COLORADO PARKS & WILDL I F E State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Invasive Species Program

cpw.state.co.us The Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan is part of a multi-jurisdictional collaborative efort to prevent and contain aquatic nuisance species to avoid or mitigate negative impacts to natural resources, outdoor recreation, and the water infrastructure of the state. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is providing coordination for the implementation of this plan, and together with their partners, are providing implementation guidance and oversight.

all photos © CpW InvasIve speCIes program unless otherWIse IndICated.

Cover: long draW reservoIr; Insets: rusty CrayfIsh © gene seagle; eurasIan WatermIlfoIl © doug youngers; Quagga mussels © elIzabeth broWn

desIgn servICes provIded by state of Colorado/Integrated doCument solutIons Table of Contents

List of Figures 5 Acronyms 5

Executive Summary 7

Introduction 9 Program History 9 ANS Management Actions 13 Sampling and Monitoring 13 Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination (WID) 14 Te Regional WID Data Sharing System 16 Information and Outreach 17 Plan Purpose 17 Plan Development 18 Public Involvement and Preliminary Comments 19 Geographic Scope 20 Prioritizing Management Actions—Science Based Risk Analysis 22 Risk of Introduction of Zebra or Quagga Mussels by Recreational Watercraf, 2018 22 Risk of Establishment of Zebra or Quagga Mussels 22

Problem Defnition and ANS of Concern 24 Previous ANS Detections and Management in Colorado 24 Asian clam (Corbicula fuminea) 24 Brazilian egeria (Egeria densa) 24 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 24 New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) 24 Rusty Crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) 24 Water fea (Daphnia lumholtzi) 25 Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) 25 Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and Quagga Mussel (Dreissena bugensis) 25 Recent ANS Challenges 27 Impacts from Aquatic Nuisance Species 27 ANS of Concern to Colorado 28 Aquatic Nuisance Animals 28 Aquatic Nuisance Species—Plants 30 Pathways of Introduction 32 Boating 32 Boat Dealers, Marinas, and Marine Service Providers 33 Angling 33 Fishing Tournaments 33 Fish Bait Release 33 Illicit Stocking 34 Aquaculture 34 Aquarium and Pet Release 34 Schools and Classrooms 35

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 1 Table of Contents (continued)

Organisms in Trade—Nursery, Garden Centers, Pet Stores, and Aquaria 35 Professional Activities and Construction 35 Scuba Divers 36 Hunters and Outdoor Enthusiasts 36 Firefghting Activities and Equipment 36

ANS Management Methods 37

Existing Authorities and Programs 37 State Government 37 Colorado Department of Natural Resources 38 CPW Legal Authority for ANS 38 Colorado Department of Agriculture 42 Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) 43 Colorado State Patrol (CSP) 43 Federal Legal Authority 44 Federal Government 46 United States Department of Agriculture—United States Forest Service 46 Department of Defense—U S Army Corps of Engineers 46 United States Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 46 United States Environmental Protection Agency 47 United States Department of the Interior (DOI) 47 DOI—Bureau of Indian Afairs 47 DOI—Bureau of Land Management 47 DOI—U S Bureau of Reclamation 47 DOI—U S Fish and Wildlife Service 48 DOI—National Park Service 48 DOI— United States Geological Survey (USGS) 48 Regional and National Organizations 48 Te Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance species (WRP) 48 Te Western Invasive Species Coordinating Efort 48 Western Governors Association 49 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49 Te Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 49 Local Governments 50 Recreational User Groups and Industry Members 50 Non-Governmental Organizations 50

Other Invasive Species Management Plans 50 Colorado Parks and Wildlife 50 Colorado Department of Agriculture 50 Western Regional Panel on ANS 51 Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 51 National Invasive Species Council 51

2 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Management Plan Goal 51

Management Plan Objectives, Strategies, and Actions 52 Objective 1—Ensure efective and consistent implementation of the Plan 52 Objective 2—Prevent and contain introductions through managing human vectors, pathways of introduction, and spread 53 Objective 3—Improve the capacity to implement rapid response for new ANS 54 Objective 4—Survey and monitor waters of the state for aquatic invasive species 55 Objective 5—Evaluate, improve and expand upon the current statewide informational and educational ANS campaigns 55 Objective 6—Identify and support research on ANS including surveying, monitoring, control, eradication, and education 56

Priorities for Action 57 Acronyms for Implementation Table 57

Implementation Table 58

Rapid Response Strategy 65 I Incident 66 II Confrmation and Notifcation: ANS are Reported or Detected in Colorado 66 III Establish Incident Command 66 IV Rapid Assessment 67 V Response 67 VI Plan 67 VII Implement, Monitor, Evaluation 68

Gaps and Challenges 68

Climate Change and Invasive Species 69

Plan Review 71

Conclusion 71

Literature Cited 72 Glossary 73 Appendix 74 Appendix A—Acknowledgments 74 Appendix B—Preliminary Comments from the ANSTF 76 Appendix C—ANS Positive Waters List 92 Appendix D—Species Descriptions 94 Rusty Crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) 94 Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and Quagga Mussels (Dreissena bugensis) 94 New Zealand Mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) 96 Fishhook Waterfea (Cercopagis pengoi) and Spiny Waterfea (Bythotrephes longimanus) 96

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 3 Table of Contents (continued)

Aquatic Nuisance Plants—Primary Species of Concern 97 African elodea (Lagarosiphon major) 97 Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) 98 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 99 Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) 99 Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) 100 Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) 100 Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) 101 Yellow foating heart (Nymphoides peltata) 101 Appendix E—CDA’s Noxious Weed List 102 List A Species (25) 102 List B Species (38) 102 List C Species (16) 103 Watch List Species (19) 103

Turquoise Lake

4 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan List of Figures Acronyms

Figure 1— ABYC—American Boat and Yacht Council Colorado ANS Program Timeline ACOE—Army Corps of Engineers Figure 2— Summary of CPW’s Mussel Monitoring AFWA—Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Activities by Year AG—Attorney General Figure 3— AIS—Aquatic Invasive Species Colorado Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination Stations for 2019 ANS—Aquatic Nuisance Species Figure 4— ANSTF—Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Entities Utilizing the Regional WID Data BIA—Bureau of Indian Afairs Sharing System BLM—Bureau of Land Management Figure 5— Geographic Scope of ANS in Colorado Map BOR—Bureau of Reclamation Figure 6— CANS—Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Colorado’s Major Rivers and Waterbodies Map Management Plan Figure 7— CANSTF—Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Colorado’s River Basins Map Task Force Figure 8— CDA—Colorado Department of Agriculture Infested Mussel Boats Intercepted by Entity CDNR—Colorado Department of Natural by Year Resources Figure 9— CDOT—Colorado Department of Transportation All ANS Distribution in Colorado for 2019 Map CDOW—Colorado Division of Wildlife Figure 10— Colorado’s Illicit Stocking Events 1980–2015 Map CDPHE—Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment Figure 11— Live Aquatic Bait Fish Regulations in Colorado CDWR—Colorado Department of Water Resources Map CMDA—Colorado Marine Dealers Association Figure 12— Colorado’s Federal Lands and Waters Map CRB—Columbia River Basin Figure 13— CRFWC—Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council WRP Geographic Range Map CPW—Colorado Parks and Wildlife Figure 14— CWA—Clean Water Act Rapid Response Strategy Protocol CWCB—Colorado Water Conservation Board Figure 15— Model Showing Impacts of Climate Change on DARCA—Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance Invasive Species DNA—Deoxyribonucleic Acid DOI—Department of the Interior

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 5 Acronyms NPS—National Parks Service (continued) NSGLC—National Sea Grant Law Center NWCG—Te National Wildfre Coordinating eDNA—Environmental Deoxyribonucleic Acid Group EDRR—Early Detection, Rapid Response NZMS—New Zealand Mudsnails EO—Executive Order OIT—Colorado Governor’s Ofce of Information Technology EPA—Environmental Protection Agency PACFA—Te Pet Animal Care Facilities Act ESA—Endangered Species Act PCR—Polymerase Chain Reaction EWM—Eurasian Watermilfoil PIJAC—Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council ISAC—Invasive Species Advisory Committee PSMFC—Pacifc States Marine Fisheries ISAN—Invasive Species Action Network Commission ISSC—Invasive Species Subcommittee PWC—Parks & Wildlife Commission ISP—Invasive Species Program SOBA—States Organization for Boating Access IT—Information Technology SWA—State Wildlife Areas MRBP —Mississippi River Basin Panel USACE—US Army Corps of Engineers MRBP—Missouri River Basin Panel USDA—US Department of Agriculture NAAG—National Association of Attorneys General USFS—US Forest Service NAISMA—North American Invasive Species USDOT—US Department of Transportation Management Association USFWS—US Fish and Wildlife Service NANPCA—Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act USGS—US Geological Survey NASBLA—Te National Association of State VHSV—Viral hemorrhagic septicemia Boating Law Administrators WAFWA—Western Association of Fish and Wildlife NASL—National Association of State Legislators Agencies NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act WGA—Western Governors Association NGO—Non-Government Organization WID—Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination NISA—National Invasive Species Act WISCE—Western Invasive Species Coordinating Efort (a k a Western State ANS Coordinators) NISC—National Invasive Species Council WRP—Western Regional Panel on Aquatic NMMA—National Marine Manufacturers Nuisance Species Association WSIA—Water Sports Industry Association NOAA—National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration ZQM—Zebra and Quagga Mussels NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

6 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Executive Summary

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) are invasive plants and animals that are transported and released, intentionally or unintentionally, outside of their historic range ANS can completely alter aquatic systems by destroying native plant and animal habitats; threatening the diversity and abundance of native species; and damage industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities dependent on surface waters ANS has spread beyond historic ranges and has adversely afected positive waters by threatening the integrity of the water resources ANS are the cause of signifcant ecological and socio-economic problems for water users in North America ANS, such as Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM), zebra/quagga mussels (ZQM), and Asian carp are being introduced or transported into new habitats at an alarming rate Impacts from ANS are currently taking place in Colorado and are likely to increase if more non- indigenous species are introduced

In 1990, the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance on prevention and coherent rapid response to the Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) was passed risk posed by ANS For the last decade, Colorado’s to address ANS problems within the United States operations have been guided by multi-jurisdictional Tis legislation provided an opportunity for federal species-specifc management plans, such as the cost-share support for the implementation of State Colorado Zebra and Quagga Mussel Management ANS Plans While programs created by this legislation Plan Te implementation of a comprehensive were initially aimed at problems in the Great Lakes overarching ANS Management Plan is necessary Region and Western U S , the reauthorization of for guiding Colorado in future actions pertaining to NANPCA in 1996 as the National Invasive Species ANS Act (NISA) established a national goal of preventing new ANS introductions and limiting the dispersal Te purpose of Colorado’s Aquatic Nuisance Species of existing ANS in all 50 states NISA specifes that Management Plan is to recommend a statewide State ANS Plans identify feasible, cost-efective comprehensive approach to prevent and manage ANS management practices and measures that can be through collaborative strategies Tis management implemented by the state to prevent and control plan was developed collaboratively by Colorado ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally Parks and Wildlife’s Invasive Species Program (ISP) sound Approval of a State ANS Management Plan alongside the Colorado ANS Task Force members by the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and stakeholders Tis plan is the recommended (ANSTF) is required for Colorado to be eligible for programmatic strategy for preventing and managing federal grants for ANS, as detailed in section 1204 ANS in the state Te Plan is designed to assist of NISA which authorized the Director of the Fish stakeholders with a proactive approach to prevention and Wildlife Service to make grants to states with and rapid response approved state or interstate ANS management plans (110 Stat 4089,4091) Te continued range expansion of zebra and quagga mussels throughout the Western US over the last Te signifcance of Colorado’s aquatic resources decade has put Colorado at a much higher risk of requires a coordinated protection efort focused devastating ecological and economic impacts from

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 7 the introduction of these destructive species than 3 Improve the capacity to implement rapid ever before In an efort to enable Coloradoans to response for new ANS efectively respond to emerging and unanticipated 4 Survey and monitor waters of the state for ANS ANS threats, this document will provide the necessary 5 Evaluate and improve upon the current statewide guidelines for management Te goal of the Plan informational and educational campaigns is to minimize the harmful ecological, economic, 6 Identify and support research including survey, and social efects of ANS through the prevention monitoring, control, eradication, and education and management of ANS into, within, and from Colorado CPW’s ANS expenditures total approximately $5 5M per year for temporary employees and operating Tis Plan has been structured around prevention, budgets Full-time employees in total account for internal and external coordination, monitoring roughly $500,000 in time charged to ANS each year and early detection, rapid response, education, Tere are three full-time employees in the ANS outreach, and long term control Tis is achieved Program Ofce and one full-time employee dedicated through full implementation of the Plan with the to ANS at Lake Pueblo State Park CPW staf at State continuation of the current CPW ANS Program that Parks and Wildlife Areas charge time to ANS when emphasizes the collaboration of agencies in order to performing ANS related tasks (e g supervising or prevent introductions, while efectively controlling performing inspection and decontamination, or or containing established ANS populations enforcement) CPW will request funding annually Furthermore, to meet the objectives, strategies, and from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service for the goals that are identifed, respective actions will be implementation of this Plan routinely updated to illustrate program changes, accomplishments, and any emerging threats Te Governor of the State of Colorado and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with partner agencies To accomplish the goal of the Plan, six objectives involved in the management of ANS in Colorado, relating to ANS have been identifed: will submit this plan to the National Aquatic Nuisance 1 Ensure efective and consistent implementation Species Task Force, as allowed by section 1204 of of the Plan the Federal Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance 2 Prevent new introductions through managing Prevention and Control Act, on behalf of the State of human vectors and pathways of introduction Colorado, for the purpose of seeking federal grants to and spread assist with the implementation of this plan Lake Pueblo

Courtesy shutterstoCk.Com

8 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan refer to past CDPOR operations, programs, and Introduction functions as “State Parks,” and past Colorado Division of Wildlife operations, programs, and Colorado’s rivers and water bodies support the functions as “Wildlife.” Any mention in this Plan of economy, environment, and lifestyle in an arid and State Parks or Wildlife occurred before the merger. variable Western climate Colorado’s water also acts Any current or future actions mentioned in this as headwater origins of seven major river basins or plan will be executed by the single merged agency, watersheds that supply water to 19 downstream states CPW. Activities from 2012–present are attributed and Mexico (Cantwell, 2010) Aquatic Nuisance to CPW. Species (ANS) pose a serious risk to Colorado and the people who rely on the water the state provides Colorado has been involved in aquatic nuisance ANS can completely alter aquatic ecosystems and species identifcation and management for the last threaten the integrity of water resources In the last two decades Te discovery of Eurasian watermilfoil decade, Colorado has seen a number of non-native and New Zealand mudsnail in State waters led aquatic species out-compete native species disrupting to the formation of an ANS partnership between ecological stability consequently impacting local and Wildlife, State Parks and the U S Fish and Wildlife regional economies and recreation that depend on Service (USFWS) in 2004 Te partnership centered Colorado water Many of Colorado’s neighboring on sampling and monitoring for aquatic noxious Western states have been overrun by invasive species weeds and invasive animal species, while collecting creating a looming threat to Colorado’s natural baseline data on native species Te partnership resources as people, animals, and other vectors also responded to reports of ANS and focused travel between the states possibly intentionally or on statewide education, outreach, research and unintentionally transporting ANS Moreover, as coordination with other western states global climate change increases water temperatures, allowing for the rapid expansion of aquatic invasive In 2006, a group of caring individuals from numerous species, new vectors of spread and specifc species agencies started gathering regularly to discuss ANS of concern are now on the horizon Troughout Te group was co-led by Wildlife and State Parks the document, it will be clear that Colorado’s action Agencies that participated included the Colorado plan will be addressing prevention, detection, and Fish Health Board, the Colorado Department of management actions for ANS that have been found in Public Health and the Environment, the Colorado the state, in addition to preventing ANS that has that Watershed Network, the Colorado Department potential to invade of Agriculture, Te Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the City of Westminster, U S Bureau of Program History Reclamation, U S Fish and Wildlife Service, U S D A Forest Service, U S Environmental Protection Agency, Note: Prior to July 1, 2011, the Colorado Division and the National Park Service Tis group began of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (CDPOR or to conceptualize what a statewide Invasive Species DPOR) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife Program and/or ANS Program would look like and (CDOW or Wildlife) were separate agencies within how it would function Tey educated themselves to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. the legal authorities that existed through NANCPA At that time, CDPOR was ofen referred to as and NISA and began to draf this State of Colorado “Colorado State Parks,” “Te Parks Division,” “State ANS Plan Parks,” or simply “Parks.” Te Colorado Division of Wildlife was ofen referred to as “Te DOW,” Te Tis unofcial team was full of passion and concern Wildlife Division,” or simply “Wildlife.” On July for the resources of Colorado Tey went out to feld 1, 2011, legislation was enacted to combine the sites to learn more about NZMS and EWM impacts Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division to their state Tey teamed up and conducted feld of Wildlife into one agency—Colorado Parks and surveys on the weekends on their own time Tey Wildlife (CPW). In order to reduce the number partnered with the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration of acronyms and confusion, we will attempt to Foundation and hosted the ANS Symposia in

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 9 the document until a complete draf was ready to be shared, reviewed, edited, and eventually submitted for federal approval At this point, there was no Program, no Program Manager, no legal authority, and no budget for ANS in any state agency It was the hope of the CANS Team that the State ANS Plan Grant would provide the minimal resources needed to get a State ANS Program up and running

A meeting was organized with the various agency’s Chief of Law Enforcement on December 6, 2007 to discuss the draf Plan Te group was aimed at specifcally determining what legal authorities existed related to ANS, which agencies are the most appropriate for enforcement, and how enforcement implementation could exist

A month later, the draf Colorado ANS Management Plan was presented to the DNR Executive Director and Division Directors on January 15, 2008 Te Plan and management approach was positively received Te team gained additional feedback from leadership and was tasked with submitting a fnal draf for review and federal approval Brighton and Grand Junction to raise awareness Tey also hosted smaller ANS workshops around the Unfortunately, two days later, a detection of zebra state to teach interested parties species of concern, mussel veligers in Pueblo Reservoir State Park was identifcation, impacts, and reporting reported by Reclamation Tis completely halted the Colorado ANS Management Plan approval process, Te team leaders pitched the Colorado ANS as the state and their partners transitioned into rapid Management Plan to leadership in Spring 2007 response mode for mussels Te state quickly gained Te team felt that this was the best option to create legal authority, $4M in funding, and both public and the organizational infrastructure and capacity for an political support to create the largest, mandatory, Invasive Species Program statewide Te concept was multi-jurisdictional prevention and containment positively received and the group was formalized as watercraf inspection and decontamination (WID) the Colorado ANS Steering Committee (a k a CANS network in the nation Colorado knew that utilizing Team) with leadership support in June 2007 education and information as a base was critical to stopping the spread, but only by adding mandatory Te frst ofcial meeting of the CANS Team was held inspection, decontamination, and enforcement, on July 30, 2007 Te team met monthly from that have they been able to truly stop the spread of point forward with the intention of completing the mussels and other ANS in order to protect their great Colorado ANS Management Plan by June 2008 Each headwaters state from zebra and quagga mussels Te member of the team drafed a diferent section and Colorado Invasive Species and ANS Program became the group combined those sections and word-smithed operational on July 1, 2008

10 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Figure 1: Colorado’s ANS Program Timeline

C OLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Colorado ANS Program SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES IN COLORADO ANS HISTORY

JANUARY MAY JUNE JULY JULY/OCTOBER 2008 Zebra Mussel Veligers Detected State Legislature Passes the Water Providers Close Waters to Reservoirs Reopened by CDOW Quagga and Zebra Mussel at Lake Pueblo State Park ANS Act Boating and Fishing and State Parks WIDS Veligers Found at Several Reservoirs FEBRUARY MARCH 2009 The Parks Board Passes the Statewide Implementation ANS Regulations of WIDS DNR Published the Colorado March 30, 2009—First infested Watercraft Inspection and mussel boat intercepted Education Handbook. coming into Colorado from out of state JANUARY 2010 State Zebra and Quagga Mussel Management Plan Finalized

JUNE JULY 2 011 CDOW Published the ANS CDOW and State Parks Merge Watercraft Decontamination Manual.

JANUARY 2012 CDOW Published the Colorado Boat Compendium for ANS Inspectors.

JANUARY SEPTEMBER 2013 CPW Published the Colorado CPW Published the ANS Curriculum for Containment Manual for Watercraft Inspectors and Watercraft Inspection and Decontaminators. Decontamination Stations.

JANUARY 2014 Colorado de-lists seven reservoirs for zebra or quagga mussels following 5 years of negative testing. Colorado Trainers Manual for WID Courses published

JANUARY 2015 Western Regional Panel on ANS adopts Colorado training curriculum for 100th Meridian Regional Training Program

MAY JULY DECEMBER 2016 Supreme Court ruling in Case Colorado deploys multi-state CPW de-lists Pueblo Reservoir No. 13SC996 eliminated the regional data sharing system following 5 years of negative entire source fund for the ANS for WID stations testing Program (Tier II Severance Tax)

JANUARY MARCH MAY AUGUST 2017 Implementation funded by State Legislature unanimously State Legislature approves the Green Mountain listed as CPW with agency dollars, a passes House Joint Resolution one time use of the general suspect for quagga mussels motorboat Colorado grant and 17-1004 titled “Concerning fund for the ANS program following US Bureau of over $1M in partnership funds Funding for the Prevention of through SB17-259. Reclamation detection of ANS in Colorado”. veligers, which were confrmed to be quaggas by a private MAY OCTOBER genetics lab for CPW 2018 State Legislature approves the Congress passes WRDA-18 one time use of the general authorizing the Corps to fund fund for the ANS program WID monitoring and rapid through HB18-1338. response in the Upper Colorado, State Legislature passes the Columbia, South Platte, Upper Mussel Free Colorado Act to Missouri and Arkansas River provide sustainable funds Basins through the creation of an ANS Stamp

JANUARY MARCH AUGUST DECEMBER 2019 CPW implements the Mussel Infested boat interceptions As Chair of the Western Senator Bennet introduces the Free Colorado Act. skyrocket as the mussel Regional Panel, CPW facilitates Stop the Spread of Invasive populations at Lake Powell the completion of the Building Mussels Act of 2019 into explode. Consensus in the West Congress. Summary Report 2010–2019 and the Quagga Zebra Action Plan Status Update Report.

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 11 Te State Aquatic Nuisance Species Act (SB08-226) inspections, to refect best management practices was passed by the General Assembly in May 2008 for decontamination, and to update organizational following a quagga mussel veliger detection in Lake structure resulting from the merger of parks and Pueblo Te Act defnes ANS as exotic or nonnative wildlife aquatic wildlife or plant species that have been determined to pose a signifcant threat to the aquatic In 2016, CPW updated the P-08 regulations to refect resources or water infrastructure of the state It makes the merger of Parks and Wildlife and to update it illegal to possess, import, export, ship, transport, regulations to meet current standards and protocols release, plant, place, or cause an ANS to be released for watercraf inspection and decontamination Te Act allocated funding to ANS programs in both (WID) Te regulations were further updated due to Wildlife and State Parks It provides authority to citizen’s petition that altered the exempt watercraf qualifed peace ofcers to inspect, and if necessary, list to include only the ten hand-launched and hand- decontaminate or quarantine watercraf for ANS It powered watercraf on the list provides authority for CPW to certify individuals as authorized agents and for qualifed peace ofcers On January 11, 2017, the Parks and Wildlife to inspect, and if necessary, decontaminate or Commission updated the ANS regulations by quarantine watercraf for ANS It also provides de-listing Daphnia lumholtzi (waterfea) from the authority for trained authorized agents to inspect prohibited ANS and aquatic species lists, as well as to and decontaminate watercraf for ANS Te Act also require boat operators to clean, drain and dry their requires the state to report annually on program watercraf in between launching Additional changes expenditures include the requirement for boat operators to remove all plants and water drain plugs from watercraf, and Te CPW Invasive Species Coordinator position to prohibit the overland transport of vessels and other began on July 1, 2008 Wildlife internally reallocated foating devices (watercraf) with drain plugs in place resources to create a full-time position to coordinate and plants on board Tese regulations are consistent invasive species activities statewide Te Invasive with those of other states and are recommended by Species Coordinator oversees the implementation of the Western Regional Panel’s Building Consensus in the State Zebra and Quagga Mussel Management Plan the West Workgroup and a Western Association of (State ZQM Plan) Te backbone of the State ZQM Fish and Wildlife Agencies Resolution passed in July Plan strategy includes containment and prevention 2016 through watercraf inspection and decontamination, enforcement, sampling and monitoring, education/ In 2017, the Colorado General Assembly outreach, communications, and information, and unanimously passed HJR 17-1004 which afrmed the applied research State Legislature’s commitment to ANS management in Colorado, and the priority that the legislature places SB 08-226 specifcally authorizes and requires the on the ANS Program within the state’s operations Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to promulgate and encourages the federal government to assist the rules needed for the administration and enforcement state with implementation of the ANS Program as of the Act Te State Parks Board passed regulations outlined in the State ZQM Plan Two additional bills required by the Act on February 20, 2009 Te rules were passed to provide general fund dollars to the require mandatory watercraf inspection, and if ANS Program to sustain operations following a court necessary, decontamination of all boats coming in decision that eliminated the program’s main funding from out of state, leaving a known positive water source in Colorado, and those entering high-risk waters where inspections and decontaminations are At the same time, CPW in partnership with the required by the managing agency Te rules set the Fish Health Board instituted regulatory changes to standard for watercraf inspection, decontamination, Chapter W-0 and Chapter W-1 of General Provisions impoundment, sampling, monitoring, identifcation, Te prohibited species list in Chapter W-0 was and reporting Te regulations were updated in replaced with an allowable species list Tis new list 2015 to exempt paddleboards from mandatory improves clarifcation on which species are allowed to be possessed in the State of Colorado (CPW, 2019)

12 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Te allowable species list along with more details on ANS Management Actions CPW’s aquatic health regulations is located in the Sampling and Monitoring Legal Authority Section of this document. CPW has sampled 584 “at-risk” waters for aquatic In 2018, the Colorado General Assembly passed invasive species since before its inception. While the Mussel Free Colorado Act (HB18-1008) which CPW ANS staf has historically monitored the state’s created the ANS Stamp (a fee for motorized watercraf public waters for numerous invasive plants and and sailboats using Colorado waters—residents animal species, and cataloguing native species along and non-residents), increased fnes for select ANS the way, the focus of sampling is on the early detection violations, and created a reimbursement process for of zebra and quagga mussels. CPW to get restitution for full decontaminations of quarantined or impounded watercraf. Te state follows a three-tier sampling protocol targeting the three life cycles of the zebra or quagga Following the passage of HB18-1008, CPW formed mussel: an internal implementation team consisting of 1. Conducting plankton tows to fnd the veligers, invasive species, public education, and information, 2. Deploy and check substrates to fnd the juvenile marketing information technology, sales, licensing, “settlers” or attached adult mussels, and registration, marketing, and fnancial services staf. 3. Conduct surveys along the shoreline and existing Te team achieved the implementation goals set forth structures for settled juveniles or attached adults. to have the ANS stamp available for purchase for in-state boaters renewing registration in November and December of 2018, and continuing in 2019. Figure 2: Summary of CPW’s Te ANS stamp for out of state boaters was Mussel Monitoring Activities by Year available beginning January 1, 2019, online and at CPW ofces and at all 700+ sales locations. Te team also updated the website, issued rack cards and posters to ofces, WID stations, and sales locations, and participated in public education and media events. Similarly, the team also produced information to aid customer service and sales agents with the sale of the ANS stamp. In addition, an internal CPW ANS Law Enforcement Team was established to update guidance documentation for ofcers relative to the new statute. Te team consisted of fourteen ofcers representing the Law Enforcement Unit and Te state requires three steps to identify, verify and the four CPW regions, alongside two invasive species confrm a detection of zebra or quagga mussel veligers staf members. Together they produced CPW LEOP (1) visual analysis of plankton tows using a cross- 1140—Aquatic Nuisance Species Law Enforcement polarized light microscope, (2) DNA verifcation Procedures, which went into efect on March 1, 2019. utilizing polymerase chain reaction [PCR] and Since the ANS Program’s inception, CPW has provided (3) DNA confrmation utilizing gene sequencing. support to all waters of the state, and to all inspection stations, regardless of jurisdiction. Services provided In 2019, crews sampled 179 standing, and include site-specifc planning, training, certifcation, approximately 4 fowing waters statewide. In addition watercraf inspection and decontamination, quality to the sampling eforts performed by CPW, the control assessments, data collection development National Park Service contributed 38 plankton and support, law enforcement support, educational samples. Tere were no detections of zebra or quagga materials, workshops and conferences, sampling, mussels in Colorado. monitoring, laboratory analysis, ANS identifcation, and cost-share opportunities. State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 13 Te sampling teams conduct early detection sampling In addition to the online course for experienced for zebra and quagga mussels on public lakes and staf, the Invasive Species Program within CPW reservoirs CPW has met western regional minimum also provides two other specialized courses: standards for zebra and quagga mussel monitoring (1) WID Trainer’s certifcation, and (2) Advanced In past years, depending on funding, the program has Decontamination CPW certifed 773 individuals been able to actively search for other ANS, sample this year, for a total of 7,631 people certifed or re- fowing waters (rivers, streams, creeks), perform certifed to perform WID since the implementation of crayfsh trapping, and conduct plant inventories statewide training and certifcation program in 2009

Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination (WID) In 2019, CPW authorized 72 locations to perform watercraf inspection and decontamination Of CPW coordinates a vast network of WID stations those, Green Mountain Reservoir was operated as operated by CPW, the National Park Service, Larimer a containment operation for quagga mussel veligers County, several municipalities, and numerous private afer their detection in August, and ten locations industry locations including businesses, concessioners, operated as containment for other ANS Te focus marinas, clubs, and private lakes In total, the state has of the containment program is to inspect watercraf collectively performed over 4 9 million inspections leaving the lakes/reservoirs to prevent boats from and 119,814 decontaminations since 2008 moving ANS overland into currently uninfested areas while maintaining prevention activities upon entrance Per the state ANS Regulations, trailered watercraf to the reservoir must submit to an inspection, and decontamination if needed, prior to entrance in Colorado’s waters Sixty-two locations operated as prevention locations afer boating out of state or boating on a positive Prevention locations are those that are negative for all or suspect water Boaters are also required to ANS or are not located at a waterbody (e g ofces or submit to inspection prior to entering a water body marine dealers) where inspections are required by the managing agency All persons performing inspections and/or Colorado conducted a total of 481,543 inspections decontaminations must be certifed by CPW and 22,947 decontaminations in 2019 Tere continues to be a large increase in the number of CPW taught 59 WID certifcation courses in 2019, decontaminations performed as a direct result of in addition to maintaining an online re-certifcation CPW adapting to mitigate new threats Increased program for experienced inspectors and invasions in the Colorado River Basin, from Lake decontaminators Tere have been a total of Powell in Utah and Arizona downstream, continue to 869 trainings since the program’s inception

© photo by robert Walters

14 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan increase the need for diligent prevention at home Utah Division of Wildlife, Minnesota Department in Colorado. of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have demonstrated that juvenile and Similarly, there continues to be an increase in even small adult mussels can survive being moved new infestations found in states that do not through hoses and pumps into and out of ballast conduct preventative watercraf inspection and tanks, further increasing the risk to Colorado and the decontamination work. In the last year alone, North need for mandatory decontamination. Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and numerous eastern states detected new infestations Lastly, waters in close proximity to, or positive for, of zebra or quagga mussels partly due to the lack of other ANS such as New Zealand mudsnails or mandatory WID and early detection monitoring. Eurasian watermilfoil, increase the need to perform Tese new infestations in other states illustrate the more decontaminations to limit their spread within importance of Colorado’s ANS Program to protecting the state. CPW and their partners revised mandatory our waters and infrastructure from invasion. standing water decontamination triggers in 2012 to reduce the threat of invasion from viable zebra or Research publications indicate zebra or quagga mussel quagga mussel veligers living in standing water, to veligers can survive up to 27 days in standing water on protect against watercraf coming from other state’s watercraf, which increases the need to decontaminate infested waters, and to reduce the spread of other parts of watercraf that hold water and cannot be invasive species. drained (e.g. ballast tanks). New information from

Figure 3: Colorado Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Stations for 2019

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 15 Te Regional WID Data Sharing System mobile application in alignment with both western regional standards and state or local laws, regulations, Te Regional WID Data Sharing System (System) and priorities is in use at more than 200 locations across the west, including 50 in Colorado CPW developed the System Te System is used for data entry, viewing, editing, and maintains ownership and oversight Te states of querying, and reporting An included risk assessment Arizona, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New tool shows where boats are moving afer launching in Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, mussel infested waters and sends an alert to the next and Wyoming, as well as select National Parks, the known destination With the benefts of data sharing Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Solano proving to be abundant, the states of Arizona, Nevada, County Water Agency, Mussel Dogs, and TiGE are and Utah have been using the System to send out now employing the System as their primary form of timely electronic alerts of watercraf leaving infested data collection and management waters Tis increased timely communication has directly increased the number of infested watercraf Te purpose of the System is to record information being intercepted within the western region before related to WID electronically and to share launching in uninfested waters information in a timely manner across jurisdictions to aid collaborative eforts to prevent the spread of CPW manages and operates the System through zebra and quagga mussels and other ANS Te System a private industry contract utilizing federal grant consists of a mobile application, website, and shared dollars Te data itself is the property of the state database hosted on a private server Te mobile agency that input the information CPW leads application is compatible on all iOS and Android a Governance Committee, consisting of user devices Tis reduces the operating costs for mobile organizations that are charged with evaluating and data collection and data entry while increasing prioritizing requests, changes, and enhancements accuracy It provides for improved reliability in data Te Governance Committee works collaboratively collected in the feld at WID stations, in addition to to determine the viability and usefulness of new rapid query capacity for on-demand reporting Lead technologies It is expected that this System will agencies are able to customize the user interface of the become an industry standard for entities performing WID As users increase, this Figure 4: Entities Utilizing the Regional WID system will Data Sharing System continue to improve communications among jurisdictions to enable feld staf and managers to accurately focus resources towards efective risk mitigation related to the prevention and containment of zebra and quagga mussels and other harmful ANS

16 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Information and Outreach of focus in terms of knowing if awareness has been reached and if the users are taking action to help stop CPW and partner agencies the spread have implemented a comprehensive multi- Plan Purpose faceted ANS public education campaign Te Invasive species management, primarily ANS, cooperative efort focuses must have centralized coordination within state on boaters and anglers government and this Plan aims to increase efcacy primarily to prevent the through the reduction of duplicating eforts spread of ANS utilizing and increased communication, enabling more a variety of mediums, efcient policy development and feld operations including billboards, A central umbrella to oversee the Invasive Species boat ramp signage, Program (with ANS included) activities and brochures, social media, provide consistency in implementation protocols and stafng tradeshow is established within CPW Te Plan supports and expo booths to the existing framework for the facilitation of convey this message communication, providing standardization and consistency, ofering a basis for future policy and Along with ANS, the invasive species program legislative eforts, to develop the infrastructure for within CPW has been conducting information, early detection and to respond rapidly to new ANS education and outreach eforts for terrestrial and discoveries Te Plan is designed to assist stakeholders aquatic plants (noxious weeds), animals, insects, with a proactive approach to prevention and rapid and disease invasive species for a number of years response Te goal of the Plan is to minimize the Accomplishments include distribution of tens of harmful ecological, economic, and social efects thousands of printed rack cards, brochures, handouts, of ANS through the prevention and management DVDs, posters and signs at ofces, boat ramps of ANS into, within, and from Colorado. Tis will and water-access points In addition, CPW has be achieved through full implementation of the Plan implemented an aggressive media relations campaign, with the continuation of the current Program that using press releases and conducting web-based, radio, emphasizes the collaboration of agencies in order to print and television interviews CPW staf hosted prevent introductions, while efectively controlling or numerous outreach seminars to boating and angling containing established ANS populations groups, marine dealers, home owners associations, clubs, watershed groups, basin roundtables, ditch In an efort to enable Coloradoans to efectively companies, municipal water managers and providers, respond to emerging and unanticipated ANS threats, schools and youth educational opportunities this document will provide the necessary guidelines for management Te coordinated eforts contained CPW’s focus has been on raising awareness of select within the Plan are designed to protect residents user groups as to how they can take action to stop of Colorado and the State’s aquatic resources from the spread of ANS into new waters In the future, the multitude of potential losses associated with evaluation of campaigns and eforts is needed to ANS Te Plan focuses on preventing the accidental determine the efectiveness of the historic eforts and introductions of new ANS, limiting the spread of if the behavior change is taking place Te strongest existing ANS, and controlling or eradicating ANS form of education CPW has is the one-on-one where environmentally and economically feasible contact between the boater and inspector during every inspection where the boater is taught how Te intentional introduction of non-indigenous to clean, drain, and dry their watercraf each time species for aquaculture, commercial, or recreational they use it Evaluation is needed to determine if this purposes is addressed to ensure that these benefcial practice is being implemented when boaters are using introductions do not result in accidental ANS waters without WID stations Similarly, education is introductions and to improve information sharing ongoing in lesser forms for other user groups among those agencies responsible for the regulation of (e g anglers, hunters, gardeners) but there is a lack intentional introductions

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 17 Plan Development • Loss of productivity for hydroelectric power plants or water distribution Both the planning process and the implementation systems of the Plan are intended to coordinate ANS activities • Costs associated with control, prevention, for plants, fsh, and animals with statutory authority and monitoring measures over select areas of ANS, along with other state, • Loss of habitat and other natural resource federal and local agencies, private industry, non- values that are challenging to price governmental agencies, and land or water managers • Costs associated with lost access to Te primary state agency responsible for ANS recreational facilities resulting from ANS management is CPW However, legal authority is • Damage to agricultural irrigation shared with the Colorado Department of Agriculture infrastructure and water delivery (CDA) with respect to plants (noxious weeds, 3 ANS negatively impact our natural resources seeds, and nurseries), pets (Pet Care Facilities Act) Tose impacts with broader natural resource and aquaculture (State Aquaculture Act) CDA impacts tend to have a higher priority for regulates seed contaminants and seed purity to resources A few examples include the following: determine which terrestrial and aquatic plants are • Loss of productive habitat invasive enough to warrant listing as noxious and • Degradation of aquatic environments regulates those CDA also inspects hay and mulch for and impairment of functioning natural prohibited plants and certifes forage and mulch as systems weed-free • Alteration of aquatic biodiversity and abundance, including the loss of sensitive Te following are fve points to consider and issues (threatened and endangered) plant and addressed in the Plan and should provide guidance in animal species the future development and refnement of the ANS • Disruption of food webs and nutrient Program Plan implementation and future resource cycles, resulting in reduced biological allocation must be prioritized with the following productivity points in mind so decision-makers can take targeted • Loss of in-stream fow necessary to actions to protect the state’s waters from invasion in maintain fsh habitat the most efcient and efective manner possible • Non-target impacts to native species from ANS control measures 1 Tere are many pathways of introduction and 4 Prevention is the best course of action because spread for ANS, most of which are related to eradication may be impossible afer establishment human activities New species continue to be of ANS introduced and spread within North America • Management planning, educational through these pathways which must be a focus for eforts, and enforcement of statutes and management eforts Colorado’s program focuses regulations are strategies that can help in on pathway prevention and prioritizes resources the prevention and spread of ANS for human pathways Te system in place for • Mandatory inspection and watercraf inspection and decontamination decontamination have been efective to should be considered for expansion to mitigate stop the spread of mussels into Colorado other vectors and should be maintained and expanded 2 ANS have signifcant economic impacts once in the future introduced Tose ANS with the highest • Efective systems should be put into economic impacts tend to have the highest place in all situations to impede the priority for prevention and control Some introduction of ANS through other examples include the following: vectors of human spread such as angler • Operational costs for water quality waders, pets, nursery, bait, emergency treatment, water supply, and distribution response, frefghting, and construction for municipal, industrial and agricultural use

18 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 5 Research must develop new control strategies because there are few, if any, control methods available for use in water bodies once ANS establish • Te costs and impacts of ANS in Colorado are incurred in two main categories First is the loss in potential economic output, such as reductions in recreation, aquaculture, fsheries, power, drinking water, industry, and agriculture Second is the direct cost of combating and mitigating the impacts of invasion, including all forms of quarantine, control, and eradication (Mack et al 2000)

Public Involvement and Preliminary Comments Te Colorado ANS Plan was © photo by elIzabeth broWn conceptualized by a voluntary collaborative group of professionals this document and are incorporated concerned about the threat ANS is Comments and recommendations in Colorado in 2006 Afer gaining made by the ANS Task Force and the attention of leadership and © peter yates the responses to those are located in federal partners, a formal multi- Appendix B At that time, the agency jurisdictional Steering Committee was established to had recently been merged and CPW did not prioritize develop the Plan in 2007 co-chaired by Wildlife and the pursuit of fnal approval from the ANS Task Force State Parks Te draf Plan was presented to DNR leadership in January 2008 and was tabled a week Most recently, a draf of the Colorado ANS later following the detection of zebra mussel veligers Management Plan was updated in 2018–2020 by in Pueblo Reservoir Tis original draf Plan has CPW ANS Program staf, WID Supervisors, and been continually updated over time by the the CPW CO ANS Task Force members Tis current Plan Program with the Colorado ANS Task Force and was routed for internal CPW comments through the serves as the basis for this document today Aquatics section in the spring of 2019, followed by leadership and partner review A public comment Te State ANS Law was passed shortly afer the period was facilitated by CPW in March 2020 veliger detection at Pueblo Reservoir in May 2008, accompanied by the State Zebra and Quagga Mussel Te fnal Colorado ANS Plan is planned to be Management Plan and supporting regulations in submitted to the ANS Task Force for approval on or 2009 An expansive statewide ANS program focused before October 1, 2020 Te Plan is scheduled for on stopping the spread of zebra and quagga mussels consideration and approval by the ANS Task Force at through watercraf inspection and decontamination the fall meeting in November 2020 Te Plan will then was quickly developed and implemented through a be signed by Governor Polis and will go into efect multi-jurisdictional collaborative process immediately thereafer

Te Colorado ANS Plan was updated on a semi- Te Colorado ANS Plan follows the guidelines annual basis and has been utilized by the Colorado set forth by the ANS Task Force and includes the ANS Task Force members in the years to follow required elements, fgures, tables and sections A revised draf of the Colorado ANS Plan was necessary for approval Once approved, Colorado submitted to the ANS Task Force in 2013 Te will become eligible for State ANS Plan grant funding comments received about the draf helped to shape from USFWS per NISA

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 19 Geographic Scope

Figure 5: Geographic Scope of ANS in Colorado

Te State of Colorado contains the headwaters for are located near Leadville, Colorado, at an elevation several major river systems that make their way of more than 14,000 feet. Te North Platte fows into from the Continental Divide westward to the Pacifc Wyoming, while the South Platte River emerges out Ocean, and eastward toward the Atlantic Ocean. of the mountains near the continental divide at an Waters draining to the west are of particular interest elevation of 11,500 feet; the basin covers 27,660 square because many states heavily rely on the water that miles in northeastern Colorado. Colorado’s portion of travels through these major watersheds as their the Rio Grande basin covers an area of 7,543 square primary source of water resources. In total, nineteen miles; with the headwaters starting near the San Juan downstream states and Mexico rely on Colorado Mountains. Te Gunnison basin covers an area of to provide them with water for the year; making 8,000 square miles and is located in western Colorado Colorado a vital resource for millions of people. extending west of of the continental divide. Te Colorado basin encompasses an area of approximately Colorado is a headwaters state nicknamed the 9,830 square miles, with the headwaters starting at an “Mother of Rivers” and is the origin of eight major elevation of over 13,000 feet and located west of the river basins: Yampa/White, North Platte, Colorado, continental divide. Te White/Yampa basin covers Gunnison, San Juan/Dolores, Rio Grande, South 10,500 square miles in the northwest part of Colorado Platte, and the Arkansas. Te state has over 105,344 and the south-central portion of Wyoming. Te river miles and more than 249,787 lake acres. Public San Juan-Dolores basin, which is part of the Upper boating is available at 153 reservoirs across the state. Colorado Basin, covers an area of 10,169 square miles, with the headwaters starting at an elevation of greater Te Arkansas basin is spatially the largest river basin than 14,000 feet (Colorado Water Conservation in Colorado, covering 28,268 square miles in the Board). southeast portion of the state. Te river’s headwaters

20 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Figure 6: Colorado’s Major Rivers and Waterbodies

Figure 7: Colorado’s River Basins

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 21 Prioritizing Management Actions— Risk of Introduction of Zebra or Quagga Mussels Science-Based Risk Analysis by Recreational Watercraf, 2018 Colorado has invested in utilizing data collected by Tis is the primary ranking analysis for determining sampling technicians and boat inspectors to perform high-risk waters Te analysis is based on boater detailed risk assessments to inform a data-driven, demographics and includes more than one million science-based approach to implementation of the data points collected at watercraf inspection and ANS program, budget, and policy decisions decontamination stations from 2012–2017 Tere are fve data factors compared among waters with WID Te data collected by CPW’s ANS sampling stations: and monitoring team as well as inspectors and 1 Total Incoming Inspections or Total Volume decontaminators is critical in providing accurate of Boats analysis and directing limited resources to the 2 Boat Origin greatest needs Below is a list of the risk assessments 3 Watercraf Risk Type completed by CPW’s ANS program, and a risk 4 Number of Boats Tat Have Been Out of State assessment by CDPHE, along with more details in the Last 30 Days on CPW’s ANS risk assessment titled Te Risk of 5 Last Launch in a Positive or Suspect Water Introduction by Recreational Watercraf • CDOW ZQM Risk Assessment—2008 Risk of Establishment of Zebra or Quagga Mussels • CPW Risk of Introduction via Recreational Tis is the secondary ranking analysis for Watercraf—2012 determining high-risk waters Te analysis is based • CDPHE ZQM Habitat Suitability on approximately 281,000 water quality data points Assessment—2013 collected by the CPW ANS Program’s sampling and • CPW Listed ANS Habitat Suitability monitoring crews from Assessment—2016 © photo by nate paradIso 2013–2016 All waters • CPW Risk of ZQM Introduction via examined are within the Recreational Watercraf—2016 suitable habitat ranges • CPW Risk of ZQM Establishment—Habitat for zebra and quagga Suitability Assessment—2016 mussels to establish, • CPW Temperature Analysis for ZQM—2017 despite some being • CPW Risk of Introduction via Recreational ranked lower than Watercraf Update—2018 others

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

© photo by elIzabeth broWn 22 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Tis is a two-part analysis that examines the necessary Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), water chemistry for survival following introduction New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and secondarily examines the variables necessary for and rusty crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) maturity and reproduction and therefore long term invasion potential Tere are additional ANS that pose a threat to Part 1: Colorado’s ecosystems and economy which have • Primary factors necessary for shell formation not yet been documented in Colorado (e g Silver, and animal viability Bighead, and Black carp) Invasive species in • Represents what a zebra or quagga mussel neighboring states, as well as species suitable for would need to survive if introduced establishment in Colorado, are all considerations for • CHALK variables = Calcium, Hardness, management priority Alkalinity, pH Part 2: Examining possible pathways for species introduction • Secondary factors necessary for long term is an important aspect of prevention management population survival Tere are a variety of pathways identifed as means to • Represents what a zebra or quagga mussel protect Colorado from the introduction and spread of would need to survive, reproduce and ANS Western regional ANS management programs establish an invasive population have focused on recreational boating as a primary • Three variables = chlorophyll, total pathway and consequently, comprehensive boat phosphorus, and total nitrogen inspection and decontamination protocols have been developed Other pathways of interest for managers in Te approach to managing invasive species combines Colorado include pet release, nursery sale and dumps, a focus on individual species and specifc pathways of industrial construction, aquaculture, bait, internet introduction or spread Tere are a number of ANS sales, and other sectors of recreation such as hunting, already established within Colorado waters but not fshing, and scuba diving Exploration of species and all represent a high management priority Some of pathways of concern have guided this management the established species that are a high priority include plan

Granby Reservoir

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 23 New Zealand Mudsnail Problem Defnition and (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) ANS of Concern First detected in Colorado in 2004 in the South Platte and Boulder Creek Tese invasive Previous ANS Detections and Management snails continue to be found in Colorado in new locations annually, Tis section will outline the history of previous ANS including in the Gunnison detections in Colorado River, Fourmile Canyon Creek, Monument Lake, Trinidad Asian clam (Corbicula fuminea) Lake, and Uncompahgre River © photo by elIzabeth broWn Te most recent detections © photo by mIChIgan department Te Asian Clam has of envIronmental QualIty experienced great success in were made by the Denver North America and invaded Public Works Division at Johnson Habitat Park on Colorado rapidly Asian the South Platte River in Denver, and by CDPHE in clams were frst detected Trout Creek near Woodland Park in 2020 CPW relies in the South Platte River in heavily on partners to help detect NZMS and other Colorado in 1993 and have ANS in fowing water systems since expanded their range Tese animals are accidentally transported and to include the Arkansas moved primarily by anglers Tey hide in the mud River, Gunnison River, San Juan River, and Colorado on the bottom of boots and equipment Tere is no River basins © vIrgInIa teCh Weed Id guIde viable method for control of these very small, asexual animals CPW places a strong emphasis on angler Brazilian egeria education providing wader brushes and instructional (Egeria densa) rack cards to anglers Te only way to stop the spread Brazilian egeria was frst of these tiny invaders is through educating anglers found in Colorado in 2017 to clean their waders and gear in between each and and is confrmed in one every use Tere is no viable method for control of location these very small, asexual animals

Eurasian watermilfoil Rusty Crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) (Myriophyllum spicatum) Tere were no new © WWW.mdInvasIvesp.org CPW has provided services related to EWM detections of Rusty Crayfsh management statewide since 2005 New locations in several years Rusty of EWM are found annually CPW has actively crayfsh is an invasive controlled EWM with herbicide treatments at species that was frst Lathrop State Park, St Vrain State Park, and Chatfeld discovered in 2009 in a State Park in the past EWM © photo by elIzabeth broWn main-stem impoundment is a List B noxious weed of the Yampa River and at and CDA administrative two river locations between rules direct management Stagecoach Reservoir and requirements CPW and Steamboat Springs Te ANS Program conducted CDA coordinated on extensive surveys statewide and detected a population reported observations, in Sanchez Reservoir State Wildlife Area in 2010 and confrming identifcation, Stagecoach State Park in 2011 Tere are no current and rapid response Per eforts ongoing to map crustaceans or control rusty regulation, CPW utilizes crayfsh in Colorado both taxonomic and molecular methods to confrm species identifcation Populations were managed through manual removal of adult rusty crayfsh from 2010–2015 to reduce the

24 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan reproducing population in the reservoirs and limit suspected that this came impacts to native communities and users In 2016, from a nearby residential CPW staf monitored the Yampa River’s population water garden dump and determined that manual removal was successful, Tere are no known wild as very few rusty crayfsh were found in the river populations of water Since they are still abundant in these reservoirs, hyacinth in Colorado trapping and monitoring eforts will be evaluated Tere is one population of annually and potentially implemented in future years water hyacinth on a farm in

Alamosa, CO since 2006 © Courtesy Wendy vandyk evans Wildlife implemented regulations passed by the Wildlife Commission in November 2010 in which all Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) crayfsh caught west of the Continental Divide must and Quagga Mussel (Dreissena bugensis) be immediately killed and taken into possession, Zebra mussels, and their close relative quagga or immediately returned to the water from which mussels, are highly invasive aquatic species that they were taken Tere are no crayfsh native to negatively impact plankton communities, fsheries, the Western Slope Te same restriction applies to and water-based recreation in addition to threatening Sanchez Reservoir in Costilla County due to the water storage and distribution systems for municipal, invasive rusty crayfsh industrial, and agricultural use

Rusty crayfsh are native to the Ohio River Basin and Te ANS Program has been successful in stopping have expanded their native range to include several the continued inoculation of zebra and quagga U S states and Ontario, Canada Tey colonize lakes, mussels, and other ANS, rivers, and streams throughout North America Tey into Colorado’s waters are more aggressive than native crayfsh, better able by watercraf Tere has to avoid fsh predation, and can harm native fsh never been an adult zebra populations by eating their eggs and young Tey or quagga mussel found can displace native crayfsh and hybridize with them in a Colorado water body Tey graze on and eliminate aquatic plant populations However, the larval stage Zebra that provide necessary habitat and food sources for of the mussels, known as native fsh and waterfowl veligers, have been detected © photos by elIzabeth broWn in several waters in the past Water fea (Daphnia lumholtzi) Colorado follows the Te invasive water fea was western regional standards confrmed in Colorado in 2013 for listing and de-listing and was later found to be in 24 water bodies for zebra reservoirs across the state Te and quagga mussels, as Parks and Wildlife Commission documented in the Western Quagga updated ANS regulations in © Courtesy mIChIgan department Regional Panel’s Building 2017 by de-listing Daphnia of envIronmental QualIty Consensus in the West Workgroup lumholtzi (waterfea) from the ANS list and the prohibited aquatic species list in regulation It appears Per this standard, Green Mountain Reservoir is to be ambiguous in western waters and has little to currently listed as a SUSPECT reservoir for quagga no impact on the fsheries or water infrastructure of mussels In August 2017, quagga mussel veligers were the state identifed by the Bureau of Reclamation at Green Mountain Reservoir through microscopic analysis of Water hyacinth water samples and subsequently positively identifed (Eichornia crassipes) using DNA testing CPW confrmed the federal CDA detected a population of water hyacinth in results through genetic testing at an independent Centennial, CO in 2010 CPW confrmed the laboratory It is unknown if the veligers were dead identifcation, removed all plants and monitored or alive at the time of detection Upon confrmation, the site, which is now considered eradicated It is State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 25 CPW increased monitoring at the reservoir, deployed Previous Detections of Zebra and Quagga Mussels a scuba dive team and worked with the local Marina in Colorado: to implement WID containment procedures Te • Pueblo Reservoir tested positive for zebra and established site team, which includes CPW, U S Forest quagga mussel larvae (veligers) in 2007 and for Service (USFS), Reclamation, Northern Colorado quagga mussel veligers in 2007, 2008, 2009 and Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), Heeney 2011 Marina and Summit County was gathered to further • Grand Lake tested positive for one zebra mussel determine and implement actions necessary for and one quagga mussel veliger in 2008 Tere containment Containment WID protocols continue have been no verifed detections at Grand Lake to be implemented since 2008

A suspect reservoir requires three years of negative • Granby Reservoir, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, testing to be de-listed to negative Tere were no new Willow Creek Reservoir, Tarryall Reservoir, detections in 2018 or 2019 CPW intends to delist and Jumbo Reservoir all tested positive for one Green Mountain in January 2021 pending there are quagga mussel veliger in 2008 Tere have been no positive results in 2020 no verifed detections at any of these waters since • If another veliger or an adult is detected and 2008

confrmed through both microscopy and genetic • Blue Mesa Reservoir tested positive for quagga analysis by two independent laboratories, the mussel eDNA in 2009, 2011 and 2012 by the reservoir status will be upgraded to positive Bureau of Reclamation A positive reservoir requires fve years of negative De-Listing Positive Waters: testing to be de-listed to negative • If a reproducing adult population is found, the • Pueblo Reservoir was de-listed for quagga mussels reservoir will be listed as infested It is unlikely that in January 2017 afer fve years of negative results an infested reservoir would ever be de-listed, but • Pueblo Reservoir was de-listed for zebra mussels standards allow for this with fve years of negative in January 2014, along with the de-listing of testing following a successful eradication event Granby, Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain, Willow Tere are currently no known treatments for Creek, Tarryall, Jumbo and Blue Mesa eradication in an open water system, making de- listing impossible for infested waters at this time Blue Mesa

26 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Recent ANS Challenges Figure 8: Infested Mussel Boats Watercraf is the number one vector of Intercepted by Entity by Year transportation for ZQM. As more waters across the nation continue to become infested, Colorado becomes more susceptible to an infestation. Each year, the number of infested watercraf coming into Colorado with zebra or quagga mussels increases. In the last few years it has spiked due to the expansive infestation at nearby Lake Powell. Colorado’s ANS program continues to protect waters of the State by utilizing a multi-jurisdictional WID system as the most important prevention measure. Intercepted watercraf are fully decontaminated prior to being allowed into Colorado’s waters and potentially quarantined or impounded. Since 2009, a total of 281 boats with attached adult zebra or quagga mussels were intercepted coming into Colorado.

Infested vessels were coming into Colorado from Impacts from Aquatic Nuisance Species Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Te introduction of harmful aquatic nuisance species Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Nevada, into Colorado waters will cause severe ecological Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and and economic impacts. One ecological impact is the Wisconsin. Te majority of the intercepted vessels ability of zebra mussels to flter up to 1 liter of water were coming from Arizona, Lake Powell, the Great per day, removing the planktonic organisms from the Lakes, or Mississippi River states. All boats were fully ecosystem, which serves as the base of the food chain. decontaminated to ensure all mussels were dead, and Tis can have serious efects on fsheries and can lead no mussels were visibly attached to the vessel. to increased plant growth later resulting in toxic algae blooms. Economic impacts also occur with funding Plants, including Eurasian watermilfoil, continue to going to the perpetual control and maintenance be of concern because they colonize a wide variety of these species just to keep pipes open enough to of habitats including rivers, creeks, ditches, lakes, let water fow through them to homes, farms and and ponds and can grow in shallow or deep water. power plants. Te potential decrease in water-based Eurasian watermilfoil reproduces most successfully recreation following the invasion and negative by fragmentation. Small fragments break of and drif impacts that could have on CPW revenue and state downstream or to another part of the water body and tourism is irrefutable. Te Metropolitan Water begin a new population. Humans help spread this District of Southern California (MWD) is a good plant by engaging in activities that help break apart example of economic impact. MWD is a consortium and move the plant, such as boating. of 26 cities and water districts that provide drinking water to 18 million people. Tey currently deliver 1.7 Additionally, the invasive plant Brazilian egeria billion gallons of water per day. Since their infestation was frst detected in Colorado in 2017 afer being of quagga mussels, it has been estimated to cost $10 introduced into public waters as a contaminant in million a year for control. Tey spend up to $10,000 nursery stock. Brazilian egeria can aggressively invade a day on chlorine, which is used to prevent quaggas aquatic ecosystems and create dense mats that crowd from settling (DeLeon 2008). out native plants. Mats can impede boating, fshing, swimming, and other aquatic recreation activities. Te problem of aquatic invasions poses unique Te mats are unsightly, restrict water movement, challenges to the management of aquatic systems trap sediment, impair water quality, and degrade fsh and the development of policy afecting aquatic habitats. Te fragmented pieces can clog water intake environments. Since established populations of pipes and other water delivery infrastructure.

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 27 Figure 9: ANS Distribution in Colorado for 2019

aquatic invaders are self-sustaining, resources must be ANS of Concern to Colorado devoted to both the prevention of new introductions For the purpose of this Plan, the terms “ANS” or and to the control and eradication of existing “aquatic nuisance species” or “aquatic invasive species” populations of invaders. Te introduction of only a are referring to those species listed in Parks Chapter 8 few organisms or, in the case of aquatic plants and Regulations which are the primary species of concern. algae, a piece or fragment of an organism, can result in the infestation of a water body, watershed, or an Aquatic Nuisance Animals entire bio-geographic region. Further complicating preventative measures, these introductions can occur Aquatic nuisance animals may include fsh, bivalves, through any number of transport vectors. Since gastropods, amphibians, and macroinvertebrates. control methods are limited and costly and for most species eradication is unlikely, prevention is always Primary Aquatic Nuisance Animal Species of Concern: the best course of action. Te following sections Monitoring and management plans will be identify priority pathways by which these species may maintained for these species, and eradication and have been introduced and identifes established and rapid response will be instituted with partners if they threatening species of greatest concern to Colorado are found, pending available resources. National water bodies. Located above is a map of Colorado management plans will be utilized in the absence of a with our current invasive species population state plan. Colorado specifc information on species of distribution, a list of the water bodies can be found concern, pathways of introduction, and when possible in Appendix C. the timing of introduction into the State are located in Appendix D.

*Refer to Chapter P-8 #800 for a list of aquatic nuisance species prohibited for possession in Colorado. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/ RulesRegs/Regulations/ChP08.pdf 28 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan PRIMARY AQUATIC NUISANCE ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan Crayfsh, Rusty faxonius rusticus Present State of Colorado Rusty Crayfsh (reclassifed in 2017) formally Management Plan (Final 2010, known as orconectes rusticus Revised 2018) Quagga Mussel dreissena bugensis Suspect State of Colorado Zebra and Quagga Management Mussel Plan (Final 2009, Revised 2018) Zebra Mussel dreissena polymorpha No verifed presence State of Colorado Zebra and Quagga Management Mussel Plan (Final 2009, Revised 2018) New Zealand Mudsnail potamopyrgus antipodarum Present State of Colorado New Zealand Mudsnail Management Plan (Final 2005, Revised 2018) Water Flea, fshhook Cercopagis pengoi No verifed presence None Water Flea, spiny bythotrephes longimanus No verifed presence None (also known as bythotrephes)

Secondary Aquatic Nuisance Animal Species *Refer to Chapter W-0 Article VII aquatic wildlife of Concern: for a list of allowable aquatic species in Colorado. If detected in Colorado, CPW will work with partners https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/ to determine appropriate response and management Regulations/Ch00.pdf actions for the following species

SECONDARY AQUATIC NUISANCE ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan Alewife alosa pseudoharengus Present None African Perch, Nile Perch lates niloticu No verifed presence None Amphipod, Ponto-Caspian echinogammarus ischnus No verifed presence None echinogammarid amphipod Apple Snail pomacea No verifed presence None Asian Carp: Bighead Carp aristichthys/hypophthalmichthys nobilis No verifed presence National Management Plan Black Carp mylopharyngodon piceus Silver Carp hypophthalmichthys molitrix Bitterling rhodeus sericeus No verifed presence None Bowfn amia calva No verifed presence None Burbot lota lota No verifed presence None Chain Pickerel esox niger No verifed presence None Eurasian Rufe gymnocephalus cernuus No verifed presence National Management Plan European Valve Snail valvata piscinalis No verifed presence None Gars lepisosteidae No verifed presence None Giant Rams Horn Snail marisa cornuarietis No verifed presence None

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 29 SECONDARY AQUATIC NUISANCE ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN (cont.) Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan Gobies gobiidae No verifed presence National Management Plan Ide leuciscus idus No verifed presence None Indian Carp Cirrhina mrigala, Catla catla and No verifed presence None labeo rohita Killer Shrimp dikerogammarus No verifed presence None Loaches misgurnus No verifed presence None Marine Toad, Cane Toad, bufo marinus rhinella marina No verifed presence None Giant Toad, Giant, South American CaneToad, Dominican toad Northern Snakehead Channa argus No verifed presence National Management Plan Mysterysnails Cipangopaludina, viviparus No verifed presence None Japanese, Chinese, Banded, Olive Rudd scardinius erythrophthalmus Present None Walking Catfsh Clarias batrachus No verifed presence None Zander sander lucioperca No verifed presence None

*Refer to Chapter W-0 Article VII Aquatic Wildlife Invasive plants have invaded waters across Colorado for a list of allowable aquatic species in Colorado. due to intentional and/or unintentional actions https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/ Primary pathways for introduction of aquatic plant Regulations/Ch00.pdf species include boats and trailers, the aquarium trade, nursery and garden centers, mail order, and internet suppliers Aquatic Nuisance Species—Plants Te spread of aquatic nuisance plants, invasive plants, Since CPW shares statutory authority with CDA for or noxious weeds can cause signifcant ecological, managing aquatic noxious weeds, it is of the utmost economical, and recreational problems throughout importance that the two agencies work collaboratively Colorado Ecological impacts from non-native aquatic to ensure that plants listed by either agency are not plants include the reduction of native species and being sold in Colorado A consistent approach to loss of native wildlife habitat, slowing or stopping of invasive plants from a regulatory standpoint between fowing water, and decline of water quality Economic CDA and CPW, with clearly outlined roles and impacts include loss of income due to lack of responsibilities, is necessary to become efcient and recreation, impairment of agricultural water delivery efective, reduce duplication, and improve education, systems, municipal drinking water delivery systems enforcement, and management eforts and the costs of control and maintenance Dense mats of aquatic weeds impair all forms of water- Under CDA’s Noxious Weed Act, there is an based recreation Recognition of the threat to western appointed Colorado State Noxious Weed Advisory aquatic ecosystems and water delivery systems Board to recommend the listing, delisting and caused by invasive exotics has raised concerns with classifcation of noxious weeds to the Commissioner representatives from local, state and federal agencies of Agriculture Te Commissioner of Agriculture as well as private water interests oversees and decides listing, delisting and classifcation and management plan development CPW does not have a voting position on the Advisory

30 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Board DNR has a non-voting position on the

Advisory Board Te Colorado State Noxious Weed photos by rob andress, alabama department Advisory Board has currently designated a total of of ConservatIon and 100 species on three lists within the CDA Weed Rules: natural resourCes (Refer to Appendix E—CDA’s Noxious Weed List) • 25 “List A” species are mandated for eradication on all lands in Colorado • 40 “List B” species have statewide management plans (areas of the state designated for either eradication, suppression or containment) • 16 “List C” species that have required suppression management plans

Annual changes to the weed rules, including List B species-specifc management plans and changes to species on the weed list can be viewed by accessing the CDA website: http://www colorado gov/ag/weeds

Primary Aquatic Nuisance Plant Species of Concern: CPW is monitoring and will continue to monitor for the primary aquatic nuisance plant species of concern that are listed in Parks Chapter 8 regulations Rapid response should be initiated for these species upon detection Control or management actions will be instituted if the following species are found in accordance with governing regulations and available Yellow Floating Heart resources

PRIMARY AQUATIC NUISANCE PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan African waterweed lagarosiphon major No verifed presence None (elodea) Brazilian elodea, Egeria, egeria densa Present Site Management Plan leafy elodea, dense waterweed, anacharis, Brazilian waterweed Eurasian watermilfoil myriophyllum spicatum Present CDA Weed Rule Management Plan Giant salvinia salvinia molesta No verifed presence National Plan and CDA Weed Rule Management Plan Water Hyacinth eichornia crassipes Present None Hydrilla hydrilla verticillata No verifed presence CDA Weed Rule Management Plan Parrotfeather myriophyllum aquaticum No verifed presence None Yellow foating heart nymphoides peltata No verifed presence None

*Refer to Chapter P-8 #800 for a list of aquatic Secondary Aquatic Nuisance Plant Species of Concern: plants prohibited for possession in Colorado. If detected in Colorado, CPW will work with partners https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/ to determine appropriate response and management Regulations/ChP08.pdf actions for the following species

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 31 SECONDARY AQUATIC NUISANCE PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan Ambulia, Asian marshweed limnophila sessilifora No verifed presence None Swollen Bladderwort utricularia infata No verifed presence None Bur-reed, Exotic sparganium erectum No verifed presence None Curly leaf pondweed potamogeton crispus Present None Didymo “rock snot” didymosphenia geminata Present None Duck Lettuce ottelia alismoides No verifed presence None European water chestnut trapa natans No verifed presence None Fanwort Cabomba caroliniana Present None Flowering Rush butomus umbellatus Present None Golden algae prymnesium parvum Present None Heartshaped pickerel monochoria vaginalis No verifed presence None Miramar weed hygrophila polysperma No verifed presence None Mosquito fern azolla pinnata No verifed presence None Purple loosestrife lythrum salicaria Present List A Weed Starry stonewort nitellopsis obtusa No verifed presence None Water creeping primrose, ludwigia peploides Present None Floating Primrose Willow Water Lettuce pistia stratiotes Present—Eradicated None Yellow fag Iris Iris pseudacorus Present None

Pathways of Introduction Boating Colorado’s management approach is centered around Colorado is a popular destination for boating and managing human vectors of introduction and spread outdoor recreational activities For zebra and quagga in a proactive approach to preventing invasive mussels and some other ANS, boating is the primary species establishment, early detection and rapid mechanism for overland dispersal Recreational response Tere are numerous vectors to consider watercraf can carry water inside engines, ballast Some species have a single vector of non-natural tanks, and engine compartments across the land spread, while others have many pathways by which to Veligers are the larva form of adult zebra and quagga spread Education and outreach, inspection and decontamination, along with regulation and enforcement, are primary tools to prevent further introduction and establishment

32 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan mussel, and are microscopic; therefore, the water Anglers should also make sure to completely drain that gets trapped inside ballast tanks and engine water from their boat, motor, bilge, bladders, wells compartments on boats could hold veligers that and bait containers away from the ramp, and also are coming from an infested water body A total allow everything to dry completely between each of 281 boats with attached adult zebra or quagga use Most ANS, such as New Zealand mudsnails, mussels were intercepted coming into Colorado’s can survive several days out of water and can be waters from out of state at watercraf inspection transported on footwear or gear Anglers are urged and decontamination stations since 2009 Every to wear non-felt soled boots or footwear to further year the number of mussel boats coming into reduce the risk of spreading ANS Colorado increases Invasive plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil have already established in some of Fishing Tournaments Colorado’s reservoirs Plants can spread to other Fishing tournaments bring people into the state reservoirs by getting tangled up on a boat propeller from all around the country and it is important or on the boat trailer If not cleaned of, plants can that participants are made aware of the ANS rules reproduce in the next water body by just a fragment in Colorado when they register for the event Tournament staf should coordinate with CPW Boat Dealers, Marinas, and Marine Service Providers Aquatic Biologists, Area Wildlife Managers, or Park Boat dealers, marinas, and other industry Managers to make inspection and decontamination professionals may provide a pathway for ANS available to participants to be introduced into Colorado if they bring or receive boats from out of state that have invasive mussels or plants on the watercraf Marine industry members are encouraged to be part of the solution by participating in the CPW ANS Program, get certifed to perform WID, and share information through the Regional WID Data Sharing System, to reduce the risk of moving ANS and to provide the best possible customer experience

Angling ANS poses a signifcant threat to Colorado’s fsheries To help prevent the spread of ANS, Fish Bait Release anglers should keep their gear free of mud, ANS fsh, amphibians, and plants and organic debris between each and crustaceans can be spread by every use Moving a species from one body anglers who use them for bait and of water to another, even within diferent later release them into natural stretches of the same river, can start a domino efect waters, or as contaminants in bait Colorado’s bait of invasion causing irreversible ecological damage regulations are explained in more detail in the Legal Anglers need to make sure to examine all equipment Authority section of this document including waders, footwear, ropes, anchors, bait traps, dip nets, downrigger cables, fshing lines, and LIVE AQUATIC BAIT feld gear before leaving the water body Also it is Learn the bait rules for the waterbody you plan to fsh before you go. There are very important to thoroughly clean and remove any different rules east and west of the continental divide, above 7,000 feet, and at specifc visible material, including plants, animals and mud on waterbodies. Purchase bait from a reputable Colorado bait dealer and keep your receipt with you as footwear and gear with a stif brush and then disinfect proof of purchase. It is illegal to bring live aquatic bait into Colorado from another state. using one of the following four methods: Dispose of unwanted bait, fsh parts, worms, and packing materials in the trash; 1 Submerge in a quaternary ammonia based do not dump them in the water or on land. Never dump live fsh or other organisms from one waterbody into another. Fish caught cleaner (6 oz per gallon of water) for 20 minutes for eating or taxidermy should be cleaned away from the water and placed on ice. 2 Soak in 140° F water for 10 minutes Don’t transport natural water when keeping live aquatic bait. Drain bait container and 3 Freeze overnight replace it with spring or dechlorinated tap water. 4 Dry for at least 10 days

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 33 Figure 10: Colorado’s Illicit Stocking Events 1980–2015

Illicit Stocking Aquarium and Pet Release Illicit stocking refers to situations in which individuals Aquarium release and pet release is a pathway of intentionally and illegally introduce fsh into a introduction for organisms in trade People can buy reservoir for sport fshing Tere is no strategic plan invasive plant or animal species online or at nurseries to address illicit stocking in Colorado and it is not a or pet stores One aquatic plant of concern is Brazilian function of the existing ANS Program Tere is no egeria which is a prohibited ANS It is not legal to dedicated staf, funding, or general consensus on possess this species within the State of Colorado optimal enforcement and/or management options and if this species is found, it must be reported to among staf and partners However, illegal stocking CPW immediately Brazilian egeria was found in has impacts on recreational opportunities for Colorado recently It was originally introduced by the anglers and natural resources conservation In 2018, aquarium and water garden industry, and was sold for Pastorius Reservoir near Durango, Colorado was its oxygenating capabilities and its attractive fowers illegally stocked with the sport fsh Northern Pike and Once the plant has been introduced into a new habitat subsequently was not open to anglers for the fshing it can spread further without human activity season Crayfsh, aquarium fsh, or any other pets should Aquaculture not be released back into the wild or into any water body If people release their pets or dump their fsh Aquaculture is the cultivation of aquatic animals, tanks into state waters, this activity can result in a new fsh and plants in a natural or controlled marine or species to the area A gap in the current ANS Program freshwater setting Aquaculture may be a pathway of is the capacity, resources and clear legal authority to ANS introduction if a species from the aquaculture appropriately address the aquarium and pet industries system is put into the natural environment or if a non- to prevent invasive species from being sold and native contaminant is present in the produce released into Colorado’s waters

34 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Schools and Classrooms • Dispose—Discard unwanted seeds, plants, or plant parts in the garbage far from any natural Teachers are pet owners and should be educated water source not to dump or release their classroom pets into • Respond Aggressively—Act quickly to rid your natural settings Te ANS Program urges schools and waters or lands of noxious weeds and other classrooms to follow these rules when it comes to pets: invasive species • Don’t Let It Loose!—Do not release aquarium fsh, plants or animals of any kind into the wild Professional Activities and Construction Tey may prey on native species or spread disease If you no longer want your pet or Invasive species prevention and containment should classroom animal, return it to a local pet shop be a top priority for all natural resource professionals or give it to an animal shelter, hobbyist, school, and construction workers Tose working in the nursing home or veterinarian, and throw all feld can accidentally spread ANS and other invasive aquarium plants into the trash species from one location to another Following • Don’t Move It!—Never take plants or animals proper procedures when moving from site to site, from one habitat to another By moving a species always moving downstream, for instance, will protect even from one stretch of river to another, you may the environment: have inadvertently introduced an invasive species, • Go to Field Sites Clean—Before leaving the shop upset the balance of the ecosystem, and spread or ofce, take time to inspect your vehicle and disease equipment, and remove plants, seeds, insects, animals, and mud Organisms in Trade—Nursery, Garden Centers, • Plan Ahead—When moving from site to site, Pet Stores, and Aquaria begin at a negative site (or the least infested site) and fnish at the positive site (or most infested Nursery and garden centers act as a key pathway site) Between sites, use a brush or hand tool to of introducing invasive both aquatic and terrestrial remove accumulations of mud or plant debris, plant species People ofen unknowingly buy invasive and disinfect gear per CPW guidelines Use plants for their water features, gardens, or aquariums designated equipment for positive or infested either online or at the store Tis poses a major threat sites to native plant communities because introducing an • Leave the Field Clean—Before leaving the field invasive plant may spread to locations Controlling site; inspect your vehicle, trailer, boots, nets and invasive plants is costly and can pose other risks One equipment When available, use a power washer of the best lines of defense in helping stop the spread or air compressor to remove any plants, seeds, of invasive plants is to educate communities about insects, animals, and mud When these are not invasive species CPW’s ANS Program encourages available, use a brush or other hand tool to knock gardeners to: of debris • Plant Natives—Use plants native to your area in • Aquatic Equipment and Gear: Clean, Drain, aquariums, water features and gardens Dry—Aquatic professionals must follow state • Avoid Seed Mixes—Stay away from seed watercraf inspection and decontamination mixtures, especially ones labeled “wildfowers ” procedures to inspect and decontaminate boats, • Be Careful—Use caution when buying plants or trailers, equipment, and gear in between each and seeds on the internet or by mail order—you may every launch unknowingly contribute to the spread of invasive • Minimize possible ANS introductions— species from one part of the country to another Professionals can minimize possible ANS Plants native to one region can be invasive in introductions during projects by using certifed another region weed-free materials when bringing hay, mulch, • Never Release—Do not dispose of aquarium gravel, or other materials onto a site When the water, water feature materials, plants, or animals only available sources are not weed-free, scrape of into local water bodies Some exotic plants and the top 6 inches of soil or material and set aside animals sold for water gardens and aquaria can be Use the newly exposed material for the project highly invasive

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 35 Scuba Divers Hunters and Outdoor Enthusiasts Divers can unintentionally spread ANS from one Equipment and vehicles traveling over water or land body of water to another on their gear Some species can transport harmful invasive species into and are invisible to the naked eye and can survive hours around Colorado Cleaning gear and equipment to weeks on wet scuba gear, or water inside the before moving locations can help prevent harmful equipment By adhering to the following guidelines, introductions CPW’s ANS program recommends divers can help prevent the spread of ANS: that hunters and outdoor enthusiasts do the following • Inspect—Clean off visible plants, animals and to help protect the spread of invasive species: mud from wetsuit, dry suit, booties, mask, • Come Clean—Before leaving home, take time snorkel, fns, buoyancy compensator (BC), to inspect your vehicles and belongings Remove regulator, cylinder, weight belt, boat, motor, and plants, seeds, insects, animals, and mud from trailer before leaving the water body vehicles, tires, boots, and equipment • Drain—Empty water from BC, regulators, boots, • Leave Clean—Before leaving the parking lot or gloves, snorkel, mask and any other equipment campsite, inspect your vehicle and belongings that may hold water before leaving the water Remove plants, seeds, insects, animals, and mud body Brush dogs, pets, or other animals before leaving • Rinse—Thoroughly rinse the inside of your BC • Clean, Drain, Dry—Watercraft including trailers, with hot water (at least 104° F, but not more than motors/engines, and equipment and allow time to 120° F) or salted water (1/2 cup salt dissolved per completely dry in between each and every use one-gallon water) Immediately follow a salted wash with a freshwater rinse Lastly, submerge Firefghting Activities and Equipment and wash your suit and other equipment using Firefghting equipment and activities can be a possible appropriate cleaning solutions pathway of transporting ANS due to moving water

• Dry—Completely dry your suit and all equipment and frefghting equipment to and from diferent completely before diving lakes across the U S One of the action items listed in a diferent water in the pathways section of this document will be to implement the Guide to Preventing Aquatic Invasive Species Transport by Wildland Fire Operations, published in January 2017 by the National Wildfre Coordinating Group’s Invasive Species Subcommittee (ISSC) Tey provide national leadership in the prevention of invasive species transport by wildland fre mobile equipment and related vehicles Te main goals of this subcommittee are listed below: • To develop and disseminate standards, guidelines, best practices, and recommendations to control and prevent the spread of invasive species • Integrate new and evolving information from the natural resource management community into the invasive species control efort • Evaluate and recommend wildland fire and support vehicle utilization and/or decontamination techniques, equipment, or products to minimize invasive species transport

Colorado participates on the Western Regional Panel on ANS which recently formed a fre protocols and standards workgroup Colorado is engaged in this efort and will likely utilize the regional standards produced

36 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Colorado will deploy scientifc-based protocols and ANS Management Methods standards for integrated pest management including survey, monitoring, prevention, containment, Colorado recognizes that in order to protect the education, outreach, enforcement, and control important aquatic resources for the state and others tools such as physical, manual, cultural, social, and that depend on it, the ANS program must focus chemical options when appropriate on the following management areas; Prevention, Early Detection, and Rapid Response Te State of Colorado aims to partner with federal agencies, other western states, and private industry in order to accomplish the protection of the aquatic resources Existing Authorities and Programs Colorado has identifed the species that pose the greatest threat and is working collaboratively to stop the further introduction and spread Understanding Preventing the spread of aquatic nuisance species the pathways of these species of concern is critical in requires a high level of cooperation and coordination directing management eforts that commonly have between federal, state, county and municipal agencies, limited funding and resources Participation and private industry, non-governmental organizations and collaboration alongside other agencies can alleviate the public Many of these entities have collaborated some of the burdens of trying to accomplish goals to form the Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Task alone as well as minimizes any duplication Force (CANSTF or CANS Team) to develop and implement this Plan and to periodically review and Successful implementation of this Plan is dependent update it Te CANSTF is the ongoing collaborative on the shared resources and adoption by all group that acts as a permanent ANS management partners within the state, for while CPW is the main team which shares information, coordinates on feld coordination body, the responsibility for preventing projects, distributes educational resources, participates and controlling ANS falls to all land and water in protocol development, manages public relations, managers cooperatively. ensures staf from all agencies are properly trained and informed, directs policy, informs legislation and Tis Plan will enable Colorado to uphold and expand regulation, and strives to leverage resources to achieve upon its coordination endeavors between local and shared statewide objectives regional partners and stakeholders Achieving this coordination requires recurring involvement in Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of Colorado the Western Regional Panel, the Western Invasive waters and water infrastructure, the Plan’s goals and Species Coordinating Efort, Western Governors objectives apply to all partners; for no single entity is Association, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife responsible for, or capable of, implementing all of the Agencies, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, necessary actions to protect Colorado from ANS. the Mississippi River Basin Panel, the Missouri River Basin Team, the Federal ANS Task Force, and other State Government strategic groups or meetings Recognition of regional Colorado’s management approach is centered cooperative eforts such as the Quagga-Zebra Mussel around managing human vectors of introduction Action Plan for Western US Waters (WRP, 2010) and spread in a proactive approach to preventing and the QZAP Status Update Report (WRP, 2019), invasive species establishment, early detection and WRP’s Building Consensus in the West (2010–2019), rapid response Tere are numerous vectors to the Updated Recommendations for the QZAP (WRP, consider Some species have a single vector of non- 2020), and the National Management and Control natural spread, while others have many pathways by Plan for the New Zealand Mudsnail (Proctor et al which to spread Education and outreach, inspection 2007) will guide Colorado’s future ANS programmatic and decontamination, along with regulation and activities enforcement, are primary tools to prevent further introduction and establishment

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 37 Colorado Department of Natural Resources CPW Legal Authority for ANS https://cdnr.us While the ultimate success of the Plan requires the Te Colorado Department of Natural Resources collaboration of all of the partners, the statutory and (CDNR) has the authority to manage wildlife, legal authority for Aquatic Nuisance Species is granted recreation, and water resources in Colorado Te to CPW within the DNR Te following chapter CDNR division that manages ANS statewide is outlines the main statutes that provide legal authority Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Te state directly to the ANS program: the State ANS Act legislature merged the former Colorado Division (SB08-226), Resolution HJR17-1004, and the Mussel of Wildlife (Wildlife) and Colorado State Parks Free Colorado Act, in addition to CPW aquatic (Parks) on July 1, 2011, creating the new CPW Te animal health regulations ANS Program began functioning as a fully merged statewide program in 2012 State of Colorado ANS Act (SB08-226) Te ANS Act was passed by the legislature and signed Colorado Department of Natural Resources by Governor Ritter in May 2008 Te Act defnes www.cpw.state.co.us ANS as exotic or nonnative aquatic wildlife or any Prior to the July 1, 2011 merger of the former plant species that have been determined to pose a Wildlife and Parks, the two ANS Programs operated signifcant threat to the aquatic resources or water independently per SB08-226 Since that time, infrastructure of the state It makes it illegal to possess, the program has phased in integration including import, export, ship, transport, release, plant, place, staf functions, program services, protocols and or cause an ANS to be released It provides authority procedures, and feld implementation CPW operates to qualifed state commissioned peace ofcers to a unifed ANS Program today inspect, decontaminate, and quarantine watercraf for ANS It also provides authority for authorized agents CPW has the authority to monitor, inspect, to inspect and decontaminate watercraf for ANS decontaminate, quarantine, impound, and enforce Te Act determines that the frst violation is a class ANS laws and regulations in Colorado CPW also 2 petty ofense with a fne of $150 A second ofense has the ability to educate a large percentage of the is a misdemeanor with a $1000 fne For third and user groups If ANS were able to populate the Parks subsequent ofenses, the violator commits a class 2 or State Wildlife Area reservoirs, it would have grave misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished implications afecting recreation, fsheries, and the as provided in section 18-1 3-501 C R S It created revenue of this agency In addition, there would in the State Treasury an ANS Fund in both Wildlife also be costly implications for the federal and local and State Parks, designating a frst year budget of infrastructure, along with the state dams CPW owns $3 9M for Wildlife and $3 2M for State Parks, and an or manages annual budget of $2 7M for State Parks and $1 3M for Wildlife Te Mussel Free Colorado Act (described CPW’s ANS Program annually participates in a later) merged the two funds into one within CPW variety of education and outreach events including; Te Act delegates the promulgation of rules to the Te Denver Boat Show, Te Colorado Springs Boat State Parks Board Rules were approved by the State Show, Te International Sportsmen’s Expo and Parks Board for adoption on February 20, 2009 Te Denver Aquarium Endangered Species Event Education is an important tool because it teaches CPW—Parks Chapter 8 Regulations the public about invasive species and the threat that Te State Parks Board adopted regulations regarding they pose if introduced or further spread throughout ANS in 2009, specifcally watercraf inspection and Colorado’s waters Te ANS program has also decontamination; regulations were updated in 2016, participated in the Denver Metro Water Festival and 2017, and 2018 (see page 12) Te regulations require has given presentations to several elementary schools all trailered watercraf to be inspected prior to leaving an infested water, or prior to entering any water of the state if coming from out of state waters Tese rules set the standards for watercraf inspection and

38 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan decontamination, certifcation, sampling, monitoring all 700+ sales locations Te team also updated the and reporting Tey enable private industries to website, issued rack cards and posters to ofces, WID assist the state with inspection and decontamination stations and sales locations, and participated in public services Te rules also created a new ANS list that education and media events Similarly, the team also targets species that are transported on a boat overland produced information to aid customer service and Te animal species listed are New Zealand mudsnail, sales agents with the sale of the ANS stamp zebra mussels, quagga mussels, rusty crayfsh, and waterfeas Te plant species listed are African elodea, CPW Aquatic Health Regulations Brazilian egeria, Eurasian watermilfoil, giant salvinia, Possession of Aquatic Wildlife Regulation—CRS Title hydrilla, parrotfeather, yellow foating heart, and 33, Colorado Wildlife Regulations Chapter 0 General water hyacinth Provisions, Article VII, # 012

Concerning the Funding for Aquatic Nuisance No live aquatic wildlife may be possessed except as Species—House Joint Resolution 17-1004 authorized in CPW regulations CPW has authority In 2017, the Colorado General Assembly over all vertebrate, crustacean, and molluscan unanimously passed HJR 17-1004 which afrmed the wildlife Importation, transportation, possession, State Legislature’s commitment to ANS management and release of species that are not listed on the in Colorado, and the priority that the legislature places allowable species list is illegal and enforceable on the ANS Program within the state’s operations Te Colorado changed regulations from a prohibited bill encourages the federal government, specifcally species list to an allowable species list in 2018 Reclamation, ACOE, USFS and US Coast Guard, Any person in the State of Colorado may possess to assist the state with implementation of the ANS the following aquatic wildlife All other species are Program as outlined in the State ZQM Plan prohibited for possession • Amphibians Mussel Free Colorado Act—House Bill 18-1008 • Bullfrogs In 2018, the Colorado General Assembly passed the • Aquatic Gilled forms of Tiger Mussel Free Colorado Act which created the ANS Salamanders Stamp Te stamp is a fee for motorized watercraf • Any amphibians allowed under Chapter and sailboats using Colorado waters (both residents W-10, #1000 A 6 and non-residents), increased fnes for select ANS • Any amphibian designated as unregulated violations, and created a reimbursement process for wildlife under Chapter W-11, #1103 B CPW to get restitution for full decontaminations of quarantined or impounded watercraf

Following the passage of HB18- 1008, CPW formed an internal implementation team consisting of invasive species, public education and information, marketing information technology, sales, licensing, registration, marketing, and fnancial services staf Te team achieved the implementation goals set forth to have the ANS stamp available for purchase for in-state boaters renewing registration in November and December of 2018, and continuing in 2019 and subsequent years Te ANS stamp for out of state boats became available on January 1, American Bullfrog 2019 online, at CPW ofces and at photo by Carl d. hoWe

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 39 Sanchez Reservoir

• Crustaceans—The following crustaceans may • Speckled dace be possessed East of the Continental Divide • Rainbow smelt Crayfsh are not allowed to be possessed live • Tench West of the Continental Divide and at Sanchez • Walleye Reservoir • Bluegill and bluegill hybrids • Virile Crayfsh • Green, redear and pumpkin-seed sunfsh • Waternymph Crayfsh • Gizzard shad • Calico Crayfsh • Longnose and white suckers • Ringed Crayfsh • Fathead minnow • Southern Plains Crayfsh • Families of fsh classifed Cyprinidae • Fish—Possession of these species is subject to the except for bighead carp, black carp, and restrictions set forth in Chapter W-1 silver carp • Brown, brook, cutthroat, golden, lake and • Any fsh designated as unregulated rainbow trout, and their hybrids wildlife under Chapter W-11, #1103 B of • Arctic char these regulations • Grayling • Food Production Facility—In addition to those • Kokanee salmon species identifed in Chapter W-0, #012 C, any • Whitefsh food production facility may possess the following • Sculpin aquatic wildlife in the State of Colorado: • Smallmouth, largemouth, spotted, • Blue tilapia and their hybrids striped, and white bass • Mozambique tilapia and their hybrids • Wipers • Nile tilapia and their hybrids • Common Carp • Barramundi • Triploid grass carp • Any other fsh that the Division, afer • Bullhead, blue, channel, and fathead consultation with the Colorado Fish catfsh Health Board determines can securely be • Black and white crappie kept within a Food Production Facility • Drum and which does not present a risk to • Northern pike native species, their habitat, the aquatic • Tiger muskie environment, or other Food Production • Sacramento and yellow perch, and their Facilities hybrids • Crustacea—Red claw crayfsh • Sauger and saugeye

40 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Possession of Aquatic Wildlife Regulation (CRS Title Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations require that 33, Colorado Wildlife Regulations Chapter 0 General all live fsh as aquatic bait must be purchased from Provisions, Article VII, # 013) an authorized Colorado bait dealer and must be Te release (stocking) of aquatic wildlife is carefully accompanied by a dated receipt Te receipt is valid described by statute Only certain species of fshes can for ANS inspections for seven days be stocked and only in certain defned areas Release • Live fish are only allowed for use as bait on the of all other aquatic wildlife including vertebrates, Eastern plains below 7,000 feet and at Navajo crustaceans, and mollusks must be accompanied by Reservoir written permission from CPW • In those areas, the transportation of live fish as bait is prohibited between waters unless it was purchased from a Colorado bait dealer, as Possession of Aquatic Wildlife Regulation (CRS Title described above 33, Colorado Wildlife Regulations Chapter 0 General • Fish harvested in the wild for use as live bait can Provisions, Article VII, # 014) only be used in the water in which it was caught No live aquatic animals may be imported into and can no longer be transported and stored for Colorado without an aquatic species importation later use license No live fsh may be imported, transported, • The exception is fish harvested within Baca, Bent, transferred, or stocked in Colorado without a current Crowley, Kiowa, Otero, or Prowers counties, fsh health certifcate Salmonid fshes must be which can be transported and used only within certifed free of several regulated pathogens Non- those six counties salmonid fshes are required to be inspected for Viral • The transportation of live crayfish is prohibited on Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus the western slope and from Sanchez Reservoir • It is unlawful to transport live fish as bait across state lines without an importation permit

Figure 11: Live Aquatic Bait Fish Regulations in Colorado

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 41 Colorado Department of Agriculture technologies to achieve specifed management http://www.colorado.gov/ag objectives, and the costs of carrying out the prescribed state weed management plan (Colorado Department CDA provides fnancial assistance, technical of Agriculture, 2020) support, reporting, on-the-ground control services, and statewide coordination for noxious weed Counties and municipalities have enforcement management In addition, the Department provides authority over the weed list and the penalties are biological pest control agent, technical support civil Te 2003 legislative amendments made the for insect and plant pathogen management, and Act more enforceable Te majority of listed species pesticide applicator licensing and training CDA also are terrestrial invaders that infest range, pasture, has statutory authority over aquaculture, nursery, cropland, and wildland habitats—but there are biological control, certifed weed free hay and mulch, aquatic species scattered throughout the lists Tere and seed industries (Colorado Department of are gaps in existing capacities that challenge CDA or Agriculture, 2020) CPW’s ability to fully address aquatic invasive plants at the current time Adequate staf with funding Te Colorado Noxious Weed Act for statewide surveys, facility/nursery inspections, Te Act states that it is the duty of all persons to and treatment across all waterbodies in the state to use integrated methods to manage both terrestrial implement existing statutes is the single biggest issue and aquatic noxious weeds if they are likely to be Secondarily is lack of statutory authority to inspect materially damaging to the land of neighboring and regulate pet trade industry and aquatic plant landowners It directs CDA to provide the reporting industry Most local governments (e g county weed infrastructure, list and classify noxious weeds, provide programs) do not have the infrastructure or aquatic technical assistance and services on the management expertise to manage ANS and control of noxious weeds It also allows for the enforcement of noxious weed management programs at state, county, and municipal levels List A—Twenty-fve species mandated for eradication All local governing bodies are required to report on all lands in Colorado Te state provides noxious weeds, have advisory weed boards, conduct additional education and research enforcement, and have written management plans • ANS on List A are Giant Salvinia, for the control of noxious weeds in their jurisdictions Hydrilla and Parrotfeather Te Colorado Noxious Weed Act was passed in 1990 and most recently revised in 2003 Te Act provides List B—Tirty eight species; List B species are legal mandates for eradication, containment, and common in some parts of the State but rare in suppression on specifc species in various areas of others Species management plans mandate the state eradication, containment or suppression for each species depending on the distribution Te Colorado Noxious Weed List and abundance of the species in the State Te Te Colorado Noxious Weed List was created in State provides additional education, research, 1990 and most recently revised in 2020 in order to and biocontrol resources coordinate noxious weed management eforts in • ANS on List B is Eurasian Colorado and prioritize species for management watermilfoil Te List is divided into three parts (List A, B, and C) prescribing minimum statewide management List C—Sixteen species total; all species are found standards (eradication, containment, and in Colorado and are fairly common in the suppression) Criteria for designating a species as state Te State mandates suppression on a noxious weed require that it be non-native to the List C species; local governments can elevate State, aggressively invades, and it has a discernible control in their jurisdictions For jurisdictions impact on agriculture and/or the environment requiring management of List C species, Classifcation into one of the three parts of the list the State provides additional education, and primarily refects the known distribution of the biocontrol resources designated species, the feasibility of current control • Tere are no ANS on List C

42 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Te Colorado Nursery Act © photo by elIzabeth broWn Tese regulations provide additional regulatory authority to prevent the introduction of identifed invasive plants through the sale as nursery stock (organisms in trade) in Colorado Eurasian watermilfoil, giant salvinia and hydrilla are listed in the Administrative Rules for the Nursery Act and are prohibited for sale in Colorado Other aquatic plant species that are prohibited for possession in Parks Chapter 8 regulations or listed on the watch list are still being sold in Colorado and threatening natural resources, recreation and the water infrastructure of the state Similar to the weed law, there are no clear roles and responsibilities with complementary Eurasian watermilfoil authority for enforcement

Te Colorado Aquaculture Act Designated Uses must include existing and desired Te Colorado Aquaculture Act created the Colorado uses that require good-to-excellent water quality Fish Health Board which promulgates, reviews, Te WQCD must develop a set of water quality and approves regulations relating to fsh health and criteria (standards) that will protect each Designated importation or distribution of any exotic aquatic Use Tese assessments are very difcult to make in species relation to ANS due to a lack of research and clear scientifc support Tis process of listing impaired Te Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA) waters through the CWA 303(d) list occurs every Regulates pet aquatic animals including fsh, 2 years amphibians and invertebrates including insects and/ Te CDPHE has been a member of the CANS Task or coral species sold and distributed in the pet trade Force since inception and has partnered with CPW or that are not regulated by CPW PACFA works on ANS projects Most notably, the CDPHE obtained in collaboration with CPW to identify invasive or a fve-year grant from EPA to provide water quality prohibited species that are potentially being sold analytical services for the CPW ANS Program, which illegally in the pet trade as pets, with CPW having the was essential to completing the risk analysis described authority for enforcement on pages 22–23

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) Environment (CDPHE) http://cdpsweb.state.co.us https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe As post certifed peace ofcers, they are authorized Te Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) within by the ANS Act to decontaminate, quarantine and CDPHE deals primarily with the Clean Water Act impound watercraf for ANS per SB08-226 Other (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act Tere appears Western States have statutes that address ANS to be no outright statement linking WQCD to an transport, inspection, and regulation of vehicles existing authority status regarding ANS Water moving ANS on state or federal highways Te bodies are listed on the CWA 303(d) list for Colorado State of Washington passed legislation that allows when an invasive species can clearly be defned their highway patrol to stop, inspect, and impound, as impairing the biological communities, such as if necessary, any motor vehicle or trailer carrying benthic macroinvertebrates or fsh, or if a species is ANS into or through the state In the future, similar considered a “biological pollutant,” which would tie statutes might be necessary in Colorado to protect a pollutant to an impairment of a Designated Use our waterways from accidental introduction of ANS if Designated Uses are human and ecological water highway stations for perimeter defense are necessary uses that the WQCD and Environmental Protection for protection Agency (EPA) ofcially recognize and protect

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 43 Federal Legal Authority Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA; Title I of P. No. 101- No single federal agency has clear authority over all 646, 16USC 4701 et seq.) aspects of ANS management, but many agencies have NANPCA established the frst major federal program programs and responsibilities that address aspects of through ANS Task Force to prevent the introduction the issue, such as importation, interstate transport, of, and to control the spread of, introduced aquatic exclusion, control, and eradication Federal activities nuisance species and the brown tree snake Te ten on ANS management are coordinated through the federal agency members of the ANS Task Force ANS Task Force created by the Nonindigenous named in the Act are the USFWS, National Oceanic Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of and Atmospheric Administration, NPS, Department 1990 and amended as the National Invasive Species of Transportation, U S Coast Guard, U S Army Corps Act in 1996 In February 1999, President Clinton of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Protection signed Executive Order (EO) 13112, which requires Agency (EPA), Department of State, U S Geological all federal agencies to collaborate in developing a Survey, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection national invasive species management plan to include Service (APHIS) Tis list has expanded over time terrestrial and aquatic species Executive Order 13751 and current membership includes a broad array of signed by President Barak Obama in December 2016, federal agencies and non-governmental organizations amends EO 13112 A brief description of NANPCA, States are represented through the Regional Panels, NISA, EO 13112, EO 13751 and the Lacey Act follow which are sub-committees and not voting members of the ANS Task Force

Figure 12: Colorado’s Federal Lands and Waters

44 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan NANPCA provides an institutional framework that prevent aquatic non-indigenous species from being promotes and coordinates research, develops and introduced into and spread through ballast water applies prevention and control strategies, establishes in U S waters It modifed: (1) the composition and national priorities, educates and informs citizens, and research priorities of the ANS Task Force; and (2) coordinates public programs Te Act also calls upon zebra mussel demonstration program requirements States to develop and implement comprehensive State Although Colorado is an inland state, it is clear that ANS management plans Te ANSTF is required to the regulation of ballast water has a profound impact report to Congress annually on which ANS become established in the United States and can be moved into Colorado through many NANPCA also established two Regional Panels pathways comprised of public and private entities to serve as advisory committees to the ANSTF—the WRP on Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species ANS and the Great Lakes Panel Tere have been Te Executive Order (EO) on Invasive Species signed four Panels added over time for a total of six regional by President William J Clinton on February 3, 1999, panels Colorado’s Invasive Species Program Manager expanded federal eforts to address ANS Te EO was the Chair of the WRP from September 2011 to intended to build upon existing laws, such as the June 2020 Colorado is a member of both the WRP National Environmental Policy Act, NANPCA, the and the MRBP Lacey Act, the Plant Pest Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act, and the Endangered Species Act Te EO Under NANPCA, state governors are authorized directs all federal agencies to address invasive species to submit comprehensive ANS management plans concerns as well as refrain from actions likely to to the Task Force for approval which identify areas increase invasive species problems Te EO creates or activities for which technical and fnancial a National Invasive Species Council (NISC) charged assistance is needed Grants are authorized to states with developing a comprehensive plan to minimize for implementing approved management plans, the economic, ecological and human health impacts with a maximum federal share of 75 percent of the of invasive species and determine the steps necessary cost of each comprehensive management plan Te to prevent the introduction and spread of additional state matching contribution is 25 percent of total invasive species Te National Invasive Species program costs Management Plan was fnalized on January 18, 2001 An update to Te National Invasive Species Detailed information about the ANSTF and all Management Plan for 2016-2018 has been approved current state ANS management plans can be and is available on the Council website at found on the ANS Task Force website at https://www doi gov/invasivespecies/ https://www anstaskforce gov Executive Order 13751—Safeguarding the Nation National Invasive Species Act (NISA; Pub. l. 104-322) from the Impacts of Invasive Species In 1996, NISA amended NANPCA to mandate Signed by President Barack Obama on December 5, regulations to prevent the introduction and spread 2016, EO 13751 amends EO 13112 and directs actions of ANS into the Great Lakes through ballast water to continue coordinated Federal prevention and and other vessel operations Tis Act required a control eforts related to invasive species Tis order U S Coast Guard study and report to Congress on maintains the NISC and the Invasive Species Advisory the efectiveness of existing shoreside ballast water Committee (ISAC); expands the membership of facilities used by crude oil tankers It authorized NISC; clarifes the operations of NISC; incorporates funding for research on ANS prevention and considerations of human and environmental health, control in the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, climate change, technological innovation, and other the Pacifc Coast, the Atlantic Coast, and the San emerging priorities into Federal eforts to address Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary In addition, NISA invasive species; and strengthens coordinated, cost- required a ballast water management program efcient Federal action to demonstrate technologies and practices to

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 45 Lacey Act Department of Defense— Te Lacey Act of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1900, amended https://www.usace.army.mil/ in 1998 prohibits the It is the policy of the Army Corps of Engineers importation of a list of designated (ACOE) to develop, control, maintain, and conserve species and other vertebrates, mollusks, the Nation’s water resources in accordance with the and crustacea that are “injurious to human laws and policies established by Congress and the beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, Administration Te ACOE Zebra Mussel Research forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of Program was authorized by NANPCA of 1990, Public the United States ” Te Act declares importation or Law 101-646, and is the only federally authorized transportation of any live wildlife as injurious and research program for the development of technology prohibited, except as provided for under the Act to control zebra mussels Te ACOE ANS programs but allows import of almost all species for scientifc, were integrated into the ANS Task Force to ensure total medical, education, exhibition, or propagation coordination and leveraging to address all ANS issues purposes Water Resources Development Act Te reauthorization of the Water Resources Federal Government Reform and Development Act (WRRDA, 2014) Colorado’s management approach is centered and Water Infrastructure Improvements for around a multi-jursidictional proactive approach the Nation Act (WIIN, 2016) included funding to preventing invasive species establishment, early for WID stations in four Columbia River Basin detection and rapid response It is of the utmost (CRB) states to prevent the spread of ANS, importance that members of relevant federal primarily zebra and quagga mussels, as well as agencies participate in and support the Colorado provisions for monitoring and rapid response ANS Program because the highest risk waters and Te FY 2016 federal budget included a $4 million facilities are federally owned and/or managed Tere appropriation for WID stations Te Senate’s is a shared responsibility among the state and federal FY 2017 Energy and Water Appropriations partners, along with industry and local governments, bill included $4 million for WID stations and to prevent the spread of ANS and protect our aquatic $1 million for monitoring Te WRDA has resources successfully been used to provide much needed resources to states for the implementation of WID United States Department of Agriculture— stations and monitoring in the CRB United States Forest Service Te 2018 Water Resources Reform and https://www.fs.fed.us/ Development Act (S 3021) was passed by the Te US Forest Service (USFS) was established in 115th Congress and signed into law October 1905 and is an agency of the U S Department of 2018 Section 1170 includes a provision which Agriculture Te USFS manages public lands in directs the ACOE to monitor and establish, national forests and grasslands which encompasses operate, and maintain new or existing WID 193 million acres across the USA Te USFS is the stations to prevent the spread of ANS in the recreation manager of numerous very high risk waters Columbia, Upper Missouri, Upper Colorado, in Colorado As part of recreation management, South Platte, and Arkansas River Basins Te they permit marinas, control boat ramp access and provision also authorizes the ACOE to assist states operations, and issue private slips on high priority with monitoring and rapid response eforts in the waters, such as Granby and Shadow Mountain case of an infestation of quagga or zebra mussels Reservoirs in the Arapahoe National Recreational Area, which is the headwaters to both the Colorado United States Department of Commerce— and Platte River Basins Te Regional Ofce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association various forests have provided cost-share to CPW for https://www.noaa.gov/ ANS and are active in the CANS Task Force Tasked with the conservation and management of coastal and marine ecosystems and resources, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association

46 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (NOAA) does not have any ANS authorities in prevent the introduction, spread, and establishment Colorado NOAA has a key role as a co-chair of the of aquatic invasive species is to use best management ANS Task Force but no exact directive or portfolio to practices, such as boat inspections and equipment work on ANS decontamination to develop and enhance the capacity to identify, report, and respond to newly United States Environmental Protection Agency discovered and localized invasive species Tey work https://www.epa.gov/ to restore native species to habitats impacted by Te Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) invasive species by promoting collaboration, and the mission is to protect human health and the ability to respond when it comes to aquatic invasive environment Tere are bio-assessments and wetland species issues among federal, state, local and tribal surveys conducted by the EPA in Colorado that may governments, private organizations, and individuals capture information on invasive species Additionally, Te agency supports public education and outreach the EPA serves as a member on the ANS Task Force eforts to promote the awareness and prevention of invasive species introductions Te BLM is an active United States Department of the Interior (DOI) participant in the CANS Task Force and has provided grants to CPW for a variety of ANS work Tere are numerous bureaus within the Department of Interior (DOI) that have responsibility or authority DOI—U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over some portions of ANS management In 2017, http://www.usbr.gov Colorado participated in six focused state-federal Te U S Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is committees which informed the DOI’s Safeguarding involved with ANS management on several levels the West from Invasive Mussels Initiative Safeguarding Te Denver Technical Services Center (TSC), the West enabled the Bureaus to engage with states on Hydraulic Investigations and Lab Services— ANS management and provided resources through Ecological Research Lab, the Research and the Bureau of Reclamation to further specifc needs Development Ofce, and the Ofce of Policy and and bolster the implementation of the Quagga Zebra Programs provide research, support, and assistance to Action Plan for Western Waters (QZAP) Colorado the Regional and Area Ofces in 17 Western States benefted from this regional efort and encourages Tere are three Integrated Pest Management (IPM) DOI to stay engaged and continue providing funds Coordinators for Colorado; the Western Colorado and coordination to western states for QZAP Area Ofce (Grand Junction), the Eastern Colorado implementation Area Ofce (Loveland), and the Albuquerque Area Ofce (South Central Colorado) Reclamation staf DOI—Bureau of Indian Afairs from the Western Area Ofce and Eastern Area https://www.bia.gov/ Ofce participate on site planning teams for high Te Bureau of Indian Afairs (BIA) mission is to: priority waters, and participates on the CANS Task “… enhance the quality of life, to promote economic Force Reclamation has provided funding to CPW opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to and partners for ANS work protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives ” Tribes in the southwest region of Colorado include Te Southern Ute Tribe, and Te Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

DOI—Bureau of Land Management https://www.blm.gov/ Te Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 8 3 million acres of public lands and 27 million acres of federal mineral Martin Lake, Lathrop State Park estate in Colorado Te BLM’s strategy to

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 47 DOI—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional and National Organizations http:///www.fws.gov/ Te Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has multiple Species (WRP) programs that address ANS management. FWS serves http://www.westernregionalpanel.org as co-chair of the Federal ANS Task Force, member of the WRP, and is the agency that provides federal Te WRP was formed under a provision in NANCPA funding for the implementation of ANS Task Force with the intention of coordinating ANS activities in approved state ANS management plans. USFWS the western 19 states. Te WRP was not ofcially participates in the CANS Task Force and has provided formed until afer the passage of NISA in 1997. Te grants to CPW for ANS work. WRP is an advisory (non-voting, non-member) subcommittee of the ANS Task Force and serves to DOI—National Park Service coordinate state, federal, tribal, private industry, and https://www.nps.gov/index.htm non-governmental organizations to help limit the Te National Park Service (NPS) preserves the natural introduction, spread, and impacts of ANS in Western and cultural resources and values of the national park North America. Te WRP authored the Quagga system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration Zebra Action Plan for Western Waters and facilitated of this and future generations. Te NPS cooperates Building Consensus in the West. Colorado’s Invasive with partners to extend the benefts of natural and Species Program Manager served as Chair of the cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation WRP from September 2012 through June 2020. throughout this country and the world. Tere are 16 National Parks, Monuments or Historic sites Te Western Invasive Species Coordinating Efort in Colorado. Among those, Currecanti National Te Western State ANS Programs formed the Recreation Area, includes the largest body of water in Western Invasive Species Coordinating Efort Colorado, Blue Mesa; a popular destination for local (WISCE) in 2011 out of a need to discuss and and out of state boaters. NPS works closely with CPW coordinate on zebra and quagga mussel management to implement a comprehensive WID program at Blue in the west. Te purpose of WISCE is to provide Mesa Reservoir. Additionally, NPS staf performs an open dialogue among Western State ANS plankton sampling at for analysis at CPW’s ANS Lab. Coordinators with respect to ANS management NPS participates in the CANS Task and state program Force and has provided grants to Figure 13: WRP Geographic Range implementation. Tis CPW. Te NPS manages the ANS group is coordinated program at Blue Mesa as a cost- among themselves share program with CPW. and communication occurs via monthly DOI—United States Geological conference calls Survey (USGS) and webinars. https://www.usgs.gov/ WISCE continues Te United States Geological to be a positive and Survey (USGS) gathers scientifc continuous group data on the natural resources, that solves common climate change, land use changes, problems, supports and environmental hazards. Te and helps each other, USGS has developed the Non- and facilitates solutions Indigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) between states and Database; it provides information federal agencies. on ANS distribution in the U.S. Colorado’s Invasive including maps of when and where Species Program the species was collected. Manager served as Chair of WISCE from

48 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 2012–2018 and CPW hosted the annual meeting in Te working group’s members consist of state and 2019 and 2020 fsh and wildlife agency personnel who have technical expertise and oversight of matters involving invasive Western Governors Association species within their respective jurisdictions Te CPW http://www.westgov.org/ Assistant Director currently serves as Chair of the Invasive Species Committee and the Invasive Species Te Western Governors’ Association was established Program Manager participates as a member in 1984 to represent the Governors of 19 Western states and three U S territories in the Pacifc Te association is an instrument Common Carp of the Governors for bipartisan policy development, information exchange and collective action on issues of critical importance to the Western United States In 2018, the WGA launched the Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative, the central policy initiative of WGA Chair Hawaii Governor David Ige, which focused on the impacts that nuisance species, pests and pathogens have on ecosystems, forests, IllustratIon by duane raver, u.s. fIsh and WIldlIfe servICe rangelands, watersheds, and infrastructure in the West Te Initiative will examine Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies the role that biosecurity plays in addressing the risks https://www.fshwildlife.org/ posed by invasive species CPW participated in the Initiative and works collaboratively with WGA Te Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies actively contributing to their eforts (AFWA) represents North America’s fsh and wildlife agencies to advance sound, science-based WGA Policy Resolution 2016–05 management and conservation of fsh and wildlife Combating Invasive Species and their habitats in the public interest Te CPW Western Governors support coordinated invasive Director served as Chair of the Invasive Species species management including early detection Committee from 2009–2012 and the CPW Assistant and rapid response programs to ensure that Director and Invasive Species Program Manager actions result in more on-the-ground prevention, participates as a member management and eradication Governors also call for increased accountability and oversight of Te Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force federal invasive species programs and support https://anstaskforce.gov/ the creation of a west-wide species inventory, including the development of data management Te Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force standards, formats and protocols (Western was established by Congress with the passage of the Governors Association, 2016) Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) in 1990 and reauthorized Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies with the passage of the National Invasive Species https://www.wafwa.org/ Act (NISA) in 1996 (collectively, the Act) Te ANS Task Force is composed of 13 Federal and 15 ex- Te Western Association of Fish and Wildlife ofcio members Te WRP and Great Lakes Panel Agencies includes twenty-four states and Canadian were established in the authorizing legislation, and provinces WAFWA supports resource management four additional panels have been created over time and building partnerships at all levels to conserve by USFWS Colorado has participated on the ANS wildlife for the use and beneft of all citizens Te Task Force since 2011 as Chair of the WRP and as Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group was Co-Chair of the Communications, Education and established by the WAFWA directors in 2009 Outreach Committee from 2014–2019

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 49 Local Governments CO Walleye Association, Muskies Inc, 5280 Bass Hunters, Federation of Fly Fishers, Te Nature Cooperation from Colorado local governments is Conservancy, Te American Boating and Yachting critical to the success of the ANS Program Many Council, and many more waters in the state are owned and/or managed by local governments Larimer County operates an Non-Governmental Organizations ANS inspection and decontamination program at two reservoirs that is a cost-share with CPW and Tere are many non-governmental organizations Northern Water Teir program alone inspects over (NGOs) that have an interest in preventing the spread 55,000 boats and intercepts infested mussel boats of invasive species Te Colorado Women Fly-Fishers annually If there were no inspection program, those located a new population of New Zealand mudsnail boats would get into the reservoirs and infest the in the South Platte and was integral in rapid response entire northeastern half of the state’s water supply and Te Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited played downstream impoundments crucial roles in the development of this Plan and continue to serve on CANS Task Force Municipalities have taken a pro-active approach to the ANS problem by implementing watercraf inspection and decontamination at their reservoirs and lakes Tose governments are the City of Aspen, City of Aurora, City of Arvada, City of Basalt, City of Boulder, City and County of Denver, Town of Dillon, Other Invasive Species Town of Evergreen, Town of Grand Lake, City of Management Plans Lakewood, City of Longmont, City of Loveland, City of Parker, Town of Snowmass, City of Westminster, and the Town of Windsor Colorado Parks and Wildlife • State of Colorado Zebra and Quagga Mussel CPW will continue to work with local governments Management Plan (Final 2009, Revised 2018) to mitigate the spread and impacts from ANS, i) Plan sets the foundation for how the ANS including zebra and quagga mussels By working program functions in relation to mussels, together to implement the Plan, we greatly increase including boat inspections, education, the probability of preventing the spread of ANS in information, sampling and monitoring Colorado • State of Colorado Rusty Crayfish Management Plan (Final 2010, Revised 2018) Recreational User Groups • State of Colorado New Zealand Mudsnails and Industry Members Management Plan: Current Status and Private industries such as the Dillon and Frisco Recommended Management Actions (Final 2005, Marinas at Lake Dillon or marine dealers, such as Revised 2018) Tommy’s Slalom, Inc and Great Lakes Marine took an active role implementing watercraf inspection Colorado Department of Agriculture and decontamination at their locations Tese entities • Statewide noxious weed management plans are crucial to the success of the Plan and CPW hopes (Updated biennially) that more partnerships can be formed to expand • Written into Weed Rules by Agriculture programs and reach a larger percentage of Colorado’s Commission residents and visitors for education, communication, • Colorado’s Strategic Plan to Stop the Spread volunteerism, early detection, and rapid response of Noxious Weeds (2001) CPW will direct its messages to the following • Sets the framework for Weed Law recreationists and special interest groups; marinas, and Rules marine dealers, marine service centers, boating clubs, fshing clubs, fshing guides, anglers, waterfowl hunters, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, BASS,

50 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Western Regional Panel on ANS

• Quagga Zebra Action Plan for Western Quagga and Zebra Mussel Waters (QZAP, 2010) Action Plan for Western Waters • Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan Status Update Report for Western Waters: Status Update Report (2019) Building Consensus • Building Consensus in the West Workgroup: Final Activity Report in the West 2011–2019 (2019) Workgroup Final Activity

• The Updated Recommendations for the Quagga mussels Report 2011–2019 (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) Zebra mussels Quagga Zebra Action Plan in Western (Dreissena polymorpha) April 2019 Waters (2020)

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

• ANS Task Force Strategic Plan 2020–2025 April 2019 • National NZMS Plan (Final 2007) • State and Interstate AIS Management Plans https://www anstaskforce gov/stateplans php • Fosters agency collaboration National Invasive Species Council and facilitates coordination with local, state, and federal entities, • National Invasive Species Management Plan • Seeks mutually beneficial collaborative solutions (2016–2018) with the private sector and user groups, • Emphasizes the prevention of new introductions, • Enables early detection and monitoring of the waters of the state, • Prioritizes rapid response to new infestations and Management Plan Goal containment of current infestations, • Encourages and facilitates applied research and data-driven decision making, Te goal of the Colorado ANS Management Plan • Inspire Coloradoans and visitors to take action is to minimize the harmful ecological, economic and protect natural resources from invasive and social impacts of ANS through prevention species through comprehensive statewide and management of ANS into, within, and from education, marketing and informational Colorado Te goal will be achieved through full campaigns, and implementation of the Plan objectives to prevent, • Contributes to the accomplishments of the control, contain, monitor, and whenever possible, goals that cross jurisdictional boundaries through eradicate aquatic invasive species from the waters state organizations (e g Colorado Fish Health of the State through the continuation of the current Board) regional organizations (e g Western ANS program Te Plan emphasizes the collaboration Regional Panel) and national organizations of state agencies, alongside federal and local (e g North American Invasive Species governments, private industry and the public, in order Management Association) to prevent introductions, while efectively controlling or containing established ANS populations Tis Plan will be adaptable, as it is not intended to address all potential invading species, their Tis will be achieved through the implementation of impacts, and the constraints and contingencies a plan and program that: that may develop CPW has developed statewide

• Operates with funding and staffing levels species management plans and site-specifc ANS adequate for efective implementation, management plans to be used on a case-by-case basis

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 51 Management Plan Objectives, WID Supervisors Meeting January 2020 Strategies, and Actions

Objective 1—Ensure the efective and consistent implementation of the Plan. Strategy 1A: Strategy 1C: Allocate adequate human resources within the CPW Continue coordinating inter-agency and stakeholder Invasive Species Program to implement the Plan and involvement within Colorado Program Action 1C1— Action 1A1— Maintain at least one annual meeting of inter- Maintain the Invasive Species Coordinator, jurisdictional teams including the Colorado Invasive Species Specialist, and Invasive ANS Task Force (established in 2006 and Species Administrative Assistant positions expanded to the Colorado ANS Stakeholders Group in 2016) and the Watercraf Inspection Action 1A2— and Decontamination Supervisors Team Increase state capacity by adding full- (established in 2009) time permanent staf to manage the ANS Action 1C2— laboratory, feld sampling operations, and Continue to seek mutually benefcial watercraf inspection and decontamination partnerships and opportunities between Action 1A3— the public and private sector (e g Colorado Maintain temporary full-time employee levels Marine Dealers Association) to carry out the duties and functions of the Program Strategy 1D: Action 1A4— Participate in regional and national AIS coordinating Increase state capacity by adding full- entities, including but not limited to the Western time permanent staf to address gaps and Regional Panel, the Mississippi River Basin Panel, inefciencies related to aquatic invasive plant the Missouri River Basin Team, Western Association management and illicit fsh stocking of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Western Invasive Species Strategy 1B: Coordinating Efort, Western Governors’ Association, Allocate adequate fscal resources to successfully ANS Task Force, American Boating and Yachting implement this Plan Council, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Action 1B1— North American Invasive Species Management Maintain annual ANS Fund allocations Association, and others as appropriate within CPW consistent with FY21 and adjust Action 1D1— for minimum wage and utility increases over Contribute to coordinating agencies, provide time program presentations, and participate in Action 1B2— committees and working groups that further Collaborate with federal agencies to provide at advance ANS prevention, detection, and least 50% cost share of watercraf inspection control methodologies that impact Colorado and decontamination stations, monitoring, and the western United States and other invasive species program eforts statewide Strategy 1E: Action 1B3— Review and adapt the Colorado ANS Management Collaborate with water providers, water Plan as needed including potential needs associated districts, local governments, tribes, private with climate change adaptation industry, and other interested parties to Action 1E1— ensure adequate funding and agency priority Evaluate ANS Plan strategies and actions to for ANS program implementation exists determine if adjustments need to be made, or as new needs arise 52 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Objective 2—Prevent new introductions Strategy 2C: through managing human vectors and Encourage CPW and Partner agency staf pathways of introduction and spread. working in aquatic settings to actively engage in best management practices to ensure ANS is not Strategy 2A: transferred while performing their work duties Provide sufcient watercraf inspection and Action 2C1— decontamination stations to efectively protect the Ensure that CPW aquatic biologists and waters of the state from ANS introductions other agency personal utilizing watercraf Action 2A1— to perform job duties are state certifed in Maintain, and consider expanding, the watercraf inspection and decontamination current network of watercraf inspection and annually Ofer training opportunities to decontamination stations partner agencies Action 2A2— Action 2C2— Consider implementing watercraf inspection Decontaminate CPW boats, waders and and decontamination at fxed stations near equipment between every launch according the borders of the state to the current Colorado ANS Watercraf Action 2A3— Decontamination Manual and follow CPW Consider new technology to provide alerts equipment decontamination guidelines when watercraf are traveling from infested Action 2C3— areas into the state Limit the use of felt sole waders by CPW Action 2A4— staf, and encourage other state, federal and Maintain, manage, and continue improving local governments and private industry upon the Regional WID Data Sharing System professionals to do the same for the beneft of all participants Chair the Action 2C4— multi-jurisdictional Governance Team in Follow HACCP plans and disinfection perpetuity as the owner of the applications protocols, and encourage other state, federal and local governments and private industry Strategy 2B: professionals to do the same Provide adequate training, resources and quality Action 2C5— control to ensure watercraf inspection and Implement the standards and guidelines from decontamination personnel efectively and the National Wildfre Coordinators Group consistently implement standardized state and to prevent AIS transport by wildland fre regional procedures operations Action 2B1— Maintain the current certifcation and Strategy 2D: training program for watercraf inspectors Clarify agency roles and responsibilities related to the and decontaminators sale of invasive species in Colorado, and establish legal Action 2B2— authority where gaps exist (i e nursery, pet, aquarium, Prioritize quality control evaluations of or bait) watercraf inspection stations throughout the Action 2D1— state in order to maintain consistency with Evaluate existing legal authority related to the protocols and provide ongoing support and sale of invasive species or organisms in trade on the job training for boat inspectors in Colorado and document state agency roles Action 2B3— and responsibilities, where gaps exist that Educate all recreational users to could result in a new introduction or further decontaminate and/or clean, drain, and dry to spread, and make recommendations to prevent ANS spread (i e waterfowl hunters) prohibit the sale of invaders in Colorado

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 53 Action 2D2— Objective 3—Improve the capacity to Develop an agreement between CPW and implement rapid response for new ANS. CDA to implement prevention, management, Strategy 3A: education, and enforcement in a uniform Ensure the capacity to implement the rapid response manner with clear roles, responsibilities plan upon detection of ANS and open lines of communication related to Action 3A1— aquatic invasive plants Maintain a CPW Rapid Response Fund for Action 2D3— ANS that can be utilized quickly to initiate Pursue statutory authority, if needed, to fll action upon the verifed detection of ANS gaps and increase violations for the sale of Action 3A2— invasive organisms in trade Establish proper species-specifc containment, control and/or eradication techniques to Strategy 2E: be implemented for primary species of Develop a statewide collaborative strategy with concern upon early detection, regardless of dedicated resources to address illicit fsh stocking ownership, to prevent the spread of ANS Action 2E1— within the species-specifc management Develop a statewide collaborative strategy to plan (if available) Consider the National address illegal fsh introductions and limit Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and future illicit stocking of non-native fsh, Endangered Species Act (ESA) in relation to considering reclamation of waters whenever treating newly discovered infestations quickly possible Action 2E2— Strategy 3B: Increase fnes and enforcement for illegal fsh Implement agency directives and policy related to stocking Invasive Species Action 2E3— Action 3B1— Provide incentives for reporting illegal Implement the CPW Administrative stocking (similar to poaching) and utilize Directive OG-7 titled Invasive Species operation game thief for confdential Notifcation approved October 17, 2019 reporting Action 3B2— Implement the CPW Administrative Strategy 2F: Directive OG-6 titled Invasive Species and Increase opportunities for anglers to clean their Native Pests approved October 17, 2019 waders, boots, and gear to prevent the spread of New Action 3B3— Zealand mudsnails and other ANS Gain approval and implement the Parks and Action 2F1— Wildlife Commission Policy titled Invasive Develop partnerships with local businesses in Species and Native Pests popular fshing locations and provide wader or boot cleaning stations for use Action 2F2— Provide wader or boot cleaning stations for use at State Parks, State Wildlife Areas or CPW ofces frequented by anglers Action 2F3— Provide instruction for anglers to clean gear and achieve behavior change Action 2F4— Develop metrics to evaluate the efectiveness of wader or boot cleaning stations

54 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Objective 4—Survey and monitor waters Objective 5—Evaluate and improve upon of the state for ANS. the current statewide informational and educational invasive species campaigns. Strategy 4A: Maintain or increase existing feld sampling and Strategy 5A: monitoring eforts for early detection, population Evaluate past educational eforts, in conjunction with monitoring, and baseline data collection of mollusks, western states, to determine if they are efective for crustaceans, and macrophytes achieving public awareness and behavior change Action 4A1— (e g clean, drain, dry) Communicate with entities within Colorado, Action 5A1— western states, and WRP members to Contribute to regional or national analysis or consistently defne, list, and de-list waters evaluation of existing campaigns to determine according to the regional standards efectiveness for behavior change Action 4A2— Action 5A2— Adapt and improve feld sampling and Survey boaters, anglers, campers, and other monitoring protocols and procedures as recreational user groups to determine the science evolves and awareness and voluntary compliance efective new tools are made available Strategy 5B: Expand current invasive species Strategy 4B: informational and educational eforts Maintain the Colorado ANS Action 5B1— Sampling and Monitoring Make educational materials Data Management System available to the public through through allocation of IT multi-media outlets such as time, support, and expertise newspapers, internet, social Action 4B1— media, television and radio; water Develop new districts and utility companies; and specialty retailers monitoring reports Action 5B2— and improve upon Develop and implement a the existing features comprehensive statewide in the database educational program focusing on organisms in trade Strategy 4C: Action 5B3— Provide for standardized Evaluate K-12 education criteria laboratory testing protocols and coordinate with local between CPW and their organizations for opportunities partners to ensure reliable to integrate ANS information, test results and consistent and develop new curricula as interpretation of those necessary results and corresponding Action 5B4— management actions © photo by elIzabeth broWn Train speakers to give Action 4C1— presentations on ANS issues at Communicate with entities within Colorado, schools and public forums western states, and WRP members to Action 5B5— consistently implement regional lab Develop ANS resource packets for standards distribution when presenting to diferent Action 4C2— groups Adapt and improve laboratory protocols and procedures as science evolves and efective new tools are made available

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 55 Strategy 5C: Objective 6—Identify and support invasive Coordinate educational eforts with western species research including surveying, region states monitoring, control, eradication, and education. Action 5C1— Strategy 6A: Continue the use of National and Regional Collaborate with scientifc researchers and other campaigns including, but not limited to: organizations to study biology, impacts, and control “Clean, Drain, Dry”, “Don’t Move a Mussel”, methods “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers”, “Don’t Let it Action 6A1— Loose”, “Habitattitude”, “PlayCleanGo”, and Place a high priority on invasive species others related research within CPW Action 5C2— Action 6A2— Use standardized messaging for specifc user Engage other governmental agencies, group education such as “clean, drain, dry” water users, educational institutions, for boaters private industry, and non-governmental Action 5C3— organizations to conduct or support applied Implement the ANS Task Force’s national invasive species research voluntary recreation guidelines for Action 6A3— unregulated user groups Consider conducting research to determine how ANS in Colorado will be impacted in relation to the changing climate

56 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Priorities for Action Acronyms for Implementation Table Te priority for action is to maintain the existing Invasive Species Program within CPW including ABYC—American Boat and Yacht Council three permanent dedicated full time staf members and FY21 budget allocations Given the current ACOE—Army Corps of Engineers roles and functions of the ANS Program, increased capacity including new permanent full-time AFWA—Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies employees and fnancial resources for WID, AG—Attorney General monitoring, and educational operations may be essential due to the increased threat from neighboring BLM—Bureau of Land Management states with mussel infestations and future invasive BOR—Bureau of Reclamation species on the horizon CANS Task Force—Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Mandatory watercraf inspection and decontamination Species Task Force stations are the foundation of the state’s ANS strategy, coupled with early detection monitoring, education, CDA—Colorado Department of Agriculture enforcement, and coordination CDOT—Colorado Department of Transportation Securing long term funding agreements with federal CMDA—Colorado Marine Dealers Association partners for cost-share of WID and monitoring is a top programmatic priority Tis includes the Regional CPW—Colorado Parks and Wildlife WID Data Sharing System that is currently in use by CRB—Columbia River Basin numerous western states, local governments, NPS, private industry and regional entities CRFWC—Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council In addition to current functions and duties, Colorado DARCA—Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance may elect to increase program resources and operations to manage pathways and vectors of spread, FWS—Fish and Wildlife Service that are not currently being addressed, or to manage new introductions for species currently in the state ISAN—Invasive Species Action Network and/or new to the state MRBP—Missouri River Basin Panel Organisms in trade is a threat that is not currently NAISMA—North American Invasive Species being addressed Providing clarity for conficting or Management Association unclear authority as it relates to aquatic plants is a priority to prevent the further sale and introduction NASBLA—National Association of State Boating of ANS into Colorado by nurseries and other stores Law Administrators Colorado does not have a coordinated program NASL—National Association of State Legislatures or dedicated resources for aquatic invasive plant management NMMA—National Marine Manufacturers Association Aquatic Section Fish Biologists manage non-native NPS—National Park Service fsh, and this is not currently a function of the State ANS Program However, there is a need to develop a NSGLC—National Sea Grant Law Center collaborative process to determine needs and provide recommendations to address illegal stocking and OIT—Colorado (Governor’s Ofce of Information manage this human vector of introduction Colorado Technology) does not have a coordinated program or dedicated PIJAC—Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council resources for the illicit stocking of fsh

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 57 Acronyms for USGS—US Geological Survey Implementation Table WAFWA—Western Association of Fish and Wildlife (continued) Agencies WGA—Western Governors Association PSMFC—Pacifc States Marine Fisheries WID—Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination Commissions WISCE —Western Invasive Species Coordinating PWC—Parks and Wildlife Commission Efort (a k a Western State ANS Coordinators) SOBA—States Organization for Boating Access WRP—Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species USDOT—United States Department of Transportation WSIA—Water Sports Industry Association USFS—US Forest Service

CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons Objec*ve 1 -­‐ Ensure effec*ve and consistent implementa*on of the plan.

1A Allocate adequate human resources within the CPW Invasive Species Program to implement the Plan and Program 1A1 -­‐ Maintain the Invasive Species Coordinator, Invasive Species Specialist, 1A1 CPW CPW None Exis9ng Ongoing and Invasive Species Administra9ve Assistant posi9ons. 1A2 -­‐ Increase state capacity by adding full-­‐ 9me permanent staff to manage the ANS 1A2 laboratory, field sampling opera9ons, and CPW CPW None For Considera9on TBD watercraJ inspec9on and decontamina9on. 1A3 -­‐ Maintain temporary full 9me 1A3 employee levels to carry out the du9es and CPW CPW None Exis9ng Ongoing func9ons of the Program. 1A4 -­‐ Increase state capacity by adding full-­‐ 9me permanent staff to address gaps and 1A4 CPW CPW None For Considera9on TBD inefficiencies related to aqua9c invasive plant management and illicit fish stocking. 1B Allocate adequate fiscal resources to successfully implement this Plan. 1B1 -­‐ Maintain annual ANS Fund alloca9ons within CPW consistent with 1B1 CPW CPW Many partners Exis9ng Ongoing FY21 and adjust for minimum wage and u9lity increases over 9me. Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 1B2 effec*ve -­‐ Collaborate and consistent with impleme federal agencies to nta*on of the plan. provide at least 50% cost share of BOR, ACOE, USFS, 1B2 watercraJ inspec9on and decontamina9on Federal CPW In Progress Ongoing NPS, BLM sta9ons, monitoring, and other invasive species program efforts statewide.

Local water water providers, 1B3 -­‐ Collaborate with water providers, districts, water districts, local water districts, local governments, tribes, local governments, private industry and other interested governmen tribes, private 1B3 CPW In Progress Ongoing par9es to ensure adequate funding and ts, industry, non-­‐ agency priority for ANS program tribes, governmental implementa9on exists. private organiza9ons, industry interested par9es

58 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons 1C Con*nue coordina*ng inter-­‐agency and stakeholder involvement within Colorado. 1C1 -­‐ Maintain at least one annual mee9ng of inter-­‐jurisdic9onal teams including the Colorado ANS Task Force (established in 2006 and expanded to the Colorado ANS CANSTF, WID 1C1 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing Stakeholders Group in 2016) and the Supervisors WatercraJ Inspec9on and Decontamina9on Supervisors Team (established in 2009). 1C2 -­‐ Con9nue to seek mutually beneficial CMDA, NMMA, partnerships and opportuni9es between 1C2 CPW CPW ABYC, WSIA, Exis9ng Ongoing the public and private sector (e.g. Colorado DARCA, and others Marine Dealers Associa9on)

Objec*ve Par*cipate 1 -­‐ in Ensure regional effec*ve and and consistent na*onal implementa*on AIS coordina*ng of en**es, the plan. including but not limited to the Western Regional Panel, the Mississippi River Basin Panel, the Missouri River Basin Team, Western Associa*on of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Associa*on of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1D Western Invasive Species Coordina*ng Effort, Western Governors’ Associa*on, ANS Task Force, American Boa*ng and Yach*ng Council, Na*onal Marine Manufacturers Associa*on, North American Invasive Species Management Assoca*on, and others as appropriate.

WRP, WISCE, 1D1 -­‐ Contribute to coordina9ng agencies, ANSTF, WAFWA, provide program presenta9ons, and AFWA, NAISMA, par9cipate in commibees and working SOBA, NASBLA, groups that further advance ANS NSGLC, WGA, ABYC, 1D1 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing preven9on, detec9on and control NMMA, WSIA, methodologies that impact Colorado and NAAG, NASL, the western United States. PSMFC, CRFWC, CRB, MRBP, MRBP, and others

1E Review and adapt the Colorado ANS Management Plan as needed including poten*al needs associated with climate change adapta*on. 1E1 -­‐ Evaluate ANS Plan strategies and 1E1 -­‐ ac9ons to determine if adjustments need CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing to be made, or as new needs arise. Objec*ve 2 -­‐ Prevent new introduc*ons through managing human vectors and pathways of introduc*on and spread.

2A Provide sufficient watercraY inspec*on and decontamina*on sta*ons to effec*vely protect the waters of the state from ANS introduc*ons. 2A1 -­‐ Maintain and consider expanding the Exis9ng, For 2A1 current network of watercraJ inspec9on Various CPW Many partners Ongoing Considera9on and decontamina9on sta9ons. Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur effec*ve and consistent implementa*on of the plan. CDOT, USDOT, State 2A2 -­‐ Consider implemen9ng watercraJ Patrol, Coun9es, 2A2 inspec9on and decontamina9on at fixed Unknown Uknown Conserva9on For Considera9on TBD sta9ons near borders of the state. Districts, Water Districts, etc. 2A3 -­‐ Consider new technology to provide CDOT, USDOT, State 2A3 alerts when watercraJ are traveling from Unknown Uknown Patrol, Coun9es, For Considera9on TBD infested areas into the state. Industry CPW, FWS, 2A4 -­‐ Maintain, manage, and con9nue BOR, ACOE, improving upon the Regional WID Data WISCE, WRP, 10+ Tahoe, Sharing System for the benefit of all states, NPS, Ci9es, 2A4 Montana, CPW Exis9ng Ongoing par9cipants. Chair the mul9-­‐jurisdic9onal Coun9es, Industry Utah, and Governance Team in perpetuity as the Partners poten9ally owner of the applica9ons. others

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 59 CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons Provide adequate training, resources and quality control to ensure watercraY inspec*on and decontamina*on personnel effec*vely and 2B consistently implement standardized state and regional procedures. 2B1 -­‐ Maintain the current state cer9fica9on and training program for WID sta9on 2B1 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing watercraJ inspectors and partners decontaminators. 2B2 -­‐ Priori9ze quality control evalua9ons of watercraJ inspec9on and decontamina9on sta9ons throughout the WID sta9on 2B2 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing state in order to maintain consistency with partners protocols and provide ongoing support and on the job training for boat inspectors. Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 2B3 effec*ve -­‐ Educate and consistent all recrea9onal impleme users to nta*on of the plan. decontaminate and/or clean, drain and dry 2B3 CPW CPW Many partners Exis9ng Ongoing to prevent ANS spread (i.e waterfowl hunters). Encourage CPW and Partner agency staff working in aqua*c seZngs to ac*vely engage in best management prac*ces to ensure ANS are not 2C transferred while performing their work du*es. 2C1 -­‐ Ensure that CPW aqua9c biologists and other agency personal u9lizing All professionals watercraJ to perform job du9es are working 2C1 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing cer9fied in watercraJ inspec9on and on waters of the decontamina9on annually. Offer training state opportuni9es to partner agencies. 2C2 -­‐ Decontaminate CPW boats, waders and equipment between every launch All professionals according to the current Colorado ANS working 2C2 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing WatercraJ Decontamina9on Manual and on waters of the follow CPW equipment decontamina9on state guidelines. 2C3 -­‐ Limit the use of felt sole waders by All professionals CPW staff, and encourage other state, working 2C3 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing federal and local governments and private on waters of the industry professionals to do the same. state 2C4 -­‐ Follow HACCP plans and disinfec9on All professionals protocols, and encourage other state, working 2C4 federal and local governments and private CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing on waters of the industry professionals to do the same. state Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 2C5 effec*ve -­‐ Implement and consistent the standards and implementa*on of the plan. All professionals guidelines from the Na9onal Wildfire working 2C5 CPW CPW For Considera9on Ongoing Coordinators Group (NWCG) to prevent AIS on waters of the transport by wildland fire opera9ons. state Clarify agency roles and responsibili*es related to the sale of invasive species in Colorado, and establish legal authority where gaps exist 2D (i.e. nursery, pet, aquarium, and bait). 2D1 -­‐ Evaluate exis9ng legal authority related to the sale of invasive species or organisms in trade (i.e. aqua9c invasive plants and animals) in Colorado and document state agency roles and 2D1 responsibili9es, where gaps exist that CPW CPW AG, CDA For Considera9on One Time could result in a new introduc9on or further spread, and make recommenda9ons to prohibit the sale of invaders in Colorado.

60 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons 2D2 -­‐ Develop an agreement between CPW and CDA to implement preven9on, management, educa9on and enforcement in a uniform manner with clear roles, 2D2 CPW CPW AG, CDA For Considera9on One Time responsibili9es and open lines of communica9on related to aqua9c invasive plants.

2D3 -­‐ Pursue statutory authority, if needed, 2D3 to fill gaps and increase viola9ons for the CPW CPW AG, CDA For Considera9on One Time sale of invasive organisms in trade. 2E Develop a statewide collabora*ve strategy with dedicated resources to address illicit fish stocking. 2E1 -­‐ Develop a statewide collabora9ve strategy to address illegal fish 2E1 -­‐ introduc9ons and limit future illicit CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on One Time stocking of non-­‐na9ve fish, considering reclama9on of waters whenever possible. 2E2 -­‐ Increase fines and enforcement for Law Enforcement 2E3 -­‐ CPW CPW For Considera9on Ongoing illegal fish stocking. Partner Agencies 2E3 -­‐ Provide incen9ves for repor9ng illegal stocking (similar to poaching) and 2E4 -­‐ CPW CPW Various Exis9ng Ongoing u9lize opera9on game thief for confiden9al repor9ng. 2F Increase opportuni*es for anglers to clean their waders, boots, and gear to prevent the spread of New Zealand mudsnails and other ANS 2F1 -­‐ Develop partnerships with local businesses in popular fishing loca9ons and 2F1 CPW CPW Industry, BLM For Considera9on One Time provide wader or boot cleaning sta9ons for use. 2F2 -­‐ Provide wader or boot cleaning sta9ons for use at State Parks, State 2F2 CPW CPW BLM For Considera9on One Time Wildlife Areas or CPW offices frequented by anglers. 2F3 -­‐ Provide instruc9on for anglers to 2F3 CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing clean gear and achieve behavior change. 2F4 -­‐ Develop metrics to evaluate the 2F4 effec9veness of wader or boot cleaning CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing sta9ons. Objec*ve 3 -­‐ Improve the capacity to implement rapid response for new ANS.

3A Ensure capacity to implement the rapid response plan upon detec*on of ANS Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 3A1 effec*ve -­‐ Maintain and consistent a CPW impleme Rapid Response nta*on of the plan. Fund for ANS that can be u9lized quickly to 3A1 CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing ini9ate ac9on upon the verified detec9on of ANS. 3A2 -­‐ Establish proper species-­‐specific containment, control and/or eradica9on techniques to be implemented for primary species of concern upon early detec9on, 3A2 regardless of ownership, to prevent the CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing spread of ANS within the species specific management plan (if available). Consider NEPA and ESA in rela9on to trea9ng newly discovered infesta9ons quickly. 3B Implement agency direc*ves and policy related to Invasive Species. 3B1 -­‐ Implement the CPW Administra9ve 3B1 Direc9ve OG-­‐7 9tled Invasive Species CPW CPW PWC, FHB, CANSTF Exis9ng Ongoing No9fica9on approved October 17, 2019.

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 61 CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons 3B2 -­‐ Implement the CPW Administra9ve 3B2 Direc9ve OG-­‐6 9tled Invasive Species and CPW CPW PWC, FHB, CANSTF Exis9ng Ongoing Na9ve Pests approved October 17, 2019. 3B3 -­‐ Gain appproval and implement the 3B3 Parks and Wildlife Commission Policy 9tled CPW CPW PWC, FHB, CANSTF Exis9ng Ongoing Invasive Species and Na9ve Pests. Objec*ve 4 – Survey and monitor waters of the state for ANS. Maintain or increase exis*ng field sampling and monitoring efforts for early detec*on, popula*on monitoring, and baseline data collec*on 4A of mollusks, crustaceans and macrophytes.

Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 4A1 effec*ve -­‐ Communicate and consistent with impleme en99es within nta*on of the plan. CANSTF, BOR, Colorado, western states, and WRP USGS, ACOE, 4A1 CPW WRP, WISCE Exis9ng Ongoing members to consistently define, list and de-­‐ NAISMA, WRP, list waters according to regional standards. WISCE, Industry 4A2 -­‐ Adapt and improve field sampling CANSTF, BOR, and monitoring protocols and procedures USGS, ACOE, 4C2 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing as science evolves and effec9ve new tools NAISMA, WRP, are made available. WISCE, Industry 4B Maintain the Colorado ANS Sampling and Monitoring Data Management System through alloca*on of IT *me, support, and exper*se 4B1 -­‐ Develop new monitoring reports and 4B1 improve upon the exis9ng features in the CPW OIT OIT For Considera9on One Time database. Provide for standardized laboratory tes*ng protocols between CPW and their partners to ensure reliable test results and consistent 4C interpreta*on of those results and corresponding management ac*ons.

4C1 -­‐ Communicate with en99es within CANSTF, BOR, Colorado, western states and WRP USGS, ACOE, 4C1 CPW WRP Exis9ng Ongoing members to consistently implement NAISMA, WRP, reginal lab standards. WISCE, Industry 4C23 -­‐ Adapt and improve laboratory CANSTF, BOR, protocols and procedures as science USGS, ACOE, 4C2 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing evolves and effec9ve new tools are made NAISMA, WRP, available. WISCE, Industry Objec*ve 5 – Evaluate and improve upon the current statewide informa*onal and educa*onal invasive species campaigns. Evaluate past educa*onal efforts, in conjunc*on with western states, to determine if they are effec*ve for achieving public awareness and 5A behavior change (e.g. clean, drain, dry). Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 5A1 effec*ve -­‐ Contribute and consistent to regional impleme or na9onal nta*on of the plan. analysis and evalua9on of exis9ng ANSTF, WISCE, 5A1 USFWS ANSTF For Considera9on One Time campaigns to determine effec9veness for WRP, NAISMA behavior change 5A2 -­‐ Suvey boaters, anglers, campers and other recrea9onal user groups to ANSTF, WISCE, 5A2 CPW CPW For Considera9on One Time determine the awareness and voluntary WRP, NAISMA compliance of users. 5B Expand current invasive species informa*onal and educa*onal efforts. 5B1 -­‐ Make educa9onal materials available to the public through mul9-­‐media outlets 5B1 such as newspapers, internet, television CPW CPW CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing and radio; water districts and u9lity companies; and specialty retailers. 5B2 -­‐ Develop and implement a ISAN, WRP, PIJAC, 5B2 comprehensive statewide educa9onal CPW CPW For Considera9on Ongoing ANSTF, CDA, WISCE program focusing on organisms in trade.

62 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan CO ANS Management Plan Implementa*on Table Funding Lead Coopera*ng Strategy Ac*on Ac*on Status Frequency Source Organiza*on Organiza*ons 5B3 -­‐ Evaluate K-­‐12 educa9on criteria and coordinate with local organiza9ons for Buberfly Pavilion, 5B3 opportuni9es to integrate ANS CPW CPW Jefferson County, For Considera9on Ongoing informa9on, and develop new curricula as Sea Grant necessary. 5B4 -­‐ Train speakers to give presenta9ons 5B4 on ANS issues at schools and public CPW CPW ISAN For Considera9on Ongoing forums. 5B5 -­‐ Develop ANS resource packets for 5B5 distribu9on when presen9ng to different CPW CPW ISAN, CANSTF For Considera9on Ongoing groups. 5C Coordinate educa*onal efforts with western region states Objec*ve 1 -­‐ e Ensur 5C1 effec*ve -­‐ Con9nue and consistent the use impleme of Na9onal and nta*on of the plan. Regional campaigns including, but not limited to: Clean, Drain, Dry, Don’t Move a WRP, WISCE, 5C1 CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing Mussel, Stop Aqua9c Hitchhikers, Don’t Let ANSTF, NAISMA it Loose, Habitantude, Play Clean Go, and others. 5C2 -­‐ Use standardized messaging for WRP, WISCE, 5C2 specific user group educa9on such as CPW CPW ANSTF, NAISMA, Exis9ng Ongoing “clean, drain, dry” for boaters. CANSTF 5C3 -­‐ Implement na9onal voluntary WRP, WISCE, 5C3 recre9on guidelines for unregulated user CPW CPW Exis9ng Ongoing ANSTF, CANSTF groups. Objec*ve 6 – Iden*fy and support invasive species research including surveying, monitoring, control, eradica*on, and educa*on.

6A Collaborate with scien*fic researchers and other organiza*ons to study biology, impacts, and control methods. Universi9es and 6A1 -­‐ Place a high priority on invasive 6A1 CPW CPW research For Considera9on Ongoing species related research within CPW. organiza9ons 6A2 -­‐ Engage other governmental agencies, water users, educa9onal Universi9es and 6A2 ins9tu9ons, private industry, and non-­‐ CPW CPW research For Considera9on Ongoing governmental organiza9ons to conduct or organiza9ons support applied invasive species research. 6A3 -­‐ Consider conduc9ng research to Universi9es and determine how ANS in Colorado will be 6A3 CPW CPW research For Considera9on One Time impacted with rela9on to the changing organiza9ons climate.

Avery Lake

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 63 © photo by elIzabeth broWn

© photo by robert Walters

64 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Rapid Response Strategy

Te following procedure outlines the protocol that should be adhered to by CPW staf in the event that an aquatic nuisance species listed in Parks Chapter 8 ANS Regulations is found in Colorado, triggering notifcation and potentially a rapid response process Te general process is charted in the fgure below

Figure 14: Rapid Response Strategy Protocol

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 65 I. Incident Aquatic Invasive Plants — Concurring identifcation by two or more aquatic Te discovery of a possible ANS in the State of botanical taxonomic experts DNA analysis may Colorado initiates the Rapid Response Process also be performed Tis process must adhere to CPW Administrative Directive OG-7 titled Invasive Species Notifcation Afer positive identifcation of an ANS, notifcation approved October 17, 2019 is given to the proper agencies and landowners as well as the public, in accordance with the Invasive II. Confrmation and Notifcation: Species Notifcation Directive Public outreach should ANS are Reported or Detected in Colorado be maintained during the process to keep citizens In the event that CPW staf, a member of the public, informed of possible control methods to garner their a partner agency or other entity fnds a suspect support and cooperation In some cases, success of or known ANS of plant, fsh, or animal origin in rapid response control, containment or management Colorado, the following procedures must be adhered processes depend upon public support Existing to for positive identifcation outreach materials may be used in addition to any specifc materials that may be added during the Upon the initial detection or suspicion of a newly response planning process discovered invasive species population, the CPW Invasive Species Program Manager must be informed III. Establish Incident Command in order to begin the process of positive identifcation It is important to establish command for a response and to activate the Invasive Species Notifcation process to clearly defne roles and expectations Given Directive the multijurisdictional nature of many water bodies, Subsequently, as per section #806D of the Parks it is important to have one leader whether it is one Chapter 8 ANS Regulations, the following criteria individual or a unifed command must be met to positively confrm an invasive species CPW is the lead agency in the state for all ANS, Zebra and quagga mussel veligers— invasive terrestrial animals, and pathogens, in addition A multi-phase testing process involving both to terrestrial weeds or forest pests located on CPW visual and molecular identifcation methods on managed properties Te CDA has the authority and the same sample will be completed in accordance will be the lead agency for all other terrestrial weeds with the State ANS Sampling and Monitoring throughout the state along with the County Incident Manual available from CPW command for rapid response protocols under the authority of CPW will become the responsibility of Colorado requires a positive microscopy, positive the Director or their designee Incident command for PCR and positive gene sequencing on the same terrestrial weeds or pests, not located on CPW lands, sample to declare a water body positive for will be the responsibility of the CDA CPW and CDA mussels If only one test is positive, then the water will coordinate closely on such matters regardless of body is declared suspect per WRP standards jurisdiction and incident command

Zebra and quagga mussel adults or New Zealand mudsnails— Concurring identifcation by two or more taxonomic experts DNA analysis may be performed

Crayfsh and other Crustaceans— Concurring identifcation by two or more taxonomic identifcation experts

Whirling Disease (WD)

photo by erIC fetherman

66 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan IV. Rapid Assessment A Response Team may be established and designated solely for the response efort Decisions for rapid Following confrmation and notifcation of a newly response actions should be based on strong, discovered ANS, established species plans and documented evidence In the event that a new species procedures will be reviewed, as the ANS Program will or population is discovered, the CPW sampling crew lead notifcation and response coordination should would be immediately dispatched to the site in to management be warranted sample and map the extent of the newly discovered population If it is a species new to the state, a team may gather or form in order to provide expertise on the ANS Te CPW ANS staf is trained in sampling and discovered and location, and determine future monitoring techniques It may be necessary to train management actions if any are available to them them in eradication and control techniques for some Tese individuals should be comprised of the species However, there may be some instances where ownership and management agencies, state experts, internal stafng resources or training may not be local agencies, academia, and the private sector adequate A private contractor with more expertise, Aquatic Biologists, County Weed Supervisors, or Te site team typically consists of CPW Program, members of the CPW feld operations branch may be Park or Wildlife Managers and Technicians, land the better option for implementing feld treatment or managers, water owners, counties, and others that control measures depending on the situation have responsibility or impacts from ANS invasions to evaluate the following considerations before VI. Plan proceeding with a response Tis site team will be important for recommending the best management In most cases, an existing species or site management practices available for the species Trough this plan already exists and should be used to guide collaborative process, the site team will determine if communications, management and response the species has a low, medium, high risk or unknown level of risk for invasion by considering the following: If a plan does not already exist, one should be • Is it a primary priority species for response? developed that includes: • Is there an existing management plan? • background and current status • Are treatment methods available? • recommended actions • Are there regulatory obstacles that may • measurable and flexible objectives hinder response? • current resources • How quickly can the response be made? • required resources • Is the invasion small and localized or Objectives should be prioritized including: widespread? • ecological health • Can the state afford to, or not to, respond? • human health • Who is skilled to perform the response • economic value treatment and are they available? • change/rate of spread • What is the method of introduction at this Constraints need to be identifed including: new location and how can the further spread • jurisdiction be stopped through pathway management • legislative authority within the state? • regulatory compliance • permitting V. Response • funding • control options Afer evaluating the above criteria and the • personnel recommendations from the site team, the • expertise collaborative will need to decide which response • access and ownership is necessary, if any Te site team can then develop • gaps in species biology objectives, establish incident command, and provide • ecological uncertainties a briefng for the general staf

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 67 Afer the confrmation of the ANS, distribution and data acquisition, the team will be responsible Gaps and Challenges for developing tactics for the response and begin planning the logistics Measurable and fexible Tere are gaps and challenges that exist in the objectives should be developed Tere are existing management of ANS In some cases, there are statewide high-priority species management plans practical steps that may be taken to address specifc that should be used for those species (ZQM, NZMS, issues, but in others there are signifcant hurdles to Rusty crayfsh, or EWM) overcome in order to address specifc issues Te following gaps and challenges to managing ANS In the event that the species in question does not in Colorado have been identifed Tese gaps and have a management plan, then a plan should be challenges are by no means exhaustive and are not developed and containment should occur based on presented in any particular order of priority the best available data including but not limited to: • CPW operates with a large variety of grants and eradication, quarantine, closure, restricted access, or donations each year It would be most efcient mandatory inspection/equipment decontamination to have longer term agreements in place with federal partners and donors for ongoing annual VII. Implement, Monitor, Evaluation program operations (e g inspection staf at federal Implement impoundments) Te plans should be implemented upon • The amount of infested watercraft being development intercepted each year continues to rise as more states surrounding Colorado become more Monitor infested It is in Colorado’s best interest to support Te Invasive Species Program should monitor the development of new WID programs for the progress of the response to document prevention and containment in neighboring changes so that results can be evaluated and states, as well as bolstering existing containment management continued or changed as necessary programs in the West CPW sampling crews should monitor the ANS • New Zealand mudsnails continue to be found in population new locations annually Te majority of locations are areas with clear angler access While CPW Evaluation has provided education to anglers specifc to ANS Evaluation by the Invasive Species Program and and cleaning recommendations to stop the spread the team of any rapid response actions taken will through voluntary compliance since 2004, it does be reviewed to determine if the response was not appear to have achieved the desired behavior appropriate and achieved the desired results change, as NZMS continue to spread to new In most cases, a long-term monitoring plan locations focused on angler access points Anglers should be initiated to track progress and changes need to be cleaning their gear and CPW may over time, such as the rate of spread, species provide more opportunities for compliance composition, and change in endemic species • Eurasian watermilfoil continues to be found in Te objectives identifed by the site team will new waters annually Tere should be dedicated help serve as measures of success If no action funding and coordination to implementing was taken, environmental and economic impacts watershed based Cooperative Weed Management from the ANS in question will be evaluated to Areas to address this species at the population determine if response was appropriate and cost level versus the site level efective • There are overlapping and conflicting state authorities to manage aquatic invasive plants In areas where specifc invasive species exist, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, there can be confict in which managing entity is most appropriate for monitoring, control or simply taking management action

68 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • Organisms in trade pose a huge threat to impacts of non-native predators on native prey species Colorado and are not being addressed Tere (Rahel, 2008) Te magnitude, frequency, duration, are prohibited ANS being sold in Colorado due and timing of foods, droughts, and intermittent fows to conficting authorities and a lack of capacity (i e , the fow regime) are primary drivers of ecological to perform inspections and enforcement in structure and function in aquatic ecosystems nurseries, bait stores, and pet stores (Pof et al 1997) Tere is a general consensus that • The sampling and monitoring program has climate change will modify patterns of precipitation, been reduced over time and largely consists evapotranspiration, and runof (Frederick and of monitoring for zebra or quagga mussels in Gleick, 1999) Although the geography of these large public waters with motorized boating changes is uncertain, altered patterns of runof will Te capacity to survey smaller water bodies, fundamentally modify many aquatic ecosystems (Pof and fowing waters such as rivers and streams, et al 2002) no longer exist CPW also no longer performs monitoring for aquatic invasive plants, vertebrates Climate change will reduce the extent of ice cover and invertebrates, and also stopped performing on lakes in the northern hemisphere (Magnuson et population monitoring for existing infestations al 2000), which may infuence the invasion process Capacity should be restored so the sampling by increasing light levels for aquatic plants, reducing program can operate at full function A dedicated the occurrence of low oxygen conditions in winter, permanent employee is recommended to and exposing aquatic organisms to longer periods of manage the ANS Laboratory and feld sampling predation from terrestrial predators (Rahel, 2008) As operations the climate warms, the geographic areas with suitable • Climate change has been identified as highly temperatures for warm water aquaculture, tropical infuential to the water resources of Colorado fsh culture, and outdoor water gardens will expand What is not clear at this time is the potential For example, the aquaculture of other warm water synergistic efects that can be anticipated with species such as tilapia (Cichlidae) and some crayfshes climate change and invasive species afecting would likely expand to areas currently too cold for waters Working to anticipate possible climate outdoor propagation (Lodge et al 2000; Peterson et change scenarios and impacts from invasive al 2005) Finally, the impacts of climate change could species will be important for future management possibly increase water development activates such of water and invasive species as re- building or maintaining dams and reservoirs in order to capture more water for human usage

With a changing climate Colorado is experiencing lower snow pack, increased amount of wildfres, and an increase in population and water demand Over Climate Change the past 50 years, snow has been melting earlier in and Invasive Species the year, and more late-winter precipitation has been falling as rain instead of snow Tus, water drains from the mountains earlier in the year In many cases, Assessing the impacts that climate change will have dams capture the meltwater and retain it for use later on ANS in Colorado is difcult because there is in the year Nevertheless, upstream of these dams, less little research on it thus far Te pathways of ANS water is available during droughts for ecosystems, fsh, introduction that could be altered because of climate water-based recreation, and landowners who draw change include warmer water temperatures, altered water directly from a fowing river (EPA, 2016) fow regimes, reduced ice cover, a change in thermal regimes, and increased water development activities Changes in temperature and precipitation are Because most aquatic species are ectothermic, afecting Colorado’s snowpack and the amount of their food consumption rate increases with water snow that accumulates on the ground In most of temperature until thermally stressful conditions are the West, snowpack has decreased since the 1950s, reached Tus, climate warming could magnify the

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 69 due to earlier melting and less precipitation falling Finally, Colorado is one of the fastest growing states as snow. Te amount of snowpack measured in in the U.S. Colorado’s estimated population is 5.68 April of 2016 has declined by 20 to 60 percent at million (World Population Review, 2018). Like most most monitoring sites in Colorado (EPA, 2016). states across the US, the population of Colorado is Troughout the West, much of the water needed for growing, but the growth has been signifcant in past agriculture, public supplies, and other uses comes years. Increases between censuses of 30% are not from mountain snowpack, which melts in spring uncommon, and if that trend continues, the numbers and summer, runs of into rivers, and flls reservoirs. could comfortably exceed 6 million at the next Higher temperatures and drought are likely to census in 2020. Some estimates have placed the 2040 increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildfres population as high as 7.8 million (World Population in Colorado, which could harm property, livelihoods, Review, 2018). Tis growth could put a strain on our and human health (EPA, 2016). water resources and set an increase on our water demand. Figure 15: Model Showing Impacts of Climate Change on Invasive Species. Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008.

70 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • Continued and expanded ANS sampling and Plan Review monitoring • Implementation of species management plans for Te evaluation process of the Plan will provide ANS Species of Concern a means of monitoring progress toward the • Improved public awareness and behavior change achievement of the Plan goals, evaluating needs and as a result of education eforts problems, coordinating and standardizing eforts, and • Improvement of statutory and regulatory pursuing the goal of prevention and management of consistency between CPW and CDA introductions, population growth, and dispersal of • Passage of legislation and regulations to support ANS into, within, and from Colorado the Plan, as needed

Mid-course corrections will be made when, and if Te State Invasive Species Program Manager at CPW necessary, through recommendations made by the will present a progress report to the CANS Task Force CPW Invasive Species Program Te process involves highlighting the program activities regarding ANS at three main components: oversight, evaluation, and the annual meeting each year Tis presentation will reporting One of the roles should be to examine include information on the success in achieving the progress on management actions focused on the goal goals and objectives outlined in respective sections of the Plan Te Program may evaluate the success of above each strategy by examining the level of achievement of the tasks clearly defned within each action In addition, an annual report is required by the ANS Act and is provided to the State Legislature by January Te evaluation efort should not only examine 15th each year Tis report is distributed statewide progress, but also place special emphasis on funding and regionally to CPW staf and partners and and stafng needs to successfully accomplish the goals provides detailed updates on the progress made by and associated tasks Tis information will prove Colorado’s ANS Program useful for future program planning purposes While successful completion of all the objectives and tasks of the Plan will ultimately spell the success of the program, special emphasis during the monitoring and evaluation process will be placed on Conclusion • Increased capacity that includes human and fiscal resources for program operations Going forward, the constant evolution of Colorado’s • Legislative statutory and regulatory guidance, ANS management plan will be essential in allowing authority, and support the State and its partners to use the plan as a guidance • Long term permanent funding that can be tool for managing ANS issues Management leveraged to supplement state program budgets adaptations caused by greater understanding of through donations, grants, contracts, cost-share species, fuctuating political climate, improved agreements, intergovernmental agreements, practices, and shifing climate are ultimately memorandums of understanding, and other anticipated partner agreements • Continued coordinated involvement and As a headwater state, the protection of Colorado’s contributions by federal, state, local government resources is benefcial for all downstream entities, partners and non-governmental entities and therefore providing leadership at the regional • Continued and increased participation and and national level must also remain a priority As contributions from private industry partners, complex and interdisciplinary as natural resources (e g , Colorado Marine Dealers’ Association, management issues are, unwavering support marinas, concessionaires, aquaculture facilities, and expansion of collaborative eforts are vital to etc ) protecting Colorado’s tremendously important • Management of established ANS (e.g. rate of resources for future generations spread, change in species composition, etc )

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 71 Mack, R.N., D. Simberlof, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout and Literature Cited F. Bazzaz. 2000. Bioticinvasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10:689- 710. Cantwell, Rebecca, ed. 2010. Citizen’s guide to Colorado’s Interstate Compacts (PDF). Colorado Foundation for Water Magnuson, J. J., et al. 2000. Historical trends in lake and river Education. Retrieved 01/08/2019 ice cover in the northern hemisphere. Science 289:1743–1746.

Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2020. noxious Mussel-Free Colorado Act, H.R. 18-1008, 71st Gen. Assemb., Weed list. Available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacifc/ 2nd Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2018). agconservation/noxious-weed-species National Invasive Species Council. management plan: 2016– Retrieved February 21, 2020 2018. Washington, dc, 2016.

Colorado Water Conservation Board. n.d. Available at http:// National Invasive Species Act of 1996, Pub L. No. 104–332, 110 cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/basin-roundtables/ Stat. 4073 (1996). Pages/main.aspx Retrieved May 2, 2019. Natural Heritage Trust, 2003. Lagarosiphon—Lagarosiphon Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2018. Boatable Waters Directory. major. Weed Management Guide. Canberra, Australia: Available at https://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/ Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population BoatableWaters.aspx Retrieved May 2, 2019. and Communities. http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/ guidelines/alert/pubs/l-major.pdf Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2019. Chapter W-0—General Provisions. Available at https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/ Nault, M.E. and A. Mikulyuk. 2009. African Elodea RulesRegs/Regulations/Ch00.pdf Retrieved May 2, 2019. (Lagarosiphon major): A Technical Review of Distribution, Ecology, Impacts, and Management. Wisconsin Department Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2009. Chapter 8—Aquatic of Natural Resources Bureau of Science Services, PUB‐ SS‐1050 Nuisance Species (ANS). Available at https://cpw.state.co.us/ 2009. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Documents/ResourceStewardship/ANS-REGS-Final.pdf Retrieved May 2, 2019. Peterson, M. S., W. T. Slack, and C. M. Woodley. 2005. The occurrence of non-indigenous Nile tilapia (oreochromis DeLeon, Ricardo. Quagga and Zebra Mussel Control Strategies niloticus linnaeus) in coastal Mississippi, USA: ties to Workshop for Western U.S. Water Facilities. 2008. Las Vegas, aquaculture and thermal efuent. Wetlands 25:112–121. Nevada. Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fshes introduced into inland waters of the Pof, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural fow 27, Bethesda, Maryland. regime. BioScience 47:769–784.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. What Pof, N. L., M. M. Brinson, and J. W. Day Jr. 2002. Aquatic climate change means for Colorado [PDF]. Retrieved from ecosystems and global climate change: potential impacts https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/ on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in fles/2016-09/documents/climate-change-co.pdf the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Efects of Climate Change for Aquatic Invasive Species and Rahel, F. J. and Olden, J. D. (2008), Assessing the Efects of Implications for Management and Research. National Climate Change on Aquatic Invasive Species. Conservation Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; Biology, 22: 521-533. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00950.x EPA/600/R-08/014. S.B. 08-226, 66th Gen Assemb., 2008 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2008). Exec. Order No. 13112, 3 C.F.R. 6183-6186 (1999). Available at https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/fles/ images/olls/2008a_sl_340.pdf Retrieved 05/08/2018. Exec. Order No. 13751, 3 C.F.R. 88609-88614 (2016). Shafand, P. L., and W. M. Lewis. 1984. Terminology associated Frederick, K. D., and P. H. Gleick. 1999. Water and global climate with introduced organisms. Fisheries 9 (4): 17-18. change: potential impacts on U.S. water resources. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia. Western Governors Association. 2016. Western governors’ association policy resolution: Combating Invasive species H.J. Res. 17-1004, 71st Gen Assemb., 2017 Reg. Sess. (Colo. (2016-05). Retrieved from http://westgov.org/images/ 2017). editor/2016-05_Combating_Invasive_Species.pdf

Lodge, D. M., C. A. Taylor, D. M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. World Population Review. 2018. [website]. Available at http:// 2000. Nonindigenous crayfshes threaten North American worldpopulationreview.com/states/colorado-population/ freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries 28:7–20 Retrieved 05/08/2018.

72 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Environmentally sound—Methods, eforts, Glossary actions, or programs to prevent introductions or to control infestations of ANS that minimize Accidental introduction—In aquatic systems, an adverse environmental impacts accidental introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species that occurs as a result of activities Eradicate—Te act or process of permanently other than the purposeful or intentional eliminating an invasive species in state introduction of the species involved, such as waterbodies or infested areas the transport of non-indigenous species in Established—An introduced organism with ballast water or in water used to transport fsh, a permanent population(s) and rapid mollusks, or crustaceans for aquaculture or other reproduction, i e , one unlikely to be eliminated purposes by man or natural causes Note: Accidental introduction is the same as (Shafand and Lewis 1984) Unintentional Introduction. Exotic—(Same as non-indigenous) any species that Aquatic nuisance species—Exotic or nonnative enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, aquatic wildlife or any plant species that have including such organisms transferred from one been determined by the Parks and Wildlife country to another Commission to pose a signifcant threat to the Indigenous—Occurring or found naturally in aquatic resources or water infrastructure of the a particular area or ecosystem; historically state (Colorado ANS Act SB08-226) occurring in geographic range previous to Baitfsh—Live aquatic wildlife for use as bait the arrival of the frst European settlers; a (CPW ANS Regulations) species that is a member of the native natural Live fsh or viable gametes community Ballast tank—A compartment within a boat, ship, Intentional introduction—All or part of the or other foating structure that holds water process by which a non-indigenous species is Adding ballast to a vessel lowers its center of purposefully introduced into a new area gravity, and increases the draf of a vessel Introduced—A plant or animal moved from one Control—Eradicating, suppressing, reducing, place to another by humans (i e , an individual, or managing invasive species populations, group, or population of organisms that occur in preventing spread of nuisance species from a particular locale due to human actions) areas where they are present, and taking steps Invasive—EO 13112 defnes an “invasive species” such as restoration of native species and habitats as a species that is: non-native (or alien) to reduce the efects of nuisance species and to to the ecosystem under consideration and prevent further invasions whose introduction causes or is likely to cause Decontamination—Te use of hot water with high economic or environmental harm or harm to or low pressure to kill and remove ANS from human health boats, motors/engines, trailers, personal gear, Localized—A confned, reproducing population of and other equipment an introduced organism that can be eliminated Ecological integrity—Te extent to which an using standard methods (Shafand and Lewis ecosystem has been altered by human behavior; 1984) an ecosystem with minimal impact from human Native—A plant or animal species that naturally activity has a high level of integrity; an ecosystem occurs in Colorado and has not been introduced that has been substantially altered by human from another state or continent activity has a low level of integrity Negative water—Any water body that is sampled Ecosystem—Te biological organisms in an where ANS is not known to occur ecological community and the non–living factors of the environment

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 73 Glossary Appendix (continued) Appendix A—Acknowledgments Non-indigenous species—Any species or other Tank you to the following individuals, past and variable biological material that enters an present, who contributed to the development and ecosystem beyond its historic range, including completion of the Plan Listed in alphabetical order such organisms transferred from one country to another Colorado Parks and Wildlife Invasive Species Program Staf Non-target—Plant or animal species not intended to be harmed by a control method • Elizabeth Brown, former Invasive Species Program Manager Nonnative—Any species introduced into an

ecosystem outside its native range • Brad Clements, Aquatic Nuisance Species and Watercraf Inspection and Pathogen—A microbe or other organism that Decontamination Specialist causes disease • Courtney Cooper, former Invasive Species Population—A group of individual plant or animal Technician species occupying a particular area at the same • Jim Greffly, Aquatic Nuisance Species time and Watercraf Inspection and Decontamination Specialist Positive water—Any water body where an ANS

presence has been confrmed • Melissa Petty, former Invasive Species Technician • Erin Raney, former Invasive Species Technician Priority species—An ANS that is considered a • Holly Straley, former Invasive Species Technician signifcant threat to Colorado waters and is recommended for immediate or continued • Jaclyn Taylor, former Administrative Assistant management action to minimize or eliminate • Robert Walters, Invasive Species Specialist their impact Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Reported—An introduced organism collected Task Force Members without evidence of reproduction (Shafand and Lewis 1984) • Ken Brink, Larimer County

Unintentional introduction—An introduction • Bill Brueggeman, Currecanti National of non-indigenous aquatic species that Recreation Area occurs as the result of activities other than the • Greg Brujak, Retired: Mount Massive Lakes, purposeful or intentional introduction of the Lake County Weed Board, and Fish Health Board species involved, such as the transport of non- • Kelly Cline, City of Westminster indigenous species in ballast or in water used • Myron Chase, U.S. National Park Service (retired) to transport fsh, mollusks or crustaceans for

aquaculture or other purposes • Stacey Cole, City of Boulder

Note: Unintentional introduction is the same as • Mark Coughlin, Larimer County accidental introduction. • Ken Curtis, Dolores Water Conservancy District • Wayne East, Colorado Department of Agriculture Watershed—An entire drainage basin including all living and non-living components • Kellen Friedlander, Great Lakes Marine and Colorado Marine Dealers Association • Joanne Grady, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Curtis Hartenstine, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District

74 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • Denise Hosler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Colorado Parks and Wildlife Leadership Team (retired) • Dan Prenzlow, Director • Eric Howell, Colorado Springs Utilities • Reid DeWalt, Assistant Director for • Bill Janowsky, U.S. Forest Service Natural Resources • Rick Kienitz, City of Aurora • Heather Dugan, Assistant Director for • Scott Leach, formerly with Colorado Department Law Enforcement and Public Safety of Agriculture • Lauren Truitt, Assistant Director for • April Long, Ruedi Water and Power Association Information and Education • Dave Nickum, Trout Unlimited • Justin Rutter, Assistant Director for • Chris Pague, The Nature Conservancy Financial Services • Ed Perko, Pueblo Board of Water Works • Jeff VerSteeg, Assistant Director for Research, Policy and Planning • Michael Porter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Brett Ackermann, SE Region Manager • Tina Proctor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (retired) • Cory Chick, SW Region Manager • Brandon Ransom, Denver Water • Mark Leslie, NE Region Manager • Traci Robb, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • JT Romatzke, NW Region Manager Great Plains Region Colorado Parks and Wildlife Senior Aquatic Staf • Steve Ryder, Colorado Department of Agriculture • Ethan Scott, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • Ken John Alves, SW Senior Aquatic Biologist Upper Colorado Region • Harry Crockett, Native Aquatic Species • Gene Seagle, U.S. National Park Service Coordinator • Amy Schwarzbach, City of Durango • Greg Gerlich, former Aquatic Section Manager • Sarah Spaulding, U.S. Environmental • April Kraft, Aquatic Animal Health Lab Manager Protection Agency • Doug Krieger, Aquatic Section Manager (retired) • Chris Theel, Colorado Department of • Lori Martin, NW Senior Aquatic Biologist Public Health and the Environment • Vicki Milano, State Fish Pathologist (retired) • Chris Treese, Colorado River Water • William Morris, Hatchery Chief Conservancy District • Josh Nehring, SE Senior Aquatic Biologist • Jay Thompson, U.S. Bureau of Land Management • Matt Nicholl, Aquatic Section Manager • Jolene Trujillo, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • George Schisler, Aquatic Research Chief • Holly Walters, City of Westminster • Jeff Spohn, NE Senior Aquatic Biologist • John Wullschlegger, National Park Service • Pete Walker, State Fish Pathologist (retired) • Patty York, Colorado Department of Agriculture

Colorado Department of Natural Resources • Dan Gibbs, Executive Director • Tim Mauck, Deputy Director • Douglas Vilsack, Assistant Director for Parks, Wildlife, and Lands

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 75 Appendix B—Preliminary Comments from Decontamination Manual and follow CPW the ANSTF equipment decontamination and/or HAACP guidelines ” preliminary Comments from members of the aquatic nuisance species task force on the draft state of HACCP is also listed as a strategic action in Colorado ans management plan, and the Colorado Objective 2, Action 2C4 parks and Wildlife state ans management plan “Follow HACCP plans and disinfection Invasive species rapid response plan: protocols, and encourage other state, federal and local governments and private industry professionals to do the same ” From Susan Pasko, NOAA Ofce of Sustainable 4 Priorities for Action—emphasizes the need Fisheries, Chair of the ANSTF Research Committee for a white list, yet this recommendation is not Tanks for the chance to review the Colorado State included in the actions above May go well under management plans Overall, I found the plans to very Objective 5 well written and comprehensive Just a few comments Response: Tis section has been rewritten. CPW worth mentioning: has revised there general provisions to chapter W-0 which got rid of the prohibited species list State Plan: and replaced it with an allowable species list also 1 Someone will need to perform a through referred to as a white list in the older draf of this proofread of the fnal plan—there are a few document. incidents of grammatical errors/missing words 5 Te terms used pertaining the ANS watch list are Response: We have proofread the plan for not consistent In text use “primary species,” in grammatical errors/missing words. table use “priority species ” 2 A statement regarding the priority order (or lack Response: Tat typographical error has been of) for the objectives may be needed A common corrected. perception is that the frst mentioned objectives are the highest priority, thus it may be questioned Rapid Response Plan: why prevention/research are near the end 1 A fow chart diagramming the eight steps would Response: Te list of objectives has been be a valuable visual to include reorganized and put into priority order. Response: A fow chart has been added to the rapid Note: Afer reorganizing the objectives so that response plan. they are listed in priority order the numbers 2 More detail is called for within the Incident that were previously assigned to those objectives Command section For example, a description of and corresponding strategies and actions have the roles of the lead, additional roles necessary to changed. carry out the response, and potential entities that 3 Problem 5B (Professionals introducing ANS may be used to carry out these roles through work activities) May want to include a Response: Additional details are included in this Strategic Action to encourage use of HACCP and section. increase training opportunities 3 Suggest placing Rapid Assessment before Response: We have reorganized this section so that Incident Command section Te decisions and the Objectives are listed in priority order. Objective recommendations from the Science Advisory 5 in the previous draf has been moved and is now Committee will determine the type of response labeled as Objective 2 in the new draf. HACCP necessary which may determine which agencies is listed as a strategic action in the 2nd Objective should lead the efort under Action 2C2 Response: We have reorganized this section of the “Decontaminate CPW boats, waders and document. equipment between every launch according to the current Colorado ANS Watercraf

76 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan From Kim Bogenschutz, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, ANSTF Representative for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Te plan really does seem like a draf to me as it appears to be missing some important contents as suggested in the checklist Following are my brief comments: Executive summary—It doesn’t seem like Inspection Decontamination a good, quick summary of the plan to me © photos by elIzabeth broWn It should contain more specifc information Objectives, strategic actions, and cost estimates— about the plan rather than general intro material No cost estimates are given I think that’s OK as long Suggested content that is not included is as they are included in the Implementation Table, but 1 summary of each management plan section and there is no Implementation Table with cost estimate major recommendations, info either 2 background on ANS problems, authorities, Response: In the fnal draf we have included an current programs, implementation table. 3 summary of implementation table (there is no implementation table), Priorities for Action; status of ANS in Colorado— 4 summary of program monitoring and Te lists are good, but there may be too many priority evaluation plans species that may need their own prioritization if Response: Te executive summary was rewritten to funding is not available to address them all It is not more closely follow the ANSTF guideline document. indicated which priority species will be addressed initially Introduction—Tis section should include more Response: Tis section was rewritten and does details on specifc ANS problems in Colorado and the not include the primary/secondary species of geographic scope/map I liked the program history concern lists. Tey are now located in the Problem section Defnition section of the document. Te primary Response: A geographic map was added to the species of concern animal and plant lists are Introduction. from Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Chapter 8 Problem defnition and ranking—Tere are no ANS regulations; these are cited and put into the species specifcally identifed in this section and thus references section. no known/suspected ANS concerns and problems Implementation Table—None included Tere will identifed and ranked It seems to miss the point of need to be one in the fnal plan defning the problem Response: An implementation table will be created Response: More information has been added to the and put into the fnal plan. section. We have categorized our species of concern into ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species of concern, Program monitoring, evaluation, and which include animals and plants. Problems are implementation—OK identifed in this section such as major pathways of Rapid Response Plan—OK ANS introduction. Defnitions—Good Plan Goal—Plan objectives are not given in this section but are references and can be found later in Literature Cited—OK the plan I think that’s OK Appendices—It lists appendices that will be included, Response: Tank you for your comment. so hopefully they will be in the fnal plan Existing authorities and programs—Good Response: Appendices will be included in the Response: Tank you for your comment. Final Draf.

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 77 From John Wullschleger, National Park Service; • Page 11, 3rd paragraph, 3rd and 4th sentences: Federal ANSTF Member Are the fgures correct and are they supposed to be the same? If cost the power industry alone was In general the plan is well written and thorough $3 1 billion from ’93–99, it seems unlikely that However, there is a lack of attention to the illegal and cost wouldn’t be considerably higher to “industry” intentional introduction of fsh into waters where as a whole over the longer (10 year) period they do not occur or are prohibited, by anglers following 1999 seeking to provide themselves with additional angling • Page 18: Assume the table is monitoring all opportunities Tis activity has been occurring with species because of the placement of the table in regularity in Colorado and other states in the region, the text but a header would make this clearer resulting in costly and difcult control and eradication • Page 20, Aquatic Nuisance Animals: “economical” eforts Outreach eforts, penalties and problem/ should be “economic ” action statements all need to be updated to address this issue Response: In the revision of our document the page numbers no longer correspond with Response: Objective/Strategies/Actions have been the pages listed in the above comments. All added to address the issue of illegal fsh stocking typographical errors and suggested changes in Colorado, Refer to Objective 2—Prevent and have been made. contain introductions through managing human vectors, pathways of introduction, and spread : • Interpretation and Outreach, page 19–20 To Strategy 2E—Develop a new statewide support the concept of Prevention being an collaborative strategy with dedicated important way to avoid further invasions of resources to address illicit fsh stocking nonnative fsh, as well as Quagga/Zebra/etc , (and corresponding Actions) this section needs to include information about We currently do not have an active education preventing the illegal and intentional introduction campaign within Colorado’s Invasive Species of fsh species into waters where they do not occur Program that includes information about or are prohibited Te outreach should include preventing the illegal and intentional introduction information about heavy fnes such are suggested of fsh species into waters where they do not occur in the section on regulations below, particularly or are prohibited. In our objectives section we have CRS title 33… #012 (page 21) included information on the evaluation of our Response: Te tile of this section was changed informational and educational ANS campaigns. to from ‘Interpretation and Outreach’ to Refer to Objective 5—Evaluate, improve and ‘Information and Outreach’. We currently expand upon the current statewide informational do not have an active education campaign and educational ANS campaigns within the Invasive Species Program that includes information about preventing the Specifc comments are listed below illegal and intentional introduction of fsh • Page vii, 3rd bullet: Some of this seems to be species into waters where they do not occur beyond the scope of an aquatic nuisance species or are prohibited. In our objectives section we plan—insects in frewood and maybe weed seeds have included information on the evaluation on ATV wheels of our informational and educational ANS • Page 9, 3rd paragraph, last sentence: suggest campaigns. Refer to Objective 5—Evaluate, replacing “regional waters” with “waters outside improve and expand upon the current the state” or “waters in the region ” statewide informational and educational ANS • Page 10, Ecological Impacts: The 2nd and campaigns. 3rd bullets, loss of native species and loss of biodiversity seem very similar • CPW—Aquatic Health Regulations. The penalty • Page 10, #5: This seems to be redundant with the for Intentional violation of these CPW regulations 3rd bullet under #2 should be increased from $50 to a truly punitive • Page 11, first sentence: Suggest deleting the amount and points of licenses increased or result acronym ANS here since it doesn’t add to the in loss of license outright Only heavy penalties meaning Suggest replace “upon its” with “their ” will be efective in preventing illegal introductions of fsh species

78 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • Page 31, Objective 2: Suggest inserting the phrase “to the extent possible” between “agencies” and “by ” Response: Tis objective has been rewritten. • Page 32, Problem 4A: Identifies that tests are unreliable, but no specifcs about types of tests Subsequent actions and components don’t address unreliable tests Perhaps include further discussion that details things that can assist in making tests more reliable and data valid Response: In the fnal draf the page numbers no longer correspond Response: We have added more to the with the previous draf of the plan Objectives section of the document, this that was reviewed by the ANSTF. includes increasing fnes for illegal fsh stocking Tis Objective has been reworded in Colorado. Te Objective section has been as well as corresponding strategies put into priority order; Objective 5 in the old and actions. Refer to Objective 4— draf is now Objective 2 in the fnal document Survey and monitor waters of the (Prevent and contain introductions through state for ANS managing human vectors, pathways of • Objectives, introduction, and spread). We have added • Page 33–35, Objective 5—Prevention through Strategy 2E—Develop a new statewide Managing Human Vectors of Introduction collaborative strategy with dedicated and Spread : Te list of Problems 5A through resources to address illicit fsh stocking 5E does not explicitly include the potential Action 2E1—Develop a statewide vector of intentional illegal introductions collaborative strategy to address illegal of fsh, or other ANS A new Problem 5F fsh introductions and limit future illicit should be added to address this lack, and new stocking of non-native fsh and consider Strategic Actions be formulated to address the the reclamation of waters whenever problem possible Response: Page numbers referred to in the Action 2E2—Dedicate additional or new comments no longer correspond with the Final human and fscal resources to coordinate Draf. Te Objective section has been put into implementation of the strategy identifed in priority order; Objective 5 in the old draf is 2E1 once developed now Objective 2 in the fnal document (Prevent Action 2E3—Increase fnes and and contain introductions through managing enforcement for illegal fsh stocking human vectors, pathways of introduction, and Action 2E4—Provide incentives for spread). We have added reporting illegal stocking (similar to Strategy 2E—Develop a new statewide poaching) and utilize operation game thief collaborative strategy with dedicated for confdential reporting resources to address illicit fsh stocking Would be worth identifying federal or regional Action 2E1—Develop a statewide plans that apply within Colorado For example the collaborative strategy to address illegal QZAP fsh introductions and limit future illicit Response: Tank you for your comment, stocking of non-native fsh and consider additional information concerning regional the reclamation of waters whenever involvement has been added to the document possible under the Existing Authorities and Programs Section. State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 79 Action 2E2—Dedicate additional or new At this time we have decided to not add any human and fscal resources to coordinate more species to our lists that would require implementation of the strategy identifed in management plans. 2E1 once developed • Page 36: Should Utilizing Incident Command Action 2E3—Increase fnes and System (ICS) be part of addressing Objective enforcement for illegal fsh stocking 6? Action 2E4—Provide incentives for reporting illegal stocking (similar to Response: Objective 6 in the old draf is now poaching) and utilize operation game thief Objective 3 in the Final Plan, Objective 3— for confdential reporting Improve the capacity to implement rapid response for new ANS Objective 6 and problem 6A. Tis is a good approach However, ‘High Priority ANS’ should be defned to include invasive fsh species, and one action should be to develop a plan specifcally From Meg Modely, Lake Champlain Basin Program, for fsh species that are commonly intentionally Aquatic Invasive Species Management Coordinator, introduced such as northern pike, walleye, and ANSTF Member smallmouth bass • Consider adding parasites and pathogens to the Response: Invasive Fish have been added to frst sentence in the Executive Summary our ‘Species of Concern’ list in the ‘Problem Response: In the fnal draf we have removed Defnition Section’ of the document. We have the parasites and pathogens from the added three species of Asian carp to our species document. Tese are managed by the Aquatic list (Bighead Carp, Silver Carp, and Black Animal Health Lab and are not in the Invasive Carp), as well the Northern Snakehead. Species portfolio. • Lists of Aquatic Nuisance Animals in the • I count 8 objectives in the Executive Summary, Problem Defnition Section not 7 • We were unable to fnd zebra or quagga mussel on this list—should they be? Response: In the fnal draf there are 6 objectives. Response: Zebra and quagga mussels have been added to the list of primary species of • Adjust wording in 5th bullet under Ecological concern. Impacts on p10 to “Control measure impacts • Consider including a third list of species t o… ” that are regulated and may be present in the • The information on p11 about congressional state and not on the prohibited species list, estimates of ZM and QM impacts and the info but can cause damage to native species and cited from the US Commission on Ocean Policy ecosystems if introduced, and thus deserve may be redundant/conficting monitoring and management plans, with • Lake George does not spend $1M annually on associated eradication and control measures Eurasian water milfoil management It is much to be instituted if/when they are found less annually (closer to $200k) on p11 For example, the illegal introduction of • The 8th bullet on p23 “protects aquatic habitats smallmouth bass into Miramonte Reservoir and native species communities” … through the resulted in CPW taking action to eradicate development of laws and regulations? this species before it became established, despite this species not appearing on any of Response: All suggested typographical/ these lists grammatical errors have been fxed, in the update of this plan the pages no longer Response: CPW has changed from a correspond with the page numbers in these prohibited species list to an allowable species comments. list in 2018. We have added to our objectives section to increase fnes and penalties for illegal fsh stocking in Colorado. Refer to Objective 2.

80 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • Mention or add Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers General Comments Campaign, Habitattitude, and Play, Clean, Go to • This draft plan was particularly difficult to Objective #3 review for a number of reasons, including: Response: Objective 3 in the old draf is Afer scanning, the PDF was not subjected to now Objective 5 in the new draf. 5C1 has OCR (optical character recognition) sofware been updated to include campaigns in use in Tis made the document much harder to review Colorado. Tis list is not limited. as each page is a single full-page graphic and the text is not searchable (making it harder for the

• Mention climate and its impacts to the plan reviewer) Response: We have added a section to the Response: Te plan is a Word document now. document that covers climate change and its CPW does not use OCR. probable impacts to invasive species. • The appendices were not included. Though some appendices (such as those on comments) are difcult to include in a preliminary draf, many Preliminary Comments From Donald MacLean, of the others are not Tere were many times U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative Staf when I wanted to refer to an appendix and could to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and State not do so ANS Management Plan Coordinator Response: Te appendices have been added Besides the missing content (see below), the only and updated to match the order in which they major issue I found with the document are the are discussed in the document. problem statements (Problem 1A, 2a, etc ) listed in the • The implementation table was also not included. Objectives/Strategies/Action section Tese problems Details that were not included in the various are actually really well done—they are something that objectives, strategic actions and components are not usually included and are a nice addition to of Section F might have been included in the the section My issue with them is that they are not implementation table addressed anywhere else in the document (some may be touched upon here or there, but not specifcally Response: An implementation table will be in addressed) Tese problems are exactly the type of the fnal document. information that should have been included in the • Both US and U.S. are used to abbreviate United Problem Defnition and Ranking Section Each of States Tere are many places in the document the Problems listed in Te Objectives/Strategies/ where the word “was” is used incorrectly instead Action section should have at least a full paragraph of “were ” describing that issue in Te Problem Defnition • There are many places in the document where Section Ten, when the reader gets to Te Objectives the acronym FTE is used when it should be plural Section and sees what you are proposing to do with (FTEs) the CO Plan, and see the references to the problem, they are already intimately familiar with the problems • There are two periods at the end of Strategic in Colorado My recommendation is that each of the Action 5B3 problems be described in more detail in the Problem • A bit more separation is needed between each of Defnition Section the Objectives in the Objective/Strategies/Actions Response: Your suggestion has made. In the section newest draf we have added more to the ‘Problem Response: Te formatting and spelling Defnition Section’ that will cover the diferent inconsistencies have been updated. problems that were addressed in the objectives • At least one plan is referred to by numerous section. Specifcally we added an entire section names Besides its title in the table, the State to the ‘Te Problem Defnition Section’ that goes Zebra and Quagga Mussel Management Plan is over in more detail the major pathways of ANS also referred to as the ZQM Plan, the Zebra and introduction. Quagga Mussel Plan, and I think at least one

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 81 other method as well A consistent name should Introduction—Te introduction of the plan has a be used and should include the state reference brief description of the AIS problem in general, but so that it is not confused with the National plan barely any information specifc to Colorado Te (QZAP—the Quagga/Zebra Mussel Action Plan) addition of a description of the unique aspects of the Response: We have changed all references AIS in Colorado would greatly enhance the draf to Te State of Colorado Zebra and Quagga Plan Mussel Management Plan also known as the Response: We have added more Colorado specifc ZQM management plan for better consistency information such as program history, management throughout the draf. actions/history along with statistics, and how Colorado prioritizes ANS management. Comments on Missing Content by Section Also, the following items, listed in the Guidance, are not included in the preliminary draf: Executive summary—Te executive summary is • The plan’s purpose should be described here. not an overall summary of the draf CO Plan but • Geographic scope of plan, including a map and instead just a general introduction to invasive species, discussion of the geographic area showing water State plans, and an introduction to the 7 or 8 (see 4th bodies, drainage basins, and major structural bullet under Specifc Comments below) objectives features According to the Guidance, the executive summary should give the reader an overview of the entire ANS Note: We have already discussed this via Management Plan, and the existing text does not do e-mail, and the map I saw looks as if it would so Te Guidance states: be sufcient, although it could perhaps use a • “The executive summary should briefly few additions. Links could also be provided to summarize each management plan section and existing maps, if possible. its major recommendations Te purpose of the Response: Tis section has been re-written to plan, the background on ANS problems, the closer match the example in the State Guidelines authorities and current programs of involved Document. We have created and added a few more organizations, and the central focus should be maps that breakdown the geographic scope even mentioned In addition, present and proposed further into basins and the major water bodies. management actions to overcome problems • Discussion of any scientific review and/or public along with program goals and objectives should comment on the plan as well as a summary of be succinctly outlined Finally, a summary of specifc comments and any indication of how the implementation table (to include funding those comments and reactions were addressed in required for implementation in the initial and the fnal plan future years by objectives and major strategies) Note: Since this is a preliminary review of a and program monitoring and evaluation plans plan, I don’t necessarily expect to see much should be provided ” information on specifc comments yet, but Note: For the management actions, the the fnal plan should contain an appendix whole implementation table does not need to with highlights on the important comment be repeated. Perhaps just the objectives and periods and comments that helped shape the strategic actions could be summarized. overall plan with a shorter summary in the Response: Te Executive summary has been re- main report and providing some information written to more closely match the example in the on how the comments may have shaped the State Guidelines Document. We included a short development of the plan. summary of the objectives, the plan purpose, plan Response: A Public Comment section has development, and plan review. been added to the plans appendix as well as a paragraph in the (Introduction) highlighting how those comments have helped shaped the plans development.

82 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • An explanation of the connection of the ANS Response: Discussion of major problems, plan to other plans (ANS or otherwise) produced key species of concern (Priority Species), and by adjacent states or entities with overlapping information on the major pathways of introduction jurisdictions covering shared waters (Boating, Fishing Tournaments/Bait release, Response: More information about how Colorado Aquarium/Pet Trade, Nursery/Gardens Center) works with the western states regarding ANS have been added to this section. We have added management is included in the ‘Existing Authorities more detail in the ‘Problem Defnition Section’ on and Programs’ under the section titled ‘Regional the problems that were listed in the Objectives/ and National Organizations’. Strategies/Actions section. Problem Defnition and Ranking—Te plan does • Discussion of cryptogenic species (i.e., those have a specifc section that covers this topic, but it which have not been determined as clearly native lacks several of the crucial pieces of information or nonindigenous), including, to the extent that characterize the problem and its unique aspects possible, probably pathway particular to Colorado (See similar comment from Response: CPW’s authority is limited to non-native Kim Bogenschutz) Te following information from species as defned in statute for invasive species. the Guidance is missing: Terefore, cryptogenic species are not included in • Brief description of the overall history of AIS this plan. problems in Colorado (again, some of this can be Existing Authorities and Programs—Tis section of gleaned from the Introduction, but it’s in bits and the Colorado Plan adequately describes the existing pieces throughout those sections instead of in one “players” in the world of AIS in Colorado, and also cohesive section) briefy describes the State of Colorado ANS Act, Response: We added a section to the ‘Problem State ANS regulations, and CPW Aquatic Health Defnition’ section of the document that covers the Regulations, however, the following information from ANS history and introductions to the state. the Guidance is missing: • An estimation of the number of species or other • A summary of relevant federal, tribal and regional taxa in various classes, in the geographic area authorities and activities that are or can be used to address the problems and concerns identifed in Response: Species tables have been added to this the CO Plan section. We also added a map that shows the invasive species distribution in Colorado. • The Task Force recommends that any gaps in authorities or implementing regulations that • Description of how connecting water bodies impede or limit attainment of plan goals be outside the plan boundaries may introduce new identifed ANS into the afected area • The plan should discuss current efforts to Response: Located in the introduction section amend existing or enact legislation to address under the geographic map is paragraph about shortcomings in existing authorities and Colorado’s water, highlighting that Colorado is a programs headwaters state for seven water sheds, water fows Response: Information was added and into other states via downstream, water does not summarized to refect the Federal, Regional, and fow into Colorado. Tribal involvement that can be used or is currently • Discussion of major problems and concerns, used to address ANS problems and concerns in such as key introduced species and introduction Colorado. Additional partners were also added. We pathways, lack of scientifc knowledge, or limited have also added to the document a section titled public knowledge If possible, problems should be ‘Gaps and Challenges’; this section covers any gaps grouped into 3-5 categories (e g , high, medium, in authorities that may limit the accomplishment of low or some other scheme) plan goals. Note: Tis would be an excellent place to expand upon the problems listed in Te Objectives/Strategies/Action Section (see my earlier comment above). State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 83 Objectives, Strategies Actions, and Cost • The Introduction starts on page 9 when it should Estimates—Te Colorado Plan outlines the basic start on page 1 afer the roman numerals objectives and strategies (strategic actions) of the Response: We updated the page numbers in the plan, however, it fails to provide much detail at the fnal version of the document. action (component) level While it does include short statements detailing the specifc work or task that will • The Appendices should also be listed in the TOC be performed, it doesn’t identify the organizations Response: We have included the appendices to involved, their roles, and sometimes additional details the Table of Contents in the Final version of the would be helpful It also fails to provide cost estimates document. for these actions Some of this may have come out in • Executive Summary—In addition to the earlier the implementation table, but since that was also not comments, the frst two paragraphs of the provided, I cannot be sure As per the Guidance, this Executive Summary, if kept as written, need section should include: some sort of transition Te frst paragraph talks • Actions (called components in the Colorado about invasive species and the second paragraph Plan)—Describe the specifc work or task that suddenly switches to aquatic nuisance species will be performed to implement a strategy with no transition statement Te general reader Short statements detailing the work required could beneft with a statement that more clearly and organizations involved and their respective links the two subjects roles should be prepared for each action Te Response: We reworded the Executive Summary expected result should be described Each action, to make it easier to read for both the scientifc along with associated strategies, objectives and community and the public. goals should have a title and be listed in the • Executive Summary—Te statement just before implementation table For each action, the names the frst bullet refers to “seven objectives,” however of the implementing and funding organizations there are eight bullets (objectives) listed It would and their roles should be specifed be less confusing if this was fxed, the 7 objectives • Cost Estimates—Te basis for the cost estimates were numbered, referred to more specifcally in (i e , salary of two feld biologists 1/3 of the year, the Objectives Section, and the language matched plus equipment and travel costs) should be the objectives as they are presented in Objective presented here if that information is available Te Section estimated contribution of each organization and Response: In the fnal plan there are 6 objectives. the total cost for each action should be shown in • Five Points to Consider—I really like the “fve the implementation table points to consider” listed here and the fact Response: We have added more to this section. that they are addressed in the plan—they are Implementation Table—Te implementation table important points that are not ofen highlighted in was not included in the preliminary review draf so it this manner While all of the points are addressed could not be reviewed in the plan to some degree, it is not as clear how the points will guide future development Please Response: An implementation table will be understand, I’m not asking you to add a huge included in the fnal draf. amount of information here, but consider adding • Appendices—Te appendices, which are referred some additional thoughts regarding how these to in many places were not included in the points guide future development I suggest adding preliminary review draf so they could not be the point that eradication is ofen not possible reviewed afer establishment as well Response: Te appendices have been added to the Response: We have added more to this section to document and the letters throughout the document refect how the ‘Five Points to Consider’ will guide have been updated to match the corresponding future development of the Colorado ANS Plan. appendices. • Education, frst line—Te sentence mentions • Table of Contents (TOC) educational items that are provided to youth Would it be possible to provide descriptions of

84 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan the various items, perhaps with images? This kind details To what extent are the 3 priority plant of information gives the reader a better idea of species of concern were distributed throughout what is already being done If they are familiar the state? Why are the other plants – the ones that with the products at all, it gives them a stronger are not yet in CO—listed as priority? Are they in connection to the plan Tese are also the kinds adjacent states? Are they being imported into CO of things that are appropriate to include in the as part of the aquatic plant trade? Do you have program portion of Section Existing Authorities any statistics on the major plant pathways (# of and Programs aquatic nurseries? # of water bodies infested with Response: More information has been added to the 3 plants, etc? the Existing Authorities and Programs section of Response: Tank you for your comment. Colorado the document to refect the diferent education and specifc information was added to this section outreach event that the ANS program participates in. regarding the priority plant species. Information Note: Educational materials that we use for our on all of the priority species was added to the education/outreach events have not been put appendix, including species descriptions and when into the plan. We can provide that information possible the timing of each introduction. Also added if it is requested, or it can be found on the to the appendix is a positive waters list that has Colorado Parks and Wildlife Website: www. information on the geographic distribution of the cpw.state.co.us> Programs > Invasive Species > ANS of concern to Colorado. Resources and Publications. • Page 23, last paragraph. This paragraph refers • Problem Defnitions and Ranking—Te last to “statewide species management plans,” and sentence states: “Te discussion and identifcation although some of these reports were to be of the major problems and concerns outlined included in the missing appendices, their absence below, have served as the foundation for the generates some questions: How are the statewide

development of Goals and Objectives found in plans developed? Do they all receive funding from

Section D below ” See earlier comment under Colorado? A brief discussion of these statewide missing content (and comment from Kim plans somewhere in the document would be Bogenschutz) Tis section is so short and non- benefcial Colorado-centric that’s it is not clear how this Response: Tank you for your response. In the fnal section shaped the Goals and Objectives document the page numbers no longer correspond Response: In reworking this section, that sentence with the page numbers listed in these comments. was removed. Te State of Colorado species management plans for zebra and quagga mussels, NZMS and rusty • Problem Defnition Section—Last Paragraph crayfsh were updated in 2018 and are available Tis paragraph refers to recreational watercraf, upon request. water diversions, and aquaculture within

Colorado, but has no real detail Would it be • Also, unless I missed it, I was surprised to find possible to expand this section a bit with perhaps no reference to National ANSTF-approved plans a paragraph on each of these pathways with such as the QZAP (Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action some more Colorado-specifc information and Plan, or the New Zealand Mudsnail Management

any relevant statistics (number of recreational Plan or others). Was this intentional? The watercraft, watercraft diversions, etc.)? suggested discussion above could also include, where applicable, how the statewide plans Response: Colorado specifc information on the mesh with a National ANSTF species control pathways of introduction including: Boating, fshing plans (Tese plans can be found on the ANSTF tournaments, aquarium trade/pet release, garden website ) centers/nurseries were added to the document. Water diversions were removed because we have Response: Tank you for your response. Federal little or no data on that pathway. and regional management plan information has been added to the document. • Problem Defnition Section: Aquatic Nuisance Plants—Tis section refers to aquatic nuisance plants in general, but has no Colorado-specifc

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 85 • State Government—In reference to the • State of Colorado ANS Act—Te third sentence, comment above under missing content, in referring to the State of Colorado ANS Act, states: existing authorities, the lack of program specifc “It makes it illegal to possess, import, export, ship, information is shown in this paragraph “zebra transport, release, plant, place, or cause an ANS to and quagga mussel program,” which I am not sure be released ” Does the Act include a specifc list of is mentioned again in the draf plan anywhere prohibited species? Is this the list that would have Although there is a small amount of detail in been included in Appendix (Prohibited Aquatic other parts of the document, this section is an Species)? Is this the same as the list under State appropriate place for a paragraph or two on ANS regulations? Colorado’s zebra and quagga mussel program and Response: Tank you for your comment. CPW its current activities changed from a ‘prohibited’ species list to an Response: Tank you for your response. Tis was allowable species list ‘White List’ in 2018. Te list a typo that has been corrected, it was meant to of allowable species is located in the ‘CPW Aquatic say Plan not Program. We have included in the Health Regulations’ section of the document; it has multiple places Colorado’s current activities with also been cited in the references section – under zebra and quagga mussels. CPW’s General Provisions, 2019. • Federal Government—Te end of this paragraph lists a number of “Federal partners” for the State ANS Regulations: Colorado ANS Program, but it gives no details • A sentence states: “The rules also created a new How much land does each of the Federal partners AIS list that targets species that can be transported

have in Colorado? Do they acknowledge and on a boat overland ” Despite the fact that you

support the ANS issue? Do they participate in the use the term target, the use of the term “can” is

CANSTF? Did they participate or provide input confusing It sounds as if it is a list of species that

in the draft CO Plan? What works well? What are “allowed” to be transported as opposed to a list

needs improvement? A paragraph on each of the of species that are commonly transported Federal partners with some additional details could certainly enrich Existing Partners section Response: Tis section has been reworded. Te ‘list’ that was mentioned was referring to the species Response: Tank you for your response, because listed in CPW’s Chapter 8 ANS Regulations. Tose so much of Colorado is owned and managed by regulations have be cited and put into the reference federal agencies, a map showing the federal lands section of the document—under CPW’s Chapter 8 in Colorado has been added. As stated in the ANS Regulations, 2009. existing authorities section of the Colorado ANS Management Plan, eforts to manage ANS in • After the first bullet, the last sentence states: “This Colorado are coordinated between private, local, does not apply to possession for aquarium use ” state, and federal agencies along with CPW being Tis is the perfect example of a gap that could be the main agency on this efort. We have added discussed in more detail more information to each federal and regional • After 3rd bullet, last word. Suggest adding VHSV partner in the ‘Existing Authorities and Partners to your list of acronyms, if it is not already there Section’ of the document. Response: We have added a section to the • Consider adding the term “Front Range” to the document titled ‘Gaps and Challenges’ where we glossary and perhaps to the map of Colorado discuss the issue of ANS being sold by the pet and Response: Tank you for your comment. We have nursery industry in Colorado. We have added added a map that shows the geographic regions in VHSV to the list of acronyms. Colorado. Te map includes the area of Colorado • 3rd bullet from the bottom. Consider adding the covered by the ‘Front Range’. Tis will clarify what term “East Slope” to the glossary and perhaps to is meant by the term ‘Front Range’. the map of Colorado

86 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan • 2nd bullet. Consider adding the term “West Response: We have reworked the (Problem Slope” to the glossary and perhaps to the map of Defnition Section) to include the pathways of Colorado concern discussed in the (Objectives/Strategies/ Response: Grammatical and typographical errors Actions section). have been addressed. Also a map has been added • Component 1D2—Tis section could use a small to the Geographic Scope section of the document bit of clarifcation as it isn’t entirely clear what to show the ‘East Slope’ and ‘West Slope’ areas of the purpose is of the brief descriptions following Colorado. the 4 acronyms for the Colorado agencies I am • Table, 5th row. The 3rd column refers to “List A assuming they are they brief descriptors of what species and List B species each agency does, but it is unclear Response: Te regulatory status column was Response: We have decided to take out action item taken out of the table. Information on List A and ID2 from Objective 1. List B species are in the Existing Authorities and • Strategic Action 2A—Is the acronym “ZQM Programs section under Te Colorado Noxious Plan” in the list of acronyms or should it be Weed List section. Also CDA’s noxious weed list has spelled out? been added to the appendix. Response: ZQM was added to the list of acronyms. However, the web page in the next column just Te ZQM Plan is referring to the Zebra and takes you to the index page for the Colorado Quagga Mussel Plan is spelled out in the section Department of Agriculture and isn’t really helpful titled ‘Other Invasive Species Management Plans’. to the reader • Component 3A2—Tough certainly not Response: Te website link has been updated. mandatory, have you considered including the • What are List A and List B species? Is it important USFWS national public awareness campaign TM to give some more detail on their significance? As Habitattitude as part of this component? mentioned previously, a brief description of the Response: 3A2 is now 5B2 in the fnal plan. It statewide management plans would be helpful changed because we reorganized the Objectives/ and List A and List B species could be briefy Strategies/Actions section so that it was in order of explained, if appropriate priority (1st objective being the highest priority). Response: Tank you for your comment. CPW does not want to limit opportunities by Information was added to the Final Plan on List A identifying any campaign specifcally in this section. and List B species to the Existing Authorities and • Component 3B1—Te “Don’t Move a Mussel” Programs section under Te Colorado Noxious campaign is not a Fish and Wildlife Service Weed List section. campaign It was partially funded by USFWS • Objective 1, 3rd line. The 3rd line of Objective funds, but is a campaign of the Pacifc States 1, reading “…stafng and fscal resources Marine Fisheries Commission aquatic nuisance species …” is missing a word Response: Component 3B1 is now 5C1 in the I am guessing it should be “…stafng and fscal fnal plan. It changed because we reorganized resources for aquatic nuisance species …” the Objectives/Strategies/Actions section so that Response: In the Final plan we have re-written it was in order of priority (1st objective being the Objective 1, it now reads as: “Ensure efective and highest priority). We have rewritten the action to consistent implementation of the plan”. say: “Continue the use of National and Regional campaigns including, but not limited to: Clean,

• Section F, Problem 1A (and all the other Drain, Dry, Don’t Move a Mussel, Stop Aquatic Problems)—Te problems are an interesting Hitchhikers, Don’t Let it Loose, Habitattitude and addition to this section, but need to be fully others.” explained earlier in Section C (see my earlier comment on this—last paragraph before the General Comments heading)

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 87 • The “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” campaign has • Strategic Action 5B1—Does the Colorado been in existence for approximately 11 years, not Decontamination Manual refer to Appendix “over 20 ” LL—Colorado ANS Watercraf Decontamination Response: Tank you for your comment, we have Manual? changed this sentence. Response: Yes, the Colorado Decontamination • Strategic Action 4B1—Tis action doesn’t match Manual is the same as the Colorado ANS the wording of other actions in the plan (and Watercraf Decontamination Manual. We have doesn’t seem like a strategic action) Perhaps taken appendix LL out of the fnal document. it could be reworded to something like: Make Te Colorado ANS Watercraf Decontamination monitoring information available to everyone by Manual is available upon request. working with partners, citizens, and other parties • Problem 5B—For the problem of professionals permitted to sample to ensure reports follow a spreading AIS through work activities, you have standardized protocol and format a component related to following HACCP Plans Response: Tis action item no longer exists in the Does this also include development of new current plan. HACCP plans where one does not exist and the development or HACCP training opportunities? • Component 4B1a—Tis component mentions the Colorado ANS Sampling and Monitoring Response: In the fnal plan we have reorganized Database System Is this database mentioned the objectives into priority order. Te numbers elsewhere in the plan? This is the perfect type and letters that were assigned to previous of information that could and should be briefy strategies and actions have been updated. Refer to described in Section E (Existing Programs) Objective 2—Prevent and contain introductions through managing human vectors, pathways Response: Te data base in not a program, rather of introduction, and spread ; Strategy 2C— a component used by our department to record Encourage CPW and Partner agency staf sampling data. working in aquatic settings to actively engage in • Strategic Action 5A1—Is the acronym WID in best management practices to ensure ANS are not the acronym list? Does it stand for “Watercraft transferred while performing their work duties Inspection and Decontamination?” HAACP is included in 2C2 and 2C4. Response: Te acronym WID stands for Watercraf • Strategic Action 5B4—Will CDPHE be in the list Inspection and Decontamination; we have added it of acronyms? to the acronyms list. Response: CDPHE (Colorado Department of • Strategic Action 4B2—Tis action refers to the Public Health) has been added to the acronym list. CPW Invasive Species Notifcation Directive, but • Strategic Action 5C2—Tis strategic action has it is unclear exactly what this is Tis is an example one or more words missing of the kind of thing that could use a bit more

detail in Section E, as either an existing program, • Strategic Action 5C3—Part of this action— a gap, or an impending piece of legislation or “… and enforce on those that are selling…” is

other state action (depending on the details) awkward. Is there a better way to say this?

Response: Te original action item described in the • Strategic Action 5D4—the term “leaches” is comment has been accomplished (October 2019) used incorrectly here Te correct term is spelled and therefore the action item is not listed in the “leech ” Leach refers to the process of permeating current plan. or penetrating gradually; leech refers to the carnivorous or bloodsucking aquatic or terrestrial • Last sentence of Component 5A1e—Te last worms typically having a sucker at each end part of the 2nd sentence—“and to speed up the Response: All typos have been corrected. process of previously inspected boats”—doesn’t make sense to me. Is a word missing? Response: Tis sentence has been changed.

88 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Objective 6 • Primary Species of Concern and Secondary • The wording of the first sentence is slightly Species of Concern—In both cases the word confusing and may have a word missing directly afer “concern” needs to be changed from • The sentence refers to section I.1. yet I do not see “is” to “are ” a Section I 1 (although there is a placeholder for • Species tables—Some of the species seem to section I 2 on page 51) be inconsistently names In some cases they Response: Tank you for your comment, this are named with a comma, such as: “loosestrife, information has been updated. purple ” But in other cases they are named “yellow foating heart ” • Problem 6A—For Problem 6A, the frst strategic

action is labeled 6B1 Should it not be 6A1 or is a • The asterisk in the column heading “Regulatory strategic action missing instead? Status” should be placed at the bottom of every table, and not just at the end of all the tables Response: Tank you for your comment, this

information has been updated. • The formatting in the tables needs to be cleaned up a bit—in many places some cells are centered • Component 7A1a—Tis component refers justifed and others are not to both aquatic and terrestrial research Was • A blank row needs to be deleted on page 41. the inclusion of terrestrial in an aquatic plan intentional? • If more than one species is listed (see Knotweeds), the genus can be abbreviated afer it is spelled out Response: Tis action has been updated in the fnal the frst time plan . • When a genus is used to indicate more than one

• After Component 7B1d—In the middle of the species, the word “species” or the abbreviation page afer the last component the words “Cost “spp ” should be included for clarity Estimates” are sitting centered, all by themselves

Is this a placeholder for additional information? • In a couple of places, words are being cut off in mid-word due to tight column widths Response: Tank you for your comment, this

information has been updated. • Upper species table—On the plant table, you have the entry for pickerel weed listed as • Priority for action section—This section states Monochoria vaginalis Are you referring to the that “a system to classify species was developed native pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), a plant that recommends management activities for each native to eastern North America (also known to classifcation ” Would it be possible to add a little occur as a non-native in western N America) detail describing the classifcation system (who or are you referring to heartshape pickerelweed developed it, how it works, what is assessed, etc ) (Monochoria vaginalis), a serious weed in rice Was this going to be in one of the appendices? felds in east and southern Asia which also Response: Tank you for your comment; this supposedly occurs in California and Hawaii) section was reworked to just include the top • Species table. The last 3 rows of species on page priorities of action, the top priorities were taken 43—chain pickerel, apple snails, and European from the Objectives/Strategies/Actions section. valve snail—are repeated again on the top of • First paragraph—Are CANSC and CANS page 44 referring to the same thing? Response: In the fnal document the page numbers Response: Tank you for your comment, CANSC no longer correspond with the above comments. All was a typo referring to CANSSC (Colorado ANS typographical /grammatical errors have been made Steering Committee), and CANS refers to Te State to the ‘Primary Species of Concern’ and ‘Secondary of Colorado ANS Management Plan (Tis Plan). Species of Concern’ Tables in the Problem Defnition and Ranking Section. • Heading at bottom of page—The heading “Species of Concern” needs to be pushed to the next page to sit with its text

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 89 • Aquatic Nuisance Animals, Priority and sentence with: “In aquatic systems, an accidental Secondary Species of Concern—Afer seeing introduction is …” numerous references to quagga and zebra mussels • Eradicate—Although I certainly know what you within the document, I was surprised to see that are referring to, it seems as if you should indicate quagga and zebra mussels were not listed (either from where the ANS is being eliminated (initial individually or as a genus) on your list of priority introduction site, State, region, water body, species. Was this intentional? If so, what is the infested area, etc ) reasoning for not including them? • Established—The definition of establishment Response: Quagga and Zebra Mussels are included usually includes a reference to reproduction in the species tables. Although I certainly understand that • Plan Evaluation, 12 bulleted items—I really reproduction is included within the defnition of like the emphasis on these 12 items of ‘special a “permanent” population, it might be helpful to emphasis’ during the monitoring and evaluation spell that out here more clearly Do each of these 12 items have a corresponding • Exotic—It is unclear what is meant by “…or other strategic action and component within the CO variable biological material…” Tis comment Plan? Can (or will?) performance measures be can also be applied to the defnition for non- developed from the 12 emphasized items? indigenous Response: Te Plan Evaluation section has been • Invasive—This definition seems rather non- changed and is now titled Plan Review. Te 11 technical Could the defnition from Executive bulleted items in the Plan Review summarizes Order 13112 be used instead? important topics already covered in the Objective/ • EO 13112 defines an “invasive species” as a Strategy/Action Section. species that is: • Reporting, 1st paragraph—The last words in that • 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem paragraph refer to “Chapter 9,” but the chapters in under consideration and the CO Plan are designated with letters Did you • 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to mean Section I? cause economic or environmental harm or Response: In our new draf of the document we harm to human health choose not to label by letter or chapter. We kept the • Nonnative—The definition for nonnative is “Any headings and the paragraph titles. species introduced by man into an ecosystem • Reporting, 2nd paragraph, first sentence— outside its native range ” I think this is incorrect Te word annual report does not need to be I don’t think that a species native status should capitalized have an anthropogenic component—it should • Section 1—Page 51 is a placeholder for the Rapid solely be based on the species historical range Response plan but is labeled I 2 However, there and occurrence within various ecosystems is no section I 1 Is a section missing or is the Recommend striking the words “introduced by placeholder mislabeled? m an ” Response: In our new draf the sections are not Response: All the suggested changes have labeled by numbers. been updated in the ‘Defnitions Section’ of the document. • Section J, Definitions—(Note: if these definitions are products of State law or other state processes • List of Appendices – Because I could not review and cannot be changed, these comments do not the appendices I cannot be sure, but it looks as if need to be considered) Appendix Q and Appendix S may be the same • Accidental Introductions—The definition of thing If not, what is the diference between the

accidental introductions in the CO Plan only two appendices? refers to aquatic pathways, yet in reality, accidental Response: We have updated our appendices and introductions occur in terrestrial pathways as have included them in the fnal document. well One remedy for this could be to just start the

90 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Comments on Draf #1 of the Colorado Parks and • Last paragraph—I am very pleased to see the Wildlife State ANS Management Plan Invasive mention of a rapid response fund Species Rapid Response Plan • 3rd paragraph in Section II—Is there a reference • The draft CO Plan has a placeholder (Section for the #806D of the Parks Chapter 8 ANS I 2) for a rapid response plan, but the draf rapid Regulations in case the reader wants to see the response plan does not say anything about being a regulations? section within the draf CO Plan Is the intention Response: CPW and Parks regulations are to eventually include the draf rapid response plan referenced and cited in the references portion of the as a section of the draf CO ANS Management document. Plan? • 1st bullet—The brackets are not needed in the Response: We have included the Rapid Response sub-bullet Plan as its own section in the document. • 1st bullet—Suggest changing the bolded text from • 2nd Paragraph—The end of the paragraph refers “Aquatic nuisance species plants” to “Aquatic to “site plans ” Tis term, however, ofen has Invasive Plants ” diferent defnitions Can the term be defned Response: We used the title ‘Aquatic Nuisance

within the context of the rapid response plan? Plants’ because we use the term ANS in Colorado. Response: We have tried to clarify (in plan section • 2nd bullet—Suggest changing the bolded text of rapid response section) what we mean by existing from “Exotic Invasive Fish” to “Invasive Fish” and site plans. change the “I” in ichthyologist to a lower case • 1st sentence—The first sentence states: “This letter plan is a guidance tool for the State of Colorado • There are differing spaces between the various to respond, eradicate, control and manage sections these invasive species as quickly as possible to minimize and possibly reverse damage to aquatic Response: Tis information has been updated. ecosystems ” Tis statement is misleading as • 1st paragraph after long list of bullets, 3rd rapid response plans are used for rapid response line—Tis line refers to “high-priority species to newly discovered introductions before the management plans ” Please add the word infestation becomes established; they are not used “statewide” to distinguish these plans from for long-term control and management existing National ANSTF species control plans Response: Tis information has been updated Response: Tis information has been updated. to better align with rapid response being used for newly discovered introductions. • 2nd paragraph from the bottom—Te last sentence states: “Without early detection, eradication and containment eforts may not be feasible ” Suggest altering the sentence to read: “Without early detection, eradication eforts may not be feasible and the response becomes a containment efort ” Response: Tis information has been updated.

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 91 Appendix C—ANS Positive Waters List Defnition from the ANS Act (SB08-226): “AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES” MEANS EXOTIC OR NONNATIVE AQUATIC WILDLIFE OR ANY PLANT SPECIES THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE BOARD TO POSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE AQUATIC RESOURCES OR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE STATE ”

ANIMALS Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Location in Colorado Crayfsh, Rusty orconectesrusticus Present in CO Catamount Reservoir, Yampa River, Stagecoach Reservoir, and Sanchez Reservoir Mussel, Quagga dreissena rostriformis bugensis Present in CO Green Mountain Reservoir (Suspect) Mussel, Zebra dreissena polymorpha Not Present in CO No known New Zealand Mudsnail potamopyrgusantipodarum Present in CO Bear Canyon Creek, City of Boulder— Boulder Creek, Dry Creek (2), Two Rivers Park, Chatfeld Reservoir, Dinosaur NM—Green River, Gunnison River (East of Delta), Pike NF—South Platte River below Eleven Mile Dam, Eleven Mile Reservoir State Park, Jimmy Camp Creek Spinney Mountain Reservoir State Park, Charlie Meyer State Wildlife Area (Dream Stream), South Delaney Buttes Reservoir and East Delaney Buttes Reservoir in Delaney Buttes State Wildlife Area, College Lake at CSU Fort Collins, Fountain Creek in Colorado Springs, South Platte River in Denver, Uncompahgre River, 4Mile Canyon Creek, Monument Lake, Trinidad Lake, Lake Capote Water Flea, spiny bythotrephescederstroemi No verifed presence No Known Water Flea, fshhook Cercopagispengoi No verifed presence No Known

Actual Size

Quagga Zebra

© lauren lIvo and steve WIlCox

© u.s. geologICal survey Eurasian watermilfoil

© mIChIgan sea grant

92 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan PLANTS Common Name Scientifc Name Status in Colorado Management Plan African elodea lagarosiphon major No verifed presence No Known Brazilian elodea egeria densa Present in CO Jeferson Lake, NTP Ponds, Spinney Mountain Reservoir Eurasian watermilfoil myriophyllum spicatum Present in CO Adobe Creek SWA, Arvada Reservoir, Bear Canyon Creek, Bessemer Ditch, Big Dry Creek, Blue Heron Ponds, Boulder Creek, Brush Hollow, Chatfeld Reservoir, CU Ponds in Boulder, Bow Mar Lake, Bowles Reservoir, Brush Hollow Reservoir, Charlie Meyer SWA, Douglas Reservoir, Eleven Mile State Park, Gateway Reservoir (Private), Horseshoe and Martin Reservoirs in Lathrop SP, Lake Minnequa, Lowell Ponds, Marston Reservoir, Minnequa Canal (Fremont Canal), Monument Lake, Navajo Reservoir (NM Side), North Poudre Reservoir #4, Panama Reservoir #1, Pathfnder Park Pond, Pavlakis Open Space, Pella Crossing Ponds, Prospect Lake, Pueblo Reservoir, Pueblo Steel Mill, Rio Grande River, Saint Charles Reservoir#2, #3, Saint Vrain Creek, Saint Vrain State Ponds, Sawhill Ponds, Sheets Lake, Skaguay Reservoir, South Platte River, Standley Lake (Westminster), Swift Ponds, Tucker Lake, Tule Lakes, Walden Pond, Ward Road Ponds, Wellington Reservoir #4, West Lake, West Prospect Park Lake, Aurora Reservoir, Cherry Creek Reservoir, Lon Hagler Reservoir Hybrid invasive myriophyllum spicatum x Present in CO Cigar Pond in Chatfeld State Park, watermilfoil myriophyllumsibiricum Cherry Creek Reservoir State Park (near swim beach), Golden Pond in Longmont, Saint Vrain State Park— Pelican Giant salvinia salvinia molesta No current verifed presence No Known Hyacinth, water eichhorniacrassipes Present in CO Gator Farm, Alamosa (2006) Centennial (detected and eradicated in 2010) Hydrilla hydrillaverticillata No verifed presence No Known Parrotfeather myriophyllumaquaticum No verifed presence No Known Yellow foating heart nymphoidespeltata No verifed presence No Known

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 93 Appendix D—Species Descriptions Current Status in Colorado: Rusty crayfsh were frst detected in Colorado in the Yampa River and Tis list includes Colorado’s primary species of Catamount Reservoir in 2009, in Sanchez State concern Te species included in this list are ones that Wildlife Area in 2010 and in Stagecoach Reservoir have been detected in Colorado and ones that have State Park in 2011 Populations have been controlled not yet been detected but are of top concern due to through mechanical and physical harvesting their possible economic and ecological impacts For each species; information on the known distribution in Colorado, the pathway of introduction, and when Zebra Mussels Zebra possible the timing of each introduction is listed (Dreissena polymorpha) Quagga Mussels (Dreissena bugensis) Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are native Quagga to the Black, Caspian and Azov Seas of Eastern Europe Tey were discovered in the Great Lakes in Lake St Clair in 1988 and have since Rusty Crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) spread to 33 states in the United States Quagga Rusty crayfsh (Faxonius rusticus) are native to the Mussels (Dreissena bugensis) are native to the Dnieper Ohio River Basin Tey were frst discovered outside River Drainage in the Ukraine Tey were discovered of their native range in the 1960s frst in the Great Lakes in the Erie Canal and Lake Ontario in 1989 and have since spread to 27 states in Identifcation: Rusty crayfsh grow up to fve inches the United States long Tey have brown bodies and large grayish‐green to reddish‐brown claws with dark black bands on the Identifcation: Quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) tips Tere are two rusty patches on either side of the and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are crayfsh’s body Te claws, when closed, have an oval small freshwater bivalve mollusk-animals with two gap in the middle Te moveable claw is smooth and shells Tey are relatives of clams and oysters It is S‐ shaped Males tend to be larger than females very difcult for a non-expert to tell the two species apart Te shell color of both mussels alternates Habitat: Found in freshwater lakes, rivers, and between a yellowish and darker brown, ofen forming streams Prefer deep pools and fast currents with stripes Color patterns are highly variable and can be cover from predators attributed to environmental factors Tey range in size from microscopic up to about two inches long Unlike Pathway of Introduction and Spread: Introduced by native North American freshwater mussels, which anglers who use the crayfsh as bait and throw unused burrow in sof sediment, adult zebra and quagga bait into the water or illegally stocked as a prey base mussels can attach to most hard and semi- sof for a fshery Although they are ofen introduced surfaces via tiny threads called byssal threads Native as bait, they do not make good bait due to their species do NOT have byssal threads! These byssal aggressive nature threads are one of three main invasive characteristics that give zebra and quagga mussels an advantage Impacts: Rusty crayfsh eat small fsh, insects, and over natives, along with rapid reproduction and their fsh eggs Tey also eat aquatic vegetation, damaging ability to flter feed at amazing rates underwater habitat that is important for fsh spawning, cover, and food Tey are aggressive and displace native crayfsh

94 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Habitat: Both zebra and quagga mussels can survive Impacts: Zebra and quagga mussels pose a great cold waters, but cannot tolerate freezing Tey can ecological and fnancial threat to the state Te endure temperatures between 1º–30ºC (33º–86ºF) invasion of these mussels can afect every Coloradoan Zebra mussels need waters above 12ºC (54ºF) to and visitors in some way and the impacts could be reproduce, while quagga mussels can reproduce in devastating Potential impacts include waters as cold as 9ºC (48ºF) Adult mussels are light • Prolific reproduction sensitive and prefer to live in water around 200 to • Clog water infrastructure 300+ feet deep Tey are able to live in a wide range of • Ecological impacts conditions including oxygen-depleted water • Recreational impacts • Economic impacts Pathway of Introduction and Spread: Many • Social impacts aquatic nuisance species, including zebra and quagga • Difficult or impossible to eradicate mussels, have been introduced into the Great Lakes • Quick spread to new waters in the discharged ballast water of ocean-going ships Another method of dispersal from Europe to the Current Status in Colorado: Tere are no waters United States is believed to be through transportation positive for zebra or quagga mussels in Colorado All of attached mature adults on anchors stored internally waters have been de-listed following fve years of no in compartments on transoceanic vessels Once in detections per Western Regional Panel standards North American waters, aquatic nuisance species • Pueblo Reservoir State Park tested positive for ofen hitch rides to other bodies of water on the boats, zebra or quagga mussel larvae (veligers) in 2007, trailers, and equipment that people transport from 2008, 2009 and 2011 place to place Boaters and anglers can inadvertently • Granby Reservoir, Grand Lake, Shadow transport ANS on waders and in bait buckets and live Mountain Reservoir, Willow Creek Reservoir, wells Zebra and quagga mussels likely made their Tarryall Reservoir and Jumbo Reservoir all tested way to the Western USA on trailered watercraf Te positive for one zebra or quagga mussel veliger frst discovery west of the 100th Meridian was in Lake in 2008 Tere have been no verifed detections Mead in 2007 Te invasive quagga mussels found at any of these waters since Tey were all de- in Lake Mead in 2007 were 1,000 miles farther west listed per regional standards in 2014 and are now than any other known colony of quagga mussels at considered negative the time Te primary method of overland dispersal • Blue Mesa Reservoir tested positive for quagga of these mussels is through human-related activities, mussel eDNA in 2009, 2011 and 2012 by the especially trailered watercraf Given their ability U S Bureau of Reclamation Blue Mesa was to attach to hard surfaces and survive out of water de-listed per regional standards in 2014 and is for extended periods (30 days!), many infestations now negative have occurred by adult mussels hitching rides on watercraf Te microscopic larvae also can be In August 2017—Te Bureau of Reclamation detected transported in bilges, ballast water, live wells, or any quagga mussel veligers in a sample taken from Green other equipment that holds water Mountain Reservoir Green Mountain is listed as “Suspect” for the quagga mussel and is scheduled for Asian Clam Zebra Mussel Quagga Mussel de-listing in January 2021 pending there are no new verifed detections

© photo by elIzabeth broWn

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 95 New Zealand Mudsnails Current Status in Colorado: Found in various parts (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) of Colorado: Bear Canyon Creek, City of Boulder— Boulder Creek, Dry Creek (2), Chatfeld Reservoir, NZMS (Potamopyrgus Dinosaur NM—Green River, Gunnison River (East antipodarum) are small aquatic of Delta), Pike NF—South Platte River below Eleven snails native to fresh waters of Mile Dam, Eleven Mile Reservoir State Park, Jimmy New Zealand. Tey were frst Camp Creek Spinney Mountain Reservoir State Park, discovered in North America Charlie Meyer State Wildlife Area (Dream Stream), in the late 1980s in the Snake South Delaney Buttes Reservoir and East Delaney River, Idaho and Madison Buttes Reservoir in Delaney Buttes State Wildlife River, Montana. NZMS were Area, College Lake at CSU Fort Collins, Fountain frst found in Colorado in 2004. Creek in Colorado Springs, South Platte River in Tey are spread across the © PHOTO BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Denver, Uncompahgre River, 4Mile Canyon Creek, South Platte River and various Monument Lake, Trinidad Lake, Lake Capote. other locations across Colorado.

Identifcation: NZMS range in size from a grain of Fishhook Waterfea sand to 1/8 inch in length and are black or brown in (Cercopagis pengoi) Fishhook color. Te shell has about 5 ½ spirals. If the shell is Spiny Waterfea held tip up with the opening toward you, the opening (Bythotrephes is on the right. Tere is an longimanus) © COURTESY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT attached operculum (cover) OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY which can close of the Waterfeas are zooplankton aquatic crustaceans. Like opening. Spiny invasive mussels, the Habitat: Found in freshwater, brackish, or saline Bythotrephes and Ceropagis waters with almost any substrate. Populations in saline were introduced into the conditions produce fewer ofspring and grow more Great Lakes from ships’ slowly. Also tolerates a wide range of temperatures, ballast water coming from ranging from near freezing to 82°F. Eurasia. Unlike the feas dogs are known to carry, waterfeas are very diferent. Tey do not live outside Pathway of Introduction and Spread: New Zealand the water, and do not bite or harm people or pets. mudsnails are spread into new river systems primarily by humans, although they can be carried on the feet Identifcation: of dogs and wildlife. Anglers, boaters, researchers • Unique body shape: distinguished from other and others can carry NZMS to uninfested locations zooplankton by its long tail (70% of body is tail) on their boots and gear. Tey can survive up to 50 • Depending on age—the spine may contain 1–4 days on a damp surface, giving them ample time to barbs (the older the water fea the more barbs) be transferred from one body of water to another on • Head is mostly a single large black eye fshing gear. • Swimming antennae propels flea through the water, allowing travel between shallow and Impacts: NZMS compete with native invertebrates, deeper waters. including native mollusks, for space and food • Range in length from 0.4 to 1.6 mm, depending resources. NZMS may reduce the availability of native on sex (females are larger) and age invertebrate prey for fsh—particularly mayfies, caddis fies and chironomids. Tey are not a viable Habitat: food source themselves—their hard shell allows them • Found mostly in temperate freshwater lakes, can to pass through a fsh gut unharmed. tolerate brackish water • Most abundant in the summer and fall • Can tolerate temps between 4º–30ºC (39º–86ºF) and .04 to 8% salinity

96 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Pathway of Introduction and Spread: though in low alkalinity waters the leaves can appear • Eggs and adults are easily transported in: ballast straight (Natural Heritage Trust, 2003) tanks, bilge water, bait buckets, live wells, and on fshing lines, anchor lines, and nets Habitat: L. major prefers lakes, reservoirs, and slow • It only takes one adult or egg to start an moving rivers with silty or sandy bottoms L major is infestation also known to occur in wetlands, water courses, and • If female waterfleas die out of water, under riparian zones certain conditions they produce eggs that resist drying and freezing, which can establish a new Pathway of Spread: Probable pathways include infestation later aquarium release; intentional stocking for the plants oxygenation capabilities, and fragments stuck on Impacts: boats got transported to other areas (Nault, 2009) • Outcompete native juvenile fish for food, causing low survival rates, and because barbs stick in the Impacts: L. major is a popular aquarium and water throat, are unpalatable to juvenile fsh garden plant, and the ability to order this plant over • Avoid predation by larger fish by retreating to the internet and through mail order gives it the ability deeper waters during the day (10–20m) where to travel to all parts of the world (Natural Heritage they are less visible and ascending (0–10m) at Trust, 2003) It has escaped confnement and has been night where food is abundant and temperatures intentionally introduced on several occasions outside higher, increasing metabolism and growth rates of its native range In the locales to which it has been • Their long spines can cause them to become introduced, it has ofen become the dominant plant entangled on fshing lines and can clog eyelets of species, outcompeting both native and previously fshing rods established exotic species, in addition to displacing other species that depend on the ecosystem L. major Current Status in Colorado: has the potential to colonize large areas within a No known presence of either the Fishhook growing season by means of vegetative propagation, Waterfea (Cercopagis pengoi) or the Spiny Waterfea and is listed as a noxious weed in many parts of the (Bythotrephes longimanus) world (Nault, 2009)

Current Status in Colorado: Tis species is not Aquatic Nuisance Plants— established in the U S No verifed presence in Primary Species of Concern Colorado

African elodea (Lagarosiphon major) Native to Southern Africa and South Tropical Africa, and has been found in the regions of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, and South Africa Populations are established in New Zealand, Britain, Germany, and Ireland

Identifcation: L. major is a dioecious, perennial submerged aquatic plant with adventitious roots and rhizomes that attach the plant to the substrate Te brittle, sparsely branched stem can grow up to 20 feet long, is 3–5mm in diameter and curves like a ‘J’ towards the base Te dark green leaves are alternately spiraled around the stem, though ofen crowded towards the stem tip Te leaves are minutely toothed, 5–20mm long, 2–3mm wide and generally have tapered tips that curve down towards the stem, photo Courtesy robert vIdekI

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 97 or rise above the water’s surface on thread-like stems Te species is dioicous, although all USA populations appear male Fruits and seed are not produced in the USA It reproduces solely by stolons and stem fragments Brazilian egeria is commonly mistaken for the native elodea (Elodea canadensis) or common waterweed, as well as the exotic hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Use the following table to help tell the diference between the two species or contact your photo Courtesy leslIe J. mehrhoff, unIversIty of ConneCtICut, bugWood.org local herbarium for assistance with identifcation

Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) Habitat: Tis noxious weed is a submersed, Native to South America, regions of Brazil to coastal freshwater perennial plant found in both still and areas of Argentina and Uruguay Brazilian egeria is fowing waters including lakes, ponds and quiet a prohibited Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) It is streams Brazilian elodea tends to form dense not legal to possess this species within the State of monospecifc stands that can cover hundreds of acres Colorado If found, this species must be reported It prefers low light and tolerates variable water quality to CPW immediately Tis species was found in (turbidity, pollution, etc ) It can survive under ice for Colorado in 2017 Refer to the species distribution short periods but not prolonged freezing map (2019) in Problem Defnition Section of this document Pathway of Spread: • Boats; Fragments of the plant could attach to the Identifcation: Te plant grows mostly underwater underside of a boat or boat trailer but grows to form dense mats along the surface • It was originally introduced by the aquarium Leaves grow in whorls of three to six around the and water garden industry It was sold for its stem making a cylindrical shape, and the stems are oxygenating capabilities and for its attractive very leafy compared to the native elodea Te leaf fowers Once the plant’s been introduced into a edges appear smooth to the new habitat it can spread further without human bushy stem naked eye but the margins activity are minutely toothed, visible • Can be bought online. four leaves with low magnifcation A per whirl distinguishing characteristic Impacts: A highly invasive aggressive species that is the smooth midvein on the colonizes a variety of habitats underside of the leaf Small white fowers appear from Current Status in Colorado: Found in Colorado June through October Tey in 2017 at the Metro Wastewater District’s North have three glossy petals that long Treatment Pond complex in Brighton appear wrinkled, and foat on leaves IllustratIon Courtesy unIversIty of florIda

Plant Characteristics Brazilian elodea (exotic) Common elodea (native) Hydrilla (exotic) Leave in whorl 3–6 3–5 5–8 Leaf margins toothed Minutely, need magnifcation No teeth Coarse visible teeth Midvein Smooth Smooth 1–4 conical bumps, midvein red Flowers Glossy White White Petals translucent, white to reddish Reproductions Stolons, fragments Seeds, fragments, stolons Turions, stolons, fragments

98 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Impacts: Tese dense mats crowd out native species disrupt the food chain and displace native wildlife It also impedes water recreation such as boating, swimming and fshing

Current Status in Colorado: Present in Colorado, see (Appendix C) for the current list of waterbodies infested with EWM in 2019

© photos by elIzabeth broWn Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta)

Eurasian watermilfoil Native to Southeastern Brazil It is a small (Myriophyllum spicatum) free-foating fern that grows in clusters and develops into dense foating mats or Te highest priority aquatic noxious colonies in quiet water, undisturbed by weed in Colorado Tis plant is native wave action to Europe, Asia and Northern Africa It was most likely introduced through Identifcation: Te foating leaves of the nursery trade in the 1940s, but giant salvinia are oblong (0 5 to 1 5 inches possibly as early as the late 1880s Tis is a highly long) with a distinct midrib along which the leaf may aggressive species that can survive in a variety of fold forming a compressed chain-like appearance habitats and grows an average of 1 foot per week Leaves occur in whorls of three with two foating leaves and one submerged leaf Te entire plant is only Identifcation: about 1 to 2 inches in depth • Submerged, rooted, perennial • Long branching underwater stems Habitat: Trives in slow-moving, nutrient-rich, • Feathery leaves in whorls of 4–5 warm, freshwater • Leaves have 11–21 pairs of leaflets • Closely spaced Pathway of Spread: Boats, Trailers, recreational gear • 1/2 inch in length New plants are known to form from fragments that • Blunt or Flat Tip break of existing • Collapses out of water plants and also as dormant buds Habitat: break of nodes • Colonize a variety of systems Impacts: It is • Rivers, streams, creeks, ditches, canals known to impact • Lakes, reservoirs, ponds cultivated aquatic • Tolerates wide range of water conditions and crops, clog depths irrigations canals • Will grow long in 2 inches of water, and will grow © vICtor ramey, unIversIty of florIda, bugWood.org and drinking tall in 40 feet of water water lines, and foul hydroelectric plants Tis species impairs all forms of water-based recreation and has Pathway of Spread: disastrous efects on the natural communities Giant • Reproduction salvinia can completely cover waterways preventing the • Fragmentation passage of sunlight and oxygen that native plants, fsh, • Winter Buds insects, and other species require, as well as covering • When a water body is infested with EWM the open water that migrating waterfowl need to survive long strands can get tangled and caught on the propeller or engines on boats Boats can act as a Current Status in Colorado: No verifed presence pathway of spread because EWM can reproduce in Colorado by just a fragment

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 99 Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Native to Brazil and was introduced as an ornamental Native to Europe, Asia, and It is still very commonly used for water gardening and central Africa It was frst home ponds Tis species is notorious for clogging introduced in Florida in transportation systems and can colonize a wide 1958 for use in the aquarium variety of habitats industry It is currently considered by many to be Identifcation: Water hyacinth is a free-foating the worst aquatic weed in perennial plant that can grow to a height of 3 feet the USA taking the title away photo Courtesy leslIe J. mehrhoff, Seedlings root in mud and then break free and foat unIversIty of ConneCtICut, from Eurasian watermilfoil bugWood.org once mature Te mature plants are linked together by underwater stolons Te dark green succulent leave Identifcation: Hydrilla is a submerged, rooted, blades are circular to elliptical in shape attached to a perennial plant that forms dense colonies and can spongy, infated petiole All leaves are smooth, basal, grow to the surface in water over 20 feet deep and emerged Underneath the water is a thick, heavily Hydrilla branches profusely and afer reaching branched, dark fbrous root system Roots are feathery the surface it extends across it forming thick mats and typically more than 3 feet in length Te fowers Hydrilla can reproduce by fragmentation, from seeds, are large (2 to 3 inches) and attractive Tey can be and it also produces 1/4-inch turions at the leaf axils pale blue, lilac, or white with a yellow spot located and potato-like tubers attached to the roots in the on a terminal spike Te fowers bloom from June mud Leaves are blade-like about 1/8 inch and 3/8 through October inch long with small tooth margins Te underside of the leaf has a red midrib with one to four spines or Habitat: Eichornia crassipes inhabits slow-fowing conical bumps, making them feel rough Leaves are freshwaters Optimal growth occurs at water usually four to eight in a whorl Hydrilla produces temperatures of 28°–30°C tiny, translucent white to reddish fowers on long stalks Plants fower from June through October Pathway of Spread: Introduced as an ornamental plant, can be bought online Habitat: It has amazing reproductive capabilities that allow it to grow in almost any freshwater, in variable Impacts: Water hyacinth is a very aggressive invader conditions with either low or high nutrient amounts, and can form thick mats If these mats cover the entire or a wide temperature tolerance (68°–86°F) It is surface of the pond they can cause oxygen depletions able to frst establish itself in low-light deep waters, and fsh kills similar to Brazilian egeria, and then move towards the shallow banks Current Status in Colorado: Found in Alamosa, CO in (2006), and was found in Centennial, CO (detected Pathway of and eradicated in 2010) Spread: Boats; Fragments can get trapped on the propeller, engine, live wells, or any © photo by Jeff sChardt florIda d.e.p. compartment on the boat

Impacts: Hydrilla has an extremely rapid growth rate which quickly out competes and eliminates native species, forms surface mats that hinder recreation, navigation, and water intakes

Current Status in Colorado: No verifed presence in Colorado photo Courtesy leslIe J. mehrhoff, unIversIty of ConneCtICut, bugWood.org

100 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan out algae and providing choice mosquito larvae habitat Dense infestations also cause fooding and drainage problems, and its mats can restrict recreational activities

Current Status in Colorado: No verifed presence in Colorado

Parrotfeather Eurasian Watermilfoil photo Courtesy leslIe J. mehrhoff, unIversIty of Leafets in pairs of 20 to 30 Leafets in pairs of 12 to 20 ConneCtICut, bugWood.org Submerged leaves 0.6 to 1.4 inches long Submerged leaves 0.5 to 2.0 inches long Parrotfeather Submerged leaves 5 to 6 per whorl Submerged leaves 3 to 5 per whorl (Myriophyllum Emergent leaves 0.8 to 2 inches long with 16 to 18 leafets per leaf No emergent leaves aquaticum) Flowers April through July Flowers June through September Native to Fruits not known outside of native range Fruits are hard, segmented capsule the Amazon River in South America However, it can be found worldwide now It is thought that this plant was Yellow foating heart (Nymphoides peltata) introduced to North America around the 1800s as an Native to Asia and Europe ornamental species Identifcation: Identifcation: Parrotfeather has both submersed • Flowers are bright yellow with 5 petals, located and emergent leaves, with the submersed form above the surface of the water being easily mistaken for Eurasian waterflfoil • Leaves are circular or heart shaped (Myriophyllum spicatum) Use the below chart to • Leaves are alternately arranged on the stem but help distinguish between Eurasian watermilfoil and oppositely on the fower stalk parrotfeather Parrotfeather gets its name from its • Seeds are flat and oval, many seeds per capsule feather-like leaves which are arranged around the stem in whorls of four to six Submersed leaves are 0 6 Habitat: Tis perennial aquatic plant is most commonly to 1 4 inches long and have 20 to 30 divisions per leaf found in slow moving rivers, ponds, and lakes Te emergent leaves are 0 8 to 2 inches long and have 6 to 18 divisions per leaf Te bright green emergent Pathway of Spread: Cultivated as an ornamental leaves can be very stif and a darker green than the species for ponds submersed leaves Te emergent stems and leaves are the most distinctive trait of parrotfeather, as they can Impacts: Yellow grow up to a foot above the water surface and look foating heart almost like small fr trees can create dense mats that shade Habitat: As it prefers a warmer climate, it is chiefy out native aquatic found in the southern parts of the United States plants, decrease

Parrotfeather is a freshwater plant which prefers oxygen levels, Courtesy mIChIgan department of natural resourCes shallow waters less than 5 feet; it can be found in lakes, increase mosquito ponds, and streams breeding habitat, and impede boating activity, fshing, and swimming Fragmented pieces of plants can Pathway of Spread: Cultivated as an ornamental establish new populations and seeds are engineered species for ponds to disperse by attaching to the feathers of waterfowl

Impacts: Parrotfeather seriously alters the physical Current Status in Colorado: No verifed presence and chemical characteristics of lakes and streams in Colorado Its infestations alter aquatic ecosystems by shading

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 101 Appendix E—CDA’s Noxious Weed List Colorado Noxious Weeds (Including Watch List), efective June, 2020:

List A Species (25) List B Species (38) Common Name Scientifc Name Common Name Scientifc Name African rue peganum harmala Absinth wormwood artemisia absinthium Bohemian knotweed fallopia x bohemicum Black henbane hyoscyamus niger Camelthorn alhagi maurorum Bouncingbet saponaria ofcinalis Common crupina Crupina vulgaris Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Cypress spurge euphorbia cyparissias Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria Chinese clematis Clematis orientalis Elongated mustard brassica elongata Common tansy tanacetum vulgare Flowering rush butomus umbellatus Common teasel dipsacus fullonum Giant knotweed fallopia sachalinensis Cutleaf teasel dipsacus laciniatus Giant reed arundo donax Dalmatian toadfax, linaria dalmatica Giant salvinia salvinia molesta broad-leaved Hairy willow-herb epilobium hirsutum Dalmatian toadfax, linaria genistifolia narrow-leaved Hydrilla hydrilla verticillata Dame’s rocket hesperis matronalis Japanese knotweed fallopia japonica Difuse knapweed Centaurea difusa Meadow knapweed Centaurea x moncktonii Eurasian watermilfoil myriophyllum spicatum Mediterranean sage salvia aethiopis Hoary cress Cardaria draba Medusahead taeniatherum coput-medusae Houndstongue Cynoglossum ofcinale Myrtle spurge euphorbia myrsinites Jointed goatgrass aegilops cylindrica Orange hawkweed hieracium aurantiacum Leafy spurge euphorbia esula Parrotfeather myriophyllum aquaticum Mayweed chamomile anthemis cotula Purple loosestrife lythrum salicaria Moth mullein verbascum blattaria Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Musk thistle Carduus nutans Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata Oxeye daisy leucanthemum vulgare Tansy ragwort senecio jacobaea Perennial pepperweed lepidium latifolium Yellow starthistle Centaurea solsitialis Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Russian knapweed rhaponticum repens Russian-olive elaeagnus angustifolia Salt cedar tamarix. ramosissima Salt cedar t. chinensis Scentless chamomile tripleurospermum inodorum Scotch thisle onopordum acanthium Scotch thisle o. tauricum Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe l. ssp. micranthos Spotted x difuse knapweed Centaurea x psammogena hybrid Parrotfeather Sulfur cinquefoil potentilla recta photo by alIson fox, unIversIty of florIda Wild caraway Carum carvi

102 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan List B Species (38) continued Watch List Species (19) Common Name Scientifc Name Common Name Scientifc Name Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus Baby’s breath gypsophila paniculata Yellow toadfax linaria vulgaris Caucasian bluestem bothriochloa bladhii Yellow x Dalmatian toadfax linaria vulgaris x l. dalmatica Common bugloss anchusa ofcinalis hybrid Common reed phragmites australis Garden loosetrife lysimachia vulgaris Garlic mustard alliaria petiolate Flowering Hairy willow-herb rush Himalayan blackberry rubus armeniacus Hoary alyssum berteroa incana l. Meadow hawkweed hieracium caespitosum Onionweed asphodelus fstulosus Siberian elm ulmus pumila Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius photo by leslIe J. mehrhoff, unIversIty of ConneCtICut photo by rIChard old, WWW.xIdservICes.Com Swainsonpea sphaerophysa salsula Syrian beancaper zygophyllum fabago List C Species (16) Tree of Heaven ailanthus altissima Common Name Scientifc Name Ventenata grass ventenata dubia Bulbous bluegrass poa bulbosa White bryony bryonia alba Chicory Cichorium intybus Yellow bluestem bothriochloa ischaemum Common burdock arctium minus Yellow fag iris Iris psuedacorus Common mullein verbascum thapsus Common St. Johnswort hypericum perforatum Downy brome, cheatgrass bromus tectorum Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Halogeton halogeton glomeratus Johnsongrass sorghum halepense Perennial sowthistle sonchus arvensis Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Puncturevine tribulus terrestris Quackgrass elymus repens Redstem flaree erodium cicutarium Velvetlead abutilon theophrasti Giant salvinia Wild proso millet salvia aethiopis photo by kenneth CalCote, mIssIssIppI department of agrICulture and CommerCe

State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan 103 photo by steve deWey, utah state unIversIty

Purple loosestrife

Quagga Mussels

© Jason goekler, kdWp

104 State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan

CPW Invasive Species Program 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216 303-291-7295 • [email protected] www.cpw.state.co.us