[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 ï¿½ Fax: (313) 665-4370

s 3ï¿½ -

















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

ï¿½                  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.

ï¿½ 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
ï¿½ 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. ï¿½
"(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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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