Transcript AIS Prevention Values

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Presented to the
Paddlesport Advisory Committee
Allen Pleus, AIS Unit Lead
March 23, 2016
1.
WDFW Mission and Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)
Prevention Values
2.
AIS & Ballast Water Program Overview
3.
AIS & Ballast Water Program Budget
4.
AIS Funding Advisory Committee Process
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program serves
Washington’s citizens by protecting, restoring, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats, while
providing sustainable and wildlife-related
recreational and commercial opportunities.
The AIS program supports this goal by working to
prevent the introduction of new AIS and controlling
or eradicating established AIS populations.
3
3,000 Miles Coastline
8,000 Lakes
70,000 Miles Rivers
Healthy Ecosystems
46 endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species + 87 Candidates
4
Sustainable Fish & Wildlife Opportunities
5
Recreational Opportunities
6
Commercial Opportunities
7
70,000 miles rivers – 8,000 lakes – 3,000 miles coastline
8







Prevention
Early detection
Rapid response
Infested site management
Local/regional coordination
Education/outreach
Enforcement
New Zealand
Mudsnails
Zebra &
Quagga
Mussels
Ballast
Water
African
Clawed
Frogs
$$$$$
$$$
Marine Invasive History
$$
$
10
What’s at Risk?
•
Whole ecosystem changes
•
Hydroelectric and municipal water supply
•
Salmon ladders and by-pass structures
•
Agriculture/irrigation
Estimated Economic Impact
100’s of Millions Per Year
2015
11
Ballast Water
Global Shipping Lanes
Key: Warmer colors =
More ships
Washington
State
4,100 Vessel Arrivals
315 Vessel Inspections
3
15.1 M m Discharge
(2012 Annual Total)
Halpern et al. 2008
Photo: Christina Simkanin
2013 Study on marine bioinvasions caused by
global shipping identifies NW Pacific region as one
of the four most endangered marine ecosystems
in the world
12
Ballast Water
Viruses
What’s at Risk?
Bacteria
• Commercial & recreational shellfish
• Salmon recovery
• Rockfish recovery
Phytoplankton
• Harmful algae blooms
• Human health
Larvae
Zooplankton
What’s at Risk?
• 1st detection in Pacific Northwest
• Known to affect 72 amphibian species – up to 100% kill rate
• Crossover among amphibians, fish, reptiles
• Suspected to have caused die-offs in fish and reptiles
worldwide
14
What’s at Risk?
• Outcompetes native species at primary food web level
• Very poor nutritional replacement value
• Juvenile salmon primary concern
• Reduces overall biodiversity and degrades ecosystem
• Increased aquaculture and municipal water control costs
• Lost revenue from restrictions on recreational opportunities
15
Spiny Water Flea
Other AIS
Aquatic Plants
Chytrid Fungus
Japanese Tsunami Marine Debris
Rusty Crayfish
Didymo
Freshwater Jellyfish
Mitten Crab
Snapping Turtles
VHS Fish Disease
Asian Carp
Green Crab
Didemnum Tunicates
Are we ready for the next AIS to arrive?
Nutria
State Funding History

2005 legislative session
$0.53M/yr new AIS watercraft $2 registration fee (passed)
 $0.11M/yr new AIS/BW general fund budget (passed)


2007 Legislative session


$0.23M/yr new BW general fund (now ALEA) budget (passed)
2014 legislative session:
AIS statute rewrite (passed)
 $3.8M/yr new AIS funding request (removed)


2015 legislative session:
$1.1M/yr new AIS “phase 1” funding request (removed)
 $1.1M/yr new BW fee funding request (removed)
 $0.3M biennium bridge funding proviso (approved)

17
State Funding History
$0.42M
AIS
All Funds
Watercraft fee only
$0.34M
BW
All Funds
Gfs/ALEA only
18
The AIS Budget Problem








Continuous slow decline of both federal and state funding
Funding not keeping pace with AIS risks
Lagging behind other western states in zebra/quagga efforts
Funding comes primarily from recreational boaters and ALEA
Very limited early detection management capacity
Very limited rapid response or infested site management
capacity
Very limited education/outreach capacity
Lack of state resources promotes development of local
management programs with fees
19
Regional Budget Comparisons
PNWER 2015
(2014)
AIS Prevention
($millions)
California
$ 3.19
Minnesota
$ 5.95
Wisconsin
$ 0.50
Colorado
Michigan
$ 3.40
$1.30
Alberta
$ 1.40
Utah
$ 1.50
Wyoming
$ 1.35
Oregon
$ 0.57
Idaho
Montana
$ 0.50
$ 1.05
British Columbia
$ 1.10
Hawaii
$ 0.78
Washington
Alaska
State
AIS Enforcement
($millions)
AIS Grant Program
($millions)
Comparison factors?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Puget$ 0.04
Sound Recovery$ 2.69
Watercraft
$ 2.24 use
$ 0.66
$ 4.00
Recreational
use
$ 0.30 use/discharge
$ 0.30
Shipping
volume
$ 0.17ports
$ 2.00
Number
$ 0.63
Fresh/marine
waters $ 0.40
Unique
water areas AIS/pathway
risks
$ 0.11
$ 0.14
Hydropower
$ 0.75
Irrigation
$ 0.09
Salmon recovery
Shellfish industry
Ballast Water/
Biofouling
($millions)
Total 2014 Budget
($millions)
$ 4.75
$10.67
$ 0.13
$ 8.98
$ 0.35
$ 4.85
-
$ 4.00
$ 0.04
$ 3.51
-
$ 2.10
-
$ 1.90
-
$ 1.35
$ 0.22
$ 1.30
-
$ 1.25
-
$ 1.14
-
$ 1.10
-
-
$ 0.11
$ 0.89
$ 0.25
$ 0.17
-
$ 0.34
$ 0.76
$ 0.21
-
-
-
$ 0.21
Funding Gap


AIS/BW combined program budget:

2014 - $0.85 million/year ($0.51 AIS + $0.34 BW)

WDFW Proposed* - $5.20 million/year $1.85 AIS
prevention + $1.25 AIS enforcement + $1.0 AIS local grant
program + $1.1 BW)
WDFW budget estimates based on:



AIS Risks to Washington State resources
Moderate/proactive program
Prevention focus
*Based on 2014 and 2015 original budget requests – amending for 2017
21
AIS FACt Process





2015 Legislature proviso - $0.15M for Funding
Advisory Committee (FACt)
RCO directed to establish and coordinate FACt
FACt formed with 15 members representing tribes,
local governments, agriculture, hydropower, shellfish,
recreational boating, paddle sports, shipping
industry, public ports, and environmental groups
Considered an array of 36 options, including general
funding sources and user fees
Five meetings completed
22
AIS FACt Process: Principles

FACt members identified following principles for
assessing funding options:
Specific
 Transparent
 Efficient
 Stable/reliable
 Sufficient
 Equitable
 Minimize adverse consequences
 Implementable

23
AIS FACt Recommendations

Consensus to fund AIS program based on three
elements:




General Fund – minimum 50%
User Fees – Higher benefit/risk groups
Private/Public Partnerships
Key User Fee Groups include*:
Resident licensed watercraft – already pay $2/yr
 Small watercraft – less than 16 ft and 10 hp
 Non-resident watercraft
 Pet/aquarium consumers
 Commercial watercraft, Seaplanes, Commercial watercraft
transporters

*Shipping industry not in consensus on fee for their group
24
AIS FACt Process: Next Steps




FACt recommendations will be presented in a report
to the Legislature by June 1, 2016
WDFW will consider those recommendations as
part of the agency 2017 budget request
Initial proposal to Governor’s office by September
FACt members agreed to help WDFW advocate for
implementing recommendations
25
Summary



Washington State has high value aquatic resources
There are lots of AIS and pathways to manage
AIS threaten:
Environment – outcompete/sicken native species
 Economy – including access to resources
 Human Health – waterborne diseases and parasites




The most cost effective management is Prevention
followed by Early detection and Rapid Response
WDFW’s AIS Program is significantly underfunded to
adequately manage risks
AIS FACt recommends funding come from three sources
– general fund, user fees, private/public partnerships
26
Questions?
Allen Pleus
[email protected]
360-902-2724
27