Draft

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………. Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 4

II. DEFINING THE PROBLEM…………………………………………………………………………… Page 7

III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES……………………………………………………… Page 12

Goal 1 - Leadership…..………………………………………………………………………… Page 12

Objective 1.1: Coordinate all AIS management programs

Goal 2 - Prevention…..……………………………………………………………………….... Page 13

Objective 2.1: Establish a comprehensive process to identify AIS

Objective 2.2: Identify potential prevention strategies

Goal 3 - Early Detection and Rapid Response……..……………………………………… Page 13

Objective 3.1: Enhance coordination within Ohio

Objective 3.2: Create a master inventory of Ohio AIS

Objective 3.3: Implement Ohio’s Rapid Response Plan

Goal 4 - Control and Management……………………………………………………………. Page 14

Objective 4.1: Prioritize organisms on which to focus control efforts

Goal 5 - Research and Education…………………………………………………………….. Page 15

Objective 5.1: Establish and coordinate an Ohio AIS research network

Objective 5.2: Increase public awareness of AIS

Objective 5.3: Target policy makers and Legislature

IV. EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS……………………………………………………..Page 16

Federal Role

Regional Role

State Role

V. PRIORITIES FOR ACTION……………………………………………………………………….......Page 26

VI. PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION…………………………………………………..Page 27

Oversight

Evaluation

Dissemination

VII. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE FOR PLAN GOALS...………………………………………………Page 28

VIII. LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………………………………...Page 35

IX. GLOSSARY………………………………………………………………………………………........Page 37

X. ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 38

XI. OHIO AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES COMMITTEE …………………………………………….Page 39

APPENDIX A: RAPID RESPONSE PLAN……………………………………………………………...Page 40

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The actions recommended in this State Management Plan (SMP) are designed to be

effective in preventing both the entry of new organisms into Ohio waters and the transfer

and spread of organisms among and within water bodies in the state. This SMP also

aims to minimize the impacts of invasive species on the environment, economy, and

society and to protect and maintain biodiversity, industry, and recreational opportunities.

The state of Ohio straddles two major North American watersheds. The northern third of

Ohio lies within the Great Lakes basin, and the southern two-thirds of the state lies

within the Mississippi River basin. Both of these basins have been significantly impacted

by aquatic invasive species (AIS), with the most significant invasions occurring in the last

30 years.

A number of animal and plant AIS have adversely affected the productivity and

biodiversity of Ohio’s native species and aquatic ecosystems. Most of these AIS

introductions have been the result of human activities. There are many vectors and

pathways for the introduction and spread of AIS including, but not limited to commercial

shipping, aquaculture, live organism trade or release, commercial fishing, recreational

equipment and activities, research activities, and water delivery and diversions. Potential

threats may be prioritized by the degree of negative impact these species can have upon

the environment, society, and economy. Negative impacts can include changes in river,

lake, or wetland ecology including loss of biodiversity; changes in nutrient cycling;

reduced habitat and water quality; reduced recreational opportunities; increased costs

for industry; decreased property values; and threats to public safety.

The Great Lakes region has been impacted by both intentional and unintentional

introductions of AIS since the settlement of the region. Since the 1800s, at least 182

non-native aquatic organisms have colonized habitats within the Great Lakes

ecosystem. Potential for AIS to cause significant economic impacts in the Lake Erie

region is because of the value of commercial and recreational industries.

Many partners share responsibility for protecting Ohio waters from the introduction of

new AIS. Commitment and coordination between partners at federal, state, and local

government levels; along with universities, non-government organizations (NGOs),

businesses, and private landowners are needed to effectively combat AIS. Strategies

used to prevent and abate AIS to date have included a number of regulatory and

voluntary efforts by both public and private entities. Examples include voluntary Best

Management Practices (BMPs) for the exchange of ballast water, as well as recently

enacted ballast water regulations. Additionally, a variety of educational programs have

increased awareness of introduction pathways and ways to prevent new AIS

introductions. Government agencies and nongovernment partner’s will work together to

monitor existing AIS, search for new AIS, and provide assessments of AIS management

efforts. However, much work remains to control established invasive species and to

protect Ohio waters from new introductions of AIS.

Defining the Problem

A number of animal and plant AIS have adversely impacted the environment, industry,

economy, and human health and they have arrived through many different pathways.

AIS risk can be prioritized by the degree of negative impact (risk level). High risk species

are those that currently cause or could potentially cause significant harm while medium

risk species are those that have a lesser impact but are still a cause for concern.

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The primary focus of this SMP is the prevention of new AIS introductions to Ohio waters

through interruption of the most significant pathways and vectors. This SMP contains

background information on both environmental and economic impacts. It describes

current priority species based upon these impacts, and vectors of AIS entry into the

state. This plan describes new strategies in addition to existing efforts to prevent the

introduction of new AIS, prevent the dispersal of established AIS, detect and respond to

new invaders, and abate the harmful effects of AIS in Ohio waters.

Beyond this background information, the core of the plan lies in 26 different

management strategies organized within ten objectives under the following five goals:

1. Leadership: Provide leadership for AIS issues in Ohio among local, state, and

federal agencies as well as other organizations in order to effectively address

AIS.

2. Prevention: Identify AIS vectors and focus efforts on preventing the introduction

and spread of AIS into Ohio.

3. Early Detection and Rapid Response: Implement early detection and rapid

response actions so that newly introduced AIS can be located quickly and

eliminated.

4. Control: When feasible, control or manage AIS that have or may have significant

impacts in Ohio.

5. Research and Education: Increase research efforts on AIS, and educate the

general public and individuals involved in related business, trade, research,

recreation and government sectors about AIS issues.

Existing Authorities and Programs

Addressing prevention and control of AIS requires coordination of policies and programs

at many levels of government. Federal, regional, and state government all play a role in

implementation of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act of 1990 (NANPCA, Public Law 101-646) and the National Invasive Species Act of

1996 (NISA, Public Law 104-332). In addition to the above, the state of Ohio currently

has a number of statutory and regulatory authorities detailed in both the Ohio

Administrative Code (OAC) and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) with which it addresses

issues of prevention and control of AIS. The majority of this authority lies within the Ohio

Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), and

the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Even though there are statutes

dealing with AIS in Ohio, many gaps exist that prevent effective management. More

comprehensive regulations are needed to address the movement of AIS through: live

bait, live food market, private/pay lakes, pet trade, plant trade, and recreational activities.

Priorities for Action

All of the strategies listed under the five goals of this plan are important, but when it

comes to implementation there is a need to prioritize strategies based upon the severity

of the problem, the programmatic authority, capability and feasibility to resolve it, and the

cost of the proposed solution. The following five priority actions are listed in order of

importance:

1. Coordinate the Ohio Aquatic Invasive Species Committee to address AIS

issues in Ohio.

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing management and regulatory tools for

preventing the introduction of priority AIS.

3. Target outreach efforts and prioritize key audiences to promote

understanding of invasive species dispersal pathways and risks.

4. Implement control and rapid response strategies that are based on the best

available scientific information and conducted in an environmentally sound

manner.

Program Monitoring and Evaluation

The implementation of Ohio’s SMP will enable us to monitor progress toward the five

goals in the plan. We will be able to select appropriate management actions as well as

make necessary “mid-course” corrections. This process will involve three components:

(1) oversight, (2) evaluation, and (3) dissemination of information.

I. INTRODUCTION

Ohio is the 34

largest state in the U.S but ranks 7

in number of people making it a

highly populace state; consequently Ohio is very susceptible to the movement of AIS by

humans. Ohio also has over 60,000 miles of streams which can act as super highways

for AIS movement within Ohio. From a regional standpoint, Ohio is part of two major

North American watersheds (Figure 1). The northern third of Ohio lies within the Great

Lakes basin, and the southern two-thirds of the state lie within the Mississippi River

Basin. Both basins have been significantly impacted by AIS. The Great Lakes basin is

the largest freshwater system in the world and represents a top natural resource

management priority. It is likely that AIS impacts will be the most significant in Lake Erie

because it is shallow, warm, nutrient enriched, and biologically productive. The

Mississippi River is one of the largest and most ecologically diverse river systems in the

world and because AIS use rivers to spread, Ohio is susceptible to invasions from

anywhere within the basin through the Ohio River.

Figure 1: Ohio watershed boundaries and major waterways.

Aquatic ecosystems throughout Ohio are experiencing significant negative effects from

established AIS, and Ohio waters are continually threatened by new invasions. AIS are

non-native aquatic organisms that may cause economic and/or environmental harm.

Newly introduced species can disrupt the balance of a natural ecosystem, often in its

food web, leading to changes in the abundance and species composition of native plants

and animals. This disruption can cause permanent, irreversible ecological damage and

may increase the likelihood of additional AIS introductions because of the system’s

instability. The introduction of AIS is a source of biological pollution that threatens not

only the ecology, but also causes economic, social, and public health impacts to the

region. AIS can have significant economic effects on waterfront property values, tourism,

utilities, fisheries, and other industries (Lovell and Stone 2005).

The Great Lakes region has been impacted by both intentional and unintentional

introductions of AIS since the settlement of the region by Europeans (Mills et al. 1993,

Ricciardi 2001). Since the 1800s, at least 182 non-native aquatic organisms have

colonized habitats within the Great Lakes ecosystem. These species include: 27 algae,

55 vascular plants, 66 invertebrates, 28 fish, and six bacteria and viruses (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2011). About 55 percent of these species are

native to Eurasia, with an additional 13 percent native to the United States (US) Atlantic

Coast.

Potential for AIS to cause significant economic impacts in the Great Lakes region is high

because of the value of commercial and recreational industries. Ohio’s nine ports on

Lake Erie typically handle 55–60 million tons of cargo each year and support vital

industries such as steelmaking, construction, salt mining, and power generation. The

region’s recreation and tourism industries are valued at $15 billion annually, $1.5 billion

of which is direct expenditures on recreational fishing trips (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

and U.S. Census Bureau 2006) with an estimated total impact related to the region’s

recreational fishing industry of nearly $7.1 billion (Southwick Associates 2007). More

than 58,000 jobs are supported by Great Lakes sport fisheries (Southwick Associates

2007), and commercial fisheries provide an additional 9,000 jobs (U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service 1994). Rosaen et al. (2012) estimate that aquatic invasive species likely costs

the Great Lakes region significantly more in aggregate than $100 million annually.

The Mississippi River basin is the largest river system in North America and its many

tributaries drains all or parts of 31 US states and two Canadian provinces between the

Rocky and Appalachian Mountains. Flowing entirely within the United States, the river

itself originates in northern Minnesota and meanders southward for 2,530 miles to the

Mississippi River Delta at the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River Basin has been

greatly impacted by a number of invasive fish, plants, and mussels, and continues to be

threatened by new AIS introductions. There are a reported 149 AIS established within

the Mississippi River Basin, including 56 plants, 16 invertebrates, 75 fish, one

amphibian, and one mammal (U.S. Geologic Survey 2012). Placing an economic value

on biological invasions in the Mississippi River Basin is not straightforward and is

extremely complex (Windle et al. 2008), consequently, there is not a current and

comprehensive aggregate estimate for the cost of AIS in this region or to the portion of

the state of Ohio contained within the Ohio River watershed.

There are many vectors and pathways for the introduction and spread of AIS including,

but not limited to commercial shipping, aquaculture, live organism trade or release,

commercial fishing, recreational equipment and activities, research activities, and water

delivery and diversions. A changing climate is likely to increase opportunities for

additional non-native species to successfully invade Ohio waters as warmer

temperatures increase the likelihood of non-native species becoming established.

Actions taken to date to prevent the introduction of new AIS include regulatory and

voluntary efforts by both public and private entities. Some of these activities serve as

models using innovative, strategic approaches. These include voluntary BMPs for the

exchange of ballast water as well as recently enacted ballast water regulations. A wide

variety of educational programs (such as those aimed at recreational boating and

aquatic species trade industries) have increased awareness of introduction pathways

and ways to prevent new AIS introductions. Government agencies and nongovernment

partners need to work together to monitor existing AIS, search for new AIS, and provide

assessments of AIS management efforts. However, much work remains to control

established invasive species and to protect Ohio waters from new introductions of AIS.

This comprehensive AIS SMP describes new strategies in addition to existing efforts to

prevent the introduction of new AIS, prevent the dispersal of established AIS, detect and

respond to new invaders, and abate the harmful effects of AIS in Ohio waters. This SMP

identifies a goal related to each of five conceptual areas: (1) leadership, (2) prevention,

(3) early detection and rapid response, (4) control and management, and (5) research

and education.

Recent research has demonstrated that preventing the spread of invasive organisms

from already colonized areas (i.e., containment) is the most effective way to reduce the

likelihood of new invasions at the landscape scale (Drury and Rothlisberger 2008).

Therefore, the focus of this SMP is on the prevention of new AIS to Ohio waters through

interruption of the most significant pathways and vectors for new introductions. The

preventative actions recommended in this SMP are designed to be effective with both

the entry of new organisms into Ohio waters, and the transfer and spread of organisms

among and within water bodies in the state. This SMP also aims to minimize the impacts

of invasive species on the environment, economy, society, human health and to protect

and maintain biodiversity and recreational sustainability.

While prevention of new invasions is a focus of this SMP, some new invasions are

inevitable even with the best prevention programs. Therefore, early detection and further

development of a response capacity for new invasions are also important components of

the plan. Additionally, this SMP addresses management and control efforts to minimize

impacts from established AIS populations using a coordinated, science-based approach.

Many partners share responsibility for protecting Ohio waters from the introduction of

new AIS. Commitment and coordination between partners are needed to effectively

implement the provisions of this SMP and ensure organized commensurate actions.

Ohio’s first SMP was approved in 1999 under the auspices of NISA. At the time it was

among the first SMPs in the nation approved by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task

Force (ANSTF). In 2008, the ODNR Division of Wildlife (DOW) formed the Ohio Aquatic

Invasive Species Committee (OAISC) to address AIS issues in Ohio, including the

revision of Ohio’s AIS SMP. The OAISC is made up of government, industry, university,

and private groups (Section XI). The revised SMP incorporated elements from the plans

in Michigan and Pennsylvania and the ODNR DOW and Ohio Sea Grant prepared a

draft SMP for review by the OAISC which identified gaps and strengthened the overall

SMP.

II. DEFINING THE PROBLEM

A number of animal and plant AIS have adversely affected the productivity and

biodiversity of Ohio’s native species and aquatic ecosystems. Most of these AIS

introductions have been the result of human activities and a changing climate is likely to

increase opportunities for additional non-native species to successfully invade Ohio

waters due to warmer temperatures and enhanced reproductive cycles. There are many

pathways for the introduction and spread of AIS. Some pathways, such as the

aquaculture industry, are currently regulated to minimize the risk of new AIS

introductions, while other pathways have traditionally gone unchecked. AIS risk can be

prioritized by the degree of negative impact (risk level). High risk species are those that

currently cause or could potentially cause significant harm to the environment, industry,

economy, and human health. Medium risk species are those that have a lesser impact

but are still a cause for concern. The following two sections describe the history of

introduction, distribution, and current or potential impacts for high and medium risk

animal and plant invasive species.

Animals

High Risk Species:

Invasive carps refer to a group of fishes that are native to Asia. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) specifically uses “invasive carp” to refer to bighead carp

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, silver carp H. molitrix, black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus,

and grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella. The larger group of invasive carps also

includes the widespread invasive common carp Cyprinus carpio and goldfish Carassius

auratus. Each of these species was intentionally introduced into the United States for

different purposes, but they all pose a great threat to Ohio’s aquatic ecosystems.

Bighead and silver carp were introduced into aquaculture and wastewater treatment

facilities to control algae and escaped into the Mississippi River during floods in the early

1980s. They have since spread upriver and have become the most abundant fish in

some regions of the Mississippi, lower Ohio, and Illinois rivers. Black carp were brought

to the United States to control snail populations in aquaculture facilities and escaped

from holding ponds in Missouri in 1994. Recent collections suggest that the black carp

are established in the lower part of the Mississippi River basin. Grass carp were

imported into aquaculture facilities in Alabama and Arkansas in 1963 to control

vegetation in rearing ponds. They were widely stocked and their range was expanded by

intentional and non-intentional releases. Many of the 45 states where grass carp are

now found, including Ohio, have banned the stocking of diploid grass carp, but allow the

stocking of triploid (genetically sterile) grass carp by permitted aquaculture facilities.

Invasive carps are a threat because of their reproductive success, long life spans, and

feeding habits, thereby damaging habitat and disrupting food webs. Bighead and silver

carp feed on plankton and are in direct competition with native organisms. Silver carp

can also be hazardous to boaters and water-sport enthusiasts because, when startled by

the sound of passing boat motor, they can jump six to ten feet out of the water into the

path of moving boats, causing damage and injuring passengers. Grass carp are known

to eradicate aquatic vegetation in lakes, altering habitat and interfering with the

reproduction of native fish. Black carp feed primarily on mussels and snails which

threaten native mollusk and snail populations (some of the most imperiled/endangered

organisms in North America) as well as mollusk-feeding fish and birds. Common carp

and goldfish feed on the bottom and are notorious (especially common carp) for altering

their environments by destroying and uprooting submerged vegetation, negatively

impacting other fish and waterfowl.

The northern snakehead Channa argus prefers stagnant shallow ponds, swamps, and

slow streams with mud or vegetated substrate, with temperatures ranging from 0° to

over 30° C. This fish is popular in Asian cuisines, and most introductions were likely

released fish procured for food. Northern snakeheads are established in Virginia,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Arkansas. The species is well established in the

Potomac River and several of its tributaries in Virginia and Maryland (Starnes et al.

2011). These predatory fish compete with native species for food and habitat. Juveniles

eat zooplankton, insect larvae, small crustaceans, and the fry of other fish. As adults

they feed mostly on other fishes with the remainder of their diet comprised of

crustaceans, frogs, small reptiles, and sometimes small birds and mammals.

The invasion of the sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, a parasitic fish which kills other

fish by attaching to its prey and feeding on body fluids, in the 1920s resulted in

substantial economic losses to recreational and commercial fisheries, and has required

annual expenditures of millions of dollars to finance control programs. Sea lamprey used

the shipping canal system that circumnavigated Niagara Falls to move from Lake

Ontario to the upper Great Lakes. During the 1940s and 1950s, the sea lamprey

devastated populations of commercially and recreationally valuable whitefish and lake

trout. The reduction in populations of these fishes permitted populations of less valuable

fish to increase and proliferate. Of all AIS invasions into the Great Lakes, only the sea

lamprey has been successfully managed at a level where their populations are low

enough to minimize impacts. In 2012, the cost of sea lamprey control and research was

approximately $18 million annually (Rosaen et al. 2012). The total value of lost fishing

opportunities plus indirect economic impacts from lamprey predation probably exceeds

$500 million annually (U.S. Office of Technology Assessment 1993).

The round goby Neogobius melanostomus and tubenose goby Proterorhinus

semilunaris were introduced into the Great Lakes via ballast water from ocean-going

vessels. Tubenose goby is a smaller fish that has recently been substantially increasing

in numbers around the Bass Island Chain in Lake Erie. Round goby were first detected

in the St. Clair River near Detroit in 1990 and appeared in Cleveland harbor shortly

thereafter. By 1998, they were widespread throughout all of Lake Erie. There has been

at least one introduction to an inland Ohio water body, and other streams and lakes are

potentially at risk. The primary concern with round goby is the tremendous population

growth and range expansion it exhibited since its introduction in 1990, facilitated by its

ability to spawn repeatedly within a given year and its efficient method of early juvenile

dispersal.

It is an aggressive fish and a strong competitor with small bottom-feeding native fishes

like mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi, darter species, and even juvenile game fishes like

smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu. Gobies are voracious predators on snails,

mussels, aquatic insects, and the eggs and fry of native fish species. Great Lakes

fisheries have been profoundly impacted by round goby because of its robust

characteristics and potential to displace native species from prime habitat and spawning

areas (e.g., Winslow 2010, Steinhart et al. 2004). As an efficient nest predator, their

potential to impact recruitment of native sport fishes led the State of Ohio to close Lake

Erie’s smallmouth bass fishery to harvest during the spawning season so that the male

can stay on the nest to guard against predators. Round goby have also been implicated

in reintroducing historically bioaccumulated contaminants back into food webs (Kwon et

al. 2006). After years of declining levels, PCB concentrations in Lake Erie smallmouth

bass tissue tripled on average following the establishment of round goby (Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency, unpublished data).

The zebra mussel Dreissenia polymorpha and quagga mussel Dreissena bugensis,

both ballast water introductions, are two of the best known invaders of the Great Lakes

region and other areas of the country where they have spread. These AIS have caused

serious economic and ecosystem impacts (e.g., Windle et al. 2008). Dreissenid mussels

are highly opportunistic, reproduce rapidly, and consume plankton from the water

column in large quantities. Major changes have occurred in Lake Erie after the

dreissenid invasion, including the disappearance of native clams from many areas,

greatly reduced planktonic diatom and rotifer densities, a substantial resurgence in

blooms of potentially toxic cyanobacteria/blue-green algae, vastly increased water

clarity, and reduction in the annual economic value of the sport fishery. The initial

invasion and exponential increase in numbers of dreissenid mussels occurred

coincidentally with the reduction of phosphorus levels induced by the Clean Water Act

and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Dressenid mussels have been shown to

accumulate contaminants and can pass those contaminants up the food web. Dreissenid

mussels have spread to a number of inland lakes and reservoirs as well as the waters of

the Ohio River along our entire border where they pose a serious threat to native

mussels.

Potential impacts on fisheries can be profound because of changes in food availability

and spawning areas. Economic impacts are as common as the ecosystem impacts.

Great Lakes municipalities, utilities, and industries, because of the infestation of

dreissenid mussels in their intake/discharge pipes, have incurred significant costs from

monitoring, cleaning, and controlling infestations. For example, by 2008 the Cleveland

Plain Dealer estimated dreissenid mussels had cost the region approximately $1.5 billion

in efforts to prevent such clogging/fowling. Commercial and recreational vessels and

beach areas are also vulnerable to the negative impacts of dreissenids.

Medium Risk Species:

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus are perhaps best known for their invasion of the Great

Lakes by using the Welland Canal to bypass Niagara Falls. Alewife colonized the Great

Lakes and increased rapidly during the 1940s and 1950s because of the suitability of the

habitat and the fact that predators were not sufficiently abundant to check their

population growth. Declining water quality prior to the Clean Water Act, and the loss of

large native planktivores like the lake herring or cisco Coregonus artedii from Lake Erie

contributed to the establishment of alewife by creating an open niche. Like many herring

species, alewives are prone to massive die-offs because of seasonal changes in water

temperature. Periodic kills have fouled recreational beaches and blocked municipal and

industrial water intakes. At the same time alewife out-competed and suppressed native

whitefishes, yellow perch, and emerald shiners, and became a key prey species for

salmonids. Unfortunately, alewives produce an enzyme (thiaminase) that breaks down

thiamin or vitamin B1, and as a result, predatory fish with diets high in alewife are more

susceptible to mortality. The alewife has permanently altered existing predator-prey

relationships in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and caused instability in the forage base

because of their population variability.

The river ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus, a Eurasian fish of the perch family, was

introduced to North America in the 1980s most likely through the ballast water of ocean-

going vessels. Ruffe have few predators, no commercial or recreational value, and may

be displacing native fishes. Since its introduction, the ruffe became established in the

nearshore waters of western Lake Superior, with an estimated average rate of range

expansion of 18 shoreline miles per year. By the fall of 1994, ruffe populations were

found in Michigan waters of Lake Superior. Based on observations of present ruffe

expansion rates, and life history aspects of the ruffe in Europe, there is high potential for

future negative impacts to valuable native fish such as yellow perch in situations where

the two are forced to compete for food resources. While this species has never been

collected in Ohio’s Lake Erie waters, its potential impacts warrant continued vigilance.

The spiny water flea Bythotrephes longimanus and fishhook water flea Cercopagis

pengoi, likely ballast water introductions, are tiny crustaceans with sharply barbed tail

spines. The spiny water flea is a native of northern Europe and was first found in Lake

Huron in 1984, and Lake Erie in 1986 (Bur et al. 1986). The fishhook water flea was first

collected in Lake Erie’s central basin in 2002. Both species are now found throughout

the Great Lakes, and the spiny water flea has been found in some inland lakes. They

can form dense blooms and clump on fishing line, making retrieval of gear difficult.

Resource managers suspect that these invaders compete with native zooplankton and

fish for food but may also be used by native fish as a food source.

Plants

High Risk Species:

Giant reed grass Phragmites australis has become a tremendous problem in Lake Erie

coastal marshes and other wetlands throughout northern Ohio. This non-native grass

forms extensive colonies with individual stalks often reaching 10–15 feet in height. It

spreads primarily by rhizomes that run above or below the surface.

European or glossy buckthorn Rhamnus frangula is a wetland shrub that has become

a serious problem in wetlands such as bogs, fens, wet prairies, and sedge meadows,

particularly in northern Ohio. It can completely displace native vegetation over large

areas of a wetland and is difficult to control as it spreads aggressively by seed and

rhizomes.

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea is a non-native grass that forms dense

populations that can virtually eliminate all other plants. It has become a serious problem

in several native wetland communities in Ohio including marshes, fens, and wet prairies.

Flowering-rush Butomus umbellatus has narrow, sword-like leaves beneath multiple

long-stalked pink flowers on tall stems. The species spreads by seed, rhizomes, and

bulbets that break off from the rhizomes. It has recently spread rapidly in the western

Lake Erie marshes where it is now the dominant species, replacing purple loosestrife in

many cases.

Hydrilla was release in the 1960s from aquariums into waterways in Florida and is now

established in the southeast from Connecticut to Texas. Hydrilla is an aggressive plant

that can form large dense mats that impact aquatic fish and wildlife along with

recreationalists. By the 1990s, control and management were costing millions of dollars

each year. Hydrilla can be controlled by aquatic herbicides, grass carp (itself an

invasive species), and insects. Tubers pose a problem to control as they can lay

dormant for a number of years. This has made it even more difficult to remove from

waterways and estuaries. Hydrilla is established in the Ohio River and was recently

identified in ponds in the Lake Erie watershed.

Medium Risk Species:

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria is an invasive wetland plant from Europe and Asia

that was introduced to the east coast of North America in the 1800s. Since then, it has

spread to the Great Lakes region and inland waters in Ohio. It produces a brilliant spike

of lavender flowers making it a popular garden plant, although only the variety Lythrum

virgatum is allowed to be sold in Ohio (L. salicaria is listed as a noxious weed by the

Ohio Department of Agriculture). Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores,

displacing valuable native wetland plants. It can develop a monoculture which is

unsuitable as cover, food, or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland fish and

wildlife species.

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum was unintentionally introduced to North

America from Europe and has spread into inland lakes and ponds primarily by

recreational boaters. Eurasian watermilfoil can reach high densities in lakes and cause

serious problems for commercial fishing as well as recreational activities such as

boating, fishing, and swimming. The plant’s floating surface canopy can out-compete

and eliminate native aquatic vegetation, thereby threatening native fish and wildlife

populations.

Bushy pondweed/lesser naiad Najas minor and Curly pondweed Potamogeton

crispus are two other non-native aquatic plants impacting inland lakes and ponds in

Ohio. These submersed aquatic plants are especially abundant in eutrophic water where

an overabundance of nutrients, often from fertilizer runoff or sewage waste, has altered

the natural ecology. They can reduce native aquatic plant and fish diversity as well as

impact recreational activities. When a large biomass of curly pondweed begins to die

late in the growing season, its decomposition can lead to oxygen depletion and fish kills

in smaller inland waters.

Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia and Hybrid cattail Typha X glauca (its hybrid

with the native broad-leaved cattail Typha latifolia) are aggressively spreading plants

which tend to form dense colonies that displace native emergent plant species. Both

plants can be distinguished from the native species by a narrow gap that separates the

male and female flowers of the inflorescence as well as by narrower leaves. They both

spread by rhizomes and airborne seeds.

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica (syn. Polygonum cuspidatum) is a large,

herbaceous perennial plant, native to eastern Asia. In North America and Europe the

species is very successful and has been classified as an invasive species in several

countries. It is a frequent colonizer of temperate riparian ecosystems, roadsides and

waste places. It forms thick, dense colonies that completely crowd out any other

herbaceous species and is now considered one of the worst invasive exotics in parts of

the eastern United States.

III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES

Continuous effort is required to block the pathways that AIS use to enter and disperse in

Ohio waters, as well as to detect and respond to new invaders, and to manage and

control established populations. The goals of this SMP are designed to address different

stages of AIS invasion: the introduction of AIS transported from water bodies outside of

Ohio; the dispersal of established, reproducing AIS populations in Ohio to other water

bodies within the state; and the colonization of AIS populations within water bodies.

The State of Ohio recognizes that to accomplish these goals, it must coordinate with

jurisdictions inside and outside the state and build its strategies upon sound science.

Therefore, mechanisms will be established to ensure that all strategies developed and

implemented by the State under this plan are (1) done in cooperation with federal

agencies, local governments, interjurisdictional organizations and other entities; (2)

based upon the best scientific information available; and (3) conducted in an

environmentally-sound manner.

The five goals of the SMP address:

• Goal - 1 Leadership

• Goal - 2 Prevention

• Goal - 3 Early Detection and Rapid Response

• Goal - 4 Control and Management

• Goal - 5 Research and Education

Goal 1 - Leadership: Provide leadership for AIS issues in Ohio among local, state,

and federal agencies as well as other organizations in order to effectively address

AIS.

Objective 1.1: Coordinate all AIS management programs and activities within Ohio and

establish multi-state cooperation and coordination within the Great Lakes and

Mississippi River regions as well as nationally.

• Strategy 1.1a: Coordinate the OAISC to address AIS issues in Ohio. The

Committee will be comprised of government, industry, university, and private

groups and will meet annually to address relevant AIS issues.

• Strategy 1.1b: Partner with AIS management programs in nearby states through

regional organizations (e.g., Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basin Panels)

and national organizations (e.g., Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) to ensure that AIS efforts in Ohio

remain relevant and current; are based in the most recent science; and

coordinated with regional, national, and local programs.

• Strategy 1.1c: Identify all sources of funding available and evaluate their utility

for addressing Ohio’s priority AIS issues. Identify the current funding capacity

and identify priority resource needs and new funding opportunities. In

cooperation with other partners, work with the Governor’s Office and Legislature

to establish a permanent funding mechanism for AIS management activities.

Identify funding gaps and identify currently funded programs that are lower

priority or not meeting their goals so that resources can be reallocated.

Goal 2 - Prevention: Identify AIS vectors and focus efforts on preventing the

introduction and spread of AIS into Ohio.

Objective 2.1: Establish a comprehensive process to identify AIS of greatest concern

that are not yet present in Ohio waters and prioritize highest-risk introduction pathways.

• Strategy 2.1a: Identify and rank, by short- and long-term risk assessment, the

species or groups of species of greatest concern and conduct an analysis to

determine the level of risk associated with their introduction. The species list will

include species in the U.S. but not established in Ohio as well as species not yet

in the U.S.

• Strategy 2.1b: Using the prioritized list of AIS with the greatest potential to

invade Ohio waters, identify existing and potential pathways that would facilitate

introductions of these species. Prioritize highest-risk pathways for future

legislation, rules, research, and control efforts.

• Strategy 2.1c: Work with government and non-government stakeholders to

develop a science-based, comprehensive screening system for evaluating risks

associated with the introduction of all non-native aquatic species.

Objective 2.2: Identify potential prevention strategies for addressing AIS of

greatest risk and high-risk introduction pathways.

• Strategy 2.2a:, Evaluate the effectiveness of existing management and

regulatory tools (incorporating pathway analysis) for preventing the introduction

of priority AIS into Ohio by identifying potential gaps and improve existing tools.

Develop and implement specific strategies and plans to reduce the likelihood of

both intentional and unintentional introduction of harmful AIS through high-risk

pathways.

• Strategy 2.2b: Identify "ecologically sensitive" aquatic resource areas that are

free of AIS, and enhance protection through the (1) identification of potential

introduction pathways and (2) establishment of additional precautionary

measures including educational outreach and enforcement.

• Strategy 2.2c: Identify BMPs, codes-of-conduct, and potential certification

options for key industry and user groups (e.g., pet and aquarium trades, water

gardens, aquaculture industry, research community, commercial shipping,

recreational boating, transportation industry, and bait retailers and suppliers) to

help keep the priority AIS out of Ohio.

Goal 3 - Early Detection and Rapid Response: Implement early detection and rapid

response actions so that newly introduced AIS can be located quickly and

eliminated.

Objective 3.1: Enhance coordination within Ohio to detect new invasions, as well as

range expansions of AIS within Ohio. Prioritize early-detection efforts and increase

knowledge and expertise to enhance these efforts.

• Strategy 3.1a: Assemble a focused committee of agency, municipal, NGO, and

academic professionals who survey aquatic organisms as part of their monitoring

and research activities and have them evaluate current early-detection programs,

identify gaps, and make recommendations for improved monitoring of priority

AIS.

• Strategy 3.1b: Develop a list of experts within agencies, academia, NGO, and

contractors that can help identify AIS and develop contract arrangements if

necessary.

• Strategy 3.1c: Create a regional “watch” list for species that have potential to

enter Ohio.

• Strategy 3.1d: Identify high “invasion likelihood” areas for targeted early

detection surveying.

• Strategy 3.1e: Establish cooperative policies with states sharing watersheds for

coordinated early detection efforts.

Objective 3.2: Create a master inventory of Ohio AIS that is regularly maintained,

updated, and accessible.

• Strategy 3.2a: Create a compilation of AIS in Ohio held by various groups (local,

county, state, federal, and private organizations). Identify inventory gaps, and

develop strategies to address deficiencies.

• Strategy 3.2b: Integrate Ohio AIS location information into the United States

Geologic Surveys Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database.

Objective 3.3: Implement Ohio’s Rapid Response Plan (Appendix A) for the eradication

of newly detected AIS under predetermined conditions.

• Strategy 3.3a: Implement Ohio’s RRP in high risk systems where there is a high

likelihood that eradication efforts will be effective.

Goal 4 - Control: When feasible, control or manage AIS that have or may have

significant impacts in Ohio.

Objective 4.1: Prioritize AIS on which to focus control efforts and explore and utilize the

various methods available to control these populations.

• Strategy 4.1a: Implement scientific analyses to prioritize control efforts for both

species and sites and consider the long-term, cost-effectiveness of all proposed

strategies against the “no-action” alternative.

• Strategy 4.1b: Implement control strategies that are based on the best available

scientific information and conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

Coordinate control strategies with federal agencies, local governments,

interjurisdictional organizations, and other appropriate entities. Establish

protocols that will provide guidance in designing and implementing control and

eradication strategies.

• Strategy 4.1c: Evaluate potential incentive programs or assistance for private

landowners for the control of invasive species and restoration of impacted

ecosystems.

• Strategy 4.1d: Develop means of modifying human activities in areas of AIS

infestations to help prevent their spread.

Goal 5 - Research and Education: Increase research efforts on AIS, and educate

the general public and individuals involved in related business, trade, research,

recreation and government sectors about AIS issues.

Objective 5.1: Establish and coordinate an Ohio AIS research network by building on

existing state, federal, and university programs.

• Strategy 5.1a: Identify all current AIS research needs and potential network

members and prioritize the research specific to Ohio’s freshwater habitats.

Objective 5.2: Increase public awareness of AIS impacts and strategies that can be

implemented to reduce the establishment and spread of AIS in Ohio.

• Strategy 5.2a: Target outreach efforts and prioritize key audiences (e.g., live

organism trades and aquatic user groups) to promote understanding of invasive

species dispersal pathways and risks.

• Strategy 5.2b: Maintain a comprehensive and current AIS website and work to

develop other types of media to inform the public of AIS issues.

Objective 5.3: Target policy makers and legislative staff for outreach efforts.

• Strategy 5.3a: Provide educational briefings on the threats, economic and

ecological impacts, and solutions to AIS invasions in Ohio for decision makers

and legislators. Keep legislators and decision makers informed and updated on

the progress of Ohio AIS management efforts.

IV. EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS

Addressing prevention and control of AIS requires coordination of policies and programs

at many levels of government. The following overview describes the basic role of federal,

regional, and state government in implementation of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA, Public Law 101-646) and the

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA, Public Law 104-332). It also includes an

assessment of Ohio’s existing laws and programs that address prevention and control of

AIS.

Federal Role

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA): NANPCA

calls upon states to develop and implement a comprehensive SMP to prevent

introduction and control the spread of AIS. Section 1002 of NANPCA outlines five

objectives of the law, as follows:

1. Prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal of nonindigenous species into

waters of the United States through ballast water management and other

requirements;

2. Coordinate federally conducted, funded or authorized research, prevention

control, information dissemination and other activities regarding the zebra mussel

and other aquatic nuisance species;

3. Develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent,

monitor and control unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species from

pathways other than ballast water exchange;

4. Understand and minimize economic and ecological impacts of nonindigenous

aquatic nuisance species that become established, including the zebra mussel;

5. Establish a program of research and technology development and assistance to

States in the management and removal of zebra mussels.

NANPCA was primarily a response to the Great Lakes invasion of the zebra mussel,

which has caused extensive ecological and socioeconomic impacts. Although the zebra

mussel issue played a key role in prompting passage of the legislation, NANPCA was

established to prevent occurrence of new unintentional introductions of AIS, and to limit

dispersal and adverse impacts of invasive species currently inhabiting United States

waters.

Section 1201 of the Act established the national Aquatic Nuisance Species ask Force

(ANSTF), co-chaired by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Act charges the ANSTF with developing and

implementing a program for waters of the United States to prevent introduction and

dispersal of aquatic nuisance species; to monitor, control and study such species; and to

disseminate related information. The ANSTF is composed of 13 Federal and 13 ex-

officio members. It is supported by six regional panel and numerous committees. The

ANSTF also provides national policy direction as a result of protocols and guidance that

have been developed through its standing and ad-hoc committees.

National Invasive Species Act: NISA (1996) amended and expanded NANPCA,

mandating regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS into the Great Lakes

through ballast water. Initially in response to round goby, it also authorized the dispersal

barrier demonstration on the upper Mississippi watershed that is the current centerpiece

of efforts to prevent silver and bighead carps from invading the Great Lakes. NISA

authorized additional funding for AIS research, and required ballast water management

programs to demonstrate technologies and practices to prevent nonindigenous species

from being introduced.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: The USFWS’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program is

housed within the Fisheries and Habitat Conservation Program’s Division of Fisheries

and Aquatic Resource Conservation. The Branch of Aquatic Invasive Species

essentially houses three functions:

1. The FWS Aquatic Invasive Species Program – The AIS Program seeks to

prevent the introduction and spread of AIS, rapidly respond to new invasions,

monitor the distribution of and control established invaders, and foster

responsible conservation behaviors through its national public awareness

campaigns (Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers and Habitattitude).

2. Administration of Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force – The Branch of AIS

builds capacity, coordinates, and implements AIS prevention and control

activities authorized under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act

(NISA) of 1996), including: co-chairing and administering the ANSTF, supporting

Regional Panels, providing grants for State/Interstate ANS Management Plans,

and implementing a National AIS program.

3. Injurious Wildlife Evaluations and Listings – The AIS Program supports the

Injurious Wildlife Provisions of the Lacey Act through an ongoing process of

evaluating species and possibly listing them as injurious through the rulemaking

process.

The AIS Program has worked to prevent populations of invasive species like invasive

carp and zebra quagga mussels from entering or spreading into the United States.

Priority containment (boat inspection and decontamination), early detection and rapid

response (snakehead eradication and Chicago Sanitary Shipping Canal),

interjurisdictional coordination and planning (Quagga/Zebra Mussel Action Plan and

100th Meridian), and regulatory (injurious wildlife listing of black and silver carp) and

non-regulatory actions (Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!) have occurred across many

jurisdictions. Through the actions of the AIS program, a national AIS network has been

built – including 39 states, 6 Regional panels, over 1,000 participants in two national

public awareness campaigns and many other partners – that has planned, directed and

accomplished significant regional and landscape level invasive species prevention and

management resource outcomes. The AIS Program serves as the nation’s front line for

prevention of new aquatic invasive species by regulating imports of injurious wildlife,

facilitating behavioral change and managing pathways to limit the introduction and

spread of invasives (awareness campaigns and ballast water), and developing

monitoring programs for invasion hotspots to facilitate early detection and rapid

response.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS): The mission of the USFS is to sustain the health, diversity,

and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and

future generations. The USFS strives nationally, regionally, and locally to reduce,

minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of

aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (including plants, pathogens, vertebrates,

invertebrates, fungi, algae, etc.) across all landscapes and ownerships. The Forest

Service plays an important national and regional role with the Aquatic Nuisance Species

Task Force, including serving on several Regional ANS Panels. USFS invasive species

management specialists are stationed at national, regional, and local offices throughout

the country.

The USFS National Invasive Species Management Policy (Forest Service Manual –

FSM 2900) provides direction to all National Forests and Grasslands to work with local,

State, Tribal, and other partners to address aquatic and terrestrial invasive species

threats. This national policy emphasizes importance of integrating USFS invasive

species activities to expand prevention, early detection and rapid response, control,

restoration, cooperation, education and awareness, and mitigation activities across all

National Forest System programs areas. Among other requirements, the policy directs

all National Forests and Grasslands to cooperate with State governments and Tribes to

implement and enforce applicable regulations, plans, and guidance on invasive species

management on National Forests and Grasslands, including but not limited to:

1. State regulations related to prevention and control of aquatic and terrestrial

invasive species (including noxious weeds);

2. State regulations associated with utilizing, storing, transporting, or certifying

invasive species-free (and/or noxious weed-free) straw, hay, mulch, gravel,

forage, seed, or other materials; or

3. Statewide aquatic nuisance species management plans, fish and wildlife

management plans, early detection and rapid response plans, or other statewide

or region-wide invasive species management plans.

In southeastern Ohio, the Wayne National Forest covers over a quarter million acres of

Appalachian foothills extending over a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and land

ownerships. The Wayne NF is a working forest that provides multiple uses and multiple

products to communities. The Ohio AIS Management Plan has included the USFS as a

key federal partner in addressing priority invasive species management activities within

Ohio, particularly in the areas associated with the Wayne National Forest. Under

direction provided in FSM 2900 and other Forest Service requirements, all aquatic and

terrestrial invasive species management activities conducted on the Wayne NF are

integrated to restore and improve watershed condition, protect fish and wildlife

populations and habitat, maintain forest productivity, improve recreational opportunities,

and sustain critical ecosystem services.

There are a few additional pieces of federal legislation that can be used in the prevention

and management of AIS.

Lacey Act: The Lacey Act (1900) largely falls to the USFWS for enforcement. Under its

18USC42 Lacey Act authority the USFWS can list wild animals as “injurious” and thus

illegal for live (for the most part) interstate transport, but the process is lengthy and the

species list is resultantly short, especially regarding fishes. As of 2012, potential AIS

listed as injurious by the Lacey Act (and the date of their listing) are walking catfishes of

the family Clariidae (1970), mitten crabs Eriocheir spp. (1989), zebra mussel (1991),

snakehead fishes of the family Channidae (2002), silver carp (2007), largescale silver

carp Hypophthalmicthys harmandi (2007), black carp (2007), and bighead carp (2010).

Plant Protection Act: The Plant Protection Act (2000) amounts to a comprehensive

consolidation of earlier statutes and is coupled with several related statutes expanding

jurisdiction to non-plant invasive species. Implementation largely falls to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to

prohibit, inspect, treat, quarantine, or require mitigation measures prior to allowing entry

or interstate transport. APHIS can impose a relatively rapid response via proclamation,

but that authority is usually invoked in response to pests or threats related to

commercially valuable cultured organisms. For example, in October 2006 in response to

viral outbreaks on the Great Lakes, APHIS imposed a federal order restricting

international and interstate transport of fish species known to be susceptible to the

invasive viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) virus within or out of the at-risk region (i.e.,

states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River). The stated

purpose of this order was “to prevent the spread of VHS into aquaculture facilities.”

Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act: Concern over the potential for ecological and

economic damage to the Great Lakes region if invasive carps successfully invade has

prompted several recent pieces of federal legislation. The Asian Carp Prevention and

Control Act (2010) added bighead carp to the Lacey Act’s injurious list and prohibited the

importation and shipment of some other select carp species.

Water Resources Development Act: The Water Resources Development Act (2007)

authorized the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to

rivers and harbors of the United States to provide for the conservation and development

of water and related resources. This Act includes maintaining the AIS dispersal barrier

on the upper Mississippi system.

Stop Invasive Species Act: The Stop Invasive Species Act (S. 2317, H.R. 4406) was

introduced in April 2012 to stop invasive carps from destroying the Great Lakes

ecosystem. It would require the expedited creation of a plan to block invasive carp from

entering the Great Lakes through a number of surface water connections across the

Great Lakes region. The act would require the Army Corps of Engineers to accelerate

the release of their final action plan and develop a definitive plan to permanently prevent

invasive carp from entering the Great Lakes. The bill remains in committee.

Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee: In 2007 under the direction of

USFWS, the “Asian Carp Working Group,” comprised of several agencies, stakeholders

and partners, submitted the Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass,

and Silver Carps in the United States to the ANSTF for approval (Conover et al. 2007).

The Plan was used as the foundation of the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework,

which was developed by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC). .

Ballast water: The potential for ballast water introductions of AIS is of international

concern. Policies must be implemented at some jurisdictional level, ideally federally,

because of the interjurisdictional/interstate nature of the shipping industry. NANPCA

initiated ballast water management regulations to limit introductions through

transoceanic shipping. Regulations adopted by the USCG in 1993 apply to all vessels

that have been operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. or

Canada, and enter the Snell Lock in New York carrying ballast water. Vessel masters

have three options under these regulations: (1) demonstrate that a ballast exchange was

done at sea beyond the EEZ in a depth exceeding 2,000 meters; (2) retain the ballast

during the vessel’s entire Great Lakes voyage, in which case tanks may be sealed; or (3)

have an alternative environmentally-sound method of ballast water management

approved by the USCG.

The USEPA has issued two draft vessel general permits that would regulate discharges

from commercial vessels, excluding military and recreational vessels. The proposed

permits would help protect the nation’s waters from ship-borne pollutants and reduce the

risk of introduction of invasive species from ballast water discharges.

The draft Vessel General Permit (VGP), which covers commercial vessels greater than

79 feet in length, would replace the current 2008 VGP, when it expires in December

2013. Under the Clean Water Act, permits are issued for a five-year period after which

time USEPA generally issues revised permits based on updated information and

requirements. The new draft Small VGP would cover vessels smaller than 79 feet in

length and would provide such vessels with the Clean Water Act permit coverage they

will be required to have as of December 2013.

A key new provision of the permit is a proposed numeric standard to control the release

of non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. The new ballast water

discharge standard addressing invasive species is based upon results from independent

USEPA Science Advisory Board and National Research Council National Academy of

Sciences studies. These limits are generally consistent with those contained in the

International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 2004 Ballast Water Convention.

The new standard is expected to substantially reduce the risk of introduction and

establishment of non-indigenous invasive species in U.S. waters.

Prompted by AIS concerns worldwide, the United Nations’ IMO held its Ballast Water

Convention in 2004. Its requirements will enter into force 12 months after ratification by

30 nations representing 35 percent of world shipping tonnage. Thirty-three member

nations (including Canada but still excluding the United States) representing nearly 25

percent of world shipping tonnage had ratified the convention as of January 2012.

Ultimately, the Convention intends to implement international Ballast Water Performance

Standards in two phases. In Phase I (until January 2016), ballast of qualifying vessels

must discharge fewer than 10 organisms that are greater than 50 μm in length (half the

diameter of an average human hair) per cubic meter of ballast water. This would allow

the discharge of up to 5,000 – 200,000 organisms depending on vessel size. Phase II

(after January 2016) will require less than one organism per 100 cubic meters of ballast

water, which would still allow discharge of up to 50 – 2,000 organisms depending on

vessel size.

The IMO’s interim measure calls for Ballast Water Exchange (BWE). The USCG and

Joint Ballast Water Working Group began implementation of BWE on Great Lakes

waters in 2004. In 2008, the St Lawrence Seaway and USCG required ocean-going

vessels to exchange ballast water prior to entering the upper Great Lakes. The USCG

issued its Final Rule on ballast water in March 2012 and it will require oceangoing

vessels to meet the IMO standard, some as soon as 1 December 2013.

Regional Role

Regional AIS Panels: The activities of NANPCA, NISA, and (by extension) the ANSTF

are coordinated through six regional panels; the state of Ohio is represented on two of

those six panels. Section 1203 of NANPCA calls upon the Great Lakes Commission to

convene the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Similarly, the Mississippi

River Basin Panel of the ANSTF was first convened in 2003 and is hosted by the

Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association. Official state representatives

must be employees of state management agencies, but broader panel membership is

drawn from diverse federal, state, provincial, and regional agencies. Input from private

sector user groups, Sea Grant programs, academic faculty and staff, and environmental

organizations are also used to ensure that the positions of the panels provide a balanced

and regional perspective on AIS issues. Panel responsibilities for the Great Lakes region

and Mississippi River basin are fivefold: (1) identify priorities for activities within each

relevant basin, (2) develop and submit recommendations to the ANSTF (established via

Public Law 101-646), (3) coordinate aquatic nuisance species program activities within

each basin, (4) advise public and private interests on control efforts, and (5) report to the

ANSTF describing prevention, research, and control activities within each basin.

State Role

State Management Plan for AIS: The comprehensive SMPs for AIS are addressed in

Section 1204 of NANPCA. Section 1204 requires that management plans identify "those

areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which

technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental,

public health, and safety risks associated with AIS." The content of each state plan is to

focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices and

measures to be used by state and local entities to prevent and control AIS infestations in

a manner that is environmentally sound. As part of the plan, federal activities are to be

identified for prevention and control measures, including direction on how these activities

should be coordinated with state and local efforts. Section 1204 also states that in the

development and implementation of the management plan, the state needs to involve

appropriate local, state, and regional entities, as well as public and private organizations

that have expertise in AIS prevention and control. The SMPs are to be submitted to the

national ANSTF for approval. If the plan meets the requirements of the ANSTF, the plan

becomes eligible for federal cost-share support. Plans may be implemented with other

funds supplied by state and cooperative agencies.

The State of Ohio currently has a number of statutory and regulatory authorities detailed

in both the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) with which it

can address issues of prevention and control of AIS. These have been developed over

time, generally in response to individual species and concerns as they arose.

Consequently, there is not currently a comprehensive, coordinated, and vigorously

enforced policy framework to deal with invasive species and their impacts. One task

must be to identify gaps in Ohio’s policies and statutes, and develop recommendations

for improvements. Such improvements may entail developing new legislation and

regulations; revising existing authorities; and developing methods for improving

enforcement, coordination, and information dissemination regarding new or existing

authorities.

The following existing authorities and policies have been identified relative to Ohio’s

management of AIS. Some sections of code are species-specific while others are more

general with respect to species that may invade terrestrial, transitional, or aquatic

ecosystems.

Purple loosestrife: The director of the ODA prohibits the sale and propagation of purple

loosestrife pursuant to ORC 927.682. No person or governmental entity may sell, offer

for sale or plant Lythrum salicaria without a permit issued by the director. The director

may issue a permit only for controlled experiments, but may exempt from the permit

requirement any variety demonstrated not to be a threat to the environment (ORC

927.682).

Wild animal importing, exporting, selling and possession regulation: The state of

Ohio's fishing regulations provide that exotic species of fish —i.e., any fish not naturally

found in Ohio waters—or hybrids thereof may not be imported, sold or possessed for the

purposes of introduction into any body of water that is connected to or drains into a

flowing stream or other body of water that would allow egress of fish into public waters in

the state. In addition, the possession, sale, and importation of grass carp capable of

reproducing is prohibited. Importers and sellers of grass carp are required to certify that

all grass carp handled are of the sterile triploid variety and must have prior written

authorization from the chief of the DOW to import and sell this variety. It is also illegal to

possess, import, or sell for any purpose at any time live individuals of any of the

following species or their hybrids: walking catfish Clarias batrachus, diploid white

amur/grass carp, silver carp/white bream, bighead carp/bighead amur, black amur/black

carp, round goby, tubenose goby, snakeheads Channa or Parachanna spp., white perch

Morone americana, three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, sea lamprey, or

the subspecific eastern banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus diaphanus. Exceptions for

such species may be made only for research, by zoos, public aquariums, and public

displays and only after permission is obtained from the wildlife chief. In addition, it is

illegal for any person to possess, import, or sell marron Cherax tenuimanus, yabby C.

destructor, zebra mussel, quagga mussel, or rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus (OAC

1501:31-19-01).

Aquaculture: ORC 1533.632 mandates that the DOW regulate the aquaculture

industry, and allows for the issuance of permits for species which can include

nonindigenous species. Class B species refer to species that are more ecologically

sensitive and Class A species to those that are more common or do not pose a threat.

Class B permits are to be issued on a case-by-case basis, and the chief shall take into

account “the species for which the Class B permit is requested, the location of the

aquaculture production facility, and any other information determined by the chief to be

necessary to protect the wildlife and natural resources of this state." According to rules

promulgated by the DOW, a permit will not be granted until a Division representative

determines the classification of the aquaculture facility based upon level of potential risk

of escapement. Aquatic species or hybrids not native to a watershed or not established

through stocking by the Division will not be considered for approval unless the facility

has no risk of escapement at any time. Two levels of escapement prevention are

required for Class B species and some named hybrids cultured outside their naturally

occurring watersheds as detailed by OAC 1501:31-39-01.D.2.b (ORC 1533.632, OAC

1501:31-39-01).

Bait and bait dealers: Rules promulgated by the DOW regulate such sale in

accordance with the Division’s statutory authority to protect and preserve the wild

animals of the state, mostly related to the management of native stocks through

regulation. Specifically related to potential AIS, it is illegal to sell or use as bait “any fish

or minnow not already established in waters of Ohio over which the wildlife chief has

control” (OAC 1501:31-13-04).

Other ODNR Division of Wildlife Authorities: The chief of ODNR’s DOW has general

statutory authority and control over AIS in all matters pertaining to the protection,

preservation, propagation, possession, and management of wild animals and may adopt

rules for the management of wild animals (ORC 1531.08). Specifically, as deemed

necessary, the chief “shall adopt, and may amend and rescind, rules that are necessary

for the administration and enforcement” of the ORC (ORC 1531.10). The Chief also has

the authority to restrict the stocking of aquatic organisms in public waters through OAC

1501:31-13-01-7 which requires individuals stocking any species of fish into waters of

the State to obtain permission from the Chief of the DOW. Waters of the state are

defined as all waters except those private waters that are not connected with other

natural surface waters. In addition, the chief “may adopt, amend, and rescind such rules

as necessary to control or eradicate parasites and diseases of game birds, game

quadrupeds other than captive white-tailed deer, fur-bearing animals, or nonnative

wildlife” on “wholly enclosed preserves” as described in ORC 1533.71 (ORC 1533.79).

Therefore, in instances where it is determined that the introduction and/or spread of

nonindigenous aquatic species is potentially detrimental to the management of the wild

animals of the state, the Division may adopt additional rules to check adverse impacts.

Other Ohio Department of Agriculture Authorities: The ODA has statutory authority

to adopt rules necessary to carry out its responsibilities regarding plant pests (ORC

927.70). No person may harbor any plant pest which has been determined by the

director of agriculture to be destructive or dangerously harmful. “Pest” is defined broadly

as any organism that causes or may cause injury, disease, or damage to any plant part,

or plant product. This apparently could be broadly applied if plants or natural systems

were to be judged to be threatened by a pest species. Thus, broad rule-making authority

exists, but an assessment of the need for additional rules may be required.

In addition, the director of the ODA has authority to label “dangerously contagious or

infectious disease[s]” of animals as those diseases determined “to be of harmful effect

on the animal or poultry industry or the public health and to be capable of transmission

by any means from a carrier animal to a human or to another animal” (ORC 941.01).

This includes diseases of cultured aquatic organisms (including potentially invasive

diseases or diseases of potentially invasive host organisms used in aquaculture) that

may also infect wild populations. The chief of the ODA’s Division of Animal Health is

charged with preventing the spread of “dangerously contagious or infectious disease,

providing for the control and eradication of such disease, and cooperating with the

United States Department of Agriculture in such work” (ORC 940.02).If such a disease is

detected, the director has authority to impose quarantine, including an individual animal

or as by “geographic area” if the director determines such broad quarantine to be

necessary (ORC 941.07). This authority was invoked in 2007 to issue quarantine on

Ohio’s Lake Erie region in response to an outbreak of the invasive fish disease viral

hemorrhagic septicemia among several wild populations of fishes within Lake Erie. The

order prohibited the human transportation of susceptible fishes from the Lake Erie region

as defined by the order.

ODNR Division of Watercraft Authorities: The director of the ODNR has statutory

authority to create state wild, scenic, or recreational river areas along with their corridors

up to one thousand feet from normal waterlines. Beginning in 2009, the chief of ODNR’s

Division of Watercraft was given responsibility to develop “rules governing the use,

visitation, protection, and administration” of such areas. The Division is further charged

with providing conservation education and to “provide for corridor protection, restoration,

habitat enhancement, and clean-up projects” within these areas. While the Division of

Watercraft has rule-making authority with respect to management of lands within wild,

scenic, and recreational river areas, it does not have authority to regulate activities with

respect to species that may be disruptive to the ecosystems being preserved. The ORC

specifically prevents land use restrictions to be imposed by the Division upon private

lands along wild, scenic, or recreational river corridors; however, the Division works with

local governments to ensure that local zoning, flood plain, and forest buffers provide

appropriate protection. The ORC states that the chief or chief’s representative "may

participate in watershed-wide planning with federal, state and local agencies in order to

protect the values of wild, scenic, and recreational river areas" (ORC 1547.81).

Local Governments: Chapter 164 of the ORC details state disbursement of aid to local

government for improvements. Natural resources assistance councils appointed by

public works integrating committees are charged with reviewing various open space

acquisition project proposals, including “acquisition of land or rights in land for parks,

forests, wetlands, natural areas that protect an endangered plant or animal population,

other natural areas, and connecting corridors for natural areas” as well as development

of such land acquisitions to enhance their accessibility by the public. Such projects can

emphasize “the reduction or elimination of nonnative, invasive species of plants or

animals” and “shall not… encourage invasive nonnative species” (ORC 164.22).

Ohio Coastal Management Program: Within the Lake Erie watershed, enforceable

authorities incorporated into the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP: duties and

definitions detailed in ORC 1506) can be enforced against federal agencies through

application of the federal consistency provision (Section 307) of the federal Coastal Zone

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1541 et.seq.). The consistency provision applies to all

federally conducted, funded, and permitted activities that may affect land or water uses

of the coastal area, as defined by the OCMP, whether or not they occur directly within

the OCMP management boundary. This took effect with implementation of the OCMP

following federal approval by NOAA in 1997.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact: The Great

Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (ORC 1522), while originally

drafted through region-wide collaboration, is implemented at the state level. Passed by

the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin in

2008, and amended within Ohio in 2012, the Compact facilitates the interjurisdictional

management of the use of the water resources of the Great Lakes. The compact makes

little mention of AIS. However, communities that have corporate boundaries falling partly

within the basin or partly within two Great Lakes watersheds do create some risk of AIS

transfer. These communities are permitted some exception to the prohibition on water

diversions given that the volume of water diverted from the Great Lakes basin is

returned less an allowance for consumptive use. If some portion of the volume used to

fulfill the replacement criterion originates outside the Great Lakes basin, it must be

treated to meet water quality discharge standards and “to prevent the introduction of

invasive species into the basin” (ORC 1522.4.9).

Research and Education: In addition to exercising its statutory and regulatory

authorities, the state currently fosters extensive research and education/outreach

programs through the ODNR, the OEPA, the Ohio Lake Erie Commission’s Lake Erie

Protection Fund, the Ohio Sea Grant College Program, the Great Lakes Aquatic

Ecosystem Research Consortium, the Great Lakes Regional Research Information

Network, the International Joint Commission’s Council of Great Lakes Research

Managers, the ACRCC, regional panels of the ANSTF, state universities, and others.

Informational efforts focus upon educating recreational water users and commercial

enterprises regarding methods to reduce impacts of human activity related to the

introduction and spread of AIS. Research efforts have focused upon pollutant uptake

mechanisms, potential control methods, and effects of increased water clarity, predator-

prey relationships, and other trophic level interactions. Some research effort has been

made to quantify the economic impacts of AIS on the state or region (e.g., Rosaen et al.

2012, Windle et al. 2008). However, those efforts have been too few to date and have

not been comprehensive simply because the data required to compile a comprehensive

and defensible economic statement are not currently collected.

Control measures for non-native flora as a part of management plans for state-

managed nature preserves and wildlife areas. Each nature preserve and wildlife area

managed by the ODNR, DOW and the Division of Parks & Recreation’s Natural Areas

and Preserves program is governed by a management plan specific to that area. Each

plan incorporates a statement of policy regarding control of invasive plants identified as

problems within the nature preserve or wildlife area. Generally speaking, guidelines call

for manual removal, burning, and treatment with herbicides. Management plans include

provisions for monitoring and assessment to determine the extent of growth and nature

of the disturbance, if any. Management plans and control efforts are tailored to the

specific nature preserve or wildlife area and prescribe the treatment appropriate for each

species depending upon the habitat type, extent of invasion, and management goals for

the area.

Ohio Invasive Plants Council: The Ohio Invasive Plants Council (OIPC) was formed in

2005, this Council represents a broad partnership of agencies, organizations, and

individuals concerned about the threats of invasive plants in Ohio. The mission of OIPC

is to “participate in statewide efforts to address the threats of invasive species to Ohio’s

ecosystems and economy by providing leadership and promoting stewardship,

education, research, and information exchange.” OIPC holds annual meetings, research

conferences, and regional workshops to improve awareness of invasive species. OIPC

has developed a scientifically-based protocol for assessing invasiveness of plant

species.

Gaps in Authorities in Ohio: Event though there are statutes dealing with AIS in Ohio,

many gaps exist that prevent effective management. More comprehensive regulations

are urgently needed to address the movement of live fish for: bait, live food market, and

for stocking private/pay lakes. Ohio will also focus on the movement of AIS through the

pet trade, plant trade, and recreational activities.

V. PRIORITIES FOR ACTION

All of the strategies listed under the five goals of this plan are important, but when it

comes to implementation there is a need to prioritize strategies based upon the severity

of the problem, the programmatic authority, capability and feasibility to resolve it, and the

cost of the proposed solution. Priority actions in this plan target species and pathways

that cause the most significant economic and/or ecological impacts. The following five

priority actions are listed in order of importance:

1. Coordinate the Ohio Aquatic Invasive Species Committee to address AIS

issues in Ohio. The Committee will be comprised of government, industry,

university, and private groups and will meet annually to address relevant AIS

issues (Goal 1; Objective 1.1; Strategy 1.1a).

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing management and regulatory tools

(incorporating pathway analysis) for preventing the introduction of priority AIS

into Ohio by identifying potential gaps and improve existing tools. Develop and

implement specific strategies and plans to reduce the likelihood of both

intentional and unintentional introduction of harmful AIS through high-risk

pathways (Goal 2; Objective 2.2; Strategy 2.2a).

3. Target outreach efforts and prioritize key audiences (e.g., live organism

trades and aquatic user groups) to promote understanding of invasive species

dispersal pathways and risks (Goal 5; Objective 5.2; Strategy 5.2a).

4. Implement control and rapid response strategies that are based on the best

available scientific information and conducted in an environmentally sound

manner. Coordinate control and rapid response strategies with federal agencies,

local governments, interjurisdictional organizations, and other appropriate

entities. Establish protocols that will provide guidance in designing and

implementing control and eradication strategies (Goal 3; Objective 3.3; Strategy

3.3a and Goal 4; Objective 4.1; Strategy 4.1b).

VI. PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The implementation of Ohio’s SMP will enable us to monitor progress toward the five

goals in the plan. We will be able to select appropriate management actions as well as

make necessary “mid-course” corrections. By incorporating the best scientific and

management knowledge with periodic public evaluation, we will be implementing an

adaptive AIS management program. This process will involve three components: (1)

oversight, (2) evaluation, and (3) dissemination of information.

Oversight

The OAISC will act as the advisory committee and will examine progress on the plans

goals, objectives and strategies and recommend future plan revisions.

Evaluation

The evaluation effort should not only examine progress toward stated goals, objectives,

and strategies but place a special emphasis on success at identifying funding needs to

accomplish goals and associated tasks. This information will prove useful in future

program planning processes. Evaluation should also incorporate information from those

groups affected by plan implementation through the OAISC.

Dissemination

A report will be produced annually highlighting the progress of our management

activities. This report will include information on the successes in achieving objectives

towards the goals of the AIS Plan, as well as future plans and directions. Successes,

failures, and new directions within Ohio will be evaluated in comparison with other state

and regional plans. Reports will be made available to members of the general public and

local, state, and federal agencies.

VII. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE FOR PLAN GOALS (See Section III)

Goal 1: Leadership: Provide leadership for AIS issues in Ohio among local, state, and federal agencies as well as other

organizations in order effectively address AIS.

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Target

Date

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated State

Cost

Status

Objective 1.1:

Coordinate all AIS

management programs

and activities within

Ohio and establish

multi-state cooperation

and coordination within

the Great Lakes and

Mississippi River

regions as well as

nationally.

Strategy 1.1a: Coordinate the OAISC to

address AIS issues in Ohio. The

Committee will be comprised of

government, industry, university, and

private groups and will meet annually to

address relevant AIS issues.

Meet annually to

address relevant AIS

issues.

Annual

DOW

OAISC

$5,000

Ongoing

Strategy 1.1b: Partner with AIS

management programs in nearby states

through regional organizations (e.g., Great

Lakes and Mississippi River Basin Panels)

and national organizations (e.g., Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force and

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

to ensure that AIS efforts in Ohio remain

relevant and current; are based in the

most recent science; and coordinated with

regional, national, and local programs.

Maintain membership on

regional panels and

national organizations.

Attend meetings when

possible and assume

leadership roles when

possible.

Ongoing

DOW

$5,000

Ongoing

Strategy 1.1c: Identify all sources of

funding available and evaluate their utility

for addressing Ohio’s priority AIS issues.

Identify the current funding capacity and

identify priority resource needs and new

funding opportunities. In cooperation with

other partners, work with the Governor’s

Office and Legislature to establish a

permanent funding mechanism for AIS

management activities. Identify funding

gaps and identify currently funded

programs that are lower priority or not

meeting their goals so that resources can

be reallocated.

Identify funding

requirements to secure

funding source for AIS.

2014

DOW

OAISC

$5,000

Pending

Goal 2: Prevention: Identify AIS vectors and focus efforts on preventing the introduction and spread of AIS into Ohio.

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 2.1:

Establish a

comprehensive

process to identify AIS

of greatest concern

that are not yet present

in Ohio waters and

prioritize highest-risk

introduction pathways.

Strategy 2.1a: Identify and rank,

by short- and long-term risk

assessment, the species or groups

of species of greatest concern and

conduct an analysis to determine

the level of risk associated with

their introduction. The species list

will include species in the U.S. but

not established in Ohio as well as

species not yet in the U.S.

List of AIS of greatest

concern for Ohio

2014

DOW

OAISC

$20,000

Pending

Strategy 2.1b: Using the

prioritized list of AIS with the

greatest potential to invade Ohio

waters, identify existing and

potential pathways that would

facilitate introductions of these

species. Prioritize highest-risk

pathways for future legislation,

rules, research, and control efforts.

List of high risk pathways

2015

DOW

OAISC

$20,000

Pending

Strategy 2.1c: Work with

government and non-government

stakeholders to develop a science-

based, comprehensive screening

system for evaluating risks

associated with the introduction of

all non-native aquatic species.

AIS screening system

2016

DOW

OAISC

$40,000

Pending

Goal 2: Prevention: Identify AIS vectors and focus efforts on preventing the introduction and spread of AIS into Ohio

(continued).

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 2.2: Identify

potential prevention

strategies for

addressing AIS of

greatest risk and high-

risk introduction

pathways.

Strategy 2.2a:, Evaluate the

effectiveness of existing

management and regulatory tools

(incorporating pathway analysis)

for preventing the introduction of

priority AIS into Ohio by identifying

potential gaps and improve

existing tools. Develop and

implement specific strategies and

plans to reduce the likelihood of

both intentional and unintentional

introduction of harmful AIS through

high-risk pathways.

Close high risk pathways

2016

DOW

OAISC

$20,000

Pending

Strategy 2.2b: Identify

"ecologically sensitive" aquatic

resource areas that are free of

AIS, and enhance protection

through the (1) identification of

potential introduction pathways

and (2) establishment of additional

precautionary measures including

educational outreach and

enforcement.

List of ecologically

sensitive areas and

preventative measures.

2017

DOW

TNC

$5,000

Pending

Strategy 2.2c: Identify BMPs,

codes-of-conduct, and potential

certification options for key

industry and user groups (e.g., pet

and aquarium trades, water

gardens, aquaculture industry,

research community, commercial

shipping, recreational boating,

transportation industry, and bait

retailers and suppliers) to help

keep the priority AIS out of Ohio.

Offer Hazard analysis and

critical control points

(HACCP) training for

selected user groups.

2015

DOW

OAISC

$40,000

Pending

Goal 3: Early Detection and Rapid Response: Implement early detection and rapid response actions so that newly

introduced AIS can be located quickly and eliminated.

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 3.1:

Enhance coordination

within Ohio to detect

new invasions, as well

as range expansions of

AIS within Ohio.

Prioritize early-

detection efforts and

increase knowledge

and expertise to

enhance these efforts.

Strategy 3.1a: Assemble a

focused committee of agency,

municipal, NGO, and academic

professionals who survey aquatic

organisms as part of their

monitoring and research activities

and have them evaluate current

early-detection programs, identify

gaps, and make recommendations

for improved monitoring of priority

AIS.

Comprehensive AIS

monitoring program.

2014

DOW

OAISC

$25,000

Pending

Strategy 3.1b: Develop a list of

experts within agencies,

academia, NGO, and contractors

that can help identify AIS and

develop contract arrangements if

necessary.

Expert AIS list

2013

DOW

OAISC

$5,000

Pending

Strategy 3.1c: Create a regional

“watch” list for species that have

potential to enter Ohio.

AIS watch list.

2014

DOW

OAISC

$10,000

Pending

Strategy 3.1d: Identify high

“invasion likelihood” areas for

targeted early detection surveying.

List of high risk areas for

AIS invasions.

2015

DOW

OAISC

$10,000

Pending

Strategy 3.1e: Establish

cooperative policies with states

sharing watersheds for

coordinated early detection efforts.

Cooperative agreements

with adjacent states.

2015

DOW

Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky,

West Virginia, Pennsylvania

$5,000

Pending

Goal 3: Early Detection and Rapid Response: Implement early detection and rapid response actions so that newly

introduced AIS can be located quickly and eliminated (Continued).

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 3.2: Create

a master inventory of

Ohio AIS that is

regularly maintained,

updated, and

accessible.

Strategy 3.2a: Create a

compilation of AIS in Ohio held by

various groups (local, county,

state, federal, and private

organizations). Identify inventory

gaps, and develop strategies to

address deficiencies.

List of AIS location

information.

2014

DOW

OAISC

$20,000

Pending

Strategy 3.2b: Integrate Ohio AIS

location information into the United

States Geologic Surveys

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species

Database.

Ohio information integrated

into NAS database.

2014

DOW

OAISC

$10,000

Pending

Objective 3.3:

Implement Ohio’s

Rapid Response Plan

for the eradication of

newly detected AIS

under predetermined

conditions.

Strategy 3.3a: Implement Ohio’s

RRP in high risk systems where

there is a high likelihood that

eradication efforts will be effective.

Successful implementation

of Ohio RRP.

Case-by-

case basis

DOW

OAISC

Unknown

Pending

Goal 4: Control: When feasible, control or manage AIS that have or may have significant impacts in Ohio.

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 4.1:

Prioritize AIS on which

to focus control efforts

and explore and utilize

the various methods

available to control

these populations.

Strategy 4.1a: Implement

scientific analyses to prioritize

control efforts for both species and

sites and consider the long-term,

cost-effectiveness of all proposed

strategies against the “no-action”

alternative.

Prioritized list of control

efforts.

Ongoing

DOW

OAICS

$20,000

Pending

Strategy 4.1b: Implement control

strategies that are based on the

best available scientific information

and conducted in an

environmentally sound manner.

Coordinate control strategies with

federal agencies, local

governments, interjurisdictional

organizations, and other

appropriate entities. Establish

protocols that will provide

guidance in designing and

implementing control and

eradication strategies.

Successful control

program.

Ongoing

DOW

OAISC

Unknown

Pending

Strategy 4.1c: Evaluate potential

incentive programs or assistance

for private landowners for the

control of invasive species and

restoration of impacted

ecosystems.

Private lands AIS control

program.

Ongoing

DOW

OAISC

Unknown

Pending

Strategy 4.1d: Develop means of

modifying human activities in

areas of AIS infestations to help

prevent their spread.

Abatement strategies

Ongoing

DOW

OAISC

Unknown

Pending

Goal 5: Research and Education: Increase research efforts on AIS, and educate the general public and individuals involved

in related business, trade, research, recreation and government sectors about AIS issues.

Objective

Strategic Action

Measure of Success

Due

Lead State

Agency

Cooperating Agency or

Organization

Estimated

State Cost

Status

Objective 5.1:

Establish and

coordinate an Ohio AIS

research network by

building on existing

state, federal, and

university programs.

Strategy 5.1a: Identify all current

AIS research needs and potential

network members and prioritize

the research specific to Ohio’s

freshwater habitats.

Prioritized list of research

efforts.

Ongoing

DOW

OAICS

$20,000

Pending

Objective 5.2:

Increase public

awareness of AIS

impacts and strategies

that can be

implemented to reduce

the establishment and

spread of AIS in Ohio.

Strategy 5.2a: Target outreach

efforts and prioritize key audiences

(e.g., live organism trades and

aquatic user groups) to promote

understanding of invasive species

dispersal pathways and risks.

Successful outreach

program.

Ongoing

Ohio Sea Grant

OAISC

$30,000

Pending

Strategy 5.2b: Maintain a

comprehensive and current AIS

website and work to develop other

types of media to inform the public

of AIS issues.

Updated web site

Ongoing

DOW

OAISC

$5,000

Ongoing

Objective 5.3: Target

policy makers and

legislative staff for

outreach efforts.

Strategy 5.3a: Provide

educational briefings on the

threats, economic and ecological

impacts, and solutions to AIS

invasions in Ohio for decision

makers and legislators. Keep

legislators and decision makers

informed and updated on the

progress of Ohio AIS management

efforts.

Knowledgeable decision

makers

Ongoing

DOW

OAISC

$5,000

Pending

VIII. LITURATURE CITED

ACRCC. 2010. 2011 Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. Asian Carp Regional

Coordinating Committee.

Bur, M. T., D. M. Klarer, and K. A. Krieger. 1986. First records of a European cladoceran,

Bythotrephes cederstroemi, in Lakes Erie and Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12:144–

146.

Conover, G., R. Simmonds, and M. Whalen, editors. 2007. Management and control plan for

bighead, black, grass, and silver carps in the United States. Asian Carp Working Group, Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force, Washington, D.C.

Drury, K. L. S. and Rothlisberger, J. D. 2008. Offense and defense in landscape-level invasion

control. Oikos 117:182–190

Kwon T. D., S. W. Fisher, G. W. Kim, H. Hwang, and J. E. Kim. 2006. Trophic transfer and

biotransformation of polychlorinated biphenyls in zebra mussel, round goby, and smallmouth

bass in Lake Erie, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(4):1068–1078.

Lovell, S. J. and S. F. Stone. 2005. The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: A review

of the literature. NCEE Working Paper no. 05-02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

National Center for Environmental Economics, Washington, D.C.

Martin Associates. 2011. The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway

System. Martin Associates, Lancaster, PA.

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes:

A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research

19(1):1–54.

Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an “invasional meltdown”

occurring in the Great Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2513–

2525.

Rosaen, A.L., E.A. Grover, C.W. Spencer, and P.L. Anderson. 2012. The Costs of Aquatic

Invasive Species to Great Lakes States. Anderson Economic Group LLC, East Lansing, MI.

Southwick Associates. 2007. Sportfishing in America: An economic engine and conservation

powerhouse. Produced for the American Sportfishing Association (with funding from the

Multistate Conservation Grant Program), Alexandria, VA.

Starnes, W. C., J. Odenkirk, and M. J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in

the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution

XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society

of Washington 124(4):280–309.

Steinhart, G. B., E. A. Marschall, and R. A. Stein. 2004. Round goby predation on smallmouth

bass offspring in nests during experimental catch-and-release angling. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 133:121–131.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study: Report

to Congress (Draft Report). ANS Digest: vol. 1, no. 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United

States OTA-F565. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Windle, P. N., R. H. Kranz, and M. La. 2008. Invasive species in Ohio: Pathways, policies, and

costs. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA.

Winslow, C. J. 2010. Competitive interactions between young-of-the-year smallmouth bass and

round goby. PhD dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

IX. GLOSSARY

Aquatic Invasive Species (or Aquatic Nuisance Species) – Animals, plants, or other organisms

that adversely affect the habitats they invade economically, environmentally, and/or ecologically.

Such invasive species may disrupt recreation, economy, and/or ecology by dominating a region.

Ballast water – Any water used to manipulate the trim and stability of a ship or boat.

Best management practices – A method or technique that has consistently shown results

superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark.

Diploid – The natural state of having paired sets of chromosomes in a cell or cell nucleus

allowing an animal to reproduce sexually.

Exotic – See “nonindigenous.”

Exclusive Economic Zone – The sea zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights. It stretches from the seaward edge of the

state's territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from its coast.

Nonindigenous – A plant, animal, or other organism that is not native to a region.

Plankton – Small organisms that drift with water currents. Phytoplankton (including algae) and

zooplankton (very small animals, like water fleas) form the basis of aquatic food webs.

Triploid – The state of having three sets of chromosomes in the cell or cell nucleus that prevents

reproduction. Triploidy is induced in some managed, stocked animals.

Vector/Pathway – The path by which an organism can travel.

Watershed – The entire drainage basin of a water body or region including all living and

nonliving components.

X. ACRONYMS

ACRCC - Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee

AIS - Aquatic invasive species

ANSTF - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

BMPs - Best Management Practices

BWE - Ballast Water Exchange

DOW - Division of Wildlife

EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone

IMO - International Maritime Organization’s

NANPCA - Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

NGO - Non-government organizations

NISA – National Invasive Species Act

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OAC - Ohio Administrative Code

OAISC - Ohio Aquatic Invasive Species Committee

OCMP - Ohio Coastal Management Program

ODA - Ohio Department of Agriculture

ODNR - Ohio Department of Natural Resources

OEPA - Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OIPC - Ohio Invasive Plants Council

ORC - Ohio Revised Code

RRP – Rapid Response Plan

SMP - State Management Plan

US – United States

USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG - U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS – United States Geologic Survey

VGP - Vessel General Permit

VHS - Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia

XI. OHIO AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES COMMITTEE

Pete Mohan

Akron Zoological Park

Jennifer Hillmer

Cleveland Metroparks

Mike Durkalec

Cleveland Metroparks

Linda Sekura

Cleveland Museum of Natural History

Doug Warmolts

Columbus Zoo and Aquarium

Dave Smith

Freshwater Farms of Ohio

Don Arcuri

Great Lakes Fish Commission

Mike Matta

Great Lakes Fish Commission

Stephen Blessing

Green Vista Water Gardens (and ONLA)

Rick Graham

Izaak Walton League

Glen Nekvasil

Lake Carriers Association

Jennifer Windus

Ohio Invasive Plant Council

Jeff Tyson

ODNR Division of Wildlife

John Navarro

ODNR Division of Wildlife

Kevin Kayle

ODNR Division of Wildlife

Natalie Pirvu

ODNR Division of Watercraft

Kristy Meyer

Ohio Environmental Council

Ben Rich

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Brian Hall

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Christopher Winslow

Ohio Sea Grant

Tory Gabriel

Ohio Sea Grant

Sarah Orlando

Ohio Sea Grant

Jeff Thomas

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

Jim Wentz

Silvertip Productions

John Stark

The Nature Conservancy

Lauren Pintor

The Ohio State University

Brian Zimmerman

The Ohio State University

Marc Kibbey

The Ohio State University

Kristin Stanford

The Ohio State University

Eugene Braig

The Ohio State University

Matt Misicka

The Ohio State University

David Glover

The Ohio State University

Brian Zimmerman

The Ohio State University

Jim Wentz

Silvertip Productions

Jay Hemdal

Toledo Zoo

Jeromy Applegate

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Jo Ann Banda

US Fish and Wildlife Service

APPENDIX A – RAPID RESPONSE PLAN FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary..…….………………………………………………………………………………………….

Introduction....…………………….……………………………………………………………………………………

II.

Authority……………………….….………………………..............................................................

III.

Scope and Applicability……….……………...….………………………………………………………………..

IV.

Applicable Plans………..………..………………..……………..…………………………………………………….

Geographic Limitations…..……..…..……………….……..…………………………………………………….

VI.

Procedure.…………....………………...…………………..…………………………………………………………..

VII.

References………...…………………..…………………………………………………………………………………

VIII.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations….…………………………………………………………………………

Appendices

Appendix A: Aquatic Invasive Species Reporting Worksheet..…….………….

Appendix B: Contacts for Invasive Species Information in Ohio.…………….

Appendix C: Aquatic Invasive Species “Watch List”………………………………..

Appendix D: Aquatic Invasive Species Risk Assessment Worksheet..........

Appendix E: Incident Command System for Aquatic Invasive Species

Rapid Response………………………………………………………………………………………

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Preventing introductions is the foremost aim of aquatic invasive species (AIS) management, and is

crucial to avoid irreversible consequences of introductions. Early detection and effective rapid response

are crucial to prevent establishment and minimize the ecological and economic impacts of an AIS

introduction. Rapid response measures are implemented to confirm presence of reported AIS, evaluate

efficacies of new approaches for control, and/or reduce or eliminate AIS populations within a given area.

Considerable preparation is necessary and can be initiated in advance of the need to implement a rapid

AIS response effort. To the extent possible, managers will need partner agreements, funding, ability to

comply with regulatory requirements, protocols and procedures, and response training. The Ohio

Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife (DOW) has developed this Rapid Response

Plan (RRP) to guide internal response actions and coordinate response actions with partner agencies

during AIS response.

Authority

Addressing prevention and control of AIS requires coordination of policies and programs at many levels

of government. Federal, regional, and state governments all have roles in implementation of this plan.

The State of Ohio also details a number of statutory and regulatory authorities in both the Ohio

Administrative Code and Ohio Revised Code to address issues of prevention and control of AIS. Most of

this authority lies within the ODNR, Ohio Department of Agriculture, and the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency.

Scope and Applicability

The State of Ohio straddles two major watersheds. The northern third of Ohio lies within the Great

Lakes basin, and the southern two-thirds of the State is part of the Mississippi River basin. Both of these

basins have been significantly impacted by AIS, with many of the most significant invasions occurring

within the last 30 years. Coordinating rapid AIS response operations will involve numerous response

agencies and jurisdictions. A synchronized effort across the jurisdictions within the State of Ohio will be

crucial.

Applicable Plans

To the extent practicable, AIS response operations shall be consistent with federal, state, and local

plans, including this RRP that represents the ODNR’s response plan. Implementation of this RRP will

proceed in conjunction with the Ohio AIS State Management Plan and the Ohio Invasive Carp Tactical

Plan.

Geographic Limitations

The geographic scope of this AIS Plan encompasses the land and waters governed by the State of Ohio.

Generally, ODNR DOW has responsibility to control AIS. AIS issues that have the potential to expand

beyond Ohio boundaries will necessitate the involvement of other agencies including adjacent states,

the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region V.

Procedures

The rapid response action steps given below should be followed chronologically, but the process may

end at varying points depending upon the details of each specific situation. Action 1 commences upon

receiving a report of an AIS.

Action 1: Report find to appropriate personnel.

Action 2: Is the report an unknown or high-threat species?

Action 3: Identify/verify the species.

Action 4: Conduct risk assessment to determine if the species is a candidate for rapid response.

Action 5: Assess rapid response options.

Action 6: Decide whether to use Incident Command System (ICS).

Action 7a: Plan and implement the response (Not using ICS).

Action 7b: Plan and implement the response (using ICS).

Action 8: Create an after-action report and begin adaptive management.

I. INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The discovery of a new non-native species, or a new population of an established non-native species

that has moved outside of its known distribution, is considered an introduction. Preventing

introductions is the foremost aim of aquatic invasive species (AIS) management, and is crucial to avoid

irreversible consequences of introductions. Eradication of an established, widespread AIS is costly and

unlikely (Lodge et. al 2006). If AIS are not eradicated, efforts to limit their distribution and abundance

can become perpetual and costly (e.g., Sea Lamprey control in the Great Lakes). Unfortunately,

prevention measures are not foolproof, and even the best efforts will not stop all introductions.

Early detection and effective rapid response are crucial to prevent establishment (National Invasive

Species Council (NISC 2008) and minimize the ecological and economic impacts of an AIS introduction

(California Department of Fish and Game 2008). The sooner a new introduction is detected, the greater

the probability of a successful systematic response effort while the population is still localized (NISC

2003). In many cases, actions must occur quickly to be effective, possibly within only a few days of the

introduction. Successful rapid response therefore depends on effective early detection, monitoring, and

AIS reporting programs for alerting managers to new introductions. Government officials and natural

resource managers must be prepared and committed to take rapid and effective action following a

report of an AIS introduction (Smits and Moser 2009). The purposes of rapid response measures may

vary depending on the AIS, but generally these measures are implemented to confirm presence of

reported AIS, evaluate efficacies of new approaches for control, and/or reduce or eliminate AIS

populations within a given area.

Considerable preparation is necessary and can be initiated in advance of need to implement a rapid AIS

response effort. To the extent possible, managers will need partner agreements, funding, ability to

comply with regulatory requirements, protocols and procedures, and response training.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife (DOW) has developed this Rapid

Response Plan (RRP) for AIS to guide internal response actions and coordinate response actions with

partner agencies during AIS response. The RRP provides a flexible framework for response and

operational guidance to protect Ohio aquatic ecosystems and ensure the health and safety of all

involved parties.

This RRP does not address issues of prevention, early-detection monitoring, post-response monitoring,

or reporting systems. It focuses on actions following a report of possible introduction of AIS and

provides general information regarding the major components of any rapid response effort.

II. AUTHORITY

The authority to address prevention and control of AIS requires coordination of policies and programs at

many levels of government. Federal, regional, and state governments all have roles in implementation

of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA, Public Law

101-646) and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA, Public Law 104-332). The State of Ohio

also details a number of statutory and regulatory authorities in both the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) to address issues of prevention and control of AIS. Most of this authority

lies within the ODNR, Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), and the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA).

The authority has developed over time, generally in response to individual species and concerns as these

arose. Consequently, no comprehensive, coordinated, and vigorously enforced policy framework is in

place to deal with invasive species and their impacts. The following existing authorities and policies have

been identified regarding Ohio’s management of AIS. Some sections of code are species-specific while

others are more general with respect to species that may invade aquatic ecosystems. The following

provisions in OAC and ORC are pertinent:

• OAC 1501:31-19-01 (ODNR): Wild animal importing, exporting, selling, and possession

regulation. Ohio's fishing regulations specify that exotic species of fish or hybrids thereof may

not be imported, sold, or possessed for the purposes of introduction into any body of water

connected with or draining into a flowing stream or other body of water that would allow egress

of fish into public waters in the State. The statute also addresses possession, sale, and

importation of certain species.

• ORC 1533.632, OAC 1501:31-39-01 (ODNR): The code mandates that the ODNR DOW regulate

the aquaculture industry with respect to issuance of permits for nonindigenous species.

• OAC 1501:31-13-04 (ODNR): Bait and bait dealers. Rules promulgated by DOW regulate such

sales in accordance with the DOW’s statutory authority to protect and preserve the wild animals

of the State, mostly related to management of native stocks through regulation. Specifically

related to potential AIS is illegal selling or using as bait “any fish or minnow not already

established in waters of Ohio over which the wildlife chief has control.”

Control measures for non-native flora constitute part of management plans for state-managed

preserves and wildlife areas. Each preserve and wildlife area managed by the ODNR DOW, and the

ODNR Division of Parks and Recreation Natural Areas and Preserves is under a management plan specific

to that area. Each plan incorporates a statement of policy regarding treatment of nonnative flora

identified as problems within the preserve or wildlife area. Generally speaking, guidelines call for

manual removal, burning, and treatment with herbicides. Management plans include provisions for

monitoring and assessment to determine the extent of growth and nature of the disturbance, if any.

Management plans are tailored to the specific preserve or wildlife area, and prescribe treatment

appropriate for each species depending upon the habitat type, extent of invasion, and management

goals for the area.

Several authorities in addition to those cited above could be used to help control introduction and

spread of nonindigenous species. ODNR DOW’s Chief has general statutory authority and control over

AIS in all matters pertaining to protection, preservation, propagation, possession, and management of

wild animals, and may adopt rules for management of wild animals (ORC 1531.08). Specifically, as

deemed necessary, the Chief “shall adopt, and may amend and rescind, rules that are necessary for the

administration and enforcement” of the ORC (ORC 1531.10). The Chief has the authority to restrict

stocking of aquatic organisms in public waters per OAC 1501:31-13-01-7, which requires that individuals

stocking any species of fish into Ohio waters obtain permission from the Chief. Waters of the state are

defined as all waters except those private waters that are not connected with other natural surface

waters. In addition, the Chief “may adopt, amend, and rescind such rules as necessary to control or

eradicate parasites and diseases of game birds, game quadrupeds other than captive white-tailed deer,

fur-bearing animals, or nonnative wildlife” on “wholly enclosed preserves” as described in ORC 1533.71

(ORC 1533.79). Therefore, where introduction and/or spread of nonindigenous aquatic species have

been determined potentially detrimental to management of wild animals of the State, the DOW may

adopt additional rules to prevent or minimize adverse impacts.

The ODA has statutory authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out its responsibilities regarding plant

pests (ORC 927.70). No person may harbor any plant pest determined by the Director of ODA to be

destructive or dangerously harmful. “Pest” is defined broadly as any organism that causes or may cause

injury, disease, or damage to any plant part or plant product. This authority could possibly be broadly

applied if plants or natural systems are judged threatened by a pest species.

In addition, the ODA Director has authority to label as “dangerously contagious or infectious diseases” of

animals those diseases determined “to be of harmful effect on the animal or poultry industry or the

public health and to be capable of transmission by any means from a carrier animal to a human or to

another animal” (ORC 941.01). This includes diseases of cultured aquatic organisms (including

potentially invasive diseases or diseases of potentially invasive host organisms used in aquaculture) that

may also infect wild populations. The ODA’s Division of Animal Health Chief is charged with preventing

the spread of “dangerously contagious or infectious disease, providing for the control and eradication of

such disease, and cooperating with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in such work”

(ORC 940.02). If such a disease is detected, the director has authority to impose quarantine, including of

an individual animal or of a “geographic area” if the director determines such broad quarantine

necessary (ORC 941.07). This authority was invoked in 2007 to issue quarantine on Ohio’s Lake Erie

region in response to an outbreak of the invasive fish disease viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) among

several wild populations of fishes, both native and AIS, within Lake Erie. The order prohibited transport

of susceptible fishes by humans from the Lake Erie region as defined by the order.

The ODNR Director has statutory authority to create state wild, scenic, or recreational river areas along

with their corridors up to 1,000 feet from normal waterlines. Beginning in 2009, ODNR’s Division of

Watercraft Chief was given responsibility to develop “rules governing the use, visitation, protection, and

administration” of such areas. The Division is further charged to provide conservation education and to

“provide for corridor protection, restoration, habitat enhancement, and clean-up projects” within these

areas. While they have rule-making authority with respect to management of lands within wild, scenic,

and recreational river areas, it does not have authority to regulate activities with respect to species that

may disrupt the ecosystems being preserved. The ORC specifically prevents imposition of land use

restrictions by the Division upon private lands along wild, scenic, or recreational river corridors;

however, the Division works with local governments to ensure that local zoning, flood plain, and forest

buffers provide appropriate protection. The ORC states that the Chief or Chief’s representative "may

participate in watershed-wide planning with federal, state, and local agencies in order to protect the

values of wild, scenic, and recreational river areas" (ORC 1547.81).

Chapter 164 of the ORC details state disbursement of aid to local government for improvements.

Natural resources assistance councils appointed by public works integrating committees are charged

with reviewing various open space acquisition project proposals, including “acquisition of land or rights

in land for parks, forests, wetlands, natural areas that protect an endangered plant or animal

population, other natural areas, and connecting corridors for natural areas,” as well as development of

such land acquisitions to enhance public accessibility to these. Such projects can emphasize “the

reduction or elimination of nonnative, invasive species of plants or animals” and “shall not… encourage

invasive nonnative species” (ORC 164.22).

Within the Lake Erie watershed, enforceable authorities incorporated into the Ohio Coastal

Management Program (OCMP) (duties and definitions detailed in ORC 1506) can be invoked against

federal agencies through application of the federal consistency provision (Section 307) of the federal

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1541 et.seq.). The consistency provision

applies to all federally conducted, funded, and permitted activities that may affect land or water uses of

the coastal area, as defined by the OCMP, whether or not they occur directly within the OCMP

management boundary. This took effect with implementation of the OCMP following federal approval

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1997.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (ORC 1522), while originally drafted

through region-wide collaboration, is implemented at the state level. Passed by the States of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin in 2008, and amended within Ohio in

2012, the Compact facilitates inter-jurisdictional management of the use of the water resources of the

Great Lakes. The compact makes little mention of AIS. However, communities with corporate

boundaries falling partly within the basin or partly within two Great Lakes watersheds do pose some risk

of AIS transfer. These communities are permitted some exception to the prohibition on water diversions

given that the volume of water diverted from the Great Lakes basin is returned, less an allowance for

consumptive use. If some portion of the volume used to fulfill the replacement criterion originates

outside the Great Lakes basin, it must be treated to meet water quality discharge standards and “to

prevent the introduction of invasive species into the basin” (ORC 1522.4.9).

In addition to exercising its statutory and regulatory authorities, the State currently fosters extensive

research and education/outreach programs through ODNR, OEPA, the Ohio Lake Erie Commission’s Lake

Erie Protection Fund, the Ohio Sea Grant College Program, the Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research

Consortium, the Great Lakes Regional Research Information Network, occasional programs of the

International Joint Commission’s Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, the Asian Carp Regional

Coordinating Committee , regional panels of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, state universities,

and others. Informational efforts focus upon educating recreational water users and commercial

enterprises regarding methods to reduce impacts of human activity related to introduction and spread

of AIS. Research efforts have focused upon pollutant uptake mechanisms, potential control methods,

and effects of increased water clarity, predator-prey relationships, and other trophic-level interactions.

Some research effort has been expended to quantify economic impacts of AIS on the State or region

(e.g., Rosaen et al. 2012, Windle et al. 2008).

III. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

The State of Ohio straddles two major watersheds. The northern third of Ohio lies within the Great

Lakes basin, and the southern two-thirds of the State is part of the Mississippi River basin. Both of these

basins have been significantly impacted by AIS, with many of the most significant invasions occurring

within the last 30 years. The Great Lakes have a long history of AIS introductions—both intentional and

unintentional. As of 2014, more than 190 introduced species have been reported in the Great Lakes

basin (i.e., Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, Erie, Ontario, and their connecting channels and

water bodies within their respective drainages) (Mills et al. 1993, Ricciardi 2001, Ricciardi 2006).

Specific to Ohio, the United States Geological Survey listing of nonindigenous aquatic species

(http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?group=&state=OH&Sortby=1) currently lists 113 AIS

within the following taxonomic Groups: bryozoans, coelenterate, crustaceans, fishes, mammals,

mollusks, and reptiles. High-profile AIS include the zebra and quagga mussels, Sea Lampreys, Round

Goby, and invasive carps.

Coordinating rapid AIS response operations will involve numerous response agencies and jurisdictions.

A synchronized effort across the jurisdictions within the State of Ohio will be crucial. This AIS Plan

applies to and is in effect for the following cases:

• A new non-native species is discovered in aquatic areas under the exclusive management

authority of the State of Ohio.

• A new population of an established non-native species is discovered in aquatic areas outside of

its known distribution area.

Of particular note are AIS which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or

welfare. The ODNR is committed to joint operations with the federal agencies and adjoining state

jurisdictions having authority to conduct AIS response activities. This concept is consistent with and

expands upon existing emergency preparedness and response systems and doctrine such as the

National Response Framework and National Incident Management System.

IV. APPLICABLE PLANS

To the extent practicable, AIS response operations shall be consistent with federal, state, and local

plans, including this AIS RRP that represents the ODNR’s response plan. Additionally, compliance with

incident-specific Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) may also

be required.

Implementation of this RRP will proceed in conjunction with the Ohio AIS State Management Plan and

the Ohio Invasive Carp Tactical Plan within the State of Ohio prior to or following a rapid response

operation.

The Midwest Region of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has developed a draft Categorical

Exclusion that, if approved, would cover AIS rapid response actions. A categorical exclusion, if approved,

would expedite compliance with National Environmental Policy Act. However, until that approval occurs,

programmatic EAs or EISs are needed, minimally, to justify actions supported by use of USFWS funds.

Even after development and approval of a programmatic EA or EIS, development and approval of a short

addendum may be necessary (along with release of it to the public for comment, prior to a decision to

act, in the case of a Programmatic EIS).

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and

threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA,

called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which federal agencies or other entities funded

by a federal agency (action agency) ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize,

do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species.

V. GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS

This RRP encompasses the land and waters governed by the State of Ohio (Figure 1). Generally, ODNR

DOW has responsibility to control AIS. Issues that have the potential to expand beyond Ohio boundaries

will necessitate the involvement of other agencies including adjacent states, the Provence of Quebec,

the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V.

Figure 1. Ohio watershed boundaries and major waterways.

VI. PROCEDURE

The rapid response action steps given below and diagramed in Figure 2 should be followed

chronologically, but the process may end at varying points depending upon the details of each specific

situation. In addition, this plan is designed to complement and be used in conjunction with other

existing plans (e.g., Ohio’s State Management Plan, Ohio’s Invasive Carp Tactical Plan, and the DOW

Fisheries Tactical Plan). The RRP flowchart in Figure 2 is intended to accompany the narrative section of

the RRP below but can also be used as a summary/overview of the RRP actions. Action 1 commences

upon receiving a report of an AIS.

Figure 2. Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Action Steps.

Action 1: Report find to appropriate personnel

Reports of invasive species come from a wide variety of sources, including the general public, partner

organizations, and state agencies. The agency receiving the report will record the information listed

below on the AIS Reporting Worksheet (Appendix A) and, if necessary, use Appendix B: Contacts for

Invasive Species Information in Ohio, to direct the report to the proper state agency staff. Reports of

high-priority species from the Aquatic Invasive Species Watch List (Appendix C) should be confirmed as

having been received by appropriate staff to ensure timely response and so that the information is not

inadvertently lost. Information should be recorded on the Aquatic Invasive Species Reporting Worksheet

(Appendix D) by/from the person submitting a report of a new invasive species.

Action 2: Is the report an unknown or high-risk species

When an AIS report is received, the appropriate staff (as determined from Action 1 above) uses their

best professional judgment to determine threat level and priority. When high-threat priority species

(Appendix C) are reported from a credible source with an appropriate level of documentation (photos,

detailed description, etc.) then species identification and verification (Action 3) is initiated:

High-threat/priority reports may include invasive species that represent previously known invasive

species from Ohio but are also:

• Outlier populations/occurrences – invasive species that may already be present in Ohio, but are

being reported in a unique, new regional location (i.e., first occurrence for the Lake Erie

watershed, etc.);

• Threats to rare and endangered native species and/or habitat; or

• A leading edge of an expanding invasive species.

If the reported species does not meet the above criteria, no further rapid response action is taken using

this procedure. The outcome of this action should be reported back to the original person or entity that

submitted the report. The report may be noted, recorded, or shared with other entities, as appropriate.

Action 3: Identify/verification of the species

Once it has been determined that a report is for a high-threat priority species, the appropriate

personnel, as identified in Appendix B, will facilitate verification of the report and/or specimen. In some

cases, Action 3 can occur in collaboration with the risk assessment in Action 4.

Newly reported AIS must be verified by an expert who is recognized by the responding agency. When

possible and deemed necessary, specimens should be verified by a second expert and voucher

specimens should be retained and stored properly for future analysis. A site visit may also be necessary

for species identification/verification if a specimen or sufficient evidence was not provided. In some

instances, the information provided from the initial report in Action 1 may be enough to properly

identify a species and verify its existence. This is particularly true if a voucher specimen is provided by

the original reporter. Proper permitting should be obtained for federal or state restricted and prohibited

invasive species during this action.

If the reported species is confirmed to be a native species (false-positive report) or a known occurrence

of AIS, then no further rapid response action is taken. Similarly, if the species is unable to be found or

located as reported, the responding agency may use best professional judgment to end the response

action or conduct a more thorough search. The report may be noted in a log to track common

misidentifications and other reporting trends. Results from this action may be communicated to

relevant partners and stakeholders, as appropriate.

Initial communication with key partners, stakeholders, and other appropriate entities should be

considered during this action. For example, if the reported AIS have been verified to be an invasive plant

species regulated under the federal noxious weeds list or an injurious wildlife species regulated under

the Lacey Act, the USDA and/or the USFWS should be notified. Entities with jurisdictional and/or

management authority for the location of the infestation should also be considered for contact during

this action. In some cases, property owners may need to be contacted for permission so that verification

can occur. A press release or other public notification should also be considered after positive

verification has occurred to facilitate additional detections, aid in containment and limiting the spread of

the invasion, and raising awareness about the issue.

Action 4: Risk Assessment - Conduct risk assessment to determine if the species is a candidate for

rapid response

Confirmation of a new occurrence of a high-threat priority AIS in the state or watershed will result in a

risk assessment of the invasion and specific situation. In some cases, this process can occur in

collaboration with Action 3 above. AIS reports being considered as part of this action are deemed to

represent high-threat priority AIS (Appendix C). The specific details of a particular occurrence or invasion

(magnitude, location, etc.), will inform the decision about whether a rapid response is feasible and

necessary. The risk assessment conducted as part of Action 4 is intended as an information gathering

process to determine the potential environmental, economic, or human health threat, and evaluate if

the AIS and the particular details of the occurrence make it a candidate for a rapid response. There are

some quantitative and concrete criteria that can be used for the assessment; however, best professional

judgment of the circumstances will be used to determine if a response is appropriate and can

realistically minimize the AIS threat.

The appropriate personnel, with the assistance from other sources if needed, will conduct the risk

assessment and record related details on the Aquatic Invasive Species Risk Assessment Worksheet

(Appendix D). The following factors may be used:

• Is the species a new invasion to the state or to a geographic location within the state?

• Is the species known to cause significant impacts in its native range and/or is the species known to

be invasive outside of its native range?

• Is there knowledge of the source of introduction and risk of reintroduction or further spread?

• Was the invasion detected early?

• Is the infestation small and localized?

• Can the species be quarantined/contained while control measures are planned and implemented?

• Is there acceptance that not responding will have serious impacts?

• Is the location public or directly connected to public resources (i.e., public land or water)?

Following the risk assessment, the invasion should be classified as either low risk or high/unknown risk.

If the outcome is low risk, the occurrence is noted but no further rapid response action is taken using

this plan. If the outcome is high or unknown risk, proceed to Action 5.

Results from this action may be communicated to relevant partners and stakeholders, per the discretion

of the responding agency. Nearby property owners (individual and/or associations), municipalities (city,

township, county), and other relevant parties should be considered. Many of these entities may be

valuable resources for conducting the risk assessment and may be able to provide information that

might otherwise not be available to the responding agency.

The lead agency should also consider a press release during this action to raise awareness for the issue

and stay in front of misinformation, rumors, and general questions. The press release should include

mention of the initial report, confirmation of species identification, biological information, and

appropriate results from the risk assessment in Action 4. Lastly, the press release should also give a

general description of the next steps (“assess response options,” etc.), and provide a point of contact for

questions and additional information.

Action 5: Assess rapid response options

To determine the appropriate response options, previously obtained scientific information on the

species and the infestation will be used to evaluate response availability and feasibility. The agency with

jurisdictional authority and/or the appropriate personnel, with the assistance from other sources as

appropriate, will assess the response options using best professional judgment. This assessment may

include (but is not limited to) answering additional questions such as:

• Are known successful treatment/response options available?

• Are there serious environmental issues or regulatory hurdles that will lead to delays or greatly

increase the cost of the response?

• Are there threatened or endangered species present?

• Are the AIS in a high priority natural community?

• Are there social or economic reasons to treat?

• Are there concerns with infrastructure or human safety?

• If permits are needed, can they be obtained in a timely manner?

• Is there a need for law enforcement or investigation associated with the infestation?

• What are the unintended or non-target impacts of the response options?

• Does the response require multiple uses or long-term control?

• Is there adequate physical access to the site?

• Will permission be necessary and available from local landowners?

• What are the current funding conditions for response efforts?

• Can response efforts be conducted by agency staff, or will response efforts require contract

assistance (or both)?

• Are there opportunities for collaboration with stakeholders and partner agencies?

While some response options are focused on eradication, it is important to also consider options such as

biological control, monitoring, and education and outreach efforts. If eradication is not feasible or

desirable, alternate options may be useful for preventing further spread of the AIS or raising awareness

in other locations that could potentially become invaded. In some instances, no rapid response may be

feasible or available and, therefore, no further rapid response action may be taken. The results of Action

5 should be shared with appropriate partners, federal agencies, local municipalities, property owners,

and other relevant entities to ensure consistent and accurate sharing of information. Once the

assessment of response options is complete, proceed to Action 6.

Action 6: Response level - Decide whether to use ICS

The first step in planning a response is to determine if an Incident Command System (ICS) is appropriate.

Certain response scenarios can benefit from a highly coordinated and structured format, such as an ICS.

An ICS is a systematic tool used for the command, control, and coordination of emergency responses

and is commonly used by federal and state agencies to respond to emergency events such as floods,

fires, and other high-threat situations. See Appendix E for more details on an ICS and how to implement

the system for AIS rapid response.

As with many of the above actions, determining whether or not to use an ICS in a response to AIS is

ultimately decided using best professional judgment. Specific factors to consider include:

• Are federal resources or federal agencies involved?

• Is the response jurisdictionally or operationally complex? (Multiple agencies involved several

levels of authorities, AIS invasion and response crosses state/federal borders, etc.)?

• Is the response action outside of the “routine operations” of the responding agency?

• Is chemical control part of the response action?

• What is the scale of the response action (local, regional, statewide, etc.)?

• Is there a significant threat to public health and safety?

AIS rapid response that does NOT involve an ICS typically includes a response that is within routine

operations of the lead responding agency and is jurisdictionally simple (only one agency has clear

authority).

If an ICS will NOT be used for response planning and implementation, proceed to Action 7a. If an ICS will

be used, proceed to Action 7b.

Action 7a: Planned Assessment - Plan and implement the response (Not using ICS)

This action involves the logistical and operational planning and implementation for the chosen response

and is performed by an AIS core team that includes fish management program administrators and other

key staff within the agency with jurisdictional authority and with assistance from other sources as

appropriate. While Action 7a does not involve ICS protocols, some elements of an ICS may be used

where applicable. For example, it may be beneficial to appoint an incident commander and a command

team for decision making.

In general, planning and implementing AIS rapid response without using an ICS should:

• Follow standard decision support and chain of command protocols of the lead responding

agency and

• Follow standard lead responding agency policies for communication, safety, operations,

logistics, equipment, personnel, and finance/spending.

The AIS core team should be notified of rapid response planning and implementation. Additionally,

communication should continue with any of the entities contacted during the previous actions to keep

everyone updated and informed of progress. A second press release may be issued during this action to

notify constituents and the general public of the rapid response process and progress.

Once rapid response has been implemented, proceed to Action 8.

Action 7b: ICS - Plan and implement the response using ICS

This action uses the ICS to plan and ultimately implement a rapid response. For more details about AIS

rapid response involving an ICS, refer to Appendix E. The following are general steps/guidelines for AIS

rapid response that involve ICS:

Planning Phase:

• Appoint Incident Commander (IC)/Unified Command (UC).

• IC/UC review of all previous information obtained during Actions 1–5.

• IC/UC refers to ICS flowchart to determine current status within “Planning P.”

• Proceed as directed by IC/UC following the "Planning P" (appoint appropriate officers,

etc.).

• Develop an Incident Action Plan (see Appendix E).

Implementation Phase:

• Carry out the Incident Action Plan following the “Planning P” (see Appendix E).

• Follow policies developed by IC/UC and appropriate ICS officers.

• Follow protocols and procedures developed by, and under the direction of, IC/UC and

appropriate ICS officers.

Once ICS rapid response planning and implementation is complete, proceed to Action 8.

Action 8: Create an after-action report and begin adaptive management

An after-action report will be produced after each response to summarize and document the process

from the initial report of the invasion through the conclusion of the response implementation. While a

full after-action report is only needed for responses that continue beyond Action 4, other reports of AIS

that end prior to Action 4 should still be documented for future reference and decision support.

Adaptive management is a process for continually improving management policies and practices by

learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Adaptive management is crucially important to

the implementation of a rapid response to AIS. Ideally, adaptive management will include an evaluation

of response effectiveness, mitigation and/or restoration of treatment areas, an assessment of

reintroduction risks, and post-procedure monitoring. Additionally, education and outreach efforts

should continue during the adaptive management phase of the RRP to help articulate/communicate

outcomes of the response.

VII. REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Draft rapid response plan for aquatic invasive species in

California in California aquatic invasive species management plan. 136 pp. + appendices.

Lodge, D.M., S. Williams, H. MacIsaac, K. Hayes, B. Leung, L. Loope, S. Reichard, R.N. Mack, P.B. Moyle,

M. Smith, D.A. Andow, J.T. Carlton, and A. McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: recommendations for

policy and management [Position Paper for the Ecological Society of America]. Ecological Applications

16:2035-2054.

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of

biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 19(1):1–54.

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2003. General guidelines for the establishment and evaluation

of invasive species early detection and rapid response systems. Version 1. 16 pp.

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2008. 2008 – 2012 National Invasive Species Management

Plan. 35 pp.

Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an “invasional meltdown”

occurring in the Great Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58:2513–2525.

Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector

activity. Diversity and Distributions 12:425–433.

Rosaen, A.L., E.A. Grover, C.W. Spencer, and P.L. Anderson. 2012. The Costs of Aquatic Invasive Species

to Great Lakes States. Anderson Economic Group LLC, East Lansing, MI.

Smits, J. and F. Moser, editors. 2009. Rapid response planning for aquatic invasive species: a template.

Mid-Atlantic Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species. 43 pp.

Windle, P. N., R. H. Kranz, and M. La. 2007. Invasive species in Ohio: Pathways, policies, and costs. Union

of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA.

VIII. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIS: Aquatic Invasive Species

DOW: Division of Wildlife

EA: Environmental Assessment

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

ESA: Endangered Species Act

IC: Incident Commander

ICS: Incident Command System

OAC: Ohio Administrative Code

OCMP: Ohio Coastal Management Program

ODA: Ohio Department of Agriculture

ODNR: Ohio Department of Natural Resources

OEPA: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

ORC: Ohio Revised Code

NANPCA: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

NISC: National Invasive Species Council

RRP: Rapid Response Plan

US: Unified command

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VHS: Viral hemorrhagic septicemia

Appendix A: Aquatic Invasive Species Reporting Worksheet

Aquatic Invasive Species Reporting Worksheet

Reporters contact information

• Name:

• Phone:

• E-mail:

Type of invasive species being reported (circle one):

• Fish

• Invertebrate

• Aquatic Plant

• Other

Common name:

Scientific name:

Physical description (approximate size, color, density, etc.):

Was specimen obtained (Yes/No):

Was photograph taken (Yes/No):

Date of observation:

Location of observation (county, township, water body):

Coordinates (latitude/longitude):

Additional location details (habitat, environmental conditions, etc.):

Appendix B: Contacts for Invasive Species Information in Ohio

Contacts for Invasive Species Information in Ohio

Aquatic Invasive Species

Contact

Email and Phone

Aquatic Invasive Species Program

Questions on overall Aquatic Invasive Species Program

and Ohio’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management

Plan.

John Navarro

ODNR DOW

614-265-6346

[email protected]te.oh.us

Aquatic Invasive Plants

General questions about aquatic plant identification and

early detection, rapid response, and monitoring

Chemical Control - Questions on the chemical control of

aquatic species, permitting, and submerged plant

identification.

Mechanical Removal - Questions about mowing and

other forms of mechanical control, permitting, and Great

Lakes Shoreline management.

Phragmites – Questions about identification and the

control of invasive phragmites.

Bob Ford

ODNR DOW

419-424-5000

[email protected]s

Aquatic Invasive Animals

Questions about invasive carp identification, status in

Ohio, Ohio’s Invasive Carp Management Plan, other fish

(e.g. snakehead) and aquatic animals (e.g. crayfish).

John Navarro

ODNR DOW

614-265-6346

[email protected]te.oh.us

Great Lakes Regional Coordination

Questions on Great Lakes coordination, restoration, and

management.

Jeff Tyson

ODNR DOW

419-625-8062

[email protected]e.oh.us

Ballast Water

General questions on Ohio’s ballast water program and

Ohio’s Section 401 certification.

Paul Novak

ODNR DOW

614-644-2035

[email protected].oh.us

Appendix C: Aquatic Invasive Species “Watch List”

Aquatic Invasive Species “Watch List”

Fish and other Aquatic Animals

• Asian carps

o Silver Carp (Hypophthalmicthys molitrix)

o Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys noblis)

o Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)

o Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

• Northern Snakehead (Channa argus)

• Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia)

• Any unknown fish or aquatic animal (e.g., other crayfish or mussel)

Aquatic Plants

• Parrot feather (Myriophylumm aqauticum)

• European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae)

• Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus)

• Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa)

• Hydrilla (Hyrdrilla verticillata)

• Water chestnut (Trapa natans)

• Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)

• Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes)

• Any other unidentified invasive plant

Appendix D: Aquatic Invasive Species Risk Assessment

Worksheet

Aquatic Invasive Species Risk Assessment Worksheet

1) Is the species a new invasion to the state or to a geographic location with the state

(Yes/No)?

2) Is the species known to cause significant impacts in its native range and/or is the species

known to be invasive outside of its native range (Yes/No)?

3) Is there knowledge of the source of introduction and risk of reintroduction or further

spread (Yes/No)?

4) Was the invasion detected early (Yes/No)?

5) Is the infestation small and localized (Yes/No)?

6) Can the species be quarantined or contained while control measures are planned and

implemented (Yes/No)?

7) Is there acceptance that not responding will have serious impacts (Yes/No)?

8) Is the location public or directly connected to public resources (i.e., public land or water)

(Yes/No)?

Appendix E: Incident Command System for Aquatic

Invasive Species Rapid Response

The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazards incident

management approach that:

• Allows for the integration of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and

communications operating within a common organizational structure.

• Enables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional

agencies, both public and private.

• Establishes common processes for planning and managing resources.

The ICS is flexible and can be used for incidents of any type, scope, and complexity because it

allows users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to match the complexities and

demands of single or multiple incidents at varying scales. In AIS rapid response situations, an ICS

provides a systematic approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government,

non-government organizations and the private sector to work together seamlessly.

In Ohio, if a rapid response to newly reported AIS is determined to be appropriate for ICS (see

Action 6 in Rapid Response Plan for Aquatic Invasive Specie), the ICS organizational structure,

planning, and implementation details below will be used.

The ICS organizational structure has five major functional elements (Figure 1) - command,

operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration - and develops in a modular fashion,

as needed, based on the size and complexity of the incident. As deemed necessary, the Incident

Commander (IC) may appoint a Safety Officer, Liaison Officer, and Public Information Officer

(PIO) collectively known as the “Command Staff.” The “General Staff” may consist of an

Operations Chief, a Planning Chief, a Logistic Chief, and a Finance\Administrative Chief, or any

necessary combination of these positions. The IC is ultimately responsible for establishment and

expansion of the ICS organization, based on needs and requirements of the response.

The organizational structure of the AIS RRP personnel can impact the efficiency and

effectiveness of overall AIS response operations, including staffing and resource decisions.

Using an ICS as the core organizational framework, the IC can establish Sections, Branches,

Groups, Units, and Strike Teams based on incident demands. Each of these functional divisions

should be managed by a Chief, Director, Supervisor, or Leader. The management span of control

for any one individual should not be less than three or exceed seven direct reports.

Figure 1: Basic ICS Organizational Structure

Incident command is accomplished using one of two approaches. When an incident (priority AIS

invasion), occurs within a single jurisdiction, and without jurisdictional or functional agency

overlap, a single IC is designated with overall incident management responsibility by the

appropriate jurisdictional authority. However, when a rapid response involves multiple

jurisdictions, a single jurisdiction with multiagency involvement, or multiple jurisdictions with

multiagency involvement, establishment of a UC allows agencies with different legal,

geographic, and functional authorities and responsibilities to work together effectively without

affecting individual agency authority, responsibility, or accountability.

A UC is essentially the shared responsibility of command among several Incident Commanders.

Attributes and responsibilities of a UC Unified Command are identical to an Incident

Commander. Indicators that the response should be managed by a UC include when an incident:

• Crosses geographic boundaries (e.g., two states)

• Involves various governmental levels (e.g., federal, state, local)

• Impacts different functional responsibilities

• Includes different statutory responsibilities

• Has some combination of the above

If you can answer “yes” to all four of the following questions for the particular type of incident

that you are responding to, then a UC is appropriate:

• Does my organization have jurisdictional authority or functional responsibility under a

law or ordinance for this type of incident?

• Is my organization specifically charged with commanding, coordinating, or managing a

major aspect of the response?

• Does my organization have the resources to support participation in the response or

organization?

• Does the incident or response operation impact my organization’s area of

responsibility?

An AIS rapid response can span multiple geographic or functional authorities and require use of

UC. By working together as a team under UC, all agencies with jurisdictional authority or

functional responsibility for the incident jointly provide management direction through a

common set of incident objectives and a single planning process. Under UC, a single agency may

still be designated as the overall lead, and that agency’s official or pre-established

representative is identified as the IC for incident management.

Centralized, coordinated incident action planning is used to guide all response activities and

specify communications management objectives throughout the entire ICS organization.

Management by objectives is accomplished through a systematic planning process that:

1. Sets overall priorities within assigned geographical area

2. Determines appropriate strategies for use in achieving priorities

3. Develops and issues assignments, plans, procedures, and protocols

4. Establishes specific, measurable tactics or tasks in support of defined strategies

5. Allocates critical resources based on priorities

6. Ensures objectives are met and strategies are followed

7. Documents results to measure performance and facilitates corrective actions.

The systematic operation of AIS rapid response actions may require a repetitive schedule to

promote internal and external continuity during and following staffing transitions. During each

operational period, situation reports help staff understand the incident situation and

responders’ efforts. The Incident Action Plan (IAP) establishes goals for future operational

periods. Figure 2 illustrates the initial typical ICS initial operational cycle (“Planning P”).

Subsequent cycles skip the initiation procedures and resources are continuously identified and

distributed based on guidance from the IC, Operations Section Chief, and the IAP.

Figure 2: ICS “Planning P”

An IAP is the central tool for conveying planning and operational instructions for all response

participants and should provide a clear statement of objectives and actions, a basis for

measuring work effectiveness and progress, and a record of accountability. The level of detail

required in an IAP varies according to the size and complexity of the response. Regardless of the

number of response partners, a single IAP should be generated by the IC/UC. The following

explains the planning process required to develop an IAP.

The IAP is prepared by the Planning Section with direction from the Command Staff and input

from the appropriate Sections, Branches, and Units of the General Staff. It should be written at

the outset of response and revised continually. The goals and objectives are laid out and

reviewed by each section, based on its objectives. Each section is responsible for the following

items to produce the IAP:

• Incident Command/UC

o Incident objectives and strategy

o Overall management and strategy

• Planning Section

o Leadership of planning meeting and operation shift briefing

o Preparation of the IAP

• Operations Section

o Determination of resource requirements

o Determination of division boundaries

o Determination of tactics

o Determination of Division/Group work assignments for Operations personnel

• Logistics Section

o Determination of logistical objectives

o Determination of logistical staging areas and facilities

o Determination of logistical assignments and progress

o Determination of re-deployable resources accountability

o Determination of in-transit resources status

o Assurance that Logistics Section can support the IAP

• Finance Section

o Determination of cost implications of incident objectives

o Assurance that IAP is within the financial limits established by the IC

The contents of the IAP include all of the following:

• Event name – The name of the response event, typically based on location of the most

heavily impacted area and the type of event (example: “Operation Grand Haven Goby”)

• Date/time prepared – The day/time the IAP was prepared

• Operational period – The timeframe the IAP covers

• General control objectives - A prioritized list of measureable tasks to be accomplished in

the specified operational period

• Status updates – Objectives completed during past operational periods, resource

status/availability

• Organization and chain of command – Written description of the

organizational/command structure

• Safety/hazard information

• Demobilization instructions/plans

The following job descriptions may serve as guidelines for selecting individuals to fill each

Command and General Staff position. While not an exhaustive list, the “desired attributes”

highlight important skills and personality characteristics that should be considered when

appointing individuals to positions. Once the IC chooses his/her staff, the list of primary

responsibilities may help the staff to understand their role in the ICS rapid response process.

Incident Commander

Desired Attributes: Proven leader, experienced in risk management, strong communicator

Primary Responsibilities:

• Determine incident priorities

• Establish incident objectives

• Manage tactical operations

• Assure safety of responders and public

• Identify and order the necessary resources to accomplish objectives

• Keep organization briefed

• Evaluating contingencies

Operations Section Chief

Desired Attributes: Leader, gives clear direction, conscientious

Primary Responsibilities:

• Manage tactical operations

• Ensure tactical operations are conducted safely

• Maintain close communications with the IC/UC

• Identify required tactical resources to accomplish response objectives

Planning Section Chief

Desired Attributes: Strong facilitator and communicator

Primary Responsibilities:

• Keep everyone working together

• Provide current, accurate situation status and concise briefings in support of the ICS

process meeting schedule

• Accurately track all resources

• Facilitate the planning process by conducting timely meetings and working closely with

the Operation Section Chief, Logistics Section Chief, and Command Staff

• Ensure thorough documentation of all key decisions

• Establish and maintain a complete list of things that must be accomplished, ensuring

that each item on the list is assigned to the appropriate ICS element (e.g., Operations,

Logistics, etc.)

Logistics Section Chief

Desired Attributes: Experienced in logistical support, detail-oriented, propensity for customer

service and teamwork

Primary Responsibilities:

• Anticipate incident’s potential for growth and plan resource and personnel

requirements accordingly

• Develop and implement a resource ordering and tracking process

• Ensure an effective communication network is in place to support incident operations

• Support development of the IAP

• Ensure that Command and General Staff are aware of excessive costs

• Ensure appropriate demobilization (e.g., account for property and services, properly

dispose of hazardous materials)

Finance/Administration Section Chief

Desired Attributes: Experienced in finance/administration, detail-oriented, organized

Primary Responsibilities:

• Ensure the proper completion of response cost-accounting documentation

• Coordinate and manage response budgets and cost estimates

• Provide financial support for contracting services, purchases, and payments

• Project the “burn rate” of funding and advise the IC/UC when a ceiling must be

increased

• Maintain a daily inventory of all purchases

• Forward all invoices to the appropriate agency processing center for payment

Liaison Officer

Desired Attributes: Interpersonal skills, highly organized, knowledge of local stakeholders,

communications skills via phone, in person, and by electronic means

Primary Responsibilities:

• Provide agencies and organizations with a schedule for incident and determining their

information needs

• Keep the IC/UC informed on issues dealing with assisting agencies, cooperating

agencies, stakeholders

• Coordinate with the Public Information Officer

• Coordinate VIP visits

• Coordinate outreach efforts (e.g., community meetings)

• Oversee external messages to stakeholders

• Serve as contact point for stakeholders, politicians and their staff, government agencies,

nongovernmental agencies, industry partners

• Identify public and private concerns related to the incident

• Maintain master list of contact numbers

Public Information Officer

Desired Attributes: Experienced in public affairs, communications savvy

Primary Responsibilities:

• Support the public communications needs of the IC/UC

• Gather and disseminate incident information (e.g., number of responders)

• Work closely with the Liaison Officer to inform public and stakeholders

• Assist in establishing and implementing communications requirements such as holding

press conferences, disseminating press releases, answering media queries

• Attend command meetings to exchange information with the IC/UC and to get approval

of information to be released

• Ensure that the response organization is kept informed on the overall response efforts

• Coordinate media activities with the Command and General Staff (especially the

Operations Section Chief)

• Determine need to develop an Outreach Plan

Safety Officer

Desired Attributes: Understands regulations, risk management skills, technical expertise

Primary Responsibilities:

• Work with the Operations Section Chief to identify and mitigate safety hazards

associated with planned strategies and tactics

• Participate in the planning process

• Identify hazardous situations associated with the incident

• Participate in the development of the IAP

• Exercise authority to stop or prevent unsafe tactics

• Investigate accidents and injuries that have occurred in the incident areas

• Develop appropriate safety plans for the response

• Monitor compliance with safety requirements

For more information on the ICS please go to: http://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system