 199204300. 228 elect ronic pages BPA Report DOE/BP60629-1.

Schering-Plough Animal Health: Aquaculture (VHS): www.spaquaculture.com/default.aspx?pageid=534

Stevenson, R. J., M.L. Bothwell, and R. L. Lowe. 1996. Algal Ecology. Academic Press. San Diego, as cited by CA. Stockner, J. G., E. Rydin, and P. Hyehstrand. 2000. Cultural olig otrophication:

USDA National Invasive Species Data Center: www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/saltcedar.shtml

USDA plants data: plants.usda.gov/index.html

USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database: nas.er.usgs.gov/queries;

Western Governor’s Asso ciation, http://www.westgov.org

.60 Whelan, G. E. 2007. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) Briefing Paper. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 4pp. Accessed online at www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Viral-Hem orrhagic-Septicemia-Fact-Sheet-11-9- 2006_178081_7.pdf

Whirling Disease: whirlingdise ase.montana.edu/default.asp

Zebra and quagga mussels: www.100thmeridian.org/zebras.asp61 

## Appendix A. Idaho’s ANS Technical Advisory Committee

Department\Agency Appointee Address Phone Email

IDFG Fred Partridge PO Box 25, 600

South Walnut Boise, ID 83707 208-334-

3791 fpartridge@idfg.idaho.gov

Coeur d'Alene Tribe Dave Lamb 401 Annie Antelope Rd. Plummer, ID

83851 208-686-

6206 dlamb@cdatribe-nsn.gov

ISDA Amy Ferriter aferriter@idahoag.us

IDEQ Mark Shumar 1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 83706-

0417 208-373-

0132 Mark.Shumar@deq.idaho.gov

IDL Eric Wilson ewilson@idl.idaho.gov

UI Christine

Moffitt 208-885-

7047 cmoffitt@uidaho.edu

IPR Mary

Lucachick 208-334-

4180 ext

037 mlucachick@idpr.state.id.us

IPR David Dahms ddahms@idpr.state.id.us

IDT Cathy Ford PO Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707-

1129 334-

8416 cathy.ford@itd.idaho.gov

Idaho Aquaculture

Association Linda Lemon iaa@northrim.net

Idaho Association of

Counties Tom Kerr twkfrk@ctcweb.net

TNC Bas Hargrove 950 W Bannock St, Ste 210 Boise, ID 83702 350-

2207 bhargrove@TNC.ORG

PSMFC Stephen Phillips Stephen_Phillips@psmfc.org

Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife James Gores James.K.Gores@state.or.us

USEPA Joan Cabreza Cabreza.joan@epa.gov

USFWS Paul

Heimowitz 911 NE 11th Ave,

6E Portland, OR

97232-4181 503-872-

2763 Paul_Heimowitz@fws.gov

USFS Jim Olivarez jolivarez@fs.fed.us University of Florida Center for Aquatic

and Invasive Plants Bill Haller 7922 NW 71 st St. Gainesville, FL.

32653 352-392-

9615 whaler@ufl.edu

USACE – Waterways Experiment Station Kurt Getsinger 3909 Halls Ferry

Road Vicksburg, MS

39180-6199 601-634-

2498 getsink@wes.army.mil

Office of Species

Conservation Nate Fisher nfisher@osc.state.id.us

Portland State University Mark Sytsma systsmam@pdx.edu62 

## Appendix B. Species and Categories

HIGH-PRIORITY AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES

CURRENTLY FOUND IN IDAHO

These species are defined as present in Idaho, but still in a potentially containable state, with local eradication possible.



### New Zealand mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum
Ecology: This very small snail (average size 5 mm) can be found in all types of aquatic habitats from eutrophic mud bottom ponds to clea r rocky streams. It can tolerate a wide range of water temperatures (except freezing), salinity, and turbidity in clean as well as degraded waters. It feeds on dead and dyi ng plant and animal material, algae, and bacteria. Its tolerance of a broad range of ecological factors makes the possibility of further spread likely.

Densities have been known to reach over 300,00 0 individuals per square meter. A species as prolific as this has potentia l to be a biofouler at facilities drawing from infested waters. It also may compete for food and space occupi ed by native snails. The species degrades habitat due to its high reproductive capacity and the subsequent impacts on invertebrate

food sources. Fish receive li ttle, if any, nutritive value from eating the New Zealand mudsnail. The snail has an operculum that it closes when threatened, which prevents digestive juices from reaching the soft tissu e of the snail’s body when ingested by fish.

Distribution: New Zealand mudsnail have become established in all major river drainages in Yellowstone National Park, in th e Madison River Draina ge in Montana, at

several other locations in th e western United States, and in Lake Ontario, New York. Native to New Zealand but long established in Australia and Europe, this species was

discovered in North America in 1987 in the Snake River in south- central Idaho, and has now spread throughout the Snake River Basin and elsewhere in the state.

Pathways of Introduction: This aquatic snail most likely accompanied live game fish shipped from their native waters to western ri vers in the United States. Other modes of transportation may include hitchhiking on r ecreational equipment and other equipment used in water, in the guts of harvested or transported fish, or vi a transport on waterfowl and other aquatic birds.

Management considerations: Their large populations at ma ny sites, small body size and

broad environmental toleran ce, make the New Zealand mudsnail well adapted to accidental transport by humans. As an asexual live-bearer, a single individual can start a new population. However, there is no resistan ce stage, nor is there any attachment mechanism, so fairly simple precautions shoul d prevent accidental transport. While these snails can live for weeks if wet and cold, they are quickly killed by heat or thorough drying.63 • Very small and found in all types of aquatic habitats from mud bottom ponds to clear rocky streams

• Prolific, with potential to foul f acilities drawing from infested waters

• Degrades habitat due to its high reproductive capacity and subsequent impacts on invertebrate food sources

• Discovered in the Snake River in south-central Idaho, and has now spread throughout the Snake River Basin

• Most likely accompanied live game fish shipped from infested waters to western rivers, and transportation may include hitchhiking on recreational equipment

• A single individual can start a new population

• Fairl y sim p le p recautions should p revent accidental trans p or t 

### New Zealand mudsnail64 

### Asian clam Corbicula fluminea
Ecology: A bivalve native to tropical and subtropical waters, the Asian clam is a filter feeder that removes particles from the wate r column. It can be found at the sediment surface or slightly buried. Its ability to repr oduce rapidly, coupled with low tolerance of cold temperatures, can produce wild swings in population sizes from year to year in

northern water bodies. Factors that may affect population de nsity and distribution of Asian clams include excessively high or low temperatures, salinity, drying, low pH, silt, hypoxia, pollution, bacterial, viral and parasi tic infections, inte r- and intraspecific competition, predators, and genetic changes.

The most prominent effect of the introduction of the Asian clam into the United States has been biofouling, especially of complex pow er plant and industrial water systems. It has also been documented to cause problems in irrigation canals and pipes and drinking water supplies. It alters benthic substrate and competes with native species for limited

resources.

Distribution: The Asian clam was introduced to the eastern United States in the early 20th century. It has since spr ead to most of the waterways in the east, and somewhat less widely in the west. In Idaho it is current ly found in the lower Boise River in Ada and Canyon Counties, and in the Snake River from C.J. Strike Reservoir in Elmore County

downstream.

Pathways of Introduction: Corbicula fluminea was thought to have first entered the

United States as a food item. With man show n to be the primary agent of dispersal, no large-scale geographic features function as di spersal barriers. It is thought to spread primarily through human activ ity such as bait bucke t introductions, accidental introductions associated with imported aquacu lture species, and in tentional introductions by people who buy them as a food item in mark ets. The only other significant dispersal agents are water currents or flooding events . Fish and birds are not thought to be dispersal vectors.65 • Native to tropical and subtropical waters

• Filter feeder that removes particles from the water column

• Most prominent effect has been fouling of complex power plant and water systems, with documented problems in irrigation canals and pipes and drinking water supplies

• Currently found in the C.J. Strike Reservoir in Elmore County and in the Snake Rive r at the Idaho-Washington

state line

• It is thought to spread primarily through human activity such as bait bucket introductions; there are no large-scale geographic barriers66 

### Whirling Disease Myxobolus cerebralis
Ecology: Whirling disease is caused by a metazoan pa rasite that can infect most wild or farm-raised salmonid species, although rainbow trout and cutthroat tr out appear to be more susceptible than other trout species. This parasite has a tw o-host life cycle which includes both the primary salmonid host and a common aquatic worm Tubifex tubifex

. When an infected fish dies and decays, spores are released and ingested by tubifex worms. The spores undergo development in the worm's intestine and multiply rapidly. When released by the worm, the water-borne spor es infect susceptible fish by attaching to the fish's body. The parasite then migrates thro ugh the skin to the central nervous system and the cartilage of the fish. The spores are believed to be capable of remaining dormant in mud for thirty years.

Whirling disease afflicts juve nile fish (fingerlings a nd fry) and causes skeletal deformation and neurological damage. Fish "whirl" rather than swim forward, find feeding difficult, and are more vulnerable to predators. The mortality rate is high for fingerlings, up to 90% of infected populations , and those that do survive are deformed by the parasite residing in their cartilage and bone. They act as a reservoir for the parasite, which is released into water following the fish's death.

Distribution: M. cerebralis was first recorded in North America in 1956 in Pennsylvania, having been introduced via inf ected trout imported from Europe, and has spread steadily south and westwards. Until the 1990s, whirling disease was considered a manageable problem affecting rainbow trout in hatcheries. However, it has recently

become established in natura l waters of the Rocky Mountai n states including Idaho in 1987, where it can cause heavy mortalities in trout populations. Some streams in the

western United States have lost 90% of their trout.

Pathways of Introduction: The manner in which whirling disease was spread to Idaho is not known, but may have been a result of aquaculture release. Other avenues for spread of this disease include landscap e/fauna "improvement", live food trade, transportation of domesticated animals, tr ansportation of habitat material, and water currents. Wild salmonid populations may have been infected through the alimentary tracts of fish-eating migratory birds.

Management considerations: As young fish are the most susceptible, management techniques have traditionally focused on c ontrolling exposure of fr y to the infectious stage of M. cerebralis , which are microscopic spores ca lled triactinomyxons. Hatcheries have previously done this in two ways: 1) rear the young fi sh in well water to prevent exposure until they are older and more resistant, or 2) use pond designs that reduce potential habitat for oligochaetes. New research suggests that exposing water to unltraviolet light can inactivate triactinom yxons. A dose of 1300 mWs cm-2 ultraviolet light can inactivate 100% of the triactinomyxons.

For reasons that are poorly understood, but probably have to do with environmental conditions, the impact on infected fish has been greatest in Colorado and Montana and least in California, Michigan, and New York.67 Recreational anglers can help to prevent the spre ad of the parasite in a number of ways. Cleaning fishing equipment between fishing tr ips and never transporting fish from one body of water to another should protect agai nst cross contamination of waterways. Spores are particularly persistent in felt so led wading shoes, which can be treated with

10% chlorine bleach and water for at least 15 minutes and then rinsed thoroughly. Fish bones or entrails should never be disposed of in any body of water, since spores from the

carcass will be released into the waterway. Salmon and trout should not be used as bait.68 • Caused by a parasite that can in fect most wild or farm-raised salmonids, particularly rainbow trout and cutthroat trout

• When an infected fish dies and decays, spores are released and ingested by tubifex worms. Wh en released by the worm, the water-borne spores infect suscep tible fish by attaching to the fish's body.

• Spores are believed to be ca pable of remaining dormant in mud for thirty years

• Afflicts juvenile fish and ca uses skeletal deformation and neurological damage

• First recorded in North America in 1956 in Pennsylvania, having been introduced via infected trout imported from Europe. Established in natural waters of the Rocky Mountain states including Idaho in 1987), where it may causing heavy mortalities in wild trout populations

• Recreational anglers can help to prevent the spread of the parasite by cleaning fishing equipment and never transporting fish from one body of water to another

• Fish bones or entrails should never be disposed of in any body of water, since spores from the carcass will be released into the waterway69 

### Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum
Ecology: This is a submersed, rooted, perennia l vascular plant consisting of long underwater stems that branch and produce whor led, finely divided leaves near the water surface. It colonizes lakes, ponds, shallow reservoirs, low energy areas of rivers and streams, and the brackish water of protected tidal creeks and bays. Key factors in the plant’s success is its ability to reproduce through stem fragme ntation and seeds. A single segment of stem can take root and form a new colony.

Eurasian watermilfoil competes aggressively to displace and reduce the diversity of native aquatic plants. It surv ives and photosynthesizes under th e ice in winter and begins spring growth earlier than most native a quatic plants. Tolerant of low water temperatures, it quickly grows to the surf ace, forming dense canopies that overtop and shade the surrounding vegetation. Canopy forma tion and light reducti on are significant

factors in the decline of na tive plant abundance and divers ity observed when Eurasian watermilfoil invades plant communities. T ypical dense beds rest rict swimming, fishing and boating, clog water intakes and result in decaying mats that foul lakeside beaches.

Eurasian watermilfoil has less value as a food source for wate rfowl than the native plants it replaces. Although fish may initially experience a favorable edge effect, the

characteristics of Eurasian watermilfoil's overabundant growth negate any short-term benefits it may provide fish in healthy wate rs. At high densities, its foliage supports a lower abundance and diversity of invertebrate s and other organisms that serve as fish

food.

Distribution: First documented in 1942 in a pond in Washington D.C., Eurasian watermilfoil probably was intentionally introduced to the United States from Europe, possibly for aquarium use. Spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and water birds, it reached the Midw estern states between the 1950s and 1980s. It is now one of the most widely distributed of all nonindi genous aquatic plants, having been confirmed

in 45 United States and in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. In Idaho it is abundant throughout th e northern and southwestern portions of the

state.

Pathways of Introduction: It is not known exactly how Eurasian watermilfoil was introduced into Idaho, but it wa s likely carried by boats and/or water birds. Fragments clinging to boats and trailers can spread the plant from lake to la ke. Once the plant is established it is almost impossible to eradicate.

Management considerations: The occurrence of sixteen species of including Potamogeton illinoensis and Potamogeton pectinatus may be indicators of conditions

suitable for Eurasian watermilfoil invasion. Searching areas coloni zed by these species may provide early detection, the best method for preventing new infestations.70 Several aquatic herbicides are available for control of Eurasian watermilfoil, including fluridone, 2,4-D, diquat, endot hall, copper and confentrazone. Mechanical harvesting has also been widely used in the Midwest and the northeast.

A North American weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontie , is widely associated with Eurasian watermilfoil and may be linked with natural de clines at northern lakes. Studies have found the herbivorous weevil occasionally ca uses significant damage to Eurasian watermilfoil while having no impact on native species. However, extensive testing over the past decade has shown its effects are unpredictable and resear ch on this agent is ongoing.71 • Submerged, rooted, perennial herb with long underwater stems that branch and produce many whorled, finely divided leaves

near the surface

• A single segment of stem and l eaves can take root and form a new colony, displacing and reducing the diversity of native aquatic plants

• Dense beds restrict swimming, fishing and boating, clog water intakes and result in decaying mats that foul lakeside beaches.

• Probably intentionally introduced to the United States from Europe, possibly for aquarium use, spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and water birds

• Abundant throughout the western and southwestern portions of the state, as well as in numerous watersheds in the north

• Fragments clinging to boats and trailers can spread the plant

from lake to lake 

### Eurasian watermilfoil

Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil)72 

### Parrot feather milfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum
Ecology: Parrot feather milfoil exhibits two diff erent leaf forms depending on whether it is growing as a submersed plant or as an emergent shoot extending above the water surface. The submersed leaves are 1.5 to 3.5 centimeters long and have 20 to 30 divisions per leaf while the emergent leaves are 2 to 5 centimeters long and have 6 to 18 divisions per leaf. The bright green emergent leaves are st iffer and a darker green than

the submersed leaves.

Parrot feather milfoil grows in sluggish waters , edges of streams, lakes, ponds, drainage and irrigation ditches, and can als, backwaters, sloughs and lagoons. It appears to be adapted to high nutrient environments, and doe s well in good light a nd a slightly alkaline

environment.

Populations often become dense and sometime occur as floating mats that have been uprooted, often choking waterways and impe ding navigation. While parrot feather milfoil may provide cover for some aquati c organisms, it can se riously change the physical and chemical characteristics of lakes and streams. Infestations can alter aquatic ecosystems by shading out the algae in the wate r column that serve as the basis of the aquatic food web. In addition, the plant severe ly restricts water flow in both natural and artificial channels, providing c hoice mosquito larvae habitat. The plant can restrict water flow in canals and recreational opportunities.

Distribution: Parrot feather milfoil is a popular aqua tic garden plant offered for sale by retailers throughout the United States. However, it has escaped cultivatio n and spread via plant fragments and intentional plantings. Parrot feat her milfoil is also spread by floods, animals, boating and other recreational activitie s. In Idaho it is presently found in the

Clearwater subbasin and in the lo wer Payette and Boise basins.

Pathways of Introduction: Parrot feather milfoil’s route into Idaho is not known, but may have been via waterfowl or boats. It wa s first reported in the Clearwater drainage about 50 miles east of Moscow in 1928. It is currently still offered to sale for water gardens throughout the United States.

Management considerations: Mechanical control of pa rrot feather milfoil usually provides only temporary reduction of bi omass and can spread plant fragments downstream or to other locations where they can start new growth. There are no known bio-control agents that are in widespread use and grass carp do not eat a significant amount of any of the milfoil families. Seve ral contact and systemic herbicides offer temporary reduction in plant biomass. The mo st effective, long term control might be achieved by treating plants that are exposed by drawdown of wate r levels so that a greater portion of the vegetation comes into contact with the herbicide.73 • Grows in sluggish waters, edge s of streams, lakes, ponds, drainage and irrigation ditches

• Floating mats may choke waterways and impede navigation

• Provides choice mosquito larvae habitat

• A popular aquatic garden plant that escaped cultivation and spread via plant fragments and intentional plantings

• Presently found in the Clearwater subbasin and in Emmett, Twin Falls, and some private ponds in Ada County

• First reported in the Clearwater about 50 miles east of

Moscow in 1928

• Mechanical methods that cut up stems will increase the spread of parrot feather milfoil 

### Parrot feather milfoil

Myriophyllum aquaticum

Parrot feather milfoil74 

### Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus
Ecology : Yellow iris is a perennial monocot plant that forms dense stands along the margins of water bodies. It th rives in temperate climates, and can grow in water up to 25 cm deep. It is a fast-growing and fast-spr eading invasive plant that dominates other wetland plants, forming almost impenetrable thickets. All parts of the plant are poisonous, especially the rhizomes, and cauti on should be used when hand-pulling this plant because it causes skin irritations.

Once established, yellow iris th ick tuberous rhizomes can to lerate both prolonged anoxic and/or drought conditions, and its rhizomes and seeds can be transported downstream for further spread. The rhizome mat can preven t the germination and seedling growth of native plant species. The mat also creates im proved habitat for yellow iris by compacting soil and elevating the topogra phy, thereby creating a drier hab itat with an increased rate of sediment and organic matter accumulation.

Distribution: Yellow iris is not equally distribut ed or problematic throughout the 40 states in which it is reporte d. It is relatively new to th e western United States, where early records from California and western Montana date to the 1950s. Yellow iris is widespread in the northeaster n United States, where it has been found in the wild for close to 140 years. In Id aho, it is found in streams a nd irrigation canals in Latah, Benewah, Ada, Canyon, Boise, Jerome, and Twin Falls counties.

Pathways of Introduction: It has typically been introdu ced as an ornamental, but has

also been used in erosio n control and for making dyes and fibers. It remains a horticultural favorite and often escapes cultiv ation to spread along shorelines, stream flats, and into fresh and brackish marshes.

Management considerations: Because of its strong tendenc y to resprout from rhizomes, burning is not recommended for control. Sim ilarly, fire in late summer was not found to suppress seedling recruitment the following spring. Yellow iris is susceptible to many registered herbicides. It can be controlled either by dire ctly applying herbicides to foliage, or by immediately applying herbicide to freshly cut leaf and stem surfaces.75 • Forms dense stands of robust pl ants that are fast-growing and fast-spreading, out-competing other wetland plants, forming almost impenetrable thickets

• All parts of the plant are poisonous

• Relatively new to the western United States, where notable early

records from California and western Montana date to the 1950s

• It is found in streams and irrigation canals in Latah, Benewah, Ada, Canyon, Boise, and Twin Falls Counties

• Still a horticultural favorite and often escapes cultivation to spread locally

• Cutting followed by herbicide glyphosate) treatment may be the best method for controlling plants in sensitive sites76 

### Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Ecology : Curly-leaf pondweed is a perennial, rooted, submer sed aquatic vascular plant native to Eurasia, Africa, and Au stralia. It is found in freshw ater lakes, ponds, rivers and streams, and in slightly brackish waters. Th is pondweed shelters small fish and aquatic insects that provide food for larger fish a nd amphibians but becomes invasive in some areas because of its tolerance for low light and low water temperatures. These tolerances allow it to preempt native plants in the early spring.

By late spring it forms dense mats which may interfere with recreation and limit the growth of native aquatic plants. By Jul y, this plant senesces and forms vegetative propagules called turions wh ich are dispersed by water movement throughout a water body.

In some lakes, it coexists with native plants and does not cause signi ficant problems. In other lakes, it becomes the dominant plant a nd interferes with late spring and early

summer recreation due to the formation of dense mats. Its mid-summer senescence triggers an increase in phosphorus concentr ations sometimes causing algae blooms, and dying plants pile up along the shore.

Distribution: This species is widespread thr oughout the northern United States. Although its first arrival in Idaho is not know n, it has been reported since at least 1973, and is currently found in several counties in southeastern, western, and northern Idaho.

Pathways of Introduction: Curly-leaf pondweed can spread by plant fragments attached to boats and equipment. Its turions may also be transferred to uni nfested lakes through human or animal transport or by water currents.

Management considerations: Curly-leaf pondweed has a unique lifecycle, which influences management options for its control. It is the first pondw eed to resume growth in spring and dies back during mid-summer. Before it dies, it forms vegetative propagules called turions (hardene d stem tips) that disperse by water movement. Turions lie dormant during summer when native plants are growing, and germinate in late fall or early spring when most native vegetation ha s died back. Long-term management of curly-leaf will require the reduction or eliminati on of turions to interrupt its life cycle. Management activities should be undertaken in spring or very early summer to have the

maximum benefit. Mechanical control incl udes raking, cutting or harvesting vegetation. Raking and hand cutting generally remove th e plants at the sediment surface while harvesting removes the top 5 ft of the plant. Mechanical methods c ontrol plants in the specific areas where they are causing a nuisanc e, and there is immediate relief from the

nuisance. There is some evidence that earl y season cutting of pondweed at the sediment surface can prevent turion production.

There are no known biocontrol agents. Early spring herbicide treatm ents, repeated over a 2-3 year period, have been shown to reduce the de nsity of this species significantly. It is susceptible to several herbicides, but bot h herbicides and mechanical control are expensive.77 • Invasive in some areas because of its tolerance for low light and low water temperatures, which allow it to get a head start on and outcompete native plants in the spring

• As the pondweed dies back and decomposes in the midsummer, phosphorus is released into the water column which can cause algal blooms.

• In Idaho since at least 1973, and currently found in several counties in southeastern, western, and northern Idaho

• Spread by plant fragments att ached to boats and equipment that are not pr operly cleaned

• Before it dies, it forms vegetative reproductive buds called turions that lie dormant during the summer and germinate when most native vegetation has died back 

### Curly-leaf pondweed

Potamogeton crispus (Curly-leaf pondweed)78 

### Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
Ecology: Purple loosestrife is an emergent, perennial plant with a woody stem and whirled leaves. It has the ability to reprodu ce prolifically by both seed dispersal and vegetative propagation. It is capable of invading a variety of wetland habitats, including marshes, river and stream banks, pond edges, lake s, road site ditches, and reservoirs. The plant prefers moist soil with neutral to s lightly acidic pH. Once established, however, purple loosestrife can exist in a wide range of soil types. Disturbed areas are more prone to invasion because exposed soil is ideal for seed germination.

As purple loosestrife establishes itself, it out competes and replaces native grasses, sedges, and other plants that provide a higher quality food source and habitat for wildlife. It can deleteriously impact wildlife habitat used by birds and furb earers. Purple loosestrife forms dense homogeneous stands that restrict native we tland plant species, including some endangered plants. Purple loosestrif e dominates wetlands and almost entirely eliminates shallow open water habitat if left uncontrolled. The recreational and aesthetic value of wetlands and waterways is diminish ed as dense stands of purple loosestrife choke waterways and decrease biodiversity. Its vegetative dominance may increase the likelihood of listing additional na tive species as “threatene d” or “endangered” under the

ESA.

Distribution: It is currently found in the wild in 42 of the 48 contiguous states and is widespread in Idaho’s wetlands.

Pathways of Introduction: Purple loosestrife can spread via floating vegetation/debris, landscape/fauna "improvement", garden escape or garden waste, and water currents. Purple loosestrife is also widely sold as an ornamental in states where regulations do not prohibit its sale and distribution. In Idaho, it is listed as a noxious weed and its sale is prohibited.

Management considerations: Herbicides are most commonly used for quick, effective control of purple looses trife. They may be most eff ectively applied when plants are preparing for dormancy; however, mid-summer and late season treatments may be needed to reduce the amount of seed produced. Multiple chemical treatments are usually required as new seedlings emerge annually from the seed bank.

Although chemical control measures are effectiv e, they are usually costly. In the United States, four insects from Europe have been approved by the APHIS for use as biological control agents: The root-mining weevil Hylobius transversovittatus , two leaf-feeding

beetles Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla , and Nanophyes marmoratus, an herbivorous weevil. G. calmariensis

, G. pusilla and H. transversovittatus have been

released across the United States and Canada. In many release sites G. calmariensis has provided successful control of th e target weed in as little as 3 years by reducing plant populations as much as 100%. The two leaf be etles have been successful in Idaho, with little to no impact on nativ e, non-target species.79 • Can reproduce prolifically by both seed dispersal and sprouting. invading a variety of wetland habitats, including marshes, river and stream banks, ponds and lakes

• Outcompetes and replaces native grasses, sedges, and other flowering plants that provide a higher quality food source and

habitat for wildlife

• Widely available as an ornament al in states where regulations do not prohibit its sale

• Imported from Europe for its medicinal value and for the beautiful purple spikes of the blooming plant

• Twenty-four states, including Idaho, have listed it as a noxious weed and prohibit its sale

• USDA has approved four insects for biological control of purple loosestrife 

### Purple loosestrife80 

### Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima Ecology: Saltcedar is a deciduous shrub that can a ppear as a small tree. It can be found where its roots reach the water table, such as floodplains, along ir rigation ditches and on

lake shores and it can tolerate a wide range of saline or alkaline soils. Periods without

access to the water table are also well tole rated, which contributes to its becoming an invasive species in Idaho.

Saltcedar benefits from altered hydrology, espe cially where natural flooding is attenuated by water regulation. Alteration of natura l flooding regimes through dam construction has resulted in saltcedar repl acing many native tree species in riparian areas, such as

cottonwood Populus deltoides and willows Salix spp.. The invasion of saltcedar along streams is likely to have altered the food webs in these aquatic ecosystems. The roots of saltcedar bind together gravel and cobble riverbeds, resulting in enlarged bars and narrowed channels, which contribute to fl ooding, accelerated erosion, and undercutting of

the stream banks.

The leaf litter and foliage produced by saltced ar is flammable and encourages the spread of wildfires. Native vegetation and wildlif e are destroyed in these fires, saltcedar seedlings are fire tolerant and can re-spr out more successfully than native plants following fire. Moreover, enormous numbers of seeds—up to half a million per year from a mature shrub—are spread by wind or fire.

Saltcedar is also known to tr anspire large amounts of groundwat er, which desiccates soils and lowers the water table. Its transpiration rate is similar to native plants on a per-leaf basis but it maintains a larger leaf area per ground area, and therefore uses more water. Because saltcedar can take up water from non- saturated soils, it has an added advantage in out competing native vegetation.

Saltcedar supports few native insect s and is considered poor habitat for birds. It is able to dominate floodplain communities in desert envi ronments due to its ability to tolerate water stress for extended periods.

Distribution: This species is found in nearly all of the 48 contiguous states of the United States including Idaho, where it is found in several locations thr oughout the Snake River

Basin.

Pathways of Introduction: Saltcedar is thought to have been introduced to North

America from its native Eurasia in the 19th cen tury by the nursery trad e. It is widely

available for sale as an orname ntal, due to its feathery folia ge and its profusion of white or pink flowers. It has also been use as wi ndbreaks. In coastal environments it has been used for sand-binding and has become naturali zed in many coastal area s. In addition to deliberate spread by humans, it can also spread easily by its abundant wind-borne seeds.

Management considerations: An integrated management approach that incorporates multiple control techniques is most widely us ed in the western United States. Mechanical control methods (hand-pulling, cutting, bulldozing) or chemical applications are effective81 but can be expensive and/or labor intensive. Cattle and goats will eat saltcedar, but grazing alone is not a feasible control method in many locati ons. However, goats might

be able to control dense stands of saltcedar where little native ve getation is present, particularly if the stands are cut or burned first, allowing goats to eat the regrowth.

A biocontrol agent, the saltcedar leaf beetle Diorhabda elongata , has been released in

certain areas in nine western states. It is anticipated that control by the leaf beetle will occur gradually because three years of defoliation are requi red for major dieback, with very little mortality of host plants. A mealy bug Trabutina mannipara and a weevil

Coniatus tamarisci have also been approve d for re-introduction by APHIS, but not yet released pending results from beetle in troductions. Several other specialist herbivores ar e being studied for thei r biocontrol potential.82 • A deciduous shrub or small tree usually found in areas with a

shallow water table

• The leaf litter and foliage are flammable and encourage the spread of wildfires

• Known to transpire large amounts of groundwater, which

desiccates soils and lowers the water table

• Found in several locations throughout the Snake River Basin

• Introduced to North America from its native Eurasia by the nursery trade and still widely available for sale as an

ornamental

• Mechanical control methods ha nd-pulling, cutting, bulldozing) or chemical applications are effective in controlling smaller sites, but can be expensive and/or labor intensive

• Biological control methods are being developed but due to the longevity of the plant are likely to only be useful in the long

term.83 HIGH-PRIORITY AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES

NOT YET IN IDAHO

These species are defined as not currentl y present in Idaho, and likely to have a high adverse impact.



### Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha
Ecology: Zebra mussel are freshwater, bivalve mollu sk that typically have a dark and white (zebra-like) pattern on their shells. However, color patterns can vary to the point of having only dark or light colored shells and no stripes. They are usually about an inch long or less, and attach to hard substrates much like marine mussels but unlike any native freshwater bivalve. They are prolific, of ten found in colonies with some colonies reported to be over 700,000 individuals per squa re meter in some locations in the Great Lakes. They produce microscopic larvae (velig ers) that float freely in the water column, passing through screens installed to exclude them. Females generally reproduce in their second year by expelling eggs, which are fertilized outside the body by the males; this process usually occurs in the spring or summer, depending on water temperature. Optimal temperature for spawning is 14-16 ° C. Over 40,000 eggs can be laid in a reproductive cycle and up to one million in a spawning season. In thermally polluted areas, reproduction can occur con tinually through the year. Af ter the eggs are fertilized, the veligers emerge within 3 to 5 days and are free-swimming for up to a month. Optimal temperature for larval development is 20-22 ° C. Dispersal of larvae is normally passive with the flow. The larvae begi n their juvenile stage by settli ng to the bottom where they crawl about by means of a foot, searching for suitable substrate. They then attach themselves by means of a byssus, an organ outside the body near the foot consisting of many threads. The vast majority of veliger mortality (99%) occurs at this stage due to

settlement onto unsuitable substrates. Sens itivity to changes in temperature and oxygen are also greatest at this stage. Once attach ed, the life span of zebra mussel ranges from 3- 9 years. Maximum growth rates can reach 1.5-2.0 cm/year. Adults are sexually mature at 8-9 mm in shell lengt h i.e. within one year.

Zebra mussel have some well-defined but br oad environmental limitations. The optimal temperature range for adults extends to 20-25 ° C, but they can persist for a short term in temperatures up to 35 ° C. Zebra mussel are described as poor oxygen regulators, possibly explaining their low success rate in colonizing eutrophic lakes. They can tolerate slight salinity (up to 4 ‰). They require calcium c oncentrations of 10 mg Ca/l to initiate shell growth and 25 mg Ca/l to maintain it. Optimal larval survival occurs at a pH of 8.4, and optimal adult growth occurs at pH 7.4-8.0.

They adhere to almost any surface, including the shells of native mussels and turtles, rocks, macrophytes, artificial surfaces (cemen t, steel, rope, pilings, etc.), crayfish, unionid clams, and each other. Factors exist, however, that cause the substrate to be unsuitable for both initial and long term col onization, including exte nsive siltation, some sessile benthic macroinvertebrates, macroalg ae, and fluctuating water levels. Spatial patterns of pelagic veliger density and bent hic adult dispersion within a lake are84 controlled by physical conditions including wi nd strength, lake/shore morphometry, and

current patterns.

Monitoring and control of zebra mussel costs millions of dollars annually. Zebra mussel are known for their biofouling capabilities by colonizing water supply pipes of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, public water supply plants, and industrial facilities. They typically constrict flow in pipes by two-thirds or more and reduce the intake in heat exchangers, condensers, fire fighting equipment, and air conditioning and cooling systems. Although ther e is little information on zebr a mussel affecting irrigation, farms and golf courses could be likely candi dates for infestations. Navigational and recreational boating can be affected by incr eased drag due to attached mussels and fouling of cooling systems. Navigationa l buoys have been sunk under the weight of

attached zebra mussel. Deterioration of dock pilings has increased when they are

encrusted with zebra mussel which corrode st eel and concrete, affecting its structural integrity.

Zebra mussel negatively impact aquatic ec osystems, harming native organisms including already imperiled indigenous mussels. In huge numbers, they out-compete other filter

feeders. Lakes infested with zebra musse l have experienced d ecreases in phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass of 70-90%, leading to increased water clarity and greater penetration of sunlight, altering water temp erature and thermoclines. As phytoplankton are consumed, levels of dissolved organic ca rbon decrease. Increa sed light penetration may promote macrophyte populations. As macr ophytes can be colonized by veligers, the macrophyte community may be altered if su ch colonization proves detrimental. Moreover, there is some evidence that polluta nts are concentrated in zebra mussel feces, possibly affecting other trophic levels.

Effects may continue through the food we b. Reduction in zooplankton biomass may cause increased competition, d ecreased survival and decrease d biomass of planktivorous fish. Alternatively, because microzoopla nkton are more heavily impacted by zebra mussel, the larval fish population may be more greatly affected than later life stages. In addition, proliferation of macr ophytes may alter fish habitat. Other effects include the extirpation of native unionid clams through crowding. Many species of birds are known to be predators of zebra mussel, and while a new food source may benefit such predators, biomagnification of toxins into both fi sh and birds is anot her potential risk.

Distribution: Zebra mussel are native to the Black, Caspian, and Azov seas. By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, ze bra mussel had spread to most major drainages of Europe through widespread construction of canal systems. Zebra musse l were first discovered in

North America in 1988 in the Great Lakes. It is suspected that zebra mussel were transported in ballast water ta nks of commercial ships.

By 1990, zebra mussel had been found in all th e Great Lakes. By the following year, they had spread throughout the Illinois a nd Hudson rivers and the Mississippi River drainage. By 1994, 19 states east of the Ro ckies had reported records of zebra mussel within their borders or in water bodies adjace nt to their borders. During the summer of85 2003, zebra mussel veligers were collected in the Missouri River where it borders

Nebraska and South Dakota.

Pathways of Introduction: The rapid invasion of North American waterways has been facilitated by the zebra mussel's ability to disperse during all life stages. Passive drift of large numbers of pelagic larval veligers al lows invasion downstream. Yearlings are able

to detach and drift for short distances. Bo th veligers and yearlings can be carried in ballast water, bait buckets, or any other water reservoir. Adults routinely attach to boat and floating objects and are tran sported to new locations. Under cool, humid conditions, zebra mussel can stay alive for several days out of water. At one time, they were being promoted as biofilters for aquariums. In a ddition, speculation exists that waterfowl can disperse zebra mussel, but this has yet to be proven.

Management considerations: A number of approaches have been taken to controlling zebra mussel infestations, with varying succe ss. With the exception of molluscicides, most are mitigation methods that do not eliminat e infestations. Of course, not all of them are suitable or practic al for all situations:

• Chemical molluscicides: oxidizing (chlorin e, chlorine dioxide) and non-oxidizing

• Manual removal (pigging, high pressure wash)

• Dewatering/desiccation (freezing, heated air)

• Thermal (steam injection, hot water)

• Acoustical vibration

• Electrical current

• Filters, screens

• Coatings: toxic (copper, zinc) a nd non-toxic (sili cone-based)

• Toxic constructed piping (copper, brass, galvanized metals)

• CO2 injection

• Ultraviolet light

• Anoxia/hypoxia

• Flushing

• Biological (predators, parasites, diseases)8687 

### Quagga mussel Dreissena bugensis
Ecology: The quagga mussel is a freshwater bivalve mollusk up to 1.5 inches in size, slightly larger than a zebra mussel. Color pa tterns in the quagga mu ssel vary widely with black, cream, or white bands, ranging to a ne arly uniform whitish coloration. The quagga mussel has a rounded angle, or carina, between the ventral and dorsal surfaces. It also has

a convex ventral side that can be distinguished from a zeb ra mussel by placing shells on their ventral side; a quagga mussel will topple over, whereas a zebra mussel will not. If quagga mussel are viewed from the front or fr om the ventral side, th e valves are clearly asymmetrical.

Quagga mussel are prodigious water f ilterers, removing substantial amounts of phytoplankton and suspended particulate from the water. As such, their impacts are similar to those of the zebra mussel. By removing the phytoplankton, they decrease the food source for zooplankton, therefore altering th e food web. Impacts a ssociated with the filtration of water include increases in water transparency, decreases in mean chlorophyll a concentrations, and accumulation of feces. Water clarity increases light penetration, sometimes causing an increase in aquatic plants that can change species dominance and alter the ecosystem. The feces that are produced from filteri ng the water accumulate and create a foul environment. As the waste pa rticles decompose, oxygen deficits occur, the pH becomes very acidic, and toxic byproducts are produced. In addition, quagga mussel accumulate organic pollutants within their tissues to levels more than 300,000 times greater than concentrations in the environm ent and these pollutants are found in their feces, which can be passed up the food chai n, therefore increasing wildlife exposure to organic pollutants.

Like zebra mussel, quagga mussel will clog wa ter intake structures and reduce pumping capabilities for power and water treatment pl ants, costing industries, companies, and communities millions of dollars in treatment costs. Quagga mussel have a greater tolerance for cooler water temperatures th an zebra mussel, and have been found to colonize substrates at greater water depths . Recreation-based i ndustries and activities have also been impacted. Docks, break walls, buoys, boats, and beaches have all been heavily colonized on both hard and soft s ubstrates. It is cl ear that the genus Dreissena is highly polymorphic and has a high potent ial for rapid adaptation to extreme environmental conditions, possibly leading to significant long-term impacts on North

American waters.

In the 1990's, the absence of quagga mussel from areas where zebra mussel were present may have been related to the later timing and location of intro duction, rather than physiological tolerances. If th e native habitat of quagga mu ssel provides any sort of indicator, the quagga mussel will most likel y colonize areas where the zebra mussel is

now established to become the dominant dreisse nid of the Great Lakes. Indeed, this trend does appear to be occurring in the lower Great Lakes. Mean shell size and biomass increased for both dreissenid species from 1992 to 1995 in southern Lake Ontario, but the increase was sharper in quagga mussel, and th ey now dominate in southern Lake Ontario

instead of zebra mussel.88 Distribution: Quagga mussel are indigenous to the Dn eiper River drainage of Ukraine.

It was first documented in the Great La kes in September 1989, and after confirmation that this mussel was not a variety of zebra mussel, the new species was named "quagga mussel" after the quagga, an extinct African relative of the zebra.

Quagga mussel are currently distributed th roughout most of the Great Lakes – Saint Lawrence system, and there are also a few inland occurrences in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They were re ported in Missouri and Illinois in 1995. More recently, in January 2007, populations of quagga mussel were discovered in Lake Mead on the lower Colorado River and may possibly be in Lake Powell in Utah.

Pathways of Introduction: The introduction of quagga muss el into the Great Lakes appears to be the result of ballast water discharge from transoceanic ships that were carrying veligers, juveniles, or adult mussels.. Like zebra mu ssel, there are other factors that can also aid in the spread of quagga across North American waters, such as larval drift in river systems, and fishing and boati ng activities that allow for overland transport

or movement between water basins.

Management considerations: Chlorination has been the most common treatment for

control. Another alte rnative has been potassium permanganate, especially for drinking

water sources. Other methods of control include: oxygen deprivation, thermal treatment, exposure and desiccation, radi ation, manual scraping, high-pr essure wash, mechanical filtration, removable substrat es, molluscicides, ozone, antif ouling coatings, electric currents, and sonic vibration. Some industries ev en built their intake structures and piping at depths too low for zebra mussel coloniza tion; however, when the quagga mussel were discovered at lower water depths these ne w structures became vulnerable to quagga colonization. Biological control so far has proven to be ineffective in controlling

Dreissena species. Predation by migrating diving ducks, fish species, and crayfish may reduce mussel abundance, though the effects ap pear to be short-lived. A proposed approach to controlling Dreissena populations may be to disrupt the reproductive process, by interfering with the synchroni zation of spawning by ma les and females in their release of gametes. Another approach would be to inhibit the planktonic veliger from settling, since this is the most vul nerable stage in the life cycle.8990 

### Asian carp, Including:
Black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Asian carp hybrids H. molitrix x nobilis

, C. idella x H. idella x nobilis

Ecology: Typical habitat for these carp species includes quiet waters, such as lakes, ponds, pools, and backwaters of large rivers, and a range of water depths. They are generally considered a nuisance because they prey on native species and/or compete with them for food and habitat. In addition, carp may carry several parasites and diseases known to be transmissible or potentially transmissible to native fishes.

The black carp is a bottom-dwelling molluscivor e that has been used by fish farmers in the South to prey on and contro l disease-carrying snails in th eir farm ponds. Black carp are superficially very similar in appearance to grass carp, leading to a risk that the species

be misidentified and unintentiona lly introduced as "grass carp" to some areas. There is high potential that the black carp would nega tively impact native aquatic communities by feeding on, and reducing, populatio ns of native mussels and snails, many of which are considered endangered or threatened.

The silver carp is a filter-feeder capable of consuming large amounts of phytoplankton. Its diet also includes zooplankton, bacteria, a nd detritus. It has the potential to cause enormous damage to native species because it feeds on plankton required by larval fish and native mussels. This species would also be a potential competitor with adults of some native fishes that also rely on plankton for food.

Similar to the closely-related silver carp, the bighead carp is a filter feeder that prefers large river habitats. Because bighead carp are planktivorous and attain a large size, they have the potential to deplete zooplankt on populations, leading to reductions in populations of native species th at rely on plankton for food including all larval fishes, some adult fishes, and native mussels.

Grass carp, which are herbivores, seem to affect other animal species by modifying preferred habitat; however, they may direc tly influence other animals through either predation or competition when plant food is sc arce. These influences include interspecific competition for food with invertebrates and other fishes, significant changes in the composition of macrophyte, phytoplankton, and invertebrate commun ities, interference with the reproduction of other fi shes, and decreases in refugia for other fishes. Increased phytoplankton populations are ofte n a secondary effect of gr ass carp presence: a grass carp can digest only about half of the plant material that it consumes each day, expelling the rest into the water where it promotes algal blooms. These blooms can reduce water clarity and decrease oxyge n levels. A sterile va riety (triploid) of gr ass carp is approved91 for use in Idaho in isolated ponds. All such fi sh imported into Idaho must be certified as triploid and be free of specific diseases.

Silver/bighead carp hybrids have been repor ted in a number of locations in the United States. The hybrid fish can be intermediate or externally indisti nguishable from either parent species and are documented to be fert ile. Grass/bighead ca rp hybrids have been reported in Florida, Texas, California and Ariz ona, where it was intentionally stocked. It

is believed to be sterile. Both of these hybrids exhibit similar behavior and impact their habitat in similar ways to their parent species.

Distribution: : Fertile grass carp have been do cumented in Idaho in only a limited area, in the Snake River between King Hill a nd Shoshone Falls in the early 1980s. These fish were escapes from unscreened waters where they introduced to control vegetation.

With the establishment of restrictions on th eir importation and use in Idaho in the mid 1980s, they have disappeared from the Sn ake River and curren tly there are no known reproducing populations in Idaho. However, th e species has a tolerance for a wide range of temperatures, which makes it a likely candidate to establish in some water bodies in the state if illegally releas ed. The other three specie s of Asian carp and the known hybrids have not been reported in Idaho to da te, but are reported to be established in many other areas of the United States, particul arly the Mississippi Ri ver drainage and in

the South.

Pathways of Introduction: These four carp species were introduced in the United

States in the 1970s as food fish and/or as bi ological control agents in aquaculture ponds or eutrophic water bodies. So me were illegally stocked in ponds or commercial fish farms. In many cases, they made their initial escape during episodes of flooding or through accidental release from a fa rm or aquaculture facility.

The possibility of deliberate transportation and release of these species is a likely occurrence. Asian carp have been discove red in public ponds and lagoons in the Great Lakes region, and media stories indicate that these fish are be ing intentionally released as part of religious ceremonies. .

Management considerations: Asian carp species are so widely established in the United States that eradication is impossible and c ontrol is unlikely. A re gulatory approach of identifying legal responsibility and developing consistent regulations will be needed on a regional basis to prevent inten tional or unintentional release of invasive species including Asian carp. Several of the As ian carp species have or ar e being added to the USFWS injurious species list.92939495 

### Rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus Ecology: The rusty crayfish is a dark-color ed crustacean reaching about 4 inches in length, with large, robust claws and sometimes with “rusty” spots on the sides of its carapace. It is native to the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberla nd drainages. Rusty crayfish inhabit lakes, ponds, and streams. They prefer ar eas that offer rocks, logs, or other debris as cover. Bottom types may be clay, silt, sa nd, gravel, or rock. Rusty crayfish inhabit both pools and fast water areas of streams. Th ey generally do not dig burrows other than small pockets under rocks and other debris, a lthough there have been reports of more substantial burrows. Rusty crayfish need permanent lakes or streams that provide suitable water quality year-round.

Mature rusty crayfish mate in late summer, ear ly fall, or early spring. The male transfers sperm to the female, which she then stores un til her eggs are ready to fertilize, typically when water temperatures begin to increase. Th e stored sperm are released as the eggs are expelled, and external fe rtilization occurs. The eggs are then attached to the swimmerets on the underside of the crayfish's abdomen. Rusty crayfish females lay from 80 to 575 eggs. The eggs hatch in three to six w eeks, depending on water temperature. Once hatched, young crayfish cling to the female's swimmerets for three to four molts, usually a period of several weeks. The young undergo eight to ten molts before they mature, which may occur during the first year, but more likely the following year. Rusty crayfish reach maturity at a total length of one a nd three-eighths inches and reach a maximum length of about four inches (not including claw s). A typical rusty crayfish lives three to four years.

Invading rusty crayfish frequently displace native crayfish, reduce the amount and kinds of aquatic plants and inverteb rates, and reduce some fish populations. Perhaps the most serious impact is the destruction of aquatic plant beds that rusty crayfish causes. These aquatic plants are important for habitat for i nvertebrates, food for fish and ducks, shelter for young game fish or forage species of fi sh, nesting substrate for fish, and erosion control (by minimizing waves). Although other crayfish eat a quatic plants, rusty crayfish eat about twice as much because they have a higher metabolic rate. Rusty crayfish, especially juveniles, also feed heavily on benthic invertebrates such as mayflies, stoneflies, midges, and side-swimmers. T hus they are more likely to compete with juvenile game fish and forage species for i nvertebrates than are native crayfish species.

Distribution: In the 1990s rusty crayfish were spread, probably through bait bucket transfers, to several states in northeastern and north-central US and to New Mexico. To date, they have not been reported in Idaho waters.

Pathways of Introduction: Anglers using crayfish as ba it are thought to be the primary cause of introduction. Developing a viable co mmercial harvest of rusty crayfish from

natural lakes could be an incentive for uns crupulous trappers to plant them in other

waters.

Rusty crayfish are also sold to schools by biological supply houses. Even though a warning not to release them into the wild accompanies crayfish sold to schools, such96 warnings may not be effective, as live cray fish may be given away to students and may eventually be released into the wild.

Management considerations: It is important to note that it is not necessary to have both a male and a female crayfish to begin a new infestation. One fe male carrying viable sperm could begin a new population if released into a suitable environment. Rusty crayfish readily mate in captivity so it is reasonable to expect that mature females, whether used as fishing bait or as scien ce class study specimens, could produce offspring.

Currently the only method of control is to pr event their introduction. Educating anglers, crayfish trappers, bait dealers, and teachers about the threats posed by rusty crayfish will help reduce the risk of spr eading it to new areas. Envi ronmentally-sound ways to

eradicate or control introdu ced populations of rusty crayfish have not been developed.97 

### Round goby Neogobius melanostomus
Ecology: Native to the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov, this small (about 7 in max) fish has prominent eyes and a grey body with black and brown blotches. They can become established in lakes, ponds, rivers, cr eeks, and canals. The diet of round gobies

collected in the United States consists of a quatic insects, zebra mussel, and some native snails. Studies have shown a single goby can eat as many as 78 zebra mussels per day. Given the proliferation of zebra mussel in the Great Lakes system, and the fact that no other fish species feeds on the zebra mussel as heavily, the goby popul ation is apparently undergoing a population explosion in that area. Trawls in th e Great Lakes in the mid-90s collected thousands of gobies, and densities in one location exceeded 20 individuals per square meter. They have been found in a range of habitats, from near-shore rocky or weedy areas to about 20m water depth.

Round gobies are aggressive feeder s and will eat other small fish or each other, as well as the eggs and fry of many larger species in cluding several popular game fish. Native fish species have declined in locat ions where round gobies have become abundant. They are also aggressive about seizi ng and defending optimal spawning sites and daytime refugia from native fishes, driving them out to where they can be preyed upon. Round gobies undergo a long spawning period during which individuals can spawn every 20 days, while they aggressively defend their nests. Moreover, round goby fry compete with the fry of some native species for food, due to the overlap of an arthropod diet at this age.

Distribution: Since 1990, round gobies have become established in many locations in the Great Lakes and in parts of the Saint Lawrence River system.

Pathways of Introduction: The round goby was introduced into the Great Lakes about 1990 by freighter ballast from Eurasia, and has been spread throughout the Great Lakes system by boats and freighter ballast. The poten tial for spread to Idaho is primarily in illegal shipments of live fish.

Management considerations: No biological control agen ts are known at this time and chemical control would be economically re stricted to smaller waters; the best management policy is to preven t the spread of this species.9899 

### Ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus
Ecology: The ruffe is a small (4 to 6 inch) fr eshwater fish, olive-brown to golden-brown on its back, with yellowish-white undersides. It is native to north ern Europe and Asia and lives in lakes, rivers, streams and ponds . Spawning takes place in the spring. The diet of ruffe changes throughout the course of development, becoming more benthic with increasing size. Copepods, typify the diet of larval ruffe. The botto m-dwelling larvae of other insects, mainly mayflies and stoneflies, become increasingly important in the diet of ruffe as they grow.

Ruffe exhibit rapid growth a nd high reproductive rates and ar e able to adapt to a wide range of habitat types, posing a threat to na tive North American fish. In the Great Lakes system, there is concern that ruffe may ha ve a detrimental effect on more desirable species such as yellow perch and walley e, by feeding on the young of these species and/or by competing for food. Ruffe prey h eavily on benthic insect s, the primary food source for native benthic-feeding fishes. In the Great Lakes, ruffe hold an advantage over native yellow perch in their greater ability to select moving objects under relatively dim light conditions or in high tu rbidity. Further, it has been found that native pike, bass, bullhead, walleye and perch prefer feeding upon native fish species rather than ruffe.

Distribution: Eurasian ruffe has been established in the western Great Lakes since about 1988 and has become the dominant species in some areas. It has been reported in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, and On tario, Canada, and continues to spread eastward. Its potential habitat would in clude the lakes and rivers of Idaho.

Pathways of Introduction: The ruffe was probably intr oduced via ship ballast water discharged from a vessel arriving from a Eu rasian port, possibly as early as 1982-1983. Within the Great Lakes, the species spread may have been augmented by intra-lake shipping transport. The potential for spread to Idaho is primarily in illegal shipments of

live fish.

Management considerations: No biological control agen ts are known at this time and chemical control would be economically re stricted to smaller waters; the best management policy is to prevent the spread of this species. Some native fishes feed on ruffe but they are not preferred, and populat ions control by native fishes is unlikely.100101 

### Amur goby Rhinogobius brunneus
Ecology: The Amur goby is a small (4 in) fish native to Japan, the Russian Far East, Taiwan, Korea, China and the Philippines. They have fused pelvic fins, which form a suction-cup structure on the chest of the fish ; a red or dark line running from the front edge of the eye to the tip of its snout; and breeding males ar e red or blue with colorful

fins.

Many goby species are distinguished primarily by body coloration, but they also often occupy different habitat types w ithin the same stream, and ar e collectively referred to as the Amur goby species complex. Species in this complex have different life histories and egg sizes. At this time, the taxonomy of this species complex is not resolved. Therefore, it is not clear whether the type(s) introduced to the US constitute one or more species of Rhinogobius , so it is prudent that all species of goby be prohib ited in Idaho.

While some species in the Rhinogobius species complex are landl ocked, others have an amphidromous life history, spending portions of their lives in both fresh and saline waters. In the spring, males construct nest s under stones and entic e females to spawn. After spawning, males defend and care for th e eggs. Larvae hatch and drift downstream to the sea where they feed and grow. Larval drift occurs nocturna lly, and the larvae halt their migration in pools with low flow rates dur ing the day. After a few months in marine waters, juveniles migrate upstream into fres hwater for further growth and reproduction.

At this time, the impact of this fish on nativ e species is not known, but it is likely that it will compete for resources with native fishes.

Distribution: This species has spread from its native Asia elsewhere in the world via shipping. Amur goby was discovered in the Lewis River in west ern Washington in 2004, and is reported to be spawning there. Sin ce that time, another specimen was collected from the Columbia River (River Mile 54) at Crims Island.

Pathways of Introduction: Its initial introduction into North America was probably in ballast water, though it may have been the a quarium trade. It could be transported elsewhere in the US by similar means.

Management considerations: No biological control agen ts are known at this time and chemical control would be economically re stricted to smaller waters; the best management policy is to prevent the spread of this species.102103 

### Spiny water flea Bythotrephes longimanus, formerly B. cederstroemii
Ecology: Bythotrephes longimanus is a large (15 mm) cladoceran distinguished by a long straight tail spine that is twice as long as its body a nd has one to three pairs of barbs. Parthenogenically produced animals have a kink in middle of their spine and sexually produced animals lack the kink. The spiny water flea is native to Northern Europe and Asia.

Bythotrephes are found among the zooplankton in the upper water column of temperate lakes, can tolerate brackish water, and are most abundant in late summer and autumn. Occurrence and density of Bythotrephes populations are apparently determined mainly by water temperature and salinity. Within both its native and its intr oduced range, it appears to prefer large, deep, clear lakes with re latively low summer bottom temperatures, which is characteristic of many Idaho lakes. Bythotrephes is limited to regions where water temperature ranges between 4 and 30°C a nd salinity values up to 8.0‰, but prefers temperatures between 10 and 24°C and salinity values between 0.04 and 0.4‰. Temperature appears to be the major factor in determining the a bundance and location of Bythotrephes in the Great Lakes. Bythotrephes can reproduce asexually as well as sexually; unfertilized eggs ar e carried in a brood pouch, and fert ilized eggs are cast in the fall, hatching the following spring.

The first noticeable impact of Bythotrephes was on anglers. The tail spines of Bythotrephes hook on fishing lines, fouling fish ing gear. The invasion of B. longimanus

into the Great Lakes has resulted in substant ial and sustained decrea ses in the populations of a number of native zooplankton species. Bythotrephes consume small cladocerans, copepods, and rotifers, thus competing directly with planktivorous larval fish for food. They have been implicated as a factor in the decline of alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

. Bythotrephes are used as a food source by some fish species.

Distribution: Bythotrephes was first reported in December 1984 in Lake Huron, and had spread to the other four Great Lakes by August 1987. They are now established throughout the Great Lakes and many inland la kes in the region, although their densities vary widely by location. More recently th ey have been collected from lakes and reservoirs in Minnesota, Michigan, and New York.

Pathways of Introduction: Bythotrephes were probably first introduced from ships ballast water. Spiny water flea eggs and adults spread unseen in bilge water, bait buckets, and livewells. In addition, boat hulls, fishi ng gear, fishing lines and downriggers will often be coated with both eggs and adults.

Management considerations: As anglers and recreationa l boaters are a primary means of transport for the spiny water flea, public education should form a central part of control efforts. Personal management practi ces for boaters and a nglers include cleaning of boating equipment with high-pressure water or heated water at te mperatures of 104oF or higher. Bait buckets should not be emptied into natural waters; th ey should be emptied on land. Visual inspection of rigging, fishing, and anchor li nes as well as the props and hulls of boats can help limit the spread of B. longimanus . Boats should be allowed to dry104 for at least 5 days before transp ort between lakes, but because of B. longimanus resting eggs, longer periods are recommended. Boat s and trailers shoul d be towed through carwashes if exposed to infected waters for long time periods.105 

### Snakehead fish, including:

Northern snakehead Channa argus Bullseye snakehead Channa marulius Ecology: The snakehead group of species origin ates in eastern and southeastern Asia where they are valued as food for human cons umption. They inhabit freshwater lakes, watercourses, or wetlands, mostly preferri ng deep, slow-moving or standing water with rocky or sandy substrates. They are all vor acious predators with no natural enemies, and would severely impact native fishes, crusta ceans, insects, amphibians, birds and small mammals living near the water’s edge. Snakeheads are obligate air breathers and can survive out of water for up to four days. Th ey range from less than 1 ft. to 3.5 ft. long and weigh up to 45 lbs, although the bullseye snakehead can reach 6 ft. in length and

about 65 lbs.

Snakeheads spawn from 1 to 5 times during the warmest months of the year, the brood size consisting of anywhere from several hundred to several thousand pale yellow-red eggs. These eggs may float in a nest of w eeds and leaves, or simply float in the water column, for one or two days until the yolks are absorbed and the eggs hatch. The number of broods per year and the rate at which they hatch depends on water temperature. The eggs are ferociously guarded by the pare nts who will attack anyone or anything approaching the nest, including humans.

The fry feed initially on zooplankton, and la ter on insect and fish larvae and small crustaceans. Adults prefer fish but will eat frogs, crustaceans, small reptiles, birds, and mammals. They remain close to shore, typi cally under aquatic vege tation, and are most active at dusk and dawn, feed ing very near the shore.

The northern snakehead prefers stagnant sh allow ponds, swamps and slow streams with mud or vegetated substrate, with temperatures ranging from 0 to >30 o C. It has a wider latitudinal range and temperature tolerance than other snakehead species. It also seems to be adaptable to a wide range of aquatic envi ronments, indicating that it has the potential to invade many water bodies in Idaho and elsewhere in the US.

Two additional species of snakehead, the blotched C. maculate and giant C micropeltes are tropical species and unlikely to establish in Idaho except in a few larger geothermal

waters.

Distribution:

Northern snakehead : Collected in California and Massac husetts. Reported in Florida but

status uncertain. Eradicated where it was established in a pond in Maryland. Believed to

be established in the Potomac River. Stat us of a Philadelphia location is uncertain, although officials believe the fish may ha ve gotten into the lower Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers and see no practical means to eradicate them. Bullseye snakehead : Locally established in Florida; reported in Maryland.

Pathways of Introduction: Probably originally introduced to the United States in the

Asian food trade at various times in the 19th and 20th centuries, and deliberately stocked106 in local ponds. These fish are available, t hough rare, in the aquarium trade, and isolated reports of individual specimens are likely deliberate aquarium releases. Human transportation is the most likely means of introduction to new areas. They can also spread by moving through ri ver and stream networks.

Management considerations: The ability to eradicate or control snakehead populations depends on where they are found, but in most cases, the prevention of introduction is the only effective means of control. If established in large lakes or river systems, eradication and/or control are virtually impossible. C ontrol in smaller water bodies depends upon the amount of vegetation and the acc essibility of the water body. Moreover, there is some disagreement about the effectiveness of piscicides on air-b reathing snakeheads.107108 

### Nutria Myocastor coypus Ecology: The nutria is a large semi-aquatic rode nt native to South America. The only known mammalian ANS, nutria are found in and around fresh and saltwater ponds, streams, and swamps, and are rarely observe d over 100 m away from water. Presently, they are considered to be a pest species, disrupting irrigation systems, destroying native aquatic vegetation, and crops. Additionally, by disturbing the balance of the native biota they provide an advantage for non-native plan t species to become established. Their burrows undermine and damage river banks, dike s and irrigation facilities. By eating the young shoots of reeds and their rhizomes, th e nutria can completely clear marshland communities, converting them into open water ar eas. It threatens the habitat and survival of rare marsh birds, such as bitterns and ma rsh harriers. Infestation by this animal would have very serious consequences for riparian communities statewide.

Distribution: Since their introduction to North America, some animals have escaped

and established localized br eeding populations from Texas to Virginia, Washington and Oregon, and in the Great Lakes area. There ha s been only one report to date of nutria in Idaho, in an unspecified location, in 1991. Populations in western Oregon and Washington have been increasing resulti ng in negative impacts to wetlands.

Pathways of Introduction: Nutrias were initially introduced into North America and farmed for their fur. However, due to es capes from fur farms there are now large feral populations in North America, Europe and Asia.

Management considerations: Management of nutria incl udes shooting and trapping. There is a significant relations hip between winter severity and female reproduction in the following spring, with prenatal embryo losses common during cold winter and in females in poor health condition. Likeli hood of establishment in Idaho is low due to cold winters

but in some lower elevations in the Snake drainage it is feasible.109110 

### Viral hemorrhagic septicemia Ecology: Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) is a viral fish disease affecting most salmonid and a few non-salmonid species. It has caused large scale mortalities in rainbow trout and turbot aquaculture operati ons in Europe and in Pacific herring and pilchard populations along the Pacific Coast of North America. The disease is caused by a rhabdovirus known as Viral Hemorrhagic Septi cemia Virus. There are currently five known strains of VHS in Europe, Japan, and No rth America. The virus infection occurs in fishes of any age and may result in signifi cant cumulative mortality. Fish that survive may become carriers. The strain in the Great Lakes is a more virulent strain than the one

on the Pacific Coast.

A variety of clinical signs a nd histopathologic changes may be apparent in fish infected

with VHS virus. Not all fish show clear clinical manifestati ons of disease. Historically, clinical and pathologic signs of VHS have been catalogued into acute, chronic, and latent forms. Acute signs are typically accompanied by a rapid onset of heavy mortality. In the acute form of the disease, fish become le thargic, dark and anemic, with bulging eyes, congested kidneys, and mottled liver. Hemorrh ages are evident in the eyes, skin, and gills and at the bases of the fins. In the chr onic form of the disease, mortality is low and all the symptoms are similar to the acute fo rm, except that hemorrhaging is not common; instead, the liver, spleen and kidneys experi ence an accumulation of fluid such that the body becomes bloated and the liver and kidneys beco me very light in color. In the latent manifestation of the disease, some mortality may occur and fish become hyperactive, sometimes displaying nervous symptoms such as twisting of the body and behavior that involves swimming erratically in circles or in a corkscrew pattern. Conversely, some carriers of the virus may show no symptoms at all.

VHSv can be transmitted by fish urine, feces and sexual fluids. The virus can be found on the surface of salmonid eggs during spawning of infected female broodstock (sometimes at very high levels) and is capable of persisting for a sufficient time to result in egg-associated transmission between generations (a dult to progeny). It is also likely to enter the body through the gills or through wounds. Experiments showed that blood sucking parasitic arthropods and leeches can transmit the infecti on physically. In the western United States, salmon eggs are routinely surface disinfected with an iodine compound at or after water hardening to el iminate vertical (parent to egg) VHSv

transmission.

VHSv is not a human pathogen. There are no concerns with respect to hu man health with this pathogen and it can not infect humans if they eat fish with the pathogen. However, it is a reportable animal disease that requires notification of APHIS, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Internati onal Organization for Animal Health.

APHIS issued a Federal Order on 24 October 2006, amended on 14 November 2006, to take emergency action to prevent the spread of VHS. According to this Federal Order, VHS-susceptible species are prohibited from moving out of the states and Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes except for:

• Movement to slaughter w ith adequate disinfection111 • Movement to a research or diagnos tic lab with adequate disinfection

• Movement of live fish testing negative for VHS virus by laboratory assays

• Movement of salmonids from Canada that meet Title 50 requirements

Distribution: VHS has been reported in the no rtheastern Pacific Ocean, the northern Atlantic, and the Baltic Sea. In North America, outbreaks ha ve occurred in lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron, the Saint Lawrence River, and along the western coast from Alaska to San Francisco. It has affected the Columbia River system as far inland as the Sandy River in Oregon, and has occurred in at le ast one of the Finger Lakes in upstate New

York.

Pathways of Introduction: VHS was first isolated in Denmark in 1963. The earliest confirmed report in the US was in 2003 in a Great Lakes muskellunge from Lake St. Clair, so it is likely to have been introduced here in 2002 or 2003. It is not known exactly how this virus arrived in the Great Lakes, but ballast water discharg e is considered as a likely vector given its pattern of distribution in the lakes.

Live, water-borne virus can m ove downstream 10-20 km. Fish-eating birds (especially herons) can act as mechanical vectors from one aquaculture facility to another. Transfer

of infected fish in the inc ubation phase (before onset of vi sible signs) or of infected transport water is another well-known route of in fection. Import or inte rstate transfer of potentially infected fish is also a possible avenue for the spread of VHS.

Management considerations: There is currently no effective treatment for VHS, so prevention is paramount. APHIS must devel op a rule to replace th e temporary Federal Order that will provide for specific testing requirements and develop criteria for United States import and intersta te transfer of fish.

All of the recommended ways to prevent the movement of ANS i.e. zebra mussel, will help prevent the spread of this pathogen. The use of a bleach solution (1 cup bleach to 10 gallons water) to disinfect and clean boats, bi lges and gear is very effective in killing VHSv, as is completely drying items in the sunlight for 4-6 hours. It is also critical not to move live fish or water between water bodies, in particular baitfish. These measures will help control the spread of this pathogen along with many other ANS.112 

### Viral hemorrhagic septicemia113 

### Water hyacinth Eichhornia sp.
Ecology: Eichhornia sp. is a free-floating aquatic macrophyte growing to 0.5 m in height and often forming dense floating mats. Foliage leaves are petiolate with a glossy sheen, and are arranged spirall y, appearing to be in a ro sette. Flowers are borne terminally on a lavender spike on an elongate d peduncle and are subtended by two bracts. As much as 50% of a single water hyaci nth’s biomass can be roots. Roots are adventitious and fibrous, 10-300 cm in length. As many as 70 lateral roots per cm give the roots a feathery appearance. They are dark violet to bluish or pinkish violet (though whitish if grown in total darkness) and contai n soluble pigments, including anthocyanins that may protect the root from herbivory. There are approximately a half-dozen species

of Eichhornia including E. azurea , known as the rooted water hyacinth, which is listed on

the Federal Noxious Weed List.

Eichhornia sp. grows in shallow ponds, wetlands a nd marshes, sluggish flowing waters, lakes, reservoirs and rive rs. Disruptions of wetland ecosystems involving irrigation canals, hydroelectric projects and constructi on of artificial lakes have created areas particularly susceptible to invasion by water hyacinth. Gr owth of water hyacinth is largely facilitated by nutrient rich waters, particularly t hose rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. It grows partic ularly well in waters in which fish production is also very good. Originating from the tropical regions of South America, this plant exhibits frost sensitivity and does not tolerate brackish water.

Eichhornia sp. has been spread by humans to all tr opical and subtropical regions in the

world where it forms thick mats that cover rice paddies, clog irriga tion channels, impede navigation, halt fishing, sweep away buildi ngs during floods and foster breeding of disease-transmitting mosquitoes. Doubling in biomass every 6 to 18 days, the exact time being dependent on location and time of year, th is weed rapidly invades waterways and is listed as the most serious aquatic weed in the world.

Environmental problems associated with th e water hyacinth are exacerbated in warm areas, where the weed flourishes. It reduces dissolved oxygen levels and light, significantly altering ecosystems and plant and animal communities. Low oxygen levels kill native fish populations and fish spawning areas may be reduced, as well as critical waterfowl habitat degraded. Mats of wa ter hyacinth also deposit large amounts of organic matter which increase the organic co ntent of sediments and greatly accelerate succession patterns, allowing emergent and riparian vegetation to colonize.

Eichhornia sp. has a detrimental impact on water use by humans. In drainage and irrigation canals it reduces the flow, which can result in flooding and damage to canal banks and structures, and clogs intakes of pu mps used for irrigation. Water flow patterns have been disrupted in utili ty cooling reservoirs. Wate r hyacinth interferes with navigation of both recreational and commercial craft, nega tively impacting anglers,

water-skiers and swimmers in recreational wate rs. It also impedes subsistence fishing and transportation in developing countries in Africa and Asia.114 Distribution: Water hyacinth originated in the Amazon basin and the extensive lakes and marshes of the Pantanal region of western Brazil. Eichhornia sp. now has a worldwide distribution throughout the tropic s and occurs on ever y continent except Europe, where it is inhibited by climate. In the United States, water hyacinth is widespread throughout the southeastern and s outh-central portions of the country, in California, and in Hawaii. It has not been reported in Idaho, but may exist in thermal waters and is likely sold in the aquarium trade.

Pathways of Introduction: Water hyacinth has an attr active purple flower which has made it a favorite amongst ornamental pond an d botanical garden enthusiasts. Most spread can be attributed to deliberate planting of water hyacinth in ponds or dams as an ornamental, or use in aquariums. Unwanted plant material discarded into creeks, rivers and dams is a major mode of dispersal. Wa ter hyacinth can be spread, though rarely, by contaminated boating and waterway equipment. Stolons, solitary plan ts and drifting mats are readily distributed by water currents, wi nds and boat traffic. High water flows and

floods can move infestations to new locatio ns. Additionally, seed s may be carried by machinery, on boots, in water flow, mud, and by birds.

Management considerations: Small scale mechanical or hand removal of water hyacinth is widely practiced around the world because of the ease of collecting these floating plants. Large scale mechanical harvesti ng requires expensive equipment, and water hyacinths have not been efficiently utilized for cattle feed, energy or other use due to the high water content of the plants. Biocontrol agents have been introduced into the United States from the native range of water hyacint h (South America) which slow the growth of the plant and reduce flowering. The introduced insects are widely distributed over the range, but do not usually destroy existing popul ations. Management of water hyacinth in the United States is largely accomplished with herbicides.115116 

### Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata
Ecology: Hydrilla is a submersed aquatic perennial with heavily branched stems

towards the water surface. Stems are sl ender and can grow up to 9 m long depending upon water clarity. Leaves ar e 6 to 20 mm long and 2 to 4 mm wide. The leaves are strap-shaped with pointed tips and saw-tooth ed ges, and grow in whorls of 4 to 8 around the stem. Leaf color can vary from green, translucent, yellowish, to brown. Hydrilla produces turions (over-wintering dense vegetativ e buds) in the axils of leaves and tubers

within the sediment. Small white flowers on long slender stems near the water’s surface are female, and small, green, free-floating, i nverted bell-shaped flowers are male. The plant is usually rooted to the substrate but sometimes grows as floating mats at the

water’s surface.

Hydrilla reproduces mostly by asexual vegetati ve fragmentation (from stem fragments), but it also grows new plants from turions and underground tubers, as well as seeds in locations where they are produ ced. One hydrilla tuber can lead to the production of 5,000 new tubers per square meter. Tubers and turions can survive ice cover, drying, ingestion and regurgitation by wa terfowl, and may remain viable in the sediment for several years.

Hydrilla is found in freshwater but can tolerate salinities of up to 7‰. It has been found in springs, lakes, marshes, ditches, rivers, a nd tidal zones. It can grow in relatively low light and CO2 conditions. Hydrilla prefers temperatures between 20 and 27 degrees C,

but tolerates and survives for long periods at 4-5 degrees C.

Hydrilla competes with native plants by grow ing to the water surface and forming dense surface mats that totally exclude sunlight from other plants, which in turn can significantly reduce aquatic plant and animal biodiversity. Large populations hydrilla may affect fish size and population levels wh ere predatory fish ca nnot hunt effectively within the thick mats. The dense mats also negatively affect recreational activities. Apart from interfering with fishing, boat motors can become tangled with them and swimming areas choked. Children have beco me entangled in hydrilla and drowned. Hydrilla often slows or clogs rivers, irrigation ditches, a nd flood control canals, creating stagnant water that is prime mosquito breed ing habitat. Dense stands can even cause flooding, alter water quality by decreasing oxyge n levels and increasing pH and water

temperature.

Distribution: Hydrilla is thought to be native to Asia, Africa, and northern Australia. The dioecious plant is native to southern India and the monoecious plant is probably

native to Korea. The dioecious and the monoecious plants are now found on every continent except Antarctica. In the US, it is widespread in states along the Gulf coast and the eastern seaboard, as well as in numerous locations in California and an isolated outbreak in a lake east of Puget Sound. Some of these occurrences have been successfully eradicated. H ydrilla populations north of South Carolina are mainly monoecious, while southern populations are prim arily dioecious females. Early biomass measurements of the Washington State occurre nce reflect high grow th potential in the

northwest.117 Pathways of Introduction: The dioecious strain was im ported to the United States in the early 1950s for use in aquariums. It ente red Florida's inland water system after plants were discarded or planted into canals. The monoecious strain was a separate introduction, first found decades later in the Chesapeake Basin. Hydrilla is mainly introduced to new waters as castaway fragme nts on recreational boats, motors, trailers and live wells. Stem pieces root in the s ubstrate and develop into new colonies, which are commonly found near boat ramps. Once esta blished, boat traffic continues to shatter and spread hydrilla throughoutthe waterbody. Both types propagate primarily by stem fragmentation, although axillary buds (turions) and subter ranean tubers are also important. Tubers are resistant to most cont rol techniques and may be viable as a source of reinfestation for many years. Hydrilla may be unknowingly transplanted into private ponds as a contaminant on water garden plants.

Management considerations: Potential biological controls include grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella and leaf-feeding flies. Gra ss carp are effective but are vegetative generalists, so they should be used with care so as not to destroy native aquatic vegetation. Leaf-eating flies are still under evaluation for th eir effectiveness. They are species specific but do not appear to redu ce hydrilla biomass signi ficantly. Grass carp, themselves are regulated species in Idaho with only certified sterile (triploid) fish being permitted.

Harvesting and use of motorized boats is not recommended in partially infested lakes or

where uncontaminated water bodies occur nearb y, because this can chop the plants and facilitate spread of shoot fragments. In ponds and small lakes, water draw-downs, which expose and kill the plants, have been found to be temporarily effective. Weed mats in public access sites to contain spread and signage to increase public awareness are some of the containment methods adopted.

Aquatic herbicides are effective at temporarily controlling the weed but do not kill the tubers, turions, and seeds.118119 

### Brazilian elodea Egeria sp. Ecology: Egeria sp. is a submersed, freshwater perenni al herb that grows on the bottom in depths of up to 20 feet depending on water clarity. It is found in both still and flowing waters, in lakes, ponds, pools, ditches, and qui et streams. Stems ar e erect, cylindrical, simple or branched, and grow until they reach the surface of the water where they form dense surface mats. This plant is easil y and regularly confused with hydrilla.

Egeria sp. initiates growth when water temperat ures reach 10 C. Two major growth flushes occur, in spring and fall. Each of these flushes is followed by a period of senescence, with a loss of biomass through sloughing and decay of tips and branches. Flowers (18-25mm) are produced on the water’s surface in late spri ng and again in the fall. The intensity of flowering varies from year to year. Egeria is not known to produce viable seeds in the United States. During the summer, profuse branching forms a canopy. The branches form dense, tangled mats on the water's surface.

The absence of sexual reproducti on in introduced populations of Egeria sp. emphasizes the importance of the vegetative growth phase of the plant. Speci alized nodal regions

described as double nodes occur at interval s of 6 to 12 nodes along a shoot. A double node consists of 2 single nodes separated by a greatly shortened inte rnode. Double nodes produce lateral buds, branches, and adventiti ous roots. Only shoot fragments of Egeria

sp. which contain double node regions can develop into new plants. Egeria sp. lacks specialized storage organs such as rhizomes or tubers and stores carbohydrates in stem

tissues.

Egeria sp. forms dense mono-specific stands that re strict water movement, trap sediment, and cause fluctuations in water quality. Dens e beds interfere with recreational uses of a water body by interfering with navigation, fish ing, swimming, and water skiing. It has exhibited the ability to rapidly r ecolonize de-vegetated areas following.

Distribution: Native to South America, this species has been introduced to Asia, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and North America. In the United States, it is widespread along the eastern sea board, the Gulf coast, and in California. It has been reported in Washington, Oregon, a nd Utah. It is not yet natura lized in Idaho but is sold here as an aquarium plant.

Pathways of Introduction: E. densa was first reportedly offered for sale in the United States in 1915, where it was recommended as a good "oxygenator" plant. It is a popular aquarium plant and can be found for sale in most pet shops, usually under the name anacharis. It is one of several invasive aqua tic plants sold in aquarium or water garden dealerships, advertised on commercial webs ites, or occurring as contaminants among plants that are offered for sale.

Management considerations: Grass carp find Egeria sp. highly palatable (when older than fingerlings) and have been successfully employed as a management tool elsewhere in the US, though it is important to note only sterile (triploid) gra ss carp are legal in120 Idaho. Where they have been employed, they have been observed to remove the entire submersed aquatic community, and t hus represent an equivalent ANS.

Localized control (in swimming areas and ar ound docks) can be achieved by covering the sediment with an opaque fabric which bloc ks light from the plants. Managers of reservoirs and some lake systems may have the ability to lower the water level as a method of managing Egeria . Producing no seeds or perennial rhizomes or tubers, Egeria can be effectively controlled for a fe w years by drawdown, desiccation and freezing. Because this plant spreads readily through fr agmentation, mechanical controls (such as cutting, harvesting, and rotovation underwater rototilling) should be used with care. In some locations, appropriate herbic ides can be used successfully.121 

### European frog-bit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae
Ecology: European frog-bit is an herbaceous, annual freshwater species that can reach 20 cm in length. It does well in quiet open water and can be found in marshes, ditches and swamps. It grows well in sheltered c oves and along the still water shorelines of rivers, lakes and streams. The leaves of this plant ar e usually floating, but if the vegetation is dense enough, they can be emer gent. Each plant has numerous, fibrous, free floating roots which can attain a maximu m length of 30cm. In early summer, the plants produce small, white, three petaled, unise xual flowers. Desp ite profuse flowering during the summer, European frog-bit rare ly produces seeds and instead relies on vegetative reproduction for survival and spr ead. Multiple plantlets develop along thestolons, or runners, of each plant during the growing season. In the fall, European frogbit produces buds, called turions, which sink to the substrate where they remain dormant until the springtime, at which time the developing buds floats to the surface and mature. One plant is capable of producing about one hun dred of theses turions each year. In spring European frog-bit develops free-floati ng mats comprised of interlocking plants that have recently developed from overwinter ing turions. These mats stabilize in position as water levels drop and roots elongate.

Because of the dense floating mat of vegeta tion produced by European frog-bit, available light, dissolved gases, and nutrients were re duced to submersed aquatic plants attempting to grow beneath this mat. The plant is of ten a dominant species in the wetlands within which it occurs. By dominating wetlands with its thick mats, European frog-bit displaces native flora and is perhaps affecting the fauna. European frog-bit is also implicated in limiting water flow in irrigation systems and re stricting water traffi c, thereby hindering recreational activity. On the other hand, European frog- bit is a food plant for several water birds, rodents, fish and insects.

Distribution: European frog-bit is native to Eura sia but has been present in North America since at least 1932, when it was intentionally introduced for horticultural purposes in an arboretum in Ottawa. By 1955 its North American distribution extended from Ottawa to Montreal. By 1980 it ha d extended southwest to Lake Ontario and northeast to Quebec City. R ecently it has spread throughout much of the central and southwestern parts of southern Ontario, a nd further into northern New York, Vermont, and eastern Michigan. By 2002 it was found to be established in a lake in Snohomish County, Washington.

Pathways of Introduction: Self-propelled spread take s place primarily vegetatively by means of strong cord-like st olons and the production of wi nter turions. Boats and waterfowl can transport both turions and plan tlets, expediting the expansion from one region to another. Water currents in conn ected waterways, canals, and watersheds can also facilitate its dispersal.

Management considerations: The best management policy is to prevent the spread of this species. Plants can be harvested by mechanical means or by hand depending upon

the extent of the infestation and the water depth. There are no known biocontrol agents122 that have been introduced into the US. Herb icide research has been limited, but the broad spectrum herbicides may be effective.123 

### Water chestnut Trapa natans Ecology: Water chestnut is an annual aquatic plant with a submerged flexuous stem that is anchored in the mud and extends upward to the surface of the water, much like a water lily. Water chestnut features a rosette of fl oating, fan-shaped leaves, each leaf having a slightly inflated petiole (stem); the roots are fine, long and profuse. The small, 4-petalled flower is white and the fruit is a large nut w ith four sharp spines. Water chestnut grows best in shallow, nutrient-rich lakes, ponds, canals, and rive rs and is generally found in waters with a pH range of 6.7 to 8.2 and alkalinity of 12 to 128 mg/L of calcium

carbonate.

Flowers are produced singly on stalks arising from the center of the floating rosette of leaves. Four triangular sepals surround the fl ower and develop into barbed spines in the

mature fruit. Once the ovules of the insect pollinated flowers are fertilized, the flower stalks curve downward, allowing the fruit to develop under water into a nut-like, barbed, spiny seed. The single-seeded woody fruits pr oduced from the previous year germinate in early spring. A single seed may give rise to 10 to 15 plant rosettes, and each rosette can produce up to 15 to 20 seeds. Ungerminated seeds may remain viable for many years, but most seeds probably germinate in the first two years following their formation.

Water chestnut is a fierce competitor in shallow waters with soft, muddy bottoms. Uncontrolled, it creates nearly impenetrable mats across wide areas of water. In Vermont, many previously fished bays of s outhern Lake Champlain are now inaccessible, and floating mats can create a hazard for boate rs. It is also a human nuisance because

mature Water chestnut nuts drift to shore wher e their sharp spines injure bare feet. This noxious plant also severely limits the passage of light into the water, a critical element of a well-functioning aquatic ecosystem. It re duces oxygen levels, which may increase the potential for fish kills. Water chestnut out competes native vegetation and is of little

value to wildfowl.

Distribution: While established in the northeastern United States since the late 1800s,

this Asian native continues to advance in to new areas in New England and the MidAtlantic states. In the past two years, New Hampshire and Connecticut have experienced

first occurrences of this robus t floating aquatic plant. Wate r chestnut has reappeared in tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay where plan ts were first experi enced in the 1920s.

Pathways of Introduction: The plant spreads when rosettes detach from the stems and

float to another area. Currents or waves car ry nuts to other parts of water bodies. Dispersal of rosettes by boats or waterfow l is possible, though pr obably not a primary method of spread. Some infestations ma y be a result of water garden escapes.

Management considerations: Hand harvesting is an effective means for eradication of smaller populations because water chestnut r oots are easily uplifted. Their removal is imperative because floating, uprooted plants can survive and disperse downstream. The potential of water chestnut seeds to lie dormant for many years makes total eradication difficult. Raking and hand harvesting from canoes have been effective and are a means to promote community awareness and involvement.124 Herbicides and mechanical harvesting can bot h be effective for large-scale control of water chestnut populations. Aquatic plant harvesting boa ts are often employed in instances where waterways are blocked and the herbicide 2,4-D has been tested and

found effective.125 

### Fanwort Cabomba sp
Ecology: Fanwort is a submersed perennial aqua rium plant that grows in stagnant to slow flowing freshwater. It grows from short rhizomes with fibrous roots on the bottom

of water bodies and the stems reach the surf ace, growing up to 10m long. Parts of the plant can survive free-floating fo r six to eight weeks.

Fanwort is sensitive to dessication, but surviv es wide fluctuations in water depths and grows well in silty substrate. It exhibits re duced vigor in hard substrates. It may be found in stagnant or slow-flowing water in st reams, small rivers, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, ditches and canals. Growth of 50 mm a day has been reported in Lake

Macdonald in Australia. It grows well in high nutrient envi ronments with low pH, but in

more alkaline waters it tends to lose its l eaves. High calcium leve ls inhibit growth, but unlike other aquatic weeds, fanwort can grow well in turbid water. It prefers a warm, humid climate with a temperat ure range of 13-27oC but can survive when the surface of the water body is frozen.

Fanwort spreads primarily by stem fragments or rhizomes. The erect shoots are simply upturned extensions of horizontal rhizomes . The species forms large clones as new rhizomes and floating shoots arise as axillary branches. The rhizomes are fragile and easily broken, facilitating vegetative sp read and transport to new areas.

Fanwort is an extremely persistent and competitive plant. Under suitable environmental

conditions it forms dense stands and crowds out native plants. Once established, this plant can clog drainage canals and freshwat er streams, interfering with recreational, agricultural, and aesthetic uses. Fanwort 's dense mass of underwater stems and leaves provide a hazard for recreational water user s. When this vegetation dies off, decomposition can cause dramatic oxygen reductions and foul smelling water.

Cabomba sp. is commonly used as an aquarium plan t because of its delicate appearance. Large numbers of plants are sent from Flor ida to the rest of the United States for commercial use. It is also grown commercia lly in Asia for export to Europe and other parts of the world. In its native habitat Cabomba sp. is eaten by waterfowl and some fish and provides cover for some small fish and plankton.

Distribution: Cabomba sp. is native to southern Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and northeast Argentina, and the southeastern US. It has been dispersed throughout the world by the aquarium trade and is naturalized in Pe ru, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, parts of Australia, and Canada. In the United States it is naturalized in the northeast from Maryland to Maine, in western New York a nd Pennsylvania, in Mi chigan and Indiana, and in Oregon and Washington.

Pathways of Introduction: Cabomba sp. is commonly used as an aquarium plant because of its delicate appearance, and is sp read through aquarium release. Like many problem aquatic plants, fanwort can reprodu ce from small fragments. Fanwort stems become brittle in late summer, which causes the plant to break apart, facilitating its

distribution and invasion of new water bodies.126 Management considerations: Fanwort is sensitive to dessication and requires permanent shallow water; therefore, drawdown can provide temporary control. The root ball must dry out thoroughly or the plant will quickly return. Preventing new outbreaks is the most effective control method. As the pl ant is submerged and not easily visible, education and public awareness are needed to pr event the spread of fanwort. People also need to be educated to buy other species of aquarium plants.

In a recreational water body or river, hygiene protocols are needed to ensure wash down of boats, trailers and fishing equipment. Habitat modification via re-vegetation is also recommended and may offer some control if it produces a shading effect. Because

fanwort requires direct sunlight, shading has been used to kill it in small areas; however the cost is prohibitive for large-scale programs. In a closed water body with a heavy infestation, it is recommended to use strict hygiene regulations a nd mechanical control (involving cutting and removing plants and ensu ring fragments are not spread). In the case of isolated plants and in small areas physical control (hand pulling by divers) and the use of herbicides may offer suitable control.

Herbicide treatments have been used for fanw ort control. Grass carp are known to eat fanwort, but they do not prefer it. Unlike mo st other rooted aquatic plants, fanwort may get most of its important nutrients from the water rather than the sediment. Therefore, fanwort may be sensitive to reduc tion of nutrients in the water.127 

## Appendix C. List of Known Noni ndigenous Aquatic Species in

Idaho.

The following is a list of nonindigenous species known to be likely present in Idaho. It includes species that have been classified as High priority ANS along with others that would fall into medium or low categor ies after complete classification. Not all species in

this list are ANS . It also contains species that the state would not currently classify as ANS species due to their benefi cial nature in selected wate rs, such as introduced game fish species.

Scientific Name Common Name

Plants "Aquatic" Group

Alopecurus geniculatus water foxtail, meadow foxtail

Bassia hirsuta hairy smotherweed

Butomus umbellatus flowering rush

Callitriche stagnalis pond water-starwort

Crypsis alopecuroides foxtail pricklegrass, fox-tail timothy

Glyceria fluitans water mannagrass

Iris pseudacorus yellow iris, paleyellow iris

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife

Lythrum tribracteatum threebract loosestrife

Mentha spicata spearmint

Myriophyllum aquaticum parrot-feather milfoil

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil

Nasturtium officinale Syn. Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum water-cress, watercress

Nymphaea odorata white water-lily

Polygonum hydropiper marshpepper knotweed, ma rshpepper smartweed

Potamogeton crispus curly pondweed

Rorippa sylvestris creeping yellowcress

Sparganium emersum European bur-reed

Typha angustifolia narrowleaf cattail

Vaccinium macrocarpon cranberry

Vallisneria americana eel-grass

Zizania palustris var. palustris northern wildrice

"Terrestrial Wetland" Group

Acer negundo var . violaceum box elder

Acer saccharinum silver maple

Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed

Allium schoenoprasum wild chives

Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail, field meadow foxtail

Amaranthus blitoides mat amaranth

Amorpha fruticosa desert false indigo

Apium graveolens wild celery

Arctium minus lesser burdock

Artemisia biennis biennial wormwood128 Barbarea vulgaris garden yellowrocket

Bassia hyssopifolia fivehorn smotherweed

Briza minor little quakinggrass

Calystegia sepium hedge false bindweed

Cardaria draba whitetop, hoary cress

Carduus acanthoides plumeless thistle

Carduus nutans musk thistle

Cirsium arvense canada thistle, creeping thistle

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle

Conium maculatum poison-hemlock

Cynoglossum officinale common hound's-tongue, houndstongue

Cyperus esculentus yellow nutsedge, chufa flatsedge

Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass

Echinochloa muricata rough barnyardgrass

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive

Elymus repens Syn. Agropyron repens, Elytrigia repens quackgrass, creeping wild rye

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash

Galega officinalis common milkpea, goatsrue

Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass

Impatiens glandulifera ornamental jewelweed, policeman’s helmet

Juglans regia English walnut

Lactuca tatarica var. pulchella Syn. Lactuca pulchella blue lettuce

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed

Linaria vulgaris butter-and-eggs, yellow toadflax

Lythrum hyssopifolium Syn. L. hyssopfolia hyssop loosestrife

Mentha ×piperita peppermint

Morus alba white mulberry

Myosotis scorpioides true forget-me-not

Nepeta cataria catnip

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass

Phragmites australis common reed

Plantago major common plantain

Poa annua annual bluegrass

Poa trivialis rough bluegrass, Scribner bluegrass

Polygonum argyrocoleon silversheath knotweed

Polygonum bohemicum Bohemian knotweed

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed

Polygonum persicaria spotted ladysthumb

Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbitsfoot grass

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood

Populus fremontii Fremont's cottonwood

Prunus avium bird cherry

Prunus cerasifera cherry plum

Puccinellia distans weeping alkaligrass, spreading alkali grass

Ranunculus acris tall buttercup

Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup

Rorippa austriaca Austrian yellowcress, Austrian fieldcress129 Rosa eglanteria sweetbriar rose

Rumex crispus curly dock

Rumex obtusifolius bitter dock

Sagina procumbens birdeye pearlwort

Salix alba white willow

Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle, moist sowthistle

Sonchus asper spiny sowthistle

Spergularia diandra diandra sandspurry, Mediterranean sandspurry

Tamarix spp. saltcedar

Fish

Ameiurus melas black bullhead

Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead

Ameiurus nebulosus brown bullhead

Carassius auratus goldfish

Characidae pacu sp.

Coregonus clupeaformis lake whitefish

Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp

Cyprinus carpio common carp

Esox lucius northern pike

Esox masquinongy x lucius tiger musky

Fundulus diaphanus banded killifish

Gambusia affinis western mosquitofish

Gila bicolor tui chub

Ictalurus furcatus blue catfish

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed

Lepomis gulosus warmouth

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill

Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Misgurnus anguillicaudatus oriental weatherfish

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner

Noturus gyrinus tadpole madtom

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Lahontan cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita golden trout

Perca flavescens yellow perch

Pimephales promelas fathead minnow

Pomoxis annularis white crappie

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

Pygocentrus or Serrasalmus sp. piranna sp.

Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish

Salmo salar Atlantic salmon

Salmo trutta brown trout

Salvelinus alpinus Arctic char

Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout

Salvelinus namaycush lake trout130 Salvelinus namaycush x fontinalis splake

Stizostedion vitreum walleye

Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling

Tilapia aurea blue tilapia

Tilapia mossambica Mozambique tilapia

Tinca tinca tench

Xiphophorus helleri green swordtail

Amphibians

Rana catesbeiana bullfrog

Taricha granulosa rough-skinned newt

Invertebrates

Corbicula fluminea Asian clam Mysis oculata relicta Opossum shrimp

Orconectes virilis virile crayfish, northern crayfish Potamopyrgus antipodarum New Zealand mudsnail

Radix auricularia big-ear radix131 

## Appendix D. Idaho’s Rapid Response Strategy 1

Much of this ANS plan is dedicated to either preventing new unwanted species from arriving and becoming established in Idaho, or to control the spread of those that are already established. However, another important function of th is ANS plan is to be the basis for a coordinated early de tection and rapid response to newly discovered species or to the recent spread to previously uninfested waters. This might be viewed as the response to an emergency situation, no less important or demanding of proper planning

before the event than if a truck of toxi c chemicals overturned near a stream.

Currently, Idaho’s response to a new or spr eading invasion of an ANS is likely dependent upon chance—a concerned informed sports man or the employee of any number of agencies might see something out of the or dinary and reports it to a supervisor or someone they think might be “in charge”. Wh ether this happens in a timely fashion with the report made to a responsible official who will take responsib ility for appropriate responses is more a matter of luck than thought ful planning before the fact. As such, this portion of this ANS plan is dedicated to out lining a series of rapid response actions protocols that, if followed, will provide for an adequate and timely response. It is patterned after the recently completed rapid response plan for zebra and quagga mussel, necessitated by the discovery of this particular ANS in the Colorado River. It is also based upon ten objectives to be achieved through a rapid respons e plan, including:

• Verify reported detection

• Make initial notifications to all relevant managers

• Define extent of colonization

• Set up an interagency response management team

• Establish external communications system

• Organize resources (personnel, equipment, funds, etc.)

• Prevent further spread via quarantine and pathway management

• Launch available/relevant control actions

• Institute long-term monitoring

• Evaluate the response and the Rapid Response Plan

Rapid Response Objective 1: Verify Reported Detection

Purpose : Confirm the veracity of the report, determine the condition (age, maturity, spawning status, etc.) of the species, and ensure that everyone is handling reports consistently and judiciously acr oss a broad geographic area.

Lead entity: The agency that receives and accepts responsibility for ha ndling the initial report in coordination with the state, tribal, provincial, and/or federal agency where the initial sighting of species occurs.

1 Adapted from the “ Columbia River Basin Rapid Response Pl an for Zebra Mussels and other Dreissena species.”132 Tasks: 1. Interview the reporter(s ) to validate detection by:

• Recording details of the location such as name of the water body, landmarks, highway mile, and other (GPS if possible) where the suspect species were found.

• Collecting contact informati on from the reporter(s).

• Securing an estimate of the number, densit y, extent of the species colonies found.

• Obtaining a digital or other photograph (with scale indicator), if possible.

• Securing a sample of the species, if possible.

• Documenting the date and time of sighting(s).

• Noting other relevant conditions (access limitations, etc.)

2. Validate identification as soon as possibl e via examination of a physical sample.

• When feasible, arrange for a site visi t by at least one recognized expert (preferably a small team).

• If recognized experts cannot feasibly reach the site within 24 hours, arrange to have samples and other evidence (e.g ., photographs) sent via Express Mail Service or email to the most accessible recognized expert.

• Prior to shipping samples, obtain guidelin es from recognized experts and use any existing protocols regarding handling of the sample, desired quantity, where and how to deliver the sample, etc.

Rapid Response Objective 2: Make Initial Notifications

Purpose : Ensure that all parties that have jurisdiction in response decisions or can provide technical support are quickly engaged and to also rapidly inform all other interested parties.

Lead entity : The agency that initially receives confirmation of the species identification

Tasks : 1. Within the first 24 hours or as soon as pract ical after a physical sample is visually confirmed to be an ANS by a recognized expert, the agency receiving such confirmation (with assistance from agencies in relevant jurisdictions) will notify all primary management contacts. It is critical that this notification list be updated, and preferably tested, at least annually.

2. Secure verification of notific ations to confirm that par ties on the contact list did, in fact, receive notification (e.g., Internet lis t server response confirmation requirement, phone list call-backs, etc.).

3. While proceeding with subsequent res ponse activities described below, obtain secondary visual confirmation of species id entification via a different expert. Also submit a sample to an expert who can provide definitive confirmation based on genetic or histological analysis.

This process is summarized in the following figure.133 Report recipient gathers evidence and provides to recognized expert(s) for confirmation.

Initial identification is confirmed by recognized expert(s). Report is

received 

### Notification Protocol

Confirmation by second expert and/or

further genetic/histological analysis.

Rapid Response Objective 3: Define Extent of Colonization

Purpose : Rapidly provide information on location of introduced species to guide subsequent management deci sions, including survey design.

Lead entity : The appropriate state or federal ag ency where the initial sighting(s) of species occurs in part nership with other agencies and organizations.

Tasks : 1. Determine geographic extent and demography of infestation, including upstream and

downstream areas and connected water bodies. Also surv ey nearby water bodies with vulnerability to the same vectors.

2. Identify a lead monitoring coordinator who can maximize the effectiveness of survey efforts by individual agencies. Notification of Priority 1 contacts.

Notification of Priority 2 and 3

contacts.

Proceed with additional response activities, including delineation of

infestation.134 3. Identify any potential facilities (e.g., hydropower , fish hatcheries, ir rigation systems, etc.) that could be affected.

4. Ensure that surveys are completed and that results are reported through responsible tracking organizations.

Rapid Response Objective 4: Set Up an Interagency Response Management Team

Purpose : Activate a predetermined response management system that expedites decision-making, information sharing, avoids duplication, and mi nimizes authority conflicts while preserving flexibility fo r adaptive management. Use the Incident Command System as a foundation for the response organization and decision-making processes. Any existing agreement documents developed in association with this rapid response plan should be consulte d to guide the steps below.

Lead entity : Incident Commander(s), as defined below, in collaboration with overall

response team.

Tasks : As soon as possible, the appropr iate state agency associated with the initial sighting of ANS convenes a meeting and/or conference call involving all relevant managers and these cooperators. During this initia l meeting, a response organization should be established using the Incident Command Syst em (ICS) as a foundation. Where multiple agencies have lead jurisdiction, a unifie d command structure should be used. The incident commander(s) will serve as the focal point for coordinating implementation of the rapid response plan, and in cooperation w ith the overall responses team, will establish other components of an ICS organization as needed (e.g., Operations Branch). Where time allows, the incident commander(s) will seek collaborative decision-making by the entire team of involved response agencies. For a multi-state infestat ion where there is no

initial consensus on the incident commander role, this default role will fall to the appropriate USFWS Regional ANS Coordinato r until the relevant authorities reach agreement on an alternative.

The incident commander(s) will:

• Coordinate Interagency Team notification operations

• Facilitate creation of an ICS organization involving lead representatives of each local, tribal, state, provincial, and/or fe deral government that has legal authority over the response, and comprised as a ppropriate by specific ICS staff positions (e.g., safety officer) and divi sions (e.g., Operations).

• Represent (i.e., be the spokesperson for) the management team.

• Facilitate a decision-making process th at considers consensus processes and cascading levels of authority within individual agencies

• Facilitate development of response priorities

• Establish planning horizons for the res ponse (e.g., 2 weeks vs. 2 months vs. 2 years)135 3. These above actions should take into account roles/relationships/inter-agency

agreements among:

• All affected states: e.g., Governor, state agencies, ANS Coordinator and Canadian provinces.

• Federal agencies: USFWS, ACOE, USEPA, NOAA, etc.

• Tribes.

• Local governments.

• Other interested parties, such as irrigation districts, marinas, etc.

4. The incident commanders should develop a technical advisory team that includes experts from outside the region to help advise response activities.

Rapid Response Objective 5: Establish External Communications System

Purpose : Develop an information center to ensure consistent and effective

communication to interested external stak eholders, including the media and public.

Lead Entity : Incident Commander(s) iden tified in Objective 4 above.

Tasks : 1. Notify and educate affected landowners, and where appropriate, gain their written permission to access property for response activities.

2. Notify and educate potentially affected water users and water-rights holders.

3. Develop public information strategy, press p ackets, press release process, and press

conferences.

4. Develop and implement general public educ ation and outreach. Since there are a variety of educational materials between re gions and states, assu re coordination and perhaps agreement on materials th at can be used region-wide.

Rapid Response Objective 6: Organize Resources

Purpose : Provide sufficient resources to initiate control actions and associated activities (including acquisition of required permits).

Lead Entity : The Incident Commander(s) identified in Objective 4 above in partnership with all other orga nizations involved in the response.

Tasks:

1. Develop estimates for staffing needs, facilities and equipment, and funding.

2. Identify potential sources for staffi ng, facilities, equipment, and funds.136 3. Secure commitments for needed staff, facilities and equipment, and funds.

4. Ensure mechanism for dispersal of funds is in place, and when the funds are needed, flow of dollars occurs expeditiously. Fo r applicable jurisdictions, this includes pursuing declarations of emer gency by elected officials.

Rapid Response Objective 7: Prevent Fu rther Spread Via Quarantine and Pathway Management

Purpose : Minimize all vectors that might furt her spread the original infestation.

Lead Entity : Incident Commander(s) and agenci es with regulatory jurisdiction

Tasks:

1. Evaluate risks, dispersal v ectors (including movement by humans, fish and wildlife, water traffic, water flow, and other physical processes).

2. Restrict dispersal pathways, where feasib le, including the following or similar measures that are suitable for individual species:

• Quarantine any hatcheries or aquaculture operations th at are likely to spread the species or their larvae via transf ers outside the affected watershed(s).

• Quarantine infested water bodies as needed to prevent spread by watercraft or other vectors following any existing protocols.

• Assess the likely movement of boats th at recently used the infested water body to identify inspection need s in other water bodies.

• Establish wash and inspection require ments on boats and equipment, and provide for associated logistical support (e.g., disinfection kits).

• Ensure that species “alert” signs are adequately deployed.

• Develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans to ensure that local, state, tribal or federal government response personnel do not further spread the original infestation.

• Work with the information center to design and implement educational outreach programs using print, electron ic media and other avenues, with an emphasis on water users.

• Stop or slow water release to potentially uninf ested sites.

• Draw water from below thermocline.

• Install physical barriers.

Rapid Response Objective 8: Initia te Available/Relevant Control Measures

Purpose : Evaluate management options, and then proceed with either eradication efforts or containment/mitigation activities.137 Lead Entity : Incident Commanders in collabo ration with overall response team

Tasks : 1. Decide if eradication is possible based on rapid analysis of population dynamics and pathways of spread. Consider the following:

• Anticipated cost of eradication e ffort relative to available funding

• Type of water body – contained lake, main stem reservoir, tributary reservoir, small stream, large river, estuar y, or water diversion facility.

• Type of substrate – e.g., rocks that allow species attachment on their undersides where chemicals may not reach them.

• Extent of population distribution – isol ated vs. widespread coupled with a priori assumptions about the spread of species before detection.

• Life stage(s).

• Amount of water in reservoir or waterway.

• Does the reservoir need to be drawn down before treatment?

• How far can the reservoir be drawn down?

• Is river flow low enough for effective treatment?

• Circulation patterns in water body.

• Spreading pattern of populat ion within the water body.

• Inflow rates and sources.

• Presence of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species.

• Special status of water body, including:

1. Water use designation e.g., drinking water.

2. ‘Wild and scenic’ designation.

3. Wilderness area.

4. Potential impact to cultural resources.

5. Department of Defense or ot her restricted access areas

6. Tribal lands

7. Endangered Species Act critical habitat

8. Clean Water Act 303(d) listing

9. Beneficial Uses of water bodies

2. If eradication is attempted, select appropriate methods.

3. If eradication is not possible, develop cont rol objectives and sele ct/design appropriate

control measures.

4. Obtain relevant permits and regulatory agency concurrence

• Determine the permits and other regulatory reviews required for chosen eradication methods, including any a pplicable emergency provisions.

• Begin with any existing permits and/ or templates for required permits.

• Assign lead person from each regulatory agen cy to facilitate permit approval in a timely manner within their respective agency.

• Obtain a FIFRA Federal Crisis Exemption e.g., 40 C.F.R. PART 166 if the known or accepted methods of eradicati on are not currently permitted.138 • Determine if an environmental impact st atement or environmental assessment is required and if so, begin that work.

• NPDES (Section 402)

• NEPA (using template for environmen tal assessments where available)

• Initiate Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations if needed by contacting appropriate USFWS and NOAA field offices.

5. Implement eradication or control strategies

• Lead coordinator facilitates implemen tation of operations plan developed by

management team

• Agencies collaborate to coordi nate and deploy field resources

• Establish schedule for frequent management team meetings to resolve operational issues that cross jurisdictional interests.

Rapid Response Objective 9: Institute Long-Term Monitoring

Purpose : Provide for data for adaptive manage ment and long-term evaluation efforts.

Lead Entity : Incident Commander(s) in collabo ration with overall response team

Tasks : 1. Design a monitoring program to evaluate the status of the species. Monitoring

activities should be ca rried out in coordination with ot her field operations, such as environmental monitoring to meet permit and other regulatory compliance requirements (e.g. National Pollution Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES)).

2. Disseminate findings through an easily accessi ble, consolidated, coordinated realtime database and list serve (e.g., via 100 th Meridian Initiative website)

Rapid Response Objective 10: Evaluate th e Response and the Rapid Response Plan

Purpose : Allow for adaptive management by ensuring feedback on the efficacy of response actions and the effectiveness of the Rapid Response Plan; enhance long-term Preparedness for response to other aq uatic invasive species introductions.

Lead Entity : Responsible state and federal agencies

Tasks: 1. Conduct a follow-up evaluation of response or ganizations and other interest groups to identify opportunities for improving rapid re sponse capacity. Disseminate “lessons

learned” to other intere sted organizations e.g., regional ANS panels.

2. Revise the Rapid Response Plan and associated documents/guidelines based on evaluation and long-term monitoring results.139 3. As resources allow, develop and impleme nt a research plan that evaluates the associated ecological and economic impact s of the invasion, the effectiveness of management interventions, and negative c onsequences of management interventions beyond that required by permits.

4. Determine the need for long-term funding for the current management effort and seek this funding as warranted.

• Meet with state and federal legislator s to map out a regionally coordinated long term funding strategy