1. Dr. David Walker University of Arizona
Species Prioritization in Arizona’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan-2012.
Dr. David Walker
University of Arizona

2. Difficult and often subjective.
Animals, plants, and algae.

3. Potential Impacts and Threat Score
• Human health
• Human infrastructure
• Commerce
• Recreation
• Ecological impact to native or economically valuable species
• Environmental health
• Intrinsic value of native wildlife

4. Relative Abundance
Priority given to species that are the most abundant and negatively impacting Arizona.
Those species with distributions having little impact versus wide distributions posing extra management challenges will weigh on prioritization as well.
“Priority of threat analysis”, given to species not yet found in Arizona.
Focus of early detection and rapid responses for emerging AIS populations in the state.

5. Actions to be Considered
• Prevention (outreach, education, enforcement)
• Early detection, rapid response (EDRR)
• Containment/control
• Eradication – localized
• Management (no eradication possible)
- Prevention of spread
- Minimization of impacts

6. Priority 1Species
“AIS whose introduction and spread has already caused, or has the potential for, significant impairment of a water body (or water bodies) within the state for either anthropocentric use or intrinsic value.”
“Efforts at containment through prevention of introduction of species are likely to have the greatest environmental and/or economic impact.”

7. • Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) • Golden algae (Prymnesium parvum) • Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) • New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) • Quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) • Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) • Whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis) • Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)

8. Priority 2
“AIS whose introduction and spread may have, or has the potential to impair a water body or bodies within the state, detracting from either anthropocentric use or intrinsic value.”
“These AIS do not currently have as great a potential for wide-spread harm to aquatic systems as Priority 1 AND/OR their presence in the state has only been anecdotal”

9. Priority 2 (cont.)
“They are highly localized so that spread appears relatively minimal AND/OR the introduction and potential spread of these AIS, and subsequent impairment, appears to be imminent or great.”
“Priority 2 consists of populations which might be controlled locally.”

10. • Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
• Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)
• Didymo a.k.a. “rock snot” (Didymosphenia geminata)
• Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
• Northern snakehead (Channa argus)
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
• Redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus)
• Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)

11. Priority 3
“AIS whose introduction and spread within the state seems minimal compared to Priority 1 or Priority 2 AIS, however, the potential for introduction and spread exists AND/OR these AIS have already caused large-scale impairment to aquatic systems in Arizona but have become so firmly entrenched or wide- spread throughout the state that currently the management, remediation, and control of these AIS seems infeasible or is otherwise logistically difficult or impossible.”

12. • Asiatic clams (Corbicula spp.)
• Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
• Giant reed (Arundo donax)
• Golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata)
• Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
• Northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis)
• Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus)
• Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (order Mononegavirales, family Rhabdoviridae, genus Novirhabdovirus)

13. Although this is the prioritization scheme as it stands today, the Arizona AIS Management Plan is meant to be a working document.
Species will undoubtedly be added or subtracted, or prioritization changed, as threats rise and fall.