On November 2008, the Deputy Chamber made several modifications to the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection General Law (LGEEPA by its Spanish acronym; equivalent to NEPA), and the Wildlife General Law. These modifications were published in the Federal Register until February 2010.

The intent of these modifications was to strengthen existing regulations by incorporating more specific language dealing with invasive species and make these regulations more in tune with other regulations outside of the wildlife arena, such as the Forestry, Human Health, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Economic, Biosecurity of Genetically Modified Organisms, Animal and Plant Health, and Foreign Commerce laws. Highlights of these modifications:

-It defines an exotic invasive species as: “A species or population that is not native and it is found outside of its natural distribution range. It is capable of surviving, reproducing, and establishing itself in natural habitats and ecosystems and threatens the native biological diversity, economy or human health.”

-Prohibits the importation of exotic invasive species or any other wild species that can carry an exotic invasive species and represent a threat to biodiversity, the economy, and human health.

-Prohibits the release into the wild of exotic invasive species.

-Mandates the creation of a list of exotic invasive species that has to be reviewed every 3 years or earlier if needed (NOTE: There are currently more than 1,000 species considered as invasive in Mexico with fishes and plants comprising the largest numbers).

-Mandates the creation of a regulation on prevention of entry of these species, management, control and eradication of those exotic invasive species which are already established in Mexico.

-Gives the Economy Ministry the power to control transit of these species inside Mexico.

Below is summary information supporting two vacancy announcements and e-mail links for a full-time Biologist (Invasive Species, GS -401-11) working for the USFWS - Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu, Hawaii. The vacancy announcements (one for merit promotion and a second for open competition) will close on 15 September. This position will specialize on aquatic invasive species (30% time) issues in addition to broader, regional invasive species and disease issues (70% time).

Scientific Name

Range

Appearance

Habitat

Reproduction

Why is the Pitcher’s thistle threatened?

Shoreline Development

Road Maintenance and Construction

Shoreline Recreation Activities

What is being done to prevent extinction of the Pitcher’s thistle?

Listing

Landowner Contacts

Project Planning

What can I do to help prevent the extinction of species?

Learn

Plant Natives

Conserve

• ensure Federal efforts are coordinated and effective

• promote action and partnership at local, State, tribal and ecosystem levels

• identify recommendations for international cooperation; and,

• facilitate networks to document, monitor and prioritize invasive species pathways

Though many definitions for invasive species and pathways may exist, we are defining these terms as they relate to Federal regulatory functions. Definitions are recounted, below:

Invasive species (IS) - - an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Pathways - - the means by which species are transported from one location to another. Natural pathways include wind, currents, and other forms of dispersal in which a specific species has developed morphological and behavioral characteristics to employ. Man-made pathways are those pathways which are enhanced or created by human activity. These are characteristically of two types:

• Intentional pathways - - these result from deliberate actions to translocate an organism.

• Unintentional pathways - - these are man-made pathways that unintentionally move organisms. Examples of unintentional pathways are ballast water discharge (e.g. red-tide organisms), soil associated with the trade of nursery stock (e.g. fire ants), importation of fruits and vegetables (e.g. plant pests), and the international movement of people (e.g. pathogens). In these, the movement of species is an indirect byproduct of our activities.

This guide only addresses analysis of the second type of pathway: existing unintentional, man-made invasive species pathways; with a section devoted to policy synthesis. Though guide processes may be used for potential pathway analysis, such analysis must be based upon statistical predictive indicators of past trends - - which at this time is not feasible due to lack of consolidated data sources. For our purposes, analysis and policy synthesis are defined as:

Analysis-- the procedure by which we scientifically break down a ‘whole’ phenomena (i.e., unintentional IS incursions) into its parts or components.

Policy Synthesis-- the process by which we combine the analysis components into a comprehensive perspective to devise copasetic IS policies and actions on the local, regional, national and international levels.

Throughout this systems development process, the Pathways Work Team struggled with several issues relevant to scientific data and public policy. While this report in no way attempts to resolve such intricate issues, it is essential that these considerations be brought to the forefront for future decision-making efforts and as such are enumerated below:

• International competitiveness is impacted by invasive species

• Pathway ranking combines community, government and corporate interests

• Sound science, transparency and consistency are essential for formulating policy

• Neutrality is essential in providing scientific advice to decision makers

• Market and non-market forces must be analyzed for final decisions

• Invasive species prevention is inherently an international activity

• Methodology must include public, stakeholder and expert participation

• Assessment is to provide common perspectives

• Decisions must occur at individual agency levels

• Outcome of the process is the characterization of relative risk of pathways

• Policy makers must devise plans for pathway management, resource leveraging, policy development, budget decisions and technology transfer/development.

In conclusion, the Pathways Work Team strongly supported the position that policy decides the direction to take (with human health, commerce, then ecosystems being the priorities for ranking), but science must maintain the focus.

Conference in Copenhagen demands EU legislation on invasive species

Report Concludes Invasive Species, Climate Change, Form 'Deadly Duo'

State News

MSU, partners in six states consider converting invasive plants to fuel

Maryland Sea Grant and the Mid-Atlantic Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species

In the News

Out, Invasive Species!

Invasive Tallowtree Spreading Rapidly Across Gulf Coast

Hunting Asian Carp

New Website

Landscape for Life Helps Homeowners Create Sustainable, Beautiful Gardens!

NISC Staff Updates

Highlights of Recent Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) Meeting from NISC DOC Policy Liaison

Conferences

NISC Members

NISC Staff

ISAC

NISC National Management Plans

Examples of NISC/ISAC Accomplishments

These guidelines were written by federal and non-federal members of the Control and Management Subcommittee of NISC’s Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). Input was received from a broad range of experts. The intent of these guidelines is to assist in the prioritization and optimization of invasive species control and management efforts in minimally-managed or “natural areas.” Land managers are encouraged to utilize these guidelines and then provide feedback to ISAC and NISC as to their usefulness and impact. Guidance is provided in accordance with the definitions and principles presented in the National Invasive Species Management Plan.

How do invasive species harm the environment?

What do invasive species cost?

Do invasive species harm humans?

Invasive Species

ISAC

Federal Advisory Committee Act

ISAC Charter

ISAC Subcommittees

Membership of ISAC

Many of the comments provided in the IQA request for correction were already received during these public comment periods. These situations are detailed below.

The charge of the National Invasive Species Council (Council) is to assist in the coordination of invasive species efforts. Because certain invasive species can spread rapidly, there is a critical need to coordinate ED&RR efforts. The 57 action items in the Council’s National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan) provide a “blue-print” for coordinated action on invasive species (National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan. 74pp. available at: www.Invasivespecies.gov). In the Plan, ED&RR is identified as a high priority. For example, Plan action items #23 and #24 deals with the development of guidelines and systems for the coordinated detection and response to incipient invasions. The Plan also calls for working with state, local, tribal, and private entities to draft proposals that will, among other things, provide permanent funding for ED&RR efforts.

The Council approved these guidelines in June 2003 to provide information to those who wish to establish or evaluate ED&RR systems for invasive species. They are based on the work of the federal and non-federal members of the ED&RR Subcommittee (see appendix 4) of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) of the Council. The guidelines contain information from a from a wide range of subject matter experts, people with direct experience in ED&RR efforts, and stakeholders that included members of the ISAC and representatives of Council member agencies. Information was drawn from documents that analyze existing or proposed systems including but not limited to: work by the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), a report by Jim Worrall of the U.S. Forest Service, the work of the Western Regional Panel of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the definition of “rapid response” developed by the Council, and information on ED&RR systems from New Zealand and Australia. It is anticipated that these guidelines (Version 1) will be revised as science, technology, and experience with systems and species advance.

The hallmarks of successful ED&RR efforts include: 1) potential threats are being identified in time to allow risk-mitigation measures to be taken; 2) new invasive species are being detected in time to allow efficient and environmentally sound decisions to be made; 3) responses to invasions are effective and environmentally sound and prevent the spread and permanent establishment of invasive species; 4) adequate and timely information is being provided to decision-makers, the public, and to trading partners concerned about the status of invasive species within an area; and 5) lessons learned from past efforts are being used to guide current and future efforts.

Detecting and responding to invasions requires a complex series of interlacing, coordinated, and sustained actions that can be grouped into three main categories: 1) Early Detection, 2) Rapid Assessment, and 3) Rapid Response. Actions may include: reviewing relevant legal authorities; coordinated planning; identification of high priority species and at-risk sites; routinely monitoring certain areas; prevention and containment efforts; surveillance, detection, and reporting activities including data collection and management; the collection, identification, and storage of voucher specimens; determining if newly-detected invasive populations are still localized; determining the relative and potential risk associated with an introduction; priority setting; sharing resources across jurisdictional boundaries; monitoring, treating and removing populations; restoring habitats; coordinated public communication efforts; training volunteers and professionals in detection, identification, and removal techniques; sharing information; and developing case studies. In addition, research, adequate staffing and funds, and effective public communication are essential to support ED&RR activities. The following identifies components of early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response systems that experts consider either essential (i.e., must be present) or important to a system's success. Additional information is provided in the appendices.

This action is being considered in order to protect the welfare and survival of native wildlife and wildlife resources and the health and welfare of human beings from the potential negative impacts of silver carp by adding them to the list of injurious wildlife and preventing their importation and interstate movement.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. § 42, as amended) to prescribe by regulation those mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustaceans), amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs of any of the aforementioned, which are injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. The lists of injurious wildlife species are at 50 CFR 16.11-15.

If silver carp are determined to be injurious, then as with all listed injurious animals, their importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States by any means whatsoever is prohibited, except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use, upon filing a written declaration with the District Director of Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspector at the port of entry. The interstate transportation of any live silver carp, gametes, viable eggs or any hybrids currently held in the United States for any purposes not permitted would be prohibited.

Management and control of common carp has been well documented through much of North America (Meronek et al. 1996; Wydoski and Wiley 1999) with millions of dollars invested on research and control (Pimentel et al. 2000). Removal projects included mechanical harvest by netting (Ritz 1987; Pinto et al. 2005), water level manipulation to disrupt spawning (Summerfelt 1999), exclusion from spawning habitat (Lougheed and Chow-Fraser 2001), and piscicide application (Meronek et al. 1996). Northern pike Esox lucius have additionally been used as a biological tool to control common carp recruitment in the Sandhill lakes in Nebraska (Paukert et al. 2003). All methods of carp control have had varying degrees of success (Meronek et al. 1996).

Common carp gained access to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Valentine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lake system through Gordon Ditch, which was dug during the 1930's (Wanner 2009). The ditch was plugged shortly after completion to eliminate fish movement onto the Refuge. Refuge lakes have a long history of chemical renovation to remove common carp (Wanner 2009). For approximately five years after renovation and the re-stocking of game fish, angling is excellent, waterfowl use is high; however, both decline soon after carp recolonization and subsequent habitat degradation (M. Lindvall, Valentine NWR, personal communication). Fisheries biologists from the USFWS and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) have also experimented with the use of northern pike and largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides to control common carp recruitment. Early attempts were unsuccessful because northern pike were introduced after carp populations were well established and subsequently the population and individual fish were too large to be controlled by predation (Wanner 2009). Common carp recruitment in the Refuge lakes is low due to predation or other abiotic factors (Phelps et al. 2008).

Common carp have also been physically removed on Valentine NWR lakes by releasing water through control structures between lakes, luring fish into ditches during spawning migrations where they are subsequently trapped. In the ditches between Whitewater and Dewey lakes and Dewey and Clear lakes (Figure 1), thousands of common carp, with an estimated biomass of several tons, were trapped in 1993 and 2008 (Wanner 2009). Trapping was also attempted in 2003 with little success due to scour holes around the trap that allowed carp to escape (M. Nenneman, unpublished data). These methods of controlling common carp have never been thoroughly evaluated; therefore, the objectives of this study were to 1) estimate abundance, biomass, and size structure of common carp in Dewey Lake, 2) estimate the proportion of the abundance, biomass, and size structure of the common carp removed from the lake during the trapping operation, and 3) monitor water quality and carp relative abundance before and after carp removal.

Synonyms

Description

Similar Species

Family: Asteraceae

Ecological Impact

Biology and Invasive Potential

Distribution and Abundance

Management

Notes