Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop Howard Johnson Dutch Inn Cornwall, PEI

April 11, 2006

Final Report ACRDP Workshop No. F4758-060001

Prepared for Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program Rapporteur Bob Thompson, Consultant

8Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2006

This is report MG-06-01-007 for the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program

Table of Contents

ii Page No. Background ...... 1 Sponsors and Supporters ...... 1 Presentations ...... 2 Guest Speakers...... 2 1.0 Introduction and Welcome, Jean MacDonald ...... 3 2.0 Status Report, PEI=s Solitary and Colonial Tunicates, Neil MacNair ...... 3 3.0 Effluent Monitoring in PEI Processing Plants, Daniel Bourque...... 6 4.0 Monitoring the Spread of Invasive Tunicates on PEI, Jeff Davidson...... 7 5.0 MSX Update for the Maritimes, Mary Stephenson...... 8 6.0 The Oyster Drill - An Overview, Matt Smith...... 9 7.0 Rock Crab and Mussel Aquaculture Interaction, Marc Ouellette...... 10 8.0 The Vase Tunicate (Ciona) in Nova Scotia - The Current Situation, Stephanie Howes, Claire Carver, Peter Darnell...... 11 9.0 Post Mortem, Thomas Landry ...... 14 10.0 Review of the 2005 Invasive Species Program, PEI Introductions and Transfers (I&T) Committee, I&T Terms of Reference, Tunicate Sub-committee Terms of Reference, Art Smith ...... 15 11.0 Rapid Response, Andrea Locke...... 16 12.0 Atlantic Task Force /Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (ACFAM) Task Group, Richard Gallant ...... 17 13.0 List of Appendices...... 19 13.1 Agenda, PEI Invasive Species Research and Management Review ...... 20 13.2 List of Participants...... 22 13.3 Discussion Group Summary ...... 25 13.4 Speakers Presentations ...... 27

Disclaimer - This technical document was prepared as a result of work by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, the Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, the Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility of the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, the Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance. Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop Proceedings

iii Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

April 11, 2006

Background On April 11, 2006 the Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance, the Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture and DFO=s Aquatic Invasive Species Program staff co-sponsored the Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop at the Howard Johnson Dutch Inn in Cornwall. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together mussel producers, processors, researchers and development experts with experience in dealing with invasive species. At least six known invasive species have established in Prince Edward Island since 1998. Four species of tunicates (clubbed Styela clava, vase Ciona intestinalis, violet Botrylloides violaceus, and golden star Botryllus schlosseri, green crab Carcinus maenus and oyster thief Codium fragile are having negative ecological and economical consequences, more specifically for the mussel aquaculture industry (farmers and processors) and the clam fishery. Currently the mussel industry is significantly impacted with respect to growing, harvesting and processing of product infested with invasive tunicate species.

The workshop also focussed on a review of the Aquatic Invasive Species Program in 2005 and research and development priorities were identified in the afternoon session using a pre-determined list of questions that elicited valuable debate in the break-out discussion groups.

The PEI Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop was held between 9:00 am and 4:30 pm, allowing each invited speaker sufficient time to present their knowledge and workshop participants ample opportunity to engage these researchers in thought provoking discussion and resolution of issues facing the industry. Three speakers from Nova Scotia who had considerable experience with Ciona intestinalis were invited to share their knowledge of this relatively recent newcomer to PEI waters.

Participation at the workshop was encouraging with 54 individuals from the Maritimes, various aspects of the industry (growers, employees, processors, equipment suppliers), the research community and several levels of government participating in discussions.

Sponsors and Supporters The workshop was financially supported by the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program (ACRDP) of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and through the registration fees collected at the venue. An organizing committee for the workshop (ie. draft agenda, identification of topical research and development projects, contact guest speakers, etc.) was developed in December 2005 and comprised DFO (Art Smith, Invasive Species Coordinator), the PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture (Neil MacNair, Aquaculture Biologist), and the PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Jean MacDonald, Executive Director) and Bob Thompson (Research and Environmental Management Coordinator). The Howard Johnson Dutch Inn, Cornwall provided the venue, audio equipment, health breaks and the noon luncheon. The Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance provided administrative services via the PEIAA newsletter, mail-outs,

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 1 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

telephone and staff for the registration desk. An in-kind donation of the visual services (ie. projection equipment and computer) was provided by the PEI Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Aquaculture. Neil MacNair (PEIDAFA) assisted the speakers by loading their presentations on a laptop computer. Bob Thompson was engaged by the PEIAA to facilitate the workshop and develop the proceedings in a final report.

Presentations In April 2006, the Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop organizing committee posed the following questions to focus the workshop and sought appropriate invasive species researchers and individuals with front line experience in an effort to better understand AIS and the effects on shellfish aquaculture:

< What is the status of AIS in Prince Edward Island? < What are we learning about AIS in PEI? < What are we doing about it? < Can we limit the spread of AIS? < What farm management strategies exist to manage or treat AIS? < What tools do we have to communicate AIS to industry stakeholders and the general public? < How have we done thus far? $ What worked in 2005? $ What didn=t work? $ What is industry=s role < What are the needs for 2006? < Monitoring? < Introductions and Transfers? < Research? < Development? < Communications?

Guest Speakers Copies of each speaker=s presentation is appended to this report. The workshop organising committee acknowledges the participation of our guest speakers from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick who provided first hand knowledge and expertise in dealing with AIS. Special thanks to Stephanie Howes, Peter Darnell and Claire Carver for their updates on the vase tunicate situation in Nova Scotia.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 2 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

1.0 Introduction and Welcome Jean MacDonald (Executive Director) PEI Aquaculture Alliance

AThe purpose of today=s workshop is to provide industry members with information regarding the research that has been and is being conducted regarding Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) in PEI. It is also to discuss the management strategy that was used in 2005 and possible suggestions for better management practices for industry and government in 2006. It is our hope that with the aquaculture industry taking a proactive role in the management of aquatic invasive species, that other resource users will become more cognizant of the possibility of spreading these organisms throughout PEI estuaries. It has been with the participation of both levels of government as well as many dedicated industry members that these strategies have been brought forward. By continuing to work together we will be more effective in managing not only these species but also others that may eventually present themselves in PEI waters. I would encourage each of you to participate fully in discussion groups and if there is any further information that you require please contact the PEI Aquaculture Alliance, or any of our presenters. I hope that you will gain a better understanding of the research and management of AIS as well as the role you play in reducing the spread of these species. Bob Thompson will be your facilitator for the day.@

2.0 Status Report, PEI=s Solitary and Colonial Tunicates. Neil MacNair, PEIDAFA Neil MacNair, an aquaculture specialist with the PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture presented an overview of the distribution, biology and mitigation tools for the clubbed, violet and golden star tunicate and reviewed the current distribution of green crab and oyster thief in Prince Edward Island waters. MacNair=s research studied the spawning cycles of each tunicate species and the efficacy of a host of treatment agents in efforts to determine the most effective, user and environmentally friendly product. MacNair also experimented to ascertain the appropriate frequency and timing of treatment to be consistent with the life cycle of each species. MacNair studied the effects of various seeding densities on tunicate settlement, the efficacy of lime, acetic acid and brine on tunicates set on rope collectors, mussel socks and culture gear. In attempt to minimize risk of spreading the violet tunicate to uninfested waters, vinegar spray was deemed to be an effective treatment followed by brine dipping prior to processing infested product. MacNair also studied the effect of tunicates on the performance (meat yields) of mussels and oysters and reported impacts to be largely insignificant. Research and Development efforts in 2006 will focus on the vase tunicate in a study fashioned after a similar AFRI funded project conducted during 2005 on violet tunicate at Savage Harbour.

MacNair provided a brief summary of his Department=s work on the clubbed tunicate since 2001. He indicated that the spawning window is largely temperature dependent when in 2002 spawning commenced on June 24th and ceased on October 18th when water temperatures reached 150 C and fell to 150 C respectively. An overwinter mortality study on clubbed tunicate showed that 30 to 60 percent of the tunicates die during their first

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 3 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

overwinter period. Various methods to control clubbed tunicate were explored: $ Numerous agents were experimented with including salt blast, pressure washing, infra-red light, sugar, formalin, lanolin, sticking agents (molasses), hot water, steam, sodium hydroxide, citric acid, electricity (AC & DC), paraffin wax and detergents. Further work focussed on basic compounds (lime, sodium hydroxide), acidic compounds (vinegar), heat (hot water and steam) and New Zealand technology. Acetic acid appears to be the most practical compound experimented with to date for treating tunicate infested mussel socks $ Experimental results showed mussels socked in spring were more heavily fouled than mussels socked in fall, with tunicate settlement occurring on byssal threads and exposed socking material $ Rock crabs likely have an impact on clubbed tunicates as evidenced by underwater video and by socks allowed to touch the bottom compared with fully suspended socks. The amount of impact may depend on the size (life stage) of the tunicates and the number of crabs in the area $ Treatments using a lime dip on buoys and mussels socks was effective but results were often times inconsistent $ Adjustments in seeding densities 50, 150, 250, 350, 500 mussels/foot sock showed fewer numbers of clubbed tunicates at the higher seeding densities $ A study to determine the number of times to treat and timing of treatment using lime and vinegar on mussel collectors is in progress by a masters degree candidate at the Atlantic Veterinary College (results of Kim Swan=s work is expected in 2006) $ Acetic acid is known to produce unacceptable levels of mortality particularly on seed mussels

MacNair indicated that spray application may not be as effective as immersion, as was observed with vinegar. There are complications using immersion such as dilution of the treatment agent and determination of the concentration of the treatment agent. The research also showed no difference in mortality, growth and meat yields between untreated control mussel socks and those that underwent treatments using 5% acetic acid. Significant effort to use the New Zealand technology to kill clubbed tunicate was largely unsuccessful due to the thick leathery tunic protecting the animal.

The second part of MacNair=s presentation focussed on the results of the Savage Harbour Violet Tunicate Project partnered by the PEI Aquaculture Alliance. This project studied the life cycle: $ reproductive development $ window of larval release $ recruitment period $ recruitment density impacts on mussels and oysters: $ growth

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 4 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

$ meat yields $ mortality $ seed and control methods: $ treatment agent trials $ treatment application $ treatment of mussel socks and seed collectors $ crab predation

The results of MacNair=s work will be published in a report to AFRI in spring 2006 and are briefly summarized in the following statements. $ larval presence in water samples (3 minute pumps/50l/min) peaked on August 31, 2005 $ histological examination at the AVC indicated that mature eggs were present in tissues from April to December (from September onward- varied from no activity to ripe eggs present), ripe sperm was present from mid-May until December (from September onward- varied from no activity to ripe eggs present) $ initial recruitment on collector plates and on mussels was observed on July 14 and ended on October 21 when water temperatures reached approximately 180 C and 100 C respectively $ peak recruitment on collector plates occurred during the two week period August 14 to August 18 $ mature colonies that had previously overwintered were followed through the spring and early summer to determine growth and survival following the winter period. Although it was difficult to follow many of the colonies because of fall off, and recruitment of other fouling organisms, it was evident that the colonies survived and increased in size and mass $ growth, meat yields and mortality compared to fouled versus unfouled mussels and oysters showed no significant difference over the season $ immersion and spray applications of 5 % acetic acid on heavily infested socks showed a 80 - 90 % reduction in violet tunicate biomass and shoed no appreciable differences in meat yield or number of mussels per foot when compared with untreated socks. Another study where mussels were sprayed with vinegar and immersed in vinegar for 15 seconds showed mussel mortalities of 7.7 % and 12.2 % respectively $ buoys air dried for 24, 48 and 72 hours showed that after 72 hours few small violet tunicate colonies remained alive especially in the presence of fouling sea weed, buoys treated with saturated brine and lime for 15 seconds followed by 10 minute air drying was 90 % and 80 % effective respectively

MacNair also determined that socks previously treated with a single spray application of vinegar to remove most of the tunicate mass, followed by a 15 second immersion in saturated brine solution was effective at killing 99 % of tunicates. This trial was conducted

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 5 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

to determine if the risk of spreading violet tunicate into noninfested waters through processing activities could be mitigated by killing remaining tunicates at harvest. In attempt to determine if seed could be safely transferred to uninfested sites using brine immersion, infested product was immersed in brine for 15 seconds to 10 minutes followed by overnight air exposure. The results of this experiment showed high levels of seed mortality greater than 39 %. MacNair noted that violet tunicates spread rapidly on eel grass as small fragments (ampullae) readily break off and drift to new sites. Rock crabs were also observed with violet tunicate attached to the shell. Recommendations for further study included a need to study the impact of treatment agents on non-target organisms, examine other control methods (washing socks), and the effect of mussel fall-off due to violet tunicate fouling.

3.0 Effluent Monitoring in PEI Processing Plants. Daniel Bourque, DFO Daniel Bourque, a biologist with Fisheries and Oceans Moncton, New Brunswick presented an overview of his work and the results he has attained to date on research to determine the effect on survival of tunicate eggs and larvae under various environmental conditions for each stage in mussel plant processing. The aim of the project is to gain understanding on how to reduce the risk of infesting plant receiving waters with tunicate infested product. Daniel reports his findings to a steering committee that includes representation from the PEI Seafood Processors Association, the PEI Departmentment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture and the PEI Aquaculture Alliance. The steering committee is chaired by the PEI Aquaculture Alliance.

Bourque began his presentation by reviewing the objectives of his three year study and noted that the project was initially designed for Styela but Ciona was later added to the project as recommended by the steering committee. The major objective was to develop control strategies within four processing plants to minimize the potential gamete release into non-infested receiving waters. This objective would be met by testing the survival rate of tunicate eggs, sperm and larvae under a variety of environmental conditions within plants. The parameters identified for testing included temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia and turbidity A second objective would assess the risk of spread of tunicates associated to husbandry practices and environmental conditions within various plants during each season of the year. The major plant stages- stripping, holding and processing (declumping, debyssing and grading before packaging) require mechanical manipulation that can result in the release of gametes and potential for fertilized eggs and larvae to be released into the environment through the plant=s effluent discharge. Bourque summarized the results of this part of his study as follows: $ Ciona are crushed more readily than Styela $ the processing stage (declumping, debyssing, grading) has the greatest effect on the condition of Styela $ Ciona is mostly affected by the stripping stage

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 6 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Bourque encountered some difficulties to assess the abundance of tunicate eggs and larvae due to the high levels of sediment and debris in samples. Various methods to separate eggs and larvae from the debris were explored including density gradient separation, gravity separation, centrifuging and screening. Bourque also looked at the number of larvae in the effluent and noted higher numbers of larvae from stripping followed by processing. Egg abundance in holding tank effluent was much higher than larvae abundance. Some difficulties were encountered with evaluating the risk associated with processing product with various amounts of tunicate biomass. The results at this point are unclear however further work is planned this year to determine the level of risk associated with the amount of tunicates on product. Water quality parameters were highly variable among plants. Concentrations of ammonia were found to be higher in the holding effluent than in the stripping and processing effluent. More eggs and larvae were identified leaving the screening process than going in. Bourque conducted a shock treatment on violet tunicate larvae using a 5 minute dip into each treatment then back to 180 C and 28 _. The results showed that all larvae settled for each of 4 treatments with variable temperatures and salinities that ranged from 5 0C to 20 0C and 20 _ to 28 _ .

Violet tunicate fragments in solution were passed through a 710 micron screen and compared to an unscreened sample. Tunicate colonies developed from both solutions however the number of colonies was reduced by approximately half the unscreened sample. Bourque also noted that lower temperatures have an impact on fragment development. Additional work is planned in the coming months: $ gather more information on the relationship between tunicate abundance and the release of eggs and larvae $ egg and larvae survival rates related to environmental conditions $ investigate the effect of screening on tunicate eggs and larval abundance

4.0 Monitoring the Spread of Invasive Tunicates on PEI. Jeff Davidson, Atlantic Veterinary College Dr. Jeff Davidson with the Atlantic Veterinary College is currently involved in a collaborative research project with the PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, DFO Science in Moncton and the PEI Aquaculture Alliance. Jeff is a founding member of the Styela Clava Action Research Group (SCARG) which has since become the Invasive Tunicate Action Research Team (ITART) formed in response to the more recent incursion of three additional tunicate species into PEI waters. Jeff is a principal researcher of molluscan bivalves at AVC and specializes in epidemiology and the study of a variety of marine molluscan shellfish. Jeff has been researching a number of issues facing the shellfish industry over the last decade.

In 2002 reports of clubbed tunicates in Marchwater, on the north shore of PEI, led to an

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 7 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

intense diving survey of the area. A limited number of tunicates were found and the area was subsequently added to the Introductions and Transfers restricted list. Collector plates deployed throughout the leases in Marchwater between 2002 and 2005 showed that the numbers of tunicates on collector plates increased from 200 to 2000 with increasing numbers observed near the source site (ground zero). In the Cardigan River in 2003, clubbed tunicate was not observed on collector plates. In 2004, one tunicate was recorded but by 2005 the clubbed tunicate had spread throughout the river in low numbers. In 2005 Ciona recruitment was found to be considerable on all collectors deployed in Montague River with light recruitment on collectors in Brudenell River. Following the high infestation of violet tunicate in Savage Harbour, collector plates were deployed along the perimeter coastline to track the spread of the tunicate, however none were recorded. Similarly, monitoring in the Borden/Carlton area recorded violet tunicate recruits along the coastline in both eastward and westward directions to distances of 3 kilometers. Violet tunicate was found in the middle of Northumberland Strait on a piece of kelp in a lobster trap in fall 2005. Davidson reviewed maps showing the present known range and intensity of infestation for each invasive tunicate species in PEI waters. Davidson noted that given the results of monitoring efforts to date, it may be easier to control the rate of spread of the solitary tunicates (clubbed, vase) more readily than the colonial forms (violet, golden star). Davidson stated that a MSc. candidate (Aaron Ramsay) will be commencing a recruitment study in the Montague and Brudenell Rivers in spring 2006. These Rivers are known to have all 4 tunicate species present.

5.0 MSX Update for the Maritimes. Mary Stephenson DFO Mary Stephenson is a lab specialist at DFO Moncton=s Aquatic Animal Health Shellfish Program (NAAHP). Mary has monitored shellfish health by analyzing and reporting the results of thousands of shellfish samples from the Atlantic region. Along with Greg MacCallum, Shellfish Technical in Charlottetown, they continue to monitor oyster samples collected throughout PEI=s oyster production areas.

Stephenson began her presentation by reviewing the current infrastructure respecting DFO=s Aquatic Animal Health Program in Canada. Under the umbrella of DFO Science in Ottawa, the Pacific Biological Station (BC), the Freshwater Institute (Man), Gulf Fisheries Center (NB) and the Aquatic Animal Pathogen Biosecurity Laboratory (PE) provide disease testing and surveillance programs across Canada. The number of shellfish processed in NS and PEI by the Shellfish Health Unit (SHU) in 2005 was 5805 animals and included soft shelled clams, mussels, oysters, scallops, quahaugs and bar clams. The majority ( n=3245) of the samples tested in 2005 were soft shelled clams with Nova Scotia having the greatest number (54 %), followed by PEI (26 %) and New Brunswick (20 %). The testing of shellfish by SHU has significant implications for Introductions and Transfers Committees to prevent the spread and reduce the risk of transfer of disease organisms while enabling industry activities to proceed.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 8 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Stephenson stated that MSX (Multinucleate Sphere Organism Unknown, Haplosporidium nelsoni) was not a human health concern but has serious consequences for oysters. MSX was discovered in the Bras d=Or Lakes, Cape Breton Island, NS in 2002. Diagnostic testing involves three levels, Screening (histology), Presumptive (PCR molecular analysis) and Confirmatory (in-situ hybridization). Following analysis, the results are forwarded to federal/provincial Introductions and Transfers Committees for consideration and assessment of applications for shellfish transfers. MSX and SSO (Seaside Organism, Haplosporidium costale) are very similar in appearance however ASSO is not considered a severe disease of oysters but it is one to keep an eye on@. Oyster monitoring for MSX/SSO has been undertaken annually in PEI since 2002 using samples (spring and fall) collected in consultation with PEIDAFA. A zonation strategy has been developed for Disease Management of Oysters. In Cape Breton for example no oyster transfers are permitted out of the confirmed MSX Zone, while movements from a Buffer Zone are reviewed on a case by case basis. Stephenson displayed maps showing the 2005 results for MSX in the Maritimes that included MSX positive Zones, Flagged Zones and Buffer Zones. The SSO Zone includes the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Lockhart Lake. In 2006 additional work will focus on the St. Ann=s Harbour area of Cape Breton where overlap exists with MSX and in oysters and mussel culture. This situation is considered an important issue for the PEI Introductions and Transfers Committee. Stephenson concluded her presentation by summarizing the design of surveys, surveillance programs, field collections and ongoing collaborative research projects with AVC and an ACRDP project that will study MSX disease resistant oysters and options for farm disease management.

6.0 The Oyster Drill - An Overview. Matt Smith, PEIDAFA Matt Smith is a 20-plus year veteran with the PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture serving the department as an oyster technician since the 1970's. Matt spent a portion of the last two field seasons investigating the distribution and control methods for the invasive oyster drill. The oyster drill has become a threat to the oyster industry and attempts to curtail its spread to uninfested areas are being considered. Matt has researched and designed a number of trapping devices in attempt to reduce the impact on oysters.

During his presentation, Smith described the biology, feeding habits and control methods used to manage oyster drills. The following points highlighted his presentation: $ oyster drills are present in low abundance in several oyster production areas of PEI $ the drill becomes active when temperatures reach 120 C $ can tolerate salinities above 15 parts per thousand $ spawn once annually from May to October $ an average 50 eggs are laid per snail and hatching occurs after incubation in egg cases in 40-45 days

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 9 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

$ drills feed by boring a hole in their prey (oysters, barnacles and mussels) $ prefer to climb onto objects to lay eggs $ tend to move against the current $ attack thinnest shelled oysters and prefer mussels when both species are present

Smith conducted an experiment and reported feeding rates of 0.5 oyster spat per day/snail to 0.3 spat per day depending on the size of the drill. In 2004, 15 snails (28 mm/length) consumed 21 oysters (33 mm) in 7 days. Smith designed and tested a number of traps and found the rebar trap and wire trap designs most efficient with an average daily trapping rate of 3.7 and 3.8 drills. Maximum trapping rates recorded were in wire traps (average 8.7/day) with minnow traps averaging 7.6 drills/day. Smith suggested a number of control methods including egg case removal and trapping under a nuisance permit issued by DFO. Future experimentation is required to determine the effect of treatment agents (lime, brine, lime) to control oyster drills. Smith recommended extreme caution in moving oysters or oyster shell from areas with known drill infestation to uninfested areas.

7.0 Rock Crab and Mussel Aquaculture Interaction. Marc Ouellette, DFO Marc Ouellette is a research biologist with the Shellfish Research Unit at DFO=s Moncton Gulf Regional office. Marc has conducted several projects in PEI including a study of the bottom substrate characterization using acoustic techniques in Tracadie Bay. Marc=s current research involves a three year project that focuses on the relationship between rock crabs and effects on the mussel industry. Marc reports bi-annually to a project steering committee comprised of representatives from the PEI Fishermans Association, that includes representation by a lobster fisher and rock crab fisher, as well as PEIDAFA, and mussel industry membership.

In spring 2005, the PEI Aquaculture Alliance partnered with DFO and the Atlantic Shrimp Corporation Inc. on a four year project to investigate the interaction between rock crabs and mussels. The project objectives include: $ determine if rock crabs are effectively attracted to mussel socks on longlines $ find out if there is a decline in rock crab abundance under mussel lines during the directed commercial rock crab fishery $ determine if rock crabs are beneficial to mussel farming operations $ evaluate the impact of the green crab on mussel line productivity The first three objectives will be addressed during the 2005/2006 field seasons while the fourth objective will not be addressed until 2007. The ultimate goal of the project is to provide good scientific advice to improve the rock crab fishery management measures and thus ensuring that both industries can realize their full potential in a productive healthy ecosystem. During the 2005 field season diving surveys were conducted on three of the experimental sites (Marchwater/Lennox Island, Malpeque Bay and New London Bay), plus two control sites Covehead Bay and Rustico Bay. The sampling regime was designed in consideration of the spring lobster fishery and crab fishery as a means of addressing the effects of each fishery on crab abundance and population structure. Preliminary results are

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 10 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

showing changes in the crab abundance with time. However, the numbers are highly variable between surveyed leases and between bays. Rustico Bay for example showed higher numbers of crabs in the deeper water, away from leases, than on or near the leases in August. Covehead Bay had very few crabs present. However, the size structure of crabs did not seem to be significantly different between the surveyed sites. An increase in the abundance of female crabs was also observed in mid-November suggesting that females may be more active than males during fall months. The use of acoustic pingers attached to crabs (n=5) will be used for tracking of crab movements in the Lennox Island arae. Both active and passive (deployed) receivers are being used to track movements. A co- researcher, Angeline LeBlanc will begin an epifauna study to determine the effect of crabs onfouling organisms on mussel socks fitted with cages.

Ouellette summarized activities for the forthcoming field season (2006-07): $ continue the crab abundance monitoring surveys $ bay wide surveys would be continued with measurements of salinity, dissolved oxygen and temperature. $ commence epifauna study $ initiate acoustic tagging experiment, manually (boat) and automatic receivers (moored underwater)

Ouellette concluded his presentation as follows: Preliminary results suggests- $ rock crab abundance seems to be decrease with time due either to effects of the directed fisheries for crab and lobster and/or seasonal behaviour (migration). $ no apparent change in the population structure (sex and size) $ high variation in crab abundance between bays for both experimental and control (no fishery) sites

8.0 The Vase Tunicate (Ciona) in Nova Scotia. Stephanie Howes, Claire Carver, Peter Darnell

Stephanie Howes is a Masters degree candidate at Dalhousie University. Stephanie has been studying the vase tunicate in Nova Scotia=s south shore for the past two years and has worked closely with industry and other researchers during that time. Stephanie=s project involved collaboration with the Bedford Institute of Oceanography and DFO.

Ms. Howes was the first of three presenters from Nova Scotia to speak about her experiences in research and management of Ciona intestinalis. Howes provided a brief summary of the collaborative work that has taken place in conjunction with BIO and Dalhousie since 2003 including a number of tests to mitigate Ciona (ultra-violet light,

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 11 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

ultrasound, predation, bentonite and lease management strategy) and the ecological interactions between mussels and tunicates (settlement of tunicates vs mussel socking density and mussel meat yields vs tunicate infestation levels). Howes explained the BIO Coastal Survey where collectors were deployed and retrieved weekly at 8 sites to monitor recruitment from LaHave to Chester. This work also involved surveys of channel markings and buoys at 60 locations.

Howes explained that recruitment patterns of Ciona were similar in 2003 and 2004 at the Indian Point Mussel Farm in Mahone Bay but was unsure of the reasons for the difference observed in 2005. The hydrodynamics of water movements may have affected distribution of a large pool of larvae into various locations with different larval retention characteristics. A site that was allowed to fallow in 2003 and back in production in 2004 and 2005 indicated that fallowing reduces tunicate recruitment but it may not be economically feasible. In an experiment Socking Density vs Tunicate Recruitment, Howes noted a decrease in tunicate biomass and numbers of tunicates with higher socking densities using 75 mussels/m and 150 mussels/m (continuous socking). A trade off must be considered between rate of mussel growth at the higher socking density vs reduction in tunicates. Howes found little difference in mussel meat yields between mussels heavily found with tunicates than mussels with lesser infestation levels. The question is raised - AShould we bother treating@? In a feeding experiment, Howes reported increased feeding activity in tunicates as water temperatures increased and that tunicates consumed less food particles than mussels for each temperature (4 0C, 7 0C & 10 0C).

In 2006 the BIO Coastal Survey will be expanded to determine how quickly the Ciona infestation is expanding. New technology being developed at BIO (DNA markers - micro- satellites) will be used to determine if there is an exchange of larvae among bays.

Claire Carver is a consultant and research biologist who has conducted extensive work on Ciona intestinalis in mussel aquaculture sites in Lunenburg Bay, Nova Scotia while working with Lunenburg Shellfish Inc. A recent publication, >Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Ciona intestinalis Biofouling on Shellfish Production (Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 22, No. 33, 621-631, 2003 is used as a basic reference for her presentation. This research was conducted by Mallet Research Services Ltd., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

The primary objective of Carver=s study was to develop a strategy to mitigate the impact of Ciona intestinalis on an oyster culture operation in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. In contrast to mussel culture, oysters are contained in a cage from which the tunicates can be removed without losing the oysters. Heavy infestations however have the potential to depress shellfish growth ant to increase mortality due to competition for food and obstruction of water flow. Carver conducted lab and field trials to understand the local distribution of Ciona, investigate spawning and recruitment and to evaluate biological and chemical

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 12 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

strategies to eliminate Ciona from culture equipment and product. Carver reported some variation between experimental sites with one recruitment event at Bayport and two at Masons Beach. Recruits can reach 50 mm by summer with a second generation being able to reproduce before fall. Masons Beach juveniles grew more rapidly than those at Bayport. Overlapping generations exist due to spawning events and recruitment. Rock crabs are able to consume tunicates and that smaller to medium size crabs consumed greater numbers of tunicates than larger crabs. Green crabs showed less interest in preying on tunicates than rock crabs. The results of various eradication trials (sodium hypochlorite, salt brine, hydrated lime, fresh water) indicated that exposure to 5 % acetic acid was by far the most effective strategy. A one minute exposure to acetic acid was sufficient to cause 100 % mortality. Exposure times of 5 to 10 seconds were found to be insufficient, but 30 sec was generally 95 % effective. Oysters and mussels > 20 mm in length were typically unaffected by the acetic acid spray/dip, but control mussels < 10 mm died in one of the trials. An apparatus called the >Tunicator= was developed by Sam Bower, Shelburne, NS. This whipper snipper-like device was used to treat oyster bags covered with Ciona. High pressure washing of oyster bags was deemed effective but labour intensive and tunicates were difficult to remove from the inside of bags. The rights of disclosure of the New Zealand Technology that was purchased by Nova Scotia and PEI remains under a confidentiality agreement until 2008. Tests of the NZ technology proved unsuccessful on the clubbed tunicate in PEI, however trials conducted on Ciona in November 2005 in Nova Scotia showed a reduction in tunicate density approaching 60 %. Future trials will include minor mechanical modifications to improve efficiency and to identify operational settings to maximize the impact on various sizes and densities of tunicates.

Carver concluded her presentation with a summary of management strategies and options: $ switch from suspension culture to off-bottom table culture of oysters $ maximize predation by crabs and periwinkles $ stop cleaning bags in the field- transfer tunicates to land intact and allow to dry out $ determine optimal timing for treatment based on recruitment patterns

Peter Darnell, Nova Scotian mussel farmer has considerable experience in dealing with Ciona since 1997. Peter is the owner operator of a successful mussel production and processing facility (Indian Point Marine Farms Inc.) in Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia.

Peter began his presentation by noting that growing mussels used to be fun but since Ciona arrived on the scene in the late 1990's its not fun anymore. In some years, Darnell experienced a 100% die off of Ciona during the winter months which allowed mussels to be stripped from socks and processed with little difficulty. In winter 2005, however, the expected die off did not occur. Rather the opposite was the case, > mortality of Ciona this winter (2005) appears less severe at the surface but they appear healthier further down in

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 13 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

deeper water=. Darnell provided a number of comments with respect to the New Zealand technology which was used to combat Ciona on his continuous socking operation. $ 17 high pressure nozzles were effective in reducing tunicate biomass by as much as 60% $ Darnell is optimistic about the technology but some bugs need to be worked on including the length of the droppers from the back-line $ using the current system, it is possible to treat 2-3 km of lines per hour $ 1500 psi appeared to do the job given the number of nozzles used during his trial $ perhaps the hardware used in Nova Scotia could be modified for use in PEI where the longline system of mussel culture is conducted $ an on-board auger is used on the vessel during harvesting to reduce the biomass of tunicates on the mussel crop

Darnell has experimented with seeding densities previously to keep the Ciona off the first year, but in the second year higher seeding densities resulted in slower growth of mussels yielding heavy fouling. During discussion, Darnell commented that Ciona infested mussels are very difficult to process using the older style stripping machine.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 14 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

9.0 Post Mortem. Thomas Landry, DFO

Dr. Thomas Landry is a senior research scientist at DFO=s Gulf Region in Moncton, NB. and a major developer of the Aquatic Invasive Species research and development strategy for Atlantic Canada.

Landry provided a review of the issue of aquatic invasive species in Atlantic Canada noting the incursion of at least 40 new alien species into eastern Canadian waters over the last decade. Landry reviewed a slide showing the evolution of the AIS program from its early beginnings as part of the Introductions and Transfers process. Landry commended Jim Jenkins, the DFO employee who was largely responsible for developing I&T with the honour of knowing that his I&T vision is now being applied as a management tool for aquatic invasive species. Landry noted that when Styela clava was found in PEI in the late 1990's that it was unclear who was responsible for dealing with the issue and its impact on the aquaculture industry. The first formal group of collaborators was developed under the name Styela Clava Action Research Group (SCARG) in 1998 and included researchers from AVC, DFO, PEIDAFA and involved the PEI Aquaculture Alliance, industry participants and processors. In 2003, SCARG changed its name to ITART (Invasive Species Action Research Team) as additional species invaded the coastal waters of PEI. ITART also includes collaborators from the Nova Scotia mussel industry, AANS, and the provincial Department of Fisheries. More recently, an Aquatic Invasive Species Steering Committee was developed and it reports directly to the I&T Committee. The issue of AIS has taken a more regional expansion with the development of the Atlantic Canada Task Force.

Landry summarized by acknowledging the financial contributions of a variety of agencies and programs for AIS research including PEI=s Aquaculture, Fisheries Research Initiative (AFRI), NRC=s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), AQUANET, PEI Atlantic Shrimp Corp. Inc., and DFO=s Aquaculture Collaborative Research Program (ACRDP). The 2006 aquatic Invasive Species program will include projects on research and development, biology, impact on ecosystems, mitigation, monitoring, early detection, data management, and coordination which includes management and communication. Landry advised that a AIS Monitoring Workshop was planned for the following week in Moncton to review 2005 monitoring activities and to receive input from industry, NGO=s, AIS monitoring proposals, and to discuss a clearing house for AIS and linkages to other programs (NAAHP, Environment Canada, PEI Mussel Monitoring Program, etc.). An invitation was extended to all present to attend the scheduled meeting. Landry opened the floor to discussion following his presentation.

Input from participants following Landry=s presentation included:

$ need to bring engineering expertise into the picture to manage these species

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 15 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

$ need to separate mussels from tunicates and less volume to landfill sites $ concern that too much focus on the Gulf- monitoring should take a broader approach $ like to see more integration on a regional basis rather than smaller geographic areas Landry stated that the focus now is toward an Atlantic Canada approach or zonal approach $ aquatic invasive species is a larger issue than aquaculture, funding support agencies must be brought on side, this will be an important aspect of the AIS Task Force $ a lot of effort has been placed on education and communication in PEI $ the Task Force may be in a better position to lever funds from the federal government $ not enough people to address the issue, bay hopping, like to see work continue on clubbed tunicate (treatment, mitigation), need a monitoring/rapid response program for Didemnum $ good, focussed work on the Savage Harbour and Cardigan Project, need more researchers $ other interest groups have issues with invasive species, recreational fishers and commercial fisher groups must be part of the equation

10.0 Review of the 2005 Invasive Species Program, PEI Introductions and Transfers Committee, Tunicate Sub-committee Terms of Reference. Art Smith, DFO

Art Smith began his role of AIS Program Coordinator in September 2005 and works from the DFO Charlottetown office. Smith has been a valuable link with industry producers and processors serving as coordinator of activities associated with AIS research, development, monitoring and communications. Smith is a member of the PEI I&T Committee and was instrumental in advancing the tunicate Sub-committee that has representation from the majority of PEI=s shellfish aquaculture growing areas.

In his first presentation, Smith outlined his role as AIS coordinator and provided a review of the PEI Invasive Species Program in 2005. The Aquatic Invasive Species Steering Committee was established to address the issue of AIS and raise awareness to the impact AIS are having on the mussel and shellfish industries on PEI. Smith noted the PEIAA application to Environment Canada=s Invasive Alien Species Partnership Program would provide a valuable venue for educating the general public of the issue of AIS. Numerous meetings were held during the fall of 2005 to advise mussel producers, mussel processors, shellfish processors and shippers on the status of tunicate species in mussel producing bays and estuaries. In addition various meetings were held in conjunction with PEIAA, PEIDAFA, DFO and industry to receive input on developing Introductions and Transfers protocols, protocols for restricting tunicate infested waters and reporting protocols of tunicates or suspect organisms. Smith also advised that the Tunicate Sub-committee was

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 16 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

resurrected and reconstituted as an Advisory Committee to the Introductions and Transfers Committee.

Smith=s second presentation reviewed the monitoring priorities for 2006 as recommended by industry during research and development meetings and strategic planning exercises. Some of the monitoring priorities for 2006 are outlined below: $ sampling receiving waters near processing plants for known species and detection of new species $ sampling of waters where new tunicate species were confirmed to be present in 2005 to determine area affected and relative densities $ sampling navigational buoys- Coast Guard and local contractors

Smith noted the concern for tunicate transfers from off-loading mussels from Marchwater in 2005 and the possible threat to valuable oyster production areas in Bideford, Ellerslie and Lennox Channel. The development of a management plan in consultation with mussel and oyster producers was highlighted as a priority in 2006.

In his third presentation, Smith provided a general overview of the PEI Introductions and Transfers Process: $ What it is $ Who and what it effects $ Application requirements $ Review and protocols $ Introductions and Transfers Committee

A summary of the above is concisely described in Smith=s presentation as appended to this report (Appendix 13.4).

Smith concluded his presentations by challenging workshop participants to engage in discussion to review the 2005 AIS Program, Monitoring and Introductions and Transfers Committee. Three break-out discussion groups were asked to consider the following questions to guide deliberation: $ What worked for you? $ What didn=t? $ What should be the priorities in 2006? $ What role do you see industry playing? $ What would be required to involve industry? Recorders and rapporteurs were appointed for each discussion group. The major points of discussion are appended to this report (Appendix 13.3)

11.0 Rapid Response to Marine Invasive Species in Atlantic Canada: A Proposed Framework and Case Studies from PEI. Andrea Locke, DFO

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 17 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Dr. Andrea Locke is a leading DFO research scientist in the field of rapid response, an essential part of Atlantic Canada=s invasive species management program. She is well known for her work in early detection of AIS and has conducted a number of studies on the hitch-hikers or vectors of AIS.

Dr. Locke began her presentation noting that the best form of prevention to manage invasive species is keeping invasive species from entering in the first place. Rapid response is the second line of defence against invasive species and eradication is the primary goal. Eradication is possible only if the species is detected early enough and if colonization is restricted to a limited area. A proposed rapid response framework document is being prepared and is expected to be completed in spring 2006. Locke recognized three main elements of rapid response (i) processes and plans to guide response actions, (ii) tools with which to proceed and (iii) the capability and resources to carry out response. Pre- invasion and post-invasion planning requirements for each step in the process of rapid response include: $ general principles $ detection $ delimitation $ containment $ assessment $ implementation $ evaluation and monitoring

A number of rapid response case studies in PEI for green crab, oyster thief, clubbed tunicate, golden star tunicate, violet tunicate and vase tunicate provide essential background information of the results of responding to these invasive species. Locke explained a need for a >clearing house= for AIS that would form an essential element of rapid response by serving as a central point of reporting AIS and initiating follow-up to reports of new or unknown organisms. The clearing house would also facilitate taxonomic identification of AIS. Plans for 2006 will include a follow-up on the rapid response project on the Cardigan River, PEI and the use of acetic acid to control the rate of spread of violet tunicate. In addition, a rapid response project is planned for Didemnum in conjunction with a monitoring plan of high traffic ports and navigation buoys.

12.0 Atlantic Task Force/Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (ACFAM) Task Group. Richard Gallant, PEIDAFA

Richard Gallant is director of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 18 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

The Aquatic Invasive Species Atlantic Canada Task Force was officially formed in February 2006 to promote co-operation between DFO, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec to respond to common issues of aquatic invasive species and their economic impacts on the marine environment and related industries. The Task Force is presently co-chaired by the PEI Deputy Minister (Wayne Hooper) and Regional Director General (Jim Jones) DFO - Gulf Region. Gallant reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the Task Force to oversee and guide the following:

$ develop and implement a timely and systematic taxonomic identification protocol $ develop a monitoring and emergency response plan $ research, develop and assist with mitigation options for see, production and processing $ develop and implement control and spread measures of AIS including transport, processing, waste disposal $ promote public and industry awareness $ influence over funding agencies to coordinate funds to AIS (NRC, NSERC, ACOA, DFO and the Province $ establish priorities and implement actions, in consultation with industry and stakeholders

The Task Force has met twice to date to develop Terms of Reference and planning protocols. The Task Force reports to the Atlantic Canada Fishery and Aquaculture Ministers (ACFAM) along with the Invasive Species Action Research Team (ITART). ITART will report to the Invasive Species Task Force. The Task Force also works with the National Task Group / National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee that reports to the CCFAM. The CCFAM - AISTG was established in 2000 to build a National Plan for Canada on AIS. This group has identified 7 pathways of introduction of AIS and proposed initiatives to increase awareness, early detection, rapid response and risk assessment. Gallant concluded his presentation noting that the CCFAM - AISTG will likely evolve into a permanent National Aquatics Committee. Gallant also encouraged industry to have input into ITART and other processes to identify key priority areas for the Task Force to address.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 19 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

13.0 List of Appendices

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 20 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

13.1

Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Review Agenda April 11, 2006 Howard Johnson Dutch Inn

8:45 -9:00 Registration and Welcome

9:00 - 9:45 Status Report, P.E.I=s Solitary and Colonial Tunicates - Neil MacNair

9:45 - 10:15 Effluent Monitoring in P.E.I. Processing Plants - Daniel Bourque

10:15- 10:30 Monitoring the Spread of Invasive Tunicates on P.E.I - Jeff Davidson

10:30 - 10:40 Coffee

10:40 - 11:00 MSX Update for the Maritimes - Mary Stephenson

11:00 - 11:20 The Oyster Drill - An Overview - Matt Smith

11:20 - 11:40 Rock Crab and Mussel Aquaculture Interaction - Marc Ouellette

11:40 - 12:30 The Vase Tunicate (Ciona) in Nova Scotia - The Current Situation - Stephanie Howes, Claire Carver, Peter Darnell

11:30 - 12:00 Rapid Response - Andrea Locke

12:30 - 1:15 Lunch

1:15 - 1:30 Post Mortem

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 21 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Invasive Tunicate Action Research Team (ITART) Proposals, Programs, Letters of Intent - Thomas Landry

1:30 - 1:45 Discussion, Question and Answer

1:45 - 2:15 Rapid Response -Andrea Locke

2:30 - 3:00 Review of Invasive Species 2005 Introductions & Transfers I & T Terms of Reference Tunicate Sub-Committee Terms of Reference -Art Smith

3:00 - 3:15 Coffee

3:15 - 4:15 Discussion Groups - Planning for 2006

4:15 - 4:30 Atlantic Task Force/ Canadian Council of Fisheries & Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM) Task Group - Richard Gallant

4:30 Wrap Up

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 22 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

13.2

Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Workshop April 11, 2006

List of Participants

Alan Morrison PEIDAFA

Andre Mallet Consultant

Andrea Locke DFO

Andy Gaudet Mussel Industry Worker

Angeline LeBlanc DFO

Art Smith DFO

Benedikte Vercaemer DFO/BIO

Bob Thompson Consultant

Buck Watts PEIFA

Calvin Jollimore Mussel Grower

Carl Reynolds Reynolds Island Mussels

Carla Barkhouse DFO

Chris Mills PEIDAFA

Claire Carver Consultant

Crystal MacDonald Consultant

Daniel Bourque DFO

Denise Methe DFO

Dianne Rogers Mussel Grower

Donna Peters Mussel Grower

Frank Hansen PEI Shellfish Assn.

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 23 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Garth Arsenault AVC

Gary Rogers Mussel Grower

Greg MacCallum DFO

Jack Mitchell Rainbow Netting and Rigging

James Power Raspberry Point Oyster Company

Jean MacDonald PEI Aquaculture Alliance

Jeff Davidson AVC

Jerry Bidgood Prince Edward Aqua Farms

Jerry Coles Mussel Industry Worker

John Sullivan Canadian Mussels

Kim Swan AVC

Mac Campbell DFO

Marc Ouellette DFO

Mary Stephenson DFO

Matt Smith PEIDAFA

Mike McInnis PEI Seafood Processors Assn.

Neil MacNair PEIDAFA

Paul Burleigh PEIDAFA

Pedro Quijon UPEI

Peter Darnell Indian Point Mussels

Remi Sonier DFO

Remi Daigle DFO

Renee Bernier DFO

Richard Gallant PEIDAFA

Rodney Campbell Mussel Industry Worker

Roger Townsend Mussel Grower

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 24 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Stephanie Howes Dalhousie University

Stephen Fortune Mussel Grower

Stephen Lanteigne DFO

Thomas Landry DFO

Vanessa Lutz UPEI

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 25 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

13.3

PEI Invasive Species Research and Management Review - April 11, 2006 Discussion Group Summary

The following points were raised during discussion of the Invasive Species Program Review in 2005. Points are summarized for each of the following areas - Monitoring, Introductions and Transfers, and Communications. A list of suggestions to improve the issues around the AIS process have been summarized as 2006 Program Requirements.

Monitoring < collector plates are not an effective means to determine presence of AIS at low densities (larvae) < growers are hesitant to report AIS or unknown organisms < prioritize monitoring of seed prior to socking in both Spring and Fall < growers need to be more pro-active and monitor their own leases for the presence of AIS < regulations are required to enable enforcement of AIS respecting shellfish transfers < needs to happen in a timely fashion < needs to happen before socking seasons commence < experts needed to identify AIS- confirmation of species identity is too slow < lack of resources to respond to AIS in a timely manner < additional divers are needed to follow-up on reports of suspect organisms < follow-up on AIS for identification is reportedly reasonable given current staff and resources < lack of regulatory tools for AIS

Introductions and Transfers < needs to be a uniform process across all waters- both restricted and clean areas < more resources required to follow-up on I&T licensing conditions < external enforcement required- relying on self regulation or bay management is not effective < need buy-in to co-manage AIS in Malpeque Bay apart from March Water/Darnley, including- Chichester Cove, Lennox Island, Weber Cove, Bentick Cove, Grand River and Bideford River areas < the Tunicate Sub-committee needs to become active < enforcement of I&T licences for AIS is non-existent < made industry more aware of I&T requirements < I&T process is becoming more efficient

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 26 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

Communications < proposed communication project via Environment Canada needs to begin soon < develop a mobile road show (classroom) for industry, and the general public to promote stewardship < consultation/communications worked well but a need to communicate to a wider audience (ie. apart from aquaculture sector) < communication of AIS status/distribution to industry worked well

2006 AIS Program Requirements

< additional funding for Development as part of R&D < need for industry driven AIS programs < increased funding for R&D initiatives; by and for industry members < better communication to educate industry with current regulations and assistance programs < best practices for AIS need to be developed for all watercourse users < industry needs to be involved in discussions on how AIS funds are allocated < seed monitoring prior to I&T from uninfested areas < monitoring presence of AIS in seed prior to socking in spring and fall < web-based maps for current AIS status and known distribution < co-management committee established to minimize risk of spread of AIS throughout Malpeque Bay < more regular meetings of the industry wide Tunicate Sub-committee < need to monitor I&T licensing conditions < improvements needed to respond to and follow-up AIS reports in a timely fashion < continue communication program to educate public of AIS issue < improved resource base for taxonomic identification of AIS and follow-up to reports of AIS (clearing house)

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 27 April 11, 2006 Prince Edward Island Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop

13.4 Speakers Presentations

ACRDP Report No. MG-06-01-007 28 April 11, 2006 Invasive Species Research and Management Strategy Workshop (Tentative Agenda) April 11, 2006 Howard Johnson Dutch Inn

9:00 - 9:30 Status Report, P.E.I.’s Solitary and Colonial Tunicates - Neil MacNair

9:30 - 9:45 Effluent Monitoring in P.E.I. Processing Plants - Daniel Bourque

9:45 - 10:00 Monitoring the Spread of Invasive Tunicates on P.E.I - Jeff Davidson

10:00 - 10:15 Coffee

10:15 - 10:30 MSX Update for the Maritimes - Greg MacCallum

10:30 - 10:45 The Oyster Drill - An Overview - Matt Smith

10:45 - 11:00 Rock Crab and Mussel Aquaculture Interaction - Marc Ouellette

11:00 - 11:30 The Vase Tunicate (Ciona) in Nova Scotia - The Current Situation - Claire Carver, Peter Darnell, Stephanie Howes

11:30 - 12:00 Q & A Discussions on Priorities

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch

1:00 - 1:15 Review of Invasive Species 2005 -Art Smith

1:15 - 1:45 Post Mortem Invasive Tunicate Action Research Team (ITART) Proposals, Programs, Letters of Intent - Thomas Landry

1:45 - 2:30 Introductions & Transfers - Janet Smith I & T Terms of Reference Tunicate Sub-Committee Terms of Reference Co-Management Management Plan for 2006

2:30 - 2:45 Rapid Response - Andrea Locke

2:45 - 3:00 Atlantic Task Force/ Canadian Council of Fisheries & Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM) Task Group - Richard Gallant

3:00 - 3:15 Coffee

3:15 - 4:30 Planning for 2006

4:30 Wrap Up

Please provide feedback on one (1) thing you felt worked well in the control and management of tunicates in 2005, (Federal, Provincial or Industry).

Please identify one (1) thing you felt could have been addressed in a more productive manner with respect to the control and management of tunicates in 2005, (Federal, Provincial or Industry).

InteractionsInteractions betweenbetween thethe rockrock crabcrab (Cancer irroratus) fisheryfishery andand musselmussel aquacultureaquaculture productivityproductivity inin PrincePrince EdwardEdward Island.Island.

Marc Ouellette, Luc Comeau, Angeline LeBlanc & Jean-François Mallet Oceans and Science Branch Aquatic Health and Aquaculture Division GulfGulf ofof St.St. LawrenceLawrence

Orb View-2 (03-05-99) RockRock crabcrab directeddirected fisheryfishery (diversification)

Historical Rock Crab Landings 880$/t 6000 23 24 5000 25 26A 26B Total 4000

3000 Landings (t) Landings 2000

1000

0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year

„ Lobster fishery by-catch „ 41% of the tottotalal rock crab catch in LFA 24 for 2004 RockRock crabcrab directeddirected fisheryfishery MusselMussel aquacultureaquaculture (techniques) Mytilus edulis

„ Rock crab (functions): „ control the epifauna and/or second set „ strengthen mussel aattachmentttachment (byssus) mussel socks = a living reef (ex/ 32 species in 6 Phylum (Ellis et al. 2002)) OverviewOverview

Ecosystem

Aquaculture Fishery ObjectivesObjectives (2005-08)

„ The first (1) objective is to determine whether rock crabs are effectively attattractedracted to mussel socks on a longline. „ Effects of mussel farming on rock crab population structure and abundance (spatial)

„ The second (2) objective is to examine whether there is a decline in the abundabundanceance of rock crab on and under mussel lines during and following the directed fishery. „ Effects of directed fishery on rock crab population structure and abundance (temporal)

„ The third (3) objectiobjectiveve is to verify the widespread assertion that rock crabs are beneficial to mussel longline productivity. „ Effects of rock crab on mussel socks (epifauna and mussel attachment)

„ The fourth (4) objective is to evaluate the impact of the green crab (Carcinus maenas) on mussel line productivity. „ Effects of green crab versus rock crab StudyStudy areaarea ProtocolProtocol

„ Objective 1 (spatial) „ SCUBA (active sampling) – bay scale (in & out of leases) „ 3 x 25 m transects (75 m2) per zone (under longlines) „ 3 zones (in, center & out) per bay (2 bays) = 36 transects „ Data: number, length, sex & condition of crabs „ 3 x 10 mussel socks per lease (tou(touchingching the bottom) „ 3 leases per bay (2 bays) = 180 socks „ Data: number, length, sex & condition of crabs

„ Objective 2 (temporal) „ SCUBA (active sampling) – on leases only „ Sampling timeline (rock crab directed fishery)

„ Other „ positions (GPS) „ tempetemperaturerature (minilogs) SamplingSampling timelinetimeline (objective 2)

) ) t d ) r n rt ta e a s ( t ( y (s y r r 8 ry he 2 he is e is 6 f r h 1 f is y ly b be f a b u a o r a J r t e M r c c t c k O k c bs c o o o R L R

5 5 5 5 5 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 4 6 7 0 1 /0 /0 /0 /1 /1 5 7 1 6 9 2 2 2 0 0 PreliminaryPreliminary resultsresults (temporal)

Lennox Island (bottom) Marchwater (bottom)

60 25 50 4-May 27-Apr 20 15-Jun 40 30-Jun 15 27-Jun 30 28-Jul 20-Jul 5-Oct 10

transects 20 transects 5-Oct 9-Nov 10 5

Avg. # of crabs/25m 15-Nov N/A Avg. # of crabs/25m N/A 0 0 0 12 12 Lease # Lease #

Lennox Island (socks) Marchwater (socks)

45 35 40 30 4-May 35 27-Apr 25 15-Jun 30 30-Jun 25 20 27-Jun 28-Jul 20 15 20-Jul 15 5-Oct 10 5-Oct mussel socks 10 9-Nov mussel socks

Avg. # of crabs on 10 5 0N/AN/A 5 15-Nov

Avg. # of crabs on 10 00 0 0 N/A 0 0 Not touching bottom Touching bottom Not touching bottom Touching bottom Line status Line status PreliminaryPreliminary resultsresults (temporal)

Lennox Island Marchwater

120 120

100 100 80 80

60 60

40 40 20

Avg. crab size (mm) 20 Avg. crab size (mm) 0 0 27-Apr 30-Jun 28-Jul 5-Oct 9-Nov 4-May 15-Jun 27-Jun 20-Jul 5-Oct 15-Nov Date Date

Lennox Island (bottom) Marchwater (bottom)

100% 100% 3 3 7 19 23 16 6 14 5 80% 80% 7 42 60% Female 60% Female 43 Male 19 47 Male 40% 77 94 53 18 40% 46 24

Sex Ratio (%) Ratio Sex 9 20% 30 (%) Ratio Sex 20%

0% 0% 27-Apr 30-Jun 28-Jul 5-Oct 9-Nov 4-May 15-Jun 27-Jun 20-Jul 5-Oct 15-Nov Date Date PreliminaryPreliminary resultsresults (spatial) - bay scale

Rustico Bay (control) Rustico (30/08/05) 12 10 8 6 4 transect 2 0 Avg. of # crabs per 25m -2 On lease Off lease Off lease (deeper w ater) Re gion ProtocolProtocol (objective 3: epifauna study)

3 type of treatments x 5 replicats x 3 areas mussel fall-off

Control (in suspension only) Exp. (mussel farming husbandry)

artist: A. LeBlanc TaggingTagging experimentexperiment

„ Coded pingers „ 69 KHz „ battery > 1 yr

„ Receivers

Active (VR60) Passive (VR2)

„ 5 released crabs „ one crab detected ConclusionConclusion

„ Preliminary results: „ rock crab abundance seems to decrease with time „ effect of fishery and/or seasonal behavior (migration) ? „ no apparent change in the population structure „ carapace length, sex ratio „ high variation between bays (control and experimental)

„ Next field season (2006-07) „ bay wide survey (spring, summer, fall) „ multiparameter measurements (temperature, salinity, DO) „ epifauna study „ acoustic tags „ manual (boat) and automatic receivers (moored underwater)

„ Project’s ultimate goal: „ provide good scientific advice to improve the rock crab fishery management measures and thus ensuring that both industries can realize their full potential in a productive and healthy ecosystem rogram (Funding) rogram (Funding) P P

Barkhouse Barkhouse

evelopment evelopment D D Matthew Hardy Matthew Hardy

Merci Merci

Thank you esearch and esearch and Thank you R R

Daniel Bourque, Jonathan Hill, André Drapeau, Daniel Bourque, Jonathan Hill, André Drapeau, Project Steering Committee Project Steering Committee Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

DFO Lobster Section: DFO Lobster Section: PEI Atlantic Shrimp Corp. Inc. (Funding) PEI Atlantic Shrimp Corp. Inc. (Funding) PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Industry partner) PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Industry partner) PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Industry Rémi Sonier, Jessica Burke, Carla Rémi Sonier, Jessica Burke, Carla ollaborative ollaborative C C

DFO research team: DFO research team: quaculture quaculture A A PRINCEPRINCE EDWARDEDWARD ISLANDISLAND AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

Art Smith Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Department of Fisheries & Oceans Charlottetown, PEI April 11, 2006 AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

• Coordinated monitoring and awareness efforts for tunicate species with PEIAA, PEIDAFA, DFO and growers, processors and harvesters • Focused on responding to new tunicate sightings, monitoring in response to confirmed sightings, meeting with and raising awareness of industry to presence of tunicates • Established the Aquatic Invasive Species Steering Committee (AISSC) and Atlantic Zone Invasive Species Task Force to address the issue of AIS and raise awareness to the impact AIS are having on the mussel and shellfish industries of PEI • Resurrected and reconstituted the Tunicate Subcommittee as an Advisory Committee to the Introductions & Transfers Committee • Continued to research the biology of tunicate species in Island waters and treatment options for growers and processors to manage for tunicate infested product AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

• Meetings with industry - general meeting with PEIAA member mussel growers and processors re AIS and I&T requirements, Cornwall, September 29 - meeting with Rustico mussel growers and processors re violet tunicate sightings, September 27 (South Rustico) and October 26 (Rustico) - general meeting with Cardigan Bay (Murray River to Cardigan River) mussel growers and processors re AIS and I&T requirements, Montague, October 4 - meeting with St. Peters Bay mussel growers and processors re AIS and identification of violet and golden star tunicates in Bay, Cornwall, October 12 - meeting with mussel growers and processors re status of tunicate infestations, discussion of restricted water designations for St. Peters Bay, Rustico Bay and Darnley Basin, Cornwall, October 24 AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

• Meetings with industry, cont’d – meeting with March Water/Darnley Basin mussel growers and processors, oyster fishers, re violet and clubbed tunicates, restricted water designation for Darnley Basin, Kensington, October 19 – meeting with mussel growers and processors from Tracadie/Winter Bays re findings from monitoring for violet and clubbed tunicate, Corran Ban, December 12 – meeting with Orwell/Vernon River oyster fishers, lease holders, mussel growers and processors re status of AIS in Orwell, Charlottetown, January 3 – meetings with mussel processors and shellfish processors and shippers re draft I&T protocols, Charlottetown, January 23 and February 24, respectively – attending Oyster Growers AGM and Shellfish Association membership information session, Summerside, March 15 and17, respectively AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

•• IssuesIssues forfor 20062006 – Maintaining a monitoring program that provides for early detection and a rapid response capability to the expansion of established AIS species (in particular tunicate species) or the presence of a new species – Protecting and maintaining waters free of AIS – Maintaining the businesses of mussel culture and harvest of shellfish, while minimizing the risk of infesting waters with AIS from these activities – Challenging individuals to adopt actions that contribute to protecting waters against the expansion of established AIS or the introduction of new species AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

•• ProposedProposed directiondirection andand activitiesactivities forfor 20062006 – Continue to work to contain and slow the spread of established tunicate species, and the establishment of new species – Apply the reporting protocol for new sightings of suspect growth – Follow up on 2005 sightings to confirm the presence of tunicates and to determine extent of infestations – Sample navigational buoys to serve as an early detection monitoring system for AIS – Assess Orwell River for the presence of tunicates in keeping with the protocol for removing a “restricted water” designation – Sample receiving waters of mussel processing plants for the presence of tunicates AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW •• ProposedProposed directiondirection andand activitiesactivities forfor 2006,2006, cont’dcont’d – Continue communication with industry (mussel growers and processors, oyster growers, harvesters and processors), Harbour Authorities, ACAP groups, Watershed groups on the issue of AIS in Island waters – Conduct directed research • Options for managing mussel plant effluent water to protect receiving waters • Recruitment biology for the vase tunicate in Island waters • Management options for vase tunicate infested farms • Influence of colonial tunicates on mussel seed set in Savage Harbour AQUATICAQUATIC INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES 20052005 PROGRAMPROGRAM REVIEWREVIEW

•• WhatWhat workedworked forfor you?you? •• WhatWhat didn’t?didn’t? •• WhatWhat chanchanggeses wouldwould youyou recommendrecommend forfor 20062006 program?program? •• WhatWhat rolerole shouldshould industryindustry play?play? •• WhatWhat wouldwould bebe requiredrequired forfor industryindustry involvement?involvement? Carver and Mallet 2006

Developing Management Strategies for Reducing the Impact of Ciona intestinalis on Shellfish Culture

Claire Carver, Andre Mallet 1999 – 2005

Bob Semple (DFO) Carver and Mallet 2006

Two studies in Nova Scotia

¾¾ LunenburgLunenburg 19991999 -- 20002000 ƒ LifeLife historyhistory ofof CionaCiona ƒ ControlControl methodsmethods ƒ ManagementManagement strategystrategy ¾¾ MahoneMahone BayBay –– IndianIndian PointPoint –– 20052005 ƒ NZNZ TunicateTunicate TreatmentTreatment TechnologyTechnology ƒ 20062006 -- developdevelop managementmanagement strategystrategy?? Carver and Mallet 2006

Lunenburg Bay - Sep 1999 Carver and Mallet 2006

Juvenile scallops in Vexar bags Carver and Mallet 2006

European oysters on oyster tables Carver and Mallet 2006

Impacts of Ciona infestation

¾ ReducedReduced growthgrowth ratesrates

ƒ Flow interference ƒ Food competition ¾ IncreasedIncreased productionproduction costscosts

ƒ Labour to remove fouling ƒ Damaged equipment Carver and Mallet 2006

Development of management strategy

¾ CionaCiona lifelife historyhistory ƒ Recruitment patterns ƒ Growth rates / maturity ƒ Life span

¾ ControlControl methodsmethods ƒ Natural predators ƒ Chemical / mechanical Carver and Mallet 2006

Recruitment of Ciona juveniles

30 Bayport Masons 25

20

15

10

5 Juvenile tunicates / 100 cm² Juvenile tunicates / 100 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2000 Carver and Mallet 2006

Juvenile growth: June settlement

15.0 Bayport Masons Beach

8080 mm 10.0

5050 mmmm 5.0 Wet weight (g)

0.0 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Carver and Mallet 2006

Ciona life cycle: overlapping generations

2000 2001 2002

Recruitment S = Spawning 2001-2 S S?

2001-1 SS S? ?

2000-2 S S? ?

2000-1 S S? ?

Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Carver and Mallet 2006

Control options - natural predators - rock crabs (Cancer irroratus)

¾ Tunics cut open, body tissues extracted Carver and Mallet 2006

Control methods: mechanical options

¾ Pressure-washing effective but labour- intensive

¾ Difficult to remove tunicates from inside bag Carver and Mallet 2006

Control methods: chemical options

Description Treatment Effectiveness duration (mortality) Javex (60 ppm) 20 min 0% Brine 8 min 25% Lime (4%) 6 min 50% Fresh water 1 min 10% Hot fresh water (400C) 1 min 66% Acetic acid (4%) 1 min 90-100% Carver and Mallet 2006

Control methods: acetic acid field trials

¾ Application: Hand-spraying ¾ 90% mortality – 1 week Carver and Mallet 2006

Technology development: the Tunicator

¾ Prototype constructed by Atkinson and Bower, Shelburne NS Carver and Mallet 2006

Technology development: the Tunicator

STN #1 STN #2 STN #3 STN #4 Whipper Brushes Washer Chemical Sprayer

Bag In Out

¾ Development supported by NSDAF Carver and Mallet 2006

Technology assessment: Tunicator trials

¾ Whipper snipper very effective ¾ Tunicates not removed but most die later Carver and Mallet 2006

Management strategy for Lunenburg

1. Abandon suspension culture – remove all potential settlement substrates 2. Switch to oyster tables – maximize natural predation (crabs, periwinkles?) Carver and Mallet 2006

Management strategy for Lunenburg

3.3. StopStop cleaningcleaning bagsbags inin thethe fieldfield –– drydry outout onon landland 4.4. ReRe--scheduleschedule fieldfield activitiesactivities -- changechange equipmentequipment postpost settlementsettlement (Sep(Sep--Oct)Oct) Carver and Mallet 2006

PreliminaryPreliminary Assessment Assessment ofof the the NZ NZ TunicateTunicate TreatmentTreatment Technology Technology

IndianIndian PointPoint MarineMarine FarmsFarms MahoneMahone Bay,Bay, NSNS 20052005

Bob Semple (DFO) Carver and Mallet 2006

New Zealand Tunicate Treatment Technology

¾ Intellectual property owned by the NZ Mussel Industry Council

¾ Designed to eliminate Ciona ple Sample Sample #2 #3 from mussels grown in continuous sleeving

¾ No trials conducted in NZ because Ciona disappeared Carver and Mallet 2006

Preliminary Trials

¾ Tests on Styela clava in PEI proved unsuccessful

¾ AANS obtained funding to evaluate the NZTTT at IPMF in 2005

¾ System designed to eliminate tunicates with minimal disturbance Carver and Mallet 2006

Treatment Effectiveness

¾ Damaged tunicates still attached to surface of mussels

¾ Mussel fall-off was minimal

¾ Survival assessed after a few weeks Carver and Mallet 2006

TrialTrial Results:Results: NovemberNovember 20052005

300

250

200 -7% nicates per meter 150 tu

100 mber of

u -59% -56% N 50

Initial Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Carver and Mallet 2006

NZ Technology – Future trials

¾ MakeMake minorminor mechanicalmechanical modificationsmodifications toto improveimprove efficiencyefficiency

¾ IdentifyIdentify operationaloperational settingssettings toto maximizemaximize thethe impactimpact onon variousvarious sizessizes andand densitiesdensities ofof tunicatestunicates Carver and Mallet 2006

Developing a Management Strategy?

¾ DocumentDocument impactimpact ofof CionaCiona onon musselmussel performanceperformance –– biomassbiomass threshold?threshold?

¾ DetermineDetermine optimaloptimal timingtiming forfor treatmenttreatment

ƒ Spring: Eliminate broodstock = reduced settlement rates?

ƒ Summer: Increased risk of mussel fall-off?

ƒ Fall: Increased tunicate biomass – easier to target? Carver and Mallet 2006

Acknowledgements

¾ LunenburgLunenburg (1999(1999--2000)2000) ƒ NRC - Industrial Research Assistance Program ƒ NS Dept Agriculture and Fisheries

¾ IndianIndian PointPoint (2005)(2005) ƒ ACOA – Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ƒ CCFI – Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation ƒ NRC - Industrial Research Assistance Program Effluent Monitoring in PEI processing plants

Daniel Bourque Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gulf Fisheries Center 11 April, 2006 Objectives

• Assess the risk of spread of tunicates associated to husbandry practices and environmental conditions within processing plants – Effect of processing stages on tunicates (crushing or tearing) – Egg and larvae abundances in effluent – Risk associated to tunicate abundances – Effluent water quality parameter ranges Objectives

• Develop control strategies within plants to minimize the potential for gamete release into non-infested bodies of water – Test survival rate of gametes (eggs and sperm) and larvae in various environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, salinity, oxygen concentration, pH, ammonia and turbidity) Main processing stages

• Stripping: mussels are stripped from socking material and initially graded

• Holding: mussels are held in Xactic tanks filled with running seawater until final processing

• Processing: mussels go thru declumping, debyssing and grading before being packaged Effect of processing on tunicates

• Mechanical manipulation of tunicates can cause crushing and tearing of the animals – Release of gametes (eggs and sperm) – Artificial fertilization – Eggs would then be capable of developing into larvae – Larvae could then settle and grow into adult tunicates • Risk of introduction thru effluent waters Styela & Ciona

100 90 80 70 60 Stripping 50 Holding 40 Processing tunicates 30 20 10 Percentage of damaged damaged of Percentage 0 A B C D All Plant Styela

100 90 80 70 60 Stripping 50 Holding 40 Processing tunicates 30 20

Percentage of damaged of damaged Percentage 10 0 A B C D All Plant Ciona

100 90 80 70 60 Stripping 50 Holding 40 Processing tunicates 30 20 10 Percentage of dammaged of dammaged Percentage 0 A B C D All Plant Summary

• Ciona are crushed and torn more readily than Styela • Processing stage has the greatest effect on the condition of Styela • Ciona is mostly affected by the stripping stage Tunicate eggs and larvae Effluent and tunicate eggs and larvae

• Difficulties encountered – High sediment and debris concentrations • Methods explored for separation from debris – Density gradient separation – Gravity separation – Centrifuge – Screening Tunicate eggs in the effluent

30000

25000

20000 Stripping 15000 Holding

10000 Processing

#of eggs / second / eggs #of 5000

0 A B C D All Plant Tunicate eggs in the effluent (holding)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

# of eggs / second / eggs # of 0.05

0 AB CDAll Plant Tunicate larvae in the effluent

25

20

15 Stripping Holding 10 Processing

5 # of larvae / second / larvae # of

0 A B C D All Plant Tunicate larvae in the effluent (Holding)

0.0025

0.002

0.0015

0.001

# of larvae / second 0.0005

0 AB CDAll Plant Estimates based on average of all 4 processing plants Time Period Stage 1 day 7 days (7 hour day) (7 hour days) Stripping 159,762,338 1,118,336,366 Holding 2,584 18,088 Eggs Processing 34,903,101 244,321,707 Total 194,668,023 1,362,676,161 Stripping 184,839 1,293,873 Holding 12 84 Larvae Processing 54,041 378,287 Total 238,892 1,672,244 Summary

• Egg abundance is much higher than larvae abundance • Relatively few eggs and larvae are observed in the holding effluent • Stripping produced the highest amount of larvae followed by processing – Note: there are relatively fewer tunicates going into processing but crushing and tearing of these individuals is more likely Risk associated to tunicate abundances

• Evaluation of the risk associated with processing product with varying abundance of tunicates – Comparison of egg and larvae abundance in the effluent to the abundance of tunicates being processed – Results at this point are not clear due to high variability of data • More intensive sampling will be conducted this season to look into this Water quality parameters

• YSI probe (data logger) – YSI parameters: •Temperature • Salinity • Dissolved O2 •pH • Turbidity – Other parameter • Ammonia Temperature

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000 Frequency

1500

1000

500

0 0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10-11 >11-12 >12-13 >13-14 >14-15 >15-16 >16-17 >17-18 >18-19 >19-20 >20-21 >21-22 >22-23 >23-24 >24-25 >25-26 >26-27 >27-28 >28-29 >29-30 Temperature (ºC) Salinity

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600 Frequency

400

200

0 0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10-11 >11-12 >12-13 >13-14 >14-15 >15-16 >16-17 >17-18 >18-19 >19-20 >20-21 >21-22 >22-23 >23-24 >24-25 >25-26 >26-27 >27-28 >28-29 >29-30 Salinity (ppt) Dissolved O2

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500 Frequency

1000

500

0 0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10-11 >11-12 >12-13 >13-14 >14-15 >15-16 >16-17 >17-18 >18-19 >19-20 >20-21 >21-22 >22-23 >23-24 >24-25 >25-26 >26-27 >27-28 >28-29 >29-30 DO (mg/L) pH

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000 Frequency

4000

2000

0 1 >1 - 1.5 >1.5 -2 >2 - 2.5 >2.5 -3 >3 - 3.5 >3.5 -4 >4 - 4.5 >4.5 -5 >5 - 5.5 >5.5 -6 >6 - 6.5 >6.5 -7 >7 - 7.5 >7.5 -8 >8 - 8.5 >8.5 -9 >9 - 9.5 >9.5 - 10 >10 ->10 10.5 ->10.5 11 ->11 11.5 ->11.5 12 ->12 12.5 ->12.5 13 ->13 13.5 ->13.5 14 pH Turbidity

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

Frequency 3000

2000

1000

0 0 >0 - 50 >50 ->50 100 >100 - 150 >150 - 200 >200 - 250 >250 - 300 >300 - 350 >350 - 400 >400 - 450 >450 - 500 >500 - 550 >550 - 600 >600 - 650 >650 - 700 >700 - 750 >750 - 800 >800 - 850 >850 - 900 >900 - 950 >950 ->950 1000 >1000 ->1000 1050 ->1050 1100 ->1100 1150 ->1150 1200 ->1200 1250 ->1250 1300 ->1300 1350 ->1350 1400 Turbidity (NTU) Ammonia

1.4

1.2

1

ration (mg/L) 0.8 Stripping Holding

0.6 Processing

0.4

0.2 Ammonia concent

0 ABCD Processing plant Summary

• Temperature: range 5-12ºC • Salinity: range 0 – 28 ppt • Dissolved O2: range 0 – 14 mg/L • pH: range 7 – 8.5 • Turbidity: range 0 – 1100 NTU • Ammonia: ~0.15 – 1.2 mg/L

• No summer data is included in these ranges Effluent screening Violet tunicate

• Temperature and salinity shock treatment on larvae – 5 minute dip into each treatment then back to 18 ºC and 28 ‰

Treatments Results

5ºC & 20‰ All larvae settled

5ºC & 28‰ All larvae settled

25ºC & 20‰ All larvae settled

25ºC & 28‰ All larvae settled Violet tunicate

• Screening effect on fragments – Halve a fragment solution was passed through a 710 µm screen – 5 ml of each solution was placed in 1L containers with gentle aeration • Results: – Colonies grew from both solutions – Colonies were reduced by ½ in the screened solution Violet tunicate

• Effect of temperature on fragment development

Temperature Settlement 0°C no Trial 1 21°C yes 5°C no Trial 2 10°C no 0°C no Trial 3 5°C no 14°C no Next steps

• Gather more information on the relationship between tunicate abundance and the release of eggs and larvae

• Egg and larvae survival rates related to environmental conditions

• Investigate the effect of screening on tunicates eggs and larvae abundance INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

Janet Smith, Acting Chief Resource Management, PEI Area Office Department of Fisheries & Oceans April 11, 2006 INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

• Subcommittee reconstituted with meeting on February 7, 2006 • Purpose is to provide industry a forum for making recommendations to the I&T Committee respecting the management of the I&T process and research needs for the management and containment of tunicate species in provincial waters • Subcommittee membership includes the aquaculture and commercial fishing industries, the processing sector, as well as representatives of DFO, provincial Fisheries & Aquaculture and AVC • Membership includes 36 industry representatives, 8 government employees and 2 researchers from AVC • Industry members represent 17 major estuarial, bay complexes within the province • Chair of the subcommittee is on a yearly rotational basis between DFO, provincial Fisheries & Aquaculture and an industry representative • Subcommittee will meet at least quarterly, or more frequently at the request of the Chair or subcommittee members • Records of decisions are distributed to subcommittee members, who in turn are requested to share the information with their organization, fellow growers/harvesters INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE •• BayBay complexescomplexes andand representativesrepresentatives – Cascumpec Bay, Mill River • David Lewis • Lloyd Lewis – Malpeque Bay, Darnley Basin • Frank Hansen • Fred Hillier • Chris Milley • Gary Rogers – New London Bay • Jerry Bidgood • Stephen Stewart INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• BayBay complexescomplexes andand representatives,representatives, cont’dcont’d – Rustico Bay • Basil Andrews • Calvin Jollimore – Covehead Bay, Brackley Bay • Bob Murphy – Tracadie Bay, Winter Bay • Paul MacInnis • Frank MacKinnon – Savage Harbour • Randy Gidney INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• BayBay complexescomplexes andand representatives,representatives, cont’dcont’d – St. Peters Bay • Scott Dockendorff • Stephen Fortune • Gary MacKenzie – North Lake, South Lake, Souris River • Johnny Flynn • Tommy Joe MacDonald, Jr. – Boughton River • Russell Dockendorff, Jr. • Vernon Yoston INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE •• BayBay complexescomplexes andand representatives,representatives, cont’dcont’d – Cardigan River • Wayne Smith – Montague River, Brudenell River, St. Mary’s Bay • Bob Fortune • Ralph MacPherson • John Sullivan – Murray River • Carl Reynolds • Colin Reynolds – Orwell River, Vernon River • Charles Lalacheur INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• BayBay complexescomplexes andand representatives,representatives, cont’dcont’d –– HillsboroughHillsborough BayBay •• Scott Dennis •• Ken MacWilliams –– BedequeBedeque BayBay •• Clifford Bernard –– EnmoreEnmore River,River, PercivalPercival BayBay •• Hubert Marchbank INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNCIATETUNCIATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• NonNon governmentgovernment representativesrepresentatives • Ken Campbell • Stephen Howatt • Mike MacInnis • Jean MacDonald • Bob Thompson

•• UPEI/AVCUPEI/AVC representativesrepresentatives • Garth Arsenault • Dr. Jeff Davidson INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• Government representatives – DFO • Daniel Bourque • Thomas Landry • Lea Murphy • Art Smith • Janet Smith

– Provincial Fisheries& Aquaculture • Richard Gallant • Neil MacNair • Chris Mills INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNCIATETUNCIATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• 20062006 ManagementManagement ObjectiveObjective

–– ControllingControlling andand containingcontaining thethe spreadspread ofof establishedestablished tunicatetunicate speciesspecies –– PreventingPreventing thethe establishmentestablishment ofof newnew speciesspecies andand expansionexpansion ofof establishedestablished species.species. INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• RecommendedRecommended prioritiespriorities forfor 20062006 – Research • Treatment options to protect receiving waters at processing and socking facilities from infestations • Treatment options for tunicate infested seed and market product • Recruitment biology of the vase tunicate in PEI, with emphasis on determining when spawning begins • Seed set in Savage Harbour, and influence of colonial tunicates on seed set • Developing a summary for research conducted to date INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS TUNICATETUNICATE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE

•• Recommended priorities for 2006, cont’d – Operational • Implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program, supported by trained staff • Communicating with industry on the presence of new species and expansion of existing species • Developing and maintaining a web site accessible to industry • Promoting the use on antifouling paint on all boats • Cleaning the hull and bilge of boats moving between estuaries • Cleaning buoys in keeping with an accepted protocol • Assessing lobsters being imported as vectors for invasive species • Ensuring Coast Guard actiactivitiesvities do not contribute to the introduction or expansion of invasive species in the province INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

Janet Smith, Acting Chief Resource Management, PEI Area Office Department of Fisheries & Oceans April 11, 2006 INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• GeneralGeneral Overview:Overview: –– WhatWhat itit isis –– WhoWho andand whatwhat itit affectsaffects –– ApplicationApplication requirementsrequirements –– ReviewReview andand approvalsapprovals –– IntroductionsIntroductions && TransfersTransfers CommitteeCommittee INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS •• WhatWhat itit isis – Legal requirement to obtain a license to move finfish, shellfish and other aquatic organisms into and within PEI – Authority - Section 56 of the Fisheries (General) Regulations – Purpose is to maximize the benefits associated with introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms while protecting: • indigenous fish populations from disease and parasites and deleterious genetic changes • natural aquatic ecosystem from harmful alterations INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• WhoWho andand whatwhat itit affectsaffects –– AnyoneAnyone wishingwishing toto importimport finfishfinfish oror shellfishshellfish oror anyany otherother aquaticaquatic organismorganism ((egeg.. marinemarine plant)plant) –– AnyoneAnyone wishingwishing toto movemove bivalvebivalve mollusksmollusks from,from, intointo oror withinwithin designateddesignated restrictedrestricted waterswaters withinwithin thethe provinceprovince INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS •• ApplicationApplication requirementsrequirements – completion of an application acquired from DFO indicating: • Species, life stage and quantity involved • Purpose of request • Origin and source for product being transferred • Destination for product being transferred • Shipping method and mitigation measures proposed to minimize risks to indigenous fish stocks and receiving waters • Identification of intermediary stops between source and final destination INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• Review and approvals – Received by DFO and circulated to I&T Committee members • Provincial resource managers • DFO resource managers, fish health specialists – Potential effects on indigenous fish populations and natural aquatic ecosystems assessed – Applicant contacted for additional information, if required – Application approved, with conditions (enabling, but precautionary), or rejected – Applicant advised of decision through issuance of a license or a letter of rejection INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS •• IntroductionsIntroductions && TransfersTransfers CommitteeCommittee – Reviews I&T applications to ensure that federal and provincial legislation and protocols are adhered to and applied on a consistent basis to minimize the potential effects on indigenous fish populations and natural aquatic ecosystems from the movement of aquatic organisms (eg. finfish, shellfish, plant, etc.) – Supported by the Tunicate Subcommittee which provides industry a forum for making recommendations to the I&T Committee respecting the management of the I&T process and research needs for the management and containment of tunicates species in provincial waters INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

ManagingManaging forfor AquaticAquatic InvasiveInvasive SpeciesSpecies

Janet Smith, Acting Chief Resource Management, PEI Area Office Department of Fisheries & Oceans April 11, 2006 INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• ManagingManaging forfor aquaticaquatic invasiveinvasive tunicatestunicates - Definitions - Reporting protocol for suspect growth - Process for restricting waters - Restricted waters - I&T license requirement for movement of bivalve mollusks from tunicate infested waters - Socking and processing tunicate infested mussels - Harvest and movement of oysters, quahaugs - Removal of a restricted water designation INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

• Definitions – Restricted water is defined to be any body of water designated under the Fisheries (General) Regulations for the purpose of controlling and managing the spread of aquatic invasive species in the province. – Confirmed is considered to be the identification by government officials of the presence of an aquatic invasive species in a body of water in response to a report of the presence of a suspect organism. – Established refers to the confirmation of the presence of an identified aquatic invasive species in such numbers in a given body of water that the risk of transferring bivalve mollusks, without mitigation, could result in contributing to the spread of the aquatic invasive species – Aquatic invasive species refers to any aquatic organism accidentally or intentionally released into an aquatic environment outside its traditional range that has the potential to survive and establish a reproducing, sustainable population. INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• Reporting protocol for suspect growth – Purpose is a timely identification supported by a rapid response for removal, containment – Reporting, response procedure • Growth removed and forward to DFO, provincial Fisheries & Aquaculture or Aquaculture Alliance • Site where growth collected flagged for follow up assessment • Growers in area advised of finding • Site assessed to determine presence of an invasive species • Tunicate Subcommittee advised of assessment • Growers and processors from affected water meet to develop an action plan to contain the species • Joint monitoring program implemented to determine extent of infestation and effects of actions taken INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• Process for restricting waters – Purpose is to control and manage the spread of tunicates from infested waters – Designation procedure • Growers and processors from affected water meet with government officials to confirm the extent of establishment of an invasive species and discuss designating the affected water • Information shared with Tunicate Subcommittee and advice sought • Introductions & Transfers Committee reviews information and advice, and makes recommendation for designation • DFO designates the affected water as restricted • Monitoring in the affected water continues to assess the spread and extent of the infestation INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• RestrictedRestricted waterswaters (tunicate(tunicate speciesspecies present)present) – Murray River (clubbed) – St. Mary’s Bay (clubbed, vase, golden star) – Montague River (clubbed, vase) – Brudenell River (clubbed, vase, violet) – Cardigan River (clubbed, violet, golden star) – St. Peters Bay (violet, golden star) – Savage Harbour (violet, golden star) – Darnley Basin (clubbed) – March Water (clubbed, violet) INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• I&T license requirement for the movement of bivalve mollusks from tunicate infested waters – Purpose is to minimize the risk of transferring new tunicate species to unaffected waters and controlling the spread of established species with product movement • No license required for moving bivalve mollusks from unrestricted water to unrestricted water • Licenses required for moving bivalve mollusks – from unrestricted water to restricted water – from restricted water and processed within the same restricted body of water – from restricted water to another restricted water where similar tunicate species have been confirmed or established – from restricted water to another restricted water where different tunicate species have been confirmed or established INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

• Socking and processing tunicate infested mussels – Purpose is to identify minimum license requirements for socking and processing tunicate infested mussel to minimize risk of infesting receiving waters – Mitigation measures • 750 micron (25 mesh) screening at socking and processing facilities for all tunicate species • Water temperatures <10 degrees C for socking and processing clubbed tunicate infested product in waters not infested this species • Water temperatures <8 degrees C for socking and processing vase tunicate infested product in waters not infested with this species • Rapid response to new species sightings – Seed transfers from violet and golden star infested waters to water not infested with these species may be considered provide there is an acceptable level of risk of not transferring these species to the receiving waters. An acceptable level of risk will be determined through a risk assessment conducted on a case by case basis. INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• Harvest and movement of oysters, quahaugs – New licensing conditions for harvesters • Required to remove all marine plant and animals from the surface of the shell of harvested product at the harvest site • Required to ensure marine plant and animals are removed from boat, trailer and other equipment prior to leaving the harvest site • Required to apply for an I&T license if relaying harvested product from restricted water to a lease in non restricted water • Requested to report any sightings of suspect growths – Licensing requirement for buyers, processors and shippers • Required to apply for an I&T license for buying or processing product harvested from restricted waters INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• Removal of a restricted water designation – Purpose is to outline the process for removing a restricted water designation – Delisting procedure • DFO and provincial Fisheries & Aquaculture conduct on going monitoring to confirm the absence of tunicates using collector plates and a minimum of three site assessments per year • Two successive years of negative results • Introductions & Transfers Committee reviews monitoring results with harvesters, lease holders and processors, and Tunicate Subcommittee • Introductions & Transfers Committee recommends removal of restricted water designation • DFO acts on recommendation INTRODUCTIONSINTRODUCTIONS && TRANSFERSTRANSFERS PEIPEI PROCESSPROCESS

•• AreAre thethe definitionsdefinitions andand protocolsprotocols acceptableacceptable toto you?you? •• IfIf not,not, whatwhat changeschanges areare requiredrequired toto makemake themthem acceptable,acceptable, workable?workable? •• WhatWhat shouldshould bebe ourour prioritiespriorities forfor 20062006 withwith respectrespect toto managingmanaging thethe movementmovement ofof productproduct fromfrom infested/restrictedinfested/restricted waters?waters? •• WhatWhat rolerole dodo youyou seesee industryindustry playingplaying toto ensureensure protocolsprotocols work?work? AAquaticquatic IInvasivenvasive SSpeciespecies

Ciona intestinalis

Botrylloides violaceus Botryllus schlosseri Orb View-2 (03-05-99) ManagementManagement StrategiesStrategies

I & T

SCARG

PEI Aquaculture Alliance Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans ITART

AISSC

AIS ACTF

Agriculture, Fisheries, National Research Council Atlantic Veterinary College Aquaculture SupportSupport ProgramsPrograms

AFRI

IRAP

PEI Aquaculture Alliance AQUANET Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

SHRIMP FUND

National Research Council ACRDP

AIS

Agriculture, Fisheries, Atlantic Veterinary College Aquaculture CAIRN 20062006 ActivitiesActivities

R & D Biology Impact

PEI Aquaculture Alliance Mitigation Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

Monitoring Early Detection National Research Council Data Management

Coordination Management Agriculture, Fisheries, Communication Atlantic Veterinary College Aquaculture Merci Merci

Thank you Thank you

Working Together Working Together PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland AquaticAquatic InvasiveInvasive SpeciesSpecies MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

Art Smith Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Department of Fisheries & Oceans Charlottetown, PEI April 11, 2006 PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

• Responding to sightings from 2005 where time and conditions prevented assessment to confirm presence or absence • Sampling Lennox Channel, Bideford, Ellerslie area for presence of tunicates • Sampling receiving waters off mussel processing plants for the presence of tunicates • Sampling known areas for tunicate infestation to determine extent of infestations (density and area affected) • Sampling navigational buoys upon removal in the fall • Following up on I&T licenses to determine the level of compliance with the terms and conditions PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006 •• RespondingResponding toto sightingssightings fromfrom 20052005 – Violet tunicate • March Water • North/South Rustico • Tracadie/Winter Bays – Golden star tunicate • Boughton River – Clubbed tunicate • Darnley Basin • Pinette River – Vase tunicate • Cardigan River PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

•• SamplingSampling LennoxLennox Channel,Channel, BidefordBideford,, EllerslieEllerslie – Concern for tunicate transfers from off loading of mussels from March Water in fall 2005 – Major oyster seed production area for enhancement of public fisheries – Call for development of a management plan for area in consideration of its importance to oyster industry and potential risks that exist from mussel operations – Monitoring for tunicate species will become part of management plan activities PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006 •• SamplingSampling receivingreceiving waterswaters ofof processingprocessing plantsplants forfor thethe presencepresence ofof knownknown speciesspecies andand detectiondetection ofof newnew speciesspecies

•• SamplingSampling ofof waterswaters wherewhere newnew tunicatetunicate speciesspecies werewere confirmedconfirmed toto bebe presentpresent inin 20052005 toto determinedetermine areaarea affected,affected, relativerelative densitiesdensities – St. Peters Bay for violet and golden star tunicates – Cardigan River for violet tunicate – Brudenell/Montague Rivers for violet tunicate – St. Mary’s Bay for golden star tunicate PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

•• SamplingSampling navigationalnavigational buoysbuoys – Serves an early detection system for the presence of new species or expansion of established species – Program currently exists for monitoring buoys removed by Coast Guard vessels from Southern Gulf – Opportunity to expand sampling, and to be more relevant to PEI, by checking buoys removed by local contractors (>30 buoys) – Sampling occurs in the fall when buoys removed PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

•• FollowFollow upup onon I&TI&T licenseslicenses – Licenses issued with terms and conditions to minimize risk of transferring diseases, parasites and fellow travelers to protect province’s fisheries and ecosystems – Provides opportunity to assess level of compliance and potential risks associated with non compliance – Assures industry that others in the industry are respecting the process – Affords the opportunity to assess the benefits and need for terms and conditions PrincePrince EdwardEdward IslandIsland MonitoringMonitoring PrioritiesPriorities forfor 20062006

•• What worked for you?

•• What didn’t?

•• What should be the priorities for 2006?

•• What role do you see industry playing?

•• What would be required to involve industry? Rapid response to marine invasive species in Atlantic Canada: A proposed framework and case studies from Prince Edward Island

Project participants: Andrea Locke, Neil MacNair, Leaming Murphy, Mark Hanson, Art Smith, Janet Smith Approaches to managing invasive species

(1) Keeping invasive species from entering in the first place = PREVENTION (universally recognized as cheapest & most effective response)

(2) Containing their spread = RAPID RESPONSE “Even the best risk-based strategy would not be expected to reduce the risk of new invasions to zero.” (CSIRO, 2001) Definition of Rapid Response

ƒ The capacity to quickly respond to an invasion in cases where prevention fails. Early detection and eradication protocols are essential components. Our goal: ƒ Develop a “Framework”, i.e. a structured procedure that outlines steps to be followed to – allow the early detection of species incursions – determine the best response

ƒ “Rapid response” is an essential part of a marine invasive species management program.

ƒ There is currently no formal procedure to identify and respond to the discovery of noxious alien aquatic species in Atlantic Canada. Structure of the report ƒ The scope and goals of rapid response ƒ History of rapid response in the marine environment – Overviews of 9 international examples, 1950’s to present (England, Mediterranean, California, New Zealand, Australia) ƒ Development of a rapid response framework – Extracting the best elements from frameworks developed in USA, New Zealand, Australia ƒ Case histories of response to 7 recent invasions in PEI estuaries Scope and goals of rapid response ƒ Rapid response is the “second line of defense” against invasive species

ƒ Eradication is the primary goal – Feasible only if species is detected early in colonization, restricted to limited area

ƒ Other management options – Contain the problem to a given area – Suppress the population to slow its spread – Develop management strategies to keep the species at an abundance which is below an economic or ecological threshold – Do nothing: Learn to live with the problems caused by the species (Adapt) Three main elements of rapid response

(1) Processes and plans to guide response actions

(2) Tools with which to respond

(3) The capability and resources to carry out the response A Proposed Rapid Response Framework

(0) General principles (1) Detection (2) Delimitation (3) Containment (4) Assessment (5) Implementation (6) Evaluation / Monitoring

ƒ Pre-invasion and Post-invasion planning for each step 0. General preparation ƒ Pre-invasion

– Understand appropriate laws, regulations, policies, etc. – also, relevant existing emergency response plans

– Identify who is responsible overall, and for each step in the rapid response

– Communications planning 1. Detection ƒ Pre-invasion – List “species of concern”. – How to deal with species not on the list. – Identify protocols for identification. ƒ IF YOU CAN’T IDENTIFY IT, YOU CAN’T DETECT IT – Develop monitoring networks. – Who will be notified of an invasion. – Develop a web-based information system ƒ Post-invasion - Report the invasion. - Identify the invader. - Keep (voucher) the confirmed specimen 2. Delimitation ƒ Pre-invasion – Who will conduct biological surveys for various environments/species.

ƒ Post-invasion – Determine distribution of invader. – Determine vectors / risk of spread. 3. Containment ƒ Pre-invasion – Evaluate legal authority to apply restrictions to infested areas. – Develop criteria for determining need for containment or restriction of use of a water body. – Who is responsible for enforcement ƒ Post-invasion – Preliminary risk assessment – is management needed? – Restrict use of infested water body, if necessary. 4. Assessment ƒ Pre-invasion – Identify data needed for Risk Assessment – Identify control options for trigger species. – Who will do the Risk Assessment, and how

ƒ Post-invasion – Assemble data on affected area. – Review the control options. – Identify risks and benefits associated with various options including ‘do nothing’. – Select preferred control option. – Set schedule for implementation. What determines the level of response (control option)?

ƒ potential effects of the organism on the environment, economy and people ƒ technical feasibility of response options ƒ ability to target the invasive species ƒ risks associated with the treatment ƒ level of public concern or interest ƒ likelihood of the organism being eradicated or effectively managed 5. Implementation ƒ Pre-invasion – Who is responsible for the rapid response – Train rapid response group members

ƒ Post-invasion – Begin experimental or full-scale management effort. 6. Evaluation / Monitoring ƒ Pre-invasion – Identify agencies responsible for post-treatment monitoring. – Identify protocols to be used. ƒ What criteria will be used to judge success? ƒ At what point is a formerly infested water body considered “clean”? 6. Evaluation / Monitoring ƒ Post-invasion – Assess effectiveness – Determine if the response is complete ƒ No further response action is required or practicable – Take measures to prevent re-invasion – Debrief the process and record ALL steps. – PUBLISH in the permanent scientific literature. INCLUDING FAILURES. Case studies of responses to recent invaders in PEI

ƒ Green crab Carcinus maenas ƒ Oyster thief alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides ƒ Amphipod Caprella mutica ƒ Clubbed tunicate Styela clava ƒ Golden star tunicate Botryllus schlosseri ƒ Violet tunicate Botrylloides violaceus ƒ Vase tunicate Ciona intestinalis Next steps ƒ Complete the rapid response framework document (April 2006) ƒ Monitoring plan ƒ Develop “clearinghouse” – A central point for reporting & information – Species identificationn ƒ Follow-up on last year’s rapid response in Cardigan ƒ Develop a rapid response plan for Didemnum in PEI Invasive Species Workshop Charlottetown, PEI April 2006 MSX Update

Mary Stephenson, Michelle Maillet, Anne Veniot, Marie-Line Cournoyer, Greg MacCallum, Mike Goguen Nellie Gagné & Jeannette Arsenault

In collaboration with: Provincial Fisheries Departments Aquaculture Associations Industry Associations First Nations DFODFO AquaticAquatic AnimalAnimal HealthHealth InfrastructureInfrastructure

Freshwater Institute Gulf Fisheries Center & Charlottetown Aquatic Animal Pacific Biological Pathogen Station Biosecurity Laboratory

DFO Science Ottawa % of aquatic animals received at the SHU laboratary in 2005

90 (2%)

120 (2%)

360 (6%)

C.V irginic a 575 (10%) M.edulis 3245 (56%) M.arenaria P.magellanicus A.irradians M.mercenaria

1415 (24%) n = 5805 animals Number of C.virginica received at the SHU laboratory from NS, PEI and NB in 2005

PEI 850 (26%)

NS 1755 (54%)

NB 640 (20%) 100% = n total = 3245 animals MSX = “Multinucleate Sphere X” Haplosporidium nelsoni

mature spores

developing spores

plasmodia

NOT A HUMAN HEALTH CONCERN Prevent spread of MSX while enabling industry activities to proceed. Science Advice: • International standards • Diagnostic testing •Screening: histology •Presumptive: PCR & histology •Confirmatory: In – situ hybridization

Implementation of disease controls: • DFO Fisheries Management • Federal/Provincial Introduction & Transfer Committees MSX = “Multinucleate Sphere X” Haplosporidium nelsoni

SSO MSX

Salinity > 25ppt 15-25 ppt

Mortali ties USA 20-40% >80%

Seasonal Outbreaks May-June Sept-Oct May Plasmodia size 2-15 µm 4-30 µm

Spore size & tissue 3-4µm 5-8µm location connective tissue digestive tubule walls

SSO = “Seaside Organism” Haplosporidium costale Héron Island MSX/SSO Results Caraquet Bay Fall 2002 Shippagan Magdelan Islands

Neguac Baie du vin Prince Edward Prince Edward Aspy Bay Richibucto Island New Brunwick Lennox Channel Cape Bouctouche Southwest River Breton St Ann ’s Bay St. Peter ’s Bay Mira River Wilmot River St Patrick ’s Channel Hillsborough Denas Pond Shemogue McKinnons’s Hbr Orwell Cove Eskasoni Murray RiverGillis Cove Wallace Chappel Island Tatamagouche Bay Lockhart Lake Pugwash Arichat Lennox Passage

Nova Scotia Country Harbour

Oyster samples Mussel samples • 3000 Oysters •39 Sites MSX SSO •360 Mussels Eel Lake MSX & SSO Eskasoni •4 Sites Zonation for Disease Management of Oysters

BufferBuffer MSXMSX ZoneZone == BrasBras d’Ord’Or LakesLakes

MSX Zone - no oyster transfers out for re-soaking - Movements within Bras d’Or reviewed on case by case basis - Other species DFO - SHU 2005 Preliminary results for MSX in the Maritimes

St-Simon

Magdelan Islands Néguac Isles de la Madelaine Prince Edward Island South Aspy Bay Isle du Prince Edouard Mill River Cape Breton Aldouane Foxley River New Brunswick Enmore Cap Breton Nouveau Brunswick Ellerslie Bouctouche Covehead St-Ann’s Harbour Bedeque Grande-Digue Tryon Hillsborough River Mabou Mira Shemogue West River

Lockhart Lake Tatamagouche Note: see Bras d’Or Lake Merigomesh map for Lake sample details

Nova Scotia Current Zones/Zones Courantes: Nouvelle Écosse MSX Positive/positif Flagged zone/zone pavoisée Buffer zone/zone tampon

SSO zone = Gulf of St-Lawrence &Lockhart Lake 2005 Preliminary results for MSX in the Bras d’Or Lakes. - --

. h C s w - re d n - -A t S + + h. ’s C ick atr + + t-P S + + - - Whycocomagh Bay - - + - - - -

Legend - - + MSX Positive (new detection) Chapel Island MSX Positive PCR only - - MSX Not detected Analysis pending

To be collected Note: Full histopathology and molecular analysis in progress. Crassostrea virginica monitoring in PEI 2002-2005

Cascumpec Bay Apr/03: 0/30 Lennox Channel Oct/02: 0/30 Nov/02: 1/30 Malpeque Bay Mill River Nov/02: 1/30 Jul/03: 0/30 Nov/05: 0/60 Nov/03: 0/30 Nov/03: 0/30 Nov/05: 0/60 Foxley River Nov/05: 0/60 Southwest River St-Peters Bay Dec/02: 1/30 Nov/02: 4/90 Nov/04: 0/30 Enmore Jun/04: 0/30 New London Bay Nov/05: 0/60 Oct/02: 0/30

Rustico Bay Nov/04: 0/30 Bedeque Covehead Apr/03: 0/30 Sep/05: 0/60 Jul/03: 0/30 Nov/03: 0/30 Wilmot River Tryon Nov/04: 0/30 Oct/02: 0/60 Sep/05: 0/60 Apr/05: 0/30 Jun/04: 0/30 Sept/05: 0/30 Murray River West River Hillsborough River Nov/02: 1/60 Apr/03: 0/30 Oct/02: 5/60 Nov/04: 0/30 Nov/02: 1/60 Jul/05: 0/30 Nov/02: 0/30 Nov/05:0/30 Nov/02: 0/30 Orwell Cove Jul/03: 0/30 Nov/02: 0/60 Nov/03: 0/30 Apr/03: 0/30 Jun/04: 0/30 2006 – • NAAHP – Regional implementation • Surveillance- National disease list • Survey design • Field collections – Area support • QA/QC certification Collaborative Research – AquaNet with AVC – ACRDP • MSX Disease Resistance Oysters • Farm disease management – Non-carrier species – Oyster Enhancement – Environmental interactions TunicateTunicate SubcommitteeSubcommittee RecommendationsRecommendations forfor 20062006

Art Smith Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Department of Fisheries & Oceans Charlottetown, PEI April 11, 2006 TunicateTunicate SubcommitteeSubcommittee RecommendationsRecommendations forfor 20062006

•• CommitteeCommittee metmet onon FebruaryFebruary 7,7, 20062006 andand reachedreached agreementagreement onon aa managementmanagement objectiveobjective andand researchresearch andand operationaloperational prioritiespriorities forfor 20062006

•• 20062006 ManagementManagement ObjectiveObjective – Control and contain the spread of established tunicate species – Prevent the establishment of new species and expansion of established species TunicateTunicate SubcommitteeSubcommittee RecommendationsRecommendations forfor 20062006

•• RecommendedRecommended prioritiespriorities forfor 20062006 – Research • Treatment options to protect receiving waters at processing and socking facilities from infestations • Treatment options for tunicate infested seed and market product • Recruitment biology of the vase tunicate in PEI, with emphasis on determining when spawning begins • Seed set in Savage Harbour, and influence of colonial tunicates on seed set • Developing a summary for research conducted to date TunicateTunicate SubcommitteeSubcommittee RecommendationsRecommendations forfor 20062006

•• Recommended priorities for 2006, cont’d – Operational • Implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program, supported by trained staff • Communicating with industry on the presence of new species and expansion of existing species • Developing and maintaining a web site accessible to industry • Promoting the use on antifouling paint on all boats • Cleaning the hull and bilge of boats moving between estuaries • Cleaning buoys in keeping with an accepted protocol • Assessing lobsters being imported as vectors for invasive species • Ensuring Coast Guard actiactivitiesvities do not contribute to the introduction or expansion of invasive species in the province TunicateTunicate SubcommitteeSubcommittee RecommendationsRecommendations forfor 20062006

•• DoDo youyou agreeagree withwith thethe identifiedidentified priorities?priorities? •• AreAre therethere additionaladditional aspectsaspects needingneeding attentionattention inin 2006?2006? •• WhatWhat rolerole can/shouldcan/should industryindustry planplan inin deliveringdelivering onon thesethese priorities?priorities? •• WhatWhat willwill bebe requiredrequired toto involveinvolve industry?industry? Monitoring the Spread of Invasive Tunicates on PEI Atlantic Veterinary College Garth Arsenault Jeff Davidson Deployment of Collector Plates Marchwater Transects (based on 2002 dive survey)

L4 L3

L1

L2 Clubbed tunicate monitoring in Marchwater 2003 - 2005 2003 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Marchwater 2004 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Marchwater 2005 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Marchwater Marchwater tunicate densities 2003 -2005

LOCATION 2003 2004 2005 CENTER 13 57 376 L1 1KM 1 5 183 L1 2KM 016 L1 500M 312176 L2 1KM 111103 L2 500M 11 0 341 L3 1KM 092593 L3 2KM 044155 L3 500M 3 0 669 L4 1KM 2 148 1662 L4 2KM 0 3 1642 L4 500M 0 0 1716 Marchwater tunicate recruitment 2003-2005

2000

1800

1600 2003

1400 2004

1200 2005

1000 Count 800

600

400

200

0 CENTER L1 1KM L1 2KM L1 500M L2 1KM L2 500M L3 1KM L3 2KM L3 500M L4 1KM L4 2KM L4 500M Location

2003 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Cardigan River

0 0 2004 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Cardigan River

0 0 1 0 2005 Clubbed Tunicate Recruitment

Cardigan River

1 5 1 0 2005 Ciona intestinalis Recruitment

•Considerable recruitment on all collectors in Montague River •Light recruitment on collectors in Brudenell River

Montague & Brudenell Rivers

Ciona and Styela

Savage Harbour Colonial monitoring 2005 Borden – Carleton Colonial monitoring 2005

Violet tunicate found in middle of strait on a piece of kelp in a lobster trap last fall Clubbed Tunicate Styela clava Vase Tunicate Ciona intestinalis Violet Tunicate Botrylloides violaceus

Golden Star Tunicate Botryllus schlosseri