Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
1996 Annual Report

Program Year 1996
Sept. 1, 1995 - August 31, 1996

Presented to:
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

Prepared by:
Great Lakes Commission
Eisenhower Corporate Park
2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791
Phone: 734-971-9135
Fax: 734-971-9150

Prepared August 1997

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Background on Nonindigenious Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Great Lakes
• Great Lakes Panel Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Reponsibilities, Work Program and 1996 Accomplishments
• Policy Positions of the Great Lakes Panel
• Great Lakes Panel Initiatives for the Year 1997
• Program Updates of Great Lakes Panel Membership

The national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, established under Section 1201 of the 1990 legislation, requested that the Great Lakes Commission convene the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species as per Section 1203 of the Act. Officially convened in late 1991, the Panel's primary responsibilities for the Great Lakes region are six-fold:

• to identify priorities for the Great Lakes with respect to aquatic nuisance species (ANS);
• to make recommendations to the national Task Force regarding programs to carry out the zebra mussel demonstration program;
• to assist the Task Force in coordinating federal ANS program activities in the Great Lakes;
• to coordinate non-federal programs within the region;
• to provide advice to the public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of controlling aquatic nuisance species;
• and to annually submit a report to the Task Force describing activities within the Great Lakes related to ANS prevention, research, and control.

Over the 1996 program year (Sept. 1, 1995 through Aug. 31, 1996), the Panel focused its efforts in three areas: information/education, research coordination, and policy and legislation.

Three implementation committees developed and implemented work plans within these areas. Highlights for Program Year 1996 include the following activities:

• strengthening and promoting reauthorization of P.L. 101-646;
• preparation and distribution of four editions of the Panel’s newsletter insert, ANS Update;
• finalizing the research inventory project;
• initiation of an ANS information/education inventory project; publication and distribution of a comprehensive, full-color ANS brochure titled Biological Invasions;
• promoting the development of ANS state management plans and assisting the states in this effort; and
• providing support to the Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, which is testing technologies to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species through ships’ ballast water.

In establishing a Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Congress recognized that providing sound advice to the ANS Task Force from experts in a highly impacted region could make a substantial contribution to the collective management effort at both the regional and national levels. Effective prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes region continue to be the first line of defense in slowing or preventing the spread of aquatic nuisance species to other regions (e.g., the Mississippi River watershed).

This report outlines the achievement of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species over the 1996 program year in meeting its obligations under Section 1203 of the Act. Although $200,000 is authorized for implementation of Section 1203, no funds have been appropriated to date. Modest support for Panel activities has been secured through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Efforts will continue in Program Year 1997 to secure additional resources to fully implement this legislation and pursue associated ANS activities.

The report also provides state/federal legislators and policymakers with key information on ANS issues in the Great Lakes region. The annual report includes a synopsis of the ANS problem in the Great Lakes; an overview of the implementation strategy and policy positions of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species; Program Year 1996 accomplishments; and an overview of Panel initiatives for Program Year 1997. The supporting documentation cited in this report is available from the Great Lakes Commission.

This valuable fishery is threatened by the infestation of harmful nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, which alter the number and distribution of native species, and have broad economic and societal impacts that extend well beyond shoreline residents and recreational users of the resource.

The Laurentian Great Lakes have been subject to the invasion of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species since the settlement of the region by Europeans. Since the 1800s, at least 139 nonindigenous aquatic organisms have become established in the Great Lakes. The bulk of these organisms have been represented by the following:

• 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.

As human activity has increased in the Great Lakes watershed, the rate of introduction of aquatic nuisance species also has 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. The major entry mechanisms, unintentional releases and ships, were responsible for all but one introduction in the period from 1960 to 1990.

Approximately 10 percent of the Great Lakes' nonindigenous species have had significant impacts, both economic and ecological. The impacts of some species, the zebra mussel for example, have been enormous. The presence of the sea lamprey has resulted in substantial economic losses to recreational and commercial fisheries, and requires annual expenditures of millions of dollars to finance control programs. Alewife once littered beaches each spring and altered food webs, thereby increasing water turbidity before salmonids such as chinook salmon (themselves nonindigenous) were stocked as predators and became the foundation of a new recreational fishery. The ruffe, a small percid fish, became the most abundant fish species in Lake Superior's St. Louis River within five years of first detection in 1986. It recently has expanded its range to Lake Huron and poses a significant threat to the lower lake fishery. Five years after first being observed in the St. Clair River, the round goby can now be found in all of the Great Lakes. The goby is considered undesirable because it preys upon bottom-feeding fishes, takes over optimal habitat, spawns multiple times a season and can survive poor water quality conditions.

The spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), a tiny crustacean with a sharply barbed tail spine, was likely introduced through ballast water. The northern European native was first found in Lake Huron in 1984. Although researchers do not know what effect the invader will have on the ecosystem, resource managers suspect that the water flea competes directly for food with small fish such as perch. The spiny water flea is now found throughout the Great Lakes and in some inland lakes.

The zebra mussel, another ballast water introduction, also has caused serious economic and ecosystem impacts with costs estimated at $5 billion over the next 10 years, absent controls. The potential impact on the fishery is profound due to changes in food availability and spawning areas, to name a few. Economic impacts are as pervasive as ecosystem impacts. Municipal treatment and power plants, commercial and recreational vessels, and beach areas are all vulnerable to the negative impacts of the zebra mussel.

Exotic plants also have been introduced to the Great Lakes Basin. Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant from Europe and Asia that was introduced to the east coast of North America in the 1800s. Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. The plants are unsuitable as cover, food or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads and turtles.

Eurasian watermilfoil, accidently introduced to North America from Europe, has spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and waterfowl. In shallow areas, the plant can interfere with water recreation such as boating, fishing and swimming. The plant's floating canopy can also crowd out important native water plants.

The 1993 Office Technology Assessment Report to Congress titled Harmful Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species in the United States concluded that the total number of harmful nonindigenous species and their cumulative impacts are creating a growing economic and environmental burden for the country. The report also concluded that "continued research and development of new ways to manage harmful nonindigenous species remains essential."

With approximately 20 federal agencies working on research, use, prevention, or control of desirable and harmful nonindigenous species, the need for a coordinated effort is essential. The Panel’s regional multi-jurisdictional representation makes it ideally suited to meet this need. The 1994 report to Congress, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review, further confirmed the need for regional interjurisdictional panels in making ecologically credible decisions.

Great Lakes Panel Implementation Strategy

In designing and coordinating Great Lakes Panel activities, the Great Lakes Commission is guided by five objectives:

• Participation by all interests in the binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin will be maximized to ensure that the goals of Section 1203 are fully addressed.
• The Panel will build upon and showcase ongoing efforts, rather than duplicate or replace them.
• The Panel will adopt a consensus-based approach in setting priorities and all related decision making activities.
• The Panel will serve as a coordinator, catalyst and convener, relying upon its membership and other cooperators for the conduct of most program activities (e.g., research, public information, outreach). The Panel will provide binational clearinghouse/referral services.
• The Panel will serve as the principal regional conduit to the national ANS Task Force, federal agencies and Congress with regard to legislative, policy and program matters.

Panel Structure and Procedures

The Great Lakes Panel is responsible for addressing the provisions of Section 1203 and for carrying out all identified elements of a work program. The Panel meets in full session on aregular basis, generally two to three times per year. The chair is selected from among state members; the vice chair from the membership-at-large. Mark Coscarelli, Panel chair (Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) and Jay Rendall, vice chair (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) have served in these positions since April 1996. These two officers have assisted the Great Lakes Commission staff in facilitating meetings and serve, on occasion, as spokespersons for the Panel.

The Panel operates through three implementation committees, which enhances organizational efficiency while focusing the Panel members' energies on the areas most relevant to their interests and expertise. The Information/Education Committee facilitates the coordination of ANS information/education (I/E) activities conducted in the Great Lakes region; builds partnerships between the various stakeholders involved in ANS I/E efforts; and promotes the development and delivery of consistent messages regarding ANS prevention and control. The Research Coordination Committee provides a forum for ongoing dialogue and action among the parties who conduct, manage, sponsor or apply Great Lakes-related ANS research; enhances inter-regional communication and coordination of ANS research; and develops, maintains and disseminates an ANS research inventory database and associated policy recommendations regarding ANS research priorities. The Policy and Legislation Committee coordinates development and dissemination of Panel policy positions on key ANS issues; exchanges information on critical ANS legislative and appropriations issues; promotes development and implementation of state ANS management plans; and coordinates the Panel's involvement in regional legislative and policy-related initiatives addressing ANS prevention and control.

The Panel operates by consensus in all aspects of its work. In the event that recommendations from the Panel reflect a majority view but lack consensus, the Great Lakes Commission (an ex-officio member of the ANS Task Force) will use its discretion in accompanying any such recommendation with a minority opinion.

The breadth of Panel activities will be a function of funding levels and the extent to which members and observers can contribute in-kind services, including staff resources. Limited support for travel and associated meeting expenses for non-federal Panel members may be available at the discretion of the Great Lakes Commission. The Great Lakes Commission will administer all funds received for Great Lakes Panel operation, and expenditures recommended by the Panel will require Commission approval.

In undertaking the work program, the Great Lakes Panel recognizes the special expertise of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its mandate under P.L. 101-646 to provide information on "technical and policy matters related to the international fishery resources of the Great Lakes." Every effort is made to draw upon Fishery Commission expertise.

Staff Support

The Great Lakes Commission provides staff support to the Great Lakes Panel. The level of support is a function of the availability of funds. In Program Year 1996, Panel support was provided by Lori Reynolds (project manager); Kathe Glassner-Shwayder (project manager); Matt Doss (program specialist); Christine Manninen (communications specialist); and Rita Straith (support staff). Under ideal funding circumstances, a full-time ANS coordinator would be hired and dedicated exclusively to Great Lakes Panel support. Dr. Michael J. Donahue, President/CEO of the Great Lakes Commission, provided oversight of all personnel assigned to support Great Lakes Panel activities.

Funding

Section 1301 (b)(6) of P.L. 101-646 authorizes $200,000 in each of five years to fund ANS prevention and control activities of the Great Lakes Panel via the Great Lakes Commission. However, funds were not appropriated in fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993,1994, 1995 or 1996.

Recognizing the immediacy of the ANS infestation problem, the Great Lakes Commission committed itself to the expeditious start-up and operation of the Great Lakes Panel irrespective of funding uncertainties at the time.

While working to secure a full or partial appropriation of authorized federal funds, the Great Lakes Commission continues to seek and access alternate sources to ensure continued Panel activity at a level necessary to accomplish Section 1203 objectives.

Partial funding for the first-year start-up (FY 1992) was secured from NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and through Illinois and Indiana’s funding under NOAA’s Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA). Support for the second year of Panel operation (FY 1993) was supplemented by funding from the U.S. F&WS, in addition to NOAA funds provided through GLERL, IFA and Sea Grant. Support for the third, fourth, and fifth years (FY 1994-96) was provided by funding through the U.S. F&WS and NOAA’s IFA (Indiana only). Additionally in FY 1996, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provided funds to support publication of the Biological Invasions ANS brochure. Support from Panel members and other sources also will be sought until federal funds are appropriated under the terms of P.L. 101-646.

1) Priority Setting

P.L. 101-646 calls for the Panel to "identify priorities for the Great Lakes with respect to aquatic nuisance species." The Panel interprets this broad statement as applying to the areas of research, monitoring, control, information/education and policy. In each of the first four areas, the Panel is responsible for developing, maintaining, distributing and periodically updating a list of priorities for use by policymakers at all levels, as well as the scientific and management communities. The statements of priority provide guidance for program development, budgeting and operational purposes, and will be of use at the regional and national levels, particularly by the national ANS Task Force.

The Panel has used both surveys and workshops to establish such priorities. In the area of research, the Panel has made full use of the research needs identified in a document titled Coordinated Program of Research on Nonindigenous Species in the Great Lakes, prepared in August 1990 by the U.S. Great Lakes Nonindigenous Species Coordinating Committee, which operated on an-ad hoc basis prior to the establishment of the Panel. The document provides a balanced approach to researching the nonindigenous species problem in the following priority areas: biology/life history, ecosystem effects, socio-economic analysis regarding the cost and benefits of nonindigenous species, control and mitigation, prevention of introduction and control of spread.

With respect to policy priorities, the Panel determines policy, program, legislative, regulatory and budgetary needs to ensure that the Great Lakes-related provisions of P.L. 101-646 are pursued to the maximum extent possible. Such priorities are regularly conveyed to the ANS Task Force, as well as agency and elected officials at all levels of government.

A Selected List of Panel Initiatives and Accomplishments in Priority Setting:

• Established Panel program priorities for 1997: The Panel identified the following priorities for Program Year 1997:
  • Enhance inter-regional communication and coordination in areas such as ANS research and information/education outreach;
  • Support passage and implementation of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) and adequate funding for its provisions;
  • Strengthen linkages between researchers and policymakers to improve technology transfer to maximize application of research results;
  • Provide consistent and effective messages on prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species, including model recommendations for specific target audiences (e.g. recreational boaters);
  • Facilitate consistent legislation across the Great Lakes region through the development of model state legislation for ANS prevention and control; and
  • Maintain the visibility of aquatic nuisance species as a critical regional/national issue.
  
  
  
• Provided a forum for regional policy discussion and decision making on ANS issues: The Great Lakes Panel has contributed to the development of a balanced, multi-jurisdictional ANS program that integrates components of prevention, research, monitoring and control efforts. The diverse representation on the Panel, including federal, state, local and tribal jurisdictions; private and commercial sectors; environmental groups; and the university research community, facilitates well-balanced discussions essential to the development and implementation of viable policy decisions.
  
  
• Worked toward comprehensive federal legislation: The Panel closely monitored the activities of Congress relative to the reauthorization of P.L. 101-646. Panel recommendations on draft language were also available to assist the Task Force in preparing/presenting testimony that demonstrates the need for the Act, accomplishments achieved to date and budget needs for the Great Lakes region.
  
  
• Enhanced inter-regional communication and coordination: The Panel worked closely with the International Joint Commission’s (IJC’s) Council of Great Lakes Research Managers to develop a comprehensive database of Great Lakes-related ANS research. The data were analyzed and reviewed at a research symposium in the spring of 1996 which identified gaps and future research needs. A policy position was also prepared based on results of the symposium and was transmitted to the national ANS Task Force in June 1997. Also in Program Year 1996, the Panel initiated an ANS I/E inventory project to list and assess the adequacy of ANS I/E activities and materials in the Great Lakes Basin. This inventory will be analyzed to determine gaps, inconsistencies in prevention and control messages, and future needs. Comprehensive reports, including the Panel’s formal policy positions and descriptive listings, are being prepared for both the research and I/E inventories.

2) Recommendations to the National ANS Task Force on Section 1202 Activities

The 1990 ANS legislation calls upon the Panel to "make recommendations to the Task Force regarding programs to carry out section 1202(I)." The section, Zebra Mussel Demonstration Program, has two elements. The first provides for a "program of prevention, monitoring, control, education and research for the zebra mussel to be implemented in the Great Lakes and any other waters of the United States infested or likely to become infested by the zebra mussel..." Elements include research and development of control options; tracking of established populations and development of an early warning system; developing control plans; and providing technical assistance to state, regional and local entities.

The second element of the demonstration program, Public Facility Research and Development,, calls upon the Assistant Secretary of the Army to devise a research and technology development program that provides for environmentally sound control of zebra mussels in and around public facilities.

The Great Lakes Panel has cooperated with the Great Lakes states, the ANS Task Force and other applicable entities throughout the development and implementation of the Zebra Mussel Demonstration Program. The Great Lakes Commission is an ex-officio member of the Task Force and has been present at all meetings of the national Task Force, in particularthose meetings where zebra mussel prevention, monitoring, control, education and research efforts have been discussed.

3) Federal Great Lakes Activities

The ANS Task Force has oversight and primary coordination responsibilities for federal programs called for in P.L. 101-646. The Act states that the Panel is to "assist the Task Force in coordinating federal ANS program activities in the Great Lakes." The assistance of the Great Lakes Panel is vital since the Panel has a coordination responsibility for all other (i.e., non-federal) programs.

The Great Lakes Panel believes that a single system for tracking activities and related programs at all levels of government is critical to successful ANS research, coordination and control efforts. The Panel, therefore, works with the ANS Task Force to establish a protocol for tracking and coordinating all relevant programs. Furthermore, the Panel offers the ANS Task Force advice and recommendations relative to the coordination of priorities and the relationship of those programs to non-federal efforts, both public and non-governmental.

Selected List of Panel Accomplishments in Coordinating Federal Great Lakes Activities:

• Provided ex-officio representation on the national ANS Task Force: Pursuant to P.L. 101-646, the executive director of the Great Lakes Commission was requested to serve as an ex-officio member of the ANS Task Force, with the chair of the Great Lakes Panel serving as alternate.

  Michael Donahue, ex-officio member, and Panel chair Mark Coscarelli of the MDEQ, attended the national Task Force meeting held on April 25, 1996 in Washington, D.C. While in attendance at this meeting, Donahue presented an overview of the Panel’s 1996 accomplishments, agreed to serve as co-chair of an ad-hoc committee (with Bill Roper of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to develop and implement email and related electronic communications services (e.g., the Internet and the Great Lakes Information Network) for the national Task Force and other ANS interests. Donahue also reviewed the Great Lakes Commission’s efforts to promote reauthorization and adequate funding of P.L. 101-646. Coscarelli presented an update on Michigan’s draft ANS Statewide Management Plan and discussed it in the context of the model state management plan developed by the Great Lakes Panel.

  Donahue and the Panel officers communicate frequently with the Task Force officers and staff regarding opportunities to contribute to and coordinate with Task Force activities and related ANS issues.
  
  

• Responded to the national Task Force on its recommendations for reauthorization of P.L. 101-646: During the fall of 1995, the Panel reviewed and discussed the draft reauthorization language for P.L. 101-646, the Nonindigenous Aquatic NuisancePrevention and Control Act of 1990. The Panel was pleased to see that many of the recommendations from its nine-point policy position (developed in Program Year 1995) were incorporated into the draft reauthorization language and subsequently signed into law as part of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). The Panel used this review opportunity to develop additional recommendations and revisions to the original policy position, which were then forwarded to the Northeast-Midwest Institute to be incorporated into its ANS legislative positions.

  The Panel continued to track the status of P.L. 101-646 reauthorization and expansion throughout the remainder of the program year. NISA was signed into law on October 26, 1996 as P.L. 104-332 (a copy of the legislation is included in Appendix D).

4) Non-Federal Programs in the Great Lakes

The Great Lakes Panel is charged with coordinating, where possible, non-federal program activities associated with ANS prevention and control in the Great Lakes Basin. As indicated in work program priority number 3, the Panel recognizes that a multi-jurisdictional, partnership approach is required to address ANS issues, and a single system for tracking and coordinating activities is advisable.

On the basis of its broad membership and regular meetings, the Panel provides a vehicle for the assembly of research, control and monitoring activities. Current efforts to compile this data (e.g., Sea Grant clearinghouse services) are relied upon to the extent possible. Through its own membership, workshops and other networking techniques (e.g., newsletter inserts, annual reports), the Panel conveys its research, control, monitoring and policy priorities to applicable agencies and interests, and promotes coordination of efforts among them. A Selected List of Panel Accomplishments in Coordinating Non-Federal Activities:

• Prepared Panel newsletter insert: Rather than adding to the already large population of ANS newsletters in circulation throughout the basin, the Panel produces a one-page, double-sided update for insertion into, or selective use by, existing newsletters. The purpose of the newsletter insert is to educate and inform readers of Great Lakes Panel activities, events, publications and important issues relating to the zebra mussel and other aquatic nuisance species.
  
  

  In Program Year 1996, the Panel produced four editions of the newsletter insert, ANS UPDATE . Newsletter feature articles addressed ruffe control efforts, the zebra mussel and how it has cost Great Lakes water users an estimated $120 million over a five-year period; the round goby and its spread into the Great Lakes; and the Ballast Technology Demonstration Project.

  The UPDATE is provided to 20 newsletters with a potential readership ofapproximately 20,000. Among the newsletters that have included the UPDATE are the ANS DIGEST (distribution of 13,000); the Great Lakes Commission’s Advisor (distribution of 3,000); the Great Lakes Basin Report, a publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council (distribution of 1,100), and Perspectives, a publication of the Great Lakes Program of the University of Buffalo and New York Sea Grant (distribution of 2,400).
  
  

• Distribution of results from an economic assessment of Great Lakes zebra mussel infestation: With Panel support, Great Lakes Commission staff joined forces with research staff from Ohio Sea Grant during Program Year 1995 to develop and distribute a survey to evaluate the economic costs of the zebra mussel infestation to facilities that draw water from the Great Lakes, including electric generating plants, municipal water systems, and industrial water users. Ohio Sea Grant received a total of 585 responses, a response rate of over 50 percent.

  The survey responses were compiled and analyzed during Program Year 1996. Data indicated that prevention and control measures cost Great Lakes facilities using surface water during the five-year period 1989-1994 a total of $120.4 million. In addition, the Great Lakes Panel assisted Ohio Sea Grant in publicizing the results of the survey by featuring an article in the Panel’s newsletter insert, ANS UPDATE.
  
  

• Continued development of an ANS Research Inventory: Staff have continued working closely with the International Joint Commission (IJC) to ensure that the Panel’s ANS research inventory effort supports, and eventually becomes integrated into, the IJC’s larger Great Lakes St. Lawrence Research Inventory.

  During the 1996 program year, the Research Coordination Committee discussed the content and layout of the survey form with the co-chairs of the IJC’s Council of Great Lakes Research Managers and finalized the form in November 1995. The survey form was distributed electronically (e.g. online form and via email lists) at two conferences (Sixth Annual International Zebra Mussel and other Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference held in Dearborn, Michigan in March 1996, and at the Goby Conference in Chicago, Illinois in February 1996), and through several extensive mailing lists. A total of 271 research project survey forms were submitted from 18 states and five countries (Canada, United States, England, Netherlands, and Germany). The survey results were then entered into a Microsoft Excel database.

  A preliminary analysis of the inventory was performed by the Great Lakes Commission staff as background material for a research symposium, titled Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Enhancing Prevention and Control, which was held on April 17, 1996 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The purpose of the symposium was to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of ANS prevention and control efforts by identifying research gaps, highlighting key findings, determining research needs, and, in general, promoting technology transfer to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.

  Based on the outcome of the symposium and the results of the research inventory, the Panel adopted a formal policy position consisting of a series of findings and recommendations for strengthening the collective ANS research effort. This policy position was published together with a descriptive listing of the 250 ANS research projects in a report titled Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Research Guidance and Descriptive Inventory.
  
  

• Inventory of ANS Information/Education Materials Relevant to the Great Lakes: A systematic inventory and evaluation of I/E materials was undertaken in 1996 to assess the adequacy of existing I/E products and activities for ANS prevention and control in the Great Lakes Basin.

  An I/E survey form and distribution list were developed by Commission staff and reviewed by the Panel’s I/E Committee. The final form was distributed in March 1996 to more than 100 U.S. and Canadian federal and state/provincial agencies, tribal authorities, environmental organizations, recreational groups, foundations, businesses and industry organizations, universities, Sea Grant programs, and others involved in ANS work. More than 60 responses were received. Support staff collected additional I/E products based on catalogues, lists, and products which they were aware of or had on file.

  From the submitted and collected information, the staff developed a database of ANS I/E materials relevant to the Great Lakes region. The primary assessment and evaluation of the inventory was conducted by Panel members and selected ANS experts at a December 5, 1996 symposium titled Enhancing ANS Prevention and Control Through Effective Information and Education. A formal Panel policy position on ANS I/E efforts was subsequently adopted and published together with a descriptive listing of Great Lakes-related ANS materials in a report titled Aquatic Nuisance Species Information and Education Material Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Recommendations and Descriptive Inventory.
  
  

• Developed the ANS brochure titled Biological Invasions.The Panel’s I/E Committee took the lead in developing a comprehensive, full-color brochure that has been used to inform federal and state legislators and other stakeholders of the problems caused by aquatic nuisance species as well as initiatives that are in place to prevent new introductions, control existing populations and mitigate their impacts. The brochure emphasized the national scope of the ANS problem while highlighting the special role of prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. The brochure was highly popular, with more than 8,000 distributed by Panel members and others working on the ANS issue. The brochure was distributed to every member of Congress during consideration of NISA and played an important role in supporting passage of the legislation. In response to continuing demand, the brochure has been updated and reprinted.
  
  
• Support for Online ANS Information: Panel members identified the expansion ofANS information available online as a priority for Program Year 1996. Commission staff have continued to add Great Lakes Panel and related ANS information to the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), a partnership of state, provincial, federal and regional agencies and organizations that provides a single, online source for accessing information related to the binational Great Lakes region. Information available includes the Panel membership list, minutes of meetings, policy positions, the information/education strategy, annual reports and the ANS UPDATE. Commission staff is also working with Panel members to develop a comprehensive and well-organized series of links to ANS information available from other agencies and organizations. Panel-related information can be found online GLIN at the following address: http://www.glc.org/projects/ans/anspanel.html
  
  

  Additionally, an email list has been established for the Great Lakes Panel members to facilitate the conduct of Panel business and to allow the transfer of ANS information among Panel members in a timely and efficient manner. As Panel members take advantage of this tool, information technology transfer among members will be enhanced.
  
  

• Assisted in initiation and development of a national newsletter: With support of the Panel, the U.S. F&WS approved funding for development of a quarterly, national newsletter titled ANS DIGEST. The project is a partnership between the Freshwater Foundation and the Great Lakes Commission in cooperation with the Great Lakes Panel. The Freshwater Foundation is responsible for preparing the quarterly editions of the newsletter with input and direction provided by an editorial board. The Panel vice chair, Jay Rendall and Commission staff Kathe Glassner-Shwayder are members of the editorial board and ensure that Great Lakes regional interests are reflected in the newsletter. The Panel identified a need for a national newsletter devoted to aquatic nuisance species in its Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control adopted in October 1993.
  
  

  The newsletter serves as an excellent vehicle for generating widespread awareness of ANS issues on a national scale by providing resource managers an opportunity to share and exchange ANS information among regions; serving as an early warning signal to those regions that are most likely to become infested; providing a link to experts in the field of prevention, control, and education; and providing a list of new resource materials as they become available.

5) Control Methods

The Panel is directed to "provide advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of controlling aquatic nuisance species." This activity is accomplished primarily by Panel members, particularly via Sea Grant education extension specialists in the Great Lakes states, who have special expertise in this area, and maintain activeinformation and outreach programs.

The Great Lakes Panel serves primarily as a vehicle for coordinating and communicating the efforts of the Sea Grant programs, government agencies and other entities presently or potentially engaged in public advisory programs regarding methods of ANS control. Furthermore, the Great Lakes Panel identifies and prioritizes information/education needs and works with applicable public entities to address them. This type of coordination role eliminates duplication of efforts. In those instances where the Panel itself is determined to be the preferred vehicle for delivering a public information/education service, the design and implementation of such is pursued.

Given its role within the overall ANS control effort, the Panel operates in conjunction with existing agencies and organizations (e.g., Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, office list included in Appendix F) to assume a facilitating function with government agencies, industry, and the public. The Panel makes referrals, provides its own documents (e.g., priority lists, annual and technical reports), and distributes public information materials available from its members.

A Selected List of Panel Accomplishments in Providing Advice on Control Methods:

• Promoted the development and implementation of ANS state management plans: To foster the development and implementation of ANS state management plans, Commission staff made a presentation titled Comprehensive State Management Plans: A framework for ANS Prevention and Control Efforts at the Sixth International Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species conference held March 5, 1996 in Dearborn, Michigan. The presentation was based on the Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (a Great Lakes Panel product developed by Commission staff) as guidance for the Great Lakes states in shaping their management plans.
  
  

  Considerable interest was voiced by conference participants regarding the regional framework established by the model, an approach that is actively being used by the Great Lakes states in the development and implementation of their own ANS management plans. State representatives from outside the Great Lakes region also expressed interest in using the model plan to promote action on the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.

  In addition, comments on Michigan’s state management plan in relation to the model plan were shared by Commission executive director Michael Donahue at the national ANS Task Force meeting held April 25, 1996 in Arlington, Virginia.
  
  

• Provided support to the Ballast Technology Demonstration Project: The Lake Carriers’ Association and the Northeast-Midwest Institute are co-chairs of a project that is testing technologies to prevent the spread of exotic species via ballast water, including technologies recommended for study by the Marine Board of the National ResearchCouncil. The Great Lakes Commission is providing fiscal management and related assistance.

  During 1996 project activities included the design and installation on a ship of a filtration system to test various sized filters. Ultimately, the project will determine the system’s effectiveness in preventing entrance of aquatic organisms into the ballast tanks and evaluate the safety of the filtration system with regard to ship stability. The project schedule calls for equipment installation and testing to be completed prior to the 1997 shipping season. The project is supported through a $1.3 million grant from the Great Lakes Protection Fund.

6) Annual Report on Great Lakes Activities

The Panel is directed to "annually submit a report to the Task Force describing activities within the Great Lakes related to ANS prevention, research and control."

A selected list of reporting and related administrative initiatives and accomplishments is as follows:

• Elected Panel officers:The Panel's Organizational Strategy specifies that the chair be a representative from one of the Great Lakes states, while the vice chair position is open to all members of the Panel (the successful candidate is determined by majority vote of Panel members).
  
  

  Procedures for electing a new chair and vice chair for the Panel were initiated at the May 2, 1995, Panel meeting. A request for nominations was distributed to Panel members in July 1995 and an election ballot was mailed in September. The new Panel officers were announced at the September 1995 Panel meeting and assumed their positions beginning with the April 1996 meeting. Mark Coscarelli, MDEQ, was elected the new chair, and Jay Rendall, MnDNR, was elected the new vice chair.
  
  

• Conducted two Panel meetings
  • The tenth meeting of the Great Lakes Panel was held Sept. 21-22, 1995 in Duluth, MN.
  • The 11th meeting of the Great Lakes Panel was held April 16, 1996, in Ann Arbor, MI, in conjunction with the ANS research symposium held the following day in the same location and titled Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: Enhancing Prevention and Control.
    
    
• Developed a work program to guide future efforts: Each year the Great Lakes Panel develops a detailed work plan, outlining products and deliverables, that addresses the tasks specified in Section 1203 of P.L. 101-646. The program is designed to support the following baseline functions:
  • Conducting Great Lakes Panel meetings;
  • Providing representation at national ANS Task Force meetings;
  • Providing Panel representation at significant research-, control- and prevention-oriented meetings;
  • Providing program support to the Panel;
  • Providing basic information and referral services;
  • Continuing to develop and implement policy statements on major ANS issues;
  • Providing advice to the ANS Task Force pursuant to P.L. 101-646; and
  • Developing and pursuing new Panel initiatives consistent with mandated functions.

  For FY 1997, detailed work plans have also been prepared by each of the three implementation committees (Information/Education, Resource Coordination, Policy and Legislation).
  
  

• Maintained Panel membership: The Great Lakes Commission initiated the formation of the Great Lakes Panel in close consultation with the national ANS Task Force. In convening the Panel, efforts were made to maintain a balance to ensure that the Panel was both broad in representation and manageable in size. Membership includes Great Lakes representation from federal, state, local and regional/binational agencies; tribal authorities; private environmental/ user groups; commercial interests; and the university/research community. The Great Lakes Commission is responsible for extending Panel membership invitations, pending approval of the ANS Task Force co-chairs. In addition to Panel members, Panel observers were identified who have the opportunity to contribute fully in Panel discussion and decision making (e.g., Canadian federal and provincial officials).
  
  

  On September 21, 1995, the Panel welcomed Tom Busiahn, who replaced Hannibal Bolton as representative from the U.S. F&WS; Lt. Commander Rhae Giacoma was officially appointed the alternate member for the U.S. Coast Guard, replacing Lt. Katherine Weathers.
  
  

• Provided general staff support for Great Lakes Panel activities: Substantial time has been invested in routine coordination activities between and among Panel members, and support to the three implementation committees. Articles in the Great Lakes Commission's bimonthly newsletter, the ADVISOR, and special presentations at Commission meetings ensured that key policymakers and opinion leaders in the binational Great Lakes region were well informed on ANS news and research.
  
  
• Secured funding from numerous sources to ensure operation of the Great Lakes Panel: Although P.L. 101-646 authorized $200,000 per year over a five-year period for establishment and operation of the Great Lakes Panel, no appropriations have been made under the Act to date. To ensure basic operation of the Panel from September 1995 to August 1996, the Great Lakes Commission secured funding from two federal and one state source, including NOAA’s IFA (Indiana’s share--$15,400), the U.S. F&WS ($40,000) and MnDNR ($30,000).
  
  

  For Program Year 1997, funding proposals were prepared for and approved by the U.S. F&WS ($40,000) and NOAA (Indiana’s share of IFA funds, $12,747).

  Total funding from these sources has been much less than the annual amount authorized under P.L. 101-646 but has provided baseline support for the Panel and has allowed substantial progress to be made in advancing its objectives under the Act. The Panel will continue its efforts to secure additional support, including appropriation of federal funds authorized in P.L. 101-646 and reauthorized in P.L. 104-332.

POLICY POSITIONS OF THE GREAT LAKES PANEL

Several policy position statements have been prepared by the Panel since its inception and are outlined briefly below. These policy positions have been widely disseminated for information/education purposes to members of Congress, state/federal agency officials, and other policymakers and opinion leaders.

Research and Management Needs and Legislative/Budget Needs

The first two policy position statements were developed by the Panel in 1992 to coordinate and link efforts of the research community with challenges facing policymakers and resource managers. The research and management policy position helps guide strategic decision making in the scientific community by providing guidelines for interactions between researchers and managers, and listing key research needs that exist in the areas of biology and life history of nonindigenous species; ecosystem effects; socio-economic costs and benefits; control and mitigation; prevention of future introductions of nonindigenous species; and reducing the spread of established nonindigenous species.

The budget and legislative policy positions for ANS programs at the binational, national and regional levels target the policy community, thereby providing an important foundation for future development and funding.

Three areas are of particular interest:

1. Budget/Appropriations

   Panel Position: Funding for ANS programs under P.L. 101-646 has been inadequate to address the burgeoning need for prevention, monitoring, research, management and control measures in the Great Lakes Basin and elsewhere. A strong federal lead through the national ANS Task Force, coupled with a federal/state/local partnership, will reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts. Budget and program emphasis is especially needed in the areas of:

   • Research development and implementation of effective measures to prevent theintroduction of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes, especially altenatives or refinements to ballast exchange in order to reduce ballast introductions;
   • Research, development and registration of environmentally sound zebra mussel control measures for raw water users in the Great Lakes Basin (currently, chlorine is the principle control option, yet other options may be equally or more environmentally sound);
   • Research, development and implementation of effective intra-basin and inter-basin containment measures for the zebra mussel and the river ruffe; and
   • Information and outreach activities aimed at industry, recreational boaters and anglers regarding containment and control of aquatic nuisance species infestations.
   
   
2. Program Implementation

   Panel Position: The agencies currently receiving funding through P.L. 101-646 are using those funds in well-targeted and productive ways. The Task Force is urged to address the infestation problem on a basin-wide scale, focusing on inland waters as well as the Great Lakes and their tributaries, as authorized in P.L. 101-646. The Panel emphasizes the importance of international cooperation and coordination in implementation of its responsibilities.
   
   

3. Legislative Needs to Expand or Enhance P.L. 101-646

   Panel Position: There is a need for new legislative language to expand the geographic scope of the U.S. Coast Guard's authority in implementing its ANS prevention efforts to include Great Lakes contiguous waters and other U.S. coastlines.

Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control

• This policy document was completed and approved at the Panel's October 1993 meeting in Duluth, Minn. The purpose of the strategy is to facilitate regional cooperation of outreach programs among participating agencies, institutions and organizations. The strategy, based on the goals of P.L. 101-646, promotes the following primary issues:
• Prevention of the unintentional introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into, within and from Great Lakes waters through implementation of information/education activities;
• Regional coordination of information dissemination regarding ANS programs involving prevention, control, monitoring, research, education, policy and other related activities;
• Active involvement of Great Lakes regional policymakers and user groups in the promotion of aquatic nuisance prevention and control programming; and
• Availability of adequate resources to implement the Great Lakes Panel's Information/Education Strategy for Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control.

FY 1995 Appropriations for P.L. 101-646 Implementation

At the March 1994 Panel meeting, Panel members revisited existing policy positions. Panel members believed that for FY 1995 the program emphasis should remain the same as stated in the 1992 Legislative/ Budget Needs policy position statement presented above. However, in order to meet these and related program priorities, the Panel approved the following position statement on suggested appropriation levels for FY 1995:

1. U.S. F&WS/National Biological Survey - For support of ANS Task Force and implementation of the National ANS program ($7 million).
2. NOAA - For support of ANS Task Force and implementation of the National ANS program ($5 million).
3. NOAA - Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory - For conducting ANS research ($1.125 million).
4. NOAA - National Sea Grant Program - For conducting ANS research, education and outreach programs ($3.375 million, of which $2.5 million is targeted exclusively at the Great Lakes Basin).
5. Great Lakes Commission - For operation of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species ($200,000).
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. F&WS - For implementation of state management plans ($2.5 million, through U.S. F&WS and $5 million, through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
   
   

These recommendations address specific priorities of the Great Lakes Panel; other appropriations opportunities, while not specifically mentioned above, also were supported where consistent with the goals of the Act.

Ruffe Control Plan for Lake Superior

In April 1994, the Panel approved the following position statement: "In order to contain the spread of ruffe in western Lake Superior and protect the valuable international fisheries of the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes Panel supports approval and implementation of the Ruffe Control Program under authority of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The program is an integrated plan that addresses each of the ways that ruffe may spread. Range reduction by chemical treatments, prevention of ballast water transport, and education to prevent movement via anglers and bait dealers are all essential to containing the ruffe and must be supported by vigilant monitoring and surveillance.

If range reduction for the ruffe is to be successful, the Great Lakes Panel emphasizes the need for immediate implementation of the Ruffe Control Program. To this end, it is essential that state/federal resources be allocated to this pressing issue. In addition, the Panel recommends that Wisconsin and Michigan expedite the process by which emergency use permits are issued for the use of TFM or a TFM/Bayluscide combination (non-bioaccumulative fish toxicant) in western Lake Superior. The Panel recognizes the need to monitor and evaluate the performance of TFM or TFM/Bayluscide treatments."

Ballast Water Management Measures

In April 1994, the Panel approved the following position statement: "The Great Lakes Panel endorses the proposed Ballast Water Management Act presently under consideration by Congress. The bill seeks to curb the spread of aquatic nonindigenous species through the discharge of vessel ballast water by directing the Marine Board of the National Research Council to evaluate and identify promising ballast water management technologies and practices. Upon completion of the evaluation, the Administrator of the Maritime Administration is directed to conduct a national demonstration program to test and evaluate the most cost and biologically effective ballast water management technologies and practices identified by the Marine Board. Because discharge of vessel ballast water is a documented source of aquatic nuisance species introduction, this legislation is a critical component of prevention and control efforts. It should be funded at authorized levels ($0.15 million in FY 1995; $1.85 million in FY 1996)."

Timely Reauthorization of P.L. 101-646

In April 1994, the Panel approved the following position statement: "The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, P.L. 101-646 is the first act to address impacts of nonindigenous invaders on aquatic ecosystems. As such, the legislation addresses a previously uncharted area of environmental protection. It also seeks to mitigate the economic impacts of a newly recognized type of environmental disaster: aquatic nuisance species infestation. The act expires in 1995, and the Great Lakes Panel urges Congress to enact reauthorizing language in a timely manner. During this process the Great Lakes Panel will examine the existing language and make recommendations on any necessary refinements or expansions to ensure that regional needs are adequately addressed."

Sea Lamprey Control and Related Great Lakes Fishery Commission Activities

In April 1994, the Panel approved the following position statement: "The Great Lakes Panel recommends enhanced funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in FY 1995 to protect the basin's multi-billion dollar sport and commercial fisheries and to coordinate/conduct fisheries research and management activities. Important program requirements include maintenance of a full sea lamprey control program, re-registration of lampricides as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and research and development of alternative (non-pesticide) control technologies. To meet these requirements, $14,080,500 is needed in FY 1995."

Reauthorization of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L.101-646)

On January 30, 1995, the Great Lakes Panel transmitted the following policy position to the national ANS Task Force. The following comments and recommendations on P.L. 101-646 reauthorization reflect the views of the Panel members who expressed opinions. In instances where consensus was not achieved the majority position prevailed, and the minority view is presented in a footnote. The Panel urged all involved in the reauthorization process to consider these views carefully and reflect them in any reauthorization activity.

1. The Great Lakes Panel believes that unintentional introductions should remain the principal focus of P.L. 101-646 provisions and associated implementation activities. The Panel recognizes the importance of addressing potential risks from intentional introductions but believes that they should be addressed through other legislative/program vehicles (e.g., national initiative to address harmful nonindigenous exotic species). To this end, Panel members believe that the requirements of Sec. 1207, Intentional Introductions Policy Review, have been fulfilled and therefore should be omitted from the Act [Minority view: Of the Panel members that responded, four indicated that section 1207 should be amended to allow the Task Force to respond to new intentional introductions of both nonindigenous aquatic plants and animals.]
   
   
2. Panel members believe that, unless all ports are provided some measure of protection, new nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species will continue to be introduced. The Panel therefore recommends that the U.S. Coast Guard be authorized to implement a prevention-oriented ballast management program on a national scale to provide all ports with some level of protection. The program should address issues of intra-Great Lakes vessel movement as well as overseas vessels entering the system. Federally funded technology research, and demonstration should be pursued to support such a program. Appropriations should be increased accordingly to implement the expanded program.
   
   
3. The Panel recommends that the national Task Force authority be expanded to enhance its capability to ensure a prompt and effective response to emergencies (e.g., ruffe control). P.L. 101-646 provisions should define an emergency, and establish a mechanism whereby the Task Force, after full consultation with all the relevant states and tribes, would make recommendations through its co-chairs to the U.S. F&WS and NOAA on emergency response issues. These agencies should respond to the request in a timely and substantive manner and direct the necessary program and financial resources, as available, to the emergency. The establishment of a permanent fund to support emergency responses is one recommended option.
   
   
4. The Panel recognizes that the ANS issue is national in scope and a multi-regional approach of prevention and control is essential if the goals of the Act are to be achieved. The Great Lakes Panel therefore supports the establishment of such panels in other regions, at theinitiative of the relevant states, where conditions warrant. Amending language to this effect, however, is supported only if: 1) authorizing language for Panel funding support is increased substantially and in no way compromises that presently provided for in the Great Lakes region; and 2) the Act maintains a strong focus on Great Lakes issues, given that ANS problems in this region were the impetus for the Act, and effective prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes region continues to be the first line of defense in slowing or preventing the spread of aquatic nuisance species to other regions (e.g., Mississippi River watershed).
   
   
5. The Panel recommends that authorized funding levels in the existing legislative language be maintained. Should the opportunity arise for funding to be enhanced, the Panel recommends that:
   • The U.S. Coast Guard receive increased funding to support the recommended national prevention-oriented ballast management program.
   • All eligible states receive adequate federal base funding to assist in the development, as well as implementation, of state management plans called for in section 1204.
   • Resources be allocated for emergency response purposes.
   • Resources be allocated to support panels in other regions of the country.
   • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) funding be increased to continue ecosystem level studies of the zebra mussel and other species, including the quagga mussel and Bythotrephes.
   • Both reauthorization and appropriations language should ensure that research activities of NOAA’s Sea Grant College Program and GLERL be directed to aquatic nuisance species in general as opposed to being limited to the zebra mussel alone.
6. The Panel recommends that the role of tribal governments in P.L. 101-646 be strengthened by amending language to include more references to tribes to recognize their interest, role and responsibility relative to ANS issues [Minority view: Of the Panel members that responded, one indicated that there is presently adequate language in P.L. 101-646 for tribal presence and involvement.] The Panel recommends that it be consulted on the drafting of the amended language, as members’ views vary on the degree of tribal involvement.
   
   
7. The Panel believes that its mandate is appropriate as outlined in Section 1203. The Panel recognizes that the ANS issue is a national one and, through its existing mandate, will enhance its involvement in inter-regional communication and coordination activities.
   
   
8. The Panel recommends that section 1204 (State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans), and Section 1301 (Authorizations) be amended to provide for some form of federal base funding to assist in the preparation, as well as the implementation of state management plans. This would be a cost-effective way to build partnerships with the states andstrengthen the states’ role in ANS management.
   
   
9. the Panel recommends that any reauthorization activity and amended language be pursued in a manner that acknowledges and complements other legislation and programs addressing some aspect of the ANS issue (e.g., sea lamprey control under the Convention of the Great Lakes Fisheries [Minority view: Of the Panel members that responded, three indicated that reference to sea lamprey should be exempted from the Act since it is addressed through other means (e.g., 1955 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries).] prevention of intentional introductions under the Lacey Act; the Aquatic Plant Control Program under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
   
   
10. The Panel notes that progress under P.L. 101-646, while notable in many areas, has been compromised by the fact that only a small fraction of authorized funds have been directed at implementing provisions of the Act. While the above recommendations should be pursued in the interest of fine-tuning the legislation during reauthorization, an equal emphasis should be placed on the full appropriation and use of funds authorized in the original legislation.
    
    

GREAT LAKES PANEL INITIATIVES FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1997

The Great Lakes Panel will continue to perform the functions outlined in P.L. 101-646, with particular emphasis on development and implementation of Panel policy positions, supporting the implementation and funding of the new National Invasive Species Act, enhancing inter-regional communication and coordination, and providing support for the Great Lakes states in developing and implementing ANS state management plans and other ANS activities.

Development and implementation of Panel policy positions: During the upcoming fiscal year, the Panel will continue to implement its policy positions addressing research/management and legislative/budget needs and priorities. The Panel also will develop policy statements regarding ANS research and information/education efforts. The new policy positions will be components of larger initiatives in these two areas that are expected to require substantial investment of staff time.

Supporting the implementation of and funding for the new National Invasive Species Act: The Panel will assist the Task Force and other interested parties in assembling data and information documenting the need for adequate funding and programmatic support for the Act, accomplishments to date, and budget needs for the Great Lakes region.

Enhancing inter-regional communication and coordination: The Panel recognizes the national scope of the ANS issue and, through its existing mandate, will maintain and enhance its involvement in inter-regional communication and coordination activities. Activities in this area will include communicating with other regions that have, or plan to establish, similarpanels/committees to address the ANS issue; disseminating research and management information; establishing linkages with other federal and state programs to strengthen prevention and control efforts; and giving presentations on Great Lakes experiences.

Reprinting and distributing the ANS Brochure: The Biological Invasions brochure has been a highly successful information outreach tool for a wide variety of target audiences. The initial printing of 8,000 is largely exhausted and requests for individual and bulk quantities of the brochure continue to be received. Options will be explored to reprint the brochure, including appropriate revisions to reflect developments since its first printing (e.g. passage of NISA). The Panel’s I/E Committee will coordinate distribution of the brochure, both to individual elected officials and bulk quantities to support groups and other stakeholders actively involved in ANS educational outreach and policy making.

Development of model state legislation for ANS prevention and control: At the Panel’s request, the Great Lakes Commission is seeking grant support for a new initiative to develop model state legislation for ANS prevention and control. The project will identify inconsistencies, gaps, and unmet needs in state ANS legislation; develop model state legislation that incorporates all elements necessary for a robust ANS prevention and control regime; and broadly disseminate this information and promote its incorporation into state law in the Great Lakes Basin and beyond. To help achieve the final goal, the Council of State Governments has expressed interest in including model state ANS legislation in its annual book of model state legislation distributed to state legislators throughout the United States. The project will promote consistency in legislative approaches to ANS issues among the states and provide recommendations for better integrating ANS efforts with coastal management and related laws and programs.

Support for Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species: A portion of available funds will be directed at providing staff support to Panel activities. This will include allocation of time for the executive director, project managers, communications specialist, administrative assistant, and a research associate. Services will include coordination among, and responsiveness to, Panel members; planning and coordination of Panel meetings and related forums; preparation and dissemination of Panel products (policy positions, reports, etc.); advisory services to the national ANS Task Force; response to informational requests; and conduct of related activities consistent with provisions in P.L. 101-646.

PROGRAM UPDATES OF GREAT LAKES PANEL MEMBERSHIP

The following information, submitted by Great Lakes Panel members, provides an overview of ANS research, control and information dissemination efforts undertaken in the Great Lakes Basin during Program Year 1996 (September 1995 through August 1996).

U.S. and Canadian Federal Agencies

Canada Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans - Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) research program on aquatic nuisance species is conducted primarily by the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in Burlington and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Research addresses distribution, abundance, population dynamics, ecological impacts and potential management options. Species of research interest include the zooplankter (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena sp.), and the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Projects are integrated into long-term biological monitoring programs on the Great Lakes that provide background data needed to evaluate the ecological impact of invading species.

The Lake Ontario/Lake Erie trophic project measures spatial and temporal trends in the physical, chemical and lower trophic biological communities to determine whole-lake response to perturbations, including the invasion of exotics species. Changes in energy flow were being monitored in the Bay of Quinte to assess the impact of the invasion of zebra mussels, in addition to other factors such as phosphorus control. Another project is investigating the effect of zebra and quagga mussels on benthic production and community composition in Lake Erie. One component of a lake trout restoration project is to determine the effects of nonindigenous forage species on trout reproduction. Work with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources examined the changing diet of Lake Erie smelt before and after the influence of phosphorus controls and the zebra mussel invasion. All of these projects were active in 1995 and are currently ongoing. Many are being conducted in collaboration with other Canadian and U.S. agencies.

The long-term goal of a research project on sea lamprey is to develop alternate, non-chemical strategies for sea lamprey control and to reduce or replace the need for TFM use in the Great Lakes. Work with sterile males, including monitoring upstream migration and habitat selection, and the effects of low-head barrier dams on riverine teleosts, was ongoing in 1996. The work is being done in collaboration with DFO’s Sea Lamprey Control Centre and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

DFO staff members also serve in various advisory capacities on nonindigenous species issues. A regional Exotics Species Committee is a multi-agency group with a Great Lakes focus that is being expanded to include membership from Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The goal of this committee is to provide multi-agency scientific advice on exotic species issues and communication links with other regions and agencies. A Non-Native Species Risk Assessment Committee, with membership from DFO and the provincial governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, provides advice on the introduction of fish for aquaculture purposes and other applications such as aquatic vegetation control. DFO has a member on the Ruffe Control Committee and, together with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, actively supported components of the Ruffe Control Plan (e.g. voluntary ballast water exchange program for Lake Superior and surveillance). DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard supported the Canadian voluntary guidelines and U.S. regulations, which control the exchange of ballast water from marine vessels that enter the St. Lawrence Seaway. DFO also participated in the joint U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Conference, where ballast water regulations and the controlof nonindigenous species were discussed.

NOAA - Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Much of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory's (GLERL) efforts focused on the continuing evaluation of effects of zebra mussels on the Saginaw Bay ecosystem during 1990-1996 as well as comparative work on Lake Erie. In recent years, the focus of the program has been to evaluate the possible role of zebra mussels in promoting nuisance blooms of Microcystis, a potentially toxic, blue-green alga, that have occurred on the bay every summer since 1994. Experiments suggest that selective filtering and nutrient excretion by the mussels may promote and maintain Microcystis blooms in Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. Limited experimental work on Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie will continue during the late summer of 1997 to get further insight into bloom dynamics. Results of the work on Saginaw Bay will be synthesized to describe the major ecosystem changes there as well as the mechanisms for this change. Proposed experimental work on evaluating the combined effects of mussels and event-related nutrient inputs on Microcystis blooms will await future funding.

National Park Service - Great Lakes Parks

The National Park Service continued working with the U.S. F&WS regarding development of a test strategy for ruffe control. Lamprey control activities continue to be carried out in the waters of Isle Royale National Park and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. Most of the Park Service’s efforts have been directed at the control and eradication of purple loosestrife at Indiana Dunes, Sleeping Bear and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Parks. Hand removal and application of herbicide have been the primary management tools to date. However, at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, a three-year trial study involving the use of several species of loosestrife-eating beetles continues. This year’s efforts have focused on evaluating the beetles effectiveness as a biological control agent.

The National Park Service, with the cooperation of the U.S. F&WS, the natural resource agencies of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and private companies and public interest organizations, has continued its efforts to delay or avert zebra mussel establishment into the St. Croix River at the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. These efforts include controlling boat access in upper reaches of the drainage and conducting public education and outreach efforts. Additionally, a native mussel relocation study is now in its second year at St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. This relocation effort is being conducted in anticipation of an eventual zebra mussel colonization of the St. Croix drainage’s world class mussel beds. Mussel relocation results should have application in other areas, including the Great Lakes Basin.

NOAA - National Sea Grant College Program

The National Sea Grant College Program’s work on Aquatic Nuisance Species includes high quality research, outreach and public education activities to examine and minimize (through control and prevention strategies) the effects of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species on both infrastructure and the environment. Sea Grant’s work within the Great Lakes region, and nationally, has produced some of the country’s most important results and has significantly reduced the spread and the impact of aquatic nuisance species. In recent years this work has expanded to include efforts on all four coastlines. The result has been the development of aclosely integrated network of academic, federal and private sector researchers working closely with extension and outreach personnel focused on developing methods for dealing with the invasion, communicating those results to the user community and increasing public involvement in the issue.

In addition to its work on zebra mussels, the spiny water flea, ruffe, gobies and sea lampreys, the National Sea Grant College Program, with its 29 state programs working with over 300 of this country’s top academic institutions, is deeply involved with all aspects of the ANS issue and the role of ballast water introductions. Refer to the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network for a review of ANS-related activities being pursued by state Sea Grant programs in the Great Lakes region.

U.S. Coast Guard - Ninth District

The U.S. Coast Guard continues to have satisfactory compliance within the Great Lakes regime. The Ninth District is addressing marginal issues, such as the problem with "outside" NOBOBs (No Ballast On Board), vessels which cross the ocean in a pumped-down state, but then take on water in a coastal port of North America on top of residual ballast before entering the Lakes. Coast Guard policy is to require an open ocean exchange, but the Ninth District is attempting to refine the designation of appropriate exchange sites for both economic and environmental effectiveness. Coast Guard Headquarters is writing guidance for a voluntary nationwide regime under the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The District hopes this may (a) bring broader support for efforts in the Great Lakes, including research; and (b) make more acceptable the possibility of requiring necessary modifications to vessels on a basis which does not discriminate against the seaway.

The Marine Board report Stemming the Tide, commissioned by the Coast Guard and other agencies and issued in 1996, endorses the current focus on filtering as the most favored treatment technology, but acknowledges that this technology is far from ready for installation on ships. It also suggests the need to (a) revisit biocides; and (b) consider long-term changes in the design of ballast tanks.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research program on aquatic nuisance species is conducted and funded through U.S. EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minn. (ERLD). The objectives are not only to develop an integrated, coordinated research program in the Great Lakes, but to look beyond this geographic area to introduced aquatic species throughout the continent, focusing initially on the Mississippi River basin.

The approach has been to consider not only the characteristics of the invading species and their effects on the invaded ecosystem, but also to consider characteristics of ecosystems that might make them more or less susceptible to invasion. Under this framework, ERLD is funding research on several species that have demonstrated the ability to successfully invade lake and river ecosystems, including the zebra mussel, ruffe and rusty crayfish. Research on the role of disturbances in rivers and streams caused by flow extremes is being funded, as well as research on characteristics of the surrounding watershed. Projects also are underway on the accumulation and trophic transfer of organic chemicals by zebra mussels and the effect on nutrient and energydynamics, and the potential influence of zebra mussels on native benthic communities in the upper Mississippi River and its major tributaries.

Projects currently underway will be completed in 1996 and results will be published. Beginning in 1996, university-based research is expected to be funded through grants awarded by a new Center for Extramural Programs in the Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. In-house research will continue on the zebra mussel and the ruffe in the Great Lakes Basin.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This agency did not submit an update for the annual report. For information on their ANS activities, contact:
Panel representative Tom Frietag
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
477 Michigan Ave.
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, MI  48226
313/226-6753

U.S. Department of Agriculture

This agency did not submit an update for the annual report. For information on their ANS activities, contact:
Panel representative William S. Wallace, Director
Policy & Program Development
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 96464
Washington, D.C.  20090-6464
202/720-6907

U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Survey

This agency did not submit an update for the annual report. For information on their ANS activities, contact:
Panel representative Dr. Donald Schloesser, Fisheries Biologist
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
National Biological Survey-Great Lakes
1451 Green Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI  48105
313/994-3331, x-223

U.S. Department of State

This agency did not submit an update for the annual report. For information on their ANS activities, contact Panel representative David Hermann, Office of Marine Conservation, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW, Room 7820, Washington, D.C. 20520-7818, 202-647-3228.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Great Lakes - Big Rivers Region

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Fishery Resources Office (FRO) in Ashland, Wisconsin, chaired the Ruffe Control Committee for the ANS Task Force and represented the Service on the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. In FY 1996, the Ruffe Control Committee met twice, established a working relationship with Michigan bait dealers, and helped to organize a meeting and field trip on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal to plan for a dispersal barrier to prevent ruffe from migrating into the Mississippi River basin. Committee chair Tom Busiahn presented a retrospective case history of ruffe control at the 6th International Conference on Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species.

The Ruffe Control Committee revised the Ruffe Control Program, dropping the range reduction and predator evaluation components and adding the development of a model bait harvest management program and recommendations for promoting resilience of fish communities in the face of ruffe invasion. A "population reduction" component was added, as was an objective toplan for a dispersal barrier on the Chicago waterways.

The Ashland FRO contributed to implementation of the Ruffe Control Program, including population reduction, ballast water management, education and surveillance. The FRO contributed articles on ruffe control to Lake Superior Magazine and the ANS DIGEST, and a paper at the annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Ruffe surveillance activities led by the Ashland FRO detected no new colonies of ruffe in the Great Lakes in 1996, although populations on the periphery of its range appear to have grown. The Service surveyed 24 tributaries and coastal locations on Lake Superior and several in northern Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. Surveillance in the harbor at Alpena, Michigan, on Lake Huron, found reproduction in 1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Northeast Region

The Exotic Species Program (Program), implemented by the Service's Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office (LGLFRO) in Amherst, NY, consists of four components: monitoring, research, education, and coordination and technical assistance.

Monitoring:

The Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Monitoring Program was conducted for the third consecutive year. Bottom trawls were conducted at seven sites on Lake Erie and one on Lake Ontario. Results of 1996 surveys will be published, in cooperation with the Ashland Fishery Resources Office, the Alpena Fishery Resources Office and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, in a Great Lakes-wide report entitled Ruffe Surveillance in the Great Lakes, 1996. Surveillance efforts for 1995 were summarized in a similar report published in March 1996.

An abstract was prepared and approved for presentation at the 7th International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference entitled Surveillance for Ruffe in the Great Lakes - An Overview. The presentation will review ruffe surveillance efforts throughout the Great Lakes as a model management approach to nonindigenous species introductions. All nonindigenous species sightings are reported to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species GIS Program conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD) office in Gainesville, FL. The Round Goby Tracking Program was initiated in response to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force's request for further information regarding this species. The project is being conducted in cooperation with USGS-BRD and the Minnesota Sea Grant College Program.

Zebra mussel monitoring was continued in Lake Champlain by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in cooperation with the Lake Champlain Basin Program. This monitoring effort was initiated in 1994 to track the spread of zebra mussels throughout the lake. Results of 1996 surveys will be available in early spring 1997.

Research:

An investigation analyzing the impacts of changing ecosystem productivity, especially since the introduction of zebra mussels, on young-of-the-year fish growth in western Lake Erie continues. An investigation comparing fish species diversity and abundance in harbors with and without ruffe was also initiated. Both of these projects were presented at the 6th International ZebraMussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference in 1996. A workshop was sponsored by New York Sea Grant examining the biology, ecology and potential impacts of zebra mussels in large river systems such as the Hudson and Ohio rivers.

Education:

Throughout the year, information is provided to the public through news releases, radio and newspaper interviews; mailings and presentations to sportfishing groups; and presentations and display booths at sportfishing and outdoor shows and museums. Presentations to youth groups and work with students and teachers at various educational levels has increased the amount of information reaching young people.

Particular emphasis was placed on distribution of the ruffe and round goby identification cards, Ruffe WATCH and Round Goby WATCH, as well as the brochure, Biological Invasions, produced by the Great Lakes Commission. In the Lake Champlain and Chesapeake Bay basins, posters and signs continue to play an important role in educating the public to report potential sightings of zebra mussels.

An attempt was made to increase awareness among waterfowl hunters who utilize Service lands throughout the Northeast region. Information regarding the potential spread of nonindigenous species, including plants, by waterfowl hunters was forwarded to all refuges within the region. This program was in response to similar efforts and new legislation in the state of Minnesota.

Coordination & Technical Assistance:

As the scope of nonindigenous species issues continues to broaden as a national concern, the need for effective coordination is essential. The Service has maintained a leadership role in the coordination of nonindigenous species issues within the Northeast region. The LGLFRO plays an active role in the activities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Ruffe Control Committee, the Lake Champlain Basin Zebra Mussel Task Force, the Chesapeake Bay Exotic Species Workgroup, and the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and its Information/Education Committee. Also, the LGLFRO represented the region throughout reauthorization activities related to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. The LGLFRO is the main contact for round goby activities conducted by the Service. In the fall, surveillance efforts were conducted in the Illinois Waterway System to determine the extent of the round goby’s expansion into the waterway system. This effort was coordinated by the LaCrosse Fishery Resources Office. In November the U.S. F&WS and the Army Corps of Engineers were charged by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to develop a recommended control strategy to prevent further spread of the round goby into downstream areas of the Illinois Waterway System. This control strategy is scheduled to be presented to the Task Force in spring 1997. Also, the Service was charged with initiating a program to develop a resource document to include a round goby risk assessment and control feasibility analysis.

Regional/Binational

Great Lakes Fishery Commission

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, created by Canada and the United States in the 1955Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, is charged with investigating and advising governments on measures to address issues affecting fish stocks of common concern. The Commission's main management responsibility is to control the nonindigenous sea lamprey. The Commission is committed to preventing the ill-considered introduction of nonindigenous species.

Under the direction of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, sea lamprey control agents continued in 1996 to devote significant attention to the sea lamprey problem posed by the St. Marys River. The St. Marys River produces more lampreys than all of the other Great Lakes combined, causing extremely high abundances of sea lampreys in Lake Huron and northern Lake Michigan. Traditionally, the St. Marys River was untreatable because of its tremendous size and flow volume. In 1996 the Commission carried out a detailed assessment of the St. Marys River and mapped the larval densities there in preparation for spot treatments using granular Bayer, a lampricide used in lentic areas of the Great Lakes. The Commission also conducted a St. Marys River dye study to track the potential dispersal of the lampricide TFM, if it were to be used on the St. Marys River. These assessment efforts will provide vital data in the development of the commission's St. Marys River control strategy, to commence in 1997.

In 1996, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission also continued its effort to research and develop alternatives to chemical lampricides. The Commission devoted about 15 percent of its sea lamprey control budget to research into and implementation of non-chemical control techniques such as barriers, sterile-male release, trapping, and other innovative methods to control sea lampreys. Alternative controls and more efficient use of the lampricide allowed the Commission to continue on its schedule of reducing TFM by 50 percent by the year 2001. Since 1990, TFM use has been reduced by about 30 percent.

In 1996, state, provincial and tribal fishery management agencies in the Great Lakes, which work together under the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, continued their efforts to revise, update and improve the plan. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which facilitates the implementation of the plan, led the review process and actively sought input from the signatory agencies. In December 1996, the Commission convened a workshop in Detroit, Mich. to discuss various aspects of the plan and to focus on ways it could be improved. Agencies completed their review of the plan in spring 1997, and signed a revised version during the GLFC's annual meeting in June 1997.

Sea Lamprey Control and Related Great Lakes Fishery Commission Activities

Important program requirements include maintenance of a full sea lamprey control program, re- registration of lampricides as required by the U.S. EPA, and research and development of alternative (non-pesticide) control technologies. To deliver a full program, as mandated by the convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, the Commission estimates that the governments of the United States and Canada would be required to provide a combined total of $22.4 million (U.S.). To deliver a program equal to the program delivered in 1995 (considered a "base-level" program) the Commission would require $18.1 million from the governments. To deliver a level program (minus inflation), the Commission would require $12.6 million.

International Joint Commission

This agency did not submit an update for the annual report. For information on their ANS activities, contact:
Panel representative Doug McTavish, Director
Great Lakes Regional Office
International Joint Commission
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, MI  48232
519/256-7821

Great Lakes States and Provinces

ILLINOIS

Illinois Natural History Survey (Acting for and funded by the Illinois Department of Conservation)

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), the research division of IDNR, have advanced ANS management and research initiatives in Illinois. IDNR has implemented changes to its Administrative Rules to ban the possession of live round gobies, tubenose gobies, Eurasian ruffe, and rusty crayfish. These rule changes will help prevent spread of these species, especially by angler bait buckets.

The Chicago waterways are the primary link between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds, and thus are a primary pathway of ANS exchange between these watersheds. IDNR and INHS are working closely with the U.S. F&WS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of an ANS dispersal barrier for these waterways. INHS is seeking funding to pilot-test and monitor such a barrier.

The round goby has been found in the Calumet River (a Chicago waterway) 12 miles downstream of Lake Michigan. IDNR and INHS personnel have assisted U.S. F&WS in determining the distribution of this species in the Chicago waterways. INHS also is conducting research on the factors influencing the survival and movement of the round goby within Lake Michigan and into the Mississippi River drainage.

Finally, the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program has funded an ANS outreach specialist at the INHS Lake Michigan Biological Station. This specialist provides ANS information, including potential ANS impacts on aquatic ecosystems, to educators, anglers, boaters, and the media.

INDIANA

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources Commission passed a non-rule policy for the containment of zebra mussels in December 1996. This policy encourages DNR employees to implement procedures protecting the equipment and facilities under their control and to increase sensitivity to and awareness of ANS introductions through public outreach programs. Initial steps have already been taken to develop a pilot program at Summitt Lake State Park involving signs, brochures and video information.

A zebra mussel ecology research project on Lake Wawasee, Indiana’s largest inland natural lake, continues under the direction of Dr. David Garton. The Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife is conducting an extensive study of the fishery on Lake Wawasee including a creel survey, general population survey, black bass population estimate and largemouth bass movement study. This baseline fishery information will be valuable to understanding the historical impact of zebramussels on inland fish populations in the Midwest.

State hatchery biologists have implemented two procedures to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into their facilities and the spread of these organisms to new waters from fish stocking programs. All pumping equipment, used to fill or temper fish hauling trucks from surface water, has been retrofitted with filters. Information on the cost and mechanics of using filtered surface water should be available after the 1997 fall fish stocking season.

Statewide mapping of zebra mussel distribution indicates approximately 25 percent of the counties either border a body of water with zebra mussels or contain colonized populations. A coordinated effort between the Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife and Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program involves a statewide sign program for public and private waters. The design and content of sign information will be standardized for consistency.

Approximately 150 people attended a zebra mussel workshop hosted by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant for the 9th Annual Lake Management Conference. This meeting was held at Pokagon State Park near Angola, Indiana in early April 1997. Sea Grant staff, Dr. David Garton, and the Division of Fish and Wildlife presented information on life history, prevention and control methods, and distribution.

A purple loosestrife biological control study is continuing at five locations in northern Indiana under direction of the Division of Entomology and Plant Pathology. Indiana is participating in a multi-state field research project to determine the effectiveness of beetles as a long-lasting and environmentally sound control method. Results are expected within one to two years.

A new sea lamprey barrier under construction on Burns Ditch will be recognized with a certificate of appreciation in June 1997. This project is a cooperative effort between the U.S. and Canadian federal governments, the State of Indiana, a steelhead fishing organization and the private sector. The barrier is expected to save the Great Lakes Fishery Commission at least $25,000 annually and re-directs control efforts toward reductions in lampricide use in the Great Lakes basin. Lamprey traps will be used to monitor success of the barrier.

Efforts to control the introduction of fish pathogens and minimize their spread within the Great Lakes Basin were coordinated through the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee (GLFHC). Policies and decisions on the inter-lake movement of whirling disease have been discussed extensively by the GLFHC during the past year. The process of determining how private sector input is incorporated into the fish health management decisions is a crucial part of the prevention and control of pathogens within the Great Lakes Basin.

MICHIGAN

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Office of the Great Lakes

Pursuant to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act of 1990, Michigan received approval of an ANS state management plan in April 1996. The plan, titled Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan: A Strategy to Confront Their Spread in Michigan, requests funding of $466,700 over a three-year period to prevent and control the spread of harmful species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded Michigan a $28,500grant to begin implementation of three priority activities: