Preventing Escape from Aquaculture Operations PDF

Southern Regional SRAC Publication No. 4312 Aquaculture Center September 2018 VI...

Southern Regional SRAC Publication No. 4312 Aquaculture Center September 2018 VI PR Preventing Escape from Aquaculture Operations Jeffrey E. Hill1 and Quenton M. Tuckett1 Concerns regarding the escape of aquaculture work most commonly employed to reduce food safety hazards. Producers can reduce the probability of escape products and potential solutions of aquaculture products by identifying critical release The escape of aquaculture products, both non-native points, which are instances in the aquaculture produc- and native, is a problem for the environment, aqua- tion chain which, if failed, can lead to the escape of culture producers, and the aquaculture industry as a aquacultured species. One way producers can identify whole. Following introduction, some non-native species these critical release points is through application of have spread into suitable habitat, become established, the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and caused environmental impacts. The United States framework (Fig. 1). Following its food safety origins, and the Southeast in particular, have a large number of HACCP has now been used at federal fish hatcheries, established aquatic non-native species. Some of these and Midwest baitfish operations, amongst others. The non-native species escaped from aquaculture. Native HACCP has a formal process, but formal HACCP species also may escape culture into the surrounding application may be unnecessary; instead, application of environment. Escape of native species from culture is some parts of this framework can help operators to sys- not without its risks, including potential genetic effects tematically evaluate aquaculture escape. An example of on local stocks. While relatively small in number, aqua- HACCP application can be seen in our research on the culture escapees (whether native to a particular region implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or not) contribute to a mounting management concern. and their ultimate outcome in affecting the escape of This management concern has led to new laws regulat- aquaculture products. ing aquaculture practices and the escape of non-native and native species. Ultimately, producers should be con- Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) cerned about aquaculture escape because the potential for environmental harm and the possibility of additional Framework regulations, including potential prohibitions by state The seven HACCP principles: and federal agencies. 1. Conduct a hazard analysis This document on preventing the escape of aqua- 2. Identify the critical control points cultured products focuses on application of a frame- 3. Establish critical limits for critical control points 4. Establish critical control point monitoring 5. Establish corrective actions 6. Establish verification procedures Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory, University of Florida, Ruskin, FL 1 7. Establish record-keeping procedures  How do organisms escape from aquaculture? Hazard analysis How can it be controlled? Most important process or location(s) where escape from aquaculture Critical control points can be effectively reduced Point at which escape is considered controlled Controls for CCPs This is often informed by regulation Establish protocols for routine monitoring of CCPs identified in Step 2 CCP monitoring Monitor CCPs Establish procedures for correcting failed CCPs Corrective actions Fix CCPs in a reasonable time frame Establish procedures for identifying if the hazard plan and Procedures for verification especially the CCPs are working Keep records indicating when CCPs have 1) been monitored, Record keeping 2) failed, and 3) been corrected Figure 1. The seven principles of the HACCP process as applied to the escape of organisms from aquaculture facilities. Producers need not implement all seven principles in a formal HACCP implementation; instead, steps, principles, or procedures should be utilized if they best fit the particular aquaculture facility. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Principle How do organisms escape? 1: Conduct a Hazard Analysis Fish and other cultured species can escape across multiple life stages, from fertilized eggs to broodstock; In this case, the hazard to be analyzed is the escape of however, it is the free-swimming stages, juvenile and adult, non-native or native species from aquaculture. However, which are more likely to escape. Aquacultured organisms producers should be aware of additional hazards inher- mostly escape when effluent is discharged offsite, ultimately ent in aquaculture production not covered here, including reaching adjacent surface waters. The particular flow and pathogens, release of aquaculture wastes, and health and configuration of aquaculture effluents and how they reach safety concerns. Hazards can be identified based on the surface waters will differ within and among segments of likelihood of occurrence and the potential severity. Conduct- the aquaculture industry. However, general patterns can be ing a hazard analysis involves completing a preliminary discerned as aquacultured organisms escape through drain- plan which identifies the hazard, escape of aquacultured pipes, spillways, nets, and control structures at the property organisms, and also identifies control points where mea- boundary. Secondarily, leaping fish and crawling organ- sures can be taken to reduce or manage the hazard. Some isms can escape of their own accord. Escape may be more of these control points will be further identified as critical common during high-flow, but also occurs during normal control points (CCPs) in the next HACCP step. In practice, base flow conditions. During high-flow and especially flood conducting a hazard analysis and producing a hazard plan events, containment barriers can be compromised, screens requires that producers are familiar with how and when can become blocked, control structures can be undercut, particular cultured species escape farm operations. and pond and property berms can fail. 2  Additional escape vectors have received attention, wetlands, detention/retention ponds, recirculating sys- including vandalism, fish transfer and transportation, tems, and security (Fig. 3). Controls need not be restricted and carry-off by birds or other animals. Vandalism is to physical barriers; they can also include management thought to be important for marine cage culture, trans- actions and protocols, including the proper training of portation can be a vector for hitchhiking species in the employees. live organism trade, and movement by animals, especially fish-eating birds, could be important in the movement of Screens fingerlings or broodstock. Yet, for the most part, recent Screens can be utilized wherever they can be reason- research suggests these pathways, at least for ornamental ably placed, from pipes to hoses. In fact, screens are one of aquaculture in Florida and probably many other indus- the easiest and cheapest ways to prevent escape, especially try segments, are unimportant. Still, producers should when recycled seine nets and other materials are used. examine their own practices and determine the pathways While screens are easy and cheap, producers need to con- of escape that are most important. sider several criteria in placing screens, including select- ing appropriate mesh size to capture target life stages and Aquaculture facility layout The layout of an aquaculture facility plays an impor- tant role in affecting how organisms escape. Aquaculture facilities in the Southeastern United States will vary widely, from large-scale catfish operations to zero- discharge production of marine ornamental fish (Fig. 2). However, facilities often exhibit a common set of practices and facilities, including a desire to minimize fish losses and a combination of buildings, greenhouses, and out- door production ponds. Yet, how water leaves the facility is one of the most important facility layout concerns and should be the focus when identifying hazards. Many aqua- culture facilities have a water retention system consisting of ditches, ponds, and wetlands. Others exhibit a simple ditch system without containment ponds or wetlands, which is more prone to allowing fish to escape. The loca- tion of the farm within the landscape can affect whether fish escape. For example, location of farms near streams and wetlands which may be prone to flooding, can com- promise on-site containment structures. Whatever the layout, producers will benefit and escape will be reduced if producers are intimately aware of the farm layout and how water is discharged from the property. Figure 2. Farm layout figure for (A) ornamental fish production Control measures in Florida (University of Florida Tropical Aquaculture Labora- tory) and (B) catfish production in Mississippi (Thad Cochran Aquaculture organisms can escape from facilities National Warmwater Aquaculture Center fish-health ponds). (A) through a variety of pathways, but producers also have a There are at least 3 CCPs for the ornamental fish facility, includ- variety of solutions to employ. This is the ultimate objec- ing movement of water from greenhouse to interior ditch and tive of the analysis: recognize hazards and identify actions ponds, from the interior ditch/pond complex to the detention and strategies to prevent escape. Because of the potential pond, and from the detention pond to the county ditch. The benefits and drawbacks of various control measures, pro- most important CCP is the connection between detention pond and ditch. (B) The catfish fish-health research facility has ducers should weigh their options, consulting with Exten- only a single location for effluent; this would be a major CCP. sion agents and regulators when necessary, to select the Facilities vary in configuration of ponds, ditches, and buildings most appropriate solutions. Physical controls can include and in the movement of effluent offsite. While both industries screens, dead-end filters, covers, riser-board control rely on outdoor production ponds, their hazards and ulti- structures, trickle-flow control structures, constructed mately CCPs differ. 3 specific to the discharge being received (larger for effluent Redundancy is important: redundant screened bar- laden with waste), and redundant in that they are placed riers are important to increase the effectiveness of at multiple points along the discharge route. screens and reduce escape. Because no single screen Appropriate mesh size: because mesh size is highly will be completely effective at preventing the escape variable, from a small fraction of an inch to greater of aquacultured organisms, redundant screens will than an inch, select a mesh size which is most be important across the aquaculture facility. appropriate to the life stage of the species in pro- duction. Mesh size should be specific to the type of Dead-end filters discharge received. Screens are expected to receive Any filter which is composed of fine mesh and is discharge from a variety of sources and need to sock-shaped could be considered a dead-end filter. Dead- consider tradeoffs between maximizing the capture end filters are used to effectively capture sediments, par- of the smallest life stage of species in the pond, vat, ticulates, and most life stages of aquacultured organisms, or aquaria, avoiding fouling by algae and aquacul- from egg to adult. These filters can be placed on pipes and ture wastes, and resisting abrasion and UV damage hoses and are most often used to prevent the escape of when appropriate. organisms that pose a high risk of invasion. While highly effective, dead-end filters such as geotextile bags can be difficult to maintain when wastes need to be removed and are also prone to rupture if the mesh becomes clogged or if pressure is too high. Covers Like screens, covers create a physical barrier used to prevent the escape of aquaculture organisms. There are two purposes of covers: 1) prevent the loss of fish and other aquacultured organisms to predatory birds and mammals and 2) prevent losses and escape due to leaping by fishes or crawling by invertebrates and amphibians. Covers are cost-prohibitive and impractical (e.g., feeding, multiple-harvest, and sampling) on large ponds like cat- fish or crawfish ponds. Like dead-end filters, covers may be important for species with a high risk of escape and impacts in the environment. Riser-board control structure Also called a flash-board riser, the riser-board control structure is a common feature of aquaculture facilities throughout the southeast. Riser-board control structures are typically placed in ditches and can be constructed of galvanized steel pipe or the more expensive concrete structure. Both the galvanized pipe and concrete structure will have guides where slats can be placed, typically wood, but other materials are also used; placement of additional slats can then raise or lower the water level in the ditch, which can alter residence time and prevent the release of sediments and wastes. However, despite the fact that this Figure 3. Examples of physical barriers used at a tropical fish structure is a common feature of aquaculture facilities, it farm. Similar physical barriers may be used at other types of aquaculture facilities, scaled to appropriate sizes. Barriers is not known how effective they are in preventing aqua- include screens on tanks vats (A, B, C, and D), detention pond culture escape. This could be due to variation in species (E; water is eventually discharged), retention pond (F; water is behavior, which, our research suggests, leads to variable not discharged), and riser board control structures (G and H). movement over the riser board. Screens placed behind or 4 above the riser boards can greatly increase effectiveness. ing the residence time of aquaculture effluents prior to Thus, additional and redundant escape barriers may be leaving the facility. These ponds differ in that retention needed at different points along the effluent path. ponds retain water and never or rarely discharge efflu- ent whereas detention ponds increase residence time for Trickle-flow control structure waste processing, allowing predation by native species, These structures serve the same purpose as riser-board and eventually discharge effluent offsite. If aquaculture control structures in that they are designed to increase products are susceptible to predation and suitable native the residence time of water, allowing for the settlement of predators are stocked into detention ponds, these struc- particulates and aquaculture wastes. Further, they also have tures can be one of the most effective ways to reduce similar drawbacks in that trickle-flow control structures escape. In fact, of the facilities assessed during a 2013- may not impede the escape of a range of species unless 2014 survey of aquaculture producers in Florida, facilities screens are used. Screens are often incorporated around with detention ponds had substantially reduced rates of or over the pipe to prevent cultured species from getting non-native species escape. In addition to being effective caught in the outflow and damaged against or in the pipe. at reducing escape, detention and retention ponds are These screens also prevent the escape of organisms if cor- among the most effective ways of reducing the off-site dis- rectly sized. A larger mesh may be used on the pond side to charge of aquaculture wastes. While retention ponds seem capture large materials to prevent clogging and escape by like the ideal solution, these ponds sometimes cannot larger organisms along with an interior, smaller mesh that handle the discharge loads of typical aquaculture produc- can prevent escape by smaller cultured organisms. Trickle- ers in the southeast, take up room on the farm, and may flow control structures are typically used in ponds to con- be expensive to install. trol the water level and freeboard, which is the difference between the water height and pond bank. These structures Perimeter berms include a standpipe which acts as a spillway and ultimately Flooding of ponds or buildings by nearby surface prevents pond flooding. Trickle-flow control structures are waters can lead to high levels of escape by aquacultured often used on detention and retention ponds. organisms. Berm height should be designed to prevent flooding, often at least 1 foot above the hundred-year Constructed wetland flood level. Perimeter berms may not be needed if the land A constructed wetland is a shallow heavily vegetated has adequate drainage and is located at an appropriate basin typically used in row crop agriculture. However, it elevation to prevent flooding. can also be used to process wastes from catfish, shrimp, and tilapia production or other types of aquaculture. A Indoor recirculating system constructed wetland’s main benefit is that of a mechanical For some industries, the use of mechanical and filter, which captures sediments and particulate wastes, biological filtration to recirculate water is of paramount and a biological filter which processes nitrogenous wastes. concern. Few organisms can readily escape from these Constructed wetlands typically contain an outflow which types of culture systems. This is particularly common for maintains an appropriate water level for wetland plants. indoor marine aquaculture and the culture of valuable However, if temporary in nature, constructed wetlands and risky species. can be effective at preventing the escape of aquacultured organisms. The constructed wetland can also be paired Fencing with the trickle-flow control structure to increase its effec- Finally, in terms of physical barriers, fencing, light- tiveness. The constructed wetland has the benefit of being ing, and other features which aim to decrease the incident low cost, once created, but can be expensive to construct of theft and vandalism, can possibly be used to prevent and lead to lost acreage devoted to production. escape. However, to date, there is little evidence to sup- port theft or vandalism as an important means of species Detention and retention pond escape from most aquaculture facilities. Our research suggests one of the most effective ways to prevent the escape of aquacultured products is through Effluent treatment the appropriate design and construction of detention Effluent can be treated with chemicals to remove and retention ponds. These ponds are relatively large and cultured species from effluent streams before they leave the typically permanent with the objective of greatly increas- aquaculture facility. Chemical treatment of aquaculture 5 waste is rare because of the large effluent volume com- ponds and internal ditches, rather than discharging efflu- mon to many aquaculture facilities, high cost of treatment, ent off-site. Practices that increase discharge should be and problem with removing chemical residues from the reduced to prevent escape, while also reducing nutrient effluent prior to discharge. Chemicals which can be used release. A comprehensive approach can be used to man- to treat waste streams include Antimycin-A (fish toxicant), age effluent discharge, one that eliminates unnecessary Bayluscide® (molluscicide), chlorine bleach (sterilant; fish release, reuses water when possible, and reduces pumping toxicant; molluscicide), and rotenone (fish toxicant). The and draining (also saves time and money). control of species through chemical treatment is more appropriate for the treatment of static batches of water Water-level management in ponds, vats, and tubs, not in flowing water effluent Management of water level is related to the water bud- streams. Ultimately, consult relevant regulations and guid- get, with inflows due to pumping ground water and precipi- ance before selecting and applying a chemical treatment. tation and outflows due to seepage, evaporation, discharge, and spillover during flood conditions. The ultimate goal of Facility and equipment maintenance water-level management should be to reduce the effluent At ornamental aquaculture facilities in Florida, the volume while maintaining excess capacity in the event of failure of water-control structures was one of the most high precipitation. Thus, from an escape standpoint, seepage common BMP non-compliance issues observed. This from earthen ponds is fine, as is evaporation; however, spill- can be problematic because these structures may also over, which is affected by water storage capacity, should be form a barrier to the escape of aquacultured organisms avoided by leaving freeboard in ponds during wet periods. and are a common feature of most aquaculture facilities Water level can also be managed to promote periodic which exhibit off-site discharge. In addition to control drying and also to prevent scour-hole formation. Ditches structures, ditches, and berms around ponds and near the can be gently sloped to reduce erosion and to allow more property boundary, the maintenance of these structures complete draining. When filling ditches, as during pond could be considered both a CCP and a possible control. pumping, be aware of the pumping rate so that ditch capac- ity is not reached (and that of the control pond). This will be Discharge management especially important for those ponds and ditches near the Because our research suggests aquaculture effluents property boundary. are the dominant pathway by which aquacultured spe- cies escape, managing aquaculture discharge is one of Employee management the most important things producers can do to manage Employees are authorized agents of the aquaculture escape hazards. Reducing the volume and frequency of producer; thus, it becomes the employer’s responsibility to discharge limits the opportunity for escape, lessens the prevent environmental issues caused by their employees. time and effort involved in monitoring effluent, and may This follows from common law doctrine where negligent render the ditch or other receiving waters less suitable for actions by employees that lead to environmental prob- survival, persistence, and dispersal of escapees. lems become a problem for employer. Proper training of Of course, for most aquaculture industries, zero-dis- employees in the requirements and guidelines can lead charge will be unrealistic. Yet, simple solutions can still to greater outcomes in preventing the escape of non- be implemented. For example, producers can eliminate native species. Training can be facilitated by one-on-one water flow to empty vats or aquaria, consolidate stock in or group discussion, printed materials and signage, and fewer vats and other holding systems, and utilize recircu- on-farm demonstration. On-going training with regular lating systems where this is reasonable. Allowing outflow updates is more effective than a one-time event. Consult ditches to dry down instead of maintaining permanent with Extension agents for further assistance. water may eliminate escaped organisms near farms. Discharge volume can also be managed during winter by HACCP Principle 2: using periodic rather than continuous release in order to reduce warm water refuges for cold sensitive species in Identify the Critical Control Points effluents. A Critical Control Point (CCP) is an important path- Draining of outdoor aquaculture ponds contributes way for escape of aquacultured organisms, a location or disproportionately to annual discharge at many facilities. activity which disproportionately affects escape, or a fea- Discharge can be reduced by pumping water to adjacent ture of an aquaculture facility where, if corrective actions 6 are employed, the hazard can be effectively prevented or of states, but implementation can vary throughout the the hazard reduced. While emphasis is typically placed on Southern region. For example, regulation of Florida aqua- the escape of non-native species, the escape of native spe- culture falls under the Florida Department of Agriculture cies is also of environmental concern. If a comprehensive and Consumer Services (FDACS), Division of Aquacul- approach is taken, one that utilizes a full HACCP analysis ture, which implements mandatory yearly inspections. and begins with Principle 1, CCPs are typically identified Florida Aquaculture BMPs mandate that no aquacultured from the potentially numerous control points recognized organisms are to be found off-site. A discussion of state during this first HACCP step. regulations is too expansive to be covered here, but best It is important to consider the farm layout when ana- practices suggest producers should be aware of current lyzing CCPs. For a typical aquaculture facility, the most regulation in their state and how they relate to the estab- important CCP for escape is often located where the efflu- lishment of critical limits. ent flows through a series of redundant barriers and leads off site. Specifically, for the image in Fig. 2 (A), CCPs can HACCP Principle 4: be seen at the following locations: 1) between greenhouses, packing houses, and ditches, 2) between ditches and deten- Establish CCP Monitoring tion/retention ponds, and 3) ponds and the point where After the hazard analysis has been completed, CCPs effluent leaves the property boundary. By comparison, for have been identified and control measures put in place, the image in Fig. 2 (B), water is discharged first to a ditch ongoing monitoring of CCPs should continue periodically and then off-site. For most facilities, more than one efflu- to ensure proper hazard control. Monitoring ensures that ent discharge point is associated with a facility. Producers CCP controls are working to prevent fish escape and that should be aware of all off-site effluent discharges, however conditions have not changed. Because of the relationship minor or intermittent. between environmental fluctuations, heavy rainfall, for Many control points can be conceived; producers example, and aquaculture practices, which can lead to should place focus on those that are actual CCPs, those the escape of organisms, monitoring frequency can be points where significant hazards can be significantly adjusted to follow these potential hazards. Thus, moni- reduced. Producers should also be aware of potential dif- toring frequency and intensity will vary during normal ferences among aquaculture products if more than one operations and periodic events, including during elevated product is under production. For example, CCPs for craw- production schedules. For some states which mandate fish often differ from those identified for catfish. yearly inspections, these regulatory inspections do not take the place of CCP monitoring. Aquaculture producers HACCP Principle 3: can conduct their own routine inspections. Ultimately, routine inspections are recommended because they iden- Establish Critical Limits for CCPs tify escape issues before they become major problems. The critical limit of a particular control feature or What should be monitored in relation to CCPs: critical control point is the maximum (or minimum) Screens: materials degrade over time, especially point at which a control is considered to be still func- outdoors; screens should be periodically monitored tioning. What are the critical limits for the escape of if they are part of controls at a CCP and to create aquacultured organisms? Here, the limits might differ. redundancy. For example, a critical limit might not be reached until Filters: if used, waste material should be periodi- an aquacultured organism is observed off-site. Thus, the cally removed from dead-end filters to prevent establishment of critical limits involves a certain level of rupturing and a decline in capacity. risk management, where critical limits may be more strin- Covers: similar to screens, covers can degrade over gent for riskier species or particular CCPs. time. Control structures: examine control structure slats Regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure proper fit and rigidity. Also, be sure to In practice, the establishment of critical limits will examine under the bottom slat and around the be informed by state and federal regulations. Multiple control structure itself for signs of scour. state and federal agencies are involved in regulating Control ponds (detention ponds, retention ponds, aquaculture practices and the escape of aquacultured wetlands): excessive pumping can fill ponds and species. Aquaculture BMPs are implemented by a number wetlands with sediment which can reduce resi- 7  dence time and the effectiveness of these struc- Minimizing effluent discharge by pausing the tures. Vegetation can also grow around pond pumping of ponds, reducing water flow to vats and banks, proving refuge. Finally, native predators tanks, and other measures which provide time to can disappear in ponds over time; these preda- correct the issue without being an undue burden tors including native largemouth bass should be on facility operations. stocked if the density becomes too low. Thus, con- Placing a temporary barrier below the CCP to pre- trol ponds should be periodically dug out, weeds vent further spread of the species while the controls sprayed, and native predators stocked. are assessed. Boundary and property berms: compromised Chemically treating the pond, vat, or effluent to berms (on ponds near the property boundary, remove potential escaping aquaculture organisms. or elsewhere) can lead to the rapid discharge of Recapture of escaped organisms if possible. aquacultured organisms. Maintain water levels in Ultimately, corrective actions are often immediately ponds near the property boundary to avoid slough- focused on compromised CCPs; however, corrective ing. Inspect berms periodically for integrity. actions can also include an examination of whether the Security features: monitor security features (light- HACCP plan or CCPs need modification. ing, fencing, etc.) and the surrounding areas for potential issues. HACCP Principle 6: Employees: to ensure the HACCP plan is being correctly followed, employees should be properly Establish Verification Procedures trained and procedures to prevent escape should be Verification is used to ensure the HACCP plan properly reinforced. is working. This can include the verification that the Ditches: these effluent conduits should be moni- HACCP plan has been implemented and the hazards tored to ensure sediments are not accumulating, are being effectively controlled, implementation of CCP scour holes are not being formed, vegetation is not controls follow the plan, and whether hazards, CCPs, and excessive, and ditch banks are not compromised, ultimately control measures need to be added, eliminated, which can lead to escape. or modified. As stated above, of particular importance Discharge: because effluents are the dominant is verification of the CCPs. Because CCPs are the most pathway for the escape of aquacultured organisms, important aspect of the HACCP framework, ongoing effluent monitoring should be added to a routine verification and reevaluation of these sites or procedures monitoring program. This can be done with a sim- is important. ple inspection program where effluents are visually evaluated and/or sampled with nets or other fish HACCP Principle 7: collection gear for the presence of aquacultured organisms. Establish Record-Keeping Procedures Water levels: examine water levels in ditches and The final principle of this framework is the principle ponds to ensure sufficient freeboard to prevent that aquaculture producers should keep adequate HACCP flooding. Freeboard can be actively managed if records. These records can be useful because they help extreme rainfall events are forecasted. identify where problems occur, allow for the identifica- tion of patterns related to fish escape and particular CCPs, HACCP Principle 5: and facilitates communication between management and employees on how to best limit escape. Establish Corrective Actions Records should be appropriate for the operation and If CCPs become compromised corrective actions are the potential hazard. For example, more detailed records recommended to be taken as soon as possible, depend- might be kept for the containment of high-risk species. ing upon the severity of the compromised CCP (e.g., the Records should also contain sufficient detail for employees response will be different if redundant barriers are in to understand the when, where, what, and why so that place below the CCP). For a hypothetical situation where procedures can be consistently applied and adequately aquacultured fish are observed beyond a critical limit or described to employers and agency staff as needed. CCP during a routine inspection, corrective actions could Whether the HACCP framework has been adopted in full include: or reduced form, producers should at least keep records of 8 when CCPs and associated control measures were moni- Hill, J.E. 2011. Emerging Issues Regarding Non-native tored or examined. Ultimately, routine record-keeping of Species for Aquaculture. SRAC Publication No. 4305. maintenance and inspection logs related to CCPs, control Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, Mis- methods, monitoring, and corrective actions can help sissippi. producers gain insight into what escape prevention proce- Hill, J.E., Q.M. Tuckett, C.V. Martinez, J.L. Ritch, and K.M. dures work for a particular facility. Lawson. 2016. Preventing escape of non-native species from aquaculture facilities in Florida, part 2: facility Concluding remarks evaluation strategies. University of Florida/IFAS Exten- sion Publication FA 196. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl. Aquaculture producers can use the HACCP as appro- edu priate for the scale and potential hazards of their operation. Tuckett, Q.M., C.V. Martinez, J.L. Ritch, K.M. Lawson, and While the framework may appear prescriptive and rigid, J.E. Hill. 2016. Preventing escape of non-native species producers can use all or part of a HACCP framework. Con- from aquaculture facilities in Florida, part 1: general tact university extension programs in your state and even considerations and regulations. University of Florida/ state regulators for additional guidance on how to imple- IFAS Extension Publication FA 195. Available at http:// ment and maintain a successful plan to prevent escape. edis.ifas.ufl.edu Structures and management practices beyond those Tuckett, Q.M., C.V. Martinez, J.L. Ritch, K.M. Lawson, and listed in Principle 1 can be utilized and the ideal strategy for J.E. Hill. 2016. Preventing escape of non-native species various aquaculture industries, species in production, and from aquaculture facilities in Florida, part 3: structural individual operation will vary; use what works best for your strategies. University of Florida/IFAS Extension Publi- facility. This statement suggests flexibility to controlling cation FA 197. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu aquaculture escape should be maintained, where producers Tuckett, Q.M., C.V. Martinez, J.L. Ritch, K.M. Lawson, and are continuously open to new and better strategies: better J.E. Hill. 2016. Preventing escape of non-native species ways to manage employees, more efficient maintenance of from aquaculture facilities in Florida, part 4: opera- structures, and even new and better physical barriers. tional strategies. University of Florida/IFAS Extension Publication FA 198. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu Suggested readings Tuckett, Q.M., J.L. Ritch, K.M. Lawson, and J.E. Hill. 2016. Gunderson, J., and R. Kinnunen. 2004. Aquatic nuisance Implementation and enforcement of Best Management species: hazard analysis and critical control point Practices for Florida ornamental aquaculture with an training curriculum, 2nd ed. Available at http://www. emphasis on nonnative species. North American Jour- seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/ais-haccp_manual.pdf nal of Aquaculture 78:113–124. Hill, J.E. 2008. Non-native Species in Aquaculture: Termi- USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Hazard nology, Potential Impacts, and the Invasion Process. analysis and critical control point (HACCP). Available SRAC Publication No. 4303. Southern Regional Aqua- at http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/ans-haccp.html culture Center, Stoneville, Mississippi. Zajicek, P.W., J.E. Hill, N. Stone, H. Thomforde, C. Ohs, D. Hill, J.E. 2009. Risk Analysis for Non-native Species in Cooper, G. Flimlin, B. McLane, and W.D. Anderson. Aquaculture. SRAC Publication No. 4304. Southern 2009. Preventing Hitchhiking Nonindigenous Species Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, Mississippi. in Live Shipments. SRAC Publication No. 3902. South- ern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stone-ville, Missis- sippi. This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2016-38500-25752. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. SRAC fact sheets are reviewed annually by the Publications, Videos and Computer Software Steering Committee. Fact sheets are revised as new knowledge becomes available. Fact sheets that have not been revised are considered to reflect the current state of knowledge. The work reported in this publication was supported in part by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center through Grant No. 2016-38500-25752 from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 9