Briefing Paper-
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species
A Product of the Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop
October 20-21, 1999
Chicago, Illinois
Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development and
Great Lakes National Program Office
July 2000
Prepared By: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder
Resource Management and Environmental Quality Program
Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4816
This project was made possible through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
Briefing Paper: Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 1
Introduction 2
Nonindigenous Species Invasions in the Great Lakes Basin: A Growing Problem 3
Aquatic Invasions 3
Terrestrial Invasions 6
Assessing Overall Economic Impacts of Aquatic and Terrestrial Species
on a National Scale 11
Institutional Framework for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species 13
Federal Role 13
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 13
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 14
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 15
Executive Order on Invasive Species 16
Regional and State Role 17
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 17
Regional Policy Initiatives Developed under the Auspices of the
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 18
Comprehensive State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 21
Management Strategies to Mitigate Nonindigenous Invasive Species Problems 24
Prevention of Introduction and Spread 24
Ballast Water Management 25
Prevention of Nonindigenous Species Invasions through Quarantine Control 26
Prevention of New Introductions by Predicting Potential
Nonindigenous Invasive Species and Communities Vulnerable to Invasion 26
Ballast Water Research Explores the Potential of Glutaraldehyde in the
Prevention of Aquatic Nuisance Species Introductions 28
Eradication and Control of Established Populations 29
Biological Control Measures in Fighting the Spread of Purple Loosestrife 31
Management and Control of the Ruffe 32
Control of the Round Goby 33
Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier for the Great Lakes
and Mississippi River Basins 34
-------
Detection and Monitoring 36
A Paradigm to Guide the Development of Nonindigenous Species
Detection and Monitoring Programs 36
Monitoring and Ecological Impacts 37
Detection and Monitoring of Plant Invasions 38
Importance of Accurate Inventory Data and Information Sharing for
Implementing Effective Invasive Plant Control Programs 39
Education/Outreach: Raising Public Awareness 40
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 40
National Sea Grant Programs 42
Case Studies on Nonindigenous Invasive Species: Significant Threats to the Ecosystem
Health of the Great Lakes Basin 45
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) 45
Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) 47
Round Goby (Neogobious melanstomus) 49
Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) 50
Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) 52
Fishhook Flea (Cercopagis pengoi) 54
Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 55
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) 57
Common Reed (Phragmites australis) 58
Garlic Mustard (Alliarapetiolata) 59
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus catharticd) 60
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) 62
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatd) 63
Water Chestnut (Trapa natans) 64
Conclusion: Future Directions on Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Programs 66
Literature Cited 70
Appendix A: Listing of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Introduced into the Great Lakes
Basin from 1800s to 1993
Appendix B: Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species: Membership Listing
Appendix C: Web Sites on Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species
Appendix D: Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop: Agenda and Participant Listing
-------
Preface
This briefing paper is presented to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) as an informational resource in the development of regional policy on
the prevention and control of Great Lakes nonindigenous invasive species (NIS). The document was
initially prepared for stakeholders participating in the regional workshop Great Lakes Nonindigenous
Invasive Species, hosted by the U.S. EPA-GLNPO , U.S. EPA-Office of Research and Development and
the Great Lakes Commission in Chicago, 111. in October 1999. The workshop, one of four regional
workshops held across the country, was held to elicit ideas on how the U.S. EPA might participate more
strongly in a federal initiative against noxious and nonindigenous species.
The workshop was held in support of an executive order on invasive species (1999) that established a
cabinet-level executive council to oversee an interagency program to prevent, detect, monitor and control
nonindigenous invasive species and to restore native species and habitats. The Great Lakes workshop
invited specialists to discuss the ecological and economic effects of aquatic and terrestrial invasive
species on the Great Lakes basin as well as potential solutions to NIS problems. The threat of
nonindigenous invasive species is particularly serious in the Great Lakes and efforts to prevent and
control the introduction and spread of these species can serve as useful examples throughout the
binational Great Lakes basin and beyond. The information gathered at the workshop has been
incorporated as part of the document that follows. The conduct of the workshop and the associated
briefing paper were made possible by a grant from the U.S. EPA-GLNPO.
The briefing paper was prepared by the staff of the Great Lakes Commission's Resource Management and
Environmental Quality Program: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder (project manager, principal author),
Thomas Crane (program manager), Marcia Woodburn (research associate), Elizabeth Repko (research
associate), Chase Huntley (editor), Lisa Koch (editor) and Courtney Shosh (editor). Members of the
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and other regional stakeholders participating in the
workshop provided guidance, review and technical assistance. Their contributions were critical to the
success of the project.
Questions and comments on this report can be directed to the Great Lakes Commission at:
The Argus II Building, 400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816; phone: 734-665-9135; fax: 734-
665-4370; e-mail: glc@great-lakes.net.
Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.
Executive Director
-------
Introduction
Invasion by nonindigenous (non-native) species is one of the most challenging environmental issues
facing natural resource managers and environmental policy makers today. Nonindigenous invasive
species (NIS), which have been labeled invasive species, exotics, aliens and a number of other names, all
share the common characteristic of "introduction into an environment in which they did not evolve and
thus usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread" (Westbrooks 1998). In their
native habitat, where they have genetically and ecologically evolved, these organisms may not be a high
risk proposition. However, when aquatic and terrestrial species are transported to ecosystems outside
their established range, problems can be caused for native organisms, disturbing the balance of natural
ecosystems by altering population, community, and ecosystem structure and function.
Since the early days of European colonization, more than 6,500 species of established, self-sustaining
populations of nonindigenous species have been introduced into the United States (Office of Technology
Assessment 1993, U.S. Geological Survey, Gainsville, Fla., unpublished plant and fish data). They
represent all phyla, from microorganisms to various plants and animals, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Some of these species have been intentionally introduced beyond their native range for beneficial uses,
such as aquaculture, aquarium and horticultural practices, or biological controls. A number of intentional
introductions have escaped into the wild and become established as reproducing populations, resulting in
unexpected, yet significant ecological and economic impacts. The common carp is an example of a
nonindigenous species that has been intentionally introduced, causing extensive ecological and economic
damage resulting from its impact on the native fishery in this country. Other nonindigenous species have
become established through unintentional introductions. These species were unknowingly transported
beyond their native range in the course of some unrelated activity, such as ballast water transport for
transoceanic shipping. The classic example of an unintentional introduction is the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorphd), the infamous mollusk that has colonized hard surfaces throughout the Great
Lakes, damaging the natural ecosystem and human infrastructure in the basin and beyond.
Both intentional and unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species and their ensuing spread have
caused significant ecological and economic impacts affecting the use of the resource as well as posing
risks to human health. On a global scale, evidence suggests these ecological changes are escalating to
threaten the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats around the
world (Bright 1998). Although often slow to surface, these pervasive, insidious and, for all practical
purposes, irreversible changes stress the health of invaded ecosystems.
As invasions of nonindigenous species continue on a global scale, the distinctiveness of the Earth's biota,
evolving since isolation of the continents occurred over 180 million years, has become more homogenized
as many populations of native species have declined or disappeared altogether. This form of biological
pollution, which can rapidly multiply when established, is considered to have greater impacts on global
environmental health than many chemical types of pollution, which have been found to degrade over time
(Westbrooks 1998). Biological invasions all too frequently take on a life of their own. Once introduced
into a non-native habitat, the nonindigenous species establish themselves, reproduce and spread from one
ecosystem to the next, often wreaking havoc along the way. Although progress has been made to
remediate the ecological damages caused by chemical pollutants and contaminants, "little attention has
been paid - and almost no progress has been made" to address the problems caused by the introduction
and spread of nonindigenous species (U.S. Geological Survey 1998).
-------
Nonindigenous Species Invasions in the Great Lakes Basin: A Growing
Problem
Aquatic Invasions
The Great Lakes and their connecting channels and rivers form the largest surface freshwater system in
the world. Water-related resources are an integral part of activities such as recreation and tourism, valued
at $15 billion annually, $6.89 billion of which is related to the fishing industry. Approximately 75,000
jobs are supported by sport fisheries, and commercial fisheries provide an additional 9,000 jobs (Great
Lakes Fishery Resource Restoration Study 1994). This valuable water resource is threatened by the
infestation of harmful nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (ANS), which alter the number and
distribution of native species and have broad economic and societal impacts extending far beyond the
shoreline of residents and recreational users.
The Great Lakes ecosystem has been subject to ANS invasions since the settlement of the region by
Europeans. Since the 1800s, at least 146 known nonindigenous aquatic organisms established themselves
in the Great Lakes. Based on the 1993 publication of Mills, et al, 139 of these species are listed in
Appendix A. The estimated current rate of invasion is one new organism annually (Bright 1998). The
bulk of these organisms are plants (59), fish (25), algae (24), mollusks (14) and oligochaetes (7). About
55 percent of these species are native to Eurasia; and 13 percent are native to the Atlantic Coast (Mills et
al. 1993, Mills et al. 1998). Since 1993, at least seven additional nonindigenous aquatic species have
been introduced, including: European amphipod (Echinogammarus ishmus), blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), fishhook flea (Cercopagis pengof), New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum),
round goby (Neogobious melanstoma), tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus), and Thalassiosira
baltica (a diatom) (Mills pers. comm. June 2000).
The question has been posed: Why have so many species successfully invaded the Great Lakes
ecosystem? A fundamental reason for this phenomenon is that the Great Lakes were isolated from many
source populations during the last major glaciation about 10,000 years ago. As a result, the Great Lakes
ecosystem, on a relative scale, did not evolve a diverse set of native aquatic species. This condition has
been conducive for the establishment of nonindigenous species upon their introduction (Dettmers 1998).
As human activity increased with the progression of European settlement in the Great Lakes watershed,
so too has the rate of introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species. The canal systems built within the
Great Lakes removed physical barriers and opened the doors for nonindigenous species, linking the lakes
with both the Atlantic and Mississippi drainages (Mills 1993, Dettmers 1998). Other human disturbances
also created stressful conditions for native populations, thus giving a competitive edge to invading species
(see Figure 1).
The single largest source of unintentional introductions has resulted from maritime commerce, with ANS
transport occurring via ocean vessels originating in foreign ports. Some species attached themselves to
the hulls of ships, while others were carried in ballast water taken on by ships in foreign ports for
stability. It is standard operating procedure for ships embarking from ports around the world to take on
large quantities of coastal water (often millions of gallons) to lower the vessel to a safer and more
efficient position in the water. Ships that have taken on ballast are considered "biological islands" as they
make their journey because of the wide variety of organisms carried in the water in their ballast tanks.
-------
Figure 1. Factors Facilitating the Spread of
Aquatic Invasive Species
Human activities can unknowingly stress native species and give invaders
an advantage. These activities include:
clear cutting and farming practices that increase sedimentation and ballast or sink down
water turbidity
industrial pollution
urbanization
intensive commercial fishing
Source: Dettmers 1998
These organisms
include, among others,
pathogens, plants,
zooplankton, mollusks
and fish that may
remain suspended in
the water column of
into the sediment on
the bottom of the tank.
When ships reach
their destinations,
often halfway across
the world from their
point of origin, these
nonindigenous species
are released when ballast water is discharged. Some of the most harmful biological invaders transported
via shipping include the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), zebra mussel, ruffe (Gymnocephalus
cernuus), round goby (neogobius melanstomus) and spiny waterflea (Bythrotrephes cederstroemi).
Ballast water began to be commonly used in ships with the introduction of steel construction in the mid-
1800s. As world trade has intensified since that time, the threat of transport of nonindigenous species has
grown. Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, there has been a dramatic surge in
introductions, with an estimated 60 percent attributable to transoceanic ballast water (Mills et al. 1993).
Over the past century, more species have been able to survive the journey and thrive in new waters due to
decreased shipping time with faster vessels and, ironically, improved water quality in Great Lakes harbors
with the advent of pollution controls. As the expansion of international trade continues, new ANS
introductions are likely to occur from waters around the globe.
ANS introductions and dispersal in North American waters also result from activities that provide
economic benefits, such as the aquaculture industry, aquarium trade, recreational boating, sport fish
stocking, bait business and horticultural practices. Animal and plant species, e.g., the common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) and rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) have been introduced and dispersed from these types
of activities and have caused unexpected ecological and economic impacts. Sport fish, such as salmon
and trout (coho, Oncorhynchus kisutch; chinook, Onchorhynchus tshawytscha; rainbow or steelhead,
Oncorhynchus mykiss) that are not native to the lakes were originally introduced to control alewives
(Alosa pseudoharengus), which entered the Great Lakes after the Welland Canal was completed in 1829.
Upon their intentional introduction, these salmonid fish have become a valued catch and are now
artificially propagated in hatcheries to support a multibillion dollar recreational and commercial fishery.
Game and fish agencies, which have traditionally been major importers of nonindigenous species, are in
the process of recognizing the need for more regulation to prevent future NIS introductions into the Great
Lakes region. Unfortunately, however, there are so many introduced species in the Great Lakes that some
biologists argue that it is now a "man-made aquaculture system" (Dettmers 1998).
Once introduced into the Great Lakes, many nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species have spread to
inland lakes, rivers, wetlands and waterways, thus adding another dimension to the ANS problem. Inland
transport frequently occurs by way of barges, recreational watercraft, bait buckets, fish stocking and other
-------
human-assisted transport mechanisms. For example, the zebra mussel has spread from the Great Lakes by
way of barge traffic and recreational boating, infesting many inland freshwater ecosystems. In a
neighboring watershed, the upper Mississippi, the zebra mussel has degraded an economically valuable
commercial mollusk fishery (Great Lakes Panel 1998).
Approximately 10 percent of nonindigenous aquatic species introduced into the Great Lakes have had
significant impacts, both economic and ecological. The remaining 90 percent have potentially harmful
impacts but are insufficiently researched and understood. The impacts of certain species, such as the
zebra mussel, have been enormous resulting in costly procedures to remove colonies from intake pipes
and related infrastructure. The invasion of the sea lamprey, a parasite that attaches to large fishes with a
sucker mouth armed with teeth that consume flesh and fluid from its prey, has resulted in substantial
economic losses to recreational and commercial fisheries. Protection of the Great Lakes fishery (both
native and nonindigenous species) from sea lamprey predation has required annual expenditures of
millions of dollars to finance chemical control programs (Great Lakes Panel 1996(a).
Alewife, introduced through the canal systems built in the Great Lakes, littered beaches each spring and
altered food webs, causing increased water turbidity. These impacts subsided with the intentional
introduction of salmonids that were stocked as predators to keep alewife populations under control. The
ruffe, a small percid fish, became the most abundant fish species in Lake Superior's St. Louis River within
five years of its detection in 1986. Its range, which has expanded to Lake Huron, poses a significant
threat to the lower lake fishery. Five years after first being observed in the St. Clair River, the round
goby can now be found in all of the Great Lakes. The goby is considered undesirable for several reasons.
It preys upon bottom-feeding fishes, overruns optimal habitat, spawns multiple times a season, and can
survive poor water quality conditions (Great Lakes Panel 1996(a)).
Another nonindigenous aquatic species, the spiny water flea, a tiny crustacean with a sharply barbed tail
spine, was most likely introduced through ballast water. The northern European native was first found in
Lake Huron in 1984. Although researchers do not know what effect the invader will have on the
ecosystem, resource managers suspect that the water flea competes directly for food with small fish such
as perch. The spiny water flea is now found throughout the Great Lakes and in some inland lakes.
As mentioned above, the zebra mussel, another ballast water introduction, has caused serious economic
and ecosystem impacts as well. In the absence of controls, it is expected that zebra mussel fouling will
inflict an economic toll estimated at $5 billion over the next ten years. Municipal treatment and power
plants, commercial and recreational vessels, and beach areas are all vulnerable to the negative impacts of
the zebra mussel. The cost to large water users in the Great Lakes, alone, totals an average of $360,000
per year. From 1989-1994, documented cumulative costs associated with the zebra mussel for users were
$120 million (Hushak 1996). The consequences of zebra mussel infestations are not confined to
economic burdens. Preliminary research and supporting observations have indicated that the impact of
the zebra mussel on the native ecosystem could be significant because of their ability to limit food
availability, decrease spawning areas and harm fishery ecosystems.
Nonindigenous plants also have been introduced to the Great Lakes basin. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria), a wetland plant from Europe and Asia, was first introduced to the east coast in North America.
It invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. Purple loosestrife is
unsuitable as cover, food or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks,
geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads and turtles. Eurasian watermilfoil, introduced to North
America from Europe, has spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and waterfowl. In
-------
shallow areas, the plant can interfere with water recreation such as boating, fishing and swimming. The
plant's floating canopy can also crowd out important native water plants.
The results from research conducted in the past decade indicate that ANS invasions in the Great Lakes are
causing significant ecological and economic impacts in the region and beyond. The risks posed by
nonindigenous species will only escalate as invasions continue into the future. It is critical to support
continued research aimed at documenting the wide array of ANS impacts, as well as to find ways to
prevent additional ANS introductions, control aquatic invaders already established and prevent their
spread. The ultimate goal of ANS research should be directed towards management action facilitating the
prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic species. The uncertainties and risks associated with
prevention and control programs also must be considered when working towards ameliorating problems.
The following examples illustrate some of these risks: safety hazards posed by ballast exchange to the
ship and crew in efforts to minimize new ANS introductions through transoceanic shipping, health risks
posed to other native species with the application of chemicals to control aquatic invaders and the
potential for new biological and ecological problems to evolve when a nonindigenous species is
introduced to control other introduced species (e.g., the introduction of chinook salmon to control
alewives has also introduced bacterial kidney disease to some native salmonid populations).
Terrestrial Invasions
Invasive plants inhabiting terrestrial ecosystems comprise another subset of nonindigenous species that
cause billions of dollars in damages annually to agricultural, recreational and tourist industries in the
United States. As is the case with other nonindigenous species, invasive plants have been introduced into
an environment in
which they did not
evolve, and, therefore,
their populations are not
kept in check by natural
enemies. High
reproductive rates and
fast growth, among
others characteristics
(see Figure 2), facilitate
the invasion of new
habitats and the ability
to outcompete native
plants for light, water
and nutrients.
Agricultural and
horticultural cultivation
of nonindigenous plants
is a primary mechanism
responsible for their
introduction and spread
in the United States.
The historical roots of
these practices date back
Figure 2. Characteristics of Successful Invaders
early maturation
profuse reproduction by seeds and/or vegetative structures;
long life in the soil
seed dormancy that ensures periodic germination and prevents
seedlings from sprouting during unfavorable conditions
adaptions for spread with crop seeds by natural agents and by
humans
production of biological toxins that suppress the growth of other
plants
prickles, spines or thorns that can cause physical injury and repel
animals
the ability to parasitize other plants
seeds that are the same size and shape as crop seeds which are
labor-intensive to separate
roots or rhizomes with large food reserves
survival and seed production under adverse environmental conditions
high photosynthetic rates
Source: Westbrooks 1998.
-------
to the early years of European colonization when many species of European plants were introduced as
crops and for ornamental purposes. It has been said that the use of European plant species assuaged "a
kind of colonial angst" stemming from "the anxiety of difference." While many of these nonindigenous
plant species benefit society (for example, corn, rice, wheat, and soybeans), a number of the plants
introduced have become invasive. In the case of horticulture, practices such as gardening and
landscaping are considered "a gargantuan engine of biotic mixing that has helped unleash some of the
world's worst plant invasions." In the continental United States and Canada, garden introductions are
estimated to account for about half of the 300 serious pest plants of natural areas. To add insult to injury,
species that are proven hazards, such as purple loosestrife, generally remain in trade. In fact, more than
60 percent of the worst weeds that have invaded North America's natural areas are still being sold by
nurseries (Bright 1998).
Although a nonindigenous plant may appear harmless upon introduction, these plants adapt and explode
in their new environment in the absence of co-evolved predators. By the time an invasive species is
recognized as a problem, it has become well established and difficult or impossible to eliminate
(Westbrooks 1998). The problems caused by invasive plants have increased dramatically over the past
decades, due, in part, to increasing population growth and associated development trends, such as an
increased demand for food and fiber, overuse of public land for recreation and commercial production,
increased international travel, and globalization of world trade. These activities all facilitate the
introduction, establishment and spread of invasive plants.
The primary problem caused by invasive plants in terrestrial habitats is the disruption of food and fiber
production for humans. On a global scale, weed infestation in 1975 was estimated to have reduced global
crop production by an estimated 11.5 percent. In the United States during the 1980s, $3 billion was spent
annually for chemical weed control and about $2.6 billion for cultural, ecological and biological controls.
At that time, about 17 percent of crop value was being lost due to weed interference and money spent on
weed control (Westbrooks 1998).
In 1994, economic impacts of weeds on the U.S. economy were estimated to be $20 billion or more
annually. In the agricultural sector, losses and control costs associated with weeds in 46 major crops,
pasture, hay and range, and animal health were estimated to be more than $15 billion per year. Losses
and control costs totaled about $5 billion per year in non-crop sectors including golf, turf and
ornamentals, highway rights of way, industrial sites, aquatic sites, forestry and other sites. (Westbrooks
1998).
The introduction of European plants since the colonial era has had irreversible impacts on croplands in
the United States. Invasive plants, frequently referred to as noxious weeds, impact agriculture in a variety
of ways (see Figure 3). Large-scale farming, where a monocultural approach to agricultural production
pervades, is particularly vulnerable to the introduction of terrestrial nonindigenous plants as well as
animals (e.g., insects). "In any kind of ecosystem, natural or artificial, the closer you get to a
monoculture, a system dominated by a single species or variety, the less stable the system is likely to be.
Any pest that succeeds in attacking the dominant organism stands a good chance of overrunning the entire
terrain" (Bright 1998).
-------
Figure 3. Impacts of Noxious Weeds on Agriculture
function as superior competitors
limit the choices of crop rotation sequences and cultural practices
cause loss of crop quality
act as vectors of other pests, such as plant pathogens, nematodes and insects
interfere with crop harvesting
necessitate extra cleaning and processing procedures
require expenditures of billions of dollars on pesticides
interfere with water management in irrigated crops
increase transportation costs
reduce land values due to the loss of productive potential on weed dominated land and
reconized costs required to restore to full productivity; and
lead to the evolution of herbicide resistant populations
Source: Westbrooks 1998.
The terrestrial invasion of nonindigenous plants also threatens the biodiversity, quality and ecosystem
functions of natural habitats. Invasive plants constantly encroach into parks, preserves, wildlife refuges
and urban green spaces where they compete with native species for dominance and disrupt the natural
landscape. In the case of horticulture, introduced ornamentals that are used in the yard and gardens are
generally poorly adapted for survival without human care. However, some of these imported species that
have escaped from their intended areas of residency have proven to be very aggressive with native plants
(see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Ecological Impacts of Escaped Ornamentals
displacement of native grasses increases surface water run-off and soil erosion
reduction of the presence of important cryptogamic ground crust, composed of small
lichens and mosses, that is important for soil stabilization, moisture retention and
nitrogen fixation
degradation of spawning habitat by causing soil erosion
displacement of native species, particularly endangered species that are vulnerable to
environmental changes caused by nonindigenous species
degradation of wildlife habitat resulting from reduced population of native vegetation
that provides shelter and food for native vertebrates and invertebrates
reduction in wildlife resulting in decreased availability of winter forage
Source: Westbrooks 1998.
T
he cooperation of the horticultural industry is critical to advancing NIS prevention and control. To date,
however, this industry has been known to oppose tight regulatory control of nonindigenous species. In
some instances, plant importers recognize the irreversible dangers of nonindigenous plant introductions
and, to some extent, support quarantine measures and "dirty lists" of species known to be invasive. There
also is increased awareness among state departments of transportation, charged with landscaping
highways to impede soil erosion, to replace the traditional use of nonindigenous plants for indigenous
species. Unfortunately, however, many horticulturists, through trade associations and as individuals,
-------
attempt to influence the political process in establishing NIS regulatory measures (Mack et al. 2000).
The following list of nonindigenous plants provides a brief description of some of the worst invaders in
the state of the Minnesota, which widely applies to the Great Lakes region. This information has been
excerpted from the article "Weeds Gone Wild" by Jay Rendall as presented in the Minnesota Volunteer
(1998), published by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
• Exotic buckthorns (Rhamnus cathartica andR. frangula): Mention buckthorn to folks
with wooded land and you'll probably hear a story, reminiscent of a hillbilly feud, about
their long-standing battle to keep it off their property. Exotic buckthorn has invaded
plant communities from state parks to backyards. European or common buckthorn
invades woodlands. Glossy or columnar alder-buckthorn is generally found on moist
soils.
• Exotic honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. morrowii, L. maackii, and the hybridL. x
bella): Exotic honeysuckles have been used as ornamentals for decades. Birds carry
their seeds from formal landscapes to natural habitats, including grasslands, marshes,
and woodlands. Once established, often with European buckthorn, honeysuckle can
dominate the understory of woodlands. Remove early invaders or they will soon
dominate. Planting is discouraged.
Garlic mustard (Alliariapetiolata): Garlic mustard spreads and dominates the ground
flora in forests, replacing native woodland plants. Seedlings of this biennial herb
germinate in early spring and by mid-summer form a cluster or rosette of three or four
leaves. In the spring of its second year, it flowers, sets seed, then dies. Floodwaters,
wildlife, people's footwear, and off-road vehicles carry seeds to new sites. Heavy
infestations of garlic-mustard are in the Twin Cities area, especially Hennepin County,
where the plant threatens native plants in shaded sites such as Wood-Rill Scientific and
Natural Area. It is also invading maple-basswood forests in Chippewa National Forest.
Management methods include hand removal, herbicide treatments, and repeated
burning, though none can control large infestations. A long-term control using
biological agents is being sought.
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula): If you've ever pulled a dandelion and thought it had a
long root, imagine trying to get rid of a plant that has roots that can extend 35 feet,
grows through asphalt, and flings its seeds 15 feet. No kidding. It's leafy spurge, and it
invades prairies, roadsides, and pastures. In places such as Lake Bronson State Park it
outcompetes native grassland flora. Its deep root system enables it to survive dry
conditions and resprout even after the foliage is destroyed. Control usually combines
use of herbicides, prescribed fire and mowing. Insects for biological control have been
released at several hundred sites in the state by the U.S. and Minnesota departments of
agriculture.
• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa or C. biebersteinii): Don't be fooled by the
heatherlike appearance of this plant: It is not for gardens. Spotted knapweed probably
arrived here in alfalfa or hay seed from Europe and Asia. It reproduces solely by seed.
Dry prairies, oak and pine barrens, and sandy ridges are likely natural habitats.
Chemical control can be fairly effective but cost prohibitive. The USDA is conducting a
biological control program involving a root-mining beetle, two root-mining moths and a
flower moth, which has produced varying levels of success. Two species of
seed-head-attacking flies have reduced seed production by 95 percent in experiments.
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea): European and cultivated strains were
-------
originally introduced as forage. This widely planted grass has also been used to
establish cover on streambanks and wetland projects. Because native plant populations
are excluded after this species invades, it is recommended to plant alternative native
grasses and grasslike plants in conservation projects.
It is important to recognize the value of studying invasive plants, such as those listed above, to identify
common characteristics that can be used to predict future invaders and develop effective management
approaches. Biologically, many invasive plant species are found to be aggressive colonizers, especially in
areas of disturbance. They are able to successfully out compete native plant species with rapid growth
that is seasonally earlier and more dense than native vegetation. For instance, the competitive edge leans
toward garlic mustard with its high rate of seed production and to reed canary grass with its ability to
reproduce through extensive rhizomes that are difficult to control. Invasive plants may also have the
ability to out compete native species with characteristics that deter the establishment of native species.
Buckthorn, for example, exhibits an allelopathic quality, producing a substance into the soil which acts to
inhibit the growth of surrounding vegetation. In terms of physical environment, invasive plants tolerate a
wide variety of environmental conditions and have relatively few, if any, predators. They move into
disturbed sites quickly and have a more difficult time establishing themselves in healthy ecosystems (refer
to case studies section on invasive plants as found in this document).
As is the case with aquatic invaders, research should continue on invasive plants and the effects they
incur on terrestrial ecosystems and the economic impacts resulting from these ecosystem changes. This
recommendation has been expressed in the following quote from a 1998 report, Status and Trends of the
Nation's Biological Resources, published by the U.S. Geological Survey: "Humans receive many free
ecosystem services from nature, such as pollination of agricultural crops, development and protection of
soils, oxygen production and purification of air, water filtration, coastal protection by wetlands, and
production of food resources in estuaries. How these services have been affected by invasive
nonindigenous species is largely undocumented, as is how the services will continue in the face of
disruptions by invasive nonindigenous species." To develop sound policy on the prevention and control
of terrestrial nonindigenous species, such as invasive plants, scientific data are needed on their biology,
physiology, ecology and behavior. To support management action for effective prevention and control,
information also is needed on the chronology of introduction, their pathways, and rates of modes and
dispersal (U.S. Geological Survey 1998).
According to the Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
(FICMNEW), research priorities on invasive plants should focus in the following areas: prevention,
control and restoration (FICMNEW 1998). To be successful, this research will require a great deal of
cooperation between state, federal and local governments; private industry; public and private land
managers; and concerned individuals. For effective implementation, outreach and regulatory programs
will need to be developed in a manner that applies across jurisdictional boundaries. A diverse source of
funding will also be critical. Ultimately, political and public support will be vital to the development and
implementation of prevention and control programs that are successful.
10
-------
Assessing Overall Economic Impacts of Aquatic and Terrestrial Species on a National
Scale
The economic impacts caused by nonindigenous species have proven difficult to determine. In most
cases, impacts are assessed on a national scale, as will be presented in the following section. Species-
specific costs resulting from NIS invasions in the Great Lakes region will be presented, when available, in
the case studies section of this report.
The 1993 Office Technology Assessment (OTA) Report to Congress entitled Harmful Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species in the United States attempted an economic impact assessment based on a
comprehensive survey of invasive plants, animals and microbes found to be living beyond their natural
geographical range in the United States as established, self-sustaining populations. The economic
assessment included more than 4,000 species of foreign origin: 2,000 plants, 2,000 insects, 142 terrestrial
invertebrates, 91 mollusks, and 70 species offish. The economic costs resulting from these
nonindigenous species was estimated in the range of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars per year.
Average costs reported in the OTA report were $1.1 billion per year for 79 species. The report did not
detail precise estimates of the economic damage, or put a dollar value on the profound environmental
damages ranging from ecological perturbations, and extinction of indigenous species to more subtle
ecological changes resulting in loss of biodiversity. However, the report did raise the issue that cost
assessments tend to underestimate losses caused by those nonindigenous species that are overlooked, and
that intangible, nonmarket impacts, such as ecological damages, cannot be adequately assessed (OTA
1993).
A 1999 study from Cornell University counted more than 50,000 nonindigenous species in the United
States causing economic costs of $138 billion annually (Pimental et al. 1999). Cost estimates included
control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors (see Table 1). Reasons given for higher
economic costs in this study as compared to the OTA report were based on damage assessments of more
than 10 times the number of species with higher costs assessed for some of the same species. The
Pimental report also qualified that the economic costs in the study would be several times higher than
$138 billion per year if monetary values could be determined for species extinctions, losses in
biodiversity, and other forms of ecological degradation and aesthetics.
Table 1. National Species-Specific Annual Costs of Three Aquatic Invaders
Species
Annual Cost
Expenditures
purple loosestrife
zebra mussel
sea lamprey
$45 million
$310 million
$10-15 million
control
cleaning water intake pipes, filtration equipment, power
generating equipment, etc., but not damage to docks,
recreational or commercial boats, or other problems
control
Source: Pimental et al. 1999
Another study conducted by New York Sea Grant and the national Aquatic Nuisance Species
Clearinghouse quantifies the economic impact of zebra mussels throughout their North American range
from 1989 through 1995 (O'Neill 1995). The types of facilities examined included golf courses, marinas,
recreational facilities, institutions (hospitals, colleges, etc.), impoundments and reservoirs, fish hatcheries
11
-------
and aquaculture facilities, navigation locks, shipping and navigation, national scenic riverways, public
agencies, industries, drinking water treatment facilities and electric power generation facilities.
Figure 5. Categories of Zebra
Mussel-Related Costs
prevention efforts
monitoring and inspection
lost production and revenues
planning, design, and engineering
retrofit and/or reconstruction
personnel training
filtration or mechanical exclusion
mechanical removal
chemical treatments
non-chemical treatments
research and development
Consumer education
Source: O'Neill 1995.
Of the 436 facilities responding to the survey,
339 reported expenses related to zebra mussels
(see Figure 5), for a total of $69.07 million. The
maximum facility expenditure was $5.95
million; the mean expenditure was $206,000 per
facility. The hardest hit sector was the electric
generation industry for which the total economic
impact was $35.3 million for 80 facilities.
Nuclear power plants spent a total of $ 18.1
million, with a mean expenditure of $787,000
per facility. Other industries impacted were fish
hatcheries and aquaculture related facilities
($88,000), navigation locks ($485,000), shipping
and navigation ($563,000), and government
agencies and authorities ($4.57 million for zebra
mussel control research).
Economic impacts on agricultural production
resulting from invasive plants are presented in
the Terrestrial Invasions section of this report.
Other significant costs to be considered are the millions of dollars spent annually, mostly by public
agencies, to address the harmful effects from terrestrial invasions on natural ecosystems. Expenditures
are required for the development and application of control and eradication measures, and for ecological
restoration. For example, the removal of all damaging salt cedar (Tamarix) infestations bordering the
lower Colorado River and restoration of indigenous vegetation would cost an estimated $45 million to
$450 million (OTA 1993). Additionally, indirect economic effects result from reduced recreational
opportunities in areas invaded by harmful plants and animals. The costs of backlogged control or
eradication projects also should not be overlooked.
When assessing the economic impacts of nonindigenous species, it is important to recognize that while
thousands of established aquatic and terrestrial invaders in the United States are not known to have
caused ecological and economic damage, they should not be assumed to be harmless biota. On the
contrary, these species should be viewed as "potential biological time bombs." A case in point is purple
loosestrife, which existed in low numbers for more than a century before populations exploded,
displacing valuable native wetland plants. Every year, more than 190,000 hectares of wetlands are taken
over by this invasive nonindigenous plant. The nonindigenous plant existed at relatively low population
levels or in geographically limited areas for decades before undergoing explosive growth and range
expansion, causing extensive ecological and economic damages (U.S. Geological Survey 1998).
There is no question that the total number of harmful nonindigenous species and their cumulative impacts
create a growing economic burden for the country, not to mention the unassessed monetary costs incurred
by environmental impacts. Prevention and control initiatives must continue to be developed and
implemented to manage harmful nonindigenous species and the damages they cause.
12
-------
Institutional Framework for the Prevention and Control of
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
The prevention and control of nonindigenous invasive species have global implications that require
policies and programs at various levels of government. The following section provides an overview of
the prevention and control programs targeting nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Because
prevention and control programs for nonindigenous terrestrial species have not been developed to the
extent of ANS programs, terrestrial management structure is not addressed in this section. As illustrated
in the following discussion on ANS management, coordination among federal, regional, state and local
programs is critical to effectively address problems caused by the introduction and spread of both aquatic
and terrestrial nonindigenous species.
Federal Role
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990: The enactment of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA, Public Law 101-646)
has provided federal legislative support for programs aimed at ANS prevention and control. NANPCA's
enactment was largely due to the unintentional introduction of the zebra mussel and its subsequent
economic and ecological impacts. Although the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes has played a
central role in prompting passage of the federal legislation, NANPCA was also established to prevent the
occurrence of new ANS introductions and to limit the dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance
species already in U.S. waters.
In drafting the act, Congress recognized that effective mitigation of ANS problems is dependent upon a
well-coordinated research, monitoring and prevention program at both the regional and national level. As
enacted, the legislation has five purposes: to prevent unintentional introductions; to coordinate research,
control and information dissemination; to develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods;
to minimize economic and ecological impacts; and to establish a research and technology program to
benefit state governments.
Under NANPCA, the Great Lakes basin became the first geographic location where federal legislation
established a regulatory regime that targeted the prevention of ANS introductions carried in ballast water.
A Great Lakes program developed to implement and enforce U.S. regulations (at 33 CAR 151 Subpart C),
as required through mandatory compliance with NANPCA, was enacted in May of 1993. These
regulations stipulate that vessels bound for the Great Lakes exchange freshwater ballast with open-ocean
salt water that contains organisms not likely to survive in freshwater. Enforced by the Canadian Coast
Guard and Seaway authorities, the regulations require that the level of salinity in ballast water equals or
exceeds 30 parts per thousand (ppt). (The salinity of normal sea water ranges from 34 to 36 ppt).
Compliance with the requirements of the regulations can be met with one of the three options: 1) ballast
water exchange at sea beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone of either the U.S. and Canada in a depth of at
least 2,000 meters; 2) retaining the vessel's ballast water onboard during the entire voyage within the
Great Lakes; or 3) implementation of an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water
management that must be first approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Although the regulatory regime on ballast water under NANPCA addresses a portion of the problem, it
does not deal "NOBOBs,," vessels entering the lakes reporting "no ballast on board." Although NOBOBs
do not contain pumpable ballast in their tanks, they do carry considerable residual ballast in the form of
sediment that is present even after a complete discharge operation. The organisms carried in the residual
13
-------
sediment may be discharged when water is added to the ballast tank and later released into the lakes from
vessels with multiple destinations in the basin. It has been recognized that a large number of vessels
entering the Great Lakes carry unpumpable ballast, and additional regulatory action may prove necessary
to strengthen the regulatory regime established under NANPCA (Reeves 1999).
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force: The national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, established
under Section 1201 of the 1990 legislation, is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to preventing
and controlling aquatic nuisance species and implementing NANPCA. The Task Force is co-chaired by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and was
established to coordinate governmental efforts related to nonindigenous aquatic species in the United
States with those of the private sector and other North American interests. The Task Force consists of
seven federal agency representatives and 10 ex-officio members. The other federal agencies are the U.S.
EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of State (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994).
Under Section 1202 of NANPCA, the Task Force adopted the cooperative Aquatic Nuisance Species
Program. The ANS Program addresses all new nonindigenous aquatic species activities that are
conducted, funded, or authorized by the federal government, except those involving intentional
introductions. It seeks to complement effective existing nonindigenous species activities rather than
supplant them. The ANS Pogram recommends the following essential elements:
Prevention: Establish a systematic risk identification, assessment and management process to
identify and modify pathways by which nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species spread.
• Detection and Monitoring: Create a. National Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
Information Center to coordinate efforts to detect the presence and monitor the distributional
changes of all nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, to identify and monitor native species and
other effects, and to serve as a repository for that information.
• Control: The Task Force or any other potentially affected entity may recommend initiation of a
nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species control program. If the Task Force determines that the
species is a nuisance and control is feasible, cost-effective and environmentally sound, using a
decision process outlined in the control program, a control program is eligible for approval.
Support elements include research, education and technical assistance. The ANS Program coordinates
research efforts, establishes protocols and allocates grants. Education activities relate to encouraging and
facilitating efforts to inform and educate a wide range of audiences about the problems caused by
nonindigenous species. Technical assistance ensures the coordinated application of existing capabilities.
Other related activities include coordinating the zebra mussel program, review/approval of state ANS
management plans, voluntary guidelines and regulations on ballast water, and shipping initiatives to
control nonindigenous species, and biological studies on the impacts of nonindigenous species.
The Task Force also provides national policy direction as a result of protocols and guidance that have
been developed through the efforts of the following working committees: Research
Protocol/Coordination, Intentional Introduction Policy Review, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species, Ruffe Control, Risk Assessment and Management, Detection and Monitoring, Zebra Mussel
Coordination, Brown Tree Snake Control Committee and Recreational Activities Committee.
14
-------
National Invasive Species Act of 1996: NANPCA was reauthorized through the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996 (NISA, P.L. 104-332), and signed into law in October 1996. NISA expands the
ballast management program to be national in scope and enhances other national monitoring, management
and control programs. Some noted progress achieved through the reauthorized legislation include:
Creation of an enforceable national ballast management program targeted to all U.S. coastal
regions
• Requirement of detailed ballast exchange reporting by all vessels
Reauthorization of the mandatory Great Lakes ballast management program;
• Authorization of a Ballast Technology Development Program to investigate technological and
management tools to replace ballast exchange
• Continuation and expansion of the comprehensive state management plan program to include an
aquatic plants program
• Authorization of funding for research and development of a dispersal barrier for the Chicago Ship
and Sanitary Canal to help prevent transfers of organisms between the Great Lakes region and the
Mississippi River basin,
Creation of voluntary national guidelines for recreational vessels to help prevent spread of
nonindigenous aquatic species overland viatrailered vessels
Region-specific research on the effects of invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico, Narragansett
Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes, California and the Pacific Coast, and
Hawaii, and other regions yet to be determined (U.S. Congress 1996).
Under NISA, studies are assessing the effectiveness of various technologies for ballast water control.
Open ocean exchange, in which ships empty and fill ballast water in near coastal waters, provides the
best measure for ensuring that nuisance species are not transported. These waters are sufficiently
different from inland waters, assuring that transported species do not survive. However, in practice, this
is a potentially dangerous technique for the ship and crew. Another alternative is nearshore alternate
exchange zones, although this does not work for all ship designs. Currently, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is
the only one in operation. Here, ballast water is exchanged closer to shore, but still outside of
freshwater. This technique is believed to be less effective. The retention of ballast on board is another
control technique and requires moving ballast water to different areas of the ship while loading and
unloading, however, shipping interests are resistant to this technique. There are other, less effective
techniques available. These include avoiding the intake of ballast water near red algal blooms and
visible sewage discharge, when possible. Despite these techniques, the problem remains of unpumpable
residuals in which invasive species can be resuspended and later discharged. Future ballast management
goals should aim at a more comprehensive array of tools, including coastal and transoceanic shipping
and nearshore alternate exchange zones and pumping facilities (Cangelosi 1999).
NISA also supports other potential options to better manage ballast water introduction of invasive
species. The legislation provides the opportunity to implement the monitoring of ballast water through
U.S. Coast Guard compliance checks on a national scale. There is growing support for research and
development for onboard and offboard treatment options, along with retrofitting and new design
possibilities. This may also be the time to create new requirements for new ships, ensuring better ballast
management practices. Finally, studies on the effectiveness of ballast exchange techniques need to be
implemented. The techniques must be not only effective, but also monitorable, economically feasible,
safe and applicable to non-transoceanic shipping. Current research is investigating the feasibility of
heat, backwash filtration, biocides, shoreside treatment, cyclonic separation, ultraviolet light, ozonation
and ultrasonics as treatment options (Cangelosi 1999).
15
-------
Executive Order on Invasive Species: The most recent federal initiative, an executive order signed by
President Clinton in early 1999, has the potential to give invasive species prevention and control efforts in
the Great Lakes basin a higher profile and additional resources. The "Invasive Species" order, which will
complement and build upon existing federal authority, seeks "to prevent the introduction of invasive
species and provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts
that invasive species cause" (U.S. President Clinton 1996).
The executive order has three main features:
A requirement that all relevant federal agencies use their programs and authorities to prevent the
introduction of invasive species, detect and respond to new populations, undertake necessary
monitoring, restore native species and habitats in affected ecosystems, conduct research and
develop prevention strategies, and promote public education;
The establishment of a federal interagency Invasive Species Council co-chaired by the secretaries
of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, with members also including the secretaries of State,
Treasury, Defense and the Administrator of the U.S. EPA. Among others, the council will
oversee executive order implementation, promote interagency coordination and action, encourage
ecosystem-based planning at all levels of government, and employ an Internet-based information
system to advance prevention and control efforts. An advisory council comprised, in part, of
state, regional and tribal representatives will assist;
• The issuance of an Invasive Species Management Plan to "detail and recommend performance-
oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of success" for federal agency efforts.
By raising the profile of the invasive species problem, the executive order is welcome news to the Great
Lakes region, where the Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, and
many other agencies, organizations and research institutes have been working for a decade to elevate the
profile of this insidious form of biological pollution. However, it will be critical to ensure that the
Invasive Species Council and associated executive order provisions build upon, rather than compete with,
existing infrastructure for invasive species prevention and control. For example, it is crucial that:
• The work, profile, role and funding base for the national ANS Task Force are maintained and
enhanced;
• A strong regional presence (Great Lakes and elsewhere) on the Advisory Council of the Invasive
Species Council is secured;
• NISA remains the linchpin for prevention and control efforts and is funded and implemented
accordingly; and
• The Invasive Species Council takes advantage of proven coordination initiatives. For example,
the Great Lakes Panel's model comprehensive management plan; model guidance on legislation,
regulation and policy; and action plan may all have some relevance and transferability on a
national scale as the Council develops its own management plan.
16
-------
Regional and State Role
Great Lake Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species: Under NANPCA, the ANS Task Force requested that the
Great Lakes Commission convene the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species per Section 1203
of the Act. Since 1991, the Great Lakes Panel has worked to prevent and control the occurrence of
aquatic nuisance species in the Great
Lakes (see Figure 6). This has been
a challenging task given that at least
146 known nonindigenous aquatic
species have been introduced into
the Great Lakes since the early
1800's (Mills et al.1993; Mills, pers.
comm. 2000). Once introduced, the
aquatic invaders must be managed
and controlled, as they are virtually
impossible to eradicate (U.S.
Congress 1990). Panel membership
is drawn from U.S. and Canadian
federal agencies, the eight Great
Lakes states and the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec, regional
agencies, user groups, local
communities, tribal authorities,
commercial interests and the
university/research community.
Figure 6. Responsibilities of the Great
Lakes Panel under §1203 of NANPCA
identify ANS priorities for the Great Lakes;
make recommendations to the national ANS Task
Force;
coordinate ANS program activities in the Great Lakes
that are not cited directly in the Act;
provide advice to the public and private individuals and
entities concerning aquatic nuisance control;
prepare an annual report describing regional
prevention, research and control activities in the Great
Lakes Basin.
Source: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention
and Control Act of 1990
Establishment of the Great Lakes Panel has provided a long-standing body of regional experts that
contribute substantially to information and education programming, research and management
coordination, and legislative and policy initiatives. Effective prevention and control efforts in the Great
Lakes region continue to be the first line of defense in slowing or preventing the spread of nonindigenous
aquatic nuisance species to other regions (e.g., the Mississippi River watershed). Some of the Panel's
most popular products are highlighted below:
• Workshop Proceedings: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward
a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin (January 1996). A summary of a 1995 conference
on approaches to strengthen regional policy on the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance
species. The document includes a model comprehensive state management plan for use by the
Great Lakes states in developing their own plans as called for in NANPCA.
• Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Research Guidance and
Descriptive Inventory (February 1997). A comprehensive inventory that highlights current and
recently-completed research on aquatic nuisance species relevant in the Great Lakes basin. Also
included is research guidance that provide recommendations concerning research gaps and needs
directed at agencies and institutions that conduct, manage, fund or apply ANS research.
• Aquatic Nuisance Species Information and Education Materials Relevant to the Great Lakes
Basin: Recommendations and Descriptive Inventory (February 1997). A comprehensive
inventory that highlights information and education materials on aquatic nuisance species in the
Great Lakes basin. The document also provides recommendations for strengthening information
and education efforts related to aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes basin.
• Biological Invasions: How Aquatic Nuisance Species Are Entering North American Waters, The
Harm They Cause and What Can Be Done To Solve The Problem (August 1998). This brochure
focuses on how aquatic nuisance species are entering North American waters, their environmental
17
-------
and economic impacts, and recommendations on what can be done to strengthen prevention and
control efforts. The brochure, which covers ANS problems on a national scale, includes a U.S.
map as a centerpiece, illustrating examples of aquatic nuisance species that are particular
problems around the country. Also featured are smaller distribution maps that show the states
affected by selected problem species.
• Aquatic Invaders (August 1999). A video documentary produced by Information Television
Network's TECHNO 2100 series, examines the threat posed by aquatic nuisance species and how
scientists, policymakers and the public are working to prevent new introductions and control the
spread of existing ones. The 30-minute special focuses on prevention and control efforts in the
binational Great Lakes basin, highlighting the work of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic
Nuisance Species and many federal, state, provincial, and university-based research and
management initiatives. The challenges and opportunities in prevention and control are placed in
a national and international context as well. The program, initially aired on CNBC on Aug. 14,
1999, has been be repeated at least 30 times over the year in primetime slots. Accessible to some
66 million U.S. and Canadian viewers, the program was produced by Information Televison
Network in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Great Lakes
Commission, and numerous federal, state and provincial agencies.
Regional Policy Initiatives Developed Under the Auspices of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species: Over the past decade, the Great Lakes Panel has played a significant role in the development of
regional policy to advance priorities regarding ANS prevention and control, as reflected in NANPCA of
1990 and NISA of 1996. The policy initiatives highlighted below are based on consensus of the diverse
array of stakeholders serving on the Panel, thus serving as effective an effective tool to address ANS
problems on a regional basis.
• Legislation, Regulation and Policy for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Species: Model Guidance for Great Lakes Jurisdictions (June 1999).
The model guidance, developed as a product of the Great Lakes Panel, serves as a tool kit from which
states, provinces, tribal authorities and local entities can select the legislative, regulatory and policy tools
best suited to address ANS problems in their infested watersheds (see Figure 7).
The impetus for development of this regional model was the lack of interjurisdictional consistency in
laws, regulations and policies directed at ANS prevention and control efforts. The Great Lakes Panel saw
a need for regional policy to help familiarize the governing agencies in the Great Lakes region and
elsewhere on ways to respond proactively to ANS problems due to the increased likelihood of
introductions with the occurrence of greater international trade and travel.
For example, the model guidance recommends rules addressing the transport of watercraft from infested
waters. Model language advises that boats must be properly drained, and any visible plants, animals and
mud must be removed before the vessel is launched elsewhere. Another recommended regulation
prohibits the diversion, appropriation or interstate transport of water taken from infested waters.
Provisions pertaining to the movement of high-risk fishing gear from infested waters to uninfested waters
call for the decontamination of gear by removal of plant material, animals and mud, along with freezing,
drying, or use of separate gear as decontamination options. Other regulatory tools recommended in the
18
-------
Figure 7. The Primary Building Blocks
of the Model Guidance
designation of management authority
a four-tiered classification system for
nonindigenous aquatic species (prohibited,
regulated, unregulated and unlisted species) and
criteria to guide in the classification process
designation of infested waters and activities
subject to regulated/prohibited activities in
infested waters
permitting and regulatory protocol pertaining to
beneficial uses of nonindigenous aquatic species
ANS inspection programs
establishment of enforcement
authority and related penalties, and
protocol for an ANS emergency action plan
Source: Legislation, Regulation and Policy for the Prevention
and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species 1999
model guidance address beneficial use
operations involving aquatic nuisance
species, such as the live-bait industry,
aquaculture trade and horticultural
business. Appendices are included as part
of the document regarding state and
federal legislation and regulations that
were instrumental in the development of
the model guidance.
The model guidance strives to enhance
consistency in terms of legislation,
regulation and policy that incorporate key
ANS prevention and control provisions
among Great Lakes jurisdictions. A
multi-watershed, interjurisdictional
approach is essential in managing invasive
species since their points of origin span
both the country and the globe. It is not
expected that the model guidance will be
used as an "all or nothing" proposition,
but rather as a map to guide Great Lakes
jurisdictions towards achieving a higher
level of consistency regarding their
legislative, regulatory and policy mandates
to prevent ANS introductions and
dispersal. The Panel's work on the model
guidance reflects the long-standing commitment of this regional body to mitigate problems stemming
from biological invasions in Great Lakes waters (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 1999).
• Ballast Water Management and Aquatic Nuisance Species: Setting a Research Agenda for the
Great Lakes (March 2000).
The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species sponsored a symposium in 1999 which grew from
consensus on the need to prevent new ANS introductions and a recognition that ballast water is a
significant source of such introductions in the Great Lakes basin. Symposium participants reviewed
current approaches to ballast water management, assessed prospective technologies and management
approaches, and established associated research priorities. Using this input, Panel staff at the Great Lakes
Commission developed detailed findings and recommendations summarized below:
• Ballast Exchange: Open-ocean ballast exchange currently is the primary approach to
preventing ANS introductions via ballast water. It has proven inadequate, however, and
also poses serious safety concerns for some vessels. Symposium participants recognized
that it will likely remain in use for some time and may ultimately be combined with other
management approaches and technologies. The impacts, effectiveness and safety of
ballast exchange needs to be better understood. The effects of exchange on different
classes of ships must be assessed and design standards are needed to ensure it can be
conducted safely.
19
-------
NOBOBs: Most vessels entering the Great Lakes report "no ballast on board" (NOBOB)
and are not required to conduct open-ocean ballast exchange. They still carry residual
slop and sediment that may be a source of ANS introductions. The risk posed by
NOBOBs must be better understood, including the suite of organisms that remain in their
ballast tanks. Among others, potential treatment options to be explored include shoreside
facilities, chemicals, heat and partial exchange. Environmental and safety impacts from
chemicals must be carefully evaluated.
Evaluating Research Proposals: Ballast water research and development activities are
being conducted by numerous public and private entities. Consensus is needed on
criteria to guide and evaluate these efforts. Some specific issues that research projects
should address include operational feasibility, safety, costs, environmental impacts and
biological effectiveness.
Pathogens in Ballast Water: The presence of pathogens in ballast water and their
potential threat to public health merit greater attention. The nature and scope of the risk
should be assessed, along with the risk that fish pathogens may pose to Great Lakes
fishery resources.
• Ballast Water Standards: Standards, criteria and regulatory guidance for ballast water
management options are needed to guide policymakers, industry and the research
community. Some critical issues are safety, biological effectiveness, operational
feasibility and costs. Improved methods for ensuring compliance are needed, as well as
protocols for assessing the biological effectiveness of treatment technologies and
management approaches. Different regions and classes of vessels may have varying
needs.
• Costs and Economic Impacts: Substantial uncertainty exists concerning costs and
economic impacts of alternative ballast water technologies. These costs must be balanced
against the impacts of exotic species, however. The potential costs of ballast
management technologies need to be documented both for new vessels and for
retrofitting existing vessels. Impacts to Great Lakes maritime commerce should also be
evaluated, along with options for mitigating ballast water costs to the shipping industry.
Communication, Coordination and Collaboration: The ballast water "community" is
large and diverse. Ongoing communication and coordination among all parties is critical.
The community involved in ANS prevention and control should build relationships with
the shipping industry and take advantage of resources available at universities and
government laboratories to evaluate ballast management technologies. A stronger
understanding of ballast management also must be cultivated among elected officials in
efforts to promote support for further research. Finally, the Great Lakes region and the
U.S. and Canada generally, should participate in the International Maritime
Organization's policy work on ballast water management.
• A Great Lakes Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Species (May 2000).
The Great Lakes Action Plan and associated addendum provides vision on a regional basis to advance the
laws, agreements and programs established to address ANS impacts. The Action Plan - a concise
statement focusing on goals and principles - has been forwarded to the Great Lakes St.-Lawrence
governors and premiers for their signature (as of June 2000). The addendum - a more detailed statement
presenting associated objectives and strategic actions - has been endorsed at the Panel member level.
20
-------
The Action Plan also presents 10 principles to guide programs in the region. They recognize that
prevention and control are shared responsibilities involving multiple levels of government and the entire
binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence community. They recognize that success is fundamentally
dependent upon comprehensive, multidisciplinary research, a coordinated and responsive management
structure, and an informed, and involved public. Significantly, the principles recognize that this is not
just a Great Lakes issue; jurisdictions within and outside this region share responsibility, given the
interconnectedness of hydrologic basins (and vectors of introduction) in North America.
The addendum's 11 objectives and 36 strategic actions support these principles and are organized under
the categories of management programs; research and monitoring; and information, education and
collaboration. All items are practical and pragmatic; they are measurable outcomes by which progress
can be assessed overtime. For example, one calls for the establishment of a regional emergency response
procedure for new introductions. Another calls for the establishment of ballast water standards and
criteria to evaluate associated technologies and management practices. Yet another calls for a regional
monitoring regime to provide early detection of new introductions.
The primary purpose of the Action Plan, which advances the goals of the comprehensive state ANS
management plans (refer to section below), is to enhance focus on the ANS issue at the highest levels of
state and provincial government to achieve the following:
• Timely and aggressive multijurisdictional response to documented new introductions;
Adequate funding over the long term to meet prevention and control goals;
• Elevation of the issue of biological pollution within the individual and collective Great Lakes
jurisdictions.
The ultimate intent of the Action Plan is reflected in the plan's vision statement, "We . . . envision healthy
aquatic ecosystems where new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species are prevented,
and adverse ecological and economic impacts of species already present are minimized."
• A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species (January 1996). (Refer to section below on
comprehensive state management plans.)
Comprehensive State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans: The role of state entities regarding
ANS prevention and control is specifically addressed under Section 1204 of NANPCA. The legislation
calls for the development and implementation of comprehensive state management plans for ANS
prevention and control. Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or
activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial
assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health and safety risks associated
with aquatic nuisance species." The content of each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible,
cost-effective management practices and measures to be pursued by state and local programs to prevent
and control ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound. As part of the plan, federal
activities are to be identified for prevention and control measures, including direction on how these
activities should be coordinated with state and local efforts. Section 1204 also states that in the
development and implementation of the management plan, the state needs to involve appropriate local,
state and regional entities, as well as public and private organizations that have expertise in ANS
prevention and control (U.S. Congress 1990).
21
-------
The state management plans are to be submitted to the national ANS Task Force for approval. If the plan
meets Task Force requirements, the plan becomes eligible for federal cost-share support. If not, the plan
is returned to the state with recommended modifications. Plans may be implemented with other funds
supplied by state and cooperative agencies. Further details on the state management plans can be found in
Section 1204 of the act (U.S. Congress 1990).
The Great Lakes Panel has provided a model to serve in the development and implementation of
comprehensive state management plans for the states in the Great Lakes basin and other regions in the
country. A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species was structured to address different stages of ANS invasion: 1)
the introduction of nonindigenous species transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent
or world; 2) the spread of established, reproducing ANS populations to other water bodies and 3) the
colonization of ANS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts resulting from
colonization.
The three goals on which the model state management plan is based are as follows:
• Prevent new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and
inland waters of the state;
• Limit the spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into
uninfested waters of the state;
• Abate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestation
of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.
The model state management plan, through its recommended goals and associated strategic actions and
tasks, has been a popular tool used to guide state agencies in the Great Lakes region and beyond in the
development of state, as well as interstate, management plans for ANS prevention and control. The state
management plans in the Great Lakes region approved thus far by the national ANS Task Force include
Illinois, New York, Michigan and Ohio. The interstate plans approved include the St. Croix River basin
(Minnesota and Wisconsin) and Lake Champlain basin (New York and Vermont). The province of
Quebec has a management plan to address ANS issues, although the plan is not part of the U.S. approval
process. The summary presented in Table 2 provides a status report on the management plans that are
being developed or implemented in the Great Lakes region.
22
-------
Table 2. Summary of Great Lakes State/Interstate Management Plans
State
Management Plan Status / ANS Task
Force Approval Date
Plan Priorities
Illinois
The Illinois State Comprehensive Management Plan
(February 18,2000).
information/education (initial), prevention
through regulations (subsequent)
Indiana
Agency support exists for the state management plan which
is in early stages development.
Michigan
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State
Management Plan: A Strategy to Confront Their Spread in
Michigan (April 1996).
prevention of unintentional introductions
through ballast management; coordinate
research, control efforts and information
dissemination; minimize
economic/ecological impacts, develop
environmentally sound control
mechanisms
a) Minnesota
b) Minnesota/
Wisconsin
a) Plan development is in process with ongoing ANS
program since 1991. Species-specific management plans
have been adopted, as well as enforcement and
information/education plans.
b) The St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Comprehensive
Interstate Management Plan for the Prevention and Control
of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species (Spring 1998).
a) public awareness, control, watercraft
inspections, regulations and enforcement
b) regulatory approach to prevent zebra
mussel establishment in the St. Croix
River; public awareness, including
watercraft inspection at water accesses
a) New York
b) New York/
Vermont
a) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive
Management Plan (March 1,1994).
b) Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plan (May 21, 2000).
a) monitoring, education/outreach and
control.
b) information gathering, management
option evaluation, control strategies,
public awareness
Ohio
Ohio State Management Plan for Aquatic Nuisance Species
(1997).
national and regional coordination,
interagency and constituent group
coordination, outreach/education,
monitoring, control, research, regulations
and enforcement
Pennsylvania
State plan is under discussion by the Fish & Boat
Commission and Dept. of Agriculture, the lead agencies for
ANS issues. Plan development will require cooperation
between these two agencies, each with its own mandate
regarding enforcement/permitting.
Wisconsin
a) State management plan draft completed and awaiting
interagency approval from the Dept. of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection, and the DNR.
b) Interstate management plan (see Minnesota).
a) prevention through ballast water
management, bait industry and
aquaculture, monitoring to limit ANS
spread, information/education, biotic
control of aquatic weeds
Quebec
Quebec Action Plan on Zebra Mussels and Other
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species (Plan Dates:
1998-2003).
information/education, regulation,
changes and research.
Management Strategies to Mitigate Nonindigenous Invasive Species
23
-------
Problems
Prevention of Introductions and Dispersal
The prevention of new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species is widely accepted as the most
effective way to manage ANS problems and is considered the first line of defense against invasions. The
following discussion, an excerpt taken from the ANS Task Force's Aquatic Nuisance Species Program,
provides an overview on preventing the introduction and dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance
species:
Preventing the initial introduction and subsequent dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic species,
collectively referred to as "prevention" is central to the (Aquatic Nuisance Species) Program.
This program element includes measures to minimize the risk of unintentional introductions of
nonindigenous aquatic species that are or could become nuisances. Anticipating and avoiding
problems rather than reacting once a nonindigenous aquatic nuisance exists is the focus of this
element and a cornerstone of the Program.
In the absence of effective prevention efforts, many additional nonindigenous species are likely to
be introduced. Some are likely to adversely impact human activities or harm receiving
ecosystems at levels that rival those encountered with the zebra mussel. Numerous control efforts
with undesirable environmental or other consequences which would otherwise be unnecessary
will be implemented in response to such introductions.
In the Act [NANPCA], preventing the spread of nonindigenous aquatic species from infested
areas is included in the Control Element. Concepts and techniques for preventing the introduction
of exotic species from overseas as well as other parts of North America are similar to those
employed to prevent the dispersal of nonindigenous species after they are established in new
ecosystems. Consequently, this aspect of control is included in the Prevention Element.
An epidemiological model is the basis for the Prevention Element. When viewed in the context of
this model, prevention could focus on:
• all nonindigenous aquatic species that could be introduced;
• all environments into which they could be introduced; or
• pathways that connect ecosystems and allow the movement of viable
aquatic organisms from place to place.
Interruption of pathways is the most feasible and effective approach for preventing unintentional
introductions and subsequent dispersal of nonindigenous species. Focusing on pathways
concentrates action on the most easily disrupted element of the system. The number of pathways
is much more limited than the number of locations (i.e., environments) or species. Nevertheless,
targeting pathways remains a large task that will require substantial effort.
Targeting high risk pathways is one approach that is considered in the prevention of unintentional ANS
introductions. These pathways have been summarized in Figure 8.
24
-------
Figure 8. High-Risk Pathways of Unintentional ANS Introduction
shipping (ballast water and sediments, anchor chains, sanitary waters, hull surfaces)
relocation of floatable oil/gas drilling rigs, dry docks, navy tenders
recreational boating (hull surfaces, bait wells, bilge water and sediments, motors, associated
tools, equipment, fishing gear)
media, containers and equipment used to transport or store live organisms (e.g., aquarium fish,
plants, bait, aquaculture fish, fish stocking, research specimens, ornamental plants, pathogens)
fresh or frozen seafood transport and disposal
human-created water connections (navigation canals, e.g., Erie and Welland Canals)
interbasin water transfers (e.g., irrigation)
municipal/industrial water supply
natural pathways (e.g., waterfowl, tornadoes, hurricanes, other storms).
Source: ANS Task Force's Aquatic Nuisance Species Program (Table 2, page 16)
Ballast Water Management: Ballast water has been identified as a major pathway for the introduction and
dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast
Guard 1997). In an effort to prevent new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species,
ballast water management guidelines have been established as federal law in the Great Lakes under
NANPCA of 1990. The U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations in May 1993 that required vessels bound for
the Great Lakes comply with one of the following options: 1) exchange their water, if possible, on the
high seas (in depths greater than 2,000 meters or 6,600 feet) to achieve a minimum salinity of 30 parts per
thousand; 2) retain the vessel's ballast water onboard during the entire voyage withing the Great Lakes; 3)
implementation of an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water management approved
by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Problems have arisen with open ocean ballast exchange ranging from limited effectiveness to concerns
about crew and ship safety. There is also a significant problem with the unpumbable ballast residue for
which regulations do not yet exist. It has been found that current ship designs leave a residual amount of
ballast water in the tanks after a complete discharge operation. As a result, the organisms carried in the
unpumpable ballast residue may be discharged when water is added to the ballast tank and later released
into the Great Lakes from vessels with multiple destinations in the basin. It is also important to recognize
that ballast regulations should not be expected to cease all future invasions, but rather, ballast regulations
can only be expected to diminish the number of new invasions into the Great Lakes.
In reauthorizing the federal ANS legislation, NISA of 1996 establishes a national ballast management
program that strengthens regulations on ballast water management in continued efforts to minimize ANS
introductions. The national program, targeted to all U.S. coastal regions, will become mandatory if the
shipping industry shows a record of poor compliance under a voluntary system. Compliance records will
be established by way of a mandatory reporting system established and monitored by the U.S. Coast
Guard. The ANS Task Force is responsible for developing criteria for how much compliance is needed to
protect coastal resources. The Great Lakes ballast program remains unchanged (and mandatory) except
that the scope of the program is clarified to include vessels which may enter the lakes reporting no ballast
on board. NISA provides for authorization of a Ballast Technology Development Program which will
bring additional resources to investigate the technological and management options of ballast water
treatment (e.g., thermal, ultraviolet, chemical, ultrasound, filtration, etc.) to replace ballast exchange
25
-------
(Cangelosi 1997).
Prevention of Nonindigenous Species Invasions through Quarantine Controls: To restrict the movement
of nonindigenous invaders across political boundaries, the quarantine approach has been established as
protection against species that threaten human, animal or plant life. The primary goal is to invest in
inspection and exclusion of nonindigenous species to avoid the astronomical cost and effort that is
incurred by control after populations have become established.
In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is primarily responsible for agricultural quarantine and port inspection. Regulations under the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Public Health Service restrict entry of injurious fish and wildlife and
potential human disease vectors. However, the quarantine controls imposed in this country take an
"innocent until proven guilty" approach; nonindigenous plants that are not known to be weeds are
allowed entry. Harmful nonindigenous species can continue to be imported legally until added by
regulation to a published list, a process which is often difficult and time consuming (U.S. Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment 1993).
The quarantine approach practiced in the United States, however, has proved to be "inadequate to stem
the tide of entering nonindigenous organisms" (Mack et al. 2000). Consequently, APHIS is considering
policy changes that would conduct risk assessments estimating the "invasive potential" of a species
proposed for import. In 1997, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service adopted such a risk
assessment system for screening new plant imports based on biological attributes and the consequent
potential for invasion. This approach can result in restricting species introductions that in reality are
innocuous and would not become nuisance species. It also should be noted that such a policy could
generate conflict between environmentalists and commodity groups, such as horticulturists, advocating
liberal NIS introductions. The challenge for scientists and policymakers lies in the development of a
preventative approach that excludes the few potentially harmful invaders among a plethora of innocuous
nonindigenous species (Mack et al. 2000).
Prevention of New Introductions by Predicting Potential Nonindigenous Invasive Species and
Communities Vulnerable to Invasion: Despite the progress that has been made in documenting ecological
and economic impacts resulting from introduced species, little attention has been focused on forecasting
the unplanned invasions in North American freshwater habitats. One approach to the prevention of future
ANS introductions is the identification and risk assessment of potential nonindigenous invaders and those
ecological communities at risk in terms of invasion. This information can be applied to the development
of criteria to prioritize management resources for the detection and control of potential invaders. To work
towards a more proactive approach for ANS prevention and control, identification of potential future
aquatic invaders and vulnerable communities is an approach deserving serious attention.
To make this predictive approach cost-effective, it is recommended that rather than compiling a
comprehensive list, the focus should be directed toward the identification of potential invaders and
vulnerable communities with "exceptionally high invasion and impact potential" (Ricciardi and
Rasmussen 1998). The following guidelines are proposed for this selection process:
Potential donor regions and dispersal pathways: 1) Updated nonindigenous species lists (e.g.,
Mills et al. 1993) could provide information on potential geographic donor regions where
disproportionate numbers of successful invaders, as listed, have originated. 2) Potential donor
regions may also be identified by large-scale shipping patterns with the ports acting as
26
-------
distribution hubs for both cargo and nonindigenous species. 3) The presence of strong dispersal
pathways and vector activity between the potential donor and target regions may indicate a high
probability of future invasions. For example, repeated ballast water discharges by European
shipping using the St. Lawrence Seaway is held accountable for more than 30 percent of the
Great Lakes invasions. Similarly, an increase in net tonnage of ships arriving from East Asian
ports over the past three decades has coincided with introductions of a variety of Asian
invertebrate introductions. An analysis of shipping traffic from regions containing known
invaders such as the zebra mussel (Great Lakes) or the Japanese crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus)
(Long Island Sound) could help predict where these species will next invade.
Biological criteria: Biological attributes of nonindigenous species could be used as a predictive
tool for successful invasion. Some hypothesized attributes of successful aquatic invaders include:
1) abundance and wide distribution in original range, 2) wide environmental tolerance, 3) high
genetic variability, 4) short generation time, 5) rapid growth, 6) early sexual maturity, 7) high
reproductive capacity, 8) broad diet (opportunistic feeding), 9) gregariousness, 10) possession of
natural mechanisms of rapid dispersal, and 11) dispersal mechanisms that involve human activity.
For example, evidence indicates that successful invasions are probable for species possessing a
number of these characteristics, such as high reproductive capacity, wide environmental tolerance
limits and natural mechanisms for rapid dispersal, as is the case with the zebra mussel and the
round goby. Studies of herbaceous plants have shown that the size of the current distribution of a
species is often a good predictor of invasiveness. Examples of wide spread distribution include
the water hyacinth and purple loosestrife. One attribute viewed as significant in predicting
invasion potential is the species tendency to use human activity as a dispersal mechanism. For
instance, many invasive bivalves and crustaceans possess planktonic larvae that are more easily
transported in ballast water. Therefore, it is recommended that predictive profiles focus on the
ability of an organism to exploit ballast water transport.
Invasion history as a predictive criterion: Predictions also can be made based on past invasion
history. It can be assumed that a nonindigenous species with a successful record of invasion will
continue to invade elsewhere if conditions permit and opportunities arise. This predictive tool,
coupled with a species ability to facilitate human-mediated dispersal mechanisms, such as
transoceanic shipping, provide a basis for forecasting future invasions. Using this method, Mills
et al. successfully predicted the invasion of the Great Lakes by P. antipodarum, a snail with an
extensive invasion history in Europe, which was recently reported from Lake Ontario.
Community vulnerability to invasion: Those communities that are relatively "impoverished"
in terms of quantity of native species can be weakened in their biological resistance to invaders.
In 1958 Charles Eton proposed that community resistance to invasions increases in proportion to
the number of species in the community. According to Elton, communities are considered more
"stable" if they are "species-rich" (Mack et al. 2000).
Another factor facilitating the invasion of nonindigenous species is that upon establishment in
new habitats, the invaders are "liberated" from their usual competitors, predators, grazers and
parasites. This "escape from biotic constraints" can translate into a significant advantage for the
growth, longevity and fitness of nonindigenous species. This hypothesis explaining the success
of invaders has motivated researchers to search for biological control agents among invasive
species' enemies in their native habitats (Mack et al. 2000).
27
-------
Disturbance of habitat is also considered a factor that can set the stage for biological invasions.
Such disturbances can be caused by fire, flooding, agricultural practices, livestock grazing,
drainage of wetlands, and alterations of salinity or nutrient levels in streams and lakes. New
disturbances or intensification of natural disturbances have caused significant biotic invasions,
including extensive plant invasions across vast temperate grasslands in North America. A
variation on this theme is that a community may be better equipped to resist invasion if the
ecosystem structure remains intact. For instance, forest communities may be more resistant to
plant invasion as long as the different levels of the canopy are not disturbed (Mack et al. 2000).
Although there are not many documented results on the effectiveness of this predictive management
approach for ANS prevention, it deserves careful consideration as an additional tool to prevent future
ANS introductions.
Ballast Water Research Explores Potential of Glutaraldehyde in Prevention of ANS Introductions:
(Submitted by Russ Moll, Michigan Sea Grant, based on a feature article in the ANS Update, 1998,
Volume 4, No. 1.) Many of the ballast management technologies under investigation are not biologically
effective, economically feasible and/or require substantial engineering modifications to ships. One option
that has yet to be explored is a class of compounds called non-oxidizing biocides; one of these
compounds that shows considerable promise is glutaraldehyde, a chemical that is very effective in the
control of microorganisms at a concentration of 10 to 25 parts per million. This chemical has a short
half-life of one to two days and then breaks down into harmless byproducts such as carbon dioxide.
The use of glutaraldehyde shows potential for NIS prevention and control in that it already has a wide
range of applications that are environmentally acceptable. Most notably is its use as a sterilant in the
medical and dental professions and to control microorganism growth in cooling water towers. The fact
that glutaraldehyde is effective at low concentrations, yet breaks down quickly, makes it a good candidate
for additional environmental applications. Although this compound is relatively expensive, its use in the
treatment of unpumpable ballast should prove economically feasible (per application costs of $260 to
$900 depending on the amount of residual ballast) since it will be needed in much smaller quantities than
would be necessary to treat full ballast tanks.
Examining the feasibility of using this chemical to effectively treat ballast residue without posing
environmental risks is the primary objective of this research project, conducted by investigators at the
University of Michigan, and supported by a $300,000 grant from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, an
organization supporting Great Lakes research. The project is based on recommendations from a
preliminary study funded by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Office of the Great
Lakes.
Primary investigators include Dr. Russell Moll, an aquatic biologist and director of the Michigan Sea
Grant Program; Dr. Michael Parsons, a professor in the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
Department, University of Michigan; and Larissa Lubomudrov, a graduate student in the School of
Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. The first year of the three-year project will
be lab investigations to determine if glutaraldehyde can be used safely and effectively in treating ballast
water. The second and third years will be actual shipboard investigations treating ballast tanks.
Use of a non-oxdizing biocide would entail only minimal engineering modifications to ships, making it a
good candidate for use in the existing fleet while other technologies are being developed. Finally, the
project will address if use of the biocide has any deleterious effects on the ship's crew or the ship itself. If
28
-------
this project proves a success, we may have a new weapon in preventing ANS introductions through
ballast water.
Eradication and Control of Established Populations
Eradication (e.g., complete elimination) of NIS populations is sometimes feasible, particularly if detected
early in the invasion process, at which point the number of individuals in the NIS populations is low and
eradication measures are applied quickly. In reality, however, early detection of an infestation is unlikely
due to insufficient ongoing monitoring, particularly in natural areas. Another obstacle to eradication is
the tendency of regulatory agencies to overlook nonindigenous invasions for other priorities until the NIS
problem has escalated out of control. To date, no success stories can be reported on total eradication of
NIS invasions in the Great Lakes region.
Control of nonindigenous species at acceptable levels has been widely implemented due to the
infeasibility of eradication. The three main approaches, applied independently or in various
combinations, include chemical, physical/mechanical and biological control.
Chemical control effectively combat biotic invaders as illustrated by the use of the lampricide, TFM, in
limiting the spread of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the use of chemical control
frequently causes health hazards for humans and non-target species, as was the case with application of
DDT. In addition, the evolution of pest resistance, the high economic costs and the need for repeated
applications often make continued chemical control infeasible. Even in cases where human and
ecosystem health hazards have not been documented, the perceived risk of chemical application
inevitably generates public opposition, as has occurred with the proposed use of chemical treatments to
contain the spread of the ruffe in western Lake Superior.
Physical/mechanical control of nonindigenous species has proven to be effective and usually does not
generate public opposition. For instance, control of the invasive plant, Phragmites, has been achieved by
cutting the aerial portion of the plant in mid-summer, when most of the food reserves produced for the
season are removed, reducing the plant's vigor. In Great Lakes waters, mechanical harvesting of Eurasian
watermilfoil has been successful. Harvesters mow milfoil weed beds by digging up the roots. Hand-
pulling early in the season has also proven to be effective. Disadvantages to mechanical control are
equipment expenses, difficulty in finding the target organisms and the large geographic scale that must be
treated for effective control.
Problems with chemical and mechanical control have led to investigations involving biological control,
i.e., the introduction of a natural enemy to prey upon a nonindigenous invasive species. In many cases,
new invasives have escaped the biotic constraints of their indigenous habitat, thus experiencing a
competitive edge in their newly invaded habitat. Biocontrol attempts to re-create such constraints through
the introduction of a natural enemy that can compete with the target species, thus keeping its population
in check. Some biological control projects have succeeded in containing very widespread, damaging
infestations at acceptable levels with minimal costs. The ultimate goal is to introduce a perpetual
mechanism of control that can be maintained without frequent human intervention. In the Great Lakes, a
well known success story of biological control is the introduction of leaf-eating beetles to control purple
loosestrife. Biological control, however, is pursued with caution due to concern that the predatory
organisms may also have the potential to attack non-target species. The fact that biological control agents
can disperse and evolve, as can any species introduced to a new range, makes extensive evaluation critical
(Mack et al. 2000).
29
-------
While control efforts have successfully limited the spread of some nonindigenous aquatic nuisance
species, no known control options exist for others. The following discussion, an excerpt taken from the
ANS Task Force's Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, provides an overview on the control of
nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. The Task Force is responsible for coordination of the
development and implementation of ANS control plans.
Control tends to be a focal point of many nonindigenous species initiatives. Exploration of control
methods is frequently the initial response once a new nonindigenous species is detected or an established
species begins to have a noticeable effect. However, this emphasis has become increasingly controversial
with greater scrutiny of the efficacy and potential side effects of existing control programs.
Cooperative programs for control of established aquatic nuisance species are authorized, but not mandated
(NANPCA, Subsection 1202(e)). The purpose of such control programs is to minimize harm to the
environment and the public health and welfare. Control may be initiated without regard to the source of
the introduction (i.e., intentional versus unintentional introductions) or when it was introduced. Control
includes eradication of infestations, reductions in populations to some acceptable level, and adaptation of
human activities and facilities to accommodate (i.e., work around) infestations. This includes efforts to
protect native species and ecosystems likely to be adversely affected by infestations. Although preventing
the spread of nonindigenous aquatic species is defined as control in the statute, this aspect of control is
addressed in the Prevention Element of the Program. Given biological differences and the decision
processes involved, control programs will tend to focus on specific species or groups of closely related
species rather than applying to many types of organisms.
Aquatic Nuisance Species can be controlled by several general methods, including chemical, biological,
mechanical or physical, and habitat management practices. Proper evaluation and use of selective
chemicals may provide effective control of aquatic invaders with a minimum of ecological hazard or other
side-effects. On the other hand, concern exists among biologists, public health interests and the general
public about the environmental safety and long-term impacts of chemicals used to control aquatic
nuisance species. Carefully planned biological control programs may provide rapid, cost-effective control
while posing negligible ecological problems. However, identification and screening of biological control
agents invariably takes many years and improperly screened biological control agents have themselves
become nuisance species in the past.
Mechanical or physical control of aquatic nuisance species, although often very expensive, can be the
most appropriate technique in some circumstances. For instance, several engineering devices for power
plants and other installations, including flushing affected areas with hot water, show considerable promise
for reducing biofouling by zebra mussels. To protect native species and biodiversity, the establishment of
refugia in natural habitats or artificial culture where aquatic nuisance species can be excluded or
controlled may be necessary. Modifying natural habitats or other environments, such as water intakes, by
changing management practices can prevent or reduce the effects of infestations.
No single method is likely to provide the necessary control of aquatic nuisance species. Hence, a
comprehensive control strategy involving a combination of techniques referred to as Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) is usually necessary for an effective control program.
Few, if any, control methods are without some environmental risk. However, when properly used,
including continual monitoring for effectiveness and ecological side-effects, environmentally sound
control of at least some aquatic nuisance species can be achieved.
Affordable and effective control often requires a prompt response to an infestation before the organism
becomes established or widely dispersed. Therefore, when a reasonable chance exists that a newly
detected nonindigenous aquatic species could become a nuisance, a quick determination of whether
control may be feasible and warranted is essential.
30
-------
The Task Force or any other affected agency or entity may recommend initiation of control (NANPCA,
Susection 1202(e)). However, the Task Force itself will not conduct control programs. When a
recommendation that control be initiated is received, the Task Force will ensure prompt and systematic
evaluation of the proposal and, if warranted, approval of a control program.
Biological Control Measures in Fighting the Spread of Purple Loosestrife: Resource managers fighting
the spread of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) have recently been armed with a biological control
measure: tiny, imported beetles that graze on this invasive, perennial weed. Since its introduction to the
U.S. in the early 1800s, loosestrife has invaded thousands of sites across the country, replacing native
plant species by forming dense monotypic, stands in habitats such as wetlands, lakeshores, streams and
ditches. In addition to threatening biological diversity and the ecological integrity of invaded sites,
wildlife that depend upon native vegetation for food, shelter and breeding areas are forced to leave
habitats invaded by purple loosestrife.
Purple loosestrife is an aggressive invasive weed with a single mature plant capable of producing up to
two million seeds per year, which are dispersed along rivers and waterways. When introduced into North
America from Eurasian habitats, purple loosestrife escaped the natural enemies that control its spread in
its native range. There are no chemical or mechanical (e.g., cutting, burning, flooding) methods available
to provide a long-term, sustainable management strategy for the species' control Infestations in small
areas can be treated with herbicides, but large stands of loosestrife are very difficult to control. Biological
control of purple loosestrife using host specific plant-eating beetles is showing potential in reducing large
infestations on a long-term sustainable level that is both environmentally sound and economically
feasible.
In the mid-1980s, the USDA hired European researchers to identify insects as potential controls of
loosestrife. To qualify as a suitable biocontrol agent, the following criteria were considered: 1) host
specificity of the insect (i.e., ability to survive and feed exclusively on purple loosestrife without posing a
threat to native American plant species) and 2) cause the plant to die, reducing shoot growth, supressing
flowering or reducing seed output. Researchers identified five insects with the greatest potential for
biocontrol of the 120 species of insects associated with purple loosestrife. Those chosen include the
rootboring weevil (Hylobius transversovittatus), two leaf-eating beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G.
pusilla) and two flower feeding weevils (Nanophyes marmoratus and N. brevis). To increase the
likelihood of success, the researchers chose insects that attack different parts of the plant, thus reducing it
vigor and reproductive potential. The root-boring weevils attack the plant's roots, leaf-eating beetles
defoliate and curtail flower production, and flower-feeding weevils destroy flowers and reduce seed
production.
Eight years of testing revealed that these five species consume only loosestrife, the USDA approved them
for release in the United States. It was considered a risk to introduce a living nonindigenous species into
the environment. However in this case, the risk was considered low when compared to the negative
impacts of purple loosestrife. However, the species N. brevis was later excluded as a biocontrol agent; it
was found to carry a parasite, which was considered a significant risk to the ecosystem.
Management and Control of the Ruffe: (submitted by Tom Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, chair,
Ruffe Control Committee): Presence of the Eurasian percid fish, ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) was
detected in the Duluth-Superior Harbor on western Lake Superior in 1986. By 1991, ruffe had become
the most abundant species in the harbor as measured by trawl sampling. A 1992 report by the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission called ruffe "a threat to North American fisheries." Development of a Ruffe
Control Program was authorized by the national ANS Force in 1992 and was approved by the Task Force
31
-------
in 1995. The goal of the program was to contain ruffe to western Lake Superior. After ruffe were
detected in Alpena Harbor on Lake Huron in 1995, the control program was revised. The goal of the
program, to prevent or delay further spread, has been met since 1995. The Ruffe Control Committee
meets annually to oversee implementation of the control program. The control program and committee
minutes may be accessed on the internet from: http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/ashland/.
The impacts of ruffe are a subject of scientific debate. Direct impacts on economically important
sport or commercial fish have not been proven, but research indicates that ruffe cause profound
changes in ecosystem energy flow. Simulation modeling indicates a lag time of decades in effects
of ruffe on yellow perch (Percaflavescens).
The known range of ruffe is nearly unchanged since 1995. Ruffe are abundant in estuaries of
southwestern Lake Superior. Small reproducing populations occur in Thunder Bay, Ontario, on the
north shore of Lake Superior, and in Thunder Bay, Mich., on the west shore of Lake Huron.
However, peripheral ruffe populations have grown in recent years, portending future range
expansion from those sites.
The Ruffe Control Program is comprised of eight components summarized below with a
prognosis for future success.
Population Reduction
Objective: Eliminate or reduce reproducing populations using appropriate technologies, where
feasible.
Prognosis'. Poor. Technologies do not exist. Piscicides are controversial and likely to be ineffective.
Physical removal may be useful in very limited situations.
Ballast Water Management
Objective: Minimize the transport of ruffe from western Lake Superior through ballast water
management, and support the development of technologies to prevent transport.
Prognosis: Good for western Lake Superior ports. Poor when ruffe colonize other Great Lakes.
Technology development is in very early stages.
Population Investigation
Objective: Continue and expand investigations of ruffe populations to evaluate the impact on
affected fish communities and to provide information necessary to plan, implement and
evaluate control activities.
Prognosis: Mixed. Investigations continue at reduced intensity. Integration of agencies' data has not
been completed.
Surveillance
Objective: Conduct surveillance sampling in likely locations to find newly established populations of
ruffe, and designate a single office to compile collections of ruffe.
Prognosis: Good. Field sampling and angler reports have detected ruffe colonization in a timely
manner. Surveillance results for all Great Lakes are compiled into one annual report.
Fish Community Management
Objective: Recommend fish management practices that will improve resilience of fish communities
against invasion or dominance by ruffe.
Prognosis: Mixed. No recommendations specifically for ruffe. General recovery of Great Lakes fish
communities and habitats will increase resilience.
32
-------
Education
Objective: Develop and promote information and education programs to identify ruffe so that they
will not be transported alive and so they will be killed and reported if taken.
Prognosis: Good. Excellent educational materials are available. Public awareness is high.
• Bait Fish Management
Objective: Assist jurisdictions in developing model language for regulation of bait harvest and
possession.
Prognosis: Good. Model language now available through Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species (refer to the 1999 citation of the Great Lakes Panel: Legislation, Regulation and
Policy for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species:
Model Guidance for Great Lakes Jurisdictions). Bait industry working to improve
quality control.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Objective: Consider options to prevent the movement of ruffe from the Great Lakes to the
Mississippi watershed via the Chicago, Des Plaines and Illinois rivers.
Prognosis: Mixed. Electrical barrier is to be installed in summer 2000. Effectiveness is unknown,
and other technologies are poorly developed.
Overall prognosis: Activities conducted under the program have delayed the spread of ruffe in the Great
Lakes. It is projected that, even in the absence of human-assisted transport to new locations, the ruffe will
eventually colonize new locations throughout the Great Lakes and connected waters by their own
movements. However, assistance by humans will be necessary for ruffe to colonize new locations beyond
the Great Lakes and connected waters. Measures are being developed to prevent ruffe from being
transported to waters not connected to the Great Lakes.
Control of the Round Goby: (submitted by Sandra Keppner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) The round
goby (Neogobius melanostomus) was first collected in North American waters in 1990 in the St. Clair
River. The goby is a bottom-dwelling fish that has great potential to impact the Great Lakes fishery.
Round goby are thriving in the Great Lakes basin because they are aggressive, voracious feeders that can
forage in total darkness. The round goby takes over prime spawning sites traditionally used by native
species, competing with native fish for habitat and changing the balance of the ecosystem. Goby can also
survive in degraded water conditions, and spawn more often and over a longer period than native fish.
The round goby is already harming native bottom-dwelling Great Lakes native fish like mottled sculpin,
logperch and darters.
Since 1990, the round goby has shown a rapid range of expansion to all five Great Lakes, including
southern Lake Michigan, where it has become established in the Illinois Waterway System which
provides a direct connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Resource managers
were alerted to the establishment of round goby within the waterway and recommendations were
developed to install an electrical barrier to minimize the risk of further spread of round goby. These
efforts are advancing with barrier construction expected to be initiated in August 2000. However, as of
June 2000, the round goby range has expanded downstream on the waterway to Joliet, which is 50 miles
inland from Calumet and 11 miles downstream from where the electric barrier will be constructed (Thiel
pers. comm. June 2000) This range expansion has increased concern that implementation of the barrier
may be too late to prevent the species from spreading to waters beyond the waterway, including the
Illinois and the Mississippi rivers.
In late summer 1999, a workshop was convened by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
33
-------
in cooperation with the national ANS Task Force to evaluate short-term control strategies to minimize the
risk of further spread of round goby throughout the Illinois Waterway System. Based on the outcome of
the workshop, the Illinois DNR is investigating the feasibility of using a bottom-re lease formulation of
the piscicide Bayluscide to eradicate round goby at the periphery of their range within the waterway. The
agency, in cooperation with various state, regional, local and federal agencies, is addressing following
four issues related to the application of this piscicide:
• Permitting: Currently, this piscicide is labeled as a lampricide for use in the Great Lakes Basin
and Lake Champlain. If necessary, it may be possible to seek re-labeling for use as an emergency
response. Other permitting requirements also are being investigated.
• Funding: Costs associated with purchasing and application of the piscicide are expected to be
substantial.
Research: The U.S. Geological Survey - Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center will
conduct experimental analyses to determine the behavioral response of round goby to the bottom-
release formulation of this pesticide. In addition, studies will be conducted to determine the
required contact time of round goby to Bayluscide to achieve mortality. A multi-agency effort
will be coordinated in September to collect 1500 round goby for experimentation.
Surveillance: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-La Crosse Fishery Resources Office will lead
a multi-agency effort, known as the "Goby Round-Up" to re-affirm, on an annual basis, the extent
of the round goby spread and determine current densities within waterways around Chicago. The
most recent Goby Round-Up, was conducted in June 2000. Preliminary research indicates that
the goby average more than four inches, doubling in length from samples taken in 1999. As
mentioned above, since the initial sighting off Chicago in Lake Michigan in 1996, the goby has
migrated into the Calumet River, through the Calumet Sag Channel, and south into the Des
Plaines River as far down as Joliet, 50 miles southwest of Chicago.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins: (originally
submitted by Phil Moy, formerly of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and currently of Wisconsin Sea Grant,
as a feature article for ANS Update, 1997, Volume 3 No. 4; updated in June 2000 by David Handwerk,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal has facilitated transportation and
trade but removed geographic obstacles to the interbasin spread of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance
species. The Chicago area waterway system provides a direct linkage between the Great Lakes basin and
the Mississippi River basin. The round goby recently introduced into the Great Lakes in the ballast water
of ocean-going vessels, is extending its range through this waterway. As of June 2000, this small,
bottom-dwelling and very aggressive nonindigenous fish has migrated 15 percent down the length of the
Illinois waterway and is well-positioned to invade warmer waters of the Mississippi River basin.
Activities on the canal involve multiple jurisdictions, permitting authorities, uses and interests. To
address concerns over the downstream expansion of round goby populations, a barrier advisory panel was
established, consisting of about 20 different federal, state, regional and municipal agencies and industry
and environmental groups. The panel has identified potential approaches to an ANS dispersal barrier for
the canal. The two constraints specified were that the barrier must not interfere with barge traffic nor
affect the Lake Michigan diversion volume. Other obstacles affecting barrier design include variable
flow (2,000 to 20,000 cfs), existing permit requirements to maintain water quality, recreational boating
and public perception.
Of the many approaches considered, an electric field and the chemical treatment, rotenone, ranked
highest; however, chemical treatment was recommended for limited use only. The panel decided that, in
34
-------
the short term, a barrier consisting of an electric field appeared to be the best approach to control the
downstream spread of the goby.
The goby dispersal barrier will be located downstream at river mile 296, which, in the initial phases of the
project (September 1999), was the farthest point of the goby's range. The goby, as of June 2000, has been
sited eleven miles downstream from where the barrier will be constructed. The barrier will consist of two
pulsed direct current arrays, each extending across the canal and located approximately 300 meters apart.
Each array will generate an electrical field effective to a height about 2 meters above the canal bottom,
posing no threat to human safety. The barrier will be attached to the bottom and recessed into the sides of
the canal so that barge traffic can continue to operate normally. The electric field can be modified to
adapt to varying canal conditions.
The barrier targets bottom-dwelling fish, allowing fish that reside in the upper water column to pass. It is
intended to deter the fish, not to stun or kill them. Thus far, laboratory tests at the Great Lakes Science
Center have found electrical parameter settings that successfully repel about 80 percent of goby attempts
to cross the barriers. Changes in water flow did not affect this success rate. Development and
implementation of the goby barrier will represent significant progress toward ecosystem protection of the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.
Federal funding of $1.2 million from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA is supporting the
design and construction of the dispersal barrier. A combination of funding sources, including nonfederal
contributions, will be required for continued operation and monitoring of the barrier. Construction of the
benthic barrier is scheduled for August of 2000. Although the goby has already been sighted downstream
from the barrier, it is hoped that the barrier will impede further spread of the goby and prevent the
migration of other nonindigenous species. The barrier also will serve as a valuable demonstration project
that can be used to address similar problems in other areas.
35
-------
Detection and Monitoring
It is recognized that there is a general lack of detection and monitoring programs for nonindigenous
invasive species for the Great Lakes region. The summaries in the following section are based on
presentations from the Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop, Chicago 1999 and are
offered as guidance in the development of NIS detection and monitoring programs for the Great Lakes
region).
A Paradigm to Guide the Development of Nonindigenous Species Detection and Monitoring Programs:
(presented by Don Schloesser, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)) Detection and monitoring of
nonindigenous invasive species should be considered the foundation of prevention and control efforts.
Presently, however, these programs do not hold a high profile in research paradigms for either terrestrial
or aquatic nonindigenous species. Detection of a nonindigenous species refers to finding an organism in
an environment outside its normal range where it was not previously present. Monitoring refers to
keeping track of the species, both in terms of historical distribution and abundance. Integral to detection
and monitoring efforts is reporting (an assessment and related publicity regarding the discovery of a new
organism) and evaluation (an assessment of the potential impacts of new nonindigenous invasive species).
In formulating historical models for NIS detection, the focus is on species that are relatively new
introductions and environmentally disruptive rather than those that are established and are not disruptive
to the ecosystem. Species are generally detected in one of the following ways:
Random Event: Discoveries occur by chance, often by the general public. Random searches through
museum collections could possibly double or triple species on the list.
Incidental Detection: Field scientists conduct an informal survey for nonindigenous species during the
normal course of scientific study because of an awareness that new discoveries might occur. This
awareness has increased in past decades, but is still probably less than five percent of total findings.
Active Pursuit: Field scientists actively search for nonindigenous species on a random basis, although
rare due to cost. Exceptions include inspections of agricultural products and ballast water of ships.
Monitoring models depend on funding availability, nevertheless, the following usually characterizes
monitoring efforts.
I. Individual taxonomic experts conduct monitoring on a case-by-case basis. This accounts for
about 40 percent of past monitoring activities.
II. Individuals in agencies conduct monitoring on a case-by-case basis with "stolen" time from other
projects. This accounts for about half of NIS discoveries.
III. Agency designated to track distribution, abundance and impacts of species conducts monitoring
on a case-by-case or generic basis with allocated funding. There is active but fragmented
organization between agencies in this model, which also relies on volunteer programs.
(Note that these models are only as flexible as funding and vested interests allow.)
Presently, a sound model for NIS detection and monitoring that facilitates early response and
implementation of appropriate eradication/control measures does not exist. The current trend of
combining Models I and II for both detection and monitoring will continue to provide the basis for NIS
36
-------
program development. Model III is not cost-effective.
A predictive approach to detection and monitoring, also under consideration, has led to the discoveries of
Cercopagis and Daphnia holtzi. Application of predictive modeling could narrow the NIS target list,
making it more feasible to identify specific monitoring locations. Another recommended component is
the expansion of monitoring to include impacts to the ecosystem. According to the Congressional
Research Service (September 15, 1999), there are no current laws that address the critical period between
NIS detection and establishment of a new invasive species. At present, Greg Rouiz of the Smithsonian
Institute is leading an initiative involving a standardized, ongoing approach to surveying ecosystems for
nonindigenous invasive species that would address the lag time between detection and establishment of a
species. Biodiversity is another recommended component of NIS detection and monitoring programs.
The following are recommendations to improve NIS detection and monitoring programs:
Develop regional NIS lists on a watershed basis;
• Provide incentives for taxonomic experts to detect, report or evaluate nonindigenous species;
Establish a detection and monitoring approach that is more proactive;
• Decrease the time between detection and reporting;
Evaluate the ecological and economic impacts and control options more quickly;
• Develop quick response teams with objective membership;
Integrate detection as part of NIS research;
• Predict future invaders to facilitate early detection and prompt action;
Develop regulatory support to facilitate action when eradication is still possible;
• Establish an emergency funding source for eradication of new nonindigenous species.
Monitoring and Ecological Impacts: (presented by Tom Nalepa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab) Nonindigenous invasive species have created
an unstable ecosystem in the Great Lakes, making the prediction of systematic changes difficult. While
ecological change has always been a component of the Great Lakes system, the changes seen over the
past 10 years, particularly in nearshore regions, are unprecedented. Many of these ecological changes are
unique to the Great Lakes and could not have been predicted. For example, the invasion of zebra mussels
led to the two unexpected changes to the Great Lakes ecosystem: 1) blooms of blue-green algae in
nearshore areas, and 2) declines in Diporeia in offshore regions.
Ecological uncertainty exists because NIS impacts occur at different time scales and are interactive by
nature. Given the pervasive nature of current impacts, monitoring broad ecological change is essential to
wise resource use. The fact that other species are poised to invade is of great relevance to ecological
monitoring.
Diporeia in Lake Michigan is discussed as an example of an ecological response to invasive species with
an uncertain outcome. Since 1992, numbers of Diporeia have declined both in portions of the lake where
zebra mussels are abundant and in areas where zebra mussels are not found. Between 1998 and 1999, the
decline appeared to accelerate, and evidence suggests that numbers now also are declining in the northern
portion of the lake. Few Diporeia will be found in Lake Michigan within the next 10 years at the current
rate of decline. As Diporeia is a major food source for many species offish, its decline will certainly
affect the feeding habits and, in turn, the distribution and population size offish. Preliminary evidence
suggests that these impacts are already occurring.
The following recommendations are provided based on this ecosystemic research of Diporeia decline:
Monitoring partnerships need to be formed to examine as many biological components as
37
-------
possible because the overall impact to the ecosystem is unknown.
Integrating experimental studies with monitoring activities should be a high priority.
• Consideration must be given to links between the upper and lower ends of the food web.
Detection and Monitoring of Plant Invasions: (presented by Noel B. Pavlovic, USGS, Biological
Resources Division) Nonindigenous plants undergo four stages of colonization and invasion:
• Lag phase: repeated introduction of species where some species succeed and others do not over
time;
Permanent established phase: organisms have become permanently established and are
reproducing, but their populations are still relatively small;
• Colonization: populations begin to disperse to and invade new areas;
• Infiltration: species penetrate disturbed ecosystems.
Monitoring initiatives should be designed so detection occurs early in the invasion process when control
and eradication are still possible. This is a rare event, however, since detection is difficult. The standard
result of detection is, at best, containment. Monitoring for organisms needs to be multiphased involving
detection of rare events coupled with controlling large populations. The vigilance of resource managers
and the public is the best means for early detection.
National parks traditionally do not inventory native plants and animals, and awareness of NIS populations
on their lands is limited. In addition, there is a need for a quantitative monitoring and ranking system for
invasive plants to protect the parks' repositories of native biological species. The detection of new
invasions is difficult and often haphazard. Chronic disturbance in terrestrial systems, such as roadside
habitats and other areas, has been shown to make plant communities more vulnerable to NIS invasions.
Community vulnerability, particularly in natural areas of national parks, should be integrated into
detection and monitoring programs.
Research scientists from USGS are involved in a project to monitor invasive plants in national parks and
lakeshores of the Great Lakes region, studying the effect of increased invasive plant populations on the
biodiversity of native populations. The study uses a two-phased approach to sampling and compares the
presence of invasive species between parks, among communities within parks and compares different
ecological disturbance regimes (measured by logging and cultural impacts). This system for monitoring
generates baseline data and identifies common nonindigenous species in an invasive plant ranking system
developed by the National Park Service and USGS.
Finally, there is a significant role for communication regarding the control of invasive plants. For
example, communication with and among park staff and other natural area managers may provide NIS
information that can facilitate the early detection and eradication of new invasive species. All levels of
government must be involved to effectively control invasive plants in areas of chronic human disturbance.
Most importantly, there is a need to detect nonindigenous plants in early phases of infestation to facilitate
containment and eradication. Dissemination of information to land managers, followed by vigilant
quantitative and qualitative monitoring and aggressive control measures, are the means to effectively
control invasive species at the early stages of invasion. These approaches are not a panacea to preventing
NIS problems, but they can go a long way toward decelerating their spread.
Importance of Accurate Inventory Data and Information Sharing for Implementing Effective Invasive
Plant Control Programs: (presented by Miles Falck, Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), a perennial plant native to Europe and
38
-------
Asia, readily invades North American wetlands and wet meadows to the detriment of native plant
communities. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has been conducting
active control of purple loosestrife in northern Wisconsin since 1988. Because specific control options
vary depending on local site characteristics, an accurate, updated inventory of loosestrife locations,
coupled with measures of relevant site attributes, is an integral tool for planning annual control efforts.
The inventory component is used in conjunction with other program management tools, including
education, control and evaluation.
Annual distribution surveys target specific landscape features predisposed to loosestrife invasion, such as
roadside ditches and boat launches. Submissions from the general public through postcards or an
interactive web site supplement the data. Distribution data and management actions are compiled in a
GIS database and available at www.glifwc.org.
Accurate inventory data provides the basis for prioritization, coordination and identification of gaps in
active control measures. The data are compiled on a watershed basis, providing boundaries for
management efforts. Knowledge of the plant's ecological requirements and dispersal vectors enables
identification of source populations, dispersal routes and threatened habitats when relevant data themes
are overlaid with the inventory data. Prioritization, based on the data provided in the inventory, is an
important element in management decisions.
An accurate map depicting land ownership provides an effective tool for coordinating efforts among
cooperators by identifying owners of untreated populations and identifying populations that may have
restricted management options. This information provides the basis for an effective
information/education program for purple loosestrife control among private landowners, as well as
agency personnel. In addition, periodic updates and control histories for each site allow for evaluation of
management actions taken. Although unique to purple loosestrife and its specific ecological
requirements, this model may be readily adapted to fit the life histories of other invasive plant species and
aid in their management.
It is important to note the following assumptions made in the course of this discussion:
• Purple loosestrife is merely one of many invasive plant species in the upper Great Lakes region.
Limited resources suggest that only a few of the worst invasive plants in the early stages of
infestation may be successfully managed.
No single agency can be expected to accomplish this task on its own.
Based on the work conducted thus far, the following recommendations are offered:
• Baseline data on the distribution, ecology and relative threats posed need to be gathered or
compiled for other invasive plants in the region.
• Data should be applied in developing criteria to evaluate which invasive plant species should be
targeted for control (based on species impacts) and where conservation and/or restoration efforts
should be focused.
Survey and monitoring methods and data formats should be standardized as much as possible to
facilitate information sharing.
Coordination and information sharing are of critical importance to avoid duplication of effort and
wasting of valuable resources.
Data should be readily accessible, preferably utilizing Internet technology, to facilitate efficient
coordination among cooperating agencies and individuals.
39
-------
Education/Outreach: Raising Public Awareness
An informed and educated public is widely recognized as the cornerstone of an effective NIS prevention
and control program. To achieve this end, it is essential that information and education (I/E) efforts
convey accurate facts that are appropriately targeted and offer a consistent message from one jurisdiction
to the next.
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species: The directive under Section 1203 of NANPCA (refer to
the section on Great Lakes Panel), has provided the basis for the Panel's work on its I/E program with the
overall focus of enhancing awareness and understanding of ANS issues, associated ecological and
economic problems, and technically and economically feasible techniques designed to mitigate these
problems.
The first major step taken by the Great Lakes Panel on I/E programming was the development in 1993 of
the Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control (see Great Lakes Panel
1996(b)). The purpose
of the strategy is to
coordinate activities
conducted by Panel
members, build regional
partnerships that will
increase the
effectiveness of
information and
education activities, and
most importantly,
support the development
and dissemination of
consistent messages
regarding ANS
prevention and control
(see Figure 9). An
updated version of the
I/E strategy is underway as of spring 2000 to reflect new ANS programs, the expanding role of
coordination, new species introductions, emerging complexities of control efforts and challenges of
implementation.
The need for enhanced coordination among various stakeholders with regard to I/E products and activities
was recognized as a priority by the Great Lakes Panel and resulted in the 1996 document, Aquatic
Nuisance Species Information and Education Materials Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin:
Recommendations and Descriptive Inventory. The inventory, produced for use by the public agency staff,
researchers, elected officials and other parties, is a comprehensive guide to informational materials
available on aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes region (Great Lakes Panel 1996(b)).
Figure 9. Diverse Audience of the Great
Lakes Panel's I/E Program
water user groups holding potential for ANS introduction and
spread such as commercial shippers, recreational boaters
and anglers
municipal and industrial water users who must deal with the
high costs of mitigating ANS impacts
resource managers in both state and federal agencies who
are faced with the challenges of implementing strategies for
ANS prevention and control
state and federal policymakers responsible for the promotion
of ANS legislation and appropriation of funds
Source: Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 1996.
40
-------
The I/E materials in the
inventory are listed by
primary topic and cross
referenced by source,
secondary topic and
geographic coverage. The
primary topics covered in
the inventory are
categorized in Figure 10.
Within each topic, the
products are listed by
format (e.g., fact sheet,
report). Each product
listing includes the
following information:
reference number, title,
source (agency name,
address, phone, fax and
e-mail), topic(s), date,
length, cost, target
audience(s), geographic
coverage and description.
Figure 10. Primary Topics Included in Great
Lakes Panel Inventory
Species of Concern
zebra mussel
purple loosestrife
Eurasian watermilfoil
sea lamprey
General ANS
Eurasian ruffe
round goby
spiny water flea
products addressing two or more species or ANS issue in general
rusty crayfish
alewife
• Other Nuisance Species
*• water chestnut >•
*• rudd >•
• Policies and Regulations
• Ballast Water
Source: Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 1996.
As part of the document,
the Great Lakes Panel approved the following recommendations:
Development and Use of Internet-Based Resources on Aquatic Nuisance Species: Electronic
communications technology has proven to be a highly successful and efficient means of
publicizing and distributing information on aquatic nuisance species. The ANS community has
been well served, among others, by the Internet-based Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN),
operated by the Great Lakes Commission, and the Sea Grant Nonindigenous Species (SGNIS)
web site, operated by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network. Every effort should be made to exploit
the full potential of such technology for the benefit of students, educators, representatives from
government agencies, researchers, consultants, and industry and business who are involved in
and/or affected by ANS prevention and control efforts.
• Marketing and Distribution of I/E Resources and Activities: An array of I/E materials on
aquatic nuisance species is presently available and development of additional materials is an
ongoing process. To ensure that such materials and associated activities are of greatest possible
benefit to target audiences, they must be easily accessible, broadly distributed and actively
provided. Towards that end, a marketing strategy for each I/E product and activity should be
identified and implemented by the Great Lakes Panel and other appropriate partners.
• Coordinating I/E Efforts: Successful prevention and control efforts are fundamentally
dependent upon I/E programs that are comprehensive, carefully targeted and offer a consistent
message from one audience to the next. Given limited resources and the magnitude of the task,
cooperation and coordination among the many information providers must be extensive.
Efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the collective effort is essential.
• Outreach to User Groups and Other Stakeholders: Preventing and controlling the spread of
aquatic nuisance species is the individual and collective responsibility of relevant public agencies,
41
-------
business and industry, a range of resource user groups and the public. Each of these entities must
initially be considered a target audience for I/E programs and eventually a vehicle (and partner) in
reaching larger sectors of the Great Lakes citizenry.
Further details on the Great Lakes Panel's recommendations on I/E programming, including the
aforementioned Information/Education Strategy can be found in the document, Aquatic Nuisance Species
Information and Education Materials Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Recommendations and
Descriptive Inventory, which is available on the Great Lakes Information Network's web site at:
http: //www .glc. org/proj ects/ans/ans-ie/httoc .html.
National Sea Grant College Program: From sponsoring research to conducting public education
programs, Sea Grant has focused on finding active solutions to the invasions of nonindigenous aquatic
nuisance species. Sea Grant is the primary source of information on a range of aquatic nuisance species
such as the zebra mussel, Eurasian ruffe, round goby, green crab, purple loosestrife, Phragmites and
others. The Sea Grant network houses technical collections and provides the public with easy access to
online information. Researchers, extension specialist and educators continue to share their expertise at
international research conferences, training workshops and video conferences, many of which are
sponsored by Sea Grant programs. A new three-year initiative also will bring research and outreach
efforts to inland states. The following describes important Sea Grant initiatives to advance ANS
prevention and control in the Great Lakes region and across the country.
The National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse is an extensive technical library of
publications related to the spread, biology, impacts and control of the zebra mussel. The
clearinghouse also includes smaller libraries addressing the Eurasian ruffe, round goby,
tube-nosed goby, spiny water flea and more. Started by New York Sea Grant in August 1990 as
the Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse, its mission was expanded in 1997 to include other
freshwater nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. This mission was again expanded in October
1998 to include important marine aquatic nuisance species. The mission of the clearinghouse is
to: 1) facilitate and coordinate sharing of ANS information among all levels of university,
government, and private industry researchers throughout North America; 2) provide continuity to
the timely dissemination of findings of zebra mussel and other ANS research; 3) facilitate
technology transfer between zebra mussel and ANS researchers and end user audiences; 4) focus
attention on the need for additional research and outreach to enhance the fight against zebra
mussels and other aquatic nuisance species; and 5) provide a convenient means of access to the
clearinghouse's extensive technical libraries via the Internet.
• The Sea Grant Nonindigenous Species Site (SGNIS), is an online interactive national information
center produced by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network. This web site (http://www.sgnis.org)
contains a comprehensive collection of research publications and education materials produced
by Sea Grant programs and other research institutions on aquatic nuisance species. All materials
available through this site have either appeared in professional science journals or have been
through a rigorous scientific review to ensure the quality of the information provided. Links are
provided to other sites that also focus on nonindigenous species.
• The Nationwide Zebra Mussel Training Initiative is a program led by New York Sea Grant and
Minnesota Sea Grant. It provides for the identification, preparation and dissemination of
educational materials for audiences directly affected by the invasion of the zebra mussel or in a
position to develop and implement policy for ANS prevention, control and mitigation of related
42
-------
impacts. Goals of the training initiative are as follows: 1) delay the spread of zebra mussels into
new watersheds, 2) help uninfested regions prepare for the arrival of zebra mussels, and 3)
mitigate zebra mussel impacts upon arrival. The initiative was designed to create a mechanism
through which Sea Grant could assist state resource managers, educators and resource users in
establishing programs to address the inland spread of zebra mussels. Program efforts were also
made to foster interagency cooperation and participation in state or regional zebra mussel task
forces. Under the auspices of the training initiative, two day-long satellite teleconferences have
been held along with fifteen regional workshops in locations across the country. Groups
participating in these events included surface water infrastructure, resource management and
environmental regulatory agencies, public officials, environmental interest groups, lake
associations and the media.
The Exotic Aquatics and Zebra. Mussel Mania traveling trunks are educational outreach products
produced by Minnesota Sea Grant and Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. The products provide curricula
to teach youth about nonindigenous species and the effect the health of the Great Lakes and
inland waterways. The traveling trunks are comprised of hands-on activities, including
museum-quality preserved ANS specimens, models of native clams, books, maps, posters,
magnifying glasses, experiments, games, stories, and activities and lessons which meet science
education standards. Students can inquire and discover while learning how to become involved in
community action projects to help slow the spread of zebra mussels.
The Citizen Monitoring Program, led by Michigan Sea Grant (MSG), provides a forum for citizen
volunteers to collect zebra mussel data from inland lakes using equipment and instructional
materials developed on the campus of Michigan State University (MSU). Using MSG's zebra
mussel veliger monitoring kit, citizens have provided an estimated 2,000 hours of field
monitoring and data that contribute to the understanding of the zebra mussel invasion. The
state's 350 lakefront property owner associations, important MSG partners in developing the
monitoring program, frequently use the equipment, as do teachers and nature centers. Sea Grant
coordinates the long-term equipment loan programs, collects and verifies sampling data, and
publishes results, which receive widespread media attention. The straightforward, low-cost
program demonstrates the efficacy of volunteer efforts in gathering scientifically useful water
quality data, while tracking the spread of zebra mussels. Perhaps most importantly, the program
engages property owners in lake resources management; this participation is critical in coping
with ANS invaders. When a zebra mussel infestation is discovered, citizen leaders disseminate
information around the lake, post signs and hold workshops to help prevent the spread to other
lakes. Today, the monitoring materials are being used as a model by Sea Grant programs from as
far away as Washington and Florida.
The Purple Loosestrife Project, another MSG outreach project, engages citizens and young adults
in the control of purple loosestrife using the plant's own natural enemies. The hardy wetland
plant has become part of the Michigan landscape and has replaced native wetland plants in many
locations, along with the animals that depend on them. Long-standing control practices such as
burning and herbicide application have failed. MSG, in partnership with the MSU Department of
Entomology, have created the Purple Loosestrife Project, which is aimed at reducing the plant's
numbers by integrating citizen stewardship education with biological control.
The project began with a unique loosestrife locator postcard survey that engaged citizens in
identifying nearly 500 of the largest wetland infestations in Michigan. Hundreds of teachers,
43
-------
students, naturalists, property owners and citizen groups now participate in the project, helping to
restore Michigan's biodiversity and natural wetland function while learning the key concepts of
biological control. Since the Purple Loosestrife Project began in 1997, volunteers have raised
and released Galerucella leaf-feeding beetles (one of the plant's natural enemies in Europe)
across Michigan. The beetles are establishing populations in stands of purple loosestrife and are
beginning to cause significant defoliation. In addition, MSG assisted teachers in producing a
Cooperators Handbook, which features 25 outdoor learning activities and classroom experiments
and serves as a comprehensive guide to purple loosestrife biological control.
The Exotic Species Day Camp for Educators is a project of the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network.
It has provided support to an estimated 18,000 students in making sound decisions in regard to
their actions involving spread and transport of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.
Educational workshops were conducted with 125 classroom teachers and environmental
educators in seven states. They participated in hands-on training that featured Sea Grant's
traveling trunks (Zebra Mussel Mania and Exotic Aquatics); surfing SGNIS, using Solution
Seeker CD-ROM; trying out the Zebra Mussel Citizen Monitoring Kit; doing activities from
Great Lakes Instructional Materials for the Changing Earth System and from the Purple
Loosestrife Project; and viewing Mussel Menace: Zebra Mussels and You, an instructor's training
package.
Coordinated by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant in partnership with Sea Grant programs in Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin, this project reached its goal to broaden distribution
of ANS education to teachers, students, environmental educators and outdoor education center
visitors in the Great Lakes region. In spring 2000 a new collection of teacher-developed
activities will be available for educators throughout the country. The "ESCAPE" collection will
offer 33 hands-on activities exploring the many facets of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species
in a framework that integrates science with math, language arts, social studies and the cultural
arts.
44
-------
Case Studies on Nonindigenous Invasive Species: Significant Threats to
the Ecosystem Health of the Great Lakes Basin
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
The zebra mussel is one of the premier aquatic invaders of the Great Lakes,
where colonization has fouled intake pipes, navigation locks and other pieces
of aquatic infrastructure. Originally from the Caspian Sea region, the zebra
mussel spread throughout much of Europe before the Industrial Revolution
and the development of the continent's infrastructure. While European
infrastructure was able to adapt to the zebra mussel infestation with intakes,
sand filters and other features that help reduce fouling, North American
waterworks were not designed with zebra mussel infestations in mind (Bright 1998)
Although not officially discovered in Lake St. Clair until 1988, the zebra mussel is believed to have
entered the Great Lakes in 1985 or 1986 through ballast water discharge. Zebra mussels spread
throughout the lakes rapidly. By 1989, they had colonized Lake Erie; four years later, zebra mussels
could be found in all of the Great Lakes. Moreover, several inland lakes, including Balsam Lake in
Ontario and Kentucky Lake in Kentucky, have reported infestations of zebra mussels. The infestation of
zebra mussels has spread farther, and faster than was expected when the first sightings were reported
(Ohio Sea Grant 1996).
The rapid spread of the mussels can be attributed to several factors. Zebra mussels have extremely fertile
reproductive cycles, with a mature female producing up to one million eggs per season. While it is
estimated that only 1 to 3 percent of these eggs mature into adulthood, those that do survive live to
approximately three years of age. Additionally, zebra mussel colonies are durable, demonstrating little
sensitivity for light intensity, hydrostatic pressure (depth), or temperature (as long as it is within a normal
environmental range) (Ohio Sea Grant 1996).
Their endurance heightens the ecological disruptions caused by zebra mussels. Adults are capable of
filtering one or more liters of water per day, removing phytoplankton and some forms of zooplankton,
thus giving the water a crystalline clarity. Removing these elements eliminates a major food source for
zooplankton, which can impact the food chain, potentially reducing fish populations. Research has
already been conducted examining the effect of zebra mussels on fathead minnow larvae, yellow perch,
and benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Great Lakes. For instance, data collected by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
suggests that lower food availability resulting from the introduction and rapid spread of the zebra mussel
is having an adverse impact on the population of the amphipod Diporeia. This macroinvertebrate is a
component in the diet of most species offish during at least some stage of their life cycle, including
yellow perch, bloater, alewife and sculpin, which serve as prey for the larger piscivores such as trout and
salmon (Nalepa 1998). It also has been observed that in Lake Erie, the value of catch dropped from $600
million before the invasion to $200 million by early 1990s (Ohio Sea Grant 1996).
Furthermore, some researchers hypothesize that, while zebra mussels might be causing detrimental effects
to certain beneficial phytoplankton, they also might be promoting the spread of other plants, such as
Microcystis, a nuisance bloom of blue-green algae. Zebra mussels do not readily choose to feed on
45
-------
Microcystis. This selective feeding pattern could allow Microcystis to proliferate in the absence of its
competitors. Enhancing the spread of Microcystis causes several ecological concerns. Not only is the
algae a poor food source for zooplankton, but this nuisance algae also can be toxic to some organisms and
may create taste and odor problems in water, such as those experienced throughout the summer of 1994 at
Michigan's Saginaw-Bay City Water Intake (Vanderploeg 1995).
Zebra mussels also may have a potentially negative impact on certain cold-water spawning fish species
like lake trout (Savelinus namaycush). When zebra mussels infest an area that is also a spawning reef for
lake trout, colonization by the mussels may damage trout eggs. The mussels do so by blocking trout eggs
from falling into areas where they would normally incubate during the winter, producing organic matter
harmful to the eggs, or damaging the eggs through movement. A recent study in Lake Michigan suggests
that zebra mussels negatively effect spawning since adult trout tended to avoid spawning in areas littered
with zebra mussels. Moreover, zebra mussel populations cause damage to eggs as the mussels contact
natural substrates (Marsden and Chotkowski 1998).
As far as the threat to native species, zebra mussels kill native mussels by encrusting their shells so
heavily that the native species cannot open to feed or breathe. In the Mississippi River basin, 140 native
mussels face extinction as zebra mussels continue to spread through the watershed (Bright 1998).
Finally, zebra mussels have been connected with contaminant cycling. The United States has long
recognized the detrimental effects of toxic contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), on
human health. However, when a fish is found with high levels of PCBs, it is often difficult to determine
the source of the contaminant. Recently, researchers have begun to focus their efforts on studying
contaminant cycling through the food chain. Zebra mussels could be an important source of PCB
redistribution because of their capacity to filter large amounts of water and their tendency to feed on
contaminated sediment and algae. The PCBs present in zebra mussels may provide a source of
contamination to the entire Great Lakes community, beginning with bottom-feeding fish, wildfowl,
crayfish and other organisms that eat the zebra mussel or their excreta. Moving up the food chain, from
algae to zebra mussels to commercial fish, PCBs are thought to biomagnify at each level. Researchers are
currently attempting to determine the exact level of biomagnification in order to identify the level of risk
to human consumers of the contaminated fish (Jentes 1999).
The zebra mussel inflicts a toll not only on the ecology of the Great Lakes, but also on the economic
health of the region. The zebra mussel infestation has imposed large costs on facilities that draw water
from the Great Lakes, such as electric generating plants, municipal water systems and industrial water
users. While zebra mussels can easily plug small water intake sources completely, even large water
systems are at risk. Detroit Edison's power plant in Monroe, Mich, the largest fossil fueled plant in the
world, was forced to shut down in 1989 due to a clogged water system caused by zebra mussels. The cost
of mussel control accumulates quickly when factoring in downtime, retrofitting, chemical applications
(e.g. chlorine), scraping them out of pipes or blasting them out with high-pressure hoses (refer to sections
on economic impacts).
In the Great Lakes region, documented cumulative losses between 1989 to!994 to major users of
untreated surface water exceeded $120 million (Hushak 1996). Power plants are extremely vulnerable to
the economic impacts of zebra mussels due to the high volume of water used. The total economic impact
incurred on the electric generation industry has been estimated at $35.3 million. Nuclear plants that use
water for cooling as a safety measure are particularly at risk. At least 12 North American nuclear plants
are infested by mussels with control costs averaging $825,000 per year. Predictions of the cumulative
46
-------
losses to all users, from individual boat owners to municipal water users, by the year 2000 range from
$3.1 billion to $5 billion (Bright 1998).
Control of zebra mussels at a Great Lakes regional level is not yet considered possible. Several different
control strategies have been attempted. A popular strategy is the use of chemical treatments such as
chlorine, which has been used to limit zebra mussel populations. The problem with a chlorine treatment
strategy, however, is the environmental side effects, including harm to other aquatic life forms and the
production of carcinogenic organic by products. In some areas of the world, zebra mussel populations
have been controlled by predation by diving ducks. While there is some evidence of this phenomenon
occurring in Canada (Pt. Pelee, Western Lake Erie), this control strategy is limited only to warmer
months when the Great Lakes are not frozen. Other potential control strategies include disruption of
zebra mussel reproduction and a variety of different mechanized control methods (i.e., screening and
electric fields).
Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)
The sea lamprey is a primitive, jawless fish native to the coastal regions of both sides of the Atlantic
Ocean. Sometimes, compared to a "fish vampire," the predaceous, eel-like fish has a mouth that attaches
itself to the body of a fish and sucks blood and tissue from the prey's wound with its rasping tongue. It
preys on all species of large Great Lakes fish, including the lake trout, salmon,
rainbow trout, whitefish, chubs, burbot, walleye and catfish.
Sea lampreys were first observed in Lake Ontario in the 1830s. They entered
the Great Lakes through the Welland Canal around 1921. The lamprey was
first observed in Lake Erie in 1921 and rapidly invaded the other Great Lakes,
appearing in Lake St. Clair in 1934, Lake Michigan in 1936, Lake Huron in 1937 and Lake Superior in
1938. By the late 1940s, sea lamprey populations had exploded in all of the upper Great Lakes,
contributing greatly to population declines of whitefish, lake trout, walleye and other critical fish species
in the Great Lakes (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 3).
Through its ability to parasitize fish by feeding on body fluid, each lamprey, during its life, can kill more
than 40 pounds offish. This predatory behavior has had a devastating impact on the Great Lakes fishery.
The sea lamprey was implicated in the collapse of lake trout, whitefish and chub populations in the Great
Lakes during the 1940s and 1950s. Before the sea lamprey's spread, the United States and Canada
harvested about 15 million pounds of lake trout in the upper Great Lakes every year. By the early 1960s,
the catch was only about 300,000 pounds. In Lake Huron, the catch fell from 3.4 million in 1937 to
almost nothing in 1947. The catch in Lake Michigan dropped from 5.5 million pounds in 1946 to 402
pounds by 1953. Lake Superior catch dropped from an average of 4.5 million pounds to 368,000 pounds
in 1961. The health of the once thriving Great Lakes fisheries has been significantly impaired by the sea
lamprey's invasion (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 3).
Since 1956, the governments of the United States and Canada, working jointly through the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, have implemented a sea lamprey control program to reduce the impacts of this
harmful invader. After testing almost 6,000 compounds in the 1950s, the key to sea lamprey control was
found to be larval application of the chemical TFM (3 trifluoromethyl-nitrophenol). The lampricide is
highly toxic to the sea lamprey and less toxic to other aquatic plants, fish and wildlife. The impact on
non-target species can be reduced by closely controlling the concentration of TFM applied with the
timing of application during the lamprey spawning run. Research indicates that TFM does not
47
-------
bioaccumulate and it breaks down in a number of days. The compound is registered with the U.S. EPA
and Agriculture Canada (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 4).
Research has indicated the lamprey is most vulnerable to chemical treatment during the larval stage of its
life cycle. During this stage, which can range from three to 17 years, the larvae burrow into sand and silt
of tributary streams. The larvae, which grow to about 6 inches, feed on bottom debris and algae carried to
them by stream current. After the larval stage, the window of opportunity for chemical control closes as
the sea lampreys transform into their parasitic phase and migrate into the open waters of the Great Lakes.
For this reason the Great Lakes tributaries, not the open waters of the lakes, are treated with the TFM
lampricide. Larval assessments are conducted to determine what streams need to be treated, when they
need to be treated, and the actual location and abundance of larvae. The chemical and physical conditions
of the stream (e.g. rate of flow, temperature, pH, and alkalinity) are also monitored. The objective of
these assessments is not to use more TFM than is necessary for effective larval control that is
environmentally safe (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 4).
Other control mechanisms also are being applied to increase the technical and cost-effectiveness of the
sea lamprey control program:
Mechanical barriers are constructed on streams in strategic locations throughout the Great Lakes
to prevent sea lampreys from spawning, while still allowing the passage of other fish species.
Physical control of sea lamprey was implemented before use of the chemical lampricide, TFM.
The barriers were not entirely effective in stopping sea lamprey, with casualties sometimes
occurring among non-target fish. The use of mechanical barriers as implemented again in 1988 to
reduce the extent of expensive lampricide treatments. The barriers also are associated with
lamprey trapping facilities, thus allowing the removal of sea lampreys from the spawning
population, assessment information, and the trapping of males for the experimental sterile-male-
release technique (see below) (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 5).
Sterile-male release technique, currently being conducted as a large-scale experimental program,
involves trapping sea lampreys, which are then sterilized and released into the St. Marys River. It
is conjectured that the sterilized males will compete as aggressively as normal males, wasting the
spawning potential of the female sea lampreys. Sea lamprey traps are placed in strategic
locations on Great Lakes tributaries, frequently as part of existing sea lamprey barriers, trapping
25,000 male sea lampreys annually. The trapped male lamprey receive a carefully measured dose
of the sterilant, Basazir, and are marked with a fin clip. After a period of 48 hours, which allow
the sterilant to clear from the lampreys' system, they are released in selected tributaries of Lake
Superior and Lake Huron (Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 6).
Preliminary results of the sterile-male release experiment indicate that sterilized males effectively
move into the spawning grounds with the rest of the population. The sterilization process does
not diminish the male's drive to spawn. Preliminary assessment indicates that the number of
viable nests and fertilized eggs has been reduced at expected rates. The next stage in the
experiment is to determine if the fewer viable nests reduce the number of larval sea lampreys. If
the number of larval lampreys can be reduced by the sterile-male-release technique, this
biological control approach will be an integral part of the sea lamprey control program (Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet 6).
48
-------
• Bayluscide spot treatments are used to kill concentrated populations of lamprey larvae on the
river bottom. These areas of high larval concentrations are detected with the use of global
positioning technology.
The cost of the sea lamprey research and control program is undoubtedly expensive, estimated at $10
million annually by the Office of Technology Assessment report of 1992. However, this cost is nominal
when compared to the risk posed to the Great Lakes fishery, valued at $500 million annually, in the
absence of sea lamprey control (Dettmers 1998).
Round Goby (Neogobious melanostomus)
The round goby was first discovered in the St. Clair River in 1990 (Jude et al. 1992). The round goby's
arrival to the Great Lakes drew little attention since primary concern at the time was focused on zebra
mussels. Three years later, the goby still remained within a few miles of its
point of introduction. Confinement or elimination of this invader while still
geographically limited did not occur. In late 1993, the round goby began to
expand its range, and by 1995, it had spread to all five Great Lakes where it
has become established as a permanent part of the ecosystem. As of June
2000, verified migration of the goby extended into the Calumet River, through the Calumet Sag Channel,
and south into the Des Plaines River as far down as Joliet, about 50 miles southwest of Chicago (Thiel
pers. comm. June 2000). Once it enters the Illinois River drainage, the round goby will have access to
almost half of the United States through connecting waterways (Marsden 1996).
Hailing from the Black and Caspian Seas, the same area of the world as the zebra mussel, the round goby
has rapidly dispersed to all five of the Great Lakes likely as a result of multiple invasions through ballast
water transfer from Europe. A small, benthic, soft-bodied fish, it has been labeled as an example of the
"perfect" invader for a number of reasons. The goby is a very aggressive, territorial and robust fish that is
that is competitive for food, shelter and spawning areas. Contributing to the goby's competitive edge is its
tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions, high fecundity, a well-developed lateral line
system allowing night feeding, and a large body size (up to 10 inches) compared with other benthic
species (Manz 1998).
The goby disrupts the native ecological system by consuming the eggs and fry of native fish, such as
sculpins, darters and logperch (Manz 1998). These impacts have already been observed on sculpin
populations in areas where gobies have become established. In laboratory experiments, round gobies
have been observed feeding on the eggs and fry of lake trout. Given the limited reproduction of lake trout
in the Great Lakes, this type of predation could be very damaging to the basin's ecology (Marsden et al.
1998).
An interesting twist on the ecological impacts of the round goby is the fact that it eats large quantities of
zebra mussels. Although a primary component of the goby diet, it is unlikely that the goby can
significantly reduce the number of zebra mussels present in the Great Lakes. However, the use of zebra
mussels in their diet is believed to give the goby a competitive advantage by providing a food supply that
most native fish do not utilize. Consumption of zebra mussels by the round goby may contribute to
problems of bioaccumulation of contaminants such as PCBs (refer to case study on the zebra mussel).
Existing mechanisms for the prevention and control of the round goby include ballast water management,
public education efforts and river barrier systems. Ballast water exchange (refer to section on ballast
49
-------
water management) targets the goby's primary avenue of entry into the Great Lakes as well as many other
nonindigenous species. This approach, however, can only reduce the introduction of more round gobies,
not decrease established populations. Since the round goby is already established in the Great Lakes,
controlling the expansion of its range is crucial.
Public education efforts and river barrier systems are two methods that resource managers are using to
control the range expansion of the round goby. Public education efforts focus on the identification,
current distribution and potential spread, biological and ecological characteristics, impacts, and protocol
to stop its spread, including a nonindigenous species reporting form. Current products that disseminate
this information include identification cards ("round goby watch cards"); fact sheets; web sites (including
databases), and a graphics library; and informational presentations that are targeted to the appropriate
water user groups (Charlebois et al. 1998). Additionally, Sea Grant offices in Great Lakes states and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintain up-to-date information on sitings and areas infested with round
gobies available on their web sites and directly through their offices.
To control the downstream spread of the round goby into the Illinois River system, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is designing a barrier consisting of an electric field (see section on ANS dispersal barrier for
more details). The barrier will consist of two pulsed direct current arrays, each extending across the canal
and located approximately 300 meters apart. Each array will generate an electrical field effective to a
height about 2 meters above the canal bottom, posing no threat to human safety. The barrier will be
attached to the bottom and recessed into the sides of the canal so that barge traffic can continue to operate
normally. The electric field can be modified to adapt to varying canal conditions. The barrier under
design targets bottom-dwelling fish, allowing fish that reside in the upper water column to pass. It is
intended to deter the fish, not to stun or kill them. Development and implementation of the goby barrier
will represent significant progress toward ecosystem protection of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
basins.
Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus)
The Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) as its name suggests is a native of Eurasia and was first
found in the Great Lakes in 1986 in Duluth Harbor, Minn. (Picard 1995). It
was discovered during a local fish survey and is thought to have been
transported to the area via ballast water (McLean 1993). Between 1986 and
1993, the ruffe increased its population 100 fold in the St. Louis River to
comprise 80 percent of total fish abundance collected in trawls. It has since
spread into Thunder Bay, Ontario; the Ontonagon River; many tributaries of
Lake Superior, including the Sand, Flag, Iron, Amnicon, and Brule rivers; and Thunder Bay, Mich., in
Lake Huron (McLean, Jensen 1996).
As an invasive species, many of the ruffe's characteristics cause concern. Among these are its ability to
rapidly reproduce with females living an average of seven years, laying as many as 13,000 to 200,000
eggs per season. Males tend to live roughly three to five years with seven being the longest (McLean,
Jensen 1996). The ruffe has also been described as being both aggressive and an opportunistic feeder. It
is known to actively compete with sport and forage fish, such as its relative and Great Lakes native the
yellow perch for nesting and feeding sites (Picard 1995) (Kindt, Busiahn 1994). To compete
successfully, the ruffe relies on sensory organs called neuromasts, which lie in its head and lateral lines.
These organs provide protection for the ruffe by detecting vibrations from predator and prey in the dark
bottoms of the lakes that this bottom dwelling species prefers (McLean, Jensen 1996). Another advantage
50
-------
the ruffe has is that its diet is variable. It focuses mainly on benthic insects but is also known to feed on
the eggs of other species, such as whitefish (McLean, Jensen 1996) (McLean 1993).
In a study done by the University of Minnesota Sea Grant, the ruffe was found to be more of a
temperature generalist when compared to yellow perch. Because of their similarities, the ruffe directly
competes with yellow perch for habitat resources. This study demonstrated that ruffe is able to thrive in
slightly cooler waters (17°C), whereas the yellow perch functions better at 23°C. The ruffe is thus able to
grow longer into the winter months and begin its growth earlier in the spring. To make matters worse, not
only does this extra growth require a longer period of food intake, but the ruffe is also less efficient at
using its food than the yellow perch, requiring it to eat even more. This extra foraging leaves a much
greater dent in local ecosystem structure than would naturally occur (Minnesota Sea Grant). These
alterations have been linked to population declines in yellow perch, trout perch, walleye (which feeds on
perch) and emerald shiner. With ruffe sizes of only four to six inches the ruffe does little to help make up
for the commercial, recreational and ecological value lost from these other species (Kindt, Busiahn 1994).
Management for the ruffe began in 1991 with the creation of a special Ruffe Task Force by the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. In 1992 the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force determined that
the ruffe was an aquatic nuisance species according to law and appointed members to a Ruffe Control
Committee. The Committee then worked on the management plan that had been developed by the Ruffe
Task Force and attempted to develop a plan that would confine the ruffe to the western side of Lake
Superior. However, in August 1995, two months after the Committee submitted its plan to the ANS Task
Force, ruffe were found in Lake Huron in Thunder Bay, Mich., and revisions had to be made to the plan.
Eight components comprise the management plan: population reduction, ballast water management,
population investigation, surveillance, fish community management, education and bait fish management
(Ruffe Control Committee 1996). In September 1999 an evaluation of the plan found mixed results.
Population reduction appeared poor, as did ballast water management outside of Lake Superior.
However, surveillance, education and bait fish management received good scores with helpful educational
materials such as brochures, pamphlets and wallet-sized id cards. Additionally, although populations in
the smaller less managed waters had increased since the plan's implementation, no spread from its 1995
location was observed (Busiahn 1999).
Most of the management for the prevention of ruffe spread has been done through a voluntary ballast
water management plan implemented in 1993 by the Great Lakes shipping industry. This plan states not
to take on ballast water from ruffe inhabited waters between May and June, when fish may be small
enough to pass through filters. If water must be taken in these areas, that water must be exchanged at a
depth of at least 240 feet in Lake Superior west of a demarcation line between Ontonagon, Mich., and
Grand Portage, Minn. (McLean, Jensen 1996). The shipping industry has been proactive in this form of
ruffe control. This is based on the reasoning that the St. Mary's River would provide access to all other
Great Lakes, making control efforts virtually impossible. However, research continues to investigate
ways to prevent the ruffe's spread outside of Lake Superior through ballast water, including using heat,
electrical charges, gas, sound, pulverization, carbonation, alteration after intake, obtaining water at
different water levels, ultrasonic treatments, filters and increased saline content (Glassner-Shwayder
1995) (Picard 1995).
The ruffe's potential range is thought to extend from the Great Plains to the East Coast and into Canada,
based on the similar conditions required for perch (Kindt, Jensen 1994). With this potential spread and
eradication presumed impossible, research needs to continue on this invasive species' life history, its
51
-------
economic and ecosystem impacts, and ballast water and biological control options (Ruffe Control
Committee 1996). Proper management of the health of native communities in this range will also be vital
to suppressing an explosion of the ruffe's population. In addition, information will need to be shared and
communication fostered between all interested parties to provide for common management practices and
the most effective control possible.
Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis)
(This section is based on the article, The Asian Longhorned Beetle Infestation Moves West, submitted by
Stacey Carter-Lane, public affairs specialist, USDA-APHIS)
In August 1996, a man in the Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y.,
noticed several perfectly shaped round holes in his maple trees. Seeing
sawdust near the base of the trees, he thought pranksters had drilled the holes.
He called a city inspector who determined the holes were drilled by an even
worse offender, the Asian longhorned beetle. The Asian longhorned beetle,
an attractive, but devastating non- native pest, kills trees by boring holes deep
' ° r ' J ° r Drawing courtesy of USDA Forest
into them. The Brooklyn find was the first reported infestation in the United service,Northeast
States.
Within weeks of the Brooklyn discovery, another infestation was found on Long Island in Amityville,
N.Y. Surveyors from the USDA and New York State combed both neighborhoods. Quarantine areas
were established to prevent infested wood from being moved. In Brooklyn alone, more than 1,400
beetle-infested trees have been felled. More than 1,600 trees not known to be hosts of the beetle have
been planted to replace them.
While the fight continued in New York, a nightmare for tree-lovers and beetle-battlers unfolded 800 miles
away. In July 1998, a man picked up timber from the Ravenswood neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois.
Several days later, while unloading his truck, the man saw a black and white beetle on his mirror.
Curious, he typed a description of the unusual bug onto the Internet and found a pest alert for the Asian
longhorned beetle. He quickly called USDA.
Hundreds of trees in Ravenswood were found to be infested, along with trees in two nearby areas:
Addison, in DuPage County to the west, and Summit, south of Chicago. Because there is no way to save
an infested tree, nearly 500 trees in the Chicago area have been felled, chipped and burned. These trees,
like those in New York, are also being replaced. The most recent infestation of the Asian longhorned
beetle was discovered in February 1999 in the Bayside section of Queens, N.Y.
The USDA believes the Asian longhorned beetle was imported from China in untreated wood often used
for pallets or packing material. On Dec. 17, 1998, the USDA implemented an interim rule requiring that
all solid wood packing material from China and Hong Kong be heat treated, fumigated or treated with
preservatives before arrival in the United States. During March 1999 alone, the USDA reported overall
compliance with the interim rule to be 99 percent.
The Asian longhorned beetle is a pest of hardwood trees in its native China. There, the beetle has some
natural enemies; in the United States, natural enemies have not yet been identified. The beetle attacks
many different hardwood trees, including boxelder; Norway, sugar, silver and red maple; horsechestnut;
poplar; willow; elm; mulberry; green ash; and black locust. Tree species not known to be hosts of the
52
-------
Asian longhorned beetle include: ginkgo, honeylocust, Kentucky coffeetree, goldenraintree, sweetgum,
redwood, Tupelo, redmond linden and silver linden.
The beetles spread quickly when they invade an area with hardwood trees. Typically, they attack a single
tree at first, eating until they exhaust it as a food source. They then spread to nearby trees. Under its
own power, this beetle can fly hundreds of feet. People can unintentionally spread the beetle by cutting
or trimming an infested tree and moving the wood elsewhere.
Adult beetles are usually present from May to October, but can be found earlier in spring or later in fall if
temperatures are warm. Adults often stay on the trees from which they emerged, or they may disperse
short distances to a new host to feed and reproduce. Each female is capable of laying 30 to 70 eggs. The
eggs hatch in 10-15 days and the larvae tunnel under the bark and into the wood where they undergo
changes and develop into pupae. When their body structures have matured and hardened, the adults
emerge from the pupation sites by boring a tunnel in the wood and creating a round exit hole, a bit smaller
than the size of a dime.
The Asian longhorned beetle has the potential to damage such industries as lumber, maple syrup, fruit,
and fall foliage tourism, which generate combined annual revenues of $138 billion.
Because the insects spend all but the summer months inside the tree, they are virtually impossible to
eradicate them with insecticides. Research has yet to produce a trap specific to this pest. Currently, the
only way to eradicate the beetle is to remove and destroy infested trees. The best way to fight this insect,
and similar non-native wood borers, is to prevent such pests from entering the country. At present, Plant
Protection and Quarantine officers from USDA-APHIS conduct increased visual inspections on high-risk
cargoes and in high-risk areas, such as cargo distribution warehouses.
In March 1999, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman signed a declaration of emergency. The declaration
entails transferring $5.5 million in new funds to assist in detecting the Asian longhorned beetle,
identifying infested areas, controlling and preventing the spread of the beetle to non-infested areas, and
eradicating the pest.
Early infestation detection and rapid response to treatment are crucial to successful eradication of the
beetle. What can people do to help protect American trees from this devastating pest? Know the signs of
the Asian longhorned beetle. Asian longhorned beetles are big, showy insects. They are about an inch
long, shiny and black with bright white spots. Each adult has a pair of curved black and white antennae
that are longer than their body. One obvious sign of the presence of this beetle is the large, round 3/8 to
!/2-inch holes the beetle chews to exit trees. These holes, which often ooze sap, are a clear sign of the
Asian longhorned beetle and similar wood-boring pests. Piles of grass at the base of trees or in branch
crotches indicate the presence of the Asian longhorned beetle or other wood pests.
For more information on the Asian longhorned beetle, visit the APHIS web site at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov, under hot issues, select "Asian longhorned beetle." This site offers
information, contact numbers for each state, and facts on other foreign pests.
Fishhook Flea (Cercopagispengoi)
Cercopagis pengoi, a member of the crustacean family, is one of the most recent invaders of the Great
Lakes. This predatory cladoceran was first identified by Canadian scientists in Lake Ontario in early
53
-------
August 1998. Its most probable route of Great Lakes introduction is believed to be through ballast water
of oceanic vessels. Cercopagis is indigenous to the Caspian, Azov, and Aral seas and was reported to
have invaded the Baltic Sea in 1992 (U.S. EPA Exotic Species Web Site 1999).
Cercopagis is similar to another crustacean invader of the Great Lakes,
Bythotrephes cederstroemi. Both Cercopagis and Bythotrephes belong to the
family Cercopagididae, and have long caudal processes with up to three pairs
of barbs along the proximal end of the process. The tail comprises almost 80
percent of its body length. Both species occur in brackish and pure freshwater
environments. In addition to sexual reproduction, Cercopagidids most
commonly reproduce parthenogenically, which allows them to quickly
establish new populations with a relatively small seed population. With use of
a microscope, identifiable characteristics of Cercopagis are a unique loop at
the end of its tail, as well as a pointed brood pouch which may contain eggs
(U.S. EPA Exotic Species Web Site 1999).
Actual Size = 1 cm
An emerging problem that has been observed with the infestation of
Cercopagis is the fouling of fishing lines for both the recreational and charter boat operations. The long,
spiny tail of this crustacean can become entangled on fishing lines in clumps of hundreds of individuals.
Anglers have resorted to cutting their lines, unable to reel them in (Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters Invading Species Homepage 1999).
The U.S. EPA-Great Lakes National Program Office monitors biological and chemical data across all five
Laurentian Great Lakes during two annual surveys, one in spring and one in summer. Currently, the
zooplankton program takes vertical tows from depths of 20 and 100 meters, using 63 and 153 micron
mesh nets, respectively. In 1998 the summer survey included a total of 72 sites, with eight sites sampled
in Lake Ontario Aug. 5-7. Cercopagis was found in four of these eight sites, all occurring in the central
basin. Lake Erie was sampled on this lake August 2-4, and no Cercopagis was found at any of the 20 sites
sampled (U.S. EPA Exotic Species Web Site 1999).
It is believed that Cercopagis generally reside in the warmer, upper waters in the range of 20 meters.
However, because of its large eye and brood sac, it is highly vulnerable to predation by larger
planktivorous fishes. To avoid predation and possibly to follow migrating prey, Cercopagis does migrate
below 20 meters during the day. In the early afternoon (site 49), high densities of Cercopagis were found
below 20 meters. In contrast, all Cercopagis were above 20 meters at sunrise (site 55) (U.S. EPA Exotic
Species Website 1999).
It is unknown at this point how long Cercopagis has inhabited the Great Lakes before first being reported
and the extent of future impacts. Given the linkages between Lake Ontario and the other lakes, it is likely
that this animal will spread throughout the lakes in time. Although it is too early to verify the effects that
Cercopagis may have on the Great Lakes ecosystem, scientists are concerned that its high reproductive
rates will generate high densities of this crustacean. This species can produce up to 13 offspring at one
time, reproduce numerous times in one season, and produce "resting eggs" which can remain dormant
over the winter. Potential ecological disruptions resulting from this new invader could include the decline
of native zooplankton species as the number of Cercopagis increases As a consumer of zooplankton,
Cercopagis could affect not only juvenile and small fish populations, but also larger fish that feed on the
smaller fish. It also is conjectured that the long, spiny tail of Cercopagis will impede planktivores'
consumption as is the case with the spiny water flea. More research is vital to determine the full impact
54
-------
ofCercopagis on the biodiversity and ecology of freshwater lakes and rivers (Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters Invading Species Homepage 1999).
Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
Eurasian watermilfoil is native to Europe, Asia and North Africa and thought to be the worst aquatic weed
in the United States (Jacono 2000, University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2000). It
was first identified in the U.S. in 1942 in a pond in Washington, B.C. (Jacono 2000), and is thought to
have been intentionally introduced for use in aquariums (White pers. comm. 2000). It can now be found
in all lower 48 states except southern Florida (Aquatic Plant Management Society).
Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submersed, evergreen perennial (Aquatic , ,
Plant Management Society). It particularly likes nutrient rich areas and can ,. y
grow to lengths of 6 to 9 feet in water anywhere from 1 to 15 feet in depth ** • ,"• J,"*v™'
(University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2000, Aquatic , ' ^ u"qtalk
Plant Management Society). Its stems branch out to produce many short, soft, )i, ," ^
feather-like leaves. Its flowers are reddish, very small and held above water on "J^*J o1 '«/__ £fe
spikes many inches long. It occurs in lakes, ponds, shallow reservoirs, low "* '•> ^"-v * )\^ -
flow areas of rivers and streams and can tolerate mild salinity and low water , ~£ T ^ "„","""
temperature (Jacono 2000, Aquatic Plant Management Society). The low %'tv^f^\*' * ^ 'f*
water temperature provides Eurasian watermilfoil an advantage over native -11' K-' ^-^'5
species in that it is able to begin its spring growth earlier. In Lake George, "'•--f- Ki ' v<-
matute Jeeves, in
whorlv of foi r
N.Y., for example studies have found that Eurasian watermilfoil has reduced
p»r
Invasive Plants, University of Fieri
native populations from 5.5 to 2.2 species per square meter just two years after Drawing courtesy of Center for Aquatlc md
its introduction. It also is quick to grow in areas of disturbance, particularly
where there is nutrient loading, intense plant management and/or high motor boat use. In Put-In-Bay,
Ohio, for example, water quality has been improving due to filtering of the water by zebra mussels,
allowing natives to move back into the site. Eurasian watermilfoil has not been able to compete as well in
this environment, and its population is declining, demonstrating the regulatory effect a healthier
ecosystem can have on invasive species (Jacono 2000).
The thick vegetation of Eurasian watermilfoil also degrades water quality; restricts swimming, fishing and
boating; and clogs water intakes. Decaying mats of vegetation also can foul local beaches and diminish
aesthetic qualities (Jacono 2000). For wildlife, watermilfoil can deplete water oxygen levels and is a
much less valuable food source for fish and waterfowl. Although it can provide cover for small fish, it is
much too dense for any adult foraging that might have occurred with native plant species.
Eurasian watermilfoil reproduces through underground runners, called stolons, and through
fragmentation, the method of most concern. A piece of the plant, one centimeter long, can multiply into
250 million new plants in one year, making it very easy to develop new colonies and very difficult to
control (King County 1990). Boats chopping up individual plants are the main culprit of this type of
spread.
In the Great Lakes states, watermilfoil is abundant. In Indiana, it is found in 175 lakes, at least 90 of
which are in the St. Joseph drainage (Jacono 2000, White 2000). Illinois has actually found a decline in
infested McCullom Lake due to the presence of the watermilfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecotei. In
Wisconsin, watermilfoil has been present since the 1960s and can now be found in 54 counties and 319
waterbody sites, more than any other state. In Michigan, it is found in many bays of Lake Michigan and
55
-------
northward through the lakes of the lower peninsula. In Minnesota, it arrived in 1987 and is now in 75
lakes and 4 streams, which stem out from the twin cities area. In efforts to deter its spread, the state of
Minnesota has made it illegal to transport any aquatic vegetation (Jacono 2000).
Methods used to control watermilfoil are mechanical harvesting, hand harvesting, bottom screening,
herbicides (Washington State Department of Ecology 1990) and biological control (University of Florida
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2000). Mechanical harvesting is done with floating harvesters that
dig weeds out by the roots. However, watermilfoil usually returns after two to three years due to
fragments left by the process. Hand harvesting involves pulling weeds out by the root. This method can
be effective but time consuming and requires gathering of all the pieces. Bottom screening involves
laying a screen on the bottom of the lake, which acts to cut out light and space for the plants to grow
(Washington State Department of Ecology 1990).
Euhrychiopsis lecontei, a native milfoil weevil, holds potential as a biological control agent for this
invasive plant. Younger versions of the weevil feed on the tissue in the meristem and then on the stems.
Adult weevils feed on both leaves and stems (University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive
Plants 2000). Native weevil populations have actually been found in many of the Great Lakes areas,
including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and just recently in Indiana. However, their population levels
are not dense enough to have an impact on the watermilfoil. This summer, a test of Euhrychiopsis as a
feasible biocontrol agent will be run in three water bodies of Indiana. The tests are possible by a
cooperative effort between Indiana's Lake and River Enhancement Fund through the Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation, local lake associations, and the city of Bloomington
Parks and Recreation Department. A contractor in Ohio, EnviroScience, Inc., will culture the weevils and
stock the lakes. Progress of this biocontrol project will be monitored by staff at the University of Purdue
(White 2000).
Prevention appears to be the most practical approach to managing Eurasian watermilfoil. In addition to
managing for fragment dispersal, through boat inspections and restriction of aquatic vegetative trade, this
nonindigenous plant has naturally shown difficulty in establishing where healthy populations of native
plants are found. Protecting native plant populations and minimizing disturbance of natural habitats are
both ways to impede watermilfoil infestations. As is the case with other nonindigenous species,
watermilfoil is an aggressive colonizer and, given the opportunity, will quickly invade where space is
available.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Purple loosestrife was first brought to North America from Europe in the early 1800s. Transmitted
through the ballast water of European ships and directly by settlers for their flower gardens, purple
loosestrife has now spread across much of the United States and Canada.
Purple loosestrife, although beautiful, has several devastating ecological effects. The plant thrives on
moist soils, forming dense, nearly impenetrable stands that can rapidly degrade wetland areas. These
stands are unsuitable as habitat for many wetland animals, including ducks, geese, muskrats, frogs and
turtles. Because wetland areas are one of the most biologically diverse components of North America,
threats to this vital habitat can ripple throughout the ecosystem, degrading areas where fish spawn and
rice grows. A total of approximately 190,000 hectares of wetland, marshes, pastures and riparian
meadows are affected by purple loosestrife in North America each year (Minnesota Sea Grant 1999).
56
-------
These ecological disturbances have severe economic consequences. Due to the
large area invaded by purple loosestrife and the habitat destruction it causes,
millions of dollars are lost each year (Minnesota Sea Grant 1999). Moreover, as
purple loosestrife continues to flourish, there is concern that it could spread
further inland, encroaching on cropland and pasture land important to the
economic health of the agriculture industry and farmers.
Control options for purple loosestrife include digging and hand pulling, cutting,
biological control and chemical control. The first two methods, digging and
hand pulling and cutting, seek to destroy the plant at its area of invasion. These
methods are time consuming and require broad public awareness to implement.
Generating the necessary support can be a daunting task. Convincing the public
that the purple loosestrife is a natural enemy is difficult given the plant's
beautiful appearance. However, wildlife officials at all levels of the community
(federal, state, university, environmental agencies, community organizations)
have published flyers, created web pages and designed information for industry
and the public to raise the profile of purple loosestrife. These efforts will make
control more effective.
Chemical control can only be used in certain ecological areas. This is because
attacking purple loosestrife with chemicals can have the unintended side effect
of destroying other plants in the surrounding area. In the United States, the use
of chemical controls for purple loosestrife near or in water has been approved;
however, a permit is required.
Using these conventional methods to control purple loosestrife is difficult
because of the reproductive capacity of the plant. Minnesota wildlife managers
learned this lesson first hand when they tried conventional treatment methods.
Managers found that while these methods killed individual plants, established
stands allowed purple loosestrife to rapidly re-establish, producing nearly half a million seeds per square
meter in wetland soil (Skinner 1998). In search for a more effective treatment, managers began to
investigate biological control.
When a plant is replaced in a non-native environment, it usually leaves behind its natural predators.
Biological control seeks to reintroduce a plant with it natural enemies, with the goal of reducing the
number of invading plants. Biologists have tested several species of beetles, natural predators of purple
loosestrife in Europe, to determine a control agent for use in the United States and Canada. In Minnesota,
beetles were first released in 1992 with subsequent expansion in 1993, 1995 and 1997. The insects have
established themselves at over 80 percent of the release sites (Minnesota Annual Report 1998). More
research is being done to study the efficacy of this method of control, with the goal of 70 percent
reduction purple loosestrife within 15-20 years. Thus far, results from Minnesota show that biological
control agents require two years to kill purple loosestrife plants.
Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
Phragmites is thought to be one of the most widespread flowering plants in the world and can be found
on every continent except for Antarctica. In North America there is evidence in the cores of 3000 year
old peat from tidal marshes in Connecticut fasti Phragmites was here before Europeans arrived. There is
Drawing courtesy of Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters
57
-------
also evidence of Phragmites in the remains of 600-900 A.D. year old objects
found at an Anasazi archeological site in southwest Colorado. However,
Phragmites spread began to be considered a problem in North America around ',"'**'
the mid-1900s. It is thought at this time newly introduced Eurasian varieties , "
were able to expand their ranges and that they may have produced an
aggressive hybrid with the native species. It is also thought that the increase in
human disturbance, specifically around salt water marshes, allowed an increase
in this spread and even allowed native species to extend their ranges (Moore
1996). Phragmites is also perceived very differently in the east and west
United States. In the west there is actually some concern about its decline in p.,.^,^-, ^^«-, ,
population and habitat, whereas in the northeast and east it is considered an
aggressive invasive in natural wetland areas (Marks 1993). >,J
Kris Meirinq
Phragmites is a very large perennial grass; it can reach heights of up to 1-4
meters (Marks 1993). It also has grey-green leaves 2-3 centimeters wide, which wrap around the stem,
and a brown tuft, at the top which remains through winter (Hindman). It can particularly be found in
alkaline sites, brackish sites, acidic wetlands, flooded areas or water with a slow current, or where the
underground water table is high and waters are stagnant. It is actually able to perform well in pristine
areas, but is usually outcompeted by native species. Phragmites is also known to thrive in areas of
disturbance and/or manipulation, such as railroad tracks, ditches or roadsides, especially where winter de-
icing salt has accumulated. In these areas it has been found that Phragmites is also very quick to form
the fence-like monotypic structure that it is its namesake, from the Greek word "phragma" meaning fence
(Marks 1993).
The large mass of vegetation that can be formed by Phragmites, is developed through rhizomes. These
rhizomes can reach up to 4 meters in length and form mats so dense in the soil that other species are
prevented from establishing. The seeds that it does use for reproduction are dropped between November
and January. Phragmites also offers little food or shelter to local wildlife, so at the same time it displaces
native plant species, it also displaces local wildlife. This invasive plant can even attract new species, such
as red-winged black birds, which enjoy perching on Phragmites stands (Marks 1993).
Control of Phragmites is done through cutting, burning, herbicide application, water level manipulation
and biological controls. Cutting has been found to be effective if done at the right time, just before the
end of July when most of the winter reserves would be removed with the top portion. A colony may be
eradicated this way, but shoots must be taken so they do not resprout. Burning may be less effective
because Phragmites tends to live on wet sites where roots are protected from damage. It also can be
dangerous in that Phragmites may cause spot fires, sometimes as far as 100 feet away. When used
together with another control such as an herbicide, cutting or water level manipulation, fire can be
effective. After one of these methods is performed, fire can act to rid an area of the upper portion of the
plant, allowing space for native species to migrate. In fall 1989, a freshwater area, spanning 20-30 acres
was drained at Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, N.Y. It was then burned the following winter and
reflooded, effectively eliminating Phragmites from the treated area until 1992 (Marks 1993).
Herbicides such as Rodeo TM (a glyphosate product) can be useful if done after the tasseling stage in the
fall and sprayed onto the foliage of the plant. Delmarva Power in Maryland sprayed a large area
intensively the first year, with backpacks and helicopters, then spot sprayed the following year yielding
90 percent to 95 percent elimination (Marks 1993).
58
-------
Water manipulation also has been shown to decrease the presence ofPhmgmites. In Fairfield, Conn, a
self-regulating tide gate was installed in a diked marsh, which allowed water level fluctuation and
saltwater to increase. This management approach resulted in a 1-3 foot height reduction, and a density
decline from 11.3 plants/square meter to 3.3 plants/square meter occurred with local Phragmites after
only one year. It has since continued to decline. Restoration of natural water flows including water level
manipulation and increases in salinity, can be helpful controls to Phragmites populations (Marks 1993).
Cornell University also is looking into a variety of biological controls, many that may already be native to
the United States (Kearns 2000). Although none are known at this point, studies conducted in Europe
have shown that gall-forming and stem-boring insects may reduce growth (Marks 1993).
The state of New York controls Phragmites through cutting and visual assessments (Department of
Environmental Conservation), cutting and herbicide (National Audubon Society), and water level
manipulation and burning with visual assessments (Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge). In
Pennsylvania at the Tinicum National Environmental Education Center they perform chemical application
with restoration and seeding. In Ohio, Arcola Creek Wetland and Morgan Marsh control Phragmites by
cutting before the end of July and using aerial photographs to determine its spread (Marks 1993).
Garlic Mustard (Alliara petiolata)
Garlic mustard is a species native to Europe and Asia (Save the Dunes
Council, Inc. 2000). It is thought to have been brought to North America by
European settlers for use in cooking, to increase vitamin A and C content and
add garlic flavoring, and in medicine for the treatment of gangrene and ulcers.
More recently it has been used in natural areas to prevent erosion. It was first
identified in the United States in 1868 on Long Island, N.Y. and by 1990 it
had spread to a total of 29 states. Although the main mode of spread is
unclear, it is thought that the trampling of the soil by white-tailed deer
exposed the seeds, prompting them to germinate (Cornell University 2000).
Garlic mustard itself is a biennial herb which acts to aggressively displace
native grasses, herbs and tree seedlings (Cornell University 2000). It is
common in woodland areas and can be found in rich, moist, upland forests
and wooded stream banks. It is also shade tolerant and will readily invade
disturbed sites such as roadsides, trail edges or sites of construction (Virginia
Native Plant Society 2000). The plant itself can grow to between 5 and 46
inches, forming a rosette of kidney-shaped leaves the first year, remaining
green throughout the winter, and the second year producing white flowers
which act to disperse seeds then die (Cornell University 2000). The seeds can
then germinate that same year if conditions are right or wait until the
following spring (Mortell 2000).
Garlic mustard has a great ability to reproduce at high rates (Save the Dunes,
Inc. 2000) with each plant producing as many as 168-868 seeds per plant
(Cornell University 2000). As many as 20,000 seeds per square meter have
been found, with this number decreasing to about 50 percent by the end of
May (Cornell University 2000). Once the seeds are sown they are quick to
grow, forming a blanket of rosette leaves over the forest floor and crowding
out native vegetation whose growth period typically lags behind that of garlic
Drawing courtesy of Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation
59
-------
mustard. Like other invasive species, garlic mustard also has very few predators in North America,
giving it another advantage over native species (Save the Dunes Council, Inc. 2000). This displacement
of native species leads to a decline in total biodiversity, eliminating certain plant species and thus
displacing the insects and animals that may rely on them for food and shelter.
The control of garlic mustard depends on the severity of the infestation. For light infestations, hand
pulling or stem cutting can be effective, with the optimal time for control being at emergence between
early to mid-April (Save the Dunes Council, Inc. 2000). For more severe cases, herbicides (Virginia
Native Plant Society 2000) or prescribed fires can be useful (Cornell University 2000). Since garlic
mustard overwinters in a green form, the non-selective biodegradable herbicide Glyphosate can be used.
Applied in the late fall after other species have lost their green appearance, this herbicide should prove
effective. Most likely, herbicide application would have to be reapplied over two to three years for
adequate management (Virginia Native Plant Society 2000). Prescribed fires also can be effective over
repeated spring burns just prior to the growth of most native plants (Cornell University 2000). Despite
these efforts, prevention, as with other invasive species, appears to be the key. Garlic mustard has
difficulty establishing in sites where healthy native populations can be found. Therefore, the management
of natives and the avoidance of disturbance will significantly increase the ability of an ecosystem to fend
off infestations, thereby saving thousands of dollars in management costs.
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
Common buckthorn is native to Eurasia and North Africa and was
introduced into northeastern North America sometime around the late
1800s. In Canada it was first identified in the late 1890s and can now be
found from Nova Scotia to Alberta. In the United States it is more widely
spread throughout the northeast and into Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Wisconsin, Minnesota and the east half of the Dakotas. Because it has few
predators and a hardy nature, it was originally brought over as an
ornamental shrub to be used as hedges and windbreaks in farmland areas
(Haber 1997). Its spread has since become a problem because of its ability
to tolerate a wide range of moisture and light levels and its significant seed
production, with each seed having a high rate of viability and germination
(Environment Canada 1999).
Buckthorn is a small tree or shrub reaching heights of up to 25 feet and 10 inches in diameter (Minnesota
DNR 2000). Its bark is dark gray or brown, is roughly textured and has spines protruding from the end of
its branchlets (Haber 1997). The leaves are wide and elliptical, being lighter green underneath and
remaining green into the fall (Minnesota DNR 2000). Buckthorn also has small green flowers and small
black fruits that contain three to four seeds and poisonous substances called rhamnin and rhamnetin.
These substances can cause diarrhea and vomiting in humans but only create a laxative effect in birds,
which are the main consumers of the fruit (Haber 1997).
Buckthorn is found in moist to dry upland sites, including woodlands, savannas, upland and floodplain
forests, edges of woodlands, fencerows, prairies, open fields and riparian oak forests. It appears to grow
best in moist soils (Haber 1997, Environment Canada 1999). Because birds are the main method of
dispersal, most plants tend to be found in areas where birds have places to perch, such as woodlands. In a
study conducted by New York it was found that although open field seeds and seedlings tend to do better,
60
-------
the ability for birds to reach these sites limited its colonization. However, in wooded areas rodents were
found to eat more of the seeds, also decreasing colonization but to a lesser extent (Haber 1997).
Buckthorn is an aggressive invader. Its growth that is seasonally earlier, rapid and irregular allows it to
shade out and thus eliminate most native species in an area. It is also thought that buckthorn may be
allelopathic, releasing a substance into the soil which acts to inhibit the growth of surrounding vegetation.
In addition, as an economic concern, buckthorn acts as an alternate host to the oat rust fungus, a particular
problem for farmers who have planted buckthorn as a windbreak (Environment Canada 1999).
Control for buckthorn is mainly prescribed fire, stem girdling or cutting and herbicide application
(Environment Canada 1999). Trial fires have shown that fire must be performed for five to six years
before proving effective (Haber 1997). It is also possible that roots may not be killed in these fires if the
buckthorn is found on a moist site. Fire also may not be the most appropriate method of control given
environmental conditions and local species concerns (Environment Canada 1999).
Stem cutting and girdling followed by herbicide application is another alternative. Late fall application
appears to be the most practical, since most herbicides are designed to work on green shrubs and the
leaves of the buckthorn remain green much longer into the fall than native species. Herbicides such as
Trimec, Garlon 3A and Round-up applied immediately after stem cutting can be effective. One important
aspect to note is that with the displacement of native species, buckthorn may be acting as the only local
nesting site for birds. For this reason, it may be desirable to control the species at a more gradual rate.
One solution is to take advantage of buckthorn functioning as a dioecious species with male and female
shrubs. Eliminating the female shrubs would prevent the seed bank from increasing but still allow
enough male shrubs left for nesting. Biological control research has also been done in Canada and
Europe where they have studied plant pathogenic viruses and identified the cucumber mosaic
cucumovirus as a potential control (Haber 1997).
In the United States the Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task Force ranked the infestation of
common buckthorn as severe and have been developing seasonal controls. From late March to early May
they have been using prescribed burns. They have found that despite the vulnerability of seedlings to fire,
they usually grow in areas without much litter making it difficult to establish an effective fire. However,
cuttings done in the following fall and left on the floor can help to provide fuel for the spring burns. In
May to October herbicide application is performed with appropriately diluted Garlon 3A applied directly
to the stumps. From mid-August to October a cut is done followed by an herbicide application. During
winter, appropriately diluted Garlon 4 with an oil, such as Penevator, and a dye has been found to be
effective (Minnesota DNR 2000).
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Reed canary grass can be found throughout the world except for Antarctica
and Greenland (Hutchinson 1990). Although the variety native to North
America is not considered a threat to local Great Lakes ecosystems, the
introduced Eurasian variety poses risks to native species.
Initially Reed canary grass was found to be useful for livestock foraging,
silage and hay in Europe (King County 2000). About 150 years ago this
variety was brought to the United States for that same purpose (Harlow). The
species was also found to be useful as a water filter for pollution and was
Drawing courtesy of King County Water and
Q J Land Resources Division, Washington
-------
promoted as a "marsh hay" in many wetland areas (King County 2000, Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center 2000). The thought of these benefits facilitated the spread of these varieties throughout
the United States and Canada. Now it has become virtually impossible to tell one variety from the other.
Many also believe that aggressive hybrids have developed. This makes it incredibly difficult to develop
an accurate map of the invasive species and adequately implement measures to protect the native variety
(Environment Canada 2000).
The European variety and possible hybrids of reed canary grass have since come to be significant threats
to the health of wetland areas. They have been described as aggressive, competitive, persistent, hardy and
rapidly growing, replacing natives after only a few years (Hutchinson 1990, King County 2000). It also
has been noted, especially in Minnesota and Wisconsin, to quickly form monocultures. The rapid growth
of reed canary grass allows it to completely shade out native species. The longer the stand remains
monotypic, the more likely the seed bank will be depleted of any viable native species (Environment
Canada 1999).
The plant itself is a perennial grass growing as high as 2 meters. Its leaves are long (3 1A tolO inches),
thin and flat with a rough texture on both sides (Hutchinson 1990). It can reproduce both by seed and
vegetatively by rhizomes. These rhizomes are the most problematic and can spread at an incredibly high
rate, forcing out other grasses and plants, creating monotypic stands, and subsequently decreasing overall
biodiversity.
The grass can be found in moist areas including wetlands, marshes, wet prairies, wet meadows, fens, lake
shores and any other poorly drained areas. It can tolerate flooding and grow in wet or dry areas but does
best in fertile, moist to wet soils. Like many other invasive species it is also quick to colonize areas of
disturbance (Hutchinson 1990, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2000).
Control options for reed canary grass consists of hand pulling, prescribed fire, herbicides or mowing.
Hand pulling done two to three times a year for five years can also be very effective, but is only practical
in small areas (Environment Canada 1999). Fire performed yearly in the early spring can be effective on
larger sites; however, control is not evident for five to six years (Hutchinson 1990). Fire will most often
be effective when the stand has not been a longstanding monoculture and the native seeds have not been
depleted. Herbicides such as Rodeo and Amitrol applied in early spring, before other species have begun
their green growth, can work well, as can Dalapon, a monocot and grass herbicide (Hutchinson 1990).
The most effective method of control, however, appears to be the use of shade. Reed canary grass is
shade intolerant and planting favorable tree species around the grass can provide enough shade to
adequately hinder growth of the species. Other species such as sedges, rushes, willow, choke cherry
and/or red osier dogwood can then be planted in place of the grass (King County 2000). Despite these
controls, however, the spread of reed canary grass is so wide that it will most likely always have some
presence in our wetland areas (Kearns 2000).
A few important aspects to note are that currently no controls for the grass exist in Canada, which may
make control efforts near the border difficult (Environment Canada 1999). Also, due to the difficulty in
distinguishing between the native species, hybrids and the Eurasian variety, it will be difficult to protect
the native variety during management.
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
Although hydrilla is not considered to be a problem in the Great Lakes region it has become a significant
problem in almost all other areas of the United States, and there is much concern that it will eventually
62
-------
make its way into the Great Lake system.
It can be found in Asia, Africa and Australia and was introduced into the United States in Florida during
the 1950s as a plant used in aquariums (Stein and Flack 1996). Because of hydrilla's ability to tolerate
many different environmental conditions, once released it was easily able to spread through natural
waterways. It has now been noted as far west as California and Washington
and east into Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North and South Carolina, and .._„.._ _,,^
Virginia (McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998).
Hydrilla can be found in environments ranging from still to flowing water, low
to high nutrient levels, pH's between 5 and 9, brackish water, and temperatures
ranging from 12° Celsius to 28° Celsius (with 28°Celsius being its optimal)
(McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998). Areas of agricultural and urban runoff
have been found to promote the spread of this species (Stein and Flack 1996).
Hydrilla also has a unique ability to photosynthesize under low light levels,
giving it the advantage of inhabiting deeper, darker waters where most other
plants cannot grow (Jacono 2000). It can then migrate upward toward
shallower waters, forming thick mats of vegetation on the water surface, where
70 percent of its biomass is found (Stein and Flack 1996). These thick mats,
which can be thick enough for ducks to walk on, are rooted into the ground. In
addition to making swimming, boating and fishing virtually impossible these
mats also shade out most native vegetation. At a growth rate of up to an one
inch a day, hydrilla also can be very effective at blocking pipelines for
irrigation and power generation (University of Florida Center for Aquatic and
Invasive Plants 2000). l
Drawing courtesy of the Center for
Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of
Like Eurasian watermilfoil, its main method of dispersal is fragmentation Flonda
(although it can reproduce by vegetative buds, subterranean tubers and seeds,
these are not thought to be significant methods of new colonization) (McFarland, Poovey and Madsen
1998). Pieces of the plant can easily get caught up in boats and transported to other areas or dropped in
the same lake, increasing its current population. Pieces of the plant also can be accidentally transported
on other aquatic vegetation or through the aquarium trade in which it is still sold (Jacono 2000, Kearns
2000). Again, like Eurasian watermilfoil, just one small fragment of hydrilla can cause a significant
amount of damage. One piece can create a large mass in only a couple weeks, and a few acres can
explode into thousands of acres in only a couple years (Stein and Flack 1996).
This rapid growth and density of vegetative cover can alter both the physical and chemical characteristics
of a waterbody. Hydrilla has been linked to lower oxygen levels, fish kills and a decrease in the weight of
sport fish when occupying the majority of the water column. The loss of open space and the natural
vegetation gradient also acts to decrease available forage for fish and open water feeding opportunities for
birds, displacing them to other areas and thereby impacting the ecosystem's overall biodiversity (Jacono
2000).
Control of hydrilla appears virtually impossible in areas of infestation, so prevention of its introduction
and spread are critical. Mechanical and herbicide application have been found to be somewhat effective
but with its fast growth and ability to spread by fragmentation, it is difficult to eliminate from any
waterway. In Florida where half of the state's waterways are infested, there are now yearly inspections of
63
-------
Walcr clralnul
the state's lakes (Stein and Flack 1996), an approach that should be considered in the Great Lakes region.
Although it is thought that the cooler temperatures of the north may play a role in impeding its growth
and spread, many who study the species believe that it will eventually enter the Great Lakes ecosystem
(McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998).
Water Chestnut (Trapa natans)
Like hydrilla, water chestnut has not yet entered the Great Lakes ecosystem. It has, however, become a
significant problem in the northeast United States and there are projections that it is only a matter of time
until water chestnut establishes itself in the Great Lakes.
Water chestnut is native to Eurasia and has invaded paleotropical areas and
warm temperate zones, found in Australia and northeast North America.
Because the fruits are used for food and medicine and have noted "magical"
properties, the species was distributed in Europe, Asia and eventually, through
settlement, found its way to the United States. It was first recorded in the
United States in 1874 as being cultivated by Harvard botanist Asa Gray in
Cambridge, Mass. A few years later, in 1879, it was found in the nearby
Charles River and by the 1940s had become well-established in the northeast
part of the country (Haber 1999; McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998). Since
that time it has infested the Hudson and Potomac rivers, Lake Champlain and <«.»»«».
the Connecticut River Valley and can be found in the states of Maryland, Drawing courtesy of Vermont Department
,. _. . TLT17-1T-* -t • -i -i T T i i °f Environmental Conservation and Water
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont. It also was reported Quality Division
recently (1998) for the first time in southwest Quebec on a tributary of the
Richelieu River, which extends from Lake Champlain. Water chestnut is now listed under federal
regulations, which prohibit interstate sale and transport of the species. It also is considered a noxious
weed in Arizona; is illegal to possess, import or distribute in South Carolina; and is illegal to possess in
Florida (Haber 1999).
The plant itself is a floating annual aquatic requiring a soft substrate for anchoring since it has no primary
root. A cord-like stem extends upward ending in a rosette of leaves floating on the water's surface.
These rosettes can be up to three layers thick, and up to 50 rosettes of leaves can be found per square
meter (McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998). This vegetation can also act to shade out native species
and make swimming, boating and fishing very difficult. The plant does not provide good forage for
wildlife, and its decomposition and detritus in the fall are thought to result in lower oxygen levels, which
can negatively impact local aquatic life (Haber 1999).
One concern held by many recreational water users is water chestnut's thickly spined fruit. As an annual,
the plant is produced entirely by seeds. These seeds over-winter from the previous season and germinate
in early May. Leaves then form by June and flowers appear July through September. After insect
pollination, the flower droops down into the water and the thickly spined fruit develops, anchoring the
plant to the area (McFarland, Poovey and Madsen 1998). The spined fruit can be dangerous for
swimmers or other recreational water users, causing cuts or puncture wounds.
Rapid rate of production is also a serious concern. In early May each seed is capable of producing 10 to
15 rosettes and each rosette is capable of producing 20 seeds. Meaning that one seed could produce up to
15 rosettes, which could produce up to 300 seeds, leading potentially to 4500 new rosettes the following
spring only the second year after initial seed germination, an increase of 675 percent. Water chestnut also
64
-------
has been found to increase its productivity in response to low population densities through allocating
more resources to reproduction (Haber 1999).
The primary approach to controlling water chestnut has been through mechanical harvesting, which is
most effective in small areas. In large areas, however, mechanical harvesting does not eradicate all plants
unless done repeatedly over a number of years. Management through biological control has been
researched. A study conducted in 1992 and 1993 in China, Japan, South Korea and the Russian Far East
found no effective predators. The same results applied in a 1995 study conducted by countries in central
Europe. The possibility of biological control may be found in warmer climates of India, which would
prove useful if water chestnut begins to spread southward from its current northeastern range (Haber
1999). In the Great Lakes region, it appears that prevention is the only feasible approach to the
management of water chestnut. Due to the difficulty in controlling this nonindigenous species, it is
critical to find ways to ensure that it does not get into the system. In cases where water chestnut does
invade, immediate detection will be needed to implement control measures.
65
-------
Conclusion: Future Directions on Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive
Species Programs
The recommendations and findings that emerged from work on this briefing paper and the associated
workshop on Great Lakes nonindigenous invasive species (sponsored by U.S. EPA-GLNPO in Chicago,
Oct. 20-21, 1999) revolved around the following themes:
prevention of introduction and dispersal
• control of established populations
detection and monitoring
• education/outreach
multilevel management coordination
This guidance is presented to the U.S. EPA, symposium attendees and other interested parties for
consideration in the development of future NIS prevention and control programs. Although the
discussion that follows reflects the general consensus of project participants, it should be noted that no
effort was made to prioritize individual points.
Prevention of Introduction and Dispersal
The prevention of new introductions of nonindigenous invasive species is widely accepted as the most
effective way to manage NIS problems and is considered the first line of defense against invasions.
• To more effectively predict and prevent future NIS invasions, a paradigm shift is needed towards
a more proactive approach to NIS research and management efforts.
• The federal government needs to take a leadership role in the area of NIS prevention.
Ballast water transport, identified as a leading source of ANS introductions in the Great Lakes
basin, will require enhanced management in terms of
policy development and application of treatment technology.
• Further investigation of use of the Clean Water Act through the application of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and standards is recommended as a
potential approach to mitigate ANS introductions through ballast water discharges.
Assessment of the feasibility of various treatment technologies for ballast water is
needed, including shoreside facilities, chemical and heat treatment, and filtration, among
others. As part of this assessment, options to handle vessels reporting no ballast on board
(NOBOB) need to be investigated.
Although ballast management is the vector that has drawn the most attention in terms of
prevention efforts, it is recommended that managers also consider other high risk pathways of
introduction, particularly involving terrestrial species. An example of a significant vector
introducing terrestrial species is the horticultural business.
Monitoring is identified as a prevention tool for species identified as potential invaders. (It was
noted, however, that the approach targeting potential invaders has not yet been tested for its
efficacy, with concern that this approach to monitoring does not take into account all of the
unknown risks.)
66
-------
Control of Established Populations
Although control of established NIS population tends to be the focal point of management efforts, this
reactive approach to management is not preferred since very few NIS infestations have been successfully
limited or eradicated. Control options have become increasingly controversial with greater scrutiny of the
efficacy and potential environmental impacts of existing control programs.
To most effectively make use of limited resources, it is important to prioritize through the
application of criteria in regard to the species for which NIS control measures should be applied.
As part of this process, it is recommended that the cumulative effects of species are taken into
account. For example, an individual species may not appear to pose a threat, but on a cumulative
basis, this species may cause significant problems in co-existence with other species.
• As part of the process of determining NIS control plans, all potential control measures should be
considered including, physical, chemical and biological, among others.
• As part of NIS control efforts, there is a particular need for public education on the benefits and
risks of using various control options, such as chemical, physical, biological and integrated pest
management. Consideration also should given to the risks that emerge when control measures are
not implemented. A balanced, accurate presentation of this information is critical in assisting
decisionmakers, as well as public and private stakeholders, in making sound choices for
appropriate control programs.
• Potential environmental impacts should be an important consideration in the evaluation of NIS
control options.
• The level of habitat and resource quality should serve as criteria in the process of prioritizing
where control efforts should be focused. For instance, pristine areas may be considered to hold
zero tolerance for nonindigenous species, whereas in areas where some ecological degradation
has occurred, there may be some tolerance of species.
Detection and Monitoring
Although detection and monitoring of nonindigenous invasive species should be considered the
foundation of prevention and control efforts, this aspect of NIS programming does not hold a high profile
in research and management paradigms for either terrestrial and aquatic nonindigenous species. There is
a strong need for programmatic development in the area of detection and monitoring to facilitate quick
response in the implementation of eradication/control measures. As part of detection and monitoring
efforts, there is a need for visual assessments of NIS invasions and their progression to support scientific
research and public and policy decisionmaking.
Compile baseline data on distribution, ecology and relative threats regarding nonindigenous
invasive species in region. Detection and monitoring methods and data formats should be
standardized as much as possible to facilitate useful information sharing.
• Based on a database that is continually updated, develop regional watershed lists on
nonindigenous invasive species.
• Provide incentives for taxonomic experts to detect, report or evaluate nonindigenous invasive
species.
• Decrease the time between detection and reporting for effective NIS management (e.g.,
control/eradication).
• Utilize volunteers to implement program activities.
Integrate detection as part of research to serve as a basis for action.
67
-------
• Predict future invaders to facilitate early NIS detection and prompt action for eradication/control.
Develop regulatory support to facilitate action during the window of opportunity after detection
while eradication is still possible.
Establish an emergency funding source for eradication of new nonindigenous invasive species.
• In the development of detection and monitoring programs for invasive species, partnerships need
to be formed to examine as many biological components as possible, since the overall impact to
the ecosystem is unknown.
Education/Outreach
An informed and educated public, that includes all stakeholders, is widely recognized as the cornerstone
of an effective NIS prevention and control program. To achieve this end, it is essential that information
and education (I/E) efforts convey accurate facts that are appropriately targeted and offer a consistent
message on a multijurisdictional level.
• The Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control is a recommended model for use by appropriate entities to address NIS problems through
consideration, among others, of the following objectives:
Identify vectors of NIS introduction and dispersal, and encourage target groups to comply
with identified practices to minimize further problems and to implement appropriate
solutions.
• Provide regional coordination of the development and dissemination of information on
NIS issues in efforts to disseminate consistent, non-conflicting information regarding
prevention and control initiatives.
Engage the active involvement of Great Lakes regional policymakers and aquatic user
groups in the promotion of NIS prevention and control programs.
Facilitate adequate funding to implement feasible solutions to NIS problems.
• An ecosystem approach should provide the foundation for I/E programs with the purpose
of raising awareness on NIS issues and generating support for action on NIS prevention
and control.
The NIS issue should be presented with consideration for both the aquatic and terrestrial
components to promote a balanced understanding among stakeholders and to facilitate
effective management on NIS prevention and control.
• To get the NIS issue on the agenda of political decisionmakers, high-profile aspects of
the problem, such as human health risks and biodiversity threats, should be effectively
communicated through educational channels.
To generate broad-based support for the NIS issue, it is recommended that both
ecological and economic impacts resulting from NIS invasions are documented and
presented. Economic impacts should be assessed in terms of the costs resulting from not
taking action and potential benefits from taking preventative action.
Coordination of Multijurisdictional Efforts
The prevention and control of nonindigenous invasive species have global implications that require
policies and programs at multijurisdictional levels of government. Coordination between existing
federal, regional and state/provincial programs will be critical in effectively addressing problems caused
by the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species.
68
-------
Regional, federal, state/provincial and local agencies need to work together early in the budgetary
planning stages for NIS programs. Related appropriations requests should be presented to
Congress under one umbrella, when appropriate, representing needs on a regional basis.
Staffing for NIS programming should be coordinated at the federal, regional, state/provincial and
local levels.
In terms of management regarding NIS prevention and control, there is a need for reliable
communication among all levels of government
Partnerships need to be formed around the world to design detection and monitoring programs in
efforts to prevent future invasions.
Internet technology should be employed to facilitate efficient coordination among cooperating
agencies and individuals.
Infrastructure responsible for NIS management (e.g., invasive species councils operating on both
the state/provincial and federal level) should be organized to address both aquatic and terrestrial
aspects of the problem.
To facilitate NIS program implementation, funding needs to be coordinated on a
multijurisdictional level to achieve the following: permanent staffing, training sessions,
enforcement of regulations, monitoring projects, grants that support control efforts and related
research, educational material, conferences, support for state/regional invasive species councils, a
rapid response network, and a GIS-based database.
69
-------
Literature Cited
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (co-chaired by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration). 1994. Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. Washington,
B.C. (Internet: http://www.anstaskforce.gov.)
Aquatic Plant Management Society, (no date). Plant Fact Sheet: Eurasian watermilfoil. Lehigh Acres,
Florida. (Internet: http://www.apms.org.)
Bright, C. 1998. Life Out of Bounds: Bioinvasions in a Borderless World. The Worldwatch
Environmental Alert Series. Linda Starke, Series Editor. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London.
Busiahn, Tom, chairman Ruffe Control Committee. Sept. 1999. Current Management Status of the
Exotic Nuisance Fish, Ruffe. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cangelosi, A. 1997. NISA Passes! In "ANS Digest," Volume 2, No 1. Freshwater Foundation,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Cangelosi, A. 1999. Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop, Presentation on Prevention
of Nonindigenous Species Introductions and Spread. Chicago, Illinois.
Charlebois, P.M., J.E . Marsden, R.G. Goettel, R.K. Wolfe, D.J. Jude, S. Rudnika. 1997. The Round
Goby (Neogobius melanstomus): A Review of European and North American Literature. Appendix IV:
Extension Resources.
Cornell University, (no date). Garlic Mustard Page. Ithaca, New York. (Internet:
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/bcontrol/garlic.htm.)
Dettmers, J. 1998. Great Lakes Invasion. In "Reports," No. 354. Illinois Natural History Survey.
Environment Canada. January 21, 1999 (update). Common Buckthorn. Ottawa, ON, Canada. (Internet:
http://www.cws.ee .gc.ca/habitat/inv/p 7_e.html.)
Environment Canada. January 21, 1999 (update). Reed Canary Grass. Ottawa, ON, Canada. (Internet:
http://www.cws.ee .gc.ca/habitat/inv/p6_e/html.)
Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 1998. Pulling Together:
A National Strategy for Management of Invasive Plants. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Glassner-Shwayder, Kathe. 1995. Control of the Ruffe -A New Challenge to Great Lakes Ecosystem
Management. ANS Update/Advisor story.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Nov. 15, 1995 (news release). Officials Agree That Ruffe Movement
Warrants a New Approach to Deal with this Exotic Menace. Marc Gaden, contact. (Internet:
http://www.glfc.org/pressrel/clcrufpr.htm.)
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Fact Sheet 3: Sea Lamprey: A Great Lakes Invader. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
70
-------
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Fact Sheet 4: TFMand Sea Lamprey Control: A Success Story. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Fact Sheet 5: Sea Lamprey Barriers: New Technologies Help Solve an
Old Problem. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Fact Sheet 6: Sterile-Male-Release Technique: A Promising Sea
Lamprey Control Method. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Glassner-Shwayder, K. (primary author). 1998.
Biological Invasions: How Aquatic Nuisance Species Are Entering North American Waters, the Harm
They Cause and What Can Be Done to Solve the Problem. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Glassner-Shwayder, K. (primary author). 1996(a). A
Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control ofNonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Species. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Internet:
http: //www .glc. org/proj ects/ans/modelsmp .html.)
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Doss, M., K. Glassner-Shwayder. 1996(b). Aquatic
Nuisance Species Information and Education Material Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin:
Recommendations and Descriptive Inventory. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Internet:
http: //www .glc. org/proj ects/ans/ans-ie/httoc .html.)
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Glassner-Shwayder, K. (primary author). 1999.
Legislation, Regulation and Policy for the Prevention and Control ofNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Species: Model Guidance for Great Lakes Jurisdictions. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Haber, Erich. April 1997. Invasive Exotic Plants of Canada, Fact Sheet No. 7: Common Buckthorn.
National Botanical Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada. (Internet:
http: //infoweb .magi .com/~ehaber/factcbck .html.)
Haber, Erich. April 1999. Invasive Exotic Plants of Canada, Fact Sheet No. 13: European Water
Chestnut. National Botanical Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada. (Internet:
http://infoweb .magi .com/~ehaber/factnut.html.)
Harlow, Susan J. (no date). Professor's Study Takes Aim at Spread of Reed Canary Grass. University of
Vermont Record, Burlington, Vermont. (Internet:
http ://university communications .uvm.edu/canary .htm.)
Hindman, Larry J. (no date). A Landowners Guide for the Control of Phragmites: The Mighty
Phragmites. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (Internet:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/phrag.html.)
Hushak, L. 1996. Zebra Mussels Cost Great Lakes Water Users an Estimated $120 Million. In "ANS
Update," Vol. 2, No. 1. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and Great Lakes Commission,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
71
-------
Hutchinson, Max. 1990. Vegetation Management Guideline: Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris
arundinaced). Vol. 1, No. 19. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. (Internet:
http://128.174.172.76/chf/outreach/VMG/rcanarygr.html.)
Jacono, Colette. April 20, 2000 (update). Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Hydrilla verticillata. U.S.
Geologic Survey. (Internet: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/plants/docs/hy_verti.html.)
Jacono, Colette. February 21, 2000 (update). Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Myriophyllum spicatum L.
U.S. Geologic Survey. (Internet: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/dicots/my_spica.html.)
Jentes, Jill E. Zebra Mussels: Key to Contaminant Cycling. In "Twine Line" Vol. 4, No. 21.
Jude, D.J, R.H. Reider, and G.R. Smith. 1992. Establishment ofGobiidae in the Great Lakes Basin. In
"Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci."
Kearns, Kelly. June 14, 2000. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Plant Conservation Program
Manager. Personal communication: 608-267-5066.
Kindt, Kerry J., Tom Busiahn. Feb. 18, 1994. Environmental Assessment Proposed Ruffe Control
Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
King County, Washington. February 17, 2000 (update). Reed Canary Grass. Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division. (Internet:
http://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/reed.htm.)
Mack, N.M., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, F. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic Invasions:
Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences and Control. In "Issues in Ecology," No. 5. (Internet:
http://esa.sdsc.edu/issues5.htm.)
Manz, C.H. 1998. The Round Goby: An Example of the "Perfect Invader? In "Reports," No. 354. Illinois
Natural History Survey.
Marks, Marianne (original author), Beth Lapin and John Randall. 1993 (update). Element Stewardship
Abstract for Phragmites australis (Common Reed). The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
(Internet: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documents/phraas.pdf)
Marsden, E.J. 1996. The Round Goby: Innocent Until Proven Guilty? In "ANS Update," Vol. 2, No. 2.
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and Great Lakes Commission. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Marsden, E.J. and M. Chotokowski. 1998. Effect of Zebra Mussels on Lake Trout Spawning Reefs. In
"Dreissena! National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse," Vol. 2, No. 9.
McFarland, D.G., A. G. Poovey and J.D. Madsen. October 1998. Evaluation of the Potential of Selected
Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Species to Colonize Minnesota Water Resource. Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
McLean, Mike, Douglas Jensen (2nd edition editor). May 1995, Nov. 1996 (2nd ed.). Ruffe: A New Threat
to Our Fisheries. Minnesota and Ohio Sea Grant College Program.
72
-------
McLean, Mike. Spring 1993. Ruffe: Gymnocephalus cernuus. Minnesota Sea Grant College Program.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. European (Common) Buckthorn: Rhamnus cathartica. St
Paul, Minnesota (Internet: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_and_wildlife/exotics/buck.html.)
Mills, E.L., J.H Leach, J.T. Carlton, and C.L. Secor. 1993. Exotic Species in the Great Lakes: A History
ofBiotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions. In "J. Great Lakes Research," Vol. 1. No. 19.
Mills, E.L., S.R. Hall, and N.K. Pauliukonis. 1998. Exotic Species in the Laurentian Great Lakes: From
Science to Policy. In "Great Lakes Research Review," Vol.3, No. 2.
Mills, Edward L. June 2000. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University Biological Field
Station. Personal Communication by email: elm5@cornell.edu.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1993. AFieldGuide to Aquatic and Exotic Plants and
Animals.
Minnesota Sea Grant. April 2000. Rough Don't Mind the Cold. Marie Zhuikov, contact. Minnesota Sea
Grant news release. (Internet: http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/glin-announce/index.html.)
Minnesota Sea Grant. 1998. Purple Loosestrife: What You Should Know, What You Can Do. (Internet:
http://www.d.umn.edu/seagr/areas/exotic/purple.html.)
Moore, Frank V., ed. Spring 1996. Thwarting Phragmites. Chincoteague Natural History Association.
(Internet: http://www.assateague.org/plover/l-96-g.html).
Mortell, Catriona. June 15, 2000. Natural Areas Preservation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Outreach
Coordinator. Personal communication (734) 996-3266.
Nalepa, T. 1998. Dramatic Changes in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations in Southern Lake
Michigan. In "ANS Update," Vol. 4, No. 3. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and Great
Lakes Commission. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ohio Sea Grant. 1996. Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Update: A 1995 Report of Research (Part 1 of 2). The
Ohio State University. (Internet:
http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu/publications/nuisances/topics/fts-zebra.html.)
O'Neil, C.R. 1995. Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels in North America: Results of the 1995 National
Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse Survey.
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. 1999. Invading Species Homepage: Cercopagis pengoi.
Invades Lake Ontario. (Internet: http://www.ofah.org/invsp.htm.)
Picard, Terry. Feb. 1995. Eurasian Ruffe: Great Lakes Brace for a Rough Time. Walleye World. Lake
St. Clair Walleye Association. (Internet: http://www.well.com/user/amv/ruffe.htm.)
Pimental, D. L. Lach, R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-
Indigenous Species in the United States. College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
Reeves E. 1999. Exotic Policy: An IJC (International Joint Commission) White Paper On Policies for
73
-------
the Prevention of The Invasion of the Great Lakes by Exotic Organisms. (Working Draft.)
Rendall, W.J. 1998. Weeds Gone Wild. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ricciardi, A and J.B. Rasmussen. 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders:
apriority of aquatic resource management. In "Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci," Vol 55.
Ruffe Control Committee. Aug. 1993. Ruffe Control Program. Tom Busiahn, chair.
Ruffe Control Committee. Nov. 1996. Ruffe Control Program. Tom Busiahn, chair.
Save the Dunes Council, Inc. 2000. Garlic Mustard. Michigan City, Indiana. (Internet:
http://www.savedunes.org/html/garlic_mustard.html.)
Stein, Bruce A. and Flack, Stephanie R., eds. 1996. America's Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of
U.S. Ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Thiel, Pam. June 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal Communication by email:
Pam_Thiel@fws.gov.
University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. June 2000. Aquatic, Wetland and Invasive
Plant Particulars and Photographs: Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil). University of
Florida. (Internet: http://aquatl.ifas.ufl.edu/myrspi.html.)
University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. August 7, 1997. Invasive Nonindigenous
Plants of Florida: Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). University of Florida. (Internet:
http://aquatl.ifas.ufl.edu/hydrinex.html.)
Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. March 26, 2000 (update). Reed Canary Grass, Why are
They a Problem?. U. S. Geologic Survey, La Crosse, Wisconsin. (Internet:
http://www.emtc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/reed_canary^rass/rcg-fastfacts.html.)
U.S. Congress. 1990. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of1990. (16
U.S.C. 4701-4741) reauthorized as National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332, 110 Stat. 4073).
(Internet: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/nanpca.htm.)
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United
States (Report No. OTA-F-565). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1996. National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332, 110 Stat. 4073).
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Status and Trends of the Nation's
Biological Resources: Volume 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. 1997. Aquatic Nuisance Species. Issue Briefing
Paper (G-MOR-2), Point of Contact: Lt. Larry Greene.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Website: Exotic Species: Cercopagispengoi. (Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/exotics/ceropagis.html.)
74
-------
U.S. President William J. Clinton. February 3, 1999. Executive Order: Invasive Species. The White
House.
Vanderploeg, H. and T. Nalepa. 1995. Ecological Impacts of 'Zebra Mussels in Saginaw Bay. In "ANS
Update, " Vol. 1, No. 4. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and Great Lakes Commission.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Virginia Native Plant Society, (no date). Garlic Mustard (Alliariapetiolata (Bieb.) Cavara and
Grande). Boyce, Virginia. (Internet: http://vnps.org/invasive/invallia.htm.)
Washington State Department of Ecology. (Pamphlet, no date). Milfoil (AnAggresive Water Weed).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal
Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington,
D.C.
White, Gwen. June 15, 2000. Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication by phone:
317-232-4094.
75
-------
APPENDIX A
Documented Introductions of Non-indigenous Aquatic Flora and Fauna
into the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin: 1800s to 1993
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton, C.L. Secor. 1993, Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a
history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19(1)
Reprinted with permission from author.
T\lll I- I. jjiftitiun tif>hn'viatM>M\ ttf t'nttif \(tf?fit:\ in
tlte f!n>at
OnuiTiM f .'
Luc Is
M CUr S|»'
Huron U
T
t'i&LM J, tifA's fur iran.\fn>fi ttMH'tMnisiiH. a/ c.
*fn:ei#i> fHtt'fing the tifi'ttt
Kill)
R'*.\«Ji
Ri'li'nv '('liltivuliurn R(f'j
Release i'F«-li5 Kil'J
K^lcast' lAituknUli RiAi
Shippinu ai.!ivi:?e- i
Ship>"iBdILi.\t W.iuii SiBVVi
iSoliJ UallusO SfSlij
il oitJMV'i Si'|"»
Mil
-------
?',tffi/:,l Origin, date aatl hKatiaa ufftnt righting, (tad entry
sff Tables t and 2.
T-sv.il %e»*k-a: "• :, -n ,',-<, i . F, ,-, - ,IM , :S'«r rn
H-KI ,H't .rJ.ifcft'f.'f,-')' Je'A':«
u,-m'«,,!ja«;,ft,',vn £.d,hsh
f.-wn-^r L-.^/HMi.-rr
NHr-cL- / ir-tew" -yii.-: --knr*
W, Wi. nS'io nr,WU\ -lU'k.TUV'ilLil 'i.i'UiSl
.**: 'jrili'titf ~ i ) irfiftW/rii'n-'.fii" imJL'
*lt H'H: Hit < ,i,in;H' i i-«'i« vw;i;hi"fih
M.VIUII;; fit.i'-.TOi cf iTinni ni.ii!f.ir*
'f.;,'»r,f, ft,-K[»!", l,lJlf!'i7.ts !*JLMvLx.'ha diUi;';A %;it'iy»n
f/vwV'fi' i'irii I'flvw1 • r,>,'rb"i'4 rjniji
AiN/iii i/.v,,< ut*!, -W-.i
fi:.>."hrl'ri "/rfn* ^df>."n» nw-i^iu-'l-iii
.l,r»f,','i -« «>«,'.>» i'i )>.-u:>pi:'c \». V '^. f jx^r.! f* ij^r* i^ll It PL t
t.f,i<>ti:^nll.it' yii.TrHVi ^liR>r«'Ita! -i rff-'"
/•;..-im^ ft.wi'V, nr:t!ip'N{Hii'et| vwt
It'ui.r,!' >•;,( >•• '.i,'i.'rri> rt-Jtrj ->uiiW,
'^.'wr.-jAik'f;!, ;r"«i< flf't-
.V.^-YJIF'MI, 'i,l/',-;rt'"frlHi!/'- It'UilJ L'I'Tv
Ft •tf-'ii.inu', 'nn'irt'n 'f, (<,il".;nu:-/ pr'!"1-
•\l .'(U.( -UK Lik'(¥,bri;«
•V-:.'^'!. MTj Like (''nlw.j
*»:>i,( < )?("?>; uiiU-iMj;»l
Aiia b~l> '.vx^pu.iil
^t??3L-HirT 1C*? IlunitS k;<.;'f fiif'fi
F L- -i,i i J1'«" LJAC Uiiuno
\*i? I^J Shuu/KxA' Kivi-r iH^
\iltniH1 ty>' U-'Vtjjo Ri\,Tiin
-\!imik r<0 CH-i:''nJu"'M'
I'icirrc ly'fi OI"TCE[ K:vt:r-Si
Picil c ' '" Like Lot
pjiiU Wit Ltlrf 'Jr.^nT it^^s f * i t ~»1 i f l"l t
i-jn,k I'v" L*L*' Lrt,f iiji
A. i.irnc l^i JjKs>-Fl: R-,'*. -t'M
V1i«M»v-ipi *''3 LjAt Si MJJV\I£!
^Ri'iht'n I 5 I*O> [rL'tti Jt!«jjT;ii iM-
r--M.su l'*h St 1 .fj^ I'.nei -S<
Lx,-.i«i '*l* Si. Ciju ^r.ei '>Wi
F.I-JMJ |JUil St Clip Ri-jr ':«!*:
r, HIT*
f, R.F,
K U.. «
RiDj
R.I -
f. Ri; >
*>[• '
R.'A-
^ ' |J . ^ a
P.-.fM
Rl '\ '
3-1)-
J4'R\\ (
i.
€_
R'-'.yi,
>
5 [v
S'BV.j
b:B\\ )
%BWi
L'Lii »,i--i -ii.i!
i I'lfl'H'-'' i'hl'kil'.ii
!i;n>JcJ 'ju-.tr1. '•••n
Vll
8:1-
R. V}|
-------
TABLE,I
RiilnmitLte
UirrncirLi!
fofttaceans
Speck?-
fair's fi;(f». uLun,
Common
nu-s I
s.imv '•* an fed
fkltiHU Ll'pCjVSl
fipiiiina •!,- .'jinHnpi.il
AlbiHc
\urti;
*iil
taf'feM .'3r sad; liti-uui
Fu-'r.jicv.'i l'r>£tr 7j|i -,l,;ui fc:i(-i.s!a
•jwiti bio.'pcan fi'-j J/.in buiasj
Oast
LtfMtSiiB
lake \!-c'3'i«n
* rio l an 11
CT3i;.itf' iMs
^ -J mv Lj.iji
i'-li%': Lai;- Huiua
I'"!"'- Lj*,: M'.L'flLgJll
i'-t:." La?..' tolitM•
RiFi
M'SWi
SfBW-
S;B*-
R-'-V; Kih
KlFl, RiAUf
Otlltr llftertebole
BfrJclIi.
iVlrfii •'£*
fjD"!0-:u.;'-
viinxiJ «tiii'
i't'h
k3lV-tt7iM Rivf! Afi
Nsas.'jij 14 'icr
L&ke £r«c iTi
Lik' I-.-UL-I-. tut
Ri\-
kiA
-------
T.\HfJK 4, (it igin, ttatf (ivahun ajjlrsr vghtutg, mid fatty mt>f.fiaitt<:mi*ijitr aittf-indigtmtm tn/iiaaf plant* and algae ttf ttit- frreaf
n'rw and intwducttan wtviftrWMi t'odfi «v t'ahfa f atul 3,
i >< iiii"i
\v .ire,,-.-} >,','> >H, -.l.ft-1-M, -,'',•.'"
l'"ll ,/HJ^I""J ""l ^I'l'//1
• i. i'aV'A, .i.,' i ".A.
5'.', «'! i,Vi,[', Til
I,Jl-Mf I
Jviltll-
- j ltv'1.1
li'lUil .
M.HJC-[«r.«j
A-i.1
Lll.'Mlt I
i ,*.. M t,-ni,r,
1 ;«lr Huron
r.-'lru. O)?tr -L
i-.HI.Jj4.', -iuj, 'I f
L.K< \fj.l.<£J(.
S?nd Bk> «7r, -l,i
L^kt MiJiJLi>
r.uii i .,« .\1>
t . k«. ;-n--
Lit hrn.
( 4UlF> i uL- (l>-
kirnbl I ;*t' 1%sl;
ii',
-------
.F -f.
fLV'l, ^X,,-l.'-
lir.ti.jftv.il.' if' ti't'ii 'v>i,-til, , i !>'it,<::t,
\-!J.1 -. Jt i 'i< \ni-it f",i/im'(t
" ":u",i-' uiV/j>
M^I I'tsi [V:°if",e f ,'ii
^'/.'j/rs'^' ' f ^-l,^t ~ . - i * *',
S-rt« !la; ,j,l, H-.a
V- n. *•,'-, fir, ,i",,s
U*f j. /»^OV*° # M,'
Blllih.l.iCC.lc t',.:,.",',rr, frm/-. llii.a-
It-li.l'HI-^^il.1 h"i'.itH',; !t,t~.!tf,f
lls-'i.'^JC'it." t'tiii.f , I'lu.'ffi ', \ft
/-iru',i> .',->. ml,'
J'O'i ,'- il,l'l~ '.a-
d lX'''iH.'-JJC < •!-.'< S ,J't,'Jli.*.".' .'.
l' '.". S f", ''.'.' .f
r,t>u /*,.. , „
f'tttae i i:,,^,, i.l?,i>''iV
\!itf<'> '"'''• ',"« '"'V,f,,'"n
f / /•••?«« ',>d, j ., jj, -i./ii,'
1 :; i » . ;,, rf,.i t/7-.i
;•',!! .'F,I,I-'I.
I'Ut!,'!, il,i ,/"W-
Si u>l'-JIUuLC.l>. X"*!'-' !»(.'!«' ^M)«tl'l-lJ,'<,,T
1 , ,,*li u ;• je I • r?;-" i ( • ";.-;s ->!i,.
54,,:.'> !';l,;l'^
<>i.:f lU-irw
Cmiiin.-!. V.HII.. linrin U.ik-
-ivcpin-i *L-!,...". i-ri's.H Bfr,.%ii :-,s:
!!Hr--,V^- • t- {'^'r'iM'' :'S"'
PM^'U'.''^^'-^ f-i[^L! "^c
C'tiMl '..IIP--' wrl.HV nuic- ) rn.)i'-i !>"'-
""' -11 ;'J/fT-;* v ! tr>-" --1fi'
IHISM'' llt'-lllici F«n3-l:, ' ; ^-5 1
I..«e--w^ n,;V-,ft.i.,L i ;rKw •-'_*«,•
^.^w«rb'^h^n,> ^ M!'.'^,'P) :^;
rfi.p.'-Tii.r hju>i4 ,••
1 up/f "•*" tW'.B'Mlrtc t"ir,i%ifl I'.'l1
ni:,r^i iIii<.:N- l-in t%"i i-I'"!-5!!
,,,]H-:n4r««r, Vai\;rr VU-rs'k - I'^W
ijii siLiisri fk'.ilmsc MUIIUL !lji«.
"r.^-^V j--iUn '7-m! Atlanik: ss'ti'-
fic'J'J •••It* t'li^l-- LlllJ"'.; J*fl''
Wit, >»»,), Utl>' -.H'A il«,s 1 I Ul.1V- ''f.tJ
rfi-v vims uhli * iii"i-> . .-!rt,:Ti
!ndi:;r» 3»,l!iJl'.'J \-'u i'"^
SliiF.cncd rush F.ui Lv.i '". I'^y
llhtt ?.'if. -J»il IMuRII, sffi1
r-.-h " LiM4i,:. r-:-22
-v,j«if -.eds'.' l'.vt;i->rJ -"'i
S'L'ti-'C f-iuj-t:.. \kt**i
St'Ji'i; } ID I-, j lH'ff.
ts. Jl< p (.in.)'- 1 (h!-4
waK-f ;nv.ii. iv.tii-.sa IhH,1
KM in .i'i: m.ns i'ufj».u «:!".«
ICIJd IWcti-t'lili fe«fd-. J )"-,•!
t-.ti>'fi-*[jlt'/i! fliM«..i -:l.v,'
-WJ.llA "A ;'r,IS-
vi,',j>.ni' i'-:;il> .T;I-.<- i'tma-. -t ;>»"
'•ill litil " h--t ',-. ,i 110*1
I.a'TUR Hfjj^il! L'Jl'UI* h. I.l^.l |SN K
\L'I'ih, i^.-j/ K-ii.i i.i lf.s;'i
I'Lid itiSCJ 1 " "•'<-•! ' -;:'M i
'.vi-.i. y-, i!'i'« rui-i>i:i •clHri'i
flit- i »i"L'V. "m,i-<.i '-!!*St'
(•iLpli; JlKi* |;III:IMJ .-IH-A
^ , (_iinM< Mc._h,
Rih.llr>-U.-, NV '') SjSdl
•vntii.l N'Y 'f*. H-f t
cnl "*)1 \ ^ s ^ h R*r i
iJlJLl, "\V 'Ol t" <1|-1
i;!i.-ui. NS Tii R A,.
Wi-n/ur. MI. Mi i:-vtnji
v,,,:, -,'i;i-.,i Ill-ll, N » UllklKI
•s: J.KCjrt 1 it i. M ,iak-,r
Bk'L" i'L- f'ntjTici'u > SB'
tX'ifi-rt Rr^tt n;i|s-,n
(m.,j»ii« Si U \ .
f ,ik.; I'M.- R s"
•VH.-L-,»..,.J Rll ,
3 nli- < nr.i' k«t '
.u&'-p'-u-.l kif'i.
\lnfc;rr...». NY 'Oi S>hBi
! A'i S-iXiti'i uriMiii
V..-T..--I.I NY 4<) i KI '
Iilat,:. \v if*? !•'.{'"'
ui,ic"r'!'-'-l hifi
•A'i.V;KU«|l ftfCi
V |:jr..[',|c.ij Rlfi
w .k-,:vL.,.l hn «
ill,-,.
H *
vsHi
.-,.,
,,,„
'.% ,!!
^ H
•Ail
if SB i
SrSHl
Si,S{'J.i
HI;
<-M>
<:
-------
APPENDIX B
GREAT LAKES PANEL ON AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES
- Members -
FEDERAL
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mr. Tom Busiahn
Fishery Resources Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2800 Lake Shore Dr., E.
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-6185 x201
715-682-8899
tom_busiahn@fws. gov
Ms. Pam Thiel (alternate)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
555 Lestre Ave.
Onalaska, WI 54650
608-783-8434
608-783-8450
pam_thiel@mail.fws.gov
U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. Donald Schloesser
Fisheries Biologist
U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
1451 Green Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734.994.3331 x_223
734-994-8780
don_schloesser@us gs.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Marc Tuchman
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA- Great Lakes National Program Office
77 W. Jackson Blvd. - G-9J
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-353-1369
312-353-2018
tuchman.marc@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. Coast Guard
Commander Patrick G. Gerrity
Chief, Ninth Coast Guard District
Marine Safety Policy and Analysis Branch
1240 E. Ninth St., Room 2069
Cleveland, OH 44199-2060
216-902-6045
216-902-6059
pgerrity@d9.uscg.mil
National Park Service
Mr. Richard Klukas, Chief
Research Branch, Midwest Regional Office
1709 Jackson St.
Omaha, NE 68102
402-221-3603
402-221-3461
richard_klukas@nps. gov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Tom Freitag
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
477 Michigan Ave.
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48226
313-226-2219
313-226-2056
thomas.m.freitag@lre01.usace.army.mil
State Department
Mr. David Hermann
Office of Marine Conservation
U.S. Dept. of State
2201 C Street N.W., Room 7820
Washington, D.C. 20520-7818
202-647-3228
202-736-7350
dherman@state. gov
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Mr. William S. Wallace
Acting Director, Policy and Program Development
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS/PPD)
South Building, Room 1139
14th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
202-720-5283, 6907
202-720-3355
bwallace@aphis.usda.gov
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Mr. Tom Nalepa
NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593
734-741-2285
734-741-2055
nalepa@glerl.noaa.gov
Dr. Henry A. Vanderploeg
NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593
734-741-2284
734-741-2055
vanderploeg@glerl.noaa.gov
STATE
Illinois
Mike Conlin
Chief, Division of Fisheries
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
600 North Grand Ave., West
Springfield, IL 62701-1787
217-782-6424
217-785-8262
mconlin@dnrmail.state.il.us
Pat Charlebois (Vice Chair - G. L. Panel)
Illinois Natural History Survey
IL-IN Sea Grant
Lake Michigan Biological Station
400 17th St.
Zion, IL 60099
847-872-0140
847-872-8679
p_char@ix.netcom.com
Indiana
Randy Lang
Division of Fish and Wildlife, IDNR
IOCS, Room 273W
402 West Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-232-4094
317-232-8150
June 16, 2000
randy_lang_at_DNRLAN@ima.isd.state.in.us
Michigan
Mr. Mark Coscarelli
Office of the Great Lakes
Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30473
Lansing, MI 48909-7973
517-335-4056
517-335-4053
coscarem@dnr.state.mi.us
Minnesota
Mr. Jay Rendall
DNR Exotic Species Program Coordinator
DNR Fish & Wildlife Division
500 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155-4020
651-297-1464
651-297-7272
jay.rendall@dnr.state.mn.us
Mr. Doug Jensen (alternate)
(Chair, Information and Education Committee)
Exotic Species Information Center Coordinator
Minnesota Sea Grant College Program
2305 East 5th Street
Duluth, MN 55812-1445
218-726-8712
218-726-6556
djensen@mes.umn.edu
New York
Mr. Gerald A. Barnhart
Ass't. Director of Fish & Wildlife
New York Dept of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Rd., Room 524
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-5691
518-457-0341
nysdecdk@netsync.net
Mr. William J. Culligan (alternate)
Supervising Aquatic Biologist
New York State DEC
Lake Erie Fisheries Unit
178 Point Drive North
Dunkirk, New York 14048-1031
716-366-0228
716-366-3743
nysdecdk@netsync.net
Wisconsin
Mr. Ron Martin (Chair - G.L. Panel)
Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources
Bureau of Natural Resources Mgmt.
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-9270
608-267-2800
martir@dnr.state.wi.us
Ohio
Mr. Gary Isbell
(Chair, Policy & Legislative Committee)
Executive Administrator
Fish Management & Research
Ohio Dept of Natural Resources
-------
1840 Belcher Dr.
Fountain Square Bldg. G
Columbus, OH 43224
614-265-6300
614-262-1143
gary. isbell@dnr. state, oh.us
Mr. Randy Sanders (alternate)
ANS Program Administrator
Fish Management and Research
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
G-3, 1840 Belcher Dr.
Columbus, OH 43224-1329
614-265-6344
614-262-1143
randy.sanders@dnr.state.oh.us
Pennsylvania
Mr. Kelly Burch
Chief, Office of the Great Lakes
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection
230 Chestnut St.
Meadville, PA 16335
814-332-6816
814-332-6125
burch.kelly@dep.state.pa.us
REGIONAL/BINATIONAL
Mr. Tom Behlen, Director
Great Lakes Regional Office
International Joint Commission
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, MI 48232
519-256-7821
519-257-6740
Dr. Michael J. Donahue (ex-officio)
Executive Director
Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816
734-665-9135
734-665-4370
mdonahue@glc. org
CANADIAN/PROVINCIAL
Dr. John Cooley, Director
Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans
Great Lakes Lab for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences
867 Lakeshore Blvd.
P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, ONT L7R4A6
905-336-4568
905-336-6437
cooleyj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Mr. Ron Dermott (alternate)
Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans
Great Lakes Lab for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences
867 Lakeshore Blvd.
P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, ONT L7R4A6
905-336-4868
905-336-6437
dermottr@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Ms. Renata Claudi, Senior Engineer
Ontario Hydro-Toronto
700 University Ave., H16B19
Toronto, ONT M5G 1X6
416-592-7164
416-592-2466
Mr. Al Dextrase
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Aquatic Ecosystem Branch, Box 7000
Peterborough, ONT K9J 8M5
705-755-1950
705-755-1201
Al. Dextraa 1 @mnr. gov. on. ca
Ms. Louise Lapierre
biologist
Societe de la faune et des pares du Quebec
Direction du developpement de la faune
Faune et Pares
675, boul. Rene-Levesque East (H1h floor), bohe 92
Quebec (Quebec), Canada, G1R 5V7
418-521-3875 ext. 4497
418-646-6863
louise.lapierre@fapaq.gouv.qc.ca
PRIVATE ENVIRONMENTAL/USER GROUP
Mr. Ed Michael
Great Lakes United
223 Barberry Rd.
Highland Park, IL 60035
847-831-4159
847-831-1035
71750.1477@compuserve.com
Mr. Dan Thomas, President
Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council
P.O. Box 297
Elmhurst, IL 60126
630-941-1351
630-941-1196
dan@great-lakes.org
Web site http://www.great-lakes.org
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
United States
Vacancy
Canada
Vacancy
TRIBAL AUTHORITIES
Mr. Neil Kmiecik
Biological Services Director
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-6619
715-682-9294
nkmiecik@win.bright.net
Mr. Mike Ripley
Environmental Scientist
Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Fishery Mgmt. Authority
Albert LeBlanc Bldg.
179 West Three Mile Rd.
Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783
906-632-0072
906-632-1141
qitfap@northernway.net
PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL
Great Lakes Industries
Mr. George Kuper
President and Chief Executive Officer
Council of Great Lakes Industries
P.O. Box 134006
Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4006
734-663-1944
734-663-2424
ghk@cgli.org
Electric Utility
Mr. William Kovalak, Biologist
Warren Service Center
Detroit Edison
6100W. Warren
Detroit, MI 48210
313-897-1394
313-897-1440
Transportation
Mr. George J. Ryan, President
Lake Carriers' Association
614 Superior Ave., West
915 Rockefeller Building
Cleveland, OH 44113-1383
216-861-0590
216-241-8262
Rick Harkins (alternate)
Lake Carriers' Association
614 Superior Ave., West
915 Rockefeller Building
Cleveland, OH 44113-1383
216-861-0590
216-241-8262
Water Supply
City of Monroe
915 E. Front St.
Monroe, MI 48161
734-241-5947
734-241-2162
UNIVERSITY/RESEARCH
Sea Grant-research
Mr. Russ Moll,
Director, Michigan Sea Grant Program
2200 Bonisteel Blvd.
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099
734-763-1437
734-647-0768
rmoll@umich.edu
Sea Grant-advisory services/extension
Mr. John Schwartz
Michigan Sea Grant College Program
Institute of Water Resources
334 Natural Resources Bldg.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222
517-355-9637
517-353-6496
schwartj@msue.msu.edu
Ms. Peggy Britt (alternate)
Communications Director
Michigan Sea Grant College Program
4109 1ST Bldg.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
734-647-0767
734-747-0768
pbritt@umich.edu
Cooperative Institute for Limnology and
Ecosystems Research
Dr. Guy Meadows
Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems
Research, 4109 1ST Bldg.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
734-764-2426
734-747-0768
gmeadows@engin.umich.edu
National Biological Survey
-------
Dr. Bruce Vondracek
Assistant Unit Leader - Fisheries
MN Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit
University of Minnesota
200 Hodson Hall
St. Paul, MN 55108
651-624-3421
651--625-5299
bcv@fmsandfur.fw.umn.edu
INTERESTED PARTIES
Ms. Susan Olson, Program Officer
National Marine Fisheries-Northeast Region
NOAA
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
508-281-9330
508-281-9333
Dr. Michael Stewart
Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station
Great Lakes Science Center
U.S. Geological Survey
1100 N. Mineral Springs Road
Porter, IN 46304
219-926-7561 (412)
219-929-5792
michael_ste wart@nps. gov
Mr. Christopher Goddard, Executive Secretary
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-741-2077
734-741-2010
cgoddard@glfc.org
Ms. Margaret Dochoda, Fishery Biologist
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-741-2077
734-741-2010
mdochoda@glfc.org
Ms. Karen Ricker,
Communications Director
Sea Grant College Program
Ohio State University
1541 Research Center
1314 KinnearRd.
Columbus, OH 43212
614-292-8949
614-292-4364
ricker. 15@osu.edu
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi
Senior Policy Analyst
Northeast-Midwest Institute
218 DSt, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
202-544-5200
202-544-0043
acangelo@nemw.org
Mr. Dieter Busch
Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
405 North French Rd.
Amherst, NY 14228
716-691-5456
716-691-6154
dieter_busch@mail.fws
Ms. Sandra Keppner
Exotic Species Coordinator
Region 5, U.S. FWS
Lower Great Lakes FRO
405 North French Rd.
Amherst, NY 14228
716-691-5456
716-691-6154
Sandra_Keppner@fws. gov
Mr. Jay Troxel
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Arlington Square Bldg, Suite 840
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
703-358-1718
703-358-2210
jay_troxel@mail.fws.gov
William Archambault
Environmental Protection Specialist
Ecology and Conservation
NOAA
Herbert Hoover Bldg, Room 6117
14th and Constitution, NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
202-482-5181
202-501-3024
william. a. archambault@noaa. gov
Mr. Frank Ostrander
Economic Officer
U.S. Consulate General
360 University Avenue
Toronto, ONTM5G1S4
416-595-1720
416-595-0051
Russell G. Kreis, Jr., Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
Mid-Continent Ecology Division - Duluth
Large Lakes Research Station
9311 GrohRoad
Grosse He, Michigan 48138
313-692-7615
313-692-7603
Kreis.russell@epamail.epa.gov
Jeffrey Busch, Ph.D., Executive Director
Ohio Lake Erie Office
One Maritime Plaza
Toledo, OH 43604-1866
419-245-2514
419-245-2519
oleo@www.epa.state.oh.us
Dr. Edward Theriot
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station-ER-A
3909 Halls Ferry Rd.
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2678
601-634-3842
therioe@exl.wes.army.mil
Mr. Ray Tuttle
NY State Electric and Gas Corp.
4500 Vestal Parkway East
P.O. Box 3607
Binghamton, NY 13902-3607
607-729-2551
607-762-8457
Ms. Helen Brohl
Executive Director
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
6619 S. Boundary Rd.
Portage, IN 46368
973-345-2534
973-345-5207
Ms. Ann Conrad
Freshwater Foundation
Gray Freshwater Center
2500 Shadywood Rd.
Navarre, MN 55331-9578
612-471-9773
612-471-7685
aconrad@freshwater.org
Sharon Gross
Acting Resource Analyst
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Div. of Fish & Wildlife Mgmt. Assist.
Arlington Square Bldg, Room 840
4401 North Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22203
703-358-1718
703-358-2044
Craig Czarnecki
Fisheries Biology Great Lakes Liaison
U.S. FWS
2651 CoolidgeRd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
517-351-2555
517-351-1443
czamecki@mail.fws.gov
Frank Bevacqua
International Joint Commission
1250 23rd St NW, Suite 100
Washington D.C. 20440
202-736-9024
202-736-9015
be vacquaf@I JC. org. inter.net
Mr. Chris Wiley
Manager of Research and Development
Transport Canada, Ship Safety
20 IN. Front St.
Sarnia, Ontario N7S 5S6
519-464-5127
519-464-5128
wileyc@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Mr. Carlos Fetterolf
National Sea Grant Review Panel
8200 Pine Cross Lane
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
ph/fax: 734-426-2975
Dr. Jeffrey M. Reutter, Director
Ohio Sea Grant College Program - OSU
1541 Research Center
1314 KinnearRd.
Columbus, OH 43212
614-292-8949
614-292-4364
reutter. l@osu.edu
Mr. Eric Reeves
Researcher
57 Bayswater Ave., #6
Ottawa, ON K1Y 2E8
613-792-1793
ereeves@chat.carleton.ca
Ms. Linda Drees
Nonindigenous Species Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
315 Houston Street, Suite E
Manhattan, KS 66502
785-539-3474 X20
785-539-8567
-------
Linda Drees@fws.gov Wallaceburg, ONT N8A 4K9
Mr. Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan Sea Grant
702 Chippewa Square
Marquette, MI 49855
906-228-4830
906-228-4572
kinnunen@msue .msu.edu
Dr. Rochelle Sturtevant
Coordinator
Senate Great Lakes Task Force
Office of Carl Levin
459 Russell Bldg.
U.S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
202-224-1211
202-224-1388
rochelle_sturtevant@levin.senate.gov
Michael Klepinger
Extension Associate
334 Natural Resources Bldg.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222
517-353-5508
517-353-6496
klep@pilot.msu.edu
Mr. Ed. Paleczny
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Lands & Natural Heritage Section
P.O. Box 7000
300 Water St.
Peterborough, ONT K9J 8M5
705-755-1890
705-755-1259
palecze@gov. on. ca
Mr. Scott Smith
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Fish Management
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, Washington 98501
Mr. Steve Fisher
Executive Director
American Great Lakes Ports
P.O. Box 76228
Washington, D.C. 20013
Philip B. Moy, Ph.D.
(Chair, Research Committee)
Fisheries Specialist
Wisconsin Sea Grant Advisory Services
705 Viebahn Street
Manitowoc, WI 54220-6699
pmoy@uwc.edu
920-683-4697
920- 683-4776
Mike Weimer
Lower Great Lakes FRO
405 North French Rd.
Amherst, NY 14228
Tim Sinnott
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 530
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-4756
Walpole Island First Nation
c/o Lindsay Sword
RR#3
-------
APPENDIX C
Web Sites on Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
http://www.aslo.org/
Provides information and updates on current topics. Additionally, registration for online use of
Limnology and Oceanography journal is available.
ANS Task Force
http: //www .anstaskforce .gov/
Provides information from the national ANS Task Force, including fact sheets, activities and
accomplishments of the Task Force, reports and publications, meeting summaries, information on
national meetings, state ANS management plans, and research.
Biological Control Laboratory: University ofGuelph
http: //www .uoguelph .ca/~obcp/
Catalogs purple loosestrife control strategies from Ontario and the Grand River Watershed.
Contains references and links.
Biological Invasions - Journal
http://www.wkap.nl/journalhome.htm/1387-3547
Serves as homepage of the journal, Biological Invasions, providing abstracts and a searchable
index of articles, along with subscription information and links to journals of related subjects.
Canadian Coast Guard - Ballast Water Management
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/Wiley/bw_index.html
Outlines the responsibilities and programs of the Canadian Coast Guard in managing ballast water
transfers.
Cercopagis pengoi: Another Ponto-Caspian Invader in the Great Lakes
http: //www .cs .uwindsor. ca/users/h/hughm/private/cercopagis .html
Provides information on Cercopagis pengoi, including pictures, distribution maps, updates on
spread and references.
Chippew'a/Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority
http ://home .northernway.net/~qitfap/
Provides information on the activities and organization of the Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fishery
-------
Management Authority.
Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey & National Agricultural Pest Information System's
Purple Loosestrife Page
http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/pls/index.html
Includes current news updates, fact sheets, distribution maps and links to other Internet sites on
purple loosestrife.
Flowering Rush Project: Department of Biology, Queen's University
http://biology.queensu.ca/floweringrush/
Offers information on the flowering rush and the work being completed for the flowering rush
project. Links and location information for the flowering rush are provided.
Global Invasive Species Program
http: II] asper. Stanford .edu/GISP/home .htm
Provides information on vectors of spread, educational efforts, ecological and economic
consequences, early warning systems, current status, and assessment and best management
practices. Information on terrestrial nonindigenous species is also emphasized.
Great Lakes Commission - Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
http ://www .glc.org/ans/anspanel .html
Since 1991, the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) has worked to prevent and
control the occurrence of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes. Their site features copies of
the ANS Update newsletter, publications and policy position of the Panel, meeting summaries and
upcoming events.
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
http ://www.glerl .noaa.gov/
Offers synopses of current GLERL research and a broad data library. Provides links, publications,
a description of facilities and searchable pages.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
http: //www .glfc. org
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries
between Canada and the United States in 1955. Their site features information on sea lamprey
control, fishery management, publications and other materials, timely topics of interest, and images
of sea lamprey and other Great Lakes fish. The site also features an extensive section of links to
other pages of interest.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
http://www.glifwc.org/
-------
Provides information on many different aspects of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes,
tribal hatchery and fishery updates, descriptions of treaties and treaty rights, regulations, scientific
reports and links.
Great Lakes Information Network - Invasive Species Page
http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/invasive .html
Provides an excellent overview of nonindigenous invasive species issues, focusing on exotic species
in the Great Lakes region with pictures, profiles of select species, timely updates and general
resources. GLIN also provides a wide selection of links to other Internet materials including
ballast water information, educational materials, the text of relevant laws, publications, state
management plans and task forces. Visitors can also view the 30-minute TV special, Aquatic
Invaders.
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research
http://webnotes 1 .uwindsor.ca: 8888/units/glier/glier.nsf
Details the research efforts and publications of the GLIER. Provides information on the staff and
links to other pages of interest.
Great Lakes Radio Consortium
http://www.glrc.org/
Provides high-quality environmental news and in-depth coverage of issues concerning the Great
Lakes. Viewers can listen to GLRC coverage, as well as offer comment. Links to related pages
are provided.
Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council
http://www.great-lakes.org/exotics.html
Offers links to information on a variety of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the Great
Lakes. Other resources include information on laws and policies, newsletters and distribution
maps.
Great Lakes United
http://www.glu.org/
Great Lakes United is an international coalition dedicated to preserving and protecting the Great
Lakes - St. Lawrence River ecosystem. Their web site features documents; newsletters; and in-
depth coverage of issues in five program areas: sustainable waters, habitat protection, clean
production, healthy communities, and nuclear-free lakes.
Hugh Maclsaac's Laboratory for the Study of Biological Invasions
http://www.uwindsor.ca:7000/biology/macisaac/pages/index.htm
Contains information on projects involving Echinogammarus and Corophium amphipods,
Bythotrephes water fleas; and Cercopagis water fleas. Images, links and several full-text online
articles are provided.
-------
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
http://dnr.state.il.us/
Provides searchable information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the state of Illinois and
information on other activities of the Illinois DNR.
Illinois Natural History Survey: Vegetation Management Guidelines for Purple Loosestrife
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/edu/VMG/ploosestrife.html
Contains descriptions, control recommendations, failed techniques and reference materials for
controlling the spread of purple loosestrife.
Illinois Natural History Survey: Update on Zebra Mussels and Native Unionids in the Illinois
River
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/news/hav2.html
Provides an update on zebra mussel activities in the Illinois River, discussing control and
monitoring techniques used in this unique area
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
http ://www. state .in.us/dnr/
Provides searchable information on ANS programs in the state of Indiana, and other activities of
the Indiana DNR.
International Association for Great Lakes Research
http://www.iaglr.org/
Provides information and fact sheets on each of the Great Lakes, timely topics of interest and
research publications. The site includes abstracts and ordering information for the Journal of
Great Lakes Research.
International Joint Commission
http://www.ijc.org/ijcweb-e.html
Offers publications and reports on aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and other areas of
Canada and the United States. The site documents binational efforts on research, monitoring and
control.
Invasive Plants of Canada Project
http ://infoweb .magi .com ./-ehaber/ipcan.html
Offers current updates on invasive plants, including information on purple loosestrife and
European frog-bit (compiled by Alan Dextrase, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
MIT Sea Grant
http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/index.html
-------
The MIT Sea Grant site offers a searchable, online publication directory with publications dating
back to 1971. The site also provides educational materials and a list of research projects currently
pursued by MIT Sea Grant.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Office of the Great Lakes
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ogl
Features a selection of materials on exotic species control. Available on the web site are several
documents, including Michigan's Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) State
Management Plan, the ANS State Management Plan Progress Report, and an ANS Handbook for
Government Officials.
Michigan Sea Grant - Zebra Mussel/Aquatic Nuisance Species Office
http://www.msue.msu.edu/seagrant/sgezmans.html
Contains several helpful features, including an extensive graphic library containing approximately
100 images available for loan or purchase. Also included are the Purple Pages, documenting the
Purple Loosestrife Control Project at Michigan State University. This section features educational
material for students from kindergarten to 12th grade and a purple loosestrife control handbook.
Exotic species publications are also available on the web site.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the state of Minnesota and other
activities of the Minnesota DNR.
Minnesota Sea Grant
http://www.d.umn.edu/seagr
Offers information and educational materials on exotic species, including the exotic flowering rush,
round goby, ruffe and zebra mussel ID cards, publications, teaching materials and a field guide to
aquatic exotic plants and animals.
National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS): Pest Information
http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/index.html
Allows the user to search for information about a variety of pests and nonindigenous species that
impact agricultural practices in the United States.
National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse
http: //www. entry way. com/seagrant/
Provides access to North America's most extensive technical library of publications related to the
spread, biology, impacts and control of zebra mussels and other important aquatic nuisance
species. Containing a database of searchable information, the clearinghouse offers information on
a variety of aquatic nuisance species.
-------
National Park Service, Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group
http ://www .nps .gov/plants/alien/
Provides a compiled national list of invasive plants infesting natural areas throughout the United
States; background information on the problem of invasive species; illustrated fact sheets that
include plant descriptions, native range, distribution and habitat in the United States; management
options, suggested alternative native plants; and selected links to relevant people and organizations.
New York State - Department of Environmental Conservation
http: //www .dec. state .ny .us/
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the state of New York and other
activities of the New York DEC.
Northeast-Midwest Institute - Biological Pollution: Aquatic Invasive Species
http://www.nemw.org/biopollute.htm
Offers an overview of National Invasive Species Act (NISA) implementation, updates on the Great
Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, Northeast-Midwest Institute policy analysis and
reports, relevant links, and information and outreach.
Northeast Sea Grant's Aquatic Exotics News
http ://www .ucc .uconn.edu/~wwwsgo/aen .html
Provides updates from the Northeast Sea Grant programs on the spread of nonindigenous aquatic
nuisance species. Although not focused exclusively on the Great Lakes region, the site does feature
information about the spread of exotics into the area.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the state of Ohio and other activities
of the Ohio DNR.
Ohio Sea Grant and Lake Erie Programs
http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu/
Provides a clearinghouse for information on exotic species in the Lake Erie region, searchable
publications, educational and outreach materials, and links to the Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem
Research Consortium and Center for Lake Erie Research.
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
http://www.ofah.org/invading/invading.htm
Contains information on a variety of nonindigenous aquatic species and advice for preventing their
spread.
-------
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in Ontario, and other activities of the
Ontario MNR. Available in French and English.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and other activities of the Pennsylvania DEP.
Purple Loosestrife InfoCenter, developed by Manitoba Purple Loosestrife Project
http://www.ducks.ca/purple/
Contains newsletters and updates, research abstracts, brochures, information on biological control,
resources materials, pictures, answers to frequently asked questions, and links to other resources
on purple loosestrife.
Quebec's Aquatic Nuisance Species Web Site
http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/faune/nuisibles/index.htm
Details the extent of the aquatic nuisance species problem around Quebec and describes current
monitoring and enforcement efforts (available in French only).
Ruffe Control Program
http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/ashland/ruffe/ruf_cont.html
Contains a copy of the Ruffe Control Program as submitted to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force. It discusses solutions to ruffe control through population reduction, ballast water
management, population investigation surveillance, fish community management, education and
bait fish management. It contains sections on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, research needs
and an extensive list of references.
Sea Grant Nonindigenous Species Site - Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species
http://www.sgnis.org/
Provides an extensive site that is simple and searchable, offering a wide variety of information on
nonindigenous aquatic species. The site features several products available for distribution, such
as bibliographies, education materials (kindergarten to university level), maps, newsletters,
publications, research, training material and videos. Additionally, the site features a large graphic
library of exotic species slides and links to nonindigenous aquatic species information designed for
kids.
University of Minnesota: Eurasian Watermilfoil Biocontrol Web Site
http://www.fw.umn.edu/research/milfoil/milfoilbc.html
Contains information on the control of Eurasian watermilfoil, along with many references.
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters -Nuisance and Exotic
Species
http://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/gl/exotic.htm
Provides information on the Corps' activities promoting the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
These programs include the restoration of environmental quality, Great Lakes Remedial Action
Plans, planning assistance to states, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, the
aquatic plant control research program, and the zebra mussel research program.
U.S. Coast Guard - Ballast Water Management Program
http://www.uscg .mil/hq/g%2Dm/mso4/contents .htm
Details the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts to manage ballast water, including current news, a program
description, briefs and talks, IMO documents, their field program, images, ballast water reporting
forms, and ballast water regulations.
U.S. Department of Agriculture -Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
http: //www. aphis .usda.gov/
Contains information on the efforts of APHIS to detect and monitor animal and plant diseases in
this country and to combat certain domestic animal diseases and plant pests. Of particular interest
under "hot topics" is a site on the Asian longhorned beetle.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
Contains reports on monitoring, human health, ecology, sedimentation, pollution prevention, maps
of the area and other program information.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Invasive Species Program
http ://invasives .fws .gov/
Includes extensive information on many topics of interest, including current hot topics on invasive
species, the Presidential Executive Order; mandates and legislation, the USFWS Director's
priorities; the national strategy for invasive plant management, threat assessment, impacts to the
refuge system and other areas, control and prevention efforts, pest management; and outreach and
education.
U. S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division
http ://www .nbs .gov/
Provides extensive information on biological resources, including science, news and information,
partnerships and frequent updates on areas of interest. Fact sheets and research information are
also included.
U.S. Geological Survey - Invasive Species
http://www.emtc.nbs.gov/invasive_species/invasives.html
-------
Provides information on a variety of exotic aquatic species.
Weed Feeders, Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North America
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/weedfeeders/wdfdrtoc.html
Includes a searchable list of biological control agents for a variety of species, including the purple
loosestrife.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
Provides information on aquatic nuisance species programs in the state of Wisconsin, and other
activities of the Wisconsin DNR.
Wisconsin Sea Grant - Zebra Mussels and Other Nonindigenous Species
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakes/GLnetwork/exotics.html
Provides detailed information on several different aquatic species, including a link to Michigan Sea
Grant's aquatic nuisance species graphic library.
-------
APPENDIX D- Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop: Agenda and
Participant Listing
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop
Wednesday, October 20, 1999 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (CDT)
Thursday, October 21, 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (CDT)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Great Lakes Commission
Lake Superior Room, 12th Floor Conference Center
Metcalfe Federal Building
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois
Phone: 312-886-9404
FINAL AGENDA
Wednesday. Oct. 20
1:00 p.m.
1:20 p.m.
1: 45 p.m.
2:30 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
3:45 p.m.
Welcome and Introduction
Workshop Overview and Objectives
State of Affairs on Nonindigenous Invasive
Species in the Great Lakes Basin
Overview of Briefing Paper for Great Lakes
Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Ecological Overview
• Management Issues
Nonindigenous Terrestrial Noxious Species
• Ecological Overview
Management Issues
Break
Prevention of Nonindigenous Species
Introductions and Spread
Gary Gulezian, Director, US EPA,
Great Lakes National Program Office
Marc Tuchman, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes
National Program Office and
Karen Rodriguez, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes
National Program Office
Moderator: Michael Donahue, Great
Lakes Commission
Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes
Commission
John Gannon, U.S. Geological Survey,
Great Lakes Science Center
Susan Jerrine Nichols, U.S. Geological
Survey, Great Lakes Science Center (co-
author)
Randy Westbrooks, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Interagency
Committee for the Management of
Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW)
Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast Midwest
Institute
Jay Rendall, Minnesota DNR
5:00 p.m.
Adjourn for the Day
-------
Thursday, Oct. 21
8:00 a. m State of Affairs on Control, Detection and
Monitoring, and Education/Outreach
Overview and Objectives
Moderator: Michael Donahue
Michael Donahue
8:15a.m.
Control of Nonindigenous Species
Kelly Kearns, Wisconsin DNR
Tom Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
9:15 a.m. Detection and Monitoring of Nonindigenous
Species
Don Schloesser, U.S. Geological
Survey, Great Lakes Science Center
Tom Nalepa, Great Lakes
Environmental Research Lab, NOAA
Noel Pavlovic, U.S. Geological Survey
Miles Falk, Great Lakes Indian Fish &
Wildlife Commission
10:15 a.m. Break
10:30 a.m. Education/Outreach on Nonindigenous
Species Issues
Doug Jensen, Minnesota Sea Grant
Tim Sinnott, New York Depart, of
Env. Conservation
11:30 a.m. Discussion on Prevention, Control,
Detection and Monitoring, and
Education/Outreach
Kathe Glassner-Shwayder,
Moderator
Workshop Participants
12:30 p.m. Wrap Up, Closing Remarks and Next Steps
1:00 p.m. Adjourn
Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Marc
Tuchman, Karen Rodriguez
-------
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop. Participant Listing
October 20-21,2000
Chicago, Illinois
Ms. Rita Beard
U.S. Forest Service
3825 E. Mulberry
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Phone: 970-498-1715
Ms. Judy Beck
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-3849
beck.judy@epamail.epa.gov
Mr. Tom Busiahn
Supervisory Fishery Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ser.
2800 Lake Shore Drive East
Ashland, WI 54806
Phone: 715-682-6185
Fax: 715-682-8899
tom_busiahn@fws. gov
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi
Senior Policy Analyst
Northeast Midwest Institute
218 "D" Street- 1st Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: 202-544-5200
Fax: 202-544-0043
Ms. Pat Charlebois
Assoc. Research Scientist
IL Natural History Survey
IL-IN Sea Grant
400 17th St.
Zion, IL 60099
Phone: 847-872-0140
Fax: 847-872-8679
Dr. Kendra A. Cipollini
Critical Ecosystems Team
EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. T12-J
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-1432
Mr. Mike Conlin, Chief
Division of Fisheries
ILDNR
524 S. Second St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Phone: 217-782-6424
Fax: 217-785-8263
mconlin@dnrmail.state.il.us
Mr. Cameron Davis
Executive Director
Lake Michigan Federation
220 S. State Street,
Suite 2108
Chicago, IL 60604-2103
Phone: 312-939-0838
Fax:312-939-2708
LMF002@aol.com
Ms. Marg Dochoda
Fishery Biologist
G. L. Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Blvd. Suite 209
Ann Arbor, Mi 48105
Phone: 734-741-2077
Fax: 734-741-2010
Dr. Michael J. Donahue
Executive Director
Great Lakes Commission
The Argus II Building
400 Fourth Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: 734-665-9135
Fax: 734-665-4370
mdonahue@glc. org
Mr. Matt Doss
Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: 734-665-9135
Fax: 734-665-4370
mdoss@glc.org
Mr. Miles Falck
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife
Commission
P. O. Box 9
Odanah, WI 54861
Phone: 715-682-6619
miles@glifwc.org
Mr. Steven Fisher
Executive Director
American Great Lakes Ports
Mr. John Gannon
GL Science Center
U.S. Geological Survey
1451 Green Rd
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-214-7237
john_e-gannon@usgs@gov
Kathe Glassner-Shwayder
Great Lakes Commission
The Argus II Building
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: 734-665-9135
Fax: 734-665-4370
shwayder@glc.org
Mr. Rich Greenwood
GLNPA
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-386-3853
rich_greenwood@fws .fov
Ms. Sharon Gross
Resource Analyst
Div. Of Fish & Wildlife Mgmt.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Dr.
Arlington Square Bldg. Room 840 22203
Phone: 703-358-1718
Fax: 703-358-2044
Mr. Gary Gulezian
GLNPO
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone:312-353-2117
Mr. Duane Heaton
GLNPO
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-6399
heaton.duane@epa.gov
Mr. Rodney W. Horner
ANS Coordinator
ILDNR
29557 E. CR, 2400N
Manito, IL 61546
Phone: 309-968-6837
Fax: 309-968-6017
Rhorner@dnrmail.state.il.us
Mr. Tom Horvath
Aquatic Ecologist
Lake Michigan Ecological Research
Station
U.S. Geological Survey
110 N. Mineral Springs Rd
Porter, IN 46304
Phone: 219-926-8331
Fax: 219-92-5792
Tom_Horvath@mps.gov
Mr. Jim Houston
Adviser
International Joint Commission
100 Metcalfe St., 18th Fir
Ottawa, ON KIP 5M1
Phone: 613-995-0230
Fax: 613-993-5583
houstonj @ottawa. ij c. org
Mr. Gary L. Isbell
Ex. Admin.
Fish Mgt. E Reaseach
Ohio DNR
1840 Belcher Drive
Columbus, OH 43224
Phone: 614-265-6345
Fax:614-262-1143
gary.isbell@dnr.state.oh.us
Mr. Douglas Jensen
Coordinator
Exotic Species Inform Ctr.
MN Sea Grant Coll Prog
University of MN - Duluth
2305 East Fifth Street
Duluth, MN 55812-1445
Phone: 218-726-8712
Fax: 218-726-6556
djensenl@d.umn.edu
Mr. Bryon N. Karns
Biological Technician
National Park Service
P.O. Box 708
St. Croix Falls, WI 54024
Phone: 715-483-3284x616
Fax: 715-483-3288
Byron_Kams@nps. gov
-------
Ms. Kelly Kearns
Plant Cons Prog Mgr
Endangered Resources,
WIDNR
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: 608-267-5066
Fax: 608-266-2925
kearns@dnr.state.wi.us
Mr. Mike Klepinger
ANS Program Coord.
MI Sea Grant
334 Naturla Resources
E. Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: 517-353-5508
Fax:517-353-6496
klep@pilot.msu.edu
Mr. Randy Lang
Fisheries Biologist
IN Div. Of Fish & Wildlife
402- W. Washington, IOCS 273W
Indianiapolis, In 46204
Phone: 317-232-4094
Fax:317-232-8150
lang@fw. dnr. state, in.us
Ms. Louise Lapierre
ANS Coordinator
Faune Et Pares Quebec
675 Boul. Rene-Levesque E.,
lleEtage, Boite
Quebec, Quebec G1R 5V7
Phone: 418-521-3940
Fax: 418-646-6863
louise-lapierre@mef.gouv.gc.ca
Mr. Henry Lee
U.S. EPA Reg 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1633
lee.henry@epamail.epa.gov
Ms. Jennifer Manville
MI Tribal Liaison
U.S. EPA, Region 5
400 Broadman Ave
Traverse City, MI 49684
Phone:231-922-4769
Fax:231-922-4499
manville j ennifer@epa. gov
Mr. Chuck Maurice
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Phone: 312-886-6635
Fax:312-353-5374
maurice.charles@epa.gov
Ms. Kathy Mayo
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-5592
mayo.Kathleen@epa.gov
Ms. Heather McDonald
GLNPO
EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone:
Fax:
mcdonald.heather@epa.gov
Mr. Ed Michael
Great Lakes United
223 Barberry Road
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 847-831-4159
Fax: 847-831-1035
71750.1477@compuserve.com
Mr. Phil Moy
Fisheries Specialist
WI Sea Grant
UW-Manitowoc
705 Viebahn St.
Manitowoc, WI 54220
Phone: 920-683-4697
Fax: 920-683-4776
pmoy@uwc.edu
Ms. Jennifer Nalbone
Habitat and Biodiversity Field
Coordinator
Great Lakes United
Cassety Hall, Buffalo State College
1300 Elmwood Ave
Buffalo, NY 14222
Phone: 716-886-0142
Fax: 716-886-0303
jen@glu.org
Mr. Tom Nalepa
NOAA GL Environ Res Lab
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593
Phone: 734-741-2285
Fax: 734-741-2055
nalepa@glerl.noaa.gov
Mr. Eric Obert
Associate Director
PA Sea Grant
Perm State Erie, Station Road
Erie, PA 16563
Phone: 814-898-6420
Fax: 814-898-6462
ecol@psu.edu
Mr. Ed Paleczny
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Box 7000,
300 Water St.
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
Mr. Noel Pavlovic
Lake Michigan Ecological Research
Station
U.S. Geological Survey
1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd
Porter, IN 46304
Phone: 219-926-7501
noel_pavlovic@usgs. gov
Mr. David Reid
Ass't to the Director
Senior Physical Scientist
NOAA/GLERL
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2945
Phone: 734-741-2019
Fax: 734-741-2003
reid@glerl.noaa.gov
Mr. Jay Rendall
Exotic Species Prog Coordinator
MNDNR
500 Lafayette Rd
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone:651-297-1464
Fax:651-297-7272
Mr. Mike Ripley
COTFMA
179 W. 3 Mile Rd
Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783
Phone: 906-632-0072:
mripley@northern??.net
Ms. Karen Rodriguez
U.S. EPA-GLNPO
77 W. Jackson, G-17J
Chicago, II 60604
Phone: 312-353-2690
rodriguez. Karen@epa.gov
Mr. Don Schloesser
Fisheries Biologist
Great Lakes Science Center
U.S. Geological Survey
1451 Green Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-994-3331x223
Fax: 734-994-8780
Mr. John Schwartz
Michigan Sea Grant Program
Institute of Water Resources
334 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222
Phone: 517-355-9637
Fax:517-353-6496
Mr. Timothy J. Sinnott
Biologist
NY State DEC
Room 576, 50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-4756
Phone: 518-457-0758
Fax:518-485-8424
txsinnot@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Ms. Julie Stumpf
IN Dunes Nat. Lakeshore
U.S. Geological Survey
1100 N. Mineral Spring Rd.
Porter, IN 46304
Phone: 219-926-7561x336
Fax:
julie_stumpf@aps.gov
Mr. Dan Thomas
President
G. L. Sport Fishing Council
P.O. Box 297
Elmhurst, IL60126
Phone: 630-941-1351
Fax:630-941-1196
-------
Mr. Marc Tuchman
GLNPO
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone:312-353-1369
tuchman.marc@epa.gov
Mr. Randy Westbrooks
U.S. Dept of Agriculture
Interagency Field Office for Invasive
Species
233 Border Belt Dr.
Whiteville, NC 28472
Phone: 910-648-6762
Fax: 910-648-6763
Dr. Mary L White
Region 5
U.S. EPA
Mailstop T-13J
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-5878
Fax:312-886-9697
white .mary@epa. gov
Mr. Mike Wiemer
Aquatic Nuisance Species
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
405 North French Rd., Suite 120A
Amherst, NY 14228
Phone: 716-691-5456
Fax: 716-691-6154
Mr. Chris Wiley
Manager, Special Projects
Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans
20 IN. Front St.
Sarnia, ONN7S5Y1
Phone:519-464-5127
Fax: 519-464-5128
Ms. Mary F. Willson
Science Director
Great Lakes Program
The Nature Conservancy
8 S. Michigan
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-759-8017
Fax:312-759-8409
mwillson@tnc.org
Mr. Howard Zar
Sr Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Region 5 B19J
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-1491
Fax:312-353-5374
ZAR. Howard@epa. gov
------- |