Lake Superior
Binational Program
Lake Superior
Aquatic invasive Species
Complete Prevention Plan
Round Goby
Eurasian Ruffe
New Zealand Mudsnail
Purple Loosestrife
Zebra Mussels
Sea Lamprey
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Prepared by
The Lake Superior Work Group of the
Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan
January 2014
-------
Cover photo credits, clockwise from left: Eric Engbretson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gary Cholwek,
U.S. Geological Service; Amy Benson, U.S. Geological Survey; Alison Fox, University of Florida; Lee
Emery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Norman Rees, USDA Agricultural Research Service; and (center)
Dan Gustafson, Montana State University.
Suggested citation: Lake Superior Binational Program. Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species
Complete Prevention Plan. January 2014. Available at http://www.epa.gov/qlnpo/lakesuperior/index.html.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTE TO READER iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 1
1.2 HISTORY OF THE PLAN 2
2.0 BACKGROUND ON AIS IN LAKE SUPERIOR 5
2.1 SPECIES 5
2.2 ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS 7
2.3 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 8
3.0 VECTORS AND PATHWAYS FOR AIS IN LAKE SUPERIOR 10
3.1 VECTOR AND PATHWAY DEFINITION 11
3.2 PRIORITIZATION OF AIS PATHWAYS INTO LAKE SUPERIOR 25
4.0 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INTERRUPTING THE PATHWAYS 28
4.1 LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND AGREEMENTS 28
4.2 INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION 38
4.3 MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND GUIDANCE 41
4.4 EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 43
4.5 SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR AIS PROGRAMS 45
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47
5.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES 47
5.2 REPORTING 60
5.3 FURTHER EFFORTS 60
6.0 REFERENCES 61
APPENDIX A: BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS IN THE GREAT
LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SYSTEM A-1
APPENDIX B: U.S. AND CANADIAN FEDERAL STATUTES RELATED TO AIS B-1
APPENDIX C: STATE AND PROVINCIAL CODES AND STATUTES RELATED TO
AIS C-1
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 ii
-------
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan
Note to Reader
January 2014
The Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan (the Plan) is an
expression of the best professional judgment of the members of the Lake Superior Task
Force as to what is necessary to protect Lake Superior from new aquatic invasive
species. The Plan is based on sound science and underwent extensive reviews,
including an expert technical review involving external and agency experts, an agency
review by agencies involved with Lake Superior, and a broad Great Lakes stakeholder
review. The reviews generated a significant number of comments, which were taken
under advisement and incorporated into the Plan, as appropriate.
The Plan identifies recommended actions to prevent new aquatic invasive species from
entering Lake Superior. We agree with these recommendations and encourage all
stakeholders to pursue implementation actions as well as to report progress. A
commitment to seek implementation of the Plan's recommendations does not signify a
commitment of resources to any specific action by any agency. Rather, it signifies a
commitment to promote coordinated actions that will protect Lake Superior from the
devastating effects of additional aquatic invasive species that can irrevocably harm the
ecosystem.
The role of the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan and Program will
be to: set common goals consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
support local implementation; support public outreach and education; and report on
current conditions, trends and progress. The success of the Plan and, thus, the
protection of Lake Superior, will depend on the commitment from U.S. and Canadian
agencies, organizations, stakeholders and jurisdictions.
A draft of the Plan has been available since 2010, and implementation of the
recommended actions has been ongoing. While not all parts of the Plan have been
updated since the draft was published, the pathways for introduction and the
recommendations for preventing invasions remain relevant. The Plan is now
considered finalized.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Situated at the head of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system, a 2,342 mile long (3,700
km) water navigation system connected to global trade, Lake Superior is at risk for continued
invasion by aquatic invasive species (AIS), including plants, animals, and microscopic
organisms. As of April 2010, 89 non-native aquatic species have been found in Lake Superior.
These include Eurasian watermilfoil, sea lamprey, and most recently, the fish disease Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). AIS have caused devastating economic and ecosystem effects
that impart significant losses to the region in the form of damage and control costs, degraded
water quality, job losses, declining property values, compromised native species, decreased
biodiversity, and other negative impacts.
This Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan outlines recommended
actions that need to be newly implemented, in addition to existing efforts, to prevent new
aquatic invasive species from entering and becoming established in the Lake Superior
ecosystem.
Through the process of developing this plan, Canadian and U.S. government agencies involved
in the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) have consulted broadly
and have developed recommendations for consideration by each jurisdiction. However, citizens,
organizations and government agencies in both Canada and the United States need to work
together to implement the recommended actions and ensure that protecting Lake Superior from
new invasive species is a top priority for all. The Lake Superior LAMP will utilize an adaptive
management approach to monitoring implementation progress and overall effectiveness of this
prevention plan.
Key recommended actions for the United States and Canada include:
• Implement compatible, federal regulatory regimes for ballast water discharge that are
protective of the Great Lakes for both the U.S. and Canada.
• Support the development, testing and implementation of effective ballast treatment
systems that meet the operational characteristics of Great Lakes ships.
• Establish federal screening processes for organisms in trade to classify species into three
lists: prohibited, permitted, and conditionally prohibited/permitted.
o Establish an immediate moratorium on the trade of prohibited species,
o Consider the concept of a "Certified Pathogen-Free through Raising from Seed"
category for plants sold through garden centers and nurseries,
o Expand or implement education programs to increase consumer awareness of the
risk of AIS.
• Require permits for shoreline restoration projects, which identify AIS introduction issues
and include best management practices and restrictions that minimize the potential for
introducing invasive species.
o Implement education programs to raise awareness of the issue and promote
compliance with prevention actions among contractors and residents.
• Ensure that existing laws prohibiting the sale of invasive species are enforced for on-line
and mail order purchases of aquatic plants.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
iv
-------
• To prevent the illegal transport of bait across the U.S./Canadian border and on shared
waters, ensure effective education and prevention efforts at border crossings and at retail
bait shops, and conduct monitoring to gauge the effectiveness of such efforts.
• Make AIS prevention education, regulation, and enforcement a priority in all Lake
Superior jurisdictions, and implement prevention approaches that target specific
audiences (e.g., boaters, anglers, professional fishing guides, plant nurseries).
• Build capacity for education and enforcement efforts within local communities by
providing outreach products that can be tailored for local use, and coordinate consistent
messaging across jurisdictions.
• Explore options for a broad range of prevention measures at public boat launches.
• Review and adjust policies for the operation of the locks at Sault Ste. Marie to include
best management practices that effectively prevent fish from passing through the locks,
including closing the upper and lower gates when not in use and the use of in-stream
barriers or deterrent technologies, if necessary.
• Investigate options to achieve ecological separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi
River watersheds to protect the Great Lakes from the invasion of Asian carp.
o Until ecological separation is achieved, maintain the electric barriers in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at optimum conditions and ensure their
continued operation.
o Establish structural measures to prevent the inadvertent introduction of Asian carp
from floodwaters of the Des Plaines River into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
• Adapt invasive species management to the challenge of a changing climate - monitor
ecosystem changes, coordinate information resources, and engage in further research.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Lake Superior Task Force and the Lake Superior Work Group's Habitat
and Aquatics Communities Committees of the Lake Superior LAMP for their initiation and
support of this plan. The following individuals contributed substantially to the plan's concept,
writing, or review. In addition, the comments submitted by stakeholders during the plan's
review period are greatly appreciated.
Plan Writing Team
Amy Thomas
Battelle Memorial Institute
Sue Greenwood
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Roger Eberhardt
Michigan Office of the Great Lakes
Elizabeth LaPlante
USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Environment Canada
Plan Reviewers
Ryan Albert
USEPA Office of Water
Beth Brownson
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Mark Burrows
International Joint Commission
Becky Cudmore
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Rob Davis
Ontario Parks
Joan Elias
U.S. National Park Service
Helen Gerson
Canadian Border Services Agency
Phyllis Green
National Park Service
James Hansen
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Rob Hyde
Environment Canada
Doug Jensen
Minnesota Sea Grant
Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan Sea Grant Extension
Brenda Koenig
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Carri Lohse-Hanson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Hugh Maclsaac
University of Windsor
Francine MacDonald
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Phillip Moy
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute
Sonny Myers
1854 Treaty Authority
Jay Rendall
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Steve Scott
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
vi
-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Division
Daryl Seip
Environment Canada
Gary Whelan
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
and Environment, Fisheries Division
Chris Wiley
Transport Canada
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
vii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIS
Aquatic Invasive Species
AIS-HACCP
Aquatic Invasive Species-Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program
ANS
Aquatic Nuisance Species
APHIS
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
BMP
Best Management Practice
BOB
Ballast on Board
BWE
Ballast Water Exchange
BWM
Ballast Water Management
BWMS
Ballast Water Management Systems
BWWG
Ballast Water Working Group
CAISN
Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network
Cal-IPC
California Invasive Plant Council
CEARA
Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment
CEC
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CFIA
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
COA
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
COTP
Captain of the Port
CWA
Clean Water Act
DNR
Department of Natural Resources
DOD
Department of Defense
DPEIS
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
GLANSIS
Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System
GLERL
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
GLIFWC
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
GLRC
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
GLRI
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
GLFC
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLWQA
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IJC
International Joint Commission
IMO
International Maritime Organization
IN
Indiana
LAMP
Lakewide Action and Management Plan
MERC
Maryland Environmental Resource Center
MI
Michigan
MN
Minnesota
MNDNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NANPCA
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
NAS
National Academy of Sciences
NISA
National Invasive Species Act
NIOZ
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
NIVA
Norwegian Institute for Water Research
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
viii
-------
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOBOB
No Ballast on Board
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPRM
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OFAH
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
OMNR
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
SAC
Superior Aggregates Company
SOLEC
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
TBT
Tributyl tin
UNDS
Uniform National Discharge Standards
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCG
United States Coast Guard
USD A
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Service
VGP
Vessel General Permit
VHS
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
WDNR
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WI
Wisconsin
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
ix
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The invasion of aquatic habitats by non-indigenous species, also known as non-native and exotic
species, in the Lake Superior Basin can cause negative ecological and economic impacts and
may cause harm to human health. A non-native species that becomes established, spreads widely
and causes harm to an ecosystem is considered invasive. Aquatic invasive species (AIS)
compete with native species for food and habitat, and can directly or indirectly kill native
species, degrade habitat, and alter food webs. AIS can also have significant economic effects on
waterfront property values, tourism, utilities, and other industries.
AIS may enter the lake through various human-assisted vectors1 such as maritime commerce
(e.g., ship ballast water and hull fouling), fishing and aquaculture, canals and diversions, the
trade of live organisms, and tourism and development activities (CAISN 2009). Shipping has
resulted in high levels of invasion in global temperate regions, including Lake Superior (Molner
et al. 2008). A changing climate is likely to increase opportunities for non-native species to
invade Lake Superior as warmer temperatures accelerate reproductive cycles and increase the
likelihood of non-native species becoming established.
Actions taken to date to prevent the introduction
of new AIS include regulatory and voluntary
efforts at all levels. Many activities serve as
models using innovative, strategic approaches.
These include best management practices for the
exchange of ballast water, followed more recently
by ballast water regulations, and educational
programs to increase awareness of the pathways
to prevent new AIS associated with recreational
activities and with aquatic invasive organisms in
trade. Government agencies and others engaged
in biological research perform ad hoc monitoring
for existing and new AIS, and provide
assessments of AIS management efforts.
However, much remains to be done to protect
Lake Superior from new introductions of AIS
from around the world and from the other Great
Lakes. This complete prevention plan proposes a comprehensive program of education,
monitoring, and regulation (including inspection and enforcement) that integrates and augments
previous prevention efforts while recognizing the importance of shipping, port operations, and
trade and commerce to both the Lake Superior region and the American and Canadian
economies.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
Canada and the U.S. share responsibility for protecting Lake Superior from the introduction of
new AIS. This Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan outlines
1 Vectors are the modes of transmission, and pathways are the routes taken.
Scope of Organisms Covered
Under this Plan
This aquatic invasive species prevention
plan for Lake Superior considers non-
native, aquatic biological organisms
including pathogens, parasites, and algae
that may become invasive in Lake Superior
and cause harm to the ecosystem,
environment, economy, or human health.
Although this plan initially focuses on
aquatic species, the vector/pathway closure
approach can be applied to terrestrial
species, and in fact, many of the prevention
actions for aquatic species also work well
for terrestrial species.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
1
-------
actions recommended by the Lake Superior Work Group that need to be implemented, in
addition to existing efforts, in order to close existing pathways on both sides of the border
and prevent new aquatic invasive species from entering and becoming established in the
Lake Superior ecosystem. The plan aims to prevent both primary introductions and the
secondary spread of AIS to Lake Superior. Similar to the Lake Superior Binational Program's2
designation of Lake Superior as a zero discharge demonstration area for toxic substances, this
prevention plan adopts a goal of zero invasions of new AIS in Lake Superior. Commitment and
coordination between Canada (Ontario) and the U.S. are needed to effectively implement the
provisions of the plan and ensure coordinated, commensurate action on both sides of the border.
While the main objective of the plan is to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS to Lake
Superior, it is important to emphasize the importance of protecting inland waterways in the Lake
Superior Basin. Recent research has demonstrated that preventing the spread of invasive
organisms away from invaded sites (i.e., containment) is the most effective way to reduce the
likelihood of new invasions at the landscape scale (Drury and Rothlisberger, 2008). The
prevention actions recommended in this plan should be effective in preventing both the entry of
organisms into Lake Superior and the transfer of organisms out of Lake Superior into inland
waterways.
In addition to protecting Lake Superior and waterways in the basin, the plan supports related
invasive species efforts by the U.S. and Canadian federal governments. The plan assists Canada
in complying with internal obligations, such as implementing an Invasive Alien Species Strategy
for Canada, which aims to minimize the risk of invasive species to the environment, economy,
and society, and to protect environmental values such as biodiversity and sustainability. In
addition, the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers developed an action plan
and task force to address the threat of AIS through the Canadian Action Plan to Address the
Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species. The Canadian action plan recognizes that one of the most
effective ways of controlling AIS is preventing new species from being introduced and outlines a
national approach for managing AIS in Canada (Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Ministers 2004). Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the lead agency for managing AIS in Canada.
In the U.S., the plan supports efforts to address invasive species under the federal interagency
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) led by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEP A).3
1.2 HISTORY OF THE PLAN
Lake Superior has been the focus of special protection and restoration initiatives for many years,
in recognition of its unique status among freshwater lakes in the world. This special status has
been emphasized in the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) and the
2 A Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin began in 1991 through an agreement among
the federal governments of Canada and the United States, tribal governments, the Province of Ontario, and the States
of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The administrative framework through which these jurisdictions jointly act
on the commitments identified in the agreement is known as the Lake Superior Binational Program, which is
implemented through the Lake Superior LaMP. The Program identifies two major areas of activity: A Zero
Discharge Demonstration Project and the broader ecosystem program.
3 USEPA. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 2010 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Summary of Proposed
Programs and Projects. Available at http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
2
-------
Lake Superior Binational Program since their inception. The Lake Superior Task Force4
conceived the idea of a Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan in
2006 and formed a Prevention Plan Project Team that included state, provincial, and federal
agencies. The project team established the use of a vector/pathway approach for the prevention
of new AIS in Lake Superior. In 2007, the project team developed a concept map and outline to
guide the drafting of the plan, which began in January 2008 with contractor support.
The Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan builds on a number of
existing AIS prevention and control plans, as well as regulatory programs in the Great Lakes
states, Canadian provinces, and U.S. and Canadian federal governments. These include
programs documented in previous Lake Superior LaMP reports; the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration (GLRC) Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, state, provincial,
federal, and tribal management plans; and international, national, state, provincial, and local
regulations.
In particular, the GLRC Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes was the culmination of
a comprehensive effort to characterize environmental issues affecting the Great Lakes and to
recommend options for restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. The efforts that went into the
Strategy's recommendations for AIS laid the groundwork for the development of this AIS
prevention plan for Lake Superior.
The GLRC emanated from Executive Order 13340 signed by President Bush in May 2004. The
Order called for the USEPA to convene a "regional collaboration of national significance for the
Great Lakes." A group comprised of the Great Lakes states, local communities, tribes, non-
governmental organizations, and other stakeholders in the Great Lakes region was convened to
form the GLRC. The GLRC developed a Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes,
which was released on December 12, 2005 (GLRC 2005). The Strategy was developed by eight
teams of subject-matter experts organized around priorities identified by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors. The Strategy teams developed recommendations for action focusing on each
priority area.
AIS is one priority area addressed in the December 2005 GLRC Strategy. The AIS Strategy
Team developed recommendations for the highest priority actions that would achieve the greatest
results within five years. Key recommendations for AIS in the GLRC Strategy include:
• Prevent AIS introductions by ships through ballast water and other means;
• Stop invasions of species through canals and waterways;
• Restrict trade in live organisms;
• Pass comprehensive federal AIS legislation;
• Implement a system of enhanced monitoring and ecological surveys to identify AIS
invasions in the Great Lakes;5
• Establish a program for rapid response and management; and
4 The Lake Superior Task Force is a steering committee comprised of senior Canadian and U.S. federal, provincial,
tribal, and state representatives who make management decisions related to Lake Superior.
5 Although monitoring for AIS invasions is a key recommendation of the GLRC Strategy, it is not included as a
recommended action in the present prevention plan (see Section 5.3).
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
3
-------
• Emphasize education and outreach on AIS introduction and prevention.
Canada has established the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA) through
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with AIS and the
risk that each species has on overall ecosystem health. The primary role of CEARA is to help
develop standards to be used in investigating these risks, and provide guidance based on the
findings. The primary objectives and deliverables of CEARA are to (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada 2008):
• Develop a national standard for conducting biological risk assessments of AIS;
• Educate practitioners on the risk assessment process;
• Develop a process for prioritizing risk assessment needs;
• Provide advice to headquarters on national priorities for risk assessments; and
• Coordinate and track progress of national risk assessments and ensure that deliverables
are met.
In Canada, national policy direction is provided by An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for
Canada to prevent new invasions, detect and respond to new invasive species, and manage
established invasive species through eradication, containment and control. The Canadian
Wildlife Service leads a national Invasive Alien Species Partnership Program to reduce the risk
of invasive alien species and conserve ecosystems. Partnership projects are funded to empower
grass roots-level work, engage multiple stakeholders and inform Canadians, thus also improving
Canadians' understanding and awareness of invasive species.
The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (CO A) was
drafted by the Canadian federal and Ontario provincial governments to restore, protect and
conserve the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem in order to assist in achieving the vision of a healthy,
prosperous, and sustainable basin ecosystem for present and future generations (Environment
Canada 2007). In order to achieve this vision, the COA established a number of goals and
commitments that focus on protecting and improving the quality of the Great Lakes Basin
ecosystem through sustainable and preventative actions. Specifically, the COA established 11
commitments that are being implemented to reduce the threat of AIS to Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystems and species (Annex 3, Goal 4). One of the commitments requires Canada to take
actions aimed at 100% compliance with the Canadian Ballast Water Control and Management
Regulations that came into effect in July 2007. The COA coordinates implementation of the
Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species, in cooperation with the
government of Ontario, for actions specific to the Great Lakes. Completion of the Lake Superior
Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan is a priority for COA in 2010-2011.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a binational agreement that expresses
Canada and the United States' commitment to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. On February 12, 2013, the
Governments of Canada and the United States ratified the GLWQA of 2012. Annex 6 of the
GLWQA calls for a binational prevention-based approach to eliminating new introductions of
AIS. Although development of this AIS prevention plan for Lake Superior preceded the revised
GLWQA of 2012, the plan is consistent with the intentions of the GLWQA AIS Annex.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
4
-------
2.0
BACKGROUND ON AIS IN LAKE SUPERIOR
The impacts of AIS on ecosystems and society are wide-ranging, pervasive, and irreversible.
As of April 2010, the list of known non-native aquatic species in Lake Superior had reached 89
species, according to Minnesota Sea Grant (Jensen 2010). Some of these species and their
effects on the ecosystem and economy of the Lake Superior Basin are discussed in the following
sections.
2.1 SPECIES
Included in the 89 non-native aquatic species that threaten the integrity of the Lake Superior
ecosystem are fish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plants, and pathogens and parasites (Minnesota Sea
Grant 2007). Several examples of AIS that have been introduced into the Lake Superior ecosystem
are presented below.
• The Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) is a well-known example of a fish species
that was first accidentally introduced via ballast water to the Great Lakes (and North
America) in Duluth in 1986. It has subsequently spread to many parts of Lake Superior's
southern and northern nearshore waters between Thunder Bay, Ontario, and the
Tahquamenon River mouth in Whitefish Bay.
• The round goby (ApoUonia melanostomus), a non-native fish thought to have been
introduced through the ballast water of transoceanic vessels, displaces native fish and
continues its range expansion. In 2008, round gobies were found at Marquette, as well as in
three other places in Lake Superior.
• First introduced into Lake Erie in 1986, the zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha)
quickly spread to all of the Great Lakes (Hebert et al. 1989). Zebra mussels were found
in the Duluth-Superior Harbor in 1989, likely transported in ship ballast water.
• One quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), related to the zebra mussel, was found in the
Duluth-Superior Harbor during 2005. Since then, quagga mussels appear to be thriving
in the Duluth-Superior Harbor.
• Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) were
discovered in the early 1990s in the lower
Pigeon River, south of Thunder Bay, and
have since spread along the shoreline to
nearby neighboring tributaries. They were
found in the Duluth-Superior Harbor in
1999. In 2007, they were found in the lower
St. Marys River, the connecting channel
between Lakes Superior and Huron.
• A substantial population of the New
Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) was discovered in Duluth-
Superior Harbor in May 2006, a first for
waters of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Mudsnail s were found in the lower Great
Lakes over a decade before their discovery in Lake Superior.
Rusty crayfish. Lake Superior. Photo credit:
Minnesota Sea Grant, Jeff Gunderson. Courtesy
of US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
5
-------
* ? v.* "
¦ *»*'» '
V
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a submerged aquatic plant. Since
being discovered in North America in the 1940s, it has invaded nearly every U.S. state
and at least three Canadian provinces. Records from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources indicate its presence in Lake Superior (Cook County, MN) beginning
in 2006 (MN DNR 2007).
The spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes longimaims), a small predacious crustacean, was first
discovered in Lake Huron in 1984 and gradually spread to other Great Lakes, reaching
Lake Superior in 1987 (IN DNR 2005).
After introduction into the U.S. in the 1800s in solid ballast, purple loosestrife (Lythrum
sa/icaria) has spread to nearly every U.S. state and most Canadian provinces. The
invasive perennial plant thrives in wetlands and shorelines throughout North America
(GLIFWC 2008) and was intentionally introduced in Duluth, Minnesota, in 1907 as an
ornamental plant (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Native to the Atlantic Ocean, the sea
lamprey (Petromyzon Marinas), a
lawless parasitic fish, was first observed
in Lake Ontario in the 1830s and
invaded Lake Erie in 1921, after
modifications were made to the Welland
Canal which altered drainage patterns
(Mills et al. 1993). Sea lampreys
subsequently spread throughout the
Great Lakes, appearing in Lake Superior
in 1938 (GLFC 2000).
The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), a
fish native to the Atlantic coast, was discovered in Lake Ontario in 1873 and expanded
into Lake Erie after improvements were made to the Welland Canal (Mills et al. 1993).
Alewives reached Lake Superior by 1954 (IN DNR 2006).
Rainbow smelt ((hmerus mordaxj expanded into Lake Superior by 1930, 18 years after
being introduced into Michigan's Crystal Lake as a food source for stocked salmon
(WDNR 2004). The fish species was unintentionally spread to Lake Superior at
Whitefish Bay through the locks at Sault St. Marie.
^ • • fip , _ ^J*
-------
ballast water management regulations in July 2006 (see Section 4.1.1), a new non-indigenous
species was being discovered in the Great Lakes, on average, once every 28 weeks (Riccardi
2006; GLERL 2009).
2.2 ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS
Many Great Lakes researchers and managers consider AIS the single most important and
immediate threat to Great Lakes ecosystems and their food webs (Lake Superior LaMP 2006).
USEPA asserts that invasive species are the second-highest contributing factor to species
extinction in aquati c environments worldwide (USEPA 2008a). The effects of AIS on an
ecosystem can be devastating. Invasive species increase competition for food resources and
living space, can physically and chemically modify aquatic habitats, can hybridize with native
species and decrease biodiversity by crowding out native species. In fact, researchers consider
AIS one of the primary threats to native biodiversity (Sala et al. 2000; Dextrase and Mandrak
2005). AIS thrive due to a lack of natural predators and high reproductive rates compared with
native species, resulting in a shift in native species distribution and transformation of ecosystem
structure and function (Office of Technology Assessment 1993).
Examples of the detrimental effects of AIS are
prevalent among established species in Lake
Superior. One of the most troubling examples is
that of the sea lamprey, a parasitic jawless fish that
has devastated native fish populations. The sea
lamprey contributed to the collapse of Lake
Superior lake trout populations in the mid-
twentieth century, which had a dramatic effect on
both the fish community and fisheries. Due to its
successful predatory behavior—only one out of
every seven fish attacked survive—the sea lamprey
continues to have adverse effects on large fish
species in the Great Lakes (GLFC 2000). While
the control of sea lamprey through various means
has resulted in positive results in Lake Superior, control efforts are not without negative
impacts, such as killing native lamprey species (Great Lakes Wiki 2006).
An overabundance of AIS disrupts an ecosystem's balance through competition for limited
resources, often resulting in reduced populations of native species. At one time Eurasian ruffe,
an invasive fish species now found in river mouth and embayment habitats along the south shore
of Lake Superior, outnumbered all other fish species combined in the Duluth-Superior Harbor
(ANS Task Force 2005). Ruffe populations in the Duluth-Superior Harbor declined from a peak
of approximately 8.5 million in 1995 to 2.5 million in 2004 (USGS unpublished data). The U.S.
Geological Survey has not surveyed ruffe populations in the Duluth-Superior Harbor since 2004,
but casual observations suggest that ruffe populations have increased in some areas of Lake
Superior, notably Chequamegon Bay (Czypinski 2009). Ruffe displace native fish by competing
for food and feeding on juvenile native species, such as yellow perch and walleye, in addition to
being less favored by predators than their native counterparts (NOAA 2007).
Lampricide treatment, St. Louis River (near
Duluth, Minnesota). Photo credit: US EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
7
-------
Displacement of native species by invasive species adversely affects other organisms reliant
upon native species for survival. Loss of native species results in a disproportionate abundance
of AIS that can trigger a chain or cascade of events leading to significant changes in the
abundance, distribution, and health of species supporting the food web (NWF 2004).
The spiny waterflea was first noted in Lake Superior in 1987. It competes with native
zooplankton and juvenile fish for native zooplankton such as Daphnia. Due to its high
reproductive rates and seasonal explosions in numbers, the spiny waterflea may alter the
zooplankton community such that food resources for juvenile fish are reduced (Ontario
Federation of Anglers & Hunters 2009). Smaller fishes have trouble feeding on the spiny
waterflea because of the long tail spine. As a result, growth and survival rates of native fish
species are affected (IN DNR 2005). The spiny waterflea has also had a significant impact on
zooplankton biodiversity. Boudreau and Yan (2003) found a 30% decrease in biodiversity in
Canadian Boreal Shield lakes invaded by the spiny waterflea.
Increased growth of weeds and algae is another negative impact of AIS facilitated by invasive
zebra and quagga mussels. The mussels' filter feeding increases water clarity and light
penetration, allowing aquatic plants and algae such as Cladophora to grow at greater depths
(SOLEC 2008). Algal growths present aesthetic and odor problems when the algae and
organisms trapped within wash up on the beach and begin to decay, generating a sewage-like
smell and creating adequate conditions for bacterial growth (WDNR 2009a).
Scientists have hypothesized that zebra and quagga mussels also contribute to environmental
conditions that prompt avian botulism outbreaks in the Great Lakes. Increased algal growth
facilitated by the mussels' filtration of water may lead to anaerobic conditions necessary for the
production of the bacterium that causes botulism (iClostridium botulinum) in the food eaten by
fish. Quagga mussels may also filter the botulism toxin and transfer it up the food chain to
predator fish. Outbreaks of avian botulism occur when birds and waterfowl consume poisoned
fish, leading to significant losses of wildlife (Michigan Sea Grant 2007).
AIS also include bacteria and viruses, which can increase fish mortality. Recently, Great Lakes
fisheries managers have expressed concern over the spread of VHS, a pathogen that infects a
broad range of fish species, causing hemorrhage, anemia, and death (Cornell University, 2010).
Agencies have instituted emergency regulations and management plans to retard the spread of
the virus in the Great Lakes and inland. Lake Superior's Isle Royale National Park put
emergency regulations in place regarding transport of fish bait into park waters and the cleaning
of boats. Together, the U.S. National Park Service and Grand Portage Band of Chippewa
Indians responded to this threat to Lake Superior waters by developing a VHS Prevention and
Response plan that addresses transport pathways into Lake Superior (NPS 2008a). In 2008,
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore also instituted emergency restrictions to prevent the spread
of VHS due to the imminent threat to park fishery resources (NPS 2008b).
2.3 ECONOMIC EFFECTS
In addition to the ecological effects, the economic impacts of AIS in Lake Superior include loss
of recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, damage to infrastructure, and damage to
boats and equipment. AIS can also have significant economic effects on waterfront property
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
8
-------
values, tourism, utilities, and other industries. These economic losses are difficult to quantify in
the Great Lakes. However, such losses have been estimated to be as high as $5 billion per year
in 2005 (USD, representing both U.S. and Canadian waters); the commercial and sport fishing
industries were the hardest hit, and damages and control costs were projected at an estimated
$4.5 billion per year (USD; Pimentel 2005). Such impacts are attributable to the reduction of
native fish populations, directly caused by competition for resources with invasive species.
Lodge and Finnoff (2008) estimated the impact of losses to the Great Lakes region from invasive
species introduced through shipping. The authors estimated that over $200 million (USD) in lost
economic benefit to the Great Lakes economy may result from reductions in commercial fishing,
sport fishing, wildlife watching, and increased costs for raw water users.
The economics associated with AIS prevention and control can be staggering. For example, the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission currently spends in excess of $20 million (USD) per year for
control of the sea lamprey. The Canadian and U.S. governments have financially supported the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission's sea lamprey control efforts for over 30 years (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada 2008).
Zebra and quagga mussels, related invasive species found
throughout the Great Lakes Basin, interfere with
commercial fishing, recreational boating, sport fishing, and
shipping by adhering to the hulls and motors of watercraft.
The cost of removing the mussels from watercraft in the
Great Lakes was estimated to be $19.5 million per year in
2005 (USD; Pimentel 2005). Moreover, zebra and quagga
mussels clog intake pipes at electric power plants and water
supply facilities, costing an additional estimated $480
million per year in expenditures related to damage and
control. Great Lakes tourism suffered an estimated
$500,000 annual loss in 2005 from the infestation of zebra
and quagga mussels. For all activities combined, the result
was an estimated total impact of $500 million per year in
2005 from zebra and quagga mussels alone within the Great
Lakes Basin (both U.S. and Canadian waters; Pimentel
2005).
Zebra mussels have had a significant
economic impact on the Great Lakes
Basin. Photo credit: Amy Benson, U.S.
Geological Survey
Invasive aquatic plants also impact the economic health of the Great Lakes Basin. Invasive
plants such as the Eurasian watermilfoil, a vine-like submerged aquatic plant, form thick mats
that interfere with recreational activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, and hunting
(Minnesota Sea Grant 2009). The annual control cost of these types of invasive aquatic plants in
U.S. and Canadian waters of the Great Lakes Basin was estimated to be $29 million in 2005
(USD; Pimentel 2005). Invasive plants can also negatively affect waterfront property values. A
study completed by the University of New Hampshire in 2003 revealed that the invasion of
watermilfoil along a shoreline may cause waterfront property values to decrease as much as 20 -
40% (Halstead et al. 2003). Corroborating the New Hampshire study, an analysis performed in
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
9
-------
Vermont suggests that property values may decrease as much as $12,000 along shorelines
infested with aquatic invasive plants (Varney 2004).
The cost of AIS reaches far beyond damage and control costs. Of particular concern is the effect
of AIS on tribes and First Nations due to the risk to culturally significant subsistence species.
Non-native species may contribute to the loss of tribal food sources or a reduction in native
plants used in a variety of traditional life ways or medicinal and cultural practices. Decreasing
fish harvests may impact market price and result in diminished consumer demand and job loss
among commercial fisheries. Also, water quality is degraded in areas infested with invasive
plants due to increased nutrient loading from excessive amounts of decaying organic matter,
which can interfere with water treatment technology in drinking water supply areas. The
decaying organic matter also causes depletion of oxygen and further degrades water quality.
AIS, particularly zebra and quagga mussels, attach themselves to piers and other structures,
compromising structural integrity and leading to costly removal or repair (State of Maine Land
and Water Resources Council 2002).
3.0 VECTORS AND PATHWAYS FOR AIS IN LAKE SUPERIOR
The Lake Superior ecosystem and economy have been profoundly impacted by AIS (such as sea
lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes
longimanus), and Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus)). The basin remains at risk for the
introduction of new aquatic species through a number of open pathways (Figure 1). Lake
Superior is somewhat isolated from new AIS spreading from the lower Great Lakes. This is
primarily due to the constructed physical barriers (e.g., locks) between the lower Great Lakes
and Lake Superior and the velocity of water flowing from Lake Superior into the St. Marys River
at Sault Ste. Marie. These barriers consist of ship locks, hydropower stations and associated
berms, and lift gates in the compensating works at the head of the St. Marys rapids. While these
barriers impede the movement of mobile organisms from traveling upstream into Lake Superior,
they are not complete barriers. Fish are commonly observed swimming in and out of the locks
when lock doors are open. Two to five of the compensating gates are always open partway to
supply water to the St. Marys rapids. Only the hydropower stations' outflows through elevated
turbines are an effective barrier to upriver movement.
In addition, the cold, nutrient- and mineral-poor waters of Lake Superior inhibit survival and
reproduction of many AIS; only the hardiest species survive (Grigorovich et al. 2003). However,
the relatively richer, warmer waters of the ports and embayments around the lake provide
environments conducive to AIS survival. It is in these areas where the effect of AIS can be
devastating, especially to native species that utilize such areas as spawning and nursery habitats.
AIS may be introduced to Lake Superior through a number of different vectors and pathways.
The most important pathway by which AIS have been introduced to Lake Superior was the
shipping ballast water pathway, which continues to be a pathway of concern. A discussion of
potential vectors and pathways for AIS in Lake Superior follows.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
10
-------
3.1
VECTOR AND PATHWAY DEFINITION
A vector is the physical means by which a non-indigenous species is transported to a new region,
primarily by humans, whether deliberate or accidental. Within a vector, one or more pathways
or routes of transfer exist by which an invasive species is transferred from one ecosystem to
another.
Various vectors provide a mechanism through which AIS may enter the Lake Superior Basin.
This prevention plan addresses potential AIS invasion into Lake Superior through eight vectors:
maritime commerce; agency activities; organisms in trade; illegal activities; fishing and
aquaculture; canals and water diversions; tourism and development; and water recreation. Figure
1 presents a concept map for various pathways of potential entry of AIS into Lake Superior. The
following sections describe each pathway in detail. Other miscellaneous pathways that have the
potential to introduce AIS to Lake Superior are not discussed here (such as commercial
transportation (trucking) or reuse of equipment (e.g., discharge pipes) used in other aquatic
environments).
The vectors and pathways presented in the following sections do not have risk ratings at this
n
time. While much is known about past introductions of AIS into Lake Superior, new
regulations, educational programs, and other actions have had a positive effect on blocking some
of those pathways. Risk, however, includes components of both 1) pathway availability and 2)
potential damage from particular species that may use that pathway. Limited reliable and valid
information exists about either component for AIS. The purpose of this plan is not to assign risk
to pathways or to identify the most damaging species that may arrive. Rather, the plan's purpose
is to identify the pathways used by a variety of species and to work on a broad front to block
those pathways to protect Lake Superior from new AIS.
Climate change is neither a vector nor a pathway of AIS introduction, but is considered a stressor
that impacts the ability of a new species to become established (or survive) and expand its range.
Climate change is altering ecosystem conditions, causing increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,
modified precipitation patterns, increased water and atmospheric temperatures, and altered
nitrogen distribution. Increased rainfall and flooding, for example, may facilitate the dispersal of
invasive plant seeds by flotation. Increased water temperatures can provide more favorable
conditions for invasive species to grow and reproduce, and higher ambient air temperatures can
allow AIS to shift their ranges northward and become invasive in new areas (USEPA 2007). For
example, increasing water temperatures in Lake Superior have increased the breeding and
feeding cycles of sea lampreys, resulting in larger lampreys that are more effective predators for
a longer period of time each year (New York Times, 2010). This plan recommends actions that
a) increase awareness of the increased risks of AIS introductions due to climate change and b)
attempt to mitigate those risks.
7 Risk is considered the likelihood that AIS will be introduced through a pathway and the potential effects
(ecological and economic) caused by the AIS in the event that an introduction does occur.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
11
-------
Aquatic Invasive Species in Lake Superior: Vectors and Pathways Concept Map
Lake Superior Watershed
• Cities/Towns
~ Areas of Concern
| | Lake Superior Watershed
| | Lake Superior Diversions
Maritime Commerce
Ballast Water
Fouling of Hull/Anchor/
Superstructure
Water Recreation
Boating
Diving and other recreational
gear
Ontario
Minnesota
Tourism and
Development
Cruising vessels
Ecotours
Float planes and helicopters
Agency Activities
Stocking/hatcheries
Research and assessment
Harbour, navigation maintenance
and construction
Coast Guard activities
Carp Riviu M-nu-ia /
Michigan-
Upper Peninsula
Wisconsin
Organisms in Trade
Pets/aquariums
Aquatic plants
Shoreline and habitat
restoration
Online purchasing and use
Live food fish
Illegal Activities
Plant release
Unauthorized introductions
Import of bait
Fishing and Aquaculture
Fishing equipment
Sales/distribution of live bait
Use/disposal of bait
Aquaculture facilities
Charter fishing
Canals and Diversions
Lift locks
Canals
Compensating works
Figure 1. Aquatic Invasive Species in Lake Superior: Vectors and Pathways Concept Map
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
12
-------
3.1.1 Maritime Commerce Vector
Ballast Water Pathway
The primary pathway for transport of new AIS
to the Great Lakes is in the ballast tanks of
ships (National Academy of Sciences 2008).
Approximately 35% of non-native species
found in Lake Superior were likely introduced
via ballast water discharge (Minnesota Sea
Grant 2008a). Eurasian ruffe, round goby,
and zebra mussels are examples of organisms
transported to Lake Superior via ballast water.
Ballast water is used on cargo vessels to
maintain stability as vessels travel from port to
port. Once ships reach their destination and
cargo is loaded, the ballast water is no longer
needed and may be released into the port.
Some vessels enter Duluth (and other Lake
Superior ports) with ballast water on board (BOB) and load cargo after discharging ballast into
the harbor. Some vessels enter the Great Lakes loaded with cargo and with no pumpable ballast
on board (NOBOB). Ships typically have several ballast tanks, and at times may have a
combination of BOB and NOBOB tanks.
Ship arriving in Duluth ship canal, Duluth Minnesota.
Photo credit: Jerry Bielicki, US Army Corps of
Engineers. Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office
When ships discharge cargo at a port in the
lower lakes, they take on ballast which mixes
with the sediments and residual water in the
ballast tanks, and then go to a Lake Superior
port, where the mixed ballast water is
discharged and cargo is loaded. Duluth -
Superior Harbor handles more cargo by
volume than any other port on the Great
Lakes, with 1,100 vessel calls per year
(Duluth Seaway Port Authority 2008). The
pattern of shipping on the Great Lakes is such
that more ballast water is discharged in Lake
Superior than all other Great Lakes combined.
Historically, all types of vessels that use and
discharge ballast water pose risks of
introducing new AIS to Lake Superior.
NOBOB tanks represent a risk for AIS
introductions because, while the tanks carry
no ballast, they may have organisms that remain
ballast tanks. Organisms surviving in the residu;
ports along with ballast water that NOBOB tank:
Lakers vs. Salties
There are two types of shipping vessels that
carry trade on the Great Lakes. "Salties" are
oceangoing vessels that reach the Great Lakes
through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Vessels
that trade only on the Great Lakes are called
"lakers"'. The operational requirements of the
two types of vessels are different. Lakers
carry very large amounts of cargo and spend
very short periods of time in port To support
their operations, lakers carry large amounts of
ballast (when they are not carrying cargo),
and they pump ballast at fast rates. The
largest lake vessels can hold as much as 16.4
million gallons of ballast and pump it at a rate
of nearly 80,000 gallons per minute (Great
Lakes Maritime Task Force, 2010).
and survive in the residual material left in the
il material can be discharged into Lake Superior
; took on at a lower Great Lakes port (Bailey et
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
13
-------
al. 2005). New ballast water regulations for
transoceanic NOBOB vessels effectively reduce the risk
of introduction of new AIS transported to the Great
Lakes by foreign vessels (salties) (Wiley 2009). Mid-
ocean exchange required by the new regulations results
in less sediment accumulation in ballast tanks and less
chance of organisms surviving in residual material.
However, interlake transfer of ballast water by vessels
that do not leave the Great Lakes (lakers) could facilitate
the spread of existing AIS due to lakers' high volume of
ballast discharges and high frequency of visits to Lake
Superior ports (Bailey et al. 2005). In the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence River system, nearly 90% of commercial
shipping operations are domestic, and the short distances
travelled increase the likelihood of non-indigenous
species' survival. The Duluth-Superior Harbor, in
particular, receives 40% of ballast water discharged by
lakers (Rup et al., 2010). Bloody red shrimp
(Hemimysis anomala) is an example of AIS at risk of
being transferred to Lake Superior from the lower Great
Lakes via the ballast water of interlake vessel
movement. As of May 2010, bloody red shrimp had not
been found in Lake Superior.
Coastal vessels that load ballast water in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, St. Lawrence River (many are freshwater
ports), or northern coastal ports also pose a risk for the
transfer of AIS through ballast water that is transferred
to the Great Lakes. The similarity of biological
communities increases the risk of invasion in a Great
Lakes port. Several non-indigenous species found in the
Great Lakes were first recorded in the St. Lawrence
River (Rup et al., 2010).
An Imminent Threat:
Bloody Red Shrimp
Photo credit: NOAA, Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory
The bloody red shrimp, a mysid
native to the Ponto-Caspian region of
Europe, has invaded the lower Great
Lakes and presents an imminent
threat to Lake Superior. The shrimp
was first reported in the Great Lakes
in Muskegon, Michigan, in November
2006. Bloody red shrimp have also
been found in the nearshore zone of
Lake Ontario. In 2008, several
hundred of these mysids were found
on the Ontario side of Lake Huron at
Goderich. The shrimp are thought to
have been transported to Goderich—a
busy commercial shipping port—via
ship ballast water. The long-term
impact of the bloody red shrimp is
uncertain. It has the potential to
affect both zooplankton and
phytoplankton populations, but it may
serve as prey for some larger fish. Its
reproductive capabilities suggest a
high expansion potential.
Shipping patterns on the Great Lakes and Lake Superior
are not static. New port development may be considered
as communities along the shoreline seek means to
develop and diversify their economies (e.g., aggregate
extraction, mining, wood products, tourist vessels), and the option of shipping is always
explored. The impending risk of AIS transfer through the use of vessels related to new ports and
shipping routes adds to the imperative for action.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
14
-------
Hull/Anchor/Superstructure Fouling Pathway
AIS can also be introduced by attaching themselves to hulls, anchors and other exterior surfaces,
fouling shipping vessels or barges. Freshwater snails, mussels, sponges, algae and other
organisms can be transported in this manner. Once a vessel is at port, the organisms release their
larvae into the water or attach themselves to port infrastructure, establishing residence as an
aquatic invasive species (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 2004). Foreign
organisms attached to exterior surfaces can also be dislodged and released into Lake Superior
waters when a ship is in dry dock for repairs or painting (when vessel hulls are cleaned, for
example) and when vessels are tied dock side (due to rubbing against the dock). Zebra mussels
are reported to have been introduced to Lake Superior through ships' ballast water (Minnesota
o
Sea Grant 2008a); however, hull fouling may have been another pathway of introduction.
Recent research has investigated the potential risk of hull fouling as a pathway of AIS. A study
completed in Lake Ontario quantified the risks of hull fouling and demonstrated that biofouling
represents a potential risk for species introduction in freshwater lakes, although the degree of
fouling per vessel is variable, based on environmental conditions and other factors (Drake and
Lodge 2007). As part of current research to determine the risk of hull fouling as a pathway for
the introduction of AIS, the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) sampled 20
transoceanic ships; one freshwater species that is not native to the Great Lakes was found.
Nearly all species attached to the hulls of the 20 ships sampled were marine (e.g., barnacles) or
freshwater species that are already in the Great Lakes. The study authors concluded that hull
fouling appears to pose a low risk of introductions of new AIS to the Great Lakes from
transoceanic vessels (Sylvester and Maclsaac 2010).
Metal hulls and anti-fouling paints are used on many vessels as a deterrent. In the past,
tributyltin (TBT) compounds were commonly used as an anti-fouling agent but have been phased
out due to their harmful effects (TBT is currently banned in new applications). Developing
alternative anti-fouling systems that are as effective as TBT is proving to be a challenge.
3.1.2 Agency Activities Vector
Stocking/Hatcheries Pathway
To enhance sport and commercial fishing, public, private and tribal agencies stock lakes with
additional fish from hatcheries in an effort to improve fishing opportunities, meet fisheries
management objectives, stimulate growth of the economy, and aid in species recovery.
However, this practice is not without potential risk. AIS may inadvertently be introduced to an
ecosystem if preventative measures are not employed. Approximately 12 non-native species
have been intentionally introduced to Lake Superior through the fish stocking pathway
(Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a). AIS may hitch a ride on contaminated gear, in stocking water, or
in the stomachs of stocked fish that may have ingested invasive species prior to transfer from a
hatchery. Fish may also be infected with pathogens and parasites. Robust species like New
Zealand mudsnails that can endure environmental stress, such as the application of disinfectants
used to thwart the introduction of AIS in stock transfer, are also a concern.
8 Species may be introduced via multiple pathways.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
15
-------
To mitigate damaging effects on the
environment, public, private and tribal
stocking of fish is regulated in the Great
Lakes. The states regulate fish stocked
in public waters through various state
stocking permits for public waters.
State, provincial, and tribal agencies are
restricted by the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission - Great Lakes Model Fish
Health Program, which ensures that the
same rules apply in all Great Lakes
jurisdictions. In Canada, intentional
introductions and transfers of aquatic
organisms for fish stocking are also
restricted by a National Code on the
Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic
Organisms.
Harbor, Navigation Maintenance and Construction Pathway
Federal agencies9 in both the United States and Canada have responsibilities for development
and maintenance of waterways, harbors, navigation aids and other marine installations. In
carrying out these responsibilities, federal agencies need to include AIS prevention practices as
an integral part of their operations and those of private agents with whom they contract or whose
proposals they review and permit.
Routine maintenance is required to retain the integrity of harbor structures and to maintain
channel size. Harbor maintenance and water construction activities may require using equipment
and tools that were used in other marine or freshwater environments and could be contaminated
with AIS. Dredging may also be required for channel widening/deepening or removal of
contaminated sediment. Vessels and equipment associated with dredging operations, or aids to
navigation,10 and construction (e.g., offshore wind power development) may also inadvertently
introduce non-native species to Lake Superior via contaminated equipment, construction
materials, or fill. As required for chemically contaminated dredged sediments, all permits should
clearly state that sediments must be checked for the presence of AIS and, if present, dredged
material must be disposed of such that AIS are not reintroduced to Lake Superior or its
watershed (e.g., no shoreland or open water disposal).
Evidence of this pathway as a mechanism for AIS introduction occurred in 2001. Two zebra-
mussel-infested barges from the lower lakes traveled though Marquette and moored in the
Duluth-Superior Harbor (J. Nichols, pers. comm.). The barges traveled to Isle Royale to serve as
i rm
¦
i '
+ V.
W J
Hatchety load out Duluth, Minnesota. Photo credit: Steve
Geving, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
9 These agencies include Coast Guard Canada, Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Small Craft &
Harbours), U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Every spring and fall federal vessels tour the Great Lakes deploying and retrieving aids to navigation.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
16
-------
construction platforms to repair docks. Upon discovery, the infested barges returned to Duluth
for decontamination and were redeployed.
Coast Guard Activities Pathway
The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards perform several services in support of search and rescue,
maritime safety and security, environmental protection, maritime law enforcement, aids to
navigation, and icebreaking. These services involve a multitude of equipment that may provide
an opportunity for AIS to be transported to Lake Superior from the lower Great Lakes or from
other regions of the U.S. and Canada. To date, Coast Guard activities have not been documented
as a mechanism for AIS transport to Lake Superior.
Research and Assessment Pathway
Agencies use field assessments to collect information
on the status of the Lake Superior fish community
and its habitat. Large and small vessel surveys may
use capture equipment such as gill nets, trawls, and
traps, or they may employ onboard or in-water remote
sensing equipment to collect information.
Equipment, including boats, used in multiple Great
Lake environments by an agency or organization with
responsibilities or interest in several Great Lakes
could result in cross-contamination and accidental
introduction of AIS from one lake to another, if
precautions are not taken.
Research, testing, and educational facilities may
introduce AIS to Lake Superior waters through specimen shipment or disposal (including via the
sanitary wastewater system). A mishandled shipment may result in the escape of specimens
during transit. A shipment may also contain unwanted hidden organisms within the packaging or
holding water. Improper disposal of such packaging material may inadvertently introduce AIS,
especially microscopic organisms, into the local ecosystem. Discarded, unpreserved research
samples also pose a threat if proper laboratory protocol is not followed to ensure live samples are
not released to the environment.
AIS may also escape into open waters from a facility via plumbing or by hitching a ride on
previously used sampling equipment, vessels, scuba gear, or other research equipment that was
not adequately decontaminated (Olson et al. 2000). To date, agency research activities have not
been identified as a source of AIS in Lake Superior.
3.1.3 Organisms in Trade Vector
Pets/Aquariums Pathway
The vast majority of species found at pet stores and nurseries are non-native to the region in
which they are sold. Depending on the education efforts of the retailer, consumers may be
AIS can be introduced through aquatic research
activities, for example, when unwanted
organisms hidden within a sample are
improperly disposed. Photo credit: Battelle
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
17
-------
unaware that they have purchased a non-native species and be unaware of the consequences of
improper disposal. Many believe it is humane to release unwanted species to a nearby stream,
lake or river. However, this practice can result in the introduction of AIS to the environment,
including viruses and other pathogens associated with ornamental fish. In addition, aquarium
water may contain invasive plants and species, including pathogens, and if flushed to a sewer
system or otherwise disposed of improperly, can release AIS into waterways (USFWS 2006).
Four non-native species (5% of all non-native species in Lake Superior) are reported to have
been introduced to Lake Superior through aquarium releases (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Aquatic Plants Pathway
Water gardening is a popular hobby, but one in which the introduction of AIS is possible. Many
aquatic gardening enthusiasts introduce exotic plants, fish, reptiles and invertebrates to enhance
the beauty of their garden or natural landscape. Some of these non-native species can escape
into the natural environment. Seeds from non-native plants can be carried off by wind, flood, or
wildlife to sprout in nearby waterways. Water gardens in flood-prone areas present a higher risk
of AIS introductions because non-native species are more likely to be released if flooding occurs.
Nineteen species have been introduced into Lake Superior by the accidental escape of cultivated
plants from ornamental or backyard gardens (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Unwanted organisms may also hitchhike with purchased products (e.g., in soil, water, packing
materials, or growing medium). Mislabeling or inconsistencies in the use of species names by
retailers can lead to the accidental purchase of AIS (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004). Improper
disposal of unwanted species into storm sewers, ditches or local waters can result in
establishment of AIS in the local natural environment (Cal-IPC 2007).
One aquatic invertebrate (Gammarid amphipod, Echinogammarus ischuus) is reported to have
been unintentionally released in Lake Superior through packaging material (Minnesota Sea Grant
2008a).
Shoreline and Habitat Restoration Pathway
It is important to prevent the spread of invasive species during shoreline restoration projects, as
invasive species thrive in disturbed areas. Road development and bridge construction projects,
in particular, may be vulnerable to AIS introductions. Invasive species should never be planted
as part of a shoreline restoration project, and care must be taken to ensure that they are not
unintentionally established. Equipment should be cleaned between projects to remove potential
hitchhikers in mud, dirt, sand, water, plants, or other materials where species can hide.
If care is not taken to ensure native species are planted, the results can be detrimental to the local
ecosystem. Seed mix packaged for slope or shoreline stabilization may not have had sufficient
quality control to ensure the absence of invasive seeds. Earth transported as clean fill may be
contaminated by common invasives such as common reed or purple loosestrife. No new AIS are
known to have been introduced to Lake Superior via the shoreline and habitat restoration
pathway.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
18
-------
Live Food Fish Pathway
The import and sale of fish or other organisms for human consumption may result in the
introduction of AIS if care is not taken to ensure proper handling and disposal. Live fish are sold
in markets in large urban centers. Some people release the fish live for spiritual and cultural
reasons. The release of non-indigenous fish, as well as pathogens and other hitchhikers present
in the shipping material used to transport live food fish, is illegal in the Lake Superior Basin.
Shipments of marine organisms to freshwater market areas present less of a threat due to the
change in salinity of the water. No AIS are known to have been introduced to Lake Superior via
live food fish.
On-line Purchasing and Use Pathway
On-line commerce has exploded as an avenue for consumers to purchase aquatic plants, fish, and
invertebrates from around the globe for use in home aquariums and water gardens. Research
shows that most on-line orders received by consumers contain additional unwanted algae, plants,
fungi, or other non-native organisms (Zhuikov 2004). These unwanted species may include AIS
and, when improperly disposed of, they are introduced to the environment. While on-line
purchasing and use has not been documented as a mechanism of AIS introductions in Lake
Superior, on-line sales of aquatic plants are escalating.
3.1.4 Illegal Activities Vector11
Plant Release Pathway
To curb illegal plantings, most states and provinces prohibit the introduction of plants and
animals into public waters without a permit. They also maintain lists of prohibited species that
are illegal to purchase, possess or plant. However, prohibited plants are sometimes introduced
by hobbyists or shoreline restorers who may not have a thorough understanding of regulations or
the species they purchased based on compatibility or use. Purple loosestrife is an example of an
aquatic plant that was intentionally introduced to Lake Superior (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Although it is illegal to sell prohibited invasive species in certain areas, mail order and on-line
sales can elude such regulations. Current consumer trends show an increased interest in exotic
species for the enhancement of water gardens and home aquariums. The internet provides easy
access to prohibited invasive species from around the globe (Global Invasive Species Programme
2008). University of Minnesota researchers found that prohibited aquatic nuisance plants could
be purchased by mail order, despite current regulations prohibiting their sale and use (Zhuikov
2004).
Unauthorized Introductions Pathway
Unauthorized fish stocking is the introduction or transfer of fish that is not performed or
authorized by a federal or state/provincial/tribal fisheries management agency. Unauthorized
11 Unlike other vectors in which the introduction of AIS may be inadvertent, this vector includes activities that
intentionally transport or release AIS illegally into the Lake Superior Basin.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
19
-------
stocking is typically conducted for the purpose of creating new recreational or commercial
fisheries or manipulating existing fish stocks to introduce food into stunted fish lakes. Such
practices are usually illegal due to their harmful nature and negative effect on existing
recreational, commercial, and bait fisheries (USFWS 2006). The number of species introduced
to Lake Superior through unauthorized releases is uncertain. As one example, pink salmon were
intentionally introduced into Thunder Bay due to unauthorized release.
Other types of unauthorized introductions, such as the release of aquarium fish/plants and live
food fish, are discussed under the Organisms in Trade vector and Fishing and Aquaculture
vector.
Import of Bait
It is illegal to bring into Ontario crayfish or salamanders, or live fish or live leeches for use as
bait. Despite this restriction, U.S. residents continue to attempt to smuggle live baitfish into
Ontario. Conservation officers regularly confiscate live baitfish from U.S. residents during
border crossings, resulting in significant fines (OMNR 2009).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
issued a Federal Order in October 2006 prohibiting the importation of 37 species of live fish
(susceptible to VHS) from two Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec) into the U.S. and the
interstate movement of the same species from the eight states bordering the Great Lakes. An
interim rule was published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2008, to provide a regulatory
framework for the interstate movement and importation into the U.S. of live fish that are
susceptible to VHS. The rule establishes certain requirements to prevent the spread of VHS by
interstate movement of live VHS-regulated fish from states where VHS has been detected or that
are at immediate risk of being affected (includes Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). The
effective date of the interim rule has been delayed indefinitely to provide APHIS with time to
make adjustments to the rule that are necessary for the rule to be successfully implemented
(USD A 2008a).
Regulations pertaining to the interstate movement of bait vary by state. For instance, Michigan
does not allow the export of bait, while Minnesota restricts imports of live bait. Bait such as
leeches, worms, and grubs can carry the VHS virus and provide a mechanism for spreading the
virus in fish (WDNR 2008a).12 No AIS have been reported in Lake Superior as a result of the
illegal import of bait.
3.1.5 Fishing and Aquaculture Vector
Fishing Equipment
Anglers and commercial harvesters have the potential to transport AIS associated with or on their
fishing equipment or boats. AIS can accumulate on both commercial and recreational fishing
nets, waders, lures, anchors, boat hulls, motors, and other equipment. For example, some
12 Bait such as leeches, worms, and grubs cannot be infected with VHS but can carry and transmit the virus if it has
been in contact with infected waters or fish.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
20
-------
invasive species can survive for long periods inside
boat livewells. Draining livewell water from one
water body into another waterway or a launch ramp
may result in the release of AIS that have been
accidentally transported in the livewell. Inadequate
drying of livewells also increases the risk of
introducing AIS. The felt soles of waders have been
blamed for the spread of Didymosphenia gem mala,
commonly known as didymo or rock snot, an invasive
species that multiplies rapidly, reduces fish
populations, and grows into dense sludge-like material
that can clog water intakes and pipes.
To date, fishing equipment has not been identified as a
source of AIS in Lake Superior. However, spiny
waterfleas are known to be spread overland on fish
lines and downrigger cables (see sidebar at right).
Thorough inspection and cleaning of fishing
equipment is of paramount importance to prevent the
transport of AIS in or on fishing equipment.
Sale and Distribution of Live Bait Pathway
The sale and distribution of live bait presents a risk of
introducing AIS through contaminated gear used to
harvest and transport fish, fish that may carry disease,
and fellow travelers that may be present with fish in
the transport medium. Commercial harvesting of
baitfish does not occur routinely in Lake Superior,
although it may occur in the basin. Each jurisdiction
in the Lake Superior Basin addresses the sale and
distribution of live bait through its own regulations. In the states, for example, bait may be
certified for sale at the wholesaler level (i.e., certified free of VTIS). Most bait retailers prefer to
sell certified bait (Whelan 2009).
No new AIS are known to have been introduced to Lake Superior through the wholesale or retail
sale and transport of live bait. However, the pathway remains a potential avenue for new AIS
introductions.
Use and Disposal of Bait Pathway
Improper disposal of baitfish into waters may exacerbate the spread of AIS by introducing
potentially invasive plants, invertebrate species, and pathogens hitchhiking in bait wells or
buckets. Live bait may be infected with pathogens (e.g., VHS) or parasites, which when
improperly disposed of, can adversely affect populations of native aquatic species. In the Lake
Superior Basin, releasing unused live bait is illegal. It is also illegal to empty the contents of a
AIS Impact on
Recreational Fishing
Spiny waterfleas are an example of
AIS that negatively impact
recreational fishing. Spiny waterfleas
can accumulate on fishing equipment
and foul fishing lines and nets.
Specific information on how to
prevent the introduction of AIS by
anglers can be found at
http: //www .protectvourwaters .net/prev
ention/user anglers.php.
Photo above: Spiny waterfleas fouling a
fishing line. Photo credit: Jeff Gunderson,
Minnesota Sea Grant.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
21
-------
bait bucket or other baitfish container into Ontario waters. Unwanted bait, live or dead, should
always be disposed of properly (in a trashcan or on the land, far away from the water). Illegal
use of non-native fish as bait can also result in the introduction of invasive species. Three non-
native species have been reported in Lake Superior, most likely due to live bait releases by
anglers (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Aquaculture Facilities Pathway
Aquaculture is the farming of fish and aquatic plants, which can lead to unwanted introductions
of AIS. Although cultured species may be commercially valuable, they are usually not native to
the area or waters in which they are bred. Escapes from aquaculture facilities in the U.S. have
resulted in the introduction of non-native species of fish (e.g., rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) and pink salmon (iOncorhynchus gorbuscha)) and pathogens that may negatively impact
native fish populations, such as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Naylor et al. 2001).
Aquaculture is strictly regulated by Ontario and the U.S. states in the basin, and no commercial
aquaculture currently occurs in Lake Superior.
Charter Fishing Pathway
Chartered boats and guide services offer anglers the opportunity to fish without investing in a
boat and fishing equipment. If charter boats are transported in and out of the basin, proper
equipment management must be undertaken by charter companies and their clients to ensure AIS
do not hitch a ride on fishing lines, boat hulls, or other associated equipment. Improper disposal
of baitfish from charter fishing may also result in the introduction of AIS.
At present, the charter fishing business in Lake Superior is small and largely confined to the
basin. However, guide boats may frequently move between Lake Superior and inland water
bodies or between Lake Superior and Lake Huron or Lake Michigan. No AIS have been
reported in Lake Superior as a result of charter fishing operations or professional guide services.
3.1.6 Canals and Diversions Vector
This vector includes canals, lift locks, water diversions, and compensating works as pathways of
potential AIS introductions into Lake Superior. These pathways are discussed in further detail
below. Six non-native species are thought to have entered Lake Superior through canals and
diversions, likely through the Poe Lock at Sault Ste. Marie (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Canals Pathway
Canals are man-made waterways used for transporting goods and commodities and for
recreation. Canals often connect lakes or rivers and allow the transport of AIS within and across
previously unconnected watersheds. For example, the Portage Canal, or Portage Lake Canal, is
part of the Keweenaw Waterway connecting to Lake Superior on the Keweenaw Peninsula of
Michigan. It is thought that Eurasian ruffe employed this pathway in its eastern expansion along
the south shore of Lake Superior (USFWS 2007).
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
22
-------
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal links the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and exposes
the Great Lakes to species invasion from the Mississippi River. Some of these potential AIS
species found in the Mississippi River Basin, such as Asian carp, are adapted to cold water
environments like Lake Superior. Asian carp populations (bighead, silver and grass carp)
present a serious threat for range expansion into the lower Great Lakes through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal (USEPA 2008b), and subsequently into Lake Superior.
Lift Locks Pathway
Lift locks are a mechanism for transporting commercial ships and boats between waterways of
different water levels. Inside the chamber of a lock, the water level can be raised or lowered, to
move vessels up or down the waterway system. The lift locks at Sault Ste. Marie allow vessels
to bypass the 6.1 metre drop at the St. Marys River rapids and travel between Lake Superior and
the lower Great Lakes.
Locks can also be a mechanism for facilitating the spread of AIS along and between waterways
because they may connect water bodies that were once naturally or now artificially separated
from one another. Development of navigation and water power infrastructure has removed most
of the St. Marys rapids, and since the early 1900s, has prevented the free flow of water and thus
free movement of fish between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. Fish now only gain access to
Lake Superior by swimming under an open compensating gate at the head of the rapids (water
velocities are too strong for most fish to swim against) or by accompanying a vessel in the lock
as it is lifted up to Lake Superior.
Water Diversions
Two separate water diversions
are present in the Lake
Superior Basin. Both the
Long Lac and Ogoki
diversions add water to Lake
Superior from James Bay in
Canada. Together, the Long
Lac and Ogoki diversions
comprise 6% of the water that
refreshes Lake Superior each
year. The diversions are used
to generate hydroelectric
power and transport pulpwood
logs. The rate of water flow
varies between 2,500 and
8,000 cubic feet per second
(Rankin, 2002).
The Ogoki and Long Lac Diversions in Ontario add water to
Lake Superior. Photo credit: Environment Canada
Citieaflrowra
Ontario
Minnesota
Michigan-
Upper Peninsula
Wisconsin
Lake Superior Drainage Basin
A
~
~
A/eas d Concern
Lake Superior
Drainage Basin
lake Superior Diversions
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
23
-------
Compensating Works Pathway
The Compensating Works in the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan and Ontario)
consists of 16 gates that control outflow from Lake Superior into the St. Marys rapids, allowing
water to be diverted from the rapids to the three hydropower facilities (USACE 2006). Because
the compensating works control water level and flow, the structures also affect natural water
temperature variations and dissolved oxygen content. These changes to the water environment
may induce growth of invasive species (Conger et al. 2002). Two to five of the compensating
gates are always open part way to supply water to the St. Marys rapids. During a period of flow
measurements and gate operation testing in the mid 1990s, all the gates were open for significant
periods of time. During 1997, Sea Lamprey Control staff monitoring a lamprey trap in the Big
Carp River approximately 8 kilometers upriver from the rapids noticed an 18-fold increase in the
number of spawning phase adults captured, not including sterile male sea lampreys that had been
released in the lower river. It is surmised that the increased flow in the rapids overwhelmed the
discharge from the four power-generating facilities on the St. Marys River, where adult sea
lampreys are usually captured, and stimulated significantly more lamprey to swim up the rapids
and migrate through the compensating gates. The trap catch at the power generation facilities
during 1997 was 40% of the usual catch in years when the gates were at normal settings (Steeves
2009).
3.1.7 Tourism and Development Vector
Potential pathways for the introduction of AIS in Lake Superior through tourism and
development include cruising vessels, ecotours, and float planes and helicopters. No new AIS
are reported to have been introduced to Lake Superior through tourism and development.
Cruising Vessels
Each year, tourists aboard recreational vessels of various sizes travel from the lower Great Lakes
13
to Lake Superior. These vessels may carry AIS along with them. The focus of this pathway is
vessel hulls, anchors, bilge water, or other means of transporting unwanted organisms that would
expose Lake Superior to non-native species that had previously been confined to the lower lakes.
Ecotours Pathway
Ecotours are trips to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas with a goal of educating the
traveler, minimizing impacts on the local community while benefiting the local economy,
providing funds for conservation, and fostering respect for different cultures. Ecotourism can
add stress to the local environment and create additional opportunities for the infiltration of AIS.
As the popularity of Lake Superior ecotours increases, so does the likelihood of AIS
introduction. This is a current issue in Antarctica, where the increased presence of ecotourism is
credited with the transport of plant seeds on clothing and footwear that are not native to the
archipelago (e.g., species used on golf courses) (National Geographic News 2006).
13 Commercial cruise ships are included in the maritime commerce vector.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
24
-------
Float Planes and Helicopters Pathway
Float planes or sea planes are a popular activity allowing tourists to see the sights from the air.
Some operators take off and land on the surface of lakes. In Ontario, float planes and helicopters
are important for transportation, fire suppression, and remote rescue. Equipment used by
helicopters for fire suppression is transported among lakes and watersheds (e.g., bucket
transports). Air charter companies operate in the Lake Superior Basin and from the St. Marys
River, transporting recreationalists and business interests into remote lakes. Because it is
difficult for floats to be cleaned between lake landings, float planes provide an opportunity for
AIS to travel between watersheds when planes land on multiple lakes (Bayfield County Lakes
Forum 2008). Standard precautions have been developed for this pathway and are accepted and
promoted throughout the Great Lakes Basin. For instance, ANS Task Force recreational
guidelines provide cleaning provisions for before and after landing in new waters.
3.1.8 Water Recreation Vector
Boating Equipment Pathway
Water recreation activities involve many types of equipment in addition to boats, including water
skis, wake boards, pull ropes, and flotation devices. AIS can hide in equipment and become
entangled on boat motors, propellers, anchors, hulls, and trailers. If not properly cleaned, boats
and related equipment may spread AIS, especially when boats are transported between water
bodies. Boat motors and trailers with multiple angles in their frames that can snare plant
material are a common pathway. Two non-native species are reported to have been introduced to
Lake Superior by recreational boaters (Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a).
Diving and Other Recreation Gear Pathway
Equipment and clothing (wet or dry suits) associated with scuba diving are often used in
different water bodies by divers. The equipment and clothing may contain AIS, such as larvae or
algae, and if not cleaned properly or dried thoroughly prior to reuse, may serve as a pathway for
the introduction of AIS to waters. For example, adult and juvenile zebra mussels have been
found impinged in the folds of wet or dry suits and between suits and equipment. Prevention
procedures have been developed for divers and are promoted through outreach campaigns (see
Section 4.4).
Diving and other recreation gear has not been identified to date as a mechanism for AIS
introductions in Lake Superior.
3.2 PRIORITIZATION OF AIS PATHWAYS INTO LAKE SUPERIOR
The identification of pathways specific to the Lake Superior Basin is crucial in the development
of preventative measures. Based on the history of AIS introductions in Lake Superior, the ballast
water pathway is most significant. Table 1 presents a list of AIS that were first introduced into
the Great Lakes in Lake Superior. Half of these non-indigenous invasions were introduced via
ships' ballast (USEPA 2008c). According to Minnesota Sea Grant, more AIS have been
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
25
-------
introduced to Lake Superior via the ballast water pathway than any other pathway. Table 2 lists
the mechanisms of entry for non-native species found in Lake Superior.
Lake Superior may be at risk of new invasions via ballast water. According to a recent report by
the USEPA that predicted the potential for several invasive species to invade the Great Lakes,
Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, were among the Great Lakes ports at greatest risk
for invasion by AIS from ballast water discharges (USEPA 2008c). Of all Great Lakes ports,
Duluth received the greatest volume of ballast water from vessels with ballast on board and from
NOBOB vessels in 2006-2007. This high volume of ballast water increases the risk of AIS
invasions at the Duluth port via domestic or foreign trade. Many of the potential AIS on a Watch
List published by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory involve shipping or
ballast water as a possible pathway of introduction (GLERL 2011).
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the risk of invasion from the ballast water of transoceanic vessels
is expected to have been reduced due to new regulations that require mid-ocean exchange of
ballast water. Lakers, coastal vessels, and transoceanic vessels which take on ballast water in the
lower lakes have ballast water that has not undergone exchange. These vessels are thought to
present the greatest risk of spreading AIS through ballast water from the lower lakes.
Table 1. AIS Introductions into the Great Lakes that First Occurred in Lake Superior14
Year of
Invasion
Species
Common
Name
Type
Vector or Pathway of
Introduction
1884
Agrostis gigantean
Redtop
Plant
Release (deliberate)
1895
Pisidium moitessierianum
Pea clam
Mollusk
Shipping, Solid Ballast
1901
Rumex longifolius
Yard dock
Plant
Release (deliberate)
1936
Sparganium glomeratum
Bur reed
Plant
Unknown
1950
Cirsium palustre
Marsh thistle
Plant
Unknown
1956
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Pink salmon
Fish
Release (unintentional)
1972
Cyclops strenuous
Copepod
Zooplankton
(crustacean)
Canals (water diversion)
1975
Renibacterium
(Corynebacterium)
salmoninarum
Bacterial
kidney disease
Bacteria
Release (unintentional)
1985
Salmincola lotae
Copepod
Zooplankton
(crustacean)
Unknown
1986
Gymnocephalus cernuus
Eurasian ruffe
Fish
Shipping, Ballast Water
1986
Apeltes quadracus
Fourspine
stickleback
Fish
Shipping, Ballast Water
1992
Acanthostomum sp.
Digenean
fluke*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
1992
Ichthyocotylurus pileatus
Digenean
fluke*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
1992
Neascus brevicaudatus
Digenean
fluke*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
1992
Trypanosoma acerinae
Flagellate*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
14 Adapted from USEPA 2008c.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 26
-------
Year of
Invasion
Species
Common
Name
Type
Vector or Pathway of
Introduction
1992
Dactylogyrus
amphibothrium
Monogenetic
fluke*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
1992
Dactylogyrus
hemiamphibothrium
Monogenetic
fluke*
Other
invertebrate
Shipping, Ballast Water
2001
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphipod
Benthic
Crustacean
Shipping, Ballast Water
* These species were present in the bodies of ruffe and round goby (as parasites) during their introduction.
Table 2. Mechanisms of Non-native Species Found in Lake Superior since 1883
Mechanism
Number of Species
Percent*
Ballast Water Discharge
30
35
Cultivationf
19
22
Stocked Fish
12
13
Unknown
9
10
Diseases and Parasites with Fish
9
10
Canals and Diversions
6
7
Aquarium Releases
4
5
Live Bait Releases by Anglers
3
3
Recreational Boaters
2
2
Railroads and Highways
1
1
Packaging Hitchhikers
1
1
Other Release
1
1
f Cultivation generally refers to escape from backyard gardens, in a similar context as Mills et al. 1993.
* The sum exceeds 100% because six species arrived via multiple pathways.
Source: Minnesota Sea Grant. 2008. Non-native Species Found in Lake Superior since 1883. Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/superior nonnatives.
Table 2 lists the most important pathways of AIS introduction to Lake Superior based on
historical records. Priority pathways for preventive actions may differ from the above list and
may change as a result of regulations, guidelines, education/outreach efforts, and other
management strategies that have been developed to halt new introductions. Improved
understanding of the existing and future risks of each vector is needed to optimize the allocation
of resources for prevention actions. However, conducting a full risk assessment takes time and
should not preclude implementation of the recommended actions to prevent new introductions
presented in Section 5.0.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
27
-------
4.0 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INTERRUPTING THE PATHWAYS
This plan addresses the many vectors by which AIS may enter Lake Superior specifically, and
the Great Lakes ecosystem in general. This section presents existing federal, state, and
provincial rules and regulations, collaborative efforts, education, guidance, and other
management efforts aimed at stopping the spread and introduction of AIS. The large geographic
area covered by the Lake Superior watershed and larger Great Lakes ecosystem results in varied
and complex regulations. There is no uniform policy or regulating agency for either watershed.
This section describes the assortment of regulations in place by the various regulatory entities
with jurisdiction in the Lake Superior Basin.
4.1 LAWS. REGULATIONS. AND AGREEMENTS
It is widely reported in the literature that the primary vector for the introduction of new, and
spread of existing, AIS in the Great Lakes ecosystem is ballast water (USEPA 2008c; Batabyal
2006; Rup et al., 2010). As such, regulations and agreements related to ballast water
management are presented first below, followed by federal (U.S. and Canada), state/provincial,
and tribal statutes intended to protect against the spread and introduction of AIS. Although a
thorough search for regulations was conducted, this section may not contain all pertinent
regulations. In addition, some regulations may not apply directly to the Great Lakes ecosystem,
but to invasive species in general that could by virtue of proximity (e.g., maritime east coast)
reach the Great Lakes.
4.1.1 Ballast Water Rules and Regulations
Efforts to control the spread of AIS through ballast water have been developing since the late
1980s. Through multi-agency and collaborative efforts, several steps or best management
practices (BMPs) for ballast water have been developed. In some cases, voluntary efforts or
guidelines developed in the late 1980s or early 1990s for ballast water management have become
mandatory for vessels operating in the Great Lakes ecosystem. These regulations are enforced
by the U.S. and Canadian federal governments and the Joint Seaways Authority. Ballast water
management requirements in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System are presented in
Table 3 and discussed further below. Appendix A contains ballast water requirements for
various vessels under shipping conditions in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 28
-------
Table 3. History of Ballast Water Requirements in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
System
Year
Requirement
Description
1989
Voluntary Canadian guidelines
Ships entering the Seaway requested to conduct
ballast water exchange (BWE)
1993
U.S. Coast Guard regulations for
BWE by BOB ships
Oceangoing BOB ships entering the Great Lakes
must conduct BWE at sea. Enforced through
inspections and testing of ballast water salinity (at
least 30 ppt)
1993
Great Lakes Maritime Industry
Voluntary Ballast Water
Management Plan for the Control of
Ruffe in Lake Superior Ports
Voluntary plan to maximize loads out of western
Lake Superior ports and minimize the need for
ballast water. Ships taking on ballast from ruffe-
inhabited ports should exchange ballast water within
a specified zone in the open waters of Lake Superior.
2002
St. Lawrence Seaway Requirement
All foreign flag ships entering the Seaway must
comply with BMPs, and lakers must comply with
voluntary management practices
2004
U.S. Coast Guard National
Mandatory Ballast Management
Requirements
A national mandatory ballast water management
program required all vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks (BOB ships) that enter or operate within
U.S. waters to maintain a ballast water management
plan*
2004
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) International Convention for
the Control and Management of
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment
Proposed that all ships: implement a Ballast Water
and Sediments Management Plan, carry a Ballast
Water Record Book, and perform ballast water
exchange or meet ballast water performance
standards.
2005
U.S. Coast Guard NOBOB BMPs
U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada inspect
NOBOB vessels and recommend that NOBOB ships
conduct mid-ocean exchange whenever possible and
if not possible, to conduct mid-ocean salt water
flushing, to raise the salinity level of residual,
unpumpable ballast above 30 ppt.
2006
Canadian Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations
All vessels (BOB and NOBOB) entering waters
under Canadian jurisdiction must follow the
International Maritime Organization D1 BWE
standard.
2008
St. Lawrence Seaway NOBOB
Requirement
All transoceanic ships (BOB and NOBOB) must
conduct saltwater flushing 200 nautical miles from
any shore before entering the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Final salinities in each ballast tank must be at least 30
ppt.
2008
USEPA Vessel General Permit
(VGP)
USEPA finalized the VGP, which requires several
ballast water management practices for all waters and
includes numeric discharge limits for certain states.
2009
U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Ballast
Water Discharge Standard
Rulemaking
The Coast Guard proposed a phase-two standard for
the allowable concentration of living organisms in
ships' ballast water discharged in U.S. waters.
2012
U.S. Coast Guard Standards for
Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast
The Coast Guard issued the Ballast Water Final Rule,
which does not include the previously proposed
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
29
-------
Year
Requirement
Description
Water Discharged in U.S. Waters
phase-two standard. The discharge standard in the
Final Rule is the same as the IMO's performance
standard.
Source: Great Lakes BWWG 2009; ANS Task Force 1996
*The ballast water management plan includes reporting and recordkeeping requirements and requires that ships
either conduct a mid-ocean BWE, retain ballast water onboard, or use an alternative environmentally sound ballast
water management method approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Ballast water exchange involves replacing a vessel's ballast water from a source harbor with
ocean water. It removes organisms from a ship's ballast tanks and exposes remaining freshwater
organisms to salt water, thereby killing most of them by osmotic shock. The August 28, 2009
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (DPEIS) for the U.S. Coast Guard rulemaking entitled "Standards for Living
Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water" summarize ballast water exchange studies and identify
important variables in the efficacy of ballast water exchange. Ballast water regulations have
evolved over the years, leading up to the U.S. Coast Guard rulemaking in 2012. The history of
ballast water regulations in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System is outlined below.
Canada first initiated voluntary guidelines in 1989 for ships entering the Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway to exchange their ballast. The U.S. Coast Guard began testing BOB ships on
a voluntary basis in 1991. The voluntary guidelines became mandatory in 1993, when the U.S.
Coast Guard required oceangoing vessels containing ballast on board that enter the Great Lakes
from beyond the U.S. 200-mile EEZ to exchange ballast water on the high seas, or take other
action to prevent the introduction of AIS via ballast water. Compliance is monitored through
inspections and testing the salinity of ballast tanks to ensure salinity levels of at least 30 parts per
thousand (ppt), which is considered a reasonably harsh environment to kill remaining organisms
and evidence that the tanks have been adequately exchanged with seawater.
In 1993, the Great Lakes maritime industry
introduced the voluntary guidelines for shippers to
prevent the spread of ruffe from western Lake
Superior ports. A voluntary ballast water
management plan advised that ships should
maximize loads out of ruffe-inhabited ports and
minimize the need for ballast water. Ships that do
take on ballast from ruffe-inhabited ports should
exchange ballast water in the open waters of Lake
Superior west of a demarcation line drawn between
Grand Portage, Minnesota, and a point one mile
east of the Ontonagon River, Michigan. If ships
cannot exchange ballast in that zone, it should be
completed in deep water (at least 240 ft) and 15
miles from shore. The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards monitored compliance with the plan
through shipping companies' ballast water records (ANS Task Force 1996).
Eurasian ruffe. Photo credit: Gary Cholwek,
National Biological Service. Courtesy of
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
30
-------
Following Transport Canada guidance, in 2002, the U.S. and Canadian Seaway Corporations
instituted two separate requirements for oceangoing vessels and lake carriers (lakers). Foreign
flag ships entering the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System must comply with the Code of
Best Practices for Ballast Water Management endorsed by the Shipping Federation of Canada.
This code commits vessels entering into the Great Lakes to follow, among other practices, record
keeping, reporting, and ballast water exchange procedures enforced through U.S. Coast Guard
regulations.15 Lakers that operate within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway were
required to comply with the Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic
Nuisance Species within the Great Lakes provided by the Lake Carriers' Association and the
Canadian Shipowners' Association, dated January 26, 2001. These voluntary management
practices require ships to agree to regular inspections of ballast tanks and regular removal of
sediment accumulated in ballast tanks.16
In 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a final rule requiring all vessels equipped with ballast water
on board (BOB) and bound for ports or places of the United States to conduct ballast water
exchange at sea, retain ballast water onboard, or use an alternative environmentally sound ballast
water management method approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. The rule also established
penalties for failure to submit a ballast water management reporting form or comply with
mandatory ballast water management requirements. Under the U.S. Coast Guard's National
Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program, all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks
that enter or operate within U.S. waters must maintain a ballast water management plan
specifically for that vessel and must assign responsibility for its implementation.
In 2004, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted an International Convention for
the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment (IMO 2004). The IMO 2004
convention proposed that all ships:
• Implement a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan;
• Carry a Ballast Water Record Book; and
• Perform ballast water management procedures that meet the IMO's ballast water
exchange standards or ballast water performance standards.
The IMO's Ballast Water Exchange Standard (Regulation D-l) states that:
Ships performing Ballast Water exchange shall do so with an efficiency of 95 per cent
volumetric exchange of Ballast Water. For ships exchanging ballast water by the
pumping-through method, pumping through three times the volume of each ballast water
tank shall be considered to meet the standard described. Pumping through less than three
times the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at least 95
percent volumetric exchange is met.
15 For the full Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management, see
http://www.shipfed.ca/eng/librarv/other subiects/ballats water/BallastWaterBestPractices.html.
16 For the full list of voluntary management practices, see http://www.michigan.gOv/dea/0.1607.7-135-
3313 3677 8278-16312-.00.html.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
31
-------
Ballast water exchange can be used to meet the IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard
(Regulation D-2), which states that:
Ships conducting ballast water management shall discharge less than 10 viable
organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum
dimension and less than 10 viable organisms per milliliter less than 50 micrometres in
minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension;
1 7
and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations.
In 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard issued voluntary BMPs for NOBOB vessels. The policy
recommends ballast water exchange at sea whenever possible and, if not possible, salt water
flushing of ballast tanks at sea. The practices are intended to raise the salinity level of residual,
unpumpable ballast in NOBOB tanks above 30 ppt, and reduce the risk of transferring salinity-
tolerant invasive species that might survive in NOBOB tanks (Bailey et al. 2005). Due to
concerns over the risks of NOBOB vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada began
inspecting NOBOB vessels in 2005.
Saltwater flushing is the procedure used for vessels with no ballast on board (NOBOB). This
process is accomplished by allowing a limited amount of salt water to slosh around in an
individual ballast tank as a result of the ship's rolling and pitching motion during passage. This
agitation re-suspends trapped sediments and provides a salinity shock to biota, which can then be
discharged into the open ocean (National Academy of Sciences 2008).
Ballast water management became mandatory and enforceable by Canada beginning in 2006 by
18
implementing ballast water management practices through regulation (Transport Canada 2006).
All vessels entering waters under Canadian jurisdiction are required to follow the IMO ballast
water exchange standard (Regulation D-l).
At the beginning of the 2008 navigation season, all transoceanic ships entering the St. Lawrence
Seaway (including NOBOB ships) were required to conduct saltwater flushing of their ballast
tanks before entering the St. Lawrence Seaway, regardless of whether their destination is a
Canadian or U.S. port. Ships must also maintain the ability to measure salinity levels in each
tank onboard so that final salinities of at least 30 ppt can be ensured. A joint U.S./Canadian
inspection program has been an important monitoring tool for ensuring compliance with ballast
water regulations in the Great Lakes (see Section 4.3 of this plan).
The U.S. Coast Guard ballast water requirements, in combination with USEPA's Vessel General
Permit (VGP), are the primary way in which ballast water discharges are regulated by the U.S.
The U.S. Coast Guard oversees a Ballast Water Management (BWM) Program, which details
mandatory practices for all vessels entering U.S. waters. The requirements include avoiding or
minimizing ballast water uptake in specific areas, discharging minimal amounts of ballast water
in coastal and internal areas, maintaining a ballast water management plan, requiring ballast
water exchange for certain "salties," and training vessel personnel on appropriate ballast water
17 The indicator microbes, as a human health standard, include but are not limited to: Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae,
Escherichia coli, and Intestinal Enterococci.
18 Ballast water management in Canada falls under federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
32
-------
management procedures (USCG 2008). A study conducted by Bailey et al. (2011) shows that
the risk of ship-mediated AIS introductions has been substantially reduced since the Great Lakes
BWM Program was instituted. Ballast water exchange and tank flushing are typically 99.993%
effective at preventing the transfer of freshwater zooplankton.
The USEPA regulates ballast water discharges under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program, usually through the VGP. In addition to generally
reflecting U.S. Coast Guard requirements, the VGP, which became effective in 2008, requires
that all vessels entering any U.S. waters from outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
conduct saltwater flushing and that vessel discharges must be controlled as necessary to meet any
applicable water quality standards (Albert et al., 2010). The 2008 VGP provides mandatory and
suggested ballast water management practices applicable to inland waters and within 3 nautical
miles (nm) of shore. The VGP includes general effluent limits applicable to all discharges;
effluent limits applicable to 26 specific discharge streams; narrative water-quality based effluent
limits; inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and additional
requirements applicable to certain vessel types. Recreational vessels, non-recreational vessels
less than 79 feet (24.1 meters) in length (with the exception of ballast water discharges), and all
commercial fishing vessels, regardless of length, are not subject to the VGP (USEPA 2008d).
In addition, USEPA, in partnership with the Coast Guard, commissioned two scientific studies to
better inform the U.S. government's understanding of ballast water discharges. The first study,
led by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NAS), assessed the risk
associated with ballast water discharges (NAS 2010). The second study, led by USEPA's
Science Advisory board, evaluated the status of ballast water treatment technologies (Boornazian
2010). These studies were designed to assist USEPA in deriving environmentally protective
numeric ballast water discharge standards for the development of the next VGP. The 2008 VGP
expired on December 19, 2013 (USEPA 2008d).
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (a federal agency within the U.S.
Department of Transportation) also has requirements to reduce the impact of ballast water
discharges to the Great Lakes. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, in
partnership with their Canadian counterparts in the St. Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation, require ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing for all vessels that arrive from
outside the EEZ and enter the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway and plan to
discharge ballast water.
Vessels of the U.S. Armed Forces are exempt from the Coast Guard's BWM Program (as stated
in 33 CFR 151.2010) and VGP permit requirements. The various branches of the Armed Forces
have their own policies and management practices regarding ballast water, mostly based on IMO
guidelines. To further standardize discharges, the USEPA and Department of Defense (DOD)
are developing Uniform National Discharge Standards to initiate additional control practices for
a variety of other discharges in addition to ballast water. The standards are being developed
through a three-phase program, which is currently in the second phase (UNDS 2008). In the first
phase, USEPA and the DOD jointly determined the types of vessel discharges requiring control,
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
33
-------
which included ballast discharges from Armed Forces vessels.19 In phase 2, USEPA and DOD
will establish performance standards for control devices or management practices. In the final
phase, DOD will issue regulations that specify the design, construction, installation, and use of
control devices or practices to meet the published performance standards.
U.S. and Canadian Navy vessels typically visit the Great Lakes only to provide goodwill tours.
The size of the locks that the vessels must pass through limits the size of Navy vessel that can
traverse the Great Lakes. Canadian naval vessels do not carry ballast; they have essentially
converted their ballast tanks to freshwater tanks that are filled by on-board reverse osmosis
technology (Wiley 2009). Canadian Coast Guard vessels meet or exceed Canadian requirements
for ballast water management.
In August 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed the establishment of ballast water discharge
standards that would be used to approve alternative ballast water management systems (BWMS)
that are at least as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing or reducing the introduction
of non-indigenous species via discharged ballast water. The rulemaking proposed a phase-two
standard for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ships' ballast water discharged in
U.S. waters. The phase-one standard was based upon the IMO Regulation D-2 standard. The
phase-two standard was based on the most stringent proposed U.S. state regulations that were
based on quantitative limits (CFR 2009).
The U.S. Final Ballast Water Rule was published on March 23, 2012, and went into effect on
June 21, 2012 (USGPO 2012). The rule covers the U.S. territorial sea (12 nautical miles), and
applies to sea-going vessels previously required to conduct ballast water exchange and coastwise
vessels that do not operate outside EEZ but are greater than 1,600 gross tons and transit between
Captain of the Port (COTP) Zones. Within the Great Lakes region, the rule applies to vessels
that depart the Great Lakes, transit beyond the EEZ, and return and pass upstream of Snell Lock
("Salties").
In the Final Rule, BWM Plans now require the inclusion of training and safety procedures for the
crew, and fouling maintenance and sediment removal procedures. Also new to the Final Rule,
ship owners can request an extension of compliance implementation if compliance is not
possible. Non-indigenous species reduction practices (formerly called BWM Practices) and
ballast water reporting and recordkeeping requirements have not changed from the previous rule.
The Final Rule did not adopt the phase-two standard previously proposed; instead, the discharge
standard is the same as the IMO's performance standard (USCG 2013; USGPO 2012).
Many Great Lakes states have developed ballast water management regulations for their
respective jurisdictions. Whenever the federal government issues a license or permit for a
discharge into waters of the U.S., the Clean Water Act Section 401 requires certification for that
discharge stating that any such discharge complies with the applicable provisions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., applicable effluent limitation, standard,
or other limitation). Before USEPA issued the VGP in December 2008, it sought Section 401
certification from all of the Great Lakes states. These states were responsible for granting or
19 USEPA promulgated regulations identifying those Armed Forces vessel discharges requiring control, and those
which do not, in May 1999 at 40 CFR part 1700.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
34
-------
denying Section 401 certification for vessel discharges into navigable waters for which they had
jurisdiction (at the point where the discharge originates). When a discharge may affect the
quality of waters, a state may attach conditions to the license or permit (see
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/sec4Ql.htmn. Many of the Great Lakes states
included ballast water and other requirements as conditions in the VGP (USEPA 2008d). Table
A-2 in Appendix A lists ballast water treatment permit requirements for the U.S. states in the
Lake Superior Basin.
The states' involvement with ballast water regulations is complex and involves numerous aspects
of state and federal laws, as well as international agreements. Current state regulations for
ballast water management in the Lake Superior Basin are described below.
Minnesota requires existing oceangoing ships and commercial vessels that move only among
Great Lakes ports, known as "lakers," to meet the proposed IMO ballast water performance
standard by 2016 using treatment technology that meets Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) approval. New ships, both oceangoing and lakers, launched after 2012 will be required
to meet the IMO standard. Vessels must obtain a state permit demonstrating compliance with the
above requirements.
Wisconsin requires existing oceangoing ships to meet the IMO performance standard by January
2014. New oceangoing ships are required to meet the IMO performance standard for ships
launched after January 2012. Great Lakes carriers are exempt from Wisconsin's treatment
standards but must implement BMPs to prevent the spread of AIS in the Great Lakes. Lakers are
also required to maintain a sediment management plan that conforms to U.S. Coast Guard
standards (WDNR 2009b).
Michigan requires a state permit verifying that vessels meet their state requirements. Michigan
also provided 401 certification conditions, which are contained within USEPA's VGP.
Discharge from oceangoing vessels is prohibited in Michigan waters unless an approved
treatment system to prevent AIS is in place (sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet
light radiation treatment preceded by suspended solids removal, or de-oxygenation). Since
Michigan's State law was implemented in 2007, approximately 100 vessels have obtained a
ballast water control general permit for port operations. However, none have discharged ballast
water, likely because Michigan imports goods, and ships arrive at Michigan ports loaded with
cargo and no ballast water on board (USEPA 2008c). Michigan currently has no requirements
for discharge from lakers but has reserved the right to modify the state's requirements if it is
determined that ballast water treatment on lakers is necessary, available, and cost-effective.
Ontario has not set forth any statutes pertaining to ballast water exchange or treatment, as federal
regulations apply.
Ballast Water Treatment Systems
Shipboard treatment to kill organisms in ballast water is widely viewed as offering greater
operational flexibility than ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing, as well as the potential
for greater effectiveness. A variety of ballast water treatment technologies have proven effective
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
35
-------
on a small scale (e.g., filtration, ultraviolet light, ultrasound, biocides), but implementing new
systems on-ship or on-site at ports presents major challenges.
In response to the ballast water standards proposed by the IMO in 2004, significant progress has
been made in developing effective ballast water treatment systems. Several commercial
treatment systems have received IMO approval for demonstrating compliance with the 2004
IMO performance standard and are available for sale (IMO 2008). However, scientific methods
to assess the concentration of viable organisms present in ballast water discharge, and thus
compliance with ballast water performance standards, have not been fully developed. The water
quality impacts of discharging chemically treated effluent is another issue that must be resolved
(Dobroski et al. 2009).
To accelerate the research, development and implementation of effective ballast treatment
systems for ships entering the Great Lakes, the Great Ships Initiative was launched. The Great
Ships Initiative operates a ballast treatment testing facility in the Duluth/Superior Harbor for
testing various ballast treatment technologies designed to clean ballast waters. The facility offers
both land-based and shipboard testing to assess the performance and toxicity of treatment
systems in freshwater (Northeast-Midwest Institute 2007). Other treatment testing facilities exist
both in the U.S. and abroad. These testing facilities include the Maryland Environmental
Resource Center (MERC), facilities aboard the training ship Golden Bear, the Royal Netherlands
Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), and the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Not
all of these facilities have the ability to test systems in freshwater that would be appropriate for
the Great Lakes.
Additional ballast treatment testing programs are operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and USEPA.
The Coast Guard's Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program provides an incentive for foreign
and domestic vessels to install and operate an experimental treatment system by granting an
equivalency to future ballast water discharge standard regulations, for up to the life of the vessel
or system. Under the Environmental Technology Verification Program, the U.S. Coast Guard
and USEPA have collaboratively developed protocols for ballast water treatment systems. The
most recent protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment technology was finalized in
September 2010 (USEPA 2010). The Naval Research Laboratory Ballast Water Treatment
Testing Facilities in Key West, Florida, were responsible for developing and validating many of
these protocols, in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard and USEPA.
Shore-based ballast water treatment avoids some of the challenges associated with shipboard
application of water treatment methods. There are currently no shore-based ballast water
treatment facilities available to vessels operating in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
system.
A report prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) evaluated the
feasibility of developing an off-ship ballast water treatment system for use in port areas (Brown
and Caldwell 2008). The treatment system would be housed on a barge, allowing it to be
transported and used at other ports. The report recommended further research and testing to
determine the impact of requiring ballast water treatment in Wisconsin waters, including the
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
36
-------
effectiveness of the proposed treatment (cloth filter followed by UV radiation). It remains to be
seen whether shore-based treatment systems will be feasible.
Retention of ballast water on ship ensures that no AIS present in ballast water are released into
non-native waters. However, depending on the trading pattern of the vessel, retention of ballast
water may not be possible or practical.
4.1.2 U.S. Federal Statutes
Several statutes are aimed at preventing the introduction and spread of AIS in the U.S. Several
regulations stipulate ballast water management to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS,
including the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), National
Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Lacey Act and its
amendments govern the importation or shipment of injurious organisms covering a range of fish,
wildlife, plants and plant products. The Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992
addresses the shipment through the U.S. mail of prohibited fish, wildlife, and plants covered
under the Lacey Act. The Plant Protection Act (2000) regulates the prevention and spread of
noxious weeds, including foreign aquatic plants. Appendix B presents selected U.S. statutes
governing AIS.
Several bills related to AIS have recently been introduced into Congress. For example, U.S.
House bills H.R.260, Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, and H.R.I350, Great Lakes
Collaboration Implementation Act, point to the need for continued research to protect against
AIS. The Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act is intended to establish marine and freshwater
research, development, and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and
eradicate invasive species, as well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore
ecosystems. The Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act is intended to establish a
collaborative program to protect the Great Lakes by authorizing funding for key
recommendations from the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
4.1.3 Canadian Federal Codes and Statutes
Appendix B presents selected Canadian codes and statutes governing AIS. In summary, the
following Canadian regulations help prevent the introduction of AIS in Lake Superior:
1. No harmful substances of any type may be deposited (i.e., from ships, sewers, run-off,
etc.) in waters frequented by fish. (Fisheries Act)
2. Ballast water control and management are mandated for Canadian vessels everywhere
and for foreign vessels in Canadian waters. An inspection and enforcement program is in
place to monitor compliance. (Canada Shipping Act)
3. The direct discharge of sanitary wastes into certain bodies of water is prohibited. The
discharge of galley or washing wastes is not prohibited. (Canada Shipping Act)
4. Permits are required for dumping contaminated and harmful substances (including
dredged sediments) into Canadian waters. (Canadian Environmental Protection Act)
5. The discharge of any waste or material that would impair navigation in navigable waters
is prohibited. Certain material—such as rock, gravel, soil, or ash—can be discharged
where water depth exceeds 20 fathoms. (Navigable Water Protection Act)
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
37
-------
6. Petroleum storage tanks on federal lands must be registered. (Canadian Environmental
Protection Act)
7. All necessary precautions to avoid accidental spills should be taken; in the event of a
spill, an emergency spill response should proceed. A list of hazardous substances that are
used on site and that are likely to contaminate the environment if spilled should be
created. The release of a toxic substance to the environment must be reported. {Canadian
Environmental Protection Act).
8. Ships in waters under Canadian jurisdiction or in the United States waters of the Great
Lakes Basin must manage ballast water through the following management processes,
either separately or in combination:
a. the exchange of ballast water;
b. the treatment of ballast water;
c. the discharge of ballast water to a reception facility; and
d. the retention of ballast water on board the ship. (Canadian Ballast Water
Management and Control Regulation 2006, under authority of Canada Shipping
Act).
4.1.4 State and Provincial Administrative Codes and Statutes
The states (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) and province (Ontario) in the Lake Superior
Basin have promulgated administrative codes and statutes to control AIS that are introduced
through various pathways. These statutes address various pathways of AIS introduction,
including ballast water, import of bait, boating, plant release, unauthorized introductions, aquatic
plants that are purchased and sold, fishing equipment, float planes, and use and disposal of live
bait. Appendix C presents relevant codes and statutes for each state/province. In addition,
ballast water treatment permit requirements for the U.S. states in the Lake Superior Basin are
presented in Table A-2 of Appendix A.
4.1.5 Tribal Regulations
A number of tribes have reservations and/or treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights
in the Lake Superior Basin. On the U.S. side, tribes regulate their members in the exercise of
these rights, with the help of intertribal agencies like the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, the 1854 Treaty Authority, and the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority. Tribes
have promulgated regulations to control AIS that could be introduced when tribal members are
exercising these rights. In some but not all cases, these regulations parallel the regulations in
place in the state where the rights are being exercised.
4.2 INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
Section 4.1 listed the state, provincial, federal, and international requirements aimed at reducing
the spread and introduction of AIS. Working toward the same goal, and within their respective
jurisdictions, various agencies have worked collaboratively to develop these rules. One of the
most widespread invasions of AIS in the Great Lakes region, the zebra mussel, has focused many
collaborative efforts on the management and control of ballast water. This section highlights
current interagency collaboration aimed at stemming the spread of AIS through ballast water.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
38
-------
The primary U.S. and Canadian federal agencies that have helped shape AIS control efforts in
the Great Lakes are:
• United States Coast Guard
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
• National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
• Transport Canada
• Environment Canada
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The U.S. agencies were brought together in 1990 to implement the newly enacted NANPCA
through the establishment of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. The ANS Task
Force was commissioned to conduct studies to identify areas where ballast water could be
discharged and loaded to ships where no environmental damage would occur, and to determine
the need for additional control on vessels. The results of these studies were to be reported to
Congress. The collaboration of agencies and task force resulted in the development of the Great
Lakes Ballast Water Management Program in 2004, directed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Under NANPCA, mandatory requirements for ballast water management in the Great Lakes (for
both ballasted and non-ballasted vessels) have been enforced since 1993. Currently, all vessels
entering the Great Lakes ecosystem must report ballast water data to one of three check points
(Captain of the Port in Buffalo, Coast Guard's Marine Safety Detachment in Massena, or via the
U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to the Marine Safety Detachment in
Massena). This data is tracked and stored in the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse,
which is maintained jointly by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center.
In addition to the ANS Task Force and requirements established under NANPCA and the CWA,
multiple efforts in the U.S., Canada, and internationally have been initiated to prevent the
introduction of AIS in the Great Lakes ecosystem and beyond. In 2004, the IMO convened an
international convention to stop the spread of AIS. As a result of the convention, 30 nations
(representing 35% of the world merchant shipping tonnage) adopted rules and regulations for the
control and management of ballast water and sediments. However, the convention only comes
into force once 30 nations or 35% of the world shipping tonnage have ratified it. As of July
2010, 24 nations had ratified the convention, representing 25% of worldwide shipping tonnage.
Canada ratified the IMO convention as of April 9, 2010. Current Canadian ballast water
regulations are consistent with the requirements of the IMO convention, except for the
convention's application dates for fitting ballast water technology on ships.
The U.S. and Canada are cooperating through the North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC),the Great Lakes Commission, and the International Joint
Commission (UC) to better understand, coordinate, and address ballast water management
concerns. The CEC promotes research and development related to AIS. Recognizing the
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
39
-------
potential risk of transfer of non-native species through international commerce, the CEC recently
developed Trinational Risk Assessment Guidelines for Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. The AIS
issue is a priority for the Great Lakes Commission, which has supported the Great Lakes Panel
on Aquatic Nuisance Species since 1991 and which implements several projects related to AIS
issues. Due to potential water quality concerns posed by AIS, the UC has supported government
actions to protect the Great Lakes from the threat of invasive species, including federal U.S.
legislation for ballast water treatment, and ratification of the 2004 IMO convention (UC 2004).
The U.S./Canadian Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) was established in January of 2006.
This binational group consists of representatives from Transport Canada - Marine Safety, U.S.
Coast Guard, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and the Canadian St.
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The mission of the group is to coordinate
regulatory compliance and research efforts for reducing AIS introductions through ballast water
into the Great Lakes. All four agencies committed resources to aggressively increase ballast tank
inspections during 2008.
Most recently, the Great Ships Initiative was formed collaboratively with U.S. and Canadian
participation to focus resources and expertise on developing solutions to AIS problems from
maritime commerce in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System. The current focus of the
Great Ships Initiative is research, development and implementation of effective ballast treatment
systems for ships entering the Great Lakes from overseas. The initiative brings together experts
from the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the American Great Lakes Ports Association, the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the University of Wisconsin-Superior, Minnesota Sea Grant, and
other federal, state and interested carriers.
In 2009, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the International
Joint Commission initiated the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative to bring together
industry and state and federal regulators on the issue of ballast water and invasive species in the
Great Lakes region. One of the primary goals of the Collaborative is to share relevant, useful,
and accurate information and to foster better communication and collaboration among key
stakeholders engaged in the effort to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of AIS (SLSDC
2010).
The International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species is an important catalyst for
collaboration among researchers, practitioners, resource managers and educators who are
addressing the issue of non-native species in marine and freshwater environments. Held every
18 months, the international forum provides a review of scientific knowledge, presents current
research, introduces new technological developments for control and mitigation of non-native
species, promotes outreach and education initiatives, discusses policy and legislation, and
considers ballast water and other shipping-related issues.
In 2006 the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) was established at the
University of Windsor. This is a multi-million dollar research initiative that involves 20
universities across Canada as well as five federal laboratories, the shipping and aquaculture
industries, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This program brings together
academia, government, industry, and non-government organizations to work on and advance the
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
40
-------
technology, science, and policy needed to address invasive species introductions (CAISN 2009).
The program and its research are directed at three theme areas (CAISN 2006-2007):
• Identification and quantification of vectors and pathways that transmit AIS to and within
Canada
• Assessment of factors that affect establishment success of AIS
• Risk assessment modeling of AIS
In Ontario, several federal and provincial government agencies collaborate to implement the
specific goals related to invasive species that are outlined in CO A. For example, to reduce the
entry and spread of non-native invasive species in the Great Lakes, Canada developed a
Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species through the
collaboration of federal, provincial and territorial governments. Both government and non-
government organizations are working together to deliver invasive species monitoring, risk
assessment, control, reporting, research and outreach initiatives as part of the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR) and Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Invading Species
Awareness Program. Risk assessments for AIS of national importance are conducted by
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Most of the discussion on interagency collaboration has focused on international and federal
efforts regarding ballast water. There is also much collaboration among state, local, and tribal
organizations in an effort to stop the spread of AIS. For example, in December 2004, the U.S.
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) was launched, creating a unique partnership of key
members from federal, state, and local governments, tribes, and other stakeholders for the
purpose of developing a strategic plan. Due to the large number of potential organizations, not
all local, inter- and intra-state, intertribal, and agency collaborations are described in the present
plan. This is primarily due to the limited documentation of such collaborative efforts. However,
in the following sections, several state, provincial, and tribal initiatives promoting voluntary
actions for other vectors are included. These initiatives require the collaborative efforts of many
resource management agencies and organizations.
4.3 MANAGEMENT. MONITORING AND GUIDANCE
Because ballast water has historically been the primary vector for the introduction of AIS in the
Great Lakes ecosystem, this section briefly describes management and monitoring efforts related
to ballast water and then discusses voluntary and mandatory efforts (BMPs, monitoring and
general guidance) that focus on other vectors of AIS.
4.3.1 Ballast Water Management and Monitoring
In 1997, Transport Canada, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. and Canadian Seaway
Corporations began conducting joint inspections of vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway
20
System to ensure compliance with ballast water management requirements. Ships are
inspected before entering the Great Lakes, at a central point in Montreal. Inspections of vessels
include review of ballast water reports, logs, records and ballast water management plans.
20 Great Lakes ballast water exams are conducted and reported by the Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
41
-------
Additionally, ballast water tanks are routinely sampled for salinity as part of Transport Canada's
inspection and enforcement regime. All data are recorded and reported annually. This
monitoring allows agencies to identify areas where additional regulation and enforcement are
required and to evaluate the effectiveness of current regulations.
In 2009, 100% of vessels bound for the Great Lakes Seaway were inspected, a 26% increase over
the number of inspections conduced in 2007. Ships' compliance with ballast water management
requirements remains high. In 2008, 98.6% of 6,704 ballast tanks sampled were compliant,
compared to 95% compliance in 2007 (Great Lakes BWWG 2009). In 2009, 97.9% of 5,450
ballast tanks sampled were compliant. Most non-compliant vessels chose to retain non-
compliant ballast water on board in 2009; one vessel chose to conduct an exchange in an
approved alternate zone (Great Lakes BWWG 2010). Non-compliance is addressed on a case-
by-case basis,21 and civil penalties may be incurred for violations.
4.3.2 Other AIS Vectors
The Province of Ontario and several states have implemented BMPs and management plans
aimed at AIS vectors other than ballast water. These programs are primarily aimed at the water
recreation, fishing, and tourism vectors. Programs in the states and Ontario incorporate public
education and monitoring to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS. For instance, during the
summer months, trained individuals monitor recreational boats as they are removed from the lake
and trailered. The inspectors inform boaters of the laws regarding restrictions on transport of
AIS, and demonstrate how to inspect and remove AIS from their boating equipment. Education
and outreach programs are described further in Section 4.4 below.
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have developed state AIS management plans and maintain
active programs to manage AIS. Since 1996, Michigan has maintained a management plan to
address AIS through legislation and policy, information and education, and research and
monitoring. Minnesota established an invasive species program in 1991 that involves outreach,
education, regulation, watercraft inspections, monitoring and active management of established
AIS. Wisconsin's program includes watercraft inspections, monitoring for AIS, education and
outreach efforts, control of established species, and training for volunteers to help inspect boats
and equipment and monitor for aquatic invasives.
In addition to state invasive species programs, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, a network of
Great Lakes universities funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), funds research, supports public outreach and education, and maintains AIS resources
to address aquatic invasive species prevention and control. The Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin Sea Grant programs are instrumental partners in the states' efforts to prevent the
introduction of new aquatic species to Lake Superior. Resources such as NOAA's Great Lakes
Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS), which maintains a database of
aquatic non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes, are additional tools that have proven useful in
informing invasive species management decisions.
21 Ships with non-compliant ballast tanks are required to perform one of three options: (1) Retain the ballast water
and residuals onboard, (2) Treat the ballast water in an environmentally sound and approved manner, or (3) Return
to sea and conduct a full ballast water exchange.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
42
-------
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, and
OMNR, in partnership with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, have developed
invasive species programs and strategies that include guidelines and other actions to prevent the
introduction of new invasive species (e.g., steps for recreational boaters regarding boat cleaning).
AIS are one of the top concerns of the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority, an intertribal
agency that has been involved with many initiatives and efforts for the prevention of AIS
through involvement with the ANS Task Force, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission and sea lamprey control efforts. The Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, another intertribal agency, has also been involved in AIS efforts, with
an extensive control and mapping program for aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.
4.4 EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Current AIS management programs inform and educate individuals regarding the threat of
invasive species and steps that can be taken to prevent the introduction of AIS. In addition to
state/provincial or federal programs, non-profit and grassroots organizations can play an
important role in education and the dissemination of information. For example, the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters has thousands of members and hundreds of member clubs
spread across Ontario. Similar organizations represented in both countries include Ducks
Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and the Nature Conservancy. The efforts of these groups to educate
the public and influence the drafting of rules and regulations on issues such as AIS have a
significant impact on reducing their impacts.
In 1992, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, in partnership with OMNR, established
the Invading Species Awareness Program. The program seeks to raise public awareness of
invasive species and encourage participation in preventing their spread, monitor and track the
spread of invading species in Ontario waters, and conduct research on the impacts and control of
22
invasive species. For example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and OMNR have
installed roadside signs with educational messages for boaters and anglers in the Lake Superior
Basin.
Minnesota Sea Grant has successfully implemented AIS education and outreach efforts by
targeting segmented Lake Superior audiences and integrating prevention through education,
inspection (legal or voluntary), monitoring, and enforcement. Minnesota Sea Grant also supports
and participates in scientific research that focuses on Lake Superior. Three programs that have
been effective at increasing public awareness and changing behavior to prevent the introduction
of AIS include: Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!™, Habitattitude, and Aquatic Invasive Species-
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program (AIS-HACCP) (Minnesota Sea Grant
2008b).
22 For more information about the Invading Species Awareness program, see
http://www.invadingspecies.com/indexen.cfm.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
43
-------
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! is a multi-media
campaign aimed at recreational water users.
Specific AIS prevention measures have been
developed for the following recreational users of
the lake: anglers, aquarium or pet owners, bait
harvesters/users, boaters, dog owners, hunters,
scuba divers/snorkelers, seaplane pilots, surfers,
swimmers, and tourists. The program is based on
over 10 years of experience and the application of
human dimension research to understand
awareness, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, insight
into values, and behaviors of target audiences. In
states like Minnesota and other jurisdictions that
have made the campaign a priority, the program has
effectively influenced boaters and anglers to inspect and clean their equipment. Results of
surveys conducted in 2007 show that 99% and 97% of Minnesota and Wisconsin boaters,
respectively, report taking action at water accesses to prevent the spread of AIS. The success of
past efforts suggests that other jurisdictions can interrupt this potential pathway of spread by
fully implementing Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!.
Habitattitude is a successful partnership of the pet industry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network. Through consumer education, the program aims to prevent
the release or escape of aquarium fish, plants, crayfish, snails, and turtles by providing
alternatives for the release of unwanted aquarium fish and plants into the environment.
Led by Michigan and Minnesota Sea Grant, AIS-HACCP is a program aimed at preventing the
spread of AIS by the aquaculture and baitfish industries. AIS-HACCP works with businesses
and agencies in the U.S. states and Ontario to identify and address points in the fish and bait
handling business that are critical for AIS contamination or release. As a result of AIS-HACCP,
an estimated 1,035 plans have been implemented by businesses and agencies to address critical
points for AIS contamination or release. By 2010, all commercial bait operators in Ontario,
Canada (consisting of approximately 1600 licenses), will be required to have AIS-HACCP plans
in place. Bait harvesters need to complete mandatory training as well. The requirements for
AIS-HACCP plans were implemented by OMNR starting in 2006.
Michigan Sea Grant has been involved with the development of AIS-HACCP training materials,
and early training was targeted at the private aquaculture and baitfish industries in Michigan.
Later training focused on State of Michigan fish hatchery and natural resources personnel,
including Tribes. Recent activities have focused on preventing the spread of VHS, and a series
of Biosecurity/AIS-HACCP Workshops have been conducted in the region (Gunderson and
Kinnunen 2002; Gunderson and Kinnunen 2004).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has used a multi-pronged approach to
educate boaters, anglers, and others. Since 1992, the DNR's Invasive Species Program has made
substantial efforts to create and maintain a high level of public awareness and understanding
about invasive species. Key components of annual education efforts include television and radio
Dtying a gill net. North Shore Lake Superior.
Photo credit: Minnesota Sea Grant, Jeff
Gunderson. Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
44
-------
public service announcements, printed materials, press releases, media contacts, newspaper ads,
billboards, information on DNR's website, staffing at sports shows and other major events,
educational displays and exhibits, informational signs at public water accesses, and training.
4.5 SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR AIS PROGRAMS
Although the need for efforts to prevent the introduction of AIS is evident, actions cannot be
realized without appropriate funding. There are several government agencies and non-
government organizations that actively provide funding for research and enforcement of
regulations related to AIS. A few examples are presented below.
The OMNR funds programs delivered through the Invading Species Awareness Program run by
its partner, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The program includes control,
monitoring, and prevention programs, public participation, demonstrations, and education
campaigns to raise awareness about the ecological impacts associated with AIS.
Education and outreach efforts implemented by Minnesota Sea Grant (described above) are
funded by Sea Grant (NOAA) in cooperation with several partners: AIS-HACCP in partnership
with the Great Lakes Protection Fund; Habitattitude in partnership with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council; Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! in
partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments
of Natural Resources.
NOAA has also funded the National Sea Grant program and Great Lakes Ballast Water
Technology Demonstration program to investigate alternatives to ballast water exchange
methods and provide leadership assistance to the Great Lakes NOBOB and Ballast Exchange
research program. NOAA also funds AIS research and outreach in all Great Lakes states through
the Sea Grant program.
Since 2005, funding for the Great Ships Initiative has been provided primarily by Congress, with
additional funds or in-kind contributions from several partners. In March 2009, Congress
awarded the Great Ships Initiative $1 million in new funding to continue efforts to prevent ship-
mediated introductions of AIS.
Research surrounding complex issues such as AIS is key to preventing the introduction of new
invasive species. Advanced research labs such as NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research
Lab, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in the U.S., as well as the Great Lakes
Institute for Environmental Research, and the Canadian labs that have partnered under CAISN
are crucial to fully understanding AIS. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada is funding much of the research undertaken by CAISN partners, including the building
and testing of tools for studying vectors, pathways, the factors that affect the success of species
establishment, and the development of risk assessment models related to future AIS invasion.
Additional CAISN funding partners include Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
and OMNR.
Minnesota established an Invasive Species Program in 1991 within MN DNR. It has grown into
a $4.7 million per year program to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species within
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
45
-------
Minnesota and to reduce the impacts caused by invasive species. Funding for program activities
is provided through a surcharge on watercraft licenses, a surcharge on non-resident fishing
licenses, and the state's general fund. Additional funding, primarily for specific research efforts,
is provided by the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund and Minnesota Future
Resources Fund. Federal grants are also sought to help fund program efforts.23
MN DNR has provided grants to extend its Invasive Species Program efforts on a local scale.
Invasive Species Prevention Grant funds totaling $100,000 was offered in 2009 for community-
based prevention efforts such as public awareness campaigns and watercraft inspections.
Eligible applicants include various non-profit type groups (e.g., lake associations, conservation
districts, watershed groups).
Established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, a binational agreement signed by
Canada and the U.S. in 1954, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is a joint U.S.-Canadian
organization with two major responsibilities related to AIS in the Great Lakes: 1) Develop
coordinated research programs and recommend measures that permit the maximum sustained
productivity of fish stocks, and 2) maintain a sea lamprey control program to eradicate or
minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Trust recently provided
funding for a three-year study that investigated eliminating the transfer of invasive species
between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems. The results of the research indicated
that, while an electrical dispersal barrier currently provides some control on the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, long-term solutions are needed to further reduce the risk of invasions (U.S.
Water News 2008).
On April 8, 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced the activation of a new electric
barrier (Barrier IIA) in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the spread of AIS (e.g.,
Asian carp) into the Great Lakes. Barrier IIA now operates in addition to a smaller
demonstration barrier that the U.S. Army Corps has operated in the canal since 2002. Both
barriers operate at an electric field strength of 1 volt per inch to block the passage of fish
between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The Army Corps is continuing efforts to
determine the optimum combination of voltage, pulse duration and frequency required to repel
all sizes of fish, including smaller juveniles, which are more likely to swim through lower
voltage fields. As with the sea lamprey control program, the barrier system must operate
continuously, in perpetuity, to prevent the passage of AIS, unless measures are taken to
completely separate the Great Lakes ecosystem from the Mississippi River drainage area.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to investigate technologies that may enhance the
efficacy of dispersal barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal system (e.g., additional
23 More information about the Minnesota DNR's Invasive Species Program is available at
http ://www.dnr. state. mn.us/eco/invasives/index. html.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
46
-------
technologies such as acoustic deterrents, air bubble curtains, and strobe lights used both
24
individually and in combination).
The National Invasive Species Act (NISA) in 1996 authorizes the appropriation of funding to
U.S. states for prevention, education, monitoring, control and research. Under the auspices of
the ANS Task Force, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service distributes approximately $1 million
annually to states that have an approved state management plan addressing AIS. Under this
authority, each state receives about $48,000.
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Action is needed to prevent the introduction of new AIS in the Lake Superior ecosystem. Table
4 identifies current gaps in existing rules, regulations, practices, and programs that may lead to
the introduction of AIS in Lake Superior. Organizations to lead implementation of each of the
recommended actions will be identified in an implementation plan, which will be developed
upon final approval of the plan. Recommended actions are discussed further following the table
As new information arises, the identified gaps and need for action may change. For example, in
the next few years, an overall study of the relative risk of each vector of AIS introduction in
Canada will be conducted under the guidance of CEARA (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). The
results of this study may provide new information that changes the need and approach for
preventive actions.
Table 4. Recommended AIS Prevention Activities for Lake Superior, by Vector and
Pathway
Pathway
Gap
Recommended Action
Jurisdiction
Maritime Commerce
Ballast water
- Ballast water standards for
maritime and lake vessels
vary among Lake Superior
jurisdictions
- Implement compatible, federal
regulatory regimes for ballast water
discharge that are protective of the Great
Lakes for both the U.S. and Canada.
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
- New technologies for
ballast water treatment are
not widely available. The
development, testing,
approval and commercial
availability of treatment
systems suited for the
operational characteristics
of the Great Lakes is a
significant technology gap.
- Work with appropriate federal agencies
and the Great Ships Initiative to support
development, testing and
implementation of effective ballast
treatment systems for the Great Lakes
- Provide incentives for proving
technology effective in freshwater
environments
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Hull/anchor/
superstructure
- Lack of regulations and
programs to prevent deck
- Identify programs and determine an
effective management approach that
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
24 Federal Register: March 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 49). Notice of Availability for Comments Regarding the
Planned Environmental Assessment Interim Report Ilia Fish Deterrent Barriers, Illinois and Chicago Area
Waterways
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
47
-------
Pathway
Gap
Recommended Action
Jurisdiction
fouling
and superstructure fouling
as a pathway
- Research needed into
alternative anti-fouling
agents to TBT
will prevent the transfer of AIS to Lake
Superior
Agency Activities
Stocking/
Hatcheries
- No new actions
Harbor,
navigation
maintenance and
construction
- Activities may require
using equipment and tools
in the basin that were
previously used in other
marine or freshwater
environments and may be
contaminated with AIS
- AIS may be contained in
dredged material, and its
reuse may result in AIS
introductions
- Ensure that government agencies and
their contractors establish and perform
BMPs to prevent AIS introductions
during dredging operations,
construction, and other maintenance
activities
- Implement an education campaign
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Research and
assessment
- All research vessels
(government, contracted,
academic, Tribal, and First
Nation) need to be able to
perform due diligence in
preventing transfers of
invasive species
- Lack of education, planning
and reporting new species
or infestations
- Ensure that operating budgets allow for
due diligence (e.g., adequate time and
resources to take preventive measures)
- Apply AIS-HACCP to operations and
products
- Encourage all agencies who issue
permits for research and assessment in
Lake Superior to include AIS
precautions in the permit conditions
- State/Provincial
/ Tribal
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Coast Guard
activities
- Coast Guard vessel
practices, such as relocating
navigation buoys, may
spread AIS
- The Coast Guards should review
practices to ensure AIS are not
transferred to Lake Superior from lower
lakes
- USCG
- Canadian Coast
Guard
Organisms in Trade
Live food fish,
pets/aquariums,
aquatic plants
- Regulatory gaps
- Lack of inspection for
prohibited state, provincial
and federal species
- Lack of consumer
awareness/education
- Lack of consistency in use
and labeling of names
- Contamination of products
sold
- Establish federal screening processes to
classify species proposed for trade into
three lists: prohibited, permitted, and
conditionally prohibited/permitted
- Establish an immediate
moratorium on the trade of prohibited
species
- Consider the concept of a "Certified
Pathogen-Free through raising from
seed" category for plants sold through
garden centers and nurseries
- Expand or implement education
programs
- State/ Provincial
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Shoreline and
habitat
restoration
- Regulatory gaps
- Lack of education and
enforcement
- Require permits for shore land work,
which identify AIS introduction issues
and establish BMPs and restrictions
- Implement education and enforcement
efforts addressing shoreline and habitat
- State/ Provincial
- Federal Canada
- USACE
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
48
-------
Pathway
Gap
Recommended Action
Jurisdiction
restoration
- Identify ecosystems that may be more
vulnerable to invasion under changing
environmental conditions, and restore
ecosystems to become less vulnerable
Illegal Activities
Plant release
- On-line and mail order
purchases evade regulations
prohibiting the sale of
invasive species.
- Ensure that existing laws prohibiting the
sale of invasive species are enforced for
on-line and mail order purchases
- Work with plant nurseries or the
industry to educate retailers about
regulations pertaining to the sale of
invasive plants
- State/ Provincial
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Unauthorized
introductions
- Fish are transported
between jurisdictions and
watersheds and released.
- Lack of education
- Create or initiate educational campaigns
at, e.g., sportsman shows, bait shops,
aquaria trade fairs, schools
- Implement proven education campaigns
appropriate for each audience
- State/ Provincial
- Tribes
- First Nations
Import of bait
- Live bait is illegally
transported across the
U.S./Canadian border and
on shared waters
- Lack of education
- Ensure effective education and
prevention efforts at border crossings
and retail bait shops
- Monitor for effectiveness
- Alert inspection and border control
agencies to new invasive threats due to
climate changes, and re-assess
inspection priorities
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
Fishing and Aquaculture
Fishing
equipment
including boats
and vessels
- Lack of uniform
regulations, enforcement,
and inspection capacity
across the Lake Superior
Basin.
- Additional resources are
needed in some
jurisdictions to support
effective education and
enforcement efforts
- Make regulations consistent basinwide
re: cleaning fishing equipment
- Make AIS prevention education,
regulation, and enforcement a priority in
all Lake Superior jurisdictions
- Use community-based social marketing
to identify the best methods or
prevention approaches for reaching
target audiences (e.g., boaters, anglers)
and adapt for audiences not currently
being reached
- Fully implement Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers!
- Build capacity for education and
enforcement efforts within local
communities by providing outreach
products that can be tailored for local
use
- Provide community grants for education
and enforcement efforts
- Monitor programs for effectiveness
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
- State/Provincial
- Communities
(e.g., lake
associations)
Sale and
distribution of
live bait, Use and
disposal of bait
- Additional resources are
needed in some
jurisdictions to support
effective education and
- Make AIS prevention education,
regulation, and enforcement a priority in
all Lake Superior jurisdictions
- Ensure that current regulations are
- State/ Provincial
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
49
-------
Pathway
Gap
Recommended Action
Jurisdiction
enforcement efforts
updated as needed
- Adequately enforce baitfish regulations
- Maintain or expand education and
outreach programs
- Revise import/
introduction/release standards based on
risk assessments that account for how
changing climate conditions will affect
the threat of new species
Aquaculture
facilities
- No new actions at this time
Charter fishing/
Professional
fishing guides
- Research suggests high risk
due to number of
waterways frequented and
lack of effective boater
hygiene practices
- Target outreach/
education to identify and communicate
with fishing guides to improve boater
inspection and cleaning
- State/ Provincial
Canals and Diversions
Lift locks
- Despite operational
procedures that keep the
lock gates closed when not
in use, fish are able to pass
through the locks at Sault
Ste. Marie
- Review and adjust policies regarding
operation of the locks at Sault Ste.
Marie to include best management
practices that effectively prevent fish
from passing through the lock, including
closing the upper and lower gates when
not in use and the use of in-stream
barriers or deterrent technologies, if
necessary
- USACE
- City of Sault St.
Marie
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
- The electric barrier in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal may not be sufficient
to prevent the passage of
fish (e.g., Asian carp)
through the canal
- Investigate options to achieve ecological
separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River watersheds
- Until ecological separation is achieved,
maintain the electric barrier at optimum
conditions and ensure its continued
operation
- Establish structural measures to prevent
the inadvertent introduction of Asian
carp from floodwaters of the Des
Plaines River into the canal
- USACE
- Federal U.S.
- State
Tourism and Development
Cruising vessels
- Potential gap with cruising
vessels from lower lakes
- Increase education efforts targeting
cruise vessel operators
- State/ Provincial
Eco tours
- Unregulated
- Support educational campaigns
- State/ Provincial
Float planes and
helicopters
- Potential routes of
introduction through float
planes, equipment used for
fire fighting, and transport
of goods for development
(e.g., construction
materials, baitfish)
- Liaison with plane charter companies,
agencies, pilot associations
- Promote BMPs for pilots
- State/ Provincial
- Federal
licensing
agencies
Water Recreation
Boating
equipment,
Diving and other
- Lack of uniform education,
regulations, enforcement,
and inspection capacity
- Make AIS prevention education,
regulation, and enforcement a priority in
all Lake Superior jurisdictions
- Federal U.S.
- Federal Canada
- State/ Provincial
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
50
-------
Pathway
Gap
Recommended Action
Jurisdiction
recreation gear
across the Lake Superior
Basin
- Additional resources are
needed in some
jurisdictions to support
effective education and
enforcement efforts
- Inconsistent messaging
- Lack of adaption or
adoption of strategies and
methods that work
- Utilize existing outreach/education
efforts to educate the public about
increased risks of invasive species
introductions (and their vectors/
pathways) due to climate change
- Explore options for a broad range of
solutions at public boat launches
- Identify the best methods or prevention
approaches for reaching target
audiences (e.g., boaters, anglers) and
adapt for audiences not currently being
reached (e.g., scuba divers)
- Fully implement Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers!
- Use appropriate terminology and
messages, and coordinate consistent
messaging across jurisdictions
- Build capacity for education efforts
within local communities by providing
outreach products that can be tailored
for local use
- Provide community grants for education
efforts
- Tribal
- Communities
(e.g., lake
associations)
Maritime Commerce
Ballast Water
The risk of new AIS introductions via ballast water is relative to enforcement activities (e.g.,
budgets for enforcement of saltwater flushing). Under the current enforcement regime, the risk
of AIS introductions via ballast water is lower than in the past, but enforcement actions are
subject to political commitment and capacity (availability of resources). Ricciardi (2006)
suggested that non-native species continue to be introduced into Lake Superior through the
maritime commerce vector (e.g., Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) in December 2005).
While Lake Superior remains at risk of new species invading through the ballast water pathway,
recent ballast water management requirements, combined with increased inspections, have vastly
reduced the risk for new foreign species. Lakers likely pose the greatest risks for introducing
existing AIS from the lower Great Lakes into Lake Superior. Lakers are managed to varying
degrees by Canada and the U.S. states (see Appendix A). It is recommended that the U.S. and
Canada continue to work together to implement compatible, federal ballast water treatment and
exchange standards that are protective of the Great Lakes for both the U.S. and Canada.
While there is a uniform standard for ballast water exchange for both BOB and NOBOB vessels
entering the Great Lakes, there are no uniform standards for ballast water treatment in the Great
Lakes. There is a need for standardization across all Lake Superior jurisdictions.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
51
-------
Several organizations support federal standards for ballast water treatment, including the U.S.
Coast Guard, USEPA, and the UC (see the IJC 2007 Annual Report). According to Rear
Admiral P. Neffenger, "... a single federal, bi-national standard is the best approach to ensure
consistency and uniformity throughout the Great Lakes system" (USCG 2009).
The U.S. Coast Guard finalized federal ballast water discharge standards for vessels discharging
ballast water into U.S. waters. The standards are discussed in Section 4.1.1 of this plan. The
Lake Superior Work Group supports the U.S. federal ballast water discharge standards and
encourages Canada to adopt compatible federal standards that would provide uniform protection
for the Great Lakes. The IMO Regulation D-2 standard is the same as the U.S. Coast Guard's
phase-one Ballast Water Discharge Standard. The Coast Guard maintains that this standard is
practicable to achieve in the near term and will provide considerable environmental protection
over ballast water exchange.25
New technologies for ballast water treatment continue to be developed but are not widely
available. However, new technologies continue to be researched, developed, and tested that
provide alternative treatment systems and economic technology options. For example, the Great
Ships Initiative is testing freshwater systems designed to operate on lake carriers. It is
recommended that Canada and the U.S. support the Great Ships Initiative in the testing and
implementation of effective ballast water treatment systems that meet the operational
characteristics of the fresh, cold waters of the Great Lakes. The goal should be to develop ballast
water treatment technology to reach the greatest effect possible, and not be limited to the goal of
meeting a specific standard. This work may also help in developing capabilities to evaluate
whether ships are in compliance with ballast water treatment requirements. In addition, the
governments of the U.S. and Canada should consider incentives to further develop and prove
treatment technologies in freshwater environments (e.g., reward treatments that move beyond
current standards).
Hull/Anchor/Superstructure Fouling
As TBT compounds are phased out as an anti-fouling agent, an effective alternative is needed to
protect against the transport of AIS on ships' hulls. It is recommended that the U.S., Canada,
and the states/province, in cooperation with state Sea Grants programs, determine an effective
management approach and implement programs that will prevent the transfer of AIS attached to
the hulls or anchors of recreational, agency and commercial vessels traveling into Lake Superior.
This is particularly important at points of entry into Lake Superior such as the Soo Locks. The
IMO is compiling voluntary guidance for commercial and recreational vessels for the control and
management of biofouling, to minimize the transfer of AIS. The IMO Draft Guidelines for the
Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic
Species provide measures or practices to control and manage bio-fouling, including hull cleaning
and the proper selection, use, and maintenance of anti-fouling paint. Implementation of the IMO
25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Standards for Living Organisms in
Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR Part 162. Docket No. USCG-2001-10486.
Available at
http://www.re gulations.gov/search/Regs/co ntentStreamer?obiectId=0900006480al6bl4&disposition=attachment&c
ontentType=pdf.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 52
-------
guidelines would provide an internationally consistent approach to preventing the transfer of AIS
through hull fouling.
Agency Activities
Stocking/Hatcheries
No new actions are recommended to prevent escapement of invasive species into the Lake
Superior watershed from hatcheries. Fish species, facility security and other concerns are
adequately addressed by existing policy and regulations. In Ontario, fish stocking is restricted to
native or naturalized species. Likewise, species of fish stocked throughout Lake Superior are
limited.
Harbor, Navigation Maintenance and Construction
Two actions are recommended to prevent AIS introductions as a result of harbor and navigation
maintenance and water construction activities. First, it is recommended that government
agencies responsible for harbor and navigation maintenance and water construction establish and
ensure that appropriate procedures are taken to prevent AIS introductions during dredging
operations, construction, and other maintenance activities. BMPs should be developed (e.g.,
cleaning dredging equipment before moving between lakes, removing visible plant material) and
required as part of permits issued for dredging, construction, or other maintenance activities.
Also, AIS prevention plans should be a requirement for any bid submitted by an independent
private company for dredging, construction, or other maintenance activities.
Second, an education campaign targeting federal agencies, private contractors, and local harbor
authorities would help to raise awareness of the issue and promote compliance with prevention
actions. Sea Grant and state/provincial agencies who are experienced in conducting AIS
outreach campaigns may be the appropriate leads to implement an education campaign that
addresses the harbor, navigation maintenance and construction pathway.
Research and Assessment
All research and assessment activities should follow due diligence in ensuring that vessels and
equipment do not provide an opportunity for transfer of AIS to Lake Superior (including federal,
state/provincial, and academic vessels/equipment, both government and contracted, as well as
Canadian Coast Guard vessels that are operated and maintained on behalf of other agencies).
Operating budgets should allow for adequate time and resources needed for researchers and
agency staff to learn and follow appropriate procedures for preventing the transfer of invasive
species (e.g., cleaning and drying equipment including gill nets, properly disposing of research
specimens). The AIS-HACCP education and training program has been applied to research,
monitoring and assessment operations to help staff prevent AIS contamination or release.
Research staff must also report new species or infestations of AIS to the appropriate state or
provincial authorities.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
53
-------
State and provincial agencies that issue permits for research, monitoring and assessment in Lake
Superior should include AIS precautions in the permit conditions.
Coast Guard Activities
The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards should review management practices to ensure AIS are not
transferred to Lake Superior from lower lakes as a result of Coast Guard activities [e.g., search
and rescue missions (divers and helicopters might be used on more than one lake), icebreaking,
maintenance, training activities, and navigational aide deployment and retrieval].
Organisms in Trade
Live Food Fish, Pets/Aquariums, Aquatic Plants
Several factors contribute to the risk of AIS introductions from live food fish, pets/aquariums,
and aquatic plants. These include regulatory gaps that permit the sale of non-native species at
pet stores and nurseries, a lack of inspection for prohibited species offered for sale,
inconsistencies in the use and labeling of species names, product contamination, and a lack of
consumer awareness. For instance, the ornamental fish industry in the Lake Superior region is
largely unregulated, and consumers often release ornamental fish to lakes or streams (Whelan,
2009). Provincial and state agencies, in cooperation with state Sea Grant programs, should
implement or expand, as appropriate, education programs aimed at targeted audiences:
implement Habitattitude for aquarium hobbyists, backyard pond owners, and water gardeners;
and expand AIS-HACCP to include live food fish and aquatic plant vendors in the basin.
To establish a consistent and comprehensive classification and regulatory system for AIS, it is
recommended that the U.S. and Canada establish federal screening processes for each country to
classify species proposed for trade into three lists: prohibited, permitted, and conditionally
prohibited/permitted. An immediate moratorium should be established on the trade of prohibited
species. While some states have begun to implement screening processes of their own, a federal
classification system would provide more comprehensive and consistent protection against AIS
across the Lake Superior Basin. The process of establishing a federal prohibited list would
require that risk assessments be conducted to determine whether species pose a threat for
becoming invasive and causing economic or ecological damage. The process must also consider
relevant existing and proposed legislation. For example, in March 2010, the State of New York
proposed a four-tier regulatory system for preventing the importation and/or release of non-
native animal and plant species. The proposed system includes (i) a list of prohibited species;
(ii) a list of regulated species; (iii) a list of unregulated species; and (iv) a procedure for the
review of a non-native species that is not on any of the above lists before the use, distribution or
release of such non-native species. New York's proposed system and others provide examples
of efforts to develop effective screening processes.
A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 669) that would establish
a clean list of approved species and criteria that must be met for new importations. However, the
proposed bill pertains to wildlife species only and does not include plant species. A federal
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
54
-------
screening and approval process is needed for both plants and animals. A similar rule is needed to
establish a classification and regulatory system for AIS in trade in Canada.
In addition, to address potential introductions of AIS in the packaging material of plants sold
through garden centers and nurseries, the governments are encouraged to consider the concept of
a "Certified Pathogen-Free through Raising from Seed" category. Such a category would
provide certification for non-native and native plants that were not harvested from the
environment but were grown from seeds in containers free of non-native organisms.
Shoreline and Habitat Restoration
AIS may be introduced during shoreline and habitat restoration projects due to a lack of
awareness of non-native species or contamination of materials (e.g., seed mix, fill dirt,
equipment). Permits to work on shorelines can be an effective means of providing education and
ensuring conditions that will prevent AIS from being established during the course of a shoreline
project. It is recommended that permits for shoreland work be required, identify AIS
introduction issues, and establish BMPs and restrictions that residents and contractors must
follow. The states and province should also implement education programs addressing the
potential for AIS introductions during shoreline and habitat restoration projects.
Illegal Activities
Plant Release
Invasive species can be purchased from vendors on the internet or through mail-order catalogs.
Federal and state/provincial agencies should work with plant nurseries or the industry to educate
retailers about regulations pertaining to the sale of invasive plants, and ensure that existing laws
prohibiting the sale of invasive species are enforced for on-line and mail-order purchases.
Unauthorized Introductions
Fish continue to be transported between jurisdictions and released due to a lack of education and
possibly enforcement of rules prohibiting such actions. Education campaigns in Minnesota and
Wisconsin have been effective in reaching target audiences such as anglers and aquarists. It is
recommended that the states, province, and Tribes, in cooperation with Sea Grant and industry
(e.g., angling industry), implement proven education campaigns, such as Habitattitude, and Stop
Aquatic Hitchhikers!. Additional educational campaigns should be initiated at sportsman shows,
bait shops, aquaria trade fairs, schools, or other conventions for appropriate audiences to increase
awareness of prevention procedures.
Import of Bait
Greater support for educational campaigns is needed to prevent the transport of bait across state
boundaries, the U.S.-Canadian border, and on shared waters of Lake Superior. The transport of
commercial and non-commercial bait poses risks of new introductions of organisms and
pathogens that may be carried in bait containers. Efforts should be made to increase inspection,
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
55
-------
education and prevention efforts to encourage the purchase of bait locally and to ensure that
fishermen are aware of restrictions on the transport and possession of bait from another
jurisdiction. Education and prevention efforts should target anglers at border crossings, retail bait
outlets, and other key locations.
Fishing and Aquaculture
Fishing Equipment
There is a lack of uniform regulations, enforcement, and inspection capacity across the Lake
Superior Basin. It is recommended that regulations concerning fishing equipment, including
boats, be made consistent basinwide. For example, rules requiring anglers to drain all containers
and fishing equipment before leaving any lake or shore should apply to waters throughout the
Lake Superior Basin. Likewise, anglers should not be permitted to transport live fish from any
waters in the Lake Superior Basin. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has performed a
review of regulations basinwide related to VHS prevention and may be able to assist individual
jurisdictions in developing regulations that are consistent with other jurisdictions.
Informing anglers of effective prevention procedures is another way to prevent new introductions
of AIS. Minnesota and Wisconsin have taken the lead in implementing effective education and
outreach campaigns targeted to specific audiences, such as AIS-HACCP and Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers!. However, similar campaigns are not as aggressively implemented in Michigan and
Ontario due to a lack of resources. AIS prevention education, regulation, watercraft inspection,
and enforcement must be made a priority in all Lake Superior jurisdictions.
State and provincial agencies can take the lead in using community-based social marketing to
identify the best methods or prevention approaches for reaching target audiences (e.g., boaters,
anglers) and utilize those approaches for audiences that are not currently being reached. Surveys
of boaters and anglers in Minnesota and Wisconsin have demonstrated the effectiveness of the
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! campaign when sufficient resources are dedicated to the program
(Jensen 2009). The states and province should fully implement Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! to
reach all anglers in the Lake Superior Basin.
State/provincial agencies can also build capacity for education and enforcement efforts within
local communities by providing outreach products that can be tailored for local use, such as
public service announcements and boat ramp signs (models are provided through the Stop
Aquatic Hitchhikers! campaign). Community grants can support AIS education and enforcement
efforts on a local scale.
Sale and Distribution of Live Bait, Use and Disposal of Bait
Each jurisdiction in the Lake Superior Basin (state, province, tribes) has its own regulations
governing the import/export of live bait, certification of bait species, and use of bait. While the
regulations differ between jurisdictions, most Lake Superior agencies have established
regulations that effectively address these issues. Enforcement of baitfish regulations plays an
important role in ensuring that the regulations are effective. Not all Lake Superior agencies have
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
56
-------
sufficient staffing capabilities to adequately enforce current regulations aimed at preventing AIS
introductions through live bait. Each jurisdiction should seek additional resources, as needed, to
provide adequate enforcement of baitfish regulations.
Combined with enforcement efforts, outreach and education programs can be used to inform
anglers of relevant baitfish regulations and deter unwanted behaviors. Additional resources are
needed in some jurisdictions to support effective outreach and education efforts. Education and
outreach programs targeting anglers are ongoing to minimize the risk of AIS introductions from
live bait. However, stronger education efforts warning anglers of the risks of transporting live
bait are needed in some cases. For example, in the Chicago area, there is potential for juvenile
Asian carp caught for bait in the Mississippi drainage basin to be used and released into Lake
Michigan. The fishing tackle and boating industries could be engaged to enlist their marketing
capabilities to help educate anglers and to advance prevention efforts. Approaches to most
effectively reach anglers about the risk of AIS from baitfish could be shared among jurisdictions.
All Lake Superior jurisdictions should make AIS prevention education, regulation, and
enforcement a priority. This means ensuring that current regulations are updated as needed to
address new AIS threats (e.g., require certification of bait as pathogen-free26 at the wholesale
level), adequately enforcing baitfish regulations, and maintaining or expanding education and
outreach programs so that all anglers in the Lake Superior Basin are aware of the risk of AIS and
do their part to prevent new introductions.
Aquaculture Facilities
No new actions are recommended at this time. Very few aquaculture research facilities exist,
and there are no net pen operations. However, the release of non-native species from
aquaculture facilities has been perceived as a risk in other jurisdictions, and this pathway should
be monitored for the development of potential new risks.
Canals and Diversions
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal continues to pose a threat of new invasions to the Great
Lakes. While the activation of a second electrical barrier in the canal improves protection
against the transfer of fish, the level of protection provided by the barrier has yet to be
determined. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to adjust the voltage and determine
the effectiveness of barrier operation.
In 2009, the inadequacy of the electrical barrier in providing full protection against invasive
species became apparent. In December 2009, the electrical barrier was shut down for scheduled
maintenance, and preventive measures were taken to stop the passage of fish during the
maintenance operation. A physical specimen of Asian carp was retrieved 500 feet north of the
Lockport Lock and Dam in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, much closer to the electrical
barrier than previously found. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also reported positive results
26 Specific pathogens are not defined but include any pathogen identified as posing a risk to native species in Lake
Superior.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
57
-------
on carp eDNA in water samples taken in the Calumet Harbor of Lake Michigan and a number of
27
other locations upstream of the barrier.
In a resolution passed by the Great Lakes Commission on February 23, 2010, eight Great Lakes
states, along with the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, asked Congress and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to adopt a goal of ecological separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River watersheds as a means of protecting the Great Lakes from the invasion of
Asian carp. The resolution also called for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accelerate the
timetable for full operation of the electrical barrier system and to establish structural measures to
prevent the inadvertent introduction of Asian carp from floodwaters of the Des Plaines River into
28
the canal. Support for these efforts is encouraged, and it is recommended that ecological
separation be attained as soon as possible.
The use of an electric barrier in the Soo
Locks and recreational lock would prevent
the passage of fish into Lake Superior, but it
would not prevent the spread of other
invasive species (e.g., aquatic invertebrates).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' routine
practice of closing the lock gates and
chambers after a vessel has passed through
helps to reduce the opportunity for fish and
other mobile organisms to enter the lock and
gain access to Lake Superior. However, it is
recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers ensure that best management
practices are employed to most effectively
prevent fish from passing through the lock,
including the use of in-stream barriers or
deterrent technologies, if necessary. This recommendation is consistent with the Corps' Invasive
Species Policy, adopted in 2009, to prevent or reduce the establishment of invasive and non-
29
native species. Likewise, operating procedures for the recreational canal lock at Sault St.
Marie should include closing lock gates when not in use and other best management practices
30
that effectively prevent the passage of fish (electric barrier or alternative options, as necessary).'
Tourism and Development
There is potential for A IS to enter Lake Superior from cruising vessels and ecotour boats
traveling from the lower lakes. Professional fishing guides, who frequent a greater number of
Great Lakes Commission. 2010. Resolution: Actions to Address the Threat to the Great Lakes from Asian Carp.
Adopted on February 23, 2010. Available at http://www.glc.org/about/resoliitions/10/asiancaro.html. Accessed:
April 2010.
f M±
2 U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Memorandum: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Invasive Species Policy. Available at http://www.nae.usace.armv.mil/reg/invasivespeciespolicv.pdf.
3" The recreational lock is currently operated by the City of Sault St. Marie under an operating agreement with Parks
Canada.
Ocean vessel at the Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Photo credit: Jerry* Bielicki, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
58
-------
waterways and are less likely to inspect and clean their boats than other small-craft boaters, pose
a relatively high risk of AIS transfer (Rothlisberger et al., 2010). Float planes and helicopters
represent a potential route of introduction through the movement of aquatic plants and animals
on floats or in water tanks (of fire suppression planes) and the transport of goods for
development (e.g., construction materials). Potential AIS introductions from all tourism and
development pathways could be mitigated through increased education efforts targeted to the
public, cruising vessel owners, professional fishing guides, boat clubs, and the ecotour industry.
It is also recommended that state/provincial agencies and federal licensing agencies liaison with
plane charter companies, agencies, pilot associations, and recreational flying clubs to promote
BMPs for pilots to prevent transfers of AIS.
Water Recreation
AIS can be introduced when boating, diving, and other recreational equipment is moved between
lakes without being cleaned or dried properly. A lack of uniform education, regulations,
enforcement, and inspection capacity across the Lake Superior Basin leaves an open pathway for
the introduction of AIS by recreational boaters and divers. Additional resources are needed in
some jurisdictions to support effective education and enforcement efforts. .
It is recommended that state/provincial/tribal agencies and communities (e.g., lake associations)
ensure that AIS prevention education, regulation, and enforcement are a priority in all Lake
Superior jurisdictions. This will require continued implementation of AIS prevention efforts,
including:
• Identifying the best methods or prevention approaches for reaching target audiences (e.g.,
boaters, anglers) and adapting those methods for audiences that are not currently being
reached (e.g., scuba divers).
• Using appropriate terminology and messages.
• Coordinating consistent messaging across jurisdictions.
• Building capacity for education efforts within local communities by providing outreach
products that can be tailored for local use.
One way to achieve the above objectives is to fully implement the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!
campaign across the Lake Superior Basin. Surveys used to evaluate the program have shown
that Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! is effective in influencing boaters and anglers to inspect and clean
their equipment. The program also provides resources (e.g., campaign logo with prevention tips)
for partners to use in local outreach efforts.
To help build capacity for outreach and education efforts on the local level, state/provincial and
federal agencies can offer community grants for prevention efforts. MN DNR, for example,
provides community grants to local entities, such as lake associations, local citizen groups, and
local units of government (e.g., conservation districts, counties) for watercraft inspections at
local water accesses and for public awareness projects.
In addition to outreach and education efforts, state/provincial/tribal agencies should explore
options for a broad range of solutions to prevent AIS from being transferred on boats, trailers,
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
59
-------
and equipment at public boat launches. Recent research indicates that visual inspection of boats
and hand removal of plants at boat landings is effective for removing macrophytes from boats
and trailers; however, high-pressure washing is highly effective for removing small-bodied
organisms (e.g., spiny waterflea) from boats and trailers (Rothlisberger et al., 2010). High-
pressure washing at targeted locations, for example where VHS is known to occur, would be an
effective method of managing the risk of transfer within the region, as well as introductions of
new organisms.
5.2 REPORTING
Progress in implementing this prevention plan will be reported through the Lake Superior LaMP.
Annual LaMP updates and full Lake Superior LaMP reports (prepared every 5 years) will
include the status of new invasions and will describe new AIS as they are discovered (e.g.,
location, pathway of introduction), including prevention efforts, or the lack of, which failed to
prevent the species from being introduced into Lake Superior.
5.3 FURTHER EFFORTS
Several agencies are currently conducting limited early detection surveys as resources allow,
including OMNR, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the USEPA Mid-Continent Ecology
Division in Duluth. Additional monitoring and coordination of such monitoring are needed to
detect the presence of new AIS in Lake Superior and respond quickly to the threat of new
invasions. Several organizations are responding to this need. For example, the IJC is planning
an international framework for rapid response. The Binational Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid-
Response Framework would position the IJC to address the effectiveness of rapid response
policy in shared watersheds on a periodic basis (IJC 2009). The National Park Service is
developing an emergency response guide that identifies options for handling ships with high-risk
ballast water to control the release of non-indigenous species (Glosten Associates 2009).
In addition, new technology for detecting AIS genetic material in water samples is currently
being developed and field tested. This shows great promise and may provide an "early warning
system" for species threatening to enter the Great Lakes, such as Asian carp moving upstream
toward the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Changing climate conditions suggest the need for further early detection and rapid response
efforts. Additional actions are recommended to prevent the introduction of new AIS into Lake
Superior as a result of climate change:
• Collect and monitor data on species movement and establishment, and information on
ecosystem conditions (e.g., water temperature, salinity levels, and water chemistry), to
evaluate invasive species threats in the context of climate change.
• Modify pathway analysis and species prediction models to include climate change
parameters.
• Take advantage of state/provincial invasive species councils to:
o Share climate-related concerns, data, and projections
o Create lists of potential invaders and share with neighboring jurisdictions
o Coordinate cross-jurisdiction integration of prevention strategies/tasks.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
60
-------
Early detection surveys and monitoring results would provide a means of evaluating the effect of
prevention actions, such as those recommended in this prevention plan. However, the primary
purpose of this plan is the prevention of new AIS, and it is recommended that the limited
resources for AIS be directed at the strategies outlined above in Section 5.1.
None of the recommendations outlined in Section 5.1 could be implemented without being
adequately resourced with appropriate expertise. Although the Great Lakes states, Ontario,
public and private agencies, and organizations currently support efforts to prevent the
introduction of new AIS, further work is needed. All relevant agencies should take advantage of
every opportunity to prevent AIS introductions in Lake Superior. In addition, in the creation or
changing of legislation, policy, or regulation, governments should ensure that the new measure
does not ignore AIS introduction risks, provide loop holes that create AIS introduction risks, or
remove existing protective requirements. That is, one legislative requirement should not neuter a
protective element of another. The need to make AIS prevention a priority for all agencies with
regulatory or intervention mandates is critical.
A bi-partisan effort is needed to overcome differences and support this environmentally and
economically pressing issue. The recommended actions in this plan call for cooperative,
binational efforts to prevent AIS introductions in Lake Superior. As a binational forum for
maintaining and restoring the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the lake, the Lake
Superior LaMP is coordinating and facilitating implementation of the recommended actions in
this plan. Finally, as a product of the Lake Superior LaMP, the goal of this plan is to achieve
zero introductions of new AIS into Lake Superior—just as the Lake Superior Binational Program
seeks zero discharge of toxic chemicals into Lake Superior.
6.0 REFERENCES
Albert, R., R. Everett, J. Lishman, and D. Smith. 2010. Availability and Efficacy of Ballast
Water Treatment Technology: Background and Issue Paper. White Paper prepared for EPA's
Science Advisory Board.
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. 2005. Aquatic Nuisance Species Impacts.
Available at http://www.anstaskforce.gov/impacts.php. Accessed: 03-21-2008.
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. 1996. Ruffe Control Program, revised draft.
Available at
http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Species%20plans/RUFFE%20CONTROL%20PROGRAM.pdf.
Accessed: 03-20-2009.
Bailey, S.A., Reid, D.F., Colautti, R.I., Therriault, T., Maclsaac, H. 2005. Management options
for control of nonindigenous species in the Great Lakes. Toledo Journal of Great Lakes Law,
Science & Policy 5:101-112.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
61
-------
Bailey, S.A., Deneau, M.G., Jean, L., Wiley, C.J., Leung, B., Maclsaac, H.J. 2011. Evaluating
Efficacy of an Environmental Policy to Prevent Biological Invasions. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2011, 45, 2554-2561.
Batabyal, A. A. 2006. A Rationale for the Differential Regulatory Treatment of Imports When
Invasive Species Are a Potential Problem, Studies in Regional Science, 36, 179-187.
Bayfield County Lakes Forum. Comments to the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
regarding seaplanes. Modified: 05-10-2008. Available at
http://www.bavfieldcountvlakes.org/7110100. Accessed: 05-12-2008.
Boornazian, L. 2010. Science Advisory Board Review of the Availability and Efficacy of
Ballast Water Treatment Technology for EPA's Office of Water and the United States Coast
Guard. Memo to Vanessa Vu, Science Advisory Board. July 1, 2010.
Boudreau, S.A., and Yan, N.D. 2003. The differing crustacean zooplankton communities of
Canadian Shield lakes with and without the nonindigenous zooplankton Bythotrephes
longimanus. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1307-1313.
Briski, E., Bailey, S.A., Cristescu, M.E, Maclsaac, H.J. Efficacy of 'saltwater flushing' in
protecting the Great Lakes from biological invasions by invertebrate eggs in ships' ballast
sediment. 2010. Freshwater Biology, 55, 2414-2424.
Brown and Caldwell Environmental Engineers and Bay Engineering, Inc. 2008. Port of
Milwaukee Off-Ship Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report, Phase 2. Prepared for the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Available at
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/pdfs/ReportMilwaukeeBallastWaterTreatmentPhase2FINAL.pdf.
Accessed: 03-13-2009.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). Don't Plant a Pest! 2007. Available at
http://www.cal-ipc.org/landscaping/dpp/pdf/AquaticDPP.pdf. Accessed: 04-16-2008.
Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) home page. 2009. Available at
http://www.uwindsor.ca/CAISN. Accessed: 02-09-2009.
Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) Inaugural Report 2006-2007. Available at
http://www.uwindsor.ca/CAISN.
Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers Aquatic Invasive Species Task Group.
2004. A Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species. Available at
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/enviro/ais-eae/plan/plan-eng.htm. Accessed: 07-08-2009.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Standards for Living
Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR Part 162.
Docket No. USCG-2001-10486. Available at
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
62
-------
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?obiectId=0900006480al6bl4&disposi
tion=attachment&contentType=pdf.
Conger, E., et al. September 4, 2002. Comments on the Reconnaissance Report for the Great
Lakes Navigation System Review. [Letter to Wayne Schloop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers],
Available at http://www.waterkeeper.ca/printableIndividualArticle/5376.php. Accessed: 04-16-
2008.
Cornell University, 2010. Media release: Cornell experts: Virus Flows into Lake Superior
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia virus found in Superior's fish. Jan. 27, 2010.
Czypinski, G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal communication. April 8, 2009.
Dextrase A. and N.E. Mandrak. 2005. Impacts of invasive alien species on freshwater fauna at
risk in Canada. Biol. Invasions. 2005; 8:13-24.
Dobroski, N., Scianni, C., Gehringer, D. and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy,
Availability, and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in
California Waters. Report prepared by the California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities
Division, for the California state legislature. January 2009.
Drake, J.M. and D.M. Lodge. 2007. Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species
exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Journal of Aquatic Invasions 2 (2): 121-131.
Drury, K.L.S., and J.D. Rothlisberger. 2008. Offense and defense in landscape-level invasion
control. Oikos 117(2): 182-190.
Duluth Seaway Port Authority. 2008. Fact sheet. Available at
http://www.duluthport.com/seawavfactsus.html. Accessed: 03-25-2008.
Environment Canada. 2007. CEPA Environmental Registry. Canada-Ontario Agreement
Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Available at
www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistrv/documents/agree/Fin-COA07/toc.cfm. Modified: 08-16-2007.
Accessed: January 2009.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008. Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment website:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/coe-cde/ceara/index e.htm. Modified: 12-03-2008. Accessed:
January 2009.
Global Invasive Species Programme. The Internet as a Pathway for IAS. Available at
http://www.gisp.org/publications/brochures/FactsheetInternetPathwav.pdf. Accessed: 05-12-
2008.
Glosten Associates. 2009. Emergency Response Guide for Handling Ballast Water to Control
Non-Indigenous Species. Prepared for National Park Service, Houghton, Michigan. File No.
09019.01. 16 September 2009, Draft PI.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
63
-------
Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG). 2010. 2009 Summary of Great Lakes
Seaway Ballast Water Working Group. Available at
http://www.trb.org/Law/Blurbs/2009 Summary of Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water W 16
2989.aspx. Modified: 02-11-2010. Accessed: 04-19-2010.
Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG). 2009. 2008 Summary of Great Lakes
Seaway Ballast Water Working Group. Available at http://www.uscgd9.blogspot.com/.
Modified: 03-27-09. Accessed: 04-09-09.
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). 2011. Great Lakes Aquatic
Nonindigenous Species Information System website. Available at
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html.
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). 2009. Aquatic Invasive Species
website. Available at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ais/. Modified: 02/10/2009.
Accessed: 03-18-2009.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 2000. Sea Lamprey: A Great Lakes Invader.
Available at www.glfc.org/pubs/FACT 3.pdf.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) maps. 2008. Available at
http://www.glifwc-maps.org/. Accessed: April 2008.
Great Lakes Maritime Task Force. 2010. Comments on the draft Lake Superior Aquatic
Invasive Species Prevention Plan, in a letter dated February 25, 2010.
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC). 2005. Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great
Lakes. Available at http://www.glrc.us/strategy.html. Accessed: December 2008.
Great Lakes Wiki. 2006. 50 year old lamprey control being reviewed. Available at
http://www.greatlakeswiki.org/index.php/50 year old lamprey control being reviewed.
Accessed: June 9, 2009.
Grigorovich, I. A., A. V. Korniushin, D. K. Gray, I. C. Duggan, R. I. Colautti, and H. J.
Maclsaac. 2003. Lake Superior: an invasion coldspot? Hydrobiologia 499(1-3): 191-210.
Gunderson, J.L. and R.E. Kinnunen. 2004. Aquatic nuisance species-Hazard analysis and critical
control point training curriculum. Second Edition. Michigan Sea Grant Publication No. MSG-00-
400.
Gunderson, J.L. and R.E. Kinnunen. 2002. The HACCP approach to prevent the spread of
aquatic nuisance species by aquaculture and baitfish operations. In R.E. Kinnunen, editor.
Environmental Strategies for Aquaculture Symposium Proceedings (December 2000). 62nd
Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Minneapolis, MN. NCRAC CD Series #101, NCRAC
Publications Office, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
64
-------
Halstead, J.M., J. Michaud, and S. Hallas-Burt. 2003. Hedonic analysis of effects of a nonnative
invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties.
Environmental Management 32 (3): 391-398.
Hebert, P.D.N., Muncaster, B.W., and G.L. Mackie. 1989. Ecological and Genetic Studies on
Dreissenapolymorpha (Pallas): A New Mollusc in the Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:
1587-1591.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IN DNR). 2006. Aquatic Invasive Species: Alewife.
Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/3123.htm.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IN DNR). 2005. Aquatic Invasive Species: Spiny and
Fishhook Water Fleas. Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/3123.htm. Accessed: 07-02-2009.
International Joint Commission (IJC), Binational Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid-Response
Policy Framework Advisory Work Group. 2009. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Priorities 2007-09 Series. Work Group Report on Binational Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid-
Response Policy Framework, 2009. IJC, Special Publication 2009-04, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Available at http://www.iic.org/files/publications/C223.pdf.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 2007. 2007 Annual Report. Available at
http://www.iic.org/en/home/main accueil.htm. Modified: 04-13-2009. Accessed: 04-14-2009.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 2004. Twelfth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality, pg 23.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2011. Annex 26, Resolution MEPC.207(62),
Adopted on 15 July 2011, 2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships'
Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species. Available at
http://www.imp.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data id=30766.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2008. Circular 16: List of ballast water management
systems that make use of Active Substances which received Basic and Final Approvals. 17
October 2008. Available at http://www.imo.org/. Accessed: 04-17-2009.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2004. Alien invaders in ballast water - new
Convention adopted at IMO. Available at http://www.imo.org/. Accessed: 03-06-2009
Jensen, D. Minnesota Sea Grant. Personal communication, April 27, 2010.
Jensen, D. Minnesota Sea Grant. Personal communication, March 17, 2009.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/index.html. Accessed: 04-27-2010.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
65
-------
Lodge, D. and D. Finnoff. 2008. Annual losses to Great Lakes region by ship-borne invasive
species at least $200 million. Preliminary results. University of Notre Dame and University of
Wyoming. Available at http://www.glu. or g/en/node/208. Accessed: 04-23-2009.
Maki, K. and S. Galatowitsch 2004. Biological Conservation. Volume 118, Issue 3, July 2004,
Pages 389-396.
Michigan Sea Grant. 2007. Avian Botulism Claims Waterbirds on Lake Michigan. Upwellings
Online Edition. April 2007. Available at
http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/upwellings/issues/07apr/07apr-article4.html. Accessed: 05-08-
2009.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., Secor, C.L. 1993. Exotic Species in the Great Lakes: A
History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19(1): 1-54
Internal Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR). List of waterbodies in Minnesota
where Eurasian watermilfoil is known to be present. 7 July 2007. Available at
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/invasives/infestedwaters newmilfoil.pdf.
Minnesota Sea Grant. 2009. Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/watermilfoil. Modified: 02-13-2009. Accessed: 02-19-2009.
Minnesota Sea Grant 2008a. Non-native Species Found in Lake Superior since 1883. Available
at http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/superior nonnatives. Modified: 11-25-2008. Accessed: 04-
09-09.
Minnesota Sea Grant 2008b. Projects & Funding. Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/proiects/. Modified: 11-26-2008. Accessed: 03-17-09.
Minnesota Sea Grant. 2007. Aquatic Invasive Species. Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/.
Molner, J.L., R. Gambosa, C. Revenga, M. Spalding. 2008. Assessing the global threat of
invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front EcolEnviron 6(9): 485-492.
National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Project Information Sheet: Assessing Numeric Limits for
Living Organisms in Ballast Water. Available at:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/proiectview.aspx?kev=49224. Accessed: 12-03-2010.
National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive
Species. Available at http://www.trb.org/news/blurb detail.asp?id=9267.
National Geographic News. July 6, 2006. Alien Species Invading Antarctica, Experts Warn.
Available at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/0607Q6-antarctica.html.
Accessed: 02-02-2009.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014 66
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Center for Research on
Aquatic Invasive Species. 2007. Gymnocephalus cernuus, fact sheet. Available at
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/nas database.html. Accessed: 03-25-2008.
National Park Service (NPS). Isle Royale National Park News Release. 2008a. Available at
http://www.nps.gov/isro/upload/News%20Release%20bait%20and%20boats%20April 21 08.do
c. Accessed: 01-30-2009.
National Park Service (NPS). 2008b. Press Release: Emergency Restrictions Regarding VHS.
Available at http://www.nps.gov/piro/parkmgmt/vhs-restrictions.htm. Accessed: 10-16-2009.
National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2004. Ecosystem Shock: The Devastating Impacts of
Invasive Species on the Great Lakes Food Web. October 2004. Available at:
http://www.nwf.org. Accessed: 07-09-2009.
Naylor, R.L., Williams, S.L., Strong, D.R. 2001. Ecology: Aquaculture - A Gateway for Exotic
Species. Science (294): 1655-1656.
New York Times. July 19, 2010. Lake Superior, a Huge Natural Climate Change Gauge, Is
Running a Fever.
Nichols, J. Personal communication with Doug Jensen.
Northeast-Midwest Institute. 2007. Press Release: Invasive Species - Great Lakes: First Test
Scheduled at New Ballast Treatment Facility. September 24, 2007. Available at
http://www.nemw.org/GSI/news.htm. Accessed: 04-13-2009.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States.
Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Washington, DC.
Olson, A., Goen, J. and N. Lerner. 2000. Washington Sea Grant booklet - Handling and Disposal
of Non-Native Aquatic Species and Their Packaging. Publication WSG-MR 00-01. Available at
http://www.wsg.washington.edu/communications/online/handling.pdf. Accessed: 10-13-2010.
Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters Invading Species Hotline. Spiny Water Flea Fact
Sheet. 2009. Available at http://www.invadingspecies.com/Invaders.cfm?A=Page&PID=2.
Accessed: 01-30-2009.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2009. News Release: Fines for Attempting to
Smuggle Live Bait into Ontario. March 11, 2009.
Pimentel, D. 2005. Aquatic nuisance species in the New York State Canal and Hudson River
Systems and the Great Lakes Basin: An economic and environmental assessment. Environmental
Management 35 (5): 692-701.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
67
-------
Rankin, D. 2002. Freshwater Ecosystems and Human Populations: Great Lakes Case Study. Yale
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Bulletin Series 107. Available at:
http://environment.vale.edu/topics/788. Accessed: 07-08-2010.
Reid, D. NOBOB-A: Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water
as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes. Final Project Report.
Available at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task rpts/2001/nsreidl0-l.html#final.
Ricciardi A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in
vector activity. Divers. Distrib. 12, 425-433.
Rothlisberger. J.D., Chadderton, W.L., McNulty, J., Lodge, D.M. 2010. Fisheries, 35:121-132.
Rup, M.P., Bailey, S.A., Wiley, C.J., Minton, M.S., Miller, A.W., Ruiz, G.M., and H.J.
Maclsaac. 2010. Domestic ballast operations on the Great Lakes: Potential importance of Lakers
as a vector for introduction and spread of nonindigenous species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 67, Iss. 2, pp. 256-268.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). 2010. Great Lakes Ballast Water
Collaborative. Available at http://www.greatlakes-
seawav.com/en/environment/ballast collaborative.html. Accessed: 12-03-2010.
Sala, O., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E.,
Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A.,
Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H 2000.
Biodiversity-global diversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, Vol. 287, No. 5459, pp. 1770-
1774.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. 2004. Hull fouling. Available at
http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/marine invasions/vector ecology/fouling.isp. Accessed: 03-25-2008.
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) 2008. Nearshore Waters plenary
presentation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/solec/solec 2008/1/7 NearshoreWatersnotes.pdf.
Accessed: 03-19-2009.
State of Maine Land and Water Resources Council. 2002. Action Plan for Managing Invasive
Aquatic Species. Available at www.mainegov-
images.informe.org/dep/blwq/topic/invasives/invplan02.pdf. Accessed: 03-20-2008.
Steeves, M. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sea Lamprey Control. Personal communication,
February 2009.
Sylvester, F. and H.J. Maclsaac. 2010. Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great
Lakes? Diversity and Distributions, 16, 132-143.
Transport Canada. 2006. Government of Canada announces ballast water regulations. Available
at http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2006/06-h069e.htm#bg. Accessed: 02-06-2009.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
68
-------
Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS). 2008. Available at
http://unds.bah.com/default.htm. Accessed: 04-15-2008.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. St. Marys River. Available at
http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/outflows/discharge measurements/st marys river/.
Modified: 07-27-2006. Accessed: 04-16-2008.
United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2013. Ballast Water Discharge Final Rule. March 29, 2013.
Available at
http://www.uscg.mil/HQ/CG5/cg522/cg5224/docs/USCG Ballast Water Final Rule Narrated
29March2013 .ppt. Accessed: 09-19-2013.
United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2009. Update on Great Lakes Ballast Water Management.
March 27, 2009. Available at http://www.uscgd9.blogspot.com/. Accessed: 04-15-2008.
United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2008. Office of Operating and Environmental Standards.
Aquatic Nuisance Species. Available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/bwm.htm. Accessed:
04-15-2008.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008a. News Release: USDA Establishes
Live Fish Import and Interstate Movement Regulations to Prevent Spread of Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia, Sept. 8, 2008. Available at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2008/Q9/vhs interim rule.shtml. Accessed: 10-
16-2009.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008b. National Agricultural Library, Laws
and Regulations. Available at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/bills.shtml. Modified:
December 2008. Accessed: 12-09-2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Generic Protocol for the
Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology. EPA/600/R-10/146. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/etv/vp.html. Accessed: 12-03-2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Invasive Species. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive species/. Modified: 03-20-2008. Accessed: 07-24-2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008b. Invasive Species: Asian Carp
and the Great Lakes. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/. Accessed: 05-
08-2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008c. Predicting future
introductions of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes. National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/066F. Available from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, and http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
69
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008d. State 401 Certification
Letters. Vessel General Permit. Finalized December 19, 2008. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. Accessed: 12-03-2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Effects of Climate Change on
Aquatic Invasive Species and Implications for Management and Research. National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-
07/084. External Review Draft, July 2007.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alaska Region. 2006. Invasive Species
Pathways. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/invasive/pathwavs.htm. Modified: 07-01-
2008. Accessed: 09-16-2008.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Office. 2007. Surveillance for Ruffe in the Great Lakes, 2007. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ashland/Ruffe/surv 07.html. Accessed: 04-14-2009.
United States Geological Service (USGS), Lake Superior Biological Station. St. Louis River
Minnesota/Wisconsin catch data, 1989-2004. Unpublished data.
United States Government Printing Office (USGPO). 2012. "Standards for Living Organisms in
Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters, Final Rule." 77 Federal Register 57 (23 March
2012): 17254-17320. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/pdf/2Q12-
6579.pdf.
United States Water News. 2008. Study examines Separating Great Lakes, Mississippi basin.
November 2008. Available at
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcpolicv/8studexaml 1 .html. Accessed: 05-08-2009.
Varney, R.W. 2004. Fighting the Spread of Invasive Species in Connecticut. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/ra/column/archive/20Q4/invasivespecies ct 20040809.html.
Accessed: 03-24-2008.
Whelan, G. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. June 2009.
Wiley, C. Transport Canada. Personal communication. February 13, 2009.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010. December 21, 2010 Wisconsin DNR Weekly
News.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2009a. Nuisance Algae (Cladophora) In
Lake Michigan. Available at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/greatlakes/cladophora/. Modified: 03-
03-2009. Accessed: 03-19-2009.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2009b. Ballast Water Discharge General
Permit. Available at http://dnr.wi.gov/news/mediakits/mk ballast.asp. Accessed: 03-11-2009.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
70
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2008a. Available at
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/vhs/vhs qahowvoucanhelp.html. Accessed: 07-08-2009.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2008b.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification/pdfs/proposed invasives rule.pdf. Accessed: 11-13-
2008.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2004. Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus
mordax). Available at http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/rainbow smelt.htm. Modified: 09-03-
2004. Accessed: 03-20-2008.
Zhuikov, Marie. 2004. Mail-Ordering Aquatic Plants Can Be Dangerous. Minnesota Sea Grant.
Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2004/09/mailordering aquatic plants can be dangero
us.html. Accessed: 04-16-2008.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
71
-------
APPENDIX A - BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE
SEAWAY SYSTEM
TABLE A-1. Ballast Wa
ter Management Requirements for Vessels En
tering the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System
Vessel Origin
Vessel Destination
Ballast Status
Ballast Water Management Requirements
Transoceanic Vessels
Outside Canadian
and U.S. EEZ
Canadian Great Lakes
ports
BOB
BWE, treatment, discharge to reception facility, or
retention
Code of Best Practices3
NOBOB
Saltwater flushing, treatment, discharge to reception
facility, or retention
Code of Best Practices3
U.S. Great Lakes ports
BOB
BWE, retention, or alternative preapproved
environmentally sound method
Code of Best Practices3
Regulated Management Practices'3
NOBOB
Saltwater flushing mandatory from beginning of 2008
seaway navigation season
Code of Best Practices3
Regulated Management Practices'3
Coastal Vessels
Within Canadian EEZ
Canadian Great Lakes
ports
BOB or NOBOB
Voluntary Management Practices0
U.S. Great Lakes ports
BOB
BWE, retention, or alternative preapproved
environmentally sound method
Regulated13 and Voluntary Management Practices0
NOBOB
Regulated0 and Voluntary Management Practices0
Within U.S. EEZ
Canadian Great Lakes
ports
BOB
BWE, treatment, discharge to reception facility, or
retention
Voluntary Management Practices0
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
A-l
-------
Vessel Origin
Vessel Destination
Ballast Status
Ballast Water Management Requirements
NOBOB
Saltwater flushing, treatment, discharge to reception
facility, or retention
Voluntary Management Practices0
U.S. Great Lakes ports
BOB or NOBOB
Regulated0 and Voluntary Management Practices0
Inland Vessels
Inland waters of
GLSLS system
Canadian ports
BOB and
NOBOB
Voluntary Management Practices0
U.S. ports
BOB and
NOBOB
Regulated0 and Voluntary Management Practices0
Source: Transportation Research Board. 2008. Transportation Research Board Special Report 291: Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species.
Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr291.pdf. Accessed: January 2009.
a Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management, Shipping Federation of Canada, Sept. 28, 2000.
b 33 CFR 151.2035, Subpart D.
c Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping, Lake
Carriers' Association and Canadian Shipowners Association, Jan. 26, 2001.
TABLE A-2. Summary of Key Elements of States' Ballast Water Requirements for States in the Lake Superior Basin
State
Regulatory
Vehicle
Existing
Oceangoing
New Oceangoing
Existing Lakers
New Lakers
Comments
Ml
State permit;
401 Certification
Discharge
prohibited unless
approved
treatment to
prevent AIS in
place
Discharge prohibited
unless approved
treatment in place
Rights reserved to modify
401 Cert, if it is
determined that ballast
treatment on lakers is
necessary, available and
cost effective
MN
State permit; 401
Certification
IMO by Jan. 2016
IMO for ships
launched after Jan
2012
IMO by Jan. 2016
IMO for ships
launched after Jan
2012
MPCA approval of treatment
technology
Wl
State permit; No
finding on 401
Certification
IMO by Jan 2014
IMO for ships
launched after Jan
2012
BMPs and sediment
management plan,
may have discharge
standard in future
BMPs and
sediment
management plan
No technology was available
to support stricter standards
Source: Great Lakes Commission, January 2010.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B - U.S. AND CANADIAN FEDERAL STATUTES RELATED TO AIS
TABLE B-1. Selected U.S. Statutes Related to AIS31
Statute
Summary
Affected Vectors
P.L. 101-646, Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990
Aims to prevent the unintentional introduction of non-indigenous species into
waters of the U.S. and control the spread of species already introduced.
Requires vessels entering ports on the Great Lakes to exchange ballast
water and meet other requirements, with voluntary guidelines for similar
actions on other waters of the U.S. Also authorizes a number of studies and
monitoring programs to assess the spread of AIS and develop methods for
controlling them.
Maritime commerce
P.L. 102-393, Alien Species
Prevention and Enforcement
Act of 1992
Makes it illegal to ship prohibited fish, wildlife and plants covered under the
Lacey Act through the U.S. mail.
Illegal activities
P.L. 104-332, National
Invasive Species Act of 1996
Amends NANPCA to require voluntary guidelines to become law if voluntary
compliance is inadequate.
Maritime commerce
Executive Order 13112 (1999)
Created an interagency Invasive Species Council, consisting of 13 agencies
to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and
minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts. Also
defined invasive species.
Agency activities
33 CFR 151 Subparts C and
D, Ballast Water Management
(1999)
Subpart C describes the ballast water management requirements for the
control of non-indigenous species for vessels operating in the Great Lakes
and Hudson River. Subpart D presents penalties for violations, exemptions
for vessels, and additional requirements.
Maritime commerce
40 CFR Part 9 and Chapter
VII, Uniform National
Discharge Standards for
Vessels of the Armed Forces
(1999)
The rule identifies ballast discharges, among other discharges of Armed
Forces vessels (including Coast Guard vessels), that require control.
Discharge standards will be promulgated in the future.
Maritime commerce
P.L. 106-53, Water Resources
Development Act of 1999
Provides for the conservation and development of water and related
resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the
United States, and for other purposes.
Agency activities
33 CFR 401, Seaway (St.
Lawrence) Regulations and
Describes the rules, regulations, practices, and procedures for vessels
operating in the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
31 In addition to the regulations listed here, ballast water management regulations are discussed in Section 4.1.1.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
B-1
-------
Statute
Summary
Affected Vectors
Rules (2000)
7 U.S.C. Chapter 104, Plant
Protection Act (2000)
Provides regulations for the detection, control, eradication, suppression,
prevention, or retardation of the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds.
Determines that this is necessary for the protection of the agriculture,
environment, and economy of the U.S.
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities
16 U.S.C. Chapter 67, Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and
Control (2002)
Intended to prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal of non-
indigenous species into waters of the United States through ballast water
management and other requirements; coordinate research on prevention
and control, carry out control methods, monitor vector pathways other than
ballast water, investigate economic and ecological impacts of AIS.
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
16 U.S.C. Chapter 15A, Great
Lakes Fisheries (2004)
Provides the Great Lakes Fishery Commission with authority for Sea
Lamprey protection and prevention.
Agency activities,
Fishing and aquaculture
7 CFR 300-388, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture
(2005)
Parts 300-388 present the activities and responsibilities for the APHIS
program within the USDA. Example activities include quarantines,
regulations, export certification, and National Environmental Policy Act
procedures.
Agency activities
33 CFR 273, Aquatic Plant
Control (2005)
This regulation prescribes policies, procedures, and guidelines for research,
planning, and operations for the Aquatic Plant Control Program under
authority of Section 302 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965.
Agency activities, Canals
and diversions
50 CFR 216, Regulations
Governing the Taking and
Importing of Marine Mammals
(2005)
The regulations in this part implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, which among other things, restricts the taking, possession,
transportation, selling, offering for sale, and importing of marine mammals.
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities, Fishing and
aquaculture
50 CFR 24, Importation and
Exportation of Plants (2005)
Sets regulations for the purpose of establishing ports for the importation,
exportation, and re-exportation of plants. Provisions are in addition to
regulations set forth in the same Chapter (USFWS regulations on the taking,
possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter, exportation, and
importation of wildlife).
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities
50 CFR 300, International
Fisheries Regulations (2005)
Implements the fishery conservation and management measures provided
for in the international treaties, conventions, or agreements specified in each
subpart, as well as certain provisions of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981.
Applies to all persons and all places subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Illegal activities,
Fishing and aquaculture
18 U.S.C. Chapter 3 and
16 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Control
of Illegally Taken Fish and
Wildlife - "Lacey Act" (2006)
The Lacey Act and its amendments govern the importation or shipment of
injurious mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and
Crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles.
Illegal activities
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
B-2
-------
Statute
Summary
Affected Vectors
P.L. 109-326, Great Lakes
Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act of 2006
Amends the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to
provide for implementation of recommendations of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study.
Agency activities
Compendium for Isle Royale
National Park (2007)
Adds an Emergency Restriction to the Superintendent's Compendium that
prohibits the discharge of untreated ballast water within Isle Royale National
Park waters and within the boundaries of Isle Royale National Park.
Maritime commerce
P.L. 110-288, Clean Boating
Act of 2008
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to address certain
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel.
Fishing and aquaculture,
Water recreation, Tourism
Interim Rule amending 9 CFR
71, 83, 93. 73 FR 52173-
52189: Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia; Interstate
Movement and Import
Restrictions on Certain Live
Fish (2008)
Restricts the interstate movement and importation into the United States of
live fish that are susceptible to viral hemorrhagic septicemia or VHS, a highly
contagious disease of certain freshwater and saltwater fish.
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities
TABLE B-2. Recently Introduced U.S. Congressional Bills Related to AIS
Bill
Summary
Affected Vectors
H.R.260, Aquatic Invasive
Species Research Act
Aims to establish marine and freshwater research, development, and
demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate
invasive species, as well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore
ecosystems.
Agency activities
H.R.553; S.336, Great Lakes
Asian Carp Barrier Act (Barrier
Project Consolidation and
Construction Act of 2007)
Aims to require the Secretary of the Army to operate and maintain as a
system the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers.
Canals and diversions
H.R.801, Great Lakes Invasive
Species Control Act
Aims to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 to require application to all vessels equipped with ballast water
tanks, including vessels that are not carrying ballast water, the requirement
to carry out exchange of ballast water or alternative ballast water
management methods prior to entry into any port within the Great Lakes,
and for other purposes.
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
H.R.889, Prevention of Aquatic
Invasive Species Act of 2007
Aims to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 to establish vessel ballast water management requirements, and
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
B-3
-------
Bill
Summary
Affected Vectors
for other purposes.
H.R.1350; S.791, Great Lakes
Collaboration Implementation
Act
A bill intended to establish a collaborative program to protect the Great
Lakes, and for other purposes.
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
H.R.2423; S.1578, Ballast
Water Management Act of
2007
Aims to provide for the management and treatment of ballast water to
prevent the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species into coastal and
inland waters of the United States, and for other purposes.
Maritime commerce
H.R.2830, Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2007
To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2008, and for
other purposes.
(Prevention of invasive species into and within the United States from
vessels).
Maritime commerce
S.725, National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act of 2007
A bill introduced to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act.
Maritime commerce,
Fishing and aquaculture
S.726, Asian Carp Prevention
and Control Act
A bill introduced to amend Section 42 of Title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit the importation and shipment of certain species of carp.
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities
Source: USDA. 2008b. National Agricultural Library, Laws and Regulations. Available at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.aov/laws/bills.shtml. Modified: December
2008. Accessed: 12-09-2008.
TABLE B-3. Selected Canadian Codes and Statutes Related to AIS32
Statute*
Summary
Affected Vectors
R.S.Q. 1984, c. P-9.01,
Commercial fishing and
commercial harvesting of
aquatic plants
Provides rules, regulations, and enforcement power related to commercial
fishing and commercial harvesting of aquatic plants.
Fishing and aquaculture,
Organisms in trade
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-15, Fisheries
Act
Establishes the Department of Fisheries and gives oversight regarding sea
coast and inland fisheries; fishing and recreational harbours; hydrography
and marine sciences; and the coordination of the policies and programs of
the Government of Canada respecting oceans.
Fishing and aquaculture,
Illegal activities
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-17, Great
Lakes Fisheries Convention
Act
Establishes collaboration between Canada and the United States through
the Great Lakes Convention and creation of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission.
Agency activities
R.S.C. 1985, c. N-19,
Navigable Waters Protection
Act
Protects the public right of navigation by prohibiting the building or
placement of any "work" in, upon, over, under, through, or across a
navigable water without the authorization of Transport Canada. "Works"
Agency activities, Canals
and diversions, Fishing
and aquaculture, Tourism
32 In addition to the regulations listed here, ballast water management regulations are discussed in Section 4.1.1.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
B-4
-------
Statute*
Summary
Affected Vectors
may include bridges, tunnels, aquaculture facilities, and dumping of dredged
material.
and development
Health of Animals Act (1990,
c.21)
Health of Animals Regulation
Establishes rules and regulations related to animal import and disease such
as VHS.
Organisms in trade
Plant Protection Act, S.C.
1990, c. 22
Protects plant life and the agricultural and forestry sectors by preventing the
import, export and spread of pests and by controlling or eradicating pests.
Organisms in trade,
Illegal activities
Wild Animal and Plant
Protection and Regulation of
International and
Interprovincial Trade Act
(1992, c. 52)
Regulates the import and cross-province border movement of harmful
species. This Act has not been used traditionally for invasive species, but it
is an available tool.
Organisms in trade,
Illegal activities
National Parks Act (2000)
Provides authority for the management and regulation of fishing, among
other activities, in national parks.
Fishing and aquaculture
SOR/2006-129, Canada
Shipping Act 2001
Ballast water control and management regulations.
Maritime commerce
National Code on the
Introductions and Transfers of
Aquatic Organisms (2001)
Establishes standards for assessing introductions and transfers, including a
risk assessment process that can be applied to introductions and transfers of
new aquatic organisms between and within regions and jurisdictions.
Agency activities,
Fishing and aquaculture
R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. 1,
Water Regulations, 2002
Provides all water regulations under the Environmental Management and
Protection Act 2002.
Agency activities
2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6,
Canadian Endangered
Species Act
Establishes rules and regulations aimed at the identification and protection
of Canadian endangered species.
All vectors associated with
the potential capture of
wildlife species, aquatic or
terrestrial.
R.Q. c. A-20.2, r.1,
Commercial Aquaculture
Regulations (2008)
This Act applies to aquaculture carried on for commercial purposes and, in
the waters in the domain of the State, to aquaculture carried on for research
or experimentation purposes. It also applies to the operation of fishing ponds
for commercial purposes.
Agency activities,
Fishing and aquaculture
Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations
(SOR/2006-129)
Enabling Statute: Canada
Shipping Act, 2001*
Requires the management of ballast water taken on board ships in waters
under Canadian jurisdiction or in the United States waters of the Great Lakes
Basin.
Maritime Commerce
Source: Canadian Legal Information Institute. Available at http://www.canlii.orq/en/index.php. Accessed: December 2008
*Source: Government of Canada Justice Laws Website. Available at http://laws-lois.iustice.qc.ca/enq/requlations/SOR-20Q6-129/. Accessed: September 2013.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C - STATE AND PROVINCIAL CODES AND STATUTES RELATED TO AIS
Minnesota Rules and Regulations
TABLE C-1. Selected Minnesota Administrative Codes and Statutes Related to AIS
Title
Summary
Affected Vectors
Invasive Species
Statute Chapter 84D
Invasive species management for aquatic plants and wild animals, including
restricted activities such as launching a boat, trailer, or other equipment if
there are potentially invasive species attached.
Fishing and aquaculture,
Illegal activities,
Tourism,
Water recreation
Minnesota Noxious Weed
Law, Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 18.76 - 18.91 (MDA)
A person owning land, a person occupying land, or a person responsible for
the maintenance of public land shall control or eradicate all noxious weeds
on the land at a time and in a manner ordered by the county agricultural
inspector or a local weed inspector.
Organisms in trade
Invasive Species Management
and Investigation
Statute Chapter 18G.12 (MDA)
Conduct research and prepare management plan to prevent the introduction
and the spread of harmful plant pest and terrestrial invasive species.
Agency activities,
Organisms in trade
Aquatic Plants and Nuisances
Rule Chapter 6280 (MN DNR)
Standards and practices for aquatic plant management and control.
Organisms in trade
Invasive Species
Rule Chapter 6216 (MN DNR)
Prevent the spread of invasive species, including prohibited and regulated
invasive aquatic plants and wild animals, into and within the state as
authorized by Minnesota Statutes.
Canals and diversions,
Fishing and aquaculture,
Illegal activities,
Organisms in trade,
Tourism,
Water recreation
Minnesota Statutes 115
(MPCA)
Requirements for vessels using ballast water in Minnesota waters of Lake
Superior, including ballast water management plan and record book of
operations involving ballast water or sediment discharge.
Maritime commerce
Source: USDA National Agricultural Library, Laws and Regulations. Available at http://vwvw.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/statelaws.shtml. Modified: 12-02-2008.
Accessed: 01-23-09.
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
C-1
-------
Wisconsin Rules and Regulations
TABLE C-2. Selected Wisconsin Administrative Codes and Statutes Related to AIS
Title
Summary
Affected Vectors
Conservation
Statute Chapter 23
Conservation, including the control of invasive species, nuisance weeds, and
aquatic plants.
Agency activities, Water
recreation, Tourism,
Fishing and aquaculture
Plant Inspection and Pest
Control Authority
Statute Chapter 94.01
Quarantines or other restrictions on the importation into or movement of
plants or other material within this state to prevent or control the
dissemination or spread of injurious pests.
Organisms in trade,
Agency activities, Illegal
activities
Abatement of Pests
Statute Chapter 94.02
Abatement of pest-harboring materials or plants infected with pests.
Organisms in trade,
Agency activities, Illegal
activities
Plant Inspection and Pest
Control
ATCP 21
Plant inspection and pest control.
Organisms in trade,
Agency activities,
Tourism, Water recreation
Aquatic Plant Management
NR 107
Establish procedures for the management of aquatic plants and control of
other aquatic organisms.
Organisms in trade, Water
recreation
Aquatic Plants: Introduction,
Manual Removal, and
Mechanical Control
Regulations
NR 109
Procedures and requirements for issuing aquatic plant management permits
for introduction of aquatic plants or control of aquatic plants by manual
removal, burning, use of mechanical means or plant inhibitors. Introduction
and control of aquatic plants shall be allowed in a manner consistent with
sound ecosystem management, shall consider cumulative impacts, and shall
minimize the loss of ecological values in the body of water. The purpose of
this chapter is also to prevent the spread of invasive and non-native aquatic
organisms by prohibiting the launching of watercraft or equipment that has
any aquatic plants or zebra mussels attached.
Water recreation, Tourism,
Fishing and aquaculture
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
Revised Rule
Emergency Order
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an emergency order to
amend NR 20.05 (6) and (7) and 20.20 (73) (h) and create NR 19.05 (3) (e)
and (f), 19.055 (5) and 20.14 (9) and (10), relating to control offish diseases
and invasive species. This emergency rule amends the emergency
measures put into effect November 2, 2007 by Order No. FH-40-07(E) for
the control and prevention of VHS in fish in state waters.
Water recreation,
Fishing and aquaculture
Wisconsin Act 16, Section
30.175
Makes it illegal to launch or operate a vehicle, seaplane, watercraft, or other
object of any kind in a navigable water if it has any aquatic plants or aquatic
animals attached.
Water recreation, Tourism,
Fishing and aquaculture
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
C-2
-------
The WDNR is proposing a new rule to address invasive species identification, classification and control (WDNR 2008b). The
proposed rule is intended to bridge the gap between federal and state laws pertaining to invasive species and set specific restrictions on
actions involving invasive species. The new rule would allow WDNR to systematically regulate listed invasive species and facilitate
working with local government and landowners.
Michigan Rules and Regulations
TABLE C-3. Selected Michigan Administrative Codes and Statutes Related to AIS
Title
Summary
Affected Vectors
The Insect Pest and Plant
Disease Act
Act 189 of 1931, Section
286.201 - 286.228
Regulate the sale and distribution of nursery stock, plants, and plant
products; to prevent the introduction into and the dissemination within this
state of insect pests and plant diseases; to provide for the destruction and
control of insect pests and plant diseases; to provide for the destruction or
treatment of certain plants or plant products; to provide for the licensure and
inspection of certain persons and activities under certain circumstances; to
impose certain powers and duties on the director of agriculture; to create
certain restricted funds for certain department activities and to allow
allocation of those funds throughout the department; to provide for the
promulgation of rules; to prescribe penalties and civil sanctions; and to
provide remedies.
Agency activities,
Organisms in trade, Illegal
activities
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act
Act 451, Part 413, Section
324.41301 -324.41323
Transgenic and non-native organisms.
Agency activities, Water
recreation, Tourism,
Fishing and aquaculture
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act
Act 451, Part 31, Section
3103a
Ballast water reporting and permitting legislation.
Maritime commerce
(oceangoing and non-
oceangoing vessels)
Public Health Code
Act 368 of 1978
Suppression of aquatic nuisance-producing organisms and plants.
Water recreation
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
C-3
-------
Ontario Rules and Regulations
TABLE C-4. Selected Ontario Administrative Codes and Statutes Related to AIS
Title
Summary
Affected Vectors
S.O.R./2007-237, Ontario
Fishery Regulations, 2007
Establishes rules and regulations related to Ontario fisheries. Includes items
related to AIS such as invasive fish, bringing bait into the fisheries, overland
transport of crayfish, live bait white list (permitted bait species), live holdings
and transport.
Agency activities,
Fishing and aquaculture,
Illegal activities,
Organisms in trade
Ontario Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act, 1997 S.O.
1997, c. 41
Establish rules and regulations for bait and commercial fishing licenses. The
Act also authorizes enforcement and outlines penalties.
Fishing and aquaculture
Ontario Regulation 664/98
Fish Licensing
Defines the rules and regulations related to Ontario fishing and aquaculture
licenses. Includes items related to AIS such as regulations on the sale of
species and bait species.
Fishing and aquaculture,
Organisms in trade
S.O. 2007, c. 6, Ontario
Endangered Species Act
Establishes rules and regulations aimed at the identification and protection
of Canadian endangered species.
Illegal activities
Provincial Parks and
Conservation Reserves Act,
2006, S.O. 2006, c. 12
Establishes rules and regulations for the planning and management of a
system of provincial protected areas. Includes provisions for the
maintenance of ecological integrity, including healthy and viable populations
of native species.
Water recreation,
Tourism,
Agency activities, Fishing
and aquaculture,
Organisms in trade
Plant Diseases Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.14
Defines the rules and regulations related to trade in diseased plants.
Organisms in trade,
Illegal activities
Animals for Research Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. A.22
Establishes rules and regulations related to the disposal of organisms.
Agency activities,
Organisms in trade
Fish Inspection Act, 2001,
c.20, s.58
Establishes rules against the sale or possession of fish species under a
misleading name.
Organisms in trade,
Illegal activities
Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014
------- |