[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396
=======================================================================
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
November 14, 2002
__________
Resources Serial No. 107-158
Science Serial No. 107-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
82-806 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
NICK SMITH, Michigan ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
DAVE WELDON, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MARK UDALL, Colorado
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., DAVID WU, Oregon
Washington ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GARY G. MILLER, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JOE BACA, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JIM MATHESON, Utah
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania ZOE LOFGREN, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
CHRIS CANNON, Utah BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JOE BACA, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JIM MATHESON, Utah
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
ELYSE STRATTON Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 14, 2002................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 7
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 46
Underwood, Hon. Robert A. a Delegate in Congress from Guam... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown, Captain Michael W., Chief, Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards, Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Transportation............................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Cangelosi, Allegra, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest
Institute.................................................. 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Chavarria, Dr. Gabriela, Policy Director for Wildlife
Management, National Wildlife Federation................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Keeney, Timothy R.E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Mann, Dr. Roger, Professor, School of Marine Science,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science....................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Ruiz, Dr. Gregory M., Senior Scientist, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center.............................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Williams, Steve, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Windle, Dr. Phyllis N., Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned
Scientists................................................. 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5395, TO ESTABLISH MARINE AND
FRESHWATER RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND ERADICATE INVASIVE SPECIES, AND H.R.
5396, TO AMEND THE NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND
CONTROL ACT OF 1990
----------
Thursday, November 14, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources, joint with the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
Committee on Science
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans], presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to
order.
What I think we will do right off the bat is--there are
plenty of seats up here on this dias, so all the people who are
standing, if you would not mind, could you come up and sit in
these chairs. Please sit wherever you like.
For those of you who are just coming in, we have some seats
up here on the lower dias. You are welcome to come up and sit
down. There are six or seven seats left, and it might be better
than standing in the back. Please come on up and sit in the
seats.
Good morning. I want to welcome our witnesses and thank
them for testifying this morning.
We are holding this hearing on two bills, H.R. 4395 and
H.R. 5396, bills that combine to reauthorize the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act.
I am pleased that the Science Committee and one of its
distinguished Chairmen, Mr. Ehlers, has joined the Subcommittee
this morning. We also welcome Judy Biggert to the dias and my
good friend Robert Underwood traveled here all the way from
Guam for this Subcommittee hearing.
The two bills deal with the overall comprehensive aspect of
the problem of invasive species, not only setting standards and
deadlines and infrastructure to pursue the problem, but will
deal with the necessary research to come up with the right
kinds of conclusions.
Before those conclusions are settled, though, we want to
come up with interim guidelines to more aggressively pursue
what just about everybody concludes is a pretty serious
problem.
During this reauthorization process, the proponents of this
legislation would like the appropriate Federal agencies to--and
most of us are proponents of this legislation, so we direct
these questions toward the people at the witness table at this
point--we would like the appropriate Federal agencies to
consider other vectors and pathways of invasive species
introduction besides ballast water; strengthen ballast water
management regulations by expanding them to a national scale;
establish guidelines and a timeframe to allow for other methods
of ballast water management besides ballast water exchange; and
expand the research, development, and demonstration projects
designed to develop methods and treatment tools for detecting,
preventing, controlling, and eradicating aquatic invasive
species.
The bills before us are consensus documents. They have been
developed with input from the scientific, environmental,
shipping communities and the affected Government agencies. We
understand that the bills are not perfect, and this hearing is
the first step to modify and improve them so that we can
strengthen environmental protections, alleviate the impact of
invasive species, and still maintain a vibrant and prosperous
shipping industry.
Today our two Subcommittees will hear from representatives
of nonprofit organizations and from the administration. I look
forward to the testimony that we will hear this morning, and I
look forward to moving in a way that is responsible but with
all deliberate speed to try to understand and then implement
the necessary protocols.
At this point, I will yield to the gentleman from Guam, Mr.
Underwood.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest , a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Good morning, I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for
testifying. We are holding this hearing on two bills, H.R. 5395 and
H.R. 5396, bills that combine to reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. I am pleased that the Science
Committee and one of its distinguished Chairmen, Vernon Ehlers, have
joined with our subcommittee in this effort. H.R. 5395, introduced by
Congressman Ehlers, addresses the research, development and control
programs to eradicate invasive species, while H.R. 5396, which I
introduced, addresses the regulatory framework and priorities of
invasive species control. The latter bill revisits the regulations
concerning ballast water discharges - the major source of aquatic
invasive species to our Nation's waters.
Invasive species are widely recognized as a primary threat to
environmental health and are capable of substantially disrupting the
balance of the world's aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The
scientific community has long recognized the magnitude of this problem,
and Capitol Hill has also recognized it, by enacting legislation such
as the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990. This Act, and the National Invasive Species Act, which
reauthorized it in 1996, have served as the cornerstone of aquatic
invasive species management. While these were vitally important first
steps, several problems exist with this legislation and invasive
species are far from being under control. We have not gone far enough
and we have not done enough to adequately address the extent and
severity of this problem.
During this reauthoriztion process, the proponents of this
legislation would like the appropriate Federal agencies to:
consider other vectors and pathways of invasive species
introductions besides ballast water,
strengthen ballast water management regulations by
expanding them to a National scale,
establish guidelines and a timeframe to allow for other
methods of ballast water management besides ballast water exchange, and
expand the research, development, and demonstration
projects designed to develop methods and treatment tools for detecting,
preventing, controlling and eradicating aquatic invasive species.
The bills before us are consensus documents. They have been
developed with input from the scientific, environmental, shipping,
communities and the affected governmental agencies. We understand the
bills are not perfect and this hearing is the first step to modify and
improve them, so that we can strengthen environmental protections,
alleviate the impact of invasive species, and still maintain a vibrant
and prosperous shipping industry.
Today, our two subcommittees will hear from representatives from
non-profit organizations and from the Administration. I look forward to
hearing from all of our witnesses and working with them as we move
through this process.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that you have scheduled this important hearing with
our colleagues from the Science Committee.
I am confident that our witnesses today will provide
valuable insights regarding how we might best strengthen our
Nation's capabilities to better combat the influx of
noninvasive, non-native species harming our marine and
freshwater environments.
Islands in the Pacific region, including Guam, are rich
with rare and endemic marine species. Several of the larger
island chains, notably Coral Reef Sound and the Hawaiian
Islands, are blessed with extraordinary species diversity.
Regrettably, our unique and culturally significant natural
heritage is under constant siege. Many species have been lost
due to the intentional release or unintentional introduction of
aquatic nuisance pests. Sadly, the future prospect is
pessimistic.
Additional scientific research development of a rapid-
response capability, better financial and technical assistance
to support local control efforts, and more stringent measures
to eliminate invasive species pathways are long overdue, but
all are necessary to address the growing ecological and
economic threat.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I remain excited by the prospect
of H.R. 5396 and 5995, which seek to build upon the success of
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention Act of
1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. These two
bills reflect a decade of accumulated field experience
confronting aquatic nuisance species and the recommendations of
the scientific community. They offer a realistic strategy to
aggressively address our most critical scientific and
operational needs.
I am especially appreciative that you have included in H.R.
5396 an expansion of the existing Brown Tree Snake Control
Program, which has provided vital support to people in Guam.
Unfortunately, there is little hope and even less time for the
107th Congress to act on this legislation, and I implore you to
keep that section in any new legislation in the 108th.
Nevertheless, both bills serve as important starting points
for constructive discussion in the 108th Congress. And with
that last thought, before acting on this legislation, I urge
you again, Mr. Chairman, to visit the Pacific region next year
to gain a first-hand understanding of the challenges we face to
control invasive species.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood, and we will do all
we can--we will keep that section in the bill in the next
Congress.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you have
scheduled this important joint hearing with our colleagues from the
Science Committee.
I am confident that our witnesses today will provide valuable
insights concerning how we might best strengthen our Nation's
capabilities to better combat the influx of non-native species harming
our marine and freshwater environments.
Islands in the Pacific Region, including Guam, are rich with rare
and endemic marine and estuarine species. Several of the larger island
chains, and notably coral reefs found in the Hawaiian Islands, are
blessed with extraordinary species diversity.
Regrettably, this unique and culturally significant natural
heritage is under constant siege. Many species have been lost due to
the intentional release or unintentional introduction of aquatic
nuisance pests. Sadly, the future prospect is pessimistic.
Additional scientific research, development of a rapid response
capability, better financial and technical assistance to support local
control efforts, and more stringent measures to eliminate invasive
species pathways are long overdue. All are necessary to address this
growing ecologic and economic threat.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am excited by the potential of H.R.
5396 and H.R. 5395, which seek to build upon the success of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act of
1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
These two bills reflect a decade of accumulated field experience
confronting aquatic nuisance species and the recommendations of the
scientific community. They offer a realistic strategy to aggressively
address our most critical scientific and operational needs. I am
especially appreciative that you have included in H.R. 5396 an
expansion of the existing Brown Tree Snake Control Program which has
provided vital support to my constituents in Guam.
Unfortunately there is little hope and even less time for the 107th
Congress to act on this legislation. Nevertheless, both bills serve as
important starting points for constructive discussion in the 108th
Congress.
And with that last thought, before acting on this legislation, I
urge you to visit the Pacific Region next year to gain first hand an
understanding of the challenges we face to control invasive species.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Ehlers?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VERNON J. EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just add that I think it would be a marvelous thing
to hold a field hearing in Guam at some point to look at the
issues there. I am not sure that I would go, but I think it
would be a great thing for you to do.
I certainly want to thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, for
holding this hearing so that we can hear the administration's
thoughts as well as those of several outside witnesses on this
legislation that you, Chairman Gilchrest, and I drafted, H.R.
5395 and 5396. I appreciate your leadership in engaging the
administration in a dialog about our legislation and also your
willingness to make this a joint hearing between our two
Subcommittees.
Based on the reaction I have received to the legislation
that we submitted, there is great approval and support among
the citizens of this Nation for what we are trying to do here.
During this Congress, the Chairman and I have found
ourselves working together more often than not on issues shared
by our respective Subcommittees. We have found common ground on
Sea Grant reauthorization, oceans policy, climate change, and
now on invasive species. In fact, we have worked so well
together that Chairman Boehlert of the Science Committee and I
added him to my Subcommittee because we wanted to be certain he
had more than enough work to do.
While this is billed as a joint hearing between our
Subcommittees, it is really much more than that. This is really
a joint effort by two Members who are passionate about enacting
comprehensive and tough legislation to stop the invasion of
alien species into our country.
These are not illegal aliens in the sense of people
sneaking into the U.S. from other countries, and these are not
the little green aliens that Hollywood has made popular. These
aliens are plants and animals, microorganisms and pathogens
that come into our country aboard our ships, planes, cargo
containers, agricultural and horticultural shipments, as well
as other pathways.
They invade and take hold of our native ecosystems and then
cause enormous economic and environmental damage by, for
example, harming crops and crowding out native species.
Mitigating this damage and controlling and eradicating
invasive species once they are established creates an
intolerable economic burden on our society, a burden that has
been estimated to cost $137 billion each year.
Once these invasive species are established, they become
the most persistent pollutant known to man--one without a half-
life and one that can reproduce and multiply unchecked. It is
that burden that Chairman Gilchrest and I seek to mitigate by
passing H.R. 5395 and 5396. These pieces of legislation focus
on aquatic invasive species and follow an age-old adage: An
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I probably should
change that to a milligram of prevention is worth a kilogram of
cure.
If we spend millions preventing invasive species from
entering the United States, we can avoid spending billions
trying to control and manage them once they are here.
But what will it take to get this legislation enacted next
year? First, it is going to take continued commitment from
Chairman Gilchrest, myself, Senators, and other key Members
such as Mr. Baird and Mr. Hoekstra to push this legislation
through Congress.
Chairman Gilchrest and I will continue to lead this fight
in the House, and we have agreed to reintroduce the bills the
first day that Congress reconvenes next year. We received a
promising sign of how important this is to Members of Congress
when we obtained over 40 bipartisan cosponsors on the
legislation with very little effort.
Second, the administration will have to recognize that this
legislation and this issue must be a priority. The harm caused
by invasive species affects all Americans and, thanks to the
now infamous snakehead fish, they are recognizing this threat.
The administration should be actively engaged in not only
making sure that passage of this legislation is a top priority
but also that it is fully implemented once it is enacted. I,
along with many of my colleagues, have been very frustrated by
the lack of progress that the Coast Guard has made in
implementing provisions of the National Invasive Species Act of
1996.
Third, the key constituencies affected by this
legislation--State and local governments, the shipping,
fishing, pet and aquaculture industries, and environmental
groups--will have to help forge a consensus about these bills.
These groups must realize that both of these bills are in the
best long-term interest of all Americans, and that we must work
together to achieve their enactment.
The time has come for us to move this legislation forward.
Invasive species do not respect political boundaries or time
lines, and they are arriving here and multiplying even as we
speak today.
Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. I look forward to working with
you on this venture and many other joint ventures in the next
Congress, and I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Statement of Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan
I want to thank Chairman Gilchrest for holding this hearing so that
we can hear the Administration's thoughts, and those of several outside
witnesses, on the legislation that Chairman Gilchrest and I drafted--
H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396. I appreciate his leadership in engaging the
Administration in a dialogue about our legislation, and also his
willingness to make this a joint hearing between our two subcommittees.
During this Congress, Chairman Gilchrest and I have found ourselves
working together more often than not on issues shared by our respective
subcommittees. We have found common ground on Sea Grant
reauthorization, oceans policy, climate change, and now on invasive
species. In fact, we have worked so well together that Chairman
Boehlert and I added him to my subcommittee because we wanted to be
certain he had enough work to do! While this is billed as a joint
hearing between our subcommittees, it is really more than that. This is
really a joint effort by two Members who are passionate about enacting
comprehensive and tough legislation to stop the invasion of alien
species into our country.
These are not illegal aliens in the sense of people sneaking into
the U.S. from other countries, and these are not the little green
aliens that Hollywood has made popular. These aliens are plants and
animals, microorganisms and pathogens that come into our country aboard
ships, planes, cargo containers, agriculture and horticulture
shipments, and other pathways. They invade and take hold in our native
ecosystems, and then cause enormous economic and environmental damage,
by, for example, harming crops and crowding out native species.
Mitigating this damage and controlling and eradicating invasive species
once they are established creates an intolerable economic burden on our
society, a burden that has been estimated at $137 billion each year.
Once these invasive species are established, they become the most
persistent pollutant known to man--one without a half-life and one that
can reproduce and multiply unchecked.
It is that burden that Chairman Gilchrest and I seek to mitigate by
passing H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396. These pieces of legislation focus on
aquatic invasive species and follow an age-old adage--an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we spend millions preventing
invasive species from entering the United States, we can avoid spending
billions trying to control and manage them once they are here.
But what will it take to get this legislation enacted next year?
First, it is going to take continued commitment from, Chairman
Gilchrest, myself, Senators, and other key Members, such as Mr. Baird
and Mr. Hoekstra, to push this legislation through Congress. Chairman
Gilchrest and I will continue to lead this fight in the House, and we
have agreed to reintroduce the bills the first day that Congress
reconvenes next year. We received a promising sign of how important
this issue is to Members of Congress when we obtained over 40
bipartisan cosponsors on the legislation with little effort.
Second, the Administration will have to recognize that this
legislation and this issue must be a priority. The harm caused by
invasive species affects all Americans, and thanks to the now infamous
Snakehead fish, they are recognizing this threat. The Administration
should be actively engaged in not only making sure that passage of this
legislation is a top priority, but also that it is fully implemented
once it is enacted. I, along with many of my colleagues, have been very
frustrated by the lack of progress that the Coast Guard has made in
implementing provisions of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
Third, the key constituencies affected by this legislation--states
and local governments; the shipping, fishing, pet, and aquaculture
industries; and environmental groups--will have to help forge a
consensus about these bills. These groups must realize that both of
these bills are in the best long-term interest of all Americans and
that we must work together to achieve their enactment.
The time has come for us to move this legislation forward--invasive
species don't respect political boundaries or timelines, and they are
arriving here and multiplying even as we speak to you today.
Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest, and I look forward working with you on
more joint ventures next Congress and to hearing from our witnesses
today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mrs. Biggert?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUDY BIGGERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you and Chairman Ehlers and Ranking
Member Underwood for allowing me to join you today. I do want
to commend you for holding this joint hearing today and for
introducing two important bills on such a critical topic as
invasive species.
I join you today because in my congressional district in
Illinois, the Asian carp has found the doorway into the Great
Lakes, and that entrance is the Chicago Ship and Sanitary
Canal, the only aquatic link between the Mississippi River and
the Great Lakes, and it is in this manmade waterway that the
Asian carp are creeping--I should say leaping--their way toward
Lake Michigan.
We do have what we hope is a stopgap measure, which is an
invisible electronic fence that repulses the Asian carp. The
fence is as wide as the canal and extends at a length of 60
feet, and in order for the carp to traverse the barrier, they
would have to not only set the world record in the long jump
but shatter it by almost 30 feet.
This barrier was originally designed as a demonstration
project to contain the nuisance round goby and the zebra
mussel, and the electronic fence became operational only 6
months ago, and it is a good thing, since the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service says that this ferocious fish is within 55
miles of Lake Michigan and approaching fast.
So while the experts say that this short-term strategy has
worked so far, we must do two things to win the battle over the
long term. No. 1, we have to ensure that this barrier remains
operational. And I have requested funds included in the fiscal
year 2003 energy and water appropriations bill, but without the
proper funding, the electricity could go out at any time, and
the carp will swim into Lake Michigan, and we certainly cannot
allow this to happen. So your bills that you have introduced
are crucial to my problem and the problem in the Midwest so
that we can construct another barrier and find the long-term
solution, and that, we just do fast.
So make no mistake--the Asian carp, as many of these
invasive species, waits for no one, not even Congress.
So I thank you for allowing me to join you today.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Biggert.
The introduction at this late date--we have some certainty
that it will probably not be voted on and sent to the President
for his signature before the 107th Congress is over. However,
what we want to do is get the agencies prepared for an
accelerated process that we hope to pursue with this
legislation in the 108th Congress.
So this is a clear signal that we hope within the first 100
days of the 108th Congress for this legislation to be passed
into law.
I want to thank all of you for coming today to testify, and
we will start with Mr. Steve Williams, Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
STATEMENT OF STEVE WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, and
members of both Subcommittees.
I am Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and I thank you for inviting the Department of the
Interior to comment on both of these bills.
There is no question that the introduction and
establishment of aquatic and invasive species have
significantly impacted our natural areas. We have only to look
at the history of invasions from the sea lamprey to the zebra
mussel to the snakehead fish this summer to see that the
problem is getting worse.
The United States continues to see an increase in the
number of aquatic species crossing our borders, and we expect
this trend to continue if preventive action is not taken.
The Department supports the overall direction of these two
bills and is very encouraged by the leadership and foresight
shown by Congress in introducing legislation that is so
comprehensive. We are especially enthusiastic about the
continued focus on partnerships and cooperative efforts to
address this nationally significant problem.
One of the purposes of the original legislation was to
encourage Federal and State agencies to work together with
partners to enhance our collective efforts. We believe that the
partnerships and cooperative entities established through the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive
Species Council have been instrumental in making significant
progress to prevent and control aquatic invasive species.
While invasive aquatic species continue to be a significant
threat to our natural resources, we believe that our efforts to
prevent and control aquatic invasive species have resulted in
fewer species introduced and reduced impacts from those that
have become established.
The ANS Task Force authorized by the original Act is
meeting this week in Hawaii with regional people from all the
islands and some of the territories, including Guam, to discuss
the special vulnerability of island ecosystems to aquatic
invasive species. Just yesterday, the task force took action to
establish a nutria working group that will bring together
Federal, State, and other expertise in the development of a
coordinated management and control plan for nutria.
Now I will briefly address some of our concerns with H.R.
5396. Let me begin my comments by saying that we support
reauthorization, and we look forward to working with you to
address the Department's concerns.
As these two bills are very comprehensive, I will limit our
comments today to several general areas and certainly make our
staff available to work with your staff on some of the details.
One specific concern we have is the proposed deadlines
required by H.R. 5396. We hope to have the opportunity to work
with you and your staff to ensure that the deadlines are
manageable while still ensuring that we continue to deal
aggressively with these issues.
While ballast water has been acknowledged as one of the
leading vectors of introduction, we are encouraged to see that
additional emphasis is being placed on other aquatic pathways.
This additional emphasis will encourage the development of
management actions which may minimize threats from new aquatic
invasive species that have the potential to impact our fish and
wildlife populations and associated habitats.
The Department supports the development of a screening
process for planned importations of live aquatic organisms.
Having the opportunity to evaluate new, non-native species that
are proposed to be brought into the United States is an
invaluable tool to ensure that we are proactive in preventing
the introduction of new aquatic invasive species into U.S.
waters.
While the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act
give the Service the ability to evaluate and list species as
injurious, the nature of the law makes our efforts more
reactive than proactive. The screening process outlined in the
proposed legislation is a more proactive approach to preventing
introductions of aquatic invasive species.
However, there appear to be some regulatory gaps, and we
would like to work with you to address these issues.
We are concerned about provisions in section 105(b) that
delegate sole authority to screen cultured species to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Because of the risks to fish and
wildlife, we believe that the Service should also have some
role in this type of screening.
We are also concerned that the level of funding identified
in the bill to develop and implement the screening process may
be insufficient to accomplish these tasks within the stated
deadlines. The added workload associated with developing the
guidelines and regulations, conducting the evaluations, and
ensuring effective compliance will be substantial.
The State ANS management plan provisions have been very
successful, and we are happy to see that the program was
continued and expanded. We look forward to working
collaboratively with the States to integrate these new
provisions into their efforts to more effectively address
invasive species issues.
Education and outreach continue to be critical elements to
the success of invasive species prevention and control. Within
the Department, the Service has been actively working for many
years on the 100th Meridian Initiative to stop the westward
spread of zebra mussels. We support the proposed enhancement of
those efforts through increased and targeted outreach.
Turning briefly to H.R. 5395, we are particularly
encouraged by the increased emphasis on research and monitoring
efforts. In its strategic planning effort, the Task Force
determined that additional actions were needed and restructured
its committees to better address these problems.
Key areas addressed in the legislation including pathways,
ballast water management, early detection, and monitoring and
control, can only be successful if they are based on sound
research. However, we do have some concerns about the
coordination of agencies and organizations that collect and
store information regarding aquatic invasive species.
We also support the development of methods for rapid
assessment of newly detected aquatic species and recommend that
adequate resources for conducting such assessments be included
as an integral component of coordinated planning for rapid
responses.
In closing, I want to thank you again for providing the
Department with an opportunity to comment on this legislation,
and as I stated earlier, we would be very happy to work with
you and your staff to address issues related to deadlines and
implementation. We believe that the comprehensive approach
outlined in the legislation will result in a more balanced,
holistic effort to address the problems caused by aquatic
invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Statement of Steve Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and a co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
(ANS Task Force). Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior
(Department) to comment on H.R. 5396, the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act, and H.R. 5395, the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Research Act. Working primarily through the Service and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the Department has a long history of
aggressively working on issues related to aquatic invasive species.
There is no question that the introduction and establishment of
aquatic invasive species have significantly impacted our natural areas.
We have only to look at a history of invasions from the sea lamprey to
the zebra mussel to the snakehead fish this summer to understand the
broad scope of the problem. The United States continues to see a number
of aquatic species crossing our borders, and we expect this trend to
continue. The Department supports the overall direction of these two
bills and is encouraged by the leadership and foresight shown by
Congress to address this difficult issue. However, the Department
offers to work with the Subcommittee on specific program details. We
also note that new spending authorized by these bills is not currently
included in the President's Budget and, as such, must be considered
within existing resources and priorities.
We agree with the continued focus on partnerships and cooperative
efforts to address this nationally significant problem. One of the
purposes of the original bill, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990, was to encourage Federal and State
agencies to work with partners to enhance our collective efforts. We
believe that the partnerships and cooperative entities established
through the ANS Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council
(Council) have been instrumental in making significant progress to
prevent and control aquatic invasive species.
We note that H.R. 5396 would give statutory recognition to the
Council, which the Secretary co-chairs along with the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Commerce. We endorse this provision, and believe that
this statutory recognition will assist the Council in providing
coordination and policy guidance for federal invasive species programs.
We also support inclusion of research agencies, such as the USGS and
the Smithsonian Institution, as participants in the Task Force to
encourage strong links between research and the management of non-
indigenous aquatic species.
The ANS Task Force, authorized by the original Act, is meeting this
week in Hawaii with regional people from all the islands and some of
the territories (including Guam) to discuss the special vulnerability
of island ecosystems to aquatic invasive species. Over the last 12
years, the Task Force has held meetings throughout the country to
better understand regional invasive species issues, increase awareness,
and enhance coordination efforts with local and regional entities.
The Task Force has been successful in establishing additional
Regional Aquatic Nuisance Species Panels, bringing together
governmental and private entities to coordinate aquatic invasive
species activities at a regional level. The 1990 Act authorized the
Great Lakes Panel, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)
authorized the establishment of a Western Regional Panel. NISA also
recommended that the ANS Task Force establish additional panels. Three
additional panels have been established since 1997--the Gulf of Mexico
Panel in 1999, the Northeast ANS Panel in 2001, and the Mississippi
River Basin Panel should be approved by the ANS Task Force soon. The
ANS Task Force is also encouraging the establishment of a Mid-Atlantic
Panel. The ANS Task Force is proud of many of the accomplishments made
over the last decade including enhancement of regional coordination on
aquatic invasive species issues. While invasive aquatic species
continue to be a significant threat to our natural resources, we
believe our efforts to prevent and control aquatic invasive species
have resulted in fewer species introduced and reduced impacts from
those that have become established.
H.R. 5396
Let me begin by saying that, while we have some concerns with the
bill, we support reauthorization and want to work with you and your
staff regarding the details. As these two bills are very comprehensive,
we will limit our comments today to several general areas. However, one
specific concern we have are the proposed deadlines required by H.R.
5396. We hope to have the opportunity to work with you and your staff
to ensure that the deadlines are manageable while still ensuring that
we continue to deal aggressively with these issues.
Ballast Water
We believe that substantial progress has been made regarding the
management of ballast water, however, much remains to be done. Through
NISA, Congress required that the Coast Guard develop voluntary
guidelines for ballast water management, and that those guidelines be
made mandatory if the industry did not comply with the guidelines or
did not adequately report on compliance. In 1996, as required by NISA,
the ANS Task Force provided the Coast Guard with a report outlining the
criteria for determining the adequacy and effectiveness of the
voluntary guidelines. The Coast Guard utilized the input from the ANS
Task Force and submitted their report to Congress on the Voluntary
Guidelines for Ballast Water Management, which outlined a process to
transition to a mandatory program. The Department supports the Coast
Guard's ongoing efforts to transition from the voluntary national
program to a mandatory program, as well as efforts to establish a
standard to serve as the benchmark for ballast water management
options, and we urge a continuation and emphasis for research on
ballast water management to assure that the resulting standards are
effective and environmentally sound.
Pathways
While ballast water has been acknowledged as one of the leading
vectors of introduction, we are encouraged to see that additional
emphasis is being placed on other aquatic pathways. Some of these other
pathways include bait fish, pet trade for use in aquariums,
horticulture and live food. This additional emphasis will encourage the
development of management actions, which may minimize the threats from
new aquatic invasive species that have the potential to impact our fish
and wildlife populations and associated habitats. We support
interagency priority pathway research and management efforts to
identify high risk pathways and develop management strategies to
address them. In developing its strategic plan last year, the ANS Task
Force also identified the management of pathways by which invasive
species are introduced as a vital action to prevent future
establishment of aquatic invasive species. A number of the actions
called for in this bill are similar to those included in the
``Prevention'' section of the Council's National Invasive Species
Management Plan (Plan).
Screening of Planned Importations
The Department has recognized the need for the development of a
screening process for planned importations of live aquatic organisms.
Having the opportunity to evaluate new non-native species that are
proposed to be brought into the United States is an invaluable tool to
ensure that we are proactive in preventing the introduction of new
aquatic invasive species into United States waters. An example of the
need for such a tool is the discovery this summer of a population of
snakehead fish in a pond in Maryland.
Snakehead fish are an aquatic invasive species that are sold live
for food or as aquarium pets. Snakeheads are top predators that
multiply quickly and have several special features that enhance their
ability to survive in wild. In addition to the population found in
Maryland, another population was found a year ago in Florida. After the
discovery in Florida during the summer of 2001, the Service and the
USGS initiated a risk assessment to gather scientific information to
determine the injurious nature, and potential impacts, of snakeheads.
Data from this risk assessment indicated that the snakeheads were
indeed detrimental and the Service began the process of listing
snakeheads as injurious wildlife. That process was recently completed
when a final rule was published on October 4, 2002. That rule makes it
illegal under the Lacey Act to import into the United States or
transport across State lines all members of the Channidae family,
including the 28 currently recognized species and any species that may
be classified under the Channidae family in the future.
While the Injurious Wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act give the
Service the ability to evaluate and list species as injurious, the
nature of the law makes our efforts more reactive than proactive. The
screening process outlined in the proposed legislation is an example of
a more proactive and effective approach to preventing introductions of
aquatic invasive species.
Having recognized the need for improved screening, the Council's
Plan, which I previously mentioned, also calls for working with key
stakeholders to develop and test a screening process for intentionally-
introduced species. Preliminary work to develop this system has begun
in conjunction with the ANS Task Force. We also recommend the
development of risk assessment methods to evaluate the potential threat
of species that have not yet been introduced. This will be critical in
making our screening efforts effective. The Department, the Council,
and the ANS Task Force would like to work with the Subcommittee to
consider whether the specifics of this proposal should be revised
during the legislative process.
We are concerned about the provisions in section 105 (b) that
delegate sole authority to screen species for use in aquaculture to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Because of the risk to fish and
wildlife, we believe that the Service should also have a role in this
type of screening.
In addition to evaluating potentially invasive species through the
screening process, the Service would also be responsible for
enforcement of the resulting regulations. Currently, the Service has 94
uniformed Wildlife Inspectors at 32 staffed ports. In 2001, there were
119,581 shipments that were imported or exported through the United
States. Of those, 26,279, or 22 percent, were physically inspected. The
added workload associated with developing the guidelines and
regulations, conducting the evaluations, and ensuring effective
compliance will be substantial. Given the comprehensive nature of this
provision, it will be necessary to work cooperatively with other
agencies who may also have responsibility for aquatic invasive species.
We embrace the opportunity to work with the these other agencies to
develop an effective and efficient screening process that is protective
of both the human and natural environment.
State ANS Plans
The State ANS Management Plan provisions have been very successful
and we are happy to see that the program is continued. The ANS Task
Force developed guidelines to help States develop ANS plans, and made
those guidelines available to the States in 2000. As outlined in the
bill, the ANS Task Force will update and enhance those guidelines to
address additional components related to early detection and rapid
response, aquatic plant control and screening of planned importations.
We look forward to continuing collaborative work with the States on
their efforts to more effectively address invasive species issues. The
ANS Task Force provides us with an excellent venue to pursue these
collaborative partnerships. In fact, the ANS Task Force and its
Regional Panels have encouraged the continued development of State and
Interstate ANS Management Plans. There are currently 9 State and
Interstate Plans approved by the ANS Task Force and a number of other
States are in the process of developing plans. The Service provided
cost-share grants to 11 States and tribes to implement those approved
plans. Four additional States, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana and
Alaska, submitted their plans to the ANS Task Force and the plans are
expected to be approved at the meeting in Hawaii.
Cooperative control/management plans
The ANS Task Force also has a long history of developing and
implementing cooperative control and management plans. For example,
plans for brown tree snake and Eurasian ruffe were developed in the
mid-1990s, and the ANS Task Force is currently developing management/
control plans for the Chinese mitten crab and Caulerpa taxifolia, a
marine algae. The objectives of these plans are to outline strategies
and actions to control or manage aquatic invasive species. These plans
are developed and implemented cooperatively by Federal, State and
regional entities where appropriate. At the Task Force meeting in
Hawaii, the ANS Task Force is taking action to approve, for public
review, an Asian Swamp Eel Management Plan and a Green Crab Management
Plan. The Department recognizes the importance of the Brown Tree Snake
Control Program, but we believe that the Council--which is given
responsibility for brown tree snake control under H.R. 5396--is better
equipped to provide general policy guidance, not implementation of
specific control plans.
Early Detection and Monitoring
We support the objectives addressed in Section 106. An early
detection network based on the best available science is key to
reducing the impacts of invasive aquatic species.
Education and Outreach
Education and outreach continue to be critical elements to the
success of invasive species prevention and control. Within the
Department, the Service has been actively working for many years on a
100th Meridian Initiative to stop the westward spread of zebra mussels
and other aquatic invasive species. The bill proposes to enhance these
efforts through increased and targeted outreach and education efforts.
The ANS Task Force and the Service have established a new public
awareness campaign known as Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! that targets
aquatic recreation users and promotes voluntary guidelines to ensure
that aquatic invasive species are not spread through recreational
activities. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! compliments the 100th Meridian
Initiative and was designed to unify the conservation community to
inform recreation users about the issue and encourage them to become
part of the solution to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
The National Park Service also provides information to millions of
visitors every year regarding conservation of natural and cultural
resources. The Act, as amended, recognizes the vital role that the
National Park Service has in education and outreach on resource
conservation and, more specifically, during the commemoration of the
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Expedition. Invasive Species education and
information, integrated within ongoing educational efforts, will
provide critical context to increase understanding of the impacts of
invasive species on natural resources.
Again, we applaud the legislation's multi-agency approach to
education and outreach as there are already significant efforts to
coordinate the dissemination of information. One example is the
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), an extensive
information network already in wide public use, can be utilized as a
means to facilitate public access to survey, monitoring, and risk
assessment information.
H.R. 5395
Research
We are encouraged by the increased emphasis on research and
monitoring efforts in the bill. In its strategic planning effort, the
Task Force determined that additional actions were needed and
restructured its committees to better address these problems. Key areas
addressed in the legislation, including pathways, ballast water
management, early detection and monitoring and control, can only be
successful if they are based on sound research.
We recognize the need for methods for rapid assessment of newly
detected aquatic species, and recommend that adequate resources for
conducting such assessments be included as an integral component of
coordinated planning for rapid responses. We recommend that particular
attention be given to expanding and coordinating existing databases,
such as the USGS's National Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database,
which provides basic scientific information for addressing invasive
species threats. Finally, we recommend that the legislation ensure
better coordination among the agencies and organizations that collect
and store invasive aquatic species information, and we offer our
assistance to the Subcommittee in this regard.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to thank you for providing the Department with
an opportunity to comment on this legislation. As I stated earlier, we
would be happy to work with you and your staff programmatic and other
technical issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to
respond to any questions you or the other Committee members may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere of NOAA.
Welcome, Mr. Keeney.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Keeney. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman
Ehlers, and members of the Subcommittees.
I am Timothy Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and co-chair of the Task Force.
I appreciate the opportunity to present NOAA's views on
H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396.
Your bills, Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Ehlers, address
some gaps in the existing programs. There is a need to develop
an early detection and rapid response mechanism in order to
detect invasions while they are still localized and to control
them before they spread. Even though members of the Task Force
have taken preliminary steps toward invasive species control,
there is a need to systematically assess eradication
technologies to determine how best to control invasives as well
as to prevent them from occurring.
Finally, the Task Force recognizes that education and
research are important supporting elements for all invasive
species activities. We appreciate that the importance of these
activities is emphasized in the two bills.
NOAA would, however, like to suggest some technical
modifications, and I am happy to have my staff work with the
Committee staffs to address some of the technical issues that
NOAA believes are necessary.
Some provisions of the two bills are duplicative and
overlap each other. As examples, provisions on ballast water
technology development and dispersal barriers are contained in
both bills.
A point already raised by Director Williams of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, NOAA is also concerned that there are 31
separate deadlines for specific actions that must be completed
by members of the Task Force within 18 months of passage. When
treated individually, these actions are not unreasonable, but
it will be extremely difficult to simultaneously give each of
them the level of attention they require in the time allowed.
We would be happy to work with the Committees on this issue to
develop an appropriate time line.
Further, the chronology of some of the activities in the
legislation should be examined. In some instances, an action is
required before the deadline for the guidelines and/or
protocols necessary for that action are complete and available.
An example is the provision for screening, where the screening
process is to begin before the guidelines for the screening are
in place.
The last reauthorization in 1986 anticipated that
nationwide ballast water management would become mandatory. As
the Coast Guard's report to the Congress in June pointed out,
compliance with the voluntary guidelines has not been
satisfactory. The Federal Government should issue uniform
nationwide regulations to ensure that the shipping industry is
not burdened with a variety of standards in different
geographic locations. The Coast Guard has indicated that it
will issue national regulations, and we support the Coast
Guard's effort and appreciate the Committees' support of such
efforts.
In addition, the legislation may contain unnecessary detail
in several places that could impose an undue burden on the
private sector and State governments. Two instances occur in
the ballast water provisions. The bill requires that rapid
response measures be included in a ship's invasive species
management plan. As I indicated earlier, NOAA supports
additional efforts on rapid response. We cannot envision,
however, that all ships should be aware of each State's rapid
response contingency plan.
NOAA is aware of the frustration in developing a
standardized measure for new ballast water treatment
technologies. We believe that ultimately, there needs to be a
standard based on sound science that is biologically
meaningful, such as discharge rate. The interim standard,
however, should set a clear direction from which the final
standard will evolve.
NOAA is concerned about a kill rate being used as an
interim standard because it is a dynamic measure, and a
standard percentage does not always ensure that invasive
species levels are below appropriate levels of concern. A set
kill rate as an interim standard is a step in the right
direction, however.
Both bills recognize the fact that the science involved
with all aquatic invasives is much less advanced than the
science dealing with terrestrial invasives. The science of
biological invasives in aquatic ecosystems is still in its
nascent stages, and although considerable progress has been
made in the last decade, there are still areas in which
knowledge is deficient. NOAA is pleased that both bills give
additional emphasis to research activities.
Finally, I would like to discuss two areas of current
limitations. First, there is inadequate monitoring in aquatic
systems. In many instances, we do not even have baseline
species content information so that we know when a serious new
invader has been introduced. Both NOAA and the Task Force
recognize the need for baseline surveys and have taken initial
steps to correct this deficiency. We are pleased that both
bills highlight the need for a uniform protocol for such
monitoring activities.
Second, our scientific knowledge of control methods in
aquatic environments is still in its infancy, and such control
presents unique problems. It is much more difficult to locate
biocide applications in the aquatic environment, because water
transports chemicals so readily. In addition, there are special
concerns that available chemicals are not species-specific. In
addition, there is no specific knowledge of control methods for
certain taxonomic groups.
My written testimony, Mr. Chairman, contains comments on
other provisions of the bill, and I am happy to discuss those
with your staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Keeney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keeney follows:]
Statement of Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, and members of
the Subcommittees. I am Timothy Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force. I appreciate the opportunity to present NOAA views
on H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396, which would reauthorize the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended by the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996.
I begin my testimony with some observations on the evolution of the
Act which mirrors our current state of understanding of aquatic
invasive species. The bulk of my testimony will focus on the ballast
water and research provisions of the bills. Here we address the need to
create national standards for ballast water based on sound science as
well as technical changes to the bill. Before concluding, I will also
mention concerns with non-ballast related provisions within the bills.
When the Act was first passed, the focus was on a single species-
the zebra mussel, a single region-the Great Lakes, and a single
pathway-ballast water. It subsequently became obvious that the problems
caused by invasive species generally, and aquatic invasive species
specifically, are broader than originally envisioned and this was
reflected in the 1996 amendments. This recognition is further reflected
in the two pieces of legislation that have been introduced constitute a
major rewrite of the existing law.
Earlier this year, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force adopted
a five-year strategic plan in which we assessed current activities and
looked at areas requiring additional attention. In several areas, the
Task Force's conclusions are similar to issues addressed in this
legislation. Your bills, Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Ehlers,
address some gaps in our existing programs. There is a need to develop
an early detection and rapid response mechanism in order to detect
invasions while they are still localized and to control them before
they spread. Recognizing this, the Task Force already has asked its
Regional Panels to prepare rapid response contingency plans. The first
of these plans, prepared by the Western Regional Panel, was submitted
for approval by the Task Force this week. Even though members of the
Task Force have taken preliminary steps, there is a need to
systematically assess pathways to determine how best to interdict them
as well as prevent invasions from occurring. Finally, the Task Force
recognized that education and research are important supporting
elements for all invasive species activities. The importance of these
activities is emphasized in the two bills.
We would like to express our appreciation to the sponsors of the
legislation for taking a comprehensive view of the problems posed by
aquatic invasive species. NOAA would, however, like to suggest some
technical modifications. I am happy to have my staff work with
committee staffs to address some of these technical issues.
During the last re-authorization in 1996, the need to develop a
more effective ballast water management was recognized. As the Coast
Guard's report to the Congress in June pointed out, compliance with the
voluntary guidelines, even to the extent of reporting, has not been
satisfactory. Since 1996, we have continued to see the introduction of
non-native species into coastal areas, and the situation has been
serious enough that west coast states have acted independently to
require ballast water management measures. The Federal government
should develop a coordinated nationwide response to ensure that the
shipping industry is not burdened by a variety of standards in
different geographic locations. Such action is possible under existing
law, and the Coast Guard, in its report to Congress on compliance with
voluntary guidelines, has indicated that it would take steps to issue
national standards. We support the Coast Guard's efforts to establish
mandatory guidelines and appreciate the Committees'' support of such
efforts.
In several places, the legislation may contain unnecessary detail
that could impose an undue burden on the private sector and State
governments. Two instances occur in the ballast water provisions. The
bill requires that rapid response measures be included in a ship's
invasive species management plan. As I indicated earlier, NOAA supports
additional efforts on rapid response. We cannot envision, however, that
all ships would be aware of each State's rapid response contingency
plan. Since such plans are likely to vary among the States, preparation
for compliance with such provisions by the shipping companies may be
unnecessarily problematic. The primary purpose behind a ballast water
management plan should be to reduce the risk that a ship will be the
source of new inoculations. The major responsibility for a ship during
a rapid response is likely to be either not entering an area where a
rapid response action is occurring, not loading ballast water which
could contribute to the spread of an invasive species, or not
discharging water known to have originated from a rapid response area.
Rather than require a rapid response plan for unknown organisms in a
multiplicity of areas, the better approach would be to require that a
ship cooperate with State governments during a rapid response effort.
We would be happy to provide the Committees with technical drafting
assistance to clarify this provision.
NOAA is aware of the frustration in developing a standard for new
ballast water treatment technologies. We believe that ultimately there
needs to be a discharge standard based on sound science and one that is
biologically meaningful. NOAA is concerned about a ``kill rate'' being
used as an interim standard. Although a 95 percent kill rate may reduce
the risk of new invasions, there may be difficulties posed with
verification and enforcement. In addition to verification and
enforcement difficulties, there is no scientific evidence that a 95
percent ``kill rate'' reduces the risk of new invasions. Verification
of kill rates may also be impractical because in order to prove such a
kill rate both the departure point and the discharge point must be
sampled. There also could be a significant gap in coverage by this
standard. What is killed can be as important, if not more so, then what
percentage is killed (i.e., the phytoplankton that cause harmful algal
blooms). Some algal blooms worldwide have been attributed to ballast
water introductions. Concentrations of up to 10 million cells per liter
have been documented during some blooms. For such species, the normal
maximum for human safety is 5,000 cells per liter. A technology could
successfully kill 95 percent of the organisms and still be at an order
of magnitude above what is safe for human health. The Coast Guard, in
cooperation with other Federal Agencies, is currently assessing various
options for the standards, including standards based on allowable
concentrations of organisms. This process should be allowed to continue
in order to ensure that the standards are biologically meaningful and
technologically feasible.
Another modification that we recommend to the Committees relates to
the 31 separate deadlines for specific actions that must be completed
by members of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force within 18 months
of passage. It will be difficult to simultaneously give all of these
actions the level of attention they deserve in the time allowed. We
recommend that the Committees assess the priority level of each of
these actions and allow for additional time for lower level priority
activities. We would be happy to work with the Committees on such an
assessment.
Further, the chronology of some of the activities in the
legislation should be examined. In some instances, an activity is
required before the deadline for the guidelines and/or protocols
necessary for the activity are available. An example are the provisions
for screening where the screening process is to begin before the
guidelines for screening are in place.
In H.R. 5396, appropriations are authorized for NOAA and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to carry out the revised section 1101.
With a couple of minor exceptions, NOAA and FWS only have consultive
responsibilities under section 1101. If the intent was to authorize
appropriations for the ballast water demonstration program, the
referenced section should be section 1104. It should be noted that H.R.
5395 does contain an authorization for section 1104.
Section 1202(f)authorizes a competitive research program under the
National Sea Grant College Program but there is no authorization of
appropriations for activities under this section. The bulk of current
knowledge and most of the current research being conducted on all
aspects of aquatic invasive species have been funded by Sea Grant under
this provision. An authorization for research on aquatic invasives is
contained in proposed legislation considered by both of these
Committees that would re-authorize the Sea Grant program. We recommend
that H.R. 5396 include an authorization of appropriations for Sea Grant
invasive species activities that parallels H.R. 3389.
Both bills recognize the fact that the science involved with
aquatic invasives is much less advanced than the science dealing with
terrestrial invasives particularly as they relate to livestock and
crops. While some of our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture
have been dealing with weed and insect problems for most of the last
century, the science of biological invasions in aquatic ecosystems is
still very young. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force has
recognized that virtually every activity from prevention to control to
restoration needs to have a scientific underpinning. Although
considerable progress has been made in the last decade, there are still
areas in which our knowledge is seriously deficient. NOAA is pleased
that both bills give additional emphasis to research activities.
I would like to discuss two areas as an illustration of our current
limitations. First, there is inadequate monitoring in aquatic systems.
In many instances, we do not even have baseline information so that we
know when a serious new invader has been introduced. This also hampers
efforts to characterize invasion rates, and without monitoring
activities, early detection and rapid response occur only by chance. It
should be noted that there are exceptions, but they are limited to
specific geographic areas. As an example, the Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force-sponsored study of San Francisco Bay by scientists Dr.
Andrew Cohen and Dr. James Carlton is outstanding in documenting
nonindigenous species occurrence in that ecosystem and is often cited
even in terrestrial studies. A similar study of the Chesapeake Bay
sponsored by FWS and performed by Dr. Greg Ruiz at the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center provides a very good baseline for
Chesapeake Bay. Both the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and NOAA
recognize the need for baseline surveys and have taken first steps to
correct this deficiency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sponsored a
workshop on developing protocols and requirements for an effective
monitoring program in aquatic ecosystems, and earlier this year, NOAA's
National Ocean Service conducted a similar workshop for monitoring
within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. We are pleased
that both bills highlight the need for a uniform protocol for such
monitoring activities.
Our scientific knowledge of control methods in aquatic environments
is still in its infancy, and control in aquatic ecosystems present
unique problems. Because water is a medium which will move chemicals
from one place to another, it is much more difficult to localize
biocide applications. In addition, there is special concern that
available chemicals are not species specific. Last summer when the
State of Maryland used rotenone to eradicate the northern snakehead
from a pond near Washington, DC, it should be noted that the
application was in a small, isolated body of water and that all other
fish species were also killed. Obviously, there are only limited
circumstances when such a method can be used. There are even taxonomic
groups for which there is no scientific knowledge of control methods.
NOAA confronted this issue two summers ago when there was a bloom of
spotted jellyfish in the Gulf of Mexico. We recognized that the species
was having a major impact in localized areas and was affecting
commercial fisheries, but we were in a situation where nobody had ever
tried to control jellyfish in the past.
With the exception of aquatic weeds, where the Army Corps of
Engineers has had some notable successes, we also have just begun to
look at biocontrol agents. We do have some promising results, though,
with a pathogen that could be used for zebra mussel control. In a
project funded by NOAA Sea Grant and FWS, a researcher has found that
the Pseudomonas fluorescens bacterium causes extremely high mortality
in zebra mussels and preliminary results indicate that it may be
specific to zebra mussels. To show the difficulty in finding an
acceptable biocontrol agent, it should be noted that the researcher
looked at over 600 different pathogens. In addition, once such a
pathogen is found, it is necessary to make sure that the biocontrol
agent will not affect native species. This is particularly important in
this case because many of our native freshwater bivalves are already
listed as threatened and endangered.
Some provisions in the two bills are duplicative or overlap each
other. As examples, provisions on ballast water technology development,
monitoring for both baselines and new introductions, and dispersal
barriers are contained in both bills.
Although the invitation asked that I specifically address the
ballast water and research provisions, I would like to address a couple
of other items contained in the legislation. First, NOAA is pleased
that increasing emphasis is given to the role played by State
governments. If we are to be successful in combating invasive species,
partnerships with other levels of government are absolutely essential.
H.R. 5396 recognizes this by placing a greater emphasis on State
management plans, contingency plans, and rapid response. As I indicated
earlier in my testimony, however, there are places where the proposed
legislation may be a little too detailed and could ultimately become
burdensome on State governments. As an example, there is a provision
requiring education to be part of a rapid response plan. While NOAA and
the Task Force believe that education is extremely important and have
encouraged inclusion of education provisions in State Management Plans,
we do not believe that it is an essential element of a contingency plan
for rapid response. In fact, Sea Grant Colleges already conduct
education and outreach programs associated with research including
invasive species. We also have concerns about the requirement for an
early detection program before rapid response funding could be
approved. The situation may arise where a program is needed before a
State has resources available to establish a program. The absence of
such a program should not preclude a rapid response effort if a serious
invasive species is discovered.
H.R. 5396 also would give statutory recognition to the Invasive
Species Council. Such statutory recognition will assist in providing
policy guidance and coordination of the Federal government's invasive
species program. In at least one instance, however, NOAA believes that
the proposed legislation assigns a task which is inappropriate for the
Council. The legislation would give the Council responsibility for
control of brown tree snakes. NOAA, which co-chairs the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force and is Commerce's designee as the co-chair
of the Council, does not believe that the Council should be responsible
for implementation of specific control plans. The Council's primary
focus is to provide policy guidance and we do not recommend changing
that focus. The Council does not have the same expertise or
infrastructure as the ANS Task Force has to implement control plans.
Specific control plans should be implemented by the ANS Task Force in
coordination with State and Local governments.
Screening provisions in the bill may need to be revised. In
addition to chronology problems, the limitations imposed by the
screening process could be viewed as too restrictive. In addition to
the research exception, there may be other instances where importation
of invasive species may be appropriate. To illustrate this point, the
risk of a saltwater fish species imported for display by the Shedd
Aquarium in Chicago becoming a problem is minimal. Not only is the
Aquarium a very reputable organization, but even if the species were to
escape, it would not be likely to become established in the freshwater
environment of Illinois.
NOAA is also concerned about the provision that grants the
Department of Agriculture the sole authority to screen species proposed
for aquaculture use. NOAA believes that the end use of an importation
is irrelevant to whether or not a species is invasive. We are concerned
because, in the case of aquaculture, what is most often cultured are
wild species normally under the jurisdiction of either NOAA or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, aquaculture is not limited to
closed systems. Often species such as oysters and clams are released
into natural ecosystems. We would also point out that much of the
scientific expertise for making determinations on aquatic imports is in
the management agencies. In order to make such determinations,
information on life history and impacts on natural ecosystems and
native species is necessary. Finally, if end use helps to determine
whether a species should be prohibited, we could end up with
contradictory decisions. The recent case of the northern snakehead is
illustrative. The fish released into the local pond were imported for
human consumption and would presumably be under the authority of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The same species has been cultured in
Hawaii and a determination of invasiveness would presumably be made by
the Department of Agriculture.
Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Ehlers, and members of the
subcommittees, the legislation before you builds on the previous Act
and addresses some gaps that have already been identified by the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. As with any complicated piece of
legislation, there are some technical difficulties, and we would be
happy to work with the subcommittee to address them. Among these
issues, we note that new spending authorized by these bills is not
currently included in the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget, and as
such, must be considered within existing resources and priorities. As
one of the trustees for marine and coastal resources, NOAA has been
aware of the problems caused by aquatic invasive species and recognized
that we have a responsibility to help prevent these invasions and
reduce the impact if such invasions occur. NOAA also recognizes that we
cannot be successful without partnerships with other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and the private sector. We are pleased
that the proposed legislation places an increasing emphasis on such
partnerships. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present the
Department of Commerce's views on this topic. This concludes my
testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Before we go to Captain Brown, there are
five or six seats up here on the lower dias. If anybody in the
back would like to come up and sit down, you are welcome to. We
may not have time for each of you to ask questions, though.
Captain Brown?
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MICHAEL W. BROWN, CHIEF, OFFICE OF
OPERATING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, U.S. COAST GUARD
Captain Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I am Captain Mike Brown, from the Coast Guard, Chief of the
Operating and Environmental Standards Office.
I am pleased to be here today to provide the Coast Guard's
views on the House of Representatives bills 5395 and 5396.
As a lead Federal agency with responsibility for protecting
the marine environment, the Coast Guard is a leader in ensuring
that our environment is protected, and we recognize the
significant damage that ANS has caused. Clearly, it is a
significant problem, and this is our highest marine
environmental protection regulatory priority.
We feel that the two bills appropriately identify the
significant issues in the effort to protect the environment,
and we believe that the reauthorization and amendment of the
existing legislation is necessary and desirable. Clearly, a lot
of hard work and careful thought has gone into the preparation
of the bills. However, we believe that implementing the bills
in their current form is problematic and would impede in some
respects the program advancements that we are trying to make.
Working under our current authorities, we are already
addressing many of the ballast water issues that the bills
raised. It was gratifying to hear in your earlier remarks, Mr.
Chairman, some of the things that you were concerned about,
because we are addressing those very issues.
For example, we are in the process right now of
establishing a mandatory ballast water management regime. We
are trying to set up a scientifically supportable set of
standards for ballast water discharge. We are establishing a
process to facilitate development of the testing and evaluation
of experimental treatment programs. And we are working
internationally to have the international regime be consistent
with our regulatory approach.
We believe that our current strategy is sound and
aggressive given the state of ballast water treatment
technologies today which, quite frankly, are still maturing.
We believe and are concerned that the detailed requirements
and the new management arrangements will complicate and delay
the implementation of an effective Federal regime. We would
like to work with the Committee regarding the proposed interim
standard. We are working with other agencies internationally,
and are looking toward an allowable concentration of organisms
approach with regard to a standard for ballast water treatment.
We agree that there needs to be some expanded research effort.
With regard to the deadlines, I would echo my colleagues'
comments that there are some concerns about those deadlines and
being able to meet them. As you know, we have established some
deadlines for ourselves, as we reported in the report to
Congress, for the voluntary measures as a result of the
National Invasive Species Act requirements, and we believe that
the deadlines that we have established for ourselves are
reasonable, are realistic, and while certainly time is of the
essence, we believe that those deadlines are reasonable and
meetable.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment. We in
the Coast Guard are prepared to work with the Committee and
with the staff to try to develop and improve upon the
legislation so as to meet all of our goals, which is to prevent
the further introduction of aquatic nuisance species.
Again, we do recognize the seriousness of the matter, and
we are working as aggressively and as delibrately as we can.
While it is important to get it done, it is also important to
get it done right, and we want to be sure that whatever we do,
we are doing the right thing and protecting the environment in
the most reasonable manner possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Captain Brown.
[The prepared statement of Captain Brown follows:]
Statement of Captain Michael W. Brown, United States Coast Guard, U.S.
Department of Transportation
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide
our views on H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396.
The Coast Guard is a leader in ensuring America's marine
environment and precious natural resources are protected. As a lead
federal agency for protecting the marine environment, we take great
pride in providing valuable services to the American people to ensure
our nation is cleaner, safer, more mobile, and more secure. Today, the
spread of non-native aquatic species throughout our waterways as a
result of vessel operations remains a serious and growing national
problem. We know all too well that once introduced, many of these
species are capable of disrupting native ecosystems, resulting in lost
natural resources in mitigation costs.
In reauthorizing and amending existing federal aquatic nuisance
species (ANS) legislation, the combination of H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396
would provide detailed guidance and requirements for the conduct of a
federal ballast water management program and establish a research
program to support the battle against all ANS. While we fully agree
that these bills appropriately identify significant issues related to
improving the nation's defense against the introduction of ANS, and
that reauthorization and amendment of the legislation is necessary to
effectively address this growing environmental problem, we believe that
implementing these bills in their current form.
Working under the broad ballast water management authorities
granted by current legislation, our ongoing regulatory efforts are
addressing many of the ballast water management provisions contained in
H.R. 5396. As detailed in the transmittal letter accompanying the
Secretary of Transportation's June 2002 voluntary ballast water
management assessment report to Congress, mandated by the 1996
reauthorization process, the Coast Guard is in the midst of
establishing a mandatory national ballast water management program.
These efforts include: (1) the setting of an enforceable and
scientifically supportable ballast water treatment standard, and (2)
establishing a process that will facilitate the development, testing
and evaluation of promising experimental treatment systems. We believe
that our current regulatory strategy is both sound and aggressive,
especially when viewed in the light of the current state of ballast
water management technology, which is best described as being in its
infancy. We further believe that the detailed requirements and new
management arrangements contained in H.R. 5396 would unnecessarily
complicate our work and inevitably delay the implementation of an
effective mandatory federal regime.
We would like to work with the Committee regarding the bill's
proposed interim ballast water treatment standard. In consultation with
other federal agencies, the Coast Guard is currently looking toward
standards that would be expressed as allowable concentrations of
organisms in discharged ballast water. Working under a cooperative
arrangement between the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection
Agency to develop verification protocols for ballast water treatment
technologies, technical experts from a wide range of U.S. federal
agencies and research institutions are considering the appropriate
organism concentrations and the methods for their detection and
enumeration. We are also tracking several complementary international
efforts to develop effective management technologies and will use their
findings as appropriate in developing our domestic program.
We agree that there is a need for research efforts. The technical
challenges to preventing, evaluating the effects of, and responding to
aquatic invasions are extensive and costly.
While the Coast Guard is not assigned responsibilities for
conducting the ecological surveys described in H.R. 5395, the results
of these surveys will likely be used to evaluate the efficacy of our
and other federal agency efforts in reducing the rate of invasions by
aquatic nuisance species.
Thank you for the opportunity to present some of our views on these
bills today. The Coast Guard looks forward to working with Congress on
the reauthorization of ANS legislation while we continue our ongoing
efforts to implement an effective ballast water management regime. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Next is Dr. Gregory Ruiz, Senior Scientist
with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.
Welcome, Dr. Ruiz.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. RUIZ, SENIOR SCIENTIST, SMITHSONIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
I am Greg Ruiz, a research scientist from the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center on the shore of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Each year, thousands to tens of thousands of non-native
species are transferred to U.S. waters by human activities. The
rate of newly detected invasions has increased exponentially
for many parts of the U.S. Left unchecked, the rate of species
transfer and invasion is expected to increase even further.
There remain some fundamental gaps in knowledge, and
especially predictive ability, for invasion ecology that have
significant implications for developing management strategies
to reduce transfers and invasions.
First, the quantitative dose-response relationship between
the number of organisms released and the number of new
invasions is poorly resolved.
Second, our predictive capability for both unintentional
and intentional introductions is very limited at the present
time.
Management of the shipping vector is the most appropriate
strategy as a first step to reduce aquatic invasions and their
impact. The U.S. Coast Guard is in the best position to
implement and oversee management of the shipping vector. It
should be given lead responsibility and adequate resources to
carry out this mission and already has many elements in place.
The EPA and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force have
important roles to play as well in determination of
environmental soundness and information dissemination,
respectively. However, I believe it is most efficient and
desirable that one lead agency, the Coast Guard, should have
clear authority to develop and implement this program, with
others providing secondary support where they have expertise.
Ballast water management should reduce the rate of
invasions, but there are limitations and unknowns in this area.
Among these, the reduction in invasions expected for various
management actions is unknown, resulting from uncertainty about
the dose-response relationship. We simply don't know how low to
go in reducing species transfer which complicates
identification of the goal or standards for treatment. We need
research to measure changes in species transfer and invasion
patterns in response to management actions and to provide the
scientific understanding of dose-response relationships and
invasibility to guide management.
Tracking of shipping and ballast discharge patterns,
combined with measurement of effects for particular treatments,
should be used to assess the effects of management on ship-
mediated transfer. All vessels should report at each port to
provide an important short-term proxy of treatment efficacy to
reduce overall transfer.
Ecological surveys using standardized measures should be
used as a key feedback system to assess the long-term changes
in actual invasions associated with various management schemes.
This is the indicator, analogous to measuring air or water
quality, for whether management is working and whether further
steps are required.
In my view, field surveys and experiments should operate
together in a well-coordinated fashion under one program rather
than separate programs to strengthen understanding about dose-
response relationships and factors that contribute to invasion
susceptibility.
One lead research group should be charged with oversight
and coordination of the surveys and experimental measures. This
lead group should be composed of separate designated lead
agencies for each freshwater and marine ecosystem. Each
ecosystem is complex, involves somewhat different approaches
and expertise, and requires significant effort and oversight.
The lead group should establish protocols, provide data
management, develop demonstrationsites, and serve to coordinate
surveys among a distributed network of collaborating
researchers working at sites throughout the country.
In contrast with ecological surveys, an early detection
system would detect only a limited number of invasions by known
``target'' species. This target list approach will necessarily
include a small subset of future high-impact organisms.
For this reason, I place a much higher premium on
prevention measures. It is highly desirable to have an
established framework for evaluation and approval of
intentional introductions that is consistent among geographic
regions. Ideally, such a framework would involve Federal
oversight, a precautionary approach, and include better
tracking of imports by Customs, and reporting to international
bodies such as ICES.
In my opinion, the national strategy for aquatic invasion
should focus predominantly on prevention. A strong program
should exist to reduce unintentional transfers, including
tracking systems for vectors and invasions. A parallel program
should rigorously screen planned introductions. Although
control measures for established invasions, including rapid
response, can have merit, I believe prevention measures provide
a more comprehensive, cost-effective, and reliable approach.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:]
Statement of Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
I am a Senior Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center (SERC), where I head the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory--
the largest research program in the U.S. to focus on the invasion of
coastal ecosystems by non-native species. This research group provides
synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-related patterns on
a national scale (see Appendix 1 for further details).
Today, I wish to highlight the current state of knowledge and
predictive ability for invasions of marine and freshwater ecosystems.
Against this backdrop, I will review key elements and approaches
necessary to reduce the risk of new invasions and their unwanted
impacts.
Current Knowledge & Predictive Ability
Thousands to tens of thousands of non-native species arrive to U.S.
waters each year by myriad human activities, which breach existing
geographic barriers to dispersal--such as ocean basins and continents.
Upon delivery and release, a subset of organisms survive local
conditions in the recipient environment, a smaller subset become
successfully established, and a still smaller subset is known to have
significant impacts on economies, ecological functions, fishery
resources, and human health.
The rate of newly detected aquatic invasions has increased
exponentially in many locations, both within the U.S. and overseas.
Many different transfer mechanisms, or vectors, have caused invasions.
The relative importance of individual vectors has varied geographically
and temporally, reflecting differences in vector operation and probable
differences in susceptibility of ecosystems to invasion.
If current practices continue, the rate of species transfer is
expected to increase even further, as existing trade activities expand
and new trade activities develop. Invasion rates should increase with
increasing rates of transfer.
For example, the scale of commercial shipping--a major transfer
mechanism, by itself responsible for most known marine invasions--is
projected to increase many fold over the next 20 years, resulting in
more ships, larger ships, faster ships, and more trading partners
(sources of invaders). Each of these attributes will likely operate to
increase the number of species delivered, and concentrations of
organisms (within and across species) associated with shipping. In the
absence of management actions, intended to reduce organism transfer, we
should expect an increase in invasions to result.
The extent and impact of aquatic invasions have become increasingly
clear in the past few decades, warranting the great public concern that
has resulted. However, there remain some fundamental gaps in knowledge,
and especially predictive ability, for invasion ecology that have
significant implications for management.
First, although invasion rates should increase with organism
transfer, the quantitative ``dose-response'' relationship--between the
number of propagules (organisms) released and invasion success
(establishment)--is poorly resolved and may vary geographically.
Second, our predictive capability for both unintentional and
intentional introductions is very limited at the present time.
For unintentional introductions, like ship-mediated transfer, it
remains extremely difficult to predict which species will invade, when
they will invade, where they will invade, and what they will do. The
identity of many transferred organisms is still not resolved. For
example, U.S. ports receive approximately 50,000 commercial vessel
arrivals per year that originate overseas, a minimum of tens-to-
hundreds of species are associated with each ship (in ballast tanks and
on hulls), and the species composition is simply not known in advance
for any one arrival. Even when identified, key aspects of biology and
ecology for many (if not most) species are unknown. Thus, it is often
not possible to predict when a species can survive in the recipient
environment (i.e., the various aquatic habitats of the U.S.) or how it
will perform--in terms of abundance, spread, and impact. Our predictive
capability surrounding unintentional transfers is very limited at the
present time.
Even for intentional introductions, a high level of uncertainty can
exist about the outcome of introduction. This results from limited
information about biology and ecology, but also a fundamental
uncertainty about whether behavior (i.e., population dynamics and
ecology) in the native range can predict behavior in a novel
environmental and biological setting. The current controversy
surrounding the Asian oyster Crassostrea ariakensis provides an
illustrative example. Although under consideration for introduction in
Chesapeake Bay, very little information is available on the species,
limiting predictions about the possible performance and effects within
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic coast of North America.
Management of the Shipping Vector
Management of the shipping vector is the most appropriate strategy,
as a first step, to reduce aquatic invasions and their impacts for
multiple reasons. First, on a national scale, shipping is the largest
single source of known invasions, currently and cumulatively, to
coastal marine ecosystems and the Great Lakes. Second, in my opinion,
ship-mediated introductions--composed mainly of organisms transferred
in ballasted materials and on hulls--cannot be effectively managed on a
species-by-species basis (as outlined above).
Implementation of ballast water management, including ballast water
exchange and alternative technologies, should reduce the rate of
invasions.
It is however important to recognize some of the possible
limitations (or unknown aspects) of ballast management.
Ballast management only addresses a portion of the
problem. For ship-mediated transfer, the relative importance of ships'
hulls versus ballast tanks is often not clear--since some organisms can
be transferred by either mode. Although shipping is a dominant vector,
other non-shipping vectors are also contributing to invasions.
The level of reduced invasions expected for various
management actions is unknown, resulting from uncertainty about the
dose-response relationship for invasions. Although a reduction in
invasions should result from ballast water management, we simply don't
know ``how low to go'' in reducing species transfer--which is a source
of uncertainty about the appropriate goal or ``standards'' for
treatments.
These gaps in knowledge underscore the need for research and
analyses, which measure (a) changes in species transfer and invasion
patterns in response to management actions and (b) provide the
scientific understanding of dose-response relationships and
invasibility needed to guide management.
The Role of Tracking Ballast Management & Delivery
Measuring changes in the ballast water delivery and management
provides one measure of management effect. Tracking shipping and
ballast discharge patterns for all vessel arrivals--both those from
foreign ports and domestic ports--should be fully implemented to assess
the effect of management on ship-mediated transfer. First, reporting by
vessels informs us of how ballast water delivery, and arrival of hull
surface (as a possible source of organisms), varies among ports and
changes over time. Second, measurements of the effect of particular
treatments (e.g., ballast water exchange or alternative treatment) on
organism transfer, when combined with vessel reporting, provide an
important short-term proxy of treatment efficacy--estimating how
overall management practices influence delivery of organisms by
shipping.
The Role of Ecological Surveys
By comparison, ecological surveys measure the long-term changes in
actual invasions associated with various management schemes.
Ecological surveys (hereafter surveys), using standardized and
repeated field measures, are a fundamental building block for invasion
science and invasion management--providing critical information for
prevention and control. Surveys are used to assess the following key
attributes of invasions in our waters:
The source(s) of invasions, in terms of geographic origin
and mechanism of introduction (or vector);
How invasion patterns vary in space and time; and
How effective management actions, including ballast water
management, are in reducing the rate of new invasions.
Surveys provide a tracking system to determine which species have
colonized, or are in the process of colonizing, our aquatic habitats.
With knowledge about the taxonomic identity and biology of these
organisms, it is often possible to identify the mechanism or vector of
introduction. This tells us which vectors and geographic source regions
have resulted in successful invasions, historically and presently.
Analysis of survey data--the cumulative picture across all non-
native species identified--can be used to estimate the relative
importance of vectors or geographic source regions in space or time.
Such an assessment of vector importance (possibly by source region) can
be used to prioritize where prevention efforts are best directed, to
reduce the largest number of future invasions.
Beyond informing and directing initial management actions, surveys
provide an essential feedback system to assess how well prevention
measures work in reducing new invasions. Although we can assess the
change in delivery of organisms by a particular vector, and how this is
affected by management actions (as above), this does not tell us the
effect of management action(s) on the actual number of invasions. Since
we don't know enough about the quantitative ``dose-response''
relationship between number of organisms delivered and invasion
success, it is critical to actually measure the efficacy of management
action by invasion rate. Thus, should invasions continue to occur at an
unacceptable rate (despite management actions), this indicates that
further steps are required.
Susceptibility to Invasion
Surveys also inform our understanding of which ecosystems are most
susceptible to invasions, providing key information about dose-response
relationships and factors that contribute to invasion resistance.
Although invasions can occur in all ecosystems, there is clearly a
great deal of variation in the number of established invasions among
systems. Analysis of this pattern, using standardized surveys and
shipping data (outlined above) across many bays and habitats, can be
used to test for correlation with specific biological or environmental
characteristics--elucidating which factors explain most of this
variation. This approach can identify a suite of factors that may
affect the success or failure of non-native species to establish--such
as salinity regime, habitat disturbance, flow regime, or biological
diversity--and help focus management actions to particular regions or
habitats that are most vulnerable.
I recommend this approach (using surveys) to test statistically for
factors that influence susceptibility to invasion, combined with an
experimental approach. This additional, experimental step is used to
test whether there is a cause-effect relationship, or simply an
association, between invasion outcome and particular factors. Thus,
analyses of actual invasion patterns by surveys are necessary but not
sufficient, by themselves, to guide management decisions about
susceptibility or resistance to invasions.
In my view, experimental measures and field surveys should operate
together--in a well-coordinated fashion under one program, rather than
separate programs--to strengthen the inferences drawn about invasion
susceptibility. This is further enhanced by detailed vector information
for the same localities. In the case of the shipping vector, this would
include not only ballast discharge and management data (as above) but
also some tracking of organism supply characteristics (pathway surveys)
for ballast water and hull fouling.
Early Detection--Rapid Response
I would like to draw a distinction between the ``ecological
surveys'' and efforts associated with an ``early detection--rapid
response system''. The former are designed to provide key information
about sources and rates of invasion--across different sites, habitats,
and environmental conditions--and essentially track how sources and
rates are changing over time. This information is used to direct and
evaluate management actions, focused largely on vectors and pathways of
invasion. Although surveys may provide some ``early detection
capability'' this is not the primary goal.
In contrast, an ``early detection--rapid response system'' would
require a more focused effort to detect a limited number of known
``target'' species of concern. To have an early warning system would
require frequent monitoring of specific habitats for a finite suite of
organisms. In my opinion, it is not feasible to monitor for all
organisms on a frequent basis--and allow for rapid response--due to
obvious logistical and cost constraints. The goal of ``early
detection'' is to trigger particular management actions (e.g.,
eradication, containment, etc.) for the target species. Using a focused
list of species for such early warning detection, it is possible
presently to locate ``sentinel sites'' for detection at locations with
specific habitat and environmental conditions appropriate for the
target species.
Development of some rapid-response capability has merit, but I
place a much higher premium on prevention efforts--including management
actions, vector tracking, and ecological surveys (to estimate changes
in invasions and efficacy of management actions). This stems from the
fact that:
Early detection will locate only a subset of the target
``high-impact'' species that colonize;
The effects of most invasions cannot be adequately
predicted at the present time;
Successful control and eradication will likely be limited
to a fraction of those organisms detected.
A list of target ``high-impact'' organisms can be compiled, based
upon experience elsewhere in the world, providing the basis for an
early detection system. However, a ``target list approach'' will
necessarily include a small subset of future ``high-impact'' organisms,
as many additional species that are ecologically potent (i.e., will
have significant impacts) will not appear on any such list--simply
because they do not have a previous record of high-impact invasions.
Thus, when a new incursion occurs, both for organisms on and off the
target list, it will often be difficult to assess the likely impact and
to decide on an appropriate trigger for rapid response.
Planned Introductions
There are many species for which planned imports and introductions
have received little scrutiny from an invasion perspective. Examples
include organisms used for bait or food--such as the Vietnamese Nereid
worm and the Chinese snakehead fish (although importation of the latter
has recently been banned, following an invasion in Maryland). In
addition, the recent discussion surrounding a possible introduction of
the Asian oyster C. ariakensis to Chesapeake Bay underscores the lack
of a coherent framework or policy surrounding intentional marine
introductions.
It is highly desirable to have an established framework for
evaluation and approval of intentional introductions that is consistent
among geographic regions. This approach recognizes that organisms can
spread beyond political boundaries. Ideally, such a framework would
include better tracking of imports, which are poorly characterized in
terms of quantity, source, and species identity--making evaluation of
invasion risks problematic. In addition, improved information exchange
on intentional introductions, especially with the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), would be an important
improvement.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the national strategy for aquatic invasions should
focus predominantly on prevention. A strong program to reduce future
invasions of unwanted species requires: (a) management actions to
restrict or interrupt the scale of unintentional transfers, (b)
tracking systems to measure the short-term response of management
action on transfer, and (c) ecological surveys to assess the efficacy
of management actions on invasion patterns and rates, and to identify
new vectors as they emerge. A parallel program should exist to
rigorously screen intentional (planned) introductions, providing a
formal cost-benefit analysis aimed at reducing the likelihood of
introduction for ``high impact'' species and those species for which
considerable uncertainty exists about impacts.
Control measures such as mitigation and eradication efforts,
including rapid-response, can have merit. However, such measures are
idiosyncratic to the target species, the results are somewhat
uncertain, and this approach can only hope to address a small subset of
problems associated with invasions following establishment. As a
result, I believe prevention is a more efficient, reliable, and cost-
effective strategy to limit invasions and invasion impacts, when
compared to control measures, and should be the primary focus for
available resources.
______
[Attachments to Dr. Ruiz's statement follow:]
APPENDIX 1
Role of the Smithsonian Institution in Coastal Invasion Research:
Marine Invasion Research Laboratory, Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center (May 2002)
Overview
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), located on
the shore of Chesapeake Bay, is a leading national and international
center for research in the area of non-native species invasions in
coastal ecosystems.
SERC has developed the largest research program in the U.S. to
focus on coastal invasions.
A primary goal of SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory is to
provide the fundamental science that is critical to develop effective
management and policy in this topic area. In short, SERC's invasion
research bridges the gap between science and policy, to develop a
scientific understanding that is key to guide and evaluate management
strategies for invasive species.
The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has a staff of
approximately 20 biologists, who conduct research throughout the
country and overseas. Since it's inception 10 years ago, the laboratory
has been a nationwide training center in invasion ecology for roughly
35 technicians, 4 graduate students, 5 postdoctoral researchers, and 40
undergraduate summer interns. The students and technicians arrive from
all over the country, staying for 3 months to many years. Many
participants in this program have gone on to graduate training and
academic or government positions in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington, Washington D.C.
Research Program
As a national center, SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory
provides synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-related
patterns for the country. Under the National Invasive Species Act of
1996, the U.S. Coast Guard and SERC created the National Ballast Water
Information Clearinghouse, hereafter Clearinghouse, to collect and
analyze national data relevant to coastal marine invasions (see Box 1).
Established at SERC in 1997, the Clearinghouse measures:
Nationwide Patterns of Ballast Water Delivery and
Management. All commercial ships arriving to all U.S. ports from
overseas report information about the quantity, origin, possible
control measures for their ballast water - a primary mechanism for
transfer of non-native marine species throughout the world. At present,
SERC receives roughly 20,000 such reports per year. Every two years,
SERC provides a detailed analysis and report to U.S. Coast Guard and
Congress on the patterns of ballast water delivery by coastal state,
vessel type, port of origin, and season. A key issue is the extent to
which ships undertake ballast water exchange, a management technique to
flush potential invaders out of the tanks prior to arrival in U.S.
waters. SERC's analyses are used by U.S. Coast Guard and Congress to
assess national needs with respect to ballast water management and to
track program performance.
Rates and Patterns of U.S. Coastal Invasions. SERC has
developed and maintains a national database of marine and estuarine
invasions to assess patterns of invasion in space and time. This
database compiles a detailed invasion history of approximately 500
different species of plants, fish, invertebrates, and algae that have
invaded coastal states of the North America. Among multiple uses, the
database identifies which species are invading, as well as when, where,
and how they invaded; it also summarizes any existing information on
the ecological and economic impacts of each invader. Over the long-
term, this database will help assess the effectiveness of various
management strategies (such as ballast water management, above) in
reducing the rate of invasions. More broadly, this information is a
valuable resource for many user groups--from resource managers and
scientists to policy-makers and industry groups.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2806.001
SERC has further expanded the scope of Clearinghouse activities to
improve the quantity and quality of data on coastal marine invasions
that are used to (a) assess the rates and patterns of invasion and (b)
inform key management decisions at national, regional, and local
levels. Through competitive grants, we have initiated two components in
this area, including:
Nationwide Field Surveys. SERC has implemented an
ambitious program of field surveys to detect new invasions, as well as
measure contemporary patterns and effects of invasions, for 15-20
different bays throughout the country (see Figure 1). Our intent is to
expand this program to include additional regions, providing a national
baseline of information with which to evaluate invasion rates. The
resulting information will contribute to the national database (above)
and will be used both to document patterns of invasion and to assess
the effects of management on invasion rates (as discussed above).
Comprehensive National Database. SERC has established a
formal agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the U.S. Geological
Survey's Caribbean Research Center to develop a comprehensive database
of all freshwater and marine invasions in the United States. SERC
maintains a database of exotic marine species (above), and the U.S.G.S.
maintains a complementary database for exotic freshwater species. Our
goal is to functionally link these databases, creating web-based access
to key information about each species for managers, researchers,
policy-makers and the public.
In addition to the Clearinghouse role of analysis and
interpretation of national data, SERC also conducts research to
understand underlying mechanisms of species transfer, invasion, and
ecological effects of invasions. This research serves a dual purpose of
advancing our fundamental knowledge of invasion processes and using
this knowledge to improve prediction and management strategies for
invasions. Some selected examples of our research in these areas,
funded by external grants and contracts, include:
Measuring the Patterns and Processes of Species Transfer
Associated with Shipping. The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has
measured the density and diversity of organisms in the ballast water of
approximately 450 different commercial vessels, primarily oil tankers
and bulk cargo carriers that arrived to Chesapeake Bay and Port Valdez,
Alaska. This has been a collaborative and cooperative research program
with the shipping industry, over the past 8 years, to better assess the
risks of invasion and effectiveness of various management techniques to
reduce that risk. We are now expanding this research to include
container ships arriving to San Francisco Bay, expanding existing
measures to include a different vessel type and geographic region than
the previous studies.
Assessing the Magnitude and Consequences of Pathogenic
Microorganism Transfer by Ships. Very little is known about the
relative risks of pathogens, both for humans and commercially important
species, which are transferred in ballast water. SERC's invasion
program is measuring the concentration of microorganisms and human
pathogens, including Vibrio cholerea (causitive agent of epidemic human
cholera), discharged into U.S. waters with the ballast water of ships.
In addition, we are conducting experiments to test the viability and
potential significance of these transfers to result in newly
established populations, or invasions, of pathogenic organisms.
Measuring the Ecological Impacts of Non-Native Species.
SERC has implemented a broad range of field-based and experimental
studies to measure the effects of marine invasions in coastal
ecosystems, including impacts on commercial fishery resources. Much of
this work to date has focused on the European green crab (Carcinus
maenas) impacts in California and New England. We have also implemented
experiments in California and Virginia to test for effects of
particular fouling organisms on invaded communities, and the extent to
which this is exacerbated by human disturbance (e.g., pollutants,
hypoxia, etc.). The overall goal of work in this area is to understand
and predict impacts of invasions across a diverse array of coastal
communities.
Testing Invasibility of Communities. We have just begun
manipulative laboratory and field experiments to test environmental and
biological factors that influence invasibility of marine communities.
Our work in this area focuses on microorganisms and invertebrates. The
main objective of this research is to measure the dose-response
relationship between delivery of organisms and subsequent invasion, and
how this may vary across different environmental and biological
conditions. This approach has direct bearing on the effect (and target)
for management strategy to reduce the delivery of non-native organisms
by ships or other vectors.
Feasibility of Eradication and Control of Established
Marine Invasions. SERC has also initiated work to test the feasibility
of eradication and control for a non-native marine snail in San
Francisco Bay. This is effectively a demonstration project to
critically examine management strategies, based upon key habitat and
biological characteristics, and develop the decision process (i.e.,
under what conditions and for which species) and capacity for
eradication.
Geographic Coverage
SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory, with staff based at
Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay, has established research sites
throughout the U.S. to implement its research programs, in
collaboration with researchers from approximately 25 different academic
institutions and federal or state agencies. For example, active
projects and collaborations are on-going in the following states:
Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C.
Internationally, SERC has become increasingly active over the past
5 years. A primary goal of the international program is to foster
information exchange and build complementary, comparative, and
collaborative research programs. For example, the Marine Invasion
Research Laboratory has active collaborations in many areas of invasion
ecology with the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CSIRO,
Australia). This includes comparative analyses of invasion patterns and
effects, as well as development of an international standard for
databases on marine invasions. Another long-term collaboration exists
with scientists in Israel, where we have measured changes in the
ballast water communities during roughly 20 different voyages between
Israel and Chesapeake Bay. SERC also has been a participant and sponsor
of international conferences and workshops on marine invasion ecology.
Although SERC programs are active at the national and international
scales, a great deal of this effort has also focused on understanding
invasion issues at the regional scale. In fact, this program has
conducted research on invasions in nearly every coastal state in the
country, producing regional understanding as well. Examples include:
Analysis of invasion patterns for Chesapeake Bay over the
past 400 years, representing the first such analysis for the Chesapeake
as well as any estuary in the eastern U.S. This documents the invasion
history of 160 non-native species established in this Bay.
Analysis of extent of invasions for Prince William Sound,
Alaska, providing the most detailed analysis in the world to assess the
risks of invasion for a high-latitude system.
For More Information about the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory
contact:
Monaca Noble, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, P.O. Box
28, Edgewater, Maryland 21037 USA; Phone - (443)482-2414; FAX -
(443)482-2380; email - [email protected]; website - http://
invasions.si.edu/
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2806.002
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Ruiz.
I would like to pose the first question to anyone at the
table, for all the witnesses to respond to. This is the first
introduction of this legislation, and we want to pursue it in a
way that is the most effective. And I understand concerns about
deadlines, concerns about standards and interim standards and
things like that, and the fact that you have been working on
this for over a decade, but I can assure you that we are going
to push as hard as we can to get a piece of legislation passed
in the first 100 days.
So I would like to have you give your perspective on how
this legislation will affect the following three things--the
status of let us say a particular invasive species program like
zebra mussels and how to prevent zebra mussels from going west
of the 100th Meridian; how this legislation will affect the
National Dispersal Barrier Program in an understanding of how
it is or is not working right how; and how this legislation
will affect compliance--for example NISA 1996 basically was a
voluntary program unless there was inadequate compliance, and
then it would be a mandatory program.
I would like to have some understanding of, where there has
been inadequate compliance with NISA 1996, how many areas have
been required to go to the mandatory route and how will this
legislation impact that.
Captain Brown. I can start with your last item first with
regard to how this Act will affect compliance.
The current legislation gives us the authority to--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you mean the current statute?
Captain Brown. --the current statute, yes, that is
currently in effect--not the new one, not the NAISA--does give
the Coast Guard the ability to issue the regulation to make
ballast water exchange and ballast water management activities
mandatory, and we are in the process of doing that.
Now, as you rightly pointed out, it was a voluntary
program, and one of the first things that we are looking to do
in terms of our regulatory program is to establish some penalty
provisions for failing to report. While there was a requirement
to report your ballast water management activities in this
voluntary program, there were not penalty provisions for it, so
the rate of compliance was not very good.
So our first step is to establish some penalty provisions--
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are taking that step as a separate
part of this legislation?
Captain Brown. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So those people who were not in compliance,
you are going to pursue a penalty as opposed to mandatory?
Captain Brown. Not exactly. What we are proposing to do is
we are going to do both. We are going to establish a penalty
provision to ensure that everyone who is required to report
right now--because the current legislation does require that
even though the measures are voluntary, the reporting of those
measures is mandatory. So without the penalty provision--
Mr. Gilchrest. What areas are not in compliance?
Captain Brown. I am sorry, I do not know what you mean,
sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell me what areas around the
country are not in compliance with NISA 1996?
Captain Brown. Both the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific
Coast. In the Great Lakes, the requirements are already
mandatory, so the reporting requirements in the Great Lakes are
relatively high.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying that everybody except the
Great Lakes is not in compliance?
Captain Brown. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. Interesting. Do you think this legislation
will help bring about a better protocol to bring people not
only into compliance, but reduce invasive species?
Captain Brown. Well, yes, it would, but the existing
legislation that is currently in effect, NISA, will also have
that effect.
Mr. Gilchrest. But it has not had that effect yet.
Captain Brown. That is correct. That is because the
measures were voluntary, and we had to give the voluntary
measures a chance to work to see how well they would perform.
We did that for well over a year. We found that they were not
working very well. So now we are in the process of establishing
mandatory provisions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has it been difficult to establish the
mandatory provisions because there have not been any standards?
Captain Brown. No, sir. The mandatory provisions that we
are going to apply first will be the ballast water management
issues and then, secondarily, the establishment of some sort of
a standard that all vessels will ultimately have to meet. Now,
the way they meet that standard will be left up to them. If
they can meet it through a ballast water exchange, that is
fine; if they meet it through some kind of treatment
technology, that is fine. We will not be that prescriptive. We
will just be setting a standard to say that this is the maximum
allowable amount of organisms that can be permitted--
Mr. Gilchrest. When will you come up with that?
Captain Brown. We would hope to be able to have a
definitive standard in 2004.
Mr. Gilchrest. In 2004. We are looking for an interim--will
you have an interim standard before that?
Captain Brown. We are not looking to do an interim standard
at this time. We are just focusing on the final standard. Now,
in the interim before this final standard is reached, we would
look to have mandatory ballast water management policies and
procedures such as ballast water exchange, such as limiting
your intake in an area of known algae bloom, for example, et
cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Gilchrest. My time is up. We will have a second round,
I think.
I would like to ask you a yes or no question--I hate it
when people ask me yes or no questions--but Captain Brown, do
you think the legislation before us today is necessary or
unnecessary?
Captain Brown. I think it is necessary in the sense that
NISA should be reauthorized. Our concerns are that the
legislation that we have before us today is unduly
prescriptive. We believe that there are a lot of good things in
this legislation, we believe that the NISA should be
reauthorized, but we would like to work with you to work out
the details.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
I guess what we are doing is giving a homework assignment
with a deadline on it.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Just as a quick follow-up, has the existence
of voluntary standards as opposed to mandatory standards
allowed industry to kind of string out the process in terms of
adopting best technology?
Captain Brown. I do not know that I can answer that,
because I do not have a sense of what the industry's
decisionmaking process is. The fact that there are not
mandatory requirements means that industry is not obligated to
comply with any particular requirements.
So I would have to defer that question to perhaps someone
from industry. Clearly, they are not in compliance or they are
not complying very much with the voluntary standards. That is
something that we found that was quite clear. There is a big
difference between compliance in the Great Lakes as opposed to
the rest of the country.
So, clearly, some sort of mandatory requirements are
needed.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I would assume that the difference
between the Great Lakes and the other areas proves that you
need something stronger than voluntary standards.
Captain Brown. We agree, and that is why, after we have
given the voluntary standards the opportunity to work as per
the direction in NISA, found that they did not work, reported
this to you, we are now in the process of establishing
mandatory requirements.
Mr. Underwood. What additional incentives might work other
than requiring more than voluntary standards?
Captain Brown. One thing that we are looking to do is, in
addition to mandatory ballast water management, encouraging
experimental technologies. We would look to establish some sort
of protocol for a firm to come in and say, ``I would like to
try this experimental technology aboard my vessel,'' and if we
approve the protocol, after having some peer review to be sure
that the technology looks promising and that it will do no
harm, if you will, we would be prepared to look at some sort of
grandfathering provision.
In other words, when standards are ultimately developed, if
you are part of an experimental program and you have an
experimental technology that you have installed upon your
vessel, you would be considered to be in compliance for some
period of time after the new standards came into effect. So you
would not be making an investment for nothing, in other words.
Ultimately, all vessels would have to comply with whatever
the revised and final standard would be, but we understand that
a businessman wants to make a business decision; he does not
want to invest a great deal of capital on something that may be
overtaken by events within a year or two.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Keeney, do you have any comment on that
general question?
Mr. Keeney. Yes, Representative Underwood.
I just want to give an example with regard to the voluntary
nature as to how it is working. I understand that there was a
report due in June of this year, and it was a mandatory report
that was required, and only 30 percent of those who were to
respond actually filed a report.
So we believe that a mandatory program for ballast water
management is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Underwood. Dr. Ruiz, do you have a comment on that?
Dr. Ruiz. Yes. I too believe that a mandatory program is
necessary and desirable. What I believe is happening is that
the Coast Guard is going forward with that program. Many of the
elements that they have been developing are included in the
present legislation, so I do not think there is much
disagreement about the desirability of pursuing that approach.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Williams and Mr. Keeney, have we ever
successfully eradicated an aquatic nuisance species?
Mr. Williams. Well, we certainly hoped we had with the
snakehead fish that we saw this summer in Maryland. I do not
know that I can tell you definitively yes or no.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Keeney?
Mr. Keeney. I am not aware of any examples where we have
eradicated the species.
Mr. Underwood. Dr. Ruiz, you are nodding your head.
Dr. Ruiz. Yes. There are a number of examples that I think
have changed the way people think about eradication in marine
systems.
There is a sabellid worm, a polikeet worm, that colonized a
portion of the California coast and appears to have been
successfully eradicated. It was very limited in distribution.
There is a marine algae Caulerpa that had become established in
a couple of bays in Southern California, and an eradication
program has been undertaken--it may be premature to say that it
has been successful, but it looks promising. And there are some
examples from other parts of the world, too, that say basically
that it can be done under particular circumstances where you
have fairly limited distribution and the appropriate biology, I
guess.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a host of questions of various people, but I think I
will concentrate on the Coast Guard. And no offense to you and
no personal attack intended on you, Captain Brown.
But Captain Brown, you are the logical agency to carry this
out. My problem is that you are the logical agency, you have
the responsibility. The first law was passed in 1996, yet it
took the Coast Guard 6 years to even issue an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, which is virtually nothing.
I think the Coast Guard has failed miserably in this task,
and yet you say that this legislation is overly prescriptive.
The reason is that you have not done the job, so we are going
to specifically tell you how to do the job until you prove that
you can do the job.
It is a major problem in many areas, and I recognize that
in a few special circumstances, we have been able to eliminate
invasive species, but in Michigan, we have had the lamprey eel
for years. We spend a lot of money every year dealing with it,
both the Federal and the State governments. We now have the
zebra mussel. The cost just to the boat owners in Michigan is
in the neighborhood of $100 million per year. Now, I do not
know how that rates compared to how much you are spending
trying to deal with invasive species, but that is a lot of
money, and that is just the cost to individual boat owners in
one State of the Union. If you add together the costs to
municipal water systems, to power plants, and so forth, you are
getting into huge amounts of money because of one little
critter that got in.
I was also disappointed to meet with your predecessor a few
years ago to talk about this issue when I first got involved,
and in retrospect, he was basically telling me do not do
anything--everything is fine, we are going to take care of it--
and nothing has been done. We obviously have to do something.
Yet in your testimony--which, incidentally, was not
submitted until this morning, contrary to Committee rules, and
contains an incomplete sentence, which indicates that it did
not get a lot of thought--in your testimony, you say that your
current strategy is ``both sound and aggressive.'' I have seen
no evidence at all that it is either sound or aggressive, and
you have a long way to go to convince me that it is.
Now, I am not here to chew you out, but I think the Coast
Guard has simply failed, and I hope we will see better examples
of taking this problem seriously. If you do not--I recognize
that you have too many jobs given to you and not enough money,
especially with drug interdiction which has been added to your
duties--but if you do not have the resources, we have to know,
and if you do not want to do it, we have to know, and we will
get someone else to do it.
Out of fairness, I want to give you a chance to respond.
Captain Brown. Congressman, I certainly understand your
frustration. Clearly the costs from an economic standpoint,
from a biodiversity standpoint, of aquatic nuisance species are
considerable, and we recognize that this is a problem that does
need to be addressed.
That said, we do believe that we are moving in a
deliberative fashion to generate the appropriate rulemaking
documents, take the appropriate regulatory approach to address
the problem.
We believe that we did follow the mandates of the
legislation that called for us to establish a voluntary
program. We did the voluntary program and found that it did not
work, and as soon as we found that it did not work, we started
a process to make that program mandatory.
We recognize that ultimately, there has to be a standard.
There is an issue where there is considerable divergence of
opinion, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, as to what
this standard ought to be, because we want to make sure that
whatever standard we come up with, we want to be sure that the
standard is effective, is scientifically supportable, and is
going to do the job, especially since we recognize that
establishing any kind of rulemaking regime imposes costs, and
we want to be sure that when we do that, we are doing so in the
most responsible way possible.
So I hear you, and the Coast Guard hears you, sir, with
regard to the frustration. I assure you that we are not sitting
on our hands on this. We are trying to work as quickly and as
deliberatively as possible so that we can get the job done in a
manner that meets the needs of the Nation.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, you have mentioned that it is a
deliberative process, but I think that is the problem. Six
years from the time the bill passes and becomes law until you
take an action is simply too deliberative.
And when you talk about costs--and the shipping industry
has talked to me, too, about their costs, and I said, ``Well,
that is fine. If those costs are too great, I will tell you
what--you do whatever you want, but we will make you pay the
costs resulting from these invasive species coming in. Which do
you want?'' Obviously, they do not want to pay that.
Also, on the matter of the standards, I know you are
concerned about the standard that we put in the bill, and
rightfully so, because it is not established scientifically.
That is simply because we have to do something immediately to
create action, and that is why we put it in the bill while you
go through the deliberative process.
That is the other reason I introduced the bill dealing with
research. I think we need a great deal more research before we
will really know precisely what we should be doing. But in the
meantime, we cannot stand still and wait until we know enough
to do it right. We have to start doing something immediately.
Can you give me some specific time lines as to when your
standards will be issued and when you expect them to be
implemented if we do not pass this legislation?
Captain Brown. We would expect that our ballast water
management regulations would be out next year, and we would
expect the standards to be promulgated the following year, in
2004.
Mr. Ehlers. Can you be more specific on the dates--at least
which quarter?
Captain Brown. We would anticipate the standards in the
last quarter of 2004.
Mr. Ehlers. And the first step you said would be next year?
Captain Brown. Yes, sir. We are looking to do essentially
four things--establish a penalty provision, which we hope to
have out fairly quickly; an experimental technology protocol so
that individuals can know how they can go about trying to
establish an experimental technology program aboard their
vessel, and we hope to have that out at the beginning of next
year; we look to have some sort of ballast water management
rulemaking next year, 2003, and the final standards in 2004.
That said, I must be honest with you. The implementation
date, even though the standards may be out, we are not in a
position to say when that implementation date would be. We may
say that the standards are out in 2004, and there may be some
period of time for ships to come into compliance. So I want to
be clear. I do not want to mislead you or anything in that
regard.
Mr. Ehlers. I will write those on my office wall, and in
the meantime, we will proceed with our legislation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
Mrs. Biggert?
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams, in your testimony, you said that you
supported the legislation's interagency approach in many areas,
and then you described your support for the research on
pathways to determine how invasive species are entering into
the United States.
Do you think that these bills adequately address or provide
enough flexibility to Federal authorities to address the
introduction of these nuisance species by means other than
ballast water discharge--for example, with some of the carp
that are coming in, where there is the Asian ritual of buying
two fish and letting one go, or the Asian carp which was
introduced in southern Illinois by fish farmers to help keep
the fish ponds clean.
Mr. Williams. I think the legislation really advances the
ball, if you will, on that. There are some areas that I am
really not prepared to go into at this time that we would like
to work with staff to fine-tune. But I think this legislation
really provides a number of things. One, just the fact that we
are sitting here discussing this raises the level of awareness,
certainly in Congress and with the American people, and that is
something that, in my experience working for State government
in three different States and trying to deal with zebra
mussels, for instance, we assume--professionals assume--that
everyone is aware of this and everyone is looking and checking
their boats and trailers and so on, and in fact that is not the
case.
So again, the awareness that this bill provides to the
issue and the resources that it provides Federal and State
agencies is long overdue.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Could you or Mr. Keeney tell me
about the regional panels that currently work on the invasive
species councils? Who sits on these panels, and what is their
role?
Mr. Williams. Let me take a shot at it, and then, Tim, if
you want to jump in.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is co-chaired by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. There are at this time
four different panels--Western Region, Great Lakes, Northeast,
and the Gulf of Mexico. They are obviously made up of staff
from both of our agencies. It also involves resource agency
staff from States within those panels.
Tim, I do not know if you want to add anything.
Mr. Keeney. I would just add that the panels are very
broadly based. They have representatives from State
governments, tribal governments, stakeholders. We are looking
at the possibility right now of creating a new panel for the
Mid-Atlantic Region. The Great Lakes panel has been doing a
great job for quite a while now.
Mrs. Biggert. I guess the reason I am asking this is
because it was mentioned in the testimony the problem of
coordination with all the different agencies, and then we have
the regional panels and the Council. Will these bills all of
these groups to work more efficiently together?
Mr. Keeney. It will assist them; yes, it will.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert.
Mr. Gutknecht?
Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of the things that I wanted to say and ask have
already been said and asked. I would just remind everybody here
that we have been laboring on this issue for a very long time,
and the idea that we passed legislation in 1996, and we still
have not fully promulgated the rules in 2002 just reminds me
that we won World War II in less time than that.
This is unacceptable. And I am not a trial lawyer, and I
really have no particular love for trial lawyers, but it
strikes me that what we are setting the ground for here is a
massive class action suit against the shippers.
It seems to me that if I were a shipping company, I would
be eager to at least get something done here, because in the
absence of that, the door is wide open, because as Mr. Ehlers
pointed out, we have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
damage. And again, I am not a lawyer, but I do understand the
principle of tort liability--for every wrong, there is a
remedy. And that remedy may be in Federal court.
It strikes me that all the Government agencies, whether it
is the Coast Guard or whomever, have a huge responsibility to
get busy on this problem, and we do not see it happening. Maybe
the best thing we could do is repeal it all and say just settle
this all in Federal court and see how much it costs.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gutknecht.
In case there are any other questions, I am just going to
very briefly start another round before we bring the next panel
up.
The panel is receiving the grave concern of Members of
Congress about the issue of invasive species not being solved
yet. We started in 1990. We reauthorized it and made some
changes in 1996, and now it is 2002.
I think all of us understand the huge complexity of a
constantly evolving ecosystem down to the level of
microorganisms and how fast they change from phytoplankton to
toxic dinoflagellates, and how quickly they adapt and maneuver.
I know the Chesapeake Bay is still battling with the huge
problems of MSX and dermo, which have fundamentally decimated
about 90 percent of the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, and that
was probably at least in part by the introduction of some Asian
species of oyster and ballast water.
So that periodically, there is potential for this type of
explosion of invasive species which decimate for decades, or
maybe centuries, the ecosystem, which in our case is the
Chesapeake Bay. It could be the Great Lakes. It could be the
Gulf of Mexico. It could be the San Francisco Bay. It could be
anywhere.
So our frustration up here--and we have always, I think,
collectively understood that frustration is a bad trait to have
for a very long period of time, because it is not good for the
ecosystem of our metabolisms--so what we are trying to do is be
a little more clever and direct our energies to accelerate the
process, not to the point where we are coming up with the wrong
standard, a size limit or an organism limit versus a percentage
limit, or how do we exchange ballast water versus some other
creative alternative that the private sector is now undergoing.
So we are going to move forward as quickly as possible
starting in the 108th Congress and get something passed, come
hell or high water, in the first 100 days. So we want you fully
engaged in this process, and we want you fully aware that we
are going to move along with this process.
There are just a couple of quick items, though, that you
could probably help us with--and I know that Federal agents do
not like to do things that the mysterious OMB entity would
oppose, because we very rarely see any real human being from
OMB, but they are this big, massive--do you think the Speaker
of the House has power? No. Do you think the President has
power? Not always. But OMB--we should sick him after Osama bin
Laden.
We are going to move forward, and we are going to move
forward fast. So what do you need? Is it a manpower problem
now? Is it a resource problem? Is it a leadership problem? We
want to put it into that legislation. We understand the 31--I
think somebody mentioned 31 deadlines. I know there is always a
problem with lawsuits if you come up to a deadline--and we are
going to come up with an interim standard; we are going to have
an interim standard. So you are going to have to help us with
the best kind of interim standard. Is it 50 microns? Is it 95
percent? What kind of interim standard do we need, because we
are going to implement it as quickly as possible.
So what do you need--resources, manpower, more scientists,
more collaborative effort, the interim standards, the
deadlines--those kinds of things. And you do not have to give
me all of those answers right now, but I think that to some
extent, those are the kinds of things that we really need to
pull in. And what should we do with the Lacey Act? Do we need
more power, more authority with the Lacey Act? Is the snakehead
fish on the Lacey Act now?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good, good. Is the black carp on the Lacey
Act, the black Asian carp?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, first off, let me back up and
note for the record that I like OMB. I think they are
wonderful.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. OK, great. Good. We like OMB, too. I do not
want to start a big battle between us--although you submit your
testimony, OMB goes through your testimony and changes your
testimony. Sometimes we have a chance to see the original
testimony from different agencies before it goes through the
filter. But we are all Americans here, we are all
collaborative, and we want to make this thing work.
Mitch Daniels is a great guy.
Mr. Williams. He is a wonderful guy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Let the record show that.
Mr. Williams. Ditto.
On the black carp, the comment period has closed, and we
are reviewing those comments. We had proposed to put it on the
list of injurious species, so we will be making a decision on
that in the near future.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great.
My time is up for the second round.
Mr. Underwood, do you have any questions--I'm sorry. Mr.
Underwood, I guess, is yielding me his time for anybody else
who wants to respond. He wants to hear any response that might
be out there--you do not have to mention OMB, just tell us what
you need to get this thing going.
Do you want us to have interim standards? If you do not--
Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. Ruiz. I guess I would just like to comment that I
really appreciate and share your sense of urgency that we
should move forward. This is a complex problem maybe not unlike
issues having to do with air quality or water quality or cancer
or global change. It is a very complex problem, but that should
not stop us from moving forward and taking our best guess at
what needs to be done and providing feedback systems to
evaluate how it is going.
So I think I share your sense of urgency and that we should
go forward.
From my perspective, I think one of the impediments in the
past has been actual funding to move some of these things
forward. And if you look at the 1996 legislation and the 1990
legislation, I believe that, as with most legislation, only a
fraction of the authorization to implement those components was
actually appropriated. So I see that as an impediment that is
understandable. There is that disconnect between authorization
and appropriation, but I think that has limited our progress in
some areas.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few things.
First of all, with regard to leadership, I think we have that.
I think there is a lot of interest in this issue; it is a very
high priority.
Resources are always a challenge, and obviously, we are
competing against other requirements within our own agency.
There is only so much money that Congress can give us. We are
also, of course, competing with national interests, and
homeland security, of course, is the big focus, and that takes
a lot of support.
With regard to the interim standard, we support it. NOAA's
primary concern is really the final standard. A 95 percent kill
rate would certainly represent an improvement over what we
currently have. We could live with it for an interim standard,
but we would ultimately want to go beyond that. Something that
limits discharge to, say, 100 cells per liter at the point of
discharge would be of interest to us.
NOAA is concerned that we should be locking in a specific
approach as we move toward the final standard. Often, an
interim standard becomes the basis for a final standard, and as
pointed out in my testimony, there are some problems with the
percentage kill rate.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could I just ask a question on behalf of Mr.
Underwood?
Actually, I have two questions. I think the interim
standard is not the critical thing here. I know the final
standard is critical. But instead of losing some time with
probably the private sector that will come up with the
mechanism or the way that we are going to irradiate or
eliminate or mechanically eliminate the organisms, don't they
need some type of basis upon which to begin creating those
things, finding the technology? Is it going to be 95 percent,
or is it going to be a certain micron or a certain centimeter
or millimeter or something like that?
So for us to send a signal to the private sector, I think--
as we go through this process, before this bill gets signed
into law, I would like to have something in the interim so that
whoever is producing these things to kill these microorganisms
will have some standard to begin to go by.
Mr. Keeney. I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that I am
always moving in the direction of a size standard for an
interim period. They are looking at a standard which would
provide no organisms above something like 50 or 100 microns
could be discharged. That is just something to keep in mind. I
think we need to remember what that organization is doing as
well.
Mr. Gilchrest. You can answer also, Captain. My time is
almost up--or, Mr. Underwood's time is almost up.
Mr. Underwood would like to know if there should be a zero
discharge goal for ballast water. That can be a one-word
answer.
Mr. Keeney. I do not believe so.
[Pause.]
Captain Brown. If I may, a zero discharge for--I assume you
are talking about a zero discharge of treated ballast water as
opposed to no discharge of any ballast water at all--is that
correct?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Captain Brown. That presents some pretty significant
technical challenges. I do not know that a) we would be able to
detect such a discharge standard of no organisms, that we would
be able to know for sure that there is an effect of zero
discharge; and b) I do not know that the technology that we
have available to us today and in the foreseeable future could
get us there at any kind of reasonable cost.
If I may just go back to one or two of your earlier issues,
first, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to get
back to you on what it is that we might need. We would like to
take that back and think on it and come back and give you some
intelligent views on that.
With regard to the interim standard, the interim standard
that is set up in the current bill, the bill that is pending
before Congress right now, we find problematic for a couple of
reasons. First of all, there is an enforceability problem. We
are not sure how such a bill would be able to be enforced as an
enforcing agency. And second, we are not sure that a percentage
of removal, as my colleagues have indicated, is necessarily
going to be environmentally sound or will do the job for us,
because in some cases, you could remove 95 percent of the
organisms, but you could leave enough of the organisms to still
pose a problem; so now, you have removed a bunch of organisms,
but you really have not solved your problem at all.
With regard to the idea that if we set some sort of
standard, we would have industry working toward some sort of
technologies, what often happens when you set up an interim
standard is that it takes on an inertia of its own, and as my
colleagues have pointed out, the interim standard sometimes
becomes the final standard. And it does not necessarily follow
that if I am able to get something at the--
Mr. Gilchrest. I think we would try to make sure that we
would follow this issue; that that interim standard is always
known as an interim standard. We just want to get something
done. And I appreciate, Captain Brown, your comments, but Mr.
Underwood's time has expired.
Mr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. I had another question, but I just want to
follow this up. As I understand it, NOAA is saying this interim
standard that we have in here is acceptable.
Mr. Keeney. It is helpful.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes. And my problem with the Coast Guard
response is that you are pointing out the problems with the
interim standard, which we all understand, but the question to
you is is it better or worse than what we have right now? In
other words, is the interim standard proposed here better than
the ballast water exchange that we are talking about right now?
Captain Brown. I do not know that you could make the
statement that it is better or worse, and by that, I mean this.
If you have a standard--any standard, anything that you do that
reduces the number of aquatic species is going to improve the
environment to some extent. But if you reduce the number of
invasive species by 90 percent, 80 percent, whatever, but still
allow a significant enough amount of invasive species to come
in to still cause the damage, I do not know that we have
accomplished very much. My concern is that we may not have
accomplished very much by establishing an interim standard,
perhaps giving us a false sense of security when we are not
quite sure what we need to do in order to give us the highest
degree and the highest level of assurance that we can get.
Mr. Ehlers. The point is now that under the ballast water
exchange, you have the same situation--you also have organisms
coming in.
Captain Brown. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Ehlers. OK. So I am just saying that I think your
objection to the interim standard is wrong unless you can show
me that it is worse than what you are already doing. And you
are saying that you do not know if it is better or worse.
Captain Brown. No. I think that an interim standard does
not give us or guarantee us or provide us with any greater
level of protection than we already have right now. We do not
know that it is providing us any--
Mr. Ehlers. You said you do not know whether it does or it
does not.
Captain Brown. That is correct.
Mr. Ehlers. OK. Then, you have no basis in saying that it
is bad.
Captain Brown. Well, I would disagree with that
characterization, sir.
Mr. Ehlers. OK.
Dr. Ruiz, 5395 is intended to do some of the research to
solve the questions we have just been discussing here so that
we do know what we are talking about. It calls for the
inclusion of academic researchers. What role would you see for
the university community in helping to meet the research
standard? And a related question--the Coast Guard has expressed
some concern about clearly delineating agency responsibilities
in the ecological and pathway surveys research. However, USGS
and you have been working--you already have an established
working relationship, I believe--and also, NOAA has been doing
some work with the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Is the Coast Guard's concern justified in that, or do you
think we can coordinate the program all right? So, there are
two questions: How will you involve the university community,
and second, do you think the agencies will be able to work
together and coordinate a research program?
Dr. Ruiz. Yes, thank you.
I think that the university and academic community--and I
would expand that to include State and local agencies as well--
play a key role in the research component for ecological
surveys, for early detection, as well as some assessments of
what particular management strategies do. I think they play a
very important role, and I guess the way that I have thought
about this has been considering sort of a distributed network
whereby the academic community and others would engage in a
variety of research activities that would be integrated and
coordinated by a group--possibly, USGS, Smithsonian, NOAA, and
others--that would help establish a core set of standards and
measures that could be collected across a variety of sites but
would not be completely prescriptive. It would have core
measurements, but it would also create and hopefully encourage
innovation and new thought and input from the academic
community, because I think they have a great deal to offer, a
lot of expertise out there.
Hopefully, that addresses your first question, that I think
they play a critical role and that it would be a distributed
network and a coordinated, collaborative endeavor across all
interested parties that have something to offer.
In terms of the coordination, I do have some concerns about
exactly how the effort would be coordinated across the
different Federal agencies or lead agencies, if you will, and
have wondered whether it might be better to designate a
specific lead for marine and a specific lead for freshwater.
While I think the agencies can certainly work together in
developing a program, I think it may be beneficial to have
clear leads and responsibilities for who is going to develop
the framework and solicit comment and feedback from the other
participants.
Mr. Ehlers. If I may for just a minute borrow a little of
Mr. Underwood's time, too, and just follow that up--the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force was created in 1990, and the
Invasive Species Council in 1999. Maybe Mr. Keeney is the
better one to ask, but whoever wants to answer, are those two
bodies working well? They seem to have some overlapping duties.
Are they coordinating well, or is their work largely separate?
Mr. Keeney. From my experience, I think they are working
quite well.
Mr. Ehlers. Is there a need for both?
Mr. Keeney. They are both helpful; each individually in its
own way is helpful.
Mr. Ehlers. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
Mrs. Biggert?
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this will be directed to Mr. Williams again. Within
Mr. Gilchrest's bill, there is a section for containment and
control, and it deals with the National Dispersal Barrier
Project, which involves the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal.
And you might not know this specifically, but maybe if you
could get me the answer if you do not have it--if the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force or the Invasive Species Council or
just the Fish and Wildlife Service as a whole have been
monitoring that project--it just mentions that you are supposed
to establish a monitoring program to track the species and then
analyze whether there should be other projects such as this.
I wonder if anything is being done right now about that?
Mr. Williams. Our role in that project--let me back up.
Building it and operating it is a Corps of Engineers
responsibility. Our role is primarily monitoring. Also, we do
have an active project monitoring carp, as you mentioned, in
the Mississippi River.
Our role is not to operate the barrier, but it is to
monitor.
Mrs. Biggert. I understand that you are to monitor the
species, and the Army Corps is to monitor how it works.
Mr. Williams. To try to determine how effective it is, yes.
Mrs. Biggert. I just wondered if that is sufficient, or
should more research organizations be involved.
Mr. Williams. Certainly, additional research would help,
because there are certain life stages of aquatic organisms that
the dispersal barrier may be ineffective in stopping from
moving, particularly downstream.
But if the question is would additional research help in
those efforts, my answer would be absolutely.
Mrs. Biggert. I wonder also whether we are taking
sufficient advantage of the learning opportunity that has been
presented by that construction and operation of the barrier by
monitoring it now, or do we have to wait until this bill is
passed?
Mr. Williams. I do not think we need to wait until the bill
is passed. Certainly, I think this legislation would strengthen
the commitment to that project, but we along with others, as I
mentioned, are trying to assess how effective it is and will
continue our efforts up and down stream, not just in the
Mississippi River but focused on the Mississippi River, looking
at any invasive species and trying to come up with ways to
prevent or control those species from entering the Great Lakes.
Mrs. Biggert. Yes, Mr. Keeney?
Mr. Keeney. Yes, ma'am. I would just like to say that the
Task Force, which is meeting this week, recognizes the threat
posed by the potential movement of the bighead and silver carp
into the Great Lakes. This week's meeting is setting up a
working group that will explore additional methods of
controlling the carp species and slowing their movement into
the Great Lakes.
Finally, I would like to recognize that interconnecting
waterways in other areas is also an issue, and the legislation
that is being proposed has a feasibility study for a dispersal
barrier on a canal leading into Lake Champlain. We believe at
NOAA that this provision is not needed because NOAA has already
contracted with the University of Vermont for such a study, and
the results are expected to be back in the year 2003.
Mrs. Biggert. So that would be just for the Lake Champlain?
Mr. Keeney. Exactly.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Biggert. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Ehlers. Is there any confidence on the part of the two
of you that we can stop the Asian carp, or is the only solution
to once again disconnect the Chicago Canal from Lake Michigan?
Mr. Keeney. I think the answer is we want to make every
effort possible to do that, and we cannot tell you with great
confidence at this point that we can accomplish that, but we
will do everything we can to accomplish that.
Mr. Ehlers. Because this would be so incredibly destructive
to the entire Great Lakes system that incredible measures are
going to have to be required. And I was not jesting when I
suggested closing off the canal. You can still pump the water
over and keep the sewage system operating, but that would
cutoff the pathway totally. And I am very, very nervous about
having just one electronic barrier there. That is just not
going to do it.
Mrs. Biggert. If I might reclaim my time, too, this canal
is not just for water movement, but it has to do with our
economy for the State of Illinois and other States--shipping
going up the Mississippi, up the canal into the Great Lakes or
vice versa.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the canal used for? Is it just for
sanitary purposes, or is there grain shipped to and fro, or
what?
Captain Brown. It provides a link, sir, between trade on
the Great Lakes and trade into the Mississippi River system.
Mr. Gilchrest. In what way?
Captain Brown. Barge traffic.
Mrs. Biggert. Barge; there is constant barge traffic up the
canal from the Mississippi and the Illinois River to the canal
and up into Chicago.
Captain Brown. A variety of commodities are transported--
bulk petroleum, some grain, coal, gravel--a wide range of
commodities that are most efficiently shipped by vessel.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Well, I am with Vernon. We are going
to work with you, though, Judy.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Keeney, Captain Brown, and Dr. Ruiz,
thank you so much for your time and your patience. We look
forward to working with you over the next many months.
Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the honorable
Solomon P. Ortiz be submitted to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman,
I commend you for holding this important hearing today. I hope we
will be able to gather valuable information from our experts today as
we work to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990, to reauthorize and improve this Act. In
particular, I am interested to hear if there are currently any efforts
being undertaken along the U.S.-Mexico border to eradicate the aquatic
plant hydrilla.
I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman, and your staff, for
addressing our concerns about the needs of the South Texas region by
including provisions that deal with hydrilla, which is devastating our
economy and also hampering the water delivery needs for many of my
constituents along the Rio Grande. In my District, and along the Rio
Grande River, the hydrilla is a giant problem when it comes to water
flowing downstream. The Rio Grande is no longer the mighty river it
once was, as the mouth remains closed and the water does not flow
freely into the Gulf of Mexico. The state and regional grants that will
be included in this legislation will assist in the eradication and
control of the hydrilla to once again allow that flow of water to the
Gulf.
Furthermore, H.R. 5396 expands the coordination of invasive species
programs by increasing the positions on the Aquatic Nuisance Species
(ANS) Task force to include other affected federal agencies. It also
encourages the United States to enter into agreements with Canada and
Mexico by enhancing cooperation with our international partners. Along
the U.S.-Mexico there are already several federal and state agencies
working closely together with their counterparts in Mexico and I would
encourage that the federal agencies participating in this hearing today
work with the interested parties in a cooperative effort to eradicate
this hydrilla.
I thank you for your participation here today and look forward to
working with all those present here today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Our next panel includes Dr. Gabriela
Chavarria, Policy Director for Wildlife Management, National
Wildlife Federation; Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy
Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute; Dr. Roger Mann,
Professor, Virginia Institute for Marine Science; and Dr.
Phyllis Windle, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Dr. Chavarria, thank you for coming today. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF GABRIELA CHAVARRIA, POLICY DIRECTOR FOR WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Dr. Chavarria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I would like
to thank you and the members of the Committees for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 5396, the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, and H.R. 5395, the Aquatic
Invasive Species Research Act.
I am Gabriela Chavarria, Policy Director for Wildlife
Management for the National Wildlife Federation.
The National Wildlife Federation is the largest not-for-
profit conservation education and advocacy organization, with
more than 4 million members and supporters, and nine natural
resources centers throughout the United States. The
Federation's family also includes 46 States and Territorial
affiliate organizations. Founded in 1936, the National Wildlife
Federation works for the protection of wildlife species and
their habitat and for the conservation of our natural
resources.
The National Wildlife Federation's affiliated organizations
across the United States adopted a position statement on
invasive non-native species in 2000. In March of this year,
they adopted the resolution, ``Protection of the Great Lakes
from Exotic Species.'' In this resolution, we identify the need
for additional Federal and State legislation requiring the
treatment of ballast water in ships entering the Great Lakes.
We were delighted to see that H.R. 5396 addresses some of
the issues addressed in the resolution. This legislation will
finally close the loophole which exempts ships entering the
Great Lakes, declaring that they have no ballast on board from
regulation under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990. Experience has shown that these
exempted ships can still transport invasive non-native species
to the Great Lakes and other areas.
The impacts of invasive non-native species are not confined
to our natural ecosystems. Navigation on many of our Nation's
waterways has been hampered by dense growths of aquatic
invasive non-native plants such as hydrilla and water hyacinth
and, most recently, giant salvinia.
Industry also has suffered due to the spread of invasive
non-native plants and animals into equipment and pipeline. The
Federation comments the members of the Committee for
encouraging partnerships among public agencies and other
interests.
Prevention of aquatic invasive species is the most
environmentally sound and cost-effective management approach
because, once established, aquatic invasive species are costly
and sometimes impossible to control.
To be effective, the prevention, early detection, and
control of and the rapid response to aquatic invasive species
should be coordinated regionally, nationally, and
internationally. Research underlies every aspect of detecting,
preventing, controlling, and eradicating invasive species,
educating citizens and stakeholders, and restoring ecosystems.
Development of regional rapid response contingency
strategies that provide a consistent and coordinated approach
to rapid response needs to be a priority. We need to try to
avoid that new non-native species get established. This in the
short term will promote greater cooperation among Federal,
State, Tribal, and local land water managers and owners of
private land, water rights, or other interests to control
harmful non-native species that are already established.
We also need to be aware that they should be a big emphasis
on providing better guidance for more consistent strategies
that can be developed on a short timeframe to be able to act
almost immediately. We do need deadlines.
H.R. 5395 will fulfill a big gap. A comprehensive and
thorough research, development, and demonstration program on
aquatic invasive species needs to be done in order to better
understand how aquatic invasive species are introduced and
become established, and to support efforts to prevent the
introduction and establishment of and to eradicate these
species.
H.R. 5396 is an important complement to H.R. 3558, the
Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act, of
what should be a broad and diverse effort to minimize the
impact of invasive non-native species, control their spread,
and prevent their introduction in the first place. The problem
of invasive non-native species is so widespread and pervasive
that no single program or action can address it
comprehensively. This is particularly true where the spread of
invasive species may be exacerbated by other environmental
problems.
H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5395 are a step forward to the
implementation of the National Invasive Species Management Plan
and complements other existing bills like H.R. 3558 because
they enhance the capacity of private, State, Tribal, and
Federal entities to manage invasive species.
Although we embrace legislation authorizing funding for the
control of invasive species, two precautionary notes are in
order. First, the ultimate test of Congress' commitment to
controlling invasive non-native species is in the annual
appropriations process. Unless adequate funds are appropriated,
the problem of invasive non-native species will continue to
grow unchecked.
Second, programs to control and manage invasive non-native
species must be developed and implemented in such a manner that
they are not harmful to our natural ecosystems. All projects
and programs addressing invasive non-natives should be
evaluated according to their success in implementing
appropriate environmental controls.
The list of invasive non-native species destroying our
native communities is already too long and is still growing.
Both bills are good steps toward not allowing this list to grow
more. We strongly support both bills and look forward to
working with this Committee as these bills move through the
legislative process.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Chavarria.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chavarria follows:]
Statement of Gabriela Chavarria, Policy Director, National Wildlife
Federation
The National Wildlife Federation appreciates the opportunity to
submit this statement for the record on H.R. 5396 Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, and H.R. 5395 Aquatic Invasive
Species Research Act.
I am Gabriela Chavarria, Policy Director, for Wildlife Management,
of the National Wildlife Federation. I was member of the National
Invasive Species Advisory Committee, and I am vice-chair of the
Executive Board of the Global Invasive Species Programme. In my
previous job with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation I oversaw
and coordinated the Pulling Together Initiative, Private-Public
Partnership to manage, control and eradicate invasive noxious weeds.
The National Wildlife Federation is the largest not for profit
conservation education and advocacy organization with more than four
million members and supporters, and nine natural resources centers
throughout the United States. National Wildlife Federation's family
also includes forty-six states and territorial affiliate organizations.
Founded in 1936, the National Wildlife Federation works for the
protection of wildlife species and their habitat, and for the
conservation of our natural resources.
The conservation of our nation's natural ecosystems in a healthy
and abundant state provides innumerable and irreplaceable benefits to
society. To conserve these ecosystems and realize their benefits for
all of us, we must address many complex issues, including human
population growth, pollution, sprawling development patterns,
unsustainable agricultural practices and global climate change. All of
these are important and the National Wildlife Federation is actively
working on each of them. However, another pernicious threat too often
overlooked and the subject of today's hearing is the harm brought upon
our natural aquatic ecosystems by invasive non-native species.
The National Wildlife Federation's affiliated organizations across
the United States adopted a position statement on invasive non-native
species in 2000. And in March 8, 2002 they adopted the resolution
``Protection of the Great Lakes from Exotic Species.'' In this
resolution, we identify the need for additional federal and state
legislation requiring the treatment of ballast water in ships entering
the Great Lakes. Both resolutions are attached at the end of my
testimony. We were delighted to see that H.R. 5396 addresses some of
the issues addressed in the resolution. This legislation would finally
close the loop hole which exempts ships entering the Great Lakes
declaring that they have no ballast on board from regulation under the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.
Experience has shown that these exempted ships can still transport
invasive non-native species to the Great Lakes and other areas. You can
find copies of these resolutions at the end of my testimony.
For decades, the National Wildlife Federation has worked to protect
the biological integrity of the Great Lakes from numerous environmental
threats. One of the most alarming threats to the Great Lakes, however,
comes from invasive non-native plants such as Eurasian water milfoil,
non-native fish such as the Eurasian ruffe and round goby, and the
zebra mussels. These and other species were introduced into the Great
Lakes from ballast water discharged by foreign ships using our coastal
and inland waterways. Native to the Balkans, Poland, and the former
Soviet Union, the zebra mussel is spreading across North America at an
astounding rate. Dense zebra mussel colonies grow in pipes and other
hard surfaces, severely impacting water flow at power plants, water
treatment systems and other facilities. Although the full biological
impact of zebra mussels is not entirely known, it is clear that where
zebra mussels invade, native mussel species quickly decline.
Our concern is that invasive non-native species can so radically
change an area's physical and biological environment that the habitat
requirements for native plants and animals no longer exist. After
habitat loss, invasive non-native plants are the second greatest threat
to native species. At least 5,000 non-native species, including more
than 2, 100 exotic plants and 2,000 insects, have invaded North America
since the arrival of European explorers. Many of these species have
been harmful to native wildlife and ecosystems. They overwhelm native
species for food, space, water and other needs. In some cases these
species prey on native species and alter their habitat.
The impacts of invasive non-native species are not confined to our
natural ecosystems. Navigation on many of our nation's waterways has
been hampered by dense growths of aquatic invasive non-native plants
such as hydrilla and water hyacinth. Industry also has suffered due to
the spread of invasive non-native plants and animals into equipment and
piping.
Comments and Opportunities on H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5395
The Federation commends the members of the Committee to encourage
partnerships among public agencies and other interests.
Prevention of aquatic invasive species is the most environmentally
sound and cost effective management approach, because once established,
aquatic invasive species are costly, and sometimes impossible to
control. To be effective, the prevention, early detection and control
of and the rapid response to aquatic invasive species should be
coordinated regionally, nationally, and internationally. Research
underlies every aspect of detecting, preventing, controlling, and
eradicating invasive species, educating citizens and stakeholders, and
restoring ecosystems.
Development of regional rapid response contingency strategies that
provide a consistent and coordinated approach to rapid response, need
to be a priority, we need to try to avoid that new nonnative species
get established.. This in the short-term will promote greater
cooperation among Federal, State, Tribal, and local land water
managers, and owners of private land, water rights, or other interests
to control harmful nonnative species that are already established. We
also need to be aware that they should be a big emphasis on providing
better guidance for more consistent strategies that can be developed on
a short time frame to be able to act almost immediately.
H.R. 5395 will fulfill a big gap. A comprehensive and thorough
research, development, and demonstration program on aquatic invasive
species needs to be done in order to better understand how aquatic
invasive species are introduced and become established, and to support
efforts to prevent the introduction and establishment of, and to
eradicate, these species.
H.R. 5396 is an important complement to H.R. 3558 The Species
Protection and Conservation of the Environment of what should be a
broad and diverse effort to minimize the impact of invasive non-native
species, control their spread and prevent their introduction in the
first place. The problem of invasive non-native species is so
widespread and pervasive that no single program or action can address
it comprehensively. This is particularly true where the spread of
invasive species may be exacerbated by other environmental problems
H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5395 are a step forward to the implementation of
the National Invasive Species Management Plan, and complements other
existing bills like H.R. 3558 because enhances the capacity of private,
State, and Federal entities to manage invasive species.
Although we embrace legislation-authorizing funding for the control
of invasive non-natives, two precautionary notes are in order. First,
the ultimate test of Congress's commitment to controlling invasive non-
native species is in the annual appropriations process. Unless adequate
funds are appropriated, the problem of invasive non-native species will
continue to grow unchecked.
Second, programs to control and manage invasive non-native species
must be developed and implemented in such a manner that they are not
harmful to our natural ecosystems. The introduction of non-native
species to control other non-native species must be vigorously screened
to ensure the species is host specific and non-harmful to other species
and our natural ecosystems. Furthermore, all control methods should
seek to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals.
In the few cases where use of chemicals may be appropriate, this use
must be tightly regulated and carefully monitored to avoid harming non-
target native species. All projects and programs addressing invasive
non-natives should be evaluated according to their success in
implementing appropriate environmental controls.
The list of invasive non-native species destroying our native
communities is already too long and is still growing. H.R. 5395 and
H.R. 5396 are good steps towards not allowing this list to grow more.
We strongly support both bills and look forward to working with this
Committee as H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396 move through the legislative
process
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to
discuss the issue of invasive species. We would like to thank you Mr.
Chairman, for your efforts to address this issue through H.R. 5396 and
H.R.5395.National Wildlife Federation
______
[Attachments to Dr. Chavarria's statement follow:]
National Wildlife Federation
RESOLUTION NO. 1
2000
Invasive Species
WHEREAS, some non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other
organisms have an adverse impact upon indigenous communities by
reducing available light, water, nutrients, and space and can cause
other long term changes in the area's hydrology, soil chemistry and
erodibility, and the frequency of fires; and
WHEREAS, some introduced non-indigenous plants, animals and other
organisms are highly invasive, capable of rapid reproduction and/or
growth resulting in the displacement of ndigenous species, and can
radically change an area's physical and/or biological environment so
that the habitat requirements for indigenous plants, animals and other
organisms no longer exist; and
WHEREAS, non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other organisms by
nature are easily spread from one area to another; and
WHEREAS, the impact of non-indigenous invasive species threatens
regional biodiversity in a manner that is not easily quantified; for
example, the loss of an indigenous plant community to non-indigenous
invasive species may mean the loss of an insect, animal or indigenous
plant dependent upon that community; and
WHEREAS, according to the National Park Service,''invasions of non-
native plants are the second greatest threat to native species after
direct habitat destruction''; and
WHEREAS, the US Fish and Wildlife Service stated, ``an estimated 42% of
the nation's endangered and threatened species have declined as a
result of encroaching exotic plants and animals''; and
WHEREAS, the problem of non-indigenous invasive plants is widespread
and, according to federal and other accounts, now extend into more than
1.5 million acres of national park land and are spreading at a rate of
4,600 acres per day into federally owned land; and
WHEREAS, it is ``estimated that in the 20th century, just 79 introduced
plant and animal species have cost the US economy $97 billion in losses
to such industries as forestry, ranching, fisheries, tourism, and
utilities''; and
WHEREAS, research is required to establish best management practices to
control and prevent the spread of non-indigenous invasive species; and
WHEREAS, international trade agreements and rules, regulations, and
protocols related to international transportation and trade can
significantly affect the possible transportation of non-indigenous
invasive species into the United States and other countries;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation in
its Annual Meeting assembled March 16-18, 2000, in Seattle, Washington,
supports the President's efforts in establishing the Invasive Species
Council to integrate efforts of federal agencies to combat the problem
and to prepare and issue the first edition of a National Invasive
Management Plan that shall ``detail and recommend performance-oriented
goals and objectives and specific measures of success for federal
agency efforts concerning invasive species''; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation supports
increased federal funding for non-indigenous invasive species
management in National Parks and on other federal lands and/or waters,
and the continued funding of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP) that, in part, provides cost sharing for private initiatives to
control non-native (invasive) plants from natural ecosystems''; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages
state and federal agencies, universities and other groups to work
together to identify and list the highly and potentially invasive non-
indigenous species specific to that state, and to promote that the list
be used as an educational and managerial tool; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation calls upon
state and federal agencies to carefully formulate regulations to
control, reduce, or, if necessary, prohibit the introduction,
transportation, propagation, sale, or distribution of non-indigenous
plants known to be harmful or otherwise undesirable; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages
state and federal agencies, universities, and other groups to work with
the nursery industry to establish policies to control and prevent the
further introduction and spread of non-indigenous invasive species, and
to promote a list of alternative, preferably native plants, that can be
the basis of educational programs that will benefit growers, the
public, and the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages
state and federal entities engaged in research and development
involving management of vegetation to intensify their studies of
ecology and control of invasive non-indigenous plants; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges
monitoring of areas that have endangered or threatened species and/or
are relatively free of non-indigenous invasive species and encourages
careful management practices to be used in the removal of non-
indigenous invasive species; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges the
Congress and federal agencies to ensure that the United States'
international trade obligations, including the World Trade Organization
and its Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, are formulated and
implemented to provide sufficient flexibility to allow for regulations
to control and prohibit intentional or unintentional introduction of
non-indigenous invasive species and other organisms into the United
States and other countries; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges the
Congress of the United States to recognize the high environmental and
economic costs associated with non-indigenous invasive plants, animals
and other organisms and to appropriately fund efforts to control this
enormous national environmental crisis through educational programs,
research, and cost-share incentives to restore native habitats.
______
National Wildlife Federation
RESOLUTION NO. 08
2002
Protection of the Great Lakes and Other Waters from Exotic Species
WHEREAS, our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters
continue to be invaded by exotic (non-native) aquatic organisms and
pathogens transported from foreign waters; and
WHEREAS, these organisms arrive in the ballast water discharged by
ships using our estuarine, coastal and inland waterways; and
WHEREAS, previously introduced exotic species, such as Eurasian ruffe
and round gobies, are being carried in ballast water from one Great
Lakes port to another; and
WHEREAS, once introduced and established, these non-native aquatic
organisms are expensive to control and almost impossible to eliminate;
and
WHEREAS, the impact on sport and commercial fisheries is immense and
disrupts the aquatic diversity of the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats,
coastal and inland waters; and
WHEREAS, moreover, shoreline communities in the Great Lakes region
alone are being forced to spend an estimated $500 million annually on
control measures to protect drinking water, power plants, and
recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, some of these aquatic organisms, such as zebra mussels and
Eurasian water milfoil, are now making their way into inland lakes and
streams across the United States where they are displacing native
animal and plant species; and
WHEREAS, the ballast water that harbors these invaders is used to
maintain the stability of cargo vessels when they are empty or only
partially loaded and is pumped in or out of large holding tanks, as
needed, before the ships enter or leave port; and
WHEREAS, although U.S. and Canadian laws currently require ships
entering the Great Lakes to exchange their ballast water at sea, ship
design makes it impossible to eliminate all of the ballast water; and
WHEREAS, the majority of ships entering the Great Lakes do so with ``No
ballast on Board'' and ships in this condition are commonly referred to
as NOBOBs; and
WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition still carry sediment in their
ballast that can harbor exotic species; and
WHEREAS, the average ship retains 42,000 gallons of ballast water and
sludge when entering the Great Lakes or moving between ports; and
WHEREAS, exotic organisms are flushed into the lakes as ships take on
and discharge residual ballast water in the course of their voyages;
and
WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition are currently exempt from
requirement to exchange their ballast under federal law; and
WHEREAS, federal laws as they are currently administered have clearly
failed to prevent exotic species in this residual ballast water from
reaching the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland
waterways; and
WHEREAS, in the 106th Congress a bill was introduced that would have
amended the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control and Protection Act
of 1990 and require ships traveling in and out of the Great Lakes,
estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters to replace or purify
their ballast water or certify that any discharge or exchange within
U.S. waters will not introduce any non-indigenous organisms; and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation believes the ultimate control
has to come from the Federal government working in concert with Canada;
and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation and many other organizations
recognize the threat posed to the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats,
coastal and other inland lakes and streams of the United States by the
continued introduction of non-indigenous aquatic organisms carried in
the ballast water of ocean going vessels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation,
at its Annual Meeting assembled March 7-9, 2002 in Stone Mountain,
Georgia, supports the enactment of federal legislation to protect the
Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters from
undesirable exotic species and pathogens, by requiring treatment of
ballast water of all ships entering or moving between the Great Lakes,
estuarine habitats, coastal or inland ports, including ships with no
ballast on board (NOBOBs) to eliminate viable exotic organisms without
damage to the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation
encourages the development, funding, and use of environmentally sound
technologies that prevent the introduction of exotic species into the
aquatic environment by minimizing or eliminating the uptake of
organisms into ships' ballast tanks; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation supports
equally effective state legislation to regulate ballast water,
including ships in the NOBOB condition in individual state waters to
provide interim protection until such time as federal legislation is
enacted to adequately protect all our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats,
coastal and inland lakes and rivers.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Cangelosi, thank you for coming this
morning and for all your work on this legislation.
STATEMENT OF ALLEGRA CANGELOSI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,
NORTHEAST-MIDWEST INSTITUTE
Ms. Cangelosi. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittees regarding the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act and the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Research Act, NAISA and NAISRA.
All of the provisions in this legislation are critical to
protecting the Northeast-Midwest Region and the Nation from
further serious, expensive, and permanent damage caused by
aquatic invasive species. I urge the Subcommittees to act
quickly and pass them.
Of particular importance to our region are the provisions
related to the prevention of organism transfers by the leading
pathway--ships. The U.S. has law on the books to combat ship-
mediated invasions, but Federal agencies have not aggressively
implemented it nor, therefore, has industry.
In particular, progress toward development and use of
treatment alternatives has been almost nonexistent, although
Congress clearly stated it as a priority in the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996.
One source of stalemate is the need for a numeric standard
for treatment--the only effective approach to prevention,
especially for the Great Lakes. Statute directs ships to
undertake a management practice called ``ballast water
exchange'' or a treatment that is at least as effective as
ballast water exchange. But the biological effect of ballast
water exchange is notoriously variable and difficult to
measure. Establishing a numeric surrogate, therefore, is a
policy call and one that the Coast Guard has been unwilling to
make. Without that benchmark, however, investment in treatment
by industry and product developers is at a standstill.
NAISA and NAISRA will allow the transition to ballast
treatment to proceed and proceed rapidly. The bills set forth
two phases--an interim phase during which ballast water
exchange remains acceptable, but ships are encouraged to
substitute treatments that are deemed equivalent according to a
statutory benchmark; and a final phase during which all ships
must meet an environmentally protective standard using best
available technology. In the final phase, ballast water
exchange may well become obsolete for many types of ships as
more effective treatments become available.
The final phase is in fact the most important to ongoing
environmental protection, while the interim phase is a
preparatory period.
The legislation resolves the interim standard impasse by
establishing 95 percent inactivation or removal of plankton as
a benchmark for ballast water exchange effectiveness. This
numeric surrogate is broadly accepted internationally, because
under ideal conditions, 95 percent of near coastal water can be
purged using the safest ballast water exchange technique. As
such, it represents an upper limit of potential effectiveness
of ballast water exchange.
The two concerns that are raised around the 95 percent
treatment standard by agencies are either not relevant to the
interim period or to statute. One is that 95 percent is not
known to be environmentally protective. This is a very good
reason for 95 percent not to be the final standard. But during
the interim period, ships that do not use treatment will use
the more heavily flawed ballast water exchange. Thus, the only
relevant question in the interim period is whether it is at
least as protective as ballast water exchange, and the answer
is yes.
The second concern is that a standard expressed as a
percent efficiency will be harder to monitor and enforce than a
standard expressed as discharge concentrations or a size
cutoff. These operational concerns are worth considering and
may afford subtle improvements during the interim period, but
they reside in the province of regulation rather than statute.
The statute answers the primary question of the basis on which
to select such a concentration limit or size, and that is the
95 percent benchmark.
The urge to perfect the interim standard in statute serves
only to delay its implementation and consequently the
development of treatments which can finally solve the problem.
Next, the legislation establishes a date-certain for an
environmentally protective final standard to apply to all
practices. This Nation needs and deserves this commitment. The
bill provides agencies 4 years to define the standard and up to
8 years to promulgate it--ample time for research and
preparation on all sides.
The legislation draws from our long experience with air and
water pollution control and directs industry to meet the final
standard using best available technology, economically
achievable, based on a periodic review. This approach creates
financial incentive for inventors to develop the most effective
and economically achievable methods possible over time.
The legislation also wisely incorporates other aspects of
the ship, such as hulls and anchor chains, into the purview of
the final standard.
There are many other important provisions in this
legislation which I summarize in my written testimony. Until
now, damage to our resources by invasive species has been a
cost which the American public has unwittingly accepted. But
growing awareness of the ecological and economic impact of
aquatic invaders now attracts a diverse array of interest
groups to an increasingly vibrant policy debate.
This legislation has clearly benefitted from this debate.
The result is a set of programs which will prevent and manage
the problem effectively for the environment and efficiently for
industry and government. This problem is not going away until
Congress acts, and I urge your consideration of these bills and
passage as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Cangelosi.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cangelosi follows:]
Statement of Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst,Northeast-Midwest
Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittees
regarding the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, and National
Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act of 2002. These bills are urgently
needed to protect America's public health, coastal resources, and
economy. I urge the Subcommittees'' support for and early action on
this legislation.
All of the provisions contained in H.R. 5395 and 5396 are needed in
the Northeast-Midwest region, and nationally. This testimony discusses
that need, generally, and describes in some detail the potential
benefits of provisions in the proposed legislation that would fix the
federal program to prevent introductions of aquatic invasive species by
ships. It also briefly highlights other important aspects of the bill,
including provisions to manage high-risk pathways; establish consistent
screening for species invasiveness for planned importations; encourage
consultation and coordination with Canada and Mexico to prevent and
manage infestations in shared ecosystems; and support state and
regional grants to implement on-the-ground programs. Finally, this
testimony describes the particularly urgent need which the legislation
addresses to improve the dispersal barrier for the connecting waterway
between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.
A great deal of multi-stakeholder discussion and negotiation have
gone into the preparation of both bills over a period of several
months, and both bills should be considered by committees of
jurisdiction and enacted as soon as possible to get these worthwhile
programs underway.
1. The federal government needs to get serious about preventing aquatic
invasive species.
Hundred-pound Asian carp smash into recreational boats on the
Mississippi River, while voracious Snakehead fish from China crawl out
of a Maryland pond. Zebra mussels and alien fish conspire to infect
Great Lakes waterfowl with botulism. An army of alien rats, numbering
in the millions and weighing up to 20 pounds, raze wetland vegetation
of the Chesapeake Bay, while softball-sized snails, Rapa whelks,
silently devour any and all shellfish, and the industry they support,
in their paths. What more do we need to know to get serious about the
problem of aquatic invasive species?
Unfortunately, these highly visible invasions are only the tip of
the iceberg. The list of invader species plaguing America's coasts is
long, diverse, and constantly growing. A recent Pew Oceans Report cites
aquatic invasive species as a top threat to marine biodiversity, and
the Environmental Protection Agency has reported that invasive species
are second only to habitat destruction as a threat to endangered
species.
The environmental effects of invasive organisms can be as subtle as
they are serious. As they ripple through ecosystems and morph over
time, they have the effect of weakening entire ecological systems. For
example, a serious wasting syndrome now afflicts the fry of native
sport fish in Lake Ontario. After long and careful research the cause
was traced to the fact that the diet of the adult sport fish is now
made up of non-native forage fish. The non-native forage is
nutritionally deficient to the made-to-order native lake perch with
which the native sport fish evolved.
Goods traded in markets are not exempt from degradation by invasive
species. Commercial fishing, aquaculture, water-related recreation, and
waterborne transportation are all vulnerable to dramatic down-turns
precipitated by foreign animals, plants, fish, and insects. Together,
the damage amounts to an estimated $100 billion annually in the U.S..
These losses are particularly painful because they are self-
inflicted and completely avoidable. Intentionally or not, we have moved
organisms adapted to distant habitats to our own lakes, rivers, and
shores where they lack natural limiting factors and their populations
explode. In the absence of strong federal programs to prevent their
introductions, we willingly cede our most valuable coastal and inland
assets to them forever. They pose an enormous threat to the U.S.
economy and environment. NAISA and NAISRA will assure the federal
government finally gets serious about stopping them.
2. NAISA/NAISRA take the cost-effective approach to battling aquatic
invasions--prevention
It is not a good time to be wasting federal dollars. Yet by failing
to prevent new introductions of aquatic invasive species, that is
exactly what we are doing. Invasive species often have no economic
value to any stakeholder. Once established, aquatic invasions are
particularly expensive and often impossible to eradicate in an
environmentally safe way. On-going control is even more expensive. In
the Great Lakes, about $15 million USD a year are spent by the US and
Canada to control an exotic fish, the sea lamprey, which first invaded
the system over 50 years ago. Effective prevention, on the other hand,
results in the compound economic benefit of preventing the economic
impacts to the receiving system, and the avoiding on-going costs of
control.
Our negligence has already cost us and our children money we don't
have, and it is time to clean up our act. NAISA and NAISRA will
accomplish that goal in a variety of ways.
2.1. Improve existing law by providing necessary policy calls,
structure, and information for preventing invasive species
introduction by ships
Most invasive aquatic organisms hitch rides to U.S. waters on
waterborne vessels--adhered to hulls and entrained in ballast water
used for stability and trim (Carlton, 2001). The U.S. has a law on the
books to combat invasive species transfers by ships, but federal
agencies have not aggressively implemented it, nor, therefore, has
industry. Existing law provides too much flexibility to implementing
agencies on issues of policy and time-frame, and the result has been
stalemate. NAISA and NAISRA break the logjam by making the necessary
policy calls, and providing a structure, standards and dates-certain to
drive effective action.
2.1.1. Existing law too open-ended
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 (NANPCA) established the first federal requirements on ships with
the purpose of attenuating transfers of non-native organisms. It
required ships entering the Great Lakes after operating outside the
exclusive economic zone to first purge their ballast in the open ocean
using a process called ballast water exchange (BWE), or otherwise treat
the water with an environmentally-sound alternative technology at least
as effective as BWE. In 1996, Congress reauthorized NANPCA as the
National Invasive Species Act (NISA). With this law, Congress expanded
the ballast management program to be national in scope. Though the law
called for this national program to be initially voluntary, it directed
the secretary of transportation to make the program mandatory if
compliance proved inadequate. In June 2002, with only 20 percent of
vessels visiting US ports even bothering to report their ballast
operations, much less comply with the new national ballast management
guidelines, the U.S. Coast Guard announced its intent to make the
national program mandatory at some future date (U.S. Coast Guard,
2001).
Congress allowed for the possibility of treatment on ships, even in
1990 when none was yet known, because BWE has many limitations.
Greatest among them are that BWE is difficult to monitor and enforce,
has unknown (perhaps unknowable) and partial effectiveness, and can
occasionally be unsafe for ships. In addition, BWE has no demonstrated
beneficial effect in coastal ship movements (only transoceanic).
Treatment technology, on the other hand, could be equally effective for
all voyage types, relatively easy to monitor, and have knowable and
probably far better effectiveness than BWE. Though a ``silver bullet''
technology which can effectively and efficiently treat ballast water of
any ship or voyage type is unlikely, a tool box of treatment types
could address the variety of environmental, economic, and operational
contexts in which ballast treatment must take place. This transition to
treatment is especially important to port ranges, such as the Great
Lakes and Eastern Seaboard, where many ship movements are either
coastal or fully loaded with cargo such that BWE is not a possibility.
In NISA of 1996, Congress restated its commitment to the treatment
option and attempted to encourage use of treatment by ships through
authorizing grants to allow inventors of potential ballast treatments
to demonstrate their systems and to enable researchers to measure their
effects. Consequently, over the past six years, treatment alternatives
such as ozone, ultraviolet radiation (UV), filtration, heat, chemical
biocides, and deoxygenation have matured to the point of readiness for
shipboard demonstration. Although it is too soon to know for sure, the
effectiveness of these approaches could well prove competitive to BWE,
especially when the numerous disadvantages of BWE are factored in.
Existing law states the transition to treatment from BWE as a clear
policy objective, but leaves the way forward too undefined. As a
result, in 2002, a full ten years after Congress first gave ship owners
the option to treat their ballast as an alternative to BWE (in Great
Lakes trade), and five years after grants began to flow to encourage
develop of treatment systems, implementing agencies still have no
formal approval process in place for motivated ship owners to exercise
the option to use treatment. As a result, none has.
A good part of the hold-up has been that existing law (NANPCA and
NISA) contains a narrative standard for treatment effectiveness that
the Coast Guard has had difficulty putting into action. Existing law
calls for treatment to be ``at least as effective as BWE'', the default
action. Ideally, the implementing agency would have translated this
narrative standard into a working numeric estimate of BWE effectiveness
and use that numeric standard as a benchmark for approving treatment
alternatives. But the biological effectiveness of BWE is notoriously
variable--even among the ballast tanks within a single ship--and
difficult to measure. A report of the Ballast Water and Shipping
Committee to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force found that BWE
effectiveness ranged from ``39 percent to 99.9 percent, depending upon
the taxonomic groups and ships studied.'' In the face of these
difficulties, the Coast Guard abandoned the prospect of a establishing
a numeric surrogate for BWE effectiveness.
Instead, the Coast Guard has set forth a case-by-case ``do-it-
yourself'' approach, directing interested ship owners to conduct
complex shipboard experiments (post-installation) to undertake direct
and real-time comparisons between BWE and treatment. If the comparison
is favorable and defensible, the Coast Guard will approve the
treatment. But this approach is counterproductive to the nation's
policy objective of encouraging a transition to treatment. The size and
complexity of the experimental subject (a moving ship), the rate of
flow of the subject medium (ballast water), the compound variability of
BWE, treatment effectiveness and control conditions, and the diversity
of biological communities at the source and discharge of the treated
water all can conspire to make such comparisons inaccurate. A
simplified shipboard experiment measuring treatment efficiency relative
to a numeric standard, while still not easy, is at least manageable.
The only thing standing in the way of this simpler approach is the lack
of a numeric benchmark for BWE effectiveness. Given that any estimate
of BWE effectiveness is necessarily imprecise, it is a policy call, and
one that the Coast Guard has stated it has no intention of making.
2.1.2. NAISA/NAISRA provide policy direction, structure, information
NAISA and NAISRA provide better structure and guidance for the
agencies implementing the ship-management program so that it will be
both efficient and effective. Most important, NAISA makes policy calls
that break the logjam around the transition to ballast treatment by
ships. Because we do not have all the information we need to design a
long-standing program now, the bills set forth preliminary action by
ships within 18 months of enactment, and more final standards by a
later date certain. Specifically, within 18 months, all ships must
undertake best management practices, reporting and have an invasive
species management plan, and, if a ship is in transoceanic trade,
exercise ballast water management. The ballast water management
requirements include two phases: an interim phase during which BWE is
necessarily acceptable, but ships may substitute treatments that meet
an interim numeric standard if they choose; and a final phase during
which ships are required to meet an environmentally protective standard
using best available technology. During this final phase, BWE may well
become obsolete for many types of ships as more effective approaches
become available. NAISA sets a date-certain of no later than 2011 for
this final, environmentally protective standard to take effect. NAISRA
authorizes research activities to feed information into each step of
this process, and fuel productive review and revision exercises along
the way.
2.1.3. The final phase--the sooner the better
The final phase is pivotal to the success of the programs laid out
in NAISA and NAISRA, and is therefore discussed first in this
testimony. NAISA provides a clear performance objective for the final
standard--the standard is to eliminate the risk of transfer of aquatic
invasive organisms by ships. The legislation gives implementing
agencies four years to define the final standard in numeric terms, and
up to 8 years to promulgate it. This approach gives agencies time to
conduct the needed research, and flexibility to craft the standard in
ways that will assure efficient implementation. It also gives treatment
vendors and ship-owners a clear target for research and development,
and time to prepare for meeting the standard prior to its promulgation.
The accompanying research bill (NAISRA) assures that the needed
research will take place.
NAISA and NAISRA wisely incorporate the entire ship vector into the
purview of the final standard. Ballast water may prove to be just a
part of the problem. Other aspects of the ship, such as hulls, anchor
chains, and sea chests are receiving growing attention for their roles
in introductions of aquatic organisms. It would be inefficient for
industry, and expensive for the environment, if our focus remained
exclusively on ballast water when other aspects of the ship also pose
risk of organism transfers but are left unchecked. As a result, the
final standard may well take the form of a suite of separate standards
relative to different aspects of the ship vector.
Finally, the final standard in NAISA acknowledges a level of
uncertainty regarding whether or not technology will exist to allow
every class of ship to meet the environmentally protective standard at
the time it takes effect. Rather than hold everything up until the
silver bullet comes to light, the legislation borrows from our long
experience in dealing with air and water pollution and allows industry
to meet the standard using ``best available technology economically
achievable''. This approach will require that agencies undertake
periodic review of technologies available and revision of the list of
acceptable technologies based on the performance of the very best ones
for each class of ship. It is up to Congress to make sure that these
reviews take place, but fortunately it will be in the interest of both
the carriers and the resource protection interests for the reviews to
take place. The approach gives vendors great incentive to develop more
effective and more economically achievable methods than those already
in play because they can then become the standard to beat. It also
weans all classes of ships from BWE as soon as economically achievable
alternatives exist.
The research program contained in NAISRA will be critical to
continued progress in development of new and effective treatment
options. For this reason, the experimental approval program in NAISA
should be made continuous rather than expire upon promulgation of the
interim standard.
2.1.4. The interim phase--to tide us over
During the interim phase, the time between 18 months of enactment
and the promulgation of the final standard, ships may choose to use BWE
or treatment. In NAISA, Congress resolves the impasse regarding
equivalency to BWE by making a policy call that the Coast Guard has had
trouble making at the agency level. NAISA establishes 95 percent
inactivation or removal of plankton as the interim treatment standard.
Many experts nationally and internationally, and the current
International Maritime Organization draft convention, accept 95 percent
inactivation or removal of plankton as a good surrogate for BWE
effectiveness, because under ideal conditions 95 percent of the near
coastal water is purged in open ocean using the safest BWE technique.
As such, it is an upper limit of potential effectiveness of BWE.
The Coast Guard has expressed concern that a 95 percent
inactivation or removal is not known to be environmentally protective.
To be sure, at this stage of the game, most scientists would assert
that only zero discharge of non-native organisms is known to be
completely protective. But degree of environmental protectiveness--
entirely appropriate to determination of the final standard applicable
to all ships--is a misplaced concern in relation to the interim period.
During the interim period, if a ship doesn't treat its water, it will
use heavily flawed BWE. Next to BWE, a consistent 95 percent reduction
in plankton relative to intake starts to look pretty good. A ``double
standard'' to the management options--environmental protectiveness is a
requirement for treatment but not BWE--would be counterproductive,
creating an accidental and unnecessary disincentive for treatment, and
removing the bottom rung of the research and development ladder.
Others have expressed concern that the 95 percent standard, a
measure of treatment efficiency, poses problems of measurability--that
it is hard to compare intake and discharge in a moving vessel. They
argue that an organism size cut-off would be easier to monitor, e.g. no
detectable quantities of live organisms of x microns or greater.
Realistically, however, a shore-based type-approval process linked
with in-line proxy measurements on board the ship will likely have to
suffice for the interim period, and percent reductions are readily
accommodated in that scenario. But, more to the point, a size-based
approach is not precluded. The technical approach to measurement is
undefined by the law; this level of detail is more suitable to
regulation. Agencies could implement the 95 percent standard using a
size cut-off (say, 50 microns) above which 95 percent of the
vertebrates, invertebrates and plankton tend to fall.
Another perspective on the interim standard, currently being
explored at the International Maritime Organization, is that it should
be technologically achievable. Technological achievability is a moving
target, and will vary wildly from one class of ship to the next. For
some classes of ships, technologically feasible treatment could be far
less effective than BWE. In these cases, BWE, not the technology should
be the method of choice. During the interim period, regulatory
requirements are already technologically achievable, because BWE is one
option. It is during the final standard phase that technological
achievability is relevant and the best technology available will be
determined on a ship-class by ship-class basis.
NAISA's approach to the interim standard is the best approach given
the fact that BWE remains one alternative for ships. But even if it
isn't, the most important thing is for society to set a treatment goal
for the interim period and move on. It is a critical stage for the
assembly of a market and a tool box for technologically achievable and
environmentally protective techniques for the final phase of the
program. The urge to ``perfect'' the interim standard only delays the
availability of treatments to meet the final standard. For this logic
to hold, however, Congress, must assure that the interim period shall
indeed expire and be replaced by the final standard at a date-certain;
the only real purpose for the interim period is to assure a level of
protectiveness for U.S. resources while agencies structure the
implementation of the best-available technology economically achievable
standard.
2.1.5. New ships on a faster track
NAISA correctly puts new ships on a faster track than existing
ships. The most cost-effective time to incorporate ballast treatment
into a ship is at the drawing stage. We have uselessly lost 10 years of
new ships coming into service without treatment by not setting this
requirement in our first aquatic invasive species statutes. NAISA
correctly directs ships that enter service after January 1, 2006 to
employ ballast treatment rather than BWE as their ballast water
management method. In addition, the best available technology
economically achievable will be quite different for new ships than
existing ships, because options are limited by the constraints of
retrofitting. For this reason, NAISA appropriately directs agencies to
establish the BAT separately for new and existing ships in each ship
class.
2.1.6. Coast Guard and EPA join forces on the final phase
Though the Coast Guard is the sole agency in charge of the
prevention program for ships set forth in existing law, there is a
lawsuit challenging EPA for excluding ship discharges from the NPDES
program. The reality is that neither agency is by itself perfect for
the job. The Coast Guard is skilled at regulating ships, but it does
not have much experience with developing complex environmental
standards for industry in a context of great uncertainty. The
Environmental Protection Agency does have experience setting
environmental standards for industry but has only limited experience
with ships. Under sole regulation by either agency, both the industry
and the environment would suffer. NAISA therefore crafts a shared
arrangement for prevention program management in which the Coast Guard
implements standards promulgated jointly with the EPA. NAISA maintains
the Coast Guard lead during the interim period (though the EPA
undertakes an environmental soundness review on treatments), and
creates a ``joint custody'' arrangement for the final standard. While
any involvement of the EPA makes members of the maritime industry
uncomfortable, enactment of NAISA and a joint arrangement is their best
protection against the potentiality that EPA's petitioners will
prevail, and the entire program is shifted to EPA.
2.2. Other prevention provisions
NAISA and NAISRA have many other programs of key concern to the
region and country. One of them is the requirement that agencies
develop consistent, comprehensive screening guidelines to review
planned importations of aquatic non-native organisms for their
potential to be invasive in U.S. waters. Again, prevention is often the
only, and always the most cost-effective, approach to controlling
aquatic invasive species in U.S. waters.
The two pieces of legislation also wisely call for and support risk
assessment of all pathways by which aquatic invasive species may be
entering the Unites States, and follow-up management of any high risk
pathways. Ships are recognized as the leading pathway, but they are not
the only one. As we become more successful at attenuating species
introductions by ships, we need to protect the investment by assuring
that other pathways do not simply replace ships as conveyers of
invasive species into our waters.
3. NAISA/NAISRA management provisions and supporting research critical
to success--Asian Carp a case in point
Prevention is critical, but unfortunately, in some cases, it is a
luxury. NAISA and NAISRA address urgent management concerns. These
programs, discussed in greater detail by other witnesses, include the
early detection and rapid response program, and information and
outreach to the public and industry. In addition, NAISA increases the
authorization for state invasive species management plans. Except
perhaps for aspects of the ship-related program, states are in the best
position to implement many activities to prevent and manage aquatic
invasive species. Existing law provided states with some grant money to
help them become effective team-players with the federal agencies, but
demand for these funds far outstrips the authorized supply. NAISA
elevates the authorization to a realistic level to allow states to
effectively implemented prevention and other programs.
The legislation also provides for interagency, interstate and
international coordination to more effectively manage aquatic
infestations. In particular, the NAISA directs the State Department to
enter into negotiations with Canada and Mexico to conduct research and
joint management of invasive species in shared ecosystems.
Finally, the bills address a particularly dire issue to the Great
Lakes region, but shared nationally. The bills establish a
demonstration and research program for dispersal barriers against the
spread of invasives through connecting waterways. The best illustration
for the need for this program pertains to the Great Lakes. Two species
of Asian Carp (silver and bighead) are currently threatening to enter
the Great Lakes ecosystem via the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal.
These species were accidentally introduced into the Mississippi River
and have since been traveling north. Recent estimates place them within
50 miles of Lake Michigan. In the absence of any interdiction activity,
it is likely Asian Carp will reach the Great Lakes within the next
year. These carp could cause tremendous damage to the Great Lakes
ecosystem. They are very large fish (between 50 and 110 lbs.) and
voracious predators. They consume up to 40 percent of their weight
daily in vegetation, zooplankton, fish and other aquatic organisms. In
addition, Asian carp are extremely prolific; females may carry up to 1
million eggs each. Asian Carp would increase in numbers explosively in
the Great Lakes, consume vast quantities of food, and decimate native
populations of fish and mussels. They have already done so in the
Mississippi, and have shut down commercial fisheries in some reaches of
the river. Pursuant to existing law, a Chicago River Ship and Sanitary
Canal Dispersal Barrier has been designed and installed to prevent fish
species from traveling through the canal into Lake Michigan. Currently,
the barrier is a temporary electrical barrier, but it is vulnerable to
outages and there is no redundancy built in. With Asian Carp staging
downstream, the investment could easily prove useless in its current
formulation.
NAISA and NAISRA would authorize completion of the construction of
the barrier, and funds to maintain and operate it permanently. In
addition, the bills provide for a second permanent barrier to provide
needed redundancy. A monitoring program is also established, to help
determine the effectiveness of the barrier, and to determine the
applicability of similar measures to other waterways.
4. Conclusions--Time is of the essence
Until now, invasive species have been a cost which the American
public has unwittingly accepted. But growing awareness of the
ecological and economic impact of aquatic invaders now attracts a
diverse array of interest groups to an increasingly vibrant policy
debate. This debate benefited this legislation. The result is a set of
programs which will prevent and manage the problem effectively for the
environment and efficiently for industry and government. Importantly,
NAISA and NAISRA provide for a great deal of periodic review and
revision to accommodate the fact that we are early in a steep learning
process, and can expect to be able to make these prevention programs
even more efficient and effective as we learn more.
Asian carp, nutria, Rapa whelks, and zebra mussels--there are
countless reasons out there for rapid passage of these bills. In most
cases, we cannot yet name them, but they are large and small; they
belong to every phylum and kingdom; and they threaten all U.S. waters--
coastal and inland alike. They cost Americans big money, and cause
permanent loss of our precious natural resource assets. A recent study
identified 22 fish species which could become newly established in the
Great Lakes due to ship movements, at least five of which are likely to
become nuisances and disrupt the current balance of fish in the Great
Lakes. Every other coastline is similarly threatened. This problem is
not going away unless Congress acts. I urge your timely consideration
of these bills, and passage as soon as possible.
Sources
Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters:
Environmental Impacts and Management Priorities. Pew Oceans
Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
Committee on Ships'' Ballast Operations, National Research Council,
Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous
Species by Ships'' Ballast Water (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1996).
Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, www.nemw.org.
U.S. Coast Guard. Report to Congress on the Voluntary National
Guidelines for Ballast Water Management. November 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aquatic Nuisance Species in
Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options. September 2001.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Mann, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROGER MANN, PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR
MARINE SCIENCE
Dr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to be here and accept your invitation to provide
testimony today.
My name is Roger Mann. I am a professor of marine science
at the School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science. I have been a researcher in this field for about 25
years, and throughout that time, I have maintained an interest
in the biology of non-native and introduced species.
I am currently a principal investigator on a federally
funded project examining the impacts of a remarkable invading
snail in the Chesapeake Bay, and I bring this one to you today
just as an example. This is an Oriental snail that was
accidentally introduced into the Black Sea some 60 years ago,
and since that time, it has walked out of the Black Sea and
into the Adriatic, and in doing so has caused decimation of
local shellfish populations. It has the full potential to do
the same here.
I bring this one and give it to the Chairman, and I ask him
to use it whenever he sees fit to remind naysayers that
invaders can be beautiful, but they are also very bad.
The arrival of non-native species into waters of the United
States through ballast water and other vectors remains a
significant threat to the integrity of native ecosystems and,
through this, to their value as both sources of direct economic
benefit and as recreational aesthetic resources.
I truly compliment the authors and sponsors of these bills
for their timely and focused attention to these important
matters.
In the limited time available today, I will focus my
remarks on the proposed modifications in ballast water
management, specifically their feasibility in implementation
and prospects for effectiveness in controlling aquatic
invasions.
Section 104 of 5396 addresses ``Prevention of introduction
of aquatic invasive species into the waters of the United
States by vessels.'' A significant portion of this section
focuses on ballast water management and treatment systems.
Subsection (e)(1(B) addresses ``Ballast Water Management
Standards and Certification Procedures,'' the interim standards
that we have been talking about. Two options are proffered for
ballast water exchange--either at least one empty and refill,
or 95 percent ballast replacement. These are admirable goals
for reduction of organisms from distant sources that are
subject to discharge into United States waters. And at this
point, I support these as interim standards, although I am
cognizant of the logistical difficulties that accompany
compliance with such standards by a ship's master under
challenging seat states--I think we are all very much aware of
this problem--and the fact that a simple dilution standard may
not reduce the numbers of potential invaders in any one ballast
tank below a critical level that may sustain the initial stages
of an invasion in a receiving port. A number have already
testified to that today.
A dilution standard is in contrast to longstanding
approaches to regulations affecting drinking water, shellfish
growing and harvest regions, effluent standards for commercial
enterprises such as shellfish and seafood processing plants
that employ absolute values rather than percentage reductions.
None of these qualifications, however, should deter the
goal of compliance with ballast water exchange or dilution
where operating conditions allow.
The ultimate approach to ballast water exchange, and one
that I strongly support, is the development and employment of
ballast water treatment systems designed specifically to reduce
the number of included potentially harmful organisms. In
developing the text of 5396, the authors have sought to provide
parity with a 95 percent replacement approach by inclusion of
the requirement that systems kill or remove ``at least 95
percent of the live aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates,
phytoplankton and macroalgae.''
Again, these are admiral goals. However, I believe this
section of the text could be improved to encourage both the
development of appropriate technologies and facilitate their
testing prior to approval.
A number of innovative technologies are currently under
development in the private sector. These reflect the continuing
diversity and depth of talent that has made American industry a
world leader in mitigating adverse environmental problems.
As examples, researchers are investigating using
ultraviolet radiation, ozone disinfection, mechanical
filtration and deoxygenation using nitrogen gas-purging and
vacuum degassing--truly a broad variety. Each of these
technologies has its strengths and promises with respect to
control of ballast water communities.
The interim standard set by this bill must provide specific
targets, not percentage reductions. Without these, the
developers cannot progress with system design for eventual
application in the shipping industry.
Depending on the technology employed, control of the
identified groups is not attained with uniformity, just as the
threat from these groups may also not be uniform. The ability
to control a significant threat from the majority of these
groups should not disqualify or discourage the continuing
development of the technology that at some point may control
all.
For example, mechanical filtration in very large-scale
practical application is a compromise between volume treated
and size retention of particles. In the current context, a 50-
micron standard might be attainable for very large volumes and
be successful in retaining all the life history stages,
including eggs, of the vast majority of aquatic vertebrates,
invertebrates, and macroalgae--that is three out of your four
targets. This list would include a very substantial number of
notorious invaders that are currently creating ecological and
economic problems in many locations.
By contrast, a 50-micron filter would do little to retain
most phytoplankton simply because most of the members of that
group are well below that size. Although they are undoubtedly
widely distributed by ballast water, phytoplankton as a group
have a proportionately lesser history as deleterious
environmental agents when established in regions beyond their
native ranges.
It is notable that an absentee from the specifics in this
bill is the toxic dinoflagellates that cause red tide blooms--a
group that may well represent a very serious challenge to any
and all of the currently researched control technologies.
I respectfully offer two suggestions for consideration in
minor text revisions for the bill. First, definitions for
phytoplankton and macroalgae should be included to describe
inclusive size ranges. Second, interim standards should be
considered in terms of reduction in absolute numbers in defined
size ranges--for example, 100 percent kill of all organisms in
excess of 50 microns maximum dimension. Both will, I believe,
assist the developers of treatment technologies and expedite
the approval process for technologies as they reach maturity.
In closing, I wish to add two commends. I again offer my
compliments on the details in 5396 addressing continual review
and provision for improvement in standards as technology
improves. We should not be handcuffed by the search for
ultimate control tools, while good, although perhaps not
perfect, technologies are within our grasp to address the
ecological problem at hand. Incremental common sense dictates
employment of the best available tools now, and better tools
that come along.
Finally, both bills provide a sound basis for new and
continuing research priorities on a broad range of issues and,
importantly, conduits to deliver the associated results to the
regulatory process. Knowledge is a powerful tool that we must
pursue and share to detect, control and, where possible,
eradicate invading unwanted non-native species.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Mann.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mann follows:]
Statement of Roger Mann, Professor, School of Marine Science, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
today and accept your invitation to provide testimony to the Committee
on H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396.
My name is Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science at the
School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College
of William and Mary. I have been a researcher in the field of marine
science for over twenty-five years. Throughout that period I have
maintained an active interest in the biology of introduced (non-native)
aquatic species. I have edited two major volumes on this subject,
maintained an interaction with other researchers in this field
including those appointed to the International Council for the
Exploration of the Seas Committee on Introductions, was a member of the
US Department of Agriculture Working Group on Biotechnology tasked with
developing guidelines for research involving genetically modified
organisms, and am currently the Principal Investigator on a federally
funded research project examining impacts of a remarkable invading
predatory marine snail in the Chesapeake Bay. The fact that this recent
invader arrived on our shores through ballast water vectors makes my
interest in today's subject of discussion even more pointed. The
arrival of non-native species into the waters of the United States
through ballast water and other vectors remains a significant threat to
the integrity of native ecosystems, and through this to their value as
both sources of direct economic benefit and as recreational and
aesthetic resources. I complement the authors and sponsors of these
bills for their timely and focused attention to these important issues.
In the limited time I have available I will focus my remarks on
proposed modifications in ballast water management, specifically their
feasibility in implementation and prospects for their effectiveness in
controlling aquatic invasions. Further, I will briefly comment on the
prospects for the proposed new programs and research priorities to
provide new and improved tools in detection, control and eradication of
invasive species.
Section 104 of H.R. 5396 addresses ``Prevention of introduction of
aquatic invasive species into the waters of the United States by
vessels.'' A significant portion of this section focuses on ballast
water management and treatment systems for control of potentially
harmful organisms within ballast water. Subsection (e)(1)(B) addresses
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES--
INTERIM STANDARDS. Two options are proffered for ballast water
exchange, either (I) at least one empty and refill on the high sea or
in an alternate exchange area, or (2) sufficient flow through exchange
to achieve 95% ballast replacement. These are admirable goals for
reduction of organisms from distant source(s) that are subject to
discharge in United States waters. I support these targets, although I
am cognizant of the logistical difficulties that accompanying
compliance with such standards by a ships Master under challenging sea
states, and the fact that a simple dilution approach may not reduce the
numbers of potential invaders in any one ballast tank below a critical
level that may sustain the initial stages of an invasion in a receiving
port. A dilution standard is a practical method in implementation and
enforcement for ballast water exchange, although it is in contrast to
long standing approaches to regulations affecting drinking water,
shellfish growing and harvest regions, and effluent standards for such
commercial enterprises as seafood processing plants that employ
absolute values rather than percentage reductions. Finally, at the
individual vessel level, compliance with flow through ballast
replacement may be difficult depending on vessel configuration.
However, none of these qualifications should deter the goal of
compliance with ballast water exchange or dilution where operating
conditions allow.
The alternate approach to ballast water exchange, and one that I
strongly support, is the development and employment of ballast water
treatment systems designed specifically to reduce the number of
included potentially harmful organisms. In developing the text of
subsections (e)(1)(B)(ii) and (e)(3)(A)(ii) the authors have sought to
provide parity with a 95% replacement approach by inclusion of the
requirement that treatment systems kill or remove ``at least 95% of
each of the live aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates, phytoplankton and
macroalgae.'' Again, these are admirable goals that would reduce the
numbers of potentially harmful organisms discharged at receiving ports;
however, I believe this section of the text could be improved to
encourage both the development of appropriate technologies and
facilitate their testing prior to approval. A number of innovative
technologies are currently under development in the private sector for
application in ballast water control. These reflect the continuing
diversity and depth of talent that has made American industry a world
leader in mitigating adverse environmental problems. As examples
researchers are investigating ballast water treatment technologies
using ultraviolet radiation, ozone disinfecting, mechanical filtration,
and deoxygenation using nitrogen gas purging or vacuum degassing. Each
of these technologies has its strengths and promises with respect to
control of ballast water communities. The interim standard set by this
bill must provide specific targets, not percentage reductions. Without
these the developers cannot progress with system design for eventual
application in the shipping industry. Depending on the technology
employed, control of the identified groups- live aquatic vertebrates,
invertebrates, phytoplankton and macroalgae - is not attained with
uniformity, just as the threat from these groups may also not be
uniform. The ability to control a significant threat from the majority
of these groups should not disqualify or discourage the continuing
development of a technology that does not control all of the groups.
For example, mechanical filtration in very large scale practical
application is a compromise between volume treated and size retention
of particles. In the current context a 50-micron retention standard
might be attainable for very large volumes and be successful in
retaining all the life history stages, including eggs, of the vast
majority of aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates and macroalgae. This
list would include a very substantial number of notorious invaders that
are currently creating ecological and economic problems in many
locations distant from their home ranges. By contrast a 50-micron
filter would do little to retain most phytoplankton simply because this
group contains many representatives with individual sizes well below
50-microns. Although they are undoubtedly widely distributed by ballast
water transport, phytoplankton as a group have a proportionately lesser
history as deleterious environmental agents when established in regions
beyond their native ranges. A notable absentee from the text of the
bill are the toxic dinoflagellates that cause red tide blooms--a group
that may well represent a very serious challenge to any and all of the
currently researched control technologies.
I respectfully offer the following two suggestions for
consideration in minor text revisions for the bill. First, definitions
for phytoplankton and macroalgae should be included that describe
inclusive size ranges for both categories. Second, interim standards
should be considered in terms of reduction in absolute numbers in
defined size ranges, for example 100% kill of all organisms in excess
of 50 microns maximum dimension, in order to make them independent of
variation in source of the ballast water. Both will, I believe, assist
the developers of treatment technologies and expedite the approval
process for technologies as they reach maturity.
In closing I wish to add two comments. I offer my compliments on
the details in H.R. 5396 addressing continual review and provision for
improvement in standards as technology improves. We should not be
handcuffed by the search for ultimate control tools while good,
although perhaps not perfect technology is within our grasp to address
the ecological problem at hand. Incremental common sense dictates
employment of the best available tools now, and better tools in due
course. Finally, both H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396 provide a sound basis for
new and continuing research priorities on a broad range of invasive
species issues, and conduits to deliver the associated results to the
regulatory process. Knowledge is a powerful tool that we must pursue
and share to detect, control and, where possible eradicate, invading
unwanted non-native species from the waters of the United States.
This concludes my testimony.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Windle, thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS N. WINDLE, SENIOR SCIENTIST, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Dr.Windle. Yes, thank you.
It is a pleasure for the Union of Concerned Scientists to
be represented here today, and we very much appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
If we are to conserve the Nation's resources and save our
economy billions of dollars each year, we simply must make a
better match between the problems caused by invasive species
and the Federal and State responses to them.
H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396 are important steps in that
direction. We are especially pleased to see that these bills
will now apply throughout the United States and to all kinds of
organisms.
There are also a number of specific provisions that
biological scientists have long advocated as especially
important. These include efforts to identify the high-risk
pathways by which organisms reach the country and to develop
and deploy the methods to limit them. They also include
monitoring programs to detect and track invasive species new to
the United States and the means to respond quickly to such
newcomers. Also, these bills discuss and implement modest steps
toward more careful assessments of organisms that are intended
for intentional import, but before they are imported.
It is helpful that these bills include not just the
authority to carry out these sorts of activities but also the
research that is necessary to move the efforts forward to
evaluate their progress and to keep them up-to-date.
It is simply not enough that these efforts are part of an
Interagency National Management Plan on Invasive Species; nor
is it enough that the Federal agencies say that they are
already engaged in some of these activities already. We see two
major reasons why this is the case.
First, the General Accounting Office has very recently
documented serious concerns regarding the Federal agencies'
implementation of the National Management Plan. We would add
our own recognition that in the past, the United States Coast
Guard has been much more capable of timely response in this
area, and we also are disappointed to see continuing delays.
The second reason why we think we need these bills urgently
is that many of the provisions in these bills were outlined in
a general fashion in the 1990 legislation, yet they were never
implemented. So many of these aspects that are a part of the
legislation we are discussing today puts much-needed flesh on
the bones of that 1990 law and ensures that we have a better
track record to show 12 years from now than we do now for the
1990 legislation.
These bills have the broad support of a group of
stakeholders and we, among others, will be pleased to work for
their passage. But from our point of view, the bills also miss
some key opportunities. We know that others in our stakeholder
group will disagree, but we think these are areas that will
necessitate our attention over the long term.
First, we are convinced that eventually, all organisms that
are intended for import intentionally will be screened. The
trends are in this direction, and we would like to see that the
time for that to come is quick, with the fewest exemptions
along the way.
Also, we would like to see us move very smoothly through
this transition from the use of ballast water exchange to
ballast water treatment, and we would like to achieve Federal
standards quickly that are consistent with the most
comprehensive approaches taken at the State level.
We also believe that the technical and scientific merits of
Government-funded research protocols and contracts must be as
high as possible. Scientists have always used ongoing peer
review by independent experts to achieve this, and we would
like to see that process applied more frequently in this area.
Where lack of funding limits our progress, we would like to
see the agencies newly elevate this issue to a priority
sufficient to complete the tasks that your bills lay before
them or, if they cannot do that, we would suggest that the time
has come to develop new means of generating revenue that is
sufficient for this work--for example, the greater use of user
fees.
At this point, more than 2,500 UCS scientists, members and
activists representing every State in the Union have already
faxed, emailed, or written their congressional delegations
alerting them to this upcoming reauthorizing process and asking
that reauthorization happen quickly and with legislation that
is broader than the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. We
consider that this is a remarkable and substantial interest on
the part of the public in a specialized topic that has had
limited engagement with it in the past.
I would conclude with a cautionary tale. I first testified
on the subject of invasive species in 1993 for what was then
the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I was
working for a congressional research agency at the time, and
they asked me specifically to address a risk that was new to
their purview, which was the risk posed to our Nation's
resources by the Asian black carp.
It was clearly on the basis of the research I did that this
fish posed significant dangers to us, and it would have been
logical to add it to the Lacey Act quite quickly.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's comment period on the Lacey
Act addition of black carp just closed on September 30 of 2002.
We have known the risks for at least 9 years now, and it is
hard to understand these sorts of delays. It is not just the
Coast Guard that can move forward with all deliberative speed.
We urge a very fast holding onto the prescriptions and
deadlines in the bills we look at today. We urge you to keep
assigning that required homework, and we thank you for your
leadership.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Windle follows:]
Statement of Phyllis N. Windle, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC
Where We Find Ourselves Today
Our country is playing a huge game of ecological roulette with the
Nation's resources. Until our policies get tougher, mostly luck
determines whether the new species that arrive in the United States are
useful, benign, or invasive--like the zebra mussel and northern
snakehead fish. The two bills we are considering today--H.R. 5396 and
H.R. 5395--are important steps toward that stronger policy.
In the 1990's, scientists and policymakers developed a much greater
understanding of invasive species. We discovered, for example, that the
most damaging single species easily cost us more than ten million
dollars per year. Also, we learned that invasive species are the main
contributor to the listing of about one-half of the Nation's threatened
and endangered native species. Now a clear understanding exists that
the spread of invasive species is one of the most serious environmental
threats before us. We face a threat that is already changing the face
of the planet.
Yet changes in federal policy have not kept pace with our new
understanding of the issue. An exception is the area we're discussing
today. With legislation first passed in 1990, revised in 1996, and now
being considered again, Congress has sought to respond and adapt to
this new reality for more than a decade. Yet we all acknowledge that
the previous legislation--and federal agencies' implementation of it--
has provided less help than we hoped. For instance, invasive species
have continued to enter the Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships
despite mandatory efforts to prevent it. Just last Friday, scientists
predicted that 22 additional fish species from the Caspian and Black
Seas could reach the Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships--and
spread quickly. 1 They predicted that at least five of these
species would become invasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kolar, C.S. and D.M. Lodge. 2002. Ecological predictions and
risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science vol. 298,
pp. 1233-1236. See also: Recer, P. 2002. Alien fish may invade Great
Lakes, Associated Press, Nov. 11, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two bills before us today are not Republican or Democratic
bills. Instead, they are the product of a bipartisan effort. We want to
acknowledge the hard work of many members of Congress and their staffs.
In particular, we would like to thank Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Ehlers, and
their staffs--as well as the staff of the Northeast Midwest Institute--
for their roles in preparing these bills. Nor are these environmental
bills or industry bills. Their content instead shows the continuing,
good faith efforts of a broad group of stakeholders, as well as the
compromises worked out among them.
H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5395 Lay Out Many Positive Steps
The Union of Concerned Scientists is pleased to endorse these
bills. Early in 2002, we laid out a number of priorities that we felt
would help the National Invasive Species Act protect the United States
better--both environmentally and economically. The current bills are
consistent with a significant portion of our priorities.
We are especially pleased that certain weaknesses in the 1996 law
are being corrected. For example, it is crucial that this legislation,
and its most stringent provisions, apply:
throughout the United States; and
to all kinds of invasive or potentially invasive aquatic
organisms--regardless of their taxonomic category.
We also strongly support those elements of the legislation that
address the full range of pathways by which we introduce and spread
harmful aquatic organisms. Thus, we give our strong support to a number
of specific provisions in these bills:
identifying the highest risk pathways for introductions
and the rapid development and deployment of methods to limit them;
establishment of a monitoring program to detect and track
new invasive species;
ensuring that we have the means, such as contingency
plans and specially trained teams, to respond quickly to these
newcomers;
and taking a modest step toward more careful assessment
of the potential invasiveness of species proposed for intentional
introduction before they are imported.
Each is essential if we are to make progress on this issue. And
each must be backed by targeted research--which H.R. 5395 provides.
In addition, we look forward, under H.R.5396 to much-needed annual
updates of the species listed under the Lacey Act and the Plant
Protection Act. It is helpful to the States that additional elements
can be included in their aquatic invasive species management plants. It
is appropriate that matching funds be available for implementing these
plans and that higher levels of funding be authorized. Also we
anticipate the time when federal agencies will more strictly limit
their own introductions. The lists of potential invaders will help all
jurisdictions to be alert and better prepared.
It is true that these many of these elements are included in the
National Invasive Species Council's National Management Plan.
2 And it is true that a number of federal agencies are
already at work on similar tasks. Some may argue that, because these
efforts are underway, they need not be put in law. But it is also true
that the U.S. General Accounting Office just recently raised serious
questions about the Council's implementation of the Management Plan.
3 Enacting key provisions into law will help ensure that
federal agencies address each topic in a timely way--and provide the
public with recourse if they do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive
Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Washington, D.C.
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. Invasive Species: Clearer
Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem.
Washington, D.C. GAO-03-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For that matter, it is also true that a number of these same
provisions were part of the 1990 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act. But without firm deadlines, requirements to
report back to Congress, additional appropriations, and other means to
encourage implementation, these general provisions were neglected. Thus
is it our belief that many of the details in H.R. 5396 put flesh on the
bones of the 1990 law. None of these provisions should come as a
surprise to the relevant federal agencies. Indeed, if they had complied
with the letter of the 1990 law, they would have a 12-year track record
to show. This, in particular, makes us relatively unsympathetic to
requests for delay.
Of course, since 1990, this legislation has been intended to be our
best defense against further unintentional introductions of invasive
species in the ballast water of ships. Unfortunately, experience has
shown us that ballast water exchange is not effective. The time has
come to move away from a primary reliance on ballast water exchange.
Ballast water treatment should be our goal. We should be moving in that
direction boldly, with immediate interim standards paving the way for
more ambitious and stronger permanent ones.
We are deeply disappointed that the U.S. Coast Guard continues to
delay development of such standards. In 1993, the congressional Office
of Technology Assessment determined how quickly the Coast Guard, as
well as the new federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, was
completing the tasks Congress assigned to them in the 1990 law. The
Coast Guard's record was stellar. It issued guidelines, technical
assistance, and regulations early or, at most, just a few months past
the law's deadlines. 4 It is our hope that the Coast Guard
can be stirred to replicate the urgency and responsiveness the agency
showed then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful
Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office) Table 6-1, p. 169, available online at
http://www.wws.Princeton.edu/ota/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate many of the elements of H.R. 5395, The Aquatic
Invasive Species Research Act, too. It aims to make the collection of
information and its analysis more comprehensive. The research laid out
in this bill also advances the state of scientific knowledge, e.g, on
different ecosystems' vulnerability to invasion. The availability of
scholarships for taxonomists will be helpful, too. As people become
more aware of the harm caused by invasive species, especially to human
health, the need will increase for environmentally sound tools for
detecting, preventing, controlling, and eradicating aquatic invasive
species will increase. It is helpful that both of these acts encourage
their development.
It is also helpful that H.R. 5395 stipulates that certain research
protocols, contracts for ecological and pathway research, and
recommendations for restricting planned imports nonnative aquatic
organisms will be subject to peer review. In the past, the technical
merits of some federal efforts have been weak. 5 Peer
review, by independent experts with no financial interest in the
outcome of a decision should be a standard supplement to agencies'
requests for federal comments in highly technical areas. We believe the
requirement for peer review should apply to many of the elements in
H.R. 5395 as well. In particular, attempts to develop screening methods
need to have the input and review of academic experts and others
outside the federal government. To help you consider the research we
will need over a longer term, I have attached the recommendations of
three expert groups of scientists. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, for example, National Research Council. 2002. Predicting
Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests (Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press)
\6\ ``Specific Recommendations on Research.'' Source: National
Council for Science and the Environment. 2001. Recommendations for
Improving the Scientific Basis for Decisionmaking. A Report from the
first National Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment.
Washington, D.C., p. 15; ``Research Questions About [Intentional]
Introductions.'' Source: Ewel, J.J. et al. 1999. Deliberate
introductions of species: research needs. BioScience, vol 49, no. 8,
pp. 619-630;. ``Research Priorities for Invasive, Non-Native Species
and Their Potential Impacts on Natural Populations and Communities of
Ecosystems. Source: Source: D Antonio, Carla, Laura A. Myerson, and
Julie Denslow, 2001. Exotic Species and Conservation, in Conservation
Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. M.E. Soule and G.H.
Orians, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 59-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Larger Vision: Where We Need to Keep Working
In all of the areas above, UCS sees many positive sides to these
bills and we will work hard to ensure they are passed. At the same
time, we fear that they miss some key opportunities. Not everyone
agrees with us and we welcome even incremental steps. Over the longer
term, though, we believe the Nation's resources deserve stricter
protection.
From discussions of voluntary measures in the nursery and aquarium
industries to the willingness of shippers to change their ballasting
practices--all trends point in one direction. Governments, industries,
and individuals are taking greater care to limit their movements of
damaging species around the world. We are certain that, eventually, all
intentionally introduced organisms will be effectively screened for
invasiveness before import--with the most invasive or potentially
invasive kept out. We would like to see that time come as soon as
possible. And we would like it to be with the least possible number of
exemptions for organisms now in trade. This last includes aquatic
species in the live food trade--which brought the northern snakehead to
Maryland this summer.
Also, we hope that federal standards for screening or for treating
ballast water do not represent ``a race to the bottom.'' We need
federal standards that are at least consistent with the most
comprehensive approaches taken at the state level.
While we are not generally sympathetic to calls for delay, neither
are we advocates for unfunded congressional mandates. Eventually we
must have formal provisions for generating sufficient revenue to ensure
adequate funding not just for the new work we are discussing today, but
also to undertake more ambitious efforts, e.g., to screen organisms
prior to import.
These Bills' Passage: in the First One Hundred Days
What were once piecemeal efforts to alleviate local weed or pest
problems have coalesced into a national strategy. This is largely
because we have come to understand that nearby weeds and pests are just
the local face of a global problem. As this problem grows, so must our
efforts to halt it. From that standpoint, we know we will need to
update these bills in another five years, incorporating the newest
scientific information and most recent evaluations of our efforts. But
today we can make the long overdue changes and urgently needed
improvements contained in H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5395.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is committed to taking these and
other steps as soon as possible. More than 2,500 UCS members and
activists--representing every state in the Union--have already faxed,
emailed, or written their congressional delegations about this
reauthorization. They asked that reauthorization happen quickly and
that what was the National Invasive Species Act be broadened and
strengthened at the same time. To us, this seems like remarkable and
substantial interest in a highly specialized topic with limited public
engagement.
Zebra mussels, nutria, and the seaweed caulerpa have not halted
their spread for our elections. Therefore we hope that either this
Congress passes these bills now or that the new Congress will pass them
in its first 100 days. We look forward to helping you make that happen.
A Final Parable
I first testified regarding invasive species in 1993 for what
was then the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I
represented a congressional research agency at the time and the
Subcommittee specifically asked me to address the risks posed
by the proposed import of the Asian black carp. 7 It
was clear from my quick reading of the scientific literature
that this species posed a substantial risk to the nation's
aquatic resources. Addition to the Lacey Act's list of
prohibited species would have been a logical step. That was
1993. This fish is still not listed on the Lacey Act. On
September 30, 2002, almost exactly nine years later, the
official public comment period ended for the Fish and Wildlife
Service's proposal to make this fish subject to the Lacey Act.
Is there anyone here who believes that ten years is a timely or
adequate response to the dangers posed by a particular invasive
species? I ask you to remember this example as we consider how
quickly H.R. 5396 and H.R. 5365 should turn the wheels of
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mylopharyngodon piceus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[An attachment to Dr. Windle's statement follows:]
Priorities for Invasive Species Research from Three Expert Groups
Group I. ``Specific Recommendations on Research.'' Source: National
Council for Science and the Environment. 2001. Recommendations for
Improving the Scientific Basis for Decisionmaking. A Report from the
first National Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment.
Washington, D.C., p. 15.
1. In order to inform rapid response capabilities and long-term
management needs, the federal government should support existing
programs and establish new programs to quantitatively assess ecosystems
before, during, and after biological invasions.
2. Research to identify invasive pathogens and vectors needs to be
expanded, as does research on the taxonomy, systematics, and
technologies needed to detect and respond rapidly to invasions of these
organisms.
3. Research and development on methods and technologies of control
and elimination needs to be increased, with specific emphasis on
finding solutions that are environmentally sound.
4. To better inform economic and policy decisions, there is a
significant need to continue existing research and initiate new
research to:
Determine the vulnerability of ecosystems to invasion
and the role and effects of multiple stress factors;
Understand the human dimensions (causes and
consequences) of invasive species
Determine the ways and degrees in which invasive
species disrupt ecosystem services;
Identify:
The industries and other social forces responsible
for facilitating the major pathways on invasion;
The actions (scientific, technological, policy,
etc.) through which they can minimize invasion;
The ways to inform them of these options;
How to use voluntary incentives and/or policy
measures to ensure effective response.''
Group II. ``Research Questions About [Intentional] Introductions.''
Source: Ewel, J.J. et al. 1999. Deliberate introductions of species:
research needs. BioScience, vol 49, no. 8, pp. 619-630.
Several research questions need to be answered to help ensure that
proposed introductions are done wisely and safely.
Guarding against risks without sacrificing benefits:
How can the potential benefits and costs of introductions
best be evaluated in economic, environmental, and social terms?
Should all introductions be regulated?
How different must organisms or recipient ecosystems be
from those assessed previously to warrant independent assessment?
When is it appropriate to assess and regulate taxa other
than species?
What are appropriate ecological and political boundaries
for regulation?
Alternatives to introductions:
How and when can indigenous organisms be domesticated so
that they can substitute for proposed uses of nonindigenous organisms?
How can the retention of indigenous species and natural
food webs be integrated into agroecosystems so that the risk of pest
problems is minimized?
Purposeful introductions:
What common guidelines can be developed for deliberate
introductions of all kinds of organisms?
Have screening procedures differed for introductions that
proved successful or harmful?
How can the potential for nonindigenous organisms to
disrupt ecosystem processes be assessed and reduced?
Can the demand for introductions be reduced by improving
the effectiveness of introductions that are attempted?
Reducing negative impacts:
When can reduction of human-caused disturbance within
natural areas be used to control nonindigenous species impacts?
Can subtle, indirect effects of potential introductions
be predicted?
Can enough be learned from the population growth lags,
booms, and crashes of previously introduced organisms to make useful
generalization?
Should special guidelines accompany release of sterile
forms, which may pose less risk than fertile organisms?
Can protocols be developed to predict when an introduced
species will hybridize with natives and what the ecological and
economic consequences of such hybridization might be?
Should special guidelines related to invasion and
hybridization potential be added to those that already regulate release
of genetically engineered organisms?
Group III. ``Research Priorities for Invasive, Non-Native Species and
Their Potential Impacts on Natural Populations and Communities of
Ecosystems. Source: Source: D Antonio, Carla, Laura A. Myerson, and
Julie Denslow, 2001. Exotic Species and Conservation, in Conservation
Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. M.E. Soule and G.H.
Orians, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 59-80.
Note: A question mark (?) indicates a top research question. An
asterisk (*) indicates a research priority that needs an answer within
next ten years, or it will be too late for many species or natural
communities.
Investigate Pathways of Introduction:
*1. What are the critical pathways of introduction of new
species, and how do they differ in contributing harmful nonindigenous
species? For example:
* Introduced plant pathogens can have devastating
consequences for entire ecosystems. What are the most important
pathways for their arrival, and how do they subsequently
spread?
* Introduced insects may also strongly affect
forested ecosystems and may carry pathogens. What are the most
common pathways for harmful nonindigenous insect species to
arrive in new locales, and how does the likelihood of their
successful establishment scale with volume of trade?
*?2. What are acceptable levels of risk of entry of known
potential invaders, how well do protocols established to prevent
accidental introductions really work and how can protocols be improved?
3. How do minimum viable population sizes of invaders vary among
species, ecosystems, and establishment circumstances? Are there useful
generalizations to be made here that might help development of
monitoring and screening strategies?
*?4. Under what circumstances do intentional introductions for
commercial purposes contribute to the introduction and spread of
harmful invasive species? Can we develop reliable risk assessment
protocols to screen intentional introduction for potential invaders,
particularly harmful ones?
Investigate the Process of Invasion and Spread
1. What traits characterize species with high potential for
rapid spread beyond their site of introduction?
2. What are the characteristics of natural communities that
affect their resistance to invasion? How does propagule pressure
interact with resistance, and under what circumstances can we expect
propagule pressure to overwhelm resistance?
?3. How will the spread of non-native species be affected by
other global changes, such as chemical pollution, climate change,
altered disturbance regimes, and alteration of biogeochemical cycles?
For example:
Will nitrogen deposition increase rates of plant
invasions by favoring fast-growing non-native species?
Will changes in storm frequencies and intensities
affect the persistence of native populations and potentially
favor disturbance-loving exotic species?
Will increasing environmental stresses such as air-
or water-borne pollutants make native species more susceptible
to introduced diseases?
*4. Why are tropical ecosystems less invaded by nonindigenous
species than their temperate counterparts? Will increasing
fragmentation of tropical habitats and propagule pressure from exotic
species alter this pattern?
5. What is the relationship between neighborhood-scale species
interactions that affect invader success and landscape-level patterns
of invasion and impact?
?6. Why are there often long time lags between establishment and
the explosive growth and spread of introduced populations? Are there
commonalities among species in their invasion patterns relative to the
occurrence of time lags?
7. How does genetic diversity influence rates or patterns of
invasion?
*8. How do human activities and cultural patterns-e.g., road
construction, land-use patterns, traditional uses of plants, and
visitation to reserves affect the introductions and spread of invasive
species?
Assess Impacts
*?1. What is the potential for introgression of introduced genes
to native species, and under what circumstances is this likely to cause
a change (either positive or negative) in fitness (and hence ecological
performance)? How does the likelihood of such introgression vary among
mating systems and life history characteristics of introduces taxa?
2. What traits of exotic species increase the danger of genetic
threats to native species? What ecosystem characteristics are
associated with high rates of genetic introgression?
3. Which species traits (or combinations thereof) are most
likely to threaten local persistence of native species or create
difficult-to-reverse impacts on ecosystem processes?
4. Does the arrival and establishment of one or a few non-native
species influence the establishment of further alien species?
?5. How can knowledge of species traits be overlain or interfaced
with ecosystem traits to predict species impact?
6. What kinds of higher-order effects-e.g., on other trophic
levels or on community processes-are associated with interspecific
interactions involving introduced species?
7. How do species richness, functional diversity, and trophic
complexity influence the impact of an invader?
?8. Under what circumstances are impacts of an invasive species
likely to be reversible? Are ecosystem effects longer lasting or
farther reaching than competition or predation effects? Are impacts due
to competition or predation more likely to cause population declines or
extinction among native species?
Consider Genetically Modified Organisms
*1. Under what circumstances might GMOs or their genes be able to
spread beyond points of introduction?
*2. Under what circumstances might the spread of GMOs or their
genes into wildland habitat pose a threat for native species or
ecosystem structure and function?
*3. What criteria are needed to develop protocols for release and
risk assessment associated with GMOs?
Study Control, Restoration, and Their Interactions
*1. How do we develop priorities for exotic species removal,
control, or use?
2. Under what circumstances does control or removal of an
invasive species lead to a less desirable condition?
3. Under what circumstances is the introduction of exotic
species warranted for restoration or for biological control of invasive
non-native species?
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Windle.
We have some in-House work; that is why they are calling
us. But I think we have a little time to proceed with some
questions for the panel.
Vern or Judy, if you need to go, I can yield to you first
if you have any questions for the panel.
Mr. Ehlers. I will try to be brief on this one. It is for
Ms. Cangelosi and Dr. Mann.
Both of you support the interim standard for ballast water
treatment in your testimony, but you differ on what the
standard should look like. Dr. Mann, if I understand you right,
you believe the interim standard set by this bill must provide
specific targets and not percentage reductions. And Ms.
Cangelosi, you support the 95 percent reduction standard in
H.R. 5396.
I just wonder if both of you could briefly and succinctly
describe the pros and cons of these approaches and why you have
different positions.
Ms. Cangelosi. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
The fact is in terms of my outlook on it, I do not believe
that they are mutually exclusive. The question is more on what
do we base the interim standard, and in statute now, although
it has not been implemented, that parameter is equivalence to
ballast water exchange.
So 95 percent is a known way of characterizing or
benchmarking ballast water exchange effectiveness, because that
is measured in terms of the efficiency of volumetric exchange.
I think Dr. Mann and I would both tend to agree that if we
needed to set a size limit that might capture 95 percent of the
zooplankton, it could well be around 50 microns, and that could
well be a great way to operationalize a statutory direction to
use 95 percent as a benchmark.
If it is disengaged from 95 percent, however, that leaves
the floor open for people to nominate different sizes, and I am
one of the advisors to the IMO delegation, and I watched that
happen in London in September, and where they came out was 100
microns because that seems more technologically achievable.
The fact is that 100 microns might preclude 60 percent of
the zooplankton, and therefore, without the 95 percent, we are
left with little reason to demand the equivalency.
So my concern is more about what is appropriate to statute
versus what is appropriate to operationalizing that statute.
Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Mann?
Dr. Mann. In general, I think we have good agreement
between our approaches. My concern with the 95 percent number,
as with any dilution, is that if you do not know where you
started, how do you know where you are going to end.
If I fill up my ballast tank in Saint Croix or in Guam, and
then I have to reduce it 95 percent, I get a number. If I fill
it up in Bramerhaven or Lagos, and I reduce it by 95 percent, I
get a very different number.
From the point of view of looking at how we have set
standards in the past for such things as drinking water,
effluents that I am more familiar with and things that I have
dealt with over my years, a number is a good tool to look for.
I understand that at this point in time, operationally, a
number is difficult. Ninety-five percent is a great place to
start--do not get me wrong--95 percent is a great place to
start. But if I am looking around at the private sector where
individuals are trying to develop treatment technology, really,
if you give them a number, they are a lot better off. Engineers
function better when you point them at numbers rather than when
you point them at percentages.
If you are going to have these engineers be part of teams
that are investing considerable amounts of private capital with
the idea of eventually enjoining the shipping industry and
accepting this as a suitable application, I think you have to
give them a standard to start with fairly quickly. Otherwise,
they are proverbially shooting in the dark.
I think that the 50 micron one that I have chosen, if you
look across the vast range of invertebrates, vertebrates,
fishes, whatever, and you try to pick a number that will
capture the vast number of their life history stages--and
typically, you choose eggs, because they are the smallest;
fertilized eggs are the smallest smoking gun that you have in
this equation--if you can capture all of those, you are in good
shape.
So 50 microns was my choice. I notice that it has actually
been brought up by others who have sat at this table, and as an
exercise when I received this copy of this bill last week, I
gave it to my graduate student class with two questions--what
is wrong with the bill, and how would you fix it?
The graduate student class who had never seen this before
said: Percentages are a problem. Why don't we use 50 microns?
So I am not at all against 95 percent. I would like us to
start to move to a number, because I think it will truly
accelerate the rate at which alternate treatment technologies
can be developed.
Mr. Ehlers. And would you agree or disagree with the Coast
Guard's statement that the provisions in the bill are neither
enforceable nor scientifically supportable?
Dr. Mann. I think that is a matter of looking at the
technologies as to how you want to develop them. If I were
asked to go and look at a ship that had a 50 micron limit on
it, and this thing is sitting outside Hampton Roads, and I have
5 or 6 hours to look at it and, say, test the water in the
ballast tank--if you take samples of water out of the ballast
tank, and you pour it through a 50 micron mesh--and these are
commercially available--there are things called vital stains.
Vital stains are very easy to use. You drop them on living
organisms--typically, the one that we use is a stain called
``neutral red''--if it is live, it stains red; if it is dead,
it does not stain. You take your plankton, you pour it onto a
50 micron mesh, you stain it, you look at it under a
microscope. If there is red stuff under there, it is live; if
there is no red stuff, it is all dead.
I think from a point of view here--and I would like to
complement something that Greg Ruiz said here--there is a true
diversity of expertise that we need to bring together like a
jigsaw puzzle to make this work. I think a lot of it is sitting
in this room or certainly in the first generation of
individuals whom we can touch outside this room.
I do not think it is that difficult to do this. We have not
quite asked ourselves how do we do it. But I think these things
are enforceable if you are going to use size limits.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Vern.
To follow up on Vern's questions, we are looking--I guess
this panel, and I suppose the previous panel, all agree that
standards need to be set, and it sounded like they said and you
are saying that a size standard is better than a percentage
standard.
So I have two questions. One is can we have a size standard
in the interim, before the final standard is promulgated,
whenever that is; and if we use 50 microns, do we have the
technology--Dr. Mann, you just seemed to describe that we have
the technology right now to use a size standard--which would be
better for an interim--a percentage or a size standard--and if
we did use a size standard, what would 50 microns miss, or are
we looking for just 50 microns?
Ms. Cangelosi. Thank you.
The interim standard is a tiding-over period for the final
standard, which in the legislation can be promulgated as soon
as 4 years after the enactment of the Act, while the interim
standard is promulgated 18 months after the enactment of the
Act.
I believe that these questions of what will it take to
protect the environment are relevant to the final standard
because everyone will need to meet the final standard.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying the final standard should
be a size standard?
Ms. Cangelosi. I think that would definitely be the way to
go.
Mr. Gilchrest. But a percentage standard is all right now,
though, in the interim?
Ms. Cangelosi. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Because it would be easier?
Ms. Cangelosi. In the interim period, I rather doubt that
we are going to have extensive use of the standard--hopefully,
more than we have right now--but most ships will still use
ballast water exchange. And that gets to the question of
technological achievability. That is not relevant to the
interim period, either, because treatment is simply an option.
A ship may do ballast water exchange, or if it wants to and can
meet that baseline level that ballast water exchange affords,
it can substitute a treatment.
So we hope that it will be reaching, that it will be a
standard that will cause the industry that creates treatments
to reach, and therefore I think 95 percent, which might have an
equivalence to 50 microns, is a good place to start.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Mann?
Dr. Mann. I think that the 95 percent is a good place to
start with the interim. You have some stiff deadlines here,
lots of them all stacked up--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you think the deadlines are practical,
that they are meetable, doable?
Dr. Mann. That is a difficult question because I know very
little about the practicality of operating the shipping
industry. I am not trying to duck the question; it is a very
good question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Outside the shipping industry, the
technology could be developed, available?
Dr. Mann. I think if you are looking for the technology
that is going to get you to a final standard, which I also
think should be a size standard, in 4 to 5 years, from what I
know of it, yes, I think there are some good people who can do
that.
There are options for review here. In terms of the interim
standards for the 18 months, 95 percent is a great place to
start.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, the size standard which can be
developed in a few years, as we pass through the interim
standard, are the treatment technologies--ultraviolet
radiation, ozone disinfecting, mechanical filtration,
deoxygenation using nitrogen, gas purging or vacuum degassing--
are those technologies that are on the cusp of being developed,
available, so that you would not have--I am assuming if you use
these technologies, you do not need ballast water exchange.
Dr. Mann. All of these are intended to avoid the need for
ballast water exchange. They are all proprietary technologies,
and the developers of them will only share so much of the
information because they are all in competition with one
another.
None of them is perfect, and I think that even in 4 years,
none of them is going to be perfect, but I think they will be
very good at hitting certain of these size ranges, and that is
part of the problem with the way in which we look at sizes
versus 95 percent reductions. I have given you an example where
I think you could hit 95 percent or 100 percent of three of
your target areas. Phytoplankton includes a very large number
of very small organisms, and there is a good chance that
phytoplankton will go through most if not all of these.
Mr. Gilchrest. How about the toxic dinoflagellates that you
mentioned in your testimony?
Dr. Mann. Toxic dinoflagellates are just a remarkable
challenge. This group of organisms have complicated life
cycles, they have more than one stage in their life cycle, and
included in these are cysts, and these cysts are designed over
evolutionary time to sit in the sediment under just awful
conditions for long periods of time until just the right
conditions for initiation of a bloom occur.
So if you can find something that is going to take out the
toxic dinoflagellates, you have a remarkable technology. The
toxic dinoflagellates, I think we are still a way from getting
to that. I think some of these other technologies have much
greater promise in shorter time period to getting to some of
the organisms that are bigger.
So you have a multiple number of moving targets here with
different technologies that probably work better with some than
the other. All of them have prospects for a spectrum. I do not
know at this point in time that any of them have the prospect
to take out everything, and that is part of the problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Cangelosi. If I may add that we are also looking at
very different subject vessels between a passenger vessel, a
container ship, a seaway-size cargo carrier, and then an oil
tanker and transoceanic bulk cargo carriers, and the list goes
on. The legislation very wisely applies the best available
technology, economically achievable, by class of ship and by
age of ship, quite clearly, and the shipping industry is very
willing to make this statement. Putting technologies onto a new
ship at the drawing table stage is much more feasible and
economically achievable right now than a retrofit is for many
classes of ships.
So the bill, I think, accommodates to the very diverse
range of subject vessels and will drive technology, just the
private sector's interest to be the one ahead to develop the
methods for those different classes of ships that will approach
the goal.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Did the IMO adopt a 100 micron size?
Ms. Cangelosi. No, it did not. It was at the urging of the
U.S., appropriately--
Mr. Gilchrest. That they did not.
Ms. Cangelosi. --that the final standard was set as a size-
based standard. The interim standard has bifurcated two
possibilities right now--95 percent or a size to be defined.
The U.S. position was not to define that size in September, but
they did at 100 microns as a proposed size.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would assume that if the U.S. adopts a 50
micron size in the next few years, that the IMO will adopt that
micron size--at least for their ships coming to our port.
Ms. Cangelosi. It certainly would detract from the
effectiveness of an international agreement if the U.S. could
not sign onto it. I do not believe the U.S. group has a
position on 100 microns, but I know that they were not
initially favorable toward it.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would assume that whatever standard we
have--and I hope that would be the best standard--the
international maritime community wanting to trade with us would
have to meet that standard, so then the standard would be set
for the international community.
You were saying that the interim standard is enforceable,
the 95 percent standard, and someone on the other panel said it
would be difficult to enforce. Could you give us some idea of
why the interim standard of 95 percent is enforceable when the
Coast Guard thinks it might not be enforceable?
Ms. Cangelosi. I think the difference is that the Coast
Guard is thinking of the long-term standard, and in the case of
the long-term standard, we definitely want to just take samples
of discharge.
In a short-term period, if they can rely on Congress to
assure that that final standard goes into place--and we are
just talking about an interim period--actually, the way that
they currently approve technologies in the maritime area is
through a type approval process that occurs either apart from
the vessel or on the vessel, but it is a before-and-after study
that is done in a discrete period of time, and if it shows the
appropriate level of effectiveness, the assumption is made that
as long as that technology, that system, is working
effectively, it is good to go, and the ship is approved. Then
they just do proxy measures on the ship to make sure that the
red light and the green light are coming on at the right times.
I do not think that that is the right way to go in the long
term. I think we need to take discharge samples. But in the
short term, it is probably what we are looking at, and in that
case, 95 percent lends itself very well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Chavarria--and I will have to go with my other
colleagues, and I apologize for the quick ending of this
portion of the hearing--but Dr. Chavarria, do you have any
comment--I cannot read the handwriting of the staff here--that
is a problem we have; they need a little bit more--maybe they
should type it out--terrestrial plants. Do you see--what is the
question, John? Is it harder to control aquatic species as
opposed to terrestrial species?
Dr. Chavarria. No. I think I would put them in the same
category, completely in the same category. In a way, you might
think it is easier to deal with terrestrial plants because of
the fact of movement; with aquatic species, the water moves a
lot of these species. But in the long term, we have seen, for
example, with giant salvinia or water hyacinth that these
plants have taken over a lot of places.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Windle, do you have any further comment on the
discussion that we have been having?
Dr. Windle. I guess I would say that in the aquatic
habitats, I suspect that there are fewer pesticides that are
registered for use than against terrestrial organisms, so we
may have a narrower toolkit to work with. But I think we are
all encouraged in the last few years about the successful
control programs that have happened and the successes in a few
instances of eradication and looking forward to that
continuing.
Mr. Gilchrest. The last question--in an ideal world--I
guess we are all shooting for the ideal, the best protection--
should the U.S. stop importing all exotic species for
recreational purposes, pet purposes, bate purposes--you name
it--just say that is it, we are not going to bring in any more
invasive species--so we will not have any problems in Crofton
with snakeheads or whatever?
Is there any comment? I see some heads nodding in the
audience, saying yes, that is a good idea--I do not know if
they are on your staff or not.
Dr. Windle. I guess I would say no, of course not. We rely
too much on nonindigenous germplasm and other non-native
species that are completely safe in terms of being noninvasive
as well. So for American agriculture, which is based almost
exclusively on non-native organisms, and for our gardens and
for our pets, I think the overwhelming majority of the
organisms that we introduce are safe, but we just must be much
more careful about the ones that we do import.
Mr. Gilchrest. So we should aggressively pursue things like
the snakehead fish and Vietnamese worms?
Dr. Windle. Yes--and aggressively pursue the process of
assessing them and screening them before we bring them in.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Cangelosi?
Ms. Cangelosi. Thank you. We definitely want to stop or
otherwise restrict the importation of invasive organisms. The
trick is determining which of the non-native are invasive and
which ones are not, and that is indeed a big trick. But I am
glad that the legislation gets the agency started to develop a
protocol for attempting to do that and for reviewing and
revising it as we learn more.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Thank you all very much. Your testimony has been very
valuable.
Dr. Mann, were you going to leave that Oriental snail here?
Dr. Mann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. I will come down and get it.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the joint hearing was
concluded.]