exploratory forum detecting the occurrence and spread of nonnative aquatic invasive species –

Exploratory ForumDetecting the Occurrence and Spread of Nonnative Aquatic Invasive Species –

Linkages with Comprehensive Monitoring of Aquatic Systems in the Pacific Northwest

Invasive species detection efforts taking place at various scales

But how do these efforts relate to the monitoring of species, habitats, and ecosystems where invasive species are found?

Articulation of NeedDevelopment of PlansImplementationData & Analyses

Aquatic Monitoring

Invasives Monitoring

Aquatic Monitoring

Invasives Monitoring

Why Monitor Non-native Aquatic Invasive Species?

They’re a problem!

Hundreds of nonnative species in the Pacific Northwest

Threat to native species

Nationally = billions of dollars

2 3 7 10 10

30

76

771

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Am

ph

ibia

ns

Re

ptil

es

Bir

ds

Cru

sta

cea

ns

Ma

mm

als

Mo

llusk

s

Fis

h

Pla

nts

No

n-in

dig

eno

us

spec

ies

Non-indigenous taxa

(Sanderson)

0

25

50

75

100

125

WA OR ID

Nu

mb

er

of

fish

sp

ecie

s

54%

46%

60%

Non-listed Native Fish

Introduced Fish

State Species of Concern

ESA listed Native Fish

(Sanderson)

Why Monitor Non-native Aquatic Invasive Species?

We have lots of questions

Distribution and abundance

Pathways of introduction

Impacts

Effectiveness of management programs

Area Impacted by StressorsWest Coast Small Estuaries 1999

0 20 40 60 80

NIS present

NIS>50% natives

Sed toxicity

DO <5mg/L

Chromium >ERM

TOC > 5%

Mercury >ERM

Total DDT >ERM

Percent Area

0.1%

0.1%

Invasive Species Present

Invasive Species > 50% Natives

Sediment Toxicity

Dissolved Oxygen < 5 mg/l

Chromium > Effects Range Median

Total Organic Carbon > 5%

Mercury > Effects Range Median

Total DDT > Effects Range Median

RELATIVE RISK: EXTENT OF STRESSORS IN PACIFIC COAST ESTUARIES

(Lee and Reusser)

Why Monitor Non-native Aquatic Invasive Species?

To find new ones and evaluate the effects of established species

Early detection is key to the success of rapid response

New species continue to arrive

Effects of propagule pressure on ecosystems and communities

Number of Atlantic salmon escaping from Washington and British Columbia fish farms

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

British Columbia

Washington

(Phillips)

Why Monitor Non-native Aquatic Invasive Species?

Because the law says to!

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990

National Invasive Species Act of 1996

Executive Order #13112

Integrative Efforts

The Natural ResourcesMonitoring Partnership

NISC . . . ANSTF . . . ICAIS . . .

Hurdles

•Lack of adequate information exchange about aquatic invasives even within organizations•Monitoring programs overburdened, and invasives programs more focused on species than systems•Data systems lacking or incompatible with similar systems•Focus on detection but less emphasis on long-term monitoring

Opportunities

•Programs to identify, compare and list data bases, and monitoring protocols•Understanding of need to forge linkages among monitoring and detection programs•Mutual interest in biotic communities, ecosystem properties, global change, imperiled species •Early detection - better developed, more easily integrated•Long term monitoring of trends, project effectiveness, community / ecosystem effects - more problematic, but opportunities great

http://www.pnamp.org/web/workgroups/SC/meetings/2006_0613/2006_0613InvasiveForumSynthesisNotes.pdf