inv booklet 4 - everglades restoration · 2013-09-20 · lands, by an impoverished native flora and...

Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan For Florida 1

STATEWIDE INVASIVE SPECIES STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FLORIDA

Strategic Plan for FloridaINV

ASIVE

SPECI

ESIn

vasi

ve S

peci

es Statewide Invasive Species

2002

Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services

Sou

thFl

orida

Water Managem

entDistrict

•••P

RO

T E C T O R

O F T H E E V E R G L A D E SS I N C E

1 94

9



Eva ArmstrongFlorida Department of

Environmental Protection

Scott HardinFlorida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Richard ClarkDivision of Plant Industry

Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer

Services

Sherman WilhelmDivision of AquacultureFlorida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services

Dr. Leroy M. CoffmanDivision of Animal Industry

Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer

Services

Steve BohlDivision of Forestry

Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services

Dan ThayerSouth Florida WaterManagement District

Brian NelsonSouthwest Florida

Water Management District

Wayne CorbinSt. Johns River WaterManagement District

Bob HeekeSuwannee River WaterManagement District

John T. ValentaNorthwest Florida Water

Management District

Jeff CasterFlorida Department of

Transportation

Dr. Ken LangelandUniversity of FloridaInstitute of Food andAgricultural Sciences

William TorresFlorida Department of

Environmental Protection

Don C. Schmitz, EditorInvasive Species Strategic Plan

Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection

Invasive Species Working Group

Working Group Staff



Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 4Glossary of Acronyms ................................................................................................. 7Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................... 8Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9

Florida is at High Risk for New Invasions ..................................................... 10Not all Nonindigenous Species are Invasive or Harmful in Florida .....…...... 12

Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan for Florida ..............................…......... 14How a Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan Can Help ...................….... 14The Invasive Species Working Group ....................................................…..... 14Statewide Coordination and Intergovernmental Cooperation ....................... 15

General Action Items .................................................................….... 15Prevention of New Biological Invasions .......................................................... 16

General Action Items ......................................................................... 16Surveillance....................................................................................................... 16

General Action Item............................................................................... 16Rapid Response.................................................................................................. 16

General Action Item............................................................................... 16Control and Management................................................................................... 17

General Action Items.............................................................................. 17Public Education about Biological Invasions..................................................... 17

General Action Items.............................................................................. 17Existing State Programs and Findings....................................................................... 18

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Invasive Plant Management ......... 18Findings.................................................................................................. 21

Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services......................................... 22Division of Plant Industry............................................................................. 22

Findings.................................................................................................. 24Division of Aquaculture............................................................................... 25

Findings ................................................................................................. 25Division of Forestry...................................................................................... 26

Findings ................................................................................................. 27Division of Animal Industry ........................................................................ 27

Findings ................................................................................................ 30Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ....................................... 30

Findings ................................................................................................. 33Water Management Districts.............................................................................. 33

Findings.................................................................................................. 34Florida Dept. of Transportation.......................................................................... 35

Findings.................................................................................................. 35University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.................... 35

Findings.................................................................................................. 39References Cited........................................................................................................... 42Appendix I: Governor’s Letter....................................................................................... 43Appendix II: Federal Response to the Plan ................................................................... 45

Table of Contents



Most of Florida has a climate similar to that of the Neotropics with an absence of

yearly hard freezes and exhibits a disturbed and diverse patchwork of agricultural, environ-

mental, and urban habitats. The southern third of Florida is a peninsula and a habitat island,

bounded on three sides by water and the fourth by frost, and it is typified, as oceanic is-

lands, by an impoverished native flora and fauna that makes it particularly prone to

nonindigenous species invasions. Florida also has many lakes, streams, and rivers that can

facilitate the easy spread of invasive species throughout the state. During the past 400

years, Florida has been invaded with periodic influxes of mostly tropical and subtropical

nonindigenous plants and animals. These influxes of introductions increased during the

twentieth century with the rise of the ornamental plant and pet industries and through the

unintentional contaminants of imported commodities. Today, the Port of Miami receives

85% of the live nonindigenous plant shipments that arrive each year in the United States.

Fortunately, few of the thousands of species that have been introduced into Florida

have become invasive. And not all nonindigenous species are harmful to agriculture and the

environment and they are essential to many Florida industries and provide positive eco-

nomic benefits. But even a few invasive species can have a large negative economic impact

in Florida. Two Mediterranean fruit fly infestations in Florida cost federal and state taxpay-

ers nearly $50 million to eradicate. Equine prioplasmosis, a parasitic disease transmitted

by ticks, along with Heartwater and other lesser-known animal and plant maladies, have

already cost the taxpayers more than $400 million to address. In south Florida alone, state

and federal agricultural agencies are conducting a multi-year (more than $300 million

already spent) effort to stop reintroduced Asian citrus canker from spreading to central

Florida by cutting thousands of citrus trees on private property. In the natural environment,

more than $240 million has been spent in Florida by state, federal, and local agencies since

1980 to control invasive nonindigenous aquatic, wetland, and upland plants on publicly

owned waterways and conservation lands. In fiscal year 1999-2000, a total of $90.8 million

was spent by nine Florida state agencies. The Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services spent the most ($45.9 million) for prevention, monitoring, eradication,

control, and restoration efforts.

Florida is at high risk for the introduction of new invasive nonindigenous species

because of the state’s strategic southeastern-most location and is expected to act as one of

the nation’s sentinels against these invasive species. Yet, federal and state systems in place

to intercept, eradicate, or contain these invaders have not kept pace with the influx of non-

Executive Summary



native agricultural pests (including diseases) along with environmental invaders arriving

each year in Florida. The costs associated with harmful invasive species are expected to

grow with increasing world trade and the introduction of new invasive species.

Any effective statewide strategy for preventing and managing invasive species must

first consider that these invading species are not limited by legislative and professional

boundaries, geography, or even individual programs. A growing number of scientists,

resource managers, and agricultural officials recognize that a statewide invasive species

strategic plan could provide a framework for coordinating state agency prevention and

management efforts in Florida while facilitating cooperation with local and federal agencies.

In order to develop and implement a Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan for Florida,

the Invasive Species Working Group (ISWG) was formed in 2001. The ISWG is comprised

of thirteen representatives from nine state agencies and one university. The ISWG also

recognizes that the successful implementation of this plan necessitates the involvement of

individuals, organizations, and businesses involved with direct though sometimes conflicting

interests in nonindigenous species.

The Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan for Florida recommends at total of

eighteen general action items that improve statewide coordination and cooperation, preven-

tion of new biological invasions, surveillance, rapid response, control and management, and

public education about invasive species. In addition, individual state agencies and one

university nonindigenous species efforts are described within this plan along with specific

findings for each of their existing programs. The strategic plan also recognizes the need to

help private landowners in preventing, controlling, and managing invasive species. The

following are critical actions planned along with their recommended completion dates:

January 2003

The Invasive Species Working Group (ISWG) will develop a Memorandum of Under-

standing (MOU) for presentation to state agencies involved in invasive species prevention,

eradication, research, and control by January 2003.

The ISWG will provide recommendations to agencies to implement a coordinated

public awareness campaign about the impact of invasive nonindigenous species on Florida’s

agriculture and environment and disseminate information on statutes and rules pertaining to

these species by January 2003.

July 2003

By July 2003, each state agency that is a party to the MOU and a member of the ISWG

will conduct an evaluation of its current statutes and rules relevant to invasive



nonindigenous species.

Starting in July 2003, the ISWG will review and evaluate the status of invasive

species reporting.

Each member of the ISWG will work with its own agency information technology staff

to provide links among existing invasive species websites and databases by July 2003.

State agencies will encourage federal agencies to cooperate in the development and

implementation of Pest Risk Management Committee partnerships at all significant ports of

entry in Florida by July 2003.

The ISWG will identify known invasive specie problems in Florida and recommend

management actions to federal, state, and local governments, private landowners and others

by July 2003.

State agencies will identify information, staff, research, and budget needs to improve

invasive species management in Florida by July 2003.

January 2004

ISWG will evaluate current surveillance programs and make recommendations to

improve prevention and detection efforts by January 2004.

Beginning in January 2004, the ISWG will recommend rapid response procedures

appropriate for new discoveries of invasive nonindigenous species. Coordination with

federal and local agencies and non-governmental organizations will be implemented

where appropriate.

State agencies will develop or revise invasive species management plans to achieve

cost-effective management efforts of invasive species by January 2004.

The ISWG will evaluate potential incentive programs or assistance for private landown-

ers and make recommendations to the Florida Legislature to establish incentive programs or

assistance to private landowners for the control of invasive nonindigenous species on private

lands by January 2004.

July 2004

ISWG will review and make recommendations regarding an inter-agency information

support network and database for invasive species by July 2004.

The ISWG will review established procedures for fair and feasible multiple levels of

risk assessments for evaluating first time introduced nonindigenous species by July 2004.

The ISWG will review agency invasive species procedures and make recommendations,

where appropriate, to coordinate species management plans across agencies by July 2004.



APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)CFA Cooperative Forestry Assistance programAQUA Division of Aquaculture (FDACS)DAI Division of Animal Industry (FDACS)DOF Division of Forestry (FDACS)DPI Division of Plant Industry (FDACS)EADAU Emerging Animal Disease Assessment Unit (FDACS-DAI)EPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant CouncilFBI Federal Bureau of InvestigationFAS Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Univ. of Florida)FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer ServicesFDEP Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionFDOT Florida Department of TransportationFWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionGFC Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, now the FWCIFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (Univ. of Florida)IPPC International Plant Protection ConventionISWG Invasive Species Working GroupNWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management DistrictSFWMD South Florida Water Management DistrictSJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management DistrictSRWMD Suwannee River Water Management DistrictSWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management DistrictUSDA United States Department of AgricultureWMD Water Management Districts

Glossary of Acronyms



Control and Management– means eradicating, containing, suppressing spread, reducingpopulation size, or reducing the effects of invasive species and preventing new invasions inFlorida.

Introduction – means the intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, orplacement of a species into a Florida ecosystem as a result of human activity.

Invasive species – means a nonindigenous species that has the ability to establish self-sustaining, expanding, free-living populations, and may cause economic and/or environmen-tal harm as measured by risk assessment(s) accepted by the Invasive Species Working Group(ISWG).

Native species – means a species within its natural range or natural zone of dispersal, i.e.,within the range it could or would occupy without direct or indirect introduction and/or careby humans. It excludes species descended from domesticated ancestors.

Nonindigenous species (synonyms: exotic or non-native species) - means, with respect toa particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biologicalmaterial capable of propagating that species, which is not native to Florida.

Pathways - natural and human connections that allow movement of species or their repro-ductive propagules from place to place.

Risk assessment – a science based process to evaluate the economic and/or environmentalrisk(s) of nonindigenous species.

Stakeholders – means any and all interested parties.

Glossary of Terms



The movement of plants, animals, and microbes beyond their natural range is muchlike a “game of biological roulette” (U.S. Congress, 1993). Once in a new environment, anorganism may simply die or it may become established and reproduce with little noticeableeffects on its surroundings (Simberloff, 1997a). But sometimes, a new species becomesinvasive, and it spreads unimpeded and causes great environmental and/or economic harm.

Florida is particularly prone to nonindigenous species invasions (Simberloff, 1997a).Most of Florida has a climate similar to that of the Neotropics with an absence of yearly hardfreezes and exhibits a disturbed and diverse patchwork of agricultural, environmental, andurban habitats. The southern third of Florida is a peninsula and a habitat island, bounded onthree sides by water and the fourth by frost, and it is typified, as are oceanic islands, by animpoverished native flora and fauna. Florida also has many lakes, streams, and rivers thatcan facilitate the easy spread of invasive species. These characteristics make Florida anepicenter for biological invasions (Simberloff, 1997a), a process that dates back to earlycommerce between the City of St. Augustine and South America (Schmitz et al., 1993).During the past 400 years, Florida has been invaded with periodic influxes of mostly tropicaland subtropical nonindigenous plants and animals. These influxes of introductions increasedduring the twentieth century with the rise of the ornamental plant and pet industries andthrough unintentional contaminants of imported commodities. Today, the Port of Miamireceives 85% of the live nonindigenous plant shipments that arrive each year in the UnitedStates (U.S. Congress, 1993).

Fortunately, few of the thousands of species that have been introduced into Floridahave become invasive. For example, approximately25,000 nonindigenous plant species have beenintroduced into the United States with 1,180 ofthese species becoming established in Florida andthriving outside of human cultivation (Wunderlin,1997). Sixty-nine of these are considered by theFlorida Exotic Pest Plant Council to be alteringnative plant communities by displacing nativespecies, changing community structures or ecologi-cal functions, or hybridizing with native species;another fifty-six have increased in abundance orfrequency but are not yet known to be harmful(Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, 2001).

But even a few invasive species can have a large economic impact in Florida. Morethan $240 million has been spent in Florida by state, federal, and local agencies since 1980to control invasive nonindigenous aquatic, wetland, and upland plants on publicly owned

Introduction

Asian Citrus canker is a bacterial disease of citrusthat causes premature leaf and fruit drop. It is highlycontagious and can be rapidly spread by rain,lawnmowers, animals and birds, moving infectedplants, and people. Citrus canker is one of the mostdestructive bacterial diseases impacting citrus. Thereis no known chemical compound that will destroy thebacteria within the plant tissue.



waterways and conservation lands (Bureau of Inva-sive Plant Management, 2001).

In Florida, there has been no comprehensivestatewide measurement of the direct and indirecteconomic costs associated with the majority ofharmful invasive species. However, there areindications that invasive species have a significanteconomic impact. A recent report prepared byFlorida scientists and agricultural officials estimatesthat the annual impact of invasive nonindigenousplants, animal pests, and diseases are costing saleslosses of $179 million in agricultural production(Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee, 2001). According to information compiled by theFlorida Governor’s Office for the U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of States Regard-ing Expenditures for Invasive Species Activities for fiscal year 1999-2000, a total of $90.8million was spent by nine Florida state agencies. The Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services spent the most ($45.9 million) for prevention, monitoring, eradication,control and restoration efforts. In south Florida alone, state and federal agricultural agenciesare conducting a multi-year (more than $300-million dollars have already been spent) effortto stop reintroduced citrus canker from spreading to central Florida by cutting thousands ofcitrus trees on private property (Schmitz and Simberloff, 2001). Many of Florida’s privatelands are impacted by invasive nonindigenous species and interfere with the use of theselands. They also act as sources of invasive nonindigenous species that invade public conser-vation lands and Florida’s agricultural areas. These private landowners need help in prevent-ing, controlling, and managing them. These costs associated with harmful invasive speciesare expected to grow with increasing world trade and the introduction of new invasivespecies (Schmitz and Simberloff, 1997).

Florida is at high risk for new invasionsFlorida is at high risk for the introduction of

new invasive nonindigenous species because of thestate’s strategic southeastern-most location.Florida, as with other states with ports and complextransportation systems, is expected to act as one ofthe nation’s sentinels against these invasive species(Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee, 2001). Yet,federal and state systems in place to intercept,eradicate, or contain these invaders have not keptpace with the influx of non-native agricultural pests(including diseases) along with environmentalinvaders arriving each year in Florida. The

The Mediterranean fruit fly is one of the world’smost destructive fruit pests. Its larvae develop andfeed on most deciduous, subtropical, and tropicalfruits and some vegetables. In this age of jettransportation, medflys can be easily transportedfrom a distant part of the world into Florida.

In order to eradicate citrus canker, infected andexposed trees must be cut down and disposed. As ofJuly 2002, more than 600,000 residential citrus treesand 1.6 million grove citrus trees have been destroyedto remove the threat of citrus canker from Florida.



frequency at which nonindigenous organismsentered Florida via the plant and animal materialbrought in by tourists, smugglers, and cargosubstantially grew during the 1990s (Pest ExclusionAdvisory Committee, 2001). The number of touristsentering Florida in the last ten years grew 20percent, approaching nearly 50 million peopleyearly. Perishable cargo nearly tripled to more than6 million tons. Mail deliveries and smugglingoperations that avoid official inspections also grewexponentially. However, the resources needed toregulate these activities are nearly unchanged(Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee, 2001).

As a consequence, two Mediterranean fruit fly infestations in Florida cost federaland state taxpayers nearly $50 million to eradicate (Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee,2001). The tick-borne Heartwater disease, an outbreak of which could kill 50-90 percentof Florida’s cattle, other ruminant livestock, and the state’s native deer population, is asclose as the Caribbean islands (Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee, 2001). Equine piro-plasmosis, a parasitic disease also transmitted by ticks, along with Heartwater and otherlesser-known animal and plant maladies, have already cost the taxpayers more than $400million to address (Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee, 2001).

In addition to new introductions that may become invasive, species that havealready been introduced but are not especially invasive may also become problematic inthe future (Schmitz et al. 1997). Many of Florida’s most widespread nonindigenous plantspecies were introduced long before they became noteworthy. For example, Brazilianpepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), introduced during the nineteenth century, started becom-ing noticeable on the south Florida landscape only in the early 1960s. Although long timelags between introduction and observed rapid population expansion might be related toother factors, such as unnoticed growth, some sites act as staging areas from whichnonindigenous species shower the surrounding landscape with seeds, and populations mayeventually produce genetic variants adapted to local conditions (Ewel, 1986).

Nine state agencies have responsibilities for invasive nonindigenous species includ-ing their prevention, detection, control, and monitoring as well as restoration of invadedhabitats and agricultural areas (Table 1). Three state agencies (FDEP, FDACS, and FWC)have regulatory authority over invasive nonindigenous species. Historically, policies heldby some of these agencies occasionally conflicted. Presently, there are no comprehensivemechanisms to coordinate prevention and management activities among the responsibleagencies.

To find and eradicate medflys before they becomeestablished, Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Personnel monitor special insect trapslocated throughout central and south Florida formedflys.



Not all nonindigenous species are invasive or harmful in FloridaIt should be noted that not all nonindigenous species are harmful to agriculture and

the environment, and they are essential to many Florida industries. Many nonindigenousspecies provide economic, recreational, and social benefits. Florida’s citizens, as well asagriculture and other industries, benefit from nonindigenous species that are produced andappreciated as pets, food, raw materials for soft and hard goods, and hunting and fishingresources, or used to mitigate environmental dam-age. Very few of Florida’s agronomic crops (veg-etables, horticulture, fruit, livestock, tropical fish,and others) valued in excess of $55 billion per yearare native species.

Simberloff et al. (1997) reported that theecological effects of Florida’s nonindigenous speciesfound in the natural environment vary enormously.Of all the taxa introduced into the state,nonindigenous plants are currently having thegreatest environmental impact (Simberloff et al.,1997). For other introduced taxa, the documentedeffects are few. For example, in other parts of theUnited States, nonindigenous fishes have oftenplayed a key role in the endangerment or extinctionof native fish species. In Florida, Shafland (1996) reported that fishes introduced intoFlorida have had few, if any, negative effects on native fish fauna and an important sportfishery has been established using the nonindigenous butterfly peacock bass. And recentdata from eight quantitative fish surveys conducted in South Florida (Trexler, 2000) provide

Table 1. State agencies with jurisdictional responsibilities for invasive species in Florida. Operations

indicate: I-importation regulatory program, P-prevention, D-detection, C-control, M-monitoring, and

R-restoration efforts.

Florida’s aquarium industry has been culturing awide variety of valuable and ecological benignspecies since the 1920’s.

(photos by Harry Grier)



little evidence of ecological effects of introduced fish species in the central or northern Everglades wet-prairie communities. On the other hand, because south Florida lacks native specialized fish species, thekind that are most susceptible for endangerment or extinction, Trexler et al. (2000) warn this ability fornative fish species to cope with more than 50 introductions of nonindigenous fish species and the profoundenvironmental alterations that characterize this region is no guarantee they will not be affected by furtherintroductions of nonindigenous fish species.

Another example is the nonindigenous feral pig. Feral pigs, through their rooting, have a moredestructive impact on natural habitats than any other nonindigenous Florida mammal (Layne, 1997). How-ever, they, along with the armadillo, now comprise an important part of the diet of the endangered Floridapanther. Maehr et al. (1990) report that feral pigs and armadillos make up from 63.3% of the biomassconsumed to as little as 33% in more southern areas, but deer are the most significant food because of theircosmopolitan distribution. Dalrymple and Bass (1996) rate feral pig and armadillo consumption even

lower: 29% biomass combined versus 36% for deer. Maehr suspectsthat deer populations are sufficient to support existing Florida pan-thers without the addition of nonindigenous feral pigs (Maehr, per-sonal communication, 2001). And, there are those who have evensuggested that the feral pig is an impediment to panther range expan-sion because it harbors pseudorabies, a disease that once proved fatalto a panther in the heart of its range in southern Hendry County(Glass et al., 1994).

Clear agricultural and environmental benefits ofnonindigenous species are those that are used for biological controlof invasive species. Frank

and McCoy (1993) report the release of 151 insect species inFlorida since 1890 for use against insects and weeds. About 28% ofthese agents became established. Thirty-four were released againstinsect pests of agriculture and horticulture, the other eight againstaquatic weeds (Frank and McCoy, 1993). Some have been verysuccessful in controlling unwanted invaders. For example,Alligatorweed, once a severe problem in Florida, is now suppressedby a nonindigenous flea beetle (Center et al., 1997).

A major challenge for government agencies in Florida willbe to accurately assess all the costs and benefits associated with each nonindigenous species, and to findways to minimize the costs while maintaining the benefits.

Damage by the alligator flea beetle to the SouthAmerican alligator weed in Florida.

Feral pigs are more destructive to natural habitatsthan any other nonindigenous Florida mammal.However, they also provide an important part of thediet of the endangered Florida panther.



How a statewide invasive species strategic plan can helpThe need for coordinated multi-agency

planning and programs for preventing and control-ling invasive nonindigenous species has been raisedby several studies, such as the Office of TechnologyAssessment’s report “Harmful NonindigenousSpecies in the United States” (U.S. Congress,1993), the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection’s report “An Assessment ofNonindigenous Species on Florida’s Public Lands”(Schmitz and Brown, 1994), the National InvasiveSpecies Council’s “National Invasive SpeciesManagement Plan” (National Invasive SpeciesCouncil, 2001),” the Florida Pest Exclusion Advi-sory Committee Report (Pest Exclusion AdvisoryCommittee, 2001), and the South Florida EcosystemRestoration Task Force and Working Group’s report“An Assessment of Invasive Plants in Florida”(Doren and Ferriter, 2001). Any effective statewidestrategy for preventing and managing invasivespecies must first consider that these invadingspecies are not limited to legislative and profes-sional boundaries, geography, or even individualprograms. A growing number of scientists, re-source managers, and agricultural officials recog-nize that a statewide invasive species strategic plancould provide a framework for coordinating stateagency prevention and management efforts inFlorida while facilitating cooperation with local andfederal agencies. The successful implementation ofthis plan necessitates the involvement of individu-als, organizations, and businesses involved withdirect though sometimes conflicting interests innonindigenous species.

Efforts to prevent new invasions and man-age most invasions in Florida have proven to beinadequate despite some individual program suc-cesses. The exclusion and management of invasive

nonindigneous species in Florida is a complex,multi-disciplinary problem that threatens Florida’sagricultural resources and public conservationlands. A new paradigm must be developed ingovernment that will encompass the multi-jurisdic-tional aspects of biological invasions in Florida andreach out to obtain the cooperation of all stakehold-ers including private industry, private landowners,non-governmental organizations, and the public tolessen this threat.

The scope of this plan will encompass allharmful invasive species in Florida with the excep-tion of those organisms that only cause humandisease. The purpose of the plan is to provide ablueprint for state agency action to prevent theintroduction of harmful invasive species, providefor their control, and minimize their economic,environmental, and other impacts. Many of thegeneral action items in the plan were recommendedby the reports listed above and can be completed orat least initiated with current available resources.The plan also recognizes that without significantand sustained resources for existing and newprograms, the plan cannot be fully implemented inFlorida. In addition, resources are needed fordeveloping a multi-jurisdictional information-sharing network that will provide prevention,management, and public education about biologicalinvasions in Florida to scientists, resource manag-ers, policy-makers, students, and the public.

The Invasive Species Working GroupThe Florida Department of Environmental

Protection organized and facilitated a July 10th,2001 meeting, at the request of the Governor(Appendix I), to determine the most effective wayof developing a comprehensive statewide plan that

Statewide Invasive Species Strategic Plan for Florida



unifies and coordinates the responsibilities ofgovernment agencies to prevent and manage harm-ful biological invasions in Florida. The representa-tives from the state and federal agencies that at-tended the July 10 meeting recognized the need fora working group representing state agencies withresponsibilities for invasive nonindigenous speciesto carry out the Governor’s request of developing astatewide invasive species strategic plan. In subse-quent meetings, the Invasive Species WorkingGroup (ISWG) was formed.

The ISWG is comprised of representativesfrom the following state agencies, state agencydivisions, and university: Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection; Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Service’s Divisions ofPlant Industry, Animal Industry, Forestry, andAquaculture; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva-tion Commission; Florida Department of Transpor-tation; Northwest Florida Water ManagementDistrict; Southwest Florida Water ManagementDistrict; South Florida Water Management District;St. Johns River Water Management District;Suwannee River Water Management District; andthe University of Florida’s Institute of Food andAgricultural Science.

Statewide Coordination and IntergovernmentalCooperation

Coordination and cooperation among agen-cies are essential elements to the success of anyinvasive species prevention or management pro-gram. Because these elements are essential, a lackthereof creates many opportunities for the consen-sus on which such coordination and cooperationmust be based to either break down at almost anystage in the process, or not even develop in the firstplace. Generally, coordination and cooperation failover “turf” issues, environmental concerns aboutcontrol activities, differing philosophies about aninvading organism, funding issues, or limited

information about the economic, agricultural, orenvironmental impacts of an invader. Developing afair, balanced, and objective statewide invasivespecies plan in the face of frequently competinginterests will be challenging, but this is the key tosuccessful prevention and management operationsin Florida.

General Action Items1. The Invasive Species Working Group

(ISWG) will develop a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) for presentation tostate agencies involved in invasive speciesprevention, eradication, research, and con-trol by January 2003. The purpose of theMOU is (a) to help integrate and coordinateFlorida-wide agency invasive species pre-vention, eradication, research, and controlactions and help integrate them with nationaland international invasive species manage-ment efforts; and (b) to develop and outlineprocedures that will help resolve jurisdic-tional and other intrastate agency issuesregarding invasive species programs.

2. By July 2003, each state agency that is aparty to the MOU and a member of theISWG will conduct an evaluation of itscurrent statutes and rules relevant to inva-sive nonindigenous species. The purpose ofthis evaluation is to concur on potentiallegislation revisions to cover potential gapsor reduce duplication.

3. Starting in July 2003, the ISWG will reviewand evaluate the status of invasive speciesreporting. ISWG will work to develop astandardized reporting format, including asummary of fiscal year expenditures andagencies’ suggested legislative budgetrequests for prevention, eradication, re-search, and control of invasive species.

4. Each member of the ISWG will work with



its own agency information technology staffto provide links among existing invasivespecies websites and databases by July2003. ISWG will review and make recom-mendations regarding an inter-agencyinformation support network and databasefor invasive species by July 2004.

5. The final draft of the Statewide InvasiveSpecies Strategic Plan will be sent to thosefederal agencies that have jurisdictionalauthority for preventing, regulating, eradi-cating, controlling, and researching invasivespecies in Florida for their responses to thestate plan and will be attached in an appen-dix to this plan (Appendix II). After theGovernor of Florida and the Florida Legisla-ture accept the plan, representatives fromthose federal agencies will be invited to benon-voting members of the ISWG.

Prevention of New Biological InvasionsPrevention activities can preclude the intro-

duction and establishment of harmful invasivespecies and identify pathways that are serving as ameans of introduction of new invasive species intoFlorida.

General Action Items1. The ISWG will review established proce-

dures for fair and feasible multiple levels ofrisk assessments for evaluating first timeintroduced nonindigenous species by July2004. The ISWG will identify gaps andmake recommendations or assist in theestablishment of new risk assessment proce-dures if they are warranted.

2. State agencies will encourage federal agen-cies to cooperate in the development andimplementation of Pest Risk ManagementCommittee partnerships at all significantports of entry in Florida by July 2003. It isessential that local plant and animal quaran-

tine officials who work in these facilitiesplay a major role in these committees.Representatives from relevant agenciesshould be actively involved in the process.

3. State agencies will cooperate to conductthorough pathway investigations in conjunc-tion with relevant federal agencies andstakeholders when appropriate.

SurveillanceSurveillance serves several purposes: it

characterizes invasion patterns, detects new ones,suggests areas of new research, evaluates preven-tion and control programs, and projects futureagricultural and resource management needs.Statewide surveillance requires adequate infra-structure, trained personnel within state agencies,and a network of scientific experts that are able toidentify new invaders.

General Action Item1. ISWG will evaluate current surveillance

programs and make recommendations toimprove prevention and detection efforts byJanuary 2004.

Rapid ResponseRapidly responding to new invasions is

crucial because some introduced invasive speciescan be eradicated if the invasion is recognized earlyenough and the eradication campaign is sufficientlywell-designed, comprehensive, and adequatelyfunded.

General Action Item1. Beginning in January 2004, the ISWG will

recommend rapid response proceduresappropriate for new discoveries of invasivenonindigenous species. Coordination withfederal and local agencies and non-govern-mental organizations will be implementedwhere appropriate.



Control and ManagementWhen invasive species are permanently

established or populations are too widespread foreradication and containment efforts, the only effec-tive actions lessening their impacts are throughcontrol and management measures. Control andmanagement efforts may include: population sup-pression through biological and chemical controlsor other management activities, attempting to limitpopulation dispersal, and maintaining an invasivespecies population at its lowest possible populationdensity through aggressive control activities. Be-cause the majority of biological invasions in Floridaspan jurisdictional boundary lines, control activitiesin Florida are often carried out by cooperating withfederal and local government agencies. Sharingtechnical information, coordinating managementpriorities, and agency capacities across all affectedagencies are crucial in developing cost-effectivestatewide control and management efforts.

General Action Items1. The ISWG will identify known invasive

species problems in Florida and recommendmanagement actions to federal, state, andlocal governments, private landowners andothers by July 2003.

2. State agencies will identify information,staff, research, and budget needs to improveinvasive species management in Florida byJuly 2003. The ISWG will provide reviewand make recommendations to the agencies.

3. State agencies will develop or revise inva-sive species management plans to achievecost-effective management efforts of inva-sive species by January 2004.

4. The ISWG will review agency invasivespecies procedures and make recommenda-tions, where appropriate, to coordinatespecies management plans across agenciesby July 2004.

5. The ISWG will evaluate potential incentive

programs or assistance for private landown-ers and make recommendations to theFlorida Legislature to establish incentiveprograms or assistance to private landown-ers for the control of invasive nonindigenousspecies on private lands by January 2004.

6. The ISWG will facilitate the disseminationof existing BMP (best management prac-tices) for minimizing the human spread ofinvasive species.

Public Education about Biological InvasionsEducating visitors, commercial importers,

residents, and agricultural producers about theimpacts of invasive nonindigenous species and theimportance of keeping new invasive species out ofFlorida is a key component of a successful state-wide invasive species prevention and managementprogram.

General Action Items1. The ISWG will provide recommendations to

agencies to implement a coordinated publicawareness campaign about the impact ofinvasive nonindigenous species on Florida’sagriculture and environment and disseminateinformation on statutes and rules pertainingto these species by January 2003. Existinginteragency educational councils will beconsulted for recommendations and coordi-nation.

2. State agencies will make current publica-tions available to interested parties by: (a)using existing resources on the web toprovide information to the public on inva-sive species issues (see Statewide Coordina-tion and Intergovernmental CooperationSection), and (b) creating a web-based list ofinvasive species publications currentlyavailable from agencies.



Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)Bureau of Invasive Plant Management

Florida has approximately 1.5 million acresof publicly accessible freshwater lakes and rivers.These public waterways provide wildlife habitat andmore than $1.5 billion in annualrevenues to Florida from freshwa-ter fishing and wildlife observa-tion. In 1971, the Florida Legisla-ture designated the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP)as the lead agency for coordinat-ing and funding aquatic plantmanagement activities on publicwaterbodies. This centralizedapproach has proven effective inthat it established a statewideaquatic plant management andresource protection plan, ensuredstatewide priority distribution of available funds,reduced administration, coordinated managementoperations, avoided duplica-tion, and ensured consistencyin policy, goals, and controlmethods.

For example, whenthere was no statewide aquaticplant management plan, fund-ing was inconsistent andinvasive nonindigenous plantpopulations were out of controlas recently as the early 1970s.Since this centralized approachhas been implemented, water hyacinth has beenreduced statewide from 120,000 acres in the late1950s and early 1960s to less than 1,000 acres in2000 (Figure 1).

Each year, staff from the Department ofEnvironmental Protection survey approximately 450public waterbodies to determine the extent ofinvasive nonindigenous aquatic plant populations inFlorida. This information is used to alert managersfor rapid control measures to contain and eradicate

new populations, to help developmanagement priorities to distrib-ute state funds, and to evaluateaquatic plant managementprograms for their overall effec-tiveness. In 2000, non-indigenous plant infestationswere found in 408 (89%) ofFlorida’s 459 public waterbodies.Eleven highly invasive non-indigenous species have beenidentified growing in Florida’swaterways. Many of theseinfestations, especially canopy

producers like water hyacinth and hydrilla, interferewith recreational use, cause severe oxygen deple-

tion, stunt fish populations,cause fish kills, restrict waterflow, increase flooding,restrict navigation, acceleratesedimentation, and reducebiodiversity in lakes andrivers.

Since 1974, Florida’soverall aquatic plant manage-ment objectives have re-volved around implementingthe concept of “maintenance

control,” which was pioneered by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers upon the completion of a mas-sive water hyacinth control project in Florida during

Existing State Programs and Findings

Figure 1. Acres of water hyacinth in Florida’s publicwaterways from 1947 to 2000.

Surfaced-out hydrilla at Wakulla Springs State Park,in North Florida. Hydrilla forms dense canopies inwhich 70 percent of the vegetative biomass is in thetop 2 feet of the water. This type of growth reducesunderwater light penetration, alters the amount ofoxygen found in the water, and reduces watercirculation. Beneath this canopy, extremely lowlevels of dissolved oxygen and significant changes inwater chemistry are common.



1973. Maintenance control is defined as “a methodfor the control of nonindigenous plants in whichcontrol techniques are utilized in a coordinatedmanner on a continuous basis in order to maintainthe plant population at the lowest feasible level.”Previous to 1974, species like water hyacinth wereallowed to reach problem levels before controlmeasures were implemented. That strategy resultedin the death of large amounts of vegetation, whichled to detrital loading. The only way to preventsuch environmental disturbances and lower theamount of herbicides used during control operationswas to prevent the targeted plant population fromreaching a large size. For example, water hyacinthcovered 2,300 acres of the Suwannee River in theearly 1970s. Thousands of tons of sediments wereproduced by the natural shedding of root and shootmaterial and from controlled plants. Hundreds ofacres required control using thousands of pounds ofherbicide. Crisis management was replaced bymaintenance control efforts in the late 1970s. Sinceachieving maintenance control in 1985, the amountof control necessary has been substantially reducedthus lowering environmental and economic impacts.Native plants have returned to the shores andmarshes of the Suwannee River, restoring fish andwildlife habitat (Figure 2)

Aquatic plant management in Florida is amultidisciplinary effort in that chemistry, hydrology,biology, meteorology, and the multi-jurisdictionalaspects all need to be considered before treatmentoperations begin. Individual aquatic plant manage-ment programs for all of Florida’s publicwaterbodies are developed and/or revised each year.State biologists and government contractors preparerequests that are reviewed by local, state, andfederal agency personnel that have jurisdictionalauthorities over affected waterbodies. These re-viewers then meet annually to establish individualoperational management plans and budgets. Pasthistory has taught aquatic plant managers that inorder to successfully remove unwanted vegetation,managers must apply the appropriate control meth-ods with the goal of preserving, restoring, or en-hancing natural processes, and they must be flexiblein assessing and revising management needs.

In 1996, the state formed a Task Force onInvasive Upland Plants that was comprised offederal, state, and local land management officials,along with private interest groups. A report wasgenerated recommending four primary goals: raiseawareness about the harm invasive nonindigenousplant species cause on public lands, develop andfund a program to remove these species, make themanagement of these species part of overall landmanagement efforts in Florida, and develop strongpartnerships among all agencies, universities, andprivate landowners for a coordinated approach forthe management of these species. Legislation waspassed in 1997 that authorized the state to expandits aquatic plant management program to includeupland invasive nonindigenous plant species andbring these populations under maintenance controlwhere they occur on public conservation lands.

Perhaps the greatest difference between thestatewide aquatic plant management program andthe newer upland plant management program is theFigure 2. Suwannee River water hyacinth population size,

acres controlled, tons of organic material deposited within theriver, and pounds of herbicides applied from 1974 to 2000.



number of official jurisdictions involved withineach program. In Florida, there are few on-sitemanagers assigned to a specific waterbody becausethey are mostly interconnected waterways that arelargely sovereign or owned by the state. Only afew state, federal, and local agencies have programswith jurisdictional responsibilities for managinginvasive aquatic plants. Florida’s aquatic plantcontrol program funds the removal of invasiveplants with six state agencies, four federal agencies,eleven counties, and one city. In contrast, there arediverse, distinct government agency land manage-ment responsibilities for public conservation landsand most have on-site managers to carry out thesetasks. In addition, Florida’s public conservationlands are increasing in their size and diversitybecause of an aggressive land buying effort duringthe past ten years to save critical wildlife habitatfrom development.

Another contrasting factor is the number ofplant species that are managed within each program.In the aquatic environment, there are 11 invasiveaquatic plant species where state funds are spent toremove them. In the upland environment, statefunds target more than 125 invasive plant speciesmaking it more difficult and time consuming toachieve management success. Many control meth-ods are species-specific, and improper speciesidentification or a lack of a suitable control methodcan lead to failure.

Because of these differences, the uplandplant management program had to establish amechanism to encompass this diversity of landownership into a coherent strategy to map invasiveplant population densities, prioritize funding needs,develop long-term management goals, and educatethe public about why these species should be re-moved. To identify the extent of the problem andto form partnerships at the local level, elevenRegional Invasive Plant Working Groups wereestablished covering the entire state (Figure 3).

Each working group has representatives fromfederal, state, county, and city agencies, and non-governmental organizations. These working groupshave the responsibility to map the distribution ofinvasive upland nonindigneous plant species withintheir regions, set regional control priorities, developlong-term management plans, and develop compre-hensive public education programs about the harmthese species cause to public conservation lands.

The state relies on these working groups toappropriately direct funding toward each region’shighest priorities. Because Florida’s invasive plantpopulations vary in their distribution throughoutFlorida, with the southern portion of the statecontaining the largest population densities, eachworking group has flexibility to develop their ownproject ranking criteria for their region. Programliaisons have been designated for each workinggroup to facilitate project proposal review andcoordination with state program staff. Establish-ment of these regional working groups provides afoundation for maintaining partnerships to integrate,coordinate, and fund efforts to remove invasivenonindigenous plant species from public conserva-tion lands, and on a voluntary basis, on private

Figure 3. Map showing the locations of FDEP’s elevenRegional Invasive Plant Working Groups.



lands that may impact public lands. In order forinvasive nonindigenous species removal projects tobe eligible for state funds, there are several mini-mum requirements. Federal, state, and local gov-ernment lands receiving state funds for invasiveplant removal must be designated as public conser-vation land. In an effort to target the greatestnumber of the largest invasive plant populations forinitial removal, the program requires that landmanagement agencies continue maintenance controlin perpetuity after the bulk of the plants are initiallycontrolled from a project site. This insures thatavailable state funding will not be tied to mainte-nance control costs on a limited number of publicconservation lands. In addition, projects will belooked on more favorably for funding if cooperativecost share or matching funds are available; controltechnologies have been established for the targetedinvasive plant species; the project will benefitspecific threatened or endangered species; and thesite has a high restoration potential. In 2000, thespecies with the most acres controlled were theAustralian melaleuca tree and Brazilian peppershrub under the FDEP upland plant managementprogram (Table 2).

to federal land managers. In 2000, the State ofFlorida developed a partnership with U.S. NationalPark Service in providing $292,000 in matchingfunds for 12 invasive plant control projects. Thesematching funds provided cost-effective invasiveplant control and benefited the park’s servicesefforts to protect and reestablish native plant com-munities on federal lands. This state-federal match-ing fund program is expected to continue for thenext several years.

FDEP’s prevention efforts revolve aroundpermitting aquatic plant retail outlets and banning26 nonindigenous plant species for most retail useand possession without a FDEP issued permit.However, present regulations for deterring thepossession of prohibited plant species are lax andcumbersome to use. There are two prohibited stateplant lists (FDEP’s prohibited aquatic plant speciesand the Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Service’s (FDACS) noxious weed list)with different criteria and listing processes. Thesetwo separate weed lists have failed to provide forquick and effective listings of harmful species.

Findings∗ Civil instead of criminal penalties for viola-

tion of FDEP’s rules governing the posses-sion of prohibited aquatic plant species needto be implemented. These changes wereinitiated in the 2001 legislative session but apenalty schedule is still needed. FDEPshould be able to levy a substantial fine forpossession of prohibited plants. Additionalchanges to existing statutes and rules areneeded to make it easier to confiscate pro-hibited plants held in violation of the rulesand that authority needs to be delegated tothe field staff level. These changes need tobe implemented by July 2003.

∗ Legislation is needed to make it easier toplace invasive plants that invade non-

Table 2. Invasive plant acres controlled1 for the top ten mostinvasive upland plant species found in Florida’s conservationlands in 2000 along with their percent of total acres controlledfor all upland plant species.

1by estimated acres controlled and % of total project acres for all species2does not include melaleuca acres controlled by SFWMD

Because over 410,000 of approximately 2million acres of National Park Service lands inFlorida are infested with invasive nonindigenousplant species, and act as seed sources for statepublic conservation lands, the state upland plantremoval program began offering funding assistance



agricultural areas on a statewide prohibitedplant list. Presently, FDEP must obtainFDACS and Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission (FWC) approvalbefore placing a plant species on FDEP’slist. Presently, the authority of regulatinginvasive plants is divided between FDACSand FDEP.

∗ A prohibited plant species-working groupshould be established using staff frominvolved agencies that would meet to dis-cuss new introductions or threats, anddevelop action plans for new infestations.FDEP staff is insufficient to adequatelyconduct inspections and research newpotential invasive plant species. A desig-nated research center and appropriate budgetcontributed to/shared by appropriate agen-cies to evaluate nonindigenous plant speciespotential invasiveness in Florida is needed.

∗ FDEP needs to develop better reporting,tracking, and rapid response of new plantinvasions. All FDEP contracts with aquaticand upland plant removal contractors shouldbe modified to allow for a rapid eradicationprogram to be implemented and contractorservices to be quickly utilized.

Florida Department of Agriculture and ConsumerService (FDACS)Division of Plant Industry

The Division of Plant Industry has the stateresponsibility for detecting, intercepting, identify-ing, and controlling organisms, which directly orindirectly threaten Florida’s agricultural, horticul-tural, and native plant resources. There are specificstatutes and rules that provide for the regulation ofplant pests, arthropods, noxious weeds, geneticallyengineered plants or plant pest organisms, andbiological control agents.

Historically, agriculture has been viewed as

the primary beneficiary of the plant regulatorysystem. However, the economic benefits of protect-ing plant resources accrue broadly. Nationally,according to a General Accounting Office 1997report, introduced invasive plant pests result in anestimated $41 billion annually in production and inprevention and control expenses. On average, theState of Florida experiences the establishment of 12new plant pest species each year. A ten-year high of39 plant pests was established in FY 1996-97(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Graph showing insect species immigration intoFlorida from 1990 to 1999

A recent FDACS report, “The Exotic Inva-sion of Florida (2000),” states that nearly everymonth a new nonindigenous arthropod is detected inthe state. Some turn out to be serious agriculturalpests, such as Mediterranean and Oriental fruit flies,brown citrus aphid, citrus leaf miner, Asian citruspsyllid, and small hive beetle. Others, such as thebromeliad weevil and the cactus moth, attack nativeplants in natural areas. Many become establishedand their environmental impacts are unknown. Insome cases, these pests or potential pests are effec-tively eradicated. Yet in many cases it is not bio-logically or economically feasible to eradicate them.

During the 1970s and 1980s, most of thenonindigenous insects introduced into Florida werefrom the Neotropical region—the tropical andsubtropical areas in Central and South America and



the Caribbean. But in the last 10 years the numberof insects from Asia has increased until they nowalmost equal the number from the Neotropics.Trade with Asia, particularly with China, has sub-stantially increased (Figure 5).

pathways that need to be addressed, particularlyin regards to the interdiction of commercialsmuggling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’sAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(USDA-APHIS) and the Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) arethe primary federal and state agencies charged withprotecting Florida’s animal and plant resources.Federal laws contain a number of separate acts thatgovern importation of plants, animals, and plant andanimal products from other countries and interstatemovement in accordance with federal plant oranimal quarantine restrictions. The movement ofthese products into Florida from other states andtheir intrastate movement is governed by specificchapters in Florida Statutes and rules.

In addition to federal and state laws, variousUnited Nations treaties govern international trade of

agricultural products. Oneexample is the InternationalPlant Protection Convention(IPPC) that seeks to standardizeentry requirements for plantsand plant products using bio-logical justification as a basis.The IPPC has developed guide-lines for conducting scientifi-cally based pest risk analysis,and the USDA uses theseanalyses when making deci-sions regarding the importationof plant or plant products.Entry requirements vary de-pending on the commodity andthe country of origin. In mostcases, phytosanitary or animalhealth certificates are required.The U.S. entry process permitsthe entry of plants and plant

Figure 5. Sources of insect immigration into Florida.

Many manufactured goodsare being produced in China andimported into the U.S. This hascreated yet another pathway forpest introduction. Wooden cratesused for packing serve as sourcesof nonindigenous weevil and beetleintroduction. Holiday crafts madewith rice straw and other naturalproducts have been found infestedwith pests. These “non-traditional”sources of plant and animal pestintroduction have placed an addi-tional burden on Florida’s safe-guarding system.

Commercial smuggling,ever changing trade routes, andmanufactured or processed prod-ucts are just a few examples of thechanging pathways for pest intro-duction into Florida. Likely thereare more as-yet-undiscovered

The giant African snail is a serious agricultural pest.According to Simberloff (1997b), in 1966, Africansnails were smuggled into Miami and weresubsequently released into a subdivision. In 1969,the resulting infestation was brought to the attentionof the Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services. Within ten days, the Commis-sioner of Agriculture announced the snail wasestablished and appealed for public cooperation inreporting and eliminating it. A total of 133 privateproperties were initially quarantined, but threesubsequently discovered infestations led to thequarantine of 438 properties (about 42 blocks).Worse, within days a second infestation wasdiscovered north in Hollywood (Broward County).An eradication campaign was mounted that usedhand picking plus a granulated chemical compound.There were frequent, meticulous square-foot-by-square-foot surveys, and by 1971, only 46 snails werefound during a six month period (compared to17,000 in the previous 16 months). By April 1975, nolive snails had been found for almost two years andthe eradication campaign, which cost more than $1million, was judged successful.



products without phytosanitarycertification preclearance pro-grams in 29 countries for severaltypes of fruit and floweringbulbs whereby the products areinspected by the USDA prior tobeing exported to the U.S. TheUSDA does not have an estab-lished preclearance program foranimals, but will travel to acountry to inspect animals priorto shipment on a case-by-case basis. The USDAmonitors compliance with import requirements atU.S. ports of entry by verifying that the correctdocuments have accompanied the shipment andinspecting the shipment for pests or diseases. TheUSDA notifies FDACS of incoming shipments bymailing copies of the notice of imports. Thisenables FDACS to conduct a secondary, in-depthinspection at the destination provided the shipmenthas not been dispersed to other locations.

Likewise, FDACS permits the entry ofplants and animals from other states provided acertificate of inspection accompanies them. Plantproducts, such as fruits and vegetables, may need acertificate of inspection depending on the state oforigin and the pest concerns. In the case of plantsand plant products, a certificate of inspection doesnot necessarily mean the individual shipment wasinspected; it may only mean the nursery or farm isunder a routine inspection program for pests anddiseases.

Anyone shipping agricultural products intoFlorida by truck is required to stop at the FDACSAgricultural Inspection Stations located on all roadscrossing the Suwannee and St. Mary’s Rivers.These stations verify certification status, reject non-enterable shipments, and notify the respectivedivisions of the shipment in case follow-up inspec-tions are needed. In cases where there is a pest-concern, the truck may be returned to its origin or

required to enter under seal, whichcan only be removed at its destina-tion by an authorized FDACSrepresentative.

Findings∗ A critical need exists for acomprehensive invasive plant pestdetection system in the UnitedStates. An effective state andfederal partnership is needed to

establish pest detection priorities and clearlydefine action plans for coordination of pestdetection activities at the state, regional, andnational levels.

∗ Base funding is not adequate to respond tothe increasing number of pest introductionsoccurring throughout the state.

∗ There is presently no standardized formulain place to identify the funding responsibili-ties or partnerships between agencies withrespect to invasive species activities andtheir resulting financial obligations.

∗ Presently, there is no mechanism in place foridentifying and determining the roll ofstakeholders or primary beneficiaries.

∗ Presently, the authority of regulating inva-sive plants is divided between FDACS andFDEP with no clear enforcement authorityassigned to either agency.

∗ A coordinated plan should be developed andimplemented to integrate Florida’s effortswith the various databases on invasivespecies not known to occur in the U.S. withthose of other organizations, both nationallyand internationally.

∗ A proactive public out-reach plan should bedeveloped and coordinated between allagencies involved with biological invasionsin Florida.

The nonindigenous pink hibiscus mealybug attacksmore than 125 plant species by feeding on the sap ofa plant and releasing toxic substances that causeinjury and death to the plant. It is spread by wind, byants, or it can be stuck on clothing or hair.



Division of AquacultureThe culture of aquatic species in Florida has

a long history, dating from the 1880s, that includesthe production and sale of nonnative fish, molluscs,crustacean, reptilian and plantspecies. During 1999, the FloridaLegislature created the Divisionof Aquaculture (AQUA) as a one-stop shop for all environmentalregulations related to commercialaquaculture. Aquafarmers mustobtain a Certificate of Registra-tion from the Division to legallysell their products. As a compo-nent of the Certification process,Division representatives inspectfacilities to insure compliancewith Best Management Practices.The Best Management Practiceswere developed through agency, industry, localgovernment and aquaculture extension agent contri-butions with an objective of providing a variety ofoptions to meet Florida’s environmental protectiongoals. Aquaculturists in compliance with the BestManagement Practices must affix to their packag-ing, bill of sales, invoices or other business relatedpaperwork a unique Aquaculture Certificate ofRegistration Number and carry on their person anidentification card. Current compliance rate withthe aquaculture Best Management Practices exceeds95 percent.

One of Florida’s environmental protectiongoals is to prevent the introduction, establishmentand spread of aquatic invasive species. To obtainpermission to culture non-native species, aquacul-turists in Florida must design and operate theirholding, transport, and culture systems in a mannerto prevent escape of all life stages: egg, seed, fry,larvae, seedling or adult. Written authorization isrequired by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva-tion Commission (FWC) to import non-native

vertebrate and invertebrate aquatic species. Re-stricted nonindigenous species are listed under aFWC rule and the Division of Aquaculture enforcesthe provisions of this rule for aquacultural facilities.

Prohibited vertebrate and inverte-brate aquatic species, as identi-fied by FWC rule, are not eli-gible for culture and may notbe possessed by Floridaaquaculturists.

Findings∗ A mechanism needs to beestablished for rapid communica-tion between the Division ofAquaculture, FDEP, and FWCwhen invasive species are foundon a farm.∗ The Division needs to pre-

pare an integrated agency rapid responseplan and Best Management Practices toaddress invasive species found on farms.

∗ Memorandums of Understanding need to besigned between the FDACS and FDEP andFWC delineating lines of jurisdiction forpurposes of inspection for invasive species.

∗ Funding needs to be obtained for surveyingFlorida for aquatic invasive species.

∗ The Division strongly supports reasonableand common sense approaches to regulatingnonnative species in a farm environment thatfocuses on public education, prevention(science-based screening systems and riskassessments) and incentives for privatelandowners to remove or control invasivespecies.

Water hyacinth (see arrow) was an integral compo-nent of a water filtration and nutrient removal systemat a farm that recirculated 30 million gallons daily toproduce 1.5 million pounds of hybrid striped bassper year.

Photo courtesy: HydroMentia, Inc.



Division of ForestryThe Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF) hasresponsibility for three main program areas in thestate of Florida: management of the state forestsystem, protection of resources from wildfire, andlandowner assistance through the CooperativeForestry Assistance program. All programs arecross-funded, and all respond cooperatively tocatastrophic incidents in the State. The DOF man-ages 31 State Forests that contain over 900,000acres More than 184,000 acres are managed underspecial agreement with other state agencies, severalcounties, and water management districts.

The DOF practices multiple-use land man-agement on lands in the state forest system, asdefined in Chapter 253.034(2)(a), Florida Statutes.The mission of the Division is “to protect andmanage Florida’s forest resources through a stew-ardship ethic to assure these resources will beavailable for future generations.” One of theDivision’s strategies to fulfill this mission is “tomanage public lands to retain their unique character,and to provide multiple public benefits.” Ecosystemmanagement is the overall framework within whichmultiple use management occurs, producing mul-tiple public benefits Management of invasive,nonindigenous, species is a component of ecosys-tem management, and is included in all state forestfive-year management plans, and considered inreview of all proposed forest management activities.

The practice of the DOF is to locate, iden-tify, and control invasive, nonindigenous plants andanimals on State Forests. A majority of problematicnonindigenous species in State Forests are invasiveplant species. When nonindigenous plants on theFlorida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (EPPC) Cat-egory I and Category II lists are discovered, amonitoring and control plan is developed andimplemented based upon the severity of the infesta-tion, its location, native species impacted, and

availability of staff and funding. Across all stateforests, approximately 65,000 acres are infestedwith EPPC Category I and II-listed plant species.The Division works with the FWC to expand thehunting season in feral hogs on several of the stateforests in an effort to reduce population sizes andreduce the natural resource damage done by theseanimals.

Contractual services provide additionaloptions to the Division to accomplish treatment oflarge-scale, labor-intensive invasive plant manage-ment projects. From 1995 to 2001, the Divisionspent more than $500,000 of in-house funds oninvasive plant control efforts in both contracts andin-house work. Additionally, greater than $350,000of state and federal grant funding was spent oninvasive plant control work, underscoring theimportance of such programs. While current staff-ing levels meet the invasive plant managementneeds of some forests, certain key others have needswhich exceed current levels. The Division hasrecognized the need for assistance with internalinvasive plant management program developmentand has designated a position in the Forest HealthSection to assist state forest managers with develop-ing and implementing invasive plant managementprograms in the state forests.

Some externally driven factors (i.e. lack ofpublic education) interfere with presentnonindigenous species management efforts. As aresult, adjacent non-control of invasive plant popu-lations can act as seed sources for new invasions tostate forests. The diversity of responsibilities ofmany state forests managers, coupled with theDivision’s responsibilities for wildfire protectionand emergency response in the state, often leavesinvasive species management with a altered priorityrequiring a specifically dedicated approach toimprove staffing and/or funding levels for key stateforests.



The Division maintains established relation-ships with Florida’s forest industry and private, non-industrial forest landowners, primarily through theCooperative Forestry Assistance (CFA) program.Through a network of county foresters, this programprovides technical assistance in forest managementthrough development of Forest Management plansand Forest Stewardship plans. Additionally, theCFA program assists landowners with applicationfor multiple federal cost share programs that havesome provision for funding of invasive plant man-agement/control measures in specific situations.This relationship with private forest landownersprovides an avenue for the dissemination of infor-mation on management, control, and prevention ofinvasive, nonindigenous pest problems.

The Division provides technical expertiseand field support that addresses prevention andsurvey of nonindigenous forest/tree pests anddiseases including: Asian longhorned beetle, exoticambrosia beetles, dogwood anthracnose, oak wilt,and many others. Additionally, the experience andtraining of Division personnel in emergency re-sponse through the Incident Command System, theDivision assists, at the direction of the FDACS,with rapid response control and eradication pro-grams for nonindigenous agricultural pest speciessuch as Mediterranean fruit fly and Asiatic citruscanker. As managers of state forests and other statelands, and with established relationships withindustrial and non-industrial private forest landown-ers and managers, the Division is situated to provideimportant outreach, support, and information aboutthe management of nonindigenous plant species onpublic and private lands.

Findings* The Division should complete comprehen-

sive surveys of State Forests to accuratelyidentify nonindigenous invasive plant andanimal problems, for which a standardized

assessment method is needed. Based onfindings, management strategies will beidentified in written invasive species plansfor each forest or as a component of thefive-year resource management plan.

* The Division should ensure communicationwith other state and federal research entitiesregarding assessment of introduced orproposed nonindigenous “fast-growing”species with regards to potential forestinvasiveness. When appropriate, ensure thatDivision reforestation or restoration recom-mendations do not include species with highlikelihood of invasiveness.

* A review of silvicultural and other management activities is needed with regards topotential for vectoring invasive species instate forests (eg. timber harvest, site prepara-tion, tree planting, etc.) Training and inter-agency coordination needs should be identi-fied and fulfilled.

Division of Animal IndustryThe Mission of the Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Service’s Division ofAnimal Industry (Division) is to prevent, control,and eradicate certain infectious or communicablediseases of livestock and other domestic animals.The Division receives its primary direction fromChapter 585, Florida Statutes, to focus on goals andobjectives to protect the animals and citizens ofFlorida from exposure to disease, thus providingvalue for Florida’s quality of life. The Division’sactivities directly affect the general economicinfrastructure of the State of Florida.

In protecting Florida’s animal populationsfrom these dangerous diseases, the Division alsoprotects the human population against diseases thatcross species lines. Continually challenged by new



and emerging issues/diseases that require the con-tinuance of current activities and the developmentof new activities or methods involving the testing,vaccination, surveillance and monitoring of ani-mals, the Division moves forward to prevent,control and eradicate animal diseases through:

∗ Detecting diseases by inspection oflivestock on farms/ranches, throughprograms and sentinel sites.

∗ Testing livestock using animal-related diagnostic laboratory proce-dures.

∗ Promoting and mandating healthy,sanitary, and humane care andconfinement of livestock; vaccina-tion of livestock, and identificationof the origin and health status ofimported animals.

∗ Regulating, administering andenforcing laws alongside identifyingthe origin and health status of im-ported animalsvia permits and healthcertificates.

∗ Teaching producers, private practi-tioners, and the public about regula-tory requirements, successes, andconsequences of failure to prevent,control and eradicate animal diseasesthrough news releases, brochures,and the internet.

∗ Developing and practicing emer-gency response plans in the event offoreign animal diseases and othernatural or man-made disastersaffecting animals and animal foodproduction.

The Division has been successful in thecontrol and eradication of many animal diseases,including food-borne zoonotic diseases in livestock.Division successes through the years include eradi-cation of many diseases such as bovine tuberculosis,

hog cholera, equine piroplasmosis, various poultrydiseases; and pests such as screwworm and thecattle fever tick.

Continuation and enhancement of activitiesto reach the objective, despite the Division’s slow-ing successes created by the continual decline inFederal support and funding, and the drain ondwindling Division resources from State personneland budget reductions, are increasingly critical.The goals of providing a safe, affordable, qualityassured, and abundant food supply, a healthy animalpopulation in general, and protecting the public canonly be met by addressing head-on the threats ofinfrastructural decline, emerging diseases, andbioterrorism.

The Division of Animal Industry, designatedas the lead agency for Emergency Support Function(ESF) 17, Animal Issues, in the State’s Comprehen-sive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), isresponsible for coordinating the response of stateagencies in assisting local and volunteer organiza-tions to provide for animals affected by a disasterand to work with counties to secure the availabilityof animal shelters, along with food, water andmedical supplies for animals displaced duringnatural disasters or other emergency situations. TheDivision utilizes the emergency managementsystem for responding to a foreign animal diseaseoutbreak in cooperation with USDA and is incorpo-rating in its plan the inclusion of bioterrorismresponse issues.

Through news releases, brochures, and theInternet (http://doacs.state.fl.us/ai/aiindex.htm), theDivision continues to put an emphasis on publicinformation, awareness, and education. The Divi-sion realizes a well educated and informed public isa healthy and safe public, and one better able toaddress the hardships that would be caused by manyof the potential diseases to Florida.

The Bureau of Animal Disease Control



(Bureau) is responsible for administering this state’sanimal disease control and eradication programs.The Bureau, in cooperation with USDA, has movedbeyond traditional perceptions of animal diseasecontrol and eradication programs by addressingpublic health issues and major economic impactswith the development of new programs. The recentoutbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)outside the United States, and West Nile Virus(WNV) in the United States, only emphasize thenecessity of having a strong active animal disease-monitoring program in place with an open line ofcommunication with public officials. No longerperceiving disease control and eradication programsas bureaucratic obstacles, the public is demandingthat more be done to protect the nation’s animal-origin food supply. These needs, as perceived bythe producer, the consumer, and associated animalindustries, will influence the overall acceptabilityand effectiveness of future disease control anderadication programs. Many of the Bureau’s currentprogram activities take these factors into consider-ation.

The Bureau’s program activities also takeinto consideration the changing face of animalindustries in Florida and throughout the UnitedStates. Numerous species previously consideredexotic or wildlife have straddled or altogethercrossed the line between wildlife and agriculture.Government and industry both are faced withdaunting learning curves in veterinary medicine anddisease risk analysis for unfamiliar species, withfew or no precedents. The Division recognizes theneed to include these emerging animal industrieswith traditional livestock industries so they cancoordinate and respond to a greater range of issues.

The monitoring of the movement of live-stock into Florida through the requirement of aveterinarian-issued Official Certificate of VeterinaryInspection (health certificate) is the Division’s firstline of defense against the transmission of animal

diseases. All livestock transported into Florida aresubject to certificate verification by Agricultural LawEnforcement officers.

The Division, through its Emerging AnimalDisease Assessment Unit (EADAU), continues towork with the Florida animal industries, and state,federal and local government entities initiating andassisting with cooperative programs such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) intervention, West Nile virus(WNV) epidemiology, and feral/wild (F/W) swineseroprevalence investigations and studies. Usinginfrared thermography, the EADAU studied theefficacy and speed of aerial infrared for locating F/Wswine in their natural environment during diseaseoutbreaks of major importance such as foreignanimal diseases. Citing repeated incidents of brucel-losis-infection of dairy cattle that co-mingle withinfected F/W swine, the EADAU began a studyinvolving the oral brucellosis vaccination of the F/Wswine. This vaccination process was designed toprevent or reduce the incidence of brucellosis in thecattle and swine. Working with the USDA andresearchers at Louisiana State University, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida,the EADAU has assisted in the development of new,multiple disease, oral vaccines for use in combatingspecific diseases in wildlife and especially F/Wswine. With existing available funds and workingextensively with industry and the USDA, theEADAU is critically involved in the achievement of apractical Florida Swine Brucellosis and PseudorabiesProgram.

The EADAU also works with owners ofcaptive cervid herds on disease management pro-grams. With the USDA’s transition over the next fewyears to incorporate captive cervid herds into eachstate’s disease status for bovine brucellosis andtuberculosis, management solutions must be foundfor disease testing and eradication in cervid herds.This is underscored by Michigan’s ongoing battle



against bovine tuberculosis which maintained itselfsilently for years in the deer population beforespreading to domestic cattle and other animal popu-lations.

Providing critical services at reasonable feesto our state’s widely diverse animal industry, theBureau of Diagnostic Laboratories (BDL), certifiedby the American Association of Veterinary Labora-tory Diagnosticians as an all species, full-servicelaboratory system, is composed of veterinarians andtechnicians with highly specialized training invarious diagnostic disciplines both diligent andvigilant in their system of animal disease diagnosis.They are a first defense against potential hazards tothe rest of the nation, providing state-of-the-artdiagnostic laboratory services to the various animalindustries and populations of the State of Florida.With a professional staff of veterinarians and techni-cians with specialized training in the various disci-plines of diagnostic veterinary medicine (toxicology,pathology, bacteriology, virology), the BDL providesthe knowledge and experience necessary to performhighly technical analyses, studies, monitoring andsurveillance of animal diseases, and testing for otherdiseases of public health significance, such asLyme’s disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

Findings∗ There is a lack of sufficient resources both in

dollars and personnel to provide adequateprotection to the agricultural industry and thecitizens of Florida from dangerous invasiveorganisms.

∗ Currently, the Division is unable to performnecessary high level biosecurity diagnosticsdue to the lack of a biosecurity level 3 build-ing in the Kissimmee Diagnostic Laboratory.The Kissimmee Laboratory is approximatelyone-third the size (in square feet) of compa-rable state laboratories (built in other states)in the last 10 years.

∗ Funding is needed to purchase, develop andmaintain a web-based information input-retrieval structure. This would provide foradvanced surveillance and monitoring dataintegration to allow tracking and mapping topredict and analyze animal disease/bio-terrorism events from data collected byvarious entities and agencies in a systemcompatible across-the-board with USDA,FDACS, FBI, etc.

∗ Funding is needed to purchase mobileabove-ground air curtain incinerators. Theseincinerators would be dispatched within 24hours to begin the proper disposal of dis-eased, exposed, or other carcasses of publichealth concern. This quick response capa-bility would greatly reduce the potentialspread of dangerous contamination andwould therefore reduce the economic impactof any such event.

∗ A public outreach program needs to bedeveloped to increase public awareness ofdangerous and infectious animal diseases,along with the proper mechanisms andsystems available to reduce the public’s riskof exposure and the risk of exposure to theState of Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC)

The Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission (FWC) was created July 1, 1999,merging the Florida Game and Fresh Water FishCommission (Freshwater Fisheries, Wildlife, Envi-ronmental Services, Law Enforcement, Informa-tional Services) with elements from the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection (MarineFisheries, Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaMarine Patrol) and the Marine Fisheries Commis-sion (rule making and stock assessment). FWC has



the constitutional responsibility for managing andregulating wildlife, freshwaterlife and marine life.

In 2000, fish and wildlife-related recreation resulted in aneconomic impact in Florida of$7.8 billion, supporting 138,210jobs based in part on $336 mil-lion in sales of hunting andfishing products. Importation,exhibition, sale and breeding ofnon-native species generate $300million annually. There are 8,000entities authorized to possess fishand wildlife for private and commercial purposes,including 300 zoological attractions and 300 exoticfish farms, e.g., the tropical fish industry.

Nonindigenous wildlife has long been a partof Florida ecosystems, particularly in the subtropicalportion of the peninsula where, by some estimates,26% of the fauna is not native.Individual pet owners have beenthe source of many exotics.Florida’s long coastline,deepwater ports and internationalairports are also potential pointsof entry for vertebrates andinvertebrates. Invertebrates arethe principal concern in marineecosystems, with ballast wateran ongoing source of exoticorganisms.

ProgramsThe Division of Freshwater Fisheries first

conducted research on a non-native species in 1961.In response to growing interest in nonindigenousaquatic fauna, the Non-Native Fish Research Projectwas established in 1966. This project remains activetoday at its location on Boca Raton. Project budgetfor 2001-02 was $204,000.

There are eleven Wildlife Inspectors and oneInspections Supervisor whoinspects facilities statewide. In2001, 5,159 facilities were in-spected resulted with the seizureof 251 illegal specimens. Theannual budget for Wildlife In-spections is $970,000.

In addition to non-native fishinvestigations, FWC’s AquaticPlant Management Section isresponsible for permitting her-bivorous fish, primarily grasscarp, for weed control. Only

sterile triploid grass carp are permitted in Florida, toprevent reproduction of escaped fish and subsequentimpacts on desirable native vegetation. The AquaticPlant Section manages nuisance vegetation, includ-ing hydrilla, in waters with important sportfisheries,and coordinates with DEP’s Bureau of Invasive

Plant Management and localcooperators to conduct controloperations. The Section’s annualbudget is $880,000.

Currently, FWC has nodedicated programs for dealingwith nonindigenous wildlife andmarine species, although non-native species are dealt with inthe course of other managementand research activities. Both thedivisions of Wildlife and MarineFisheries have staff expertise butno funding to develop programs.

The Florida Marine Research Institute’s (FMRI)Fisheries Independent Monitoring Program hasaccumulated information on occurrence of non-native species, but due to funding constraints, therehas been no analysis or interpretation in this con-text. The Division of Marine Fisheries, in conjunc-

Wildlife Inspectors’ duties include inspectingcaptive wildlife facilities to ensure humanetreatment and to minimize the chances for escapeof non-native species.

Extensive investigations into the food habits ofbutterfly peacock confirmed this species preyedheavily on spotted tilapia. The butterfly peacock is theonly authorized introduced freshwater fish estab-lished in Florida.



tion with FMRI, is evaluatingselected marine organisms forFWC restricted species status(68A-23.008, F.A.C.).

Status of Exotic Freshwater FishThere are 32 reproducing

species of freshwater non-indigenous fishes, more thananywhere else in the world.Eleven localized populations ofnonindigenous species have been eliminated byFWC or by natural causes. An additional 43 fresh-water nonindigenous fish species have been col-lected without evidence of reproduction. Tradition-ally, private individuals and fish farms have beenthe source of introductions, most of which arespecies commonly displayed inaquaria. Recently, an increasingnumber of introduced fish appearto have originated from a grow-ing live food fish trade, e.g.,brown hoplo (Hoplosternumlittorale), bullseye snakehead(Channa marulius), and Asianswamp eel (Monopterus albus),that are popular food items fromSouth America and southeastAsia. Consistent with otherstudies, few exotic freshwater fish species in Floridaare invasive, and the presence of non-native speciesis not inherently harmful to native species. In southFlorida canals, home to many exotic freshwaterfish, native fish populations continue to maintainhealthy populations.

Non-Native Fish and Wildlife StrategiesThree key elements have emerged to deal

with non-native fish and wildlife in Florida: preven-tion, assessment, and management of establishedpopulations. Prevention involves regulations and

enforcement, along with publicawareness through news releases,brochures, public service an-nouncements, and school educa-tional programs. Multi-jurisdic-tional coordination with local,state, and federal agencies, alongwith stakeholders from privateindustry and non-governmentalorganizations, is important inreviewing potential regulations

prior to implementation. Eradication, althoughdesirable, is rarely possible for nonindigenous fishintroduced in open waterways and is even moredifficult for marine life and wildlife.

Notwithstanding FWC’s commitment topreventing unauthorized releases of non-native

species, Florida’s numerouspoints of entry and culturaldiversity continue to facilitate theintroduction of nonindigenouswildlife, as evidenced by theestablishment of several speciesof freshwater fish since 1994,e.g., jaguar guapote (Cichlasomamanaguense), swamp eel,bullseye snakehead, brown hoplo.Upon discovery of an exoticspecies, the potential to eradicate

the population is assessed immediately. AlthoughFWC staff has been involved in the elimination ofseven isolated populations of introduced freshwaterexotic fishes, in most cases eradication is impracti-cal, if not impossible, in Florida waterways. In suchcases FWC conducts an assessment of a newlyestablished fish species’ distribution (and potentialfor spread), life history and environmental limitingfactors (e.g., temperature and salinity tolerance),and associations with other species.

This albino fox, discovered in the Ocala NationalForest, is one example of the unauthorized release ofnon-native pets.

Detonating cord is used to sample fish populations insouth Florida canals. Results are used to assessecological relationships among native and intro-duced freshwater fish species.



Following the assessment phase, manage-ment strategies for the newly introduced species aredeveloped, with commercial utilization (e.g., bluetilapia) and sport fishing (e.g., oscar, Mayan cichlidCichlasoma urophthalmus) explored to encourageremoval. In one case, FWC has introduced a pis-civorous exotic fish, the butterfly peacock (Cichlaocellaris), into southeast Florida canals to helpcontrol abundant populations of spotted tilapia(Tilapia mariae) and other non-native fish. Butterflypeacock is the only legally introduced establishednonindigenous fish. This introduction, which fol-lowed extensive risk assessment, has proven suc-cessful in reducing spotted tilapia in extreme south-east Florida, while providing substantialsportfishing opportunities.

Findings.* Critical concerns regarding exotic fish and wildlife are introduction pathways, habitat

alteration and loss, research and monitoring,information and education.

* There is a lack of adequate resources forbasic research and monitoring of wildlifeand marine invasive species. Permanentlyfunded programs tostudy and manage theecological and socioeconomic consequencesof invasive species are desirable.

* Greater funding is needed to present effec-tive public information regarding the conse-quences of illegal introductions and empha-sizing prevention of new introductions.

* FWC’s prohibited invasive species list(Chapter 68A-23.008, F.A.C.) may needadditions and/or revisions.

* Invasive species management should con-sider differences between categories ofspecies (e.g., plants vs animals), as well asphilosophical differences among

stakeholders.

Water Management Districts(WMD)

Florida’s Water Management Districtsmanage invasive plants and feral hogs on approxi-mately 2 million acres of conservation lands, and insome 240,000 surface acres of public lakes andrivers, WMD waters, and flood control canals.Funding for these operations come from trust fundsadministered by FDEP, Ad Valorem tax revenues,mitigation and special revenue funds, and countyfunding. The WMDs own an additional 400,000

acres of conservation lands that are managed byother entities. In fiscal year 2000, the WMDs spent$7.5 million managing weeds in sovereign waters,$5.0 million in flood control canals, $276,000 inWMD-owned waters, and $5.7 million on conserva-tion lands. Operations are implemented throughcontractual services and in-house crews.

The water management districts have beencooperating for many years to identify and combatthe threats associated with invasive exotic plantsand wild hogs. The WMDs fund and conductecology and management related research projectson the most problematic plant species. Studiesinclude research into biological control agents,screening trials for herbicides and site-specificevaluations of non-target damage to native plant

The Austrailian melaleuca trees thrive in South Florida’s wetlandcommunities and can form dense monospecific stands that are littleutilized by native wildlife communities.



communities after control operations have beenconducted. The WMDs carry out regional assess-ments and survey and mapping inventories forinvasive pest-plants on managed properties. TheWMDs produce and fund many educational materi-als on the invasive plant issues, and participate inpublic outreach opportunities. In 1995, the WMDsformed a working group tofacilitate greater communica-tions and improve cooperationbetween the WMDs. In 1997,a cooperative Inter-Districtreport (“Exotic Plant Invasionon Florida’s Water Manage-ment District Lands”) wascompiled that described theDistricts’ ongoing exoticspecies management activitiesand plans for the future.

Control operations on water managementdistrict waters and lands are currently aimed atachieving maintenance control of large-scale infes-tations of invasive non-native plants and eliminationof new, small or isolated infestations when thepotential for rapid infestation and reinfestation isunlikely. Maintenance control is achieved wheninvasive nonindigenous plant infestations arereduced to the lowest feasible level where they nolonger significantly impact native plant communi-ties or ecosystem functions and their potentialspread is minimized. The additional funds andworkforce needed to completely eliminate invasivespecies from a specific property often can not bejustified when the property will likely be reinfestedfrom adjacent unmanaged lands.

At present, each of the water managementdistricts has invasive exotic plant problems tovarying degrees. The districts have developedactive control programs commensurate with theirneeds. Levels of spending, therefore, range fromthousands of dollars to millions of dollars annually.

Findings∗ Unmanaged areas often act as reservoirs for

exotic species infestations, which allow there-infestation of WMD and other conserva-tion lands. Incentives or funding should beconsidered to address this problem in criticalareas.

∗ The amount of state fundingavailable to study invasivespecies ecology, to developeffective current control recom-mendations, to fund long termcontrol options such as biologi-cal control and to developstandardized assessment meth-ods to quantitatively assessinfestation levels should beincreased.∗ The Districts and other land

management agencies need to developeffective protocols to minimize spread ofinvasive species resulting from managementactivities, recreational utilization and agri-cultural operations on conservation lands.

∗ A standardized assessment method needsto be finalized and adopted to ensure com-patibility between agencies in assessing andreporting infestation levels.

∗ The status of feral hogs on WMD landsranges from game animal to pest specieseven though their negative impacts onhabitat structure, plant and animal speciesabundance and composition, and ecologicalprocesses are well documented. This spe-cies should be considered a pest species andappropriate measures implemented to reducepopulations to maintenance control levels onall WMD lands.

∗ A risk assessment procedure for newlyintroduced non-indigenous species should be

The South Florida Water Management District has removedlarge populations of the Austrailian melalueca tree aroundLake Ockeechobee.



initiated at the state and federal level toassist in preventing new invasive speciesintroductions and to help prioritize andgauge the response necessary to deal withescaped species.

Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)

Years ago, before the Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) began working with FDEPand other agencies, invasive nonindigenous specieswere only addressed by roadway maintenancepersonnel. Now, the problem of invasive organ-isms, limited to invasive plant species, is addressedin roadway design, construction, and maintenance.The department’s major problem associated withinvasive plant species is the reinfestation of rights-of-way from adjoining private properties. FDOT isnot authorized to control invasive species on privatelands to prevent reinfestation. This problem hasbeen particularly persistent with cogon grass.Another problem that FDOT is working to solve isthe dissemination of invasive plant species throughthe movement of soil, hay, and sod on rights-of-way. These activities in highway construction canrapidly spread species throughout the state.

Findings∗ The plan should identify the state’s top land

management priorities; what species, where,and when.

∗ With priorities clearly established, FDOT’sefforts can be placed where the state anddepartment get the greatest benefit. Samefor research priorities.

∗ FDOT requests increased cooperation fromFDACS to verify that sod and hay are notcontaminated with invasive species; sometype of product grade or certification thatcan be relied upon and easily verified.

University of Florida Institute of Food and AgriculturalScience (IFAS)

The Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences (IFAS) is a federal, state, and local govern-ment partnership dedicated to education, research,and extension. IFAS is administered throughFlorida’s Land-Grant and Sea-Grant programs.Invasive species (before they were called that)including weeds, animals, and diseases, which havebecome agricultural pests, have been traditionallyaddressed through this Land-Grant tripartite. Sincetheir inception, land grant institutions have broad-ened out to encompass programs of on-campusinstruction, research, and off-campus extensionwork in many areas beyond the initial needs ofagriculture. Natural resources are now an importantcomponent of the Land-Grant mission. As theimportance of invasive species in natural areas hasincreased, IFAS has responded with efforts toaddress this issue in education, research, and exten-sion programs. At least eight courses at the Univer-sity of Florida address invasive species. Four ofthese have their main focus on invasive species innatural areas. Research priorities include develop-ing management programs and understandingecology and physiology of the state’s worst invasivespecies, environmental impacts of invasive species,and development of predictive indices for invasive-ness. Extension efforts include a pesticide applica-tor certification training program for invasive plantmanagement in natural areas, an assessment ofinvasiveness to help in making recommendationsfor horticultural commodities, providing informa-tion to increase the public’s awareness of their rolein helping solve invasive species problems, andtraining of County Extension Faculty. Some ofthese programs will be discussed in detail below.



Current Efforts

School of Forest Resources and ConservationThe Natural Resources Education Program

in the Department of Forest Resources and Conser-vation addresses invasive species in a variety ofways. Within the 4-H program, an activity isincluded in the 4-H project book, “Florida’s Fabu-lous Forests,” and the Leader Guide, about invasiveexotic plants in natural areas. It encourages youthto find out more about the invasions in their regionand how they can work to stem the tide. Invasiveexotic plants are highlighted on a Web site and CDon Florida Forest Plants and Ecosystems beingdeveloped to assist audiences with identification offorest plants. A forest-based community service-learning program “Give Forests a Hand” asks youthto explore their local forests and identify concernsthey could address with service projects. Informa-tion on invasive species is provided to assist them.Invasive species are addressed in a summer under-graduate Natural Resource Communication coursethat explores the wildland-urban interface. Invasiveplant species are addressed in “Restoring the UrbanForest Ecosystem” CD-ROM.

Entomology and NematologyClassical biological control programs

against the citrus pests, citrus leafminer, Asiancitrus psylla, and brown citrus aphid have beendeveloped over the past nine years. Graduatestudents are trained in the methods of classicalbiological control through this research, and grow-ers are taught about classical biological control.Studies are in progress for arthropod biologicalcontrols against Brazilian pepper, hydrilla, andSolanum spp. Invasion biology, including ecologyand genetics of Aedes albopictus is under study.

Public information and education is pro-vided on the use of host-specific insects to controlinvasive plant species. An extension program is

being coordinated with Natural Resource CountyAgents and other faculty to provide critical informa-tion for end-users for the most effective and accu-rate use and monitoring of insect biological controlagents.

Environmental Horticulture DepartmentThe Environmental Horticulture Depart-

ment’s role in invasive plant species education,research, and extension is critical because of itsclose relationship with the horticulture industry.The department has increased its efforts extensivelyin recent years. Invasive plant species are ad-dressed in courses such as “Florida Ecosystems andLandscapes” and “Florida Native Landscaping.”Several research projects are in progress that arestudying the invasiveness of new and existingornamental species and cultivars; nutrient use andefficiency and photosynthesis for evaluating poten-tial invasiveness of ornamental species; and eco-nomic impacts of phasing out invasive ornamentalplant species. Training and education materialrelated to invasive plant species are provided toCounty Horticulture Agents in cooperation withAgronomy Weed Science Extension programs.

Plant Pathology DepartmentEfforts are directed at biological control of

such invasive weeds as waterhyacinth, hydrilla,tropical soda apple, torpedograss, and cogongrass.Several bioherbicides (i.e., plant pathogens used asweed control agents) have been developed andfield-tested against these weeds. A course titled“Microbiological Control of Plant Diseases andWeeds,” which deals with the theory and applica-tions of the use of microbial agents as bioherbicidesis offered.

Department of Veterinary MedicineResearch has determined the exotic tick

species introduced into Florida on imported reptiles;



identified the optimal acaricide for the safe andefficacious treatment of tortoises, snakes and lizardsfor exotic tick infestations; established a safe andeffective method for the eradication of exotic tickinfestations from premises containing infestedtortoises; determined that certain species of exoticticks are efficient vectors of at least one disease(heartwater) that is highly pathogenic for cattle,sheep, goats, and deer; determined that at least oneshipment of exotic ticks into Florida was infestedwith the rickettsia causing heartwater; and dissemi-nated information to ended users and the scientificcommunity.

Agronomy DepartmentIn addition to traditional agriculturally

oriented weed science courses, two courses, “Biol-ogy of Invasive Species” and “Biological Invaders”are offered. The latter is a course for non-majorsdesigned to educate students enrolled in non-biological curricula on the topic of invasive species.

Weed Scientists in the Agronomy Depart-ment conduct research on invasive species in cropsand non-crop areas, including aquatic habitats andnatural areas. Studies are in progress on seed andreproductive biology of several invasive plantspecies, examining the use of molecular tools tobetter understand the genetics of invasive plantspecies, reproductive biology of several aquaticplant species, and developing control strategies andstudying the biology of several upland invasiveplant species.

The Agronomy Department has a statewideExtension program in “Ecology and Management ofAquatic, Wetland, and Upland Vegetation.”Through this program, current control methodolo-gies for invasive plant species are made available toland managers. A curriculum, training manual, andtesting were recently developed to certify landmanagers for application of herbicides to controlinvasive plant species in natural areas. Workshops

will be held across the state to deliver this programand provide continuing education for re-certifica-tion. A program is also conducted for certificationand re-certification of herbicide applicators thatmanage invasive aquatic plant species. Publiceducation workshops are conducted in cooperationwith Water Management Districts and otheragencies.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesThe Department of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences (FAS) includes research or extensionprojects involving invasive species in Florida in allthree of their major program areas, Aquaculture,Freshwater, and Coastal. Some non-native fish orshellfish have been legally imported into Florida asvalued aquaculture species, while other specieshave been introduced without public support andare perceived as real or potential pests. In the caseof aquaculture, FAS research and extension facultyare seeking to incorporate issues surrounding theculture of non-native fish and shellfish into state-approved best management practices. In the coastalenvironment, there has long been a perception thatinvasive species do not pose the same level of threatto Florida that they have in other parts of the UnitedStates, such as New England, Chesapeake Bay, andthe West Coast. Two recent developments havechallenged that assumption: First, the only carefulreview of coastal species in Florida revealed over30 non-native invertebrates, a third of which hadbeen observed but not previously recognized asnon-native. Some of these invasive species, such asbarnacles and shipworms, are abundant pests.Although Florida and its marine industries haveadapted, it is obvious that Florida is not immune tosignificant invasions. Second, green mussels haverecently invaded Tampa Bay, a tropical Indo-Pacificspecies. The green mussel has rapidly attained veryhigh abundance and is spreading from Tampa Bay



to other parts of Florida. The economic and envi-ronmental impacts of this new invader, which issimilar in some important ways to the notoriouszebra mussel, have yet to be measured reliably.FAS will be committed to cooperation with stateagencies in developing and implementing a state-wide Invasive Species Strategic Plan and in coop-eration with other Florida university departments,will develop components of Prevention, RapidResponse, Control and Management, and PublicEducation regarding invasive species.

FAS is conducting an EPA-funded study onspread and impacts of the invasive green mussel,which is currently the dominant benthic organism inmany areas. The present distribution includes mostof Tampa Bay and extends south to CharlotteHarbor. This species is conservatively expected tospread south through the Florida Keys and aroundthe tip of Florida to the Indian River Lagoon.Potential economic impacts include increased costsassociated with fouling of vessels, navigationequipment, and seawater intakes. Potential ecologi-cal impacts include altered benthic habitats, compe-tition with native shellfish, and changed planktondynamics by filter-feeding (as has been observed forzebra mussels, a common pest in other parts of theUnited States). Research efforts to date havefocused on understanding the spread of greenmussels, its impact on benthic habitats, and its roleas an abundant filter feeder. Other issues havearisen, but funds are lacking for their study.

Florida Sea Grant has convened a marineinvasive species working group, comprised of keyresearchers and managers in Florida. This groupwill determine needs for Florida and identify tools,expertise, and resources to address these needs.

Faculty of the FAS Tropical AquacultureLab in Ruskin, are engaged in developing anddisseminating best management practices for orna-mental aquaculture in Florida. Prevention of therelease of non-native species is incorporated as a

crucial part of best management practices.Effects on Florida freshwater ecosystems of

the purposefully introduced peacock bass, which isnative to South America, are under study. Peacockbass, a predator, consumes both native fish andinvasive species such as spotted tilapia, but how itchanges native fisheries is not understood. Re-search is intended to guide management by Floridastate agencies, and optimize Florida’s economicallyvaluable recreational freshwater fisheries.

A survey of invasive marine species inTampa Bay, on behalf of the Tampa Bay EstuaryProgram (also EPA-funded) is being conducted.This project will synthesize available informationon invasive species in Tampa Bay. As a majorseaport, Tampa Bay is among the most susceptiblesites in Florida, and is also a secondary source ofinvaders for other parts of Florida. This project’sresults will be used to plan further research, exten-sion, and management efforts.

A series of fact sheets describing importantcoastal invaders in Florida is being developedcooperatively between FAS and the University ofCentral Florida. These fact sheets will raise aware-ness of coastal invaders in Florida with the intentionof reducing the risk of new invasions through publiceducation, and gaining information from the publicon the distribution and impacts of invaders inFlorida. The Florida Sea Grant College Programfunds this project.

Studies are being conducted on managementof the freshwater Asian clam (Corbicula). Cor-bicula occurs throughout Florida, and greatlyoutnumbers native freshwater bivalves. Corbicula,which is an effective filter-feeder, has been pro-posed as the final stage in agricultural waste treat-ment in the Kissimmee-Okeechobee watershed.FAS researchers have a USDA-funded program atthe Sam Mitchell Aquaculture Demonstration Farm(near Blountstown) to study management of Cor-bicula in the context of Best Management practices



for agriculture, but plans to close the Mitchell Farmmeans that the project, including ponds and race-ways, will have to be moved to a new location.Research is being conducted on the spread, popula-tions, and impacts of the invasive Asian swamp eelin Florida.

The Center for Aquatic and Invasive PlantsIn 1978, the Center for Aquatic and Invasive

Plants was established as a multidisciplinary unitwithin IFAS to promote and coordinate a statewideaquatic plant research program and to developenvironmentally sound techniques for managingaquatic vegetation. During the years since theCenter’s initiation, much has changed about themethods and objectives of resource managementwithin the state. The list of invasive, nonnativespecies has expanded, the economic and ecologicalbenefit of efficient and systematic management ofinvasive vegetation has been demonstrated, andshifts in emphasis within state and federal programshave changed the funding available for academicprograms. The continuing thread remains theattempt to match research interests, funding oppor-tunities, and available personnel to the spectrum ofproblems and products that are the heart of invasiveplant research, education, and extension. Basesupport for the Center is provided by an annualGeneral Revenue allocation. Research and Exten-sion programs are supported by funds allocated byIFAS Administration and the Dean’s Office anddriven predominantly by outside grants and con-tracts from other state and federal agencies.

Fifteen to twenty faculty from eight depart-ments cooperate through the Center on invasiveplant research. Examples of current researchinclude: developing control methods (includingbiological, chemical, and mechanical) for integratedmanagement of specific invasive species, commu-nity, physiological, and reproductive ecology ofinvasive plant species, invasiveness of horticultural

cultivars, and population genetics.Center Extension Programs are aimed at publiceducation and training of invasive plant manage-ment personnel. Fact sheets pertaining to invasiveplant species are available to County Agents and thegeneral public on the Center’s Web site (http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu), and the IFAS publication Website (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu). Information pertainingto invasive plant species is delivered through exist-ing programs with established audiences such as theMaster Gardeners program and Florida Yards andNeighborhoods. The Center’s Aquatic and InvasivePlant Information Office provides an “Aquatic andInvasive Plant Information Retrieval System” andan abundance of teaching aids, which are availableto high school teachers and other educators. Theretrieval system provides a cataloged and instantlyretrievable bibliographic database of aquatic andinvasive plant literature, with searchable Internetaccess.

IFAS Invasive Plants Working GroupBecause of its multidisciplinary role, IFAS

programs can have conflicting messages concerninginvasive species. For example, recommendationscan be found for landscape use of the same specieswhich control methods are also provided. Toaddress these issues, IFAS has a multidisciplinaryInvasive Plant Working Group that is charged by theDeans of Extension and Research to develop soundscience-based resolution of these conflicts. A majoraccomplishment of this Working Group has beendevelopment of the “IFAS Assessment of NonnativePlants in Florida’s Natural Areas”, which is used formaking recommendations on use of nonnativehorticultural products.

IFAS Findings∗ IFAS faculty have the interest and expertise

to conduct research needed to address



invasive species problems in Florida and thenation and are conducting education, research, and extension programs within thelimitations of budget, personnel, and facili-ties. Research and extension programs offaculty are supported principally by externalgrants and contracts from state and federalagencies, and programs are limited byavailable funding. Increased funding isneeded for coordinated (with state agencies)development and printing of extensioneducational materials and to enhance delivery of invasive species education programs.Increased funding is needed to expandinvasive species research.

∗ Specific areas in which invasive plantresearch efforts need to be increased includethe following: 1) Methods to determineinvasiveness of potential new introductions,2) Limiting the use and expansion of potentially invasive exotic plant species in thelandscape by developing cultivars of nativespecies to replace invasive exotics anddevelopment of sterile forms of exotics, and3) Ecological impacts of invasive species.

∗ Statewide invasive species management canbenefit from increased General Revenuefunds provided directly to support researchand additional cooperative agreements withstate agencies to support invasive speciesresearch and extension efforts.

∗ A new faculty position is needed for abotanist with expertise in pathways ofintroduction and to determine origins ofintroduced species by genetic methods.

∗ USDA-APHIS no longer evaluates risksassociated with releasing parasitoids orpredators of pest arthropods; therefore, thereis no federal oversight for risk assessment ofsuch introductions. IFAS Entomology andNematology Department uses a voluntary,

peer review system. More oversight isneeded for entomologists carrying outclassical biological control programs involv-ing pest arthropods.

∗ There is a need for biotech business venturesto service small-market needs created byspecific invasive species to help develop,register, and commercialize highly special-ized bioherbicide products.

∗ Research and extension in areas of invasivefreshwater and coastal species is currentlyconducted by faculty and staff who haveadditional responsibilities to other aquacul-ture, freshwater, and coastal constituencies.Adding to this pressure is the loss of severalexisting faculty through attrition, includingthe critical areas of fisheries and aquaculturegenetics and aquaculture extension. Unlessthose positions are filled, some vital issuesrelated to invasive species may slip throughthe cracks. The hiring process is limitedboth by lack of space for new personnel inthe department and hiring freezes. In theinterim, staff to assist in invasive speciesresearch and extension has been identified asa critical project need.

∗ Predicting the risk posed by recent invadersrequires lab studies of environmental tolerances. FAS currently lacks environmentalchambers that meet EPA requirements forworking with invasive species. FAS hasbeen offered space for these chambersoutside the department, but the requiredchambers will cost $10,000.

∗ Researchers of invasive species are currentlyborrowing trucks and vessels from a varietyof other programs. Funding for a heavy-duty truck ($25,000) and small vesselsuitable for scuba operations ($20,000) isneeded.

∗ The expected closure of the Sam Mitchell



Demonstration Farm near Blountstown willforce FAS researchers to relocate existingresearch facilities on Corbicula clams. Aminimal system requires two 1-acre pondsand a catchment basin with research flumes.$30,000 will be required to recreate ponds,and replacing the flume system will cost anadditional $30,000.

∗ Additional space to address FAS infrastruc-ture limitations could take two forms. Apermanent solution would be a multi-purpose research, education, and extensionbuilding capable of housing the entiredepartment (projected cost $15,000,000). Inthe interim, some of the most critical needscan be met by one or more smaller, multi-purpose buildings modeled after an existingstructure recently built for FAS (projectedcost $300,000 per structure).

∗ Green Mussel Impacts on Fisheries: Greenmussels may impact finfish negatively bycovering benthic habitats required forfeeding or spawning, or by feeding onplankton causing changes in the base of thefood web. However, green mussels mayalso provide a new food resource for certainfish or crab species that have direct humanvalue. Research needs in this area havebeen discussed by FAS and federal agencyresearchers, but funding is needed.

∗ Green Mussel Fishery Value: If greenmussels remain abundant, one means tomanage them may be through harvest forhuman consumption or animal feed. Har-vest methods, food value, and market poten-tial need to be determined specifically forFlorida. Research and extension in this areawould be driven by the findings of otherresearch on green mussels (including poten-tial human health threats).

∗ Green mussels and human health: The greenmussel is an edible species, and occurs inprovisionally approved shellfish waters,where it is certain to be harvestedrecreationally. It is not known whether thisspecies feeds on toxic marine plankton, orwhether it can accumulate toxins to the pointof being a health hazard if consumed.Research requires collaboration within IFASand among several agencies. Additionally, ifhuman health hazards are suspected, outreach efforts to educate the public should bemounted in areas where green mussels mightbe encountered and consumed. [To date, nohuman health problems associated withgreen mussels have been reported, and thereare no data on the extent to which they areconsumed in Florida.]

∗ Research has demonstrated the potentialproblems associated with introduced tickspecies. This research was terminated dueto a lack of funding and technical supportpositions. Additional funding is needed tocontinue research and extension efforts todetermine impacts and solve problemsassociated with invasive tick species.

∗ Funding is needed for a faculty position andstart-up funds to study the potential ofarbovirus transmission by invasive mosqui-toes.

∗ A faculty position, biologist and operatingfunds are needed by the IFAS TropicalAquaculture Laboratory (Ruskin) to adequately study potential invasiveness ofintroduced ornamental fish species.

∗ Funding is needed for additional faculty andskilled technical support positions forcollaborative research extension programsamong IFAS satellite campuses.



Bureau of Invasive Plant Management. 2001. Unpublished data.Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.

Center, T.D., et al. 1997. Biological control. Pp.245-266. In:Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D.C., and T.C. Brown (eds.) Stranger inParadise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species inFlorida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Dalrymple, G., and O.L. Bass. 1996. The diet of the Florida pantherin Everglades National Park, Florida. Bull. Fla. Mus. Nat. Hist.39:173-193.

Doren, R.F. and A. Ferriter. 2001. Weeds Won’t Wait: An assessmentof Invasive Plants in Florida. South Florida Everglades RestorationTask Force and Working Group Report.

Ewel, J.J. 1986. Invasibility: Lessons from south Florida. InMooney, H.A. and J.A. Drake (eds.), Ecology of Biological Invasionsof North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag

Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2001. Florida Exotic Pest PlantCouncil’s 2001 list of invasive species. West Palm Beach, FL.

Frank, J.H., and E.D. McCoy. 1993. The introduction of insects intoFlorida. Florida Entomologist 76:1-53.

Glass, et al. 1994. Isolation of pseudorabies virus from a Floridapanther. J. Wildl. Dis. 30:180-184.

Layne, J.N. 1997. Nonindigenous mammals. Pp. 157-186. In:Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D.C., and T.C. Brown (eds.) Stranger inParadise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species inFlorida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Maehr, D. et al. 1990. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. J.Wildl. Manage. 54:420-423.

Maehr, D. 2001. Personal communication via e-mail to Don C.Schmitz, dated November 28, 2001.

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management Plan:Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge. Washington, D.C.

Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee. 2001. Report prepared by thePest Exclusion Advisory Committee that was submitted to theHonorable Terry L. Rhodes, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture.88 p.

Schmitz, D.C. and T.C. Brown. 1994. An Assessment of InvasiveNon-indigenous Species in Florida’s Public Lands. Florida Depart-ment of Environmental Protection Technical Report No. TSS-94-100.308 p.

Schmitz, D.C., et al. 1993. The ecological impact and history ofmanagement of three invasive alien aquatic plant species in Florida.Pp. 173-194. In: W. McKnight (ed.) Biological Pollution. Symposiumheld on October 25-26, 1991, Indianapolis, Indiana, Indiana Acad.Sci. publ.

Schmitz, D.C, et al. 1997. The ecological impact of nonindigenousplants. In Simberloff, D. Schmitz, D.C., and T.C. Brown (eds.),Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of NonindigenousSpecies in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Schmitz, D.C., and D. Simberloff. 1997. Biological invasions: agrowing threat. Issues in Science and Technology 8(4):33-40

Schmitz, D.C. and D. Simberloff. 2001. Needed: a national Centerfor Biological Invasions. Issues in Science and Technology,17(4):57-62.

Simberloff, D. 1997a. The biology of invasions. Pp. 3-20. In:Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D.C., and T.C. Brown (eds.) Stranger inParadise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species inFlorida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Simberloff, D. 1997b. Eradication. Pp. 221-228. In: Simberloff, D.,Schmitz, D.C., and T.C. Brown (eds.) Stranger in Paradise: Impactand Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press,Washington, D.C.

Simberloff, D., et al. 1997. Why we should care and what we shoulddo. Pp. 359-367. In: Simberloff et al. (eds.). Strangers in Paradise:Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Shafland, P.L. 1996. Exotic fishes of Florida—1994. Rev. Fish. Sci.4:101-122.

Trexler, J.C., et al. 2000. Empirical assessment of fish introductionsin a subtropical wetland: an evaluation of contrasting views.Biological Invasions 2:265-277.

U.S. Congress. 1993. Harmful Non-indigenous Species in theUnited States. U.S. Congress/OTA-F-565. Washington, D.C., Officeof Technology Assessment.

Wunderlin, R.P. 1997. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida.University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 806 p.

References Cited



Appendix I

inv booklet 4 - everglades restoration · 2013-09-20 · lands, by an impoverished native flora and...

Documents