Species Prioritization in Arizona’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan-2012.

1. Species Prioritization in Arizona’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan-2012. Dr. David Walker University of Arizona

2. Difficult and often subjective. • Animals, plants, and algae.

3. Potential Impacts and Threat Score • Human health • Human infrastructure • Commerce • Recreation • Ecological impact to native or economically valuable species • Environmental health • Intrinsic value of native wildlife

4. Relative Abundance • Priority given to species that are the most abundant and negatively impacting Arizona. • Those species with distributions having little impact versus wide distributions posing extra management challenges will weigh on prioritization as well. • “Priority of threat analysis”, given to species not yet found in Arizona. • Focus of early detection and rapid responses for emerging AIS populations in the state.

5. Actions to be Considered • Prevention (outreach, education, enforcement) • Early detection, rapid response (EDRR) • Containment/control • Eradication – localized • Management (no eradication possible) - Prevention of spread - Minimization of impacts

6. Priority 1Species • “AIS whose introduction and spread has already caused, or has the potential for, significant impairment of a water body (or water bodies) within the state for either anthropocentric use or intrinsic value.” • “Efforts at containment through prevention of introduction of species are likely to have the greatest environmental and/or economic impact.”

7. • Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) • Golden algae (Prymnesiumparvum) • Hydrilla (Hydrillaverticillata) • New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgusantipodarum) • Quagga mussel (Dreissenarostriformisbugensis) • Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthysmolitrix) • Whirling disease (Myxoboluscerebralis) • Zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha)

8. Priority 2 • “AIS whose introduction and spread may have, or has the potential to impair a water body or bodies within the state, detracting from either anthropocentric use or intrinsic value.” • “These AIS do not currently have as great a potential for wide-spread harm to aquatic systems as Priority 1 AND/OR their presence in the state has only been anecdotal”

9. Priority 2 (cont.) • “They are highly localized so that spread appears relatively minimal AND/OR the introduction and potential spread of these AIS, and subsequent impairment, appears to be imminent or great.” • “Priority 2 consists of populations which might be controlled locally.”

10. • Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthysnobilis) • Chytridfungus (Batrachochytriumdendrobatidis) • Didymoa.k.a. “rock snot” (Didymospheniageminata) • Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllumspicatum) • Northern snakehead (Channaargus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria) • Redclawcrayfish (Cheraxquadricarinatus) • Rusty crayfish (Orconectesrusticus)

11. Priority 3 • “AIS whose introduction and spread within the state seems minimal compared to Priority 1 or Priority 2 AIS, however, the potential for introduction and spread exists AND/OR these AIS have already caused large-scale impairment to aquatic systems in Arizona but have become so firmly entrenched or wide-spread throughout the state that currently the management, remediation, and control of these AIS seems infeasible or is otherwise logistically difficult or impossible.”

12. • Asiatic clams (Corbicula spp.) • Bullfrog (Ranacatesbeiana) • Giant reed (Arundodonax) • Golden apple snail (Pomaceacanaliculata) • Nutria (Myocastor coypus) • Northern crayfish (Orconectesvirilis) • Round goby (Neogobiusmelanostomus) • Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (order Mononegavirales, family Rhabdoviridae, genus Novirhabdovirus)

13. Although this is the prioritization scheme as it stands today, the Arizona AIS Management Plan is meant to be a working document. • Species will undoubtedly be added or subtracted, or prioritization changed, as threats rise and fall.