A Comparative Policy Analysis on Washington and Oregon Management Policies for Zebra Mussel Infestations within the Columbia River Basin

Item

Title

Eng A Comparative Policy Analysis on Washington and Oregon Management Policies for Zebra Mussel Infestations within the Columbia River Basin

Date

2009

Creator

Eng Cantin, Jesse Joseph

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

A Comparative Policy Analysis on Washington and Oregon Management
Policies for Zebra Mussel Infestations within the Columbia River Basin.

By
Jesse Joseph Rutherford Cantin

A Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
June 2009

i

2009 by Jesse J.R. Cantin. All rights reserved.

ii

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Jesse Joseph Rutherford Cantin

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________________
Martha Henderson
Member of the Faculty

________________________________
Date

iii

ABSTRACT

A Comparative Policy Analysis on Washington and Oregon Management
Policies for Zebra Mussel Infestations within the Columbia River Basin.

Jesse Joseph Rutherford Cantin

Invasive species are costing the world billions of dollars economically,
environmentally, and ecologically. Whether they are outcompeting natives, disrupting
food chains, or killing humans, successful management encompassing all invasive
species must occur. Which management approaches are effective? The Columbia River
flows through several jurisdictional and political boundaries. How do two states
manage invasive species within the Columbia River Basin? This comparative policy
analysis uses the management of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) within the
states of Oregon and Washington as a case study to answer this question. Both Oregon
and Washington have strengths and weaknesses over the neighboring state’s
management, however, currently both states are not effectively collaborating with one
another. Increased coordination between Oregon and Washington must take place if
the Columbia River Basin is to be kept clear of the zebra mussel. Invasive species are
not bound by political and geographic boundaries; therefore successful management
can only occur if there is coordination across state and national boundaries.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Photos, Tables, and Figures
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Columbia River Basin
Zebra Mussel
Ecological Impacts
Biological Impacts
Economic Impacts
Human and Wildlife Health Impacts
Recreational Impacts
Washington State Management
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Invasive Species Council
Oregon State Management
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Invasive Species Council
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Federal Management
National Invasive Species Council
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Analysis
Oregon versus Washington
Recommendations
Conclusion
List of Acronyms
Literature Cited

v
vi
1
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
16
17
18
21
22
25
32
33
34
43
45
47
48

v

List of Photos, Tables, and Figures

Photo 1: A “Druse” of Zebra Mussels

6

Photo 2: Dead Zebra Mussels on Lake Erie Beach

9

Table 1: Washington Monitored Lakes of ’97

13

Figure 1: Cost-share Grant Requests and
Available Funds for State Management Plans

28

Figure 2: Status of State ANS Management Plans, 2005

31

vi

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all people who have helped and inspired me during my thesis.
First and foremost I want to offer my sincerest gratitude towards my faculty reader,
Martha Henderson. Her feedback, support and encouragement made this thesis
happen. To other Master of Environmental Studies (MES) faculty, Ted Whitesell, Paul
Butler, and Peter Dorman – thank you for your help in the refinement of my thesis. All
four of you directed me down a feasible path.
All my MES classmates have helped this journey become a great event. Thank you for
being there and providing support of all kinds. As much as I’m going to miss our
Thursday adventures, I will always love you all and look forward to everyone’s futures!
To my good friends outside of the program, I can’t express what you have meant to me.
You have kept me from going completely insane and have all contributed something
vital. Annie (Gangster!), thanks for keeping me down to Earth, your conversations have
always meant the most to me. Alex (Peterson!), although I don’t see you as much as I
would like, I can always count on you for a laugh. Rebecca (Maddog!), your intelligence
and kindness helped me pull through some of the most trying times of this project.
Thank you for always being there and never losing faith in me.
My deepest gratitude goes to my mother. Her everlasting love to me has been the
greatest thing I’ve ever received. I would not be the man I am today without her
endless praise and encouragement. She has inspired me more than any other individual
will ever achieve and I love her for this. Never have I had to wonder whether she was
there to provide support if I encountered difficulties. Her wisdom and knowledge helped
motivate me to achieve a Masters degree at a young age. I appreciate everything she
has ever done and sacrificed for me. I love you, mom.

vii

Introduction
Invasive species cost ecosystems, economics, and social environments billions of
dollars each year. Entire ecosystems and native life forms are susceptible to invasive
species intrusions. Invasive plants, pathogens and parasites are causing crop yields to
plummet and livestock to sicken. Invasive species disrupt many natural habitats,
threatening ecosystems as they choke out native species. Invasives cause serious
ecological disturbances, placing extreme pressure on native plants and animals. For
example, the non-native brown tree snake has nearly decimated the avian population of
Guam, reducing the total number of species from twelve to two, each with a remaining
population of less than 200. Kudzu, an invasive vine, has taken over natural areas in
Southeastern United States, growing out of control in the hot, humid summers, frequent
rainfall, and temperate winters. West Nile disease, an invasive pathogen, has claimed
over 1000 human lives in the United States alone. The zebra mussel, an aquatic
invasive, has established itself throughout the freshwaters of the American Midwest,
impacting the region ecologically, biologically, and economically. Rich, diverse
communities of native life are becoming barren, desolate areas, comprised of exotics
that are of no benefit to the local wildlife. Ultimately, invasive species alter habitats,
reduce biodiversity, and cause costly management requirements. As globalization,
travel, and climate change continue to rise, invasive damages will only be exacerbated.
As the fourth largest watershed in North America, the Columbia River Basin
flows through several states and two countries. The size of the Basin causes the water
1

to flow through several jurisdictional and political boundaries. Due to its size and
spread across state and national boundaries, the Columbia River Basin has several
managers. The river is the boundary for the two states, Oregon and Washington (United
States Geographic Names, 1980).
How do all the varying jurisdictions manage invasive species within the Columbia
River Basin? To answer this question, this paper examines Washington and Oregon
state management of one specific invasive, the zebra mussel within the State
boundaries. The primary goal of the analysis is to locate policy, differences between
state laws and regulations, research and management funding levels, and gaps in
scientific funding. The comparison also addresses different/similar management
designs and their implications. How effective is the current management of the
Columbia River Basin with regard to invasive species? Who is benefitting? What are the
costs associated with the existent policy? Finally, are there cheaper, more cost-effective
methods available for the management of invasive species within the Columbia River
Basin? This paper offers recommendations and conclusions following a comparative
analysis of both management levels.

2

The Columbia River Basin
The Columbia River Basin is a crucial resource for the Pacific Northwest. The
Basin includes hydrological, cultural, economical, biological, ecological, recreational, and
historical resources. A half million acres of dry yet fertile land in Washington are
irrigated with Columbia River waters. Crops such as potatoes, beans, and orchard fruit
are a small percentage of the total agriculture production of the Basin. The river system
has hundreds of dams, providing hydroelectricity, flood control, navigation, stream flow
regulation, and the storage and delivery of stored waters. Ecologically, it is vital as the
American portion of the Columbia River and its tributaries are home to myriad
anadromous fish such as the various salmon species that have been essential to the
stream’s ecology. Culturally, the salmon have been a central aspect to the Native
Americans, providing them with food and sustenance for several thousand years
(National Research Council, 2004).
Over time, the ability of the Basin to maintain its physical and social capabilities
has changed. The Columbia River has been so greatly altered, that it is almost
unrecognizable. Life forms in the river are beginning to die. Biodiversity is now
drastically reduced and only a few select species will survive if critical issues are not
immediately addressed. Similar to the Basin’s salmon population, most life forms of the
Columbia River will soon face extinction. Human modification of the landscape has
altered the Columbia River Basin so extensively, that habit has become degraded or
damaged, further weakening its susceptibility towards an invasive species
3

establishment. As global climate patterns shift, the distribution of species is bound to
change. The Columbia River will become increasingly susceptible to non-natives and
current natives will find themselves unsuitable to the new landscape. If these acts
continue, our crucial resource will end up a desolate, empty river system, void of
biodiversity (Independent Scientific Advisory Board, 2007).

Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
The destruction of the zebra mussel has attracted a great deal of attention in the
recent decades. Originally from the Caspian Sea within Russia, it was introduced to the
Great Lakes’ region during the mid ‘80s through an exchange of ballast water by one or
more transoceanic ships (Columbian, 2002). Appearing initially within Lake St. Claire,
the connecting lake to the two Great Lakes, Huron and Erie, the temperate, freshwater
species quickly found the plankton-abundant habitat to be quite suitable (United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002). Using river currents and the boating industry,
the extraordinarily prolific and costly invasive quickly (within five years) established
itself in all five of the Great Lakes and several major rivers, including the Mississippi,
Tennessee, Hudson and Ohio River (Nijhuis, 2007). It did not take long to recognize the
economic and ecological factors that were at risk.
Ecological Impacts
The female zebra mussel, although some as small as the period at the end of this
sentence, can produce more than a million eggs annually (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
4

Force (ANSTF), 2009a). Each individual mussel can filter a liter or more of water every
day, consuming considerable amounts of microscopic organisms, algae, and other edible
particles. A population of zebra mussels could filter an entire Great Lake in one day.
This might appear to be a positive factor and although the clarity of the water might
increase, the microscopic material that is being consumed is also the food source for a
myriad of aquatic invertebrates, which in turn reduces the food for larval and juvenile
fishes. The zebra mussel can quickly disrupt an entire freshwater’s ecological food web
(USACE, 2002; Wu & Culver, 1991).
Due to the vast amount of water filtered by the zebra mussel and their high
body-fat content, zebra mussels are quite susceptible to the accumulation of PCBs and
other toxic contaminants. They can acquire up to ten times more in pollutants than the
native mussels (Gulf of Main Research Institute (GMRI), 2005; ANSTF, 2009a).
Transferred directly up the food chain to the waterfowl and fish that eat them, this
causes a great potential to significantly affect contaminant cycling within the Great
Lakes, a region where health advisories already exist for consumption of many species
of fish (ANSTF, 2009a).
Biological Impacts
In addition to ecological impacts, there are also several biological impacts of the
zebra mussel. The zebra mussel, like other mussel species, attaches themselves to hard
surfaces. However, unlike other mussel species, it will readily attach themselves to the
other native mussels (Parker, 1998). This process, known as bio-fouling, can significantly
5

affect the populations of the native mussels. Although some natives are resistant to
bio-fouling, they become more susceptible to other population delimitating factors,
such as extreme water temperatures, lack of food, or parasites and disease. It is
possible that the rarer of the native species will become completely eliminated with the
intense competition (Sea Grant, 2001).

Photo 1: A “Druse” of Zebra Mussels (ANSTF, 2009a).
Economic Impacts
Due to their ability to colonize hard substrates in high densities, the zebra mussel
is the cause of many expensive problems, becoming one of the most troublesome
aquatic invasive species. Once a single mussel has settled, others quickly form, settling
around or near the older, larger mussels. The expansion is almost exponential, forming
a clump called a “druse” (See Photo 1) (Claudi and Mackie, 1993). Their affinity towards
hard surfaces causes pipes and other underwater openings to be highly susceptible
towards infiltration and clogging. For example, water intake structures of multiple
6

power and municipal water plants are at high risk of becoming quite fouled, causing a
reduction in water pumping capabilities and occasional shutdowns. For example, in
Monroe, Michigan, zebra mussels clogged the sole intake pipe of the town’s water
treatment plant, forcing a two-day shutdown of Monroe’s schools, industries and
businesses (Walker, 1991). This reduction in drinking water can negatively impact cities
whose primary water source is these fresh water reservoirs. Factories and industries
that pull in water for cooling are also detrimentally affected (O'Neill, C. 1997). Other
surfaces susceptible to zebra mussel infiltration include ship and boat hulls, marine
structures, grates and navigational buoys.
Since its introduction in North America, the zebra mussel has cost the United
States billions in preventative and management costs. In the United States,
congressional researchers estimated the mussel cost the power industry alone $3.1
billion in the 1993-1999 period. Its total impact on industries, businesses, and
communities reached over $5 billion. In Canada, Ontario Hydro has reported zebra
mussel impacts of $376,000 annually per generating station (New York Sea Grant
1994a).
Human and Wildlife Health Impacts
In addition to the clogging of pipes and devouring of most available microscopic
food supply, the zebra mussel may present a health hazard by increasing human and
wildlife exposure to deadly organic pollutants (PCBs and PAHs). Research has shown
that the zebra mussel can accumulate pollutants more than 300,000 times greater than
7

concentrations of the environment (GMRI, 2005). The pollutants are then deposited as
pseudofeces, loose pellets of mucous mixed with particulate matter that they filter from
the water. This matter can significantly lower the oxygen levels, raising the pH to acidic
levels and generating toxic byproducts. If scavenging animals eat or absorb these
pseudofeces, the pollutants may be passed up the food chain.
Recreational Impacts
Recreation-based industries and activities along zebra mussel infestations are
also affected by the mussels which take up residence on the unprotected docks,
breakwalls, buoys, boat bottoms, engine outdrives, and beaches. As zebra mussels clog
cooling water inlets and colonize boat hulls, the boats’ steerage can be affected and
may experience both drag and clogged engines causing overheating or complete failure
of the system (ANSTF, 2009a; USACE, 2002).
Both swimmers and divers are also negatively impacted. As the zebra mussels
coat the beaches, the sharp-edged mussels can quickly become a nuisance to the bare
feet of humans (See Photo 2). By autumn of 1989, extensive deposits of zebra mussel
shells were on many Lake Erie beaches. Divers, who typically are attracted to the
underwater features such as shipwrecks and aquatic geography, are affected as the hard
surface-attaching zebra mussel quickly obscures the attributes of the aquatic terrain
with its vast numbers.
Zebra mussels are one of the most dangerous aquatic invasive species. They
affect the ecological food web, disrupt recreational activities, and threaten native
8

species. The zebra mussel is costing billions to manage. State and Federal agencies are
working to help contain and manage the zebra mussel and other aquatic nuisance
species threat.

Photo 2: Dead zebra mussels washed up on Lake Erie beach (NISC, 2009).

Washington State Management of Zebra Mussel
RCW 77.60.130 defines the term aquatic nuisance species (ANS) as a “nonnative
aquatic plant or animal species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native
species, the ecological stability or infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, or
recreational activities on such waters” (Washington State Legislature, 2007). Taking
residence in more than 20 states and two Canadian provinces, the zebra mussel is
considered an ANS (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2001a).
Inhabiting 22 states, the zebra mussel has yet to become established in Washington
State. However, this does not mean the state should be lax in the management of the

9

mussel. Spending millions to prevent inhabitation is cheaper than spending billions to
manage and eradicate it.
In 1996, the development of a state management plan was called for in Section
1204 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (Appendix A), which provides an
opportunity for federal cost–share support for the implementation of state plans
approved by the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Management actions
are undertaken and funded by the responsible state agencies (Public Law, 1996). The
agencies responsible are Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, and Washington Invasive Species Council.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was one of the forerunners of the
invasive prevention movement within the state. Taking on the responsibility of the
development of the required state action plan, the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance
Species Planning Committee was formed with WDFW assigned as the lead agency to
coordinate the drafting of the required state plan (WDFW, 2001a). This committee
consisted of Department of National Resources (DNR), Department of Energy (DOE),
Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB), and WDFW representatives for the purpose of
fostering state, federal, tribal, and private cooperation to prevent the introduction of
ANS. Published in 1998, the committee completed The Washington State Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plan, an attempt to coordinate all ANS management
actions, especially those relating to ANS animals. The coordinated efforts contained
10

within the plan were designed to reduce the impacts on Washington’s environment,
economy, and human health through enhanced early detection and rapid response
capabilities (2001a).
During 2001, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2007) began to
establish a network of trained volunteers throughout the state that would help conduct
surveys for the inch-long mussels, which are easily identified by their alternating dark
and light stripes (WDFW, 2001b). Volunteers typically consisted of boat owners and
waterfront property owners. Shoreline property owners would be asked to suspend
special PVC pipe sampling kits in the water and make routine checks for the attachment
of zebra mussels. Other volunteers were needed to walk beaches and shoreline, looking
for mussels attached to rocks or other hard surfaces. Volunteers were also asked to
help provide substrate monitoring data of the zebra mussel by hanging a PVC pipe from
a dock, pier, or other support, periodically checking the pipe for attached invasives.
WDFW has now initiated volunteer monitoring programs in several lakes and along the
Columbia and Snake Rivers, requiring that out of state participants in fishing contests to
undergo boat inspections. This early detection through sample monitoring greatly
increases the chances WDFW could control and possibly eradicate new zebra mussel
infestations. Washington State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Inspectors check some of the
boats that are commercially hauled into the state at the ports of entry, but not all
haulers are required to stop. WDFW is increasing boater education efforts, and
inspections of privately hauled recreational boats being transported from out of state.
Zebra mussels have been prohibited in Washington since 2002, but now that
11

zebra mussels are beginning to appear in some western states, officers have pursued
stronger action against contaminated vehicles. In 2007, WDFW enforcement officers
shifted from warnings to citations, issuing their first citation in October to two out-ofstate trucking companies hauling large boats to the Pacific Coast that were found
contaminated with zebra mussels. One truck from Ontario and the other from Iowa
were both spotted during Washington State Patrol commercial vehicle inspections at a
Washington-Idaho port-of-entry weigh station east of Spokane (WDFW, 2007). This
shift in protocol should hopefully help keep Washington’s waters free of an invasive
species that threatens native fish and wildlife. Mike Cenci, WDFW deputy chief of
enforcement, hopes that these citations (up to $5,000) will raise awareness,
demonstrating “that this state looks at invasive species very seriously – once a species
like this gets into our waters, it is very unlikely we can contain it” (2007, p. 2).
Washington Department of Ecology
In 1997, the Lake Water Quality Assessment Program was initiated by
Washington’s Department of Ecology (2009). Working in cooperation with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the program began monitoring for zebra mussels in 30
selected lakes (See Table 1) throughout Washington. This program was appended to an
existing lake monitoring process where volunteers would measure the lake’s water
quality twice monthly. The zebra mussel monitoring was conducted by dropping an
attached brick approximately ten feet into the water. If the lake was inhabited, zebra
mussel veligers (young free-floating offspring) would drift onto the brick, attaching
12

themselves to the hard surface, allowing them to be readily seen as the brick is drawn
from the water.
Washington DOE’s Lake Water Quality Assessment Program was launched as an
ongoing nation-wide effort to help maintain, monitor, and protect watersheds from
initial or further infiltration of the invasive zebra mussels (2009). Although there has
been no observation of zebra mussels west of the continental divide, they have been
found in boat bilges as far west as Canada and many scientists believe their arrival in the
Pacific Northwest is imminent.

Alice (King)

Bosworth (Snohomish)

Clear (Spokane)

Crawfish (Okanogan)

Curlew (Ferry)

Deep (Stevens)

Gravelly (Pierce)

Haven (Mason)

Hicks (Thurston)

Ki (Snohomish)

Limerick (Mason)

Long (Kitsap)

Long (Thurston)

Loon (Stevens)

Mason (Mason)

Nahwatzel (Mason)

Newman (Spokane)

Palmer (Okanogan)

Phillips (Mason)

Roesiger (north arm) (Snohomish)

Roesiger (south arm) (Snohomish)

Samish (east arm) (Whatcom) Sawyer (King)

Spanaway (Pierce)

Tapps (Pierce)

Thomas (Stevens)

Wenatchee (Chelan)

Wildcat (Kitsap)

Wooten (Mason)

Wye (Kitsap)

Table 1: Washington monitored lakes of 1997
(Washington Department of Ecology, 2009)

Washington DOE’s zebra mussel monitoring program was primarily volunteerbased and is currently unfunded. DOE believes a federal grant is essential to expand
and implement a properly maintained state-wide zebra mussel monitoring program.
Federal funding would allow DOE to monitor additional waters using a variety of
“sophisticated monitoring techniques” (2009). These sophisticated measures were not
described in any depth. With the lack of funding, lake monitoring was discontinued in
13

2000 and the volunteer monitoring component lasted an additional year. DOE still files
data from volunteers who have chosen to continue, but there is no longer an active
recruitment of volunteers (Global Change Master Directory, 1999). Currently,
Washington’s DOE does not have any state-wide monitoring or assessment plan for
zebra mussels.
Washington Invasive Species Council
In 2006, originating from the engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5385, the
Washington Invasive Species Council (WISC, 2009) was developed to help provide policy
direction, planning, and coordination to individuals or organizations engaged in the
prevention, detection, and eradication of invasive species (WISC, 2007). As stated in
Section 5 of Bill 5385, the Council was required to create and submit a statewide
strategic plan for addressing invasive species to legislature in 2007 (Washington State
Legislature, 2006). This plan was “designed to build upon local, state, and regional
efforts, while serving as a forum for invasive species education and communication”
(WISC, 2009). The Council is made up of a representative group of experts from several
organizations including but not limited to DNR, USFWS, DOE, WDFW, Department of
Administration (DOA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (WISC, 2007). This
coalition’s vision is to sustain Washington’s human, plant, and animal communities by
preventing the introduction, dispersion, and advancement of invasives.
The WISC was successful in its development of the 2008 strategic plan,
14

completing and releasing Invaders at the Gate – 2008 Strategic Plan near the end of
2007. The strategic plan outlined several recommendations for both short- and longterm specific action items. With the majority of the Washingtonians completely
unaware of the threat of invasive species, the Council realizes that education and
outreach programs are one of the most important lines of defense for invasive control
and prevention. The Council states that everyone has a stake in reducing the harmful
effects of invading plants and animals and that ultimately, the success of Washington’s
strategic plan hinges on the collaborative efforts of public agencies and active
participation by the public (WISC, 2007).
WISC plans to build on the existing and successful models set forth by the
noxious weed boards and other significant work that has been accomplished by both
the private and public agencies and organizations (WISC, 2007). Working with existing
models, the state’s effectiveness at minimizing the effects of invasive species should be
more easily accomplished. One of the most important recommendations that WISC
calls for is the increase and enhancement of communication across all entities: state,
federal, tribal, private, public, and any other stakeholders. This recommendation would
ensure that coordinated approaches are supported and tools are accessible to address
invasive species issues. Current communication channels between sectors need to be
enhanced to facilitate rapid response and stronger coordination. Time is precious when
dealing with invasives. If managers do not respond quickly and efficiently, the tougher it
becomes to stop the introduction, colonization, and naturalization of an invasive
species.
15

State managers are important to the success of invasive species management.
WDFW, WDOE, and WISC are a few agencies that have made significant contributions
towards state level management. This type of management is not feasible at the federal
level. Each state must have agencies similar to Washington’s if it is to implement
effective invasive management policy.

Oregon State Management of Zebra Mussel
On the opposing side of the Columbia River, several agencies have kept Oregon
State’s waters clear of the zebra mussel. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Oregon Invasive Species Council, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
have all worked on management plans and policy similar to Washington State. These
agencies realize that they cannot be lax in the management of the zebra mussel.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Over the past 30 years, the State of Oregon has noticed that its landscape has
changed, affecting not only the fish and wildlife populations, but human use as well.
Seeing that past conservation efforts had primarily been crisis-driven, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) established a goal of a strategic and
comprehensive approach to address species and their habitats across broad landscapes
and local sites (ODFW, 2006). In 2006, ODFW completed their goal of creating the first
overarching state strategy towards the management of fish and wildlife and the habitat
they live in. The Oregon Conservation Strategy helped refine several conservation
efforts within Oregon, creating a conceptual framework for long-term conservation
16

efforts of Oregon’s native plants and wildlife (2006).
This plan is quite similar to Invaders at the Gate – 2008 Strategic Plan,
Washington’s conservation plan (WISC, 2007). These conservation plans are extremely
valuable, as they address several key points such as education, outreach, increased
communication, efficiency, and coordination between invasive management entities
and the pinpointing of areas where conservation activities would have the greatest
benefit. These conservation plans highlight ways to expand, enhance, and improve
conservation work. Instead of creating more laws and regulations that further hinder
the management of invasives, these strategic plans work effectively to interweave
themselves with existing law and stature, encouraging voluntary action and
collaboration by both private landowners and public land users (ODFW, 2006).
Oregon Invasive Species Council
Oregon’s Invasive Species Council (OISC), similar to Washington’s Invasive
Species Council, also originated out of legislature (Oregon State Legislature, 2007). OISC
began official business at the beginning of 2002, four years prior to Washington’s
council. The Council, in a similar fashion to Washington’s, consists of several members
that represent agencies with leading roles in invasive species management: Oregon
Department of Agriculture (ODOA), Portland State University (PSU), and Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The purpose of the OISC is to conduct a coordinated
and comprehensive effort to prevent the spread or introduction of new invasives and
effectively manage, reduce, or eliminate invasives that have already been established
17

within Oregon (ODFW, 2005).
The Council’s mission is carried out through four primary functions: “a.) create,
maintain, and publicize a system for invasive species sightings; b.) enhance awareness of
invasive species through outreach and education efforts; c.) develop and maintain a
statewide plan to deal with invasive species; and d.) administer a trust account to fund
outreach and education, and eradication and control projects. The Council also
develops a list of 100 most dangerous invaders threatening Oregon” (OISC, 2007).
Although the OISC was not entirely successful with all of its goals and efforts to
secure funds and donations to the Trust Fund Account were not possible in 2007
without the presence of an OISC Coordinator, it was completely successful at excluding
invasive species from Oregon in 2007 (OISC, 2007). Working with ODFW, USDA Forest
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Port of Portland, Bureau of Indian Affairs – Warm
Springs, and other government, nonprofit, and private entities, the OISC helped sponsor
and launch a “Stop the Invasion” statewide campaign against invasive species.
Occurring on Earth Day (April 22), this event is the first-of-its kind, incorporating a
documentary, publications, volunteer opportunities, a coordinated effort to identify,
prevent and control invasive species and research to gauge the awareness and attitudes
of Oregonians toward the invasive problem (OISC, 2008).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Although Oregon’s history of environmental regulation dates back to the 1930’s,
the Oregon Department of Environment Quality (ODEQ) was not established until 1969.
18

ODEQ became officially recognized as an independent state agency and was charged
with cleaning up and protecting the state’s water and air (ODEQ, 2009). ODEQ’s vision is
to work cooperatively with all Oregonians for a healthy, sustainable environment,
promoting several cultural values, including: environmental results, public services,
partnerships, diversity, economic growth through quality environment and more.
In 2007, Senate Bill 643 was passed, a modification of Oregon’s previous Ballast
Water Program, creating Oregon’s Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task
Force (Oregon State Legislature, 2007b). The Task Force was formed out of growing
concern over the potential pathways of non-native species introductions associated
with shipping traffic. The Task Force continues the responsibilities of the previous
Ballast Water Task Force, but has a new mandate to investigate a larger range of ANS.
Members of the Task Force are appointed by the ODEQ director and include
representatives from Washington and California, federal agencies, maritime industry,
and the environmental and academic communities. Under Oregon’s Senate Bill 643’s
objectives and responsibilities, the Task Force is directed to study and make
recommendations that prevent ANS associated with shipping-related transport into
Oregon waters. Investigating possible changes or modifications to current ballast water
regulations that may include: shipping industry compliance, practicable and costeffective ballast water treatment technologies, and developing appropriate standards
for the discharge of treated ballast water into waters of Oregon are a few
recommendations (2007b; ODEQ, 2008a).
The Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force has been
19

successful. Implementation of stricter ballast water requirements, a recommendation
to the 2009 Oregon Legislature, will bring Oregon’s ballast water requirements to be in
alignment with California and Washington’s preventative measures (ODEQ, 2008b). All
states need to collaborate to effectively prevent the spread of invasives such as the
zebra mussel. Several Task Force recommendations to ODEQ bolstered efforts to halt
the arrival and spread of ANS, thus preventing further degradation of existing
ecosystems and the displacement of native species.
Some recommendations to regulate Oregon’s ballast water reporting system
include (ODEQ, 2008c):
Amendment of state statutes to provide ODEQ with the authority to board
and inspect regulated vessels, audit ballast water records, and collect ballast
water samples.
Update the state’s penalties to ballast water regulations. By raising the
maximum penalty amount, Oregon would be brought in line with similar
regulations to Washington and California.
Request supplemental funding to pay for the expenses of a strengthened
ballast water regulatory system.
Request additional funding through federal monies or grants to conduct a
more thorough monitoring of Oregon waters. Specifically, the water that is
part of the shipping paths and susceptible to aquatic invasive species. A
systematic survey of this scope has not been completed since 2001.
The 2008 Task Force has encouraged ODEQ to prepare and administer a
voluntary hull-husbandry survey for commercial vessels operating in Oregon waters.
Additionally, it was recommended that ODEQ’s Ballast Water Program consolidate and
clarify ballast water report forms to enhance vessel compliance efforts. Currently, there
20

are conflicting definitions for vessels that are subject to the Oregon Ballast Water
Management Program and these conflicts are confusing for all parties and have
complicated outreach to the shipping industry. The ODEQ would work closely with the
state of Washington to develop more efficient, coordinated management of inter-port
operations on the Columbia River as well as help better characterize bio-fouling, the
growth of animals and plants on the surface of submerged objects, risk in Oregon
waters (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 1952). Finally, the Task Force
recommended that the ODEQ further refine and develop its rules regarding ballast
water discharge standards, standardizing them with neighboring states’ (Washington
and California) standards, until a federal program is established in the near future
(ODEQ, 2008b & 2008c).
Similar to Washington, Oregon’s state managers have played a crucial role in the
invasive management. Without the managers listed above, both states would have
severely limited invasive policy. However, state management is not the only level of
management that should occur. Federal management is also vital to a successful
management program.

Federal Management of Invasive Species
Federal managers have brought national leadership to the invasive species
threat. The National Invasive Species Council has helped create a coordinated national
effort to address invasive species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) was
21

given the responsibility to develop and implement a national program to help prevent
the introduction of and to control the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Finally, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) worked across state and federal jurisdictions to
develop effective statewide aquatic nuisance species management. It is the Federal
management that has helped and allowed the other stakeholders and agencies to
develop effect invasive policy.
National Invasive Species Council
In response to the urgings of farmers, ranchers, scientists, and state officials the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was established by President Clinton on
February 3, 1999 by Executive Order 13112 (NISC, 2008 &Executive Order No. 13112,
1999). The new agency’s purpose was to create an inter-Department council that helps
coordinate and ensure complementary, cost-efficient and effective Federal activities
regarding invasive species – a coordinated national effort to address the invasive
problem. One of the primary duties of the Council is to provide national leadership
regarding invasive species, overseeing and working in cooperation with stakeholders
and existing organizations that address invasive species, such as the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious
and Exotic Weeds, and the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (1999).
One of the greatest challenges for the Council is to create a biennial national invasive
species management plan. In 2001, the challenge was met and the Council published
Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan
22

(2001).
This plan was effective in developing a blueprint that could be used for federal
action in coordination with other nations, states, and local and private programs,
prioritizing nine interrelated and crucial actions that need to be addressed. The
following actions were listed as the nine categories that the Council needed to address
in coordination and partnership with other stakeholders as appropriate: 1) Leadership
and Coordination; 2) Education and Public Awareness; 3) Information Management; 4)
Research; 5) International Cooperation; 6) Restoration; 7) Control and Management; 8)
Early Detection and Rapid Response; and 9) Prevention (NISC, 2008). Although several
obstacles arose, the Council has made significant and important progress over the past
eight years since the creation of the management plan.
In 2003, the Council released a progress report to help measure their success
since the release of the National Invasive Species Plan (Plan). The Plan contains nine
general categories broken down into 57 action items with 86 varying subparts. Since the
release of the Plan, 26 of the 86 total action items and subparts have been completed or
established, 47 are in progress, and 12 have not yet been started (NISC, 2003). NISC
(2003) does make a note that 51 of the 86 call for on-going coordination efforts and a
continuing commitment of resources and the remaining 35 call for discrete actions that
once completed will require little on-going coordination and few (if any) routine
revisions or supplementations.
By 2005, the list of accomplishments grew, providing further evidence that the
NISC was certainly helping coordinate and enhance invasive species actions across
23

spatial boundaries. The 86 identifiable actions almost doubled, growing to 170 with 70
“discrete” and 100 “on-going” (NISC, 2005). Of the 170 identifiable actions, 76% (130)
are completed/established or in progress, “indicating both significant progress made
and important work to be done” (2005).
Three years later and as mandated by Executive Order 13112 (1999), a revised
plan was required. Developed collaboratively by 13 federal departments and agencies
and their partners, the adoption of the new 2008 – 2012 National Invasive Species
Management Plan (2008 Plan) took place in August, 2008. The completion of this
revision was a crucial step towards the management of invasives. This document directs
Federal efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species and their impacts over
the next five years. Co-chair Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of Interior stated, “Its
significance cannot be overstated because invasive species cause great damage to the
nation’s environment, economy and human health—harming fisheries, forests,
croplands and natural areas; impairing recreation; and endangering public health
through threats like West Nile virus” (US Department of the Interior (USDI), 2008).
Since its formation in 1999, NISC and its partners have developed much larger
knowledge and public awareness of invasive species. The 2008 Plan is not a
comprehensive list of all federal invasive species actions. It builds off the 2001 Plan,
taking the input of NISC member agencies, ISC staff, stakeholders, expert review and
public comment to hone federal efforts to prevent and control invasive species. The
culmination of work builds on the successes to date, creating a targeted set of priority
strategic action plans with objectives and implementation tasks that are intended to be
24

completed in the next several years (NISC, 2008 & USDI, 2008).
Unlike the 2001 Plan, the 2008 Plan places responsibility on specific agencies.
Currently, the 2008 Plan requires the work of 35 different entities, defined as “agencies
or bureaus within NISC members’ departments and agencies” (NISC, 2008). The
identified agencies are given the role of either “Lead” or a “Participant” to describe their
role played during the specific action item.
NISC depends on the cooperation from local, state, tribal, private and public
partners from around the world to accomplish its mission. The awareness of the
problems caused by invasive species has dramatically risen as shown by the increased
activity across all levels. In 2005, there were only 17 states with invasive species
councils whereas now, there are more than half the states with similar coordinating
structures (NISC, 2005 & 2008). The distribution of information among the federal,
private, tribal, and public sectors has been a benefit to the management of the myriad
of invasives that cause economic or environmental harm, or even harm to human
health.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is an intergovernmental agency
comprised of ten Federal agency representatives and twelve Ex-officio members. It is
co-chaired by the USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (ANS
Task Force, 2009b). In response to the zebra mussel infestation and other concerns
about ANS, the task force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
25

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), reauthorized in the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996 (NISA), to help prevent the introduction of and to control the spread
of introduced aquatic nuisance species (Public Law 101-636, 1990 & Public Law 104-332,
1996). Consisting of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the ANS Task Force was given the
responsibility to act as a coordinating force in developing and implementing a national
program:
•
•
•
•
•

Prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species (ANS);
Monitor, control and study such species;
Conduct research on methods to monitor, manage, control and/or
eradicate such species;
Coordinate ANS programs and activities of ANS Task Force members and
affected state agencies; and
Increase public understanding of the importance of reducing the
introduction, spread, and impact of ANS and recommends appropriate
domestic and international actions (ANS Task Force, 2007 & 2009b).

In 2007, the ANS Task Force created a strategic plan for the next five years that
outlines the primary goals and objectives of the agency. This strategic plan was a great
accomplishment, providing the Task Force with a blueprint that breaks the various
objectives down, allowing ANSTF to fulfill its mission.
To carry out the implementation of the strategic plan’s goals, an organizational
hierarchy was adopted, establishing six regional panels, each consisting of
representatives of the affected sectors of government, including Federal and State
agencies, state representatives, tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
26

industry groups, commercial interests, neighboring countries, and academia (ANS Task
Force, 2007). This regional breakup allowed individual panels to focus on their area,
identifying, addressing, and making/providing regional recommendations to the ANS
Task Force. These recommendations would then be examined by a specific ANS Task
Force committee, the next level of the hierarchy. Each committee is focused on an
individual, essential portion of the ANS Program. There are five committees in total:
- Prevention
- Detection and Monitoring
- Control
- Research
- Communication, Education, and Outreach
Committees consist of experts in the subject matter and agency member
representatives, allowing them to obtain the necessary technical coordination of various
ANS activities (e.g. The Research Committee would tackle ballast water research) (ANS
Task Force, 2007). The ANS Task Force has done quite well at preventing the
introduction and dispersal of ANS; monitoring, controlling, and studying these species;
and using this data to further combat the aquatic invasive species.
One example includes the Western Regional Panel which was responsible for the
100th Meridian Initiative, a cooperative effort between state, provincial, and federal
agencies to prevent the westward spread of zebra mussels and other ANS (USFWS,
2007). If ANS are detected, the secondary goal of the Initiative is to monitor and control
the invasive species within the contained area. To ensure its relevance in preventing the
27

spread of the zebra mussel and other ANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently
administrating the Initiative, working to inform and educate the public, complete boat
inspections and boat surveys, and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the 100 th
Meridian Initiative.
In addition to these committees, the ANS Task Force encourages state
participation, stating that it “is essential to the effective coordination of prevention and
control programs” (2004, p32). In accordance to the 1996 National Invasive Species
Act’s requirement of a state management plan, “the ANS Task Force encourages states
to develop management plans for ANS and provides guidance, technical support, and
financial resources [See Figure 1] to help implement the approved plans” (2004, p32).

Figure 1: Cost-share Grant Requests and Available Funds for State Management Plans
For example, the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University
(the Center) was given the responsible of the development of Oregon’s ANS State
28

Management Plan (2001). Following the implementation of the plan, action was
focused on building partnerships and expanding the funding base for ANS work in
Oregon. Chairing the Oregon Invasive Species Council and working closely with ODFW,
the Center helped provide technical assistance to ANS management. The Center was
also successful in leveraging for funds from the fiscal year 2004 (FY 2004), allowing them
to implement several objectives of the plan, in particular, surveying and management
planning. Outreach and education were also high priorities in 2004 working in
cooperation with the 100th Meridian Initiative to develop informative signs on the
hazards of invasive species transport and recommended actions to help reduce risk
(ANSTF, 2004).
Washington also received a large amount of help from the ANS Task Force. At
the time of the state-wide assessment of the accomplishments of the FY 2004,
Washington’s management plan had been in effect for three more years than Oregon.
This allowed Washington to accomplish a great deal more than Oregon. A few
achievements during FY 2004 include:
ANS Monitoring for Zebra Mussel, European Green Crap, and Atlantic Salmon
o Over 70 volunteers were trained to monitor substrate samples, almost 75
water samples were collected and analyzed, the Washington State Police
conducted more than 1,000 recreational boat inspections as well as
several commercially hauled vehicles, and educational material was
developed and distributed to boaters, fishers, and other water
recreationalists.
Ballast Water Management

29

o Implemented and enforced ballast water law by hiring a ballast water
ship inspector.
o Maintained a ballast water database and continued to research effective
ballast water treatment technology.
Outreach and Education
o Educational presentations were given to Asian/Pacific Islander
communities, schools, community centers, and other community
stakeholder groups.
o Educational material was distributed in Cambodian, Vietnamese, and
Laotian.
o Conducted 100th Meridian Initiative boat surveys.
Early Detection and Rapid Response Activities
o Draft of a Washington early detection and rapid response plan was
completed.
Oregon and Washington are not the only two states to work collaboratively with
the ANS Task Force. At the time of ANSTF’s FY 2004 assessment, there were fourteen
total states with approved management plans and thirteen states with management
plans under development, leaving less than half the states without any ANS
management (See Figure 2). The achievements mentioned above were not luck or an
accident. ANS Task Force’s smartest decision was to break the invasive issue down into
manageable chunks. One agency cannot be completely responsible for every invasive
across every state. By dividing into regionalized panels and further breaking the
hierarchy into committees and subcommittees, the ANS Task Force set itself up for
success (ANS Task Force, 2004).

30

Two other national campaigns sponsored by the ANSTF are the Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers! (SAH) and Habitattitude public awareness campaigns. Both of these events
have the same goal of protecting our resources and preventing aquatic invasive species,
however, they have been directed at two varying social areas. SAH’s focus lies with the
American recreational user, one who loves spending his/her time on the water, where
on the other hand, Habitattitude’s audience consists primarily of the aquarium
hobbyists, backyard pond owners, water gardeners, and others who are passionate
towards their smaller, more personalized ecosystems (SAH, 2009; Habitattitude, 2009).

Figure 2: Status of State ANS Management Plans, 2005
Both websites, although similar provide altering incentives directed at their
intended audience. For instance, a few from SAH’s home page include, reduction in
game and fish populations, damaged boat engines and jammed steering equipment, and
31

unusable lakes/rivers for boaters and swimmers. Habitattitude’s page however contains
links such as reduction in natural biodiversity, degradation of ecosystem functions, and
reduction in property values. This dichotomy is quite effective, allowing ANSTF, the
sponsor of both campaigns, to help educate two varying public sectors towards their
common mission: dedication to the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the only agency of the U.S.
Government whose primary responsibility is the conservation of the nation’s fish,
wildlife, and plants (USFWS, 2009). Therefore, addressing the impacts of invasive
species across the nation is a high priority to the agency. The USFWS has participated in
the development of several invasive management plans. Co-chairing the ANS Task Force
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well as providing an
Executive Secretary to the Force, the USFWS has worked across state and federal
jurisdictions to develop effective statewide ANS management (ANSTF, 2009c). Not only
serving with the ANS Task Force, the USFWS has worked effectively to create a
comprehensive, environmentally friendly approach to manage pests (including invasive
species). The Integrated Pest Management approach uses a combination of strategies
that pose the least hazard to people, property, and the environment (US DOI, 2007 &
USFWS, 1990).

32

Analysis
The management of invasive species has skyrocketed over the past 20 years.
Not that invasive species did not exist before – there is clear evidence of previous
diffusions. Species have been out competing one another since the beginning.
However, over the past few decades, several new pathways have opened up to the
world, allowing species to cross barriers that once stood erect in their way. As
transoceanic ships crossed entire oceans, a variety of plant and animal species reached
new foreign lands – lands that did not evolve with these new exotics. These regions
were not prepared for this new threat; its inhabitants were vulnerable to the
overbearing non-natives. Entire populations of flightless birds were wiped out as
predators and critters were brought to these foreign lands. The brown tree snake is a
classic example of an invasive that has demonstrated the negative impacts of an
invasive species. Introduced to Guam in the 1950s, the brown tree snake quickly
became quite abundant with the large prey base and absence of natural predators. Left
unchecked for many decades, the snake has now wiped out 10 of the 12 native bird
species of birds in Guam, leaving the remaining two populations with fewer than 200
birds. Costing the world billions in management and prevention, invasive species
around the globe have opened the public’s eyes to the invasive threat.
Compared to the brown tree snake, the management of the zebra mussel within
Washington and Oregon’s portion of the Columbia River Basin is quite similar. Without
proper invasive species management the Basin’s biodiversity is at risk. Zebra mussels
33

are outcompeting native species in the Midwest and it would not be any different in the
Pacific Northwest. As the largest river to flow into the Pacific Ocean, the Columbia River
passes through several jurisdictions. How is the zebra mussel diffusion being addressed
across these political boundaries? How effective is the current policy? What is the
research and management funding levels? What are the differences between the state
laws and regulations? How do Oregon and Washington compare against one another?
The following portions offer recommendations and conclusions to these questions.
Oregon versus Washington
Out of the forty-eight continental states, almost half (22) have become inhabited
by the mussel. Neither Oregon nor Washington has had a zebra mussel population
become established. Both states would like to keep it this way and they realize that
they cannot be lax in the management of the mussel, despite its nonexistence in the
Pacific Northwest. Both Oregon and Washington are incredibly susceptible to the threat
of ANS. The common boundary of the Columbia River and its mouth requires
cooperative management. If one state is not effective in the protocol or management
of the zebra mussel, it places the other state at a high risk, despite the other’s efforts.
Oregon and Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife have played a crucial
role in the policy field, bringing together several organizations to form invasive action
committees. These committees have created state conservation plans that are
extremely valuable, addressing several key points such as education, outreach,
increased communication, efficiency, and coordination between the invasive
34

management entities, and the pinpointing of areas where conservation activities would
have the greatest benefit. Although both Departments of Fish and Wildlife were the
forerunners of the invasive prevention movement, Oregon was slightly delayed in
comparison to Washington’s management plans.
It was not until 1996 when the National Invasive Species Act came out, that
invasive management began to occur at the state level (Public Law, 1996). With WDFW
as the leading agency, the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning
Committee was formed. With representatives from several entities representing state,
federal, tribal, public, and private sectors, The Washington State ANS Management Plan
was published in 1998, two years after the NISA. Oregon on the other hand took several
more years to develop a plan, finally completing the Oregon ANS Management Plan in
2001, five years after the NISA. Again, these strategies are a key step to the state level
of management. They are formed through a committee process; committees that have
representatives from all sectors of government. This allows these conservation plans to
not only interweave themselves with current law and stature, but prevent unnecessary
laws and regulations that further hinder the management of invasive species. These
state management plans help delegate tasks and provide coordination and collaboration
among the various invasive management agencies, encouraging voluntary action and
cohesiveness by both private landowners and public land users (ODFW, 2006). Yet once
again, if one state is not up to par at certain levels, the other state’s actions remain
ineffective.
35

This gap in Oregon policy is the catalyst of several other missing portions of
stature. For instance, it was not until 2009 Oregon Legislature that Oregon’s minimalist
ballast water discharge standards were addressed. Although Oregon has had ballast
water requirements, the state still trails California and Washington’s more strict
regulations. Still falling short in several places, Oregon’s Shipping Transport of ANS Task
Force made recommendations in 2009 to realign itself with California and Washington’s
preventative measures. If a zebra mussel population had become established,
weakened policy similar to Oregon’s ballast water discharge policies would have led to
severe detrimental effects, economically, ecologically, and biologically. Although
Oregon’s policy has had a slower start than Washington’s, Oregon still was one of the
few states that had an invasive species council at the turn of the millennia. Oregon’s
Invasive council formed in 2002 and by 2005, three years later, only 17 states total had
an invasive council (NISC, 2005 & 2008).
In comparison to its neighboring states, Oregon’s development of its ANS
management plan was below standards; however, Oregon was a great deal more
proactive in the development of an overall statewide invasive species management
plan. Both Oregon and Washington developed an invasive species council, Oregon in
2002, Washington in 2006. In comparison, Washington was four years behind in its
development and effort to prevent the spread and introduction of all invasive species,
terrestrial and aquatic. In similar fashion of Washington’s ANS plan achieving more,
Oregon’s Invasive Species Council was capable of accomplishing more. For instance,
36

Washington completed their statewide management plan in 2007 and Oregon had
already acquired funds and helped sponsor several statewide campaigns, including
“Stop the Invasion” and others that coordinate volunteers and state agencies to
identify, prevent, and control the invasive threat.
A reoccurring barrier towards invasive management is the lack of funding,
especially as the United States enters another recession. Both states and all agencies,
both state and federal, have stressed that not enough work can be completed with their
current allocated budget. Several action items have been identified, but with
insufficient finances, not everything can be completed. For instance, Oregon has not
completed a systematic survey of its waters that are part of the shipping paths since
2001. These waters are highly susceptible to ANS and Oregon’s Shipping Transport of
ANS Task Force is planning on requesting additional funding through federal funds to
conduct a more thorough monitoring (ODEQ, 2008c). Washington’s Department of
Ecology ran short on funds and had to discontinue its zebra mussel monitoring program
back in 2000. Without federal funding, Washington’s DOE will not be able reestablish,
implement, or expand upon a properly maintained state-wide zebra mussel monitoring
program (WA DOE, 2009). As Oregon and Washington, and many other states
throughout the nation, undergo budgetary restrictions and lose financial support,
certain goals of the state management plans will not be addressed. However, the
purpose of these state conservation and management plans is to represent the highest

37

standard possible, rather than what is likely to happen if we are to have effective
invasive species management (WDFW, 2001a; ODFW, 2005 & WISC, 2009).
The current state plans have been improved several times from the initial
publications. Initially, both Oregon and Washington failed to effectively delegate tasks
to the numerous agencies, stakeholders, and other invasive organizations. Over time as
objectives were not accomplished, it became quite apparent that delegation and
acceptance needed to occur. Currently, the invasive committees responsible for the
state plans address funding and delegate and accept management goals. Both
committees help provide a level of coordination between the local, state, national,
international, and other agencies to provide a comprehensive biosecurity framework.
The committees remedy and mitigate economic and ecological risks posed by invasive
species (Cusack, Harte, & Chan, 2009). Coordination is certainly happening between
Oregon and Washington, especially as the invasive management movement has taken
off, but more needs to happen. For instance, under the Senate Bill 643, Oregon’s
Shipping Transport of ANS Task Force has been directed to study and make
recommendations towards the prevention of ANS associated with shipping-related
transport to Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality. One suggestion of the
2008 Task Force is to work closely with the state of Washington to develop more
efficient, coordinated management of inter-port operations on the Columbia River
(ODEQ, 2008b & 2008c).

38

Although coordination and communication are key objectives towards a
successful invasive strategy, there is a common problem. To effectively coordinate and
manage hundreds of state, federal, international, public, private, tribal, and other
agencies, it costs money – and once again, budgets are being cut across the globe.
There is at least one extremely cost-effective resource that is crucial to the success of
invasive management: the Internet. Over the past decade, a wealth of information
regarding invasive species has developed. The Internet allows the spread of this
information and knowledge instantaneously at a relatively low price. The Internet has
played a crucial role in helping organizations and agencies work and collaborate,
utilizing one another’s databanks and research.
Despite possibilities, there is room for improvement. State websites need to be
improved and linked to one another, allowing them to facilitate access to current
information on management activities statewide. Improvements on the latest aquatic
invasive species technological advances, data and research need to be made readily
available and easily accessible. This increased accessibility to websites and databases
will improve statewide coordination and help managers and researchers coordinate and
effectively strike down the invasive threat (California Department of Fish and Game
(DFG), 2008).
How do we account for the distribution and spread of invasive species? Burdick
(2005), senior editor at Discover Magazine, states that the key factor is opportunity.
The more frequently and persistently a foreign plant or animal is exposed to a new
39

environment, the better its odds of invading. If zebra mussels continue to be
transported across the natural biogeographic barriers, whether it is the mountain
ranges or the oceans, barriers that have historically kept the planet’s native species
partitioned off, eventually, the zebra mussel will successfully establish itself in yet
another location, even if only one or two zebra mussels make it though at a time. It is
inevitable that eventually, the persistent, prolific mussel will pass through and become
successful.
Although inevitable, management of the zebra mussel must be continued.
Educational and outreach programs cannot discontinue at this point. A cost-benefit
analysis similar to the report prepared for OISC is a great asset to state management
(Cusack et al., 2009). Researching and projecting the control costs to various
stakeholders like hydropower facilities or fisheries, provides incentives to create
effective policy. If a hydropower plant realizes that an establishment of zebra mussels
will cost 25 million dollars a year, it might spend several million to help prevent the
invasive from becoming established. Spending millions to save billions has to persist.
We will never be able to prevent all introductions. However, early detection of the
invasive and quick, coordinated response will allow the containment of an introduction,
allowing proper eradication or management of the species, usually at a much lower cost
than long-term control, which, as we have seen, can be extremely expensive.
The majority of scientists believe that the zebra mussel cannot be eradicated at
this point, so the objective now is to learn to control or accommodate them (Sea Grant,
40

2001). Research needs to continue; perhaps as more scientific work is done, stronger
management and eradication methods will come to light, but until then, we need to
continue to educate and raise public awareness.
Every individual has a stake in reducing the negative impacts of invasive species.
Federal and State agencies are certainly crucial to the success of invasive species
management, but the key resides in the public. Public action of individuals, local
businesses, organizations, local agencies and more has to be supported by the larger
governmental agencies. Invasive species are everyone’s responsibility; however, not
everyone realizes this. The public needs to become aware that their actions can result
in the introduction and spread of invasive species. Mike Cenci, WDFW deputy chief of
enforcement believes that, “Any real success in controlling the spread of the [zebra
mussel] will rely heavily on boat owners taking responsibility for their vessels . . . it is
important that they know what to look for and thoroughly clean their boats” (2007). It
is indeed the responsibility of recreational boaters to clean their boats and equipment
before moving from one water body to another. However, it is the responsibility of
State officials to spread their knowledge and raise the awareness of the public. Public
outreach is the key to the invasive threat.
Federal managers listed above have a similar objective – to coordinate and
implement a national cost-efficient and effective effort to address the invasive problem,
terrestrial or aquatic. To complete this task, the federal managers consist of
intergovernmental agencies, typically comprised of multiple Federal agency reps and ex41

officio members. These coordinated forces have helped achieve a national leadership
regarding invasive species. The federal managers have worked effectively with one
another, creating several national campaigns like the 100th meridian, an effort that
combined state, provincial, and federal government support. These forces have also
been extremely beneficial to the management of the individual states, encouraging and
working in partnership to create effective state-wide policy.
For instance, ANS Task Force helped both Washington and Oregon to create
their state ANS management plans. However, Oregon’s publication took nearly five
years in comparison to Washington’s two. This gap in policy again stunted Oregon’s
management development. By the time the ANS Task Force created an assessment of
their accomplishments, Washington had received three additional years of grants and
funding from ANSTF to achieve their goals. Oregon however, still had yet to create a
management plan with objectives that would require grant money. This allowed
Washington to accomplish a great deal more in the management of the aquatic invasive
species.
Currently, Oregon and Washington have had varying levels of success. Failure is
typically the result of insufficient policy, inadequate research and management funding,
and gaps in scientific knowledge. The general problem is not being addressed. What is
needed is comparative policy analysis to address the entire issue of invasive threat,
rather than individual invaders (Simberloff et al., 2005). This more complete policy
analysis would elucidate which policy approaches are resulting in successful outcomes.
42

As further collaboration takes place and the sharing of information across continents
and among agencies forms, the management of invasive species will strengthen, further
protecting the Earth’s resources.

Recommendations
There are several key recommendations that have to be addressed if a successful
invasive management program is to take place. These objectives have appeared
repetitively throughout all invasive management literature, both governmental and
nongovernmental. Each objective has been addressed during this paper, but it is vital
that each be brought to light within its own context. The following recommendations
will enhance invasive species management:
1) Coordination & Collaboration – This cannot be reiterated enough. Coordination
between all the stakeholders must occur. Voluntary action needs to be
encouraged and both private landowners and public land users will have to work
together. A collective database needs to be made accessible to everyone,
allowing research, management techniques, and case studies to be analyzed and
interpreted.
2) Early detection & monitoring – Develop and carry out environmentally sound
programs that ensure the early detection of new invasive species and monitoring
and controlling of current, unwanted species. Successful eradication is more likely
if the distribution is limited. This coupled with the fact that early detection of
introductions and quick, coordinated response is more cost effective than longterm management is why this objective is listed as number two.
3) Rapid response & eradication – This hinges off of early detection and monitoring.
The more quickly we are capable of performing a risk assessment of the current
invasive, the more quickly we can subdue the introduction and hopefully
eradicate the new threat. This requires a collaborative effort to succeed,
especially with aquatic invasive species like the zebra mussel!

43

4) Prevention – The most cost effective objective towards the management of
invasive species. By minimizing and preventing unintentional introduction and
dispersal of invasive species throughout each state, we have saved ourselves
possibly billions of dollars in further management costs.
5) Long-term Management – If an invasive becomes too well-established, long-term
management will have to happen. This objective involves controlling the nonnative from spreading further and minimizing its impacts on native habitats and
species. This does not need to occur with every individual invasive population.
There has to be a clear and significant impact and the control of said population
has to be both technically and economically feasible.
6) Education/outreach – The public and all stakeholders need to become aware of
the threat of invasive species. Impacts of individual species should be made clear
as well as providing the preventative measures one can take to reduce their
individual impact. Classroom curricula should encourage students to think about
invasive species. Educational materials need to be developed and distributed to
those individuals who partake in potential invasive activities (i.e. boating, fishing,
hiking, biking, traveling, et cetera).
7) Research – Tying in with objectives one and six, shared research is a necessity.
Currently scientists of universities, institutions, and other state agencies are
researching all aspects of biology, ecology, and the control and management of
invasive species. As new invasive species become lucid, more research will be
essential. Shared knowledge will also prevent ineffective resource allocation (i.e.
two scientists spending their time, energy, and money working on the same issue,
but not together). There will constantly be a growing demand for research on
environmentally safe eradication methods.
8) Volunteer Efforts – Do not underestimate the results of volunteer action.
Volunteer monitoring groups can play an important role in early detection –
especially with zebra mussels. A well-informed beach walker is more cost
effective than a paid state official that travels to every beach in a county
searching for that characteristically striped shell. Conducting prevention,
detection, management, and education are just a few ways volunteers are
beneficial towards the overall success.
9) Policy Improvements – State and federal laws need to ensure that they are
promoting the prevention and management of invasive species management, not
hindering it. Increased policy in regions that are invasive introduction hotspots
should develop (i.e. ballast water regulations).

44

10) Delegation of Responsibility – Objectives listed in state, federal, or any
management plan must be made accountable. Delegation of the completed task
must occur at all levels of government.
11) Assessment/Evaluation – One of the last recommendations, yet extremely
crucial, is the value of assessment and evaluation. Although invaluable,
frequently this does not occur. This should be addressed in the initial planning
and budging phase of a management plan. The evaluation of a project needs to
happen to provide data, tips, strategies, obstacles, to future managers. This
assessment needs to be clearly and easily accessible to all.

Conclusion
One might certainly consider globalization a good thing; however, it has a few
undesirable traits including a rising amount of invasive species occurrences. As
globalization and travel accelerate, an increasing number of pathways and opportunities
allowing invasive species to establish themselves in new areas grow exponentially.
Invasive species, not only the zebra mussel as identified in this paper, is a threat that
must be addressed. The mussel threatens social, economic and ecologic resources.
Billions of dollars has been spent on direct control, yet we continue to lose more and
more money resource value yearly. Other environmental costs are species extinction
and ecosystem degradation. Rivers and all freshwater systems are at high risk of losing
native life and biodiversity to the zebra mussel, including the Columbia River Basin.
This analysis of the zebra mussel in the Columbia River Basin indicates that
Oregon and Washington must work across jurisdictional boundaries to succeed at
invasive management. Recommendations offered in this analysis will develop an
effective zebra mussel invasive management plan.

45

Both Oregon and Washington have varying strengths and weaknesses over one
another’s management, however if the two began to collaborate more effectively, both
management plans would grow synergistically. Invasive species span jurisdictions and
geographic boundaries, therefore successful management can only occur if there is
coordination across state and national boundaries. Currently, the management of the
zebra mussel has been enough to prevent an establishment within the Columbia River
Basin; however, increased coordination between Oregon and Washington must take
place if the Columbia River Basin is to remain a healthy environment.

46

List of Acronyms
2001 Plan or The Plan - National Invasive Species Plan
2008 Plan - 2008 – 2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan
ANS - Aquatic Nuisance Species
ANSTF or ANS Task Force - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
DFG - California Department of Fish and Game
DNR - Department of National Resources DOA - Department of Administration
DOE - Department of Ecology
DOT - Department of Transportation
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2004 - Fiscal Year 2004
GMRI - Gulf of Main Research Institute
MES - Master of Environmental Studies
NANPCA - Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
NISA - National Invasive Species Act of 1996
NISC - National Invasive Species Council
NGO - Non-governmental organization
NWCB - Noxious Weed Control Board
ODOA - Oregon Department of Agriculture
ODEQ - Oregon Department of Environment Quality
ODFW - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
OISC - Oregon Invasive Species Council
PAH - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl
PSU - Portland State University
PVC - Polyvinyl chloride
SAH - Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!
The Center - The Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University
US - United States
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCG - United States Coast Guard
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture
USDI - United States Department of the Interior
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WDFW - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WISC - Washington Invasive Species Council

47

Literature Cited:
Alberta Invasive Plants Council. (2009). Who Should Care? Retrieved April 28, 2009,
from http://www.invasiveplants.ab.ca/whoshouldcare.htm.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2004). Report to Congress – Fiscal Year 2004.
Retrieved April 15, 2009, from
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/ANSTF_RTC_Final.pdf.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2007, March). Strategic Plan (2007 – 2012).
Retrieved April 15, 2009, from
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/ANSTF_Strategic_Plan_2007_Final.pdf.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2009a). Harmful Aquatic Hitchhikers: Mollusks:
Zebra Mussel. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/default.php.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2009b). The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task
Force. Dedicated to the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.
Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.anstaskforce.gov/taskforce.php.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2009c). ANSTF Membership Contact List.
Retrieved May 20, 2009, from
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ANSTF_Members_May_2009.pdf.
Burdick, A. (2005, May). The Truth about Invasive Species – How to stop worrying and
learn to love ecological intruders. Discover Magazine. Retrieved April 28, 2009,
from http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/cover.
California Department of Fish and Game. (2008). California Aquatic Invasive Species
Management Plan. State of California Resources Agency. Retrieved May 1, 2009,
from http://groups.ucanr.org/Ballast_Outreach/files/49547.pdf.
Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at the Portland State University. (2001, June). Oregon
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Produced by Erik Hanson and Mark
Sytsma. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from
http://www.clr.pdx.edu/publications/files/OR_ANS_Plan.pdf.
Claudi, R. and G.L. Mackie. (1993). Practical Manual for Zebra Mussel Monitoring and
Control. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
48

Cusack, C., Harte, M., & Chan, S. (2009). The Economics of Invasive Species. Prepared for
the Oregon Invasive Species Council. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/docs/pdf/economics_invasive.pdf.
The Columbian. (2002, June). Boaters Asked to Watch Out for Mussels. Pg. C.3.
Executive Order No. 13112. (1999, February). Invasive Species. Federal Register. Vol. 64,
No. 25. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/1999.html.
Global Change Master Directory. (1999). Zebra Mussel Monitoring in Washington State.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_wa_de_zebramusselmonitoring.html.
Gulf of Main Research Institute. (2005). Zebra Mussels. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.gma.org/surfing/human/zebra.html.
Habitattitude. (2009). Habitattitude – Adopt a conservation mentality. Protect our
environment by not releasing unwanted fish and aquatic plants. Retrieved April
15, 2009, from http://habitattitude.net/.
Independent Scientific Advisory Board. (2007). Human Population Impacts on Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB Human Population Report 2007-3.
National Atlas of the United States. (2008). Zebra Mussel Distribution in North America.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/zmusslx.html.
National Invasive Species Council. (2001). Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge:
National Invasive Species Management Plan. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/mpfinal.pdf.
National Invasive Species Council. (2003, October). Progress Report on the National
Invasive Species Management Plan. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/progressrpt2003.pdf.
National Invasive Species Council. (2005, July). Progress Report on the Meeting the
Invasive Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Retrieved April 10, 2009, from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/progressrpt2005.pdf.

49

National Invasive Species Council. (2008). 2008 – 2012 National Invasive Species
Management Plan. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/mp2008.pdf.
National Invasive Species Council. (2009). Home Page. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/main.shtml.
National Research Council. (2004). Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water
Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. National Academies Press.
New York Sea Grant. (1994). "Policy issues." Dreissena polymorpha. Information review.
Zebra Mussel Clearinghouse Newsletter 5(1):14-15.
Nijhuis, Michelle. (2007, March). Wish You Weren’t Here. High Country News. Vol. 39,
Iss. 4; pg. 8, 7 pgs.
O'Neill, C. (1997). Economic impact of zebra mussels - Results of the 1995 National Zebra
Mussel Information Clearinghouse Study. Great Lakes Research Review 3(1).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2008a). Shipping Transport of Aquatic
Invasive Species Task Force. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/factsheets/cu/ShippingTransportofAquaticI
nvasiveSpecies.pdf.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2008b, September). Management of
Aquatic Invasive Species Risks from Shipping Transport Pathways. Prepared by
The Oregon Task Force on the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species for
the 2009 Oregon State Legislature. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/cu/STAISManagingAquaticInvasiveSpe
ciesRisks.pdf.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2008c, October). Aquatic Invasive
Species Task Force Makes Recommendations to 2009 Legislature. News Release.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=2760.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2009). About Us. Retrieved March 9,
2009, from http://www.oregon.gov/DEQ/.

50

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2005, June). Oregon Invasive Species Action
Plan. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://oregon.gov/OISC/docs/pdf/oisc_plan6_05.pdf.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2006, February). The Oregon Conservation
Strategy. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/document_pdf/Foreword.pdf.
Oregon Invasive Species Council. (2007). Report Card. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://oregon.gov/OISC/docs/pdf/oisc_rpt_card07.pdf.
Oregon Invasive Species Council. (2008, April). Oregon Launches “Stop the Invasion”
Statewide Campaign Against Invasive Species. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/docs/pdf/pr_campaign408.pdf.
Oregon State Legislature. (2007). Chapter 561 – State Department of Agriculture.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/561.html.
Oregon State Legislature. (2007b). Chapter 783 – Liabilities and Offenses Connected
with Shipping and Navigation; Shipbreaking; Ballast Water. Retrieved March 9,
2009, from http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/783.html.
Parker, B.C., Patterson M.A., and Neves, R.J. (1998). Feeding interactions between native
freshwater mussels (Bivalvia-Unionidae) and zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) in the Ohio River. American Malacological Bulletin 14:173-179.
Public Law 101-636. (1990, December). Nonindegenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 [As Amended Through P.L. 106-580, Dec. 29, 2000].
Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.anstaskforce.gov/rules.php.
Public Law 104-332. (1996, October). National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Retrieved
April 15, 2009, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ332.104.pdf.
Rizzo, D.M., and Garbelotto, M. (2003). Sudden oak death: endangering California and
Oregon forest ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1 (5): 197-204. Retrieved May 20,
2009, from http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/pdf/MGBinder.Frontiers.Rizzo.pdf.
Sea Grant. (2001, September). Zebra Mussels and Other Non-indigenous Species.
Retrieved March 10, 2009 from

51

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/Communications/greatlakes/glnetwork/exotics.h
tml.
Simberloff, D., Parker, I., and Windle, P. (2005). Introduced species policy, management,
and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ. 3(1): 12-20.
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! (2009). Protect Your Waters and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!
Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.protectyourwaters.net/.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2002). Zebra Mussel Information System.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/zebra/zmis/.
United States Department of the Interior. (2008, August). News Release: Secretary
Kempthorne, Secretary Schafer and Other Leaders Adopt National Plan to
Combat Invasive Species. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080801.html.
United States Department of the Interior. (2007). Integrated Pest Management Policy.
Department Manual. Series: Environmental Quality Programs Part 517:
Pesticides. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/DOI517DM1.pdf.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (1990, August). Pest Management Policy and
Responsibilities. Release 30-5. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/FWS30AM12.pdf.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009, April). Invasive Species. Retrieved April
15, 2009, from http://www.fws.gov/invasives/.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). 100th Meridian Initiative – Help us stop
the spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from
http://100thmeridian.org/.
United States Geographic Names. (1980). Feature Detail Report for: Columbia River.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:558267075972371::NO::
P3_FID:1140014
United States Geological Survey. (2009). Zebra Mussel Sightings Distribution. Retrieved
March 9, 2009, from

52

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/zebramusseldistribution.
asp.
Walker, T. (1991). Dreissena disaster: scientists battle an invasion of zebra mussels –
Dreissena polymorpha – Cover Story. Science News. Retrieved May 20, 2009,
from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n18_v139/ai_10808825/.
Washington Department of Ecology. (2009). Ecology’s Zebra Mussel Monitoring
Program. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/lakes/wq/lk_zebra.html.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2001a). Washington State Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plan. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ans/2001ansplan.pdf.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2001b). State zebra mussel monitoring
program seeks Northwest Washington volunteers. News Release Archive.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=aug0101a.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2007). First Washington citations issued
for zebra mussel contamination. News Release Archive. Retrieved March 9, 2009,
from http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=oct2907a.
Washington Invasive Species Council. (2007). Invaders at the Gate – 2008 Strategic Plan.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/Invasive_Species/InvasiveSpeciesStrategicPl
an.pdf.
Washington Invasive Species Council. (2009, February). Homepage. Retrieved March 9,
2009, from http://www.rco.wa.gov/invasive_species/council.htm.
Washington State Legislature. (2006). Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5385. Retrieved
March 9, 2009, from http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/200506/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5385-S.E.pdf.
Washington State Legislature. (2007). RCW 77.60.130 Aquatic nuisance species
committee. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.60.130.

53

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. (1952). Marine Fouling and Its Prevention.
Contribution No. 580 from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. George
Banta Publishing Co., Menasha, WI. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/191/8/chapter%201.pdf.
Wu, L. and D.A. Culver. (1991). Zooplankton grazing and phytoplankton abundance: An
assessment before and after invasion of Dreissena polymorpha. J. Great Lakes
Res.

54

Media

Cantin_JMESThesis2009.pdf