Arizona State
Aquatic Invasive Species
Management Plan
(Based around AzGFD,
USFWS, UA, AzDofAg as
primary cooperative
agencies)
2010
Acknowledgments
2
Table of Contents
A. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 5
B. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
C. Aquatic Invasive Species Problems and Concerns in Arizona ........................................................... 8
Freshwater Animals .......................................................................................................................... 9
Freshwater Plants ............................................................................................................................. 9
Algae ............................................................................................................................................... 10
D. Goals ............................................................................................................................................... 12
E. Existing Aquatic Invasive Species Authorities and Programs .......................................................... 13
State Authorities and Programs ...................................................................................................... 13
Arizona Animal Programs and Regulations ................................................................................. 13
Arizona Plant Programs and Regulations .................................................................................... 14
Federal Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 14
International Agreements ............................................................................................................... 14
F. Objectives, Strategies, Actions, and Cost Estimates ....................................................................... 16
Objective 1: Prevent new and unintended introductions of aquatic invasive species into the
Colorado River and inland waters of Arizona. ................................................................................ 16
Objective 2: Limit the spread of established populations of aquatic invasive species into
uninfested waters of the state........................................................................................................ 19
Objective 3: Abate/mitigate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts
resulting from infestations of aquatic invasive species. ................................................................. 22
G. Priorities for Action ........................................................................................................................ 26
Priority Species................................................................................................................................ 26
H. Planned Efforts Implementation Table .......................................................................................... 28
I. Program Evaluation and Monitoring................................................................................................ 33
Oversight ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 33
J. Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 35
K. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................... 37
L. Appendices and References ............................................................................................................ 39
3
Appendix A: Section 1204 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 ....................................... 39
Appendix B: Arizona Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, Public Review Information..... 41
Appendix C: Non-indigenous Aquatic Species in Arizona ............................................................... 42
Appendix D: Aquatic Invasive Species Authorities and Programs .................................................. 46
Appendix E: House Bill 2157, Ch 77, Director's Order 1, 2, & 3: Quagga/Zebra Mussels ............... 50
4
A. Executive Summary
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) are a growing problem in Arizona. This document is an
important step in the coordinated response to the problem and serves as an efficient means
of communicating the scope of activities necessary to effectively address the issue. Several
projects across the state have focused on isolated AIS plant and animal problems. The
purpose of the Arizona State Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan is to provide
guidance on management actions to address the prevention, control and impacts of
unwanted nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade Arizona.
State, federal and international AIS authorities and programs are briefly discussed to
provide an understanding of our current ability to regulate and manage AIS. The
development of a state management plan, as called for in Section 1204 of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646)
(NANPCA) provides an opportunity for federal cost-share support for implementation of the
plan (Appendix A). Approval of this management plan by the national Aquatic Nuisance
Species (ANS) Task Force is also required for Arizona to be eligible for federal cost-share
support. Freshwater nonindigenous species that are known to have been found in Arizona
are listed. Very little is known about the impact of many AIS and some have high
commercial, recreational and aesthetic values. The plan identifies a small number of
priority AIS that are considered to be highly detrimental, and worthy of immediate or
continued management action. The management actions outlined in this plan concentrate on
these priority species.
The goal of this plan is
To fully implement a coordinated strategy designed to prevent new unintended introductions
of AIS into the Colorado River and inland waters of the state, to limit the spread of
established populations of AIS into un-infested waters of the state, and to abate harmful
ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestation of AIS.
Section 1204 requires that this management plan "identifies 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 aquatic nuisance species." This plan focuses on the identification of feasible,
cost-effective management practices and measures to be taken on by state and local
programs to prevent and control AIS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound.
The three main goals identified in the plan are structured to be achieved through the
implementation of strategic actions and tasks designed to solve specific problems. The plan
will be periodically revised and adjusted based upon the practical experience gained from
implementation, scientific research, and new tools, as they become available.
5
The implementation table summarizes the plan’s funding from all sources. Implementing
the programs outlined in this plan will require a coordinated tribal, Federal, State and private
effort, and the dedication of significantly greater funding than is currently available.
B. Introduction
The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic invasive species (AIS) into the lower Colorado
River and the inland waters of Arizona threatens the ecological integrity of the state’s water
resources, as well as economic, public health and social conditions within our state.
Because they have few natural controls in their new habitat, AIS spread rapidly, destroying
native plant and animal habitat, damaging recreational opportunities, lowering property
values, clogging waterways, impacting irrigation and power generation, and decrease overall
biodiversity. The coordinated efforts contained within this plan are designed to protect the
citizens of Arizona from the multitude of losses associated with AIS animals and plants.
This plan focuses on eliminating the threat of accidental AIS introductions. The intentional
introduction of nonindigenous species for aquaculture, commercial, or recreational purposes
is addressed to insure that these beneficial introductions do not result in accidental AIS
introductions, and to improve information sharing among those agencies responsible for
regulating intentional introductions.
The introduction of nonindigenous species is not a new phenomenon in Arizona. Numerous
species are causing or threaten to cause significant problems throughout the state, from the
Colorado River on the north and the west to the San Francisco Drainage on the east, and in
many of the reservoirs created in between. Aquatic invasive species continue to cause
problems and damage across the state of Arizona. The reasons for this are obvious. With
its many reservoirs and warm weather, Arizona is a popular vacationing spot for boaters
from the East. This opens an easy method of transfer, especially for species such as the
quagga mussel, which has now become established in the state. For decades, sport fishing
has brought numerous nonindigenous fish species into the state, from the eastern states and
abroad. While restrictions now prohibit intentional introductions of many species,
unintentional and illegal introductions will remain a concern. The growing aquaculture
industry in the state as well as aquarium trade and backyard water gardening has brought
many tropical aquatic species from around the world which easily become established in the
warm climate that Arizona has yearlong. The alteration of Arizona watersheds with the
building of reservoirs has altered the riparian habitat in many areas of the state, often in
ways that favor AIS over those native and often endemic to the state.
The potential for significant additional introductions continues for Arizona. New AIS seem
to be poised to enter Arizona without the establishment of proper prevention methods.
Having eradicated the presence of purple loosestrife that occurred in the 1980s, Arizona is
the lone state out of the continental US without an established population. Giant salvinia
has invaded portions of the lower Colorado. Quagga mussels have become established in
various state waters. Each of these species has costly environmental, ecological,
agricultural and industrial impacts. As these AIS become fully established in the reservoirs
6
that feed the extensive canal system in Arizona, the impact on water users and electrical
utilities across the state will be widespread. These canals provide a rapid means of transport
to waters across the state, and the cost would be immense to eradicate invaders such as
mussel and plants that may plug water intakes and pumping stations. Arizona is in a unique
position to focus efforts on prevention and control of several species that have caused
millions of dollars of damages in other states.
Numerous AIS have been introduced and dispersed in the Colorado River and the inland
waters of Arizona by various pathways. The environmental and socioeconomic costs
resulting from AIS infestation will only continue to rise with further successful AIS
introductions. Although an awareness of the problems caused by AIS is emerging, the
solutions to these problems are not readily apparent. This comprehensive state management
plan for AIS provides guidance on management actions to prevent, control and limit the
impacts of AIS that have invaded or may invade the Colorado River basin and inland
waters.
Arizona’s AIS Management Plan will be reviewed and revised periodically as a portion of
the larger Arizona Invasive Species Management Plan. The specific tasks employed to
accomplish our goals and objectives must remain flexible to assure efficiency and
effectiveness. This version of the Arizona AIS Plan is a good first step towards identifying
and integrating existing AIS programs, and implementing new programs, but future editions
will be necessary to fully accomplish our goal.
7
C. Aquatic Invasive Species Problems and Concerns in Arizona
dkb - This section requires ranking or prioritization of these problems. The most pressing
problems, when listed, must include a rationale for deciding that these are the most pressing.
ADDRESSED
dkb - The plan must identify and discuss ALL likely ANS problems and at least have a
general plan of attack for addressing the lower priority problems. WILL ADDRESS
?
A growing number of invasive aquatic plant and animal species have adversely impacted the
productivity and biodiversity of Arizona’s native species and altered a variety of aquatic
ecosystems. Most introductions are the result of human activities, such as alterations to the
waterways. Alterations such as damming and water diversion may favor AIS over native
species. There are many ways organisms may be transported. Major pathways through
which nonnative species are introduced into inland and state border waterways include
aquaculture, aquarium trade, biological control, transport via recreational boating and
fishing, research activities, and movement of nonnative species through channels and canals.
Some introduction pathways, such as the aquaculture industry, are currently regulated to
minimize the risk of new AIS introductions, while others have developed few or no
precautions. Additional information regarding regulated pathways is listed in Appendix D.
Threatened Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species
Potential threats may be evidenced by the degree of negative impact these species have upon
the environment, industry and the economy. Negative impacts include:








loss of native biodiversity;
potential for negative impacts to human health;
threaten ESA listed species;
altering ecosystem function and structure;
alterations to aquatic habitat for native biota;
increased costs of canal maintenance and fouled water intakes;
potential impacts on power generation capabilities;
impeded water transfer and interference with efficiency of water delivery systems;






potential increase for water quality concerns;
decreased recreational opportunities;
increased safety concerns for swimmers;
decreased property values;
threaten aquaculture production
8
The following section on freshwater animals and plants provides information on nonindigenous species and discusses species of concern. These draft lists are intended to
provide a basis for discussion and further work identifying the presence, distribution, status,
and threat of AIS. These will be updated, maintained, categorized and standardized as new
information is received and assimilated.
Freshwater Animals
A draft list of restricted freshwater nonindigenous animals in Arizona is included in
Appendix B. The list is incomplete as the introductions of nonindigenous animals are
continuous and the impacts of each may not be fully understood. Currently, more funding
and research is needed regarding the management and control of AIS animals.
The quagga mussel has been found in Arizona waters and is considered to be a priority AIS
due to the degree of impact in the Colorado River Basin.
There are no native species of crayfish in Arizona. Currently, Arizona has two non-native
crayfish species that were originally introduced as a means of aquatic vegetation control,
fishing bait, and aquaculture. Crayfish have had an immense adverse effect on the
ecosystem they were introduced into, decreasing overall biodiversity of fish, amphibians,
and macroinvertibrates. Crayfish have spread rapidly through the state and the introduction
of additional crayfish species is of great concern. Both the rusty and northern crayfish are
proposed for listing through AGFD AIS Directors Orders.
Bullfrogs were initially introduced as a food source in Arizona. Bullfrogs compete with and
often times prey on many aquatic animal species and have detrimental effects on native fish
and amphibian populations. Bullfrogs often have detrimental effects on protected native
species such as the Chiricahua leopard frog and Mexican garter snake.
Other species of concern include New Zealand mudsnail, gizzard shad, redshiners, and
mosquitofish.
More detailed information on these priority species is included in Appendix C.
Freshwater Plants
Some invasive non-indigenous freshwater weeds pose a serious threat to Arizona state
waters while the impacts of others are still undetermined. The freshwater nonindigenous
plant species found in Arizona are listed in Appendix C, along with information on
pathways of introduction and more detailed information on priority plant species and their
impacts.
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), and Parrotfeather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum) are freshwater submersed species of concern in Arizona.
9
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a priority emergent species that has spread
throughout the continental US, but has not yet become established in Arizona. Through
education of the public we have the opportunity to exclude this ecosystem-altering invader
from our state.
Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is a priority floating plant that is currently found in the
Lower Colorado River. This aquatic fern has had major impacts to slow moving waters in
the southeast U.S. and around the world. Giant salvinia is proposed for listing through
AGFD AIS Directors Orders.
Algae
Although algae are taxonomically different from submersed and emergent aquatic
vegetation, ecologically they are similar enough to include in a section on nonindigenous
plants. As a group, algae are relatively cosmopolitan and sometimes noxious, and
potentially toxic, blooms of cyanobacteria (more closely related to true bacteria than algae
but included in this section) can occur in almost any water body given proper conditions for
this to happen (usually associated with eutrophication). Large blooms of algae can and have
caused numerous fish kills due to hypoxia/anoxia. Such events often occur on a seasonal
basis.
It is beyond the scope of this plan to address problems concerning eutrophication and
toxicity of most species. In some cases, eutrophication is a natural condition of the
waterbody in question while others are human caused. Cultural eutrophication, and its
effects, is currently handled by agencies such as the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality who will assign limits on algae growth and water quality either on a regional or
case-by-case basis. Since algae identification is not easily done in the field and since few in
the state have the capability to accurately identify species, limited data exists on the spread
or current distribution of noxious or potentially toxic species.
One algal species appears to be a relatively recent introduction and has caused numerous
and large fish kills; Prymnesium parvum. This species produces a potent ichthytoxin
(prymnesin) and was first observed in Apache Lake in the Spring of 2004 following a fish
kill. It then appeared to spread to downstream reservoirs causing fish kills of increasing
magnitude. Since this time, numerous fish kills have been reported in urban lakes in the
Phoenix Metropolitan area both connected and unconnected to the Salt River watershed.
The exact environmental requirements for P. parvum growth and toxicity are not completely
understood. Current research is attempting to make these determinations.
Due to its devastating effects on gilled aquatic organisms, both native and introduced, we
include P. parvum in the priority species list.
10
The invasive benthic diatom, Didymosphenia geminata, is proposed for listing through
AGFD AIS Directors Orders.
11
D. Goals
The goals of the Arizona State AIS Management Plan are to:
Eliminate or minimize the harmful ecological, economic, and social impacts of AIS through
preventing new introductions, reducing further spread of existing populations, and
managing/controlling population growth of AIS in Arizona.
These goals will be achieved through implementation of a plan that:
 emphasizes prevention strategies;
 requires risk assessment and review for all aquatic non-indigenous species prior to
 their importation, transport, or use in Arizona;
 promotes early detection;
 includes development of contingency plans;
 permits appropriate and timely response to new and existing populations;
 protects and restores native plant and animal communities;
 provides for access to accurate the latest distribution and management information;
 incorporates outreach, education, and research elements;
 recommends funding levels adequate for effective implementation;
 encourages interagency collaboration;
 facilitates inter-jurisdictional coordination with state, federal and tribal agencies;
 seeks cooperative solutions with the private sector and user groups.
It is not possible to address all potential invaders, their impacts, and the constraints and
contingencies that may develop. Consequently, this plan is intended to be adaptable to
changing circumstances. As a result, continual review of the plan is imperative to use
the latest information and procedures to limit the spread of AIS both into and
within Arizona.
12
E. Existing Aquatic Invasive Species Authorities and Programs (look at
NM AIS and see what can be applied here) (Look at priority {problem
definition and ranking} classes).priorority class 1: quagga, zebra, nz mud
snail, rusty and redclaw crayfish, salvinia, didymo., asian carp, hydrilla,
Priority class 2: Eurasian watermilfoil, bullfrog, chytrid fungus, water
hyacinth, northern snakehead, purple loostrife, whirling disease, golden
algae, Priority class 3: golden apple snail, VHS, nutria, salt cedar, arundo
et al., Asiatic clams, round goby,
(Look at AIS Mgmt Strategy in NM…copy and make applicable)
Add Water Map of Arizona.
This section provides a brief discussion of AIS authorities and programs in Arizona, as well
as federal law and international agreements. Arizona state laws relating to AIS cannot be
discussed without a basic understanding of federal and international authorities. The
policies regarding AIS are controlled and enforced by a network of regulatory agencies and
organizations. Not all state and federal laws relating to AIS are included in this section of
the plan.
State Authorities and Programs
State and local efforts play a large role in controlling the spread of AIS. States have
authority to decide which species can be imported and/or released. However, the United
States Constitution vests the power to regulate international and interstate commerce to
Congress. Federal law may preempt state law, but states retain almost unlimited power to
define which species are imported and/or released. The state of Arizona currently has a
number of statutory and regulatory authorities with which it addresses or potentially can
address the issue of prevention and control of AIS. Additional information on regulated
pathways of introduction for non-indigenous species can be found in Appendix D.
Arizona Animal Programs and Regulations
Currently the state restrictions concerning the regulation of AIS animals are based on the
movement of wildlife, especially when fishing. R12-4-313 and R12-4-316 both deal with
the transport of baitfish, while R12-4-401 lists a number of restricted species, in regard to
their movement and sale. This restricted list deals with many non-indigenous species, while
R12-4-406 specifically lists the zebra mussel and quagga mussel as restricted. Additionally,
17-255 (Tom plz write)
13
Arizona Plant Programs and Regulations
Few restrictions exist concerning the control of plants, especially aquatic plants in Arizona.
R3-4-244 lists regulated and restricted noxious weeds that are present in the state and are
being monitored or controlled. R3-4-245 lists prohibited noxious weeds that may not be
transported into the state (Brian McGrew plz write). Both of these laws include several
threatening AIS. 3-205.01 gives the jurisdiction to control noxious weeds to the Arizona
Department of Agriculture. This includes the right to quarantine areas, to call on landowners to control noxious weeds and to update the noxious weeds list as necessary.
Federal Regulations
The current federal effort regarding the management of AIS is a patchwork of laws,
regulations, policies, and programs. At least twenty agencies currently work at researching
and controlling AIS. The Federal Agencies Table in Appendix D outlines the
responsibilities of a number of these government agencies and summarizes their current role
in the control of introduced species.
Federal laws which apply directly to the introduction of AIS include the Lacey Act, the
Federal Noxious Weed Act, the Federal Seed Act, the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (note:
look at page 5 of NM AIS and plagiarize) The Endangered Species Act could also have
indirect application if an AIS was shown to threaten the survival of a federally listed
endangered species.
International Agreements
In addition to state and federal regulations, a number of international agreements address the
issue of AIS. Several other international treaties and plans call for safeguards against the
spread of AIS. Some of these include:

The World Trade Organization acknowledges the need for parties to protect
themselves from harmful exotic species. This article legitimizes trade restraints,
such as quarantine regulations, that are necessary to protect the life or health of
humans, animals, or plants;

The International Plant Protection Convention (1972), covering agricultural pests;

The International Convention on Biological Diversity which contains a provision to
control, eradicate, or prevent the introduction of those alien species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats, or species: The Convention Concerning the Protection of
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1973); The Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species (1975); The Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance (1985) (especially involved with waterfowl habitat); and The
Convention on Nature protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western
Hemisphere (1942).
14
15
F. Objectives, Strategies, Actions, and Cost Estimates (REWRITE: See pg
31 of NM AIS) (FOLLOW FORMATTING OF NM AIS STARTING ON
PG 34 – Implementation Table)
dkb - Please include cost estimates for actions. Probably not possible to do BUT use
wording heading of NM Implementation table on pg 47. Copy and make applicable pages
33 – 47of NM AIS. FOLLOW FORMATTIJG FROM NM AIS (also addresses cost
estimate issue as much as feasible/possible)
The objectives of this plan are designed to address different stages of AIS invasion,
including the following:
1. introduction of AIS transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent
or world;
2. spread of a reproducing AIS population, once established within a waterway or to
other water bodies; and
3. colonization of AIS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts
resulting from colonization.
Objective 1: Prevent new and unintended introductions of aquatic invasive species into
the Colorado River and inland waters of Arizona.
dkb - you need to mention a way in which this objective can be measured with quantifiable
results. The main problem with this section is that most actions are vague. To be a good
plan, we need specific actions that can be measured for success in some quantifiable
fashion. The more specific we can be, the better. (taken care of if we follow NM AIS)
SEND DAVE AN EMAIL EXPLAINING
Problem: The most effective way to mitigate the harmful effects of AIS is to prevent
introduction into and between Arizona waterways. Once introduced, AIS often spread
quickly and can be difficult, if not impossible, to manage or eradicate. Introductions can
come from many human caused sources such as boat transfers, bait handling, water
transport, aquarium trade, and ornamental and landscape practices. Furthermore, many
resource users are unaware of pre-existing regulations concerning transportation of
nonindigenous aquatic species and routine activities that lead to their dispersal. An
information/education program is essential to provide information on the possible effects of
future introductions and how to avoiding further AIS infestations. Information/education
programs will target user groups and will strengthen public/private support for AIS
management. Cooperation among states where transfer or spread is likely to occur is also of
the utmost importance to reduce AIS infestation, especially those states that share
watersheds. Close monitoring of AIS and open communication among all resource users is
important to most effectively manage the spread of AIS populations. AIS management
activities that are consistent and complimentary among states will enhance the success AIS
control of all states involved.
16
Strategy 1A: Foster partnerships with cooperators, develop state-specific and regional
listings of aquatic invasive species that have the potential to infest Arizona’s waters. As part
of this cooperative effort, identify existing and potential transport mechanisms that facilitate
new AIS introductions.
Action 1A1: Support research on the movement of AIS on a continental scale and
use findings to help predict potential AIS invasions into Arizona waters.
dkb - make sure the actions are specific enough to be quantifiable. For example, you
may want to say that AZGFD will devote $X.XX dollars toward research, or
supplyin-kind support to existing research projects. INCAPABLE but we can allude
to specific agencies responsible for funding) SEND DAVE EMAIL
EXPLAINING?ASKING HOW TO QUANTIFY?
Strategy 1B: Establish inter-jurisdictional approaches to facilitate legislative, regulatory, and
other actions needed for the prevention of new AIS introductions to Arizona’s waters.
Action 1B1: Establish and support coalitions among cooperators, including AIS
officials from the state and federal natural resource agencies, tribal groups,
recreational boater and angler groups and other concerned resource users. Assist
coalitions in promoting federal legislation and programmatic support for the
prevention of new AIS introductions in the region/state. dkb- must be quantifiable:
how many of the next 5 years?
Action 1B2: Establish and support an inter-jurisdictional process to ensure
compatibility and consistency between states and federal agencies. dkb quantifiable?
Formed interagency committees on Salvinia molesta control.
Action 1B3: Initiate and implement a regional approach through a regional weed and
animal management plan to prevent new introductions of AIS into Arizona’s waters.
Strategy 1C: Promulgate, publicize, and enforce state legislation and regulations to prevent
new AIS introductions into state waters.
Action 1C1: Establish an interagency task force (with representation from public and
private sectors) to develop regulations for state legislative consideration. dkb quantifiable?
Action 1C2: Develop and implement an outreach program that informs relevant
groups of the regulations, their rationale, and compliance procedures. dkb quantifiable?
17
Action 1C3: Develop and implement enforcement programs. dkb - quantifiable?
Strategy 1D: Develop/maintain monitoring programs to provide for early detection and
prevention of infestations of AIS into unaffected watersheds.
Action 1D1: Establish/participate in monitoring programs that emphasize
partnerships between federal/state/local agencies; business/industry; academic
institutions; and resource user groups. The feasibility of various technologies (e.g.,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) should be explored in designing such
programs. dkb - quantifiable?
Action ID2: Create a central reporting system and database to track AIS movement.
AZ is included in the 100th Meridian GIS currently in process showing Zebra mussel
monitoring and marking any outbreaks, with possibility of layering other AIS into
the same GIS. USGS has AIS weed GIS in process with multiagency reporting that
could include aquatic weeds.
Strategy 1E: Conduct or support research regarding management options that will help
prevent new introductions of AIS into Arizona’s waters.
Action 1E1: Assess the transport mechanisms potentially responsible for new AIS
introductions into Arizona’s waters. Develop preventive action plans to interrupt
pathways of introduction. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 1E2: Review current aquarium trade restrictions and procedures.
Strategy 1F: Conduct an effective information/education program on the prevention of new
AIS introductions in Arizona’s waters.
Action 1F1: Identify the relevant Arizona user groups (i.e. aquaculture business,
recreational boating/angler groups, bait and tackle establishments, state agency
stocking programs, nursery and landscape trades, aquarium and ornamental ponds,
etc.) and secure representation from each group on an advisory team that takes an
active role in the development of the AIS management plan. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 1F2: Develop information/education strategies for resource user groups
identified as playing a significant role in AIS introduction. Information/education
efforts should focus on the practices that can help prevent AIS transport and
introduction into Arizona’s waters. As part of information/education initiatives,
18
identify, when appropriate, the need for a regulatory approach in the prevention of
AIS introductions. dkb - quantifiable?
AIS information placed in AGFD Fishing and Boating regulations. Fishing
tournament managers include education on spread of AIS as a part of tournament
activities. Information about AIS weeds included in herbicide applicators classes.
Action 1F3: Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of
information/education efforts.
Objective 2: Limit the spread of established populations of aquatic invasive species
into uninfested waters of the state.
dkb - you need to mention a way in which this objective can be measured with quantifiable
results.
Problem: The spread of established populations of AIS into un-infested state waters is
largely via human activity, such as boat transfers, bait handling, water transport, and
ornamental and landscape practices. Limiting the spread of such populations is problematic
due to the numerous pathways of dispersal, the complex ecological characteristics
associated with AIS populations, and the lack of feasible technology that is needed to limit
the spread. Many public and private resource user groups are not aware of existing
infestations of AIS in the Colorado river and its reservoirs, the Verde and Salt Rivers, and
inland waters of Arizona, and why they cause priority problems locally, regionally and
beyond. The probability of AIS spread to other waters is likely to increase when resource
user groups are not aware of how their routine activities can cause the dispersal of AIS into
un-infested water bodies. An information/education program is needed to provide
information on why the spread of AIS needs to be limited, how the AIS populations can be
reduce, and the value of a healthy aquatic ecosystem that supports a diverse native aquatic
community. Information/education programming is critical to strengthening public/private
support for and statewide participation in AIS management strategies. It is also difficult to
manage the spread of AIS since infestation frequently occurs in watersheds that occupy
more than one state. Cooperation among states in the Colorado River watershed sharing
AIS infested watersheds is needed to implement consistent management strategies that will
effectively limit the spread of AIS populations.
Strategy 2A: Identify and prioritize AIS whose spread should be limited.
Action 2A1: Establish an advisory group, with representation from all stakeholders
affected by the AIS problems in the state, to guide in the selection of aquatic
invasive species that merit management. dkb - good. This is quantifiable.
Action 2A2: Develop and implement a process to prioritize those AIS that merit
management. (Note: An assessment of AIS impacts discussed under Goal III is
19
recommended for this process. Also, a recommended resource to facilitate this
prioritization process is the National Park Service publication, Handbook for
Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control (see literature citations).
Action 2A3: When appropriate, list nonindigenous aquatic insects as AIS by
Director’s Order under the House Bill 2157, Chapter 77 (Appendix E).
Quagga mussel and zebra mussel are the first two species to be listed as Aquatic Invasive
Species by Director’s Order 1 under the House Bill 2157, Chapter 77 (Appendix E).
Arizona Department of Agriculture noxious weed (AIS) laws divide weeds into three
groups. Regulated noxious weeds are found within the state and are to be controlled to
prevent further infestation or contamination. Restricted noxious weeds are found within the
state and are to be quarantined to prevent further infestation or contamination. Prohibited
noxious weeds are prohibited from entering Arizona and shippers must have a permit to
transport them through the state. Rules for abatement published in Arizona Administrative
Code R3-4-243 and R3-4-245.
Strategy 2B: Monitor the spread of AIS determined to be a state priority.
Action 2B1: Design a monitoring program to provide information that will help in
developing an effective strategy to limit the spread of selected AIS populations. A
network approach, including federal/regional/state/local agencies, public/private
groups and academic institutions, is recommended. Variables to monitor include
population size, structure and range; rate of growth; type of habitat; distribution;
impacts on native species; and economic and other impacts on human communities.
Basic boat monitoring for zebra mussels is being done in Glenn Canyon.
Monitoring of lower Colorado River at least biannually by USFWS using established
protocol.
Action 2B2: Develop identification materials for each AIS that is being monitored to
facilitate participation of all stakeholders. dkb - quantifiable? You may need to be
more specific.
Informational pamphlets have been created for Eurasian water milfoil, hydrilla,
Salvinia molesta, zebra mussels, and crayfish. Signs warning of spread of AIS have
also been created for placement at marinas, boat ramps and docks.
Strategy 2C: Develop and implement management strategies to limit the spread of each AIS
determined to be a state priority.
20
Action 2C1: Based on identified dispersal pathways, develop regulatory approaches
to limit the spread of AIS. Also, identify the best available technology for each
management strategy and include an environmental impact assessment, where
necessary. dkb - quantifiable?
Glenn Canyon boat surveys. Tried voluntary boat checks along 100th meridian, but
with a low success rate. Seminar for DPS employees encouraging random boat
checks and increased awareness.
Action 2C2: Implement a watershed approach to limit the spread of AIS within the
state. This is imperative to secure successful long-term control over AIS, which
once in a watershed spread quickly. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 2C3: Establish cooperative policies among the Colorado River Basin States
sharing watersheds to limit the spread of AIS populations. dkb - quantifiable?
Strategy 2D: Inform and educate the appropriate resource user groups on the management
strategies needed to limit the spread of targeted AIS populations. To support this effort, the
target groups should be informed on how the spread of AIS threatens the health of a diverse
native aquatic community, and other harmful AIS impacts. Volunteer groups, such as lake
associations and outdoor recreation groups, should be actively involved in these outreach
efforts.
Action 2D1: Assess existing AIS information/education programs (i.e. Sea Grant,
cooperative extension, state natural resource agencies). Build on the strengths and
address the weaknesses of these programs. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 2D2: Identify pathways that disperse AIS (i.e., recreational boaters/anglers,
commercial and sport fishers, bait handling, water transport, ornamental and
landscape practices) and inform these groups on practices to help limit the spread.
This outreach program should focus on changing the behavior of user groups to limit
the spread of targeted AIS populations to Arizona’s waters. dkb - quantifiable?
Arizona Department of Agriculture has contacted several nurseries in the Phoenix
area, bass tournament groups are cooperating, information in boating and fishing
regulations as previously mentioned.
Action 2D3: Coordinate with state and local programs to ensure, where appropriate,
that public access projects and interpretive displays include information about AIS.
dkb - quantifiable?
Bulletins on ADA website, UA extension website, informative pamphlets and signs
are being dispersed.
21
Action 2D4: Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of
information/education efforts. dkb - quantifiable?
Strategy 2E: Promulgate, publicize, and enforce state regulations to limit the spread of AIS
within the state.
Action 2E1: Establish an interagency task force (with representation from public and
private sectors) to develop regulations for state legislative consideration. dkb quantifiable?
Action 2E2: Develop and implement an outreach program that informs relevant
groups of AIS regulations, why they exist, and compliance procedures. dkb quantifiable?
Action 2E3: Develop and implement enforcement programs. dkb - quantifiable?
ADA procedure: can eradicate restricted noxious weeds and charge land or
commodity owners for the cost of treatment. Property liens can be imposed to
recover cost.
Strategy 2F: Support/coordinate scientific research between state and federal agencies and
academic institutions that investigate potential management strategies to limit the spread of
AIS populations and associated environmental impacts.
Action 2F1: Prioritize research needs to help in establishing program structure. dkb quantifiable?
Action 2F2: Conduct priority research, or promote the conduct of such research via
federal research initiatives, academia or the private sector. dkb - quantifiable?
Research on use of Clearigate in PVID drain, BOR Denver office also researching
chemical use as control of AIS.
Action 2F3: Develop a technology transfer program to be used in distributing
research findings. dkb - quantifiable?
Objective 3: Abate/mitigate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health
impacts resulting from infestations of aquatic invasive species.
Problem: The infestation of AIS in the Colorado River and inland state waters can alter or
disrupt existing relationships and ecological processes. Without co-evolved parasites and
predators, some nonindigenous aquatic species out-compete and even displace aquatic
native plant or animal populations. As part of this process, the invading species can also
22
influence to some extent the food webs, nutrient dynamics, and biodiversity of the
ecosystems. To abate the ecological impacts of the invading organism, it is necessary to
understand the mechanisms by which the species disrupts the natural balance of the
ecosystem. The Colorado, Verde, and Salt Rivers and inland waters of Arizona provide
valuable economic benefits for Arizona, some of which include potable water supplies,
irrigation water, sport fisheries, recreational use, and water usage by manufacturers, industry
and electric power companies. Introduction of some nonindigenous species to the Colorado
River Basin/state have provided economic benefits, such as those supporting the aquaculture
business and sport fishing industry. However, several AIS have been found to cause
adverse economic impacts. For instance, the Eurasian watermilfoil forms thick mats on the
surface of water which can interfere with many types of water recreational activities, such as
swimming and water skiing, as well as potentially clogging irrigation canals and water
intakes.
Organisms invading the Colorado River Basin and inland state waters can threaten public
health through the introduction of disease, concentration of pollutants, contamination of
drinking water, and other harmful human health effects. An extensive abatement system for
these AIS needs to be established to prevent human health problems from occurring in the
waters of Arizona. These control strategies must also be designed so as not to cause
significant environmental impacts.
Strategy 3A: Assess the ecological, socio-economic and public health impacts of AIS in
Arizona’s waters. Use this assessment as guidance to develop action levels that warrant
implementation of control strategies (Note: Consult New York State's Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) management plan for a useful assessment of AIS
impacts (i.e., beneficial, innocuous, nuisance, detrimental), which may helpful in
determining action levels for control. Also, a recommended resource to facilitate this
process is the National Park Service publication, "Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plant for
Management and Control".
Action 3A1: Identify and assess the damages of AIS that threaten the ecological
health of Arizona’s ecosystems. dkb - quantifiable? Maybe you should mention a
specific report that will be completed.
Action 3A2: Identify and assess the damages of AIS that threaten public safety
and/or human health of the state's residents. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 3A3: Identify and assess economic costs for each AIS causing damage to
water users. dkb - quantifiable?
CAP estimates that a zebra mussel infestation would increase operational and
maintenance costs $4-5 million annually.
23
Strategy 3A4: Complete a meta-analysis of past research regarding effects and
management of AIS.
Strategy 3B: Based on the above impact assessments, develop and implement control
strategies, including physical, chemical and biological mechanisms, to eradicate or reduce
populations of targeted AIS in the Colorado River and inland state waters (i.e., those AIS
identified by the state as causing detrimental ecological, economic, social and/or public
health impacts).
Action 3B1: Establish protocols that will provide guidance in designing and
implementing control strategies.
 The control strategy must not create problems greater than those related to the
specific AIS;
 A control strategy must not have serious, long-term impacts to the environment
or non-target organisms;
 There must be a need to control the AIS due to the potential of adverse impacts;
 The control strategy must not reduce the human utilization of the water body
(with the exception of those waters with special resource designation) or threaten
human health;
 Control efforts should be directed against the areas significantly impacted, and
not be broad and general in nature;
 The control strategy must have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.
Action 3B2: Support/coordinate scientific research between state and federal
agencies and academic institutions that investigate potential control strategies and
associated environmental impacts. Develop a technology transfer program to be used
in distributing research findings. dkb - quantifiable?
Action 3B3: Establish mechanism(s) to ensure that the control strategies developed
and implemented by the State are done so in coordination with federal agencies,
tribal authorities, local governments, inter-jurisdictional organizations and other
appropriate entities (NANPCA, Section 1202). dkb - quantifiable?
Action 3B4: Establish mechanism(s) to ensure that the control strategies are based
on the best available scientific information and conducted in an environmentally
sound manner (NANPCA, Section 1202).
Strategy 3C: Conduct an information/education program providing information on AIS
impacts and related control strategies. Utilize existing groups/programs responsible for
information dissemination when appropriate.
Action 3C1: Design programs targeting public agencies needed in promoting
management action to abate impacts; user groups needed for effective control of
24
targeted species; and communities that need to learn how to live with AIS problems.
dkb - quantifiable?
Action 3C2: Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of
information/education efforts. dkb - quantifiable?
25
G. Priorities for Action
The purpose of the Arizona Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan is to coordinate all
AIS management actions currently within Arizona and to identify and provide funding for
additional AIS management actions, especially those relating to priority AIS plants and
animals. A major focus of this document is to develop and implement new programs
designed to prevent or control the introduction and spread of AIS. Arizona is currently
lacking projects or funding for preventing and controlling AIS.
Priority Class 1 species are present and established in Arizona, have the potential to
spread within or from the state, and management strategies for these species are unknown or
limited. These species can be managed through actions that involve mitigation of impact,
control of population size, and dispersal prevention.
Priority Class 2 species are currently not present in Arizona, but have a high potential for
invasion and there are limited or no known management strategies for these species.
Appropriate management strategies for this class includes preventing introduction and/or
eradication of insipient populations.
Priority Class 3 species are not established in Arizona, but have a high potential for
invasion, and reasonable management techniques are available. Appropriate management
strategies for this class includes preventing introduction and/or eradication of pioneering
populations.
Priority Class 4 species are present and have the potential to spread further in Arizona but
reasonable management strategies are available for these species. This class of species can
be managed through actions that involve mitigating impact, controlling population size,
and/or preventing dispersal.
Priority Species
Non-indigenous species considered to be priority species and worthy of immediate or
continued management action include:
Priority 1:quagga, zebra, nz mud snail, rusty and redclaw crayfish, salvinia, didymo.,
asian carp, hydrilla,
Priority 2: Eurasian watermilfoil, bullfrog, chytrid fungus, water hyacinth, northern
snakehead, purple loostrife, whirling disease, golden algae,
Priority class 3: golden apple snail, VHS, nutria, salt cedar, arundo et al.,
Asiatic clams, round goby,
26
The management actions outlined herein focus on these priority species. By addressing the
pathways of introduction for priority species, the introduction of other lower priority, or
perhaps unidentified AIS, may also be prevented, since many share common pathways.
Please categorize all potential aquatic invasive according to the class priorities borrowed
from the Oklahoma State AIS Management plan (highlighted above).
27
H. Planned Efforts Implementation Table
DELETE AND USE NMs AIS IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Arizona AIS
Management Plan
Planned Efforts Implementation Table
Strategies/ Actions
Number
Descriptive Title/Brief
Summary
Fund
Source
Imple.
Entity
Coop.
Organ.
Recent Efforts
($000/FTE)
FY08
FY09
$
FTE
$
FTE
Planned Efforts
FY10-11
Dedicated
Requested
$(000) FTE $(000) FTE
Objective 1: Prevent new and unintended introductions of aquatic invasive species into the Colorado
River and Arizona’s inland waters.
Strategy
1A
1A1
Strategy
1B
1B1
1B2
1B3
Develop regional listings of
AIS that may impact Arizona.
Identify transport mechanisms
that may facilitate AIS
introductions.
Research large-scale
movements of AIS to help
predict new invasions.
Create an inter-jurisdictional
AIS task force.
Create an AIS task force or
committee of stakeholders.
Create and encourage interjurisdictional networking to
cooperatively combat AIS in a
consistent and fair manner.
Form regional enforceable
weed management areas for
established and predicted AIS
invasions.
Strategy
1C
1C1
1C2
1C3
Strategy
1D
1D1
Strategy
1E
1E1
Strategy
1F
1F1
Promulgate, publicize and
enforce state legislation and
regulations to prevent new
AIS introductions into state
waters.
AIS task force will develop
regulations for state
legislation.
Begin an informational
campaign to share concerns,
regulations and
responsibilities with
stakeholders.
Develop and implement
enforcement programs
Develop/maintain monitoring
programs of Arizona waters
for early detection and
prevention.
Establish monitoring programs
involving concerned citizens,
agencies and industry,
assimilating results into
Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) maps.
Conduct or support research of
preventative management
options.
Assess AIS transport
mechanisms and develop
action plans to interrupt
pathways of introduction.
Conduct a public educational
program on the prevention of
new AIS introductions.
Form stakeholder advisory
team that takes an active role
in the ongoing development of
the AIS management plan.
29
1F2
1F3
Target resource user groups
with educational programs
focused on helping prevent
AIS transport and
introduction.
Establish and administer
questionnaires to evaluate the
educational program
effectiveness.
Objective 2: Limit the spread of established populations of aquatic invasive species into un-infested
waters of the state.
Strategy
2A
2A1
2A2
Strategy
2B
2B1
2B2
Strategy
2C
2C1
Identify and prioritize AIS
whose spread should be
limited.
Establish stakeholder advisory
group to aid in selecting
priority AIS.
Develop and implement a
process to prioritize those AIS
that merit management.
Monitor the spread of those
AIS deemed to be a state
priority
Design a monitoring program
to provide information that
will help in developing an
effective strategy to limit the
spread of selected AIS
populations.
Develop a key/informational
paper for each monitored AIS.
Develop and implement
management plans to limit the
spread of priority AIS.
Develop voluntary and
regulatory approaches to limit
the spread of AIS, including
an environmental impact
assessment where necessary.
30
2C2
2C3
Strategy
2D
Identify state watersheds and
address AIS issues of each
watershed.
Establish cooperative AIS
prevention and control policies
among the Colorado River
Basin States.
Inform and educate resource
user groups on the
management strategies needed
to limit the spread of targeted
AIS populations.
Objective 3: Abate/mitigate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting
from infestation of non-indigenous aquatic invasive species.
Strategy
3A
Assess the ecological, socioeconomic and public health
impacts of AIS in Arizona’s
waters
3A1
Quantify the damages AIS that
threaten the ecological health
of Arizona’s ecosystems.
3A2
Quantify the damages of AIS
that threaten public safety
and/or human health of the
state's residents.
Identify and assess economic
costs for each aquatic nuisance
species causing damage to
water users.
Develop and implement
control strategies to eradicate
or reduce populations of
priority AIS in the Colorado
River and inland state waters.
Establish protocols that will
provide guidance in designing
and implementing control
strategies.
3A3
Strategy
3B
3B1
31
3B2
3B3
3B4
Strategy
3C
3C1
3C2
Support/coordinate scientific
research that investigate
potential control strategies and
associated environmental
impacts. Develop an
information/technology
transfer program for findings.
Establish mechanism(s) to
ensure coordination with all
appropriate authorities
(NANPCA,
Section 1202).
Establish review board to
ensure that the control
strategies are based on sound
environmental science
(NANPCA, Section 1202).
Conduct an
information/education
program providing
information on AIS impacts
and related control strategies.
Design programs targeting
public agencies needed in
promoting management action
to abate impacts; user groups
needed for effective control of
targeted species; and
communities that need to learn
how to live with aquatic
nuisance species problems.
Establish monitoring/tracking
programs to evaluate the
effectiveness of
information/education efforts.
32
I. Program Evaluation and Monitoring (Make applicable to AZ and
perhaps refine/enhance)
The section below highlighted in green was lifted word-for-word from the NM State AIS
Management Plan. I don't think NM did as well of a job as they could have with this
section. I hope Arizona can improve upon it. I'd like to see specifics. Please adjust as
necessary to be appropriate for Arizona. This section is a mandatory requirement for
ANSTF approval.
The more specific the actions are in Section F, the easier it will be to describe the
evaluation and monitoring required.
The strategies outlined in this plan will generate actions to achieve desired future
conditions and outcomes. A necessary step in the implementation of this plan will be
program monitoring and evaluation of performance indicators referable to the goal and
objectives of this plan. To support and inform implementation of this plan, it is
recommended that the AISAC adopt a philosophy of adaptive management in which
monitoring and evaluation are employed to measure progress toward achieving the goal,
to assess the efficacy of prioritized strategies to meet the stated objectives, and to
maintain awareness of and adapt to changing information or conditions. Program
monitoring and evaluation will require oversight, evaluation and reporting.
Oversight
The AISAC will be responsible for coordinating the oversight process to inform all
stakeholders of the progress towards implementing the plan. The role of AISAC will be
to examine the level of achievement on tasks identified in the prioritized strategic actions.
Evaluation
To afford an objective evaluation process, performance indicators may be required that
not only examine progress, but also identify funding needs to successfully implement the
plan. Evaluation should also incorporate information from those groups or individuals
that will be affected by plan implementation. The evaluation process may also require
revisions to this plan, which will be the shared responsibility of the Coordinator and the
ASIAC.
Reporting
The Coordinator and the AISAC will prepare and disseminate an annual progress report
to all stakeholders. This report will include an evaluation of success towards achieving
the goal and stated objectives of this plan.
The Coordinator and the AISAC will prepare and disseminate a 5-year AIS program
status report to all stakeholders. This plan will inform stakeholders of the progress of plan
implementation, program needs, and future directions relative to adjacent states and
regional planning efforts.
33
34
J. Glossary
Accidental introduction: an introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species that occurs
as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the
species involved. For example, the transport of non-indigenous species in ballast water
or in water used to transport fish, mollusks, or crustaceans for aquaculture or other
purposes.
Aquatic invasive species (AIS): any aquatic species that is not native to the ecosystem
under consideration and whose introduction or presence in this state may cause economic
or environmental harm or harm to human health. This does not include any
nonindigenous species lawfully or historically introduced into this state for sport fishing
recreation. (Note: for the purposes of the State management plans, reference to an
aquatic invasive species will imply that the species is non-indigenous.)
Baitfish: fish species commonly sold for use as bait for recreational fishing.
Control: limiting the distribution and abundance of a species.
Cryptogenic species: a species that may or may not be indigenous to an area.
Ecological integrity: the extent to which an ecosystem has been altered by human
behavior; an ecosystem with minimal impact from human activity has a high level of
integrity; an ecosystem that has been substantially altered by human activity has a low
level of integrity.
Ecosystem: an assemblage of biological organisms, the interaction among them, and the
non-living factors of the environment contributing to their structure and function.
Environmentally sound: methods, efforts, actions, or programs to prevent introductions
or to control infestations of AIS that minimize adverse environmental impacts. The
impact of management actions should be less than the impact of the AIS.
Eradicate: the act or process of eliminating an aquatic invasive species.
Eutrophication: any waterbody with an excess of plant or algal nutrients and the
consequences, often negative, thereof.
Exotic: any species or other variable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond
its historic range, including such organisms transferred from one county to another (see
nonindigenous and non-native).
Intentional introduction: all or part of the process by which a non-indigenous species is
purposefully introduced into a new area.
35
Nonindigenous species: any species or other variable biological material that enters an
ecosystem beyond its historic range, including such organisms transferred from one
country to another (see exotic and non-native).
Nonnative: any species or other variable biological material that enters an ecosystem
beyond its historic range, including such organisms transferred from one country to
another (see exotic and non-native).
Pioneer infestation: a small AIS colony that has spread to a new area from an
established colony.
Priority species: an AIS that is considered to be a significant threat to Arizona waters
and is recommended for immediate or continued management action to minimize or
eliminate their impact. Introduction of species may have an especially large impact on
ecosystem function, endangered species, infrastructure, human health, etc.
Watershed: a hydrogically bound drainage basin including all living and nonliving
components.
36
K. Literature Cited
Please fill in as necessary. See the New Mexico AIS Management Plan and the
Oklahoma AIS Management plan for many references that will also be valid here.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (D. James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and Mollie Beattie, Director of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service). 1994. Report to Congress: Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review.
Carlton, J.T. 1985. Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine
Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanography and Marine Biology, An
Annual Review: volume 23.
Hushak, L.J., Y. Deng, M. Bielen. 1995. The Cost of Zebra Mussel Monitoring and
Control. AIS Digest: volume 1, number 1.
Leigh, P. 1994. Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes
Fishery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and
Wildlife. 1993. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management
Plan.
Ohio Sea Grant College Program. 1995. Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Report: An Update of
Research and Outreach: 1988-1994. The Ohio State University.
Olson, A.M., and E.H. Linen. 1997. Exotic Species and the Live Aquatics Trade.
Proceedings of Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatics ’96: conference and
Exhibition, Seattle, Washington, October 1996. School of Marine Affairs,
University of Washington, Working Paper No. 6.
Ruiz, G.M., A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton. 1995. An Historical Perspective on
Invasion of North American Waters by Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. AIS
Digest: volume 1, number 1.
U.S. Congress, Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990,
Public Law 101-646.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Nonindigenous Species
in the United States. OTA-F565.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1991. Handbook for Ranking
Exotic Plant for Management and Control. Authored by R.D. Hiebert and James
Stubbendieck. (Copies of this report (Natural Resources Report
NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08) are available from: Publications Coordinator,
37
National Park Service, Natural Resources Publications Office, P.O. Box 2587
(WASO-NRPO), Denver, CO 80225-0287).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 1995. Report to Congress:
Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.
38
L. Appendices and References
Appendix A: Section 1204 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
SEC. 1204. STATE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) STATE OR INTERSTATE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(1) IN GENERAL. -- After providing notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Governor of each State may prepare and submit, or the
Governors of the States and the governments of Indian Tribes involved in
an interstate organization, may jointly prepare and submit –
(A) a comprehensive management plan to the Task Force for
approval which identifies those areas or activities within the
State or within the interstate region involved, other than those
related to public facilities, for which technical, enforcement, or
financial assistance (or any combination thereof) is needed to
eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health, and
safety risk associated with aquatic nuisance species,
particularly the zebra mussel; and
(B) a public facility management plan to the Assistant Secretary
for approval which is limited solely to identifying those public
facilities within the State or within the interstate region
involved for which technical and financial assistance is needed
to reduce infestations of zebra mussels.
(2) CONTENT. -- Each plan shall, to the extent possible, identify the
management practices and measures that will be undertaken to reduce
infestations of aquatic nuisance species. Each plan shall –
(A) identify and describe State and local programs for
environmentally sound prevention and control of the target
aquatic nuisance species;
(B) identify Federal activities that may be needed for
environmentally sound prevention and control of aquatic
nuisance species and a description of the manner in which
those activities should be coordinated with State and local
government activities;
(C) identify any authority that the State (or any State or Indian
Tribe involved in the interstate organization) does not have at
39
the time of the development of the plan that may be necessary
for the State (or any State or Indian Tribe involved in the
interstate organization) to protect public health, property, and
the environment from harm by aquatic nuisance species; and
(D) a schedule of implementing the plan, including a schedule of
annual objectives, and enabling legislation.
(3) CONSULTATION –
(A) In developing and implementing a management plan, the State
or interstate organization should, to the maximum extent
practicable, involve local governments and regional entities,
Indian Tribes, and public and private organizations that have
expertise in the control of aquatic nuisance species.
(B) Upon the request of a State or the appropriate official of an
interstate organization, the Task Force or the Assistant
Secretary, as appropriate under paragraph (1), may provide
technical assistance in developing and implementing a
management plan.
(4) PLAN APPROVAL. -- Within 90 days after the submission of a
management plan, the Task Force or the Assistant Secretary in
consultation with the Task Force, as appropriate under paragraph (1), shall
review the proposed plan and approve it if it meets the requirements of
this subsection or return the plan to the Governor or the interstate
organization with recommended modifications.
(b) GRANT PROGRAM. –
(1) STATE GRANTS. – The Director may, at the recommendation of the
Task Force, make grants to States with management plans approved under
subsection (a) for the implementation of those plans.
(2) APPLICATION. – An application for a grant under this subsection shall
include an identification and description of the best management practices
and measures which the state proposes to utilize in implementing an
approved management plan with any Federal assistance to be provided
under the grant.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE. –
40
(A) The Federal share of the cost of each comprehensive management
plan implemented with Federal assistance under this section in any
fiscal year shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost incurred by the State
in implementing such management program and the non-Federal share
of such costs shall be provided from non-Federal sources.
(B) The Federal share of the cost of each public facility management plan
implemented with Federal assistance under this section in any fiscal
year shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost incurred by the State in
implementing such management program and the non-Federal share of
such costs shall be provided from non-Federal sources.
(4) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. – For the purposes of this section,
administrative costs for activities and programs carried out with a grant in
any fiscal year shall not exceed 5 percent of the amount of the grant in that
year.
(5) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—In addition to cash outlays and
payments, in-kind contributions of property or personnel services by nonFederal interests for activities under this section may be used for the nonFederal share of the cost of those activities.
(c) ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE.—Upon request of a State or Indian Tribe,
the Director or Under Secretary, to the extent allowable by law and in a
manner consistent with section 141 of title 14, United States Code, may
provide assistance to a State or Indian Tribe in enforcing an approved State or
interstate invasive species management plan.
Appendix B: Arizona Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, Public Review
Information
TO CONTAIN INFORMATION COVERED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS OF INVOLVED
STAKEHOLDERS FOR RATIFYING THE PLAN
41
Appendix C: Non-indigenous Aquatic Species in Arizona
List of Arizona Game and Fish Restricted Non-indigenous
Listed species are restricted by ARTICLE 4. LIVE WILDLIFE, R12-4-406.
Restricted Live Wildlife
Freshwater Animal Species of Concern
Common name
Reptiles
caimans
crocodiles
alligators
snapping turtles
Species name
all species of order Crocodylia
all species of the family Chylydridae
42
sea snakes
Amphibians
clawed frogs
giant or marine toads
bullfrogs
all species of the family Hydrophiidae
all species of the genus Xenopus
Bufo horribilis, Bufo marinus, Bufo
paracnemis
all species of genus Rana
Fish
Arctic grayling
bass
bighead carp
black carp
bony tongue
bowfin
catfish
Crucian carp
Electric catfish
electric eel
European whitefish
freshwater drum
freshwater stingray
gars
goldeye, moomeye
herring
Indian carp
lampreys
Nile perch
Pike, pickerel
pike topminnow
piranha
Rudd
shad
sharks
silver carp
Thymallus arcticus
all the species of the family Serranidae
Aristichthys nobilis
Mylopharyngodon piceus
Arapaima gigas
Amia calva
all species of the family Ictaluridae
Carassius carassius
Malapterurus electricus
Electrophorus electricus
Leuciscus idus, Idus idus
Aplodinotus grunniens
all species of the family Potamotrygonidae
all species of the family Lepisosteidae
all species of the family Hiodontidae
all species of the family Clupeidae
all of the species Catla catla, Cirrhina
mrigala, and Labeo rohita
all species of the family Petromyzontidae
all species of the genus Lates
all species of the family Esocidae
Belonesox belizamus
all species of the genera Serrasalmus,
Serrasalmo, Phygocentrus,
Teddyella, Fooseveltiella, and
Pygopristis
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
all species of the family Clupeidae except
threadfin shad, species Dorosoma
petenense
all species, marine and freshwater of orders
Hexanchiformes, Heterodontiformes,
Squaliformes, Pristiophoriformes,
Squatiniformes, Orectolobiformes,
Lamniformes, and Carcharhiniformes
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
43
snakehead
South American parasitic catfish
sunfish
temperate basses
tetras
tiger fish
trout
white amur, grass carp
walking catfish
walleye
Invertebrates
Asiatic mitten crab
Crayfish
Asian clam
New Zealand mudsnail
Quagga mussel
Rosy wolfsnail
zebra mussel
all species of the family Ophicephalidae
all species of the family Trichomycteridae
and Cetopsidae
all species of the family Centrarchidae
Moronidae
all species of the genus Astyanyx
Hoplias malabaricus
all species of the family Salmonidae
Ctenopharyngodon idella
all species of the family Clariidae
all species of the family Percidae
Eriocheir sinensis
all species of family Astracidae,
Cambaridae, Parastacidae
Corbicula fluminea
Potamopyrgus antipodarum
Dressena bugensis
Euglandina rosea
Dreissena polymorpha
Species not restricted but may pose problems
Reptiles
false map turtle
red-eared slider
southern painted turtle
spiny softshell
water monitor
western painted turtle
yellowbelly slider
Graptemys pseudogeographica
Trachemys scripta
Chrysemys picta dorsalis
Apalone spinifera
Varanus salvator
Chrysemys picta bellii
Trachemys scripta scripta
Amphibians (These are all debatable)
Mountain treefrog
Barred Tiger salamander
Pacific chorus frog
Rio Grande leopard frog
Hyla eximia
Ambystoma tigrinum get subspecies
Pseudacris regilla
Rana berlandieri
Fish
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
44
bigmouth buffalo
black buffalo
black crappie
blue tilapia
common carp
convict cichlid
driftwood catfish
fathead minnow
firemouth cichlid
flathead catfish
golden shiner
goldfish
grass carp
green swordtail
guppy
leatherside chub
longjaw mudsucker
Mexican tetra
Mexican molly
mosquitofish
mottled sculpin
mountain sucker
Nile tilapia
plains killifish
quillback
redbelly tilapia
red shiner
redside shiner
Rio Grande cichlid
Rio Grande sucker
rock bass
Sacramento perch
sailfin molly
sand shiner
shortfin molly
silver carp
smallmouth buffalo
spotted tilapia
suckermouth catfish
tench
threadfin shad
Utah chub
variable platyfish
walleye
Wami tilapia
warmouth
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus niger
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Oreochromis aureus
Cyprinus carpio
Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum
Parauchenipterus galeatus
Pimephales promelas
Cichlasoma meeki
Pylodictis olivaris
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Carassius auratus
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Xiphophorus helleri
Poecilia reticulata
Gila copei
Gillichthys mirabilis
Astyanax mexicanus
Poecilia sphenops
Gambusia affinis
Cottus bairdi
Catostomus platyrhynchus
Oreochromis niloticus
Fundulus zebrinus
Carpiodes cyprinus
Tilapia zillii
Cyprinella lutrensis
Richardsonius balteatus
Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum
Catostomus plebeius
Ambloplites rupestris
Archoplites interruptus
Poecilia latipinna
Notropis ludibundus
Poecilia mexicana
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Ictiobus bubalus
Tilapia mariae
Hypostomus sp.
Tinca tinca
Dorosoma petenense
Gila atraria
Xiphophorus variatus
Stizostedion vitreum
Oreochromis urolepis
Chaenobryttus gulosus
45
white sturgeon
yellow bass
yellow perch
Acipenser trAISmontanus
Morone mississippiensis
Perca flavescens
List of Non-indigenous Freshwater Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
Plants that are currently causing problems in Arizona
Brazilian elodea
curly leaf pondweed
giant salvinia
hydrilla
parrot-feather
water-cress
Egeria densa
Potamogeton crispus
Salvinia molesta
Hydrilla verticillata
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Nasturtium officinale
Plants with Apparent Limited Distribution and Weedy Potential
Eurasian water-milfoil
Myriophyllum spicatum
Species of Concern Being Sold in Arizona, But Not Established in the Wild
water-hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes
Introduced Plant Species, But Not Causing Problems
dotted duckweed
yellow floating-heart
Landoltia (Spirodela) punctata
Nymphoides peltata
Species Of Concern in Other States, Not Yet Introduced to Arizona
Anchored water hyacinth
Water-chestnut
Eichhornia azurea (SW)
Trapa natans L.
Appendix D: Aquatic Invasive Species Authorities and Programs
Federal Agencies Regulating the Transport of Live Aquatic Products
Federal Agencies Regulating the Transport of Live Aquatic Products (Olson and Linen 1997).
Plants
Restrict Movement Into U.S. Restrict Interstate Movement
APHIS
APHIS
DOD
AMS
46
Regulate Product
Content or Labeling
APHIS
AMS
Customs
DEA
Fish
FWS
Customs
USCG
FWS
FWS
Invertebrates
APHIS
FWS
ARS
PHS
Customs
USCG
APHIS
FWS
FWS
List of abbreviations and descriptions of authority (Olson and Linen 1997)
Organization
Description
APHIS
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, has broad mandates related to the importation and
interstate movement of exotic species, under the Federal Plant Pest
Act, the Plant Quarantine Act, and several related statutes. The
primary concern is species that pose a risk to agriculture. Restricts
the movements of agricultural pests and pathogens into the country
by inspecting, prohibiting, or requiring permits for the entry of
agricultural products, seeds, and live plants and animals. Restricts
interstate movements of agricultural plant pests and pathogens by
imposing domestic quarantines and regulations. Restricts interstate
transport of noxious weeds under the Federal Noxious Weed Act.
AMS
The Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of
agriculture, works closely with states in regulating interstate seed
shipments. Regulations require accurate labeling and designation
of “weeds” or “noxious weeds” conforming to the specific state’s
guidelines.
ARS
The Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the research branch of USDA, conducts and funds
research on the prevention, control, or eradication of harmful
exotic species often in cooperation with APHIS. Projects include
aquaculture techniques and disease diagnosis and control.
DEA
The Drug Enforcement Agency restricts imports of a few nonindigenous plants and fungi because they contain narcotics
substances.
DOD
The Department of Defense has diverse activities related to nonindigenous species. These relate to its movements of personnel
47
and cargo and management of land holdings. Armed forces
shipments are not subject to APHIS inspections. Instead, the DOD
uses military customs inspectors trained by APHIS and the Public
Health Service.
FWS
The Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, has
responsibility for regulating the importation of injurious fish and
wildlife under the Lacey Act. Maintains a limited port inspection
program. In 1990, FWS inspectors inspected 22 percent of the
wildlife shipments at international ports of entry. Interstate
movement of state-listed injurious fish and wildlife is a federal
offense and therefore potentially subject to FWS enforcement.
Also provides technical assistance related to natural resource issues
and fish diseases to state agencies and the private sector
(aquaculture in particular). Helps control the spread of fish
pathogens.
NOAA and NMFS
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, inspect
imported shellfish to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous
parasites and pathogens. Cooperative agreements with Chile and
Australia; Venezuela has requested a similar agreement.
PHS
The Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human
services, regulates entry of organisms that might carry or cause
human disease.
Customs
Customs Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Customs
personnel inspect passengers, baggage, and cargo at U.S. ports of
entry to enforce the regulations of other federal agencies. They
inform interested agencies when a violation is detected and usually
detain the suspected cargo for an agency search.
USCG
The Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Treasury, was given certain
responsibilities under the Non-indigenous Aquatic Prevention and
Control Act of 1990, relating to preventing introductions (mostly
dealing with ballast water exchange).
Federal Law Addressing Aquatic Nuisance Species
The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990
48
The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 created the
Interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. This group is required to develop a
program to prevent, monitor, and control unintentional introductions of exotic species.
Many of the agencies that in some way regulate the introduction of species are
represented on this task force.
The National Invasive Species Act of 1996
The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 re-authorizes and amends the Non-indigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (the “Zebra Mussel Act”). It
expands the scope of the Act beyond the zebra mussel and ballast water and begins to
“address introductions and infestations of [non-indigenous aquatic] species that may be
as destructive as the zebra mussel.” To this end, the Act authorizes a Western Regional
Panel to identify priorities for the western region; develop emergency response strategies
for stemming new invasions; and advise public and private sectors concerning the
prevention and control of exotic species. Furthermore, the Act advises state and Tribal
governments to prepare invasive species management plans and provides for ecological
surveys to study species attributes and patterns of invasions.
Finally, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 authorizes U.S. spending $1.25
million to “fund research on aquatic nuisance species prevention and control in San
Francisco Bay and the Pacific Coast.”
The expanded scope of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 demonstrates that
federal efforts to control the transport and accidental release of exotic species are
becoming more stringent. Concern over the disastrous spread of the zebra mussel has
heightened public awareness of the issue and, as a consequence, government regulations
are likely to become more developed in coming years.
International Instruments Addressing Non-indigenous Species
Additional International Agreements Addressing Non-indigenous species include:

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in which Article XX (b)
Acknowledges the need for parties to protect themselves from harmful exotic species.
This article legitimizes trade restraints, such as quarantine regulations, that are
necessary to protect the life or health of humans, animals, or plants;

The International Plant protection convention (1972), covering agricultural pests;

The International Convention on Biological Diversity (signed 1993, but not yet
ratified by the U.S. Senate) which contains a provision to control, eradicate, or
prevent the introduction of those alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or
species;
Furthermore, there are a number of bilateral of multilateral treaties that indirectly affect
exotic species, including:
49

The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(1973);

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (1975);

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1985)(especially involved
with waterfowl habitat);

The Convention on Nature protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western
Hemisphere (1942).
Appendix E: House Bill 2157, Ch 77, Director's Order 1, 2, & 3: Quagga/Zebra
Mussels
----------------------------Senate Engrossed House Bill
----------------------------State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
First Regular Session
2009
----------------------------CHAPTER 77
-----------------------------
HOUSE BILL 2157
----------------------------AN ACT
AMENDING SECTION 5-323, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 2, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 3.1; RELATING TO GAME AND FISH.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
50
Section 1. Section 5-323, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
5-323. Disposition of fees
Each month monies received from the registration fees received under this chapter for the numbering of watercraft shall
be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in a fund designated as the watercraft registration fee clearing
account. Each month, on notification by the department, the state treasurer shall distribute the monies in the clearing
account as follows:
1. All revenues collected from the registration fees collected pursuant to section 5-321, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2
shall be allocated as follows:
(a) Sixty-five per cent shall be deposited in a special fund to be known as the watercraft licensing fund. The watercraft
licensing fund is to be used by the department for administering and enforcing this chapter, and providing an information
and education program relating to boating and boating safety AND ADMINISTERING ANY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS TITLE OR TITLE 17. These monies are subject to legislative appropriation.
(b) Thirty-five per cent of such revenues shall be further allocated as follows:
(i) Fifteen per cent to the state lake improvement fund to be used as prescribed by section 5-382.
(ii) Eighty-five per cent to the law enforcement and boating safety fund to be used as prescribed by section 5-383.
2. All revenues collected from any additional registration fees collected pursuant to section 5-321, subsection C shall be
paid to an account designated by a multi-county water conservation district established under title 48, chapter 22 to be
used solely for the lower Colorado river multispecies conservation program and for no other purpose.
Sec. 2. Title 17, chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 3.1, to read:
ARTICLE 3.1. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
17-255. Definition of aquatic invasive species
IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES":
1. MEANS ANY AQUATIC SPECIES THAT IS NOT NATIVE TO THE ECOSYSTEM UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHOSE
INTRODUCTION OR PRESENCE IN THIS STATE MAY CAUSE ECONOMIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL HARM OR HARM TO HUMAN
HEALTH.
2. DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(a) ANY NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES LAWFULLY OR HISTORICALLY INTRODUCED INTO THIS STATE FOR SPORT FISHING
RECREATION.
(b) ANY SPECIES INTRODUCED INTO THIS STATE BY THE DEPARTMENT, BY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OR BY ANY
PERSON PURSUANT TO THIS TITLE.
17-255.01. Aquatic invasive species program; powers
A. THE DIRECTOR MAY ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM.
B. THE DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE ORDERS:
1. ESTABLISHING A LIST OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES FOR THIS STATE.
2. ESTABLISHING A LIST OF WATERS OR LOCATIONS WHERE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ARE PRESENT AND TAKE
STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ERADICATE, ABATE OR PREVENT THE SPREAD OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES WITHIN
OR FROM THOSE BODIES OF WATER.
3. ESTABLISHING MANDATORY CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION C OF THIS SECTION ON THE MOVEMENT OF
WATERCRAFT, VEHICLES, CONVEYANCES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FROM WATERS OR LOCATIONS WHERE AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES ARE PRESENT TO OTHER WATERS.
C. IF THE PRESENCE OF AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IS SUSPECTED OR DOCUMENTED IN THIS STATE, THE
DIRECTOR OR AN AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY TAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO ABATE OR ELIMINATE THE SPECIES:
1. AUTHORIZE AND ESTABLISH LAWFUL INSPECTIONS OF WATERCRAFT, VEHICLES, CONVEYANCES AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT TO LOCATE THE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES.
2. ORDER ANY PERSON WITH AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN OR ON THE PERSON'S WATERCRAFT, VEHICLE,
51
CONVEYANCE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT TO DECONTAMINATE THE WATERCRAFT, VEHICLE, CONVEYANCE OR EQUIPMENT IN
A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY RULE. NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SUBSECTION, MANDATORY ON-SITE
DECONTAMINATION SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED AT A LOCATION WHERE AN ON-SITE CLEANING STATION CHARGES A FEE.
3. REQUIRE ANY PERSON WITH A WATERCRAFT, VEHICLE, CONVEYANCE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WATERS OR
LOCATIONS WHERE AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IS PRESENT TO DECONTAMINATE THE PROPERTY BEFORE MOVING
IT TO ANY OTHER WATERS IN THIS STATE OR ANY OTHER LOCATION IN THIS STATE WHERE AQUATIC INVASIVE
SPECIES COULD THRIVE.
D. AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION B OR C OF THIS SECTION IS EXEMPT FROM TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE
3, EXCEPT THAT THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROMPTLY FILE A COPY OF THE ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
PUBLICATION IN THE ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE REGISTER PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-1013.
17-255.02. Prohibitions
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION, A PERSON SHALL NOT:
1. POSSESS, IMPORT, SHIP OR TRANSPORT INTO OR WITHIN THIS STATE, OR CAUSE TO BE IMPORTED, SHIPPED OR
TRANSPORTED INTO OR WITHIN THIS STATE, AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES.
2. NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 17-255.04, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 4, RELEASE, PLACE OR PLANT, OR CAUSE TO
BE RELEASED, PLACED OR PLANTED, AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES INTO WATERS IN THIS STATE OR INTO ANY
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, WATER SUPPLY OR WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, DEVICE OR MECHANISM IN THIS
STATE.
3. NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 17-255.04, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 4, PLACE IN ANY WATERS OF THIS STATE ANY
EQUIPMENT, WATERCRAFT, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE THAT HAS BEEN IN ANY WATER OR LOCATION WHERE
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE PRECEDING THIRTY DAYS WITHOUT FIRST DECONTAMINATING
THE EQUIPMENT, WATERCRAFT, VESSEL, VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE.
4. SELL, PURCHASE, BARTER OR EXCHANGE IN THIS STATE AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES.
17-255.03. Violations; civil penalties; classification; cost recovery
A. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO A
CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
B. A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATES SECTION 17-255.02, PARAGRAPH 2 OR 4 IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 2
MISDEMEANOR. IN ADDITION, THE COMMISSION, OR ANY OFFICER CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THIS ARTICLE IF
DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION, MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION IN THE NAME OF THIS STATE TO RECOVER DAMAGES AND
COSTS AGAINST A PERSON WHO VIOLATES SECTION 17-255.02, PARAGRAPH 2 OR 4. DAMAGES AND COSTS
RECOVERED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE GAME AND FISH FUND.
C. THE COURT SHALL ORDER A PERSON FOUND IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17-255.01, SUBSECTION C, PARAGRAPH 2
TO PAY TO THIS STATE ALL COSTS NOT EXCEEDING FIFTY DOLLARS INCURRED BY THIS STATE TO DECONTAMINATE
ANY WATERCRAFT, VEHICLE, CONVEYANCE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT ON WHICH AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES WERE
PRESENT. MONIES PAID PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE GAME AND FISH FUND.
D. THIS SECTION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DIRECTOR ESTABLISHES AN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 17-255.01.
17-255.04. Applicability; no private right of action
A. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF:
1. ANY SYSTEM OF CANALS, LATERALS OR PIPES, ANY RELATED OR ANCILLARY FACILITIES, FIXED EQUIPMENT AND
STRUCTURES RELATED TO THE DELIVERY OF WATER AND ANY DISCHARGES FROM THE SYSTEM.
2. ANY WATER TREATMENT OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITY SYSTEM, ANY RELATED OR ANCILLARY FACILITIES, FIXED
EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES AND ANY DISCHARGES FROM THE SYSTEM.
3. ANY DRAINAGE, WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL FACILITY SYSTEM, ANY RELATED OR
ANCILLARY FACILITIES, FIXED EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES AND ANY DISCHARGES FROM THE SYSTEM.
4. A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AQUARIUM AND EDUCATION OR RESEARCH INSTITUTION HOLDING A PERMIT PURSUANT TO
52
SECTION 17-238 OR 17-306.
5. ANY STOCK PONDS OR LIVESTOCK WATER FACILITIES OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, INCLUDING FIXED EQUIPMENT
AND STRUCTURES RELATED TO THE DELIVERY OF WATER AND ANY DISCHARGES FROM THE SYSTEM.
B. THE DIRECTOR MAY CONSULT WITH THE ENTITIES LISTED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION TO ASSIST IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ARTICLE.
C. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT CREATE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND MAY BE ONLY
ENFORCED BY THIS STATE.
APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR JULY 10, 2009.
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE JULY 10, 2009.
53
54
55
56
57