November 2024 Meeting Minutes

On November 6–7, 2024, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) held a two-day virtual meeting. Action items and decisions are listed below, followed by a summary of the meeting.

Decisional Items:

1. The ANS Task Force approved the Delaware State ANS Management Plan.
2. The ANS Task Force approved the draft New Zealand Mudsnail Management Plan to be posted in the Federal Register for public comment.
3. The ANS Task Force conditionally approved the recommendations from the Joint ISAC/ANSTF EDRR Framework Implementation Work Group, pending a comment period for ANS Task Force members. By December 2, members will inform the Executive Secretary if they concur with the recommendations as written. If not, an alternative approach should be suggested. Executive Secretary will compile all comments and suggestions and send to the EDRR co-chairs for consideration.

Action Items

1. The EDRR Subcommittee Chair will distribute the Rapid Response Template to ANS Task Force members and regional panels for comment following final subcommittee review. Tentative deadline for comments is January 13, 2025.
2. The Outreach Subcommittee will develop guidance on best practices for inclusive language use within AIS management. The Subcommittee will report on progress at the next ANSTF meeting.
3. If needed, ANS Task Force members and Regional Panels may provide additional input into the FWS Fish and Aquatic Conservation program’s strategic plan at fisheries@fws.gov.
4. ANSTF Executive Secretary will work with Moss Ball After Action Report leads to complete a summary of the comprehensive report that will be distributed for ANSTF review. Once comments are addressed, it will be made available on the ANS Task Force website. Once the full after-action report is complete, Executive Secretary will distribute the comprehensive report to the agencies named in the report for review prior to making the document publicly available.
5. The Rapid Response Fund Working Group will reconvene to consider modifications to more efficiently streamline the Rapid Response Fund review and selection process, particularly for proposals that address national priorities or have a strong sense of urgency.
6. ANSTF Executive Secretary will schedule a regional panel principal meeting to discuss the Northeast panel recommendation on multi-state coordination, funding strategies, and potential next steps for the Ruffe plan.
7. The Control Subcommittee will distribute the Combined Plan Decision Making Guidance to the ANS Task Force and Regional Panels for review. Tentative deadline for comments is January 31, 2025.

Wednesday, November 6, 2024

Welcome

Dave Miko (USFWS) introduced himself, welcomed the attendees and thanked them for attending. Miko reviewed the agenda, which was distributed to registered participants and posted on the ANSTF website and in the meeting chat. 

Debbie Lee (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA) introduced herself and recognized ANSTF members, who volunteer their time from their regular jobs to move Task Force priorities forward as well as the outstanding regional panels and subcommittee members who have also dedicated hours of personal time and expertise to ensure that the meeting action items and work plans are progressing.

Susan Pasko (USFWS) discussed meeting logistics and announced there would be a public comment period at the end of each day.

Introductions

Roll call was taken of ANSTF membership. The complete list of attendees is listed below.

Adoption of Agenda, Approval of Minutes, Status of Action Items

A motion to adopt the agenda was seconded, there was no discussion, and the agenda was approved. 

Lee called for approval of the minutes from the May 2024 meeting. They were distributed to all members electronically and posted on the website. A motion to approve the minutes was seconded, there was no discussion, and the minutes were approved.

Pasko reviewed the status of the Action Items from the last meeting listed below.

1. Work with U.S. Coast Guard (USGC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a charge that defines the scope of work, timeline, and potential membership, and structure structure
   Something temporarily or permanently constructed, built, or placed; and constructed of natural or manufactured parts including, but not limited to, a building, shed, cabin, porch, bridge, walkway, stair steps, sign, landing, platform, dock, rack, fence, telecommunication device, antennae, fish cleaning table, satellite dish/mount, or well head.
   
   Learn more about structure for a workgroup to assist the development of the Vessel Incident Discharge Act (VIDA) Intergovernmental Response Framework. The scope of work and timeline were developed and distributed with a call for people to participate in the work group. The group has convened twice to date.
2. Work with the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force to explore establishing a joint working group focused on the invasive soft coral issue in the Pacific and Caribbean. A scope of work was developed and a work group created.
3. Control Subcommittee to review their recommendation on a Genetic Biocontrol Subcommittee to determine potential next steps. A recommended approach will be presented at the next ANSTF meeting, and there will be a report tomorrow. Pasko will be discussing this issue with the Great Lakes Panel next month.
4. Distribute survey to inform the Legislative Gap Report to Congress. ANSTF Chairs will distribute this email and survey to ANSTF Federal Member Agencies. The survey was distributed, giving people an opportunity to comment on questions. Federal members were asked this week about the best way to distribute, and responses were requested by 22 November 2024.
5. Follow up with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Western Regional Panel (WRP) regarding the recommendation to develop standardized prevention language within interstate transportation permit applications. A call with the WRP will be scheduled to learn what has progressed to date and what is needed to work with DOT to finish this task.
6. Distribute recommendations from the ISAC/ANSTF EDRR Framework Advisory Group. Recommendations were distributed following the May meeting, comments were considered, and an update from the Joint Subcommittee will be heard today.     

Presentation: USGS NAS Update: New Species Occurrences

Wesley Daniel (USGS), the coordinator of the USGS NAS database, reported the database has tracked 1,413 species, consisting of 719,650 records as of 14 August 2024. Taxa totals include 268 plants, 71 amphibians, 90 reptiles, 806 fish, 113 crustaceans, and 86 mollusks, bryozoans, and coelenterates. The number of alert system users is 976. The program is incorporating invasive corals, e.g., Pulsing xenia (Unonia stolonifera), into the database as a result of a recommendation made by the Gulf Atlantic Panel to track invasive corals. From May–November 2024, there have been a total of 63 NAS alerts: 3 Bonus, 13 County, 36 Drainage, 7 State, and 4 Nation. These come from literature (13), NAS sighting report (36), and personal communication (14). The numbers illustrate the value of the portal for individuals to report invasive species invasive species
An invasive species is any plant or animal that has spread or been introduced into a new area where they are, or could, cause harm to the environment, economy, or human, animal, or plant health. Their unwelcome presence can destroy ecosystems and cost millions of dollars.

Learn more about invasive species .

The species with the most new occurrences are Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata peregrina), Blue Land Crab (Cardisoma guanhumi) – native to Florida but with northern expansion – Chinese Mystery Snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis), and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).

Species new to the United States include:

• Fish: Hybrid Peacock cichlid (Aulonocara sp.) (detected in Texas), which likely entered via trade or reared via backyard aquaculture; and a Central American Cichlid, the Oaxaca Cichlid (Vieja zonata), raised in Mexico and detected in Puerto Rico.
• Plants: Potamogeton wrightii – an emergent plant that prefers slow moving areas (detected in Ohio).
• Invertebrates: Golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) – detected in Port of Stockton, California.

Alerts include Featherfoil (Hottonia palustris) detected in Michigan in pond habitat, and Wandering Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata peregrina) detected on the northern shore of Lake Erie.

NAS Updates:

• Because of a request by state AIS managers to be notified of alerts of new occurrences before they are publicly released, the new EDRR Framework has a special exemption for this allowance. The USGS will work with state managers to develop lists of species.
• The USGS seeks to establish standards to allow negative data to be hosted on NAS, which would bolster illustrating surveillance efforts.
• The USGS seeks to create a new way to display species status on NAS (previously, color points were used). Users will be able to differentiate between types of data in the database (e.g., established versus eradicated species).

AquaDePTH is a sister repository to the NAS Aquatic Disease and Pathogen Repository, which receives data from multiple centers. The goal is to develop a national repository to support aquatic animal diseases and pathogen biosurveillance. There is potential to host state and tribal fish health data for visibility in one searchable database, building on the long-term success of USGS NAS. There is an opportunity to contribute to the AquaDePTH Advisory Group to communicate the database and acquire feedback – work with USGS NAS to ensure the database meets their needs. The USGS NAS seeks to be interoperable with other databases, such as WHISPers (wildlife health data portal).

Flood and Storm Tracker (FaST) Maps forecast where species have the potential to move based on real-world flooding. Pfingsten et al. (2024) describes the process used to create the searchable maps. Storm surge, which can push species inland, and inland flooding, which pushes species from upstream to downstream, are tracked. In general, flooding is associated with more local movements of species compared to human-mediated pathways, which can result in large geographic jumps in species.

Update:  Implementation Update on the National Early Detection Rapid Response Framework 

Hilary Smith (Department of the Interior) discussed the results of the request to Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)/ANSTF Joint Subcommittee for input on the Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) Framework’s draft mission statement and potential measures. (https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/isacanstf-edrr-framework-mission-measuresresponse-20241018.pdf). The working group was asked for input on the following questions:

• What recommendations do you have on our draft mission statement? The mission of the National EDDR framework is to find and eradicate invasive species new to the United States, or those demonstrating secondary spread, by coordinating across federal and non-federal partners and investing in innovative approaches for surveillance data integration and response capabilities for natural resource management. 

Responses included:

1. Address how the statement relates to existing EDRR efforts, specifically the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
   1. Place emphasis on the second part of the statement.
   2. Focus on conservation and management of natural resources and define what is meant by natural resources.
   3. Is there a better word than investing?
   4. Should it include “expand our capability and capacity”?
   5. Should it include preventing species?
   6. Should it say something about the speed of the response?
   7. Should “secondary” be removed because it is jargony?

Based on these responses, the committee decided to develop a new vision statement, an updated mission statement, and a set of principles.

• New Vision – Lands and waters free of new invasive species.
• New Mission – Strengthen coordination and capacity across jurisdictional boundaries to efficiently detect and respond to new invasive species throughout the nation.
• Nine New Principles: Nine new principles focus on areas, species, partnerships, complementarity, coordination, prioritization, timeliness, innovation, and accountability.
• Measures: Measures included participation in the framework, surveillance activities, EDRR actions, reporting, and use of tools/products. 

The work group recognizes that preventing establishment is key to EDRR, thus did not explicitly address this consideration.

Big Picture questions included:

• Effectiveness – Are there mechanisms in the framework to show improvement on how we are implementing EDRR in the United States?
• Process – Is the framework adaptive based on user feedback? Do non-federal partners have a role in implementation? Are there incentives necessary to encourage participation?
• Impact – Do non-federal partners believe the framework is benefiting them? Is the framework user friendly?
• Outcomes – Is the framework detecting species sooner, and what % of new introductions successfully result in detection and response? All metrics should be about improvement.

High level takeaways being considered:

• Use objective evaluators
• Integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches (survey responses, partner lists, number of new detections/responses, case studies, interviews and focus groups) that move from concept to action and use evidence building to inform decision making. The National EDRR Framework staff will work with ANSTF on setting up more formal structures to incorporate feedback.

The federal family reviewed the 11 recommendations from the white paper on national priorities (https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/isac-national-prioritiesedrrresponse-20241018.pdf). Many of the recommendations are being addressed through the national framework; responses were prepared through the lens of that framework. Of the 11 recommendations, the only one acknowledged as important, but not yet considered is the use of artificial intelligence, which can create efficiencies, however, the federal government wants to ensure its use in a responsible way.

EDRR Framework implementation highlights include coordination capacity building; expanded capacity via the Molecular Lab Network and Interjurisdictional National EDRR Coordination; Siren Version 1 soft release (www.invasivespecies.info/siren); Genetic Marker Validation and Development – 21 priority species and county; Molecular Surveillance Tool Development; ED surveillance – putting watch lists and hotspot analysis into action; RR Fund – 9 projects and counting; and partner engagement.

Launching Siren: The National Early Detection and Rapid Response Information System

Aimee Agnew (U.S. Geological Survey), discussed Siren, an online platform for invasive species information sharing and collaboration that serves as the information hub of the National EDRR Framework. Siren includes information and tools relative to RR funding and capacity, reporting, regional horizon scans and watch lists, identification of invasion hotspots (heat maps of invasive hotspots for various taxonomic groups will be added), detection tools and services, surveillance capability, spatial data that illustrates species across the landscape (including information from EDDMapS, iMapInvasives, and USGS NAS – species can be viewed by point data, land ownership, and aggregated observations, e.g.), species-specific resources, and expert contacts, among others. Information from data partners informs EDRR response using interactive tools on the site. State statutes and regulations will be added as well as a planning template to create a RR plan, information about types of eDNA tools, and funding for RR.

The Invasive Species Experts Database in Siren completed its soft launch and is now ready to be expanded. The database will be a source of information for the public and people working within the AIS community to find and collaborate with one another. Based on a question about potentially misinterpreting or misusing expert names/references relative to roles and responsibilities, Agnew requested correspondence from Task Force members regarding concerns and recommendations about the database. A suggestion was made to share the link to the database with the aquaculture community.

Early Detection Rapid Response Subcommittee Updates

Wes Daniel (U.S. Geological Survey), Chair of the ANSTF EDRR Subcommittee, discussed the Rapid Response Plan Template. This template is intended to be used by jurisdictions, and will be developed into an interactive format on Siren. The template is in the review phase (working draft) by the EDRR Subcommittee. The template will be available for ANSTF review following the subcommittee review, with scheduled potential approval at the Spring 2025 ANSTF meeting. The RR Template Task Team (R²T³) developed the template. Daniel walked through a demonstration RR exercise in which a citizen found and reported to USGS NAS a Spotted Reaver (Factum piscis), a fictitious species. The goal is for responders to be able to develop and print their rapid response plan online. The template includes species-specific information, possible location-specific information, jurisdictional responsibilities, confirmation, delineation, risk/feasibility screening, two worksheets that inform potential for response, response organizational structure – use of the Incident Command System (ICS) – compliance with federal, state, tribal and other laws, training, funding to support RR needs, and post-response monitoring and reporting.

Other objectives (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) in the Subcommittee workplan are being addressed outside of the subcommittee (e.g., Rapid Response fund, EDRR Framework, Siren). The Subcommittee is actively working on objective 3.1—the USGS NAS database, what managers need, and how to increase capacity as well as expanding the Invasive Species Experts Database.

Leah Elwell (Conservation Collaborations, LLC) presented information on Questions 3 and 4 that were posed to the ISAC-ANSTF Subcommittee:

• Question 3: How should outreach and engagement with non-federal entities be structured going forward, and with whom, for Framework planning and implementation to be effective and inclusive, given the legal restrictions, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that may apply in some cases?
• Question 4: How can we ensure that non-agricultural terrestrial interests are well represented in the Framework? ​Is there a complementary structure needed at a national level for nonagricultural terrestrial species where gaps exist, and, if so, what would that look like?  

Recommendations for the EDRR Framework Task Force Team from the Subcommittee, based on numerous virtual discussions and the use of a logic model:

• Recommendation 1: Establish a National EDRR Task Force and develop an appropriate organizational structure to achieve outlined objectives.
• Recommendation 2: Compile and disseminate a list of federal, state, tribal and territorial entities with resource management and/or environmental protection authorities to facilitate communication and identify regulatory gaps.
• Recommendation 3: Fund and facilitate additional state, tribal, territorial, or regional RR tabletop preparedness exercises for non-agricultural species detections.
• Recommendation 4: Create a subcommittee of the National EDRR Taskforce focused on NEPA-compliant processes, environmental impact analyses, pre-permitting, and other regulatory compliance issues, including developing Incidental Take Permit (ITP) templates for ESA species in advance of potential response actions.
• Recommendation 5: Create a subcommittee of the National EDRR Taskforce focused on communication, mechanisms to promote reporting, ensuring the use of cutting-edge communication methods, consistent messaging and campaigns, and employing experts.
• Recommendation 6: Create a subcommittee of the National EDRR Task Force focused on data sharing to improve, encourage, and support data sharing.
• Recommendation 7: Ensure EDRR Framework funding continues beyond the tenure of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
  The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is a once-in-a-generation investment in the nation’s infrastructure and economic competitiveness. We were directly appropriated $455 million over five years in BIL funds for programs related to the President’s America the Beautiful initiative.
  
  Learn more about Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and expand the RR Fund to include terrestrial species.

There was discussion about the recommendations in terms of scale and cost, given existing structures and capacity. The ANSTF was asked to propose alternatives that facilitate transfer from the current ad hoc coordination to more efficient cross-taxa coordination.

A motion was made and seconded for the ANSTF to review the recommendations by December 2, 2024. If there are no major concerns during the comment period, the seven recommendations will be sent to the National EDRR Framework Implementation Work Group. Any concerns expressed as part of the comment period process will be included with the recommendations upon ANSTF review and approval of those compiled comments.

Outreach Subcommittee Updates

Tim Campbell (Wisconsin Sea Grant) provided updates from the Outreach Subcommittee on language guidance and outcomes from the National Outreach Workshop. Any ANSTF members interested in serving on this subcommittee should contact Tim. 

Language Voluntary Guidance was revised based on subcommittee comments, and background has been added. Draft voluntary guidance included two problem statements relative to a) place-based names that were not ordinarily given with consideration to cultural sensitivity and b) the use of militaristic, nativist or colonial language, which can alienate marginalized communities while framing environmental management in overly simplistic terms.

Priorities include outreach and education efforts that apply known information and best practices; development and use of guidelines that consider the principles above, and continuing research to understand language use within invasive species communication and the impacts of that language; best practices include what to avoid: militaristic and nativist language, personifying invasive species, using place or names of people for new species (unless place is a key feature), and if working with species that already have a place-based name or a place is named after a person, avoid militaristic and nativist language. It is recommended to use neutral language, if possible; use terms clear in meaning that have a shared definition; be intentional with metaphor and figurative language use; use and promote names that help with a management goal; use existing resources and processes for name changes.

ANSTF members were asked if they would support voluntary guidance documents that outline problems with place-based naming conventions and militaristic/nativist language and that sets priorities for future work. Member responses were supportive, including one comment that such guidance could help to inform naming conventions for professional societies. The Outreach Committee will develop guidance on best practices for inclusive language use within AIS management. The Subcommittee will report on progress at the next ANSTF meeting.

Campbell reported on the AIS Outreach Workshop at NAISMA held in Montana 1 October 2024—topics discussed included the positive correlation between Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! and prevention behaviors, and what we can learn from the Don’t Move Firewood campaign.

• Messaging and branding: Current strengths—prevention messages are nationally aligned with recreation guidelines, and co-branding can leverage brand & campaign benefits. Needs—a shared understanding of how campaigns and brands fit together, guidance on how to implement campaigns, and investment in a refresh of Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!
• Program Evaluation: Strengths—Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!, Clean, Drain, Dray, and AIS prevention outreach works. Needs—include a network of people to help with evaluation, understanding types of evidence for evaluation, and collaboration.
• National Communications Plan: Strengths—what we are doing is having an impact. Needs—include a plan for funding routine implementation of campaigns, guidance for using different communication mediums and approaches, and prioritizing recreational water use groups. 

The committee will produce a technical report based on the outcomes of the AIS Outreach Workshop at NAISMA held in Montana 1 October 2024 and use those outcomes to inform future committee work plan objectives.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan; ANSTF input and discussion

The USFWS seeks to understand the role the Service is uniquely positioned to fill, where the agency may have fallen short, and future expectations. The agency is revising its Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program Strategic Plan (previous plan expired in 2020—https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/news-attached-files/FAC_StrategyPlan_2016-2020.pdf). The plan is being updated to improve collaborative conservation approaches with partners, build awareness of conservation benefits, expand efforts to new partners, and innovate delivery of its program. The process includes engaging partners (Nov 2024), analyzing and incorporating partner feedback (Dec 2024/Jan 2025), posting the draft plan in the Federal Register (Mar/Apr 2025), and finalizing the plan in June of 2025. Input from ANSTF is critically important for the development of the strategic plan. 

In addition to the responses to four questions that were asked to the ANSTF members, it was suggested the USFWS contact local counties for input into the strategic plan because they collaborate with other organizations re: watercraft inspection and decontamination, monitoring, etc. 

1. What strengths or weaknesses do you see with the current FAC activities within key program areas (note: key program areas include aquatic ecosystem restoration, hatcheries/aquaculture, applied science, fish health & medicines, managing ANS, sport fishing, boating, and recreation, tribal trust responsibilities, federal agency mitigation support, and assessment and monitoring). 
   1. Where does the Habitattitude campaign fit into these program areas? The USFWS provides administrative support to help that campaign as well as working with the Pet Advocacy Network (PAN) on activities to promote those messages. Perhaps change the title of “Sport Fishing, Boating, and Recreation” to “Prevention Outreach.” 
   2. State and tribal partners value ED efforts led by the USFWS, including traditional gear sampling as well as our leadership in using eDNA as a detection tool. The USFWS is valued for its ability to support eDNA for RR. Partner agencies value the leadership the USFWS provides. Collaboration with other DOI agencies to discuss how we’re comparing eDNA markers in a cost-effective manner. The Service is providing significant support in the use and application of the tool (genetic markers, etc.). 
   3. Boating, fishing, and recreation focus encourage boating and recreation, but we need to integrate invasive species prevention into these programs. We need to work closely together.
       
2. What do we do that is unique or irreplaceable?
   1. The RR fund is a helpful, important program that needs to continue and be improved.
   2. Help prevent the spread of species not yet established (e.g., Prussian carp at border).
   3. The ability of the ANSTF regional panels to be leaders to support the states, pool resources, create products, and conduct events (training and workshops) is cost-efficient. But we’re falling behind because funding has been limited.
       
3. What new areas of focus, activity, or innovation do you think FAC should consider?
   1. Extension-based training to improve AIS public communication and outreach.
   2. Reassess the Federal Advisory Committees Act or determine ways the ANS Task Force can do more relative to funding and other panel work. The successes in the reports to Congress are regional panel projects.
   3. Engagement with the boating industry – to have the voice of a larger collective – re-engage coordination/partnership with non-governmental entities and private industry.
   4. Greater emphasis on preventing introductions to the country, e.g., organisms in trade. Promote voluntary or regulatory mechanisms and support for Don’t Let it Loose.
   5. National leadership to address golden mussel spread.
   6. Break down perceived silos between enforcement and programmatic work. Form a joint commission with law enforcement and biologists; there was traction doing this with the illegal turtle trade. 
   7. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has to adhere to both NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Help facilitate efficiencies at the NEPA level, similar to the Cutting Green Tape at the state level in California to enhance permitting efficiencies and expedite projects.
   8. Use research for mitigating AIS. The recent YY brood stock work could have tremendous impacts for states and other agencies. Is there capacity to increase research and its application on the ground?
   9. Support enhancement of taxonomic expertise in the United States. 
   10. Use more asset management language to set the context in the plan so that people align strategic investments in natural resources similar to investments in infrastructure, etc.
   11. Continue to support addressing canals as pathways.
        
4. What does a highly successful USFWS Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program look like in 10 years?
   1. USFWS’ role in serving as a leader in international relations re: responding to invasive species issues in international water bodies. 
   2. Shepherding the state ANS plans with structure and guidance for states engaging in developing the plans, and providing funding to implement the plans. 
   3. More funding for the ANS panels to do more work.
   4. More resources dedicated to evaluating and moving more species through the listing process.

ANSTF members are urged to provide comments on the plan as soon as possible by sending an email to mailto:fisheries@fws.gov. In conjunction with publishing final plan, the inputs and comments received will be summarized and available. 

Ex-officio Roundtable Part 1 

To inform the ANSTF strategic planning process, each of the following organizations provided information about their organization’s role, priorities, and challenges re: AIS.

• Meg Modley (Lake Champlain Basin Program) — Federally designated in 1990, the partnership organization, which shares its watershed with Vermont, New York, and Quebec and coordinates efforts among all three jurisdictions, is now called the Patrick Leahy Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). The LCBP has a steering committee of members representing all three jurisdictions. The fiscal manager is the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. The Lake Champlain Special Designation Act, which morphed into the current LCBP program, was reauthorized in 2002 and 2022. LCBP coordinates water quality, recreation, and all other lake-related activities. Advisory committees representing education and outreach, cultural heritage and recreation, scientific research, and citizens groups from the three jurisdictions serve on the Steering Committee governing body, including state and local representatives from the three jurisdictions.LCBP currently has about 25 FTEs. Opportunities for Action is the LCBP long-term management plan— invasive species objectives, strategies, and tasks are located in the healthy ecosystems section of the report and include EDRR work, pathways (with an emphasis on canals), management, research, and multi-lingual outreach targeted at different user groups. The LCBP issues a report every three years called State of the Lake that summarizes data collected about water resources, organization and partner accomplishments, and introduced species (the area has 51 non-native species of which about 12 are considered invasive, e.g. spiny waterflea). In FY19, the LCBP had a $13 million budget; the budget is now about $34 million annually. The program is funded primarily through the EPA (Clean Water Act); other funding includes EPA funding directed toward implementation of the VT 2016 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), federal bipartisan infrastructure, NOAA, NPS, and Great Lakes Fisheries Commission funding, among others. LCBP projects include developing a non-indigenous information system (with NOAA-GLANSIS) and implementing the Lake Champlain Watershed Assistance Program (with USACE) and aquatic plant control program - water chestnut management (with USACE). The LCBP invests $100,000 (plus partner funding) annually for hand and mechanical harvesting of water chestnut. There is a watercraft inspection boat launch steward program modeled after New York program, which includes operation at Vermont, New York, and Quebec high use boat launch sites ($400,000). There is a RR fund ($200,000 annually), which support the actions of the RR task force. Round Goby, Grass Carp, and Corbicula have been priority RR species. The LCBP distributes grant funding annually to program partners to implement the action management plan. Lake Trout populations are currently reproducing and recruiting (50% fewer fish are stocked) and stocking may be on track to end and decreases in sea lamprey wounding rates have been observed on landlocked Atlantic salmon and Lake trout.
  • Successes – Strong partnerships; multiple levels of government engagement; ANSTF is a way to access national and international programs, plans, and expertise; we have a funded RR team in place.
  • Challenges – Align policy, program and funding with three major jurisdictions; fund limitations; need to address pathways and canals; limited AIS management tools available to use in the watershed.
• Sam Tank (Great Lakes Commission) — The GLC is a bi-national compact agency established in 1955 because of the need for basin coordination among the eight Great Lake states. Ontario and Quebec joined in 1999 (associated non-voting members). The GLC allows the group to speak in a unified voice. There are 3–5 representatives from each of the states and provinces; 1 representative from each of the states and provinces comprises the Board of Directors. GLC recently updated its priorities in a 5-year strategic plan adopted in 2023 (focal goals are resilient Great Lakes Basin, clean and safe water, sustainable and equitable water use, safe and reliable waterways, and healthy aquatic ecosystems). The GLC addresses issues of special concern in water resources, including invasive species. Essential services include supporting decision making, identifying measures of progress, coordinating effective approaches, advancing common goals, advocating for legislation and funding, and leading on priority pathway issues. The GLC also passes policy resolutions on specific issues (currently five dedicated to addressing priority AIS issues). There are approximately 25 GLC staff, 5-6 of which focus the majority of their time on AIS.
  • Successes – Provided support to states and provinces in signing the Brandon Road project partnership agreement. A recent GLC resolution urged federal agencies to list additional species to the least wanted species list (e.g., Hydrilla, Golden Mussels), including adding diploid Grass Carp to the injurious species list. Three species-specific collaboratives (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, Invasive Mussel Collaborative, and European Frog-bit Collaborative) have numerous partners and have advanced IS research and management. The Blue Accounting Initiative tracks progress on stopping species introductions through priority pathways. 
  • Challenges – Emerging threats include climate change climate change
    Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. Though there have been previous periods of climatic change, since the mid-20th century humans have had an unprecedented impact on Earth's climate system and caused change on a global scale.
    
    Learn more about climate change and intersection with invasive species movement and spread; organisms in trade and lack of law enforcement capacity; priority species, including Hydrilla and Marbled Crayfish.
• Karen McDowell (San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP)) — The SFEP is a place-based EPA collaborative program created to leverage resources to support local projects and goals. About 12 staff total – one is dedicated to invasive species work. The program covers the San Francisco Bay as well as the Delta. Priorities include implementing a comprehensive management plan (Estuary Blueprint – where do we want to be in 2050, and what do we need to do in the next five years to get there?). There are 4 goals and 25 actions ranging from water quality to resilience. Action 15 is focused on minimizing the effects of invasive species – prevention, EDRR, establishing a RR fund, creating funding for monitoring and mapping, creating at least one new EDRR framework, working with new eDNA techniques, eradication and control of 2–5 key species, permitting, and best management practices for marine biofouling due to marine mobile infrastructure. The SFEP has participated in meetings to enhance permitting efficiencies. The SFEP co-staffs the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (SFBRA), formed in 2008, and created to generate local revenue for shoreline habitat restoration, public access, and flood protection. In 2016, Measure 8A, a $12 parcel tax, which generates $25 million/year for 20 years, was passed to fund habitat restoration along the shoreline. The SFBRA funds the Invasive Spartina Project, to prevent the spread of invasive Spartina. Since 2000, Spartina acreage has been reduced from 800 acres to less than 23 acres. A biological opinion is now allowing treatment in the 23 acres (were not treated in the past because of the presence of the listed endangered California Ridgway’s Rail species).
  • Emerging issues – The golden mussel, recently detected in Stockton, likely was introduced via either boating or transfer of water. Restoration Authority funding could be used if the mussel were detected in the Bay, but not in the Delta.

Public Comment

There was no public comment. The meeting was adjourned.

Thursday, November 7, 2024

Welcome

Dave Miko (USFWS) welcomed everyone.

Organism in Trade Update: Moss Ball Response

Susan Pasko (USFWS) reviewed the 2021 Marimo moss ball incident, the status of the After-Action Report, and recommendations. Marimo moss balls are a green algae (Aegagropila linnaei) native to areas of Europe. They are easy to purchase in the United States. The concern is that in 2021, imported moss balls with zebra mussels were detected at a pet store in the Seattle area. What made this challenging is zebra mussels are not a plant pest and thus are not included in USDA authority. Our goal was to cease the importation of contaminated moss ball products in the country and ensure proper disposal of those in the supply chain. The response consisted of federal family collaborative coordination, including robust industry and online marketplace engagement, and public engagement. After 2021, several states began to prohibit moss balls, federal law enforcement and invasive species staff meet regularly, imports are required to arrive through JFK or LAX (until August 2023), USFWS is notified of any known or intercepted moss ball shipments with potential for contamination and has advanced the use of eDNA testing at inspection locations. The After-Action Report, completed by Oregon State University, documented what went well and what gaps were identified. The report included recommendations such as:

• Improve notification systems (including obligatory notification for contaminant species)
• Maintain decontamination protocols for species in Organisms in Trade pathway,
• Dedicate funding and increased capacity for Rapid Response
• Enhance risk assessments and monitoring,
• Increase response planning at the state and national level,
• Enhance the use of Incident Command System structure,
• Assess legal authorities to inform flexibility,
• Consider legislation and policy development,
• Develop outreach strategies collaboratively with industry,
• Strengthen relationships with industry, and
• Improve collaboration with law enforcement. 

Since 2021, Kristen Sommers (USFWS) noted USFWS received 17 parcels, which were contaminated and seized. In August 2024, a contaminated shipment from Ukraine was intercepted; no live zebra mussels were detected. A total of 19 states, including 49 businesses, received Marimo moss balls from one Florida distributor. A total of 38 states were identified as secondary recipients from moss balls originally imported into Florida. As of September of this year, there are moss ball state regulations in six states as well as improved coordination and collaboration. However, the 2024 interception identified a key gap in inspection/communication – the shipment did not go through an inspection station. Next steps include continued coordination among federal agencies (e.g., development of Port guidance, a port personnel crosswalk, development of regulatory authorities document), agency review of the After-Action Report, and implementing report recommendations from 2021 incident.

Several questions from ANSTF members focused on whether or not the contaminated moss balls were assessed for other AIS hitchhikers (they were, although not to the species level because of difficulty identifying species), whether thereis there an opportunity to expand the inspection personnel able to inspect shipments, who was responsible for outreach with online marketplaces – Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC), and if eDNA was used to examine samples (a portion of the samples received at inspection facilities have PCR testing).

Next steps – The After-Action Report will be completed soon and an agency review will be conducted before finalizing. Pasko has been working on a summary of the report scheduled to be completed by the end of the month (which would not need a formal agency review) and which would include the recommendations.

Regional Panel Recommendations and Discussion

The Western Regional Panel made a recommendation to prohibit the import of moss balls into the United States because it is an established pathway for invasive mussel introduction. Zebra mussels are listed as injurious and are prohibited – the USFWS does not have the authority to list moss balls as injurious – these and other plants fall under the USDA. David Hanken (MRP-APHIS) stated APHIS does not have the authority to restrict the plant from being imported because of non-plant species hitchhiking on that plant. APHIS does enforce prohibitions that other agencies or departments have published. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) published an embargo to prohibit the importation of lucky bamboo plants imported in standing water; APHIS enforces this embargo. If the USFWS enacts a similar embargo on the plant, then APHIS could enforce the embargo. This link describes moss ball import requirements: https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/acir-document-detail?rowId=a0j3d000000YIa4AAG&Document_Type=Commodity%20Import%20Requirements. Perhaps the USFWS could enact emergency measures if it takes a significant period of time to enact an embargo.

The Western Regional Panel and Northeast Regional Panel made recommendations to increase financial support for the regional panels to accomplish ANSTF goals and objectives. The Northeast Regional Panel noted the authorized amount of funding for the regional panels has been the same for 34 years. The USFWS will continue to support the panels as budgets allow.

The Panel recommended ANSTF encourage regional panels to engage in multi-state coordination and inter-regional panel coordination, when possible, to address an AIS task, which could lead to working closely with other governmental agencies. Often state funding does not allow the state to work outside of the state, which inhibits regional AIS coordination and management. The Executive Secretary will arrange a meeting with panels to identify areas or projects that identify from multi-state coordination and identify authorities and roles that best serve those efforts.

Delaware State Management Plan

Michael Steiger (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife) provided a plan overview, which was funded through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Panel. Input from the ANSTF was very helpful and resulted in an additional 12 pages in the plan. The plant species list includes 23 aquatic plant and animal species that characterizes them as invasive using a NatureServ protocol. Questions were centered on whether or not a goldfish in the plan was misrepresented and whether the intent was to list Grass carp as triploid or diploid. A motion was made to approve Delaware’s plan and seconded, there was no further discussion and the plan was approved.

National New Zealand Mudsnail Management Plan

Martha Volkoff (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) presented the draft National New Zealand Mudsnail Management Plan, which was developed by the Plan Working Group and included broad representation across the United States. The draft plan was submitted to ANSTF in September of 2024. The major revisions included goals and objectives, ongoing activities, and oversight and evaluation. The minor revisions included information about biology, range, impacts, policies, and authorities. The recommendations include 3 goals (protect native species and the environment, equip and mobilize entities to prevent and mitigate impacts, and establish a national framework to respond and minimize effects), 6 objectives (prevent introduction and secondary spread, conduct monitoring and surveillance, respond rapidly to new detections, manage existing infestations, conduct education and outreach, and objectives associated with implementation, information, and data management), 19 strategies, and 46 actions. A few key objectives are focused on managing introductions and spread by vectors based on risk; monitoring and surveillance, outreach and education at all levels. One of the recommendations is designation of an oversight advisory committee to tracking plan implementation. Numerous priority actions across strategies are included in the plan, including pathway prevention, evaluating vulnerability and prioritizing, establishing legal authorities, research, and developing a nationwide programmatic NEPA review covering rapid response to AIS.

Discussion: The plan was completed without additional resources. Given the increase in detections, the timing is right for this plan. A question was asked about whether or not the plan addressed contractors hired by agencies. The plan doesn’t specifically identify permitting or operational mechanisms at that level of granularity, but the plan calls for applying Hazard Analysis (HACCP) planning around activities that serve as a pathway for introduction.

A motion was made and seconded to publish the plan in the Federal Register. There was no further discussion, and no one was opposed to the motion. The plan will be published in the Federal Register for public comment. The Plan work group will address any comments received prior to presenting the ANSTF a final draft for approval. 

Recent Species Detections in California

Martha Volkoff (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) shared information about the recent Golden Mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) detection on October 17, 2024 below the Port of Stockton. Golden mussels are not a restricted species in California. This species has wider calcium, temperature, salinity, and substrate tolerances; can spawn continuously in suitable conditions and exhibit rapid growth and dense colonization. As of November 8, 2024, an interagency leadership team is convening to discuss next steps and direction. Volkoff set the context for the introduction, including the complexity of the co-managed, multi-jurisdictional Delta. There exists 1,100 miles of levees, 738,000 acres, and five counties across a unique system that has many sensitive listed species, agriculture, and urban interface. There are numerous containment challenges including size, access, water conveyances, lack of enforcement authority, personnel, and funding. There have been 3 confirmed Golden Mussel sightings, and suspect Golden Mussels detected in four locations. The distance from initial detection to Clifton Court Forebay is 15 miles and from the Forebay to the detection in the canals 60 miles away in O’Neill Forebay; this is the conveyance system that sends water to Southern California. It is suspected the introduction occurred via shipping. There are hundreds of access points to the Delta for recreationists. Actions in progress include coordinating, spot monitoring, a reporting platform, a webpage, outreach and education, an emergency regulation, scent K9 training, commercial ship tracing, and lab capability enhancement. 

Volkoff also provided information about Nutria eradication in California. A total of 5,274 have been killed, however, there is an increase in populations in Suisun Bay/March. A total of 40–50 staff are working 7 days/week to eradicate Nutria.

Discussion: Is Golden Mussel on the ballast water radar? It was noted California has some of the strongest ballast water regulations, including treatment and open ocean exchange. It was noted from a national and continental point of view, this is one of the newest, highest profile invaders in North America given its invasion history in Hong Kong, Japan, and throughout North America, it will likely spread rapidly. What do we need to do to ensure the species is on watch lists, etc. We should be conscious of checking the Sacramento area based on the detections in Stockton and given the boating that occurs in these interconnected waterways in the engineered Delta system. Consider other vectors, such as biofouling, that could serve as a pathway for these mussels.

RR Fund

Susan Pasko (USFWS) reminded ANSTF members that four cycles of RR fund have been implemented (20 proposals received and 3 were resubmitted) ranging from $68,000 to $908,000. Requests came from federal (6), state (12), Tribal (1), and Territory (1). The current award process, approved by the ANSTF in 2023, makes awards quarterly via discretionary competitive funding opportunities which strive to have all funding decisions finalized within six weeks after each quarterly deadline. With the lessons learned from the first year of implementation, the Rapid Response Fund model process approved by the ANSTF may need to be modified to address projects with a sense of urgency or that address a national priority.

Considerations for expedited review may include species new to the United States or a secondary introduction that did not result from range expansion from an existing population; species identified as high risk; new detections that cannot be easily contained; environmental compliance complete or Cat Ex can be applied. Projects that meet a certain set of criteria could be evaluated and decided upon quickly. Pasko will send the draft criteria to the working group that developed the original criteria and welcome any new individuals that would like to assist in considering modifying the model process to expedite decision making. 

Control Subcommittee Updates

Kim Bogenschutz (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) discussed the process for developing comprehensive control plan guidance. The development process and guidance on plan content was approved in December 2021. The framework has three phases – problem formulation and scoping, risk assessment, risk management and plan decision-making. The final draft is now ready for ANSTF review with comments back by mid-January of 2025. The guidance will help determine if the plan is needed, guidance on how to develop the plan, and how to archive the plan when it is no longer needed. Parts 2 and Parts 3 have previously been approved, but there have been modifications to include plan liaison, plan manager, and plan host entity. 

Other plan updates: The European Green Crab plan is being formatted by the EGC Plan Implementation Working Group, the Lionfish Plan summary will be available soon, and the Snakehead plan currently does not have a plan liaison.

Upcoming projects: Finalize control plan guidance, post the New Zealand Mudsnail Plan in the Federal Register, seek a plan liaison for the Caulerpa Plan, establish a liaison for the Snakehead plan, identify control measure gaps (build a list of researchers and funders who can develop and test new control measures), communicate control and restoration techniques, and assist the Executive Secretary in adding information on new control techniques to the ANSTF newsletter.

Ruffe Control Plan Archival 

Mike Rucinski (USFWS) and Mike Langendorf (Chippewa Ottawa Recourse Authority; Great Lakes Panel Vice Chair) discussed a comprehensive 28-year review of the Great Lakes Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) Control Plan, which included 33 agencies, signatories, and stakeholders to inform a recommendation on next steps, including potential archival. Ruffe are similar to native perch ecologically and have an invasion history in the Great Lakes. Managing the invader in bi-national waters resulted in the formation of the Ruffe Control Committee to develop a plan to control the species in North America. There were 8 objectives and 11 research needs. In 2023, a summary of actions report was produced documenting the control plan and historical actions taken during the past 28 years. The report is intended as an objective compilation of scientific information and is not subjective and does not include anecdotal information or recommendations. Rucinski provided short summaries of the status of objectives, including population reduction, ballast water management, population investigation, surveillance, fish community management, education, baitfish management, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Factors that were considered included; agencies are not currently using the plan to guide Ruffe-specific work; there is no funding attached to the program; all of the objectives have been addressed; and laws, initiatives, regulations, surveillance, and education are in place.

Great Lakes Panel members reviewed the report and provided a memo to the ANSTF on the USFWS recommendation. Great Lakes Panel members provided feedback on the USFWS report but did not consult on the final recommendation. Langendorf noted the purpose and intent of the memo is not to provide a formal recommendation on the fate of the plan, but to convey the sentiment of the importance of Ruffe management. Consensus was not achieved in terms of support for one direction to be taken with the plan, however there is consensus Ruffe is a priority species for management and next steps should consider the option to provide a coordinated and guided response to range expansion.

The USFWS recommendation is to archive the Ruffe Control Program plan, continue to monitor Ruffe in the Great Lakes through the USFWS EDRR Monitoring Program, continue to engage on Ruffe in established forums, and encourage jurisdictions to continue managing and research Ruffe as their resources allow. This does not mean Ruffe are no longer a priority in the Great Lakes.

Discussion: The Ruffe plan is a national control plan, but the only input on this recommendation has come from the Great Lakes Pane. All regional panels should have input on the recommendation. Potential next step is to reach out to the regional panels, share the summary report, and obtain feedback on updating the Ruffe plan, and if interest exists, convene a work group to update the plan. This will be an agenda item at the next meeting. If an update is advisable, request volunteers to assist with the revision. There may be opportunities to support some of the recommendations in the review versus championing a revision of the plan (e.g., maintain prevention as a high priority, interstate and inter-basin needs).

VIDA Intergovernmental Response Framework to ANS Risk

Amanda Garcia (U.S. Coast Guard) provided an update on the 2018 Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) whose purpose is to harmonize the patchwork of USCG, EPA, and state vessel incident discharge and prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants. The regulations will replace EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) and USCG regulations. The USGC is working with ANSTF to establish an ANS risk response framework that will be released with the CG’s VIDA rule. In January, emerging best management practices will be discussed.

Nick Rosenau (Environmental Protection Agency) provided an update of the VIDA National Standards of Performance. In 2020, EPA published a proposed rule that included 3 categories of general standards (general operations, oil management, biofouling management) and 20 specific discharge standards. In 2023, EPA issued supplemental notice that that discussed USCG ballast water management system type-approval data to evaluate the numeric ballast water discharge standard, and outlined additional regulatory options for ballast tanks, graywater systems, and hulls and associated niche areas. The final rule was published on October 9, 2024 in the Federal Register. The rule includes an overview of procedures for state petitions including a review of the standards, emergency orders, establishment of no-discharge zones that prohibit one or more discharges in some or all state waters, and enhanced Great Lakes system requirements. EPA will continue to support USCG as they develop their implementing regulations and is developing guidance for states interested in the petition process. There was a question about whether or not this rule applies to research vessels greater than 79 feet, and the answer was yes. It was also noted that a state could petition the EPA to require a no-discharge zones in all of its state waters.

Update on Emerging Invasive Soft Coral Issue in the Pacific and Caribbean

Joe Krieger (NOAA) provided an update on the Joint Invasive Soft Corals Workgroup, which was formed after detections of two non-indigenous soft corals (Unomia stolonifera and Capnella cf. spicata) in Pearl Harbor, which were replacing hard native corals. While assessing the status of the soft corals, investigators detected six new marine invasive species in Pearl Harbor, which are directly linked to the aquarium trade. The soft corals have also been detected in Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Cuba. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF), which has representation in all seven U.S. coral jurisdictions, was contacted. A joint subgroup consisting of USCRTF/ANSTF was formed and drafted objectives relative to research, communications, regulatory tools, and resources to enhance local capacity. Some initial group successes included development of a Congressional two-pager, highlighting this topic in the NOAA Postcard from the Field, and receipt of a Strategic Ecological Research Development Program $2.4 million award.

There may be ways the subgroup can leverage ANSTF infrastructure and expertise, such as support creating marine biosecurity plan, ANSTF participation in territorial marine biosecurity trainings, incorporating coral reef invasive species/marine biosecurity into next strategic plan, and resources. 

Vanitha Sivarajan (Office of Insular Affairs) presented information on the DOI Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) support for biosecurity in the islands. The OIA coordinates federal policy for the territories (except Puerto Rico). Funding mechanisms include the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, America the Beautiful Challenge, and Inflation Reduction Act. OIA grant programs for the 7 insular areas include the Coral Reef and Natural Resources Initiative and Technical Assistance Program. Sivarajan highlighted six projects OIA has supported to enhance marine biosecurity, including the Southeastern University Coral Fellows Program, the Guam Coral Reef Initiative Projects, the CNMI Coral Reef Initiative Projects, American Samoa Marine Invasive Species Detection Program, Coral Disturbance Response in the U.S. Virgin Islands to Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, and Surveillance, Planning, RR, and Community Education for Marine Invasive Species in Apra Harbor, Guam. The Territorial Climate and Infrastructure Workshop is supported by OIA to connect territorial climate and infrastructure needs with agency resources and technical assistance. Examples of topics discussed include water, built infrastructure, nature-based solutions, invasive species, broadband, and energy. OIA also supported regional biosecurity training in Guam.

Marine biosecurity priorities including establishing port inspection protocols, designating no-discharge zone for ballast water and biofouling, learning more about VIDA in the region, conducting baseline surveys of marine nearshore species and risk assessments, understanding NEPA requirements, training on Stoney Coral Tissue Loss Disease prevention, and creating a biosecurity regulatory framework.

Ex-officio Roundtable Part 2

Note: Adam Carpenter (American Water Works Association) was not available to present and will be scheduled for the next ANTSF Roundtable session.

Jenny Carney (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center - SERC) shared information about SERC, a 2,600-acre research campus of the Smithsonian Institution in Chesapeake Bay. The Marine Invasives Research Laboratory is the largest laboratory at SERC with locations in the Chesapeake Bay and in San Francisco Bay. Scientists have worked on a diversity of marine issues, such as coral diseases, the baitworm trade, management of vessel biofouling, seagrass wasting disease, invasive species rafting on ocean plastics, mitten crabs, and species dispersal through shipping networks. SERC focuses primarily on invasive dynamics and examine interactions of native and non-native species. The lab has collaborated for more than 25 years with the USCG and other partners to evaluate efficacy of ballast water management. SERC also tracks and synthesizes marine and estuarine invasions via the National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System (NEMESIS). SERC also does field sampling and detection of ANS in more than 40 bays in coastal North America. The National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) tracks the status and trends of ballast water delivery and management via more than 1,000 ships. Online national data resources include https://nbic.si.edu/ and https://invasions.si.edu/nemesis. Recent AIS priorities and successes include ensuring accurate data collection for vessel management practices, tracking changing ballast water management patterns in response to regulations, detailed field survey and taxonomic analysis of benthic and plankton communities in major ports, sampling ballast water of ships at major us ports, and establishing the COMBINA network (Coastal Ocean Marine Biosecurity International Network of the Americas). Emerging AIS threats/challenges include tools and protocols to assess vessel biofouling risk, golden mussel spread and management, ship sampling, evaluating the effects of management on invasion rate, and taxonomic identification and resources, including reconciling morphological and genetic sampling. SERC appreciates being part of coordinated and collaborative efforts with ANSTF.

Charlie Robertson (Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission - GSMFC) discussed the role of the commission to promote better use and protection of marine resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Funding comes from NOAA, USFWS, and more recently, disaster relief funds and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. GSMFC’s role in AIS management includes regional coordination, technical support, research leadership, and management strategies.

Recent AIS priorities and actions include control and eradication of established species, prevention of new AIS introductions, AIS research, and public awareness campaigns. Emerging threats include climate change impacts, ballast water management challenges, organism trade introductions, and increased aquaculture expansion. The nexus with ANSTF is enhanced coordination, funding support, research and data sharing, and policy development. Goals for ANSTF membership includes influencing AIS policy, interagency collaboration, and access to resources.

Kim Bogenschutz (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies - AFWA) discussed the AFWA Invasive Species Committee, which is one of more than 70 AFWA committees, subcommittees, and workgroups. The Invasive Species Committee is charged with providing a national forum for exchanging information and identifying and coordinating the needs and actions among participating entities to address high priority invasive species threats and to promote sound policies. There is a feral swine working group to keep agencies updated about feral swine policy and management. Current administrative priorities include rotenone re-registration (the EPA is requiring an inhalation study on rotenone), but the cost is prohibitive for the registrant (about $1 million). AFWA is conducting a survey on rotenone with Fisheries Chiefs – a total of 35 out of 50 states have responded. Federal invasive species priorities include or have included Lacey Act amendments, Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, Stop the Spread of Invasive Mussels Act (2023), Aquatic Invasive Species Commission (2023), State Boating Act (2024), and Presidential/Congress Transition Recommendations. The EDRR Framework Survey received 140 responses; priorities include information and resources, better communication and coordination, training and tools, collaboration and networking, and funding and resource support. Results of the survey have been shared with the EDRR National Framework group on topics, such as RR fund, eDNA information, horizon scans and watchlists, and hotspot analysis and tools (webinar recordings are available online). Other projects include crayfish hitchhikers, Prussian carp special session, moss balls and zebra mussels, and the September AFWA meeting. Virtual quarterly meetings will continue (the next one is January 24, 2025). The in-person meeting will occur March 9-13, 2025 in Louisville, KY.

Dennis Zabaglo (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - TRPA) talked about Lake Tahoe characteristics (one of the clearest large lakes in the world, oligotrophic, over 1,640 feet deep, and 72 miles of shoreline straddling Nevada and California, 12 miles wide and 22 miles long, and a 600-year retention time). There are multiple jurisdictions (two states, five counties, one city) and a $5 billion recreation-based economy. TRPA is a compact regulatory agency formed by Congress and ratified in 1969 by California and Nevada governed by a 15-member governing board charged with developing and enforcing regulations to ensure environmental thresholds are not impacted (e.g., water quality, recreation). Everything in Lake Tahoe requires a TRPA permit that incorporates an environmental review process. An Environmental Improvement Program was initiated in the 1980s – the AIS program is part of this program. TRPA is the lead of the interstate Lake Tahoe AIS Management Plan.

Highest priorities include prevention to reduce the threat of new invaders using mandatory boat inspection program (with partners) to inspect each boat prior to launching. TRPA received Bipartisan Infrastructure funding and are developing permanent locations for our inspection and decontamination stations. New Zealand Mudsnails were discovered in September 2023; efforts are focused on voluntary non-motorized prevention efforts (likely the vector that introduced this species) supplemented with roving inspectors and waterless cleaning stations (CD3). The Tahoe Keys is the highest priority for control projects because of invasive weed infestations – 170 acres of waterways – 1,500 private homes in an area that was once part of the largest wetland in the Sierras. Harmful algal blooms have been increasing in this area, where mechanical harvesting occurs to remove invasive plant biomass. TRPA used aquatic herbicides (one-time application) paired with ultraviolet (UV) light followed by bottom barriers and hand pulling with a goal of reducing plant biomass by 75%. The Taylor Tallac Creeks Ecosystem Restoration Project (in partnership with U.S. Forest Service) is focused on a 17-acre infestation of Eurasian Watermilfoil in a marsh. If the project is successful, the marsh will be restored and provide habitat for most Tahoe native species (e.g., Lahontan Cutthroat). Other high priorities include surveillance (post-treatment and before long-term monitoring), monitoring and tracking abundance of invasive species using a variety of tools (e.g., eDNA, transects, etc.), plankton tows and mandatory AIS management plans at marinas to support EDRR efforts, and campaigns that are meaningful and attractive to engage the recreational public have been important. TRPA has also been expanding outreach to Spanish language individuals.

Emerging threats include New Zealand Mudsnails, research, Golden Mussels (it is the closest invasive mussel to Tahoe), and climate change. TRPA engagement on the strategic plan with ANSTF provides a framework for programs that move the needle. Information sharing and networking, lessons learned, and support for state and species management plans is beneficial.

Rob Bourgeois (Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resources Association - MICRA) noted the Mississippi River Basin is the 4^th largest watershed in the world and the largest in the United States and covers 41% of the land mass in the United States. A total of 28 state agencies, federal agencies, and two Tribes formed MICRA in 1990 to improve interjurisdictional fisheries.It is a non-binding voluntary partnership with no regulatory authority and no dedicated staff. MICRA is seeking authorization for formation of the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission to ensure long-term sustainability of interjurisdictional fisheries resources through cooperative, multi-agency fisheries management, including coordinated management and control of high priority AIS such as invasive carps and Dreissenid mussels and developing and implementing a research program to support management.  A Commission would provide for a cooperative and structured approach for interagency planning, implementation, and evaluation of management actions to achieve collaboratively established management objectives for shared interjurisdictional fishery resources in the Basin, including AIS prevention, management, and control. MICRA’s AIS priorities over the past 5 years have been a combination of policy and management priorities, including expansion of federal efforts and appropriations to manage and control invasive carps to all six sub-basins of the Mississippi River basin, increased funding for regional panels and interstate management plans, addressing downriver movement of AIS from the Great Lakes, invasive carp deterrents at a basin level, strengthening the Injurious Wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act, promoting consistent basin-wide regulatory approaches for management of AIS, and supporting national efforts to address organisms in trade with model regulations and expanding tools such as GLDIATR to a national scale.

Emerging threats are inadequate funding and staffing resources. Pathways of concern include organisms in trade, particularly eCommerce, live baitfish, and pet releases, and the transfer of more AIS from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River Basin through the Chicago Area Waterway System. Species issues vary greatly across the basin due to its size. Species native to one region of the basin can be invasive in another part of the basin, e.g., red swamp crayfish.In a survey of MRBP members in 2024 regarding their five highest priority AIS, 49 different species were identified, which demonstrates the magnitude and complexity of AIS in the basin.

MICRA’s nexus with the ANSTF is the opportunity for information exchange with the member agencies and other regional panels. Using opportunities such as the the report to Congress to communicate shared priorities, gaps, needs, and opportunities for improved prevention, management, and control of AIS. ANSTF helps to identify priorities for collaboration and identifies opportunities for Federal agencies to direct resources to address priority issues.

Mitzi Reed (Native American Fish and Wildlife Society - NAFWS) described the mission of NAFWS to assist tribes with the conservation, protection, and enhancement of wildlife resources via a team of staff that provide technical assistance. There are seven regions within NAFWS; national priorities may not be priorities for tribes. NAFWS assists in communicating tribal priorities. NAFWS can connect ANSTF to other NAFWS staff (grant management, education, etc.).

The NAFWS invasive species program has eight objectives driven by tribal priorities and intended to inform long-term sustainable invasive species management. NAFWS success has included expansion of its footprint (regional and national planning), including peer-led workshops and webinars. Priorities include prevention and management of quagga mussel, northern pike, elodea, milfoil, European green crab, and invasive carp. Challenges include capacity and funding as well as engaging with the appropriate Tribal staff in each Tribe. The nexus with ANSTF is access to experts that can support addressing new invasions, securing funding, hosting trainings, and creating opportunities for peer-to-peer training.

Meeting Summary

Decisional and Action Items are listed at the beginning of the meeting minutes.

Public Comment

No comments.

Adjourn meeting

There was a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded. There was no discussion. The meeting was adjourned.

The next meeting of the ANS Task Force is May 13 -15, 2025 in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.