HomeMy WebLinkAbout020Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Michelle Farfan < MFarfan@cojefferson.wa.us>
Monday, January 30,2017 12:52 PM
Don Coleman
Garth Mann (Garth.Mann@statesmangrou p.com); Patty Charnas
FW: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Tunicate Management Plan.pdf
Hi Don
Attached for your info per our phone conversation - I have not read it as of yet since I just received it.
Jesse mentioned that WDFW does not have an adaptive management program as funding for it was cut in
2011. However, he did mention that, as in the past, will continue to work with you/developer regarding documentation
of siting of tunicates, etc.
Regards,
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Brinnon MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
62l Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
V: 350-379-4463
F:360-379-445L
mfa rfa n @co. ieffe rso n.wa. us
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail
and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Schultz, Jesse M (DFW) [mailto:Jesse.Schultz@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 30,2017 12:19 PM
To: M ichel le Fa rfan < M Fa rfa n @co.jefferson.wa. us>
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Jesse Schultz
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Aquatic lnvasive Species Unit
360 480-210s
Natural Resource Building
1111 Washington St SE 6th Floor
Olympia WA 98501
1
fls-?
From : M ichelle Fa rfan [mailto: M Farfan@co.iefferson.wa. us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24,20L7 1:51 PM
To: Pleus, Allen E (DFW)
Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Good afternoon Allen
I am the planner forJefferson County now assigned to the Brinnon Master Planned Resort project proposed by Garth
Mann of Statesman that involves 890 housing units, t hole golf course with lots of amenities.
ln 2008, through the comprehensive plan amendment and EIS process, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
placedseveralconditionsperordinance0l-0128-03ofwhichlhaveattached. Specificallyonpage14conditiont,states
that the marina needs to be monitored and to maintain an inventory of tunicates and other invasive species and to
participate with county and state agencies in an adaptive management program,
My question to you is does WDFW have an adaptive management program and if so is there some sort of process the
applicant needs to go through with WDFW to become part of this adaptive management program?
I will be headed to the BOCC in the not too distant future with development regulations and development agreement
and need to make sure the ordinance conditions have been met.
Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.
Regards,
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Brinnon MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
62l Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
V: 360-379-4463
F:360-379-4457
mfarfa n @co. iefferson.wa.us
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail
and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
2
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
2007-09 Tunicate Management Plan
Prepared by:
Allen Pleus, Larry LeClair, and Jesse Schultz
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife:
Aquatic Nuisance Species Unit
And
Gretchen Lambert
In coordination with the
Tunicate Response Advisory Committee
February 2008
=.tl 1=. .i. ^-
-
cyr
-
rll-
:<4r.l Ll---*:.,*l:,
\lfJ /I
h r/
3
WDFW Pleus et a1,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Citation:
Pleus et al, 2008
Pleus, A., L. LeClair, J. Schultz, and G. Lambert. 2008.2007-09 Tunicate Management Plan.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Aquatic Invasive Species Unit. In
coordination with the Tunicate Response Advisory Committee. February.
Cover photo by Allen Pleus - Larry LeClair holding Didemnum vexillum encrusted feather duster worm casings
from Docton Park Marina eradication action.
2
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Problem Definition
Tunicate Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l.l.l Invasive Concern .............6
1.1.2 Discovery & Introduction Pathways .........8
1.1.3 Affected State Agencies and Stakeholders.......... ........................10
1.2. Present Status ll
2. TUNICATE SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT TOOLS .......... I 3
2.1. Overview of Tunicate Life History, Biology, and Ecology......................................13
2.2 Field Management Methods
2.2.1. Mechanical Methods
2.2.2. Chemical Methods
2.2.3. Biological Methods
2.2.4. Integrated Methods
2.3. 2007 -09 Management Priorities
2.3.1. Styela clava containment
2.3.2. Seek reclassification by rule of non-native tunicates. ................19
2.3.3. Identify, classify, and demarcate infested waters .,,,,,,,,,20
2.3.4. Acquire necessary permits for the use of chemical control
2.3.5. Restrict introduction pathways ...........20
3. GOALS, OBJECTIYES, AND TASKS .,,,,,,,,,21
3.1 Prevent the Introduction of New ANS .,,,,,,,..21
3.2 Control, Contain, or Eradicate Established ANS Populations ................22
3.3 Predict or DetectNew or Recurring ANS.......... ..................23
3.4 Coordinate/Collaborate in State, Regional, National, and Int. ANS Processes.........25
3.5 Promote Public Education and Volunteer Opportunities......... ................26
3.6 Promote Biodiversity and Restoration............ .....................26
5
...6
.16
.......... I 8
..........1 8
l8
l8
.18
J
WDFW Pleus et al,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
4. MEET LEGISLATIVE OR FUNDING DIRECTIVES...
4.1 2006 Legislative Supplemental Budget - Phase 2
4.2 Govemor's 2007-2009 Puget Sound Conservation & Recovery Plan
4.3 RCW 77.12.879 Directives
5. AUTHORITIES
5.1 Acts
5.2 RCWs & WACs
5.3 Other
6. PERSONNEL, BUDGET, & CONTRACTING
6.1 Personnel Required for Management Plan
6.2 Current and Forecasted Budget for Biennium
6.3 Current and Forecasted Contracting Activities for Biennium
7. REFERENCES
8. APPENDIXES
Appendix A: WDFW Strategic Plan Goals
Appendix B: TRAC Charter & Participants
Appendix C: ANS Unit Strategic Plan Contents
Appendix D: Tunicate Species Accounts
Appendix E: Relevant RCWs
Appendix F: Relevant WACs
.27
.27
)R
J
4
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
The Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) is charged by the state legislature to
prevent the introduction or spread of prohibited and unlisted aquatic animal or plant species'.
This effort supports priority WDFW fish and wildlife, public, funding, competence and science
goals (Appendix A). The WDFW Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Unit is tasked with
implementation of these regulations and other legislative directives.
The Tunicate Management Plan (TMP) has been developed in response to a widespread
agreement among the ad hoc Tunicate Response Advisory Committee (TRAC) that invasive non-
native tunicates pose a substantial threat to Washington's environmental, economic, and social
health. Based on this recognition, the governor authorized $250,000 in emergency and
supplemental funding for 2006 and2007. Funding for the 2007-09 biennium, for which this
TMP is directed, comes from the govemor's budget of $500,000 to the Puget Sound Partnership.
WDFW has contracted $300,000 of this funding to lead state management efforts in assessing
the ongoing risks and implementing strategies for controlling or eradicating already established
populations.
TRAC is was originally established by the Puget Sound Action Team and is made up of
representatives from state and federal agencies, tribal governments, environmental groups, and
affected industry stakeholders (Appendix B). The TMP is built on an adaptive management
structure and a collaborative approach to addressing invasive species. The TMP is one of many
WDFW management plans developed, or in development, by the ANS Unit as part of its overall
strategic plan (Appendix C). The basis of all ANS management plans is six unit goals including:
l) Prevent the introduction of new ANS;
2) Control, contain, or eradicate established ANS populations;
3) Predict and detect new or recurring ANS;
4) Coordinate / collaborate in state, regional, national, and intemationalANS processes;
5) Promote public education and volunteer opportunities; and
6) Promote biodiversity and restoration.
The TMP is structured with this chapter describing the problem being faced and the current
status of invasive tunicates in state waters. The second chapter provides the best available
science regarding the target species and tools for preventing introductions and managing known
populations. The third chapter lays out the 2007-09 priority objectives and tasks under each unit
sub-goal. The rest of the chapters provide information on the department's management
infrastructure. The TMP is considered an adaptive document where knowledge gained will be
incorporated back into the plan and utilized as best available science and management tools. A
new TMP is produced biennially unless new information requires earlier revisions.
5
'RCw 77.12.020
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
1.1. Problem Definition
The problem of non-native tunicates can be defined in three parts including invasive concern,
invasive pathways, and affected state agencies and stakeholders. The combination of these parts
provides a comprehensive overview of why WDFW has developed this management plan.
1.1.1 Invasive Concern
There are seven non-native tunicates currently reported as established to some degree in state
waters (Table l). Three of these are of primary invasive concern to WDFW resource managers
and local stakeholders and are the focus of this management plan. The regulatory definition of
invasive2 is a plant species or a non-native animal species that either: (a) causes or may cause
displacement of, or otherwise threatens, native species in their natural communities; (b) threatens
or may threaten natural resources or their use in the state; (c) causes or may cause economic
damage to commercial or recreational activities that are dependent upon state waters; or (d)
threatens or harms human health. The remaining four are of secondary invasive concern as they
have not demonstrated a high invasive threat, but are being monitored within the context of the
management plan.
Table 1. List of seven non-native tunicate species considered invasive (priority) or potentially invasive (secondary)
inW State waters.
Risk to Native Species and Natural Communities
Tunicates are evolutionarily advanced invertebrate marine animal organisms. The species listed
above are documented prolific spawners capable of rapid territorial expansions when introduced
to regions outside their native range. Once established, these tunicates can displace most native
organisms by out-competing them for food and space, and potentially by consuming the spawn
or larvae of other marine species. The presence of non-native tunicates can lead to profound
disruptions of naturally functioning ecosystems by altering species interactions, nutrient cycling,
and energy flow (Carlton 2001). Disruptions to the natural biological and physical processes of
marine communities often leads to decreased biological diversity on local scales and increased
ecosystem homogenization over much larger geographic scales (Ruesink 1998). Marine resource
management strategies in Washington rely primarily on natural production to maintain and
restore populations. Natural production of native species is heavily dependent on the
biodiversity afforded through the structure, function, and integrity of undisturbed ecological
systems.
6
Scientific Name Common Name Invasive Level
Styela clava Club tunicate Priority
Ciona savimyi Transparent tunicate Priority
Didemnum vexillum Colonial tunicate Priority
Botryllo ide s v io laceus Chain tunicate Secondary
Botryllus schlosseri Golden star tunicate Secondary
Molgula manhattensis Sea grape tunicate Secondary
Ciona intestinalis Vase tunicate Secondary
' RCw 77.ol.oro(49)
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Risk to Natural Resources
Based on our review of the data, we assume that specific state natural marine resources of
highest concern include: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); salmonids; geoduck and other
shellfish and crustacean wildstock; and rockfish.
In Puget Sound, a network of MPAs has been established with the primary objective of providing
localized protection of biological diversity, critical habitat, and to enable the process of
ecological succession. The effectiveness of the state's MPAs as valuable conservation and
management tools are threatened by invasive tunicates disrupting the natural balance of those
marine communities. MPAs are used worldwide for conserving natural and cultural marine
resources. These areas provide refuge for species population segments, non-consumptive
recreational opportunities, baseline information sources from unexploited populations, and
presumed biological replenishment to nearby non-protected areas.
Salmonids are part of an actively managed billion-dollar commercial and recreational fishing
industry. Many stocks are threatened and endangered. Large populations of invasive tunicates
would indirectly affect salmonids through disruption of the food chain at both the planktonic and
food fish levels, and the removal of nearshore habitat that provides protection from predators. A
reduction of food at the planktonic scale threatens both filter-feeder food fish and juvenile
salmonid fish. Reduced food fish will in turn threaten adult salmonid fish populations
Geoduck (Panopea abrupta), sea urchins (Snonglyocentrotus droebachiensls and S.
franciscanus), sea cucumbers (Parastichopus califurnicus), and Dungeness crabs are actively
managed sub-tidal shellfish and crustacean resources that form the basis of a multimillion-dollar
commercial and recreational industry in Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan
de Fuca. Geoduck and other in-faunal bivalve clams are vulnerable to smothering caused by the
benthic carpeting effect of large colonies of invasive tunicates, particularly C. savignyi and
Didemnum vexillum. Sea urchins, sea cucumbers and Dungeness crabs are benthic grazers that
feed primarily on algae and detritus on both hard and soft substrate.
Rockfish are actively managed game fish with populations on the decline in Puget Sound. These
fish are threatened from invasive tunicates by substrate over-dominance that reduces the amount
of food available to these and other benthic feeding animals and limits available substrate for
egg-laying invertebrates and demersal fishes.
Risk to Commercial and Recreotionol Resources
Washington is the top producer of farmed clams, oysters and mussels in the U.S. and many
consider its shellfish production to be the most technologically advanced in the world.
Invasive tunicates have severely impacted shellfish aquaculture facilities in other parts of the
world by smothering shell stock and overburdening harvest equipment, often resulting in
devastating financial losses to the industry (LeBlanc etal.2007; Lambert and Lambert2003;
Lambert 2001). Given these impacts to aquaculture enterprises elsewhere in the world,
Washington's aquaculture industry is considered highly vulnerable to the effects of invasive
tunicates (LeBlanc et al.2007, Bullard et at.2007a, Forrest 2007).
7
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
The unique geographic advantages Puget Sound affords to the maritime trades industry also
makes it particularly susceptible to introductions of non-native marine plants and animals from
ballast water and hull-fouling pathways. Dense infestations of invasive tunicates on docks,
watercraft hulls, and other floating structures can add weight and surface area that may result in
increased susceptibility to storm and water damage, and mitigation efforts can lead to increased
maintenance and operation costs. The state's natural advantages are derived from its l2 marine
cargo terminals and internationally known deep draft ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The Ports of
Seattle and Tacoma are world-class facilities that move a combined cargo volume ranking them
the second largest container load center in the Westem Hemisphere and the eleventh largest in
the world. These Puget Sound ports connect Washington and the interior and eastern United
States markets to Asian markets. The region also houses dozens of public and private marina
and boatyard facilities.
Aquatic shorelines, both public and private, form a cornerstone of Washington's cultural, social,
and economic identity. Countless thousands are drawn to the region's marine environment and
the aesthetic and recreational opportunities it affords. Eco-tourism is a burgeoning industry in
Washington and is heavily dependant on the presence of undisturbed native habitat and wildlife
viewing opportunities. Fouling of nearshore marine habitat by non-native tunicates may result in
decreased recreational opportunities by hampering access to tidelands, decreasing wildlife and
habitat viewer enjoyment, and reducing recreational shellfish harvest opportunities.
Riskto Human Health
There are no known human health concerns regarding invasive tunicates.
1.1.2 Discovery & Introduction Pathways
The primary pathway for introduction from outside our state waters is believed to be hull fouling
from trans-oceanic vessels and ballast water discharge from coastal vessel traffic. The primary
pathways for spread within state waters are believed to be hull fouling on recreational and
commercial watercraft and the movement of contaminated aquaculture products or growing
equipment.
The club tunicate Styela clava, the transparent tunicate Ciona savignyi, and the colonial tunicate
Didemnum vexillum. (Figure l) were each first discovered in Washington in 1998 (C. savignyi
and S. clava in Cohen et al. 1998; D. sp.in Lambert 2006). Ciona savignyi is native to the
northeast Asian Pacific coast and has spread throughout the north Pacific (Cohen et al. 1998). It
is believed to have reached Puget Sound either as adults attached to ships arriving from the
northeast Asian ports, and potentially as larvae discharged with ballast water into Puget Sound
(Cohen et al. 1998) . Styela clava is also native to northeast Asia and is now known to occur in
temperate waters throughout the world. Researchers suspect that it was transported to Puget
Sound on the hulls of recreational watercraft arriving from Canada (Puget Sound Action Team
2007;Lambert2003). Didemnum vexillum. is distributed worldwide; however, the taxonomic
status of D. vexillum. found in Washington waters is not clear, thus its origin and relationship to
D. vexillum. found elsewhere in the world remains uncertain (Bullard et al.2007a). It is believed
that the D. vexillum. found in Washington is probably native to Japan and was likely introduced
8
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
into state waters along with imported oyster seed in (G. Lambert, personal communication).
Didemnum vexillum. has carpeted expansive areas of the Georges Bank in recent years and has
caused considerable concern among fisheries managers over potential impacts to groundfish and
shellfish stocks in that region (Valentine et at.2007a).
Figure l. Three non-native tunicates of primary concern in Washington State showing typical growth habits in
Puget Sound. Photos by Janna Nichols (5. clova and C. savignyi) and Rhoda Green (D. sp.).
The remaining four non-native species (Botrylloides violaceus, Botryllus schlosseri, Molgula
manhattensrs, and Ciona intestinalis) are of secondary invasive concern (Figure 2). Botrylloides
violaceus and B. schlosseri (star tunicates) have been established in Washington for more than
40 years and their occurrence is widespread throughout Puget Sound (Lambert 2005a; Lambert
2005b). Molgula manhattensrs (sea grape) was first found in Washington in Oakland Bay near
the southern end of Puget Sound in 1998 (Cohen et al. 1998) and was later found in 2000 in
Willapa Bay on the outer coast (Cohen et al.200l). It has not since been discovered anywhere
else in Washington. Two individual C. intestinairs have been found in Puget Sound (Sinclair
Inlet) - one each in 2000 and2006 (Lambert 2006); however, to date, no additional animals have
been seen.
None of these four tunicate species are perceived as posing an imminent threat to native species,
the aquaculture industries, or the wildstock shellfish harvest industries at this time. They have
not shown tendencies to over-dominate substrates when present and their occurrence is either
very rare or, when pervasive, their presence at any single location appears to be ephemeral.
Nevertheless, some of these species have caused significant environmental and economic
damage elsewhere. For instance, a rapid infestation of C. intestinalis in Marlborough Sound,
New Zealand, is estimated to have cost that region's shellfish industry ten million dollars in lost
production (Forrest 2007), and both C. intestinalrs and B. schlosserihave had detrimental
impacts on aquaculture facilities in Nova Scotia (Cayer 1999).
9
'' ).1
,\lt'.t'cltt c'lrtvtt
\1z I
Dr Didcmrutnt sp.
to:
.\
a q .'T lr
'('ionu stn'i{pSti
ffiIETI
,rl
tu .l;
(' it ttttr i ttl t, :l i tttr I i.:B@tyI I o i da.s v i o I t r c'a t r.s
Fs
l,
I*
.{
.-7-.i
(,
'R,');tffil&I
il I
Itr
T.:E I
Y.I
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Figure 2. Four non-native tunicates of secondary invasive concem in Washington State showing typical growth
habits in Puget Sound. Photos by J. Nichols (8. violaceus), B. Picton (8. schlosseri), M. de Kluijver (M
manhattensis), and K. Hiscock (C. intestinalis).
1.1.3. Affected State Agencies and Stakeholders
The following are Washington State agency roles in this response.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife responds to, controls and attempts to eradicate non-
native animals. Historically, WDFW has not had sufficient resources to effectively respond to
the presence of non-native marine animals. Initialefforts to control the spread of non-native
tunicates relied largely upon public awareness campaigns and the use of volunteer divers to
remove tunicates from a small number of sites.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the state aquatic lands steward, and is
charged with ensuring that state trust lands are managed and protected in the best public interest.
They must determine that lease opportunities are not adversely affected by pollution or other
threats including non-native species and responds to non-native species found on state-managed
submerged lands.
Washington Department of Ecology (WDE) may authorize the use of chemicals and biocides in
water to kill invasive plants and animals. Last year, the department issued emergency waivers to
control the non-native colonial tunicate D. sp.at Edmonds Underwater Park.
The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) coordinates and supports interagency efforts to contain, stop
the spread of, and attempt the eradication of non-native animals in the Puget Sound region.
These control and eradication efforts are consistent with the priorities of the PSP to protect
critical areas that provide important ecological functions, and to restore degraded habitat.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Committee (ANSC) consists of representatives from WDFW,
WDE, WDNR, Washington Department of Agriculture (WSDA), the Washington Department of
Health, the Washinglon State Patrol, the Washington noxious weed control board, and
Washington Sea Grant Program. Pursuant to RCW 77.60.130, the committee encourages
participation from other stakeholder groups and places special emphasis on preventing the
introduction and spread ofaquatic nuisance species.
The Tunicate Response Advisory Committee (TRAC) is comprised of federal, state, tribal,
industry, academic experts, and citizen stakeholders. It convenes periodically to discuss and
formulate non-native tunicate management strategies for Washington State.
The Invasive Species Council (lSC) exists under the Recreation and Conservation Office to
provide policy, direction, planning, and coordination for non-native species in Washington. lts
membership currently includes representatives from six Washington state entities and two
counties.
10
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
1.2. Present Status
Limited rapid visual assessment (RVA) non-native species surveys have been conducted in
Washington since 1998. The primary objective of these RVA's has been to collect information
on the geographic distribution and relative abundance of non-native marine and estuarine aquatic
species in general (both plants and animals) and of tunicates specifically, including the three
non-native tunicates deemed to pose the greatest threat to the environment and industry (Cohen
et al. 1998, Cohen et al. 2001, Lambert 2007, WDFW unpublished data).
In 1998 and 2000, a multi-institutional team of investigators conducted synoptic surveys for non-
native aquatic species throughout Puget Sound and adjacent inland marine waters (1998); and
regionally focused synoptic surveys in Elliot Bay, Totten and Eld Inlets, and Willapa Bay
(2000)(Cohen et al. 1998, 2001). The 1998 survey examined 23 primary sites as well as nine
secondary sites, all within the greater Puget Sound region. Non-native tunicates were identified
from at least ten of those sites. Non-native tunicates were also reported from an undisclosed
number of sites in the appendix to Cohen et al. 1998. The 2000 survey examined 27 sites over
three regions and non-native tunicates were found in each region.
In 2003 and2004 the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), as part of a
geographically broad-scale multi-agency effort to evaluate the presence of non-native aquatic
species in and near marine sanctuaries, surveyed sites on the outer coast of the Olympic
Peninsula and Padilla Bay in northern Puget Sound. Results from those surveys showed that,
coast wide, non-native tunicates comprised more than 50% of the species richness for their
member taxon and nearly 50% within the OCNMS (deRivera et al. 2005).
In fall of 2005, as part of an ongoing effort to assess Washington's geoduck stocks, WDFW
biologists conducted geoduck surveys in southern Hood Canal near the mouth of the Tahuya
River and discovered several large patches of C. savignyi. Concurrently, WDFW fish biologists
conducting routine fish stock assessment surveys nearby also found C. savignyi to be abundant
on both artificial substrate (tire reef) and on natural sand and cobble substrate. Follow-up
reconnaissance dives by WDFW biologists in the fall of 2006 noted the continued presence of C.
savignyi at the same locations; however, their abundance had much diminished since the 2005
observations. In the spring of 2007, additional dives were conducted in the region and very few
individuals were found. During the fall of 2007 , surveys were conducted along most of the same
geoduck transects from which C. savignyi were reported in 2005 and no C. savignyi were seen.
This region had previously been surveyed for geoduck in 1995 and the presence of C. savignyi
was not noted at that time (WDFW, unpublished data). Geoduck biologists are concerned with
the potential impacts large populations of non-native tunicates may have on Washington's
lucrative geoduck industry (Sizemore and Blewett,2006).
In spring of 2006, a private consultant under contract to WDFW (contract #06-1197) conducted a
survey of 41 sites throughout greater Puget Sound, including most of the region's major marinas
and shellfish aquaculture facilities, to determine the distribution of S. clava, C. savignyi, and D.
sp. (Lambert 2006). In 2005, subsequent to the first confirmed sighting in 1998 at Blaine and
Semiahmoo marinas, S. clava was found and determined to be abundant at Pleasant Harbor (Erin
ll
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Grey, University of Chicago, personal communication). Results from the 2006 survey suggest
that it has since remained confined to those three locations and is not showing signs of rapid
territorial expansion. The survey results do, however, suggest a trend toward continued
proliferation and broader geographic coverage for C. savignyi and D. sp.
In the summer of 2007 , a geographically broad-ranged RVA of 24 Washington marinas and five
non-marina sites in Puget Sound and adjacent marine waters was conducted by WDFW. Results
from these surveys confirmed the continued presence of S. clava at Blaine, Semiahmoo, and
Pleasant Harbor marinas. Additionally, C. savignyi was observed at two Puget Sound marinas -
Des Moines and Elliot Bay. Didemnum vexillum. was not observed at any of the sites surveyed
(WDFW unpublished data).
Vancouver Islend a-Blaine/Semiahmoo Marinas
Washington
Pleasant Harbor Marina
Edmonds Underwater Par*
Sund Rock
Elliot Bay Mrina
Totten Inlet
Des Moines Marina
Eld krletl{illapaBay
Figure 3. Map of westem Washington and locations of documented non-native tunicate sightings.
Numerous accounts, both confirmed and unconfirmed, from recreational divers suggest a
growing presence of non-native tunicates throughout Washington's inland marine waters. There
has been some success within the recreational dive community to organize volunteer efforts to
remove non-native tunicates from some of the most popular dive sites. For instance, in fall of
2006, members of the Washington SCUBA Alliance and the Reef Environmental Education
^f
t2
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Foundation organized an effort to remove most C. savignyi from Sund Rock, a popular Hood
Canal dive site; and in 2004, reueational divers under the guidance of Edmunds Underwater
Park officials, removed or destroyed all known patches of D. sp. from the park. To date, no
funher infestations of non-native tunicates have been noted from either of those sites, which
suggests that highly localized control efforts may be prove effective.
2. TUNICATE SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT TOOLS
The WDFW Tunicate Management Plan is based on the best available biological science and
management tools available worldwide. The plan will incorporate new knowledge as it becomes
available and collaborate with regional, national, and international scientists and management
agencies to fill critical gaps in knowledge. As this knowledge increases, it will also be used to
revise or refine the risks invasive tunicates pose to Washington State.
2.1. Overview of Tunicate Life Historv. Biology. and Ecolosv
All tunicates belong to the phylum Chordata. The tunicates of present invasive concern are
members of the subphylum Urochordata (or Tunicata) and are also known as sea squirts. The
term "tunicate" is in routine use among resource agencies and the local media and unless
otherwise noted, tunicate as used in this document, refers only to those members of the
Urochordata subphylum. The term is derived from the leathery or fibrous outer coating,
comprised primarily of cellulose that forms a protective tunic around the animal's internal
organs. Cellulose is a substance frequently found in the cell walls of plants but is rarely found in
animals.
In total, there are approximately 3000 species of tunicates worldwide (Brusca and Brusca 2003)
including approximately 60 that are native to Washington (Kozloff 1987). They are not known
to occur in freshwater and are widely distributed throughout the marine environment. As adults,
non-pelagic tunicates are sessile filter feeders (Petersen 2007) that are often confused with sea
sponges. Sea sponges are evolutionarily primitive; they lack muscles, nerves, and organs, and
unlike tunicates, show no signs of movement when disturbed. Although adult tunicates share
little in common with most other chordates, larval tunicates do feature many of the same
structural characteristics found during the early life history phases of other chordates. Tunicates
are most vulnerable to predation during the larval phase or just after settlement and have few
known predators as adults (Osman and Whitlatch 2004). Many tunicates produce noxious
chemical compounds that deter predation on older animals. Detailed species accounts for the
seven non-native tunicates known to occur in Washington are listed in Appendix D (a-g).
The larvae of most tunicates resemble a tadpole and are able to swim by means of a tail. They
have a primitive spinal chord known as a notochord and a well-developed nervous system.
Although they have a rudimentary stomach, larvae are not known to feed. Most larvae are
photopositive when first hatched, then become photonegative just prior to settlement. As the
larvae mature, they settle and metamorphose into sedentary adults. The larvae of non-native
tunicates found in Washington tend to settle on hard substrates in shaded locations where wave
l3
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
action is limited. They are not known to recruit to high-energy environments such as those that
occur along the outer Washington coast or the highly exposed shorelines of Washington's inland
marine waters. Generally, most tunicates are found in shallow waters, but some are known to
occur at great depths. Tunicates are easily killed by desiccation and thus are rarely found in the
intertidal zones. Although most tunicates are capable of surviving a wide range of temperatures,
they have little tolerance for low salinities. They prefer salinities greater than25 parts per
thousand (ppt) and there are no known species capable of surviving prolonged exposures to
salinities of less than 20 ppt.
During metamorphosis the notochord and tail is lost, as is the ability to move, and much of the
nervous system degenerates. One theory of vertebrate origin proposes that an animal larval
form, such as that of the tunicate, developed the ability to reproduce, whereby some of the
anatomical features of the early life history phase such as the notochord were conserved and
evolved into modern vertebrate structures, a phenomenon known as paedomorphosis (Garstang
1894, Berrill 1955, Lacalliand West 1993,Lacalli 1995).
The adult body plan is simple, consisting of essentially a tunic-covered sack with incurrent and
excurrent siphons through which water enters and exits (Figure 3). The water is propelled by the
directional movement of tiny cilia that circulate water and food through the body cavity. Some
species of tunicates are known to circulate as much as 200 liters of water in a single day. Food
particles are filtered from the water by adherence to a mucous sheet that is produced by a
structure known as the endostyle. The food-laden mucous is periodically retracted into the
stomach whereby the food is digested and waste is evacuated, via an intestine, through the
excurrent siphon.
Reproduction may be either asexual through budding, or sexual. In the latter case, the tunicate is
hermaphroditic, possessing both male and female reproductive organs and is usually self-sterile.
Most non-native tunicates in Washington are believed to have a protracted spawning season that
may last from early spring to late fall (e.g. S. clava) (Lambert 2006).
Washington's non-native tunicates consist of two generalized body types - colonial and solitary.
Colonial tunicates may be further subdivided into social tunicates, which are colonies of
individual animals connected by a common basal stolon; or compound tunicates, which are
colonies of deeply connected animals that share a common tunic and excurrent opening (e.g. B.
violaceus, B. schlosseri, D. sp.). Colonial tunicates are encrusting or mat-forming and may cover
expansive areas of substrate. Some colonial tunicates such as D.sp. may exhibit a variety of
groMh and color morphologies (Cohen 2005, Bullard et al. 2007a). Fertilization and embryonic
development takes place inside the adult colony and the embryos may be retained inside the
colony for up to a month. The brooding period for B. schlosseri is about 1 week and may be up
to four weeks or more for B. violaceus, and D. sp. The larvae, once released, are free-swimming
and remain in the plankton for a very short period of time, often only minutes, before settling and
undergoing metamorphosis. Once metamorphosis is completed, colonial tunicates proliferate by
budding genetically identical zooids that form colonies, which may persist for several years.
Solitary tunicates (e.g. C. intestinalis, C. savignyi, S. clava and M. manhattensls) occur
individually and although they may form dense clumps of individuals, they do not share fused
t4
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
body structures as is common in colonial types. Solitary tunicates attach to the substrate by
means of a small disk at the posterior end of the body. The disk may be attached to the anterior
end of the body via a narrow peduncle, giving the animal a goblet shape (e.g.S. clava).
Tunicates exhibiting this form are often referred to collectively as stalked-tunicates. Solitary
tunicates are broadcast spawners, whereby gametes are released into the surrounding water and
fertilization and embryonic development takes place in the plankton outside the body. The
embryos undergo rapid development and may form free-swimming larvae in less than 24 hours
and the larvae remain viable for only one to two days. Thus the potential for long distance
dispersal via larval drift is limited. Most species of solitary tunicates do not survive for more
than one to two years.
For a detailed of tunicate and life see Van Name
Figure 4. a) Anatomy of a typical solitary adult tunicate. Water enters the body cavity through the incurrent siphon
and is filtered for food before being expelled through the excurrent siphon. b) Larval or "tadpole" life history phase
showing the notochord (a primitive backbone) and the dorsal nerve chord, both of which degenerate during
metamorphosis to the adult life history phase. From Romer, A. S. 1964. The Vertebrate Body. W . B. Saunders.
Philadelphia. c) A typical mature colonial tunicate showing a shared tunic and multiple incurrent siphons (blue
arrows) which are always greater in number than the excurrent siphons (pink anows).
fadrh A$+0..ifErD.r.bid) (.M.d.ifm)
.lt
a
lrmcqd
tlorchoidb
Ha!rl
tLm
hcur.rr {rhsr
Fh..yu
lmth.
6c.i.l
EE[!.t.i,hdl
l5
\i_ ._ _
I
I
xY'( t'>*^*
T]
LJ
)
--
3r att
?
t t
c
!
ri
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
2.2. Field Manasement Methods
There are two general categories of tools currently used in the field to control the spread of non-
native tunicates - mechanical and chemical. Mechanical tools include active removal or
destruction of the animals by hand or through the use of equipment such as high-pressure water
jets, scraping or suction devices, desiccation, and asphyxiation/starvation. Chemical tools use
toxic substances or induced changes to the physical properties of the water caused by altering
temperature, pH, or salinity (Coutts 2002, Coutts 2005, Coutts 2006, Forrest 2007). Another
category that has been used to control or eliminate other non-native species, but is not currently
considered for non-native tunicate control, is the use of biological tools, including the
introduction of living organisms such as parasites, disease agents, and predators (Fisher et al. and
references therein 1999).
2.2.1. Mechanical Methods
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has thus far tested three mechanical methods for
the removal of invasive tunicates from docks and watercraft hulls: removal-by-hand, pressure
washing, and asphyxiation/starvation. These and other mechanical methods are described below.
Each method has limitations and can be used only in certain instances and on specific types of
structures.
Removol-by-hand
Based on local application, the removal-by-hand method appears to work well on floating
structures with firm surfaces such as docks, buoys, and watercraft hulls. It is a labor-intensive
and time-consuming process and it is not effective at removing all tunicates. It remains,
however, one of the few proven effective control methods. The results from one survey showed
that divers using the removal-by-hand method effectively reduced the presence of ,S. clava on
infested docks from a nominal density of about 3.5 individuals per 24 cm2 to less than2
individuals per 24 cm' lErin Grey, University of Chicago, personal communication). Removal-
by-hand requires transporting the animals from the water to an off-site terrestrial disposal area in
order to eliminate the potential for redistribution through gamete dispersal, reattachment of
whole animals, or asexual budding from tissue fragments. This removal method is highly
selective and therefore, among the least destructive to neighboring plants and animals. Thus far,
large-scale removal-by-hand efforts have focused on solitary tunicates. Mat forming colonial
tunicates may respond favorably to this method of control, but the method has not yet been
attempted in large-scale applications.
U n d e rw ater hy draulic pre s sure w ashing
Using pressurized water is highly effective at removing nearly all living organisms from a
surface; however, it can only be used on non-deteriorated surfaces made from concrete, metal, or
other materials capable of withstanding high-pressure jets without compromise to structural or
aesthetic integrity, and when the treatment will not result in the release of pollutants (e.g.
creosote) into the water. Pressure washing can be time-consuming and labor intensive.
l6
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Containment of the resulting biological debris is difficult and may lead to further spread through
gamete dispersal, reattachment of whole animals, or asexual budding from tissue fragments.
A s p hyxi ati o n / Sta rv ati o n
This method uses sheets of plastic or other materials to completely wrap infested structures. The
objective is to lethally deprive organisms under the sheet of oxygen and/or food. The State of
Hawaii has had limited success using the method to eradicate invasive corals from several
marinas. Researchers in New Zealand have experienced some success with localized control of
Didemnum vexillum. using this technique. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife tested
this method and found that the technique does not appear to work very well for various reasons
but primarily because it is difficult to completely seal structures from the outside environment,
and wrapping odd shaped structures can be cumbersome and time-consuming.
Desiccation
This method entails removal or elevation of the fouled structure or equipment from the water to
allow sufficient time to kill the tunicates through desiccation. It may also be used in
combination with hydraulic pressure washing or scraping, during or after desiccation. It is
highly effective; however, removing some kinds of structures from the water and locating
suitable space for storage during the drying period can be costly and logistically challenging.
Suction
This method uses suction through a hose created by venturi or surface pump to remove objects or
sediment from the seabed or underwater structures. [t is widely employed in underwater
archeology, salvage, and construction. The intake hose may be configured to cover wide swaths
of substrate or, by narrowing the intake orifice; suction may be applied to a very limited area,
thus enabling the removal of small objects from confined or odd shaped structures. It is
currently being used to control non-native algae from Hawaiian reefs. This method has not been
affempted for non-native tunicate control in Washington, but warrants testing.
Ultra violet (UV) iruadiation
Diver observations made during tunicate surveys at local marinas suggest that some species of
non-native tunicates, particularly C. savignyi, may preferentially inhabit substrates that receive
limited exposure to sunlight. For instance, vessels berthed under covered slips appeared to be
more heavily infested with C. savignyi than vessels occupying uncovered slips on the same dock.
Research conducted by Olah (2001) provides evidence that UV irradiation is harmful to adult C.
savignyi, but that the early life history phases are resistant to harmful UV effects. Increased UV
irradiation, administered either through artificial means, or by manipulating or positioning
structures to increase exposure to natural light, may prove helpful for controlling some non-
native tunicates but these methods have not yet been developed or tested.
17
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
2.2.2. Chemical Application Methods
Substances that are either very caustic or very acidic have proven effective at controlling the
spread of tunicates over small areas. These types of chemical treatment are not selective and
tend to kill or injure nearly all of the plants and animals within a treatment area. Cellulose-
specific digesting or binding agents may form the basis for the development of tunicate specific
pesticides. Cellulose or cellulose-like materials comprise much of the tunicate body mass and
these materials are not normally found in other animals, thus chemical agents that selectively
destroy or compromise cellulitic structures may prove lethal to tunicates while minimizing
impact to other nearby animals. This method has not been explored, but warrants investigation.
The introduction of any chemicals into the aquatic environment is highly regulated and the
appropriate permits must be obtained prior to the use of any chemical treatment. Application
methodologies must be developed that maximize exposure to the target biota while minimizing
risk and exposure to personnel.
2.2.3. Biological Control Methods
Tunicates have few known predators and most predation occurs during the larval stage or very
shortly after settlement and metamorphosis. Biological control of non-native tunicates has not
yet been attempted. The use of biological tools to control or eradicate non-desired species has a
long and contentious history (Messing and Wright 2006). Success stories are few and there are
many well-known case studies that illustrate the potential for disastrous consequences to the
environment, industry, and human health following the introduction of foreign predators or
pathogens. One method of biological control that has been effective for some species while
being relatively environmentally benign is the use of induced sterility through genetic
manipulation. This usually involves some form of selective breeding of captive animals and
reintroduction into the wild and is not likely to be feasible for tunicates. Biological control for
non-native tunicates will only be considered as a last resort when other more practicable means
ofcontrol have been exhausted and the consequences ofcontinued proliferation ofthe target
species are dire.
2.2.4. Integrated
An integrated approach employs any combination of the above control methods.
2.3. 2007-09ManasementPriorities
2.3. 1. Styela clava containment and eradication
Prevent and eradicate known populations of Styela clava from spreading to other areas in Puget
Sound. To date, confirmed infestations of S. clava have been identified at three marinas:
Pleasant Harbor Marina located near the northern end of Hood Canal (first reported in 2005); and
Blaine and Semiahmoo Marinas located near the city of Blaine at the U.S./Canada border (first
reported in 1998). Styela clavais currently characterized as abundant at Pleasant Harbor and
Blaine Marinas. Thus far, the most effective control measure at these locations has been removal
l8
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
by hand using SCUBA equipped personnel. A joint effort between WDFW and the Skokomish
Indian Tribe was mounted in the sprin g of 2007 to hand remove S. clava from the hulls of
moored vessels at Pleasant Harbor Marina; and during the summer of 2007, a private dive
service was contracted by WDFW to hand remove S. clava from moored vessels at Blaine and
Semiahmoo Marinas. Given the high potential for rapid range expansion via anthropagenic
transport, its potential detrimental impact on local aquaculture facilities, and its apparent
confinement to a small number of sites, this species is considered a high control priority.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue to employ the removal-by-hand
method at least annually at each of the aforementioned locations. Removals will take place
during those times of the year when it is judged that the tunicates are least reproductively active
so as to minimize the potential for gamete dispersal during the removal process.
2.3.2. Seek reclassification by rule for non-native tunicates
All non-native tunicates are classified by statute as "unlisted aquatic animal species" in
accordance with subsection 8(d) of RCW 77.12.020. The WDFW Aquatic Nuisance Species
(ANS) Unit is charged with preventing the introduction of unlisted aquatic animal species into
Washington waters. Currently, regulatory authority is limited to subsection 6 of RCW
77.15.253, which states that:
"A person is guilty of unlawfulrelease of an unlisted aquatic animal species if he or she
releases an unlisted aquatic animal species into state waters without requesting a
commission designation under RCW 77 .12.020".
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with TRAC in an attempt to gain
support among members to change the classification of all non-native tunicates to "prohibited
aquatic animal species", as defined in subsection 8(a) of RCW 77.12.020. This would add to the
regulatory tools needed to controlthe spread of non-native tunicates in Washington by making it
unlawful to possess, purchase, or sell non-native tunicates; or to import, propagate, transport, or
release non-native tunicates into Washington waters except as provided under RCW 77.15.253.
Further, a prohibited classification would enable WDFW to designate, by rule, state waters as
"infested" under the provisions of RCW 77.12.875, and thus facilitate the design and
implementation of rapid response plans and control measures to contain or eradicate non-native
tunicates from designated waters as outlined in RCW 77.12.878.
Some TRAC members remain concerned that strengthening WDFW's regulatory authority over
non-native tunicates may result in costly restrictions to the operation of aquacultural and other
marine facilities, and they maintain that voluntary compliance will provide an effective means of
control. It is the opinion of the ANS Unit that added regulatory discretion would lead to more
effective control and they have elected to move forward with reclassifying non-native tunicates
as prohibited by statute; however, they will continue to work cooperatively with stakeholders in
an effort to minimize the impact of the added authority to industry and to explore mitigation
options in the event that substantial impacts occur.
t9
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
2.3.3. Identi$, classi$, and demarcate infested waters
Provided the ANS Unit is successful in acquiring a prohibited listing under subsection 8(a) of
RCW 77 .12.020 for one or more of the three proposed non-native tunicates, specific water
bodies may be subsequently identified and demarcated using visually identifiable water (e.g.
permanent floating or fixed aids to navigation) and land features. These defined water bodies
may then be considered for an "infested state waters" designation under RCW 77.12.875, and
rapid response plans implemented as per RCW 77.12.878. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife will evaluate locations for containment and control potential through an infested listing
designation based on one or more of the following: l) the abundance, distribution, and type of
non-native tunicates within a location; 2)the location's insularity from other areas that are not
infested, but have the potential for infestation owing to the presence of suitable habitat and
environmental conditions; 3) the potential for anthropogenic dispersion away from the location;
and 4) the location's proximity to aquaculture growing facilities or wildstock harvest areas.
2.3.4. Acquire necessary permits for the use of chemical control
The deliberate introduction of chemicals into the aquatic environment is regulated under the
state-administered National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. This
includes any introduction that affects the normal chemical composition of the receiving water
body including, but not limited to, salinity and temperature. Washington Department of Ecology
administers the NPDES program and is currently cooperating with WDFW to create a single
broad-spectrum permit that would enable the testing and use of a wide variety of chemical
compounds that may prove effective at controlling the spread of non-native tunicates. Pesticide
use in Washington is regulated through WSDA. A Washington State Experimental Use Permit
(WSEUP) may be obtained through WSDA for the purposes of small-scale testing and localized
control, subject to NPDES program approval. Having a broad-spectrum NPDES permit in place
will expedite the WSEUP process and enable the use of chemical control measures to be more
readily incorporated into rapid response planning when judged necessary.
2.3.5, Restrict introduction pathways
Watercraft hull fouling, short voyage ballast water discharge, and aquaculture product transport,
particularly oyster seed, are potential introduction vectors for non-native tunicates in
Washington. Successful production of locally produced hatchery seed for the aquaculture
industry has eliminated the need to import wildstock seed from the western Pacific and today
nearly all oyster seed in the U.S. is of domestic hatchery origin. Domestically derived culture
stock, along with more restrictive regulations over live shellfish transport and importation, as
well as improved ballast water management practices, have likely reduced or eliminated the
threat from overseas introductions. Presently, the greatest threats include proliferation by natural
production of already established colonies, and local transport on watercraft hulls and
aquaculture growing equipment. Preventive measures will focus on containment of already
established colonies through field control, statutory regulation as described in 1.7 .2 and 1.7 .3,
and through stakeholder outreach and education focusing on anthropogenic transport
mechanisms.
20
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
3. GOALS, OBJECTMS, & TASKS
The overall goals of this inaugural 2007-09 management plan for non-native tunicates in
Washington are to: l) Prevent the introduction of new ANS; 2) Control, contain, or eradicate
established ANS populations; 3) Predict and detect new or recurring ANS; 4) Coordinate /
collaborate in state, regional, national, and international ANS processes; 5) Promote public
education and volunteer opportunities; and 6) Promote biodiversity and restoration. Goals are
presented below with the objectives and tasks required to meet them.
3.1 Prevent Introduction of New ANS
3.1 A Objective: Establish best management practices.
Task 1: Aquaculture BMP
Task 2: Marina BMP
3.1 B Objective: Develop Protocol(s) for Rapid Investigative Response to Newly Reported
Non-Native Tunicate Sightings.
Task l: Establish prioritization criteria for rapid investigative response
Task 2: Itemize protocols, equipment, materials, etc to conduct rapid investigative response.
Task 3: Assemble and maintain necessary logistical support items for rapid mobilization to, and
expert in-field verification of, reported infestations.
Task 4: Develop protocols for land/material ownership access and liability.
Task 5: Short term: Develop cooperative agreements with non-Agency consultants to provide
rapid expert taxonomic identification of putative non-native tunicates.
Task 6: Create an archive of voucher specimens and ethanol preserved tissue samples for
morphologic and molecular identifications
Task 7: Long-term: Develop in-house capability for rapid expert taxonomic identification of
putative non-native tunicates including the use of molecular diagnostic techniques.
3.1 C Objective: Develop Strategies for Rapid Field Control Response(s).
Task l: Develop prioritization criteria for implementation of field control methods.
2t
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Task 2: Itemize equipment, materials, permits, etc to conduct rapid response for various
scenarios.
Task 3: Build and maintain a field-ready multi-agency rapid response personnel team and
logistical support equipment.
Task 4: Develop protocols for land/material ownership access and liability.
Task 5: Long-term: Establish standardized application protocols for select field control methods
3.1 D Objective: Conduct Periodic Post Rapid field Control Response Assessments to
Evaluate Effectiveness of Field Control Methods.
Task l: Re-implement appropriate field control methods as needed to achieve long-term control.
Task 2: Compile information into adaptive management portion of management plan
3.2 Control. Contain-Eradicate Established ANS Pooulationsor
3.2 A Objective: Develop statewide containment, control, and eradication action plans.
(Where a large campaign is needed to manage & rapid response not effective.)
Task l: Establish standard action plan protocols, equipment, materials, etc.
Task 2: Eradication - Dockton Harbor
Task 3: Containment - Vessel Hull- Styela clava Spring removal. Conduct annual contracted
removal-by-hand efforts at Pleasant Harbor, Blaine, and Semiahmoo marinas.
Task 4: 2009 Pleasant Harbor eradication. Coordinate with current and future owners of Pleasant
Harbor Marina to capitalize on potential S. clava control opportunities that may arise through
reconstruction of the marina facilities.
3.28 Objective: Determine 2009-11 budget for this goal by June 08
3.2 C Objective: Create Management Options by Statutory and Regulatory Authority as
Needed to Reduce introductions by pathways and to Broaden Field Control Options
Task l: Review other state/country regulations
22
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Task 2: Investigate reclassification of invasive tunicates and designating areas as infested waters
by Washington Administrative Code.
Task 3: Work with Depanment of Ecology to develop NPDES permit.
3.2 D Objective: Annual Report (June 08 and 09) sections on non-agency management
activities
3.28 Objective: Long-term: Compile, develop and document protocols and standards for
identification, control, contain, and eradication methods
3.2 G Objective: Develop and implement adaptive management process to assess successes
and learn from mistakes.
3.3 Predict and detect new or recurrins risks through research
aud monitoring
3.3 A Objective: Survey a minimum of 50 high risk sites for presence/absence
3.3 B Objective: Short term: Map all surveyed sites including historic data
Task l: Compile, assess and document locations into GIS format
3.3 C Objective: Post all information on WDFW web page
3.3 D Objective: Implement a research and monitoring program
Task l: Establish service contracts for key tunicate specialists/advisory science panel
Task 2: Compile and conduct research on risks to natural, state and private resources
Task 3: Conduct research on introduction pathway risks
Task 4: Develop and implement monitoring plans by pathway
Task 5: Monitor ecological succession at field control sites to determine field control response
effectiveness.
23
WDFW Pleus et a1,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
3.3 E Objective: Improve Monitoring Capabilities.
Task I : Establish and conduct periodic surveys of non-native tunicate index sites.
Task 2: Conduct annual Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys of select aquaculture facilities and
other identified situations.
Task 3: Improve geographic assessment by creating a central database and GIS mapping system
of verified non-native tunicate sightings to identify non-native tunicate management regions and
catalogue infestations by region.
3.3 F Objective: Conduct Quantitative Research Directed Toward Evaluating Non-
Native Tunicate Field Control Methods and Impacts.
Task I : Design and conduct experiments to quantify the effectiveness of field control methods
and to evaluate relative cost to benefit advantages.
Task 2: Design and implement quantified measures of localized distribution and abundance.
Task 3: Design and conduct controlled experiments to identify limiting factors for settlement and
proliferation.
Task 4: Design and conduct controlled experiments to measure impacts to aquaculture and
wildstock shellfi sh industries.
Task 5: Design and conduct experiments to quantify the impact of non-native tunicates to native
marine communities on naturally formed substrates.
Task 6: Design and conduct experiments to quantify the impact of field control methods to native
marine communities on naturally formed and artificial substrates.
3.3 G Objective: Develop and implement adaptive management process to continually
assess the risks of invasive tunicates to state waters.
Task l: Dispersal mechanisms and models
Task 2: Ecological functions
Task 3: Limiting factors and predicted ranges
Task 4: Reproduction potential and modes
24
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
3.4 Coordinate/cooperate in state. regional. national. and international ANS
processes
3.4 AObjective: Coordinate/cooperate on state Tunicate Response Advisory Committee
Task l: Re-establish TRAC under the department by charter
Task 2: Facilitate state agency caucus in coordination of interagency issues
Task 3: Assess/integrate TRAC 2007 Invasive Tunicate Response Plan
Task 4: Recommendations for development of 2009-l I biennial budget
Task 5: Participate as lead on developing and implementing management plan
3.4 B Objective: Coordinate/cooperate on state Invasive Species Council
Task l: Support WDFW policy lead
Task 2: Participate on Coordination subgroup
3.4 C Objective: Coordinate/cooperate on state AllS Committee
Task l: Participate as Vice-Chair and members
3.4 D Objective: Coordinate/cooperate with other Pacific coast states.
3.48 Objective: Coordinate/cooperate with AllS Task Force Western Regional Panel
3.4 F Objective: Coordinate/cooperate with the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) Commission.
3.4 G Objective: Coordinate/cooperate with Canada and other relevant countries.
Task l: Develop and implement management ties with British Columbia and relevant countries.
Task 2: Develop and implement research and monitoring ties with British Columbia and relevant
countries.
25
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
3.5 Promote Public Education and Volunteer Opportunities on ANS Issues
3.5 A Objective: Conduct interim education outreach by introduction pathway
3.5 B Objective: Post infested waters
3.5 C Objective: Coordinate/develop broad-scale tunicate education campaign
3.5 D Objective: Coordinate/develop targeted tunicate education campaigns by primary
pathways
3.5 E Objective: Coordinate/develop DFW web site as education and resource tool
3.5 F Objective: Coordinate/develop volunteer opportunities
3.5 G Objective: Develop a broad-scale tunicate education campaign through mailings, public
postings, WDFW Outreach and Education Program events, and representation at relevant public
forums (e.g. marine sporting events, boat shows, fishing derbies, etc.).
3.5 H Objective: Develop directed education efforts toward primary introduction and potential
transport pathways (e.g. marine facilities operators, aquaculturists, recreational and commercial
watercraft, etc.).
3.5 I Objective: Develop an informational, user friendly, WDFW web site to keep the public
informed of potential risks and voluntary control measures.
3.5 J Objective: Develop a reporting mechanism for citizen sightings of non-native tunicates.
3.6 Promote biodiversity and restoration
3.6 A Objective: Compile/conduct research on effects of control, contain, and eradication
management approaches on native species biodiversity Natural substrate/benthic
communities
3.6 B Objective: Compile, communicate and coordinate with state Biodiversity Council
26
WDFW Pleus et a1,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
4. MEET SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE OR FUNDING DIRECTIVES
4.1 Conduct Phase 2 of 2006legislative supplemental budget
4.2 Meet directives of governor's 2007-09 PSP tunicate funding
4.3 Meet directives of RCW 77 .12.879 regarding recreation boating introduction pathways
5. AUTHORITIES
5.1 Acts
5.2 RCWs & WACs
5.3 Other
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
PERSOI\NEL, BUDGETS & CONTRACTING
Personnel required for management plan
Current and forecasted budget for2007-09
Current and forecasted contracting activities for 2007-09
27
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
7. REFERENCES
Berril, N.J. 1975. Chordata: Tunicata. pp.241-282In: (Geise A.C, and J.S. Pearse, eds).
Reproduction of Marine Invertebrates, Vol. II, Academic Press, NY.
Berrill, N. J. 1955. The Origin of the Vertebrates: Oxford, Claredon Press.
Berrill, N. J. 1950. The Tunicata with an Account of the British Species. The Ray Society,
London. 354 pp.
Brusca, R.C. and G. J. Brusc a. 2003. Invertebrates. 2'd Edition. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA. 936 pp.
Bullard, S. G., G. Lambert, M. R. Carman, J. Byrnes, R. B. Whitlatch, G. Ruiz, R. J. Miller, L.
Harris, P. C. Valentine, J. S. Collie, J. Pederson, D. C.McNaught, A. N. Cohen, R. G. Asch, J.
Dijkstra, and K. Heinonen. 2007a. The colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum. A: current
distribution, basic biology, and potential threat to marine communities of the northeast and west
coasts of North America. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 342:99-108.
Bullard, S. G., B. Sedlack, J. F. Reinhardt, C. Litty, K. Gareau, and R. B. Whitlatch. 2007b.
Fragmentation of colonial ascidians: Differences in reattachment capability among species.
Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology and Ecology. 342:166-168.
Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced Species in U. S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and
Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
Carver, C. E., A. Mallet, and B. Vercaemer. 2006a. Biological synopsis of the solitary tunicate
Ciona intestinalis. Canadadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No.
2746:55pp.
Carver, C. E., A. L. Mallet, and B. Vercaemer. 2006b. Biological synopsis of the colonial
tunicates Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides violaceus. Canadadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No. 27 47 :42pp.
Carver, C. E., A. Chisholm, and A. L. Mallett. 2003. Strategies to mitigate the impact of Ciona
intestinalis (L.) biofouling on shellfish production. Journal of Shellfish Research. 22: 621-631.
Chadwick-Furrnan, N. E. and I. L. Weissman. 1995. Life history plasticity in chimaeras of the
colonial ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Biological Sciences. 262:157 -162.
Clarke, C. L. and T. W. Therriault. 2006. Biological synopsis of the invasive tunicate Styela
clava (Herdman 1881). Canadadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No
2807:30pp.
28
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Cohen, A. N. 2005. Guide to the Exotic Species of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Estuary
Institute, Oakland, CA, www.exoticsguide.org
Cohen, A., H. Berry, C. Mills, D. Milne, K. Britton-Simmons, M. Wonham, D. Secord, J.
Barkas, B. Bingham, B. Bookheim, J. Byers, J. Chapman, J. Cordell, B. Dumbauld, A.
Fukuyama, L. Harris, A. Kohn, K. Li, T. Mumford, V. Radashevsky, A. Sewell, and K. Welch.
2001. Washington State Exotics Expedition 2000: A Rapid Survey of Exotic Species in the
Shallow Waters of Elliott Bay, Totten and Eld Inlets, and Willapa Bay. Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, Nearshore Habitat Program, Olympia, WA. 47 pp.
Cohen, A., C.Mills, H. Berry, M. Wonham, B. Bingham, B. Bookheim, J. Carlton, J. Chapman,
J. Cordell, L. Harris, T. Klinger, A. Kohn, C. Lambert, G. Lambert, K. Li, D. Secord, and J. Toft.
1998. Report of the Puget Sound Expedition Sept. 8-16, 1998; A Rapid Assessment Survey of
Non-indigenous Species in the Shallow Waters of Puget Sound. Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 37 pp.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary:
A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 209pp.
Coutts, A. D. M. 2006. An evaluation of incursion response tools for invasive species: a case
study of Didemnum vexillum in the Marlborough Sounds (New Zealand): Cawthron Institute
Report 1093. Prepared for Biosecurity New Zealand 84 p.
Coutts, A. D. M. 2005. Evaluation of eradication tools for the clubbed tunicate Styela clava
Cawthron Report No. I I10, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand 48pp.
Coutts, A. D. M. 2002. The development of incursion response tools - underwater vacuum and filter system trials.
Cawthron Report No. 755. Prepared for New Zealand Diving and Salvage Ltd.
Daniel, K. S. and T. W. Therriault. 2007. Biological synopsis of the invasive tunicate
Didemnum sp. Canadadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No.
2788:53pp.
Davis, M. H. and M. E. Davis. 2004. New records of Styela clovaHerdman, 1882 (Tunicata,
Ascidiacea) in Europe. Porcupine Marine Natural History Society Newsletter. 14,24-27.
deRivera, C. E. and G. M. Ruiz (Eds.) et al. 2005. Broad-Scale Non-indigenous Species
Monitoring along the West Coast in National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine
Research Reserves. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute, National
Estuarine Research Reserve System, National Marine Sanctuary Program: 125 pages.
Eno, N. C., R. A. Clark, and W. G. Sanderson (eds.). 1997. Non-native marine species in
British waters: a review and directory. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
29
WDFW Pleus et al,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Fisher, T. W., T. S. Bellows, L. E. Caltagirone, D.L.Dahlsten, C. B. Huffaker, and G. Gordh
(eds.). 1999. Handbook of BiologicalControl: Principles and Applications of Biological
Control. Academic Press.
Forrest, B. M. 2007. Fouling pests in aquaculture - issues and management options. New
Zealand Aquaculture 17 :12-13.
Forrest, B. M. and A. D. M. Coutts. 2007. Development and application of tools for incursion
response: lessons learned from the management of the fouling pest Didemnum vexillun. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 342:154-162.
Garstang, W. 1894. Preliminary note on a new theory of the phylogeny of the chordata.
Zoolo gischer Anzeiger 27 :122- 125 .
Harms, J. and K. Anger. 1983. Seasonal, annual, and spatialvariation in the development of
hard boffom communities. Helgolaender Meeresuntersuchungen 36: I 37- I 50.
Haydar, D. 2007. Identifuing the origin of the cryptogenic ascidian Molgula manhattensis (de
Kay, 1843). Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions. May
2t-24,2007.
Hiscock, K. 2007. Botryllus schlosseri. Star ascidian. Marine Life Information Network:
Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Plymouth: Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom. Available online.
Hoshino, Z. and T. Nishikawa. 1985. Taxonomic studies of Ciona intestinalis (L.) and its allies.
Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory. 30:61-79.
Jewett, E. 8., A. H. Hines, and G. Ruiz. 2005. Epifaunal disturbance by periodic low levels of
dissolved oxygen: native vs. invasive species response. Marine Ecology Progress Series 304:31-
44.
Kozloff, E. N. 1987. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press. 51lpp.
Lacalli, T. I 995. Dorsoventral axis inversion. Nature 373: I I 0- I I I .
Lacalli, T., J. West. 1993. A distinctive nerve cell type common to diverse deuterostome larvae:
comparative data from echinoderms, hermichordates and amphioxus. Acta ZoologicaT4:l-8.
Lambert, C. and Lambert, G. 2003. Persistence and differential distribution of nonindigenous
ascidians in harbors of the Southern Califomia Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 259:145-
l6l.
Lambert, G. 2006. Washington State 2006 survey for invasive tunicates with records from
previous surveys. A final report prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
30
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
amended June 2007 with an accompanying Excel table of Washington State invasive tunicates.
Contract #06-1197. &pp.
Lambert, G. 2005a. Invasive ascidians in Washington State-problematic species and current
status. A final report prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Contract #
WDFW 04-2269. 3 pp
Lambert, G. 2005b. Ecology and natural history of the protochordates. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 83: 34-50.
Lambert, G. 2003. New records of ascidians from the NE Pacific: a new species of
Trididemnum, range extension and redescription of Aplidiopsis pannosum (Ritter, I 899)
including its larva, and several nonindigenous species. Zoosystema25:665-679.
Lambert, G. 2001. A global overview of ascidian introductions and their possible impact on the
endemic fauna. In: Sawada, H., Yokosawa, H. and Lambert, C.C. (eds.), The Biology of
Ascidians. Tokyo, Springer-Verlag, pp. 249-257.
Lambert, C. and G. Lambert. 1998. Non-indigenous ascidians in southern California harbors
and marinas. Marine Biology 130:675-688.
LeBlanc, N., J. Davidson, R. Tremblay, M. McNiven, and T. Landry. 2007. The effect of anti-
fouling treatments for the clubbed tunicate on the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Aquaculture
264:205-213.
Messing, R. H. and M. G. Wright. 2006. Biological control of invasive species: solution or
pollution? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. 4:132-140.
Millar, R.H. 1971. The biology of ascidians. Advances in Marine Biology 9:l-100.
Neish, A.H. 2007. Styela clava. A sea squirt. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and
Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association
of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Styelaclava.htm
NIMPIS. 2002. Botryllus schlosseri species summary. CSIRO National Introduced Marine Pest
Information System (Hewitt C.L., Martin R.8., Sliwa C., McEnnulty, F.R., Murphy, N.E., Jones
T. and S. Cooper Eds). Available online.
Olah, A. 2001. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on distribution of the solitary ascidian Ciona
savignyi. Proceedings ofthe 2001 Puget Sound Research Conference.
Osman, R. W. and R. B. Whitlatch. 2004. The control of the development of a marine benthic
community by predation on recruits. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.
3ll:l17 -145.
3l
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Petersen, J. K. 2007 . Ascidian suspension feeding. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology. 342:127 -137.
PhillippiA., E. Hamann, and P. O. Yund. 2004. Fertilization in an egg-brooding colonial
ascidian does not vary with population density. Biological Bulletin. 206:152-160.
Ruesink, J. 1998. Scope and history of biological invasions. Yale Forest Forum Review:
Invasive Alien Species I :l l-14.
Ruiz, G. M., P. W. Fofonoff, J T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of
coastal marine communities on North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases.
Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 3l:481-531.
Salem Sound Coastwatch. Undated. Guide to marine invaders in the Gulf of Maine: Botryllus
schlosseri. fact sheet:2pp.
Sizemore, B. and T. Blewett. 2006. Geoduck studies in Hood Canal. Progress on work
associated with House Bill 1896, report to the 2006 Legislature, House Select Committee on
Hood Canal. 54pp.
Otsuka, C. M. and D. M. Dauer. 1982. Fouling community dynamics in Lynnhaven Bay,
Virginia. Estuaries. 5:10-22.
Uribe, E. and I. Etchepare.1999. Effects of biofoulingby Ciona intestinalis on suspended
culture of Argopecten purpurarzs in Bahia Inglesa, Chile. ln: Book of abstracts from the l2th
International Pectinid Workshop, 1999.
Valentine, P. C., J. S. Collie, R. N. Reid, R. G. Asch, V. G. Guida, and D. S. Blackwood. 2007a.
The occurrence of the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. on Georges Bank gravel habitat -Ecological observations and potential effects on groundfish and scallop fisheries. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 342:179-181.
Valentine, P. C., M. R. Carman, D. S. Blackwood, and E. J. Heffron. 2007b. Ecological
observations on the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. in aNew England tide pool habitat. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 342:109-121.
Van Name, W. G. 1945. The north and south American ascidians. American museum of
naturalhistory, New York, NY. 84:476 pp.
Wasson, K., C. J. Zabinc, L. Bedinger, M. C. Diaz, and J. S. Pearse. 2001. Biological invasions
of estuaries without international shipping: the importance of intraregional transport. Biological
Conservation 102 1 43-l 53.
32
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008
8. APPENDIX
Contents
Appendix A: WDFW Strategic Plan Goals
Appendix B: TRAC Charter
Appendix C: ANS Unit Strategic Plan Contents
Appendix D: Tunicate Species Accounts
Appendix E: Relevant RCWs
Appendix F: Relevant WACs
Tunicate Management Plan
JJ
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
APPENDIX A
WDFW Strategic Plan Goals
2007-09 Biennium
FISH AND WILDLIFE GOAL:
Acnrcvo ngnLTHY, DIVERSE AND SUSTAINABLE FISH AND I,uILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND THEIR
SUPPORTING HABITATS
PUBLIC GOAL:
ENSung SaSTAINABLE FISH AND WILDLIFE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCUL AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT
FUNDING GOAL:
ENsuns nTTzcTIVE USE oF CURRENT AND FaTURE FINANCUL RESoURCES IN oRDER To MEET THE
NEEDS OF ITASHINGTON STATE'S FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PABLIC
COMPETENCE GOAL:
I*TPTgugNT PRaCESSES THAT PRoDUCE SOUND AND PROFESSIONAL DECISIONS, CULTIVATE PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT AND BUILD PABLIC CONFIDENCE AND AGENCY CREDIBILITY
SCIENCE GOAL:
Pnouorg ogvELopMENT AND RESaaNSIBLE asE oF soaND AND oBJECTIVE scrENCE To TNFoRM
DECISION-MAKING
35
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
36
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
APPENDIX B: Tunicate Response Advisory Committee Charter
Date: May 6,2008
Lead Contact Allen Pleus, WDFW Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Coordinator
Funding Indirect WDFW Staffi ng, Volunteer Stakeholder Participation
Oversight WDFW Director or Director's Designee
Membership
The director may make appointments to the work group from the names provided by
the entities identified in this section including:
tr Department of Ecology
a Department of Natural Resources
tr Department of Agriculture
tr Department of Parks and Recreation (invited)
tr Department of Health
o Puget Sound Partnership
o Washington Sea Grant
tr Tribes
tr Federal agencies including PSMFC, USFWS, USEPA, NOAANMFS, USCG,
USGS, USDA, USFS, NPS and USACE.
tr Conservation & Environmental Groups
o Academic Institutions (invited)
o Representatives from industries that may either be affected by the introduction of
tunicate species or that may serve as a pathway for their introduction
tr Coordination Points of Contact
This does not require participation by any entity listed or preclude others from
participating in and contributing to the TRAC process.
Objectives
The Tunicate Response Advisory Committee (TRAC) is established to advise the
department with the implementation of the governor's 2007-09 Puget Sound
Recovery Plan and Chapter 77.12.879 RCW including, but not limited to:
(l) Work closely with the state Invasive Species Council to secure a
coordinated and integrated state response;
(2) Develop and implement the Tunicate Species Management Plan;
(3) Provide science-based recommendations and technical information;
(4) Determine if and when it is necessary or advisable to adjust laws, rules or
guidance;
(5) Advise the department on developing and implementing legislation and
rules;
(6) Advise the department on reporting tunicate issues and information
(7) Enhance the predictability and stability ofthe process so that stakeholders
can anticipate and prepare for change; and
(8) Work with regional and national tunicate regulators to strive for a
coordinated and integrated response.
The TRAC will also build upon the February 2007 report to the legislature titled,
"Washington State's Response to an Invasion of Non-Native Tunicates." Formal
recommendations will be provided in writing to the department.
37
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Deliverables
Minimum deliverables include:
o Annual reports to Puget Sound Partnership by June 30 with accomplishments
and recommendations.
o Tunicate Species Management Plan
Process &
Reporttng
The ANS Coordinator or Assistant Coordinator will communicate department
priorities and participate as a non-members to provide facilitation and limited
staffing services.
The committee will follow the process and reporting set forth below:
(i) The committee will be composed of self-nominated lead participants for each
identified membership entity. Lead members may designate an alternate.
(ii) The committee will meet on at least a quarterly basis or more frequently as
needed to address work plan needs.
(iii) The committee will adopt procedures, as necessary and practical, by which it
will establish guidance and instructions for committee members to provide
consistency and transparency in its actions.
(iv) Any proposed committee actions must be noted in the next meeting's agenda
and sent out to the group at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Written
comments from members addressing the action will be incorporated into the
meeting discussion if they are unable to affend.
(v) The committee will strive for consensus:
1. Where consensus is achieved, the committee will forward its
recommendation(s) to the implementing member agency(s) or other
cooperating organization(s).
2. Where consensus is not achieved after reasonable discussion, the
committee may - table the issue until a later date; forward options, as
developed by its supporting members, to the ISC or other appropriate
forum for consideration; or drop the issue.
3. Members agree to work in good faith to resolve conflicts through (l) and
(2) above before seeking outside resolution.
(vi) Technical work groups may be formed by charter to develop draft
deliverables or recommendations for consideration by the whole committee.
(vii) Implementation of all actions developed by the committee shall be through
the department or other cooperating organizations as directed by the
department.
(viii) Members will participate without compensation or per diem unless otherwise
allowed by consensus.
End Date June 30, 2009 with options for renewal.
38
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008
APPENDIX C
WDFW ANS Unit
Strategic Plan 2007-2009
For
Washington State
1. Introduction
l.l. Purpose
1.2. ANS Statewide Coordination Role
1.3. Management by Pathway and Species
2. Goals
2.1. Prevent introduction of new ANS
2.2. Control, contain, or eradicate introduced and established ANS
2.3. Predict new ANS threats and risks
2.4. Cooperate in state, regional, national, and international ANS processes
2.5. Promote public ANS education & volunteer opportunities
2.6. Promote biodiversity and restoration
2.7. Maximize organizational health and effectiveness of ANS Unit
3. Management System
3. 1. Management Approach
3.1 .1. Policy - Coordination, Funding, and Regulation
3.1.2. Operations - Prevent, Control, Contain, Eradicate, and Enforce
3.1.3. Science - Risk Assessment, Research, and Monitoring
3.1.4. Education - Information and Training
3.2. Risk Assessment
3.2.1. Risk Category System
3.2.2. Risk Summary by Species or Pathway
3.3. Priority Management Plan Summaries
3.3.1. Ballast Water and Hull Fouling Pathways
3.3.2. Tunicate Species
3.3.3. Recreational and Commercial Watercraft Pathway
3.4. Secondary Management Plan Summaries
3.4.1. Green & Mitten Crab Species
3.4.2. Aquarium, Pet, and Live Bait Pathways
3.4.3. Directed Introduction Pathways
3.4.4. New Zealand Mudsnail Species
3.4.5. Nutria Species
3.4.6. Crayfish Species
3.5. General Early Detection and Rapid Response Plan
3.6. Assessment of Strategic Plan Success
3.7. Deliverables - Plans, Reports, and other Materials
Tunicate Management Plan
39
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008
4. Management Infrastructure
4.1. Authorities
4.2. Budget & Contracting
4.3. Personnel
4.3.1. Coordinator
4.3.2. Assistant Coordinator
4.3.3. Biologist(s)
4.3.4. Ballast Water Inspector(s)
4.3.5. Database Analyst
4.3.6. Enforcement Officer(s)
4.3.7. Project Technician(s)
4.3.8. Office Staff
4.3.9. Interdepartmental Services
4.3.10. Projected Personnel Needs
4.4. Equipment
5. AllS Coordination
5.1. Local/Regional
5.1.1. Puget Sound Partnership
5.1.2. Tribal Consortiums and Governments
5.1.3. Local Governments
5.1.4. Volunteer Organizations
5.2. Statewide
5.2.1. Invasive Species Council
5.2.2. Aquatic Nuisance Species Committee
5.2.3. Ballast Water Work Group
5.2.4. Tunicate Response Advisory Committee
5.2.5. Other Groups and Committees
5.3. National
5.3.1. ANSTF Western Regional Panel
5.3.2. l00th Meridian
5.3.3. Western Governor's Association
5.3.4. General West Coast Coordination
5.4. International
5.4.1. Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Task Force
6. Appendix
6.1. Glossary
6.2. RCW Authorities
6.3. WAC Authorities
6.4.2007-09 Work Plan
6.5. Standard reporting elements and formatting conventions
Tunicate Management Plan
40
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
APPBNDIX D
Species Accounts
a. Stvela Clava (Herdman.l88l\
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Stolidobranchia,
Family Styelidae.
Growth Habit
Solitary. Adults may reach up to 16 cm in length overall. They are covered by a leathery
brown-ridged tunic with tubercles around the incurrent and excurrent siphons. The posterior
attachment point is connected to the main body by a slender peduncle.
Life history, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
For a recent summary see Clarke and Therriault (2006). Styela clava is a free-spawning
hermaphrodite with a life span of from 2-3 years. It may reach sexual maturity in2-3 months but
maximum size may be attained in 5-6 months during the warmest times of the year. In southern
California S. clova reproduces year-round but in the Pacific Northwest spawning occurs from
about May or June to the end of October. In Prince Edward Island, Canada, it has been
determined that spawning occurs only at or above l5oC. A lower temperature limit to spawning
has not been determined for Pacific Northwest populations. Embryos develop in less than24
hours into non-feeding, swimming larvae with a functional larval viability of l-4 days.
Invertebrate grazers such as gastropods and flatworms feed on small newly settled juveniles but
there are no known predators of adults (Osman and Whitlatch 2004).
Native and non-native range; pathways of Iocal distribution
Native to the Western Pacific. It was described in I 881 from dredged specimens off Kobe,
Japan. Its native range probably includes Russia, Japan, Korea, and northern China. Styela
clava is cultivated and consumed in South Korea, where it is called "mideuduck". It has spread
worldwide in temperate waters, including but not limited to the UK, the east and west coasts of
Canada and the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia (Davis and Davis 2004, Eno etal.1997). The
most likely vectors of transport include watercraft hulls and sea chests (ballast water intakes).
Historically, it may also have been introduced on contaminated imported oysters. In southwest
British Columbia it is abundant at numerous marinas, especially on Vancouver and neighboring
islands, and fouls oyster long-line culture in small numbers (Lambert 2003; Dr. T. Therriault,
Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo, B.C., personal communication).
Habitat preferences
In its native range it is found subtidally on hard substrates but worldwide it is most commonly
found on artificial surfaces in harbors: floating docks, pilings and associated structures, and boat
hulls of moored vessels. In eastem Canada, especially Prince Edward Island, where it appeared
in large numbers in 1999, it heavily fouls cultured mussels.
4t
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Phlebobranchia,
Family Cionidae.
Growth Habit
Solitary. May reach up to 12 cm in length. It attaches to firm substrate at the posterior end and
is somewhat uniformly tubular from posterior to anterior. The tunic is translucent, with incurrent
and excurrent siphon openings located at the anterior end of body in a V-shaped pattern. White,
yellow, or red pigment flecks are distributed randomly on the body wall and are visible through
the tunic.
Life history, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Ciona savignyi is a free spawning hermaphrodite with a life span of about one year or less.
Embryos hatch in less than 24 hours as swimming non-feeding larvae with a functional larval
viability of 24-48 hrs. Sexual maturity may be reached in 6 weeks during the warmest times of
the year. In Califomia, C. savignyi spawns year-round, but in the Pacific Northwest there is
probably a winter non-spawning period during the coldest months. Much of the life history
summarized for C. intestinalis below, and in Carver et al. 2003 and 2006a is applicable to C.
savignyi.
Native and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
Native to Japan. Introduced on the North American Pacific coast from Washington to southern
California. It is not known to be present on the east coasts of Canada or the U.S., or in Europe.
Ciona savignyi is abundant at some subtidal sites in British Columbia and has spread rapidly in
recent years (A. Lamb, Vancouver Public Aquarium, Vancouver, 8.C., personal
communication); it is not known whether these occurrences represent one or more anthropogenic
introductions or whether they are natural range extensions from northeast Asia. There are two
old records of C. savignyi: one from Alaska 1903 (a single specimen was found in the shallow
subtidal), and a single specimen from a floating dock in southern B.C. in 1937 (Hishino and
Nishikawa 1985). See Lambert2003 for other Pacific Northwest sitings. Local spreading is
probably via fouling of watercraft hulls and/or sea chests (ballast water intakes). It is not known
to foul Washington shellfish aquaculture facilities or products, thus is not likely to have spread
by the movement of aquaculture stock or growing equipment. It may have been introduced into
Washington from California via hull fouling. DNA sequencing is underway to determine the
relationship of local populations to those found elsewhere.
Habitat preferences
Like most tunicates, C. savignyi prefers hard substrates including, but not limited to, bedrock and
cobble. It is among the first colonizers of cleared surfaces.
42
b. Ciona savienvi (Herdman,1882\
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
c. Didemnumvexillum,
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order
Aplousobranchia, Family Didemnidae.
Growth Habit
Colonial. Tan or pale orange encrusting colonies, sometimes extended into long lobes that are
easily dislodged. Microscopic calcium carbonate stellate spicules in superficial layer of tunic but
not dense. Colony appearance may be confused with encrusting sponges, or orange forms of
Botrylloides violaceus, but the internal anatomy and microscopic zooids are very different.
Life history, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Like all colonial tunicates, once the tadpole larva settles it buds asexually to produce a colony of
many thousands of individual tiny zooids all of which are genetically identical and embedded in
a common tunic. The zooids are tiny, about 2 mm in size. Fertilization is internal, and the
embryos develop in the basal part of the tunic for several weeks before being released as
swimming tadpoles with a very short motile period of minutes to hours before settling. The
zooids are filter feeders preferring very small particles ranging from I - -20 pm. Invertebrate
grzlzers may eat significant numbers of newly settled individuals, filter feeders may eat larvae,
but there are few predators on adult colonies. Asexual reproduction is also known to occur by
fragmentation of pieces of adult colony that drift away, settle, and grow (Bullard et al. 2007b).
Large sea stars have been observed on subtidal Didemnum vexillum. in southern British
Columbia with cleared areas indicating probably predation (See photos on the website listed
below). Didemnid species are known to produce noxious biochemicals that deter predation by
most invertebrate and fish species (Lambert 2005, under review). Life span is typically one
season, with colonies dying back during the winter months (Valentine et al.2007b); however,
colonial tunicates may not completely die back, with parts of the colony reverting to a resting
state that regrows in the spring (Berrill 1950), so some colonies may survive for more than one
year.
Native range and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
The native origin of D. vexillum. is not known but suspected to be Japan; DNA sequencing of
samples worldwide is currently being carried out to determine potential originating source(s). Its
present range includes northern France, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, and the
northeastern coasts of Canada and the U.S. including -140 km2 of the Georges Bank, and from
British Columbia to southern California (Bullard et aL.2007a,
http://woodshole.er.usss.sov/project-pases/stellwagen/didemnum/index.htm. Daniel and
Therriault 2007). Vectors of transport are not known but importation of contaminated Japanese
oysters is a likely possibility. Also, sea chests (ballast water intakes) and watercraft hulls; the
latter is most likely an important vector for short-distance spreading between harbors (Wasson et
al.2001, Lambert and Lambert 2003). It is also possible that colony fragments could be
transported in ballast water. Fragmentation of colonies caused by dredging for scallops on the
Georges Bank, with reattachment of the fragments, has been implicated in the colonization of
large areas of the Georges Bank (Bullard et al. 2007a). Didemnum vexillum. is a significant
fouler of longline oyster culture in B.C., Canada, and large colonies fall off when the oysters are
43
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
lifted out of the water (personal communication from various oyster growers). Benthic patches
of the tunicate cover hundreds of square meters under and nearby many B.C. oyster farms (see
photos on website listed above).
Habitat preferences
Didemnum vexillum. colonies exhibit a wide variety of morphological variants that range from
long, ropey or beard-like colonies that commonly hang from hard substrates such as docks, lines,
and ship hulls; to low, undulating mats with short surficial appendages that encrust and drape
rocky seabeds (pebbles, cobbles, boulders, and rock outcrops) (Bullard et al.2007b). Didemnum
vexillum. is a cool-water species, capable of survival from about l-24oc (Valentine etal.2007b)
and prefers salinity levels above 28 ppt (G. Lambert, Seattle, Washington, personal
communication). It is a primary colonizer on cleared surfaces but commonly overgrows other
fouling organisms such as solitary tunicates and mussels. On the Georges Bank offshore from
New England, it now covers over 140 km2 of gravel bottom, blanketing some areas by 50-90Yo,
smothering infauna, and preventing bottom feeding fish from finding food.
44
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
d. Botrvlloides violaceus (Oka, 1927\
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Stolidobranchia,
Family Styelidae.
Growth Habit
Colonial. Colonies are formed of meandering, often irregularly formed ovalnetworks of zooids
Though any one colony is all one color, different colonies may exhibit different color morphs
including orange, dark or light purple, tan, yellow, etc. and may be up to 20 cm or more in
diameter. It is a conspicuous fouler due to its bright colors, but does not show tendencies to
over-dominate substrates when present.
Life histora, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Botrylloides violaceus is a colonial tunicate; thus once the tadpole larva settles it buds asexually
to produce a colony of many thousands of individual tiny zooids all of which are genetically
identical, all embedded in a common tunic and arranged in meandering systems. Embryos are
brooded in the tunic and take 4-5 weeks to mature. Larvae are large for a colonial species: the
body is about 1.2 mm in diameter and easily recognizable by the 24-32lateral ampullae. Mature
larvae are released from about May-October depending on water temperature. The larvae
typically spend less than 24 hours in the water column before attaching head-down onto a firm
surface. Life span of an individual colony is probably only a few months but difficult to
ascertain due to the presence of multiple generations in the same colony and the ability of related
colonies to fuse (summarized in Carver et al. 2006b). Invertebrate grazers eat many newly
settled juveniles (Osman and Whitlatch 2004). See Osman and Whitlatch2004, Carver et al.
2006b and references contained therein for a number of studies on the life history of this species.
Native range and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
Native to Japan. Introduced worldwide in cool waters of the northern hemisphere, especially
harbors, marinas, and many aquaculture sites, including but not limited to Europe, the
northeastern coast of the U.S., northeastern Pacific from Alaska to Baja, Mexico, and Russia
(Lambert 2003). It has not been confirmed as introduced in the southern hemisphere. Many
identifications of non-native botryllids as B. leachi outside the U.S. may be B. violaceus. The
most likely vectors of transport include watercraft hulls, sea chests (ballast water intakes), and
importation of contaminated shellfish for aquaculture. Short distance spreading is likely by
recreational watercraft (Wasson et al. 2001, Lambert and Lambert 2003).
Habitat preferences
Like most tunicates, it prefers hard substrates. May be a primary colonizer on cleared surfaces
but is a significant fouler on solitary tunicates, mussels, tubeworms and other biota on marina
floats and other artificial surfaces, and farmed oysters and mussels. Prefers a salinity range of
from28-32 pptbut can tolerate brief exposures to lower and higher salinities. Preferred
temperature range is from 8-25 C.
45
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
e. B otrv llus s c h los s eri (P allas, 17 7 4\
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Stolidobranchia,
Family Styelidae.
Growth Habit
Colonial. Zooids are arranged in star-shaped systems with a shared tunic, giving the species the
common name "star tunicate". It exhibits many color morphs; however, all zooids within a
colony are the same color. Black, white, or orange are the most common colors found in
Washington. Most colonies are flat and encrusting, though the orange variety is known to form
pendulous lobes in still waters. Individual B. schlosseri zooids are usually 2.5-5 mm in length,
system clusters range from 5-10 mm in diameter, and colonies are typically l0 cm or less across
(Cohen 2005). Each zooid possesses its own incurrent siphon while all zooids within a colony
share a single, large common excurrent siphon.
Life histora, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Life history is somewhat similar to B. violaceus but life span of individual zooids is shorter,
larvae are much smaller, and embryos are brooded in the zooids rather than in the tunic.
Botryllus schlosseri is a sessile hermaphrodite and reproduction includes a sexual and an asexual
component. Sexual reproduction involves the release of male gametes into the water followed
by uptake in the incurrent siphons of nearby colonies and internal fertilization of eggs (Phillippi
et aL.2004). Asexual reproduction involves a synchronized budding process that occurs on an
approximately weekly basis to increase the size of the colony until it becomes large enough to
reproduce sexually. Internal gestation and development to a free-swimming "tadpole" larval
stage is followed by release to the water column and a short (up to 24-36 hours) planktonic
duration that is probably capable of only local (l-10 km) dispersal (Berrill 1950,1975, Hiscock
2007). Nearby genetically related colonies may fuse with one another when they come into
contact, resulting in larger "chimera" (made up of genetically distinct individuals) colonies that
may reach sexual maturity more rapidly than smaller non-fused colonies. Sexual maturity in
field populations in Monterey, CA was attained in 49 days, corresponding to 7 asexual
replication cycles (Chadwick-Furman and Weissman 1995, Salem Sound Coastwatch undated).
Reproductive seasonality appears to be variable across the species' distribution range.
Botryllus schlosseri is a suspension feeder and its diet includes suspended phytoplankton,
zooplankton and suspended organic matter (Millar 1971, NIMPIS 2002). Invertebrate grazers
eat many newly settled juveniles (Osman and Whitlatcb2004), but there are few known
predators of adults, though various invertebrate species such as flatworms, crustaceans, and
gastropods have been reported to feed on B. schlosseri colonies (Cohen 2005).
Harms and Anger (1983) report barnacles and mussels as among the most important space
competitors with B. schlosseri.
See Carver et al. 2006b and http://www.sms.si.edu/lRLSpec/index.htm for recent biological and
distribution overviews.
Native range and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
Native to northem Europe, it is now considered established worldwide in cool waters of both
hemispheres. Ruiz et al. (2000) indicate that the first records of B. schlosseri on the east coast of
46
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
North America date to l84l in Massachusetts, while the earliest reported occuffence in the Gulf
of Mexico appears tobe 1921. On the west coast of the U.S., the earliest reports of B. schlosseri
include reports from San Francisco Bay dating to the mid 1940s, San Diego Bay and Mission
Bay dating to the early 1960s, and from a Puget Sound oyster farm in the late 1960s or early
1970s. Broader distribution up and down the Pacific coast of North America from British
Columbia to Mexico was documented starting in the mid-1990s (Lambert and Lambert 1998,
Cohen 2005). The species has been introduced in other parts of the world as well, and can now
be found in Australia (since 1905), Tasmania and New Zealand (since 1928), Japan, and Hong
Kong.
The most likely vectors of transport include watercraft hull fouling, sea chests (ballast water
intakes), and importation of contaminated shellfish for aquaculture or market. Short distance
spreading is likely by recreational watercraft (Wasson et al. 2001, Lambert and Lambert 2003)
Habitat preferences
Prefers hard substrates in protected habitats such as harbors and shallow embayments. Usually
overgrows solitary tunicates, bivalves, tubeworms, algae and other fouling biota on marina floats
and associated structures, as well as cultured bivalves. Hiscock (2007) indicates Botryllus
schlosseri is relatively euryhaline, tolerating salinities ranging from l8-40 ppt.
47
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
f. Mole ula manhattensis (De Kay. 18431
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Stolidobranchia,
Family Molgulidae.
Growth Habit
Solitary. Globular in shape, the adults may reach 2-4 cm in diameter. The tunic is opaque,
usually gray or greenish-blue in color, and covered with very fine hair like fibrils that trap
sediment such as sand grains and shell fragments, thus often obscuring the presence and form of
the animals. Though not mat-forming, it often occurs in dense clusters. It is an early colonizer
of recently cleared habitat and is resistant to the competitive effects of epifaunal organisms
(Otsuka and Dauer 1982). In hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) aquaculture nursery facilities,
M. manhattensis settling out of the water column often restrict clams from burrowing and
feeding properly, eventually killing.
Life history, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Molgula manhattensrs is a free spawning hermaphrodite, the embryos hatch in less than 24 hours
as swimming non-feeding short-lived larvae with a functional larval viability of 24-48 hrs. The
larvae are gregarious settlers, which results in the establishment of large masses. The life span is
probably I year or less. Invertebrate grizers eat many newly settled juveniles (Osman and
Whitlatch), but there are no known predators of adults. They tolerate and may prefer lower
salinities (28-30 ppt) than other non-native tunicates, though they are capable of survival in
salinities higher and lower than this level. They tolerant of a wide range of temperatures - from
2-4oC to 28oC. It is able to survive low dissolved oxygen levels, as often occurs in polluted
harbors, and thus has the potential for major restructuring of marine communities during and
after hypoxic events (Jewett et al. 2005).
Native range and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
The native range includes the northeastern U.S. (Haydar 2007). It has been introduced
worldwide in temperate waters including Japan, Europe, Australia, and the west coast of North
America from Baja, Mexico to Vancouver Island, Canada.
Habitat preferences
It prefers hard substrates in very protected waters such as harbors and marinas. It is often found
attached to bedrock, boulders, cobble, and shells at depths ranging from intertidal to 90 m or
more.
48
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
e. C io na intestinalis (Linnaeus, 17 67)
Taxonomy
Phylum Chordata, Subphylum Urochordata (Tunicata), Class Ascidiacea, Order Phlebobranchia,
Family Cionidae.
Growth Habit
Solitary. Appearance is similar to C. savignyi but siphons are closer together, the tunic of older
individuals is thicker, and a red spot is usually present at the anterior end of the sperm duct
(visible through the translucent tunic between the siphons).
Life history, feeding and predation, physiology including limiting factors of viability
Similar to C. savignyi. For review see Carver et al.2006a. Life span may be one year or less in
warrner waters but 1-2 years in cold waters. Sexual maturity may be reached in only 6 weeks
during summer in warm waters. In southern California, C. intestinalrs breeds year-round but in
the NW there is probably a winter non-breeding period during the coldest months. Free
spawning hermaphrodite, embryos hatch in less than24 hours as swimming non-feeding short-
lived larvae, with a functional larval viability of 24-48 hrs. In Nova Scotia rock crabs are known
to eat C. intestinalis (Carver et al. 2003).
Native range and non-native range; pathways of local distribution
Ciona intestinalis is one of the most widely distributed ascidians in the world (Cohen and
Carlton 1995). It is believed to be native to northern Europe but is now found in temperate
waters worldwide including the northeastern U.S., eastern Canada, California to Baja, Japan,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and South America. There are no confirmed records of
occurrence in British Columbia or Alaska. It is a common fouler of artificial structures in
harbors, and on cultured bivalves and aquaculture growing equipment. The most likely vectors
for transport include hull fouling, sea chests, and importation of contaminated shellfish for
aquaculture.
Habitat preferences
Like most tunicates, it prefers hard substrates. It is a primary colonizer on cleared surfaces and a
significant fouler of oyster and mussel farms and salmon pens.
49
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
APPENDIX E
Relevant Washington State Statutes
RCW 77.72.020
Wildlife to be classified.
(1) The director shall investigate the habits and distribution of the various species of wildlife native to or adaptable to
the habitats of the state. The commission shall determine whether a species should be managed by the department
and, if so, classify it under this section.
(2) The commission may classify by rule wild animals as game animals and game animals as fur-bearing animals
(3) The commission may classify by rule wild birds as game birds or predatory birds. All wild birds not otherwise
classified are protected wildlife.
(4) ln addition to those species listed in RCW 77.08.020, the commission may classify by rule as game fish other
species of the class Osteichthyes that are commonly found in fresh water except those classified as food fish by the
director.
(5) The director may recommend to the commission that a species of wildlife should not be hunted or fished. The
commission may designate species of wildlife as protected.
(6) lf the director determines that a species of wildlife is seriously threatened with extinction in the state of
Washington, the director may request its designation as an endangered species. The commission may designate an
endangered species.
(7) lf the director determines that a species of the animal kingdom, not native to Washington, is dangerous to the
environment or wildlife of the state, the director may request its designation as deleterious exotic wildlife. The
commission may designate deleterious exotic wildlife.
(8) Upon recommendation by the director, the commission may classiff nonnative aquatic animal species according
to the following categories:
(a) Prohibited aquatic animal species: These species are considered by the commission to have a high risk of
becoming an invasive species and may not be possessed, imported, purchased, sold, propagated, transported, or
released into state waters except as provided in RCW 77.15.253:
(b) Regulated aquatic animal species: These species are considered by the commission to have some beneficial use
along with a moderate, but manageable risk of becoming an invasive species, and may not be released into state
waters, except as provided in RCW 77.15.253. The commission shall classify the following commercial aquaculture
species as regulated aquatic animal species, and allow their release into state waters pursuant to rule of the
commission: Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), kumamoto oyster (Crassostrea sikamea), European flat oyster
(Ostrea edulis), eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), manila clam (Tapes philippinarum), blue mussel (Mytilus
galloprovincialis), and suminoe oyster (Crassostrea ariankenisis);
(c) Unregulated aquatic animal species: These species are considered by the commission as having some beneficial
use along with a low risk of becoming an invasive species, and are not subject to regulation under this title;
50
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
(d) Unlisted aquatic animal species: These species are not designated as a prohibited aquatic animal species,
regulated aquatic animal species, or unregulated aquatic animal species by the commission, and may not be
released into state waters. Upon request, the commission may determine the appropriate category for an unlisted
aquatic animal species and classify the species accordingly,
(e) This subsection
(8) does not apply to the transportation or release of nonnative aquatic animal species by ballast water or ballast
water discharge.
(9) Upon recommendation by the director, the commission may develop a work plan to eradicate native aquatic
species that threaten human health. Priority shall be given to water bodies that the department of health has
classified as representing a threat to human health based on the presence of a native aquatic species.
12002c281 S 3; 1994c264 S 53; 1987 c506 S 13; 1980c78 S 13; 1969ex.s. c 18 S 1; 1955 c36 577.12.020.Ptiot:1947 c275 S 12; Rem.
Supp. 1947 S 5992-22.1
RCW 77,72,875
Prohibited aquatic animal species - Infested state waters.
(1) The commission may designate by rule state waters as infested if the director determines that these waters
contain a prohibited aquatic animal species.
(2) The commission, in consultation with the department of ecology, may designate state waters as infested if it is
determined that these waters contain an invasive aquatic plant species.
(3) The department shall work with the aquatic nuisance species committee and its member agencies to create
educational materials informing the public of state waters that are infested with invasive species, and advise them of
applicable rules and practices designed to reduce the spread of the invasive species infesting the waters.
[2002c281 S5.]
RCW 77.72.878
Infested waters - Rapid response plan.
(1) The director shall create a rapid response plan in cooperation with the aquatic nuisance species committee and its
member agencies that describes actions to be taken when a prohibited aquatic animal species is found to be infesting
a water body. These actions include eradication or control programs where feasible and containment of infestation
where practical through notification, public education, and the enforcement of regulatory programs.
(2) The commission may adopt rules to implement the rapid response plan.
(3) The director, the department of ecology, and the Washington state paks and recreation commission may post
signs at water bodies that are infested with aquatic animal species that are classified as prohibited aquatic animal
species under RCW 77.12.020 or with invasive species of the plant kingdom. The signs should identify the prohibited
plant and animal species present and warn users of the water body of the hazards and penalties for possessing and
transporting these species. Educational signs may be placed at uninfested sites.
[2002c281 S6.]
5l
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
RCW 77,72.879
Aquatic invasive species prevention account - Aquatic invasive species prevention
program for recreational and commercial watercraft - Enforcement program - Check
stations - Training - Report to the legislature.
(1) The aquatic invasive species prevention account is created in the state treasury. Moneys directed to the account
from RCW 88.02.050 must be deposited in the account. Expenditures from the account may only be used as
provided in this section. Moneys in the account may be spent only after appropriation.
(2) Funds in the aquatic invasive species prevention account may be appropriated to the department to develop an
aquatic invasive species prevention program for recreational and commercial watercraft. Funds must be expended as
follows:
(a) To inspect recreational and commercial watercraft;
(b) To educate general law enforcement officers on how to enforce state laws relating to preventing the spread of
aquatic invasive species;
(c) To evaluate and survey the risk posed by recreational and commercial watercraft in spreading aquatic invasive
species into Washington state waters;
(d) To evaluate the risk posed by float planes in spreading aquatic invasive species into Washington state waters;
and
(e) To implement an aquatic invasive species early detection and rapid response plan. The plan must address the
treatment and immediate response to the introduction to Washington waters of aquatic invasive species. Agency and
public review of the plan must be conducted under chapter 43.21C RCW, the state environmental policy act. lf the
implementation measures or actions would have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, a detailed
statement under chapter 43.21C RCW must be prepared on the plan.
(3) Funds in the aquatic invasive species enforcement account created in RCW 43.43.400 may be appropriated to the
department and Washington state patrol to develop an aquatic invasive species enforcement program for recreational
and commercial watercraft. The department shall provide training to Washington state patrol employees working at
port of entry weigh stations on how to inspect recreational and commercial watercraft for the presence of aquatic
invasive species. The department is authorized to require persons transporting recreational and commercial
watercraft to stop at check stations. Check stations must be plainly marked by signs, operated by at least one
uniformed fish and wildlife officer, and operated in a safe manner. Any person stopped at a check station who
possesses a recreational or commercial watercraft that is contaminated with aquatic invasive species is exempt from
the criminal penalties found in RCW 77 .15.253 and 77 .15.290, and forfeiture under RCW 77 .15.070, if that person
complies with all department directives for the proper decontamination of the watercraft and eguipment.
( ) The department shall submit a biennial report to the appropriate legislative committees describing the actions
taken to implement this section along with suggestions on how to better fulfill the intent of chapter 464, Laws of 2005
The first report is due December 1,2007.
[2007 c 350 S 3; 2005 c a6a S 3.]
52
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
RCW 77.75,250
Unlawful release of fish, shellfish, or wildlife - Penalty - Unlawful release of deleterious
exotic wildlife - Penalty.
(1)
(a) A person is guilty of unlawfully releasing, planting, or placing fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person knowingly
releases, plants, or places live fish, shellfish, wildlife, or aquatic plants within the state, and the fish, shellfish, or
wildlife have not been classified as deleterious wildlife. This subsection does not apply to a release of game fish into
private waters for which a game fish stocking permit has been obtained, or the planting of fish or shellfish by permit of
the commission.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor. ln addition, the department shall order the person to pay all
costs the department incurred in capturing, killing, or controlling the fish, shellfish, aquatic plants, or wildlife released
or its progeny. This does not affect the existing authority of the department to bring a separate civil action to recover
costs of capturing, killing, controlling the fish, shellfish, aquatic plants, or wildlife released or their progeny, or
restoration of habitat necessitated by the unlaMul release.
(2)
(a) A person is guilty of unlawful release of deleterious exotic wildlife if the person knowingly releases, plants, or
places live fish, shellfish, or wildlife within the state and such fish, shellfish, or wildlife has been classified as
deleterious exotic wildlife by rule of the commission.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a class C felony. ln addition, the department shall also order the person to pay all
costs the department incurred in capturing, killing, or controlling the fish, shellfish, or wildlife released or its progeny.
This does not affect the existing authority of the department to bring a separate civil action to recover costs of
capturing, killing, controlling the fish, shellfish, or wildlife released or their progeny, or restoration of habitat
necessitated by the unlaMul release.
12001 c253 $ 32; 1998 c 190 $ 31.1
RCW 77.75.253
Unlawful use of prohibited aquatic animal species - Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of a prohibited aquatic animal species if he or she possesses, imports,
purchases, sells, propagates, transports, or releases a prohibited aquatic animal species within the state, except as
provided in this section.
(2) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, a person may:
(a) Transport prohibited aquatic animal species to the department, or to another destination designated by the
director, in a manner designated by the director, for purposes of identifying a species or reporting the presence of a
species;
(b) Possess a prohibited aquatic animal
equipment in a manner specified by the
species if he or she is in the process of removing it from watercraft or
department;
53
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
(c) Release a prohibited aquatic animal species if the species was caught while fishing and it is being immediately
returned to the water from which it came; or
(d) Possess, transport, or release a prohibited aquatic animal species as the commission may othenrvise prescribe.
(3) Unlawful use of a prohibited aquatic animal species is a gross misdemeanor. A subsequent violation of subsection
(1) of this section within five years is a class C felony.
(4) A person is guilty of unlawful release of a regulated aquatic animal species if he or she releases a regulated
aquatic animal species into state waters, unless allowed by the commission.
(5) UnlaMul release of a regulated aquatic animal species is a gross misdemeanor,
(6) A person is guilty of unlawful release of an unlisted aquatic animal species if he or she releases an unlisted
aquatic animal species into state waters without requesting a commission designation under RCW 77.12.020.
(7) Unlawful release of an unlisted aquatic animal species is a gross misdemeanor,
(8) This section does not apply to:
(a) The transportation or release of organisms in ballast water;
(b) A person stopped at an aquatic invasive species check station who possesses a recreational or commercial
watercraft that is contaminated with an aquatic invasive species, if that person complies with all department directives
for the proper decontamination of the watercraft and equipment; or
(c) A person who has voluntarily submitted a recreational or commercial watercraft for inspection by the department
and has received a receipt verifying that the watercraft has not been contaminated since its last use.
[2007 c 350 S 5; 2002 c 281 S a.]
RCW 77.60.730
Aquatic nuisance species committee.
(1) The aquatic nuisance species committee is created for the purpose of fostering state, federal, tribal, and private
cooperation on aquatic nuisance species issues. The mission of the committee is to minimize the unauthorized or
accidental introduction of nonnative aquatic species and give special emphasis to preventing the introduction and
spread of aquatic nuisance species. The term "aquatic nuisance species" means a nonnative aquatic plant or animal
species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecological stability of infested waters, or
commercial, agricultural, or recreational activities dependent on such waters.
(2) The committee consists of representatives from each of the following state agencies: Department of fish and
wildlife, department of ecology, department of agriculture, department of health, department of natural resources,
Puget Sound partnership, state patrol, state noxious weed control board, and Washington sea grant program. The
committee shall encourage and solicit participation by: Federally recognized tribes of Washington, federal agencies,
Washington conservation organizations, environmental groups, and representatives from industries that may either
be affected by the introduction of an aquatic nuisance species or that may serve as a pathway for their introduction.
(3) The committee has the following duties:
(a) Periodically revise the state of Washington aquatic nuisance species management plan, originally published in
June 1998;
54
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
(b) Make recommendations to the legislature on statutory provisions for classifying and regulating aquatic nuisance
species,
(c) Recommend to the state noxious weed control board that a plant be classified under the process designated by
RCW 17.10.080 as an aquatic noxious weed;
(d) Coordinate education, research, regulatory authorities, monitoring and control programs, and participate in
regional and national efforts regarding aquatic nuisance species;
(e) Consult with representatives from industries and other activities that may serye as a pathway for the introduction
of aquatic nuisance species to develop practical strategies that will minimize the risk of new introductions; and
(f) Prepare a biennial report to the legislature with the first report due by December 1, 2001, making
recommendations for better accomplishing the purposes of this chapter, and listing the accomplishments of this
chapter to date.
(4) The committee shall accomplish its duties through the authority and cooperation of its member agencies.
lmplementation of all plans and programs developed by the committee shall be through the member agencies and
other cooperating organizations.
12007 c341 S 59; 2000 c 149 $ 1.1
wAC 232- 12-016
Nonnative aquatic species.
The following provisions apply to nonnative aquatic species except nonnative species in ballast water, which are
provided for in chapter 220-77 WAC. The definitions of invasive species, prohibited aquatic animal species, regulated
aquatic animal species, unregulated aquatic animal species, unlisted aquatic animal species and aquatic plant
species as used in this section are the same as in RCW 77.08.010.
(1) Request for designation of unlisted aquatic animal species prior to release. Unlisted nonnative aquatic animal
species must be reviewed and designated for classification by the commission as either regulated aquatic animal
species or unregulated aquatic animal species prior to approval for release into state waters. A request for
classification of an unlisted nonnative aquatic animal species shall be treated as a petition to amend WAC 220-12-
090, and made on the OFM-O'| form. Upon receipt of a petition, the department shall initially classify the species as a
prohibited species until the review is complete. ln addition to the OFM-01 form, a person requestlng classification
must provide the following information in order to present a complete request for designation for classification:
(a) Common and scientific name, reason for release, source of the animals proposed for release, and number of
animals proposed for release.
(b) Native range of the species, assessment of potential positive and negative impacts of the release, citation of
available scientific literature on release of the species in other nonnative locales, known potential for displacement of
native species, hybridization with or predation upon native species, and disease or parasite transmission.
(c) Estimate of technical and economic feasibility of eradicating or controlling spread of the species once it is
introduced into state waters.
(2) Provisions applying to prohibited aquatic animal species.
(a) Zebra mussels: lt is unlaMul to import live aquatic organisms, including plants, for release into state waters from
any state or Canadian province east of the Continental Divide without each importation being accompanied by a
zebra mussel-free certificate issued by the department and signed by the supplier of the aquatic organisms. The
original receiver in the state of Washington of the shipment of aquatic organisms is required to retain the zebra
mussel-free certificate for two years. Secondary receivers, while in possession of live aquatic organisms, are required
to retain invoices or other records showing who was the original receiver.
55
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
(b) Scientific research or display: The director may authorize, by prior written permit, a person to possess prohibited
aquatic animal species for scientific research or display, provided:
(i) Specimens are confined to a secure facility, defined as an enclosure that will prevent the escape or release of
prohibited aquatic animal species into a natural watercourse, and specimens are inaccessible to wildlife or other
animals that could transport prohibited aquatic animal species.
(ii) Specimens are not transferred to any other facility without written approval by the director or designee.
(iii) All zebra mussels are incinerated or chemically preserved at the conclusion of the project, and the enclosure,
holding waters and all equipment are disinfected. All other prohibited aquatic animal species must be killed at the
conclusion of the project and either chemically preserved or disposed of in a landfill.
(iv) The permittee provides an annual report to the department, no later than January 31 of the following year, on a
form provided by the department, describing the number, size and location of prohibited aquatic animal species
enclosures and general nature ofthe research.
(c) Monitoring and control programs: The director may authorize persons working within the scope and supervision of
a department-sponsored monitoring and control program to capture, possess and destroy prohibited aquatic animal
species, provided:
(i) The persons have completed a mandatory training program and are certified by the department;
(ii) The persons have a permit authorized by the director or designee in possession;
(iii) All prohibited aquatic animal species are disposed of in accordance with the monitoring and control program; and
(iv) Participants submit a report to the department within thirty days of any monitoring or control activity in accordance
with the specifications outlined In the monitoring and control program.
(d) Capture of prohibited species in state waters. Prohibited aquatic animal species that are captured in state waters
and not immediately returned to the water from which they were captured must be killed before removing the
prohibited aquatic animal species from within the riparian perimeter of the body of water.
(e) lt is lawful to possess dead vertebrate prohibited aquatic animal species taken from state waters, and it is laMul to
possess chemically preserved nonvertebrate prohibited aquatic animal species from any source. No permit is
required for possession under this subsection.
(f) Prohibited aquatic animals held in commercial and personal possession prior to classification. A person who
possessed a prohibited aquatic animal species prior to the time the species was classified as prohibited may continue
to hold the animal or animals for the life of the animals, provided:
(i) The person must maintain proof of possession prior to the classification
(ii) The animals may not be transferred to another owner within the state.
(iii) The person must comply with all provisions of this section.
(iv) The animals must be prevented from reproducing, or if prevention is impracticable, the progeny must be
destroyed.
(3) lnfested waters.
(a) The following bodies of waters are infested with invasive aquatic plants or prohibited aquatic animal species. ln
these waters:
(i) lt is unlawful to use aquatic animals from these waters for bait in the infested waters or any other waters.
(ii) All aquatic vegetation must be removed from lines, nets, motors, and all other equipment when the equipment is
removed ftom the infested waters.
56
WDFW Pleus et aI,2008 Tunicate Management Plan
(iii) lt is unlawful to transport water from these bodies of water, and bait containers, live wells, and bilges must be
emptied before leaving the riparian perimeter of the body of water, except:
(A) Water may be transported in emergencies, such as a ftre emergency.
(B) Water may be withdrawn and used under a water appropriation or public waters work permit issued by the
department of ecology.
(b) List of inbsted waters:
Adams County: Herman and Hutchison lakes.
Chelan County: Chelan, Cortez, Domke, Fish, Roses and Wapato lakes.
Clallam County: Sutherland Lake.
Clark County: Battleground, and Lacamas lakes, Klineline Pond, Caterpillar Slough, Columbia River adjacent to
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge.
Columbia, Franklin and Walla Walla counties: Herbert G. West Lake, Snake River.
Cowlitz Coung: Kress and Silver lakes, Soho and Willow Grove sloughs.
Ferry County: Twin Lake.
Franklin County: Kahlotus and Sacajawea lakes, Scooteney Reservoir, Snake River.
Grant County: Babcock Ridge, Banks, Billy Clapp, Burke, Caliche, Canal, Corral, Corral Southwest, Moses, Priest
Rapids, Quincy, Stan Coffin, Warden, and Windmill lakes, unnamed potholes at Dodson Frenchman and Frenchman
Hills Nos. 1 through 4, Evergreen and Potholes reservoirs, Rocky Ford Creek and Winchester Wasteway.
Grays Harlcor County: Duck and Failor lakes, Grays Harbor.
lsland County: Crockett and Lone lakes.
Jefferson County; Crocker and Leland lakes.
King County: Alice, Angle, Bass, Desire, Fenwick, Geneva, Green, Killamey, Luceme, Meridian, Nielson (Holm),
Otter(Spring), Phantom, Pine, Pipe, Sammamish, Sawyer, Shadow, Shady, Spring, Steel, Twelve, Union,
Washington, and Wilderness lakes.
Kitsap County: Buck, Horseshoe, Long, Mission, Square, Tahuya, and Wye lakes.
Kittitas County: Lavendar and Mattoon lakes.
Klickitat County: Celilo, Horsethief, and Spearfish lakes, Columbia River.
Lewis County: Carlisle, Mayfield, Plummer, and Riffe lakes, Swofford Pond, Chehalis and Cowlitz rivers and the
lnterstate Avenue Slough.
Mason County: lsabella, lsland, Limerick, Mason, Spencer, and Trails End (Prickett) lakes.
Okanogan County: Conconully, Green, Osooyoos, Palmer, Pearrygin, and Whitestone lakes, Okanogan River.
Pacific County: Black, lsland, Loomis, and O'Neil lakes, Willapa Bay.
Pend Oreille County: Davis, Diamond, Fan, Horseshoe, Mashall, Nile, and Sacheen lakes, Little Spokane and Pend
Oreille rivers.
Pierce County: Bay, Clear, Harts, Hidden, Ohop, Rapjohn, Spanaway, Tapps, and Whitman lakes.
San Juan County: Sportsman Lake.
57
WDFW Pleus et al, 2008 Tunicate Management Plan
Skagit County. Beaver, Big, Campbell, Clear, Erie, Heart, Mcmurray, and Sixteen lakes.
Skamania County: Coldwater and Drano lakes, Columbia River
Snohomish County: Goodwin, Meadow, Nina, Roesiger, Shoecraft, Silver, Stevens, and Swartz lakes.
Spokane County: Eloika, Liberty, Long, Newman, and Silver lakes.
Stevens County: Black, Deep, Gillette, Heritage, Loon, McDowell, Sherry, Thomas, andWaitts lakes, Long Lake
Reservoir.
Thurston County: Capitol, Hicks, Long, Munn, Scott, and Ski lakes, Black and Chehalis rivers.
Wahkiakum County: Columbia River and Brooks Slough.
Walla Walla County: Snake River.
Whatcom County: Terrell and Whatcom lakes.
WhiUnan County: Bryan and Lower Granite lakes, Snake River.
Yakima County: Buena, Byron, Dog, and Freeway (Rotary) lakes, unnamed ponds at 1 2N - 19E - 20, Yakima River.
(4) Aquaculture provisions. lt is unlaMul to fail to comply with the following provisions regarding aquaculture and
waters containing prohibited aquatic animal species or invasive aquatic plant species.
(a) When a natural body of water is designated by rule as infested, ongoing aquaculture operations in that body of
water are restricted from transferring product, equipment or associated materials until such time as the operator of
the aquaculture operation submits to the department a plan to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic plants and
prohibited aquatic animal species, and has received approval from the department of such plan.
(b) Artificial water basins found to be infested with prohibited aquatic animal species are required to have the water
sterilized before continuing aquaculture operations, and any private sector cultured products in such waters must be
killed before sale or transfer.
(c) By permit from the department, water from bodies of water infested with invasive aquatic plants may be used in
artificial water basins for aquaculture, provided that the water is treated to eliminate invasive aquatic plants prior to
use.
(5) Violations of this section involving invasive aquatic animal species is punishable under RCW 77.15.253.
(6) Violations of this section involving invasive aquatic plants is punishable under RCW 77.15.290.
[StatutoryAuthority: RCW77.12.047. 04-01-096 (Order03-312), S 232-12-016,fi\ed12116103, effective 1116104;02-
1 9-007 (Order 02-223), 5 232-1 2-016, fi led 9/5/02, effective 1 0 161 02.1
58
WDFW Pleus Tunicate Annual Report DRAFT 6127108
APPENDIX C
FY 2009-2011
PROPOSED BIENNIUM BUDGET
59
WDFW Pleus
TITLE:
WDFW NUMBER:
PERIOD:
CONTRACTOR:
CONTRACTOR CONTACT:
CONTRACT TYPE:
CONTRACT SUB TYPE:
STAFF TYPE:
PROJECT GROUP:
PROJECT TYPE:
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS:
WDFW MANAGER:
CFDA NUMBER:
AWARD NUMBER:
RFQQ/RFQ/RFP/IFB NUMBER:
Tunicate Annual Report
Contract/Project Summary
Invasive Species Tunicate Response
07-1571
07 /01 12007 to 06 130 12009
Puget Sound Partnership
Kevin Anderson (360)7 25 -5452
Receivable
Interagency
WDFW
Aquatic Invasive Species
I
Allen Pleus (360)902-27 24
DRAFT 6127108
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Manage invasive tunicate species in Puget Sound region including control, contain, eradicate,
research and monitor actions.
PROJECT STATEMENT OF WORK:
There are seven species of non-native tunicates currently found in Washington coastal and Puget
Sound marine waters. Three of these tunicate species are of high invasive concern including the
club tunicate Styela clava, the transparent tunicate Ciona savignyi, and the colonial tunicate
Didemnum vexillum. Four other species of moderate invasive concern include Botrylloides
violaceus, Botryllus schlosseri, Molgula manhattensri and Ciona intestinalis. All species, except
for Ciona intestinalis, are known to have established and continuing populations and meet the
biological definition of invasive. However, more information is needed to assess the potential or
actual environmental, economic, and human health harm of these species and their pathways of
introduction and spread.
Previous management actions and data assessments by WDFW show that the extent of invasive
tunicate population distribution is significant with 57 out of 102 sites3 having from one to four of
the seven known species present. Of the 57 sites, 28 have at least one of the three priority
invasive tunicate species. The increase in known scale of the infestation has also underscored the
need to increase staffing from L23 to 4.0 FTE with the addition of a new Tunicate Lead,
changing the second biologisVdiver from a0.23 to a 1.0 FTE, and adding a Scientific Technician
position.
A new Lead position is necessary to effectively develop and implement the Tunicate
Management Plan and manage assigned staff. This has become a full-time duty that cannot be
sustained under current staffing levels. The Lead would be the ANS Unit's invasive tunicate
3 Additional site data available, but not yet entered
60
WDFW Pleus Tunicate Annual Report DRAFT 6127/08
point person and would provide overall coordination and management of the other Tunicate unit
science staff, contracts, and budget. They would be the department's representative on the TRAC
to ensure that the department is in close communication with all stakeholders. Two full time
biologist/divers are necessary for safety, efficiency, and workload. A full-time Scientific
Technician is also necessary for dive and boat assistance, data recording and entry, and help in
managing extensive equipment, supplies, and materials.
Tasks
The 2007-2009 Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) budget specifies that these funds will be used for
the four tasks listed below. The Tunicate Response Advisory Committee (TRAC) has also
proposed long-term goals and these are identified by PSP task. WDFW will use the funding to
make progress towards these tasks and goals through development and implementation of a
statewide Tunicate Management Plan.
Task 1. lmplement methods to control and eradicate tunicates
a) Develop and implement a long-term strategy to contain and eradicate
tunicates; and
b) lmplement measures to minimize the spread of invasive tunicates.
Task 2. Conduct surveys
a) ldentify current locations of other non-native tunicates including Ciona
and Didemnum; and
b) lmplement a Iong-term strategy for ongoing monitoring of invasive
tunicates
Task 3. Conduct a "Keep Your Hull Clean" outreach campaign for recreationa!
boaters
PSP is intending to take the lead on Task #3 and WDFW would
provide advisory and limited implementation support as available.
Task 4. Meet expectations as outlined in the attached PSP Performance Agreement.
Task 5. Remove invasive tunicates during presence/absence surve)rs where populations
are small and do not require additional support or substantive time to accomplish.
Task 6. Conduct rapid response eradication actions where small new infestations are
found in critical habitat areas such as Marine Protected Areas.
Deliverables
Three deliverables will be provided to PSP. One is a final tunicate management plan and two are
in the form of department annual reports (6/08 and 6/09):
6t
WDFW Pleus Tunicate Annual Report DRAFT 6/27108
1) 2009-2011 Tunicate Management Plan. A final biennial management plan. Due - January l,
2009.
2) Tunicate Manasement Plan Annual Report. Including work completed per PSP Performance
Agreement and recommendations for future management operations. Due - June 1, 2008.
3) Tunicate Management Plan Annual Report. Including work completed per PSP Performance
Agreement and recommendations for 2009-201 I biennial management operations. Due -
June 1,2009.
Pedormance Agreement
between
Puget Sound Paftnership
and
Washington Depaftment of Fish and Wildlife
Backqround:
1. The reason for a peformance agreement - to satisfy:
a. Contractual requirements of the Puget Sound Paftnership.
b. Making progress towards legislative objectives.
2. Implements or addresses
a. The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan by minimizing ANS
introductions; stopping ANS from spreading; and eradicating or controlling
ANS to minimize impacts.
b. Puget Sound Recovery Plan by protecting and preventing loss of habitat;
restoring habitat functions and values; protecting ecosystem biodiversity;
and building and sustaining capacity for action.
c. WDFW Tunicate Management Plan
Goal:
The purpose of this peformance agreement is to develop and continue implementing a
statewide tunicate management plan that incorporates unfinished elements of the
2006-2007Interagency Invasive Species Rapid Response Plan. Unfinished elements
relate to the following long-term goals in the interagency plan:
1. Eradicate known populations of the invasive tunicate Styela clava.
2. Identiff the current locations of all non-native tunicate species and develop a
long-range strategy to contain and eradicate tunicates from these areas.
3. Develop a long-term strategy for ongoing monitoring of non-native tunicates and
implement measures to minimize their spread.
62
Tunicate Annual Report
Objectives:
The objectives of this agreement are to:
1. Conduct a baseline suryey of representative locations in Puget Sound for invasive
tun icate presence/absence.
2. Identiff the pathways for introduction and spread of invasive tunicates to
prevent new introductions.
3. Contain invasive Styela clava in Pleasant and Blaine harbors by annual removal
from vessel hulls.
4. Develop a plan and budget for eradicating known populations of invasive
tunicates in at least one marina/harbor location.
5. Develop and begin implementation of a long-term monitoring plan.
Exoectations:
Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) expects the Department of Fish and Wildlife to:
1. Consult with the state agency Tunicate Response Caucus and the stakeholder
Tunicate Response Advisory Committee (TRAC) at key points during the
implementation of this agreement.
2. Participate in a mid-project review by PSP of the project's performance and
results and make mid-course adjustments, as needed.
3. Involve stakeholders and seek to build strong and effective public/private
paftnerships to research, monitor, control, contain, and eradicate invasive
tunicates.
4. Keep resource agencies, the legislature, and the public apprised of the progress
on the project and any unforeseen barriers to progress.
Outcomes and results:
WDFW, in consultation with the state Tunicate Response Caucus and the Tunicate
Response Advisory Committee (TRAC), must:
1. Develop a statewide tunicate management plan that includes a priority system
for managing invasive tunicates to include eradication objectives, maximizes the
use of limited resources, and that identifies long-term strategies.
2. Implement a research and monitoring program for non-native tunicates.
3. Identify potential pathways of introduction and spread, and strategies to
implement, or the need for further study. .
4. Suruey a minimum of 100'high risk areas'such as marinas, boat cleaning areas,
and shellfish growing areas for the presence or absence of invasive tunicates.
Gather and compile historic and new tunicate suruey data from outside sources.
63
WDFW Pleus DRAFT 6127108
WDFW Pleus Tunicate Annual Report DRAFT 6/27108
5. Map locations of infestations, and make this information available to the
legislature, resource agencies, and the public.
6. Post all management plans, management methods, and repofts on the WDFW
web page for public access.
7. Prepare cost estimates by June 30, 2009 of additional work needed to
successfully eradicate invasive tunicates within Puget Sound.
Annual review:
WDFW must prepare annua! tunicate management plan repofts on progress and
peformance by June 1, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
By June 1, 2008 and 2009, WDFW should meet with the TRAC to discuss peformance,
identify what worked and what didn't, and seek advice to improve peformance and
accomplish results.
WDFW should post annual repofts on the agency web page.
Proiect Budqet: Obiect Detail
Object Detail Total: $847,936
Obiect Sub Obiect Direct lndirect @
25.87o/o Total Cost
A-Salaries 4.0 FTE $393,912 $101,905 $495,817
B-Employee
Benefits 4.0 FTE $112,848 $29,194 $142,042
E-Goods and
Services
EA-Supplies &
Materials $40,000 $10,348 $50,348
E-Goods and
Services
EE-Repair,
Alterations, and
Maintenance
$8,400 $2,173 $10,573
E-Goods and
Services
ER-Other
Purchased
Services
s100,000 $25,870 $125,870
E-Goods and
Services
EZ-Other Goods
& Services $2,500 $647 $3,147
G-Travel s16,000 $4,1 39 $20,139
64