CIONA MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Biological control strategies Adaptation strategies Chemical control strategies Mechanical control strategies No action Prevention strategies Control strategies Note: For the sake of simplicity, only strategies we identified as viable were included in this framework. This presentation is meant as a complement to our report and not to stand alone. As such, please find references, unviable strategies, calculations, and further explanation in our report.

Mechanical control strategies Air-drying Manual removal Vibration UV-B radiation Electroshock Vacuum removal Home

Sea-Nine 211 Tolylfluanid TBT Sodium Hypochlorite (60ppm) Fresh Water (40C) Fresh Water (15C) Hydrated Lime Brine Dichlofluanid Acetic Acid (vinegar) Chlorothalonil Pseudoalteromonas tunicata Chemical Control Strategies Irgarol 1051 Home

Biological Control Strategies Predators GrazersOther Lunar Snail Mitrella lunata Green Crab Carcinus maenas Rock Crab Cancer irrotatus Sea Star Asteria sp. Periwinkle Littorina littorea Sea Urchin Echinodermata sp. Pseudoalteromonas tunicata Data Deficient Passive Predator Invasive Species Not effective on mussel lines Effectiveness unclear Home

Prevention Strategies Home Rapid Response Close off bay Mandatory Boat Cleaning Monitoring I&T Licensing Public Awareness and Education Ballast Water Regulations Processing Plant Effluent Voluntary Industrial Guidelines - SAECOP

Adaptation Strategies Biodegradable socking technology Turbulent water Thicker lines Compost Pharmaceutical uses Capital intensive mussel farming Home Stronger/thicker lines Turbulent water Compost Food

Costs: No Action Benefits: None Rate of spread within a bay: -Year 1: 5% of maximum extent -Year 2: 10% of maximum extent. -Year 3: 25% of maximum extent. -Year 4: 50%, of maximum extent. -Year 5: 100%, maximum extent of invasion is reached. High uncertainty: New spread in PEI, not a lot of data available. Partially based on clubbed tunicate invasion in PEI. Rate of spread between bays: -1 new valuable river/bay infected per year (the mussel aquaculture value of a river/bay is 1,132,742 $). High uncertainty: Based 1 invasion of an other solitary tunicate (clubbed tunicate) in PEI. Economic lost of infected lines: - about 75% of the value of infected lines is lost. High uncertainty: Highly variables between lines. Not a lot of data. Discount rate: - 10%. Low uncertainty: Preferences of mussel farmers have not been investigated, But 10% discount rate is often used in economic analysis. Cx = V*S*x*W*L*(1-P)/(1+D) x-2 + E Cx: Costs of not acting for a specific year ($). V: Average mussel aquaculture value of a river/bay ($/bay). S: Rate of spread between bays of C. intestinalis (bay/year). x: Number of years since 2004 – first appearance of C. intestinalis (year). W: Rate of spread within a bay (%). L: Economic lost in invaded areas (%). P: Probability of C. intestinalis population collapse (%). D: Discount rate (%). E: Environmental and social costs of not acting ($). Estimated cost of not acting for 2006 = $ Estimated cost of not acting for = $ $ $ + $ $ = $ Research questions: Economic lost of infected lines How do mussel farmers value future (discount rate) Environmental and social costs of the invasion. Population dynamics research Home

Population dynamics research Prevention Chemical No Action Biological Adaptation Mechanical Timing of treatment Frequency of treatment Minimum acceptable population reduction Frequency of treatment Rate of spread Probability of population crash Within a bay / between lines & leases Between bays Minimum acceptable population reduction Within a bay / between lines & leases Between bays & offshore Environmental tolerance Predation effects Minimum acceptable population reduction Probability of population crash Environmental tolerance Offshore Environmental tolerance Competition with mussels Control Frequency of treatment Home

Manual removal Costs: -75 ¢/m2 (labour) (~$240/line[1]) -Disposal costs 3-4 removal events/season (req. to keep at a ‘minimum’ as defined by individual N.S. farmers). Benefits: % removal (effort-dependent) (~0% effective on juveniles) Uncertainties: -Best application times -Effectiveness on juveniles estimated at 0. Research questions: -More exact measurements of manual removal rate -Research into avenues/costs of disposal (eg. Composting, filtering back into water column, etc.) -Population dynamics research Linkages: -Compost adaptation (disposal) -Complementary strategies Uncertainties: -Removal rate is density dependent (sq m/day has high uncertainty) -Disposal costs -Frequency required -Necessary level of reduction for manageability Mechanical Control Strategies

Vacuum removal Costs: ¢/m2 (labour) (~$60-128/line) -Pump cost -Disposal costs Benefits: 75-80% removal (effort-dependent) ~236 kg/day removal Unknown if effective on mussel lines. Uncertainties: -Effectiveness uncertain (timing, mortality, damage to mussels) Research questions: Holding strength of tunicates and mussels on the lines Alternative techniques (eg. above water) Population dynamics research Uncertainties: -Removal rate is density dependent (sq m/day has high uncertainty) -Disposal costs -Pump costs -Frequency required -Minimum acceptable population reduction Mechanical Control Strategies Linkages: -Complementary strategies

Air-drying Costs: -$250/line (labour & gas) -Infrastructure costs Benefits: ~90-100% removal Only effective on removable structures Uncertainties: -Removal uncertain -Feasibility uncertain Research questions: Alternative methods of lifting/drying lines (currently prohibitive because of line weights) Population dynamics research Linkages: -Combination with pressure washing Uncertainties: -Costs uncertain -Infrastructure required -Frequency required -Timing of treatment -Minimum acceptable population reduction Mechanical Control Strategies

Pressure washing Costs: -$250/line (labour & gas) -$70-100/washer Benefits: ~90% removal Only effective on removable structures Uncertainties: -Feasibility uncertain Research questions: Population dynamics research Linkages: -Combination with air-drying Uncertainties: -Timing of treatment -Frequency required -Minimum acceptable population reduction Mechanical Control Strategies

Acetic Acid (vinegar) Cost: -$0.70/L (Glacial) -$0.39/L (Photographic grade) -Cost of application (labour, transport) Effectiveness: -95% effective/treatment -Increased effectiveness with longer exposure time Uncertainties: -Costs of application (eg. fuel, labour) Uncertainties: -Diff. effect on diff. life stages? -Minimum acceptable population reduction -Frequency required -Timing of treatment Research questions: -Population dynamics research Chemical control strategies

Chlorothalonil Cost: < $0.01/L Effectiveness: EC50 embryonic =33ug/L EC50 larval =42ug/L Uncertainties: - Effect on adults - Environmental impact - Frequency required - Timing of treatment - Minimum acceptable population reduction Research questions: -Population dynamics research -Environmental impacts -Effect on adults Chemical control strategies

Rock Crab Linkages: -Adaptation: lowering lines -Population dynamics research -Complimentary strategies -Monitoring / vector management (prevention) Cost: $ per crab (landing price) + Cost of lower lines (Bonus: cost may be offset by market for crab meat) Effectiveness: 11 tunicates consumed per crab per day maximum  364 days for one crab to clean off one sock (gross underestimate) Most effective in winter? (Sept 2006: 20 tonnes of crab dumped into Montague R. leases) Uncertainties: -Are there crabs available for lower than landing price? -Cost of lowering lines and associated uncertainties -Benefit from crab meat market Uncertainties: -Effect on mussels -How many crabs needed for a certain tunicate reduction -Frequency of treatment (How often are more crabs needed?) -Timing of treatment -Minimum acceptable population reduction -Diff. effect on diff. life stages? -Interaction with other species Research questions: Population dynamics research Crab population dynamics research Sustainable population? Population size and structure Actual field ingestion rate by crabs Ecosystem effects of inc. crabs Problems with harvesting/marketing crabs with tunicate- based diet? Biological control strategies

Voluntary Industrial Guidelines - SAECOP Benefits: -Reduction of spread -Coordination btw stakeholders Cost: Low -To PEI-AA: costs of administration costs of communication with stakeholders: $3400/yr -To boaters $100 for copy of guidelines Uncertainties: -% of farmers adhering -Speed of industry response to different degrees of infestation -Reduction of spread Uncertainties: -Administration costs Research questions: -Degree of reduction of spread -Population dynamics research Prevention strategies

Rapid Response Public Awareness and Education Costs: ~$10,500 (low) -Signs: $5000 -Labour: $2100/yr -Communication: $3400/yr Benefits: High -Decreased uncertainty re: fisheries regulations -Decreased costs of enforcement of mandatory regulations -Decreased biofouling and transfer between bays I&T Licensing Monitoring Costs: Low -To government: Notification: ~$3400 Subcommittee operation: low -To boaters: Lost business (inability to move): high Submission of paperwork: low Lost profit due to time delay: low Benefits: -Reduction of spread -Number of license applications/yr -Enforcement -Coordination between stakeholders Uncertainties: -% of individuals who do not apply for licenses -Probability of spread being contained or reduced by eliminating anthropogenic vectors? -Uncertain if enforcement exists -% of infractions Uncertainties: -Lost business dependent upon if transfer between bays is necessary Costs: (per bay) Low: ~ $9,500 -Labour: $6000 -Infrastructure and equipment: $2000 (fixed) -Transportation: $1,500/yr -Communication with stakeholders; website updated by coordinator: low Benefits: High -Identify new invasions more rapidly -Reduction of spread -Increased possibility to identify I&T license infractions -Early detection: lower costs of eradication Uncertainties: -Accuracy of population survey Uncertainties: -What percentage of boaters surveyed? How accurate are estimates? -Reduction of spread Research questions: -Population dynamics research Prevention strategies Research questions: -Population dynamics research

Processing Plant Effluent Benefit: -Prevention of spread of adults -Filter does not screen objects smaller than 750 microns. Uncertainties/Research questions: -Percent reduction in total spread by filtration alone (versus treatment and filtration). Uncertainties: -Egg and larvae density at different stages of processing Filtration (for adults/juveniles larger than 750 microns) Treatment (for eggs and larvae) Costs: $71,000 + maintenance (low) Costs breakdown: -Equip: 1 yard mesh (750 microns) = ~$ Filter: $16,000 -Maintenance labour: $1200/yr -Replacement costs -Disposal: $10,000/yr Uncertainties: -Most costs are estimates, uncertainty could be reduced. -Possibility that extra facility is needed for filter space ($10-50,000). Costs, benefits: Uncertain Research questions: -Ongoing research about costs and benefits of low salinity treatment -Population dynamics research Prevention strategies