Aquatic Invasive Species in the Upper Great Plains Part I: Introduction to AIS

Aquatic Invasive Species Aquatic invasive species (AIS) Adapted to habitats regularly or permanently inundated (lakes, rivers, wetlands) Non-native species that spread rapidly, outcompete native species, and cause harm (ecological, economic, or social)

 Not all non-native species are invasive  Not all invasive species can establish in a given area  Often difficult to predict effects of an AIS in an area  Usually difficult or impossible to eradicate once established  Also called Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) in some programs AIS characteristics

 Recreation  Watercraft movement  Hunting and angling equipment  Live bait releases  Float planes  Consumer  Aquarium releases  Water garden escapements  Industry  Aquaculture escapements  Live food trade  Internet sales  Industrial equipment  Shipping  Natural  Inter-connected waterways  Wildlife migrations Potential pathways for AIS spread

 Stable natural ecosystems support human development  AIS threaten this equilibrium:  Biodiversity  Recreation  Infrastructure  Human health Why care about AIS?

 Zebra mussels  Quagga mussels  Asian carp (Invasive carp)  Eurasian watermilfoil  Curlyleaf pondweed  Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) Examples of AIS

 Adults:  Triangular or D-shaped  Up to 2 inches in length  Alternating bands (zebra)  Byssal threads help attach to hard substrates  Siphons pump water  Larvae (veligers):  Microscopic  Free-floating (planktonic)  2 weeks to 3 months to settle Zebra mussels

 Similar in appearance  Slightly larger  Thinner shell  Rounder shape  Cannot stand on side  Rings instead of zig-zags  Veliger stage similar  Higher tolerances  Found deeper  Travel farther Quagga mussels

 Ecosystem  Filter feeding  Bioaccumulation  Attachment  Recreation  Reduce populations  Sharp shells  Industry  Attachment  Water quality  Cost increases  Consumers  Cost increases  Water availability ZM/QM impacts

ZM/QM spread

 Downstream – veliger drift  Across land – by humans  In water (veligers)  Fouled equipment ZM/QM pathways of spread

 Four species:  Black carp – up to 80 inches and 155 pounds, large scales  Grass carp – up to 60 inches and 100 pounds, large scales  Bighead carp – up to 51 inches and 110 pounds, fine scales, down-turned eyes  Silver carp – up to 51 inches and 77 pounds, fine scales, down-turned eyes  “Invasive carp” alternate term Asian carp

 Feeding behaviors (vary)  Black carp - mollusks  Grass carp – vegetation  Bighead carp – filter feeding  Silver carp – filter feeding  Silver carp jumping tendency Asian carp impacts

 Originally imported for aquaculture  Bighead and silver – algae control  Grass – vegetation  Black – snails (trematodes)  Escapement  Bait bucket transfers Asian carp pathways for spread

 Widespread invasive plant used in aquariums and water gardens  Difficult to distinguish from native milfoils  4 leaves whorled around a hollow stem  At least 14 leaflet pairs  Typically found in 1 to 15 feet of water Eurasian watermilfoil

 Forms a dense canopy at the water's surface  Decreases native plant and animal diversity  Impedes recreational activities Eurasian watermilfoil

 Natural spread  Downstream drift  Waterfowl  Human spread  Fragments on equipment Eurasian watermilfoil

 Distinguished from native pondweeds  Lasagna noodle-shaped leaves  Fine serrations on leaf margins  Typically found in 3 to 6 feet of water Curlyleaf pondweed

 Quickly forms dense mats on or near surface  Shades out native aquatic plants  Impedes recreation  Mid-summer die-offs can trigger fish kills Curlyleaf pondweed

 Natural spread  Downstream drift  Waterfowl  Human spread  Fragments on equipment Curlyleaf pondweed

 Viral infection that can cause many symptoms and lead to death  Hemorrhaging in eyes, skin, gills, base of fins, internal organs  Darkening of skin  Bulging eyes  Bloated abdomens  Lethargy  Pale gills  Loss of osmotic function Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS)

 Can impact a variety of freshwater species  Many more species can act as carriers  Has led to large fish kills in isolated areas VHS impacts

 Natural  Downstream drift of water  Swimming of infected fish  Human  Transferring infected fish (stocking or bait)  Contaminated gear  Contaminated water VHS pathways of spread

 Message varies but steps are similar:  Clean – inspect equipment and remove plants, animals, and mud before leaving water access site  Drain – remove all water before leaving water access site  Dry – allow to dry completely or disinfect using approved method (hot water, bleach, vinegar, salt, freezing, etc.)  Don’t dump bait – dispose of unused bait in trash or on land  Don’t release pets and plants into the wild  Goal is to prevent movement of water and organisms Preventing the spread

Prevention is critical

 30 minutes available for a question and answer session END OF PRESENTATION

Aquatic Invasive Species in the Upper Great Plains Part II: Program implementation and considerations

 Factors affecting AIS distribution  Environmental tolerances  Movement constraints  Ecosystem connectivity  Do not adhere to social boundaries  Many watersheds are shared by multiple jurisdictions  Red River  James River  Rainy Lake AIS management

 Recreational boaters are becoming increasingly mobile  Fishing is “big business” for all 4 jurisdictions  Anglers seek a wide variety of opportunities  Closed fishing seasons in one jurisdiction may drive interstate travel  Internet forums allow for anglers to chase “a hot bite” AIS management

 2012 inspection results  Boaters travel from many places to fish in Manitoba

 Constituent “Buy-in”  Similar regulations in the region would cause less confusion for user groups  Similar messaging in the region would prevent “mixed- messages” from agencies working towards the same goals  Clean, Drain, Dry  Inspect, Remove, Drain  Clean, Drain, Dispose  Clean, Drain, Dry, Dispose Collaborative AIS management

 A holistic, regional or eco-region approach to AIS management may be the best  Examples of successful collaborations:  Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER)  Western Invasive Species Collaborative Agreement  Invasive Mussel Prevention Framework  Mussel Defense Framework funding secured  Western Regional Panel on ANS Building Consensus  Uniform waterbody classification system  Model legislation for mandatory boat inspection programs  Finalizing model regulations for boat inspection programs Collaborative AIS management

 Outreach and education  Sampling and monitoring  Management and control  Research AIS program components

 Goals are multi-faceted:  What AIS are and identification  Species impacts  Actions to prevent the spread  Relevant regulations  Outcomes:  Public awareness  Actions to prevent spread  Regulation compliance  Support of AIS program Outreach and education

 Multi-media strategies  Traditional media  Digital advertising  Signage  Printed literature  Social media  Giveaway items  Personal contacts  Repeated exposures  Highlight select species Outreach and education

 Similarities among jurisdictions  Spend a significant portion of resources on outreach  Feel that outreach and education efforts are important  Use a variety of media to convey messages  Goals are similar  Differences across jurisdictions  Slogans vary slightly  Each has their own branding  Variability in available resources Outreach and education

 Early detection sampling  Find new populations  Techniques vary by species  Focused during peak season  Early detection use  Regular usage  High-risk waters  Many waters Sampling and monitoring

 Long-term monitoring  Keep track of populations  Techniques vary by species  Standard intervals  Monitoring use  Special use  Infested waters  Select waters Sampling and monitoring

 Similarities among jurisdictions  Most feel this is a very important component of the program  Relatively small amount of resources required (20% or less)  Utilize early detection and long-term monitoring  Conduct species-specific and general lake sampling  Differences across jurisdictions  Some jurisdictions utilize private entities – leverages resources  Some jurisdictions have dedicated staff Sampling and monitoring

 Regulations  Prevent new populations AND contain existing populations  Enforce good habits (Clean, Drain, Dry)  Target other harmful actions (releasing pets) Management and control

 Prevention  Outreach/education very effective  Examples of other efforts:  Mandatory watercraft inspections  Hatchery biosecurity protocols  Bait vendor inspections  Agency disinfection protocols  Compliance is key Management and control

 Rapid response  Prevent AIS from establishing  Plans make response more effective  Eradication or control actions – based on goal  Interjurisdictional  Response varies Management and control

 Control  Mitigate for impacts  Reduce numbers, not eliminate  Delay establishment  Sections of a water or infrastructure Management and control

 Eradication  Eliminate population  Many factors affect success  Whole-system  Special scenarios Management and control

 Similarities among jurisdictions  Regulations regarding bait, bait water, draining water, possession of live AIS, releasing organisms, equipment free of AIS  Internal agency protocols to prevent AIS spread  Differences across jurisdictions  In MN and MB: illegal to posses dead AIS, mandatory inspections  In ND: must remove vegetation  Attempted eradications in MB and MN for zebra mussels  Attempted control in MN for two species of plants Management and control

 Uses in ANS prevention  Identify AIS of concern  Develop sampling methods  Identify management tools  Areas of research Research  Biology  Ecology  Impacts  Disinfection/eradication techniques  Pathways of spread  Detection techniques  Control methods  Effective outreach strategies

 Emerging tools and ideas  Research advancement  Example 1: eDNA  Advances in technique  Potential for quantification  New marker developments  Example 2: CRISPR Cas-9  Gene-drive technology  All offspring inherit traits  Pros and cons Research

 Ongoing research within jurisdictions  MN – partners with MN AIS Research Center (30+ projects)  Identified research needs  Feasible and effective control/eradication techniques  Impacts – ecological, sociological, and economical  Effective outreach tools  More effective monitoring tools Research

There are many factors that will impact an AIS program  Ecological  Economical  Social  Regulatory  Fiscal Program implementation

 Which species are in the jurisdiction and which are in nearby jurisdictions?  Of those which can overwinter and become invasive?  What are their potential impacts  Species-specific  Prediction difficult Ecological factors

 Industry as a pathway  Bring in novel species  Sell across landscape  Move water and AIS  Not always regulated  Impacts to industry  Equipment fouling  Water quality  Costs to mitigate  Regulations Economical considerations

 Recreation as a pathway  Direct contact with water – boaters, anglers, waterfowl hunters  Indirect pathways – aquariums, water gardens, pets  Impacts to recreation  Ecosystem effects  Harm to humans  Aesthetics Social considerations

 Social acceptance and compliance  Balance resource needs and public desires  Acceptance may affect compliance  Ease of compliance and enforceability  Authority/mechanism for implementation  Limited statutory authority  Collaboration with regulating agencies  Processes for implementing rules Regulatory considerations

 Sources for funding  Natural resource agencies – license fees  Special use fees – boaters  Legislative apportionments  Prioritizing resource allocation  Funding source stipulations  Other considerations Fiscal considerations

 Protecting individual boundaries  AIS management on eco-region scale  AIS management within jurisdiction  Strength through collaboration Inter-jurisdictional considerations

 Overcoming discrepancies  Finding commonalities  Goals  Program components  Prioritizing areas  Scientific research  Population-level approach  Streamlining  Similar messaging  Customer service Inter-jurisdictional considerations Great Lakes region; federal Kansas; state

 How legislation fits in:  Many user groups affected  Direct resource users – boaters, anglers, hunters  Indirect resource users – drinking water, power generation  Industry – rely on water for production or can impact resource  Prevention now will save resources  Costs to mitigate are very high  Eradication is very expensive if even possible  Legislation affects water resources  Water movement  Equipment movement  Industries – water or organisms Inter-jurisdictional considerations

 Manitoba: Jeff Long, MB Sustainable Development (204) or  Minnesota: Heidi Wolf, MN DNR (651) or OR Becca Nash, MN AIS Research Center (612) or  North Dakota: Jessica Howell, ND Game and Fish (701) or  South Dakota: Mike Smith, SD Game, Fish, and Parks (605) or Contact information