Aquatic Invasive Species

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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/glnpo/lakesuperior/index.html.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

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



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

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

Phyllis Green

National Park Service

James Hansen

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Roger Eberhardt

Michigan Office of the Great Lakes

Rob Hyde

Environment Canada

Elizabeth LaPlante

USEPA Great Lakes National Program

Office

Doug Jensen

Minnesota Sea Grant

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

Ronald E. Kinnunen

Michigan Sea Grant Extension

Brenda Koenig

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Carri Lohse-Hanson

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Hugh MacIsaac

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

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

AIS-HACCP

ANS

APHIS

BMP

BOB

BWE

BWM

BWMS

BWWG

CAISN

Cal-IPC

CEARA

CEC

CFIA

COA

COTP

CWA

DNR

DOD

DPEIS

EEZ

GLANSIS

GLERL

GLIFWC

GLRC

GLRI

GLFC

GLWQA

IJC

IMO

LAMP

MERC

MN DNR

MPCA

NANPCA

NAS

NISA

NIOZ

NIVA

Aquatic Invasive Species

Aquatic Invasive Species-Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Best Management Practice

Ballast on Board

Ballast Water Exchange

Ballast Water Management

Ballast Water Management Systems

Ballast Water Working Group

Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network

California Invasive Plant Council

Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

Captain of the Port

Clean Water Act

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Defense

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Exclusive Economic Zone

Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

International Joint Commission

International Maritime Organization

Indiana

Lakewide Action and Management Plan

Maryland Environmental Resource Center

Michigan

Minnesota

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act

National Academy of Sciences

National Invasive Species Act

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

Norwegian Institute for Water Research

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

viii

NOAA

NOBOB

NPDES

NPRM

OFAH

OMNR

SAC

SOLEC

TBT

UNDS

USACE

USCG

USDA

USEPA

USFWS

USGS

VGP

VHS

WDNR

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

No Ballast on Board

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Superior Aggregates Company

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference

Tributyl tin

Uniform National Discharge Standards

United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Coast Guard

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Geological Service

Vessel General Permit

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

Scope of Organisms Covered

efforts at all levels. Many activities serve as

Under this Plan

models using innovative, strategic approaches.

These include best management practices for the

This aquatic invasive species prevention

exchange of ballast water, followed more recently

plan for Lake Superior considers nonnative, aquatic biological organisms

by ballast water regulations, and educational

including pathogens, parasites, and algae

programs to increase awareness of the pathways

that may become invasive in Lake Superior

to prevent new AIS associated with recreational

and cause harm to the ecosystem,

activities and with aquatic invasive organisms in

environment, economy, or human health.

trade. Government agencies and others engaged

Although this plan initially focuses on

in biological research perform ad hoc monitoring

aquatic species, the vector/pathway closure

for existing and new AIS, and provide

approach can be applied to terrestrial

assessments of AIS management efforts.

species, and in fact, many of the prevention

However, much remains to be done to protect

actions for aquatic species also work well

Lake Superior from new introductions of AIS

for terrestrial species.

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

Vectors are the modes of transmission, and pathways are the routes taken.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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 (USEPA).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

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.

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

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, nongovernmental 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

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.

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



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 (COA) 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

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 (Apollonia 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 (Dreissena polymorpha)

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

Rusty crayfish, Lake Superior. Photo credit:

antipodarum) was discovered in DuluthMinnesota Sea Grant, Jeff Gunderson. Courtesy

Superior Harbor in May 2006, a first for

of US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office

waters of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Mudsnails were found in the lower Great

Lakes over a decade before their discovery in Lake Superior.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014



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 longimanus), 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

salicaria) 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 marinus), a

jawless 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

Sea lamprey. Photo credit: Lee Emery, U.S. Fish and

in 1938 (GLFC 2000).

Wildlife Service

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 (Osmerus mordax) 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.

Non-native species continue to be introduced into Lake Superior from multiple pathways. In

January 2010, Cornell University reported that investigators had positively identified the

presence of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS, Novirhabdovirus sp.) in fish from four sites in

Lake Superior.6 The pathway of introduction is not clear, but possibilities include commercial

ships and recreational boats from the lower Great Lakes, where VHS is known to have infected

fish (Cornell University, 2010).

Recent research by the Mid-Continent Ecology Division of USEPA’s National Health and

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in Duluth is demonstrating that species new to Lake

Superior continue to be discovered in its tributaries and harbors. Prior to the institution of strict

Fish from Superior Bay and St. Louis Bay, as well as Paradise and Skanee Bays in Michigan, tested positive for

VHS.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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 aquatic 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 midtwentieth 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

Lampricide treatment, St. Louis River (near

continues to have adverse effects on large fish

Duluth, Minnesota). Photo credit: US EPA Great

species in the Great Lakes (GLFC 2000). While

Lakes National Program Office

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).

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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 (Clostridium 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

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

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

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

time.7 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.

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

Figure 1. Aquatic Invasive Species in Lake Superior: Vectors and Pathways Concept Map

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

Ship arriving in Duluth ship canal, Duluth, Minnesota.

port. Once ships reach their destination and

Photo credit: Jerry Bielicki, US Army Corps of

cargo is loaded, the ballast water is no longer Engineers. Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes National

needed and may be released into the port.

Program Office

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.

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. DuluthSuperior 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.

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).

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 and survive in the residual material left in the

ballast tanks. Organisms surviving in the residual material can be discharged into Lake Superior

ports along with ballast water that NOBOB tanks took on at a lower Great Lakes port (Bailey et

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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). Midocean 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 LakesSt. 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

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

Sea Grant 2008a); however, hull fouling may have been another pathway of introduction.8

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 MacIsaac 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.

Species may be introduced via multiple pathways.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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.

Hatchery load out, Duluth, Minnesota. Photo credit: Steve

Geving, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office

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 zebramussel-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

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

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

AIS can be introduced through aquatic research

introduction of AIS from one lake to another, if

activities, for example, when unwanted

precautions are not taken.

organisms hidden within a sample are

improperly disposed. Photo credit: Battelle

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

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

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

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

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

(USDA 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

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

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 geminata,

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

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.protectyourwaters.net/prev

ention/user_anglers.php.

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

Photo above: Spiny waterfleas fouling a

fishing line. Photo credit: Jeff Gunderson,

baitfish does not occur routinely in Lake Superior,

Minnesota Sea Grant.

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 VHS). 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

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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 nonnative 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 (Oncorhynchus 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

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

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

to Lake Superior.13 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).

Commercial cruise ships are included in the maritime commerce vector.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

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

1884

1895

1901

1936

1950

1956

1972

Species

1975

Bacterial

kidney disease

1985

Renibacterium

(Corynebacterium)

salmoninarum

Salmincola lotae

1986

Gymnocephalus cernuus

Apeltes quadracus

1992

Acanthostomum sp.

1992

Ichthyocotylurus pileatus

1992

Neascus brevicaudatus

1992

Trypanosoma acerinae

Eurasian ruffe

Fourspine

stickleback

Digenean

fluke*

Digenean

fluke*

Digenean

fluke*

Flagellate*

Agrostis gigantean

Pisidium moitessierianum

Rumex longifolius

Sparganium glomeratum

Cirsium palustre

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

Cyclops strenuous

Common

Name

Redtop

Pea clam

Yard dock

Bur reed

Marsh thistle

Pink salmon

Copepod

Type

Plant

Mollusk

Plant

Fish

Zooplankton

(crustacean)

Bacteria

Vector or Pathway of

Introduction

Release (deliberate)

Shipping, Solid Ballast

Release (deliberate)

Unknown

Release (unintentional)

Canals (water diversion)

Release (unintentional)

Zooplankton

(crustacean)

Fish

Unknown

Other

invertebrate

Other

invertebrate

Other

invertebrate

Other

invertebrate

Shipping, Ballast Water

Adapted from USEPA 2008c.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

Year of

Invasion

1992

2001

Species

Dactylogyrus

amphibothrium

Dactylogyrus

hemiamphibothrium

Gammarus tigrinus

Common

Name

Monogenetic

fluke*

Monogenetic

fluke*

Amphipod

Type

Other

invertebrate

Other

invertebrate

Benthic

Crustacean

Vector or Pathway of

Introduction

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

Ballast Water Discharge

Cultivation†

Stocked Fish

Unknown

Diseases and Parasites with Fish

Canals and Diversions

Aquarium Releases

Live Bait Releases by Anglers

Recreational Boaters

Railroads and Highways

Packaging Hitchhikers

Other Release

Number of Species

Percent*

† 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

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

Table 3. History of Ballast Water Requirements in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway

System

Year

1989

Requirement

Voluntary Canadian guidelines

1993

U.S. Coast Guard regulations for

BWE by BOB ships

1993

Great Lakes Maritime Industry

Voluntary Ballast Water

Management Plan for the Control of

Ruffe in Lake Superior Ports

2002

St. Lawrence Seaway Requirement

2004

U.S. Coast Guard National

Mandatory Ballast Management

Requirements

2004

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) International Convention for

the Control and Management of

Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment

2005

U.S. Coast Guard NOBOB BMPs

2006

Canadian Ballast Water Control and

Management Regulations

2008

St. Lawrence Seaway NOBOB

Requirement

2008

USEPA Vessel General Permit

(VGP)

2009

U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Ballast

Water Discharge Standard

Rulemaking

U.S. Coast Guard Standards for

Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast

2012

Description

Ships entering the Seaway requested to conduct

ballast water exchange (BWE)

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)

Voluntary plan to maximize loads out of western

Lake Superior ports and minimize the need for

ballast water. Ships taking on ballast from ruffeinhabited ports should exchange ballast water within

a specified zone in the open waters of Lake Superior.

All foreign flag ships entering the Seaway must

comply with BMPs, and lakers must comply with

voluntary management practices

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*

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.

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.

All vessels (BOB and NOBOB) entering waters

under Canadian jurisdiction must follow the

International Maritime Organization D1 BWE

standard.

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.

USEPA finalized the VGP, which requires several

ballast water management practices for all waters and

includes numeric discharge limits for certain states.

The Coast Guard proposed a phase-two standard for

the allowable concentration of living organisms in

ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters.

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

Year

Requirement

Water Discharged in U.S. Waters

Description

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

Eurasian ruffe. Photo credit: Gary Cholwek,

Grand Portage, Minnesota, and a point one mile

National Biological Service. Courtesy of

east of the Ontonagon River, Michigan. If ships

USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office

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).

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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-1) 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.

For the full Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management, see

http://www.shipfed.ca/eng/library/other_subjects/ballats_water/BallastWaterBestPractices.html.

For the full list of voluntary management practices, see http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-1353313_3677_8278-16312--,00.html.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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;

and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations.17

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 salinitytolerant 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

implementing ballast water management practices through regulation (Transport Canada 2006). 18

All vessels entering waters under Canadian jurisdiction are required to follow the IMO ballast

water exchange standard (Regulation D-1).

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

The indicator microbes, as a human health standard, include but are not limited to: Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae,

Escherichia coli, and Intestinal Enterococci.

Ballast water management in Canada falls under federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction.

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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

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

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

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/sec401.html). 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

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

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.1350, 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

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

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 (IJC) 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

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 IJC 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 (IJC 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

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 COA. 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 nongovernment 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

System to ensure compliance with ballast water management requirements.20 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.

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

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 noncompliant 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 caseby-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.

Ships with non-compliant ballast tanks are required to perform one of three options: (1) Retain the ballast water

and residuals on board, (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

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

invasive species.22 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 SpeciesHazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program (AIS-HACCP) (Minnesota Sea Grant

2008b).

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

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

Drying a gill net, North Shore Lake Superior.

into values, and behaviors of target audiences. In

Photo credit: Minnesota Sea Grant, Jeff

states like Minnesota and other jurisdictions that

Gunderson. Courtesy of US EPA Great Lakes

have made the campaign a priority, the program has National Program Office

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

Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, January 2014

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 nongovernment 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 shipmediated 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

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 communitybased 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

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

technologies such as acoustic deterrents, air bubble curtains, and strobe lights used both

individually and in combination).24

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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.