MASSACHUSETTS AQUATIC INVASIVE

SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 

MASSACHUSETTS AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES WORKING GROUP

Prepared by: The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management

DECEMBER 2002
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................i 

Executive Summary...................................................................................ii 

I. Introduction.........................................................................................1 

Scope of the Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan..............................2 

 Process and Participation....................................................................3 

Relationship to Existing AIS Management Efforts......................................3 

II. Existing Authorities and Programs.............................................................9 

 Federal Authorities...........................................................................9 

Federal Programs and Activities..........................................................10 

State Authorities and Programs...........................................................12 

 International Agreements..................................................................16 

 Legislative Efforts..........................................................................17 

III. Problems and Concerns........................................................................18 

Aquatic Invasive Species Impacts.......................................................18 

 Management Priorities.....................................................................18 

 Transport Vectors..................................................................19 

 Priority Species.....................................................................24 

IV. Management Objectives and Actions.......................................................32 

 Coordination................................................................................33 

 Prevention...................................................................................34 

 Monitoring..................................................................................41 

 Early Detection/Eradication...............................................................43 

Control.......................................................................................45 

Education....................................................................................48 

 Research......................................................................................50 

 Legislation...................................................................................51 

V. Implementation Table..........................................................................52 

VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................53 

VII. Glossary.........................................................................................54 

Citations..............................................................................................56 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group Membership 

Appendix B: Public Scoping Meetings 

Appendix C: Grant Programs Applicable to Aquatic Invasive Species 

Appendix D: Summary of Research Activities 

Appendix E: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Documented in New England

 
 
Acknowledgements 

This plan was created by the Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group, a 

member group of the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs’ Council on 

Invasive Species established to develop and implement strategies to combat the growing 

problem of invasive species in the Commonwealth. The Aquatic Invasive Species 

Working Group included 18 representatives of 14 state and federal agencies and 

academic institutions. The Working Group was co-chaired by Susan Snow-Cotter 

(Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management), Jim Straub (Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Management), and Jan Smith (Massachusetts Bays 

National Estuary Program). Jay Baker (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone 

Management) was the primary author. Judy Pederson (Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Sea Grant Program) provided considerable technical and moral support. 

Graduate students Cory Riley and Shannon Weigle also contributed to various 

components of Plan development. 

The Working Group was also assisted by the efforts of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Task Force, and, in particular, the contribution of Sandra Keppner (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service). 

The members of the Working Group included (in alphabetical order): Jay Baker 

(Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management), Steve Block (Massachusetts 

Wetland Restoration Program), Cynthia Boettner (US Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

England Invasive Plant Group), Jim Fair (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries), 

Mike Gildesgame (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management), Deb 

Hadden (Massport), Sandra Keppner (US Fish and Wildlife Service), Taryn LaScola 

(Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture), Rick McVoy (Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection), Brad Mitchell (Massachusetts Department of 

Food and Agriculture), Paul Mucha (US Coast Guard), Judy Pederson (Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology Sea Grant), Olga Quirin (US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Jan Smith (Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program), Susan Snow-Cotter 

(Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management), Paul Somers (Massachusetts 

Division of Fish and Wildlife), Jim Straub (Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Management), Sally Yozell (Battelle Corporation), and Marc Zimmerman (US 

Geological Survey). 

 i
Executive Summary 

The intentional and accidental introduction of nonindigenous species into the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not a new phenomenon. In fact, we can assume that 

the human-assisted movement of species, both plant and animal, has occurred since 

humans first inhabited this region. It was not until recent decades that the globalization 

of our economy and with it, the rapid movement of both people and goods, indirectly 

resulted in a corresponding rise in rates of species introductions. Many of these species 

introductions have been seemingly harmless while others have been extremely 

problematic and/or expensive. The introduction of invasive species is thought to be 

second only to habitat loss in contributing to declining biodiversity throughout the United 

States. While Massachusetts has been fortunate thus far to have averted the big name

aquatic invaders like zebra mussels and the Chinese mitten crab, many other lesser 

known species have moved into the state and now call it home. 

Problematic marine invaders that have become established in Massachusetts include the 

European green crab, Asian shore crab, lace bryozoan, codium, and various species of sea 

squirts and shellfish pathogens. Marine species of concern (due to their proximity to 

Massachusetts and/or aggressive tendencies) include the veined rapa whelk, nori, Chinese 

mitten crab, the Pacific oyster, and caulerpa. On the freshwater front, aquatic 

macrophytes such as water chestnut and Eurasian water milfoil have become established 

and are aggressively spreading in lakes and ponds. In addition, common reed and purple 

loosestrife are rapidly clogging waterways and outcompeting native species. Although 

the zebra mussel has yet to be documented in Massachusetts, it is found in the 

Connecticut side of the Housatonic watershed, very close to the Massachusetts border. 

The Asian clam and other species of aquatic macrophytes such as hydrilla and giant 

salvinia are causing problems in nearby states and have a reasonable chance of making it 

to Massachusetts if conditions are favorable. 

Generally speaking, responses to the spread of aquatic invasive species have been slow 

and poorly coordinated. The introduction and subsequent spread of freshwater 

macrophytes has probably received the most attention from natural resource managers 

due to the impacts of these invasions on boating, fishing, and other recreational uses. On 

a lake by lake basis, landowner groups, with support from the state, have tried to control 

further species spread with limited success. On the marine side, the European green crab 

has caused the most tangible impacts and thus is best known. Attempts to eradicate 

and/or control this voracious shellfish predator have proven ineffective. Outside of 

fishery and aquaculture circles, the general public is not aware of the impact that invasive 

species have on our marine ecosystem and local economy. State and federal agencies 

have limited jurisdiction and/or mandate to address aquatic species issues and small or 

non-existent budgets to deal with the wide range of species impacts that face local 

waterways. 

The Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan (The AIS Plan) is the 

first comprehensive effort to assess the impacts and threats of aquatic invasive species in 

Massachusetts. In response to the identified impacts and threats, the AIS Plan lays out a 

series of management strategies intended to curb the spread of invasive species. 

 ii
The AIS Plan outlines an ambitious five-year plan for aquatic invasive species 

management in Massachusetts with the goal of implementing a coordinated approach to 

minimizing the ecological and socio-economic impacts of aquatic invasive species in the 

marine and freshwater environments of Massachusetts. The plan is constructed around 

eight general objectives: 1) coordinate AIS management efforts; 2) prevent new 

introductions of AIS to Massachusetts waters; 3) monitor the introduction of new 

invaders and the spread of established organisms; 4) detect and eradicate pioneering 

invasive species posing high or unknown risk to Massachusetts aquatic ecosystems 

before they become established; 5) control the spread and distribution of AIS in infested 

water bodies and reduce the risk of dispersal to uninfested waters; 6) educate the public, 

resource managers, and industry representatives regarding their role in preventing the 

introduction and transport of AIS; 7) continue to research and identify new measures for 

the prevention and control of AIS, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing management 

measures; and 8) identify needs for additional legislation relating to the control of AIS. 

Each objective is supported by strategic actions and 99 specific tasks with lead agencies 

and budget identified (Table A). Plan priorities include staff to serve as the agency leads 

for plan implementation, continuation of current research on the relative risks of various 

transport vectors, coordination with industry to minimize invasions, development of a 

regional web page and database on AIS distribution, and various educational initiatives. 

The AIS Plan follows guidance provided by the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force, which is co-chaired, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Once the plan is approved, the Task Force provides 

limited funds to support plan implementation. The AIS Plan was developed by the 

Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group, which includes 18 

representatives of 14 state and federal agencies, as well as private and public entities. 

The Working Group met for approximately 14 months to develop the AIS Plan. This 

same group will lead plan implementation. 

The threat of invasive species appears overwhelming and some believe that such species 

expansion is inevitable. Due to this sense of powerlessness, many resource managers and 

agencies have been reluctant to take on the issue, despite pressure from affected user 

groups. In Massachusetts, we believe that by working together and maximizing limited 

resources we can stem the flow of species across our borders by educating the public and 

affected industries on the threat and impacts of these species. It is important to 

acknowledge that most of the pathways that species use to move from place to place –

ballast water, boat fouling, private and public aquaria, aquaculture, seafood industry, 

etc.—are largely unregulated in terms of preventing species invasions. However, by 

creatively raising awareness of these pathways and by changing behaviors of different 

users and industries, the likelihood of introductions can be significantly reduced. This 

Plan provides a blueprint for Massachusetts to make headway in protecting our natural 

systems and economy from the potentially devastating effects of aquatic invasive species. 

 iii
Table A: Implementation Table and Budget Summery for the Massachusetts Aquatic 

Invasive Species Management Plan. 

 Planned Efforts ($000/FTEs) Tasks/Actions FY '02 FY '03 Future Needs

Strategic dedicated seeking dedicated seeking

Action Task Description year $ (000) FTE $ (000) FTE $ (000) FTE $ (000) FTE $(000)/yr 

1A Coordinate Massachusetts AIS Management 

Activities 1, ongoing 84 1.4 75 1.25 84 1.4 75 1.25 75

1B Coordinate With Other States and Nations 1, ongoing 37 0.25 25 0.25 

1C Coordinate with Federal Agencies on AIS 

Management ongoing 3 3 

2A Assess the Risks of Priority AIS 1,2 330 60 

2B Coordinate with Industries in Managing AIS 1, 2, ongoing 10 

2C Educate Industry Representatives 2 

2D Improve AIS Data Management 1 31 0.2 

2E Prevent Introductions Via Commercial

Shipping 1, 2 29 5 10 

2F Prevent Introductions Via Recreational

Boating 1, 2, ongoing 18 47 0.2 45 0.2 2

2G Prevent Introductions Via the Seafood 

Industry 1 10 

2H Prevent Introductions Via the Aquaculture

Industry 1, ongoing 7 0.1 40 0.5 40 0.5 40 

2I Prevent Introductions Via the Bait Industry 1 7 0.1 5 

2J Prevent Introductions Via Aquatic Plant 

Dealers 1, 2, ongoing 30 0.5 30 0.5 

2K Prevent Introductions Via Research Facilities 1 to 5 

2L Prevent Introductions Via Aquatic Organism 

Suppliers

1 to 5,

ongoing 5 

3A Monitor for AIS in Massachusetts Coastal 

Waters 1 to 5 50 10 

3B Monitor for AIS in Massachusetts Freshwater 

Systems 1, 2, ongoing 150 3 50 0.5 150 3 140 1.5 95

3C Assist in the Development of Improved 

Monitoring Technologies 2 

4A Monitor Massachusetts Waters for New

Invasions as Outlined in Objective 3 

4B Identify Resources for Eradicating New

Introductions 1,2,ongoing 60 1 85 72 1.2 75 75

4C Develop an Early Response Protocol 1 to 5,

ongoing 45 0.5 45 0.5 22.5 

4D Evaluate the Risk of Introductions of Priority

Species 2 30 

5A Implement Early Response Protocols Outlined 

in Objective 4 

5B Support Development of AIS Control

Technologies 1, ongoing 2 2 2 

5C Identify Priority AIS for Management 1 

5D Disseminate Information on Existing Controls 

for Priority Species 1, 2 465 440 

5E Expand Funding for AIS Management 2 250 250 

5F Monitor the Effectiveness of AIS Control 

Efforts 2, ongoing 6 0.1 24 0.2 6 0.1 24 0.2 10

5G Control Established Aquatic Macrophytes ongoing 65 65 30 

6A Distribute Regional AIS Educational Materials 1, 2, ongoing 5 5 

6B Distribute Materials Targeted at Priority AIS 1, ongoing 16 

6C Distribute Materials Targeted at AIS Transport 

Vectors 

1 to 5,

ongoing 

35 20 20 10 

7A Identify Research Priorities 1, 2, ongoing 20 20 

8A Evaluate Authority to Restrict AIS Imports 2, ongoing 10 

8B 

Make Recommendations Regarding 

Legislative Needs 2, ongoing 

Totals 1,623 7 488 3 1,125 6 601 4 382

 

Total Match (FY02-FY03) $ 2,748, 000

Total Sought (FY02-FY03) $ 1,089, 000

 iv
I. Introduction

The introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) in the marine and freshwater 

environments of Massachusetts pose a serious threat to the ecology of native systems, and can

effect the economic stability of the Commonwealth. These nonindigenous species have the 

potential to establish and spread rapidly, due to a lack of physical and biological constraints in 

the habitats to which they have been introduced. The range of impacts these organisms can 

have on aquatic systems is extensive, including the loss of habitat and community diversity, 

the localized or complete extinction of rare and endangered species, the spread of human 

pathogens, and the choking of waterways, water intakes, and wetland systems. 

The proliferation of aquatic invaders has come at great cost to Massachusetts. While no 

comprehensive study of economic impacts has been conducted, Massachusetts has expended 

significant funds for the management of aquatic invaders, and has incurred the indirect costs 

associated with the impacts of these species. State agencies spent over half a million dollars 

in 2001 on the control of nonindigenous aquatic plants through cost share assistance and 

direct control efforts on state lands. This figure does not include extensive control efforts 

undertaken by municipalities and private landowners, lost revenue due to decreased 

recreational boating, fishing, and swimming opportunities, or documented decreases in 

property values due to infestations of neighboring lakes and ponds by aquatic macrophytes 

(Hsu, 2000). A Cornell University study (Pimentel, 1999) estimates a loss of $44 million per 

year to New England and the Canadian Maritime Provinces due to predation on commercially 

valuable shellfish by the introduced European green crab (Carcinus maenas). During the 

drafting of this plan the aquatic invasive plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) was identified 

for the first time in Massachusetts in a Cape Cod pond. This notorious invader can spread 

rapidly within and between lakes and ponds, quickly altering the balance of aquatic systems. 

In addition to established invaders, nonindigenous species known to have had disastrous 

effects on the ecosystems and economies of other states, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena 

polymorpha), are rapidly encroaching upon the borders of Massachusetts and its watersheds

(Figure 1).

 Figure 1: November 2000 zebra mussel distribution in the 

 Northeastern US (USGS, 2002) 

 1
Recognizing the importance of the invasive species issue, the Massachusetts Executive Office 

of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) established the Council on Invasive Species (the Council) 

in 1999. The Council is charged with coordinating invasive species management activities 

within the Commonwealth, and facilitating forward movement on new initiatives to prevent 

and control biological invasions in the state. This Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species 

Management Plan represents the efforts of the Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group, a 

subcommittee of the Council, to address the overarching goal of implementing a coordinated 

approach to minimizing the ecological and socio-economic impacts of aquatic invasive 

species in the marine and freshwater environments of Massachusetts. More specific goals 

addressed through the development and implementation of this management plan are as 

follows: 

1) Educate the public about threats from aquatic invaders and measures that can be taken 

to prevent their further introduction and spread. 

2) Reduce the potential for the introduction of AIS into Massachusetts waters through 

preventative measures. 

3) Control the spread of established AIS to uncolonized waters of Massachusetts. 

4) Minimize harmful ecological, socioeconomic, and public health and safety impacts 

from aquatic invaders that have been introduced to Massachusetts waters. 

Massachusetts has further recognized the limited success worldwide in the eradication of 

established populations of aquatic invaders, as well as the potentially detrimental impacts to 

native populations resulting from some invasive species control efforts. As a result, 

management objectives and actions outlined in the plan are heavily weighted towards the 

prevention of new introductions and the education of interest groups and the general public 

regarding their role in minimizing the spread and transport of these species. 

Scope of the Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan 

Section 1204 of the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (amended as the 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996) specifically calls for states to develop comprehensive 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans. This Act authorizes a 75:25 

federal to state match of funds required to achieve objectives and actions outlined in plans 

approved by the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force, also

established by the 1990 Act). In developing this plan, the Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive 

Species Working Group has closely followed the Guidance for State and Interstate Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Management Plans developed by the ANS Task Force (2000). 

Management actions outlined in this document are targeted at both marine and freshwater 

AIS. For the purposes of this plan, aquatic invasive species are defined as nonindigenous or 

cryptogenic species that threaten the diversity or abundance of native species or the 

ecological stability and/or uses of infested waters (adapted from the Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990). The term aquatic refers to open waters of marine and 

freshwater environments as well as coastal and freshwater wetlands. (Note: In many cases, 

legislation relevant to invasive species management uses alternate terminology for invasive 

species such as nuisance or exotic. When referencing programs established by various 

 2
legislative efforts in this document, the terminology used in each act or regulation has been 

retained. The Glossary in Section VII provides definitions for bolded terms.)

While the authority and programs outlined in this plan are generally limited to the political 

boundaries of Massachusetts, it is recognized throughout that there is a need for interstate and 

international cooperation to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS. In particular, this 

plan describes efforts to coordinate with Northeastern US states, as well as bordering 

Canadian provinces, through the recently formed Northeast Regional Panel of the Federal 

ANS Task Force. 

Process and Participation 

Massachusetts established the Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group (the AIS Working 

Group) in the fall of 2000 to coordinate and enhance efforts for the prevention and 

management of AIS through the development of this management plan. The Working Group 

is made up of 18 representatives from 14 state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and 

a consulting group (Appendix A) and has worked to coordinate existing management efforts, 

identify priority invasive species to target for prevention and control, and develop specific 

management objectives and actions. 

Many Working Group members serve on additional committees involved in invasive species 

management initiatives in Massachusetts and the region, including the Massachusetts Lakes 

and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy, the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge Invasive 

Plant Control Initiative, and the Northeast Regional Panel of the ANS Task Force (each 

described below). Integration of these committees into the AIS Working Group has ensured 

that management measures outlined in this plan represent a fully coordinated approach. 

Public comment during the development of this document has been an important component 

of the planning process. AIS Working Group members led public scoping meetings in 

Metropolitan Boston, the North Shore, South Shore, Cape Cod and Islands, Central, and 

Western regions of Massachusetts. Participants represented a range of organizations and 

interests and included conservation commissioners, harbormasters, watershed associations, 

municipal representatives, industry representatives, and others. Scoping meetings were 

successful in offering the Working Group a local perspective on AIS issues, and wherever 

possible, comments received at these meetings have been incorporated into the Management 

Objectives and Actions of Section IV. A summary of questions, comments, and responses 

given at each public scoping meeting is included in Appendix B. A draft version of the AIS 

Plan was also posted on the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) web, 

and notice of a public comment period was published in the Environmental Monitor

(Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 2002) soliciting feedback on the draft Plan from

all interested parties. The AIS Working Group will continue to incorporate suggestions 

received through outreach efforts into future revisions of this Plan. 

Relationship to Existing Management Efforts 

Currently, multiple initiatives in Massachusetts and the Northeastern United States are

working to address AIS issues in the state and region. Several of these initiatives have been 

developed concurrently with this Massachusetts AIS Management Plan, underscoring the 

 3
heightened awareness of AIS problems and concerns in the region over the past year. 

Members of the Massachusetts AIS Working Group are part of each of the initiatives 

described below. These existing and developing management efforts have been beneficial to 

the development of this plan by identifying needs within the region, state, and in local 

watersheds, many of which have been addressed by the AIS Working Group in this document. 

Northeast Regional Panel of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

Section 1203 of the National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 directs 

the federal ANS Task Force to encourage the development and use of regional panels to: 

1) Identify priorities for each region with respect to aquatic nuisance species. 

2) Make recommendations to the Task Force regarding education, monitoring 

(including inspection), prevention, and control of nuisance species. 

3) Coordinate, whenever possible, other aquatic nuisance species program activities 

in each region. 

4) Develop an emergency response strategy for federal, state, and local entities for 

stemming new invasions of aquatic nuisance species in the region. 

5) Provide advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods 

of preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species infestations. 

6) Submit an annual report to the Task Force describing activities within the region 

related to aquatic nuisance species prevention, research, and control. 

Once formally recognized by the federal ANS Task Force, each regional panel becomes 

eligible for limited funding for implementation. 

Until recently, regional panels existed only for the Great Lakes Region, the Western 

United States and the Gulf of Mexico. Recognizing the need for interstate and 

international cooperation on AIS issues in the Northeast, CZM and the AIS Working 

Group have taken the lead in forming a Northeast Regional Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Panel (the Northeast Panel). The Northeast Panel will include state, federal and regional 

government representatives, as well as non-government organizations from the states of 

New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and 

Maine, and the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec. The 

Northeast Panel was recognized by the federal ANS Task Force in July of 2001, and 

development of the first annual work plan is underway. 

The Massachusetts Council on Invasive Species

The Council on Invasive Species was established in 1999 by EOEA to serve as a 

coordinating mechanism for the various invasive species management activities 

undertaken by Massachusetts state agencies. The Council addresses both terrestrial and 

AIS management issues and is comprised of four member groups, including: 

• The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group. 

 4
• The Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group. 

• 

• 

The Wildlife and Plant Diseases Group. 

The AIS Working Group. 

All member groups of the Council will meet periodically to update stakeholders on invasive 

species management activities and coordinate any overlapping management initiatives. 

The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group (MIPG) 

A broad based coalition of state and federal governmental agencies, MIPG formed under 

the leadership of the Silvio O. Conte Refuge (below) in order to: 

1) Share invasive plant information among members. 

2) Educate the public and other interest groups about invasive plants and their 

control. 

3) Promote native alternatives to those nonindigenous species still being used for 

various purposes in Massachusetts. 

4) Promote research in the field of invasive plant management. 

MIPG has drafted a standard definition and set of biologically based criteria upon which 

to objectively evaluate plants suspected to be invasive in the state. Existing data about 

these species are being gathered to identify those that are currently invasive in 

Massachusetts and those that have the potential to become problematic. Once the status 

is known, an action plan will be developed and educational efforts will begin. MIPG will 

serve as an important advisory committee for state agencies working to develop control 

strategies and identify invasive plant priorities. 

The Massachusetts Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group 

The Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group is made up of representatives of each 

of the EOEA agencies, including the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), 

Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE), 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Metropolitan District Commission 

(MDC), Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA), and CZM. This group has most 

recently focused on the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae), which is documented 

in about one-third of Massachusetts cities and towns and threatens the state’s extensive 

Eastern Hemlock groves. The Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group has 

overseen the pilot introduction of the Japanese Lady Beetle (Harmonia axyridis) to 

control the adelgid. The group also evaluated the safety of releasing leaf-eating 

Galerucella beetles to control purple loosestrife in several Massachusetts wetlands. Next 

tasks include developing a Biocontrols Release Protocol that protects against secondary 

impacts from invertebrates intentionally introduced to control invasive species, and an 

Invertebrate Prevention Protocol for preventing the natural spread or accidental 

introduction of invasive invertebrates such as the Asian Longhorn Beetle (Anoplophora 

glabripennis) and zebra mussel. 

 5
The Massachusetts Wildlife and Plant Diseases Group 

The Wildlife and Plant Diseases Group is made up of a small group of veterinarians and 

biologists conducting research and monitoring of wildlife and plant diseases that are 

presently infecting flora and fauna in the state or pose the threat of introduction or natural 

spread to Massachusetts. Representatives from Tufts University and the Massachusetts 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

lead this small network of specialists undertaking research and monitoring of wildlife and 

plant diseases. The parasite pfisteria that is affecting fish in Maryland, and the West Nile 

virus, a new danger to people in Massachusetts that is also showing impacts to the state’s 

avian species, are among the afflictions being studied and monitored by the group. 

The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Invasive Plant 

Control Initiative 

The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge has developed an Invasive Plant 

Control Initiative in response to the threat to natural diversity posed by invasive plant species. 

This initiative examines the problem of freshwater invasive plants from a regional perspective 

and identifies tasks that will enhance the capability within the region to address identified 

issues. 

In cooperation with a number of partners, the Refuge obtained a grant from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation to develop a strategic plan discussing the state of the issue, outlining 

future actions for the Connecticut River Watershed and Long Island Sound, and 

recommending funding for high priority invasive plant control projects in 1998. The 

Connecticut River Watershed/Long Island Sound Invasive Plant Control Initiative Strategic 

Plan was completed and distributed in March of 1999. This plan identifies problem plants in 

the watershed, gives a detailed description of the efforts of agencies and organizations

working to mitigate the problem, and makes recommendations for additional management 

activities. 

As part of the initiative, a partnership of federal, state, municipal, business and non-profit 

groups formed to control water chestnut (Trapa natans), a new invader to the watershed. 

Components of the strategy include mechanical harvesting of the source population and 

organizing volunteers to monitor water bodies for satellite populations within the 

watershed, hand-pulling them when found. 

The AIS Working Group has incorporated actions in the Massachusetts AIS Plan that address 

needs identified in the Connecticut River Watershed/Long Island Sound Strategic Plan 

including the development of priority species lists, education of specific stakeholders 

regarding the invasive plants problem, and coordination of resources within and across New 

England States. The AIS Working Group will continue to work with proponents of the 

Invasive Plant Control Initiative to ensure that management efforts in the Connecticut River 

Watershed are coordinated with state and regional initiatives. 

 6
The New England Invasive Plant Group (NIPGro) 

In keeping with its aquatic invasive plant management priorities, the Silvio O. Conte Refuge 

has taken the lead in the establishment and administration of both MIPG (above) and the New 

England Invasive Plant Group (NIPGro). NIPGro is a networking link among the 

organizations and agencies involved with terrestrial and freshwater aquatic invasive plant 

issues in the region. Priorities of the group include: 

1) Minimizing new introductions to the region by instituting an early warning and 

response system. 

2) Using the NIPGro network to exchange information, share educational materials, 

identify research needs, and establish links with researchers.

3) Developing standardized criteria for creating priority species lists. 

4) Coordinating control efforts. 

Funding was recently granted by the US Department of Agriculture to support the 

development of an Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, which will be the foundation of an 

early warning and response system for the region. The University of Connecticut will be 

overseeing the Atlas work, assisted by the New England Wild Flower Society. The grant will 

also provide the salary for the NIPGro coordinator from 2002-2005. Massachusetts and the 

Northeast Regional Panel will work closely with NIPGro on various AIS management issues, 

and, in particular, on the sharing and organization of invasive species distribution information. 

The Massachusetts Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy 

In the fall of 2000, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs assembled a 

Blue Ribbon Committee on Lakes and Ponds (the Committee) to develop a Lakes and 

Ponds Watershed Action Strategy for the Commonwealth. The Committee worked to 

develop a plan for the improvement of lake and pond protection efforts, and identified 

priority management objectives, including the support of local lake and pond 

stewardship, the protection of biodiversity and habitat, and the establishment of an 

invasive species response team. 

Currently, the Committee is working to implement the action plan through development 

of demonstration projects, coordination with watershed groups and municipalities, and 

enhancement of existing program areas such as the DEM Lakes and Ponds Program. The 

AIS Working Group has worked closely with the Blue Ribbon Committee to ensure that 

these efforts are coordinated, and that needs identified in the Lakes and Ponds Watershed 

Action Strategy have been integrated into the Management Objectives and Actions 

section of this plan. Consequently, recommended activities and implementation efforts 

developed by the Committee comprise a significant portion of freshwater management 

efforts outlined in Section IV of this plan.

The Guide to Lake and Pond Management in Massachusetts

DEM and DEP are joint proponents of a General Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) 

on eutrophication and control of aquatic vegetation in the lakes and ponds of 

Massachusetts. Upon finalization of this report, DEM and DEP will issue a "Guide to 

 7
Lake and Pond Management in Massachusetts.” This guide will provide the nontechnical reader with the key information in the GEIR along with information that will 

help citizens and town conservation commissions more clearly understand options for 

lake management, including control techniques for both native and nonindigenous 

aquatic weeds. The guide will provide the basis for more informed and consistent

decisions by municipalities on lake and pond management projects through training 

programs for conservation commissioners. Additionally the guide will lay the foundation 

for many of the lakes and ponds education and training initiatives outlined in Section IV.

 8
II. Existing Authorities and Programs 

Relevant programs that currently address the AIS problem at the federal, regional, and state 

level are described briefly in the following paragraphs with emphasis on those that have been 

active in Massachusetts and are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this plan. Where 

possible, the AIS Working Group has developed the management actions outlined in Section 

IV based on expansion of the capabilities of these existing programs, particularly at the state 

and regional level. 

Federal Authorities 

At the federal level, no single agency has authority over the management of AIS. Rather, 

multiple agencies have developed invasive species programs, largely in reaction to severe AIS 

issues. Effective invasive species management in the United States will require federal 

agencies to expand existing efforts to deter nonindigenous species introductions through the 

oversight of international and interstate trade and commerce and associated transport vectors

such as commercial shipping and the trade of organisms via mail order and the Internet 

(Section III). 

The federal government first responded to the invasive species issue in reaction to the 

devastating economic and ecological impacts of the zebra mussel introduction to the Great 

Lakes. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

(NANPCA, PL 101-646), amended and broadened in scope as the National Invasive Species 

Act of 1996, calls for the development of state aquatic nuisance species management plans 

and outlines the following objectives (Section 1002): 

1) To prevent further unintentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species. 

2) To coordinate federally funded research, control efforts and information 

dissemination. 

3) To develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent, monitor, 

and control unintentional introductions. 

4) To understand and minimize ecological damage. 

5) To establish a program of research and technology development to assist state 

governments. 

Section 1201 of NANPCA establishes the federal interagency ANS Task Force. The ANS 

Task Force is charged with coordinating federal aquatic nuisance species management efforts 

with the efforts of the private sector and other North American interests. The ANS Task 

Force is responsible for initiating research programs, planning initiatives, and policy direction 

for the prevention, detection and monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species, and 

operates through regional panels as well as issue-specific working groups that address 

particularly problematic invaders. 

An additional element of NANPCA is the establishment of ballast management regulations. 

Under Section 1101 of the Act, the US Secretary of Transportation is charged with developing 

mandatory ballast water guidelines for the Great Lakes (and later for the upper Hudson 

River). This task was delegated to and completed by the US Coast Guard, the lead federal 

 9
agency for ballast water management issues. Amendments to NANPCA in 1996 directed the 

Secretary to extend ballast water management regulations to the remainder of US waters. 

Developed and implemented by the Coast Guard in July of 1999, the Voluntary National 

Guidelines apply to waters outside of the Great Lakes Ecosystem. This voluntary program

consists of a suite of ballast water management (BWM) guidelines, and includes a 

requirement that all vessels entering US waters from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone 

file a BWM report. A third Coast Guard related element of the 1996 amendments was the 

publication of voluntary guidelines aimed at controlling the spread of AIS through 

recreational activities (i.e., boating, fishing, SCUBA diving, etc.) The Coast Guard worked 

with the ANS Task Force to complete these guidelines in December of 2000.

Federal programs dealing with nonindigenous species that existed prior to the passage of 

NANPCA are largely related to interstate and international transport of known pest plants and 

animals and the protection of valuable horticultural, aquacultural, or endangered species. 

These laws include: 

The Lacey Act of 1900 (and amendments): The Lacey Act establishes a permitting 

process administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regulating the importation 

and transport of vertebrates, mollusks, and crustacea that are "injurious to human 

beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the 

wildlife resources of the United States.” The Secretary of the Interior maintains the 

Injurious Species List. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The Federal Seed Act of 1939 (and amendments): This act prohibits the importation

of seeds of unknown type and origin by ensuring the purity and proper labeling of seed 

imports. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (and amendments): The Endangered Species 

Act can be used to authorize the eradication or control of AIS in the case that a listed 

species is threatened by the invader's presence or spread.

The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (amending the Noxious Weed Act of 1974). The 

Plant Protection Act gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) the authority to prohibit the import and 

interstate transport of species included on the Noxious Weed List developed by the 

USDA. In cooperation with state agricultural departments, APHIS annually 

designates priority agricultural pest species for annual intensive monitoring efforts.

The most recent invasive species initiative developed at the federal level came in February of 

1999 with Executive Order 13112. This order establishes the National Invasive Species 

Council, a federal interagency organization charged with the biennial development of a 

National Invasive Species Management Plan.

Federal Programs and Activities 

In addition to the regulations outlined in the above legislation, several government agencies 

have recognized the severity of the invasive species problem, and have adopted the 

management and control of invasive species as priority programs areas. 

 10
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

The USFWS has traditionally been the lead in dealing with invasive species at the federal 

level and is co-chair of the federal ANS Task Force. Thus, the USFWS provides technical 

assistance to states in developing invasive species control plans. The USFWS has been active 

in AIS management activities in Massachusetts through the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife 

Refuge Invasive Plant Control Initiative and control efforts at other refuges within 

Massachusetts. In addition to these activities, the USFWS administers grants that can be used 

for invasive species management through the Wildlife Restoration Program (Appendix C). 

The US Geological Survey (USGS) 

The USGS has acknowledged its role in nonindigenous species management in a White Paper 

on Invasive Species, in which the goal of developing new strategies for the prevention, early 

detection, and prompt eradication of new invaders is identified. The USGS further identifies 

information management and documentation of invasions as a priority for the agency. In 

keeping with this objective, the USGS has developed and maintains an extensive, spatially 

referenced database of nonindigenous species, which is accessible via the Internet 

(http://nas.er.usgs.gov/). 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Through the APHIS Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS), the USDA works with 

state agricultural agencies to monitor for agricultural pests and noxious weeds. Individual 

state monitoring programs are directed by a state survey committee, which is made up of 

representatives from state agencies and scientific institutions. Each year, the state survey 

committee reviews an APHIS recommended list of potential pests for survey (the Noxious 

Weed List), and chooses one or more for annual surveillance efforts. Target species may 

include weeds, plant diseases, insects, and other invertebrates. APHIS also cooperates with 

the US Customs Service to limit the import of specified plant pests and their hosts into the 

country. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea Grant College Program 

The National Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966 to foster research, outreach, 

and education for the promotion of sustainable development of coastal regions. The Program

has played an active role in research on invasive species issues in the United States through 

projects such as the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse, the Zebra Mussel 

Training Initiative, and a competitive grant program for invasive species research and 

outreach projects. 

MIT Sea Grant has been at the forefront of marine invasive species research and management 

in Massachusetts. MIT Sea Grant sponsored the First International Conference on Marine 

Bioinvasions in 1999. In the summer of 2000, MIT Sea Grant worked with Massachusetts 

state agencies and organizations to conduct a Rapid Assessment Survey of Invasive Species 

on floating docks and piers along the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Coast. The survey 

documented the presence and distribution of 24 nonindigenous and 49 cryptogenic species, 

developing some of the baseline information necessary to designate invasive species 

 11
management priorities in New England marine systems. This program also heightened 

awareness of AIS threats to Massachusetts and generated momentum towards the 

development of this plan. 

State Authorities and Programs

To date, Massachusetts AIS management activities have been dominated by the management 

of aquatic invasive plant species in lakes and ponds. Otherwise, AIS management efforts in 

Massachusetts have included programs to protect native shellfish resources and manage 

agricultural pests (largely in terrestrial environments). Recently, the need to expand existing 

programs in freshwater systems and develop marine program areas has been recognized. 

Through the coordinating efforts and action strategies outlined in this document, and through 

the coordinating efforts of the Massachusetts Council on Invasive Species and member 

groups, existing program areas will be expanded to more comprehensively address AIS

priorities in Massachusetts. The following is an overview of the current roles of 

Massachusetts agencies and organizations involved in invasive species management. 

Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Lakes and Ponds Program 

DEM is the primary land management and natural resource planning agency, as well as the 

largest landholder in Massachusetts. Under MGL c.21 §37, DEM is required to establish an 

aquatic nuisance control program that must: 

1) Receive and respond to aquatic invader complaints. 

2) Work with municipalities, local interest organizations, and agencies of the state to 

develop long-range programs regarding aquatic nuisance controls. 

3) Work with federal, state and local governments to obtain funding for aquatic nuisance 

control programs. 

4) Administer an aquatic nuisance species grants program. 

The aquatic nuisance species control program is geared towards freshwater species and is 

administered by the DEM Lakes and Ponds Program. The program manages a variety of lake 

improvement projects as well as providing technical assistance, education, and outreach to 

Massachusetts lake and pond managers. While the aquatic nuisance control program has 

never been directly funded, DEM has dedicated resources to the above tasks through the 

Lakes and Ponds Program and, more recently, through the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action 

Strategy (though full compliance with the Act is not possible without additional funding). 

DEM also administers the Lakes and Ponds Grant Awards Program, which provides funds for 

the control of incipient aquatic invasive plant infestations (Appendix C).

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

DEP has three main program areas relevant to the management of AIS: 

1) Monitoring and Assessment of Surface Waters: DEP, through its Division of Watershed 

Management, Watershed Planning Program, has had an active lake monitoring and 

assessment program for 27 years (MGL c.21 §27(8)). These activities have included the 

identification of aquatic macrophytes, both native and nonindigenous. Monitoring and 

 12
assessment work conducted by the Watershed Planning Program leads to the development 

of assessment reports that identify impaired waters, including lakes impaired by nonnative macrophytes, and recommend activities to remedy the impairments. 

2) Administration of the Herbicide License Program: The Watershed Planning Program

approves aquatic herbicide application projects for native or non-native plants on 

individual water bodies through its Licenses to Apply Chemicals for the Control of 

Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation (Herbicide Licenses; MGL c.111 §5E). At present, DEP has 

limited staff time dedicated to the Herbicide Licensing Program and is seeking additional 

resources to provide for more thorough review of licenses and monitoring of 

effectiveness. 

3) Administration of the Wetlands Protection Act: The DEP Wetland and Waterways 

Program administers and enforces the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL 

c.131 §40). Under this act, any activity that occurs within the 100-foot wetland buffer, 

including the removal or control of vegetation or other organisms, must be permitted by 

DEP and town conservation commissions (also set up by the act). Conservation 

commissions may also govern practices and activities within the 100-foot jurisdictional 

boundary through the passage of local ordinances. 

Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) 

DFA is responsible for the monitoring and regulation of plant imports to Massachusetts. DFA 

works closely with the USDA to limit introductions of (largely agricultural) plant pests 

through the following program areas (MGL 128:16-31): 

1) The DFA Pesticide Bureau administers all state and federal regulations related to the 

use of pesticides, including those used in aquatic environments. DFA must approve 

and register all pesticides before they can be licensed by DEP for application in 

Massachusetts. 

2) DFA funds and is involved with Research and Demonstration programs at the 

University of Massachusetts concerning Integrated Pest Management. While most of 

these research initiatives are based in agriculture, there is potential for these efforts to 

consider aquatic environments. Further, DFA administers the Gro-Enviro Technology 

Grant Program, which may be used to fund projects related to the control of AIS 

(Appendix C). 

3) The Bureau of Plant Industries, in cooperation with USDA’s APHIS, approves permits 

to allow nonindigenous organisms into the state. DFA maintains the state Noxious 

Weeds List, which identifies species prohibited for import and sale in Massachusetts. 

State surveys are run through CAPS (see federal programs: USDA) in cooperation 

with the University of Massachusetts. MGL c.128 §20A prohibits the deliberate sale 

or movement of water chestnut (Trapa natans) plants or propagules. 

4) DFA conducts annual inspections of all nurseries and water garden suppliers, which 

include screening for prohibited non-indigenous plants, plant pests, and noxious weed 

species. 

 13
DFA has general responsibility for pet shop licensing and oversight (with the exception of 

“fish only” pet shops) and promotion and marketing of the aquaculture industry and its 

products. DFA provides technical assistance for the aquaculture industry (permit 

development, operations, etc.) and administers the Massachusetts Aquaculture Grants 

Program. 

Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) 

Under MGL chapter 130 (various sections), DMF is given the authority to regulate the 

sources of shellfish for aquaculture. The goal of this legislation and the resulting permitting 

program is to protect native shellfish resources from possible introductions of non-endemic 

diseases, parasites, predators, and to protect the genetic integrity of local shellfish resources. 

A permit is required to “...plant, transplant, or introduce for the purposes of transplanting 

seed or adult oysters, into any waters or into any shellfish areas within the Commonwealth.” 

DMF has established guidelines for acceptable shellfish seed sources, and is able to regulate 

the transport of any species designated as a threat to these resources (322 CMR). 

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 

CZM has 27 federally approved coastal policies that guide the implementation of its 

program. These policies, relating to water quality, habitat, protected areas, coastal 

hazards, port and harbor infrastructure, public access, energy, ocean resources and 

growth management, are all backed by the legal authority of sister state agencies. By 

virtue of having a federally approved coastal plan, CZM has "federal consistency" 

jurisdiction over projects located in the state coastal zone that are either direct federal 

actions, receive federal funds, or require federal permits. Federal consistency review 

gives CZM the authority to ensure that all projects under its jurisdiction are consistent 

with state CZM policies. Although CZM policies do not directly address AIS, Ocean 

Resources Policy #1 states among its guidelines for aquaculture siting, "Utilize 

technologies and species which are compatible with local conditions and do not threaten 

the biological diversity of our marine waters." CZM does not have independent authority 

to regulate any aspect of the AIS problem.

CZM has identified AIS as a priority for action, both in its recent five-year Section 309 

Assessment and Strategy and in its recent grant application to the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CZM was a co-sponsor of the 2000 Rapid 

Assessment Survey of Invasive Species in coastal Massachusetts and has led efforts to 

develop the AIS Management Plan. In addition, CZM initiated the formation of the 

Northeast Regional Panel of the ANS Task Force. 

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MBP) 

MBP has identified habitat protection, which includes addressing invasive species issues, as 

an important action item in its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). 

Recent revisions to the CCMP have elevated the management of invasive species to a top 

priority action item. MBP has worked cooperatively with other state agencies to conduct the 

2000 Rapid Assessment Survey of Invasive Species in coastal waters and has provided 

financial support for the development of the AIS Management Plan. 

 14
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) 

DFW is charged by law to conserve, maintain, and protect the natural and aesthetic 

qualities of the environment for the benefit and enjoyment of the people (MGL chapters 

21, 131, and 131A). Authority is shared with the USFWS for migratory birds, 

anadromous fish (in fresh water), and federally threatened and endangered species. DFW

regulations, which are designed, in part, to help prevent the establishment of

nonindigneous vertebrate species, relate to the following issues: 

Vertebrate Importation: DFW has enacted regulations that prohibit the importation of 

fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals into the Commonwealth without an 

importation permit (321 CMR 2.15 (6)). 

Fish Liberation: Release of live fish or spawn requires both a Liberation Permit and a 

Health Certificate (321 CMR 2.15(5)) that ensures that fish have been tested for certain 

pathogens, both of which are issued by the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Environmental Law Enforcement (parent agency of DFW and DMF). 

Fish Transport: Transport of any live fish (except legal baitfish) without a permit is 

prohibited and monitored by the DFW (321 CMR 2.15(6)). 

Bait Fish Sale and Harvest: DFW designates fish species that can be harvested for both 

personal and commercial uses (321 CMR 4.01) as well as those that are allowed for 

import and areas eligible for baitfish harvest. Species that may be imported for 

commercial sale include eight species commonly found in Massachusetts waters. 

Aquaculture: DFW issues licenses for the propagation and culture of fish species. 

Aquaculture operations are divided into classes based on the types of fish cultured and 

sold. The type of license is dependent largely on the native range of the species held at 

each facility (321 CMR 4.09(4). 

Aquarium Fish Sale: DFW exempts all aquarium fish (defined as those species that 

cannot survive year-round in a wild environment above 30 degrees north latitude) except 

several species whose introduction is of particular concern in Massachusetts 321 CMR 

9.01(3). These fish species have been included in the priority species section of this plan 

(Section III). 

DFW also addresses adverse impacts from the establishment of invasive species through 

administration and enforcement of the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MGL 

c.131A; 321 CMR 10.00) and by providing comments to conservation commissions 

under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131 §40; CMR 10.00). 

Finally, DFW has several non-regulatory program areas relating to invasive species 

management. These efforts include: 1) identifying the problem species in natural 

ecosystems through biological surveys; 2) educating the public through publications 

about invasive species; 3) maintaining the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species 

 15
Program’s Biological Conservation Database, which identifies habitats threatened by

invasive species; and 4) actively removing invasive species through ongoing land 

management activities and the Habitat Restoration Program. 

Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) 

Massport is an independent, public authority that manages, promotes and develops 

Massachusetts airports, the Port of Boston, and portions of the regional transportation 

infrastructure. The Maritime Department operates and leases major shipping terminals 

and related port facilities in Boston Harbor, and plays a role in supporting and promoting 

the Port of Boston as a whole. While Massport has no program areas directly related to 

invasive species management, the Maritime Department participates in various 

interagency working groups to address port-related environmental issues, including 

ballast water management, and engages in regular outreach and education efforts with the 

shipping community in relation to these issues. 

International Agreements

While international organizations have limited authority in the United States and 

countries worldwide, organizations such as the International Maritime Organization 

(below) have taken a lead role in developing policies and guidelines relating to 

international trade and commerce. Clearly, invasive species management is an 

international issue, and limiting uncontrolled global transport of AIS will require some 

reliance on these agencies to shape and implement management strategies. 

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

The IMO was established in 1948 to address safety and pollution mitigation measures for the 

international shipping industry. The United States plays a leadership role on the Marine 

Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which is comprised of all 161 Member States, 

37 Intergovernmental Organizations, and 61 Non-Governmental Organizations. The MEPC is 

empowered to consider any matter within the scope of the IMO concerned with prevention 

and control of pollution from ships, including ballast water management and the transport of 

AIS. IMO Assembly Resolution A.868(2) was adopted in 1993 and establishes international 

guidelines for the control of ballast water, which have served as a model for ballast water 

management in many countries. 

The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC) 

GOMC was created in 1989 by the governors and premiers of the jurisdictions that border the 

Gulf of Maine. The Council’s mission is “to maintain and enhance environmental quality in 

the Gulf of Maine and to allow for sustainable resource use by existing and future 

generations...” Through GOMC, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, 

Nova Scotia, six federal environmental agencies, and five non-government representatives 

work together to protect their shared resources. GOMC develops action plans that are largely 

implemented by the member agencies. 

 16
While GOMC has no regulatory authority, it is the only binational environmental organization 

in this region that regularly works together on common problems and, as a result, is in a key 

position to facilitate interstate and international coordination on AIS issues in the region. As 

such, GOMC has been selected to serve as the host agency for the Northeast Regional Panel 

of the Federal ANS Task Force. GOMC will provide administrative and logistical support, 

and will play an important role in raising public awareness and preparing the Gulf of Maine 

region to address AIS issues. 

Legislative Efforts 

Massachusetts Senate Bill no. 1071 (introduced by Senator Susan Fargo) outlines an Act that 

would expand DEM’s current aquatic invasive control efforts to include: 

1) One full time program coordinator. 

2) A comprehensive aquatic exotic species monitoring program. 

3) Development of a comprehensive aquatic nuisance species database. 

4) A public education program.

5) An additional grant program funding public and non-public exotic, aquatic plant 

control projects, as well as research by academic institutions into new control 

technologies. 

6) Maintenance of a comprehensive list of aquatic invasive plants. 

7) Prohibition of the transport of listed species to be enforced by the Massachusetts 

Environmental Police. 

Many of the items addressed through the bill have been identified as needs in the AIS 

Management Plan, and its passage would greatly benefit implementation of major 

components by providing funding and authority for freshwater AIS management efforts. The 

AIS Working Group will carefully monitor the progress of this bill and make appropriate 

amendments to this plan based on the outcome (see also Section IV; Objective 8: Legislation). 

 17
III. Problems and Concerns

The problem of aquatic invasions poses unique challenges to managers of aquatic 

systems as well as those developing policy affecting aquatic environments. Unlike other 

sources of pollution, established populations of aquatic invaders are self-sustaining. As a 

result, resources must be devoted to both prevention of new introductions and to the 

control of existing populations of invaders. The introduction of only a few organisms or, 

in the case of aquatic plants and algae, a fraction of an organism, can result in the 

infestation of a water body, watershed, or an entire biogeographic region. These 

introductions can occur through any number of transport vectors, further complicating 

preventative measures. The following section highlights some of the major impacts of 

past introductions, identifies priority pathways by which these species may have been 

imported, and identifies established and threatening species of greatest concern to the 

Commonwealth. The discussion and identification of the major problems and concerns 

outlined below have served as the foundation for the development of detailed 

Management Objectives and Actions outlined in Section IV. 

Aquatic Invasive Species Impacts

Massachusetts currently faces a variety of impacts from aquatic invaders in both fresh 

and coastal waters, which can have significant and lasting impacts on the Massachusetts 

economy. Current impacts from AIS generally include: 

• Reduced diversity of native plants and animals. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Impairment of recreational uses such as swimming, boating, and fishing. 

Degradation of water quality. 

Degradation of wildlife habitat. 

Increased threats to public health and safety. 

Diminished property values.

Declines in fin and shellfish populations.

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

Local and complete extinction of rare and endangered species.

In addition to AIS impacts already experienced in Massachusetts, the effects of 

encroaching species must also be considered when developing management priorities. 

For example, Massachusetts has yet to be significantly impacted by fouling invertebrates 

such as the zebra mussel or Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) in freshwater systems. 

However, if introduced, these species could have dramatic impacts on water intakes, 

power generation, and wastewater treatment facilities. 

Management Priorities 

Targeted strategies will be necessary to prevent new introductions and the spread of 

established AIS populations. The Massachusetts AIS Working Group has developed a 

list of transport vectors that have the greatest potential to result in furthering the AIS 

problem, as well as a list of priority species for management. While the list of priority 

 18
transport vectors has become somewhat standardized nationwide, the pathways of 

introduction are described below in the context of Massachusetts activities. Identified

species include both established invaders and those not yet documented in Massachusetts 

but which have had significant impacts elsewhere. Priority transport vectors and species 

have been designated based on the most current research in the region (Appendix D) and 

will be updated as new information becomes available. 

In addition to the transport and priority species described below, the AIS Working Group 

has identified the protection of endangered, threatened, or otherwise rare aquatic species 

or aquatic ecosystems from encroachment by invasive organisms as a priority for 

management in Massachusetts. These concerns must be addressed through the 

designation of priority species and habitats, and on-site management of aquatic invaders. 

Transport Vectors

To date, the shipping industry has dominated the field of AIS research in the United 

States. Although Massachusetts recognizes the threat from ballast water discharge, ports 

in the Commonwealth may receive relatively little ballast water as compared to other 

major ports in the US due to local trade patterns (Smith et al., 1999). Massachusetts has 

recognized the need to evaluate a variety of transport vectors to explain the prevalence of 

invaders in the region. A coalition of scientists from MIT Sea Grant, Williams College, 

Northeastern University, and Smith College are working to assess the risk of introduction 

through a variety of potential pathways including seafood companies, aquaculture 

facilities, bait shops, pet stores, public aquaria, marine research facilities, and wetland 

restoration efforts (The New England Transport Vector Study, Smith et al., 1999). The 

research team has developed a database of companies and organizations involved in the 

transport and trade of both native and nonindigenous organisms and distributed a survey 

to industry representatives to determine the type, quantity, and frequency of 

nonindigenous species imports and exports. The survey also inquired about the industry 

specific handling techniques that could result in AIS introductions. Once completed, the 

AIS Working Group will reevaluate the relative regional importance of the transport 

vectors described below and make the appropriate adaptations to the actions identified for 

each. 

Commercial Shipping 

Commercial shipping is often considered the most important means of unintentional 

introductions of AIS to coastal and estuarine waters of the United States and worldwide

(Thresher, 2000). The steady rise of global commerce, increased shipping activities, and 

shorter transport times suggest that the threat of introductions through this pathway is 

likely increasing. The AIS Working Group has identified ballast water discharge and hull 

fouling as high priorities for management in this plan. 

Ballast Water: Shipping vessels commonly fill and release ballast tanks with seawater 

from harbors as a means of stabilizing loads. Research clearly indicates that live marine 

organisms ranging from plankton to adult fish are regularly transported and released via 

this pathway (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). US Coast Guard regulations recommending 

 19
ballast water exchange at sea are currently voluntary. However, low compliance with 

these guidelines will likely result in a transition to the installation of mandatory ballast 

water management guidelines nation-wide. 

A recent Coast Guard/Massport study of ballast water management practices in 

Massachusetts suggests that ballast water discharge does occur in Massachusetts, but is 

likely minimal in comparison to other large US ports (Burke, 2001). However, this study 

is based on limited ballast water management reporting, and should be revisited as more 

records become available. 

Concern over new AIS introductions to Massachusetts through ballast water discharge, 

limited knowledge of current ballast water practices, and questions regarding the 

effectiveness of ballast water exchange point to the following needs: 

Further assessment of the compliance with voluntary US Coast Guard ballast 

water exchange guidelines among vessels using Massachusetts ports. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Evaluation of additional needs for mandatory ballast water guidelines. 

Development and evaluation of additional ballast water treatment technologies, 

both on-board, and dockside. 

Risk assessments of threats posed by different shipping facilities in 

Massachusetts. 

Increased awareness of the AIS issue to the shipping community. 

Hull fouling: Hull fouling may rival ballast water discharge as the leading historical 

cause of harmful AIS introductions (Thresher, 2000). Organisms with sedentary life 

history stages can attach themselves to the hulls of commercial vessels or become

entangled in submerged ship components. These organisms can survive for extended

periods on vessels of any size and be introduced through dislodging, disentanglement, or 

by spawning in the ports to which they are transported. 

Increased awareness by the commercial shipping industry of the threats posed by 

transported fouling organisms will be necessary to limit introductions through this 

pathway. In addition, research into environmentally safe and effective antifouling 

methods will be necessary as traditional tributyltin (TBT) antifouling agents are gradually 

phased out in many countries worldwide. 

Recreational Boating 

Lakes, ponds, and coastal waters of Massachusetts provide recreational opportunities for 

a large population of boaters. The transportation of boats and their trailers between water 

bodies presents a risk of introduction through hull fouling, entanglement, and water 

discharge from bilge pumps and bait buckets (Helquist, 2001; Thresher, 2000). The use 

of recreational boats for fishing poses the additional risk of the release of imported bait 

species or species that serve as hosts for nonindigenous organisms. 

Currently, Massachusetts DEM and DFWELE Public Access Boards educate boaters 

regarding AIS transport via this pathway through signage posted at many boat ramps 

 20
across the state. Extension of this program to include clear labeling of AIS infested 

waters would further reduce the risk of the transport of established invaders and has been 

identified as a management objective in the AIS Management Plan. Additional needs 

include providing public facilities for cleaning of vegetative materials attached to boats 

and boat trailers. 

Bait Industry/Recreational Fishing 

The shipment of live organisms into the state for use as bait may serve as pathways of 

introduction through their release (fish or invertebrates). Packing materials are often 

comprised of plant or algal matter and could harbor additional organisms. DFW

regulates the culture, import, harvest and sale of fish species sold as bait. However the 

sources of invertebrate imports to Massachusetts for recreational fishing purposes are 

largely unknown. Massachusetts has limited authority to control the import of 

invertebrates. The AIS Working Group will evaluate the regulatory needs for minimizing 

the threats from introduction via this pathway. In addition, DMF and CZM will take the 

lead in developing and distributing guidance materials for the proper disposal of unused 

bait and packing materials. 

Seafood Import and Sale 

The import, sale, and distribution of live and fresh seafood is a historically important 

component of the Massachusetts economy. Processing and sale of live fin and shellfish 

constitute a risk of AIS introduction through intentional or unintentional release of live 

organisms, parasites, and pathogens. Specific seafood related pathways of introduction 

include: 

Shellfish waste disposal: Shells and other unwanted materials discarded following 

shellfish processing (shucking) might harbor shellfish pathogens or live epiphytes. 

Disposal of this material in or near a water body could result in unwanted introductions 

as well as other types of water quality impairment. 

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

surrounding surface waters to pathogens and other organsism that may be contained in

discharged waters. Packing and transport of shellfish in algal or plant material also poses 

the risk of introductions through the dispersal of packing materials. 

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

mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), may have resulted from the intentional release of species 

that constitute commercially valuable fisheries in other countries (Whitlatch et al., 1995). 

Seafood suppliers and commercial and recreational fishers, unaware of detrimental 

impacts resulting from their introduction, may be tempted to release these species into 

local aquatic systems to establish a self-sustaining population that can be harvested for 

consumption, pointing to the need for additional educational efforts specific to this 

pathway. 

 21
Aquaculture

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

economy and will likely see significant growth due to increasing constraints to wild fish

harvests in the United States and worldwide (CZM, 1995). While intensive culture of 

both finfish and shellfish reduces environmental impacts resulting from the harvest of 

wild stocks, concerns related to water quality impairment, growth and distribution of 

pathogens, escape of nonindigenous species, and genetic dilution indicate the need for 

careful planning for this industry. The following are examples of mechanisms for 

nonindigenous species introductions through intensive aquaculture operations. 

Shellfish seed import: Shellfish seed are commonly grown in hatcheries and imported to 

Massachusetts for use in shellfish culture operations. While DMF carefully regulates the 

sources of seed for this industry, there is the potential for the import of shellfish 

pathogens and other organisms associated with shellfish, such as boring organisms, from

out of state. Enhanced culture of local seed stocks in Massachusetts, and an enhanced 

capacity to identify and manage shellfish diseases will be necessary to minimize the loss 

of shellfish due to these threats. 

Use of cultch: Several shellfish species cultured in Massachusetts seek clean, hard 

surfaces on which to settle and attach. Placement of shellfish waste (shells and 

associated materials, or cultch) in grow-out areas attracts settling juveniles of desirable 

species such as the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Concern has been raised over 

the source and proper disinfections of cultch material and the potential transport of 

shellfish pathogens or other associated nonindigenous species. 

Finfish culture: Growth and maintenance of finfish in open systems such as raceways, 

flow-through tanks, and net pens expose surrounding aquatic systems to pathogens 

associated with cultured fish populations. DFW carefully regulates this industry, 

requiring that species cultured in watersheds where they are not native are isolated from

natural systems. The DFW maintains and periodically updates a list of species that can be 

cultured in Massachusetts under specified conditions. 

Genetic dilution: Cultured fin and shellfish often represent imported or altered genetic 

stocks that are selected for maximum growth or some other desirable trait (i.e., shell 

shape and color) in the selected culture setting (CZM, 1995). Cultured stocks are usually 

at a disadvantage in competing with wild populations. However, interbreeding may 

dilute the wild genetic pool, making offspring more poorly adapted to life in natural 

systems. While there are currently few marine finfish operations in Massachusetts, such 

operations are common in other parts of the Gulf of Maine and could make their way to 

the Massachusetts Coast. Shellfish growing operations are abundant in the 

Commonwealth, particularly on Cape Cod. 

Massachusetts has addressed many of these concerns through existing legislation (see 

State Authorities and Programs: DFW and DMF). As a result, the AIS Management Plan 

does not focus heavily on the aquaculture industry. However, several tasks related to the 

 22
prevention of introductions through the shellfish and aquaculture industries have been 

identified Section IV. 

Aquarium/Water Garden Trade 

Nonindigenous marine and freshwater organisms can be introduced accidentally or 

purposefully after being imported for use in aquaria and water gardens (Carlton, 2001; 

Crow & Hellquist, 2000). DFW prohibits the sale of most freshwater fish that can overwinter in the wild in temperate climates. However, freshwater macrophytes available 

through these industries are often native to temperate regions, and are selected due to 

their ability to thrive under adverse environmental conditions. Of additional concern is

the mislabeling of imported organisms, particularly aquatic plants, which may then be 

confused with native or innocuous species and released. 

Currently, Massachusetts’s authority to monitor and regulate sales of invasive plants and 

invertebrates through the aquarium and water garden trades is unclear or non-existent. 

While DFA has authority over pet stores, inspections focus on animal health and safety. 

The AIS Working Group will form a subcommittee to develop a strategy for managing 

the import of dangerous aquarium and water garden plants and animals as well as develop 

and distribute best management practices for the disposal of unwanted aquarium

organisms. 

Research and Supply

Marine and freshwater species can be ordered from research and education supply 

companies around the world through catalogue or Internet web sites. While these 

organisms are generally supplied for research purposes, multiple companies supply 

species for use in home aquaria. Few organism suppliers, including marine labs and 

research facilities, require documentation of use and handling practices prior to shipping. 

Massachusetts has limited capacity to monitor and regulate the import of these species, 

particularly those that are obtained through mail order or via the Internet. Control of 

introductions via this pathway is likely a federal responsibility, though states can play a 

role by ensuring that providers carefully monitor their shipments and provide 

recommendations for care and handling. 

Once organisms are delivered, improper handling techniques may result in the release of 

nonindigenous imports. Both lab and field routines present the opportunity for accidental 

or purposeful release through wastewater discharge, disposal of unwanted organisms, 

poorly contained studies, etc. At least one invasion has been documented in 

Massachusetts via this pathway (Whitlatch et al., 1995). 

The Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, is currently developing guidelines for 

both distribution and handling of nonindigenous organisms. Through the implementation 

of this plan, Massachusetts and the Northeast Regional Panel will undertake steps to 

ensure that such management practices are considered for implementation by research 

facilities and laboratories maintaining and distributing live aquatic organisms in the 

region. 

 23
Priority Species (Or Species Groups) 

The species described below were designated as high priorities by the AIS Working 

Group based on the following priority species designation criteria. 

1) Severity of the problem posed to Massachusetts by the introduced species.

2) Existing capabilities for management (species for which management options are 

currently available are given higher priority). 

3) Associated costs and benefits of management. 

Species were selected based on a review of the most current lists of nonindigenous 

aquatic species in Massachusetts (Appendix E). Further prioritization was based on 

evaluation by subcommittees of the Working Group and completion of priority species 

information templates (table 1). 

 

Table 1: Priority Species Information Template

1) Taxonomic name (or major taxa for groups) 

2) Common name

3) Place and time of introduction (if already here) 

4) Transport vectors (initial and subsequent) 

5) Geographic range 

6) Life history (if known) or provide reference 

7) Ecological impacts (if known), existing and potential 

8) Economic impacts (if known), existing and potential 

9) Current research 

10) Research needs 

11) Current (Massachusetts) management actions 

12) Potential/desired management actions 

 

The AIS Working Group will formalize information found in priority species templates 

and will make this information available once templates have been peer reviewed. The 

AIS Working Group will update the list of priority species annually based on new 

information generated through implementation of this plan.

 

Established Freshwater Species 

The following species are established in Massachusetts freshwater systems and are 

considered highest priorities for management. 

Aquatic Macrophytes: To date, invasive freshwater plants have received the greatest 

amount of attention in Massachusetts among aquatic invaders due to their dramatic and 

widespread impacts on lakes and ponds throughout the Commonwealth. Many of these 

species are able to propagate through both seed dispersal and fragmentation, resulting in 

rapid colonization through a variety of natural and human vectors (Crow and Hellquist, 

2000). These species often form dense mats at the water’s surface, significantly altering 

the original community structure, blocking shipping lanes, restricting swimming and 

 24
fishing, and generally rendering the waterway unusable. Priority aquatic invasive plants 

established in Massachusetts include: 

• Water chestnut (Trapa natans). 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). 

Curly leaf pond weed (Potamogeton crispus).

Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana). 

Lesser naiad (Najas minor). 

Waterweed (Egeria densa). 

Yellow floating-heart (Nymphoides peltata). 

Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). 

Variable milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum). 

Existing control efforts in Massachusetts are conducted largely through local initiatives, 

many of which receive support from the DEM Lakes and Ponds Program. Improved 

detection and rapid response to new invasions and additional public education are priority 

actions for management of aquatic invasive plant species. 

Common Reed (Phragmites australis): Invading both fresh and saline marshes, 

Phragmites forms dense monocultures, displacing native vegetation and reducing habitat 

value of many wetland systems (Crow and Helquist, 2000). Often responding to 

modified drainage, Phragmites can impede access to water bodies and completely clog

channels and drainage ditches. Removal is by mechanical harvesting, application of 

herbicides, or restoration of natural hydrology, and is difficult and costly. There has 

been debate over whether Phragmites australis is a native species that has aggressively 

responded to human disturbance or an imported variety better suited to rapid growth in 

North American wetland environments (Ohio Sea Grant, 2000). Recent research (2002) 

suggests that an aggressive strain of Phragmites has been introduced to North America 

(Saltonstall, 2002). 

Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria): This now prolific wetland species was 

introduced as early as 1824 in New England and Canada, likely escaping from flower 

gardens (Crow and Hellquist, 2000). This plant, which is still sold in Massachusetts 

retail nurseries, is dispersed through seed and rhizomes, and forms dense mats excluding 

all other plant species in many types of freshwater and brackish wetlands (Hellquist, 

2001). While its presence reduces the ecological value of wetland systems, purple 

loosestrife serves as an important pollen source for bees and commercial beekeeping 

operations. Currently, management efforts are focused on experimental biological 

control and are led by the Massachusetts Wetland Restoration Program (MWRP) and the 

Association of Massachusetts Wetland Scientists statewide. Effective control of this 

species will require continued monitoring and research into biocontrol effectiveness and 

elimination of sales through nurseries in the Northeast. 

Threatening Freshwater Species 

The species listed below have not yet been documented in Massachusetts, but are 

considered as viable threats to freshwater systems in the Northeastern United States. 

 25
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): Introduction of the zebra mussel into the Great 

Lakes and the resulting impacts such as fouling, alteration of community structure, and 

competition with rare species led to an increased awareness of the AIS problem at the 

national level, and the passage of the National Invasive Species Prevention and Control 

Act. Since its introduction in 1988, the zebra mussel has spread throughout many of the 

major drainage basins of the Midwest and Northeast, including the Mississippi River 

down to the Gulf of Mexico (USGS, 2002). The zebra mussel has yet to be documented 

in Massachusetts, but has recently been found in Connecticut in the Housatonic 

watershed, which lies on the Massachusetts/Connecticut border. 

Clearly, keeping the zebra mussel out of Massachusetts is a high priority. Increased 

efforts towards monitoring for this species, and development of a rapid response strategy 

will be essential to minimize its impacts on the aquatic environments of the 

Commonwealth. 

Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea): The Asian clam was first reported in the United 

States in Washington’s Columbia River in the 1930s. It was likely introduced 

intentionally for harvest and consumption purposes (Counts, 1986). Since then it has 

spread across the country and has been documented in the Connecticut River just a few 

miles south of the Massachusetts border (Smith, 2001; pers. comm.). The most prominent 

economic impacts of the Asian clam introduction in the United States have been related 

to biofouling of power plant water intakes and other municipal and industrial water intake 

and supply systems (Isom et al. 1986, Williams and McMahon 1986). Ecological 

impacts result from competition with native species for space and other limited resources. 

The Asian clam has been blamed for the decline and local extinctions of several native 

freshwater mussel species (Williams, 1997). 

Aquatic Macrophytes: Several species of aquatic plants are causing major economic and 

environmental damage in Southern and Mid-Atlantic states. These plants include: 

• Parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum). 

• 

• 

• 

European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morus-ranae).

Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta). 

Recent trends in their distributions show that these plants are moving northward towards 

Massachusetts and may be able to survive New England winters (Crow and Helquist, 

2000, Langland, 1996). 

Freshwater Fish: DFW has identified several fish species as posing significant threats to 

the natural resources of the Commonwealth. The following fish species cannot be kept 

without a permit from DFW (321 CMR 9.01(3)): 

The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) is an herbivorous fish that is native to 

China. In the 1960s, the US began to culture the grass carp for biological control 

of rooted aquatic vegetation. Since then, the fish has escaped from containment 

facilities to invade the surrounding aquatic habitats. The grass carp is now found 

 26
in all 48 contiguous states of the US. Though the grass carp has successfully 

decreased populations of certain aquatic invasive macrophytes, it is not selective 

in its feeding and is capable of destroying all of the plant life where it has been 

introduced, including native species. In Massachusetts, some believe that it may 

also have been intentionally introduced to some ponds as a food source (Hartel et 

al., 1996). Introduction of the grass carp may also be responsible for the presence 

of nonindigenous parasites in waters of the US, such as the Asian tapeworm 

(Ganzhorn et al., 1992). Despite these concerns and the banning of the grass carp 

in numerous states, these fish are still being raised and introduced as biological 

controls of aquatic macrophytes. 

The popularity of the various piranha species (Pygocentrus spp. and Serrasalmus 

spp.) as aquarium fish has resulted in their introduction to many US states 

including Massachusetts (USGS, 2002). Though these fish are not likely to 

survive winters in the Northeast, these species are renowned as voracious 

predators that can quickly impact local populations of fish and invertebrates 

(Moe, 1964). Sale and possession of this species is still legal in several 

Northeastern states, and it is readily available via the Internet trade. 

• 

• 

• 

The rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) was originally imported from Europe in 

the late 1800s to be used as a baitfish. The species has since been found in 

freshwater and estuarine habitats in at least 20 states, including most of the 

Northeastern United States. Reproducing populations of rudd have been found in 

the lower Charles River in Boston. Dispersal appears to be through interstate 

traffic from the bait and aquaculture industries rather than new European imports. 

The impact of the rudd is largely unknown, but it is able to hybridize with the 

native golden shiner. The rudd will likely compete for invertebrate food sources 

with native fish species (Burkhead and Williams, 1991). 

The walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) first escaped from a Florida aquarium

fish farm in the mid-1960s. It has since invaded the entire southern region of 

Florida and has also been found in Connecticut, California, Georgia, 

Massachusetts, and Nevada. An extremely opportunistic species that will feed on 

any available food source, the walking catfish has the potential to cause serious 

damage to native species (USGS, 2002). The walking catfish is also readily 

available through Internet web sites as an aquarium fish.

Established Ocean and Coastal Species 

The following species are found in the marine and estuarine environments of 

Massachusetts. Though most are well established, reductions in the populations of 

organisms, like the green crab and shellfish pathogens, could result in measurable 

economic benefits, and a shift towards historical biological communities in 

Massachusetts.

European Green Crab (Carcinus maenus): The European green crab was probably 

introduced to New England via ballast water in the mid-1800s. Now the most prolific 

 27
crab in Massachusetts coastal waters, the green crab is a voracious predator of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and has been blamed by some for the collapse of the New England 

soft-shelled clam industry (Pimentel et al., 1999). Eradication of this now naturalized 

species is not possible. However, reductions in the overall population size may allow 

populations of displaced native species to recover. Continued research on commercial 

uses and biological controls will be necessary to impact this population. 

Asian Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus): The Asian shore crab was first 

documented in North America along the coast of southern New Jersey in 1988 (Williams

and McDermott, 1990). Likely introduced via ballast water, this crab has expanded its 

range southward to North Carolina and north to northern Maine at the Canadian border. 

Little is known about the role this species could play in changing coastal ecosystem

structure. However, in rocky intertidal areas dominated by boulder and cobble substrates, 

this species has been found in densities of 80 to 100 individuals/m2

 (L.D. Smith, as 

quoted by Blake, 2001) suggesting that it may be having dramatic impacts on the 

intertidal community. Continued research on the life history and impacts of this species 

will be important to determine appropriate next steps in its management. 

Lace Bryozoan (Membranipora membranacea): Initially settling on kelp where it forms 

flat colonies, this species is a calcareous bryozoan whose growth weakens the alga and 

causes it to break. The lace bryozoan has contributed to the declines of kelp beds in the 

Gulf of Maine since the early 1990s, facilitating colonization by another invader, Codium 

fragile ssp. tomentosoides. The introduction of these organisms has caused declines in 

available habitat for important finfish such as juvenile cod, the green sea urchin 

(Strongylocentrotus droebochiensis), and numerous invertebrate species (Scheibling, 

2001). 

An introduced opistobranch or other predatory snails may graze this species. More 

research into specific predators, effects of local predators on the population, and better 

documentation of ecological effects are necessary to understand the impacts and 

management of this organism (Harris and Mathieson, 2000; Chavanich and Harris, 2000; 

Harris and Tyrell, 2001). 

Codium (Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides): The green algae Codium fragile was first 

documented in the Gulf of Maine in 1964 at Boothbay Harbor, Maine (Harris and 

Mathieson, 1999; Boerner 1972; Coffin and Stickney 1966). Codium can now be found 

in rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada to North 

Carolina. Where found, codium can radically change community composition, structure, 

and function (Harris and Mathieson, 1999). It has been blamed for lower abundances of 

limpets, chitons, and brittle stars in Nova Scotia (Scheibling, 2001). This algae has also 

devastated kelp beds off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Maine, and disrupted cyclical 

synergistic interactions between kelp and several sea urchin species (Scheibling, 2001). 

These disruptions are expected to have major impacts on subtidal systems, but they are 

not yet well documented or understood (Harris and Mathieson, 1999). Impacts may also 

include change in water flow and sedimentation rate, lower water and light qualities, 

altered food webs, and lowered productivity. Ecologically and economically important 

 28
species such as finfish, sea urchins, and lobsters may be affected, as they utilize kelp for 

food, habitats, and nurseries (Scheibling, 2001). 

Ascidians: Also called tunicates or sea squirts, ascidians are encrusting organisms that 

are able to rapidly colonize marine substrates as solitary organisms or in colonies. 

Potential impacts of these organisms include competition with native species for suitable 

substrate, direct impacts to organisms on which they settle and attach, and fouling of 

vessels and coastal infrastructure (pipes, traps. etc.). To date, six nonindigenous species 

of tunicates have been documented in New England waters: Styela clava, Styela canopus, 

Diplosoma listerianum, Ascidiella aspersa, Botryllus schlosseri, and Botrylloides 

violaceous. 

Ecological impacts of these organisms remain largely unknown, though concern has been 

raised by their ability to rapidly spread over vast geographic areas. Styela and 

Botrylloides were documented to have spread from Connecticut to Maine in fewer than 

10 years (Whitlach and Osman, 2000). Research into means of transport and control 

technologies will be necessary to manage impacts from these organisms. 

Shellfish Pathogens: Shellfish pathogens have periodically decimated shellfish stocks

throughout the United States, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay region. Shellfish 

pathogens of concern in the Northeast include both cryptogenic species and species 

thought to have been recently introduced to Massachusetts coastal waters. Difficulty in 

identifying these species makes tracking their distribution difficult. Range expansion of 

these organisms is generally attributed to the planting of contaminated shellfish seed and 

the warming of near shore ocean temperatures. The following are several examples of 

important shellfish pathogens in Massachusetts: 

MSX (Haplosporidian nelsoni) first appeared in Wellfleet Harbor, Massachusetts, 

in 1967 when it was revealed as the cause of a large eastern oyster (Crassostrea 

verginica) mortality on a private oyster grant (Hickey, 2001, pers. comm.). It is 

believed that MSX was introduced into Wellfleet through an oyster transplant 

from an infected area in Virginia. Detection of the disease prompted DMF to 

prohibit any oyster transplants in the Commonwealth without state approval. 

Permits for oyster transplants are now issued only after disease testing of oyster 

stocks and a review of the disease history of the source. This process prevented 

spread for 15 years until misreading of tissue slides allowed introduction into 

Cotuit Bay. MSX is now known to exist in other locations in Massachusetts. 

Attempts to develop disease resistant oyster stocks have yet to be successful. 

Control of oyster movement and sources of oyster stocks and careful pathological 

monitoring are the best available methods of managing this pathogen. 

• 

• SSO (Haplosporidian costalis) was considered a disease of concern in 

Massachusetts in the 1970s but was later declared endemic in the Northeast and a 

non-factor in causing appreciable mortalities of oysters in cooler regions (Hickey, 

2001, pers. comm.). Recently, it has been looked at again as a possible 

 29
nonindigenous pathogen of concern and may be responsible for significant oyster 

losses. 

Dermocystidium (Perkinsus marinus): Another eastern oyster pathogen, 

Dermocystidium, or Dermo, was first documented in the Gulf of Mexico in the 

late-1940s after it caused a large-scale oyster die-off (Mackin, 1966). Later, 

Dermo was blamed for massive oyster kills in the Chesapeake Bay. Since 1990 it 

has been documented from Delaware Bay to Southern Maine (Ford, 1996). As 

with MSX and SSO, eradication of this pathogen is likely impossible. 

Minimizing contamination will require careful screening of oyster seed and 

monitoring of existing oyster growing areas. 

• 

• QPX (Quahog Parasite Unknown) was first documented in Massachusetts 1992 

but is suspected to be a significant cause of quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) 

mortality prior to 1990. Currently, its range extends from New Brunswick, 

Canada, where it was first documented in 1960, to New Jersey and Virginia where 

it has been found within the last five years (Ragone et al., 1997). A third major 

infestation occurred in the spring of 2001 in several Cape Cod embayments

(Fraser, 2001). As with oyster diseases, management of this invader will require 

careful monitoring of the sources of shellfish seed as well as adult quahogs in 

grow-out areas across the state. 

Threatening Ocean and Coastal Species

The following marine and estuarine species have been documented in the United States, 

but not yet in New England. Several of these species listed below have had dramatic 

ecological and economic impacts outside of their respective native ranges. 

Veined Rapa Whelk (Rapana venosa): Native to the Sea of Japan, the veined rapa 

whelk was introduced to the Black Sea in the 1940s from where it spread to the 

Mediterranean Sea and subsequently the Chesapeake Bay, where it was discovered in 

1998 (Harding and Mann, 1999). This species feeds on reef forming and epibenthic 

bivalves and has caused major damage to the shellfish industry in the Black Sea. There is 

serious concern about the impact this species could have on similar Atlantic Coast 

fisheries as well as native benthic community structures. Currently, the potential range 

of this organism is unknown, and additional research into its ability to tolerate cold-water 

conditions will be necessary to determine the need for additional preventative measures 

in Massachusetts. 

Nori (Porphyra yezoensis): Red algae of the genus Porphyra are the most widely 

consumed seaweed in the world (Ohio Sea Grant, 2000), and several species of Porphyra

are commonly found along the Massachusetts coast. An effort to grow a nonindigenous 

species of the algae, Porphyra yezoensis, for commercial purposes is underway in the 

coastal waters of southern Maine. Current research is largely focused on developing a 

variety that is better adapted to the waters of the Gulf of Maine but will not sexually 

reproduce nor out-compete native species in vegetative growth. There is concern in the 

 30
region over the potential escape and proliferation of this and other cultivated algal 

species. 

Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis): The Chinese mitten crab has undergone 

explosive growth along the California coast since its discovery in San Francisco Bay in 

1992. A highly valued food item throughout China, it is unclear if this species was 

intentionally introduced, or was released in ballast water originating in the Yellow Sea or 

Europe (Wynn et al., 2000). Threats from this species include clogging of fish collection 

devices, fish-ways and hydropower intakes; damage to levees and other coastal structures 

that result from its burrowing habits; and alteration of the native community structure 

through predation (Washington Sea Grant, 2001). The dramatic ability of this species to 

grow in great numbers as shown in central California indicates the need to prevent the 

introduction of this species to New England waters and to develop a response protocol in 

the event that it is discovered here. 

Pacific Oyster: (Crassostrea gigas): The Pacific oyster was intentionally introduced to 

the United States from Japan for commercial culture in the early 1900s. Though this 

species is able to survive in cold Pacific waters, it spawns at about 18 degrees Celsius and 

thus only sporadically in wild populations along the Pacific Coast of the United States 

(Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001). This species would likely survive 

and reproduce in the warmer waters of the South Coast of Massachusetts (Buzzards Bay) 

and Cape Cod where water temperatures often exceed 20 degrees during summer months 

(Estrella and Glenn, 1999). The Pacific oyster may out-compete the eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) for space, dilute the local genetic stock through interbreeding,

and potentially introduce a variety of shellfish pathogens native to the Pacific (Hickey, 

1979). There is current concern over the intentional introduction of this species by 

shellfish growers or unintentional discard by a member of the general public. Additional 

measures for prevention include education targeted at the aquaculture industry regarding 

threats to native oyster species. 

Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia): Dubbed “the killer algae,” this aquatic plant with a 

feather-like appearance has caused tremendous ecological damage in the regions where it 

has invaded. This alga is associated with the aquatic pet industry and public aquariums. 

In the late 1980s, a hybrid strain of Caulerpa taxifolia invaded the Mediterranean coast,

believed to have been accidentally released by a public aquarium (Meinesz, 1999). The 

invasive hybrid strain was recently discovered along the California coast. Although 

primarily a warm-water species, this hybrid can thrive in temperatures as low as 5 

degrees Celsius (Makowka, 2000). Caulerpa taxifolia has been banned for importation 

into the United States yet it is still sold in many areas and is available through the Internet 

trade. 

 31
IV. Management Objectives and Actions 

The following objectives and actions outline a five-year plan for AIS management in 

Massachusetts in order to achieve the following overarching Goal. 

By 2007, fully implement a coordinated approach to minimizing the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of aquatic invasive species in the marine and freshwater environments of 

Massachusetts.

Objectives and actions were developed to address priority species and transport vector 

management concerns, and to expand the general capabilities of Massachusetts agencies and 

organizations to address AIS issues. 

Resources currently dedicated to each objective have been identified within task descriptions 

along with estimates of additional resource requirements for the completion of each task. 

Massachusetts does not expect to receive all of the necessary funds to fully implement this 

plan from the federal ANS Task Force. The AIS Working Group has begun to seek additional 

resources through avenues such as state and federal grants and will use the following 

objectives and actions to direct future state and federal appropriations. Acronyms used to 

denoted state and federal agencies and other entities are shown in Table 2. 

Table 2: Acronyms for agencies and organizations referenced in Management 

Objectives and Actions (below).

CZM Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 

DEM Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management 

DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

DFA Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture 

DFW Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife 

DFWELE Division of Fish Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement 

DFWELE Division of Fish and Wildlife 

EOEA Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency 

GOMC Gulf of Maine Council 

LPI Massachusetts Lakes and Ponds Initiative 

MBP Massachusetts Bay National Estuary Program

MIPG Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group 

NEAMGLL Northeast Association of Marine and Great Lakes Labs 

NEP National Estuary Program 

NIPGro New England Invasive Plant Group 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

USGS US Geological Survey 

WRP Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program

 32
The approximate year of implementation for each task has been identified following each task 

description. A detailed annual work plan will be developed following the submission of this 

plan and prior to each subsequent year of implementation. Work plans will be developed 

based on foreseeable resources available for implementation during each year and incorporate 

additional management needs as they are recognized. 

Objective I: Coordination: 

Strategic Action 1A: Coordinate Massachusetts AIS Management Activities 

Issue addressed: Current AIS management efforts in Massachusetts have not been fully 

coordinated across agencies. Dedicated staff will be necessary for effective 

implementation of AIS control strategies. 

Task 1A1: (DEM/CZM/MBP) DEM will support two full time positions to coordinate 

and implement actions identified in the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy 

(Lakes and Ponds Program Coordinators). A portion of their time will be devoted to AIS 

Management Activities in addition to existing DEM staff time dedicated to AIS 

management actions (totaling approximately 0.75 FTE). EOEA has dedicated $45,000 

for the support of these staff. DEM is seeking an additional $30,000 to support 0.5 full 

time equivalent employees (FTE) dedicated specifically to implementation of actions

identified in this plan in freshwater systems. CZM has dedicated funding to support 0.25 

FTE and is seeking resources for an additional 0.75 FTE to coordinate coastal AIS 

management activities (CZM Coastal AIS Coordinator). The MBP has dedicated 0.4 FTE 

to working on coastal AIS issues (MBP Coastal AIS Coordinator). Staff from these three 

agencies will be responsible for the overall implementation of this plan. YEAR ONE

Task 1A2: (CZM/DEM/MBP) The Lakes and Ponds Program Coordinators and the 

Coastal AIS Coordinators will organize four meetings of the AIS Working Group 

annually. ONGOING

Task 1A3: (AIS Working Group/Council on Invasive Species) The AIS Working Group 

will meet annually with other member groups of the Massachusetts Council on Invasive 

Species (the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group, the Invertebrate Invasives and 

Biocontrols Group, and the Wildlife and Plant Diseases Group) to identify priority 

species and sites for management and to coordinate overall invasive species control 

efforts. YEAR ONE/ONGOING

Strategic Action 1B: Coordinate With Other States and Nations to Prevent 

Interstate and International Transport of AIS 

Issue addressed: AIS management is a regional issue and not confined by political 

boundaries. Formal mechanisms for interstate and international coordination will be 

necessary to limit new introductions and the spread of established populations. 

 33
Task 1B1: (CZM/MIT Sea Grant/GOMC/DEM/MBP) CZM will continue to coordinate 

with state and federal agencies and industry representatives in the region to implement a 

Northeast Regional ANS Panel. CZM will co-chair and staff the Panel and has dedicated 

0.25 FTE to this task through 2003. YEAR ONE

Task 1B2: (CZM/DEM/MBP) The Lakes and Ponds Program and Coastal AIS 

Coordinators will participate in national and international AIS workshops and 

conferences. ONGOING

Task 1B3: (AIS Working Group/DEM/MIT Sea Grant/NIPGro) AIS Working Group 

members will coordinate with other New England states to share educational resources 

related to aquatic invasive plant management. Specific coordinating efforts include 

biennial information sharing conferences sponsored by the NIPGro, an ongoing exchange 

of educational materials between DEM and the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, and distribution of the Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Report (Ohio Sea Grant, 2000) and Proceedings of the First National Marine 

Bioinvasions Conference (Pederson, 2000). To date, MIT Sea Grant has expended 

$60,000 for printing and distributions costs. YEAR ONE/ONGOING

Task 1B4: (MBP) MBP, in conjunction with six other National Estuary Programs, 

(NEPs) has received $12,000 from the US EPA to sponsor a Northeast Regional Marine 

Bioinvasions Workshop. The focus of the two-day workshop, to be held in the fall of 

2002, will be the monitoring and management of marine invaders. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 1C: Coordinate with Federal Agencies to Develop Regional 

Priorities and Sound Management Activities at the Federal Level 

Issue addressed: AIS management strategies at the federal level should be fully 

coordinated with state and regional management efforts and guided by regional priorities. 

Task 1C1: (CZM) The CZM Coastal AIS Coordinator and additional AIS Working 

Group members will participate in meetings of the federal ANS Task Force. CZM has 

dedicated $3,000/year for travel expenses. ONGOING

Objective 2: Prevention

. 

Strategic Action 2A: Assess the Risks and Types of Introduction Through 

Priority Transport Vectors 

Issue addressed: Currently, little is known regarding the specific role transport vectors 

play in AIS introduction and spread in Massachusetts and the region. Careful study of 

species introduction through these vectors, followed by efforts to communicate with 

related industry representatives, will be a critical first step in reducing AIS transport. 

Task 2Al: (Smith/Williams/MIT Sea Grant/Northeastern) The team of researchers from

Smith College, Williams College, MIT Sea Grant, and Northeastern University will make 

 34
the results of Massachusetts Components of the New England Transport Vector Study 

identified in Section III early in 2002. Results will include lists of species imported to 

and exported from Massachusetts as well as handling practices that pose a risk of 

introductions through: 

• The seafood industry. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Trade of species for bait (fish and invertebrates). 

The aquarium trade. 

Marine research. 

Aquatic organism suppliers. 

The research team has dedicated $270,000 (including funds through a grant from the 

National Sea Grant Office and nonfederal match) to the completion of this task as well as 

Task 2A2 (below). YEAR ONE

Task 2A2: (Smith/Williams/MIT Sea Grant/Northeastern) The research team identified 

in Task 2Al will make the results of the Transport Vector Study for all New England 

states available in late 2002. YEAR ONE

Task 2A3: (Smith/Williams/MIT Sea Grant) The research team identified in task 2A1 

will expand this study to include additional transport vectors. The research team has 

acquired $120,000 from the National Sea Grant Office for the completion of this project, 

which will include workshops similar to those described in tasks 2B1 and 2B2 (below). 

YEAR TWO

Task 2A4: (AIS Working Group) A freshwater subcommittee of the AIS Working Group 

will assess the need to expand the above study to transport vectors relating to freshwater 

systems in Massachusetts. YEAR ONE

Strategy Action 2B: Coordinate With Industry Representatives to Minimize

Introductions of Invaders Through Priority Transport Vectors 

Issue addressed: Effective management of AIS will further require that industries that 

may serve as transport vectors be involved in AIS prevention efforts. 

Task 2B1: (Smith/Williams/MIT Sea Grant, MBP) Researchers from the New England 

Transport Vector Study will work with MBP to convene focus groups made up of 

representatives from industries identified as potential pathways for introduction (Section 

III) as well as the commercial shipping industry to identify priority preventative strategies 

and educational needs. The research team has allocated $10,000 to support staff time and 

workshop costs. YEAR ONE

Task 2B2: (MBP/AIS Working Group) The Massachusetts Bays Program will work with 

a subcommittee of the AIS Working Group to establish ongoing working groups made up 

of industry representatives to carry out strategies identified in task 2B1. YEAR

TWO/ONGOING

 35
Strategic Action 2C: Educate Industry Representatives Regarding Possible 

Means of Introductions Through Development and Dissemination of 

Targeted Outreach Materials 

Issue addressed: Representatives of industries that pose the risk of AIS transport may be 

unaware of the problems associated with AIS introductions and existing options for 

management. 

Task 2Cl: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will identify educational 

needs through the above focus and working groups and develop educational strategies for 

representatives of priority industries (see also Objective 6: Education). YEAR TWO

Strategic Action 2D: Improve Data Management as It Relates to AIS 

Distributions in Massachusetts Watersheds and in the Northeast Region 

Issue addressed: AIS distribution information is currently housed in multiple databases 

and formats, making comprehensive assessments of introduction and the spread of 

established populations difficult or impossible. 

Task 2D1: (CZM/Northeast Regional Panel) CZM will work with the Northeast 

Regional Panel to develop a Marine Invader Database and Web Page (CZM, 2001) using 

the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Rapid Assessment Survey data as the foundation. 

CZM has dedicated 0.2 FTE to the completion of this task. An additional $19,000 has 

been obtained through the National Sea Grant Office to support two students for data 

mining and database population efforts. YEAR ONE

Task 2D2: (DFW/DEP/DEM) The DFW will coordinate with the DEM and DEP to 

develop a framework for a comprehensive freshwater invasive species database for 

Massachusetts. The database will include information developed through ongoing 

monitoring efforts led by these agencies and will incorporate data generated through 

enhanced monitoring of aquatic systems known to contain rare species or represent 

diverse and pristine habitats. DFW, DEP, and DEM will develop a strategy and identify

budgetary needs for integrating existing data management efforts. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 2E: Reduce the Threat of Introductions Via Commercial 

Shipping (Ballast Water and Hull Fouling) 

Issue addressed: AIS introductions via commercial shipping continue to be a major 

concern worldwide. The role this industry plays in Massachusetts is currently unclear,

and development of measures at the state level to prevent the import and export of 

aquatic invaders through this pathway will require improved communication with the 

commercial shipping industry. 

Task 2El: (MIT Sea Grant/Massport) MIT Sea Grant and Massport will develop a 

regional database of ballast water discharged to major ports in the region using the 

 36
National Ballast Survey, a Massport survey of shipping agents and transporters 

examining the ballast water release practices in Massachusetts, and additional data sets. 

MIT Sea Grant has committed $11,000 to the completion of this task and is seeking an 

additional $5,000 to support a research assistant. YEARS ONE AND TWO

Task 2E2: (MIT Sea Grant/Massport) MIT Sea Grant and Massport will convene a 

regional (Canadian Maritime Provinces and Northeastern United States) steering 

committee to develop long- and short-term goals for preventing or minimizing 

nonindigenous species imports and exports via ballast water discharge. The Workshop 

will include an overview of new Ballast Water Reporting Requirements as well as a 

discussion of appropriate reporting procedures. MIT Sea Grant has committed $25,000 

to support an initial symposium and follow-up meetings. YEAR ONE

Task 2E3: (Massport) Massport will work with the USCG to assemble ballast water

reporting information at Massport operated facilities. Massport will further assist and 

advise the coast Guard in the development of sampling programs to evaluate ballast water 

management compliance rates in Massachusetts. ONGOING 

Task 2E4: (MIT Sea Grant/Massport) MIT Sea Grant and Massport will develop a 

strategic plan for providing ballast water management practice information to key 

shipping industry decision-makers in Northeastern states and provinces (see also Task

2B1). YEAR TWO

Task 2E5: (CZM/MBP/MIT Sea Grant): CZM, MBP, and MIT Sea Grant will reevaluate 

ballast water management practices in Massachusetts and make additional 

recommendations for management and/or regulations based on the findings. 

Massachusetts is seeking $10,000 to support a research assistant. YEAR TWO

Strategic Action 2F: Prevent New Introductions of AIS Via Recreational 

Boating and Fishing 

Issue addressed: Continued and enhanced education and outreach efforts will be 

necessary to control the spread of fouling organisms and aquatic weeds to uninfested 

water bodies via recreational boating and fishing. Massachusetts must evaluate its 

capacity to facilitate the cleaning of boats and their trailers at infested water bodies, and 

require the removal of plant and algal species from recreational vehicles. 

Task 2Fl: (DEM) DEM will update and distribute signage relating to boat and trailer AIS 

transport to all ponds with boat ramps in the Commonwealth. DEM has dedicated 

$13,500 to the completion of this task through the Lakes and Ponds Initiative. YEARS

ONE AND TWO

Task 2F2: (DEM) DEM will continue to distribute AIS educational materials to lake and 

pond associations. DEM has expended $8,200 for the printing of educational materials 

and is seeking an additional $12,000 for re-printing. ONGOING

 37
Task 2F3: (DEM/DEP/DFWELE) DEM, DEP, and DFWELE will develop a pamphlet 

detailing the potential transport of AIS with boats and their trailers for distribution with 

boater registration forms and/or commercial fishing licenses. Massachusetts is seeking 

$10,000 to support development, printing, and distribution costs. YEAR TWO

Task 2F4: (DEM/CZM/MBP) The DEM Lakes and Ponds Program and CZM and MBP 

Coastal AIS Coordinators will assemble AIS educational materials for distribution to 

local Public Access Boards. YEAR TWO

Task 2F5: (DEM) Through the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy, DEM has 

dedicated $4,500 to study the feasibility of installing a public boat wash station at a 

Massachusetts boat ramp. DEM anticipates a cost of $40,000 for installation of the 

station and is seeking an additional $2,000/year to support general maintenance costs. 

CZM, DEM, and DEP will gage the utility of installing additional boat-wash stations 

based on the results of this pilot effort. YEAR TWO

Task 2F6: (DEP/DFW) DEP will work with DFW to evaluate Massachusetts's capacity 

to develop an AIS inspection program for recreational boats. Massachusetts is seeking 

funding to support 0.2 FTE for two years to scope and develop a boat inspection program

in Massachusetts, and a feasibility study of program implementation. YEAR TWO

Strategic Action 2G: Prevent New Introductions of AIS Through the Seafood 

Industry and the Freshwater Fish Market 

Issue addressed: Little is currently known regarding the type and quantity of live fish and 

shellfish imports to Massachusetts, warranting further research into seafood industry 

practices as well as the distribution of AIS educational materials to industry 

representatives. 

Task 2G1: (Smith/Williams/MIT Sea Grant/CZM/MBP/DMF) CZM will contract with a 

student to update and expand the preliminary list of seafood species imports and exports 

generated by the New England Transport Vector Study through field surveys. CZM is 

seeking $5,000 to support a student for one semester. YEAR ONE

Task 2G2: (CZM/DMF/MIT Sea Grant) CZM, DMF, and MIT Sea Grant will develop 

guidance and educational materials on the use of live packing materials for seafood 

transport based on the proceedings of the seafood industry focus group described in Task 

2B1. CZM and MIT Sea Grant are seeking $5,000 to support a student researcher and the 

development and distribution of educational materials. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 2H: Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Pathogens 

Through the Aquaculture Industry

Issue addressed: DMF does not currently have the in-house capacity to identify shellfish 

pathogens once an outbreak occurs. Recruitment of a shellfish pathologist as well as 

 38
development of measures to reduce the risk of pathogen introductions are necessary to 

limit the impacts of potentially devastating outbreaks. 

Task 2H1: (DMF) DMF is seeking $40,000 to fund a half time (0.5 FTE) shellfish 

pathologist to assist in monitoring for and identifying shellfish diseases. YEAR

ONE/ONGOING

Task 2H2: (CZM/DMF) CZM is working with DMF and Cape Cod towns to identify 

economically viable uses for shellfish waste as well as proper disinfection practices prior 

to use as cultch. CZM has dedicated 0.1 FTE/year to this task over two years. 

ONGOING

Task 2H3: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will evaluate current 

nonindigenous game fish stocking practices in Massachusetts and develop 

recommendations for changes in these practices, if necessary. YEARS THREE-FIVE 

Strategic Action 2I: Prevent Introductions of AIS to Freshwater and Marine 

Systems Via the Bait Industry

Issue addressed: The import of baitfish and invertebrate species along with their packing 

materials may pose a significant threat of AIS introductions to Massachusetts. There is 

currently little guidance on what species should be imported as bait or as packing 

materials.

Task 2I1: (DFW/DMF) DFW and DMF will develop guidance for the disposal of unused 

bait species for distribution with commercially sold bait or for printing directly on bait 

packing materials. DMF has dedicated 0.1 FTE to this task and is seeking $5,000 for 

printing and distribution costs. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 2J: Prevent New Introductions of AIS Through the 

Aquarium Trade, Nurseries and Water Garden Suppliers, and Other 

Wetland Vegetation Growers

Issue addressed: Species distributed for use in aquaria and water gardens are often 

selected due to their ability to survive and grow with minimal care under a range of 

environmental conditions. Intentional or unintentional release of these organisms is 

common, and several harmful introductions have been documented through these 

pathways worldwide. 

Task 2J1: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will establish a subcommittee 

to develop a strategic plan and guidelines for limiting the introduction of potentially 

invasive species through the aquarium and water garden trade. Issues addressed by this 

committee will include: 

1) Import and sale of potentially invasive invertebrate species. 

 39
2) Import and sale of potentially invasive plant species and organisms that may be 

transported with these species. 

3) Proper labeling of plant and animal species sold by pet stores and water garden 

suppliers. 

4) Inspections of pet stores and water garden suppliers for priority AIS. 

5) Best management practices for the disposal of diseased or unwanted organisms 

and wastewater.

YEAR ONE

Task 2J2: (DFA) DFA will continue field inspections for species listed on the Massachusetts 

Noxious Weed List. DFA has dedicated 3 FTE to field inspections, which include Noxious 

Weed List monitoring efforts (approximately 0.5 FTE year). ONGOING

Task 2J3: (DFA) DFA will evaluate its authority to include additional marine and freshwater 

species on the state Noxious Weed List. YEAR ONE

Task 2J4: (DFA/AIS Working Group/MIPG) Pending the results of task 2J3, DFA will 

annually update the state Noxious Weed List (or a new list of aquatic invasive plant species) 

to include in DFA inspections in consultation with the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group 

and the AIS Working Group. YEAR TWO ONGOING

Task 2J5: (DFWELE/DFW) DFWELE and its DFW will review their authority to publish 

lists of invasive species in nonagricultural or minimally managed areas. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 2K: Prevent new introductions of AIS by Marine Research 

Facilities and Public Aquaria. 

Issue addressed: Marine research facilities often hold nonindigenous organisms for 

experimental and display purposes. Maintenance of these live species often requires the 

exchange of water with the natural environment, providing the opportunity for the release 

of these species, which often have microscopic life history stages. Furthermore, 

experimentation with live nonindigenous organisms may be conducted in the natural 

environment, requiring careful controls to prevent their release or escape.

Task 2K1: (CZM/MPB/DMF/NEAMGLL) CZM, MBP, and DMF will cooperate with 

the Northeast Association of Marine and Great Lakes Labs (NEAMGLL) to develop a 

notification/reporting system for the import of live marine organisms for research 

purposes. YEAR TWO

Task 2K2: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will work with the New 

England Aquarium to develop best management practices for treatment of wastewater 

and release of unwanted organisms from public aquaria and marine research facilities. 

YEAR ONE

 40
Task 2K3: (AIS Working Group) Massachusetts agencies will work to enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with marine research and aquaculture facilities 

in the Commonwealth ensuring incorporation of best management practices developed by 

the Marine Biological Laboratory and the AIS Working Group for the handling and 

distribution of nonindigenous organisms. YEARS THREE-FIVE.

Strategic Action 2L: Prevent New Introductions of AIS to Marine and 

Freshwater Systems Through Aquatic Organism Supply Companies 

(Including Internet Sales) 

Issue addressed: Sale of live organisms via mail order and the Internet is common 

practice. These organizations, often affiliated with marine research facilities, are able to 

ship organisms across the country, often with few or no restrictions on the recipient’s 

purposes or handling practices. 

Task 2L1: (CZM) CZM will contract with a student researcher to identify organizations 

supplying live marine and freshwater organisms to Massachusetts. Massachusetts is 

seeking $5,000 to support this student for one semester. YEAR ONE

Task 2L2: (AIS Working Group) A subcommittee of the AIS Working Group will make 

recommendations to the federal ANS Task Force on limiting introductions to 

Massachusetts through the Internet trade. YEAR TWO

Task 2L3: (AIS Working Group) A subcommittee of the AIS Working Group will work 

to identify industry representatives and coordinate on the development of shipping and 

disposal guidelines. YEARS THREE-FIVE

Objective 3: Monitoring

Strategic Action 3A: Monitor the Introduction and Spread of AIS in 

Massachusetts Coastal Waters 

Issue addressed: The distribution of AIS in Massachusetts marine systems is poorly 

understood. Continued designation of priorities for management (both species and 

pathways) will require ongoing AIS monitoring efforts. 

Task 3A1: (MIT Sea Grant/MPB/CZM) MIT Sea Grant, CZM, and MBP will work to 

identify funds to conduct rapid assessments surveys of ports and harbors every five years 

at an estimated cost of $30,000 per assessment. YEARS THREE-FIVE

Task 3A2: (MBP/MIT Sea Grant/CZM/) In cooperation with other Northeastern National 

Estuary Programs, MBP has received $50,000 from EPA to conduct a rapid assessment 

survey of invasive species in intertidal benthic habitats in the northeast United States. 

The survey is planned for the summer of 2003. YEARS ONE AND TWO

 41
Task 3A3: (MBP/CZM) MBP Regional staff will work with the Coastal AIS 

Coordinators to develop a volunteer monitoring program. Massachusetts is seeking 

$10,000 to support development, printing, and training workshop costs. YEAR TWO

Task 3A4: (AIS Working Group): Representatives from the AIS Working Group will 

develop an AIS monitoring strategy for coastal Massachusetts which will include 

evaluation of resource needs for establishing sentinel stations for detecting new invasions 

in Boston Harbor and the Connecticut River. YEAR TWO

Strategic Action 3B: Monitor the Introduction and Spread of AIS in 

Massachusetts Freshwater Systems

Issue addressed: Effective management of aquatic macrophytes and other freshwater 

invaders will require the expansion of monitoring efforts that have been limited by lack 

of staff time and monetary resources. 

Task 3B1: (DEP/DEM) DEP and DEM will continue lakes and ponds assessments and 

aquatic vegetation inventories in support of water quality assessments and the Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. DEP has dedicated $150,000 and 3 FTEs/year 

over the next two years to support these programs, representing an increase over 

traditional funding levels by $100,000/year and 2 FTEs. DEP is seeking an additional 0.5 

FTE and $50,000/year to expand the annual coverage of this monitoring program and its 

effectiveness in documenting the distribution of nonindigenous organisms. ONGOING

Task 3B2: (DEM) Through the Massachusetts Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action 

Strategy, DEM will develop a volunteer “Weed Watcher” program to monitor for AIS 

invasions. DEM staff acquired through the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy 

will carry out this task. YEAR ONE

Task 3B3: (DEP) DEP is seeking 1 FTE to manage its (currently informal) database of

aquatic macrophytes in Massachusetts Lakes and Ponds. This staff person will be 

responsible for the development of a database structure and format in year two, ongoing 

database population, and web publishing. Once developed, database management will 

require the equivalent of 0.5 FTE/year. YEAR TWO/ONGOING

Task 3B4: (DFW): DFW will continue to inventory and monitor sites where 

nonindigenous aquatic species are impacting native flora and fauna, especially where 

they co-exist with state listed rare species. ONGOING

Strategic Action 3C: Assist in the Development of Improved Technology for 

Monitoring the Spread of Nonindigenous Aquatic Macrophytes 

Issues addressed: The widespread distribution of nonindigenous aquatic macrophytes and 

the limited personnel time available for monitoring efforts constitute the need for 

improved monitoring technology that facilitates large scale monitoring efforts. 

 42
Task 3Cl: (USGS/DEP/DEM) Through a grant from the DEM, the USGS has evaluated 

the use of remote sensing technology for monitoring and assessment of the distribution of 

aquatic plants. DEM and DEP will evaluate the results of this effort to determine the 

feasibility of an ongoing remote sensing based lake and pond monitoring effort. YEAR

TWO

Objective 4: Early Detection/Eradication 

Strategic Action 4A: Monitor the Marine and Freshwater Environments to 

detect the Introduction of Nonindigenous Species to Waters of the 

Commonwealth or the Spread of Established Aquatic Invaders to Previously 

Uninfested Waters as Outlined in Objective 3

Strategic Action 4B: Identify Funding and Personnel Resources for the 

Eradication of New Introductions to Previously Uninfested Waters 

Issues addressed: Once established, invasive species may be impossible to completely 

eradicate. Removal of any introduced species will require a coordinated protocol for 

immediate response and eradication of the species of concern. 

Task 4B1: (DEM/DEP/EOEA/DFW) Through the Massachusetts Lakes and Ponds 

Watershed Action Strategy, Massachusetts will assemble an Emergency Response Team

to monitor for and eradicate pioneer infestations in lakes and ponds. DEM has dedicated 

1.0 FTE to the development of a monitoring and response protocol in five freshwater 

pilot sites across the state. Massachusetts is seeking $75,000/year for the acquisition of 

necessary plant control supplies and equipment and the support of additional staff time to 

manage the Emergency Response Team. YEAR ONE

Task 4B2: (DEM/DEP/EOEA/DFW) The Emergency Response Team will coordinate 

with the volunteer groups involved in the Weed Watcher Program to track the 

distribution of freshwater invaders and identify early infestations for control. YEAR ONE 

Task 4B3: (DFW/DEM/DEP): The Emergency Response Team will coordinate with the 

DFW’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program to identify potential conflicts 

with rare plants or animals at the site of the proposed actions. YEAR ONE

Task 4B4: (DMF/CZM): The Coastal AIS Coordinators will work with DMF to develop 

an AIS training program for DMF field staff. Training will include identification of 

nonindigenous marine species and reporting protocols. Massachusetts is seeking $10,000 

to support staff time, workshop costs, and development of training materials to complete 

this task. YEAR ONE

Task 4B5: (CZM/MIT Sea Grant/MBP/DMF) The Coastal AIS Coordinators and a 

subcommittee of the AIS Working Group will evaluate the need for and develop a coastal 

Emergency Response Team based on the model developed by the Lakes and Ponds 

Initiative. CZM will dedicate 0.2 FTE to this task. YEAR TWO

 43
Strategic Action 4C: Develop a Response Protocol for the Eradication of 

Newly Established AIS 

Issue addressed: See the issue addressed by strategic action 4B

Task 4C1: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will identify agencies 

responsibilities for eradicating or controlling specific types of introductions (i.e., aquatic 

plants, fouling organisms, marine species, freshwater species). YEAR TWO

Task 4C2: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will develop and implement 

an appropriate response protocol for the eradication of newly detected priority invaders. 

This protocol will include specification of appropriate biological, chemical, and physical 

controls where necessary, and will address priority species or species groups identified in 

Section IV including, but not limited to: 

• Freshwater bivalves. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Aquatic macrophytes. 

Marine and estuarine decapods. 

Marine and estuarine algae.

Marine and estuarine mollusks.

YEAR ONE

Task 4C3: (AIS Working Group/DFA) Based on the response protocols identified in 

Task 4C2, the AIS Working Group will work with DFA to generate a list of pesticides 

currently not registered for use that may be necessary for the control of pioneering AIS. 

YEAR TWO/ONGOING

Task 4C4: (AIS Working Group) Massachusetts will work to enter into a Memorandum

of Understanding with state and federal agencies and environmental nongovernment 

organizations that recognizes and facilitates implementation of early response protocols. 

YEARS THREE-FIVE

. 

Task 4C5: (DEP/DFA) DEP and DFA will develop a facilitated permitting process 

and/or emergency herbicide application provisions through the Herbicide Licensing 

Program. The revised process will contain careful guidelines to determine appropriate 

control technologies to be applied to pioneering AIS populations that consider both the 

effect on targeted invaders and secondary impacts. DFA is also considering regulations 

that will guide the aquatic application of all pesticides. DFA will involve the AIS 

Working Group in discussion regarding the development of these regulations. 

Massachusetts is seeking 0.5 FTE for two years to restructure the permitting process and 

0.25 FTE in subsequent years for technical assistance for applicants undertaking the 

permitting process. YEAR TWO

 44
Strategic Action 4D: Evaluate the Risk of Introductions of Priority Species 

Not Yet Established in Massachusetts 

Issue addressed: Massachusetts faces the risk of introduction from a number of species 

that have proven to be damaging in other regions (see Section III: Problems and 

Concerns). Development of a methodology for evaluating the risk of introduction of 

these species will be necessary to identify and implement species-specific preventative 

measures. 

Task 4Dl: (AIS Working Group) A subcommittee of the AIS Working Group will 

develop a strategy for evaluating the risk of the introduction and spread of priority 

species or major taxa through a pilot evaluation including one freshwater and one marine 

invader. Massachusetts is seeking $30,000 ($15,000 per species) to contract with a 

student researcher to conduct these assessments. Current candidates include the veined 

rapa whelk and the Chinese mitten crab. YEAR TWO

Objective 5: Control 

Strategic Action 5A: Implement Early Response Protocols Outlined in 

Objective 4 for Newly Detected Infestations of AIS 

Strategic Action 5B: Support Development of Improved Control 

Technologies for Established Populations of AIS

Issue addressed: Control of established populations of AIS continues to be costly and 

labor intensive in most if not all cases. Limiting the spread of priority AIS will require 

continued development of cost-effective and far-reaching control technologies. 

Task 5Bl: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will work with the 

Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group of the Invasive Species Council on 

developing a strategy to encourage research and development of biological controls for 

AIS in the state and region. Research priorities will include further evaluation of 

potential non-target impacts from the release of biological control measures (see also 

Objective 6, Education). ONGOING

Task 5B2: (WRP) WRP will continue to propagate and release biocontrols to reduce 

populations of purple loosestrife across the Commonwealth. WRP has dedicated $7,000 

for the completion of this task and is seeking an additional $2,000/year for the purchase 

of biocontrol (beetle) rearing equipment. YEAR ONE/ONGOING

Strategic Action 5C: Identify Priority Marine and Freshwater Invasive 

Species for Management Actions 

Issue addressed: Allocation of limited resources for AIS management will require the 

ongoing designation of priority species. As this plan is implemented and monitoring 

 45
efforts enhanced, improved knowledge of AIS distribution and impacts must be used to 

continually update management priorities. 

Task 5C1: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will develop protocols for 

additions and deletions to the priority AIS lists and appoint a subcommittee of biologists 

with expertise in aquatic organisms to make recommendations for list changes. The 

subcommittee will include representatives form the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Group, 

the Massachusetts Invertebrate Invasives and Biocontrols Group, and the Massachusetts 

Wildlife and Plant Diseases Group. YEAR ONE

Task 5C2: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will work with the Natural 

Heritage Program, academics and non-profit environmental organizations to develop 

protocols for developing a priority list of sites for management action each year in order 

to control marine and freshwater AIS. Control of invasive species on sites where they coexist with federal or state endangered and threatened species will constitute high 

priorities for action. YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 5D: Identify and Disseminate Information on Existing 

Control Mechanisms for Priority Species 

Issue addressed: Organizations involved in invasive species management in 

Massachusetts may not be aware of the full range of options available for the control of 

established populations. Effective control of AIS with limited resources will require that 

the range of mechanical, chemical, biological, and other control techniques are available 

to managers of aquatic systems. 

Task 5D1: (DEP/DEM) DEM and DEP will compile information detailing available 

control techniques and technologies for the management of freshwater priority invaders 

in the "Guide to Lake and Pond Management in Massachusetts." DEP and DEM have 

dedicated $50,000 for the completion of this task. YEAR ONE

Task 5D2: (DEM/EOEA) Through the Lakes and Ponds Initiative, DEM is currently 

implementing demonstration projects involving, in part, the control of freshwater 

invaders. Massachusetts expects to contribute up to $440,000/year over the next three 

years to support the implementation of these restoration efforts. YEAR ONE

Task 5D3: (DEM/EOEA) Through the Lakes and Ponds Initiative, DEM will train 

municipalities and watershed groups in the use of techniques for the control of invasive 

species. Lakes and Ponds Initiative Staff will carry out this task. YEAR TWO

Task 5D4: (DEM) DEM will include guidance on the reintroduction of native species as

a component of lake and pond restoration efforts in the GEIR on eutrophication and 

control of aquatic vegetation. YEAR ONE/ONGOING

 46
Strategic Action 5E: Expand Funding for Local Invasive Species 

Management and Related Projects 

Issue addressed: Municipalities and local organizations often take the lead in AIS 

management efforts, particularly in freshwater environments. There is currently limited 

funding available from state and federal agencies to support these control initiatives. 

Task 5El: (DEM/EOEA) The EOEA and DEM will make up to $250,000/year available 

to municipalities and local managers for lake and ponds restoration measures through the 

Lakes and Ponds Grant Program (Appendix C). YEAR TWO

Strategic Action 5F: Monitor and Document the Effectiveness of AIS Control 

Efforts 

Issue addressed: The effectiveness of AIS control efforts often goes unmonitored 

following implementation. Refinement of existing techniques and development of new 

management measures will require that the effectiveness of various control technologies 

are carefully documented and reported to appropriate user groups. 

Task 5Fl: (DEP) DEP will develop and include a monitoring requirement with permits 

for herbicide applications to aquatic invasive plants granted through the Herbicide 

Licensing Program. Massachusetts is seeking $ 20,000 over two years to support staff 

time for the development of this program component and $5,000/year in subsequent years 

for ongoing implementation. YEAR TWO

Task 5F2: (DEM/EOEA) DEM will monitor the effectiveness of AIS control efforts 

through Lakes and Ponds Initiative demonstration projects (identified as a need in the 

Lakes and Ponds General Environmental Impact Report). Massachusetts is seeking 

$5,000/year to develop a monitoring program for demonstration projects and oversee the 

monitoring effort. YEAR TWO

Task 5F3: (DEM) DEM will include a monitoring requirement with grants distributed

for AIS control under their Lakes and Ponds Grants Program. DEM has dedicated 0.1 

FTE to the development of a monitoring requirement, associated protocols, and reporting 

mechanisms. YEAR TWO

Task 5F4: (WRP): WRP will continue to monitor the effectiveness of their purple 

loosestrife biocontrol efforts. WRP is seeking $18,000 over the next two years to 

purchase two Global Positioning Systems for mapping of loosestrife populations. 

ONGOING

Strategic Action 5G: Continue to Implement Efforts to Control Established 

Populations of Invasive Aquatic Macrophytes 

 47
Issue addressed: Established nonindigenous aquatic macrophytes continue to degrade 

Massachusetts freshwater systems. Control of these populations will be necessary to

minimize ongoing ecological and economic impacts. 

 

Task 5G1: (Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge) The Connecticut River 

Watershed Invasive Plant Control Initiative’s water chestnut partnership has been 

controlling water chestnut infestations for three years. Mechanical harvesting cost 

$80,000 in 1999 and $51,000 in 2000. An additional $5,000 was spent in 2000 on the 

support of staff involved in additional harvesting efforts and in support of a volunteer 

monitoring effort. Approximately $44,000 was spent in 2001 on mechanical harvesting 

in Long Pond Cove. Resources have not been secured beyond the 2002 field season. To

thoroughly clean the cove using mechanical and manual means, expected needs are 

$65,000 for 2003 and 2004, with decreasing but ongoing needs in subsequent years 

(approximately $30,000/year). ONGOING

Objective 6: Education 

Strategic Action 6A: Develop and Distribute Educational Materials Related 

to Regional Invasive Species Issues 

Issue addressed: Continued education of the general public and resource managers 

regarding threats from AIS and as preventative measure will be necessary to limit the 

introduction and spread of aquatic invaders to Massachusetts. 

Task 6A1: (MIT Sea Grant) MIT Sea Grant will continue to maintain and update the 

bioinvader web page (http://massbay.mit.edu/pg?/ExoticSpecies/MIT). MIT Sea Grant

has dedicated $5,000/year to support a web manager. ONGOING

Task 6A2: (NE Regional Panel) The Northeast Regional Panel will develop a web page 

that gives background information on the panel and its activities, identifies priority 

invasive species concerns in the region, and communicates information housed in the 

Marine Invasive Species Database identified in Task 2D1. Resources obtained through 

the national Sea Grant Office will be used to support staff time necessary to complete this 

task. YEAR TWO

Task 6A3: (EOEA/Lakes and Ponds Initiative) EOEA will continue to develop and 

maintain the Lakes and Ponds Strategy web page 

(http://www.state.ma.us/envir/water/index.htm) communicating the mission and activities 

of the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy. Staff acquired through the Lakes and 

Ponds Initiative will complete this task. YEAR ONE/ONGOING

Task 6A4: (AIS Working Group/CZM/DEM) The AIS Working Group will develop a 

slide presentation that outlines the AIS problem and potential management approaches.

YEAR ONE

Strategic Action 6B: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at 

Designated Priority AIS

 48
Issues addressed: Assistance from the general public will be necessary to limit the spread 

of AIS and for effective monitoring of priority invaders. 

Task 6B1: (MIT Sea Grant) MIT Sea Grant and the Massachusetts Audubon Society will 

distribute laminated "Hitchhiker I.D. Cards” depicting priority AIS to agency officials, 

coastal managers, and the public. MIT Sea Grant has dedicated $25,000 for printing and 

distribution costs and will distribute the identification cards early in 2002. Information 

collected though this effort will be compiled in the Marine Invader Database (see Task 

2D1). YEAR ONE

Task 6B2: (DEM) DEM will continue to distribute "A Guide to Selected Invasive NonNative Aquatic Species in Massachusetts" (Helquist, DEM, 2002). To date, DEM has 

expended $18,000 for printing and distribution costs. YEAR ONE

Task 6B3: (New England Aquarium/DEM) The New England Aquarium and the DEM 

will continue to distribute "A Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts” (New England 

Aquarium and DEM, 1996). ONGOING

Task 6B4: (EOEA) EOEA will contract with a consultant to design and fabricate a 

portable, interactive exhibit on the problems associated with AIS and how to prevent their 

introduction into lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams to be used in a variety of public 

settings. EOEA has dedicated $3,500 to the development of the exhibit. YEAR ONE 

Strategic Action 6C: Develop and Distribute Materials Targeted at AIS 

Transport Vectors 

Issue addressed: The diffuse nature of the AIS problem and the wide variety of transport 

vectors will require that resource managers, industry representatives, and the general 

public are informed about potential pathways of introduction and spread. 

Task 6C1: (CZM/DFA/DFW) CZM, DFA, and DFW will develop and distribute a poster 

(series) explaining the hazards of releasing aquarium plants and animals to Massachusetts 

waters. Massachusetts is seeking $10,000 for development, printing, and distribution 

costs. YEAR ONE

Task 6C2: (CZM) The North Shore Office of CZM is currently developing a landscaping 

model promoting the use of native vegetation and management practices to improve 

water quality and water quantity. The project will include the development of

educational materials and a targeted outreach strategy for encouraging the use of native 

species in water gardens. CZM has dedicated $25,000 to the completion of this task. 

YEAR ONE

Task 6C3: (MIT Sea Grant/Massport) MIT Sea Grant and Massport will distribute 

ballast water management posters and brochures available from the California Sea Grant 

College Program along with other educational materials to representatives of the 

 49
commercial shipping industry. Massachusetts is seeking $10,000 to support printing and 

distribution costs. YEAR TWO

Task 6C4: (DEM) The Department of Environmental Management will revise and 

distribute its “Stop the Spread of Invasive Species” poster at boat launches, bait and 

tackle shops, pet stores, and other locations. DEM has dedicated $10,000 for printing and 

distribution costs. YEAR ONE

Task 6C5: (AIS Working Group/EOEA): The AIS Working Group will coordinate with 

EOEA and other organizations to sponsor an invasive species booth at state and regional 

gardening exhibitions including the annual Boston Flower Show. Massachusetts is 

seeking $10,000/year to support travel expenses and printing and distribution costs. 

ONGOING

Task 6C6: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will develop a presentation

relating regional AIS management issues to decision making bodies such as the Coastal 

Caucus of Legislators. YEARS THREE-FIVE

Objective 7: Research 

Strategic Action 7A: Identify Research Priorities for Massachusetts and the 

Region 

Issue addressed: As AIS populations change in size and new invaders are introduced to 

Massachusetts, priorities for management will change as will research needs. Effective 

AIS management will require that research priorities are revaluated periodically, and that 

these priorities are recognized and addressed by scientists and managers in the region. 

Task 7A1: (AIS Working Group/MIT Sea Grant) The AIS Working Group will sponsor 

a biennial symposium of area researchers for the development of regional AIS research 

priorities. A subcommittee of the AIS Working Group will develop a scope for the 

meeting, estimate resource needs, and identify potential funding sources for the research 

symposium. YEAR TWO

Task 7A2: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group is seeking $20,000/year to 

support a graduate fellowship for AIS research based on research priorities identified 

through Task 7A1. YEAR TWO

Task 7A3: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will develop a strategy to 

communicate AIS research needs to the scientific community and research supporters. 

YEAR ONE/ONGOING

 50
Objective 8: Legislation 

Strategic Action 8A: Evaluate Massachusetts’s Authority to Restrict the 

Introduction of Specific Aquatic Species Designated as Threats to the 

Ecology and Economy of the Commonwealth

Issues addressed: Currently, Massachusetts’s authority to prohibit the import of

potentially harmful plant, algal, and invertebrate species is limited or unclear. In some 

cases, state agencies such as the DFA and DMF may wish to include new species as 

targets in existing inspection programs but do not have the clear authority to expand 

existing lists. 

Task 8A1: (CZM) CZM will contract with a law student to evaluate Massachusetts’s 

existing authority to prohibit the introduction and transport of AIS, particularly plant, 

algal, and invertebrate species designated as priorities by the AIS Working Group (see 

also Task 2J3). Massachusetts is seeking $10,000 to contract with a law student for one 

semester. YEAR TWO

Task 8A2: (AIS Working Group) Based on the results of Task 8A1, the AIS Working 

Group will develop a regulatory strategy to limit the introduction of priority species. 

YEAR TWO/ONGOING

Strategic Action 8B: Make General Recommendations for Additional State 

and Federal Legislative Needs to Minimize Impacts from Invasive Species. 

Issue addressed: As invasive species management evolves in Massachusetts, additional 

legislative needs may become apparent. 

Task 8B1: (AIS Working Group) The AIS Working Group will biennially evaluate 

legislative and regulatory needs based on the results of implementation efforts outlined in 

the AIS Management Plan. YEAR TWO/ONGOING

 51
V. Implementation Table 

See insert. 

 52
VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation 

Following submission of this management plan to the Federal ANS Task Force, the AIS 

Working Group will generate the first annual work plan based on tasks identified in Section 

IV. Successes of the plan will be evaluated each year by the Working Group based both on 

progress in meeting the goals outlined on page 2 as well as successful implementation of 

identified tasks. Due to the difficulty in assigning quantitative measures of progress towards 

these goals, the AIS Working Group will evaluate plan implementation based primarily on the 

completion of specific tasks identified for each year (see Section V: Implementation Table). 

Results of the evaluation will be summarized in an annual report that will include: 

1) A qualitative description of progress towards each of the four goals outlined in Section 

I. 

2) A complete list of tasks identified in the previous year’s work plan, budgetary needs 

identified for each, resources procured, and resources expended. 

3) Designation of the implementation status (full, partial, or not implemented) of each 

task identified in the previous year’s work plan and a brief justification of the 

designation. 

4) A summary of resource requirements to achieve full implementation of tasks listed as 

partially or not implemented. 

Evaluation of annual work plans will play a major role in directing activities for the following 

years, as well as restructuring tasks identified in the original plan. Work plans for upcoming 

years will be produced concurrently with each annual program evaluation document. Public 

meetings similar to those described in Section I will be held to solicit comments on the draft 

annual report and work plan prior to the distribution of a final document to relevant state and 

federal agencies, municipalities, academics, industry representatives, and the general public. 

 

 53
VII. Glossary 

algae - organisms with no true roots, stems, or leaves that range in size from single celled 

organisms to large, plant-like organisms 

aquaculture - the controlled cultivation and harvest of aquatic animals and plants 

aquatic - relating to fresh or saltwater systems, including both open waters and wetlands

ballast water - any water that is placed in the hold of a ship for the purposes of maintaining 

stability 

benthic - relating to the substrate (bottom) of a lake, pond, ocean, or other water bodies, 

which often provide habitat for a variety of organisms 

biogeographic region - the area defining the geographic boundary of organisms, determined 

by a combination of climate, water temperature, or geologic boundaries 

cryptogenic species - an organism of unknown origin; may be introduced or native 

cultch - crushed shells deposited in a waterway to attract the spawn of reef building shellfish 

such as oysters 

epibenthic - relating to organisms that exist exposed on the substrate (bottom) of a lake, 

pond, ocean, or other water bodies

epiphyte - an organism that grows on another plant or animal upon which it depends for 

mechanical support but not for nutrients 

eradicate - to completely eliminate a population from a geographic area 

exotic species - see nonindigenous 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 

hydrology - the study or description of the behavior of atmospheric, surface, or groundwater 

invasive species (invader) - nonindigenous or cryptogenic organisms that may threaten the 

diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability and/or uses of infested 

waters 

macrophyte - a plant that is visible with the unaided eye; generally used to refer to floating or 

rooted aquatic plants 

 54
native - existing within a historical ecological range, usually within a balanced system of 

coevolved organisms 

nonindigenous species - (non-native species) a species transported intentionally or 

accidentally from another region 

nuisance species - (as defined by the federal ANS Task Force) animal and plant species that 

have been introduced into new ecosystems throughout the United States and the world and are 

having harmful impacts on the natural resources in these ecosystems and the human use of 

these resources 

pathogen - any agent that causes disease in plants or animals; typically referring to microbes 

such as bacteria, viruses, or protozoan parasites 

parasite - an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while 

contributing nothing to the survival of its host 

population - all individuals of a single species within a defined habitat or geographic area 

such as a pond or watershed 

propagules - any of various usually vegetative portions of a plant, such as a bud or other 

offshoot, that aid in dispersal of the species and from which a new individual may develop

seafood - any fish, shellfish, or other aquatic species harvested for the purposes of human 

consumption 

vector - the physical means by which a species is transported from one area to another, 

usually referring to transport by humans 

watershed - the geographic area that drains to a single water body or hydrographic unit such 

as a lake, stream reach, or estuary 

 55
Citations 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 2000. ANS Task Force Guidance for State and 

Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 44 pp. 

Blake, Andrew. 2001. Small Crabs May Pose Big Threat. The Boston Globe. May 20, 

North Weekly p. 7. 

Boerner, R.E. 1972. A Comparative Study of Reproductive Patterns in Populations of 

Codium fragile subspecies tomentosoides off the Northeast Coast of North America. 

M.Sc. Thesis, Adelphi University, NY 69 pp. 

Burke, Tina. 2001. Identifying Ballast Water Management Practices in Massachusetts - A 

Step Toward Assessing the Risk of Shipboard Introductions of Aquatic Invasive Species 

into the Waters of Massachusetts. A report to the Massachusetts Port Authority 15 pp. 

Burkhead, N.M. and J. D. Williams. 1991. An intergeneric hybrid of a native minnow, 

the golden shiner, and an exotic minnow, the rudd. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 120:781-795. 

Carlton, J.T. 1997. Marine Biological Invasions of New England: An Annotated Check 

List. Draft report to the Steering Committee for Marine Bioinvasions; Massachusetts Sea 

Grant College Program. 5 pp. 

Chavanich, S. and L.G. Harris. 2000. Potential impact of the introduced bryozoan 

Membranipora membranacea, on the subtidal snail, Lacuna vincta, in the Gulf of Maine. 

J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. 

MIT Sea Grant 00-2. pp. 157-163. 

Coffin, G.W. and A.P. Stickney 1966. Codium enters Maine waters. Fisheries Bulletin

66:159-161. 

Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States 

Estuary: A Case Study of Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. 

Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and the 

National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant. NTIS Report No. PB96-

166525. 246 pp. 

Counts, C.L., III. 1986. The Zoogeography and History of the Invasion of the United 

States by Corbicula fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae). American Malacological Bulletin,

Special Edition 2:7-39. 

Crow, G.E. and C.B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North 

America, Vol. 1 and 2. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 

 56
Estrella, B.T. and R.P. Glenn. 1999. Massachusetts Coastal Commercial Lobster Trap 

Sampling Program May-November, 1999. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 

Publication No. 18458-28-208. 20pp. 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 2002. Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive 

Species Management Plan Public Review and Comment Period. The Environmental 

Monitor 57(8):31. 

Ford, S.E. 1996. Range extension by the oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus into the 

northeastern United States: Responses to climate change? Journal of Shellfish Research

15:45-56. 

Fraser, Doug. 2001. Black plague of clams. Cape Cod Times. June 7, 2001. Archives: 

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/2001/jun/7/plague7.htm.

Freeman, A. and L.D. Smith, 1999. Grazing Pressure on Invasive and Endemic 

Subspecies of the Green Alga Codium fragile. In: Judith Pederson (Ed.), Marine 

Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference January 24-27,1999. MIT 

Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge. pp. 175-176 

Fuller, S.L.H. and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extension of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) 

in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87:59. 

Ganzhorn, J., J.S. Rohovec, and J.L. Fryer 1992. Dissemination of microbial pathogens 

through introductions and transfers of finfish. Prepared for Dispersal of Living 

Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. Maryland Sea Grant Publication, College Park, 

Maryland. pp. 176-192. 

Harding, J. and R. Mann. 1999. Observations on the biology of the veined rapa whelk, 

Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846) in the Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Shellfish 

Research 18(1):9-17. 

Harris, L.G. and A.C Mathieson, 1999. Patterns of Range Expansion, Niche Shift and 

Predator Acquisition in Codium fragile ssp. tomtntosoides and Membranipora 

membranacea in the Gulf of Maine. In: Judith Pederson (Ed.), Marine Bioinvasions: 

Proceedings of the First National Conference January 24-27,1999. MIT Sea Grant 

College Program, Cambridge. pp. 46-56 

Harris, Larry G. and M.C. Tyrell 2001. Changing community states in the Gulf of Maine: 

synergism between invaders, overfishing, and climate change. Biological Invasions 3:9-

21. 

Hartel, K.E., D.B. Halliwell, and A.E. Launer. 1996. An annotated working list of the 

inland fishes of Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts, Cambridge, MA. 

 57
Hellquist, B.C. 2001. A Guide to Selected Non-Native Aquatic Species in Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. 18 pp. 

Hickey, J.M. 1979. Culture of the Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea gigas, in Massachusetts 

Waters. Exotic Species in Mariculture. Roger Mann, ed., MIT Press. ISPN 0-262-13155-

2. 

Hsu, Tommy. 2000. A Hedonic Study of the Effects of Lake Water Clarity and Aquatic 

Plants on Lakefront Property Prices in Vermont. Unpublished MS Thesis, University of 

Maine. August 2000, 91 pp. 

Isom, B.G., C.F. Bowman, J.T. Johnson, and E.B. Rodgers. 1986. Controlling Corbicula

(Asiatic clams) in complex power plant and industrial water systems. American 

Malacological Bulletin Special Edition 2:95-98. 

Langeland, K.A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae), The 

Perfect Weed. Castanea 61:293-304. 

Mackin, J.G., and S.M. Ray. 1966. The taxonomic relationships of Dermocystidium 

marinum Mackin, Owen, Collier. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 8:544-545. 

Makowka, J. 2000. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Fact Sheet: Caulerpa 

taxifolia. Report to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. 1995. Aquaculture White Paper & Strategic 

Plan. 236 pp. 

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, 2001. Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Research and Outreach: Northeast Regional Marine Invader Database and Web Page. A 

Proposal to the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

US Department of Commerce. 

Meinesz, Alexandre. 1999. Killer Algae. University of Chicago Press. 1999. Chicago, IL. 

360 pp. 

Moe, M.A., Jr. 1964. Survival potential of piranhas in Florida. Quarterly Journal of the 

Florida Academy of Sciences 27(3):197-210. 

New England Aquarium and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Management. 1996. A Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts 32 pp. 

Ohio Sea Grant College Program, 2000. Aquatic Nuisance Species Report: An Update on 

Sea Grant Research and Outreach Projects. OHSU-TB-046. 240 pp. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001 (adapt.). Pacific Oyster. [fact sheet 

online]: StreamNet. http://www.streamnet.org/pub-ed/ff/Lifehistory/index.html#.

 58
Pederson, Judith (ed.) 2000. Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 

Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. 427 pp. 

Pimentel D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and Economic

Costs Associated with Invasive Species in the United States. Cornell University News 

Release. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html. 

Ragone C., L.M.Walker, and J.G. Burreson. 1997. EM Occurrence of QPX, quahog 

parasite unknown, in Virginia hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria. Journal of Shellfish 

Research 16:1(334). 

Saltonstall, Kristin. 2002. Cryptic Invasion by a non-native genotype of the common 

reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 99:4(2445-2449). 

Scheibling, R. 2001. Recent Invaders Alter the Kelp Bed Ecosystem Off Nova Scotia. 

Presentation to Second the International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions. New 

Orleans, LA. 

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, 1999. The Connecticut River 

Watershed/Long Island Sound Invasive Plant Control Initiative Strategic Plan.

Smith, L.D, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 1999-2001. Research and Outreach to Prevent 

and Control Aquatic Nuisance Species Invasions: Identification and Ranking of Transport 

Vectors of Marine Bioinvaders To and From New England: A Proposal to the Office of 

Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of 

Commerce. 8 pp. 

Thresher, R.E. 2000. Key Threats from Marine Bioinvasions: A Review of Current and 

Future Issues. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 

Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. pp.24-34. 

US Geological Survey: Florida Caribbean Science Center. 2001. Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Species Database. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. 

US Geological Survey. 2002. Non-indigenous aquatic species website. (Available from

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/fishes/accounts/clariida/cl_batra.html). 

Washington SeaGrant. 2001. Aquatic Invasive Species: A Guide to Least Wanted Aquatic 

Organisms of the Pacific Northwest: WSG-MR 00-02. 8 pp. 

Whitlatch, R.B., and R.W. Osman. 1999. Geographical Distributions and OrganismHabitat Associations of Shallow-Water Introduced Marine Fauna in New England. J. 

Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. 

MIT Sea Grant 00-2P. pp.61-65. 

 59
Whitlatch, R.B., R.W. Osman, A. Frese, R. Malatesta, P. Mitchell, and L. Sedgewick. 

1995. The ecology of two introduced marine ascidians and their effects on epifaunal 

organisms in Long Island Sound. Proceedings of the Northeast Conference on NonIndigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program. CT-SG95-04. pp. 29-48. 

Williams, A.B. and J.J. McDermott. 1990 An Eastern United States Record for the 

Western Indo-Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Grapsidae). 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 103(1): 108-109. 

Williams, C.J. and R.F. McMahon. 1986. Power Station Entrainment of Corbicula 

fluminea (Müller) in Relation to Population Dynamics, Reproductive Cycle and Biotic 

and Abiotic Variables. American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition 2:99-111. 

Williams, J.D. 1997. Conservation status of freshwater mussels: Families 

Margaritiferidae and Unionidae. Journal of Shellfish Research 16(1):327. 

Wynn, S., L. Hess, and C. Liston. 1999. The Invasion of the Chinese Mitten Crab And its 

Effect on Fish Protection Facilities. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings 

of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. p. 423. 

Personal Communications

Hickey, J.M. Senior Biologist: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.

Smith, L.D. Assistant Professor. Department of Biological Sciences. Smith College.

 60
Appendices

 
Appendix A: Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group Membership 

Jay Baker 

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 

617-626-1204 

jason.baker@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 900 

Boston, MA 02114 

Steve Block

Massachusetts Wetland Restoration Program 

617-292-5743 

steve.block@state.ma.us

One Winter St., 5th floor 

Boston, MA 02110 

Cynthia Boettner 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

413-863-0209 x. 6 

cynthia_boettner@mail.fws.gov

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge 

52 Avenue A 

Turners Falls, MA 01376 

Jim Fair 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 

617-626-1534 

jim.fair@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 600 

Boston, MA 02114 

Mike Gildesgame 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management 

Office of Water Resources 

617-973-8755 

mike.gildesgame@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 600 

Boston, MA 02114 

Deb Hadden 

Massport 

617-946-4413 

dhadden@Massport.com

One Harborside Dr., suite 200S 

East Boston, MA 02128 

 
Sandra Keppner 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office 

716-691-5456 x23 

sandra_keppner@fws.gov

University Centre 

405 North French Rd. suite 120a 

Amherst, NY 14228 

Taryn LaScola 

Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture 

617-626-1779 

taryn.lascola@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 600 

Boston, MA 02114 

Rick McVoy 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

508-767-2877 

richard.mcvoy@state.ma.us

627 Main Street 

Worcester, Massachusetts 01608 

Brad Mitchell 

Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture 

brad.mitchell@state.ma.us

617-626-1771 

251 Causeway St., suite 600 

Boston, MA 02114 

Paul Mucha 

US Coast Guard 

617-223-6541 

pmucha@d1.uscg.mil

408 Atlantic Ave. 

Boston, MA 02110 

Judy Pederson 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant 

617-252-1741 

jpederso@mit.edu 

292 Main St. 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

Olga Quirin 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

 
617-918-1542 

quirin.olga@epamail.epa.gov

One Congress St. 

Boston, MA 02114 

Jan Smith 

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program, 

617-626-1231 

jan.smith@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 900 

Boston MA 02114 

Susan Snow-Cotter 

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 

617-626-1202 

susan.snow-cotter@state.ma.us

251 Causeway St., suite 900 

Boston, MA 02114 

Jim Straub 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management 

508-792-7716 x170 

jim.straub@state.ma.us

131 Barnum Rd. 

Devons, MA 01432 

Sally Yozell 

Battelle Corporation 

781-952-5331 

yozells@battelle.org

397 Washington St. 

Duxbury, MA 02332 

Marc Zimmerman 

US Geological Survey 

508-490-5021 

mzimmerm@usgs.gov

10 Bearfoot Rd. 

Northborough, MA 01532

 
Appendix B: Public Scoping Meetings: Question/Comment Summaries

Northeast Regional Conservation Commission Network 

1) Initial interest in the “Facilitated DEP Herbicide Licensing Process” (ref. Task 4C6). 

a. Need to make small weed control projects (i.e.. Phragmites) which private 

landowners wish to undertake easier to get underway. 

b. Include readable guidance for the homeowner/citizens for recommended 

management strategies to deal with priority invaders. 

c. Include conservation commissions in the discussion with DEP as the 

revised process is developed. 

d. Include additional technical assistance during the herbicide licensing 

process. This could be in the form of permitting templates that are tailored 

to specific projects (defined by species to be controlled and the size of the 

project). 

2) General concerns raised that the information generated through implementation of the 

plan should be used to make policy/legislation. 

3) Integration with existing North Shore Programs. 

a. CZM and the Conservation Commission Network are putting together a 

workshop for landscape architects geared towards use of plants for 

pollution prevention. There was a strong interest expressed in expanding 

this to include invasive species, and expanding the program to include 

nurseries. 

b. Other ideas included developing educational materials that create demand 

for local species and using a model water garden. 

4) Education: planning boards and conservation commissions need more general 

information on the invasive species issue i.e., documentation of major invasive 

species concerns and impacts. 

5) Wetlands Protection Act: General Consensus that the Wetlands Protection Act could 

be used to promote/mandate the use of native species at new developments (within 

the jurisdiction of the Act). This is something we might think about incorporating in 

the Plan. We might better define what the role of conservation commissions might 

be. 

6) Lakes and Ponds Initiative: Significant interest in the demonstration projects. Is 

DEM looking for ideas for projects, or are the sites already selected? How will the 

results of projects be translated to local decision makers?

7) Herbicide application: Need more information on the costs and benefits or risks of 

pesticide applications. 

 
8) Other networks that might be tapped into for implementation/education: 

a. Harbor masters. 

b. Shellfish advisory boards (specifically Essex County). 

9) Funding: Significant interest in the next Lakes and Ponds grant rounds for local 

control projects (when? how much? etc.). 

Charles River Watershed Conservation Commission Network

1) Need additional information on the relationships between water withdrawals or other 

draw down, changes in temperature and water chemistry, and the growth of invasive 

species (suggested this may be a component of the DEP/DEM GEIR). 

2) Along the same lines— what impacts do other lake and pond and wetland alterations 

(siltation, contaminant inputs) have on aquatic weeds? Will these be addressed in the 

GEIR and related publications? 

3) Major concern expressed over the spread of wetland species and macrophytes from

contractors. Include language on invasive species prevention in a pending DEP 

publication on wetland mitigation. Need to develop some BMPs for use of vehicles 

(construction) in areas of AIS infestation— maybe expand on the boat wash station 

idea. 

4) Need expressed for guidance in controlling aquatic weeds and wetland invaders 

including: 

a. Control techniques including mechanical harvesting and herbicide 

application. 

b. Disposal of removed material. 

c. Permitting requirements for small projects. 

5) Selection of Lakes and Ponds for LPI demonstration projects 

6) Outreach: Use local cable television networks. 

Cape Cod Coastal Resources Commission 

1) Initial questions were posed regarding definitions: Why did the AIS Working Group 

choose the term invasive? How is a species designated as invasive once it is 

designated as nonindigenous? 

Discussion leaders explained that comprehensive lists of species were initially 

reviewed and working group subcommittees used the following criteria to designate 

priorities: 

 
a. Severity of the problem posed by the introduced species. 

b. Potential impacts from managing the species (costs versus benefits). 

c. Existing capabilities for management. 

2) Questions posed regarding the scope of the plan. Why are water birds not included in 

the plan? 

It was explained that in discussing the scope of the plan, it was determined that efforts 

to manage birds and mammals are already extensive in Massachusetts, and that 

control of these species would be handled through existing programs. 

3) Interest expressed in the training of volunteer groups to do monitoring. Audience 

members explained that it is not always clear what should be done with data once 

they are collected. 

Existing data management efforts such as the DEP aquatic macrophytes database and 

the Northeast Regional Panel database were explained in detail. 

4) One audience member suggested that educational materials be distributed during 

boater safety course. In addition instructors (often members of the US Coast Guard) 

could be trained in invasive species issues and preventative measures, and that this 

information be integrated into boating safety course curricula. 

5) One audience member suggested that a draft plan be placed in local libraries during 

the public review period. 

6) It was suggested that the AIS Working Group increase communications with the Park 

Service, particularly with regards to management initiatives that have been 

undertaken at the Cape Cod National Seashore. 

South Coastal Watershed Team Meeting 

1) Concern was immediately expressed over the lack of management objectives and 

actions that deal with construction vehicles both transporting invasive organisms 

directly and creating disturbances or other pathways by which invasive species might 

spread (construction management actions have since been incorporated). 

2) Additional concern was expressed over the transport of invasive species with fill 

material. 

3) Representatives of the landscape architecture industry suggested that we distribute 

educational materials through the “New England Grows” show, to reach the majority 

of industry representatives. 

4) An audience member asked if we address transport of AIS by waterfowl and if so 

how that might be done. The participant was informed that this had not been 

addressed in the plan due to necessary limitations in the scope of the plan. 

 
5) An audience member warned that we exercise caution in promoting the economic 

benefits of harvesting invaders due to the interest that may be generated in protecting 

them. 

6) The watershed team leader suggested that we protect against the genetic dilution of 

shellfish stocks resulting from the introduction of fast growing, genetically 

homogenous shellfish seed. 

7) An audience member asked how groups would be contacted regarding Invasive 

Species Monitoring efforts through volunteers. The response was that volunteer 

monitoring groups will be solicited for their participation in the effort. 

Additional interest was expressed in reviewing the plan. The audience was informed that 

the plan will be posted on the CZM web page following the next working group meeting 

Oct. 25. 

Lakes and Ponds Association (LAPA) West 

1) How will the state agencies get funds to the public to use on projects for controlling 

or preventing Invasive Species? 

2) We are already working with DEM on invasive projects. Were these counted as part 

of the plan? 

3) Will the Lakes and Ponds Watershed Action Strategy last more than three years?

4) Will implementation of the Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan result in a 

staff person dedicated to AIS management issues in the regions?

5) Will the Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan fund projects for Lake 

Associations? 

SuAsCo Watershed Conservation Commission Network 

1) How does the Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan funnel $$ to the public?

2) How does the public get involved?

3) Will new laws be developed from this? 

4) State agencies might consider reviewing laws from other states such as Maine. 

5) Is there a public review process? Who is the lead for this initiative?

 
Appendix C: Grant Programs Applicable to Aquatic Invasive Species 

Massachusetts 

Lakes and Ponds Grant Program

Sponsor Agency: Department of Environmental Management

Contact: Steve Asen 617-626-1353

 www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/lakepond/lakeapp.htm

Eligibility: Municipalities in conjunction with other groups (watershed groups, other nonprofits, etc.) 

Overview: Awards grants for the protection, preservation and enhancement of public lakes 

and ponds in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Range of Funding: Maximum of $10,000.00 

Cost sharing: Yes, 50/50 

Deadline: N/A 

Rivers and Harbors Grant Program

Sponsor Agency: Department of Environmental Management

Contact: Leslie Lewis 781-740-1600 x.111 

 www.state.ma.us/dem/grants.htm

Eligibility: Towns and municipalities 

Overview: Statewide program from the Office of Waterways for the design and 

implementation of solutions to address coastal and inland waterway problems. 

Range of Funding: Maximum of $300,000.00 

Cost Sharing: Yes, 50/50 local match for all projects except dredging which requires 25% 

local match

Deadline: N/A 

Division of Conservation Services Grant Programs

Sponsor Agency: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

Contact: www.state.ma.us/dcs/dcsgrnt.htm

Eligibility: Massachusetts communities

Overview: To provide support for projects that prevent pollution, restore environmental 

 Quality and protect natural resources. 

Range of Funding: Maximum of $500,000 

Cost Sharing: Programs provide communities with 52%-70% reimbursement 

Deadline: June 1 

Agro-Environmental Technology Grant Program

Sponsor Agency: Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture

Contact: Craig Richov 508-792-7711 x14

 142 Old Common Road 

 Lancaster, MA 01523

Eligibility: Public and private agencies and organizations, business and industry, 

educational institutions, and local Massachusetts government

Overview: Inviting proposals to fund demonstration projects, feasibility analyses and 

applied research designed to address agriculture related environmental concerns

and development needs. At least one grant has been used recently for aquatic 

weed control. 

Range of Funding: Maximum of $50,000

 Average grant last year: $12,500

Cost Sharing: None 

Deadlines: December 1 (2000) 

 
National Programs 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

Sponsor Agency: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact: Steve Hill 413-253-8614

 http://grants.fws.gov

Eligibility: Private land owners 

Overview: Offers technical and financial assistance for the voluntary restoration of

wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on private land. Enhances 

reestablishment of native vegetation and ecological communities for benefit of

fish and wildlife in concert with the needs and desires of private landowners. 

Range of Funding: N/A 

Cost Sharing: Yes, 50/50 local sharing 

Deadline: N/A 

Partnership for Wildlife

Sponsor Agency: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact: Gary Reinitz 

 Gary_reinitz@fws.gov

Eligibility: Sate Agencies 

Overview: To provide grants to state projects that benefit a variety of fish and wildlife 

species and/or encourage non-consumption fish and wildlife recreation 

opportunities. 

Range of Funding: FY00 $768,000 available 

Cost Sharing: none 

Deadline: N/A 

 

Regional Geographic Initiative

Sponsor Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: Deb Harsted 617-918-1085

 www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm

Eligibility: Contact Deb Harsted

Overview: Provides up to four years of “seed money” for projects that address a high 

human health or ecosystem risk (such as those associated with aquatic invasive

species) and have significant potential for risk reduction. These projects will 

focus on a place rather than a pollutant. 

Range of Funding: N/A 

Cost Sharing: none 

Deadline: All stages of the process normally take place between October and January. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

Sponsor Agency: US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Contact: Rick Devergilio

 Rick.devergilio@ma.usda.gov

Eligibility: Owners, landlords, land operators or tenants 

Overview: Provides financial incentives to develop habitat for fish and wildlife on private 

lands. The agreement generally lasts 10 years. 

Range of Funding: Maximum of $10,000.00 per contract

Cost Sharing: Yes, USDA pays up to 75% 

Deadline: None, apply at local USDA Office 

 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Sponsor Agency: US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Contact: Carl Gustafson 

 Carl.Gustafson@ma.usda.gov 

Eligibility: Any state agency, county, town, municipality, district, non-profit, tribe or group

with authority under state law 

Overview: Assistance for maintenance and operation of watershed works of improvement, 

including wildlife habitat improvements. 

Range of Funding: Projects over $5 million require congressional approval 

Cost Sharing: Yes, varies 

Deadline: Check with contact for deadline for 2001

North American Wetlands Conservation Grants

Sponsor Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Services 

Contact: Regional: Andrew Milliken, andrew_milliken@fws.gov

National: Bettina Sparrowe, Bettina_sparrowe@fws.gov (Standard Grants) 

Keith Morehouse, keith_morehouse@fws.gov (Small Grants) 

Eligibility: Any individual or group 

Overview: Provides assistance for long-term conservation efforts directed toward wetlands

through habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement. The purpose of the

grant is to encourage voluntary, public-private partnerships to conserve wetland 

ecosystems. Originally established to help support the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan so many of the approved projects involved bird

habitat preservation. Applicants working with invasive species may want to

highlight the importance of native species in habitat restoration. 

Range of Funding: Standard: up to one million 

Small Grants: Up to $50,000.00

Cost Sharing: 50/50 split, cost sharing

Deadline: Standard: March 23 and July 6, 2001

Small Grants: December 1, 2001 

 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program

Sponsor Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Services 

Contact: Sue Essig 413-253-8611

 sue_essig@fws@gov 

 300 Westgate Center Dr. 

 Hadley, MA 01035-9589 

 

Eligibility: Coastal states including the lake region, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territories of the 

Pacific Islands, and America Samoa 

Overview: Provides funds to assist in pursuing coastal wetland conservation projects. 

Funds can be used for acquisition of lands or waters and for restoration, 

enhancement or management of coastal wetland ecosystem. Programs will 

provide for long- term conservation of such lands and their hydrology, water 

quality and fish and wildlife. 

Funding: FY00 $11.8 million 

Cost Sharing: Grant will provide between 50-75%

Deadline: June 8 

Aquatic Resource Education

Sponsor Agency: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact: Gary Reinitz 

 
Gary_reinitz@fws.gov

Eligibility: State agencies 

Overview: Through the Sport Fishing Restoration Act, states are reimbursed for aquatic

resource education programs with budgets that do not exceed 15% of the total 

state sport fishing restoration funds. 

Funding: The Sport Fishing Restoration funds come from taxes on fishing equipment and

motor boat fuel taxes. 

Cost Sharing: States must contribute any amount above the amount available through the Sport

Fishing Restoration Funds. 

Deadline: Ongoing 

Wetlands Reserve Program

Sponsor Agency: US Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Contact: Rick Devergilio

 Rick.devergilio@ma.usda.gov

Eligibility: State, private, association, any legal entity that has owned the land for at least 

one year. 

Overview: This is a voluntary program to provide financial incentives to restore and protect 

wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural land. Landowners may 

sell a conservation easement or enter into a cost-share restoration agreement. 

Landowners voluntarily limit future use of the land, but retain private 

ownership. Landowners and the NRCS develop a plan for the restoration and

maintenance of the wetland. This restoration may include the control and 

prevention of invasive species. 

Funding: Based on acreage, not funding levels; FY00 150,000 acres 

Cost Sharing: USDA will provide 75% unless owner opts for permanent easement, in which

case the USDA purchases the land 

Deadline: Continuous sign-up 

Wetlands Program Development Grants

Sponsor Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: Stafford Madison 

 Madison.Stafford@epa.gov 

 www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/academy/fund/wetlandsp.htm

Eligibility: States, tribes, local governments, intergovernmental organizations

Overview: Provides financial assistance to support development of new, or augmentation 

and enhancement of existing wetland programs. Projects must clearly 

demonstrate a direct link to an increase in the participant’s ability to protect its 

wetland resources. 

Funding: FY00 $15 million 

Cost Sharing: Grant will provide 75% 

Deadline: Varies 

Bring Back the Natives Grant Program

Sponsor Agency: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Contact: www.nfwf.org/programs.htm

Northeast Region contact: Eric Hammerling (202) 857-6166

 hammerling@nfwf.org 

Eligibility: Local governments, states, and local nonprofit organizations 

Overview: Assists in restoring damaged or degraded riverine habitats and their native

aquatic species through watershed restoration and improved land management. 

Funding: FY00 $4.5 million 

Cost Sharing: No 

Deadline: None, applications accepted through the year

 
Five Star Restoration Program

Sponsor Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: US EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

 202-260-8076

pai.john@epa.gov

Eligibility: Any public or private entity that engages in community based restoration

Overview: EPA provides funds to four intermediary organizations, the National Association

of Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Wildlife Habitat 

Council and the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps. These

agencies then administer sub grants to support community-based wetland and 

riparian restoration projects that emphasize long term ecological, educational, 

and/or socio-economical benefits to a watershed. Projects must include multiple

partners (volunteer groups, corporations, private landowners, government,

nonprofits, etc.). 

Funding: FY00 $500,000.00 

 Sub grants average is $10,000.00

Cost Sharing: No, information and technical support exchange necessary. 

Deadline: January/ February 

Watershed Assistance Grants

Sponsor Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency

Contact: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Ariel Rios Bldg. 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

202-260-4538

Cole.james@epa.gov

Eligibility: Nonprofits, tribes, local governments 

Overview: Funds are provided to support organizational development and capacity building

for watershed partnerships with diverse membership. The EPA establishes a 

relationship with one or more eligible entities to support watershed partnership,

organizational development and long term effectiveness. 

Funding: Maximum funds for one partnership: $30,000.00

Cost Sharing: Match is encouraged but not required 

Deadline: Varies 

Community-Based Restoration Program

Sponsor Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Contact: US Department of Commerce 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 Office of Habitat Conservation, FHC3

 1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

 301-713-0174

chris.doley@noaa.gov

Eligibility: State, territorial, local, or tribal governments; regional governmental bodies; 

public or private agencies or organizations; universities and colleges; private and

nonprofit organizations 

Overview: Provides funds for small-scale, locally driven habitat restoration projects that 

foster natural resource stewardship within communities. Partnerships are sought 

at the national and local level to contribute funding, land, technical assistance, 

workforce support, or other in-kind services. The program emphasizes the use

 
of a grassroots, bottom-up approach to restoring fishery habitat across coastal

America. 

Funding: FY00 up to $ 2 million 

Cost Sharing: Grants are cooperative agreements, no set cost-sharing ratio

Deadline: As posted on the NOAA web site 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Sponsor Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact: The Division of Federal Aid 

Fw9_Federal_Aid@fws.gov

Eligibility: State agencies 

Overview: Distributed to states to provide funding for the selection, restoration, information 

produced by these projects. “Teaming with Wildlife” is one of the Wildlife 

Restoration programs that may be applicable for invasive species work. 

Funding: Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal tax on sport hunting guns, 

ammunition, and archery equipment and a 10 percent tax on handguns. The 

amount each state receives is determined by a formula considering the total area 

of the state and the number of licensed hunters in that state. The state covers the 

full cost of any approved project and then applies for reimbursement through 

Federal Aid. 

Cost Sharing: State must provide 25%, Federal will support 75% 

Deadline: Program dependant, email above address for details

Challenge Grants

Sponsor Agency: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Contact: Eric Hammerling

 hammerling@nfwf.org 

Eligibility: Federal, state, and local governments, educational institutions, nonprofit 

organizations 

Overview: Awards funds for projects that promote species and habitat conservation that

involve multiple community partners and have an evaluation component to

project outcomes. 

Funding: Most awards are between $25,000-$75,000 with some small grants and some

over $150,000

Cost Sharing: Non-federal dollars or goods and services of equal value must match each dollar 

awarded. Participants are encouraged to achieve at least a 2:1 ratio for each 

federal dollar. 

Deadline: Revolving application process with Board of Directors decisions made October 

31 and March 31 

Pulling Together Initiative

Sponsor Agency: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Contact: Gary Kania 202-857-0166

kania@nfwf.org

Eligibility: Federal agencies, state and local governments, private landowners 

Overview: Provides funds supporting partnerships in developing long-term weed 

management projects within the scope of integrated pest management strategy. 

The goals of the initiative are to (1) prevent, manage or eradicate invasive and

noxious plants through a coordinate program of public/private partnerships; and 

(2) increase public awareness of the adverse impacts of invasive and noxious 

plants. 

Funding: Contact Gary Kania 

Cost Sharing: Yes, federal money must be matched by state, local or private funds 

Deadline: Contact Gary Kania 

 
Coastal Ocean Programs

Sponsor Agencies: Department of Commerce 

Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research/Coastal Ocean Program 

(CSCOR/COP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Contact: Leslie McDonald 301-713-3338 ex. 137

 CSCOR/COP Grants Administrator 

Eligibility: All qualified non-federal and federal researchers. Participants must be affiliated

with a non-profit institution. 

Overview: Provides predictive capability for managing coastal ecosystems through 

sponsorship of research. COP supports research on issues critical to estuaries, 

coastal waters, and Great Lakes and translates findings into accessible 

information.

Funding: Average between $5,000-500,000

 FY00 $8.5 million 

Cost Sharing: No cost sharing requirements 

Deadline: Check specific funding announcements 

Research Grants 

MIT Sea Grant Request for Proposals

Sponsor Agencies: MIT Sea Grant Program 

Contact: Richard Morris 617-252-7042

rgmorris@mit.edu

Eligibility: Faculty and senior researchers at universities and colleges and senior researchers 

at non-profit organizations

Overview: Solicitation for proposals that address the research needs identified by MIT Sea 

Grant in the following four themes: 1) Coastal Management and Utilization 

2) Coupled Ocean Observing and Modeling 3) Marine Biotechnology, and 

4) Technical Development. This includes proposals for regional projects and the 

Advisory Services and Educational Program.

Funding: Maximum annual funding per research project: $75,000. Maximum annual

funding for education and outreach projects: $25,000 

Sharing: 50/50 

Deadline: Preliminary Proposals: March 2001

Full Proposal: March 2002 

 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Research and Outreach

Sponsor Agencies: National Sea Grant Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Commerce 

Contact: Leon M. Cammen, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator, National 

Sea Grant College Program, NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or contact local program director 

MIT Sea Grant Director: 

 Chryssostomos Chryssostomosidis 

 chrys@deslab.mit.edu 

 
Eligibility: Any individual, public or private corporation or partnership or other association

or entities (including institutions of higher education, institutes, non-federal 

laboratories), or any State or political subdivision of the state or agency. 

Overview: Provides support to projects to prevent and/or control nonindigenous species 

invasions in all US marine waters, the Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain. 

Projects will be selected through national competitions. 

Funding: In FY 2001 and 2002, $2,700,000 per year

Cost Sharing: 50/50 

Deadline: November 15 

 

Improved Methods for Ballast Water Treatment and Management and Prevention of Small Boat Transport

of Invasive Species

Sponsor Agencies: National Sea Grant Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Commerce and Fish and Wildlife Services, 

Department of the Interior

Contact: Dr. Leon Cammen 301-713-2435x136

leon.cammen@noaa.gov

www.nsgo.seagrant.org/research/nonindigenous/RFP00.html

Eligibility: Any person may apply. Applications from non-federal and eligible federal

applicants will be competed against each other. Non-federal applicants will be

funded through a project grant or cooperative agreements and federal agencies 

will be funded through an inter-agency transfer. 

Overview: Provide support to projects to improve ballast water treatment and management

in the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes in particular (Sea Grant) and in US 

coastal and Great Lakes waters in general (Service). Also to support projects to

reduce the transport of invasive species by small boats. 

Funding: FY2000 Sea Grant: $700,000 

Services: $300,000

Sea Grant for small boats: $40,000

Cost Sharing: Not specified in the grant 

Deadline: Check web site for current deadline 

Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants

Sponsor Agency: NRI, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Department

of Agriculture

Contact: Program Director 202-401-6466

apark@reeusda.gov

Eligibility: Anyone

Overview: Provides support to research that leads to an improved understanding of the 

extent of genetic and phenotypic diversity within and between plant populations, 

species composition within a community, and or species competitiveness and 

invasiveness. The program also supports proposals aimed at understanding 

plant population dynamics and interactions between agricultural settings and 

lands of conservation. Support will also be given to development of new 

methods of controlling the spread weeds or invasive plants. 

Funding: FY2001 $300,000 over 3-4 years 

Cost Sharing: Not specified in the grant 

Deadline: November 15, 2000, check web site for current deadline 

 
Appendix D: Summary of Research Activities 

General 

James T. Carlton

Williams College 

jcarlton@williams.edu

Dr. Carlton has worked extensively on aquatic invasive species in New England and 

around the world. His publications and accomplishments cover a wide range of 

expertise, focusing on dispersal vectors, ecological and evolutionary impacts, community 

structure, and management and prevention issues relevant to aquatic invasive species. 

Currently, he is working with L. David Smith, Shannon Willard, and Judith Pederson on 

an investigation into the transport vectors of New England. He is the founding editor in 

Chief of the new international journal Biological Invasions and was Co-Chair of the 

Marine Biodiversity Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which produced 

Understanding Marine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for the Nation (1995). 

Carlton is a member of the Steering Committee of the UN Global Invasive Species 

Program (GISP), and was Chair from 1991 to 2000 of the Working Group on 

Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms of the International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea (ICES). He has testified five times on introduced species issues 

before Senate and House subcommittees, and was Principal Investigator of the "Shipping 

Study" mandated under 1990 federal law. In April 1999 Dr. Carlton was the first 

scientist to receive the US Government's interagency Recognition Award for Significant 

and Sustained Contributions to the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Species in 

America's Aquatic Ecosystem.

 

Representative Publications: 

Carlton, J.T. and J.B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: The global transport of 

nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261:78-82 

Carlton, J.T. 1996. Marine bioinvasions: the alteration of marine ecosystems by 

nonindigenous species. Oceanography 9:36-43 

Carlton, J.T. 1996. Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. 

Biological Conservation 78:97-106 

L. David Smith

Smith College 

ldsmith@lynx.neu.edu

Dr. L. David Smith’s research is actively examining two aspects of marine biological 

invasions in the Gulf of Maine. One research direction examines dispersal pathways of 

nonindigenous marine species. Nonindigenous species arrive by numerous pathways, yet 

 
we know little about: (a) the identity, frequency or quantity of organisms being 

transported by a given pathway, (b) factors that make certain regions susceptible to 

invasion, or (c) the potential for invaders to continue to spread within a region. His 

research addresses these issues for both shipping (ballast water) and non-shipping 

(seafood, aquaculture, bait, and pet industries) pathways. A second research direction 

examines behavioral and morphological responses by introduced predators and native 

prey to each other. He is particularly interested in determining whether trophic 

interactions generate short or long-term arms races as induced defenses in prey are 

countered by improved foraging effectiveness in invading predators. His lab is currently 

testing for diet-induced changes in claw size and performance in an invading crab 

predator and induced changes in shell form in native snail prey over a latitudinal 

temperature gradient. 

Representative Publications: 

Smith, L.D., M.J. Wonham, L.D. McCann, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, and J.T. Carlton. 

1999. Invasion pressure to a ballast-flooded estuary and an assessment of inoculant 

survival. Biological Invasions 1:67-87. 

Trussell, G.C. and L.D. Smith. 2000. Induced defenses in response to an invading crab 

predator: An explanation of historical and geographical phenotypic change. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 97:2123-2127. 

Smith, L.D., M.J. Wonham, J.T.Carlton, and G.M. Ruiz. 2000. Fish and ships: relating 

dispersal frequency to success in biological invasions. Marine Biology 136: 1111-1121. 

Judith Pederson 

MIT Sea Grant 

jpederso@mit.edu

Dr. Judith Pederson is Manager of the Coastal Resource Center at MIT Sea Grant and has 

worked to improve the communications between scientists, managers, and commercial 

interests in marine issues. She organized the First National Conference on Marine 

Bioinvasions in 1999 and edited the proceedings. Dr. Pederson has established a web site 

dedicated to MIT Sea Grant work with invasive species and continues to seek funding 

opportunities to increase awareness and educational programs throughout the state. 

Judith Pederson is working with L. David Smith, Shannon Weigle and James Carlton on 

the transport vector study for New England marine invasive species. Finally, Dr. 

Pederson took the lead in implementing a Rapid Assessment Survey of invaders on 

floating dock and piers in coastal Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the summer of 

2000. 

Representative Publications: 

Pederson, Judith, 1996. Exotic Species Workshop: Issues Relating to Aquaculture and 

Biodiversity. MIT Sea Grant College Program Publications: 96-15. 

 
Pederson, Judith (ed). 1999. Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 

Conference January 24-27, 1999. MIT Sea Grant College Program. 

Jan Pechenik 

Tufts University 

Jan.pechenik@tufts.edu

Dr. Jan Pechenik studies the stresses marine organisms experience in transport via ship

ballast water. Food limitation for planktonic feeding larvae, delayed metamorphosis, and 

other stresses that could reduce the survival or competitive ability of some species after 

metamorphosis are studied to determine if they could help explain why some species are 

more successful invaders than others. The growth rates and post-settlement survivorship 

of gastropods, polycheate annelids, bryozoans and barnacles are studied in relation to 

food limitation and delayed metamorphosis to determine the relative competitiveness of 

different species that undergo transport via ship ballast water.

Representative Publications: 

Pechenik. J. 2000. Larval Experience can influence invasion potential for benthos marine 

invertebrates. J. Pederson (ed.) Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the first annual 

national conference. MIT Sea Grant, Cambridge, MA. 

Pechenik, J. Metamorphosis is not a new beginning. BioScience 48 (11): 901-910. 1998. 

Asian Shore Crab 

Nancy O’Connor 

University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth 

noconnor@umassd.edu

Dr. Nancy O’ Connor studies the ecology and history of the Hemigrapsis sanguineus in 

New England. Her work with the Asian shore crab ranges from the genetic to population 

level. Recently she has collaborated in using genetic patterns to determine the likelihood 

of multiple invasions on the eastern shore. Another project examined the population 

density and distribution along with feeding habits to assess the potential impact of 

Hemigrapsis on community structure in rocky intertidal communities. Currently her 

research is focused on the effect of Hemigrapsis on native crab species in New England. 

Tara Cassanova 

Cedar Island Marine Research Laboratory 

biotara@aol.com

Tara Cassanova studies the ecological and population dynamics of the Asian shore crab, 

Hemigrapsis sanguineus. Abundance, distribution and feeding habits are analyzed to 

determine the niche overlap and possible competition with native species. 

 
Representative Publications: 

Casanova, T. 2000. The ecology of the Japanese shore crab and its niche relationship to 

the green crab along the coast of Connecticut, USA. J. Pederson (ed.) Marine 

Bioinvasions. Proceedings of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, Cambridge, 

MA. 

Paul Boudreau 

Center for Marine Science and Technology: University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth 

pboudreau@hotmail.com

Paul Boudreau has worked with Nancy O’Connor on the feeding preferences of 

Hemigrapsis sanguineus in southern Massachusetts. The prey selection of mollusks was 

investigated to gain insight into the crabs’ potential to alter New England rocky intertidal 

ecosystems through predation. His work has found that the crab is omnivorous, feeding 

readily on mollusks and microalgea. However, H. sanguineus selectively removed small 

individuals from the experimental mollusk populations. H. sanguineus therefore has the 

potential to alter natural mollusk populations by affecting levels of prey recruitment into 

adult size classes. Paul Boudreau started work in the fall of 2001 on the role of 

anthropogenic disturbance on invasive species success in estuarine and coastal 

environments. 

Representative Publications: 

Boudreau, P. and N. O’Connor. 2000. Prey preferences of the recently introduced 

Western Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsis sanguineus, feeding on mollusks and macroalgae in 

southeastern Massachusetts. J. Pederson (ed.) Marine Bioinvasions. Proceedings of the 

First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, Cambridge, MA. 

Botryllid Ascidians 

C. Sarah Cohen 

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard 

scohen@oeb.harvard.edu

Sarah Cohen works with fouling ascidians invasions. Her work is focused on 

determining the correct taxonomy of ascidians to aid in answering questions concerning 

their potential as threatening invasive species using genetic markers and molecular 

identification. Behavioral and life history variation between populations could be 

important to the distribution of these species as invaders. Her work deals with the 

identification and distribution of ascidians in general, with some studies on the 

identification of invading species. 

Representative Publications: 

Cohen, C.S. 2000. Botryllid Ascidians: Few Invaders or Many? J. Pederson (ed.)Marine 

Bioinvasions. Proceedings of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, 

Cambridge, MA. 

 
Cohen, S., Y. Saito, and I. Weissman. 1998. Evolution of allorecognition in botryllid 

ascidians inferred from a molecular phylogeny. Evolution 52(3): 746-756. 

Cordylophora 

Nadine Folino-Rorem 

Biology Department, Wheaton College 

Nadine.c.folino-rorem@weaton.edu

Dr. Nadine Folino-Rorem studies several aspects of the colonial hydroid Cordylophora 

spp. populations in brackish and freshwater habitats. The work done in her lab includes 

preliminary taxonomic classification and DNA analysis along with interbreeding 

experiments to clarify the potential discrepancy between the five documented species of 

Cordylophora. Mapping invasion patterns and affected areas in conjunction with 

laboratory experiments on the transfer of the organisms from fresh to brackish water and 

vice versa are used to help understand the adaptability of this hydroid in the invasion 

process. Experiments on growth and reproduction were conducted to determine how 

effective temperature and chlorine are in controlling the spread of Cordylophora. 

Currently Nadine Folino-Rorem is examining the fouling potential of this organism for 

power companies and irrigation systems, and the co-occurrence and interactions of 

Cordylophora with more familiar fouling pests such as zebra mussels and bryozoa. 

Representative Publications: 

Folino, N. 2000. The freshwater expansion and classification of the colonial Hydroid 

Cordylophora. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 

Conference. MIT Sea Grant 00-2. pp. 139-144. 

Grateloupia 

Martine Villalard-Bohnsack 

Roger Williams University 

mvillbohns@mediaone.net

Martine Villalard-Bohnsack focuses on two aspects of the Grateloupia doryphora 

invasion in Rhode Island waters. The first, in collaboration with Marilyn Harlin 

(University of Rhode Island) involves studies on the geographical spread of the species, 

morphological variations in relation to environmental factors, recruitment strategies, 

development and ecological impacts of the invasion. The second investigation’s focus, 

conducted with Marcie Marston (Roger Williams University), explored the source of the 

Rhode Island Grateloupia and genetic variation within the species. The taxonomy of G. 

doryphora is also being examined in conjunction with Marc Verlaque (University of 

Marseille, France). 

 
Representative Publications: 

Villalard-Bohnsack, M. and M. Harlin. 1997. The appearance of Grateloupia doryphora 

on the northeast coast of North America. Phycologia 36(4): 324-328. 

Villalard-Bohnsack, M and M. Marston. 2000. The Molecular Genetics to investigate the 

geographic origin and vector of invasive red algae. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine 

Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, Cambridge, 

MA. 

Marcie Marston 

Roger Williams University 

mfm@alpha.rwu.edu

Marcie Marston is a molecular biologist and geneticist focused on the genetic diversity 

and origin of the Rhode Island invasive seaweed, Grateloupia. The specific objectives of 

her project are to analyze and then continue to monitor any changes in the genetic 

diversity of the G. doryphora population in the Narragansett Bay, to identify the 

geographical origin(s) of the parental stock of the Rhode Island population, and to 

examine the genetic relationships of Grateloupia species from locations around the 

world. DNA have been isolated from over 50 individuals representing all 14 locations 

and this genetic information is being used to construct phylogenetic trees to examine the 

relationships among individuals and to try to identify the geographic origin of the Rhode 

Island population. The data of Marcie Marston and her coworker suggests that there is an 

“invasive” genotype/species of Grateloupia that has been expanding in range and it 

appears as though the Rhode Island species originated from one of the European 

populations. 

Representative Publications: 

Marston, M.F. and M. Villalard-Bohnsack. Genetic variability and possible geographic 

origins of an invasive species, Grateloupia doryphora (Halymeniaceae, Rhodophyta) in 

Rhode Island, USA. To be submitted to the Journal of Phycology (in prep) 

Marston, M.F. and M. Villalard-Bohnsack. 2000. The use of molecular genetics to 

investigate the geographic origin of an invasive red algae. J. Pederson (ed.). Marine 

Bioinvasions. Proceedings from the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, 

Cambridge, MA. 

Green Crab

William Walton 

Wellfleet, MA Shellfish Program

Billy5@altavista.net

Dr. William Walton studies the effects of Carcinus maenas on shellfish and investigates 

possible solutions to the problems the green crab imposes upon the industry. Municipal 

managers consider the green crab a major predator limiting shellfish production and/or 

 
enhancement efforts and William Walton has been attempting to scientifically document 

this through lab and field experiments. His current work also includes a study of the 

effectiveness of town efforts to trap green crabs, the exploration of new trapping 

methods, and population models that will guide targeted trapping programs to reduce 

their numbers. A pilot study has also been started at Beal’s Island to explore the 

feasibility of harvesting soft-shell green crabs based on work in Italy on a sibling species, 

C. aestuarri. 

Representative Publications: 

Walton, W.C. 2001. Problems, predators and perception: Management of quahog (hard 

clam), Mercenaria mercenaria, stock enhancement programs in southern New England. 

Journal of Shellfish Research. 20(1):127-134. 

Walton, WC 1997. Preliminary evaluation of the impact of Carcinus maenas upon the 

native Tasmanian clam (Katelysia scalarina) fishery. Proceedings of the First 

International Workshop on the Demography, Impacts and Management of Introduced 

Populations of the European Crab. Center for Research on Introduced Marine Pests 

Technical Report. 11:44-47. 

Phragmites 

Robert Buchsbaum 

Massachusetts Audubon Society 

rbuchsbaum@massaudubon.org

Dr. Robert Buchsbaum studies restoration and other management issues related to salt 

marshes. The replacement of native vegetation by the invasive common reed, 

Phragmites australis, is thought to reduce the wildlife value and ecological health of the 

area. Buchsbaum and his coworkers have examined differences between the types and

numbers of birds found in Phragmites-dominated habitats with those in cattail and 

Spartina spp. He also has been examining changes in the vegetation and animal 

communities in salt marshes that have been subjected to increased tidal flushing as a 

management measure to reduce the cover of Phragmites. This work examines heights 

and spread rates, standard measures of the plant community, ground water salinities, fish, 

birds, and marsh surface invertebrates. Buchsbaum has also been exploring the effects of 

salinity stress on the spread and growth of Phragmites. 

Representative Publications: 

Burdick, D.M., Buchsbaum, R. and Holt, E. 2000. Tidal Manipulations and Phragmites 

invasion of Salt Marshes. Submitted to Plant and Environment. Presented at Symposium

on Plants and Organisms in Stressed Wetland Environments, Quebec. 

Buchsbaum, R., J. Catena, E. Hutchins, D. Burdick, A. Ridlon and E. Holt. 2000. 

Indicators of Salt Marsh Restoration. Proceedings of Conference on the use of biological 

 
indicators to signal wetland health. Massachusetts Bays Program. November 2000, 

Boston, MA. 

Buchsbaum, R. and E. Holt. 2000. Bird Use of Phragmites in Coastal Marshes of

Northern Massachusetts. pp 232-240 in J. Pederson (ed.). Marine Bioinvasions, 

Proceedings of the First National Conference. MIT Sea Grant, Cambridge, MA. 

Burdick, D.M., R. Buchsbaum, E. Holt. 2001. Variation in soil salinity associated with 

expansion of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Environmental and Experimental 

Botany. 46:247-261. 

 
Appendix E: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Documented in New England 

M

 arine Organisms (from Carlton, 1997) 

Taxon Common Name Comments

PROTISTA 

Haplosporidium nelsoni MSX (oyster disease) Massachusetts (1967). Transported from midAtlantic coast with shellfish stocks?

Perkinsus marinus Dermo oyster disease Massachusetts? (1990) As above. 

Bonamia ostrea Bonamia oyster disease Maine (1991). As above. 

Aureococcus anophaegefferens Brown tide Southern New England. Cryptogenic. 

Diatomacea (diatoms) 

Coscinodiscus wailesii Cryptogenic

Dinoflagellata (dinoflagellates) 

Alexandrium minutum Cryptogenic

CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae) 

Codium fragile spp. tomentosoides Dead man's fingers 1957 Long Island; now Canada to North

Carolina. 

Cladophora sericea Cryptogenic

RHODOPHYTA (Red Algae)

Antithamnion nipponicum 1986 Long Island Sound (J. Foertch). Japanese.

Porphyra yezoensis Nori Under open sea mariculture in Maine.

Furcellaria lumbricalis Nova Scotia (Europe). 

Lomentaria davellosa Connecticut to New Hampshire 

(European/Mediterranean). 

Lomeniana orcaaensls Cryptogenic (Nova Scotia).

Gymnogongrus sp. (Possibly G. leptophyllus) Cryptogenic 

Grateloupia doryphora 1990s in Rhode Island (Pacific Ocean species).

May spread north and south. 

Polysiphonia harveyi Filamentous.

PHAEOPHYTA (Brown Algae)

Fucus serratus Fucus European.1972 

 
Mysotella myosotis European marsh snail Also Ovatella myosotis. First record 1841,

Massachusetts. 

Littorina littorea European periwinkle 

Littorina saxatilis Periwinkle introgressions of eurogenes need to

be checked for; a species native to Atlantic 

America but no doubt commonly transported

from Europe for several centuries as well.

Tritonia plebeia Sea slug European; Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Tenellia adspersa Sea slug Cryptogenic. 

Placida dendritica Sacoglossan slug First recorded in New England waters 

following the introduction of the green seaweed

Codium fragile tomentosoides. 

ANIMALIA 

Bivalvia

Rangia cuneata Atlantic rangia Hudson River, introduced from mid-Atlantic or 

further south (1988).

Dreissena polymorpha Zebra mussel Freshwater and oligohaline populations in

Hudson River and to be expected elsewhere in

New England.

Mytilopsis leucophaeata Dark false mussel Introduced from mid-Atlantic or further south. 

Ostrea edulis European oyster Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut (the latter three states during and

since the 1980s).

Crassostrea gigas Pacific oyster Releases over the years of the Pacific oyster 

have at this time not resulted in any known

established populations. 

Venerupis philippinarum Manilla clam Occasional specimens are taken "in the wild", 

but no established populations are yet known;

Also Tapes japonica.

Teredo bartschi Shipworm Indo-Pacific species established in Long Island

Sound. 

Teredo navalis Shipworm Introduced from Europe in 18th or 17th 

centuries. 

Teredo furcifera Shipworm Indo-Pacific species formerly established in 

Long Island Sound 

CRUSTACEA

Amphipoda (amphipods) 

Corophium volutator European. Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine. 

Chelura terebrans Wood-boring amphipod European?

Isopoda

Limnoria sp./spp. Gribbles Status of non-native limnoriids requires review;

L. tripunctata is likely present, at least south of 

Cape Cod.

Mysidacea (mysids, opossum 

shrimp) 

Praunus flexuosus Europe. First found in 1960 in Massachusetts. 

 
Cirripedia (barnacles) 

Balanus amphitrite Indo-Pacific. Found in summers as far north as 

southern Cape Cod, is more likely the result of

a lack of exploration. See Carlton, 1985

Balanus subalbidus Introduced from mid-Atlantic. No records in

New England since 1972, when specimens

were found in the Charles River, but this 

Brachyura (crabs) 

Carcinus maenas European green crab Known from Atlantic America since about

1820. 

Hemigrapsus sanguineus Japanese shore crab First found in New Jersey in 1988, spreading to

Long Island Sound by 1993. and now found 

north of Cape Cod (John McDermott, personal 

communication). 

Insecta

Anisolabis maritime Maritime earwig Europe 

ECTOPROCTA (Bryozoa)

Cheilostomata

Bugula neritina Purple bugula First found in 1993 in Millstone, CT (J. 

Foertch, pers. comm.). 

Membranipora membranacea Kelp bryozoan From Europe or North Pacific. 1987. 

Aetea anguina Cryptogenic.

Ctenostomata

Bulbella abscondita Martha's Vineyard, MA (Europe). 

Tangenella muelleri Waquoit Bay, MA (Europe)

Tangenella appendiculata Martha's Vineyard, MA. Cryptogenic. 

ENTOPROCTA

Barentsia benedeni Massachusetts (Europe). 

CHORDATA

Ascidiacea (sea squirts)

Botryllus schlosseri Star tunicate Europe; present since early 19th century at 

least. 

Botrylloides violaceus Compound sea squirt Published names include A.diegensis and A. 

leachii for this species in New England waters. 

First records are summer 1972 when it was 

released in Eel Pond, Woods Hole, MA. . 

Diplosoma listerianum Compound sea squirt May be Diplosoma listerianum ( also D.

macdonaldi audt.) First records are mid-1980s 

in Massachusetts and Connecticut. L Harris 

first found it north of Cape Cod at the Isle of

Shoals in 1992. 

 
Styela clava Stalked Sea Squirt. Asia. First records about 1972 south of Cape

Cod. Now known from Maine to New Jersey. 

Styela canopus Sea squirt also Styela partita. An early introduction from

the Pacific. 

Styela plicata Sea squirt Records north of Chesapeake Bay need to be

checked. 

Ascidiella aspersa European sea squirt. First seen by R. Whittaker about 1985 in

Massachusetts; abundant by late 1980s in

Connecticut. 

Molgula manhattensis Sea squirt Cryptogenic. 

Ciona intestinalis Sea Squirt Cryptogenic. 

Fish 

Hypsoblennius ionthas Blenny From mid-Atlantic; isolated record 1985

(Hudson River). 

Gobionellus hastatus Goby From mid-Atlantic; isolated record 1993

(Hudson River). 

PLANTAE 

Salt marsh plant introductions List in

preparation. 

CAPE COD CANAL INTRODUCTIONS 

A number of southern species are believed to have moved from the southern side of Cape Cod into Cape Cod and 

Massachusetts Bay via the Cape Cod Canal since 1914. A paper is in preparation. 

Source: Carlton, J.T. 1997. Draft Marine Biological Invasions: An Annotated Check List. 

Unpublished data. Williams College-Mystic Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut. 4pp. 

 
Freshwater Plants

Draft

Nonindigenous, Aquatic Vascular Plants in Massachusetts Compiled by Paul Somers, Ph.D., State Botanist, 

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife 

February 21, 2002

STRICTLY AQUATIC SPECIES (WITH FLOATING &/OR SUBMERSED LEAVES) Scientific Name Common Name 

Cabomba caraoliniana A. Gray Fanwort 

Callitriche stagnalis Scop. Stream or pond water-starwort 

Egeria densa Planchon Brazilian waterweed 

Eichornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms0 Water-hyacinth 

Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle Hydrilla 

Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx. Variable water-milfoil 

Myriophyllum spicatum L. Eurasian water-milfoil 

Najas guadalupensis (Sprengel) Magnus Guadalupe naiad 

Najas minor All. Lesser or brittle naiad 

Nymphaea odorata ssp. tuberosa 

(Paine) Wiersema & Hellquist 

Tuberous water-lily 

Nymphoides peltata (Gmelin) Kuntze Yellow floating heart 

Potamogeton crispus L. Curly pondweed 

Salvinia minima Baker Water-fern, water spangles 

Spirodela punctata (Mey.) Thompson1 Dotted duckweed 

Trapa natans L. Water-chestnut 

Utricularia inflata Walt.2 Large floating bladderwort 

SELECTED WETLAND SPECIES (I.E., THOSE OFTEN FOUND AS EMERGENTS OR 

GROWING IN SATURATED SOILS OF MARSHES, SWAMPS, STREAM BANKS)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Agrostis gigantea Roth Redtop, black bentgrass 

Alopecurus carolinianus Walter Carolina foxtail 

Alopecurus geniculatus L. Marsh- or water-foxtail 

Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.)Sauer Water-hemp 

Amorpha fruticosa L. False indigo

Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino Arthraxon 

Bidens tripartita L. Leafy-bracted beggar-ticks 

Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth Feathertop 

Cyperus amuricus Maxim. Golden flatsedge 

Cyperus flavescens L. Yellowish flatsedge 

Cyperus pseudovegatus Steudel Marsh or clay-flatsedge 

Diplachne fascicularis (Lam.) Beauv. Salt-meadow grass 

Diplachne uninervia (C. Presl) Parodi Mexican sprangletop 

Elytrigia pungens (Pers.) Tutin Seabeach or Saltmarsh wheatgrass

Epilobium hirsutum L. Hairy willow-herb 

Glyceria maxima (Hartman) Holmb. Reed manna-grass, sweet 

reedgrass 

 
 

Hesperis matronalis L. Dame’s rocket 

Iris pseudoacorus L. Yellow iris 

Iva annua L. Sump-weed 

Juncus brachycarpus Engelm. Small-headed rush 

Lepidium latifolium L. Broad-leaved pepperweed 

Lycopus europaeus L. European water-horehound 

Lysimachia nummularia L. Moneywort, Creeping Jenny 

Lysimachia vulgaris L. Garden-loosestrife 

Lythrum hyssopifolia L. Annual or hyssop loosestrife 

Lythrum salicaria L. Purple loosestrife 

Lythrum virgatum L. Wand-loosestrife 

Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. 

Camus 

Japanese stiltgrass 

Mollugo verticillata L. Carpetweed 

Myosotis scorpioides L. True forget-me-not 

Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench Giant chickweed 

Nelumbo lutea Willd. American lotus, Water-chinquapin

Phalaris arundinacea L.3 Reed canary-grass 

Phalaris canariensis L. Canary-grass 

Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex. 

Steudel4

Phragmites, common reed 

Potentilla rivalis Nutt. Brook cinquefoil 

Rorippa amphibia (L.) Baker Water or amphibious watercress 

Rorippa microphylla (Boenn.)Hyl. Small-leaved water-cress 

Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum

(L.)Hayek 

Water-cress 

Rorippa palustris (L.) Besser ssp. 

palustris (two other ssp. are native) 

Marsh yellowcress 

Rumex aquaticus L. var. fenestratus

(Greene) Dorn 

Window-dock 

Rumex saliciifolius J.A. Weinm. Willow-leaf dock 

Solanum dulcamara L. Bittersweet nightshade 

Stachys palustris L. ssp. palustris Marsh hedge-nettle 

Teucrium canadense var. occidentale

(A. Gray) McClintock & Epling 

Hairy Germander 

Veronica beccabunga L. var. 

beccabunga

Brooklime 

 

0

 Not fully documented as naturalized in Massachusetts, but a few reports of it being present and persisting 

in natural settings on Cape Cod and Nantucket have been made 

1

 Not yet documented in MA by Sorrie and Somers (1999) or by MA NHESP, but cited in literature 2

 Possibly native, but all records are recent, suggesting it has been introduced into the state 

3

 May be a native species (Sorrie and Somers 1999) or a mix of native and introduced genotypes 

4

 Considered a native species in part, but inland and some coastal populations are probably alien (Sorrie 

and Somers 1999