[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
'.4 .I II e I - The Argus II Bldg. * 400 Fourth St.e Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816 * (313) 665-9135 � Fax: (313) 665-4370 s 3� - WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS AQUA TIC NUISANCE SPECIES AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: TOWARD A REGIONAL STRATEGYIN THE GREATLAKES BASIN January 1996 Prepared by: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder Environmental Quality and Resource Management Program Great Lakes Commission 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4816 This project was made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources munder Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act PREFACE This proceedings document is based on the presentations and workgroup findings of the regional workshop (May 1995), Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin. Also included in this document is the primary product of the workshop, A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species. The model is presented to the Great Lakes states as guidance in developing comprehensive state management plans under Section 1204 of the federal NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA). The workshop proceedings, associated workshop and model management plan were made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These proceedings were prepared by the staff of the Great Lakes Commission's Resource Management and Environmental Quality Program. The document was compiled and edited by Katherine Glassner-Shwayder. Glassner-Shwayder also was responsible for the organization and conduct of the workshop on which the proceedings are based. Additional project support was provided by Tom Crane and Lori Reynolds. Members of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, representatives from coastal management programs, and all other workshop participants were critical to the success of the workshop and the ensuing production of these proceedings. Special acknowledgment is warranted for two individuals. First is Chris Shafer, chief of the Great Lakes Shoreline Section, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Shafer, who manages Michigan's Coastal Management Program, was instrumental in securing the project grant and ensuring strong, multistate involvement by coastal managers. Acknowledgment also is extended to Jay Rendall, exotic species program coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Rendall, who chairs the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, played a critical leadership role in project design and conduct. Questions and comments on this document can be directed to the Great Lakes Commission at: The Argus II Building, 400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816; phone: 313-665-9135; fax: 313-665-4370; e-mail: glc~great-lakes.net. Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D. Executive Director Great Lakes Commission i WORKSHOPPROCEEDINGS: AQUATICNUISANCE SPECIESAND COASTAL MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS: TOWARDA REGIONAL STRA4TEGYIN THE GREATLAKES BASIN May 2-3,1995 Ann Arbor, Michigan TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ............................................................................. i I. EXECUTIVE SU1MMARY ............................................................ 1 II. INTRODUCTION: PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..............................3 IH. METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 5 IV. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS:AQUATICNUISANCESPECIESAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: TOWARDA REGIONAL STRATEGYINTHE GREATLAKESBASIN .................................................................. 8 Introductory Remarks ........................................................... 8 Project Goals and Objectives, Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission .............................................................. 8 Aquatic Nuisance Species Programs in the Great Lakes Region, Jay Rendall, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Chair of Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species ................................................... 9 Coastal Management Programs in the Great Lakes Region, Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Michigan Department of Natural Resources ........... 1 0 Panel 1: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Issues and Impacts ........ 1 2 The Status of Ballast Water Invasions and Management in the Great Lakes, Dr. James Carlton, Williams College, Mystic Seaport ............................ 12 Regulatory Control of Nonindigenous Species in Ballast Water on Vessels Entering the Great Lakes, Lt. Katherine Weathers, U.S. Coast Guard ............... 13 Zebra Mussel Invasion of Inland Waters ofMichigan; Paul Marangelo, University of Michigan and Mystic Seaport Museum ...................................... 14 The Economic Impact ofZebra Mussels on Public Facilities, Leroy Hushak, Ohio Sea Grant ...........................................................14 Panel 2: Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Initiatives and Needs ...................... 15 Federal Activities on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Jay Troxeil, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute ................ 15 New York State's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan, Tim Sinnott, New York Department of Environmental Conservation ............ 17 The Status of the Ruffe Control Plan, Thomas Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................17 Development and Implementation of a Regional Policy on Nonindigenous Aquatic Speciesfor the Chesapeake Basin, Dan Terlizzi, University of Maryland Sea Grant .... 18 Panel 3: Coastal Management Programs and ANS Issues .............................19 Introductory Remarks, Chris Shafer .......................................... 19 Michigan Coastal Management Program, Catherine Cunningham, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Michigan Department of Natural Resources ........... 19 Ohio Coastal Management Program, Christine Kasselmann, Ohio Coastal Management Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources .....................20 The Role of Federal Consistency and Other Coastal Zone Management Tools in ANS State Management Plans, Ellen Brody, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management ................21 Panel 4: A Model To Guide the Development of State Management Plans ............... 24 Introductory Remarks: Goals of the State Management Plans, Jay RendaU ..........24 Progress Reports on the State Management Plans for ANS Prevention and Control .................................................................26 New York, Tim Sinnott ..................................................... 26 Michigan, Mark Coscarelli, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of the Great Lakes ...................................................26 Minnesota, Jay Rendall .................................................... 28 Wisconsin, Ron Martin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ...............28 A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control I ofNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species, Katherine Glassner-Shwayder ..........29 Workgroup Sessions ............................................................31 An Overview of Workgroup Sessions andAssigned Tasks, Katherine I Glassner-Shwayder.............................3 1 Summary of Workgroup Findings ............................................32 Blue Group, Facilitated by Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commission .....32 Orange Group, Facilitated by Katherine Glassner-Shwayder ................33 Yellow Group, Facilitated by Jay Rendall ............................... 34 Red Group, Facilitated by Chris Shafer and Lori Reynolds, Great Lakes Commission ......................................................35 Workshop Summary ............................................................37 Where Do We Go From Here? Recommendations on aRegional Strategyfor ANS Prevention and Control in The Great Lakes Basin, Michael J. Donahue .............37 I I I V. DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY ....................................................... 39 VI. APPENDICES A. A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species B. Section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of.1990 � C. Federal Consistency Requirements D. Project Oversight Committee Members: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal I Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin E. Workshop Participants: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin F. Workshop Agenda: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: 3 Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin G. New York State's Coastal Management Program Summary I H. Workgroup Assignments for the Workshop: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin I I I I I I I I L EXECUTIVE SUMMIARY The following document presents proceedings from the workshop, Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward A Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin, held May 2-3, 1995 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This workshop was part of a larger initiative taken on by the Great Lakes Commission with guidance from the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and Great Lakes state coastal managers, to strengthen Great Lakes regional policy on the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. The primary outcome of the workshop, which brought together aquatic nuisance species (ANS) specialists and state coastal managers of the Great Lakes region, was the production of A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control ofAquatic Nuisance Species. Also during the workshop, significant progress was made in developing strategies on how to implement the state management plans with tools available in coastal management programs. The model management plan, presented in Appendix A of this document, was developed as guidance to the Great Lakes states on their state management plans as called for in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCCA). The workshop proceedings were prepared as support in use of the model management plan. Project activities were made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This document opens with an overview of the project goals, objectives and methodology. The proceedings from the workshop are then presented. The plenary sessions of the workshop, designed to inform/update workshop participants on issues pertinent to the development of a Great Lakes regional strategy on ANS prevention and control, are summarized under the following panels as conducted at the workshop: 1) Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Issues and Impacts; 2) Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Initiatives and Needs; 3) Coastal Management Programs and ANS Issues; 4) A Model to Guide the Development of State Management Plans. Four concurrent workgroup sessions followed the plenary sessions, providing an opportunity for participants to discuss elements needed for the development and implementation of the model management plan. The results from the workgroup sessions also are summarized in these proceedings. Concluding remarks include a set of recommendations for states in expanding and refining the model state management plan, based on workshop findings. A distribution strategy for this document also is presented. Project accomplishments involving the workshop and development of the model management plan are as follows: Recognition that the problems caused by aquatic nuisance species raise interjurisdictional challenges that will require a regional strategy for ANS prevention and control based on partnerships among federal, state, provincial and local agencies, and non-governmental groups. I * Increased awareness of a broad array of ANS issues among ANS officials, representativesI from coastal management programs in the Great Lakes region and other individuals -with vested interests in the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. * Agreement among representatives of the Great Lakes states to use a model state management plan as guidance to help promote regional consistency in the development of3 their state managemnent plans for ANS prevention and control. * Consensus on the foliowing topics for goals on which to base the model comprehensiveI state management plan for ANS prevention and control: Goal I: Preventing new ANS introductions; Goal II: Limiting the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already established in the Great Lakes; and Goal HII: Abating harmfuli ANS impacts. * Consensus on the model hierarchy, which includes a goal statement, problem definition, and recommended strategies and tasks needed to accomplish stated goals. * General agreement that a strong linkage exists between aquatic nuisance species issues and coastal management programs. Some of the tools recommended from coastalI management programns to strengthen ANS prevention and control efforts (such as imnplementation of the comprehensive state management plans) include federal consistency, permit conditions, education and outreach programs, networling of state agencies, funding opportunities through grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and promotion of legislation and policy supporting ANS prevention and control through coastal management progranis. The regional workshop and the model management plan, during its various phases of review,I received commendations by several participating ANS specialists and coastal managers. The workshop was considered a valuable opportunity for participants to strategize on how to address ANS issues as part of their state programs. The workcshop also provided a forum for workshop3 participants to initiate a network approach between ANS specialists and coastal managers in their work on ANS issues. Positive feedback also was received on the model management plan which is actively being used by several Great Lakes states in the development of their state managementI plans for ANS prevention and control. 2 IL INTODUCTION: PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species are causing detrimental imnpacts in the Great Lakes Basin, particularly in coastal areas. Aquatic nuisance species have altered the Great Lakes ecosystem and caused costly socio-economic damages. The zebra mussel, a classic example, has taught us how aquatic nuisance species can threaten the biodiversity of the Great Lakes aquatic community by competing with native species. There also is evidence of how the zebra mussel has caused changes to the food web by filtering microscopic plants and animals from the water column, which could potentially reduce fish populations. The economic impacts caused by zebra mussels also have raised concemrn mthe Great Lakes region due to considerable exenditures resulting from clogged municipal and industrial -water imnpact pipes. The menagerie of aquatic nuisance species that have become established in the Great Lakes and inland waters of the region present a wide variety of ecological, socio-economic problems to Great Lakes water users. As the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species continue, the associated problems intensify, as does the need for their prevention and control. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NAANPCA) addresses aquatic nuisance species (ANS) problems in the United States. Although the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes played a central role in prompting passage of the federal legislation, NANPCA has a national focus to its programs for preventing new ANS introductions and fimiting the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already in U.S. waters. Under Section 1204 of NA NPCA , the states are called upon to develop comprehensive state management plans for ANS prevention and control. The legislation stipulates that the state management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health, and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." Each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices and measures to be taken on by state and local programs to prevent and control ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound. The development of a state management plan, as called for in Section 1204 provides an opportunity for federal cost-share support for implementation of the plan, pending plan approval by the national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. To address the challenges posed by ANS invasions of the Great Lakes and inland waters of the region, the Great Lakes Commaission has identified the need for a regional strategy on ANS prevention and control. This regional strategy is addressed in the project, Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs. Toward A Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin, conducted under the leadership of the Great Lakes Commission with guidance from the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and state coastal managers of the CTreat Lakes region. Project activities were made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmnospheric Administration to the NMichigan Department of Natural Resources under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 3 I The two primary goals of the project are: 1) to develop a model comprehensive state management U plan to provide guidance on a regional basis to the Great Lakes states in the development of their individual state management plans as called for under NANPCA; and 2) to establish a network between ANS programs and state coastal management programs to strengthen ANS prevention and control strategies. Other objectives related to the project goals are to raise awareness of ANS issues among Great Lakes state coastal managers; investigate how ANS prevention and control tactics can be incorporated in coastal management plans; and identify the mechanisms/authorities that currently exist in coastal management programs to facilitate implementation of state management plans. 5 Toward this end, a regional workshop, Aquatic Nuisance Species and CoastalManagement Programs: Toward A Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin, was held May 2-3, 1995, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The workshop laid the groundwork for development of the model state management plan for ANS prevention and control. The workshop also served as a fornm to initiate a network approach between ANS specialists and state coastal managers to address ANS I issues. The information presented at the regional workshop is summarized in the proceedings that follow. These proceedings, which provide support for use of the model state management plan for ANS prevention and control, have been developed to promote and facilitate the development and implementation of respective ANS plans and programs in each state. I i I I I I I 4 ~~~~I I Im METHODOLOGY The following methodology was pursued in support of the project goals and objectives, under the direction of the Great Lakes Commission with guidance from the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and state coastal managers of the Great Lakes region. Proiect ScoDina: An oversight committee was selected to provide guidance for project activities. Committee members, comprised of representatives from both aquatic nuisance species (ANS) programs and Great Lakes coastal management programs (CMPs), convened for a project planning meeting in February 1995 in Ann Arbor, Michigan (refer to Appendix D for listing of oversight committee members). The focus of the meeting was to develop a strategy on how state ANS programs and CMPs can build partnerships to strengthen a regional policy on ANS prevention and control in the Great Lakes region. Committee members agreed that a regional workshop would be the appropriate mechanism to initiate such efforts. They also strongly supported the development a model comprehensive state management plan to provide guidance on a regional basis to the Great Lakes states in the development of their individual state management plans as called for under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA). The following project objectives were recommended by the oversight committee: * Increase awareness of ANS issues through state programs; * Integrate ANS issues with CMPs; a Facilitate development of state management plans by developing the framework (template) on which detail can be incorporated by the states; * Identify the mechanisms/authorities (i.e., state and federal statutes) that currently exist in CMPs to facilitate the implementation of the ANS state management plans; 0 Incorporate tools from CMP plans (i.e., statutes and regulations) into ANS state management plans to facilitate implementation; * Provide coastal managers with an understanding of the diverse issues involved in ANS prevention and control; 0 Raise awareness among ANS officials on how CMI plans can facilitate implementation of state management plans; 0 Gain legislative support for ANS state plans; and 0 Assist Great Lakes states in efforts to acquire federal funds for relevant planning and implementation efforts. Also discussed during the planning meeting was the basic design of the regional workshop. It was recommended that the event should run two days, providing both plenary and workgroup sessions to achieve the goals and objectives of the project. It was suggested that the plenary sessions provide background on ANS programs and CMPs as well as updates on ANS issues pertinent to the state management plans. Workgroup sessions were identified as an opportunity for the interactive discussion needed to develop the model state management plan and to identify tools from the CMPs to facilitate implementation of the state plans. 5 The members of the oversight committee played an instrumental role in providing lists of potentialI workshop participants. Members also provided summaries of ANS programs and CMPs used in a packet of background informnation prepared for workshop participants. Research and Analvsis: Great Lakes Commission staff researched and reported on the current status of ANS prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes Basin, with an emphasis on impacts and implications for the coastal zone. Research was based on resources provided by the state natural resource/coastal management agencies in the Great Lakes region, as well the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. The primary lesson gained from extensive research .5 efforts was the need to reflect an ecosystem approach in addressing ANS issues, both in the workshop and the development of the model state management plan, which should include, among others, ecological, socio-economic and public health considerations, as well asI inteijurisdictional dynamics. Research findings were used to develop a packet of background informnation for workshopI participants. (These information packets are available from the Great Lakes Commission.) The information packet consists of summaries of state ANS programs and CMPs from several Great Lakes states, provided by lead ANS and coastal management officials. The state summaries onI ANS programs provide informnation on program authorization, status reports on programn activities, opportunities to integrate ANS activities with coastal management programs, and relevant statutes and regulations that are being used or could potentially be used in the preventionI and control of aquatic nuisance species. The packet also includes an initial draft model of the state management plan which was discussed and evaluated during the workshop described below. Other documents found in the packet include a copy of NA NP CA, the May issue of the ANS UPDATE newsletter, information on U.S. Coast Guard regulations on Great Lakes ballast water mnanagement, zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes in Mfichigan and Chesapeake Bay policies5 relating to nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Proj-ect Workshou: The workshop, held May 2-3, 1995, in Ann Arbor, NMichigan, brought3 together almost 60 ANS and CMP specialists from state and federal agencies, as well as tribal authorities and researchers (refer to Appendix E for listing of workshop participants and Appendix F for workshop agenda). The contributions of these participants, both throughI presentations and interactions in workgroup sessions, were critical to the development of the model management plan for ANS prevention and control. The workshop forum also provided an opportunity for ANS specialists and coastal managers to become aware of each othee's programsI or potential programns on ANS issues, setting the stage for future worldng relationships and establishing a network approach to strengthen ANS prevention and control initiatives.3 Develoi)ment of Model State Manaizement Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindiaenous Aauatic Nuisance SDecies: A model comprehensive state management plan was developed to Pr ovide guidance on- a regional basis to the Great Lakes states in the development of theirI individual state management plans as called for under NA NP CA (refer to introductory section (pages 3-4 for fiurther detail on the state management plans). An initia draft model of the state3 63 management plan, distributed to workshop participants for evaluation, was further developed and refined based on workshop presentations and findings brought forth during the workgroup sessions. The model was then distributed to workshop participants and Great Lakes Panel members in mid-August for review and preliminary use. Based on the comments received from this initial review, a final draft of the model was completed in November and distributed to members of the Great Lakes Panel and the national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force for final review. The final version of the model, titled A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuzsance Species can be found in Appendix A of these proceedings. Technical Assistance: The project team is providing post-workshop support and assistance to ensure that project findings and recommendations are considered and incorporated in state plans and progranis addressing ANS issues. As part of this effort, these proceedings, which include the model state management plan, will be distributed to members of the Great Lakes Panel, Great Lakes state coastal managers and other participants in the regional workshop. Also, efforts will be made to promote and facilitate the development and submittal of state mnanagement plans under NA NPCA and provide guidance to coastal managers on how ANS issues can be addressed as part of coastal management activities. 7 IV. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS: AQUA TIC NUISANCE SPECIES AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: TOWARD A REGIONAL STRATEGY IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN Introductory Remarks Project Goals and Objectives, Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission To address the challenges posed by nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (ANS) invasions of the Great Lakes region, the Great Lakes Commission has identified the need for a regional strategy for ANS prevention and control. This regional strategy is addressed in the project, Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward.A Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin, conducted under the leadership of the Great Lakes Commission with guidance from the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and state coastal managers of the Great Lakes region. In developing a regional strategy for ANS prevention and control, an ecosystem approach has been taken to include both the prevention of new ANS introductions into the Great Lakes and inland waters of the region, and control of the dispersal of those species already established in the Great Lakes Basin. Also encompassed in this ecosystem approach are ecological, socio-economic and public health considerations, as well as the interjurisdictional elements critical to the success of implementing a regional strategy for ANS prevention and control. The two primary goals of the project are: 1) to develop a model comprehensive state management plan to provide guidance on a regional basis to the Great Lakes states in the development of their individual state management plans as called for under NANPCA; and 2) to establish a network between ANS programs and coastal management programs to strengthen ANS prevention and control strategies. Other objectives related to the project goals are to raise awareness of ANS issues among Great Lakes state coastal managers; investigate how ANS prevention and control tactics can be incorporated in coastal management plans; and identify the mechanisms/authorities that currently exist in coastal management programs to facilitate the implementation of state management plans. The workshop will serve as the primary mechanism to achieve project goals and objectives. The first day of the workshop focuses on the discussion of key issues regarding aquatic nuisance species and their impacts. Presentations will provide information on ongoing initiatives and opportunities for ANS prevention and control in the Great Lakes and inland waters of the region. These discussions will be led by policymakers, research scientists, natural resource agents and coastal managers on a variety of ANS issues, programs and activities. The second day of the workshop will commence with presentations from representatives of the Great Lakes states on goals for ANS prevention and control, including progress reports regarding state planning efforts. Also presented will be a draft model state management plan for ANS prevention and control that, in its final form, will be used as guidance by the states in the 8 U development of their comprehensive state management plans for ANS prevention and control. I Workgroup sessions will be convened to further expand and refine the model state management plan. Other objectives of the workgroup sessions include: assembling a tool box for use in implementation of the state plans, including funding mechanisms; and identiffying enforceable policies and statutes that coastal management plans can use for ANS prevention and control. The findings generated at this workshop will be summarized in a proceedings document. These proceedings, including the model state management plan for ANS prevention and control, have been developed to promote and facilitate the development and implementation of ANS plans and I programs. Aquatic Nuisance Species Programs in the Great Lakes Region, Jay Rendall, Minnesota Department of Natural Resource, Chair of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes region has been I occurring for more than a century through a variety of pathways. Some of the pathways of ANS introduction and dispersal include ballast water release by transoceanic vessels, inland recreational boaters and horticultural activities. In recent years, ANS introductions have become more numerous, adversely affecting more waters of the Great Lakes region, threatening a larger number of native aquatic species and causing significant economic losses. 3 Increased awareness of ANS problems, generated by high-profile species such as the zebra mussel, has lead to actions at the federal, state and local levels to address ANS problems. In the Great Lakes region, there are many agencies, organizations and partnerships that work on ANS issues. A catalyst for many of the activities is the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA). 3 On the federal level, the U.S. Coast Guard is called upon under NANPCA to establish and implement regulations to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the Great 3 Lakes via ballast water. The national ANS Task Force, co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is responsible under NANPCA to establish a national ANS program to coordinate prevention, detection and monitoring, and control activities. Under the ANS Task Force, the Ruffe Control Committee has been assigned to develop a plan for the control of ruffe, a nonindigenous fish species that is rapidly expanding its range along the southern shore of Lake Superior. The Sea Grant programs in the Great Lakes states, supported with both federal and state funding, conduct research and education on zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes region. 3 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational agency established in 1955, has led the battle to control sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Currently the Fishery Commission is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian agencies in the conduct of sea lamprey control work and research, as well as on control efforts for ruffe. 9 1 I On a regional level, the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species was convened under NA NP CA. The Panel, -with representation from federal, state and local agencies as well as environmental and commercial interests, coordinates informnation/education activities, policy/legislation and research initiatives on a regional level. State agencies are authorized under NANPCA to develop state management plans for ANS prevention and control. Despite finding constraints, several Great Lakes states are makidng progress on plan development and related activities. Local agencies, such as counties, cities and lake associations also can play an important role in ANS prevention and control efforts. Some of these activities include volunteer monitoring programs, promnotion of state laws and local ordinances, and involvement in information/ education activities to raise public awareness and inform decisiomnakers on ANS issues. Coastal Management Programs in the Great Lakes Region, Chris Shafer, Mfichigan Coastal Management Program,4 Michigan Department of Natural Resources On a national level, the Coastal Management Programs (CMP) are authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), originally passed in 1972. Under CZMA, Congress provides the states with a national policy to: 1) preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance resources of the nation's coastal zone; and 2) encourage and assist the states to effectively exercise their responsibilities for coastal management through the development and implementation of programs to achieve wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, aesthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economnic development. The CZMA enables coastal states, including the Great Lakes states, to develop a CMP to improve protection of sensitive shoreline resources, to identify coastal areas appropriate for development, to designate areas hazardous to development, and to imnprove public access to the coastline. In the Great Lakes region, four states have federally approved programns, including Mcicigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New York. The states of Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota are in the process of developing their state plans for federal approval. The programns are typically developed and imnplemented as part of one of three structures: a natural resource department (e.g., Nichigan), a state planning office (e.g., Maine), or a separate, statutorily created agency (e.g., California Coastal Comnmission). Illinois is not presently participating in the coastal management program. Traditionally, CMPs are more oriented toward land use and address control and development activities as well as the protection of hazard-prone areas along the shoreline such as wetlands, sand dunes and other unique features. Generally, state coastal programs regulate shore protection structures, dredging and flling activities, marina construction, new development, and flood-prone and high-risk erosion areas. States also promote improved public access and waterfront redevelopment activities through various programs and financial assistance. In the past several 10 years, coastal programns are looldng more to the "wet-side"' of their coastal areas. Ocean andI marine states have recently begun focusing on ocean management activties beyond the state's 12- mile territorial seas. Also, more attention recently has been focused on the protection of cultural resources, such as shipwrecks and other maxitimne artifacts. Increased attention has been devoted to the states' public trust responsibilities over their submerged lands. Two primary incentives exist for the states to participate in the federal coastal programn: financialI assistance and federal consistency. Under Secfion 306 of the C2MA, federal assistance implementation grants are awarded to the states with federally approved CNMs. In the Great Lakes region, these grants range from $600,000 to $2.1 million dollars annually, depending on the shoreline population and coastline mileage of individual states. Section 306 funds are generally used for planning activities, site design, engineering feasibility and natural features studies, historicI preservation projects, coastal education materials, development of portions of local zoning ordinances, master planning of coastal significance and waterfront development studies. Project selection is competitive and based on how well each project meets coastal program objectives. States generally pass a portion of their federal grants through to other state agencies and local units of government for planning, site design, engineering, scientific studies, regulatory programnsI and enforcemnent activities. Opportunities for ANS project funding, exist under the state coastal progr-ams in areas such as policy and scientific research, monitoring programs, information/ education activities and enforcement of existing statutes. To date, the coastal states have notI actively been involved in funding ANS projects. These funding opportunities will be explored during the discussions of this workshop. T'he federal consistency provision of CZMA is the other incentive for the states to participate in a federally-approved coastal program. Federal consistency requires that the federal agencies conducting projects in the coastal zone (such as construction activities, grant awards, or federal licenses or permitting activities) must be consistent with state law. This provision gives the states considerable authority and the ability to work with federal agencies on equal status. The authority3 under the federal consistency provision holds potential for addressing ANS issues. This idea will be pursued during the workshop. (Refer to Appendix C and Ellen Brody's presentation, The Role of Federal Consistency and Other Coastal Zone Management Tools in ANS State3 Management Plans (pages 2 1-24), for further detail on federal consistency.) Opportunfities do exist for ANS officials and state coastal managers to build working relationships3 and to support each other's missions and programs. We look forward to identifying and strengthening these opportunities and linkages between coastal management and ANS programs. Panel 1: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Issues and Impacts The Status of Ballast Water Invasions and Management in the Great Lakes, Dr. James Carlton, Director of Maritime Studies and Professor of Marine Sciences, Wifllams College, Mystic Seaport A plethora of species new to American waters has become established due to ballast water and sediment release, and it appears that the number is steadiy growing. Introduced species have been identified by the National Research Council as one of the five most pressing issues now facing the conservation of marine and aquatic biodiversity. Ballast water invasions continue, and they will continue for some years to come. National and international regulations (now largely voluntary) call for ballast water management interface with a huge maritime industry that directly involves more than 150 nations with a staggering variety of vessels of different sizes, cargoes, age, condition, routes and ballasting requirements. Vessels are being built in 1995 with an expected at-sea fife of 25 or more years, without regard to ballast management considerations. In efforts to prevent new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, ballast water managemnent guidelines have been established as federal law in the Great Lakes under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention andControlAct (P.L. 101-646) (NANP CA) . The U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations in May 1993 that required vessels bound for the Great Lakes to exchange their water, if possible, on the high seas (in depths greater than 2,000 meters or 6,600 feet) to achieve a minimum salinity of 30 parts per thousand. Most vessels coming through Massena, New York (where the Coast Guard boards vessels test ballast water), have exchanged most or some of their water and have salinities greater than 30 parts per thousand. The four vessels that faied to meet salnity requirements in the 1993 and 1994 seasons were dealt with by adding salt, chlorination and by heat treatment. The word has gone out to the maritime industry that ships could be found in violation of the new ballast laws, and thereby stopped. Problems have arisen with open ocean ballast exchange, ranging from lirmited effectiveness to concerns about crew and ship safety. In addition, it is becoming apparent that primary concemn should not focus strictly on whether or not a vessel has exchanged its ballast water as it is currently viewed and calculated in official statistics, but rather on how much ballast was exchanged. These challenges are leading committee and research groups around the world to look toward more long-term solutions. These solutions are specifically focused on treatment of the ballast water aboard ship either wbile the water is being boarded, while the ship is underway or when the water is being released. No new established invasions due to ballast water have been reported in the Great Lakes since earlier Canadian voluntary guidelines came into effect in May 1989. (This does not mean that no new invasions have occurred, since reports of new invasions lag behind the actual colonization event by two to five or more years.) However, it is imnportant to emphasize that ballast regulations should not be expected to cease all future invasions; but rather, ballast regulations should be expected to profoundly diminish the number of new invasions into the Great Lakes. 12 I The fact that "leakage" can still occur, even with regulations in ::ce, is indicated by the discovery I in 1994 of young European flounder in Lake Superior. These !iMduals must have been transported by ballast water subsequent to 1989. They may havy :3rrived in water from ships that 5 declared that they had "no ballast on board." Such ships (referred to as "NOBOB's"), however, often have enough "residual" water on board to carry organisms. A combination of actions are needed to insure there are fewer invasions in the future. These include increased awareness of the need for ballast water management by the maritime industry, diligent attempts to affect ballast exchange operations that are safe for crew and ship, and the I addition of new technological systems that will treat ballast water on the ship (e.g., thermal, ultraviolet, chemical, ultrasound, filtration, etc.). Regulatory Control of Nonindigenous Species in Ballast Water on Vessels Entering the Great Lakes, Lt. Katherine Weathers, U. S. Coast Guard, Chief of the Marine Port and Environmental Safety Branch The Great Lakes is the first place where the United States has established a regulatory regimen against the introduction of nonindigenous species carried in ballast water. U.S. regulations, (at 33 CAR 151 Subpart C) implementing mandatory compliance with Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 (P.L. 10 1-646) (NANPCA) went into effect on May 10, 1993. These regulations apply to all vessels that have operated outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of either the U.S. and Canada to control the discharge of ballast into the Great Lakes. Enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard at Massena, New York, with active assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard and the Seaway authorities, the regulations require that the level of salinity in the ballast water equals or exceeds 30 parts per thousand (ppt). (The salinity of normal sea water ranges from 34 to 36 ppt.) Compliance with the requirements of the regulations can be met with one of the following three options: 1) ballast water exchange at sea beyond the EEZ in a depth of at least 2,000 meters; 2) retaining the vessel's ballast water onboard during the entire voyage within the Great Lakes; or 3) implementation of an altemative environmentally sound method of ballast water management that must be first approved by the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Although the current regulatory regime on ballast water management has addressed a large portion of the ballast transport problem, there is still a significant problem with the unpumpable ballast residue for which regulations do not yet exist. There is concern that current ship designs I leave a residual amount of ballast water in the tanks after a complete discharge operation. As a result, the organisms caried in the unpumpable ballast residue are available for discharge when more water is added to the ballast tank, allowing the release of these organisms into the Great Lakes from vessels with multiple destinations in the Basin. Since a large number of vessels entering the Great Lakes (approximately 95 percent of the 400 to 700 vessels entering each year) carry unpumpable ballast, additional regulatory action may prove necessary to strengthen the line of defense against new introductions of aquatic nuisance species. I 3 I Zebra Mussel Invasio9n of Inland Water of Mfichigan, Paul Marangelo, University of Nichigan, Research Associate, Mystic Seaport Museum In 1993, the first systematic widespread sampling of inland waters in Norffi America for the presence of zebra mussels was initiated to assess the incidence of overland dispersa into inland freshwater systems in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The 33 lakes targeted for this survey were considered to be at high risk of zebra mussel invasion due to large size, close proximity to infested waters, or the presence of public access sites, characteristics which typifyr lakes with higher levels of transient boating activity. Zebra mussels were detected in 10 of these lakes, thus providing a limfited initial assessment of its inland range expansion. The sampling programn was continued in 1994 with the goal of expanding the scale of zebra mussel monitoring in inland lakes to construct a basis for refining inferences on the rates, direction and spatial patterns of the spread of zebra mussels that were generated in the 1993 season. Existing inland populations were monitored to investigate the early population dynamics of zebra mussel invasions, and derive predictive models of the fiming and magnitude of future population growth and associated impacts. A total of 15 new inland lake infestations were documented in 1994. As of January 1995, a total of 26 Michigan inland lakes displayed some evidence of zebra mussel infestation, and 15 lakes had confirmed populations of adult zebra mussels. Secondary dispersal from established inland populations has proved to be a significant factor in the development of new infestations, including downstream and interwatershed transport. The discrete inoculation of zebra mussels in Michigan's inland lakes was found to be another significant mechanism contributing to primary invasions. The results from this research clearly show that zebra mussels are continuing their range expansion at a rate that will infest a considerable number of inland lakes in Michigan within the next decade. T'he Econ omic Impact of Zebra Mussels on Public Facilities, Dr. Leroy Hushak, Research Investigator, Ohio Sea Grant The zebra mussel infestation has imposed large costs on facilties that draw water from the Great Lakes: electric generating plants, municipal water systems and industrial water users. For example, the largest fossil-fueled plant in the world, Detroit Edison's power plant in Monroe, Nichigan had to shut down in 1989 because zebra mussels literally plugged up the water system. Since that time, this rapidly reproducing mollusk has spread throughout the Great Lakes, its tributaries, and many major rivers and inland lakes. The zebra mussel has reportedly infested hundreds of facilities that use raw water, such as municipalities' drinldng water facilities, industries and power generating plans. Despite these widespread damages, there has been little systematic information to idenfifyr the infested facilities, the costs of monitoring, cleaning and controlling the infestafions, and whether the best methods are being used to minimize the costs. 14 I Research is being conducted by Ohio Sea Grant to determine water user expenditures on zebra I mussel monitoring and control in the Great Lakes region. As of May 1995, a survey to document zebra mussel control costs was sent to 1,500 facilities on the Great Lakes, Great Lakes tributaries, and selected facilities on nearby streams and lakes that draw surface water into their facilities. Of the 400 facilities that responded, approximately one quarter are utilities, one quarter are municipalities and half are industries. The average total expenditures of facilities on the Great Lakes was determined to be $513,600 over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994. Respondents with Great Lakes water intakes include 32 of 48 facilities with more than 50 million gallons per day (mgpd) of intake capacity. Reported costs range from less than $20,000 per year for smaller water intakes (5 mgpd or less) to $350,000 or more per year for those in excess of 300 mgpd. Few of the large water users that were heavily impacted by zebra mussels are included in the respondents of the survey. Efforts are currently underway to obtain more responses, especially from the large, heavily impacted facilities; and to determine if the facilities that did not respond are similar to those that did. Panel 2: Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Initiatives and Needs 3 Federal Activities on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Jay Troxell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute 3 The NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA) is the federal legislation established to prevent the occurrence of new ANS introductions and to limit the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already in U.S. waters. The act provides an intergovernmental mechanism for development of a cooperative national program to address the following objectives: reduce the risk of or prevent the unintentional introduction and dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic species that may be nuisances; ensure prompt detection of the presence of and monitor changes in the distribution of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species; and control established aquatic nuisance species in a cost-effective, environmentally sound I manner. The national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and 3 Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established under Section 1201 of NANPCA to coordinate governmental efforts related to nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the United States with those of the private sector and other North American interests. An important role of this federal group in the implementation of NANPCA is to establish national policy direction in support of the act. The ANS Task Force (consisting of seven federal agency representatives and eight ex officio members representing non-federal governmental entities) has adopted the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program under Section 1202 of the act which recommends the following essential elements: 3 15 ~~~I I * Prevention: Establish a systematic risk identification, assessment and management process to identify and modify pathways by which nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species spread. * Detection and Monitoring:- Create a National Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Information Center to coordinate efforts to detect the presence and monitor the distributional changes of all nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, identify and monitor native species and other effects, and serve as a repository for that inforination. * Control: The task force or any other potentially affected entity may recommend initiation of a nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species control program. If the task force deterniines, using a decision process outlined in the control program, that the species is a nuisance and control is feasible, cost-effective and environmentally sound, a control program may be approved. The ANS Task Force recommends research, education and technical assistance as strategies to support the elements listed above. The ANS Task Force also provides national policy direction as a result of protocols and guidance that have been developed through the efforts of the following worldng committees: Research Protocol Coordination Committee, Intentional Introduction Policy Review Committee, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Ruffe Control Committee, Risk Assessment and Management Committee, Detection and Monitoring Conumittee, Zebra Mussel Coordination Committee and Brown Tree Snake Control Commnittee. A critical role of the fedelral government in the prevention of unintentional introductions of aquatic nuisance species is defined under Section I1101 of NANPCA , which mandates the establishment of regulations for ballast water management aimed at fimiting introducfions through transoceanic shipping. U.S. regulations control the discharge of ballast from all vessels entering Great Lakes waters, thus far the only region in the United States to be regulated. The regulations have been enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard since May 1993, with active assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard and Seaway Authorities. (The Canadian federal government has yet to enact federal ballast water management regulations, however, voluntary guidelines are in place.) The need has been identified for a feeral research program to develop innovative technology for ballast water management. The federal legislation to reauthorize NANPCA is in the preparation stages as of May 1995. This legislation is designed to extend and possibly modify or expand national ANS programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing an administration proposal in consultation with ANS Task Force and congressional committees; both have received regional guidance from the Great Lakes Panel. The reauthorization bill will recommend a national voluntary program to prevent new introductions. Other proposed changes wil include emergency authority for the ANS Task Force co-chairs to address urgent situations, and increased opportunities for other regions to formn coordinating councils like the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. 16 I New York State's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan: How I Do We Get to the Goal of ANS Prevention and Control, Tim Sinnott, New York Department of Environmental Conservation New York is the first and only Great Lakes state (as of May 1995) to complete a state management plan that has been approved by the national ANS Task Force. In August 1991, the New York State Legislature directed New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation to prepare a state management plan for the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species consistent with the requirements of Section 1204 of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic I Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 10 1-646) (NANP CA). To identify public needs and concerns, an ad hoc committee was formed from groups affected by or interested primarily in zebra mussels. These groups included representatives from municipal governments, industry, water authorities, academic researchers, regulators and New York Sea Grant. With guidance from the ad hoc committee, an initial draft of the management plan was developed. The plan was circulated for review to a larger group of agencies and individuals that were interested in or impacted by nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Based on feedback from this review, the focus on zebra mussels was expanded to include all nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. After further revisions, the plan was submitted for public review. The management plan is based on the following four goals: I 9 Reduce the potential for future introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species; * Reduce the potential for nonindigenous aquatic species that have been introduced to spread into uncolonized waters; 0 NMinimize harmful economic, ecological and social impacts resulting from nonindigenous aquatic organisms that have already been introduced or are proposed for introduction; and * Educate the public on the importance of preventing nonindigenous aquatic species introductions, and how the harmful impacts of such species can be reduced or mitigated. Other sections of the plan that support these goals include research programs, governmental roles and responsibilities, recommendations for implementation and an implementation schedule. The plan describes the appropriate program infrastructure for accomplishing nonindigenous ANS management and specific objectives to be accomplished each year over a three-year period. The overall cost of the program presented is estimated at $350,000. In light of plan approval by the national ANS Task Force, New York's DEC received $68,000 for fiscal year 1995 in federal cost-share support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for implementation of the plan. The Status of the Ruffe Control Plan, Thomas Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chair of the Ruffe Control Committee The ruffe, a spiny-finned fish species of the perch family, is a nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species native to Eurasia that was introduced to North America in the early 1980s presumably I 17 1 I through the ballast water of a seagoing vessel. First collected in 1986, the ruffe has made its home in Duluth Harbor where it has become the most abundant species. The range of the ruffe has expanded rapidly along the southern border of Lake Superior. (Since the date of this workshop presentation, three ruffe were discovered in Thunder Bay of Lake Huron, more than 300 miles east of the previously known range. This new sighting is believed to be the result of ballast water transport.) Exhibiting high reproductive and aggressive behavior for habitat and food, this spiny perch is a serious threat to the fisheries and aquatic ecosystems in the lower Great Lakes and inland waters. In 1992, a task force appointed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission recommended a program of research and control regarding the ruffe. The national ANS Task Force appointed a Ruffe Control Committee to develop a Ruffe Control Plan. The plan, based on the goal of preventing or delaying the spread of ruffe beyond western Lake Superior, was completed in June 1995. The program addresses the vectors by which ruffe are known to spread as reflected in the following recommendations: 1) educational and regulatory actions to prevent bait bucket transport; 2) ballast water management plan, established by the maritime industry with assistance from the Ruffe Control Committee, to reduce the risk that ships might transport the ruffe out of western Lake Superior; 3) elimination of reproducing populations of ruffe on the periphery of its range by using piscicide to prevent unassisted range expansion; 4) research on ruffe populations and their effects on the ecosystem; and 5) evaluation of ruffe biological control measures. All components of the program are being implemented with the exception of piscicide treatments. If the ruffe escapes from westem Lake Superior, the program will be reexamined, and perhaps redirected on ways to keep the ruife out of inland waters. Development and Implementation of a Regional Policy on Nonindigenous Aquatic Species for the Chesapeake Basin, Dan Terlizzi, University of Maryland Sea Grant In December 1993, the Chesapeake Bay Program, a regional body committed to the restoration of the bay, adopted the Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Major factors stimulating the development of this basinwide policy included the discovery of zebra mussel veligers in the upper Susquehanna River, the major tributary to Chesapeake Bay; the increased use of triploid grass carp in some states of the Chesapeake basin; and the initiation of in situ experiments with the nonindigenous oyster Crassostrea gigas. This regional policy, developed by the Exotic Species Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Programs' Living Resources Subcommittee, serves as guidance to the signatory parties (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Viginia and the District of Columbia) for the management of both intentional and unintentional introductions. Workgroup members include scientists, policy staff and resource managers from the Chesapeake Bay Program jurisdictions, as well as representation from the non- signatory basin states (Delaware, New York and West Virginia). 18 The management of nonindigenous species in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is pursued on a U regional rather than state-by-state or species-by-species basis. The intentional introductions component of the Chesapeake Bay Policy - primarily geared for activities associated with aquaculture, fisheries management, biological controls and research - institutes an interjurisdictional process which guides the signatories in making cooperative decisions regarding the intentional, first-time introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. The policy regarding unintentional introductions covers the following areas: 1) education and information; 2) ballast water discharge; 3) monitoring; and 4) control and eradication methods. The policy recognizes that successful prevention of unintentional introductions is highly dependent on raising awareness of the problem among citizens, government agencies and industry. Considerable attention also is given to ballast water management options since the Chesapeake Bay is at high risk to unintentional introductions via ballast water discharge in the ports of Norfolk, Va. and Baltimore, Md. The Chesapeake Bay Commission, a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Policy, has led a multidisciplinary Ballast Water Work Group in the production of the document, The Introduction of Nonindigenous Species To the Chesapeake Bay Via Ballast Water: Strategies to Decrease the Risks of Future Introductions through Ballast Water Management (Chesapeake Bay Commission, 1995). Panel 3: Coastal Management Programs in the Great Lakes Region and ANS Issues Introductory Remarks, Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Catherine Cunningham, land and water management analyst from the Michigan Coastal Management Program will present an overview of Michigan's program. Christine Kasselmann, coastal management administrator from Ohio, will provide a status report on Ohio's coastal management program, which is in the process of development. In addition, ideas will be proposed in both these presentations on how to integrate coastal management programs with ANS program activities. Steve Resler, supervisor of consistency review from the New York Coastal Management Program, was originally on the agenda but was not able to attend the workshop. An overview of New York's program is available in Appendix G. Ellen Brody, acting Great Lakes regional manager from NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, has taken Resler's place on the agenda and will speak on federal consistency and other coastal management tools that could be used in ANS prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes region. Michigan Coastal Management Program, Catherine Cunningham, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Michigan Department of Natural Resources The Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP) encompasses more than 24,000 acres of Great Lakes bottomiands, 600 islands and 3,288 miles of shoreline with coasts that border four of the five Great Lakes. Michigan has had an approved program since 1978 and was among the first states to join the federal Coastal Management Program. Michigan's program, housed in the I 19 I Nichigan Department of Natural Resources, is designed to provide a regulatory and financial assistance function to protect the state's coastal resources. MCMP holds direct permitting authority for projects affecting the Gret Lakes coast through the following statutes: a Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, 1955 PA 247 0 Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act, 1976 PA 222 as amended * Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, 1979 PA 203 0 Shorelands Protection and Management Act, 1970 PA 245 0 Wnand Lakes and Streams Act, 1972 PA 346 0 Nfichigan Underwater Salvage Act, 1929 PA 173 as amended In addition to these core statutes, the MCMP utilizes the Mfichigan Environmental Protection Act (I1970 PA 127), which provides every citizen of the state with standing to bring a cause of action to preserve, protect and enhance the state's natural resources. These statutes need to be assessed in terms of their role supporting Michigan's state management plan for ANS prevention and control. The federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, which require all federal permits, licenses and financial assistance loans to be consistent with federally approved state coastal management programs, is another important tool that can be used by MCMP to assist in the implementation of Mfichigan's state management plan for ANS prevention and control. Federal activities, such as administrative rtules pertaining to ballast water discharge would be subject to federal consistency review. Mfichigan's draft state management plan includes a recommendation for the review of all state statutes related to the possession, transport and control of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species and idenfification of those statutes that could be incorporated into MCMP's consistency review process. (Refer to Appendix C and Ellen Brody's presentation for further detail on federal consistency.) MCMI also holds potential funding opportunities through its federal grants program, that could support projects to address both the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act and ANS issues. Examples of grant projects include the development of vehicles that could be used to disseminate ANS informafion, such as interpretive signs at public access sites, angler guides, exhibits at museums, aquariums and visitor centers. Other examnples include coastal research and/or monitoring projects to support ANS prevention and control efforts. Ohio Coastal Management Program, Christine Kasselmann, Ohio Coastal Management Programn, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Offio is not yet implementing a coastal management programn (CMIP) but is receiving federal funds to develop a program. The state is in the process of developing a program document which is expected to be submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in late summner 20 1995, with federal approval expected by 1996. Ohio's CMI' is defined in state statute as the comprehensive action of the state and its political subdivisions in support of cooperative management of coastal resources and control activities that affect the coastal area and the beneficial use of its resources. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is the statutorily designated lead agency of a networked program. The state coasta management law also includes a strong state cons istency provision that parallels the federal consistency provision. The recent inclusion of Policy 15 (on) exotic species in the CMP's draft document (yet to be approved) reflects the increased urgency regarding this issue. It addresses regulation of purple loosestrife and exotic fish species, as well as public informnation efforts and a management plan for state wildlife areas and nature preserves. Although Ohio is not currently implementing a federally approved coastal management program, potential regulatory processes that could incorporateI nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species considerations could include submerged lands lease reviews, wetlands water quality certifications, and permitting of water diversion and marinas. As Ohio develops its state comprehensive ANS plan, addifional enforceable policies could be deemedI necessary. If so, the state's consistency provision could be used to ensure that the state agency actions and permitted activities are consistent with these policies. Other items under consideration for incorpor-ation in the CMI' to support ANS prevention and control are as follows: 9 Identification of wetlands, critical fish habitats, and ports and harbors as generic Areas of Particular Concern under CMI' for prioritization of funding and actions to protect against ANS ecological threats. 0 Use of the National Estuarine Research Reserve at Old Womnan Creek as a focal point for state and regional research and information dissemination regarding AINS prevention and control. * Use of the CMI' network (including agency and interagency integrated management teams) to heighten awareness of the need for ANS considerations in the exercise ofI authorities of various agencies. a Promotion of cooperative efforts between coastal management programs of the Great Lakes region in light of the fact that ANS problems cross state boundaries. The Role of Federal Consistency and Other Coastal Zone Management Tools in ANS State Management Plans, Ellen Brody, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office ofI Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Federal consistency is an environmental law under the Coastal Zone Mlanagement Act (CZMA)I that allows states to prohibit federal activities or federally authorized activties affecting coastal state resources that are not consistent with the enforceable policies (supported by state law or regulation) of the federally approved state coastal management programn (CNMI). The CZMA was passed by Congress to assist coasta and Great Lakes states, and U.S. territories to develop state CMPs to comprehensively manage and balance competing uses of and impacts to coagta 21 resources. The intent of federal consistency is to facilitate consultation and coordination eariy on in the process. Federal actions that are subject to federal consistency provisions include: Direct federal actions: Activities and development projects performed by a federal agency, or contractor for the benefit of a federal agency. Examnples include activities in National Parks, U.S. Corps of Engineers dredging projects, winter navigation in the Great Lakes involving opening and closing of looks by U.S. Corps of Engineers, feerally approved Area Contingency Plans for oil spills (Oil Pollution Act), and federally approved state management plans for ANS prevention and control. * Indirect federal actions: Activities not performed by a federal agency, but requiring federal permits and licenses and other forms of federal approval. * Federal financial assistance to states, territories and local governments: Examnples include Federal Highway Administration funds to state, territorial and local governments; construction grants for wastewater treatment works; and hazardous waste management trust finds. An examnple of how federal consistency could be appfied to the management of aquatic nuisance species is the review of Interstate Commerce Commission water carrier licenses that could affect the transport of aquatic nuisance species. The federal consistency provision provides the states with an enforceable tool that can be used to protect state coastal resources, including entire ecosystermswithin the watershed of the coastal zone. It also addresses the need for federal actions to adequately consider the policies of the state coastal managenient programs. It is an imnportant mandatory, but flexible mechanism to resolve potential conflicts between states, territories and federal agencies, through early consultation, cooperation and coordination. Note: Several other coastal management tools hold potential in preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species. The following list of such tools is based on correspondence from Brody following the workshop. * Public access projects: State coasta programs fuind ntunerous public access projects along the coast, including boardwalks and trails, boat ramps, dune walkovers and park improvements. Interpretive displays may be associated with the public access projects. An opportunity exmists to encourage states to include, as part of these projects, signs, interpretative displays or other public information related to aquatic nuisance species. * Permit conditions: State agencies place conditions on most permit applications for activities in or affecting the coastal zone. These conditions are required to make the proposed activity consistent with state natural resource laws. Coastal management programs could establish permnit conditions to limnit the spread of aquatic nuisance species. For example, requirements could be established to ensure that marine operators have sufficient facilities for washing the hulls of boats. Each state's list of enforceable policies should be examined for the developmient of further ideas. 22 Education and outreach: Coastal mnanagement programs are involved in education and outreach activities in a number of ways that could support ANS management. - Newsletters;3 - Coastweeks (a national coastal awareness progranm, including beach cleanups and many other activities). Coastal management programns could organize Coastweeks activities (e.g., education on ANS issues, boat inspections);3 - Public access projects (see above). * Assessment and monitoring of coastal waters: While coastal management programs typically do not expend significant funds on research and monitoring, states could help to fund baseline studies and monitoring efforts. * National Estuarine Research Reserve System: Section 3 15 of the Coastal Zone Management Act establishes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). The NERRS is a federal-state cooperative venture designed to protect estuarine land andI water resources for use as natural field laboratories; focusing on protection and management through environmental education and interpretation, monitoring and research. Although there is only one such reserve in the Great Lakes region (Old WomanI Creek in Ohio), an opportunity exists to conduct research and education activities at that site. * Coastal Zone Enhancement Program: The Coastal Zone Enhancement Program (CZEP) was established in 1990 as part of the CZMA. reauthorization. The purpose of the CZEP is for states to assess the condition of their coastal resources and, based on the needs identified, to make changes to the enforceable policies of their coastal zone management programs. One possibility under the CZEP is for states to identifyr the need to pass a law related to ANS prevention and control. Funds from coastal managemnent programns could then be used to fund the staff work involved in the legislative process, which also can include studies deemed necessary to demonstrate to a state legislature thatI a problemn exists. * Iplementation and enforcement of ANS plans: Fund staff from CMPs to develop,I implement and enforce the state management plans for ANS prevention and control. * Local plans and ordinances: Use CMP funds to update local comprehensive plans andI development of local ordinances. Coastal management programs could work with local communities to revise local ordinances to address ANS management issues. * Networking of state agencies: To gain federal approval of a state program, states are required to demonstrate that mechanisms are in place to coordinate and monitor activities affecting the coastal zone. These mechanisms are often in the form of Memoranda ofI Understanding or a Governor's Executive Order. Coastal managers are therefore in the position of knowing what activities are under-way that could influence the coastal zone. 23 State coastal programs could use these existing insfitutional mechanisms (or develop others) to ensure that ANS management is considered in decisions involving state permits and agency actions. National/Regional Policy: Coasta management programs are well-organized to share information and influence national policy debates. The Coastal States Organization in Washington, D.C., is the lobbying organization and should be apprised of ANS issues. Coastal management program managers should be another voice to promote legislation and funding to support ANS prevention and control. On a different level, the Great Lakes coastal management programs should share informnation and meet on a regular basis to facilitate regional action on ANS issues. (For further informnation refer to the fact sheet, Federal Consistency Requirements, found in Appendix C.) Panel 4: A Model To Guide the Development of State Management Plans Introductory Remarks:- Goals of the State Management Plans, Jay Rendall, Ninnesota Department of Natural Resources, Chair of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species In the Great Lakes region, considerable activity is underway concerning the preparation of state management plans. New York has completed a state management plan that has been approved by the national ANS Task Force. The management plan from NMinesota is in draft formn, including three species-specific plans that are underway for the Eurasian water milfoil, flowering rush and zebra mussel. Wiisconsin has completed two species-specific plans for the Eurasian water milfoil and the zebra mussel; both prepared for the state legislature. Mfichigan has developed a state management plan in draft formn. The development of the state management plans will first and foremost help guide comprehensive and effective actions in the states on ANS prevention and control, given the many different players worling on ANS issues. The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species can be instrumental in facilitating regional coordination of the state management plans through the development of a model state management plan for ANS prevention and control. The plan also can serve as a planning tool to assess funding needs for implementation, and could be used in the request for funds. In reviewing the New York, Minesota and Wisconsin plans, the following five comimon goals emerge: & Prevent the introductions of "new" nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species; 0 Contain existing ANS populations; a MfInimize impacts where harmful aquatic nuisance species exist; * Increase awareness of ANS issues; 9 Coordinate management efforts. 24 These goals have been instrumental in identif~ting the key strategic actions needed to address prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. The following discussion provides a brief overview of each of these common goals. In an attenipt to prevent unintentional introductions, the state plans niust first identify the pathways of introduction and determine the acceptable prevention methods. Based on theseI findings, the risks posed by ANS introductions and solutions to the problems caused by these introductions must be communicated to the appropriate groups. To respond to threats from intentional introductions, the state management plans of Minnesota and New York recommendI strategies that would prevent the import and release of new species into the states until it can be established that these species are not likely to harm the native plants and animals and the ecosystem where these species would reside. To ensure the review of proposed introductions,I legilative action may be required. To contain existing populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, the state plans ofI Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin recommend an outreach program targeting boaters, anglers and the public. The primary intent of the outreach program is to motivate changes in the user groups' practices to imnit the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Minnesota promotes the use ofI regulations in thi process, while New York's state plan recommends infbrmnation/education activities as the approach needed to change the behavior pattemns of user groups. To minimize imnpacts of aquatic nuisance species, there is general agreement that the states should play a significant role in identifying safe control practices; providing technical, financial and educational assistance, and developing alternative control approaches. The plans also note that not all aquatic nuisance species should be controlled. Mlinnesota and New York suggest that ANS control needs to be prioritized on the basis of the severity of imnpacts, directing attention to the most serious problems. Species-specific plans are being developed to address the species causing the most damaging problems. In the state plans, there was consensus to increase awareness of ANS problems and solutions. Developing consistent messages and determiining the appropriate audiences that need to be targeted were identified as important prerequisites to awareness efforts. To provide coordinated management of aquatic nuisance species, the plans recommend the establishment of a coordinating agency supported by staff that is knowledgeable on ANS issues.I Wisconsin and New York both use an outside advisory board to provide feedback on policy and program developmnent. In Minnesota, assistance is provided to the state's Exotic Species Program by an interagency exotic species conunittee in the dissernination of information, reviewI of policy and programs, and coordination of other ANS related activities. The following presentations will provide progress reports from the states in the Great LakesI region that are actively working on state management plans. 25 Progress Reports on the State Management Plans for ANS Prevention and Control in the Great Lakes Region Now York, Timn Sinnott, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation In August 199 1, the New York State Legislature directed New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation to prepare a state management plan for the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species consistent with the requirements of Section 1204 of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 10 1 -646) (NA NP CA). The development of New York's state plan is strongly tied to NA NP CA, which emphasizes ANS prevention and control. The goals on which the plan is based are required to be measurable and attainable as ascertained by objectives identified under each goal. (Refer to Panel H for Sinnott's presentation on New York's state management plan for details on how the plan was developed and the goals on which it is based.) Education was identified as key to a successful ANS prevention and control program. A mandatory restriction programn was not incorporated as part of the plan since effective enforcement is not considered feasible. There also is concemn that regulations would harbor ill-will among the user groups. In New York, the cooperafion of the public is considered key in achieving the objectives of the plan. It also is recommended, based on the review process for New York's plan, to send a draft plan to the ANS Task Force for review (where final approval is required) before sending the plan out for public review. The public review responses are included as an addendum to the plan to convey to public reviewers how their comments were addressed. Approval of New York's state plan by the national ANS Task Force has resulted in $68,000 in federal cost-share support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These funds have allowed plan implementation in the following areas: education (production of signs that will be placed at public waterway access sites and brochures for public distribution); monitoring (a pilot project in the Finger Lakes area to document zebra mussel distribution); and research (to monitor contaminant concentration of zebra mussels in various lakes throughout the state). Michigan, Mark Coscarelli Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of the Great Lakes When the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of.1990 (P.L. 10 1 -646) (NANPCA) was first passed in 1990, the Office of Great Lakes was identified as the state agency to coordinate evolving ANS issues. Although there was recognfition for ANS problems, energies were focused on other issues believed to be more urgent in the state. Since that time, however, considerable progress has been made in addressing ANS issues in the state. The document, Nonindigenous Aquafic Nuisance Species Stae Management Plan: A 26 Strate,gy to Confront Their Spread in Michigan, was released in early March 1995 by the Office of the Great Lakes and allowed for a 45-day public comment period. Based on the comments received, the plan will be revised and is scheduled for submnittal to the national ANS Task Force1 on June 1, 1995. The plan is based on the following objectives:I * Reduce the potential for future introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into Michigan waters through information, education and dissemiinafion activities; programn development; coordination of scientific research; and policy initiatives, including ballast control measures. * Educate the public, user groups, industry and other affected parties on the importance of preventing nonindigenous aquatic nuisace species transfers and introductions, and how harmful impacts of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species can be mininmized. * Control and mininiize hanmful economiic, ecological and social impacts resulting fromI nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that have already been introduced into the waters of Michigan through education and extension, technical assistance and grant assistance. * Reduce the potential for nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that have been introducedI into Mfichigan waters to spread into uncolonized waters through applied research, monitoring and education. Emphasis has been placed on prevention in Michigan's plan, which is dictated by cost- effectiveness. The following questions have emerged during the public comment period and internal discussion of the document: a What is the primary role of the federal government with respect to aquatic nuisance species, an issue that needs to be addressed in the state management plans?'I 9 How can resource management agencies most effectively weigh ANS management programn costs against the costs of not having a program? a How should the issue of cost of prevention versus control be addressed in the plan? HowI can a balance be established between prevention and control in the plan? 9 How should chemical control be addressed in the state management plan? Is integrated pest management a viable option for ANS control strategies?I 0 Should public access be temporarily restricted on unique water bodies for the short term to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species that mfight pose ecological threats to these waters on a long-term basis?I 0 To what extent should private sector activities (e.g., aquaculture, bait, horticulture and the pet hobby businesses) be addressed in the plan to provide a proper balance with ballast control issues?I a In takidng an ecosystem approach in the ANS planning process, should terrestrial systems be included? 273 Workshop participants are encouraged to consider these questions in their discussions on the state management plans during the workgroup sessions. Mfinnesota, Jay Rendgl, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Chair of Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) established a statewide program in 1991 to minimize the spread of ecologically hanmful exotic 'wild animals and aquatic plants and to prevent problems caused by aquatic nuisance species. The legslation, which enables this statewide management coordinating program, allows for a $5 surcharge on watercraft licenses which generates approximately $1 million per year for use in the following areas: control, public awareness, law enforcement, monitoring and research on aquatic nuisace species, such as the zebra mussel, purple loosestrife and Eurasian water milfoil. The legislation calls for development of a comprehensive ANS state management plan that addresses the coordination of detection, prevention, control and public awareness activities in the state. Prevention and containment are major goals of this comprehensive state management plan, which recommnends several strategies and actions to address ANS issues, including public awareness (i.e., billboards, public service announcements, advisory signs, distribution of ANS information kits), watercraft inspections (includes ANS informnation briefing by inspector), and state regulations (i.e., it is a misdemeanor in Mfinnesota to transport zebra mussels and several other aquatic nuisance species on a public road or to launch a boat with ANS attachments). Minnesota DNR also has found it beneficial to develop species-specific management plans for aquatic nuisance species identified as high priority. Thus far, species-specific plans have been completed for the Eurasian water milfbil and the flowering rush, and drafted for the zebra mussel and purple loosestrife. Wisconsin, Ron Martini, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Although Wisconsin has not yet initiated the development of its state imnplementation plan, the state has prepared species-specific management plans on the Eurasian water milfoil and zebra mussels. These species-specific plans, which were prepared at the direction of the state legislature, the govemnor and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), will serve as addenda to the State Implementation Plan when it is completed. The DNR is also in the process of drafting an inland response plan for the ruffe, which should be completed later in the year. In addition, the DNR has developed a draft policy that will guide agency action on nonindigenous terrestrial and aquatic species. The policy, to be finalized later in 1995, will provide the framnework for the development of the State Implementation Plan. This plan will focus only on unintentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. The DNR, serving as the responsible agency for plan development, is committed to drafting an ANS plan that is compatible with the other states in the Great Lakes region and promotes strong partnerships with other jurisdictions in implementation. 28 A Model Comprekensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindfigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species (Draft), Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission The comprehensive state management plans for the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species are called for in Section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance3 Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 10 1-646) (NANP CA) . Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to effiminate or reduce theI environmental, public health, and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." Each state plan should focus on the identification of management practices and measures to be taken on by state and local programs to prevent and control ANS infestations in a manner that isI environmentally sound. Section 1204 also states the need for coordination among local, state and federal government agencies in implementation of the plan. It is r'ecommended that in the development and implementation of the plan, the lead state agency involve local governments andI regional entities, and public and private organizations that have expertise in the control of aquatic nuisance species. The state management plans are to be submitted to the national ANS Task Force for approval. If the plan meets the requirements of the ANS Task Force, it becomesI eligible for federal cost-share support. If not, the plan is returned to the state with recommended modifications. Plans may be imnplemented with other funds supplied by state and cooperative agencies. Further details on the state management plans can be found in Section 1204 ofI NA NPCA (refer to Appendix B). The purpose of the model comprehensive state management plans is to provide guidance to G-reat Lakes state agencies for the development and imnplementation of respective state management plans for A.NS prevention and control. The draft model presented here today, based on staff3 research and discussions with state resource managers in the Great Lakes region, is only a starting point in its construction. The model will be critiqued and further developed during the upcomfing workgroup sessions. The draft model is based on the foliowing goals: a Goal I: The prevention of future introductions of aquatic nuisance species into waters of the state; * Goal II: The prevention of the spread of aquatic nuisance species that have already beenI introduced into uninfested waters of the state; a Goal Ill: The abatement of harmful economic, ecological and social impacts resulting from aquatic nuisance species that have already infested state waters;I 0 Goal IV: The education of the public, user groups, natural resource agencies, industry and business, policymakers and other affected parties on the importance of the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species; andI 0 Goal V: Coordination among federal, state and local agencies involved in the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.3 293 Based on these goals, the following hierarchy is recommended to help define primary ANS prevention and control management activities: a goal statement, problem definition, and recommended strategies and activities needed to accomplish stated goals. The first portion of Goal H1 is presented as an example to illustrate the model hierarchy. Goal H1: The prevention of the spread of aquatic nuisance species that have already been introduced into uninfested waters of the state. Problem: Aquatic nuisance species spread into uninfested state waters. Most pathways are the result of human activity, such as boat transfers, ballast exchange, bait and tackle activities, water transport, and ornamental and landscape endeavors. Limiting the spread of such populations is problematic due to both the numerous pathways of dispersal, the complex ecological characteristics associated with ANS populations and the lack offeasible technology that is needed to limit the spread As a result, the affected community is unprepared to deal with the infestation and associated ecological, economic and social impacts. Strategy A: Identify the aquatic nuisance species that are causing harmful ecological and economic impacts and monitor their distribution in state waters. Activity 1: Develop criteria that help determine which aquatic nuisance species are to be considered ecologically and economically harmful. Activity 2: Establish a network of governmental, public and private groups that wiU assist in monitoring those species determined to be most harmful. In addition to the preceding hierarchy of goals, problems, strategies and activities, it is recommended that the state management plans include the following components: 1) Executive Summary 2) Introduction 3) Background Information 3) Implementation Schedule of Annual Objectives (required by Section 1204 of the ANS Act) 4) Budget Information 5) Funding Sources (including federal, state, local and nongovernmental oppomnities) During workgroup sessions, participants will be asked to assess the goals and hierarchy of the model management plan, and also elaborate on the problems and related strategies and activities. Efforts should be made in the workgroup sessions to reach agreement on the higher layers of the model to advance a regional framework for its development and implementation. The expertise from federal, state and local agencies represented at this workshop will be critical to the completion of this model in a form that maxiniizes its usefulness to the states. 30 I Workgroup Sessions 1 An Overview of Workgroup Sessions and Assigned Tasks, Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission Workgroup sessions met concurrently during morning and afternoon sessions of the second day of the workshop (May 3). Workshop participants were assigned to one of four workgroups (refer to Appendix H for listing of workgroups), and each group was given the tasks indicated below. Each of these groups was led by designated facilitators, supported by volunteer recorders and reporters. The findings of each workgroup were presented by each of the group reporters during a plenary session at the end of the workshop. The workgroups were each asked to focus on further development of the draft comprehensive state management plan (presented in these proceedings on pages 29-32) that as a final document will be used as guidance for the Great Lakes states in developing state management plans, as called for in Section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA). The workgroups also were asked to generate ideas on how tools from coastal management programs (CMPs) could be used in the implementation of the state management plans; and how consideration of ANS issues could be strengthened in coastal management programs of the Great Lakes region. To address these issues, the following questions were posed during the workgroup sessions: Morning Meeting of Workgroup Sessions: * What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed model? * How might it be modified for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species? What are some problems and related strategies that could be used to expand the model under each goal? Afternoon Meeting of Workgroup Sessions: What resources are presently available to address ANS issues? What tools (i.e., regulations, statutes, enforceable policies) are available from coastal management plans to implement the state management plans? What other authorities or tools in the ANS state management plans could be supported by the coastal management plans to facilitate plan implementation? The information gathered during these workgroup sessions is presented in summary form below. I The workgroup findings have also been integrated as part of the final version of A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species found in Appendix A of these proceedings. 3 1 I Summary of Workgroup Findfings Blue Group: Facilitated by Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commiission Considerable discussion took place regarding problems associated with Goal I (prevention of future ANS introductions). Meeting such a goal will require addressing the following: multiple and unknown transport mechanisms responsible for ANS introductions; multiple authorities responsible for ANS management; an absence of statewide policy on ANS issues; many ANS vectors that lie outside the control of the state; a lack of technology to control ANS spread; and a crisis response mentality that limits focus on fixture introductions, thus imnpeding the opportunity for the prevention of future ANS introductions. It was reconumended to address thes problematic conditions in the model plan under Goal I. The group recommended that, for Goal II (prevention of ANS spread), a more positive spin should be given to facilitate a productive problemn-solving approach. It also was noted that geographic factors may facilitate ANS moverment through natural and anthropogenic pathways. Under Goal 111 (abating harnmful ANS impacts) it was suggested thiat the word "minimize" should be used instead of "abatement." The group identified the need to determiine financial and ecosystem costs to achieve Goal Ill, acknowledging that the. assessment of natural resource damage is often difficult and ambiguous. Uncertainties associated with prevention and control technology also were noted as problematic. The group identified the need to prioritize the allocation of resources for ANS prevention and control problems. Other recomnmendations/issues offered by the group include: * Goal IV (education on ANS prevention and control) and Goal V (regional coordination of agencies worling on ANS issues) should be included in the state managerment plans as strategies, not goals. * Explicit definition of terms is needed, using the definitions given in NAN.PC4 where appropriate. * Additional language is needed to integrate the interstate management plans into a larger ecosystem plan with Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. * Consistency and coordination with Canada need to recognized in the model plan. * Acknowledgmnent is needed in the model plan that state distinctions are appropriate and necessary in the state management plans. a The model management plan needs to define the role of federal entities. a The implementation ktrategies of the management plans need to be specified at all levels of government (federal state, local). * An evaluation component to the model plan is needed. * Plan costs should be included in the state management plans where possible. * The plans should identifyr statutes and programs at the statelfederal level supporting plan goals. 32 * Opportunities to apply existing coastal programn authorities to plan implementation shouldI be fully explored. * The plans should emphasize integrating recommended ANS activities with other existing programs. Orange Group: Facilitated by Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Conuinission The group offered the following recommendations for modifyring the model: * Use orly the first three goals (prevention of future ANS introductions, prevention of ANS spread, abatement of harmiful ANS impacts) as fisted in the draft model. Goals IV (education on ANS prevention and control) and Goal V (coordination of agencies working on ANS issues) as listed in the draft model are not truly goals, only supporting mechanisms to achieve the goals. * To achieve the goals for the model, the strategies should include the following elements:I partnerships, research, education and regulation. * Elements that should be considered in defining the problem statements of the model are: knowledge, funding, technology and authorization.I * Education needs to be stressed in the management plan with the following objectives: - inform the public on imnpacts; - provide the different audiences with consistent information; andI - base advisoriesleducation on sound research. * The role of the -federal government needs to be identified under each goal. A noted strength of the model is its systematic approach to capturing the quintessential points needed in a comprehensive state management plan: a hierarchy with goals that prompt one to ask difficult questions. The group recommnended the following tools from CMPs that would help in the implementation of the state management plans: * Funding opportunities for ANS projects may be available through CMP grants; Use of federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act as a tool to oversee federal action affeefing ANS problems in the states; * The interagency approach of CMPs provides a coordinative function applicable for ANS programns; * Advocacy initiatives, including legislative studies, can be conducted through Cups; * PermiAt conditions on projects can be established through CMPs;I * Interpretive/education displays at recreation areas/facilities can be accomplished through CMPs; * Use Coastweek as an initiative to facilitate ANS activities such as volunteer training andI boat inspections; * CMPs can provide funding for assessment and monitoring programns. 33I Yellow Group: Facilitated bv Jay Rendall, Minesota Department of Natural Resources, Chair of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species The group cited the strengths of the model as being proactive; offering a strong focus on public education; recommending strategies involving appropriate user groups; and promoting regional coordinafion. The weaknesses identified included the lack of indicators to measure success and accomplishments of strategies and tasks; the need for species-specific plans as found in management efforts of Minnesota and Wisconsin; and the need for mo're specific language for activities and implementation efforts. For Goal I (prevention of new ANS introductions), recommendations were made to address intentional and unintentional introductions by establishing a process to review regulations and laws that have interjurisdictional implications (e.g., aquaculture regulations), and to promote federal research and development efforts, particularly with regard to ballast technology. Under Goal 11 (prevention of the spread of existing problem species), it was noted that, in some cases, controlling the spread of species is highly imnprobable. Consequently, efforts should be focused on mfinimizing ANS spread where it is technicaly and economically feasible. Recommended strategies to minimize ANS spread include: 1) determine pathways through which they are spreading; 2) interrupt pathways though voluntary and regulatory approaches; 3) encourage research and development on ballast technology; and 4) pursue education/information programs for prevention and containment. For Goal Ill (abatement of hamiful ANS impacts), the group recommended implementation of integrated pest management for each species identified for control. Other recommendafions include: prioritizing problem species using a matrix to determiine which species warrant control; developing adaptive strategies that guide communities on how to live with ANS problems; and providing technical advice on how to address ANS problems. It was noted that an interjurisdictional mechanism was needed to resolve differences between state, federal, tribal and local entities in achieving enforceable polices with consistent objectives. The foliowing resources were suggested to address ANS issues: Expertise: Sea Grant, National Biological Service, federal research and development programs, university programs, resource management agencies, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Canadian federal and provincial agencies, International Joint Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Carriers' Association, private consultants, sport fishing groups, municipalities and private industries, tribal entities. 34 Funding: State coastal management programs (CMPs), Sea Grant programns (NationalI Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), state appropriations as designated funds, Great Lakes Protection Fund, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, foundations that fund envirornmental projects, ptivate industry organizations and tribal governments. The group recommended the following tools that could be derived from state CMPs to support ANS prevention and control: aquaculture laws and regulations, administrative rules, diversion laws and regulations, National Pollution Discharge Efimination System (NPDES) pennits, Coast Guard regulated discharges, ballast, waste disposal practices, dredge and fill operations via perm-itI review of the U.S. Corps of Engineers operations, marine pollution control law, conumercial fishing laws and regulations, licensing, bait and tackle laws and regulations, and other state environmental protection policies. Also discussed was the role of CMPs in implementation of ANS state management plans. Recommnendations include: * Funding opportunities in areas of outreach, research for prevention and control efforts, monitoring activities, educational displays, angler guides, shipwreck conservation, monitoring program documents, boat washing facilities; * Use of federal consistency, and * State coordination on ANS problems among agencies addressing coastal issues. Red Group: Facilitated by Chris Shafer, Mfichigan Coastal Management Progranm4 Michigan Departmnent of Natural Resources; and Lori Reynolds, Great Lakes Commission The group recognized the model as a useful generic tool to address ANS issues. The group also noted that the model hierarchy, problem statements and plan components were sound, providingI the direction needed to identify" and implement strategic actions for ANS prevention and control. Although the first theoe goals (prevention of future ANS introductions, prevention of ANS spread, abatement of harmful ANS impacts) were accepted by the group, the last two goals (education on ANS prevention and control, coordination of agencies working on ANS issues)I were considered questionable since education and coordination were viewed as strategies that were essential in achieving the aforementioned goals. The group recommended a stronger presentation of the requirements of Section 1204 of NANiPCA in the model to ensure consistencyI with the act. The inclusion in the model plan of an evaluation tool to serve as a feedback mechanism was reconumended to help monitor accomplishments of the state management plans. Other modifications suggested to strengthen the model plan include additional appendices forI species-specific plans, a public dissemination component, and an implementation schedule under each goal to present project timelines, budget and lead agencies. The group also identified the need to evaluate existing state and federal laws for consistency to determine if new laws andI regulations may be needed. 35I Under Goal I (preverifion of fuiture ANS introductions), risk assessment was called for to identify high risk species and vectors. Regional consistency was identified as an essential tool to facilitate cooperation between the states and the federal government regarding ANS prevention efforts. The group noted the importance of convincing the public that the prevention of ANS introductions is a worthwhile investment of resources. There also was discussion on the problem of integrating intenfional and unintentional introductions under Goal I. Modification of Goal III (abatement of harnmful ANS impacts) was recommended to include public health impacts as well as ecological, economic and social imnpacts. It was suggested to prioritize the impacts by categories, (e.g., ecological, economic, social, public health) to help formnulate effective strategic actions. A significant problem discussed by the group was the lack of options to abate/mitigate impacts due to the lack of knowledge and technology. The group identified the need to take advantage of the following resources currently avaiable to address ANS issues: Sea Grant and university research/outreach programns, funding opportunities of private foundations, volunteernonprofit groiups, lake associations, watershed councils, -professional groups (i.e., American Fisheries Society), trade organizations (power companies, marine architecture groups), private industry, Canadian federal and provincial agencies, U.S. Fish and Wrildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Armny Corps of Engineers. Funding opportunities idenfified by the group include: license revenue., gas tax, coasta management and Sea Grant programs (NOAA), ANS grants appropriated through NA N.PCA, Great Lakes Protection Fund, state appropriations, fishery funds, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, shipping industry, tribal governmnents, celebrities and citizens in general. The tools available from CMPs include: state enforceable policies on water quantity and water quality issues, environmental protection laws (e.g., MEPA, NEPA), civil and criminal codes, aquaculture laws and regulations, administrative rules (changes to existing statutes), discharge permnits, U.S. Coast Guard regulations related to balast exchange and waste disposal, dredge and fill permits, NPDES permit review, public boat access laws, bait takidng laws, commercial fishing laws, federal/state consistency, public trust policy regarding submerged lands, water quality cer-tification under Sections 404 of the Clean Water Act, state endangered species laws, agricultural product inspection, marina regulations (with the addition of boat cleaning stations and other procedures needed for ANS prevention and control), boating safety program (providing an opportunity for outreach activities) and nature centers (for outreach activities). Other tools suggested to support A2NS prevention and control activities include: manufacture of instaled placards (e.g., drain live-well before leaving water to prevent ANS transfers), Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans, and coordination of existing prograrns at local, state, federal and regional levels ( i.e., Great Lakes Commission, Intemnational Joint Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Conimission). The group noted that the ANS/CMP workshop was a good example of how regional coordination can strengthen ANS prevention and control efforts. 36 I Workshop Summary Where Do We Go From Here? Recommendations on a Regional Strategy for ANS Prevention and Control in the Great Lakes Basin, Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commission The following recommendations are based on general findings from the workshop, particularly the key points presented in reports from the workgroup sessions: The problems caused by aquatic nuisance snecies raise interjurisdictional challenges for I effective ANS prevention and control. The-refore, the Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species needs to facilitate regional partnerships among federal, state and local agencies and non-governmental groups. The following goals should serve as the foundation for the final version of the model state management plan: Goal I: Prevention of future ANS introductions Goal H1: Limiting the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already established in the Great Lakes; and Goal DI: Abatement of harmful ANS impacts The goals presented in the draft model management plan regarding education on ANS prevention/ control and coordination of agencies working on ANS issues are generally not considered goals. Rather, they are regarded as mechanisms to achieve the accepted goals as listed above. Integrating education and coordination efforts in strategic actions is strongly advised. There is general acceptance of the basic structure/hierarchy of the draft model plan. To strengthen the model, additional components should be added that address evaluation, public dissemination and implementation schedules, including tasks and timelines. To promote the multijurisdictional, ecosystemic aspect of the plan, implementation should be focused on statewide and regional action rather than depending solely on the agency that developed the plan. The model plan needs to promote consistency between the Great Lakes states. In so doing, consistency should not be forced upon the states. Varied approaches may need to be taken by each of the states. A consistent approach will be encouraged wherever possible. A strong link exists between ANS issues and coastal management programs (CMPs). Some of the tools recommended from CMPs to strengthen ANS prevention and control 37 I I efforts (i.e., implementation of the state management plans), include federal consistency, permit conditions, education and outreach programs, networking of state agencies, funding opportunities through grants under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the promotion of legislation and policy supporting ANS prevention and control through CMPs. Based on the outcome of this workshop, the model plan will be regionally supported by the appropriate parties, and provide a pragmatic, regional framework for the development and implementation of the state management plans. The development and implementation of state management plans is a priority. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA) is up for reauthorization, and should thus serve as incentive for moving plan development along quickly. The more Great Lakes state management plans that are submitted and approved, the more likely members of the congressional delegation from those states will be to support reauthorization of NANPCA and appropriations for plan implementation. This is a window of opportunity to both help the reauthorization effort and position the Great Lakes states for funding opportunities. In summary, the workshop provided a wealth of information to expand and refine the model state management plan that will serve as guidance for the Great Lakes states in the development of their management plans for ANS prevention and control. After the model plan has been modified by Great Lakes Conmmission staff it will be distributed for review by workshop participants and members of the Great Lakes Panel and national ANS Task Force. Interim drafts of the model will be available for use by the Great Lakes states to help in moving forward on the development of their management plans. The model plan will be finalized based on this review. To document the workshop, proceedings will be prepared by Great Lakes Commission star including summaries of presentations, discussions and results from the workgroup sessions. The proceedings will serve as a resource on ANS issues and also provide support for use of the model plan. 38 V. DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY FOR THE WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS This document, which includes the workshop proceedings and the final version of A Model State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species, will be distributed to workshop participantsfmvitees and members of the Great Lakes Panel and the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Selective distribution to others with a responsibility for, or interest in the ANS issues and/or the state management plans will be pursued. Copies will be available from the Great Lakes Commission. 39 APPENDIX A A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species A MODEL COMPREHENSIVE STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF NONANDIGENO US A QUA TIC NUISANCE SPECIES REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES STATES (Approved by the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species) January 1996 By: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder Environmental Quality and Resource Management Program Great Lakes Commission 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4816 This project was made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act PREFACE This report is presented to the Great Lakes states as guidance in developing comprehensive state management plans under Section 1204 of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646) (NANP CA). Although prepared specifically for the Great Lakes states, this model plan also has application for other states and Canadian provinces. This report is based on the findings of a regional workshop (May 1995) titled Aquatic Nuisance Species/Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin. That workshop, as well as this report and an associated proceedings document, were made possible by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This report was prepared by the staff of the Great Lakes Commission's Resource Management and Environmental Quality Program: Katherine Glassner-Shwayder (principal author), Thomas Crane and Lori Reynolds. Members of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, particularly the chair, Jay Rendall, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, provided guidance, review and technical assistance. Their contributions, as well as those of state coastal managers and all other workshop attendees, were critical to the success of the project. Questions and comments on this report can be directed to the Great Lakes Commission at: The Argus H Building, 400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816; phone: 313-665-9135; fax: 313-665-4370; e-mail: [email protected]. Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.' Executive Director i ~* A MODEL COMPREHENSIVESTATEMANA GEMENT PLANFOR THE PREVENTIONAND CONTROL OF NOANINDDIGENO USA QUA TIC NUISANCE SPECIES I TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 PREFACE ..................................................................................... i L HOW TO USE THIS MODEL ............................................................. 1 I IL RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS OF A STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN. .................. 2 1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................2 2) NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES BACKGROUND ................3 3|~ ~3) POLICYBACKGROUND ........................................................7 4) MANAGEMENTACTIONS .....................................................10 3|~~~~ ~~Goal I: Preventing new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland waters of the state ......................................10 I|~~~~ ~~Goal II: Limiting the spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state ......................................14 Goal Im: Abating harmfid ecological, economic, social and public health impacts 1 resulting from infestations ofnonindigenous aquatic nuisance species .......................17 5) IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................20 ~~I Example hnImplementation Schedule ...................................................21 Example Timeline ................................................................ 22 3 6) PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................23 7) GLOSSARY ...................................................................24 1|~ ~8) RECOMMENDED APPENDICES ................................................25 Section 1204 of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 I9~~~~ ~~List of members of relevant task forces/committees State laws and regulations Information/Education StrategyforAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control, prepared by the I|~~~ ~~Informnation/Education Subcommittee, GCreat Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species Other relevant management plans Reference Materials Emergency contacts I LiteratureCited ................................................................ .....26 IIL ATTACHMIENT 1: Information/Education StrategyforAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control, |I~ ~ ~ Prepared by the Information/Education Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species I I L HOW TO USE THIS MODEL This document is a model to guide Great Lakes states in the development of state comprehensive management plans for the prevention and control of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species as called for in the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 10 1-646) (NA NP CA) . (Note that in this document, reference to aquatic nuisance species will imply that the species is nonindigenous.) It is recommnended that each state's plan include the following eight sections: 1) executive summary; 2) nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (ANS) background; 3) policy background; 4) management actions; 5) implementation; 6) program monitoring and evaluation; 7) glossary; and 8) appendices. The executive summary should include a brief overview of the state management plan, including a statement of purpose for the plan. The nonindigenous ANS background should provide a brief history of the invasion of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes region, includinig a state- specific historical perspective. It should feature species that have caused significant ecological and/or socio-economic imnpacts in the region/state to illustrate the need for prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. The policy background should present a brief overview of NANPCA, as well as any relevant state-specific legislation/policies. The management actions section should outline the goals, problems, strategic actions and tasks that are designed to guide the state in addressing ANS problems. Reference to the Informafion/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control (prepared by the Information/Education Subcommnittee of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species) is recommended, when applicable, to assist in developing strategic actions and tasks for the state management plan (refer to Attachment 1). The implementation section should contain task-specific details on lead and cooperating agencies, budget and sources of funds, and timelines. The program monitoring and evaluation section should explain how the state will monitor/evaluate imnplementation progress and initiate adjustments, as needed. The glossary should provide definitions of termis that are consistent with those presented in NA NP CA. The appendices should include supporting documentation for the management plan. To help ensure success in using this model as guidance in shaping individual state management plans, the states are encouraged to involve responsible agencies and interested stakeholders in the planning and implementation process. These groups should include, among others, federal, state, and local governmental agencies, scientists, local and state decisionmakers, recreafional user groups, industry and business representatives, environmentalconservation groups and citizens. A public review process of the state management plan will be required for eligibility for federal approval and supporting grants. It is important to note that the following model is offered as guidance to the states to assist in the development of their management plans, and to facilitate a certain level of regional direction and coordination regarding the state management plans of the Great Lakes region. This model, however, should be considered a flexible tool that can be modified to most effectively address the needs and interests of the individual states. In developing a state management plan, efforts should be taken to ensure that it is consistent with the planning, management and policy initiatives of the other Great Lakes states working on the plans. I IL RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS OF A STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Note: The executive summary should provide a brief synopsis of each section of the state management plan. The executive summary also should include a general statement on the purpose of the state management plan as articulated in NANPCA. The statement of purpose should be augmented with a state-specific perspective. Also recommendedfor inclusion is an overview of the goals on which the plan is based) The purpose of the comprehensive state management plan is to provide guidance on management actions to address the prevention, control and impacts of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade the Great Lakes and inland waters of the state. The development of a state management plan, as called for in Section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) (NANPCA) provides an opportunity for federal cost-share support for implementation of the plan. Approval of the management plan by the national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force is also required for a state to be eligible for federal cost-share support. Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." The content of each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices and measures to be taken on by state and local programs to prevent and control ANS infestations in a manner that is environmentally sound. The goals of this model state management plan are designed to address different stages of ANS invasion: 1) the introduction of nonindigenous species transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent or world; 2) the spread of an established, reproducing ANS population to other water bodies and 3) the colonization of ANS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts resulting from colonization. The three goals on which the model state management plan is based are as follows: Goal I: Preventing new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland waters of the state. Goal H1: Limiting the spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state. Goal IH: Abating harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestation of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. 2 2) NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES BACKGROUND (Note: The following text is suggested information for use in the introduction of each state's management plan. Each state should use this material, as appropriate, and add additional state-specific information, as available.) The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waters is a source of biological pollution that threatens not only the ecology of the region and states' water resources, but also the economic, societal and public health conditions of the region and states. The Great Lakes and connecting channels and rivers form the largest surface freshwater system in the world. The water resources of the Great Lakes region are an integral part of activities such as recreation and tourism valued at $15 billion annually, $6.89 billion of which is related to the fishing industry. Approximately 75,000 jobs are supported by sport fisheries; and commercial fisheries provide an additional 9,000 jobs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). The Great Lakes region has been subject to the invasion of aquatic nuisance species since the settlement of the region by Europeans. Since the 1800s, at least 139 nonindigenous aquatic organisms have colonized habitats of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The bulk of these species include: plants (59), fish (25), algae (24), mollusks (14) and oligochaetes (7). About 55 percent of these species are native to Eurasia; 13 percent are native to the Atlantic Coast. Although the obvious impacts of some of the most abundant species are being determined, most of the aquatic nuisance species and their direct and indirect impacts are not known. As use of the Great Lakes intensified as a transportation route for commerce, the rate of introduction of aquatic nuisance species also increased. More than one-third of the organisms have been introduced in the past 30 years, a surge coinciding with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Other human activities contributing to the transport and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waters include release of organisms from the ballast water of ships, transport and release from the bottom of ships, movement or intentional release of aquaculture and fishery species along with their associated (free-living and parasitic) organisms, release of organisms associated with pet industries or pest management practices, recreational boating, bait handling, water transport, and ornamental and landscape practices. A newly introduced species, if it becomes established through reproduction, can disrupt the natural ecosystem balance by altering the composition, density and interactions of native species. This disruption can cause significant changes to the ecosystem, such as alterations to the foodwebs, nutrient dynamics and biodiversity. New introductions also can cause costly socio- economic impacts even if effective prevention and control mechanisms are established. Eventually, each newly introduced species will become integrated into an ecosystem that is in a constant state of flux; or the population will not survive and become extinct (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993). 3 Approximately IO percent of the Great Lakes' nonindigenous aquatic species have resulted inI significant negafive ecological and economic impacts. The following examples portray the extensive ecological and economic impacts caused by aquatic nuisance species that have been introduced into the Great Lakes region. The invasion of the sea lamprey in the 1940s has resulted in substantial econonmic losses to recreational and conmiercial fisheries, and has required annual expenditures of millions of dollars to finance control programs. During the 1940s and 1950Os, the sea lamnprey, a top predator which kidls fish by attaching to its prey and feeding on body fluids, devastated populations of whfitefishI and lake trout. The predation of the sea lamprey on this valuable commercial fishery permitted populations of commercially less valuable fish to proliferate. In 1992, annual sea lamprey control costs and research to reduce its predation were approximated at $10 millon annually. The totalI value of the lost fishing opportunities plus indirect economic impacts could exceed $500 million annually (Office of Technology Assessment, 1993).3 The nonindigenous populations of alewife increased rapidly in the Great Lakes during the 1940s and 1950's because of the suitability of the habitat and the fact that predators were not sufficiently abundant to check their growth. Consequently, periodic die-offs fouled recreational beaches andI blocked municipal and industrial water intakes. While the alewife out-competed and suppressed whitefish, yellow perch, emerald shiners and rainbow smelt, it subsequently became a fish preyed upon by introduced trout and salmon. The alewife has permnanently altered the existing predator-U prey relationships in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The ruffe, a Eurasian fish of the perch family, was introduced to North America in the 1980s, most likely through the ballast water of a seagoing vessel. This aquatic nuisance species has few predators, no commercial or recreational value and is replacing valuable native fishes. Since its introduction, the ruffe has become established in the nearshore waters of western Lake Superior, with an estimated average rate of range expansion of I18 shorelfine miles per year. By the fall of 1994, ruffe populations were found in Mfichigan waters of Lake Superior and in August of 1995,3 three ruffe were discovered in a commercial harbor in northern Lake Huron, more than 300 miles east of the previously known range. The ruffe has become the most abundant species in Duluth Harbor. Based on observations of present ruffe migration rates along with native fish populationI displacements in Lake Superior, as well as past experience of ruffe in European waters, it appears that ruffe will be in direct competition with yellow perch and whitefish populations. Walleye populations are affected indirectly through a change in the food chain composition brought on byI the proliferation of the ruffe. Based on moderate estimates of expected declines of yellow perch, whitefish and walleye, the annual economnic loss to the U.S. sport and commercial fisheries is estimated at approximately $119 million if the ruffe suddernly proliferates to all lake regionsI The round goby and the tubenose goby were introduced via ballast water into the St. Clair River,I near Detroit in 1990. The tubenose goby has not thrived, but the round goby has spread into Lake Erie and Lake Michigan where the largest population is found. The round goby was 41 observed in the St. Louis River Estuary in Lake Superior during the summer of 1995. The primary concern with the round goby is the tremendous range Mxansion exhibited since its introduction in 1990. It is a very aggressive fish, and feeds voraciously upon bottom-feeding fishes (e.g., sculpin, darters and logperch), snails, mussels and aquatic insects. The Great Lakes fisheries, particularly those in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie, are threatened by this aquatic nuisance species due to its robust characteristics and ability to displace native species from prime habitat and spawning areas. The spiny water flea, a likely ballast water introduction, is a tiny crustacean with a sharply barbed tail spine. The northern Europe native was first found in Lake Huron in 1984. The spiny water flea is now found throughout the Great Lakes and in some inland lakes. Although researchers do not know what effect the invader will have on the ecosystem, resource managers suspect that the water flea competes directly for food with small fish such as perch. The zebra mussel, another ballast water introduction, is one of the best known invaders of the Great Lakes region and other areas of the country where it has spread. This aquatic nuisance species has caused serious economic and ecosystem imnpacts. The zebra mussel, a highly opportunistic mollusk, reproduces rapidly and consumes microscopic aquatic plants and animnals from the water column in large quantities. The potential imnpact on the fishery can be profound due to changes in food avaiability and spawning areas, to namne a few. Econonmic imnpacts are as pervasive as the ecosystem impacts. Great Lakes municipalities, utilities and industries due to the infestation of zebra mussel in their intakeldischarge pipes - have significant costs associated with monitoring, cleaning and controlling infestations. According to a recent economnic imnpact study, each of 84 Great Lakes water users reported average total expenditures of $513,600 over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994 (Hushak et al., 1995). By the end of this century, water users across the country are expected to spend between $2 billion and $3 billion cleaning clogged water intakes (Ruiz et al., 1995). Commercial and recreational vessels and beach areas also are vulnerable to the negative impacts of the zebra miussel. Nonindigenous aquatic plants also have been introduced to the Great Lakes region and inland waters. Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant fromn Europe and Asia that was introduced to the east coast of North America in the I1800s. Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. This nonindigenous plant is unsuitable to meet habitat needs - such as cover, food or nesting sites - for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rais, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads and turtles. Eurasian water milfoil, unintentionally introduced to North America from Europe, has spread into inland lakes primarily by boats. Mfilfoil can proliferate in high densities in lakes, producing habitat conditions that cause serious impairments to comnmercial fishing and water recreation such as boating, fishing and swimmning. The plant's surface canopy also can out-compete and eliminate native aquatic vegetation, as well as threaten native fish and wildlife populations. 5 Numerous aquatic nuisance species have been introduced and dispersed in the Great Lakes andI inland waters of each state by various pathways. The environmnental and socio-economic costs resulting from ANS infestations will only continue to rise with firther ANS introductions.3 Although an awareness of the problems caused by aquatic nuisance species is emerging, the solutions are not readily apparent. This comprehensive state management plan for nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species provides guidance for management actions to address the prevention,U control and impacts of aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade the Great Lakes region and inland state waters. 6~~~~~~~ 3) POLICY BACKGROUND (Note: The following text offers exemplary language for the '"olicy background" section of each state management plan. This text is limited to an overview of NANPCA, with a special emphasis on Section 1204 language addressing state management plans. This text should be followed by state-specific background on institutional arrangements, and provisions for ANS prevention and control on the state level.) The prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species have global implications that require policies and programs at various levels of government. The following overview of the federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-646) (NANPCA), delineates the basic role of federal, regional and state government in the act's implementation. NANPCA has served as an important resource in the development of this model state management plan and the states are strongly advised to acknowledge the guidelines of the act in the implementation of the state plans. Federal Role NANPCA is the federal legislation which calls upon each state to develop and implement a comprehensive state management plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. The act, established for the prevention and control of the unintentional introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, is based on the following five objectives as listed in Section 1002 of NANPCA: 0 to prevent further unintentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species; 0 to coordinate federally funded research, control efforts and information dissemination; 0 to develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent, monitor and control unintentional introductions; 0 to understand and minimize economic and ecological damage; and a to establish a program of research and technology development to assist state governments. NANPCA was primarily created in response to the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes, where this ballast water introduction has caused serious ecological and socio-econoniic impacts. Although the zebra mussel invasion of the Great Lakes has played a central role in prompting passage of the federal legislation, NANPCA has been established to prevent the occurrence of new ANS introductions and to limit the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species already in U.S. waters. The national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established under Section 1201 of NANPCA to coordinate governmental efforts related to nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the United States with those of the private sector and other North American interests. An important role of this federal group in the implementation of NANPCA is to 7 facilitate national policy diection in support of the act. The ANS Task Force (consisting of sevenI federal agency representatives and eight ex officio members representing nonfederal governimental entities) has adopted the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program under Section 1202 of the act whichI recommends the following essential elements: * Prevention: Establish a systematic risk identification, assessment and management3 process to identify and modify pathways by which nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species spread. * Detection and Monitoring: Create a National Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Information Center to coordinate efforts to detect the presence and monitor the distributional changes of all nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, to identify andI monitor native species and other effects, and to serve as a repository for that information. * Control: The Task Force or any other potentially affected entity may recommendI initiation of a nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species control program. If the Task Force determines, using a decision process outlined in the control program, that the species is a nuisance and control is feasible, cost effective and environmentally sound, a controlI The ANS Task Force recommends research, education and technical assistance as strategies toI support the elements listed above. The ANS Task Force also provides national policy direction as a result of protocols and guidance that have been developed through the efforts of the following working committees: Research Protocol/Coordination Comnmittee, Intentional Introduction Policy Review Conumittee, Great3 Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Ruffe Control Commnittee, Risk Assessment and Management Committee, Detection and Monitoring Committee, Zebra Mussel Coordination Commnittee and the Brown Tree Snake Control Committee.3 One role of the federal government in the prevention of unintentional introductions of aquatic nuisance species is defined under Section I1101 of NANPCA, which mandates the establishment ofI regulations for ballast water management aimed at limiting introductions through transoceanic shipping. U.S. regulations control the discharge of ballast from all vessels entering Great Lakes waters, thus far the only region in the United States to be regulated. The regulations have beenI enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard since May 1993, with active assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard and Seaway authorities. (The Canadian federal governiment has yet to enact federal ballast water management regulations; voluntary guidelines are in place.) The need has beenI identified for a federal research program to develop innovative technology for ballast water management.3 81 Regional Role Great Lakes regional coordination is addressed under Section 1203 of NANPCA which calls upon the Great Lakes Commission to convene the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Panel membership is drawn from a wide range of federal, state, provincial and regional agencies, private sector user groups, Sea Grant programns and environmental organizations, to ensure that the positions of the Panel provide a balanced and regional perspective on Grreat Lakes issues. The Panel's responsibilities for the Great Lakes region are sixfold: 1) identify Great Lakes priorities; 2) make recommendations to the national ANS Task Force; 3) assist the ANS Task Force in coordinating federal programs within the region, 4) advise public and private individuals on control efforts; and 5) submit annually a report to the ANS Task Force describing prevention, research and control activities in the Great Lakes Basin. State Role The comprehensive state managernent plans for aquatic nuisance species are addressed in Section 1204 of NA NPCA . Section 1204 requires that the management plan "identifies those areas or activities within the state, other than those related to public facilities, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to elinminate or reduce the environmental, public health and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species." The content of each state plan is to focus on the identification of feasible, cost-effective nmangement practices and measures to be pursued by state and local programns to prevent and control aquatic nuisance species infestations in a marmer that is environmentally sound. As part of the plan, federal activities are to be identified for prevention and control measures, including direction on how these activities should be coordinated with state and local efforts. Section 1204 also states that in the development and imnplementation of the management plan, the state needs to involve appropriate local, state and regional entities, as well as public and private organizations that have expertise in ANS prevention and control. The state management plans are to be submitted to the national ANS Task Force for approval. If the plan meets the requirements of the ANS Task Force, the plan becomes eligible for federal cost-share support. If not, the plan is returned to the state with recommended modifications. (New York is the first and only Great Lakes state, thus far, with an approved plan, resulting in $68,000 in federal cost-share support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) Plans may be implemented with other funds supplied by state and cooperative agencies. Further details on the state management plans can be found in Section 1204 of the act. 9 4) MANAGEMENT ACTIONS (Note: This section of the model should present the state's management goals, associated problem statements, and the strategic actions and tasks needed to address them. It is recommended that each state's plan center upon the three goals stated below. Each is accompanied by a problem statement, strategic action(s), and task(s). Much of the text is presented in generic form and should be readily adoptable to each state's management plan. State-specific information should be incorporated into the text where relevant. Reference to the Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control is recommended, when applicable, to assist in developing strategic actions and tasks for the state management plan (refer to Attachment 1). The goals of this model state management plan are designed to address different stages of ANS invasion: 1) the introduction of the nonindigenous species transported from water bodies from other parts of the continent or world; 2) the spread of an established, reproducing ANS population to other water bodies; and 3) the colonization of ANS populations within water bodies, including the harmful impacts resulting from colonization. The three goals on which the model state management plan is based are as follows: Goal I: Preventing new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland waters of the state. Goal H: Limiting the spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state. Goal HI: Abating harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestation of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Goal I: Preventing new introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland waters of the state. Problem: The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes region, including inland state waters, frequently causes environmental, socio-economic and public health impacts. The severity of these impacts is not known or recognized on a wide-scale basis, impeding the investment of resources needed to prevent new ANS introductions. Also, a delayed "crisis-response" approach often limits the vision and opportunity for the prevention of new introductions, leaving the region with ANS management problems that are economically costly, technically challenging, if not unfeasible to solve, andfrequently irreversible. Although 139 nonindigenous aquatic species already have been introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, new introductions are still highly likely. The prevention of new introductions is critical in ameliorating ANS problems in the Great Lakes region and in individual states. Multiple mechanisms transport aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waters; some such mechanisms transcend the authority of a single state to control. A prime 10 example is ballast water discharge from transoceanic shipping, the largest source of U nonindigenous aquatic species invasions world-wide (Carlton, 1985). The absence of interjurisdictional authority is problematic in regulating the transoceanic vectors transporting aquatic nuisance species to the Great Lakes. Cooperative efforts are necessary between state, federal (i.e., Coast Guard) and international agencies to promulgate and enforce regulations to ensure that ballast management practices and other related transport mechanisms are employed to prevent ANS introductions. Current technology isfrequently inadequate to prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waters. Research on prevention strategies to minimize ANS transport, such as innovative ballast water management technology, is critical in the effective prevention of ANS introductions. Ongoing studies by the US. and Canadian Coast Guards indicate that it is especially important to deal with the difficult problem posed by vessels entering the Great Lakes with residual unpumpable ballast water and sediment in their tanks. This medium, potentially harboring a variety of aquatic nuisance species, is often mixed with Great Lakesfresh water and discharged at another Great Lakes port. In order to achieve more effective emptying or flushing of these tanks, the feasibility of altering the current design of I ballast tanks needs to be examined Other significant transport mechanisms increasing the potentialfor new introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waters include the aquaculture business, commercial barge traffic, recreational boating, the bait industry andfish stocking activities - all of which have the potential to introduce aquatic nuisance species as well as associated parasites and other disease organisms. In some cases, such activities are subject to little or no regulations. In cases where laws/regulations do exist, they are frequently not well-publicized and/or enforced User groups that couldpotentially introduce aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes region/states are generally not adequately informed of ANS prevention practices. Strategic Action: In partnership with other states, develop state-specific and regional listings I of aquatic nuisance species that have the potential to infest the Great Lakes and inland state waters. As part of this cooperative effort, identify existing andpotential transport mechanisms thatfacilitate new ANS introductions. I Task: Research and/or support research on the movement of aquatic nuisance species on a global scale, and use findings to help predict potential ANS invasions in the Great Lakes and inland state waters. Strategic Action: Establish interjurisdictional approaches to facilitate legislative, regulatory I and other actions neededfor the prevention of new ANS introductions into the Great Lakes and inland state waters. I Task: Establish and support coalitions among the Great Lakes states, including ANS officials from the state natural resource agencies, the Coastal States Organization and I 11 I I coastal managers, tribal groups, recreational boater and angler groups and other concerned resource users. Assist coalitions in promoting federal legislation and programmatic support for the prevention of new ANS introductions in the region/state. Task: Establish and support an interjurisdictional process to ensure compatibility and consistency between Great Lakes states and between states and federal agencies. (Federal consistency, a tool implemented by coastal management programs to ensure that federal activities/projects are compatible with enforceable policies of the state, is recommended to facilitate interjurisdictional endeavors.) Task: Initiate and implement a Great Lakes regional approach through the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species to prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waters. Strategic Action: Pronmlgate, publicize and enforce state legislation and regulations to prevent new ANS introductions into state waters, including both the Great Lakes and inland waters. Task: Establish an interagency task force (with representation from public and private sectors) to develop regulations for state legislative consideration. State coastal management personnel should play a role in the process to ensure that proposed rules for this are consistent with and build upon existing authorities. (Note: A recommended resource to facilitate this process is the national ANS Task Force publication, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review (see literature citations).) Task: Develop and implement an outreach program that informs relevant groups of the regulations, their rational and compliance procedures. Task: Develop and implement enforcement programs. Strategic Action: Develop/maintain monitoring programs in the Great Lakes region/states to provide for early detection and prevention of infestations of aquatic nuisance species into unaffected watersheds. Task: Establish/participate in monitoring programs that emphasize partnerships between federal/state/local agencies; business/mdustry; academic institutions; and resource user groups. The feasibility of various technologies (e.g., Geographic Information Systems (GIS)) should be explored in designing such programs. Strategic Action: Conduct or support research regarding management options that will help prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and inland state waterm 12 Task: Assess the transport mechanisms potentially responsible for new ANS introductions into the Great Lakes and inland state waters. Develop preventive action plans to interrupt5 pathways of introduction. Task: Analyze current shipping practices regarding the transport of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and determine the need for improvement of current controls on vessels to imnpede this transport. Task: Conduct research on ballast water management as a primary ANS transport mechanism. Research should focus on the feasibility of retrofitting and redesigning current ballast tanks in order to allow more effective flushing or filtering of both fil tanksU and those holding unpumpable residual ballast. Task: Examiine climate change scenarios in relation to habitat alterations in the GreatI Lakes region to predict the potential effect on new ANS introductions into the Great Lakes and inland state waters.5 Strategic Action: Conduct an effective information/education program on the prevention of new AANS introductions in the Great Lakes and inland state watems (Note: A recommended resource to assist in accomplishing this strategic action is the Great Lakes Panel's Informnaton/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control (refer to Attachment 1).) Task: Identify, the relevant Great Lakes regionallstate user groups (i.e. shipping industry, aquaculture business, recreational boating!langler groups, bait and tackle establishments, state agency stocldng programs) and secure representation from each group on an advisory team that takes an active role in the development of the ANS state management5 plan. Task: Develop information/education strategies for resource user groups identified as5 playing a significant role in ANS introduction. Infformationleducation efforts should focus on the practices that can help prevent ANS transport and introduction into the Great Lakes and inland state waters. As part of informnation/education initiatives, identify, whenI appropriate, the need for a regulatory approach in the prevention of ANS introductions. Task: Establish mnonitoring/tracldng programs to evaluate the effectiveness of information/education efforts. 133 Goal H: Limiting the spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state. Problem: The spread of established populations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested state waters is largely via human activity, such as boat transfers, ballast exchange, bait handling, water transport, and ornamental and landscape practices. Limiting the spread of such populations is problematic due to the numerous pathways of dispersal, the complex ecological characteristics associated with ANS populations and the lack offeasible technology that is needed to limit the spread Many public and private resource user groups are not aware of existing infestations of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waters, and why they cause priorit problems locally, regionally and beyond The probability of ANS spread to other waters can increase when resource user groups are not aware of how their routine activities can cause the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into uninfested water bodies. An information/education program is needed to provide information on why the spread ofANS populations needs to be limited, how the ANS populations can be reduced, and the value of a healthy aquatic ecosystem that supports a diverse native aquatic community. Information/education programming is also critical to strengthening public/private support for and statewide participation in ANS management strategies. It also is difficult to manage the spread of aquatic nuisance species, since infestation frequently occurs in watersheds that occupy more than one state. Cooperation among Great Lakes states sharing ANS-infested watersheds is needed to implement consistent management strategies that will effectively limit the spread of ANS populations. Strategic Action: Identify and prioritize aquatic nuisance species whose spread should be limitedL Task: Establish an advisory group, with representation from all stakeholders affected by the ANS problems in the state, to guide in the selection of aquatic nuisance species that merit management. Task: Develop and implement a process to prioritize those aquatic nuisance species that merit management. (Note: An assessment of ANS impacts discussed under Goal IH is recommended for this process. Also, a recommended resource to facilitate this prioritization process is the National Park Service publication, Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control (see literature citations).) Strategic Action: Monitor the spread of those aquatic nuisance determined to be a state priority. 14 ! Task: Design a monitoring program to provide information that will help in developing an I effective strategy to limit the spread of selected ANS populations. A network approach, including federal/regional/state/local agencies, public/private groups and academic institutions, is recommended. Variables to monitor include population size, structure and I range; rate of growth; type of habitat; distribution; impacts on native species; and economic and other impacts on human communities. Task: Develop identification materials for each aquatic nuisance species that is being monitored to facilitate participation of all stakeholders. 3 Strategic Action: Develop and implement management strategies to limit the spread of each aquatic nuisance species determined to be a state priority. Task: Based on identified dispersal pathways, develop voluntary and regulatory approaches to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Also, identify the best available technology for each management strategy and include an environmental impact assessment, where necessary. Task: Implement a watershed approach to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the state. Task: Establish cooperative policies with states sharing watersheds to limit the spread of ANS populations. Strategic Action: Inform and educate the appropriate resource user groups on the management strategies needed to limit the spread oftargetedANSpopulation& To support this effort, the target groups should be informed on how the spread of aquatic nuisance species threatens the health of a diverse native aquatic community, and other harmful ANS impact& Volunteer groups, such as lake associations and outdoor recreation groups, should be actively involved in these outreach efforts (Note: A recommended resource to assist in accomplishing this strategic action is the Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control (refer to Attachment 1).) Task: Assess existing ANS information/education programs (i.e., Sea Grant, cooperative extension, state natural resource agencies). Build on the strengths and address the weaknesses of these programs. Task: Identify pathways that disperse aquatic nuisance species (i.e., recreational boaters/anglers, commercial and sport fishers, bait handling, water transport, ornamental and landscape practices) and inform these groups on practices to help limit the spread. This outreach program should focus on changing the behavior of user groups to limit the spread of targeted ANS populations in the Great Lakes and state inland waters. I Task: In cooperation with other Great Lakes states, establish a voluntary intra-lake ballast water management program that will inform ship owners, captains, engineers and other commercial shipping personnel of how to improve ballast management practices to impede the transfer of aquatic nuisance species within the Great Lakes system. Task: Coordinate with state coastal management programs to ensure, where appropriate, that public access projects and interpretive displays include information about aquatic nuisance species. Task: Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of information/education efforts. Strategic Action: Promulgate, publicize and enforce state regulations to limit the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the state. Task: Establish an interagency task force (with representation from public and private sectors) to develop regulations for state legislative consideration. State coastal management personnel should play a role in the process to ensure that proposed rules for this are consistent with and build upon extant authorities. Task: Develop and implement an outreach program that informs relevant groups of the regulations and why they exist, and compliance procedures. Task: Develop and implement enforcement programs. Strategic Action: Support/coordinate scientific research between state and federal agencies and academic institutions that investigate potential management strategies to limit the spread ofANS populations and associated environmental impacts. Task: Prioritize research needs to help in establishing program structure. Task: Conduct priority research, or promote the conduct of such research via federal research initiatives, academia or the private sector. Task: Develop a technology transfer program to be used in distributing research findings. (The Internet-based Great Lakes Information Network is the recommended vehicle for this process.) 16 Goal II: Abating harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts resulting from infestations of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Problem: The infestation of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waters can cause, to varying degrees, ecological, economic, social andpublic health impacts. Strategies to control aquatic nuisance species in infested water bodies, in efforts to abate their impacts, are not always known or technically and/or economically feasible. Control strategies also must be designed so as not to cause significant environmental impacts. The infestation of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waters can alter or disrupt existing relationships and ecologicalprocesses. Without co-evolvedparasites and predators, some nonindigenous aquatic species out-compete and even displace aquatic native plant or animal populations. As part of this process, the invading species also can influence to some extent the foodwebs, nutrient dynamics and biodiversity of the ecosystem. To abate the ecological impacts of the invading organism, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms by which the species disrupts the natural balance of the ecosystem. i The Great Lakes and inland state waters provide valuable economic benefitsfor the region/state, some of which include commercial and sportfisheries, recreational use and water usage by manufacturers, industry and electric power companies. Some introduced aquatic nuisance species to the Great Lakes region/state have provided economic benefits, such as those supporting the aquaculture business and sportfishing industry. However, several aquatic nuisance species have beenfound to cause adverse economic impacts. For instance, the zebra mussel infests the intake/discharge pipes of hundreds offacilities that use raw water from the Great Lakes, causing extensive monitoring and control costs. The Eurasian water milfoilforms | thick mats on the surface of water, which can interfere with many types of water recreational activities, such as swimming, water skiing and sailing. The invasion of the ruffe in Duluth- Superior Harbor appears to be causing the displacement ofperch and whitefish populations, which couldpose a serious threat to the commercial and sportfishing industry if the ruffe invasion spreads throughout the Great Lakes and inland state waters. Organisms invading the Great Lakes and inland state waters can threaten public health through the introduction of disease, concentration ofpollutants, contamination of drinking water, toxic algae blooms and other harmful human health effects (Ohio Sea Grant College Program, 1995). An extensive monitoring system for these aquatic nuisance species needs to be established to prevent human health problems from occurring in the Great Lakes regionlstate. I It is often difficult to assess the ecological, socio-economic andpublic health impacts of aquatic nuisance species in terms that are meaningful to decisionmakers and the generalpublic. I Action(s) to abate ANS impacts through control strategies is frequently impeded by circumstances, such as the absence ofpolitical support and the lack of resources needed to effectively develop and implement control strategies. | 17 3 I Strategic Action: Assess the ecological, socio-economic andpublic health impacts of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waterm Use this assessment as guidance to develop action levels that warrant implementation of control strategies (Note: Consult New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) managemnent plan for a useful assessment of ANS impacts (ie., beneficial, innocuous, nuisance, detrimental), which may helpful in determining action levelsfor controL Also, a recommended resource to facilitate this process is the National Park Service publication, "Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plantfor Management and Control," (see literature citations).) Task: Identify and assess the damages of aquatic nuisance species that threaten the ecological health of the Great Lakes region. Task: Identify and assess the damages of aquatic nuisance species that threaten public safety and/or human health of the state's residents. Task: Identify and assess economic costs for each aquatic nuisance species causing damage to water users. Strategic Action: Based on the above impact assessments, develop and implement control strategies, including physical, chemical and biological mechanisms, to eradicate or reduce populations of targeted aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes and inland state waters (L e, those aquatic nuisance species identified by each state as causing detrimental ecological, economic, social and/or public health impacts). Task: Establish protocols that will provide guidance in designing and implementing control strategies. An example from the NYSDEC management plan contains the following criteria for design of such methods: e The control strategy must not create problems greater than those related to the aquatic nuisance species itself; e A control strategy must not have serious, long-term impacts to the environment or non-target organisms; e There must be a need to control the aquatic nuisance species due to causing, or the potential of causing, adverse impacts; e The control strategy must not reduce the human utilization of the water body (with the exception of those waters with special resource designation) or threaten human health; e Control efforts should be directed against the areas significantly impacted, and not be broad and general in nature; 0 The control strategy must have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding. These criteria may be applicable to other states. 18 I Task: Support/coordinate scientific research between state and federal agencies and I academic institutions that investigate potential control strategies and associated environmental impacts. Develop a technology transfer program to be used in distributing research findings. (The Internet-based Great Lakes Information Network is the recommended vehicle for this process.) Task: Establish mechanism(s) to ensure that the control strategies developed and implemented by the state are done so in coordination with federal agencies, tribal authorities, local governments, interjurisdictional organizations and other appropriate I entities (NANPCA, Section 1202). Task: Establish mechanism(s) to ensure that the control strategies are based on the best I available scientific information and conducted in an environmentally sound manner (NANPCA, Section 1202). Strategic Action: Develop and implement means of adapting human activities to accommodate infestations of aquatic nuisance species. (Note: Specific tasks, which will vary from one state to the next, should be inserted here). Strategic Action: Conduct an information/education program providing information on ANS I impacts and related control strategies. Utilize existing groups/programs responsible for information dissemination (Sea Grant, state natural resource agencies, cooperative extension services, coastal management progranms) when appropriate. (Note: A recommended resource to assist in accomplishing this strategic action is the Great 3 Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control (refer to Attachment 1).) Task: Design programs targeting public agencies needed in promoting management action to abate impacts; user groups needed for effective control of targeted species; and communities that need to learn how to live with aquatic nuisance species problems. Task: Establish monitoring/tracking programs to evaluate the effectiveness of information/education efforts. ~~19 ~I I I I 5) IMPLEMENTATION (Note: Implementation - in terms of tasks, budgets and timelines - is an important component of any state management plan. The following implementation schedule and timeline, excerpted from the Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy, are presentedfor illustrative purposes only. It is recommended that each state use this general tabular format as guidance for inserting its ownspecific plan goals, strategic actions and tasks.) To facilitate effective implementation of the state management plan, the state authorities are strongly encouraged to carefully assign the office(s) best suited to implement the plan. This process will entail the establishment of an infrastructure of agencies equipped to address the identified strategic actions and tasks of the plan. 20 -- -- m m/ - - - - - - - -- - - EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Goal H: Limiting the spread of established nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state. Information/Education Evaluate existing ANS outreach program GLP (staff support) State Agencies (staff support) Great Lakes Panel (GLP) State Nat.Res. Agency, Sea Grant, State Coastal Mgmt. Prog., Tribal Authority, Academic Instit. USFWS, U.S. Coast Guard State: $5,000 Federal: (to be determined) Preliminary stages of development Information/Education Identify ANS dispersal groups and informn State agencies Sea Grant, Coastal Coastal Mgmt. Program State: (to be determined) (to be determined) on management practices Mgmt. Prog., GLP, (Access Project), Sea Tribal Auth., U.S. Coast Grant Project Funding, Federal: (to be Guard, Lake Assoc. watercraft surcharges determined) Information/Education Establish outreach activities in support of U.S. Coast Guard Lake Carriers' Assoc., Shipping Assoc., U.S. State: (to be determined) (to be determined) ballast management program USFWS, Sea Grant, Coast Guard, State state agencies Coastal Mgmt. Prog. Federal: (to be determined) (Note: This Implementation Schedule is presented for illustrative purposes only.) 21 - m m m m m m m- - -m - -m- - - - EXAMPLE TIMELINE (quarterly timeline to cover a three year-period) Goal II: Limiting the spread of established nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species into uninfested waters of the state. Information/Education Evaluate existing ANS outreach program X - ----X Information/Education Identify ANS dispersal groups and inform of X------ --------- --------- --------- -------X control practices Information/Education Establish voluntary ballast management program X- ------ --------- ----X (Note: This three-year timneline is presented for illustrative purposes only) 22 6) PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION (Note: An monitoring/evaluation section should be included in each state management plan as a means to monitor progress, evaluate implementation problems/needs and make necessary "mid- course" corrections. Each state's management plan will be unique; the monitoring/evaluation methodology will vary from one state to the next. The following recommendations are presented as guidance to the states when developing their own evaluation plan.) * An oversight committee or subcommittee should be established within the plan implementation process for the purposes of conducting the monitoring/evaluation efforts, disseminating the results and identifying plan amendments that address outcomes. 0 The three plan goals, as presented earlier, should provide the focal point for monitoring/evaluation. Means to assign measurable objectives to these goals should be pursued to provide meaningful evaluation. 0 The evaluation effort should place a special emphasis on funding needs to successfully accomplish goals and associated tasks. This information will be useful for program planning purposes. * The evaluation process should be inclusive, involving those with implementation responsibility, resource user groups and others affected by plan implementation. An emphasis should be placed on identifying evaluation findings with applicability to other states. � The preparation and dissemination of an annual report highlighting implementation progress, including an evaluation of the efficacy of the plan's strategies and tasks, is strongly recommended. The target audience of the report should include the general public and local, state and federal decisionmakers. Incorporation of these program reports in the biennial water quality reports to the U.S. Congress and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Section :305b reports of the federal Clean Water Act) is advised, to broaden awareness of ANS issues. 23 7) GLOSSARY (Note: The management plan should include a glossary presenting clear definitions of selected terms used in the plan. For illustrative purposes, a series of definitionsfollows, drawn from Section 1003 of NANPCA with the exception of that marked with (*). It is recommended to use terms defined in NANPCA when appropriate. Each state will want to add other terms/definitions, as needed) aquatic nuisance species: An aquatic nuisance species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species, the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquaculture or recreational activities dependent on such waters. (Note: For purposes of the state management plans, reference to an aquatic nuisance species will imply that the species is nonindigenous.) ballast water: Any water and associated sediments used to manipulate the trim and stability of a vessel. environmentally sound: Methods, efforts, actions or programs to prevent introductions or control infestations of aquatic nuisance species that minimize adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem and adverse effects on nontarget organisms and ecosystems and emphasize integrated pest management techniques and nonchemical measures. federal consistency (*): A requirement under the Coastal Zone Management Act that stipulates that federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a coastal state's federally approved coastal management program (CMP). A coastal state reviews the federal action to determine if the proposed action will be consistent with the CMP. Great Lakes: Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint Mary's RiVer, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian Border), and includes all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and connecting channels. nonindigenous species: Any species or other viable biological material that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range, including any such organism transferred from one country to another. waters of the United States: The navigable waters and the territorial sea of the United States. unintentional introduction: An introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species that occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of nonindigenous species in ballast or in water used to transport fish, mollusks or crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes. 24 8) RECOMMENDED APPENDICES (Note: The following information is recommended to be included as appendices to the management plan. Each state may identify additional materials.) * Section 1204 of the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) * List of members of relevant task forces/committees * State laws and regulations a Information/lEducation Strategyfor Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control, prepared by the Information/Education Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species a Other relevant management plans * Reference materials e Emergency contacts � Literature cited (see next page) 25 LITERATURE CITED (Note: It is recommended that each managementplan include a sectionfor citation of literature. The following list is providedfor illustrative purposes based on the literature used in this document) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (D. James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Mollie Beattie, Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Report to Congress: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review. Carlton, J.T. 1985. Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of CoastalMarine Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanography and Marine Biology, An Annual Review: volume 23. Hushak, L.J., Y. Deng, M. Bielen. 1995. The Cost of ZebraMussel Monitoring and Control. ANS Digest: volume 1, number 1. Leigh, P. 1994. Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Comprehensive Management Plan. Ohio Sea Grant College Program. 1995. Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Report: An Update of Research and Outreach: 1988-1994. The Ohio State University. Ruiz, G.M., AH. Hines, L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton. 1995. An Historical Perspective on Invasion of North American Waters by Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. ANS Digest: volume 1, number 1. U.S. Congress, Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-646. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Nonindigenous Species in the UnitedStates. OTA-F565. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, National Park Service. 1991. HandbookforRankingExotic Plant forManagement and Control. Authored by R.D. Hiebert and James Stubbendieck. (Copies of this report (Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08) are available from: Publications Coordinator, National Park Service, Natural Resources Publications Office, P.O. Box 2587 (WASO- NRPO), Denver, CO 80225-0287). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 1995. Report to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. 26 ATTACHMENT 1 Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Final Draft Prepared by: Information/Education Subcommittee, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species Statement of Purpose: The primary purpose of the Information/Education (I/E) strategy is to provide regional direction and coordination regarding l/E activities on aquatic nuisance species (ANS) among the participating agencies, institutions and organizations. It is important to note that while some of these activities may be undertaken specifically by the Great Lakes Panel, many of the activities may be underway or taken on by other Great Lakes organizations. The lIE strategy is being established as a regional initiative for the benefit of all interested stakeholders! Goal i: The prevention of the unintentional introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into, within and from Great Lakes waters through implementation of lIE activities. Problem: The unintentional introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species, from a variety of sources, are causing major financial, ecological and social impacts to the Great Lakes region. Objective: Ensure that all commercial vessels entering the Great Lakes comply with voluntary and mandatory preventative measures regarding the unintentional introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species. Activity: Informational brochure taroeted to the commercial shiooina industry. Develop a brochure for ship owners, captains, engineers, and other commercial shipping personnel with the primary purpose of behavior change regarding ballast management practices. ANS issues to be included: 1) history of the ANS problem in the Great Lakes; 2) causes of the ANS problem (i.e. ballast water exchange, attachment to hulls and anchors); 3) risks posed by the ANS problem; 4) shipping practices that would reduce the risk of introducing and dispersing aquatic nuisance species (i.e. guidelines for ballast water exchange); 5) the regulations on ballast water exchange, and the consequences of noncompliance. Objective: Encourage and foster voluntary compliance with the ruffe control activities on Lake Superior. Activity: Develop a public outreach program (i.e. public meetings, video, brochures) to gain public understanding and support for proposed ruffe control activities. Objective: Ensure that all permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commercial fishers, and other resource harvesters, take action to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species. Outreach activities taroeted to permitted aauaculture operators and bait dealers. Activity: Develop a workshop series and supporting materials that can be conducted by local and state agencies, targeted to permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commercial fishers, and other resource harvesters. This audience should be informed about their role mitigating the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. As part of workshop activities, the targeted audience should be trained on how to deliverthe "message"to their clientele. Activity: Distribute informational materials and regulations about aquatic nuisance species to permitted aquaculture operators, bait dealers, aquarium hobbyists, commerical anglers, and other resource harvesters in the Great Lakes states. Due to frequent modification of the information and regulations, distribution in each state should occur annually or biennially. Page 1 Objective: Ensure that all recreational boaters take action to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species. Outreach activities taroeted to recreational boaters.I Activity: Distribute existing l/E resources, such as those developed by the Great Lakes Sea Grant programs, targeted to recreational boaters through the following channels: 1) Coast Guard Auxiliary safe boating courses and watercraft examinations; 2) boat manufacturers' owners' manuals; 3)I marine dealers; 4) state boat registration materials; 5) power squadron courses; 6) boat show displays and sport shows. Activity: Promote the development and distribution of standardized signs and billboards to deliver the 'message" on aquatic nuisance species at waterfront areas and along major transportation routes used by boaters.I Activity: Implement regional boat-wash demonstrations and/or inspections to teach boaters how to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species on their boats. To impede the spread to inland waters, target areas where there is high traffic between Great Lakes Basin and inland waters. Inspections should be conducted at public accesses on infested water's. Activity: Include information about aquafic nuisance species in state/provincial fishing regulations. Activity: Develop and distribute radio public service announcements about aquatic nuisance species to draw attention to the issue and provide precautions that boaters should take to prevent further spread. Activity: Notify tourism related industries, such as travel agencies and resorts, of the informational materials available for distribution and/or posting.I Activity: Develop I/E materials that will help pave the way for appropriate laws to be enacted that Will reduce the risk of aquatic nuisance introduction and spread.I Goal II: Regional coordination of information dissemination regarding aquatic nuisance species programs involving prevention, control, monitoring, research, education, policy and other related activities.I Problem: Outreach products and activities regarding aquatic nuisance species are not adequately coordinated among/between agencies, institutions and organizations - causing duplication of efforts, unnecessary expenditures of financial resources, and inconsistencieslcon fusion in the 'message' beingI delivered. Objective. Provide coordinated, non-conflicting outreach programming to the public and private sector regarding ANS issues.I Activity: Inventory and Evaluation of ANS outreach Droaramminca. Conduct an inventory to determine the status of existing outreach resources and to identify the gaps in outreachI programming. Based on inventory findings, provide guidance (i.e. policy statement) to agenciles, institutions and organizations that 1) supports coordination of existing outreach resources and 2) assists in planning. efforts regarding the development of future outreach programming. Activity: Trainina sessions for educators/informafion Droviders in formal and non-formal setfinas. Under the auspices of the Panel, and in partnership with key members, identify existing and prospective opportunities to work with educatorsfinformation providers in the classroom and non-I Page 2I formal settings. Such training sessions can be a vehicle for presenting li/E packets and available curricula materials to (and opening the lines of communication with) a targeted group of educators that will then carry the message to a much larger audience. Two options can be pursued, either singly or in combination: a PaneVagency sponsored event to which a group of educators from an array of relevant settings are invited, or a "user-group" sponsored event to which a PaneVagency member is invited to speak. Activity: Evaluate l/E materials and distribution methods for outreach oroarams taroeted to Great Lakes user arouos. With assistance from Panel members, identify and pursue means to better utilize fact sheets as an effective tool for disseminating information. This will entail assembling and reviewing all existing fact sheets and related materials; identifying and filling gaps; assessing effectiveness of distribution mechanisms; and exploring and pursuing opportunities to combine disparate fact sheets into I/E "kits" for broad distribution. The latter is a promising option involving the development of a single "kit" which contains the materials from many different groups, thus providing the reader with numerous contacts for more detailed information. Activity: Newsletter inserts. A number of organizations currently produce newsletters that provide a valuable service in disseminating ANS information to user groups and the interested public. While a new, entirely separate newsletter from the Great Lakes Panel is not well-advised for that reason, there is a need to enhance the overall breadth and readership of existing newsletters. An effective vehicle for doing this is a one page (two-sided) newsletter insert produced by the Panel for inclusion in the many existing Great Lakes newsletters, both those that are ANS specific and others more general in nature. Panel members would determine an appropriate format and content and assist Commission staff in preparation. A copy would be developed most likely on a quarterly basis, and be provided to newsletter editors for incorporation. Activity: Audio-Visual oroaram on ANS oroblem. Produce slide show and/or video to raise awareness among Great Lakes Basin residents on the ANS problem. It is recommendedthat the Great Lakes Panel play an active role in developing the "message" for this A-V program, to ensure that the information presented is balanced and consistent. Activity: Comouter access to ANS information. Provide computer access to ANS information through the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), a regional electronic information system that is being established under the guidance of the Great Lakes Commission. GLIN will link data, information and individuals in key agencies and organizations in the Great Lakes region and Washington D.C. through the Internet, a worldwide research network. The purpose of GLIN is to enhance communication and share information between the region's policymakers to improve the quality of public policy decisions; and to provide quick access to current information/data. This activity will be coordinated with the efforts of Minnesota Sea Grant to place zebra mussel outreach materials on the Intemet system. Efforts under GLIN will also be conducted in cooperation with existing information clearinghouse functions, such as the Sea Grant Zebra Mussel Research Information Clearinghouse in New York. Activity: Proaram evaluation. Assess the effectiveness of various outreach methods and products in terms of facilitating regional coordination of information dissemination. This activity will be conducted in collaboration the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network evaluation of zebra mussel outreach programs, targeting primarily industrial and municipal water users. Problem: A complete network does not exist for communication to facilitate information transfer between agencies, institutions, and organizations on ANS research needs and findings. Page 3 Objective. Strengthen lines of communication (networks, publications, meetingslconferences, etc.) used by ANS researchers to facilitate information transfer regarding ANS research needs and findings. Activity. Evaluation of ANS research network. Identify existing lines of communication used byI ANS researchers to determine how the network can be strengthened. This exercise will be done in collaboration with the International Joint Commission's initiative to develop an ecosystem approach to research management. Activity., SUDOortina enhanced use of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence Research Inventory. develooed by the Council of Great Lakes Research Manacers. International Joint Commission. Work With the IJC staff to expand the ANS component of its research inventory, and promote itsI use as a coordination tool among researchers, managers, and policy makers. To date, Inventory efforts have involved assessment of the status of research on nonindigenous species, based on the number of research projects and associated funding for each species that has been introduced into the Great Lakes. The Inventory could be further enh'anced in its capacity to track research,I monitoring, and control measures, and to identify related funding priorities. Enhanced use of the Inventory will entail submitting Panel advice on how to maxirmize its usefulness in terms of breadth, format, accessibility, dissemination and use of information in management/policy settings. Problem. The roles and coordination of agencies, institutions, and organizations involved with aquatifc nuisance prevention and control are not completely understood. Objective: Provide access to current information regarding ANS contacts and their roles from all state, provincial, tribal and federal governments and other organizations participating in aquatic nuisance prevention and control. Activity: COMD,uter information exchanae reaardina ANS actors. Develop a database on ANS contacts and their role in addressing the ANS problem. Provide interested parties access to tIre database through the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), a computer information system thatI will also allow questions to be addressed "on line." Problem:- The IIE network is not fully coordinated to effectively disseminate information on aquatic nuisance species activities between agencies, institutions and organizations. Objective: Strengthen existing lines and establish new lines of communication between agencies, "institutions, organizations to facilitate coordinated information dissermination.I Activity: Reciional Information Clearinahouse Services. Through discussions with existing clearinghouses (including Sea Grant and statelprovincial efforts), determine the current level ofI operation, types of services, funding base and unmet needs. On the basis of that investigation, the Panel can identify and act on its findings to ensure the availability of needed services over the long-term. Goal III: The active involvement of Great Lakes regional policymakers and user groups in the promotion of aquatic nuisance prevention and control programs.3 Problem. Policymakers may not be fully aware of the rinancial and irreversible ecological and social damage caused by aquatic nuisance species. As a result, the aquatic nuisance species issue may not be a priority on the agenda of some policymakers. Objective. Assess the economic, environmental and social impacts caused by the infestation of aquatic nuisance species and predict how these impacts will affect various Great Lakes areas. Page 4 Activity: Economic Cost Evaluation of Zebra Mussel Infestation. In the interest of contributing to the database on ANS impacts, conduct a survey of municipal and industrial water users affected by (or susceptible to) ANS infestation - principally zebra mussels. Working with Ohio Sea Grant researchers and Panel membership, the Commission staff will design and administer a survey to municipal and industrial water users in the Basin with intakes susceptible to zebra mussel infestation problems. The survey will yield information on economic costs associated with operation and maintenance, new/altered intake structures,. and associated equipment necessitated by zebra mussel problems. Beyond the economic data, it will also yield information on control technologies being applied, long-term strategies, I/E needs, research needs, and public policy needs. Due to the magnitude of the task, the survey results will not likely be comprehensive, but will serve to document trends regarding economic impacts and promoting necessary actions to address the problem over the long-term. Also, the results will provide information to the Panel to assist in directing its own efforts. Objective: Educate decision-makers on the economic and environmental impacts resulting from aquatic nuisance species infestation in the Great Lakes and the need for significant increased funding to mitigate these impacts. Activity: Outreach strateav taraeted to elected officials and Dolicvmakers. Develop and implement an outreach strategy that will frame ANS issues to address the agenda priorities of elected officials and policymakers pivotal in establishing the legislative mandates and funding necessary to develop and implement regional solutions to the ANS problems. An important step in developing this strategy is determining the type of economic, ecological and social information that would gain the support of policymakers in their decisions regarding ANS issues. The "message" can be delivered through an array of mechanisms, such as succinct fact sheets and brochures; legislative briefings; experttestimony at hearings; congressional/parliamentary dialogues; and the Annual Report on Aquatic Nuisance Species (refer to activities listed below). One promising model for developing an outreach strategy for elected officials and policymakers is Michigan's Sea Grant legislative outreach strategy on the zebra mussel. The program, entitled, Michigan Great Lakes Legislative Update, supplies state legislators (and their staff and research offices) with comprehensive information on the zebra mussel problem, related legislation and updates on research findings. In developing this strategy, it was found that legislators value information they can directly use in the decision-making process. Activity: Informational brochure for state/Drovincial leaislators and other elected officials. Design, pdnt and distribute an informational brochure targeted to legislative leadership throughout the binational Great Lakes Basin. The brochure, in a concise, lay person-oriented format employing photographs, charts and graphs, would introduce legislators to the magnitude and urgency of the issue, economic and environmental aspects, current legislative and program initiatives, and agencies and individuals to contact for more information. Most importantly, it could present recommendations of the Great Lakes Panel - a "blueprint" for action that might include legislative programs and budget needs. Activity: ConaressionaVParliamentarv dialoaue and related initiatives at the national/binational levels. Pursue a series of distinct, yet related events (primarily in Washington D.C.) designed to elevate and maintain the policy profile of aquatic nuisance species issues, and associated legislative, program and budgetary needs. Specifically this will entail: 1) Addina an anuatic nuisance soecies comoonent to the Conaressional/Parliamentarv Dialoaue on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Commission co-sponsors this event and, on behalf of the Panel, can help ensure that ANS issues are addressed and included in any "action agenda" that might result. The Dialogues, held in Washington D.C. every few Page 5 ! years since 1985, typically attract 8-12 members of Congress and Parliament with I environmental/resource management responsibilities. 2) Seekina a Conaressional headna on ANS issues. Working with appropriate members of the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation and members of the relevant committees, the Panel can request a hearing on aquatic nuisance species issues, either Great Lakes specific or national in scope. Testimony would reflect Panel recommendations in all areas of its responsibility, and would be widely disseminated. 3) Briefina Conaressional staff. Convene key Congressional staff for one or more briefings directed at Panel recommendations on legislative, program and budget needs. This can encourage interaction between individual Panel members and Congressional staff, and formalize a communications link to ensure that staff members fully utilize Panel/regional information on a continuing basis. 4) Buildina coalitions at the national level. Identify various professional, trade and related associations that might engage cooperatively in information/education activities directed at Congressional and Administrative officials. This might include, for example, the American Fisheries Society, the American Water Works Association, sport fishing councils and other such groups. This can be accomplished in various ways, including a Panel sponsored meeting to which such groups are invited; presentations by a Panel member to meetings of these groups; direct one-on-one contact; or combinations of the above. Much of this activity can be facilitated by the Great Lakes Commission, with the assistance of its Great Lakes Washington Office. Activity: Annual Reoort of the Great Lakes Panel on Aauatic Nuisance Soecies. Design, print and distribute an Annual Report, as called for in the federal Nonindigenous Aqaatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. Carefully targeted presentations, most notably to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, will be useful in highlighting legislative program and budgetary needs determined via deliberations of the Panel membership. Goal IV: The availability of adequate resources to implement the Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Problem: Funding is not being appropriated for implementation of the lIE strategy through the Aquatic I Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. Objective: Support efforts to facilitate Congressional appropriation of funds, authorized in the ANS Act, to implement the I/E strategy. Activity: Inform ANS Task Force. Conaress. and relevant federal aaencies of I/E strateav fundina needs. Through briefings, prepared materials and inquiry responses as appropriate, ensure that policy leaders are informed of I/E plans, associated benefits, and funding requirements that might be addressed via the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. Problem: Agency resources are not adequate to support the PIE strategy. Objective: Support efforts to ensure that state and federal agencies, with responsibility to minimize ANS impacts, allocate both financial resources and/or in-kind services to implement portions of the Great Lakes Panel I/E strategy. I Page 6 3 I Activity: Collaborative arranaements for lIE strateav imolementation amona relevant state and federal aaencies. Under Great Lakes Panel leadership, identify for each I/E strategy element prospective agency collaborators. In consultation with those collaborators, develop a scope of work for each activity that maximizes access to available financial resources and/or in-kind contributions. Problem: A comprehensive search for available funding from private sector sources has not been pursued to implement the IIE strategy. Objective: Provide a mechanism to facilitate private funding to support implementation of the I/E strategy. Activity: Private sector develooment Droaram. Develop and implement a fund-raising strategy targeted to private business and organizations (i.e. lake associations) concerned with ANS issues for the support of public awareness programs. Page 7 I I I Section 1204 of the NonindiA Prevention I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I APPENDIX B genous Aquatic Nuisance a and ControlAct of 1990 PUBLIC LAW 101-646-NOV. 29, 1990 104 STAT. 4761 Public Law 101-646 101st Congress An Act To prevent and control infestations of the coastal inand waters of the United States by the zebra mussel and other nonindtigenous aquatic nuisance speci, to reauthor- ize the National Sea Grant College Program, and for other purposm Be it enacted by the &Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Nov. 29. 1990 a[H.R 5390 Nonindienous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. 16 USC 4701 note. 16 USC 4701. "TITLE I-AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL Subtitle A-General Provisions "SEClION 1001. SHORT TITLE. "This title may be cited as the "Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990". '- "SEC. 1002. FVDINGS AND PURPOSE "(a) FINDINosG.-The Congress finds that- "(1) the discharge of untreated water in the ballast tanks of vessels and through other means results in unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species to fresh, brackish, and saltwater environments; "(2) when environmental conditions are favorable, nonindigenous species, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), become established and may disrupt the aquatic environment and economy of affected coastal areas; "(3) the zebra mussel was unintentionally introduced into the Great Lakes and, if left uncontrolled, is expected to infest over two-thirds of the continental United States through the un- intentional transportation of larvae and adults by vessels operating in inland waters; and "(4) the potential economic disruption to communities af- fected by the zebra mussel due to its coloniation of water pipes, boat hulls and other hard surfaces has been estimated at $5,000,000,000 by the year 2000, and the potential disruption to the diversity and abundance of native ish and other species could be severe. "(b) PUmPs.--The purposes of this Act are- "(1) to prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal of nonindigenous species into waters of the United States through ballast water management and other requirements; (2) to coordinate federally conducted, funded or authorized research, prevention control, information dissemination and other activities regarding the zebra mussel and other aquatic nuisance species; "(3) to develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent, monitor and control unintentional "(C) CANADIAN PARTICIPATION.-The panel convened under this section is encourage to invite representatives from the Federal, provincial or territorial governments of Canada to participate as observers. 3 16 USC 4724. "SEC. 1204. STATE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLANS. "(a) STATE PLAN.- "(1) IN GNERAL--The Governor of each State may, after notice and opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit- "(A) a comprehensive management plan to the Task Force for approval which identifies those areas or activities U within the State, other than those related to public facili- ties, for which technical and financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health, and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species, particularly the zebra mussel; and "(B) a public facility management plan to the Assistant Secretary for approval which i limited solely to identifying those public facilities within the State for which technical and financial assistance is needed to reduce infestations of zebra mussels. "(2) CoNzrNT.-Each plan shall, to the extent possible, iden- tify the management practices and measures that will be under- taken to reduce infestations of aquatic nuisance species. Each plan shall- "(A) identify and describe State and local programs for environmentally sound prevention and control of the target aquatic nuisance species; . "(B) identify Federal activities that may be needed for environmentally sound prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species and a description of the manner in which those activities should be coordinated with State and local government activities; and "(C) a schedule of implementing the plan, including a schedule of annual objectives. I "(3) CONSULTATION.- "(A) In developing and implementing a management plan, the State should, to the maximum extent practicable, I mvolve local governments and regional entities, and public and private organizations that have expertise in the control of aquatic nuisance species. A"B) Upon the request of a State, the Task Force or the Assistant Secretary, as appropriate under paragraph (1), may provide technical assistance in developing and im- plementing a managment plan. � "(4) PLAN APPovAx.-Wit in 90 days after the submimion of a management plan, the Task Force or the Assistant Secretary in consultation with the Task Force, as appropriate under paragraph (1), shall review the proposed plan and approve it if it I meets the requirements of this subsection or return the plan to the Governor with recommended modifications. "(b) GRANT Pfo a.- "(1) STATz OANrs.-The Director or the Assistant Secretary, as appropriate under subsection (a), may, at the recommenda- tion of the Task Force, mae grnts to States with approved management plans for the implementation of those plan m PUBLIC LAW 101-646--NOV. 29, 1990 104 STAT. 4771 "(2) APPLICATION.-An application for a grant under this subsection shall inciude an identification and description of the best management practices and measures which the State pro- poses to utilize in implementing an approved management plan with any Federal assistance to be provided under the grant. "(3) FDER_AL SHARE.- "(A) The Federal share of the cost of each comprehensive management plan implemented with Federal assistance under this section in any fiscal year shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such management program and the non-Federal share of such costs shall be provided from non-Federal sources. "(B) The Federal share of the cost of each public facility management plan implemented with Federal assistance under this section in any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such management program and the non-Federal share of such costs shall be provided from non Federal sources. "(4) ADINIsmATmvz coses.-For the purposes of this section, administrative costs for activities and programs carried out with a grant in any fiscal year shall not exceed 5 percent of the amount of the grant in that year. "(5) IN-mmn coNTmtmoNs.-In addition to cash outlays and payments, in-kind contributions of property or personnel serv- ices by non-Federal interests for activities under this section may be used for the non-Federal share of the cost of those activities. "SEC. 1205. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS. "All actions taken by Federal agencies in implementing the provi- sions of section 1202 shall be consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws. Nothing m this title shall affect the authority of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce control measures for aquatic nuisance species, or diminish or affect the jurisdiction of any State over species of fish and wildlife. Compliance with the control and eradication measures of any State or political subdivision thereof regarding aquatic nui- sance species shall not relieve any person of the obligation to comply with the provisions of this subtitle. "SEC. 1206. N ERNATIONAL COOPERATION. "(a) ADvict.-The Task Force shall provide timely advice to the Secretary of State concerning aquatic nuisance species that infest waters shared with other countries. "(b) NzoeTmIoNs.-The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Task Force, is encouraged to initiate negotiations with the governments of foreign countries concerning the planning and im- plementation of prevention, monitoring, research, education, and control programs related to aquatic nuisance species infesting shared water resources. "SEC. 1207. INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONS POLICY REVIEW. 'Within one year of the date of enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall, in consultation with State fish and wildlife aencies other regional, State and local entities, potentially affected indus- tries and other interested parties, identify and evaluate approaches for reducing the risk of adverse consequences associated with inten- 16 USC 4725. 16 USC 4726. 16 SC 4727. APPENDIX C Federal Consistency Requirements ; ~' ~. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 JUL 1 9 1995 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS' Introduction What is Federal Consistency? Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") to assist coastal states, Great Lake states, and United States territories to develop state coastal management programs to comprehensively manage and balance competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. Federal consistency is the CZMA requirement that federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a coastal state's or territory's federally approved coastal management program ("state CMP" or "CMP"). A state CMP reviews the federal action to determine if the proposed action will be consistent with the CMP. Federal consistency reviews are the responsibility of the lead state CMP agency. At the federal level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") oversees the CMPs' use of consistency; advocates, when appropriate, state positions with other federal agencies; provides states, and federal agencies with technical assistance; mediates consistency disputes between states and federal agencies; and processes appeals to the Secretary of Commerce. Federal actions include: 1. Direct federal actions -- Activities and development projects performed by a federal agency, or a contractor for the benefit of a federal agency. E.g., activities in National Parks such as installation of mooring buoys or road construction, Fisheries Management Plans by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Naval exercises, the disposal of surplus federal land by the General Services Adminis.tration, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") breakwater or beach renourishment project, an outer continental shelf ("OCS") oil and gas lease sale by the Minerals Management Service ("MMS"), improvements to a military base, Naval disposal of radioactive or hazardous waste performed by a private contractor, etc.; For further information contact David W. Kaiser, Federal Consistency Coordinator, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Ilth Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Phone: 301.713.3098 ext 144. Fax: 301.713.4367. Iaternet: [email protected] , I 2 I 2. Indirect federal actions -- Activities not performed by a federal agency, but requiring federal permits or licenses or other forms of federal approval. E.g., activities requiring Corps 404 permits, Interstate Commerce Commission water carrier licenses, MMS licenses for OCS exploration, development and production, Corps permits for use of ocean dump-sites, Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses for nuclear power plants, etc.; 3. Federal financial assistance to-states and territories and local governments. E.g., Federal Highway Administration funds to state and territory and local governments, construction grants for wastewater treatment works, hazardous waste management trust fund, Housing and Urban Development grants, etc. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 ("CZARA") amended the CZMA to clarify that federal consistency applies when any federal activity, regardless of location, affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. Section 307(c)(1)(A) of the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. � 1456(c)(1)(A), now provides: Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land I or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried eat in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs. A Federal agency activity shall be subject to . this paragraph unless it is subject to paragraph (2) or (3). This new "effects" language was added by CZARA, to replace previous language that ! referred to activities "directly affecting the coastal zone." It also reflects Congressional intent to overturn Secretary of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984), and further to: I establishl] a generally applicable rule of law that any federal agency activity (regardless of its location) is subject to [the consistency requirement] if it will affect any natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone. No federal agency activities are categorically exempt from this requirement. 3 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 964, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 968 - 975, 970 [hereinafter Conference Report]. The Conference Report on the 1990 amendments provides further clarification as follows: The question of whether a specific federal agency activity may affect any natural i resource, land use, or water use in the coastal zone is determined by the federal agency. The conferees intend this determination to include effects in the coastal zone which the federal agency may reasonably anticipate as a result of its action, including 3 cumulative and secondary effects. Ther.efore, the term "affecting" is to be construed broadly, including direct effects which are caused by the activity and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects which may be caused by the activity and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 970-71. These changes reflect an unambiguous Congressional intent to eliminate any "categorical exemptions" from CZMA consistency review, and instead to establish a uniform threshold standard requiring federal agencies to make a case-by-case factual determination of reasonably foreseeable effects on the coastal zone. The amendments to section 307(c)(1) were intended to leave no doubt that all federal agency activities meeting the "effects' standard are subject to the CZMA consistency requirement; that there are no exceptions or exclusions from the requirement as a matter of law; and that the new 'uniform threshold standard' requires a factual determination, based on the effects of such activities on the coastal zone, to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 970-71; 136 Cong. Rec. H 8076 (Sep. 26, 1990).' Why is Federal Consistency Important? The federal consistency requirement addresses the need for federal actions to adequately consider state and territorial CMPs. It is an important miandatory, but flexible, mechanism to resolve potential conflicts between states, territories and federal agencies, by fostering early consultation, cooperation, and coordination. Federal consistency is maore tha just a procedural dictate. It is a method of ensuring greater protection of coastal resources through the coastal nmangement policies of states and territories by assisting states in nmanging coastal uses and resources. In addition, the scope of the federal consistency "effects test' can help protect entire ecosystems as well as individual resources and uses. (The "effercts test" is that a federal action is subject to federal consistency if the action is reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone.) For example, if an activity is occurring outside the coasta zone, e.g., outside a coastal state's territorial waters or inland coastal zone boundary, but will affect coastal water quality, habitat, wetlands, etc., and that activity has some form of federal action, then it is potentially subject to the federal consistency requirement and state coastal mianagement policies. 1The current federal consistency regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 930, are still authoritative to the extent they are consistent with CZARA. For example, "directly affect the coastal zone" in the regulations should be read as "affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone,' and the federal agencies' determination of effects should include direct, indirect, cumulative, secondary, and reasonably foreseeable effects. 4I How does Federal Consistency Benefit Coasta States and Territories?I In addition to the general benefits noted above - coordination, cooperation, effective application of state coastal policies, greater resource protection - federal consistency is a powerful tool states and territories can use to reach most federal actions affecting the coastalI zone. It is based on effects and not geographic boundaries and there are no categorical exemptions from the consistency requirement.3 However, maximizing the benefits of federal consistency requires that federal agencies provide routine notification to coastal states of actions, permits, and finanial assistance; and requires coastal states to pay regular attention to proposed federal actions, develop adequateI consistency procedures, and notify federal agencies, other state agencies, and others of a state's assertion of consistency. If a CMP is not receiving notice of all federal activities affecting the coastal zone, then the CMiP needs to address this issue with each federalI agency: the CMI needs to make connections with the federal agencies, inform them of the federal consistency requireraents, possibly develop MOUs, ensure that the CMP obtains notice, and regularly respond when the CMP does receive notice. In essence, federal agencies and others have an affirmative duty to comply with the federal consistency requirements, but CMPs need to take regular, consistent, and assertive steps. The successful use of consistency by states is due, in large part, to the regular and consistent use of consistency. Examples include: > California - California is one of the coastal states that is well known for its use of consistency. California has used consistency to address the impact of Area Contingency Plans and Vessel Response Plans required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA"). California felt that the OPA process would not adequately protert certain areas of the coast from an oil spill and has asserted consistency to address its concerns. California also used consistency to ensure that the closure and re-use of a large military base addressed coasta protection and recreation policies. Californiia has also used consistency to address the impacts from commercmia spaceflights on beach access, ocean acoustcal experiments on marine mammals, artificial reef construction on existing habitat and ecology, etc. Massachusetts - Massachusetts has used consistency to make significant changes in a large3 ocean dump-site designation by the Environmental Protectiou Agency, and a sewer outfall located in the neighboring state of. New Hampshire that would imnpact Massachusetts beaches. Massachusetts also used consistency to great success when the General Services3 Administration ("GSA") proposed to acquire property along the Boston waterfront for a new federal courthouse. As a result of the consistency process, GSA and the state CM. negotiated a redesigned courthouse with a host of public amenities and the courthouse now3 has tremendous public and state support. North Carolina - North Carolina regularly uses consistency to review activities on federal land, such as nmilitary exercises, and alteration of National Wildlife Refuges. North 5 Carolin, California, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, also regularly use consistency to address effects from OCS oil and gas activities. How does Federal Consistency Benefit Federal Agencies? Federal consistency provides federal agencies with an effective mechanism to document coastal effects and to address state and territorial coasta management concerns. Early attention to the federal consistency requirement often provides the federal agency with CMP and public support and a smooth and expediious federal consistency review. At the same time, federal consistency ensures that federal agency missions and requirements are satisfied. Early consultation and cooperation between federal agencies and CMPs helps federal agencies avoid costly last minute changes to projects in order to comply with state CMI policies. For example, to make full use of consistency's flexible procedures and the need for early coordination, Alaska and the Depa-rtment of the Interior's Minera Management Service developed a memorandum of understanding that specifies the process for consistency reviews of OCS oil and gas lease sales and approvals. What are the Basic Federal Consistency Procedures? Direct Federal Activities and DeveloDment Proiects 1. Federal agency determines if federal activity is reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. 2. If effects, then federal agency submiits a consistency determination to state CMUT at least 90 days before activity starts. 3. State CMI' has 45 days (plus appropriate extensions) to agree or disagree with the federal agency's consistency determination. 4. State waives consistency rights if state CMI does not meet timeframes. 5. State CM?' must either agree or disagree. 6. If dispute between federal agency and state CMI', either party may seek Secretarial mediation or informal OCRM negotiation. Federal License and Permit Activities 1. State CMP', or OCRM, determines effects: a. listed v. unlisted activity. b. Inside v. outside coastal zone. 2. Applicant for any required federal approval must submit a certification and necessary data and information to the state CMN'. 3. State CMI has six months to respond, but must notify applicant if review will go beyond three months. 4. State CN? must either concur or object with applicant's certification. 6 1 5. Federal agency cannot issue approval until state CMIP concurs. C: 6. Applicant may appeal state CMP's objection to the Secretary of Commerce. ' OCS Permits or Licenses 1. Like Permits or Licenses for the most part. Federal Financial Assistance Activities I 1. State or local government applies for federal financial assistance. 2. Listed v. unlisted activity. 3. Follow state clearinghouse procedures. See Appendix A of the Federal Consistency Requirements for a chart summary of the consistency requirements. General Federal Consistency Procedures This section provides a general discussion of the various federal consistency requirements and procedures. Two important things to keep in mind to facilitate consistency reviews is for the federal agency, state CMI, and applicant to discuss a proposed activity as early in the process as possible, and that state CMPs and federal agencies can agree, at any time, to more flexible consistency review procedures (providing public participation requirements are still met). Direct Federal Agency Activities I Federal agencies proposing an activity need to follow the requirements of CZMA section 3 307(c)(1), (2)(16 U.S.C. � 1456(c)(1), (2)) and 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart C. Federal agencies proposing activities, whether within or outside die coastal zone, must first determine if the activity is reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of a state's coastal zone. Effects include cumulative and secondary effects. If such effects are reasonably foreseeable then the federal agency must submit a consistency 3 determination to the affected state(s) no later than 90 days before final federal action on the proposed activity. The federal consistency trigger is reasonably foreseeable effects, regardless of the location of the activity. If the federal agency determines that an activity is 3 not reasonably likely to affect coastal uses or resource then the federal agency must determine whether to provide the state CMP with a "negative determination" at least 90 days prior to the federal action. See 15 C.F.R. � 930.35(d). 1 The federal agency should contact the state CMP at the earliest possible moment in the planning of the activity to ensure early state and federal coordination and consultation. Early consultation with state CMPs will reduce potential conflicts as the activity moves forward. I 7 Once the federal agency has determined that effects are reasonably foreseeable, the federal activity must be conducted in a manner that is 'consistent to the maximum extent practicable' with the enforceable policies of a state's CMP. There is no categorical exemption for any federal activity. If a federal activity is likely to affect coastal uses or resources then consistency applies. However, the President may exempt a specific federal activity (but not a class of federal activities) under certain circumstances. In addition, as indicated above, a federal activity affecting the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable. This requires federal activities to be fully consistent with state CMPs unless compliance is prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the federal agency's operations. Thus, a federal activity may deviate from full consistency if legally required (as opposed to a general notion or claim of national security). Finally, federal agencies may deviate from fuU consistency with an approved program when such deviation is justified because some unforeseen circumstances, i.e., an emergency situation, arising after the approval of the management program present the federal agency with a substantial obstacle that prevents complete adherence to the approved program. While the form of the consistency determination may vary, it must include a detailed description of the proposed activity, its expected effects upon the land or water uses or natural resources of the state's coastal zone, and an evaluation of the proposed activity in light of the applicable enforceable policies in the state's CMP. More specifically, the consistency determination should state, generally, the enforceable statutory provisions and regulations of the state's CMP; detail the analysis by which the federal agency has determined that its project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the relevant enforceable policies of the state CMPs; provide an analysis of effects on the land or water uses or natural resources of the state's coastal zone (or reference pages of NEPA document if appropriate); provide information, data and analysis supporting the determination of consistency with the CMP; notify the state CMP that it has 45 days (plus any appropriate extension) from receipt of the determination (and data and information sufficient to support the determination) in which to agree or disagree with the determination. States are encouraged to list those activities that are likely to affect coastal uses or resources in the approved CMP, and to monitor unlisted activities and to notify federal agencies when an unlisted activity requires consistency review. 15 C.F.R. � 930.35(a), (b). However, the listing/unlisted provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) simply represent recommended procedures for facilitating state CMP review of federal activities which are reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. Whether adopted in full, in part, or not at all by federal and state CMPs the responsibility of federal agencies to provide state CMPs with information regarding all federal activities affecting the coastal zone continues to apply. Accordingly, the failure of a state CMP to either list or monitor federal activities does not remove the requirement for federal agencies to provide state CMPs with 81 consistency determinations when the federal agency independently concludes that the proposed activity will affect coastal uses or resources. If the state CMIP agrees with the determination, the federal agency may immediately proceed with the activity. (federal agencies make a "determination" of consistency with state CNfps for which a state either "agrees" or "disagrees." Applicants for federal approvals and funding make a "certification" that the activity will be conducted in a consistent manner for which the state CMP either concurs or objects.) If the state disagrees with the consistencyI determination, the state's disagreement must-describe how the proposed activity is inc-onsistent with enforceable CMP policies, and alternative nmeasures (if they exist) that would allow the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent to the maximum extentI practicable. In the event of a disagreement the state CM?I and federal agency should attempt to resolve any differences during the remainder of the 90 day period. If resolution has not been reached at the end of the 90 day period the federal agency should consider postponingI final federal action until the problems have been resolved. However, at the end of the 90 day period the federal agency may, notwithstanding state CMP disagreement, proceed with the activity. If the federal agency proceeds with the activity over a state CMP'sI disagreement, the federal agency must clearly describe to the state CMP the specific lega'l authority which limits the federal agency's discretion to comply with the state CMP's enforceable policies. 15 C.F.R. � 930.32(a). Either party may seek non-binding formalI Secretarial mediation or informal negotiation through OCRM. Non-Federal Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit ( A private individual or business, or a state or local government agency, or any other type of non-federal entity, applying to the federal government for a required permit or license or any other type of an approval or authorization, needs to follow the requirements of CZMA section 307(c)(3)(A)(16 U.S.C. � 1456(c)(3)(A)) and 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart D. Applircants for federal licenses, permits, or other approvals, must certify to the state CMP that the proposed activity, whether in or outside the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone, will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the enforceable policies of the CUP. All federal license or permit activities occurring in the coastal zone are deemed reasonably likely to affect coastal uses or resources, if the state CUT has 'listed' the particular federal lircense, permit, or approval in its coastal management program document. (The listing of federal licenses and permiits in a state's CMP provides notice to federal agencies and applicants for federal approvals that activities requiring such approvals can be reasonably expected to affect the coastal zone and must therefore be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's CMP.) For a listed activity occurring in the rcoastal zone, the applicant must submit 'a CZMA federal consistency certification to the approving federal agency and the state CMP. in addition to the certification, the applicant must provide the state with the necessary data and informnation 9 to allow the state to assess the project's effects. This information will normally be contained in the applicant's application to the federal agency, but may include other information required by the state CMP, e.g., necessary state permits. The state's review time starts when the state receives the certification and necessary data and information. The state CMP has six months from the receipt of the certification and necessary data and information in which to complete its review. If a state concurs with an applicant's certification then the federal agency may issue its approval. If the state has not responded within the six months then the state's concurrence is presumed. If the state objects the federal agency may not issue any relevant federal approvals. The federal agency may issue its licenses or approvals once the state CMP concurs, or the state's concurrence is presumed in the absence of a state objection within the six months following commencement of the state CMP's review, or where the state objects within the six months, but the Secretary of Commerce, on appeal by the applicant, overrides the state's objection. An applicant may also be required to submit a consistency certification to the state CMN for unlisted activities. For unlisted activities, in or outside the coastal zone, the state CM? must notify the applicant, the relevant federal agency, and OCRM that it intends to review the activity. OCRM must approve the state's consistency review. The state CMP must make this notification within 30 days of receiving notice of the activity, otherwise the state waives its consistency rights. The waiver does not apply where the state CMP does not receive notice (notice may be actual or constructive so long as it is adequate). The applicant and the federal agency have 15 days from receipt of the state CM:'s request to provide comments to OCRM. OCRM will make a decision usually within 30 days of receipt of the state's request. The sole basis for OCRM's decision will be whether the proposed activity can be reasonably expected to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. The federal agency may not approve the activity until the consistency process is complete. Activities occurring outside the coastal zone are also subject to consistency if the state has generally described the geographic area outside the coastal zone subject to review, or if the state requests to review the activity as an unlisted activity. For listed activities, outside the coastal zone, the applicant must submit a consistency certification to the state CM? and the federal agency if the activity falls within the geographic area defined by the. state for listed activities outside the coastal zone. The applicant should notify the state CMP and determine if this is the case. For listed activities outside the coastal zone where the state has not defined the geographic area, the state CMi may follow the unlisted activity procedure described above. Outer Continental Shelf Exploration, Development, and Production Activities A private person or business applying to the federal government for outer continental shelf (OCS) exploration, development and production activities needs to follow the requirements of CZMA section 307(c)(3)(B)(16 U.S.C. � 1456(c)(3)(B)) and 15 C.F.R. Part, 930, Subpart E. Any person who submits to the Department of the Interior an OCS plan for the exploration of, or development of, or production from, any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, must certify to the relevant state CMPs that any activities proposed in such OCS plans will be conducted in a manner consistent with the state CMPs. The process and requirements for this section generally mirror those of federal license or permit activitiesI discussed above. Federal Assisance to State and Local GovernmentsI A state or local government agency applying for federal finacial assistance needs to follow the requirements of CZMA section 307(d)(16 U.S.C. � 1456(d)) and 15 C.F.R. Part 930,I Subpart F. Any state or local government applying for any form of federal fmnancial assistance for anI activity reasonably aiely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must certify to the state CMP that the activity will be c-onducted in a manner consistent with the state CMP. The federal agency may not grant any federal assistance until the'stateI CMP concurs. NOAA regulations allow state CMPs to develop flexible procedures for reviewing andI concurring with federal assistance activities. State CM? review of the activities is normally conducted through procedures established by states pursuant to Executive Order 12372 - - intergovernmental review of federal programs. While state CMPs should develop lists of the ~ federal assistance programs subject to consistency review, the exclusion from a state CMP's list of a particular federal funding program does not relieve the state agency or local government applicant from complying with federal consistency requirements if the activity toI be funded can be reasonably expected to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. Secretarial Mediation of Disputes In the event of a serious disagreement between a state CMP and a federal agency over any - aspect of the federal consistenc-y requirement, either part may request that the Secretary of Commerce mediate the dispute. All parties must agree to parficipate in the mediation, but agreement to participate is non-binding and either party may withdraw from the mediation atI any time. Secretarial mediation is a formal process that includes a public hearing, submission of written information, and meetings between the parties, upon which a hearing officer, appointed by the Secretary, will propose a solution. Secretarial mediation may be used for disputes under any of the four consistency review types: direct federal activities, federal license or permit activities, OCS license and permitI activties, and federal assistance activities. However, the request can only be made by the head of a federal agency or the Governor of a state or the designated state CM[P agency. Exhaustion of the mediation process is not a prerequisite to judicia review. 11 Informal Negotiation of Disputes The availability of formal Secretarial mediation or litigation does not preclude the parties from informally negotiating the dispute through OCRM or another facilitator. OCRM has successfully ifled this role of informal negotiator and offers its good offices to resolve conflicts. In fact most disputes are addressed through this informal method. Either party may request OCRM involvement, and of course participation is non-binding. Appeals to the Secretary of Commerce The federal consistency provisions provide an administrative appeal to the Secretary of Commerce from a consistency objection by a coastal state. In the case of a federal license or permit, an outer continental shelf exploration or development plan, or an application for federal financial assistance, the applicant may request that the Secretary override the state's consistency objection if the activity is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA (Ground I), or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security (Ground I). 16 U.S.C. � 1456(c)(3)(A),(B), and (d). If the requirements of either Ground I or Ground II are met, the Secretary must override the state's objection. The inquiry by the Secretary into whether the grounds for an override have been met is based upon an administrative record developed for the appeal. While the Secretary will review the state objection for compliance with the CZMA and the implementing regulations, e.g., whether the objection is based on enforceable policies, the Secretary does not review the objection for compliance with state laws and policies. There are four elements at 15 C.F.R. � 930.121 that an appellant must meet in order to satisfy the first ground for a Secretarial override, "consistent with the objectives of the CZMA:" (1) the activity furthers one or more of the competing national objectives or purposes contained in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA; (2) when performed separately or when its cumulative effects are considered, the activity will not cause adverse effects on the natural resources of the coastal zone substantial enough to outweigh its contribution to the national interest; (3) the activity will not violate any requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended, or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and (4) there is no reasonable alternative available (e.g., location, design, etc.) which would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the management program. Federal consistency regulations also address the second ground for a Secretarial override, lnecessary in the national security." The term "necessary in the interest of national sercurity"I describes a federal license or permit activity, or a federal assistantce activity which, although inconsistent with a state's management program, is found by the Secretary to be permissible because a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impairedI if the activity were not permitted to go forward as proposed. If the Secretary overrides the state's objection the authorizing federal agency may permit orI fund the activity. A sercretarial override does not obviate the need for an applicant to obtain any state required permits or authorizations. The appeal process is flexible and normally takes one to two years. Factors influencing the appeal process time include: nature andI complexity of the dispute, stays, public hearings, and briefing schedules. See Appendix B of the Federal Consistency Requirements, for a list of CZMA SecretarialI override decisions and decisions on OCS activities. APPENDIX D Project Oversight Committee Members Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs:- Toward a Regional Strategv in the Great Lakes Basin AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIESAND COASTAL MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS: TOWARD A REGIONAL STRAPTEGYIN THE GREATLAKES BASIN Project Oversight Committee Memnbers Mark Coscarelli, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Catherine Cunningham, Michigan Coastal Management Program Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Gary Isbell, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Christine Kasselmann, Ohio Coastal Management Program Ron Martin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Jay Rendall, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Steve Ressler, New York State Coastal Management Program John Schwartz, Michigan Sea Grant College Program Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Management Program Tim Sinnott, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Jay Troxel, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Staff support provided by Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission and Lori Reynolds, Great Lakes Commnission APPENDIX E Workshop Participants Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin AQUA TIC NUISANCE SPECIES AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: TOWARD A REGIONAL STRATEGY IN THE GREATLAKES BASIN ANNARBOR, MICHIGAN MAY 2-3, 1995 Workshop Participants Mary Bielen, Agent Sea Grant Extension Office One Maritime Plaza Toledo, OH 43604-1866 419/249-6554 419/243-1835 K. Douglas Blodgett, Research Biologist Illinois Natural History Survey 704 N. Schrader Ave. Havana, IL 62644 309/543-6000 309/543-2105 Charles Boydstun, Ecologist National Biological Service 7920 NW 71st Street Gainsville, Florida 32653 904-378-81816 904-378-4956 Ellen Brody, Acting Great Lakes Regional Manager NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 1305 East-West Highway SSMC4 Rm 11241 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301/713-3113 301/7134367 Jeffrey Busch, Executive Director Lake Erie Office, Ohio Lake Erie Commission One Maritime Plaza Toledo, OH 43604-1866 419/245-2514 419/245-2519 Thomas R. Busiahn, Project Leader Fishery Resources Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Lake Shore Drive East Ashland, WI 54806 715/682-6185 715/682-8899 Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst Northeast-Midwest Institute 218 D. St., SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202/544-7494 202/544-0043 Dr. James Carlton, Director of Maritime Studies Program Williams College-Mystic Seaport P.O. Box 6000 50 Greenmanville Ave. Mystic, CT 06355 203/572-5359 203/572-5359 Ann Conrad, Program Director Freshwater Foundation Spring Hill1 Center 725 County Rd. 6 Wayzata,MN 55391 612/449-0092;612/449-0592 Mark Coscarelli, Policy Specialist Office of the Great Lakes Michigan DNR P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-3588 517/3534053 I I Tom Crane, Program Manager Great Lakes Commission Argus II Building 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 313-665-9135 313-665-4370 Catherine Cunningham Land & Water Mgmt. Analyst Michigan Coastal Management Program P.O. Box 30458 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-1950 517/335-3451 Al Dextrase Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Box 7000 Peterborough, ONT K9J 8M5 705/740-1532 705/740-1536 Barbara Doll Coastal Water Quality Specialist N.C. Sea Grant College Program Box 8208 N.C. State University Raleigh, NC 27695 919-515-5287 Michael Donahue, Executive Director Great Lakes Commission Argus II Building 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 313-665-9135 313-665-4370 Jim Falk, Marine Advisory Specialist Delaware Sea Grant 700 Pilottown Road Lewes, DE 19958 0302/645-4235 302/645-4007 Mary Frazer, Federal Consistency Coordinator Wisconsin Coastal Mgmt. Program P.O. Box 7868 Madison, WI 53707-7868 608/266-8269 608/267-6931 David Garton, Associate Professor I.U.-Kokomo Dept. of Biological and Physical Science 2300 S. Washington St. Kokomo, IN 46904 317/455-9244 317/455-9528 Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Project Manager Great Lakes Commission Argus II Building 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 313-665-9135 313-665-4370 Cynthia Hagley, Environmental Quality Educator Minnesota Sea Grant Extension 2305 E. 5th St. Duluth, MN 55812 218/726-8713 218/726-6556 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 I I Nils Halker, Programs Biologist Gray Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55331 612-471-9773 612-471-7685 Rick Harkins, Vice President--Operations Lake Carriers Association 915 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Ave. West Cleveland, OH 44113 216/861-0591 216/241-8262 Maran Hilgendorf, Communications Specialist Ohio Sea Grant The Ohio State University 1541 Research Center 1314 Kinnear Road Columbus, OH 43212-1194 614/292-8949 614/292-4364 Rodney W. Homer, Fish Pathologist Illinois Department of Conservation 29557-E. CR2400N Manito, IL 61541 309/968-7531 309/968-6017 Leroy Hushak, Professor The Ohio State University (also affiliated with Ohio Sea Grant) 2120 Fyffe Road Columbus, OH 43210-1066 614/292-3548 614/292-7710 Gary Isbell Ohio DNR 1840 Belcher Fountain Square Building Columbus, OH 43224 614/265-6300 614/262-1143 Doug Jensen Exotic Species Information Center Coordinator Minnesota Sea Grant 2305 East Fifth Street Duluth, MiFmnnesota 55812-1445 218-726-8712 218-726-6556 [email protected] David J. Jude, Research Scientist Center for Great Lakes & Aquatic Sciences University of Michigan 2200 Bonisteel Blvd Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099 313/763-3183 313/747-2748 Christine L. Kasselmann, Assistant Admninistrator Office of Real Estate & Land Mgmt. Ohio DNR/Coastal Management Program Fountain Square, C-4 Columbus, OH 43224 614/265-6391 614/267-2981 Sandra M. Keppner, Exotic Species Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office 405 North French Road Amherst, NY 14228 716/691-5456 716/691-6154 3 I I I I I I I Ron Kinnunen, Dist. Ext. Sea Grant Agent Michigan Sea Grant College Program Michigan State University Extension 1030 Wright Street Marquette, MI 49855 906/228-4830 906/228-4572 Mike Klepinger, Extension Associate Michigan Sea Grant College Program Michigan State University 334 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 517/353-5508 517/353-6496 Karen Lagerberg MSU Sea Grant 333 Clinton Street Grand Haven, MI 49417 Randy Lang, Fisheries Program Specialist Fisheries Program IGCS - Rm 273W 402 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/233-0936 317/232-8150 Paul Marangelo, Research Associate/Graduate Student Mystic Seaport Museum/U of M 1859 ShirleyLane C5 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 313/663-5827 Ron Martin Wisconsin DNR 101 South Webster St., GEF 2 P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53555 608/266-9270 608/267-2800 Jack McGriffin, Jr. Indaina Coastal Zone Management Program Division of Water 402 W.Washington St., Room 264 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2212 G. Tracy Mehan, Director Office of the Great Lakes Michigan DNR P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 517/3354056 517/335-4242 Brian Miller, Coordinator-MAS Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant Program-Purdue Department of Forestry and Natural Resources 1159 Forestry Building Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 317/494-3583 317/496-2422 Kristin Pirkola, Research Assistant University of Michigan/Mystic Seaport Museum 1550 Washenaw Ann Arbor, MI 48104 313/741-0934 Commander Eric Reeves, Chief Marine & Env. Safety Branch Nimth Coast Guard District 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 216/522-3994 216-522-3261 I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I Jay Rendall, Program Coordinator-Exotic Species Minnesota DNR-Fish & Wildlife Division 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 551554012 612/297-1464 612/297-7272 Steve Resler, Coastal Resources Specialist, Supervisor of Consistency Review New York State Coastal Management Program-Department of State 162 Washington Street Albany,NY 12231-0001 518/474-6000 518/473-2464 Lori Reynolds, Project Manager Great Lakes Commission Argus II Building 400 Fourth Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 313-665-9135 313-6654370 Chris Shafer, Chief Great Lakes Shorelands Section Michigan DNR P.O. Box 30458 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-1950 517/335-3451 Don Schloesser, Fishery Biologist National Biological Survey-Great Lakes 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 313/994-3331 313/994-8780 John Schwartz Michigan Sea Grant College Program Insitute of Water Research 334 Natural Resources Bldg. Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 517/355-9637 517/353-6496 Amy J. Shelton, Lake Michigan Lakewide Management. Plan Coordinator Surface Water Quality Division Michigan DNR P.O. Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909 517/335-1211 517/373-9958 Rick Shertzer, Chief Quality Assessment Unit Bureau of Water Quality Management Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Market Street State Office Building P.O. Box 8465 Harrisburg, PA 17105 717/783-3638 717/772-5156 Tim Sinnott, Biologist New York Departmnent of Environmental Conservation Room 530 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 122334756 518/457-0758 518/485-8424 5 I I Nancy Taaffee, Graduate Student Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 511 W. Nevada St. Urbana, IL 61801 217/337-0392 Dan Terlizzi, Sea Grant Water Quality Specialist c/o NOAA Chesapeake Bay Off. 410 Severn Ave., Suite 107A Annapolis, MD 21403 410/267-5660 410/267-5666 Dan Thomas, President Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council P.O. Box 297 Elmhurst, IL 60126 708/941-1351 708/941-1196 Howard Wandall, Chief Michigan DNR Inland Lakes & Streams Unit P.O. Box 30458 Lansing, MI 48909 517/373-8000 517/335-4381 Dwight Williamson Water Quality Management Section Department of the Environment Building 2, 139 Tuxedo Avenue Winnipeg, MB R3N OH6 CANADA Bernie Ylkanen, Regional Fisheries Biologist Michigan DNR 1990 US-41 South Marquette, MI 49855 906/228-6561 906/228-5245 I I I I I I I I William Jay Troxel, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wfildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Room 840 Arlington, VA 22203 703/358-1718 703/358-2210 Hank Vanderploeg, Research Ecologist Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab/NOAA 2205 Commonwealth Ann Arbor, ISM 48105 313/741-2284 313/741-2055 I I I I I I I 6 I I APPENDIX F Workshop Agenda Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin WORKSHOP Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin May 2: 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and May 3:8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. FINAL AGENDA Tuesday May 2 1:00 p.m. Welcome and Introduction Project Goals and Objectives Overview of Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs in the Great Lakes Region Panel I: Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Issues and Impacts The Status of Ballast Water Invasions and Management in the Great Lakes Regulatory Control of Nonindigenous Species in Ballast Water on Vessels Entering the Great Lakes Zebra Mussel Invasion of Inland Waters of Michigan The Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels on Public Facilities Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Program Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Jay Rendall, Minnesota DNR and Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Management Program Moderator: Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission Dr. James Carlton, Director of Maritime Studies and Professor of Marine Sciences, Williams College Lieutenant Katherine Weathers, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Chief of the Marine Port and Env. Safety Branch Paul Marangelo, Research Associate, Mystic Seaport Museum Dr. Leroy Hushak, Research Investigator, Ohio Sea Grant 1:10 p.m. 1:15 p.m. 1:35 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Break 3:15 p.m. Panel II: Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Initiatives and Needs Moderator: Michael Donahue Federal Activities on Aquatic Nuisance Species New York State: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Comprehensive Management Plan The Status of the Ruffe Control Plan Chesapeake Bay Commission/Exotic Species Workgroup Jay Troxel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / AHlegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute Tim Sinnott, New York Department of Environmental Conservation Tom Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Terlizzi, Maryland Sea Grant I I I 4:15 p.m. Panel II1: Coastal Management Programs andANS issues Moderator: Chris Shafer I Michigan Ohio New York Catherine Cumingham, Michigan Coastal Management Program Christine Kasselman, Ohio Coastal Management Program Steve Resler, New York Coastal Management Program I I I 5:00 p.m. Adjourn 5:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m. Reception I Wednesdav. Mav 3 I 8:30 a.m. Panel IV: A Model To Guide the Development of State Management Plans Discussion on Goals of Model State Management Plan New York Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Kathe Glassner-Shwayder Jay Rendall Tim Sinnott, New York Department of Environmental Conservation Mark Coscarelli, Michigan DNR Jay Rendall, Minnesota DNR Ron Martin, Wisconsin DNR I I I I I 10:15 a.n. Break Workgroup Sessions with the following objectives: 10:30 a.m. I 1) critique and expand the model of the state management plans; 2) identify tools (i.e. regulations and statutes) from coastal management plans to implement the state management plans; 3) identify enforceable policy and statutes that coastal management plans can use to control aquatic nuisance species. Lunch (on your own) I I I I I 12 Noon 2 1:00 p.m. Workgroup Sessions (continued) 3:15 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 4:15 p.m. Break Report on Workgroup Findings Workshop Summary/Where Do We Go From Here? Adjourn Facilitated by: Kathe Glassner-Shwayder Michael Donahue 5:00 p.m. 3 APPENDIX G New York State's Coastal Management Program Summary NYS COASTAl, MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Overview of the NYS CMI[ The New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP), administered by the Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, is established pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) and the State Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981 (Article 42 of the Executive Law). These acts call for the coordinated, comprehensive, and full exercise of governmental authority over land and water uses in the coastal zone for the purpose of preserving and using coastal resources in a manner that balances natural resource protection and the need to accommodate economic development. To accomplish this the acts provide, in part, that all State and federal actions in the coastal zone shall comply with a single set of decision-making criteria, or policies. The principal function of the CUIT is to provide a framework for government decision making in the coastal area. As defined in the CZMA, a State Coastal Management Program includes policies to guide public and private decisions in the coastal area (CZMA section 304.(12)). It is a requirement of the CZMA that a CMIP include enforceable policies to guide these decisions (the term "enforceable policy", as defined in Section 304.(6a) of the CZMA, means State policies which are legally binding through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or administrative decisions, by which a State exerts control over private and public land and water uses and natural resources in the coastal zone). The CMP contains forty-four policies with which federal and state agencies must adhere and which serve as a reference for local government actions in the coastal area (CMI? 1-3). These policies are set forth in the State of New York Coastal Management Proam and Final Environmental ImDact Statement. In general, they either: 1) promote the beneficial use of coastal resources, by encouraging water-dependent use, expansion of ports and harbors, revitalization of waterfronts, and expansion of access and recreation opportunities; 2) prevent the imnairment of certain coastal resources, including fish and wildlife habitats, dunes, beaches, islands and other natural protective features, wetlands, scenic areas, historic resources, and agricultural lands; or 3) provide for the manaaement of activities which may imnact coastal resources, including dredging, ice management, energy facility development, waste disposal, construction of erosion structures, and mineral resource exploration. The coastal policy statements, their attendant explanations and guidelines, and existing federal and State environmental and resource management laws provide the objectives and -standards for the program. It is important to note that the consistency provisions of the CZMA and Article 42 of the Executive Law are regulatory provisions that apply to government decision-making. The coastal policies and these consistency provisions require that government agencies adhere to these standards when considering their direct, funding, or approval actions. Implementation of the CMP is effectuated through three program components -- Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (municipal coastal programs that refine the CMU to suit local circumstances and needs), review of federal and State government actions for consistency with I -F---- the policies, and the advocacy of projects and activities which implement specific coastalI policies. Authorization (core statutes) suuDnortinLy the -DroLyramI In 1981, the State Legislature enacted the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article 42 of the Executive Law) to implement the CZMA at the stae level (Executive Law Article 42, added by Chapters 840 and 841 Laws of 1981). The Act functions to coordinate policy and planning for the wise use and protection of the State's coastal resources (Executive Law 910). In that statute, the State Legislature recognized that the state's coastal areas were increasingly subject to the pressures of population growth and economic development, including the demands of industry, commerce, residential developmnent, recreation and energy production.I These competing demands have resulted in the loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas, shoreline erosion, permanent adverse changes to ecological systems and a loss of economic opportunities (Executive Law 910). Article 42 seeks to insureI "the proper balance between natural resources and the need to accommodate the needs of population growth and development" (Executive Law 910). The Act and its implenienting regulations contain many of the State's coastal policies. New York's policies are enforceableI through the Waterfront Act (Executive Law Article 42) and other existing state laws pertaining to environmental protection, development and energy facilities (see authorities listed in CiVI section II, following each policy explanation;. CM?, Volume 11). The Coastal Area policiesI applicable to State agencies are codified in Section 912 of Article 42 of the Executive Law and its implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. The CNMP policies are grouped into ten categories that address: 1) Development; 2) Fish and Wildlife; 3) Flooding and Erosion; 4) Pablic Access; 5) Recreation; 6) Historic Resources; 7) Visual Quality; 8) Agricultural Lands; 9) Energy and Ice Management; and 10) Water and Air Resources. They were developed after an exhiaustive analysis of the full range of federa and state regulatory and decision-making standards contained in statutes, rules, regulations, and case law that affect the coastal area. These policies are explicit statements of existing state policy in the coastal area of the state, and were developed to provide clear and explicit statements of federal and state policy in the coastal area that are to be used in government decision-maldng.3 Examoles of enforceable -Dolicies and statutes that the state CiVI can use to control auuatic nuisance snecies5 Two examples of existing State Coastal Policies that could be used to control ANS are Policies 7 and 44 of the CMI'.I In order to implement Policy 7 of the CMIP, the Department of State has designated significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats throughout the State's coastal area pursuant to Article 42 of the3 Executive Law and its implenienting regulatioiis. Summary habitat narratives that include a generic description of activities that could affect the biological, physical or chemical parameters of these designated habitats were prepared prior to the designation of the habitats. 23 Policy 7 states: Signifi'cant coastal fish and wildlife habitats wrn be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats. The Policy explanation of policy states, in part: "Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring the survival of fish and wildlife populations. Certain habitats are particularly critical to the maintenance of a given population, and, therefore, merit special protection... .In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions destroy or significantly impair the viability of an area as a habitat. When the action significantly reduces a vital resource (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or changes environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism, then the action would be considered to "significantly impair" the habitat. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat may include: reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease or mortality... .When a proposed action is likely to alter any of the biological, physical or chemical parameters as described in the narrative beyond the tolerance range of the organisms occupying the habitat, the viability of that habitat has been significantly impaired or destroyed. Such action, therefore, would be inconsistent with the above policy. " Policy 44 states: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The explanation of policy 44 includes a description of the benefits provided by wetlands, and why these areas are to be preserved and protected. These policies, and their attendant explanations of policy which contain decision-maldng policy standards and guidelines, are derived in part from Articles 15 (Protection of Waters), 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) and 25 (Tidal Wetlads) of the Environmental Conservation Law and their implementing regulations, and from Article 42 of the Executive Law and its imnplementing regulations. Elements of the C1W1 that can facilitate imulementation of the ANS state manaffement vlans The State is currently completing its first regional coastal management program for the Long Island Sound region. The policies of this draft Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program (LISCMIP) have been amended to reflect the unique circumstances and needs of the Long Island Sound region, as well new State and federal legislation affecting the region. A new policy for this regional program, incorporating the "old" policy as well the intent of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act and complementary State legislation, has been included in the new LUSCMP policies. Regional programs may also be developed for the Hudson River, the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence River regions. The State ANS plan, and refinements and implementation of components of the ANS plan, could be integrated in the 3 I I policies of these regional elements of the State CNM. The decision-making standards in the policies, and federal and State consistency provisions of the CZMvA and Article 42 of the State Executive Law, prohibit federal and State authorization, funding, or direct actions that would result in activities that would adversely affect the biological, chemical, or physical tolerance range of species within, or which rely upon, components of designated habitats. The incorporation of specific standards to prevent, control, or manage ANS that are not already in the policies would prohibit certain State or federally funded, authorized, or direct actions from being undertaken in the coastal area, or, for federal actions, outside of the coastal area if the actions might affect the coastal area. I I I Projects funded bv CRMP eated to ANS issues I None to date, although funding or other activities in order to implement ANS plans or other activities is possible. I =Vr.c:ns.sum I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 4 I APPENDIX H Workgroup Assignments for the Workshop Aquatic Nuisance Species and Coastal Management Programs: Toward a Regional Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIESAND COASTAL MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS: TOWARDSA REGIONAL STRATEGYIN THE GREATLAKES BASIN Workgroup Assignments Orange Group (Salon D) Blue Group (Library) Facilitator: Michael J. Donahue, Great Lakes Commission Mary Frazer, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Charles Boydstun, National Biological Service Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute Mark Coscarelli, Michigan DNR Ann Conrad, Freshwater Foundation Gary Isbell, Ohio DNR Dave Jude, Center for Great Lakes & Aquatic Sciences Brian Miller, Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant Karen Pirkola, University of Michigan/Mystic Seaport Museum Dan Thomas, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council Cynthia Hagley, Minnesota Sea Grant Nancy Taaffee, University of llinois Red Group (Suite 364) Facilitator: Chris Shafer, Michigan Coastal Management Program; and Lori Reynolds, Great Lakes Commission Christine Kasselman, Ohio Coastal Management Program K. Douglas Blodgett, Illinois Natural History Survey Nils Halker, Freshwater Foundation David Garton, Indiana University Karen Lagerberg, Saginaw Bay Watershed Ron Martin, Wisconsin DNR Lieutenant Katherine Weathers, U.S. Coast Guard Leroy Hushak, Ohio Sea Grant Howard Wandall, Michigan DNR Tim Sinnott, New York DEC Jay Troxel, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servic Facilitator: Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission Ellen Brody, NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Mary Bielen, Ohio Sea Grant Jeffrey Busch, Lake Erie Office Mike Klepinger, Michigan Sea Grant Sandra Kempner, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Randy Lang, Indiana DNR Paul Marangelo, University of Michigan/Mystic Seaport Museum Tracy Mehan, Michigan DNR Commander Eric Reeves, U.S. Coast Guard John Schwartz, Michigan Sea Grant Dan Terlizzi, Sea Grant Water Quality Specialist Hank Vanderploeg, Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab Yellow Group (Salon E) Facilitator: Jay Rendall, Minnesota DNR Catherine Cunningham, Michigan Coastal Management Tom Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jim Falk Delaware Sea Grant Rich Harkins, Lake Carriers Association Maran Hilgendorf, Ohio Sea Grant Rodney Homer, Illinois Department of Conservation Ron Kinnunen, Michigan Sea Grant Amy Shelton, Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan Lori Reynolds, Great Lakes Commission Don Schloesser, National Biological Service Rick Shertzer, Pennsylvania DER Bernie Ylkanen, Michigan DNR