Submitted to the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
by the
Ruffe Control Committee
Thomas R. Busiahn, Chairman
November 1996
[Note: This is a revised draft of the Ruffe Control Program that was approved by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force in 1995. New information and changing circumstances required its revision, as explained within. This draft was prepared for review by the Task Force prior to distribution for public review and comment. Further changes and refinements are expected prior to final approval.]
Updated on: 04/10/2006
| Contents: |
INTRODUCTION | GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
| REQUISITES TO THE CONTROL PROGRAM
POPULATION REDUCTION | BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
| POPULATION INVESTIGATION
SURVEILLANCE | FISH COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
| EDUCATION | BAIT FISH MANAGEMENT
CHICAGO SANITARY & SHIP CANAL
| RESEARCH NEEDS | REFERENCES
Appendix 1: Members of the Ruffe Control Committee
Appendix 2: Evaluation of ballast water management options (not attached to this document)
Appendix 3: Voluntary Ballast Water Management Plan
The ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), a Eurasian fish of the perch family, was
introduced to North America in the 1980's, most likely through the ballast water of a
seagoing vessel (Pratt et al. 1992). Ruffe larvae were first collected in Duluth Harbor(1)
in 1986. By 1990, ruffe were the most abundant fish in samples taken from the harbor, and
their abundance has continued to increase since (Edwards 1995).
The range of ruffe also expanded. By 1993, ruffe occupied bays and tributaries along Lake
Superior's south shore through State of Wisconsin waters, and in 1994 were detected in the
Ontonagon River, Michigan, 260 km east of Duluth Harbor. Ruffe have been found
intermittently in the Canadian port of Thunder Bay since 1991, apparently transported
there in ballast water from Duluth (Slade et al. 1995). In 1995 ruffe were first detected
in Lake Huron, in the lower Thunder Bay River at the port of Alpena, Michigan.
The ruffe has become established in nearshore waters of western Lake Superior. Fishery
experts concur that eradication is not possible. The ruffe is capable of rapid population
increase and range expansion. However, the oligotrophic waters of Lake Superior have
slowed its spread. Due to its small size, the ruffe has no current commercial or
recreational fishery value. The ruffe is a bottom-dweller; it consumes benthic insects and
avoids light. Ruffe have the potential to compete with native fishes, such as yellow perch
(Savino and Kolar 1996) and to consume large quantities of eggs of commercially important
lake whitefish and similar species (Coregonus spp.) (DeSorcie and Edsall 1995).
Changes in the ruffe population in the Duluth Harbor are inversely correlated with
populations of some native fishes (Edwards 1995).
In 1991 the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) organized a special task force of
fisheries biologists and administrators to evaluate the status of ruffe in the Great Lakes
and to examine what threat it might pose to fishery resources. The Ruffe Task Force
concluded that the ruffe is a serious threat to North American fishery resources, and
that, unless prompt measures are taken to prevent its further spread, the ruffe will
continue to be transported or migrate to new sites in the Great Lakes and much of North
America (Ruffe Task Force 1992).
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force) determined in April 1992 that the
ruffe is an aquatic nuisance species as defined by law(2), that control of
ruffe is warranted, and that the control program proposed by the Ruffe Task Force of the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission addresses the legal requirements.
The Ruffe Control Committee (Committee) was appointed by the ANS Task Force in July 1992
to develop a control program that will minimize the risk of harm to the environment and
the public health and welfare. The goals of the Committee, specified by the ANS Task
Force, are:
- to refine the control program,
- to assist in soliciting comments on the control program,
- to identify cooperators to conduct the control program,
- and to provide oversight if the program is approved by the Task Force.
The work of the Committee is guided by the procedures described in the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program developed by the ANS Task Force; by the 1992 report Ruffe in the Great Lakes: A Threat to North American Fisheries by the GLFC Ruffe Task Force; and by a considerable and growing body of research and monitoring information on ruffe in North America and Europe.
The Committee has met eight times. Two of the meetings included field trips to view ruffe and their habitat. In addition, the Committee held two conference calls, organized a meeting of a ballast water working group, held a session on ruffe biology, and helped to organize meetings and a field trip on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Two companion documents were prepared for the Ruffe Control Committee, predicting
environmental and economic outcomes of alternative actions. An "Environmental
Assessment", was prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service dated February 18, 1994.
"Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery"
was prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, dated December 1,
1994. In early 1995, the Committee sponsored five public meetings throughout the Great
Lakes basin to provide information and solicit comment from the public. The comments were
described in "Summary of Comments and Recommendations on the Ruffe Control
Program", dated June 30, 1995.
The Ruffe Control Program was submitted to the ANS Task Force as a final product
on June 30, 1995. After ruffe were discovered in Lake Huron in early August 1995, the goal
of the Program, (i.e. to contain ruffe to western Lake Superior) was obsolete. The
Committee coordinated its November 1995 meeting with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's
Council of Lake Committees (CLC), a group of senior fishery administrators from all Great
Lakes fishery jurisdictions. The revised goal and objectives presented here were developed
in close coordination with the CLC. The process of developing the control program was
described as a case study in aquatic nuisance species control by Busiahn (1996).
| The goal of the ruffe control program is: to prevent or delay the further spread of ruffe through the Great Lakes and prevent their spread to other inland lakes and watersheds. |
The goal was modified by the Committee at its meeting of November 9, 1995. The goal of the
earlier version of the Program, to contain ruffe to western Lake Superior, became obsolete
when ruffe were detected in a tributary to Lake Huron in August 1995.
The program has eight objectives. They are not listed in priority order. All components
are necessary to achieve the goal of the program. Some of the activities will be more
costly or more visible than others, but this is not an indication of their importance.
- Population reduction: Eliminate or reduce reproducing populations,
using appropriate technologies, where feasible.
- Ballast water management: Minimize the transport of ruffe from western
Lake Superior through ballast water management, and support the development of
technologies to prevent transport.
- Population Investigation: Continue and expand investigations of ruffe
populations to evaluate the impact on affected fish communities and to provide information
necessary to plan, implement, and evaluate control activities.
- Surveillance: Conduct surveillance sampling in likely locations to find
newly established populations of ruffe, and designate a single office to compile
collections of ruffe.
- Fish Community Management: Recommend fish management practices that
will improve resilience of fish communities against invasion or dominance by ruffe.
- Education: Develop and promote information and education programs to
identify ruffe so that they will not be transported alive and so that they will be killed
and reported if taken.
- Bait fish Management: Assist jurisdictions in developing model language
for regulation of bait harvest and possession.
- Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal: Consider options to prevent the movement of ruffe from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi watershed via the Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers.
REQUISITES TO THE CONTROL PROGRAM
International cooperation between agencies in the United States and Canada is essential
to a successful ruffe control program in the Great Lakes. Canadian and U.S. fishery
agencies have different authorities, responsibilities, and roles. Public attitudes and
access to the political systems are different in the two nations. Toxicants registered for
fishery use are also different. Implementation of complementary programs cannot be taken
for granted. GLFC and its Lake Committees should be the forum in which governments develop
common goals and international communication, cooperation, and coordination. Preventing
the spread of ruffe in domestic inland waters will not require the same degree of
international cooperation.
Cooperation among Federal, state, and tribal governments and the private sector is also
essential. Through representation on the ANS Task Force and the Ruffe Control Committee,
government agencies and private interests have jointly developed this control program
(Appendix 1). The program provides strategic guidance that can only be implemented through
decisive and cooperative action by government agencies and the private sector.
Evaluation of results must be incorporated into tactical planning for and implementation
of ruffe control activities. Ineffective control activities should be eliminated or
modified based on evaluation. A written report of results of ruffe control activities by
all cooperators will be provided annually by the Committee to the ANS Task Force and to
the GLFC Lake Committees. After approval of the control program by the ANS Task Force, the
Committee will meet once per year or as needed to provide oversight. Activities of the
Committee will be reported to the ANS Task Force through minutes of Committee meetings and
through oral reports at ANS Task Force meetings.
POPULATION REDUCTION
Objective
Eliminate or reduce reproducing populations, using appropriate technologies, where
feasible.
Background
Ruffe populations may be vulnerable to physical or chemical removal in river mouths and
bays of the Great Lakes. The temperature preference of ruffe (Hokanson 1977) is similar to
yellow perch, Perca flavescens, a species that is typically confined to river
mouths and bays of Lake Superior. Ruffe sometimes inhabit deeper and colder water than
yellow perch in Lake Superior or than European perch, Perca fluviatilis in Europe
(Bergman 1987), but ruffe populations in Lake Superior are generally associated with river
mouths.
The potential for physical removal of ruffe with nets has been evaluated by modeling and
field tests. Surveys of the Duluth Harbor have employed electrofishing, fyke nets, gill
nets, seines, and trawls. Bottom trawling is an efficient gear for capturing ruffe. Based
on survey data, trawling was projected to remove 50% of the ruffe population from the
Duluth Harbor with one large vessel or two small vessels operating full-time during the
ice-free season (Ruffe Task Force 1992). However, a removal rate of 50% would not
effectively reduce the population of a prolific species like ruffe.
Slade and Kindt (1994) conducted field tests of trawling in two river mouths in Wisconsin.
Based on declining catch rates, they projected that 16 days of trawling in the Sand River
and 28 days in the Iron River would deplete the local populations by 90%. They concluded
that removal by trawling may have application in some tributaries where ruffe concentrate
in a few limited pools. In estuaries where habitat is more uniform in depth, or those with
concentrations of debris, trawling would be less effective. In all cases, trawling to
remove ruffe would have adverse impacts on non-target fishes due to handling mortality and
stress.
Several dozen modified Windermere traps captured thousands of ruffe in the Duluth
Harbor in a 1995-96 study (Edwards et al., MS). This inexpensive, lightweight, collapsible
trap may have application for reducing a ruffe population in a limited area. Trapping
ruffe would have an advantage over trawling, in that non-target species could be released
unharmed.
Ruffe can be readily killed by any of the fish toxicants registered for use in the United
States: rotenone, antimycin, TFM, and Bayluscide. Considerations in choosing a toxicant
for use on ruffe include the selectivity for ruffe, cost of the chemical, cost of
registration if necessary, availability for purchase, and several other technical
considerations.
TFM has the most potential for selectivity towards ruffe (Boogaard et al. 1996). Ruffe are
about three times more sensitive to TFM than brown trout and 3-6 times more sensitive than
yellow perch, and three age-classes of ruffe showed similar sensitivities. Ruffe are more
sensitive to antimycin and rotenone than yellow perch, but similar in sensitivity to brown
trout, so selective treatments with those compounds is unlikely (Boogaard et al. 1996).
TFM and Bayluscide are restricted use lampricides, and would require special permits for
use against ruffe, although a chemical may be applied in the U.S. "against any target
pest not specified on the labeling if the application is to the ... site specified on the
labeling" (Section 2(ee) of the U.S. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act). This would allow use in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes at concentrations
permitted for application against sea lamprey. TFM is not available on the commercial
market, but is produced only for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for sea lamprey
control under contract with two suppliers.
Boogaard et al. (1996) concluded that treatment with TFM could "control ruffe
populations with limited adverse effects on native species". The toxicity of TFM to
fish is influenced by pH (at lower pH, toxicity is higher), but the selectivity of TFM for
killing ruffe is consistent at all pH values. Cage studies and trawl sampling in the Brule
River, Wisconsin in conjunction with a sea lamprey treatment with TFM indicated that more
than 97% of the ruffe population was killed, with no significant mortality among endemic
fishes (Bills et al. 1992). During a sea lamprey treatment in the Amnicon River,
Wisconsin, 76% of caged ruffe were killed, and trawl sampling measured a reduction of 54%
in the ruffe population. A sea lamprey treatment in the Middle River, Wisconsin, killed an
estimated 78% of the ruffe (Kindt 1995). Higher concentrations of TFM would be required to
eradicate ruffe than to eradicate sea lampreys (Boogaard et al. 1996).
In the sea lamprey control program, TFM and Bayluscide cause some mortalities of
Oligochaeta and Hirudinea, immature forms of Ephemeroptera, and certain Trichoptera,
Simuliidae, and Amphibia. The combination of TFM and Bayluscide may affect some Pelecypoda
and Gastropoda, but its overall effects on invertebrates are probably less than those of
TFM alone. Granular Bayluscide is likely to induce mortalities among oligochaetes,
microcrustaceans, chironomids, and pelecypods. No evidence exists that the lampricides
have caused the catastrophic decline or disappearance of any species (Gilderhus and
Johnson 1980).
Rotenone and antimycin are general use fish toxicants (Marking 1992). Rotenone is
registered for use in the U.S. and Canada, while antimycin is registered only in the U.S.,
and would require a special permit for use in Canada. Rotenone is readily available on the
commercial market, while the supply of antimycin is quite limited. Rotenone is detectable
by fish, and is not toxic to eggs. Antimycin is not detectable at lethal concentrations,
and kills eggs. A bottom release formulation of antimycin has been developed that could
reduce concentrations of ruffe in deep water with minimal impact on nontarget fishes. This
formulation is not registered and could only be used under emergency or experimental use
permits.
Action Plan
Fishery agencies should pursue research projects to develop and test physical and chemical
methods of efficiently and selectively removing ruffe. State fishery agencies will decide
if piscicide treatments will occur within their jurisdictions, in consultation with
affected Native American tribes. The Fish and Wildlife Service will assist the States in
conducting and assessing treatments, if they occur.
Researchers should seek new ways to selectively kill ruffe, for example, by screening a
large number of chemicals for selective toxicity, or by developing selective parasites or
pathogens.
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
Objective
Minimize the transport of ruffe from western Lake Superior through ballast water
management, and support the development of technologies to prevent transport.
Background
Commercial ships docking in Duluth, Superior, Thunder Bay, and other western Lake Superior
ports entrain ruffe and other organisms in their ballast tanks. Ruffe small enough to pass
through ballast screens are present in Duluth Harbor in all months, and are most abundant
during June, July, and August. Reduced growth rates of ruffe in Duluth Harbor due to
crowding have increased the risk of entrainment during all months.
Most ships using the Duluth Harbor have round holes of -inch diameter on their ballast
intakes, which will screen out 95% of ruffe of 2.24 inches total length. A few ships have
9/16-inch holes, which will screen 95% of ruffe of 2.48 inches total length (NBS Lake
Superior Biological Station, unpublished).
The GLFC Ruffe Task Force (1992) recommended that ships not take on ballast water from
ruffe-inhabited ports from May through July. Maritime industry managers have said that
this condition cannot be met without compromising safety. Nevertheless, it is the simplest
way to reduce the occurrence of viable ruffe in ballast tanks.
Ballast water transport of organisms is a global problem without ready solutions. Numerous
recent studies have evaluated options for ballast water management to prevent transport of
viable organisms (for example, Marine Board 1996). The Ruffe Control Committee convened a
technical working group on July 29, 1993, to develop a long-term solution to prevent
ballast water transport within the Great Lakes. The multi-disciplinary group included
expertise in fishery management, fishery biology, toxicology, biogeography, ship
operations, port operations, marine engineering, marine safety, regulatory and legislative
processes, and diving. The group screened 29 ballast water management options, and
recommended 12 options for action or further study, based on biological effectiveness and
practical feasibility (Appendix 2).
Action Plan
Since May 1993, seagoing vessels entering the Great Lakes from beyond the U.S. 200-mile
exclusive economic zone have been required by law to exchange ballast water on the high
seas, or to take other action that will prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species
via ballast water (Weathers and Reeves 1996). The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards monitor
compliance with the mandatory program. These measures will reduce or eliminate the risk of
new introductions of ruffe into the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes maritime industry implemented a voluntary plan in 1993 to reduce the risk
of transporting ruffe out of western Lake Superior ports (Appendix 3) (Ryan 1996). Under
the plan, company dispatchers maximize loads out of these ports to minimize the need for
taking on ballast water. Ships that must take on ballast from ruffe-inhabited ports should
exchange ballast water in the open waters of Lake Superior west of a line drawn between
Grand Portage, Minnesota and a point one mile east of the Ontonagon River, Michigan. If
ballast cannot be exchanged in that zone, it will be accomplished in other locations at
least 40 fathoms (240 ft) deep and 15 miles from shore. The U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards
will have access to ballasting records from the shipping companies to monitor compliance
with the plan. Development of the plan was led by the Lake Carriers' Association, with
participation by the Canadian Shipowners Association, Seaway Port Authority of Duluth,
Thunder Bay Harbour Commission, Shipping Federation of Canada, and the U.S. Great Lakes
Shipping Association.
In 1996, a ballast water technology demonstration project was initiated to test filtration
on-board a Great Lakes ship as a means of preventing ballast water transport of organisms.
The results of the project will be directly applicable to ruffe, as well as a variety of
other nonindigenous species. The project is co-chaired by the Lake Carriers' Association
and the Northeast Midwest Institute, and guided by a multi-stakeholder steering committee.
Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Protection Fund and a variety of federal and state
agencies. Installation of the technologies, and monitoring and evaluation of their
effectiveness will be completed in mid-1997.
If cooperative methods of eliminating the ballast water transport of ruffe are
unsuccessful, then existing laws prohibiting the possession or release of ruffe should be
enforced against the maritime industry. The U.S. and Canada should authorize their
respective Coast Guards to regulate ballasting by lake vessels. As a last resort, ships
should be prohibited from taking on ballast water in ports inhabited by ruffe until ways
are developed to prevent the transport of ruffe.
POPULATION INVESTIGATION
Objective
Continue and expand investigations of ruffe populations to evaluate the impact on
affected fish communities and to provide information necessary to plan, implement, and
evaluate control activities.
Background
Biological information on known ruffe populations and co-existing fish communities is necessary to plan and evaluate control activities, and to modify or eliminate ineffective control activities. This includes basic information on population dynamics, behavior, and distribution. Population investigations conducted since 1988 (e.g. Selgeby and Edwards 1995) have been essential in developing this control program. Other cooperators in this work have included the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Research Laboratory, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), and the University of Minnesota-Duluth. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has funded population investigations by the National Biological Service since 1993. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has funded and published a comprehensive review of published literature on ruffe (Ogle 1995).
Action Plan
The Lake Superior Biological Station of the NBS Great Lakes Science Center will
continue to assess ruffe and the fish community in the Duluth Harbor and other colonized
locations to observe temporal changes in populations. The frequency of sampling in Duluth
Harbor was constant from 1989 through 1994, then reduced in 1995-96 to allow assessment to
be conducted in 10 estuaries east of Duluth Harbor on the south shore of Lake Superior.
These 10 estuaries provide a range of dates of initial colonization by ruffe.
The population of ruffe in Duluth Harbor should also be characterized genetically to
determine if more than one introduction was made from Europe, and, if ruffe are found
outside western Lake Superior in the future, to determine if it is a new introduction or
an expansion of the range from western Lake Superior. Specimens from any new occurrence of
ruffe should be frozen as soon as possible after capture so they can be genetically
tested.
North American scientists are encouraged to build and maintain communication with European
scientists to share information on ruffe biology and control. An International Ruffe
Symposium will be held in March 1997 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, sponsored by the Great Lakes
Sea Grant Network with cooperation by ruffe researchers and managers, to foster this
interaction.
SURVEILLANCE
Objective
Conduct surveillance sampling in likely locations to find newly established
populations of ruffe, and designate a single office to compile collections of ruffe.
Background
Surveillance provides timely information on the range of ruffe through detection of newly
established populations. Knowledge of the range of ruffe is needed to plan and evaluate
control activities. In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) initiated a
surveillance project in western Lake Superior (Slade and Kindt, 1992), which has expanded
in subsequent years to include all the Great Lakes. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
has conducted surveillance in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. Ruffe surveillance in the
Great Lakes by all agencies has been reported jointly since 1993 (Slade et al. 1994,
Slade et al. 1995, Kindt et al. 1996).
Action Plan
Sites likely to be colonized will be regularly sampled with bottom trawls or other nets to
detect the presence of ruffe. Sampling will be conducted at sites where ruffe may be
transported in ballast water, as well as sites they are likely to occupy on their own.
Survey questionnaires will be mailed to fishery managers, commercial fishers, and others
likely to encounter ruffe.
The Fishery Resources Offices of FWS will coordinate and/or conduct surveillance on each
of the Great Lakes. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) will conduct
surveillance in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. Surveillance will be closely
coordinated with the investigation of established populations, so that information on
sampling techniques, distribution, and biological characteristics of ruffe will be shared.
Assistance will be provided to fishery management agencies and fishing groups on the Great
Lakes in educating anglers about the ruffe, so that they will report them if they catch
them. The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network has published a "Ruffe Watch"
identification card for distribution to anglers, commercial fishers, and others who might
encounter ruffe.
Established methods for inter-agency communication (e.g. Lake Committees and Council of
Lake Committees) will be expanded to include ruffe collections, and the FWS Ashland
Fishery Resources Office is designated to receive reports of new ruffe colonies. Findings
of the surveillance program (both positive and negative) will be reported annually to the
GLFC Lake Committees. New occurrences of ruffe will be reported immediately to the
Committee and to all affected governments and agencies. The Southeastern Biological
Science Center in Gainesville, Florida, will include confirmed ruffe sightings in its
nonindigenous species data base, and publish maps of ruffe distribution.
FISH COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
Objective
Recommend fish management practices that will improve resilience of fish communities
against invasion or dominance by ruffe.
Background
Biological control methods should be considered as part of any program of integrated pest
management (Sawyer 1980). Enhancement of predator populations has been attempted as a
biological control strategy for ruffe. During 1989-93, the Wisconsin and Minnesota
Departments of Natural Resources attempted to increase populations of walleye, northern
pike, and muskellunge in the Duluth Harbor by restricting harvest and by stocking
fingerlings of these species as well as adult northern pike. The intent of the restrictive
regulations was to reduce angler harvest by 50%. The 5-year plan has run its course, and
evaluation of its results is complete.
Food habits of walleye, northern pike, burbot, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, black
crappies, and brown bullheads were studied from 1989 to 1994 (Selgeby and Edwards 1995,
Ogle et al. 1996, Mayo 1996). In general, the occurrence of ruffe in predator stomachs has
increased, but predation failed to prevent the ruffe population from increasing or
expanding out of Duluth Harbor. Ogle et al. (1996) found no ruffe in the stomachs of 967
walleye during 1989-91, but in 1992-94, ruffe made up 6% of the fish eaten by walleye
(Selgeby and Edwards 1995). Ruffe made up 1-4% of the fish consumed by northern pike in
1989-91, and increased to 12-19% in 1992-94. The consumption of ruffe by smallmouth bass
increased steadily over the period to 26% of fish eaten in 1994, but the smallmouth bass
population declined during the same time. Most ruffe eaten were age-0 or small age-1 fish
(Ogle et al. 1996).
Mayo (1996) modeled the bioenergetics of the system using data on predator stomach
contents, predator biomass, and ruffe abundance. Only in 1992 did predation remove a
significant portion of the ruffe population. Estimates for the consumption of available
ruffe are: 1991 - 26%, 1992 - 47%, 1993 - 34%, and 1994 - 24%. Ruffe made up 73-90% of
available prey biomass, based on trawl samples, but a much smaller proportion of prey
items in stomachs. Northern pike and walleye were the only predators that consumed a
significant quantity of ruffe in the Duluth Harbor in 1991-1994. Walleye biomass did not
increase significantly during the study period as would be expected in a stocking program.
Stocking almost 18,000 adult pike in 1991 may have contributed to the increase in
predation on ruffe in 1992.
Mayo used a selectivity index to account for the relative abundance of prey species in the
community versus their occurrence in the stomachs of northern pike, walleye, smallmouth
bass, yellow perch, and brown bullhead. All avoided ruffe as a prey item in each year of
the study. Knight and Vondracek (1993) noted that walleye in Lake Erie prefer to prey upon
soft-rayed fishes (such as emerald shiner) over spiny-rayed fishes (such as ruffe), and
questioned the feasibility of biological control of spiny-rayed invaders through
predation. Ogle et al. (1996) agreed that predation is unlikely to effectively control
ruffe during early stages of colonization in the Great Lakes, because native predators
will likely consume few ruffe if soft-rayed fish or yellow perch are available. Mayo
(1996) noted that the Duluth Harbor is an open system allowing stocked predators to freely
move out, and suggested that predator enhancement may be more successful in a closed
system like an inland lake.
In general, a mature, undisturbed biological community is a more efficient user of the
available energy in the community, and will be more resilient against invasion or
dominance by ruffe. A disturbed, or simplified, community cannot maximize its use of the
available energy. Disturbances tending to simplify aquatic ecosystems in the Great Lakes
include exotic species introductions, as well as nutrient input, and extraction of
biomass, especially at a specific trophic level.
The attributes of undisturbed, mature ecosystems are:
1) More energy capture
2) More effective use of energy
3) Higher total system throughput
4) More cycling of energy and matter
5) Higher average number of trophic levels (more levels of consumption)
6) More complex food webs
7) Higher respiration (processing more energy)
8) Higher transpiration (in terrestrial systems)
9) Larger ecosystem biomass
10) More types of organisms (diversity)
Managing under an ecosystem approach, managers will attempt to maintain the maturity of
ecosystems, while still deriving benefits for humans. Past fishery management strategies
targeting "maximum sustainable yield" were not successful, because managers do
not know how to achieve sustainability. Future managers need to be open to non-traditional
management techniques and strategies. For example, a traditional fishery management
strategy of size limits selectively removes a particular size group from the population.
To maintain naturally occurring size distributions of fish, a non-traditional strategy
might include limiting the anglers' take by restricting harvest of fish within two inches
of each other in length.
In another example, the intense removal of targeted size ranges of coregonines (herring
and chubs) by commercial harvesters disturbed the Great Lakes ecosystem. Because they were
the prey of lake trout, the removal of coregonines caused the breakdown of efficient
energy use by lake trout. The exotic fishes smelt and alewife persisted, consuming
plankton previously used by coregonines. However, the transfer of energy between trophic
levels was disrupted in terms of the system's ability to maximize its use of the available
energy. Intensive exploitation has the same systemic effects on aquatic communities as
exotic species and nutrification. Educating people about their effects on the ecosystem is
a key to managing human impacts. Catch and release angling is a result of education,
allowing the more people to benefit with less impact on ecosystem function.
"Biological pollution" by nonindigenous species is likely the most damaging of
all the perturbations to an aquatic system because of its permanence. "Biological
resilience" is a natural mechanism that separates communities. A mature, undisturbed
system is more resilient to invasions or overlapping of communities. To defend communities
against future invasions, management strategies focussing on building resilience should be
examined. A mature system is better at "keeping the weeds out".
It may be asked if resilience is possible in a system where nonindigenous predators prey
on nonindigenous prey. However, the goal should be a functional community that sustains
itself with minimal human input, not necessarily pristine conditions. Exotics that are
naturalized may be part of that community. Planning for fish community resilience should
seek to define desired conditions, which may range from "original or pristine"
to "favor native species" to "maximize self-organizing
characteristics". Improvements in water quality by pollution prevention has allowed
some introduced organisms to survive where they earlier would not.
Action Plan
The efforts of fishery management agencies to manage for greater maturity and resilience
of fish communities will be greatly aided if North American society is successful in
"closing the door" to new exotic species. Ballast water management must be
improved to prevent additional colonization, and other vectors must be effectively
regulated. The spread of ruffe to the lower Great Lakes should be delayed as long as
possible to to gain time to increase fish community resilience. (See "Population
Reduction" section.)
North American society should explicitly consider whether major changes in economic
activity are needed to reduce perturbations to the ecosystem. One example of a major
change would be to separate the lake and saltwater commercial fleets in the Great Lakes to
prevent new ballast water importations. Another would be to eliminate the commercial sale
of live bait organisms. If such controversial changes in economic activity are given
serious consideration, society must also consider unintended consequences, for example the
environmental impact of rail or truck transport versus ships. Careful and full assessments
of environmental and economic impacts of current practices and alternative strategies
would be required.
Intentional perturbations, such as stocking and harvest regulation, should be more
deliberately thought through, and their results measured (e.g. food availability,
competition, indirect effects of removing prey, presence of naturally sustaining
population of the same species). The effects of fish stocking may be a reduction in native
prey fish, thus favoring ruffe. Managers should consider the effects of other predators on
ruffe, for example burbot. If stocking predators, managers should consider stocking a
species and size that is an effective ruffe predator.
Aquatic habitat should be restored and protected to foster fish community resilience.
Natural fish production can be restored by re-connecting segmented river systems by dam
removal and by providing fish passage. Habitat may be enhanced where feasible to foster
the desired fish community composition. If the spread of ruffe cannot be prevented,
managers must learn how to live with ruffe, but focus on healthy habitat to promote
resilience in the future.
Improving our long-term knowledge and understanding of the status of fish stocks and fish
community dynamics is a pre-requisite to managing for resilience. This will require
consistent funding. Too often, decreasing fishery management budgets prevent needed
follow-through. Agencies need management alternatives that cost less. A long-term option
is to broaden the funding base for ecosystem management beyond fishing license revenue.
Adequate funding will be more likely if public understanding is increased on the economic
and ecological impacts of ruffe and other exotics. This will require more systematic and
consistent public education on exotics and fishery management techniques.
Managers should identify and focus on areas likely to be colonized and most impacted by
ruffe, and regulate the harvest (e.g. by slot size limits) to maximize predation on
invaders. Northern Lake Huron is an especially dysfunctional system due to the abundance
of sea lampreys from the St. Marys River. It is a highly disturbed system with low
resilience, and is most vulnerable to ruffe invasion. Its fish community includes many
soft-rayed prey fish, and relatively few predators. The lack of lamprey control in this
area will likely foster ruffe invasion and successful colonization.
EDUCATION
Objective
Develop and promote information and education programs to identify ruffe so that they
will not be transported alive and so that they will be killed and reported if taken.
Background
Understanding and support by the public is necessary to the success of any aquatic
nuisance control program. The general public must be aware that short-term, local
perturbations are likely to be caused by control actions, but are necessary to prevent
long-term, widespread adverse effects of aquatic nuisance species. Anglers and commercial
fishers must be aware of the potential presence of ruffe in their fishing waters, so they
can report new occurrences. Anglers must know what to do with ruffe that they catch (i.e.
kill and freeze them, except where possession is prohibited by law).
Public education actions taken to date include a "Ruffe Watch" identification
card, a field guide to exotic species, and other brochures published by the Sea Grant
Network with cooperation from State, Provincial, and Federal agencies; information posters
at State and Provincial boat landings; pictures and other information in State and
Provincial angling regulation pamphlets; and an identification poster and a video on the
ruffe produced by FWS.
Action Plan
The Committee encourages all cooperating entities to become involved in an effort to
inform and alert public water users of the distribution, identification, and dispersal
mechanisms of ruffe, as well as what to do if a suspected ruffe is caught. These efforts
should emphasize the role of the public in monitoring and prevention strategies.
The Committee encourages jurisdictions to enact appropriate regulations regarding
possession of ruffe. Where ruffe populations are established, possession should be
prohibited. Where future colonization is possible or likely, anglers should be encouraged
to retain dead suspected ruffe, and turn over specimens to conservation authorities.
The Sea Grant Program is designated to take the lead role in public education regarding
the ruffe in the U.S., because Sea Grant has an established network of programs and agents
throughout the Great Lakes region. The Committee also recognizes and encourages the
efforts of state, provincial, tribal, and federal natural resource agencies that have
developed educational materials on the ruffe and other exotic nuisance species.
Non-governmental groups such as the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council and the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters have also contributed significantly to education on the
ruffe through newsletters, meetings, and personal contacts.
Additional education activities are needed. Identification posters or photographs should
be available to agencies and businesses throughout the Great Lakes region. Television
should be used to reach a wider audience through public service announcements and
educational television shows. The producers of fishing shows should be provided with
information and specimens.
All educational materials, especially those supported by public funds, should be reviewed
by the Committee for consistency and scientific accuracy before production. In addition,
all educational activities on the ruffe should be coordinated with the Information and
Education Strategy of the Great Lakes Panel.
BAIT FISH MANAGEMENT
Objective
Assist jurisdictions in developing model language for regulation of bait harvest and
possession.
Background
The live bait industry is a potential vector contributing to the spread of ruffe. Ruffe
were probably introduced into Loch Lomond, Scotland, 250 km from its previously reported
range, through discarded live bait of pike anglers (Adams 1994). Bait bucket transfers
potentially threaten the fisheries of inland waters, and must be prevented through
education and legal prohibition. The States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have
prohibited or restricted the taking of baitfish from Lake Superior. Northwestern Lake
Huron, where ruffe were first discovered in 1995, is a major harvesting area for live bait
fish (i.e. shiners), and prohibiting commercial harvest there would have major economic
impacts.
The total value of the live bait industry in the U.S. and Canada has been estimated to be
about $1 billion. Based on a mail survey of the industry done in 1992, Meronek (1993)
estimated the total volume of bait fish sold in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and South Dakota to be 546,421 gallons, worth $145 million. The most important
species in terms of value and volume in the six states are the fathead minnow, lake
shiner, and white sucker.
Bait dealers advising the Committee argue convincingly that Meronek's study
under-estimated the volume and value of the live bait industry in Michigan, a point that
was acknowledged by Meronek in his report. In Michigan, bait fish harvesters are required
to report their catch to the State, but reported catches are even lower than Meronek's
estimates. Bait dealers often under-report information because they don't want their
competition to find out about their business, or because they are suspicious of government
agencies.
The conclusion accepted by the Committee and participants from the live bait industry
is that the industry is economically important, but accurate economic figures are not
available. Any future surveys of the industry should be co-sponsored by an industry group
to get greater participation and validity of results.
Meronek estimated that in the six-state region, 67% of bait fish are harvested from the
wild and 33% are cultured. The estimate for Michigan is similar: 68% wild, 32% cultured.
All lake shiners and white suckers are harvested from the wild. Over time, cultured bait
fish have become an increasing proportion of the number sold. Industry participants
attribute this to decreasing access to waters for harvesting wild fish.
The main concern expressed by participants from the bait industry was the potential for
declining access to waters for the harvest of wild bait fish. The closure of Michigan
waters of Lake Superior to commercial bait fish harvest for ruffe control was cited as
precedent (though Michigan's reported harvest from Lake Superior was zero), and harvesters
do not want to lose access to Lake Huron, where a large harvest is taken annually (43% of
Michigan bait fish in 1993).
Bait dealers from Michigan maintain that the current system of harvesting wild shiners
and suckers in the Great Lakes is healthy and desirable and should be maintained. Seining
for shiners is done on calm, sunny days on beaches, not preferred habitat for ruffe. Use
of cultured bait fish may be increasing, but wild harvest has many advantages in the Great
Lakes region, where the short growing season, high land value, and other factors limits
bait culture development.
Action Plan
The live bait industry is economically important, but an increased awareness of
environmental impacts is changing public perspectives on environmental risks. The formerly
"acceptable" level of non-bait fish in bait tanks is no longer acceptable. Zero
tolerance should be the standard. Therefore, the Committee bases its recommended actions
on two goals:
- Prosperous live bait industry.
- Clean live bait industry (no exotics).
Several levels of sale must be considered when developing strategies to prevent the transfer of exotic species through the bait fish industry. These include the harvester, wholesaler, retailer, and angler. The Committee recommends an integrated approach, with all levels of sale bearing some responsibility for reducing the risk of introducing exotic species, in addition to the ultimate user, the angler. An integrated strategy would identify and take action at all critical control points in live bait commerce where risk can be reduced.
Involvement by participants in the live bait industry is necessary when decisions are
made on regulations or other management actions to prevent the spread of ruffe.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the ANS Task Force appoint a representative of
the bait industry as a member of the Ruffe Control Committee.
This involvement should include reporting of ruffe or other exotic species when detected
by live bait harvesters, wholesalers, or retailers. Possession of dead ruffe by
bait dealers who intend to report the finding should not be prohibited. Agencies should
consider recognizing and/or rewarding the reporting of new exotics, as long as these
incentives do not encourage false reporting. Agencies and industry trade groups should
inform all segments of the industry how to identify ruffe and what to do if a suspected
ruffe or other exotic is found.
The Committee recommends that regulatory agencies change the definition of "bait
fish". The Committee recommends that definitions of bait fish be consistent among
jurisdictions. The definition should specify legal bait fish species, rather than illegal
species (though some bait dealers oppose this approach, on the grounds that the
regulations would be too complicated). For example, the Ontario Fishery Regulations define
bait fish as referring to the following fish:
- the sucker family
- the stickleback family
- lake herring (of the whitefish family)
- the darter subfamily
- the trout-perch family
- the sculpin family
- crayfish
- the minnow family except carp and goldfish
- the mudminnow family.
The end user of live bait, the angler, shares the responsibility for preventing the
spread of ruffe and other nonindigenous species. Regulatory agencies should enact
regulations (if they do not currently have them) prohibiting the discarding of live bait
in the water, and should stress this point in angler education. For additional protection
against transport of ruffe, agencies may require that bait fish harvested for personal use
be used in the same water where harvested. As an alternative approach, agencies should
consider consistent regulations for commercial and non-commercial harvest and possession
of bait fish.
The Committee recommends that the live bait dealers or industry groups develop a quality
assurance program. For example, discrete lots of fish could be sealed and tagged as
"clean bait", with a phone number and contact names to trace their source and
provide further information. Such an approach may be effective advertising, outcompeting
markets not certifying "clean bait".
If regulatory agencies encourage increased propagation of bait fish to prevent spread of
ruffe or other nonindigenous fishes, the Committee recommends that this be accompanied by
financial assistance to the regional industry for research and development. If this is not
done, increased importation of bait fish from other states, where bait fish propagation is
well established, would be required to meet the demand.
Some bait fish species in high demand, such as emerald shiners, are not cultured. When
these species are harvested from the wild, harvesters should use gear and methods that
minimize the risk of catching ruffe.
Training is needed for conservation officers to encourage consistent and effective
enforcement of bait harvest and possession regulations. Training on species identification
will be especially important if regulatory agencies adopt the Committee's recommendation
on definition of bait fish.
Management of the live bait industry would benefit from additional research. Needs
identified by the Committee include: biological assessment of populations of bait fish
species in the Great Lakes; development of harvesting or sorting gear that is more
selective to target species; more accurate information on the economic impact of the live
bait industry; and a more detailed risk assessment of the bait industry as a vector of
spreading nonindigenous species. The last point could be addressed by assembling data on
the spread (or lack of spread) of other nonindigenous fish, for example white perch or
rudd, to inland waters.
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
Objective
Consider options to prevent the movement of ruffe from the Great Lakes to the
Mississippi watershed via the Chicago, Des Plaines, and Illinois Rivers.
Background
Historically the divide between the Great Lakes basin and the Mississippi watershed at
Chicago was only about 15 feet above the level of Lake Michigan. The Chicago River and the
Calumet River, both fed by numerous tributaries, flowed into Lake Michigan. The Des
Plaines River flowed south and west to the Illinois River and the Mississippi. However,
the portage between watersheds was short, and even flooded at two locations during wet
periods, so that navigation by canoe was sometimes possible (Ryder 1995).
The Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal was constructed from 1836 to 1848 to provide
barge transportation between Chicago and the Illinois River. Water was pumped into this
elevated waterway from the South Branch of the Chicago River, reversing its flow for part
of the year. Another canal was constructed in 1862 linking the Calumet River system with
the Des Plaines River.
Water pollution and resulting disease caused thousands of deaths in early Chicago. In
1889 the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago was created to reverse the flow
of the Chicago River to flush waste waters away from Lake Michigan. The 28-mile Sanitary
and Ship Canal was completed in 1900, its flows regulated by locks. In 1910 the 8-mile
North Shore Channel was constructed, connecting Lake Michigan with the North Branch of the
Chicago River. In 1922, the 16-mile Cal-Sag Canal was constructed to reverse the flow of
the Calumet River. Currently there are 5 locations where water from Lake Michigan enters
the Chicago waterways, through which nonindigenous species may disperse.
A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has limited the amount of water diverted from
Lake Michigan. Today the Chicago waterways constitute a highly regulated system of
channels, canals, rivers, tunnels, locks, and diversion gates that is heavily used for
commercial and recreational navigation. The system is managed by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Leakage from
Lake Michigan at the Chicago lock has drawn protest from other Great Lakes states, and
construction began in March 1996 to correct the problem.
The concern for dispersal of nonindigenous species through the Chicago waterways includes
species other than ruffe. According to Sparks and Marsden (1996), "Within the last
five years, the Mississippi River and its tributaries have been invaded from the north by
the zebra mussel, and from the south by the spiny water flea (Daphnia lumholtzi).
. . . At least six other invasive species are already in the Great Lakes, poised to enter
the Mississippi Drainage the same way the zebra mussel did: by passing through the canal
system at Chicago, then down the Illinois River.... Any invader of the Great Lakes has the
potential to invade the entire Mississippi Drainage by following the same route as the
zebra mussel." For example, the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) has
become established in the Calumet River near the head of the Cal-Sag Canal.
An initial meeting was held in November 1995 to develop strategies to create a dispersal
barrier to prevent the spread of nonindigenous species through the canal system. The ANS
Task Force has requested the Ruffe Control Committee to fully identify the problem and the
stakeholders potentially affected. The list of stakeholders and necessary cooperators is
long, and includes the Corps of Engineers, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District,
several agencies of the State of Illinois, the 28-state Mississppi Interstate Cooperative
Resource Association, the Port Authorities of Chicago and Indiana, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Friends of the Chicago River, and others.
Whatever the considerations of stakeholders, resource managers are responsible for
informing the public that sharing genetic material between drainage basins can be compared
to extinction, in the sense that it changes those systems permanently. If no action is
taken to prevent it, the dispersal of ruffe and other nonindigenous species will
permanently degrade the fisheries and aquatic ecosystems of dozens of states in the
Mississippi River basin.
Action Plan
The Committee recommends that the ANS Task Force establish a separate committee on Chicago
waterways. The Ruffe Control Committee will help to identify potential members and
participants, and should maintain linkages with the Chicago Waterways Committee. The new
committee needs expertise on the economic and environmental impacts of alternative
transport, and should compile information regarding current use of the system for
recreational boating and commercial shipping, estimates of the value of this transport
mechanism, and estimates of the cost of alternative strategies.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will lead a demonstration project to test technologies
for a dispersal barrier. The Great Lakes Protection Fund has indicated an interest and may
provide support for the demonstration project. The Illinois Natural History Survey and the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District are the primary cooperators in the project.
The National Invasive Species Act, passed by Congress in October 1996, requires
the Corps of Engineers to "investigate and identify environmentally sound methods for
preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species ... through the Chicago
River Ship and Sanitary Canal, including any of those methods that could be incorporated
into the operation or construction of the lock system.... [and to] no later than 18 months
after the date of enactment ... issue a report to the Congress that includes
recommendations...."
RESEARCH NEEDS
The Committee is acutely aware of the small selection of control methods available to
achieve the goal of the Program, and encourages basic research to expand the options.
There is a particular need for new tools to eradicate founder populations at low numbers.
Specifically, the Committee recommends that the ANS Task Force and its member agencies
pursue opportunities to conduct research to fill the following information needs.
- Distribution of ruffe, including seasonal distribution in Lake Superior and its
tributaries and diurnal distribution of larvae within the water column.
- Environmental determinants of seasonal distribution and movements, including
temperature, light, and other habitat characteristics.
- Effects of ruffe colonization on aquatic biodiversity in Lake Superior bays and
estuaries.
- Characterization of the genetics of North American ruffe, and comparison with Eurasian
populations.
- Development and registration of effective chemical control measures, for example bottom
formulations of piscicides.
- Identification and evaluation of attractants and repellents (e.g. pheromones, sound
waves).
- Research on ballast water management options.
8. Research leading to biological means of control.
9. Describe characteristics of baitfish commerce in Great Lakes states, including harvest gear, sites and quantities and commercial traffic patterns, and identify risk of ruffe transport.
10. Identify and test methods for implementing a dispersal barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
11. Develop ecological theory for fish community resilience in the face of colonization by ruffe, and recommend and test means of increasing resilience through fishery and habitat management.
Adams, C.E. 1994. The fish community of Loch Lomond, Scotland: its history and rapidly
changing status. Hydrobiologia 290: 91-102.
Bergman, E. 1987. Temperature-dependent differences in foraging ability of two percids, Perca
fluviatilis and Gymnocephalus cernuus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 19:
45-53.
Bills, T.D., D.A. Johnson, and J.H. Selgeby. 1992. Effects of a lampricide treatment on ruffe and other nontarget fish in the Brule River, Brule, Wisconsin, Phase 2. Special Report, National Fisheries Research Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602. 18 p.
Bills, T.D. and M.A. Boogaard. 1994. Progress report: Ruffe control research. Submitted to the Ruffe Control Committee. National Biological Survey, Upper Mississippi Science Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602. 16 p.
Boogaard, M.A., T.D. Bills, J.H. Selgeby, and D.A. Johnson. 1996. Evaluation of piscicides for control of ruffe. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 600-607.
Busiahn, T.R. 1993. Can the ruffe be contained before it becomes YOUR problem? Fisheries (Bethesda) 18(8): 22-23.
Busiahn, T.R. 1996. Ruffe control: a case study of an aquatic nuisance species control program. In Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species, F.D'Itri (ed.). Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan 48118.
DeSorcie, T.J. and T.A. Edsall. 1995. Feeding rate of young-of-the-year ruffe on eggs of lake whitefish. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 10: 225-229.
Edsall, T.A., J.H. Selgeby, T.J. DeSorcie, and J.R.P. French III. 1993. Growth-temperature relation for young-of-the-year ruffe. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19: 630-633.
Edwards, A.J. 1995. Spatial changes in the distribution and abundance of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) and native fishes in the St. Louis River estuary 1989-94. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota-Duluth. 44 p.
Edwards, A.J., G.D. Czypinski, and J.H. Selgeby. MS. A collapsible trap for sampling ruffe. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI 54806.
Gilderhus, P.A. And B.G.H. Johnson. 1980. Effects of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control in the Great Lakes on aquatic plants, invertebrates, and amphibians. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 1895-1905.
Kindt, K. 1995. Effect of the lampricide TFM on ruffe in the Middle River, Wisconsin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 8 p.
Kindt, K., S.M. Keppner, and G. Johnson. 1996. Surveillance for ruffe in the Great Lakes, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 23 p.
Knight, R.L. and B. Vondracek. 1993. Changes in prey fish populations in western Lake Erie, 1969-88, as related to walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, predation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 1289-1298.
Marine Board. 1996. Stemming the tide: controlling introductions of nonindigenous species by ships's ballast water. National Research Council, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 152 p.
Marking, L.L. 1992. Evaluation of toxicants for the control of carp and other nuisance fishes. Fisheries 17(6): 6-13.
MacCallum, W.R. and G. Johnson. 1992. Bottom trawling for ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in the Kaministiquia River and Thunder Bay Harbour, October 22-24, 1991. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Superior Fisheries Unit Quik Report Number 92-2. 5 p.
Mayo, K.R. 1996. A bioenergetics modeling approach to top-down control of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in the St. Louis River. M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota-Duluth. 60 p.
Meronek, T.G. 1993. The status of the bait industry in the north central region. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Ogle, D.H. 1992. Trophic relations of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in the St. Louis River Harbor, Lake Superior. University of Minnesota M.S. thesis. 172. p.
Ogle, D.H. 1995. Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus): a review of published literature. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management Administrative Report No. 38. 44 p.
Ogle, D.H., J.H. Selgeby, R.M. Newman, and M.G. Henry. 1995. Diet and feeding periodicity of ruffe in the St. Louis River estuary, Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 356-369.
Ogle, D.H., J.H. Selgeby, J.F. Savino, R.M. Newman, and M.G. Henry. 1996. Predation on ruffe by native fishes of the St. Louis River estuary, Lake Superior, 1989-1991. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 115-123.
Pratt, D.M. 1988. Distribution and population status of the ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in the St. Louis River estuary and Lake Superior. Research completion report presented to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Pratt, D.M., W.H. Blust, and J.H. Selgeby. 1992. Ruffe, Gymnocephalus cernuus: newly introduced in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1616-1618.
Ryan, G.J. 1996. The shipping industry's role in slowing ruffe expansion throughout the Great Lakes. Fisheries 21(5): 22-23.
Ryder, K. 1995. Chicago waterway history. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, 111 North Canal Street, Chicago 60606.
Ruffe Task Force. 1992. Ruffe in the Great Lakes: a threat to North American fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. 144 p.
Savino, J.F. and C.S. Kolar. 1996. Competition between nonindigenous ruffe and native yellow perch in laboratory studies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 562-571.
Sawyer, A.J. 1980. Prospects for integrated pest management of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 2081-2092.
Selgeby, J.H. and D.H. Ogle. 1991. Status of ruffe in Lake Superior, 1990. Presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meeting, March 20, 1991. 15 p.
Selgeby, J.H. and D.H. Ogle. 1992. Trophic relations of ruffe and the status of ongoing research in the St. Louis River estuary, Lake Superior, 1991. Presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meeting, March 1992. 10 p.
Selgeby, J.H. 1993. Status of ruffe in the St. Louis River estuary, 1992, with emphasis on predator-prey relations. Presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meeting, March 31, 1993. 8 p.
Selgeby, J.H. 1994. Status of ruffe in the St. Louis River estuary, 1993, with emphasis on predator-prey relations. Presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meeting, March 23, 1994.
Selgeby, J.H. and A.J. Edwards. 1995. Status of ruffe in the St. Louis River estuary, 1994, with emphasis on predator prey relations. Presented at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Superior Committee meeting, March 29, 1995. 12 p.
Simon, T.P. and J.T. Vondruska. 1991. Larval identification of the ruffe, Gymnocephalus cernuus in the St. Louis River estuary, Lake Superior drainage basin, Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 436-442.
Slade, J. and K. Kindt. 1992. Surveillance for ruffe in the upper Great Lakes, 1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 8 p.
Slade, J.W. and K.J. Kindt. 1994. A field study to evaluate the potential of bottom trawling to control ruffe. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 18 p.
Slade, J.W., S.M. Pare, and W.R. MacCallum. 1994. Surveillance for ruffe in the Great Lakes, 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 14 p.
Slade, J.W., S.M. Keppner, and W.R. MacCallum. 1995. Surveillance for ruffe in the Great Lakes, 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806. 27 p.
Sparks, R.E. and J.E. Marsden. 1996. Invasive species in the Mississippi River. Northeast-Midwest Economic Review, June 1996. Published by the Northeast-Midwest Institute, 218 D Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003.
Weathers, K. and E. Reeves. 1996. The defense of the Great Lakes against the invasion of nonindigenous species in ballast water. Marine Technology 33(2): 92-100.
Members of the Ruffe Control Committee
THOMAS R. BUSIAHN, CHAIRMAN
FISHERY RESOURCES OFFICE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 LAKE SHORE DRIVE EAST
ASHLAND, WI 54806
715/682-6185
APPENDIX 3.
GREAT LAKES MARITIME INDUSTRY
VOLUNTARY BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE CONTROL OF RUFFE IN LAKE SUPERIOR PORTS
Owners and operators of vessels in the domestic and international trade on the Great Lakes
recognize their role in assisting the governments of the United States and Canada in
controlling the introduction and spread of non-indigenous fish species. We recognize that
control must be on many fronts, including ballast water management, chemical control,
predatory fish control, and other mechanisms. Vessels must use ballast water for safety
purposes to provide adequate stability, trim, propulsion, maneuverability, and hull stress
control. Recognizing these constraints, the marine industry will do everything within its
power, consistent with safety and stability, to decrease the spread of known unwanted
non-indigenous species. The introduction of new species from outside the system is under
the control of the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards through ballast water exchange
regulations prior to entry into the system. This plan deals with the control of the spread
of the European Ruffe from Western Lake Superior ports, in particular, Duluth/Superior or
other harbors where Ruffe colonies are documented.
FOR VESSELS DEPARTING LAKE SUPERIOR PORTS WEST OF BALLAST DEMARCATION LINE;
1) Operators of vessels pumping ballast water onboard in the above harbors, with ballast
line intakes equipped with screens fitted with holes larger than " in diameter, are
restricted at all times of the year in their pumping out of ballast water from these
harbors into the Great Lakes or their Connecting Channels or harbors. This ballast water
should be pumped out west of a ballast demarcation line one mile east of Ontonagon,
Michigan and Grand Portage, Minnesota. Ballast water from these harbors must not be
pumped out within 5 miles of the south shore of Lake Superior while west of the ballast
demarcation line. Ballast exchange should take place in water at least 20 fathoms (120
feet) deep.
2) Operators of vessels pumping ballast water onboard in the above harbors, with ballast
line intakes equipped with screens fitted with holes " in diameter or less, are
restricted only during the period between May 15 and September 15 in their pumping out of
ballast water from these harbors into the Great Lakes or their Connecting Channels or
harbors. During this 4-mouth period, these vessels should pump out the harbor ballast
water west of a ballast demarcation line one mile east of Ontonagon, Michigan and
Grand Portage, Minnesota. Harbor ballast water must not be pumped out within 5 miles of
the south shore of Lake Superior while west of the ballast demarcation line. Ballast
exchange should take place in water at least 20 fathoms (120 feet) deep.
3) If ballast exchange is not completed at the time the vessel reaches the demarcation
line, exchange may continue in Lake Superior, but only in waters at least 40 fathoms (240
feet deep) and 15 miles from shore. In all cases, exchange must stop before proceeding
east of 86 west.
FOR VESSELS DEPARTING LAKE SUPERIOR PORTS EAST OF BALLAST DEMARCATION LINE;
4) Vessels departing Thunder Bay should limit pumping ballast onboard as in paragraphs 1)
and 2) above. These vessels may exchange ballast in Lake Superior, but only in waters at
least 40 fathoms (240 feet deep) and 15 miles from shore. In all cases, exchange must stop
before proceeding east of 86 west.
FOR ALL VESSELS DEPARTING LAKE SUPERIOR PORTS;
5) Operators of vessels pumping in ballast water from the above harbors and leaving the
harbor with that water will maintain a record showing the amount of ballast water taken,
the means of control, if any, and the location where the treated or untreated harbor
ballast water was pumped out.
6) The ballast water records will be available for review by U.S. or Canadian Coast Guard personnel, who will begin a program of monitoring.
7) The above requirements will be waived for vessels which attest by means of a log
entry that the harbor ballast water from the above harbors will not be pumped out within
the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System (at least until reaching salt water). Masters
of these vessels recognize that ballast water from the above harbors must not be pumped
out in any other fresh or brackish water port and thus should exchange ballast with salt
water.
VOLUNTARY BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CO-SPONSORED BY:
- Canadian Shipowners Association - The Thunder Bay Harbour Commission - Shipping
Federation of Canada
- Lake Carriers' Association - Seaway Port Authority of Duluth - U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association
With consultation from USCG, CCG, US Fish and Wildlife Service
- 1. "Duluth Harbor" as used here refers to the estuary of the St. Louis River at the extreme western end of Lake Superior, and includes St. Louis Bay, Allouez Bay, and the commercial harbors of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The area encompasses about 13,000 acres of water.
- 2. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-646.
