[Senate Hearing 108-354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-354
NATIONAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE, AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 525
A BILL TO AMEND THE NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND
CONTROL ACT OF 1990 TO REAUTHORIZE AND IMPROVE THAT ACT
__________
JUNE 17, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-376 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 17, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 2
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 49
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 49
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 19
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 7
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia.... 18
WITNESSES
Angelo, Joseph J., Director of Standards, U.S. Coast Guard....... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Beers, Jim, Science Advisor, The American Land Rights Association 37
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Responses to additional questions from Senator Murkowski..... 89
Hargrove, Sebastian, Government Relations Associate, The Nature
Conservancy of Idaho........................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Hauser, Michael, Aquatic Nuisance Species Specialist, Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation....................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Responses to additional questions from Senator Allard........ 95
Hill, Barry, Director, Interior Issues, Office of Environment and
Natural Resources, U.S. General Accounting Office; Accompanied
by: Trish McClure, Assistant Director, Office of Environment
and Natural Resources, U.S. General Accounting Office.......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Allard........................................... 61
Senator Murkowski........................................ 63
Senator Voinovich........................................ 61
Hogan, Matthew, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Keeney, Timothy R.E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Allard........................................... 84
Senator Murkowski........................................ 84
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan........ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Mehan, G. Tracy,III, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Weakley, James, President, Lake Carriers' Association............ 43
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Allard........................................... 97
Senator Voinovich........................................ 97
Williams, Lori, Executive Director, National Invasive Species
Council........................................................ 21
Management Plan, National Invasive Species Council........... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Additional Material
Statements:
Collins, Hon. Susan M., U.S. Senator from the State of Maine. 51
Metcalf, Kathy J., Chamber Shipping of America............... 100
Sherman, Thomas, W., Aquacide................................ 98
U.S. Geological Survey....................................... 104
Text of S. 525, National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.... 106
NATIONAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
ACT OF 2003
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Warner, Murkowski, Allard, and
Jeffords [ex officio].
Also present: Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Water will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will be receiving testimony on S.
525, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. This bill would
reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996.
Aquatic nuisance species have cost our Nation billions of
dollars in lost revenue and costs of action to control aquatic
nuisance to protect commerce and our environment. In many
instances, aquatic nuisance species enter our Nation's
waterways through ship ballast water. Many of us are familiar
with the challenges that the sea lamprey and the zebra mussel
infestations have presented to citizens of the Great Lakes area
and elsewhere. We have learned that once an aquatic nuisance
species gains a presence in our waterways, control costs are
often high and effectiveness is often limited. It is clearly
much more cost-effective and less damaging to prevent the
introduction of new aquatic nuisance species than to deal with
them after they have arrived.
Aquatic nuisance species also enter our waters through
other means such as by introduction of species from the pet
trade. Just last year, we saw a dramatic example of the effects
of these kinds of introductions when officials discovered and
were forced to try to eradicate the snakehead fish in Eastern
United States waterways. In Idaho, we may have experienced the
first known occurrence of New Zealand mud snail in the country
in the Hagerman reach of the Snake River. Also, the State of
Idaho will increase its spending to $250,000 this year trying
to control the Eurasian water milfoil, an aquatic nuisance
plant species that threatens to choke off waterways, affecting
agriculture and recreation.
If Zebra mussels ever gain a foothold in the Snake River in
Idaho, it could threaten a large portion of our irrigated
agriculture community, as well as hydropower systems and the
Snake River salmon recovery efforts. We are already familiar
with the impacts that other long-present invasive or nuisance
species can have. For example, in significant portions of the
Western United States, cheat grass is taking over native range
vegetation, reducing forage and habitat value for livestock and
wildlife, and causing more frequent and severe wildfires. These
effects cause Americans millions of dollars a year. Cheat grass
control actions have just begun. They are expensive and are not
yet broadly effective. Addressing aquatic nuisance species may
be even more difficult when moving waters can connect habitats
without any human assistance, and detection of species may be
more difficult underwater than on land.
I know that our witnesses will be recommending numerous
changes to this large and complex bill. However, this bill is a
good starting point for addressing some critical needs. I
appreciate the work of Senator Levin and the cosponsors of this
bill and the work that they have done. It is my hope that this
subcommittee can begin working to resolve some of the issues
that have been brought to our attention so that we can move
swiftly to protect our economy and our environment.
Since there are no other members of the committee here yet,
we will go immediately to our first panel. Excuse me, I did not
look to my right. Senator Allard, excuse me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. If I didn't have Senator Levin here to keep
me on course, I would have just gone right ahead.
Senator Allard, if you have an opening statement, please go
ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. I do, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing and thank Senator Levin for bringing this
bill forward.
I think this is a very important issue. The prominence of
invasive species and its surrounding issues have grown
tremendously over the past several years. Each of us point to
instances in our State that highlight the critical importance
of responsible control and eradication of plant species that
harm natural ecosystems and crowd out native plants.
For example, in my State of Colorado, invasive species such
as the myrtle spurge have grown in great popularity as an
ornamental plant for xeriscaping. However, the plant is rapidly
expanding into sensitive ecosystems, displacing native
vegetation and reducing forage for wildlife. It also exudes a
toxic milky latex which causes skin irritation upon contact.
Hardly a beneficial addition, I would say, to the native plant
mix.
While this bill deals with aquatics, it is important to
keep in mind that the difference between invasive types can be
blurry. Take tamarisk as an example. The tamarisk, also known
as salt cedar, is an invasive species that has crowded our
natural stands of cottonwoods and willows along Colorado River
banks. The tamarisk is an aggressive plant that grows to 20 or
30 feet high and sends its roots hundreds of feet into the
earth below. Two things make this plant a particular concern.
First, the plant can consume up to 250 gallons of water a day.
Second, the plant leaves are highly saline, creating a problem
for both plant life and riparian systems.
Now, 250 gallons of water a day per plant in a drought-
stricken State of Colorado, you can see why the eradication of
this plant becomes so very important. It is a non-native
species. Not only does the tamarisk steal water from the river
and drop salt and leaves on the ground, it straightens out
river channels and displaces habitat for the endangered willow
flycatcher.
I have joined my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, in an effort to end the tamarisk problem.
Together, we have introduced legislation that will create a
series of grants to Western States suffering from the invasion.
The grants will provide an infusion of Federal aid toward
eradication efforts, saving water, protecting stream banks,
ending salinity problems, returning land to its natural state,
and promoting the propagation of the willow flycatcher.
You can see from the tamarisk and the other bills
introduced on this subject that invasive species create
overlapping dilemmas. This is one thing that we must be careful
of when considering the bill. Any legislation must focus
directly on the needs of our States and their water.
Legislation must address these needs and provide end-game
solutions so that continued Federal involvement does not
infringe upon local and private rights.
In Colorado, golden algae or paramecium parvum is
responsible for fish kills at places like Prewitt Reservoir in
Northeastern Colorado. The finding of golden algae results in
an immediate ban on boating, fishing, wading and swimming. Long
associate with fish die-offs in aquariums, golden algae has
been a fish culture problem in Texas since the 1980's. They
have also been associated with fish kills in Denmark, Great
Britain, South Africa and Israel. In 2001, the algae was
responsible for killing the entire hatchery production of
striped bass and wipper in Texas, and they are suspected in a
fish kill in New Mexico.
Finding solutions that responsibly address such invasive
species as golden algae and tamarisk is a difficult task. But
again, I would ask my colleagues on the committee to be mindful
of existing agency efforts and private projects. Federal
legislation should not overstep its bounds, becoming a burden
without solving the problem. Nor should the Federal Government
impose additional unfunded mandates on States. If we are going
to require new compliance with Federal regulations, we must
provide a means for States to avoid such new responsibilities.
The bill is 134 pages long, and the stated purpose of the
bill is to protect the Nation's waterways from non-native,
nuisance aquatic invasive species. This purpose is a worthy
cause, but other causes of a similar nature that have been
brought before this committee resulted in legislation without
corresponding benefits. Anytime a 134-page bill surfaces, a
bill that deals with water, Coloradans rightfully get a little
nervous. They have endured a broken endangered species system
that places a high priority on listing species and recovering
them. The private property infractions resulting from this law
have turned many conservationists into skeptical landowners.
The Colorado system of water law is a product of 100 years
worth of constitutional dictates, case law, statute and
practice. I want to make sure that any bill dealing with water,
whether in a National Forest matter or a new Invasive Species
Act, does not intrude upon private property rights. I insist
that it not burden the existing doctrine of prior
appropriation. Water rights are properly a matter before the
States' courts. Federal legislation must not interfere with
State water rights and the rights of those people who hold
them.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for allowing me to share my
thoughts with the committee and for working to ensure that this
bill promotes a healthier ecosystem, but also protects private
property rights and rights properly belong to the States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The prominence of invasive species and its
surrounding issues has grown tremendously over the past several years.
Each of us can point to instances in our State that highlight the
critical importance of responsible control and eradication of plant
species that harm natural ecosystems and crowd out native plants.
For example, in my State of Colorado, invasive species such as
myrtle spurge have grown in great popularity as an ornamental plant for
xeriscaping. However, the plant is rapidly expanding into sensitive
ecosystems, displacing native vegetation and reducing forage for
wildlife. It also exudes a toxic, milky latex which causes skin
irritation upon contact. Hardly an added addition to the native plant
mix.
While this bill deals with aquatics, it is important to keep in
mind that the difference between invasive types can be blurry. Take
tamarisk as an example. The tamarisk, also known as the salt cedar, is
an invasive shrub that has crowded out natural stands of cottonwoods
and willows along Colorado river banks. The tamarisk is an aggressive
plant that grows to 20 or thirty feet high and sends its roots hundreds
of feet into the earth below.
Two things make this plant of particular concern: First, the plant
can consume up to 250 gallons of water a day; and second, the plant's
leaves are highly saline, creating a problem for both plant life and
riparian systems. At 250 gallons a day in the arid, drought stricken,
State of Colorado, you can see why the eradication of this plant is so
important. Not only does the tamarisk steal water from the river and
drop salty leaves on the ground, it straightens out river channels and
replaces habitat for the endangered willow flycatcher.
I have joined my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, in an effort to end the tamarisk problem. Together, we have
introduced legislation that will create a series of grants to western
States suffering from the invasion. The grants will provide an infusion
of Federal aid toward eradication efforts, saving water, protecting
streambanks, ending salinity problems, returning land to its natural
state and promoting the propagation of the willow flycatcher.
You can see from the tamarisk, and the other bills introduced on
this subject, that invasive species create overlapping dilemmas--this
is one thing that we must be careful of when considering the bill. Any
legislation must focus directly on the needs of our State's and their
water; legislation must address these needs, and provide end-game
solutions so that continued Federal involvement will not infringe upon
local and private rights.
In Colorado, golden algae, or Prymnesium parvum, is responsible for
fish kills at places like Prewitt Reservoir in northeastern Colorado.
The finding of golden algae resulted in an immediate ban on boating,
fishing, wading and swimming. Long associated with fish die-offs in
aquariums, golden algae have been a fish culture problem in Texas since
the 1980's. They have also been associated with fish kills in Denmark,
Great Britain, South Africa and Israel. In 2001, the algae were
responsible for killing the entire hatchery production of striped bass
and wiper in Texas, and they are suspected in a fish kill in New
Mexico.
Finding solutions that responsibly address such invasive species as
golden algae and tamarisk is a difficult task, but again, I would ask
my colleagues on the committee to be mindful of existing agency efforts
and private projects. Federal legislation should not over step its
bounds, becoming a burden without solving the problem. Nor should the
Federal Government impose additional unfunded mandates on States--if we
are going to require new compliance with Federal regulations, we must
provide a means for States to afford such new responsibilities.
This bill is 134 pages long. The stated purpose of the bill is to
protect the nations' waters from non-native, nuisance aquatic invasive
species. This purpose is a worthy cause, but other causes of a similar
nature that have been brought before this committee have resulted in
legislation without corresponding benefits.
Anytime a 134 page bill surfaces--a bill that deals with water--
Coloradans rightfully get a little nervous. They have endured a broken
endangered species system that places a higher priority on listing
species than recovering them.
The private property infractions resulting from this law have
turned many conservationists into the most skeptical of private
property owners. Colorado's system of water law is the product of a
hundred years worth of constitutional dictates, case law, statute, and
practice. I want to make sure that any bill dealing with water, whether
it is a national forest matter or a new invasive species act, does not
intrude upon private property rights, and I insist that it not burden
the existing doctrine of prior appropriation. Water rights are properly
a matter before the State's courts--Federal legislation must not
interfere with State water rights and the rights of those people who
hold them.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for allowing me to share my
thoughts with the committee, and for working to ensure that this bill
promotes a healthier ecosystem, but also protects private property
rights and rights properly belonging to the States.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Allard. I
strongly agree with your concerns about the protection of
private property rights and making certain that we recognize
the sovereignty of States over the jurisdiction of water. The
allocation, use and management of water is a State issue in my
opinion, and I appreciate your raising that important point.
Now I see that there are no other Senators on the panel
present, and I will then turn to our first panel, who is the
chief sponsor of this proposed legislation.
Senator Levin, we welcome you here and we encourage you to
take the time that you need to present your legislation to us.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. Senator Allard, thank you as always for
your participation in involvement in these critical issues.
As both of you have stated, the hearing today is to
consider the authorization of the Levin-Collins National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act. It has 16 senators sponsoring it,
in addition to Senator Collins and myself. A companion bill has
been cosponsored in the House by Congressmen Gilchrest and
Ehlers. Its purposes are essential, which is to reauthorize the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, and
to take a more comprehensive approach toward addressing aquatic
nuisance species to protect our waters.
This problem is a real one in all of our States. As you
both have mentioned, the invasion of foreign species, non-
domestic species has hit all of our States, and hit many of our
States very, very hard. These species, micro-organisms,
pathogens, plants, fish and animals, because they are foreign,
typically do not run into any natural enemies in their new
environments. The result is that they are often ecologically
and economically disastrous.
I think you may remember what happened in the late 1980's
when the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes through
ballast water. The Great Lakes still have those zebra mussels,
but now 20 other States have them as well. Just in less than a
decade, or perhaps a decade and a half, 20-plus States are now
fighting to control these mussels which have changed the
dynamics of our waters. They have decimated native mussels.
They have allowed toxins to reenter the food chain, and they
may be responsible for creating oxygen-deficient conditions or
a dead zone in Lake Erie. Many of our beaches are now littered
by zebra mussel shells, and it is estimated that electrical
generation, water treatment and industrial facilities spend
tens of millions of dollars every year combating the zebra
mussel.
The legislation is needed now for a number of reasons. One
is just to reauthorize existing law. However, we also need to
provide some direction to our negotiators at the International
Maritime Organization to create an international ballast water
standard, and to provide a national ballast water standard,
rather than the patchwork of State efforts that we now have, in
order to move a Ballast Water Management Program forward.
As the Chairman mentioned, the best effort that we have
against invasive species is prevention. While the Coast Guard
has authority under existing law to significantly increase the
Nation's efforts to prevent the introduction of aquatic
invasive species through the largest pathway of introduction,
which is ballast water, there has been very little progress to
move toward technology that is as effective as ballast water
exchange. By requiring the Coast Guard and the EPA to set
interim and final ballast water management standards, the
legislation allows and would promote ballast water technology
to develop to a known standard.
The bill requires the Coast Guard to set an interim
standard that would require ships entering a U.S. port from
outside the economic zone to either use ballast water exchange
or use technology that reduces the number of living organisms
in ballast tanks by 95 percent. This interim standard is not
intended to be implemented for the long run and it is not
perfect. However, a final standard is difficult to set today or
in the near future because of the limited research that has
been conducted on how clean or sterile ballast water discharge
should be, and what is the best expression of a standard. But
rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop
new introductions, an imperfect but clear and achievable
interim standard for treatment technology is the right
approach. It will take at least another step forward.
The interim standard would lead to the use of ballast water
treatments that are more protective of our waters than the
default method of ballast water exchange, and it can be
implemented in the very near future. The bill provides the
Coast Guard with flexibility to promulgate the interim standard
using either a size-based standard or by whatever parameters
the Coast Guard determines are appropriate.
There are a number of other important provisions of the
bill designed to prevent and respond to invasive species. The
bill would authorize $160 million to $170 million each year. It
is a lot of money. It is a critical investment, however,
compared to the cost of invasive species, which are estimated
at $137 billion per year. All of us face the havoc caused by
invasive species and we know the ecological and economic damage
that invasive species can cause.
So Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, again I
want to thank you for tackling this subject. It is an issue
which affects all of our States. We in the Great Lakes feel
very strongly about our waters. I think all of us do, as
Senator Allard has mentioned. Water is a very, very important
issue in every State in the Union, and we in the Great Lakes
have the same kind of special pride that all our other States
do in their own waters and protecting those waters, and in
controlling those waters at a State level. We need to get the
Coast Guard more active in terms of foreign ballast coming into
our lakes and our waters, and that is one of the purposes of
this bill as well, which is to reauthorize the entire program.
Again, I thank you all for your attendance here and for
your interest in this subject.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
I will withhold my questions until the end, and we will go
to the two members of the panel who have just arrived. Senator
Jeffords, would you like to either make a statement or ask a
question of Senator Levin?
Senator Jeffords. No. I would just thank him for his
statement. I know the terrible problems that are created by the
zebra mussel in particular, so I appreciate your excellent
statement.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Crapo. Senator Voinovich?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for calling today's hearing on the National Invasive
Species Act of 2003.
Although you do not represent a Great Lakes or coastal
State, you have recognized, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of
invasive species is a problem that plagues our entire Nation.
As a Senator from Ohio whose northern boundary is Lake Erie and
a cosponsor of the bill before this committee, I am glad to
join Senator Levin in the cosponsorship of this legislation. I
truly appreciate your attention to this issue.
As you know, I have a scheduling conflict this morning in
Governmental Affairs. We are marking up several bills, and I
will try to keep my statement brief and try and get back for
the rest of the witnesses.
The issue of invasive species is very important to
restoring and protecting one of our Nation's greatest natural
resources, the Great Lakes. I am pleased to welcome James
Weakley who is here to testify. He is the President of the Lake
Erie Carriers' Association and is from my hometown of
Cleveland, Ohio, right on America's north coast.
During 37 years of public service, I have committed myself
to stopping the deterioration of the lake and have waged what I
refer to as the Second Battle of Lake Erie to reclaim and
restore Ohio's Great Lake. I consider my efforts to preserve
and protect Lake Erie of all the Great Lakes to be among the
most significant that I have done during my entire career in
public service.
Through the years, we have seen great progress in the
restoration of the lakes, but they remain threatened by a grave
enemy, aquatic invasive species. These species threaten the
health and viability of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem.
I am worried about these aquatic terrorists from the ballast
water of boats from all over the world. These species are
already wreaking havoc in the lakes and our coastal waters and
will continue to do so until they are stopped.
As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980's, I was alarmed about
the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and
conducted the first national meeting to investigate the
problem. It is a complicated situation, and we still are
learning how invasive species like the zebra mussel affect the
ecosystem. Since the 1800's, over 145 invasive species have
colonized the Great Lakes. Since 1990 when legislation to
address aquatic nuisance species was first enacted, we have
averaged about one new invader every year. Hard to believe.
Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I
know first-hand the damage that these species can cause as I
have seen the lakes become infiltrated with zebra and quagga
mussels, gobies, sea lampreys and a variety of other species.
This past August, I held a hearing in Cleveland on what might
seem to be an unrelated problem, the annual formation of dead
zones in the lake. If anyone is unfamiliar with this term,
these are areas in our waterways that are without oxygen. While
I have introduced the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act of 2003 to better understand the cause and
possible solutions to this phenomenon, some experts believe
that invasive species are behind it. The scientists that I have
talked to think that the dead zones are created by the invasive
species.
The possible link between Lake Erie's dead zone problem and
invasive species underscores the seriousness of the problem.
Aquatic invasive species readily spread through interconnected
waterways and are very difficult to treat. The National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act attempts to address the introduction,
screening, response, research and hopefully eradication of
these aquatic terrorists. We cannot afford to wait any longer
in taking real and measurable steps to address the invasion of
our waters. We must act quickly to strengthen our Nation's
efforts to prevent invasive species from wreaking havoc on the
Great Lakes' aquatic habitat and throughout the United States.
I just want to make one other comment, Mr. Chairman. It is
my understanding now that the zebra mussels have been seen in
the Columbia River basin. It is just amazing. We did everything
we could to try and limit it to Lake Erie and the Great Lakes.
All of our lakes in Ohio now are infested with zebra mussels.
This thing is just spreading all over the United States of
America. We have another thing called quagga mussels that are
even worse. They are going to be around. This is a very, very
serious problem that I think that we need to tackle
forthrightly if we are going to preserve the great resources
that we have, not only the Great Lakes, but throughout the
United States.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing on the National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. Although you do not represent a
Great Lakes or coastal State, you have recognized that the issue of
invasive species is a problem that plagues our entire nation. As a
Senator from Ohio whose northern boundary is Lake Erie, and as
cosponsor of the bill before this Subcommittee today, I truly
appreciate you turning your attention to this important issue.
The issue of invasive species is very important to restoring and
protecting one of our nation's greatest natural resources the Great
Lakes. I am pleased to welcome James Weakley, who is here to testify.
He is the President of the Lake Carriers' Association and is from my
home town of Cleveland, Ohio, right on the coast of Lake Erie.
Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the
State legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the
northern border of my district and it was known worldwide as a dying
lake. Lake Erie's decline was covered extensively by the media and
became an international symbol of pollution and environmental
degradation. Its problems were so well-known that the British
Broadcasting Company sent a film crew to make a documentary about it.
Thirty-seven years ago, when I saw firsthand the effects of
pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do
more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As
a State legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of
the Lake and to wage the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and
restore Ohio's Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my
career as County Commissioner, State Legislator, Lieutenant Governor,
Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now United States Senator. I
consider my efforts to preserve and protect Lake Erie and all of the
Great Lakes to be among the most significant of my career and of my
life.
It is comforting to me that in the 37 years since I started my
career in public service, I am still involved, as a member of the U.S.
Senate and our Committee on Environment and Public Works, in the battle
to save Lake Erie and all the Great Lakes.
Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality. It
is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the
area's tourism, transportation, and recreation industries, and the main
source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Unfortunately, however,
there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve and
protect Ohio's greatest natural asset.
I have taken several specific steps in the 108TH Congress to ensure
that the Great Lakes are protected and receive the attention they
deserve. I proposed an amendment that was included in the fiscal year
2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill to extend the current moratorium on
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes until the end of fiscal year
2005.
Additionally, we must protect the area and specifically the
wetlands around the Great Lakes. With almost 98 percent of the costal
wetland system that existed in western Lake Erie lost over the past two
centuries, I was pleased that Congress passed earlier this year my bill
to expand the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge.
Recently, the General Accounting Office reported that while there
are many Federal, State, and local programs, restoration of the Great
Lakes is being hindered because there is no coordination or unified
strategy for these activities. Furthermore, the GAO found that although
more than a billion dollars has been spent since 1992, it is not
possible to comprehensively assess restoration progress in the Great
Lakes because overall indicators do not exist.
The conclusions of this GAO report confirm concerns I have had that
the Great Lakes are not receiving the attention they deserve. As
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, I
plan to hold an oversight hearing on management of Great Lakes
environmental programs. In addition, I cosponsored legislation (S.
1116) to direct the Great Lakes National Program Office to develop,
implement, monitor, and report on a series of indicators of water
quality and related environmental factors in the Great Lakes. This bill
would expand the Lake Erie Water Quality Index that I created as
Governor to cover all of the Great Lakes.
Through the years, we have seen great progress in the restoration
of the Great Lakes, but they remain threatened by a grave enemy aquatic
invasive species. These species threaten the health and viability of
the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. I am worried about these aquatic
terrorists in the ballast water of boats from all over the world. These
invasive species are already wreaking havoc in the Lakes and our
coastal waters and will continue to do so until they are stopped.
Since the 1800's, over 145 invasive species have colonized in the
Great Lakes. Since 1990, when legislation to address aquatic nuisance
species was first enacted, we have averaged about one new invader each
year. Clearly, we have not closed the door to invasive species. I am
deeply troubled by the surge in new invasive species in Lake Erie,
because once a species establishes itself, there is virtually no way to
eliminate it.
Because I know firsthand the damage these species can cause as I
have seen the Lakes become infiltrated with Zebra and quagga mussels,
gobies, sea lampreys, and a variety of other species I am involved in a
fight to keep another invasive species out of the Great Lakes the Asian
Carp. I cosponsored an amendment that was included in the fiscal year
2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill to provide funds to continue operation
of the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal Dispersal Barrier, which is the
last line of defense to a very big and destructive fish. Fortunately,
the bill before the Subcommittee today expands on the existing program
by improving the Barrier project.
As Mayor of Cleveland in the 1980's, I was alarmed about the
introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the
first national meeting to investigate the problem. It is a complicated
situation, and we are still learning how invasive species like the
zebra mussel affect the ecosystem.
This past August, for example, I conducted a field hearing of the
Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the increasingly
extensive oxygen depletion or hypoxia in the central basin of Lake
Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ``dead zone'' and has
been associated with massive fish kills, toxic algae blooms, and bad-
tasting or bad-smelling water.
Hypoxia is usually the result of decaying algae blooms which
consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past, excessive
phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage
treatment plants were greatly responsible for algae blooms. Since 1965,
the level of phosphorus entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50
percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae
and more oxygen going into the system.
In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been
increasing, but the amount of phosphorus entering it has not.
Scientists are unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus
in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance
species the zebra and quagga mussels. Although their influence is not
well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through
the system.
Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion
in Lake Erie is due to their ability to filter and clear vast
quantities of lake water. Clearer water allows light to penetrate
deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic growth on the
bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.
This year, I introduced the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research Amendments Act of 2003 (S. 937) to reauthorize and expand the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to
include the Great Lakes. The research authorized by the original Act
focused only on coastal marine waters, although these problems exist
throughout the Great Lakes. We need to focus our research and dollars
not only on coastal marine waters, but also on these troubling
situations in the Great Lakes.
It is my understanding that Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John
Breaux (D-LA) have also introduced a bill (S. 247) to reauthorize the
Act and that the Commerce Committee will be marking up this legislation
on Thursday. I also understand that they will be including the
provisions in my bill that deal with the Great Lakes. I thank them for
their leadership on this issue and for recognizing the importance of
expanding this program to include the Great Lakes.
However, more needs to be done. The possible link between Lake
Erie's dead zone problem and invasive species underscores the
seriousness of this problem. Aquatic invasive species readily spread
through interconnected waterways and are extremely difficult to treat
safely. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in
improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our
nation's aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this
progress.
While these species are a particular problem, I recognize that both
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species cause significant economic and
ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that
invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year and that
42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Lists are at
risk primarily due to invasive species.
In 1999, President Clinton issued an Executive Order creating the
National Invasive Species Council to develop a national management plan
for invasive species and to bring together the Federal agencies
responsible for managing them. This was a promising plan that has never
been fully implemented. The National Invasive Species Management Plan
was issued in 2001, but agencies with responsibilities under the plan
have been slow to complete activities by the established due dates.
Moreover, the agencies do not always act in a coordinated manner.
The General Accounting Office released a report in October 2002
that showed that implementing the Management Plan was possibly being
hampered by the lack of a congressional mandate for the Council. It is
disturbing to me that this Council exists but is not making substantial
progress. Make no mistake about it; these species are not waiting for
the Federal Government to get all of its ducks in a row. Instead, they
are continuing to invade the waters and lands of the U.S.
To correct this problem by legislatively establishing the Council,
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the National Invasive
Species Council Act (S. 536). I am interested to hear from the
witnesses their thoughts on this legislation as well as any other
recommendations they may have.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act attempts to address the
introduction, screening, response, research, and hopefully eradication
of these aquatic terrorists. We cannot afford to wait any longer in
taking real and measurable steps to address the invasion of our waters.
We must act quickly to strengthen our nation's efforts to prevent
invasive species from wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes' aquatic
habitat and throughout the U.S.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. This
lineup of witnesses is extraordinary and I thank all of the expert
witnesses who are here today. I look forward to their input on this
very important legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Levin, thank you for giving me
an opportunity to make this statement. I know that you are a
very busy person.
Senator Levin. See you at Governmental Affairs.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
I just have one quick question, Senator Levin, then we will
see if Senator Allard has one and we will let you get off to
your meetings.
As you know, federalism is a big issue that has been raised
with regard to the management of invasive species. I note that
in the GAO report that we will have discussion of following
you, there was sort of a mix between the States as to whether
they thought that we should have Federal legislation that
integrated all of the Federal authorities on invasive species,
or whether to approach it from another perspective. I was just
curious as to how your proposed legislation addresses this
issue.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all sensitive
to the need for us to have the States basically be in the
driver's seat relative to the waters. We feel very keenly about
that in the Great Lakes. As a matter of fact, nationally we
have insisted that our Great Lakes Governors have veto
authority over diversion of water from the Great Lakes. So it
is a very sensitive issue, I think, for all of our States.
The non-Federal portions of the program are voluntary. It
is intended to be a voluntary program, so no State has to
accept any of the funding or any of the programs that are in
here. We do however, when it comes to water coming into this
country in ballast water in foreign ships or in U.S. ships that
might bring in an invasive species, require that that ballast
water be exchanged, but ballast water exchange has not worked
well enough.
So the fundamental issue that we address here is whether or
not we have an interim standard which would promote technology
as the alternative to ballast water exchange, and that would be
something the Coast Guard would have to implement. But I don't
see how that would be in any way a detriment to the power of
States to control their own waters. I think that could only be
seen as a plus.
Beyond that, I am not sure I can address the specific
question of the Chairman, and I don't know on this specific
issue whether there is anything, frankly, in our bill which
would be detrimental to the power of the States over their own
waters. I think it would be viewed by most States as a plus, as
something which would have the Federal Government be offering
something to the States, but not be demanding that the States
accept the offer in any way, or that there be any unfunded
mandates or anything like that in here.
I hope that is an accurate answer. It is the best I can
give you without getting back into that 135-page bill, which I
did not do last night, I am afraid.
Senator Crapo. Well, we are all going to get into it very
carefully. I do appreciate your answer and your attitude on
those issues. It is a critical issue that we will need to
address as we move forward.
Senator Allard?
Senator Allard. I just have one simple question for the
Senator. We in Colorado frequently see, particularly on
invasive species, the State willing to do the work and the
property owner willing to do the work and people affected doing
it, but the Federal Government has a stake there and they do
not do it. Do we in any way reduce the responsibility of the
Federal Government, that you are aware of, in your bill? Do we
expect them to be treated like everybody else?
Senator Levin. Right. Quite the opposite. I think we
finally would put in enough funding on the funding side of that
issue so that the Federal Government could carry out its
responsibility. Because on that one particular issue alone, it
is a major growing issue, and the Federal role should be a real
one. It ought to be a partnership role. It should not be
imposed, but it surely ought to be carried out so that we carry
out our side of the commitments.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill is going to be
testifying here from the Office of Environment and Natural
Resources at the U.S. General Accounting Office. He is going to
be getting involved in his testimony in the fact that State
officials have identified the lack of legal requirements for
control of invasive species as a legislative gap in dealing
with them. He is going to try and explain to us how you fill
the gap without imposing an unfunded mandate on the States. So
I am anxious to hear his testimony.
Senator Crapo. Yes, we are very much.
Senator Levin. That is our goal.
Senator Crapo. Without any further questions, if there are
none, we will excuse you, Senator Levin, and we will move to
the next panel.
Senator Levin. Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Before we do so, I wanted to note that Mr.
Hill, you may be coming up while I make this announcement.
Senator Murkowski was very interested in making an opening
statement and I believe she is presiding on the floor of the
Senate right now. When she arrives, we will at an appropriate
breaking point, allow her to make her opening statement.
I note that we have been joined by Senator Warner. Senator
Warner, before we start this next panel, would you like to make
any opening statement?
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I eventually will, but I need
a few minutes to talk to staff.
Senator Crapo. All right. I understand that entirely.
With that, we will go to our second panel then, Mr. Barry
Hill, who is the Director of Interior Issues with the Office of
Environment and Natural Resources at the U.S. General
Accounting Office. Mr. Hill, I will tell you and all of the
other witnesses on the panels for the rest of this hearing, we
have given you instructions that we would like you to keep your
oral testimony to 5 minutes.
We do have your written testimony and your reports, and for
other witnesses we have your written testimony and we will
review it and in most cases have already reviewed it, but we
like to keep as much time as we can for questions and answers.
So we encourage you to watch that clock and try to keep your
remarks to 5 minutes.
With that, Mr. Hill, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, DIRECTOR, INTERIOR ISSUES, OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY TRISH McCLURE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Before I do begin, let me introduce my colleague.
With me today is Trish McClure, who led the work we will be
presenting today on the Invasive Species Program.
We are pleased to be here today to discuss the issue of
managing invasive species. My testimony today is based on our
October 2002 report on the Federal Government's national
management plan for invasive species, as well as new work that
you requested on State perspectives regarding invasive species
management.
As you know, States and over 20 different Federal agencies
operate a variety of invasive species-related programs and
activities. In 1999, Executive Order 1312 established the
National Invasive Species Council to provide national
leadership in this area and to develop a national management
plan to serve as a blueprint for Federal invasive species
actions. Our evaluation of that plan found that it lacks a
clear, long-term desired outcome and quantifiable measures of
performance. While the actions called for in the plan are
likely to contribute to controlling invasive species, it is
unclear how implementing them will move the United States
toward a specific outcome such as reducing the number of new
invasive species or the spread of established species by a
certain amount.
Moreover, we reported that implementation of the plan has
been slow. As of September 2002, Federal agencies had completed
less than 20 percent of the 65 actions that the plan had called
for by that date. We recommended that the Council clarify the
goals and objectives in the national management plan and
improve reporting on the progress of its implementation.
We also reported in October 2002 that Federal efforts are
not adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species
into the Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Despite
Federal regulations requiring ships that enter the Great Lakes
to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean, aquatic
invasive species are still establishing themselves in that
ecosystem.
We found two factors that contribute to this problem.
First, the Coast Guard classifies about 70 percent of the ships
that enter the Great Lakes as having no ballast on board and
are therefore exempt from open ocean exchange requirements.
However, these ships may in fact carry thousands of gallons of
residual ballast water that may contain invasive organisms and
that may be discharged into the Great Lakes.
Second, the open ocean exchange conducted by ships that
have ballast does not effectively remove or kill all organisms
in the tanks. Federal officials believe it could be a decade or
more before standards and technologies are developed to
effectively treat ballast water. In the meantime, the
introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes
will continue to be a problem.
Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering State
perspectives on the invasive species problem. According to the
State officials we surveyed, a key gap noted in both aquatic
and terrestrial legislation is the lack of legal requirements
for controlling invasives that are already established or
widespread. In addition, many State officials frequently cited
as ineffective the current Federal standards for ballast water,
which only impose requirements for ships entering the Great
Lakes and not other U.S. waters.
Regarding barriers to addressing invasive species, most
State officials were concerned with the lack of Federal funding
for State efforts and the lack of public awareness, outreach
and education activities. A majority of the States also said
that there are less control techniques available to combat
aquatic species than there are for terrestrial species and that
there is a need for more species-specific research to identify
effective measures.
S. 525 appears to address many of the issues we have
discussed today. For example, among other things, the bill sets
forth a much more aggressive program for ballast water and
related pathways by requiring ballast water standards for ships
in all U.S. waters, and authorizing substantially more funding
for research on pathways of likely aquatic invaders and the
development of treatment technologies.
Second, the bill provides better outreach and education to
various industries that can serve as pathways for invasives,
such as the pet trade, recreational boaters and marina
operators. Finally, S. 525 would authorize a grant program for
research, development, demonstration and verification of
environmentally sound, cost-effective technologies and methods
to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be more
than pleased to respond to any questions that you or other
members may have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.
Your testimony states at the outset that the data we need
to set long-term goals and performance measures is not
available currently. If I understand correctly, it is going to
be a number of years before we are at a point where we can do
that. What sorts of research data and collection need to be
completed before we would have a comprehensive picture to
enable us to do this well?
Mr. Hill. This is almost like a chicken and an egg
argument. You almost have to decide what your performance goals
and measures are going to be. How are you going to measure
success or performance in this program? And then based on those
measurements, you have to determine what data is currently
available and what data gaps exist. I think that is something
that the Council is currently wrestling with.
Senator Crapo. The question I am getting at is, are we in a
position right now where we, through legislation, can make
progress in this arena? Or are we simply getting the cart
before the horse? Do we need to get more data collection before
we can proceed?
Mr. Hill. I am going to let Ms. McClure comment on this as
well. I think the bill does provide for many nice things, one
of the things being conducting of more additional research to
hopefully study the situation and identify what the problem is
so that you can determine what kind of data you are going to
need to collect.
Ms. McClure. I think the big concern is that you do not
want to set a goal, for example, reducing or eliminating the
invasions of invasive species to our environment, because many
people recognize that that is an incredibly difficult thing to
do. So I think the concern is setting an appropriate goal, and
therefore identifying performance measures that are actually
achievable, and the concern of gathering that data is to be
sure you are reporting on the appropriate things.
Senator Crapo. So establishment of the goal is going to
drive the kind of data collection and research that we will
need to conduct?
Ms. McClure. Yes, definitely.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill, currently there are, if I understand it
correctly, 11 Federal agencies on the Invasive Species Council.
The obvious question that that brings to my mind from the
outset is whether we have too many cooks in the invasive
species kitchen. Do we have too broad an issue here? Or is it
the kind of situation where we have such a broad impact from
this problem that we have to bring that many agencies to bear
in the Council to address the issue?
Mr. Hill. It is certainly a situation that affects not only
a lot of agency programs and missions, as well as many States,
obviously as well. So it is difficult to single out one or two
agencies that you could consolidate this thing into. I think
the concept of a council is a good one, where you basically
have all the responsible Federal agencies conceptually working
together and coordinating their activities to assist States and
the Federal agencies to address the problem.
Senator Crapo. I noted in your report that there was some
discussion with the States about whether integration was a good
idea or not. The States seem to be in a slight margin in favor
of that. What are we talking about by ``integration''?
Ms. McClure. That would be providing a single legislative
authority that would be very broad and provide quite a bit of
flexibility in terms of how to address invasives or pathways,
what type of data to collect, and what types of controls would
be implemented.
Senator Crapo. As opposed to a number of different
statutory authorities? And what was the concern of the States
that did not support integration?
Ms. McClure. There was concern that there would be reduced
State flexibility. As my colleague was saying, some of the
concerns that we have many existing programs in place that have
been working well, and that if you start to integrate and force
agencies to change what they have historically been doing, you
may be losing some of that expertise and some of the goals or
the achievements that have already been made.
Senator Crapo. My last question, then, and I will go on to
Senator Allard, but did any of the States raise federalism
issues or State sovereignty issues with regard to this issue?
Ms. McClure. That is an interesting point. The State
results actually indicate some degree of conflict on that.
While they say there is a need for some legal requirements in
many areas, and really need that to be able to address things,
they also recognize the lack of Federal funding in many areas.
So it does seem to be a mixed point.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Allard?
Senator Allard. It seems to me that if we are going to meet
all these varied types of species and everything, there is so
much difference in how you might attack reducing those invasive
species' populations. You almost have to rely on the States to
come up with a program. Would it possible, do you think, to
make this a successful program if we just provided the dollars
and set some general guidelines that say that you have got to
show within the first 3 years of funding that you reduced
whichever species it is by 5 percent within the State?
Could we be as effective doing that as we could with any
kind of a mandate that we currently have in law? This report is
probably one of the weakest reports as far as administering a
program as I have probably seen since I have been in the
Congress. It just doesn't seem to be able, like you say,
measure results. I think you were right in pointing that out.
Can we do that through the appropriation process and make it
voluntary on the States?
Mr. Hill. That would be challenging for them in that in
many cases the invasive species are not contained within one
State. It is becoming a national issue. It certainly affects
multiple States. In order to effectively control or prevent
these species from entering, it is going to take some
coordination on the part of States working together to address
the problem. If they could do that, yes, it would be effective.
But if the States have different priorities or they are
focusing on different species, and one State is focusing on one
species and the adjacent State is not, it is going to be very
difficult to control that species and certainly to do it cost-
effectively.
Senator Allard. For example, the mussel problem that we
have in the Great Lakes or the problems we have there, those
species would not be a problem to other States, but perhaps
regionally we could put a program in place where those States
that are all impacted by that mussel, for example, could set up
a program.
We could provide the money, but again direct them to do
specific things in order to qualify for the funding and manage
the program. Maybe we would not do it strictly by a State
basis, but say if the States have a common problem, then part
of the responsibility of getting this money in this program is
to form a coalition of States that are willing to be a part of
that coalition to get the job done.
Mr. Hill. That could be done, and certainly for the zebra
mussel where it is becoming widespread and States are
recognizing if we do not work together to do something, it is
going to be even a bigger problem. There is a common interest
there perhaps in addressing that particular issue. But there
are so many species out there, and there are so many that still
could enter the United States. I think what you are talking
about here, and I think Senator Levin used the correct term,
what you need to be looking for is basically a partnership here
between Federal agencies, the States themselves, working
together cooperatively where it makes sense to address common
problems that they have.
Senator Allard. If you are going to work cooperatively, it
seems like you have to make it voluntary. They have to feel
they are part of the team, but you have to have responsibility
to the taxpayers to make sure the money that it gets is spent
responsibly. It seems to me that the proper role for the
Federal Government here is to provide the money, make sure,
like you said, that the program they come up with has
measurable results, and that that money is well spent.
I know that, for example, a lot of foreign species that
come into the United States are restricted at certain ports of
entry. Is that program working or not? Did you cover that in
your GAO evaluation?
Ms. McClure. No, we did not.
Senator Allard. OK. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Hill, regarding the agency's work
implementing the management plan, does it appear that the
agencies are coordinating their efforts to address actions
called for by the plan?
Mr. Hill. When we did our work back in October of 2002, we
did find instances where there was not effective coordination
going on, where there were particular actions that were
designated that needed to be done. It seemed as though the
agencies were doing things that were related to that particular
action, but they really weren't coordinated or integrated, and
did not seem to be directed in a way that would have a
successful outcome.
Since we have done that report, on a positive note, one
thing that we are aware of is that the agencies now have a
cross-cutting budget which should help in coordinating future
efforts, since they are basically identifying budgetary things
that can be done and pooling money in a way where they can
coordinate some activities in the future.
Senator Jeffords. What is a cross-cutting budget?
Ms. McClure. The cross-cutting budget that they put
together for fiscal year 2004 deals with activities related to
prevention, detection and control for Agriculture, Commerce and
Interior. Basically, it is the starting point of something that
would help them integrate, as Mr. Hill said, their programs,
identify where they have actions that are related, and ensure
that those activities are coordinated and they are working
toward more efficient outcomes.
Senator Jeffords. What does GAO believe should be done in
regard to ballast water management?
Mr. Hill. Clearly, there is a need for more research and
technology development there. Right now, I think it was
mentioned earlier by Senator Levin, that there is a need for a
standard to be developed. Until that standard is developed, the
companies that develop the technology are kind of reluctant, I
think, to go ahead and develop those technologies because they
do not know what standard or what level that those technologies
need to be developed to. So you need a standard that will
hopefully spur on some technology development. Once the
technologies are available, you can incorporate them into
ships.
Now, the other thing that is important to consider here is
the longer this goes on, the longer that this standard is not
developed, the longer that the technology is not put in place,
ships that are currently being built will have to be
retrofitted in the future to upgrade them to that standard.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Warner, and you may make an opening statement if
you choose, and then follow with questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. [holds up a marine mollusk shell about six
inches long.] The reason I did want to speak is that I want to
introduce everybody to this. I collected this yesterday when I
traveled to the Chesapeake Bay with our former colleague and
dear friend, Senator Mathias, who spent much of his career here
in the Senate working to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
I am going to read what this is. I really did not know much
about it. Here it is. It is called a Rapa welk. Whoever heard
of that before? It apparently came in through the ballast tanks
and into the Chesapeake Bay some years ago. Today, it eats
everything in its path, including oysters which we are
appropriating significant sums of money trying to restore. So
with one hand, the taxpayer is putting in money to develop
oysters in my State, and this joker is running around eating
them up as fast as we can get them started. In between, he
devours the clams and the mussels and everything else.
Now, when I first saw it, I thought it was one of those
fancy things called a conch, and all of us have been down to
the islands in the middle of winter and we get conch stew and
everything is quite nice. No human can eat it. It is
practically poisonous.
So what has Virginia done? It has put a $5 bounty on this
rascal. Even the kids can go along the seashore and pick up the
shells, which they are doing, and get some bounty, but if you
can get one live, it is $5 and the fishermen are almost making
more money scooping these fellow up then they are the products
of the sea.
So we have got to do something about it. There are a number
of firms in Virginia that have developed technologies to help
solve it, but precisely what you said, they are not going to
move with their capital and take the risks until we decide on
these interim standards. That is why I joined the Levin bill in
hopes that Congress can impress upon the Federal Government
that all of the various players in this, and we have a full
list of all the various government agencies and so forth that
have been enumerated this morning, can get together and at
least hold a quiet election somewhere in a room and elect one
agency to go ahead. I think the Coast Guard is eminently
qualified to spearhead the effort.
So I am going to go down and put this on my shelf and watch
as we work on this legislative process as a reminder to me that
we have got to do something because my State is suffering
greatly from this. I thank our witnesses this morning. I thank
the Chairman and our distinguished Ranking Member. Now let's go
get something done. This beast has got to be stopped.
Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. When
you brought that in here, I thought you were bringing us
something from the islands. So we appreciate that lesson.
Senator Murkowski, you may make an opening statement. Then
if you choose when you are finished, you can follow up with
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity again to participate in the
hearing that has substantial impact on my State of Alaska. We
have been relatively fortunate in Alaska due to the distance,
climate and a little bit of foresight, to be protected from
some of these invasive species. We do not have this monster
that apparently has invaded the great Chesapeake Bay. We have
some pretty strong laws regarding the importation of exotic
species, and have had them for many years.
Despite that, we have had a number of invasive aquatic
species and non-aquatic species that have hitchhiked to Alaska.
We have others that are near our border and appear to be
working toward our direction. In the port of Valdez in Prince
William Sound, we receive the third-largest volume of ballast
water of any U.S. port due to the regular arrival of very large
oil tankers, many of which arrive to the port of Valdez already
infested with invasive species. This is a significant and a
continuing threat, although to date only a small number of
problems have been detected.
We are working on technologies and practices to meet this.
Among the most promising is this new method of introducing
ozone into the ballast water, both when it is pumped aboard and
when it is discharged. So far, we understand that there have
been excellent results in removing these biological
hitchhikers. I want to note that this research has been funded
actually by the oil and gas industry, British Petroleum, and
the industry's willingness to step forward on this issue should
be recognized. But the government's obligation to address this
issue should not be overlooked. I hope this committee will
agree that this research is very worthy and we need to give it
our strong support.
There has been a variety of both animal and plant organisms
that have shown up in Alaskan waters. The Northern Pike, which
has been introduced illegally into areas where it is not
native, and is a very serious threat to our native Pacific
salmon and other fish. We have Atlantic salmon escaping from
salmon farms in other areas, which we have also seen from
Southeastern Alaska up to Prince William Sound, and in ocean
waters as far away as the Bering Sea. Natural reproduction of
escaped Atlantic salmon has been observed in British Columbia,
and it is possible that this species could find a foothold in
Alaska, again, posing serious threat to our native stocks.
Plants such as Japanese knotweed, Reed Canary grass and
Foxtail barley are also colonizing, posing a threat to our
naturally occurring species. There are several other species
which have not yet been observed in Alaska, but are considered
to be a danger and we are watching carefully in the hopes of
intercepting them before they do become a problem.
The European green crab is an example. It became
established in California and has already moved as far north as
Vancouver Island. Although small, it is highly aggressive,
preys on juveniles of other crab species, as well as on clams,
mussels, urchins and other fish and plants. So in Alaska, all
the major crab species, king, Dungeness and Tanner, could be at
risk from this European green crab.
Another small crab, again, of concern is the Chinese mitten
crab, which has become established in San Francisco and may be
moving northward. One specimen has been found near the mouth of
the Columbia River, but because this little creature comes to
the freshwater to spawn, potentially moving hundreds of miles
upriver, we view it as a serious threat.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, and it is not meant
to be. It is just an example of those things that we are
keeping an eye on very attentively.
I also need to make mention of another creature that has
become a serious problem. It is not an aquatic animal. It is
the Norway rat. It shares one of the common characteristics
with many aquatic nuisance species, and that is the mode of
travel. Rats arriving via shipwrecks and in transferred cargo
are now considered a significant threat to sea bird colonies in
the Aleutian Islands Maritime Wildlife Refuge. I am hoping that
when we begin to work on specific changes to the Act, it is
possible to address this matter, perhaps in the same way that
the Brown Tree snake, which was another terrestrial species,
that will be addressed again in the original Act.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing discussion on
this issue.
At this time, just a very quick question of you, Mr. Hill.
I mentioned the ozone treatment into the ballast waters. We
seem to think that it has shown some success. Your thoughts on
this as a possible treatment?
Mr. Hill. We did not do an analysis of the various
treatments being attempted. In the work we have done, we have
identified that there is a need for new treatment technology
and new treatments to be developed, but I am not aware of any
work that we have done specifically on any treatment
developments.
Senator Murkowski. Perhaps we can share ours with you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Any further questions? If not, Mr. Hill and Ms. McClure, we
appreciate your being with us. Thank you.
We will now move to our third panel. The panelists may come
up. This panel includes Ms. Lori Williams, the Executive
Director of the National Invasive Species Council; Mr. Joseph
Angelo, Director of Standards at the U.S. Coast Guard; Mr.
Matthew Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Mr. Timothy Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere at the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and Mr. Tracy Mehan, Assistant
Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
We welcome you all with us. Ms. Williams, we will start
with you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LORI WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the National
Invasive Species Council's efforts to deal with the problem of
invasive species and comment on S. 525, the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act of 2003.
Last summer, efforts to eradicate the snakehead fish in
Maryland put the problem of aquatic invasive species on the
front page. The threat that this voracious predator, discovered
in a small pond, could easily have spread to the entire
Chesapeake Bay if quick action was not taken by the State of
Maryland and local officials, graphically demonstrates the risk
of invasive species and their potential destructive capacity.
The apparent success of Maryland officials in eradicating
the snakehead fish and quick action by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, moving swiftly to regulate the fish under
Federal law, has unfortunately been the exception, rather than
the rule in the past. Too often, invasive species have become
well established and difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate
or contain by the time action is taken. When these species to
become established, as you have heard in graphic detail, they
cause environmental economic harm and some harm to animal and
human health as well.
The Council is charged with coordinating Federal activities
relating to all invasive species, including aquatic and
terrestrial species. Although our focus today is on aquatic
invasive species, many of the issues and proposed solutions are
common to all types of invasive species.
As you heard from the GAO, the Council was created by
Executive Order 13112, not only to address the growing problem
of invasive species, but the need for coordination. There are
over 20 Federal agencies in 11 different departments and
agencies that have important invasive species programs, and it
is vital that they be coordinated. The Council is co-chaired
and provided leadership by the Secretaries of Interior,
Agriculture and Commerce, and many of the other departments
that are members of the Council are represented here today.
The Executive Order provides for an Invasive Species
Advisory Committee. This committee is composed of non-Federal
experts and stakeholders. They advise the Council and provide
vital non-Federal perspective and input. The key tasks and some
of the accomplishments of the Council are listed in my full
statement, but one of the most important activities of the
Council is to draft and implement the National Invasive Species
Management Plan. The executive summary is attached for your
information, to this testimony.
I would like to now turn to comment on S. 525. The
subcommittee requested that I provide a general overview of the
Federal agencies' comments and concerns regarding the
reauthorization bill. At that point, following my testimony,
the other departments and officials will provide more detail on
their specific concerns.
First, we support the reauthorization of the Aquatic
Invasive Species legislation. It is a vital and important step
in addressing this problem. There is broad support among
councilmembers for the bill's comprehensive approach to dealing
with aquatic invasive species problems. This approach is very
similar to that taken in the National Invasive Management Plan.
Regarding concerns, first, in terms of ballast water, it is
critical that any treatment standard adopted for ballast water
be biologically meaningful, based on science, and enforceable.
It has not been demonstrated that the standard based on a kill
rate meets these criteria as currently proposed in S. 525. The
Coast Guard and other agencies will elaborate on the specifics
in terms of ballast water.
In general, there is concern that some of the provisions of
S. 525 are administratively burdensome and inflexible. The
Department of Commerce notes in their testimony that 31
separate deadlines for administrative actions all fall within a
relatively short timeframe. Some of the bill's provisions,
including the areas of rapid response and screening, are overly
prescriptive and do not allow the agencies and the Council the
flexibility needed to develop and test new methods and provide
for adequate stakeholder input, recognizing the complexity and
difficulty in dealing with some of these issues and policies
involved. Some of these issues involve international trade and
need to be dealt with very, very carefully.
Along the lines we noted, new spending authorized by S. 525
is currently not in the President's 2004 budget, and thus the
proposal must be considered within the existing resources and
priorities. New requirements included in the bill, such as
those for education, should be integrated into existing
efforts.
As with any comprehensive and complex legislation, there
are areas that need improvement. The other Federal
representatives on the panel will provide additional detail and
the Council is ready to assist the committee in addressing
these general concerns and providing additional technical
comments.
Thank you and I would be glad to address questions at the
end of the panel.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams.
Mr. Angelo?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. ANGELO, DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS, U.S.
COAST GUARD
Mr. Angelo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am Joe Angelo, the Director of
Standards for the Coast Guard. I also serve as the head of the
United States delegation to the International Maritime
Organization which is negotiating an international treaty on
ballast water management.
It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide our
views on S. 525. The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral
Collins, has stated that ballast water management is the No. 1
environmental protection issue for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Working under existing legislation, the Coast Guard's ongoing
regulatory efforts are addressing many of the ballast water
management provisions contained in S. 525. These include
establishing a mandatory national ballast water management
program, which would include ballast management plans and
records of ballast operations; setting a ballast water
treatment standard; and establishing a process for the
development, testing, and evaluation of experimental treatment
systems.
Nevertheless, we believe that reauthorization and amendment
of the aquatic nuisance species legislation is necessary to
effectively address this growing environmental problem.
However, we do have some concerns regarding S. 525 which we
believe should be considered. In developing a ballast water
standard, we have established three major criteria that we
believe are essential in protecting U.S. waters. The standard
must be biologically meaningful, scientifically sound, and
enforceable. We are particularly concerned with the inclusion
of an interim ballast water treatment standard in this bill.
The interim standard in the bill that requires at least 95
percent removal or kill of organisms in the ballast water does
not meet any of the above criteria, and from our perspective,
especially the enforceability aspect.
Another concern is that the bill has the Coast Guard
issuing regulations for an interim standard and EPA issuing the
final standard. We believe that the responsibility to develop
and promulgate a single ballast water discharge standard should
remain with one agency. The Coast Guard stands ready, willing
and able to do so in full consultation with those sitting at
this table.
Our third concern is the proposed timelines for
implementing many aspects of the ballast water management
regulatory regime. We fully recognize the need to issue
regulations on this important issue quickly, but in view of the
fact that the current state of ballast water management
technology is very much in its infancy, we firmly believe that
stakeholder input and participation throughout the regulatory
process is absolutely essential. The timelines contained in the
bill may inhibit full and complete stakeholder participation.
The final concern I will mention is that we believe that
the prescriptive nature of the bill has the potential for
delaying the implementation of an effective Federal ballast
water management regime.
In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to present some of our views on this bill. The Coast Guard
looks forward to working with Congress on the reauthorization
of aquatic nuisance species legislation as we continue our
ongoing efforts to implement an effective ballast water
management regime for the United States.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you have when
we are done. You asked for 5 minutes, and I kept it to three. I
have always wanted to say this, sir, I yield my 2 minutes to
the remaining panel members.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. We appreciate your keeping it to three, but
we are not going to let you yield those minutes to anybody
else.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Angelo.
Mr. Hogan?
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW HOGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Hogan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. I thank you for inviting the Department
of Interior to give you our comments on S. 525.
There is no question that the introduction and
establishment of aquatic invasive species have significantly
impacted our natural areas. The United States continues to see
an increase in the number of aquatic species crossing our
borders, and we expect these trends to continue if preventive
action is not taken. The Department supports the overall
direction of this bill and is encouraged by the leadership and
foresight shown by Congress in introducing legislation that is
so comprehensive.
One of the purposes of the original legislation 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 have
been instrumental in making significant progress to prevent and
control aquatic invasive species. While aquatic invasive
species continue to be a significant threat to our natural
resources, we believe our efforts to prevent and control them
has resulted in fewer species introduced and reduced impacts
for those that have become established.
I would like to take a moment to briefly address some of
our concerns with S. 525. Let me begin by saying that we
support reauthorization and look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, to address the Department's concerns. One
specific concern we have is the proposed deadlines required by
S. 525. 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.
We are encouraged to see that additional emphasis is being
placed on aquatic pathways other than ballast water. 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.
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 imported into the United States will be a
valuable tool to ensure that we are proactive in preventing the
introduction of new aquatic invasive species into U.S. waters.
However, we are concerned about the provisions that
delegate authority to screen species imported 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.
We are also concerned that the deadlines are
nondiscretionary and that we will not have adequate resources
to develop and implement the screening process to accomplish
these tasks within the stated deadlines. We have a few
technical corrections and would like to work with you to
address these issues.
Education and outreach continue to be critical elements to
the success of invasive species prevention and control. Within
the Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been actively
working for many years on the 100th Meridian Initiative to stop
the westward spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive
species. We support the proposed enhancement of these efforts
through increased and targeted outreach and education efforts.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for providing
the Department with an opportunity to comment on this important
legislation. As I stated earlier, we would be happy to work
with you and your staff to address issues related to deadlines
and implementation. We believe that the comprehensive approach
outlined in this legislation will result in a more balanced,
holistic effort to address the problems caused by aquatic
invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan. You did it
in three-and-a-half minutes. That is good.
Mr. Keeney?
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, U.S. NATIONAL OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Keeney. Good morning, Chairman Crapo and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am Tim Keeney, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and co-chair
of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. I certainly
appreciate the opportunity to present NOAA's views on S. 525.
Senator Levin's bill, Mr. Chairman, addresses some gaps in
our existing programs. NOAA strongly supports existing program
and reauthorization of the program. Nevertheless, we have
significant concerns with some provisions of the pending
legislation and I am happy to have my staff work with the
committee staff to address these concerns.
NOAA believes that some of the elements dealing with
ballast water need to be revised. Ultimately, there needs to be
a ballast water discharge standard based on sound science that
is biologically meaningful and enforceable. We do not believe
that the 95 percent kill or removal rate meets these criteria.
NOAA fully supports the provision which would allow approval of
experimental technologies for ballast water treatment, but
wonders if the intent of Congress was really for such authority
to expire after 18 months. NOAA believes that a provision for
on-board testing of promising technologies should remain in
place until final standards become effective.
We do not believe that having a rapid response contingency
plan as one of the components of State management plans should
be a prerequisite for receiving matching funds for rapid
response to serious invaders. If an invader presents a serious
enough threat to warrant a rapid response action, the response
should be made whether a State has developed a contingency plan
or not. Similarly, while any activities to improve early
detection should be encouraged, NOAA does not believe that an
early detection strategy should be a prerequisite for a rapid
response plan.
Recently, considerable attention has been given to the
economic difficulties facing State governments. The monitoring
necessary for an effective early detection strategy can be
quite costly. Such a provision actually may discourage States
from developing rapid response plans. The result could be a
situation of being unable to respond to a serious invasion
because a State does not have a monitoring program set up. NOAA
is providing funding during the current fiscal year to help
regional panels develop contingency plans for rapid response.
NOAA suggests that the Task Force, which includes the Coast
Guard, is the appropriate entity for approval of such plans.
It is important that management agencies are included in
this process, which would be accomplished by giving the Task
Force responsibility for formal approval. NOAA supports the
increasing emphasis on research in the bill, as virtually every
activity from prevention to control to restoration needs, to
have a scientific underpinning.
Despite significant advances, there are still areas in
which our knowledge is seriously deficient. 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 baselines so
that we know when a serious new invader has been introduced.
Both the Task Force and NOAA have taken first steps to correct
the deficiencies in monitoring. We are pleased that the bill
would take further steps by requiring the development of
protocols in setting up a monitoring standard.
Second, our scientific knowledge of control methods in
aquatic environments is still in its infancy and control in
aquatic ecosystems presents unique problems. It is much more
difficult to localize biocide applications in the aquatic
environment because water transports chemicals so readily. We
have just begun to look at bio-control agents and some
promising early results with a pathogen that could be used for
zebra mussel control and may be species-specific.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on
behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. That concludes
my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Mehan?
STATEMENT OF G. TRACY MEHAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Mehan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am Tracy Mehan, Assistant Administrator for Water
at EPA. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 525.
This is a great day, as somebody who has been laboring as a
State official on this issue for a decade or so. It is really
wonderful to have this hearing and put the spotlight on an
issue which most biologists and ecologists would say is second
only to habitat loss. I would go so far as to say that at least
in the Great Lakes ecosystem, one I am very familiar with, that
it is probably the paramount threat to the integrity of the
ecosystem.
I will make some brief remarks, pretty much echoing a lot
of the technical comments of my colleagues today. I would ask
that my full written statement be entered into the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection. The testimony of all
witnesses today will be put into the record.
Mr. Mehan. Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act states
that the objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. The fact is, 31 years after the passage of the Clean
Water Act, most of our focus, at least at EPA, has been on the
chemical impacts on the aquatic ecosystems. That is still
important and will continue to be, but we are clearly now in
the 21st century at a point where biology has to come forward,
and certainly as a priority as it relates to aquatic nuisance
species.
Again, as Senator Voinovich noted, in the Great Lakes
ecosystem we have somewhere between 135 and probably close to
160 exotics that were not in the system last century, primarily
due to ballast water discharges. It is not uncommon in that
region to hear academic scholars use the phrase ``invasional
meltdown'' to describe what has been going on there with all
the introductions.
EPA has been working in a number of areas to try and
address invasive species, from research and monitoring to
assisting in the development of the ballast water standards.
These kinds of regulatory actions are things we obviously have
a lot of experience in, whether it is on benefit-cost analysis
or just the intricacies of the Administrative Procedures Act.
We appreciate that the bill recognizes EPA's role in addressing
invasive species. We recognize the hard work that has gone into
the bill, commend the authors, and look forward to working on a
technical level to deal with some of the concerns we have that
are identical to those that my colleagues have outlined today.
Again, we share the concerns about the 95 percent interim
standard. I personally have spoken to the Chairman of the
International Joint Commission, who of course is interested in
the Great Lakes as he works to implement the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909. He shares our concerns that we are really going
to need something much more geared to the science that is going
to actually deal with specific organisms. The broad-brush
approach to a standard is not going to really solve the
problem. Again, we are more than willing to put our technical
expertise into the mix of other expertise here today to try and
work through these issues.
We also echo the concerns regarding the sheer number of
activities required by the bill over the next 3 years. While it
is not quite the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, they are
pretty daunting, at least from the perspective of our program
which has experienced a 32 percent reduction in funding for
core programs over the last 5 years.
The bill provides for sediment management in trans-oceanic
vessels, which is very important as it relates to the NOBOB
issue, which was brought up by Mr. Hill. Again, we think this
is necessary, but it is not sufficient to deal with NOBOB. Just
so I can emphasize that point again with respect to the great
closed system of the Great Lakes, I have heard figures as high
as 85 percent from various Coast Guard spokespersons as to the
number of vessels coming into the Great Lakes that are not
carrying ballast water.
They are essentially NOBOB, which means there is this layer
of sediment in which aquatic nuisance species are in-dwelling
and as water is taken on within the Great Lakes and then it is
re-discharged, we have got an introduction. The rate of
introduction today into the Great Lakes is the same as it was
before the Ballast Water Exchange Program was put in place. So
clearly NOBOB is a serious question as it relates to the Great
Lakes, and for that matter, all ecosystems which are exposed to
these discharges. So again, we look forward to working on that
crucial issue.
Last, we are concerned that the research required in the
bill is too prescriptive, and we would love to bring in our
colleagues at EPA from the Office of Research and Development
to work on that.
I am going to conclude with just a quote from a towering
figure in Great Lakes policy and Michigan conservation, Dr.
William Cooper, a former member of EPA's Science Advisory
Board, Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Michigan State
University, who made this provocative statement not too long
ago: ``If one wished to allocate scarce monetary and human
resources so as to maximize the reduction in ecological risk
per unit resource expended, one would do more good by
regulating and/or limiting the introductions of exotics than by
obtaining marginal reductions in trace levels of existing
toxicants.''
I do not offer that statement to prove the truth of the
matter asserted, but I think he does present a challenging
statement as to how biology is coming up on the agenda of
issues pertaining to protecting our ecosystems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Mehan.
I commend the entire panel, all of you, for keeping your
testimony within the limits and saving us a few minutes along
the way.
Mr. Mehan, I would like to begin my questioning with you.
You indicated something that I had not thought of in that
context, and I am not going to quote you directly here, I would
like you to flesh out your thought. You indicated that you
thought this issue of invasive species was second only to
habitat loss as a threat to our ecosystems in the country.
Could you explain that?
Mr. Mehan. Again, I consider myself a layperson in terms of
the science of this, having degrees in law and history. But
every scientist, every ecologist, every biologist that I have
talked to for at least the last decade or more continually
comes back to the destabilizing impact that these
introductions, these exotics, if you will, aquatic nuisance
species, terrestrial species, have, whether it is destroying
native populations, out-competing native populations,
disrupting natural flow regimes in a more arid climate if you
are talking terrestrial species.
There is just no good that comes of these things. And these
ecosystems have evolved over millennium, if not millions of
years, and the whole system becomes disrupted at a foundational
level. Therefore, a lot of things stem from this. Senator
Voinovich talked about the possible tie-in to zebra mussels in
the hypoxia areas in Lake Erie. In Grand Traverse Bay in
Michigan, we are creating a biological desert there because of
this substratum of zebra mussels.
We would not have a Great Lakes fishery today without the
millions if not billions of dollars that have been spent by the
U.S. and Canada just controlling sea lampreys, which did not
come in through ballast water, but through the Welland Canal.
Again, without that foundation program, a huge investment
annually run through the State Department's budget and the
Canadian counterpart budget, we just would not have any fishery
system at all.
So whether it is the zebra mussel or the sea lamprey, what
we are seeing now, say, with the melaleuca in the Everglades,
the tamarisk in Colorado; one threat after another is just
presenting colossal challenges to the integrity of our
ecosystems.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Do the other members of the panel agree with that
perspective?
Ms. Williams. Yes, I would agree with that. I just wanted
to add one variation on it, that invasive species have been
documented as the second-leading cause of species being listed
as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act,
after habitat loss. So that would support what he is saying.
Also, when we talked about tamarisk, the water regime, it takes
a lot of water out of the system. That also changes the whole
ecology of the area. So there are quite a few examples of these
species having broad impact across the ecosystems.
Senator Crapo. I think that perspective is a very important
perspective and one that we need to make certain is understood
by the public as we address this issue. It is one that I do not
think is being focused on that closely in the United States
right now, at least in terms of the public perception of the
kinds of issues that we are dealing with in terms of our
ecosystems, our environment, and the protection of species.
An issue that I suspect will be raised by at least some of
the next panel is how do we determine what is a good or a bad
invasive species? I mean, there are some species that are being
introduced on purpose in certain circumstances, or in the past
have been. In fact, a question has been raised in some of the
papers that I have read about the rainbow trout, which we love
to fish for out in the West where I come from. In certain
places, that could be considered an introduced or an invasive
species.
How do we approach this question of defining what it is
that we are seeking to eradicate or to prevent?
Ms. Williams?
Ms. Williams. I will tackle that in terms of the definition
in the Executive Order. One of the things I always talk about
is you need to give your definition of ``invasive species''
when you start talking about it, because there is a variation
in how people talk about invasive species. The way that the
Federal Government defines ``invasive species'' in the
Executive Order is to say the species has to be both alien to
the ecosystem or region under consideration, and harmful to the
economy, the environment, or to animal or human health.
There is some subjectivity in that definition. Invasive
species are not necessarily regulated just because they are
called or determined to be harmful and invasive species. They
also have to be regulated under specific statutes in the
Federal Government. So there is no master list of invasive
species that we have compiled, nor do I think that would be
wise or appropriate because it does change and it does vary. An
invasive species in Florida may not be invasive in another
region of the country or Alaska or whatever. So you do have to
look at the particular area involved to determine if it is a
problem.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
My time has expired, so if you had a comment that you
wanted to make on this, hold it, because we are going to come
back and do another round here and I will come back to this.
Senator Allard, would you like to go ahead?
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems like the general concern for many members on this
panel at least is the requirement in the bill that there are 31
separate actions, each with deadlines that must be completed by
members of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force within 18
months of passage. Do you feel like you could prioritize these
actions for the committee, and determine which ones are the
best and which ones are least important in your mind? And if
you could share those now, or if you can't, perhaps make those
available to the committee?
Mr. Keeney. Certainly. We at Commerce would be more than
willing to work with your committee and committee staff to
provide that priority.
Senator Allard. Yes, but I am not asking that you work with
us. I want to know what your priorities are for the members of
this panel. So I don't think our committee staff should be a
part of that. They are not part of the Council. What I want to
know is what your priorities are, and the Council needs to come
up and provide those priorities to this committee.
Mr. Keeney. I will provide that for the record.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Hogan. Senator, we would be glad to do the same thing.
Just a couple of comments, I think those activities associated
with screening and prevention would be right at the top of the
list, and then certainly early detection and rapid response.
But we would be happy to provide a more detailed list to the
committee and to you.
Senator Allard. What we struggle with in this committee is
then what, and again, your comments tend to be kind of general.
We need to have some specifics on GPRA, you know, the
Government Procedures and Results Act where we get measurable
ways to quantify things so that we can measure them so we can
measure results. I am of the view, and I think maybe other
members of this committee, we do not necessarily want to get
into the day-to-day operations, but we want to see results.
If you can reduce the mussel population in the Great Lakes
by 10 percent in 5 years, that is a measurable quantity, maybe,
if you can figure out how to measure the number of mussels in
the lake. Those kind of things are helpful. I know what the
bill sponsor is trying to do. He is trying to fix up some
measurable goals there, and if you think these are too tight,
maybe some of them need to be dropped, and if we know where the
priorities are and where they are not, then that helps us
determine where to focus your attention to get the best
results.
Ms. Williams. Senator, the Council would be willing to help
coordinate the priorities of the different agencies and work
with everyone here and provide to the committee.
Senator Allard. Let me bring up another concern if I have
time here. Some people are concerned about an apparent
multiplicity of reporting requirements. These people allege
that each report will require a significant commitment of
resources that could actually inhibit implementation of
activities. NOAA recommends that there be a single reporting
requirement and the committee identified elements to be
included in the report. I am wondering if I can have a comment
from each of you. I don't know if we need a comment from Mr.
Keeney, but from the rest of you on the panel here. Do you have
any thoughts on this suggestion?
Mr. Hogan. Senator, I will take the first crack at that. I
think that makes eminent sense and we would be glad to fall in
line with that if other folks were agreeable as well.
Ms. Williams. I would agree.
Senator Allard. Everybody? All right.
Third question, this legislation requires that each State
have a rapid response contingency plan. If the Federal
Government requires such a plan, how can we ensure that all
ships that discharge ballast waters are aware of each State's
plan?
Mr. Keeney. Senator, I might say first of all that each
State is working on a management plan, and NOAA is working
closely with them to assist them in putting those plans
together. We also have regional panels. I think we have a total
of five of them, all of which have State leadership that run
those panels. The States have embraced a Federal coordinating
role to assist them to come up with adequate and appropriate
response plans.
Senator Allard. So how do you inform these ships that are
coming in? As a veterinarian, we write health certificates. We
get a booklet with all the States' requirements on health
certificates and whatnot. So are you planning on making these
available to the shipping companies so that they know what
these requirements are? How do you make that available? They
are foreign as well as native?
Mr. Mehan. If I might just take a shot at that. Obviously,
the details of that need to be worked out collaboratively, but
I think certainly again, speaking about an ecosystem I have
some familiarity with, every ship that comes into the Great
Lakes comes through Messina, New York and the Coast Guard jumps
on that ship and checks out its salinity levels and does all
sorts of things. So at least for that region, that eight-State
region, I think it is pretty clear you can control it. I think
posting things on a Web site, providing things in a manual. I
think with the information technologies available, that is
doable.
The question will be more what is the content of the rapid
response plans and what is their role. A lot of this will get
down to site-specific areas, what ports are you talking about,
and where and under what circumstances do the protocols allow a
discharge or not.
So I think it is a solvable problem, but it will take some
puzzling out of the details to make it efficient and not a
burdensome requirement.
Senator Allard. Yes?
Mr. Angelo. If I might just add one comment here, Senator.
You focused on the States' response plans. Where we see the
bigger emphasis with the international shipping community would
be through the prevention side. We believe that by making sure
that the shipping that comes to the United States is complying
from a prevention standpoint, that would significantly diminish
the need for anything in the response area. Once it is in the
water, there is little the ship can do itself. It then turns
into a response between the Federal Government and the States.
But if we focus on the prevention side, we think we can have a
bigger bang for our buck there.
Mr. Keeney. Just to follow up what was just stated by the
Coast Guard, NOAA opposed the rapid response plans for ships in
our testimony.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I would like to go back to the discussion we were having
about the definition of ``invasive species.'' I think it was
you, Ms. Williams, that mentioned that as part of the
definition you looked to whether or not the species was alien
to the region, and I think you said harmful to the economy or
the environment. We have been focusing on a lot of those
species that are coming in through ballast waters, but as I
mentioned in my statement, one of the concerns that we have in
Alaska right now is the farm salmon that are coming out of
British Columbia or coming out of the State of Washington, and
are essentially being found as far north as the Bering Sea.
We view this as increased competition, then, with our wild
salmon for prey, for habitat, for predation. We view this as a
significant threat to our wild stocks. Certainly our fishermen
are feeling the economic pinch, if you will, as a consequence
of these farmed fish.
Is it your opinion that if we are talking about a plan of
attack for invasive species, that farmed salmon versus the wild
stocks, that that would be part of your plan?
Ms. Williams. You would certainly want to address that one
of the possible pathways for invasive species is farmed fish or
aquaculture. It does have to be looked at in terms of not only
the economic value of that industry. Aquaculture also is a very
important industry, but what affects if these fish are escaping
is it having on other regions?
One of the things we have looked at, actually GAO made this
recommendation as well, is getting better economic impact data.
Besides one very large study from Cornell, which everyone
quotes, there is not a lot of good data on what the impact of
some of these species are on the economy broadly, especially in
certain regions. So we are looking to enhance that throughout
the Council, getting better economic impact data.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Keeney or Mr. Hogan, do you have any
additional comments?
Mr. Keeney. Senator Murkowski, NOAA's Northwest Fisheries
Science Center and our Fisheries Science Lab in Manchester,
Washington have been analyzing the impacts with regards to
aquaculture and bringing foreign salmon into an ecosystem, and
also the potential of introducing diseases along with those
salmon. With NOAA moneys, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission is sponsoring a workshop this fall of 2003 to bring
together commercial fishermen and those in the aquaculture
industry together to assess the extent of problems and
potential solutions for those problems.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Hogan?
Mr. Hogan. Senator, I guess I would just add that I agree
with what Lori Williams said, that definitely there is a need
to get more economic data and find out exactly what impact
these species are having. I think you raise an excellent point,
and it relates to your point, Senator Crapo. Some of these
species were introduced with the best of intentions, in some
cases mistakenly and in some cases on purpose, and it is not
until later that we have found that they have a detrimental
impact. One of the provisions in the bill actually moves us
toward a more proactive approach where we would do some initial
screening before the species was imported, rather than having
to deal with it once it has already been introduced and
established, and oftentimes when it is too late to completely
control or eradicate it.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate your responses.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords, do you have any questions?
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Hogan, you say in your testimony that
the nature of the Lacey Act makes your actions more reactive
than proactive. While the screening process proposed in S. 525
is proactive, would you give us some suggestions and other
ideas that we might want to apply to the Lacey Act to make it
more proactive?
Mr. Hogan. Senator, when you talk about opening the Lacey
Act, it comes with a potential host of problems. We would
rather suggest to you for your consideration some additional
legislative remedies outside of the Lacey Act that could be
used to make our screening more proactive, while not
necessarily approaching it through the Lacey Act. I would be
happy to provide those details to you for the record following
this meeting, with some specific ideas.
Senator Jeffords. S. 525 shifts the Federal agencies' focus
from reacting to new invasions to a more preventive strategy
where our policy will be to stop invasions before they happen.
Could the witnesses comment generally on that strategy? Is it
wise to focus our resources on more preventive efforts?
Mr. Mehan. Senator, I would be happy to take a shot at
that.
Senator Jeffords. Go ahead, Mr. Mehan.
Mr. Mehan. Let's take the zebra mussel as a case in point.
Millions of dollars have been spent by researchers examining
its impacts, but the fact is we really do not have any way to
deal with it. We are coping with it. I wanted to engage with
Senator Allard a bit, we are not going to reduce that biomass.
It is here to stay and the system is adapting and coping with
it. So it seems to me, again using the Great Lakes as an
example, there are predictions of 16 or 17 more introductions
coming from places like the Caspian Sea by way of ballast
water. I think our energies are much more prudently directed
toward preventing new introductions.
Coping is always something we have to do, but it is exactly
that, coping. Whether we really can put the genie back in the
bottle, I think is doubtful in many cases. Maybe on a smaller
watershed basis you might be able to control terrestrial
species or maybe use biocides to beat back something to allow
native species to come back, but in terms of a large system
like the Great Lakes, prevention is the only way to go.
Mr. Angelo. From the Coast Guard's perspective, we fully
support the emphasis on prevention. We think that is the proper
action to be taking and that is the program that we are trying
to put in place right now.
Ms. Williams. Under the plan, we talk about prevention as
the first line of defense. Obviously, some things get through,
and having some capability for early detection and rapid
response is really a responsible way to go. Also, prevention is
the largest responsibility for the Federal Government. Often
when these species become established, it does tend to fall to
the States and these tremendous control costs tend to fall to
the States to deal with these species. So it really makes the
Federal responsibility under prevention all that more
important. But I would not want to ignore early detection rapid
response where it is possible. In the aquatic area, it is very,
very difficult.
Mr. Keeney. I would just like to say in response again to
the principle that was originally asked about the importance of
these invasive species, the fact of the matter is that once
non-indigenous species are established in an ecosystem, that
ecosystem changes forever. You can never get back to where you
were before the species was introduced. That is an important
concept, because if you are talking about investing dollars,
the best return on the investment is from prevention to begin
with. Early detection rapid response and other control
mechanisms are important parts of the equation, but prevention
is where you get your most bang for the buck.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Angelo, the International Maritime
Organization, IMO, is currently debating many of the same
issues that are before us here in S. 525. Can you please
describe the United States' position on ballast water standards
during these negotiations? Are we pursuing a strategy that will
lead to a strong domestic program?
Mr. Angelo. Senator, I would say that the United States is
taking the leadership role in the International Maritime
Organization in developing a worldwide international treaty on
ballast water management. From our perspective, there are four
key elements to this treaty. We believe that the treaty must
have a ballast water treatment standard. We believe that there
must be mandatory ballast water exchange. And to bridge the
two, we believe the treaty must also have provisions for
allowing experimental technologies to develop so we can
progress from ballast water exchange to a very rigorous
treatment.
The fourth element, Senator, is perhaps the most important
from the United States' perspective. That is that we believe
the treaty should also have the provision that allows any
country, including the United States, to take any additional
measures it needs to take above and beyond the treaty to
protect its waters. As of right now, the latest draft of this
instrument contains provisions, all four of those provisions
that I have just mentioned.
It will be our approach as we go through the negotiations,
which will be at the upcoming Marine Environmental Protection
Committee meeting in July, to make sure that those provisions
are retained in the convention. And then when we go forward
hopefully to an international conference sometime early next
year, to make sure that they are retained in the outcome of the
conference. If they are not, then we would have serious
reservations about whether we want to have the United States
even become party to that instrument, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I hope you will keep us
apprised as you go along to make sure that we are aware of any
problems that you can alert us to.
Mr. Angelo. Yes, we will, sir.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator.
Before we go to the next panel, I just wanted to come back
and see if anybody had any further comments on the line of
questioning I was pursuing, which was this notion of how do we
define what is an invasive species and what is not in the
context of the nature of this threat to our ecosystem. Anybody
want to elaborate on that, or shall we go on?
Mr. Keeney?
Mr. Keeney. Thank you. Some of the points have already been
made with regards to the need for initial screening. I think
that research is another important element here with regards to
the potential impact of the species. The alewife, for instance,
is a species introduced into the Great Lakes, which actually
seems to have a positive effect because, again, the ecosystem
has changed. The alewife has now become a valuable part of the
ecosystem.
But I think we also need to focus on the prevention
element; the fact that we need to look at vectors that are
bringing these species in. That is about it.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Mehan?
Mr. Mehan. It is interesting talking about the alewife.
Then the salmon were brought in to control the alewife. So the
problem is that we are doomed to play God; that the systems
have been so altered in many cases that we even when we don't
want to allow these introductions, we have to deal with them.
For instance, I know in the upper Midwest, they are looking at
an exotic beetle to control purple loosestrife, so there are
some bio-control efforts.
So the question comes down to, is it an intended or
unintended introduction? A lot of these problems, as we have
noted earlier, are due to unintended introductions. So I think
you start with some presumptions, and the presumption is
against introducing an exotic or non-native species. But based
on where the science is and how it progresses, we are looking
at a non-native oyster in Chesapeake Bay and waiting for an NAS
report on that. We may make prudential judgments that an
introduction is worth the risk. But again, I think you have to
start with a presumption that it is a very dicey proposition
whenever you are introducing or allowing to be introduced a
non-native species.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
As I wrap up, I just had one other question to ask, and it
kind of springs from the point made by Ms. Williams. I want to
be sure I understood you correctly. Did you say that the
second-leading cause of threatening species and leading to
endangered species is invasive species?
Ms. Williams. Under the Endangered Species Act, what they
found is the second-leading threat; they list species and then
they say these are the threats to these species. To endangered
species, after habitat loss, causing them to be listed as
endangered or threatened, are invasive species. So they are
getting preyed on or crowded out or they are having some effect
that is leading them to be leading them to be listed as
endangered or threatened.
Senator Crapo. OK. I think that is a very remarkable piece
of information. It tells us a lot about what we are dealing
with here.
The last question I had is, and this is just for
clarification in terms of the relationship between the invasive
species statutes and the Endangered Species Act, is I am
assuming that a non-indigenous invasive species cannot become
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Am I
correct?
Ms. Williams. I know of no case. I think they kind of are
opposite ends of the spectrum. What you have is an invasive
species is partly invasive because its populations are either
exploding or way beyond what would be normally expected. So
that would be counter to the fact that that would usually cause
an endangered species to be listed, but I will let the Fish and
Wildlife Service respond.
Mr. Hogan. That is correct, Senator. It does not have to be
a native species in order to be listed.
Senator Crapo. How far back do we go to define ``native''?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hogan. Now you are getting into a little bit more
difficult area. That is a good question and I don't know that I
am really equipped to answer it right now, but I would be glad
to provide that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Question. Would the Fish and Wildlife Service ever list a
non-indigenous invasive species under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA)?
Response. Although the ESA provides for the protection of
any species, both foreign and domestic, except for insect pests
that pose a significant threat to humans, it is unlikely that
the Service would ever list a non-indigenous invasive species.
Invasive species by their very nature are not likely to become
threatened or endangered, and therefore to require protection
under the ESA. Invasive species generally are successful
competitors for resources and adaptable to a variety of
habitats, including those that have been significantly modified
by humans for agriculture or other purposes. Typically, species
that qualify for listing under the ESA have restricted habitat
requirements, are intolerant of human presence and activities,
or may be out-competed by other species, although other factors
may contribute to a listing
Senator Crapo. Any help you can give on that would be
appreciated. I think that it is an intuitive answer, but I
would like to be sure that it is correct.
I would like to thank this panel for your participation and
the information you have provided. You are excused and we will
move on to our fourth panel. We invite our fourth panel to come
forward.
Our fourth panel is composed of Mr. Jim Beers, the Science
Advisor to the American Land Rights Association; Mr. Sebastian
Hargrove, the Government Relations Associate from the Nature
Conservancy of Idaho; Mr. Michael Hauser, the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Specialist from the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation; and Mr. James Weakley, the President of Lake
Carriers' Association.
Gentlemen, as you are taking your seats, I would like to
remind you also to try to pay attention to that clock and the
5-minute rule so we will have time for some interaction. I
appreciate your appearance today to present your testimony on
this issue.
Mr. Beers, as soon as you are ready, we will start with
you.
STATEMENT OF JIM BEERS, SCIENCE ADVISOR, THE AMERICAN LAND
RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Beers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify at your hearing today. I represent the American Land
Rights Association, an organization of small property owners in
all 50 States. I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for 30 years in four States and Washington, DC. I was a
wildlife biologist, special agent, and refuge manager.
I have enforced injurious wildlife regulations,
investigated endangered species cases both here and in Europe.
I worked on invasive species control programs for nutria and
purple loosestrife, attended U.N. wildlife conferences, and
represented State wildlife agencies fighting a threatened
European fur embargo. I currently write and speak extensively
about both endangered and invasive species.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is based
on erroneous assumptions. Briefly, it is wrong to characterize
all recently arrived plants and animals as having only
exaggerated bad effects and reducing biodiversity. This striped
bass right here is an invasive species in numerous lakes,
rivers and reservoirs across the Nation, as well as in West
Coast estuaries. This rainbow trout is another invasive species
in lakes, rivers and reservoirs throughout the United States.
Fishing license money, State fishery management staffs,
charter boat revenues, and boating equipment sales, fishing
tackle sales, tourist revenues, annual sport fish restoration
dollars in the millions, taxidermy business, as well as
millions of hours of family recreation and many fine meals will
all be reduced under this legislation.
These fish are typical of many desirable invasive plants
and animals that increase biodiversity while benefiting us all.
It is wrong to infer a Federal concern for plants and animals
outside the historic range of the species of which the organism
is a member. This applies directly to these two fish that have
been widely and purposely introduced for the many direct and
indirect benefits to citizens and aquatic habitats that they
create.
What does historic range mean? When Asians arrived 10,000
years ago, when Columbus arrived, when the Constitution was
signed? Camels, horses and elephants once thrived here. Are
they native or invasive species? It is wrong to define Federal
aquatic authority as including estuarine and inland waters and
wetlands. These waters are nearly all under State jurisdiction.
Given the current court case involving a decade-long dumping of
toxic sludge by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
through a national park under an EPA permit reviewed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on a spawning grounds of endangered shortnose
sturgeon in the Potomac River as it passes Washington, DC, it
does not appear prudent to expand Federal authority in this
manner.
It is wrong to infer Federal jurisdiction over invasive
species and non-indigenous species that may cause harm, so
broadly defined as to permit any biological competition or
increase in biodiversity to be declared harmful. These two
fish, for instance, eat other fish and compete with yet others
for space and good.
It is wrong to claim authority over any fundamental
category of taxonomic classification below a genus or subgenus.
This enshrines the unwritten Endangered Species Act principle
that authorizes all manner of Federal intervention to the
smallest flock, school or stand of any species. This has caused
increasing friction with property owners and many others as the
level of Federal concern descended below that of species to
races, varieties, distinct populations and even beyond.
Using the need for the Federal Government to regulate
ballast water, a penumbra of Federal authorities and tasks are
being created to mimic the Endangered Species Act. That Act has
caused havoc with much more than property rights, and has gone
unauthorized for 15 years while its reach and annual
appropriations continue to grow. The authority to manage,
control and eradicate plants and animals is one of those powers
reserved to the States in the 10th Amendment.
The Federal Government is responsible for the management of
the import, export, interstate and foreign aspects of these
matters. It is proper that the Federal Government ensures clean
ballast water discharges, manages imports and exports, and
cooperates with State governments in the management, control,
and eradication of harmful plants and animals regardless of
their origins or arrival dates.
The American Land Rights Association joins with all
citizens concerned about the loss of not only land property
rights, but also the rights of fish owners, aquarium hobbyists,
florists, gardeners, landscapers, boaters, horseback riders,
pet owners, hikers, trappers, duck hunters, fishermen and
scores of others whose property rights, outdoor activities,
property rights held in trust by State governments, and public
land access are directly threatened by this proposed expansion
of Federal authority and diminishment of State authority over
aquatic habitats.
The task being proposed, encouragement of native species,
is not desirable, not beneficial, not achievable, not
measurable, never-ending, and a public expense beyond
comprehension.
Please consider a revised bill that controls ballast water
discharge, controls harmful aquatic plants and animals on the
Federal estate, and cooperates with the States to fulfill the
fish, wildlife and plant responsibilities assigned them in the
Constitution. Otherwise, S. 525 will, like the Endangered
Species Act, radically modify our basic freedoms, while
enriching only Federal bureaucracies, universities, and the
agendas of environmental and animal rights organizations.
One last observation. The bill's proposed whitelist
approach in Section 1105 for controlling imports is fraught
with pitfalls. It is causing problems in Australia and had it
been in effect here 200 years ago, we would not now have brown
trout, tulips, Holsteins, or even house cats here today.
Definitions like ``organism'' and ``trade'' in Section 1003,
which does not even mention ``aquatic,'' appear designed to
stop all trade in plants and animals. Including, quote,
``aesthetic degradations'' in Section 1003 has an undesirable
impact and likewise seems designed to maximize serious
mischief.
The authority given an agency director in Section
1105(d)(2) exceeds authorities formerly reserved only for
secretaries. Assigning penalties of a class C felony, 10 to 25
years, as in Section 1105, especially for violating, quote,
``regulation'' in Section 1101 that have not even been drafted,
suggests agendas one could only speculate about.
Five minutes is not enough time for me to explain this, but
I would offer to point out there is a better approach that does
not impair the trade and freedoms we cherish, while minimizing
future harmful U.N. controls which are likely with invasive
species, as they have been with endangered species under CITES.
Thank you. I am ready to answer any questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Beers.
Mr. Hargrove? We welcome you here from Idaho.
STATEMENT OF SEBASTIAN HARGROVE, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
ASSOCIATE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF IDAHO
Mr. Hargrove. Thank you, Chairman Crapo and Senator
Jeffords, for the opportunity to be here today and speak in
support of S. 525. I am appearing here today on behalf of the
Nature Conservancy and as a concerned citizen of Idaho.
I will cover two major points in my comments today. First,
aquatic invasive species are a major threat to the Nation's
economy and environment, including the inland West; and second,
S. 525 is an effective tool for addressing the threat.
To illustrate the immediacy of the danger of non-native
aquatic invasive species, I would like to recount what happened
in Spokane, Washington 2 years ago yesterday, on June 16, 2001.
On that mild June day, a trailered 40-foot sailboat en route
from the Great Lakes to Seattle pulled into the Washington
port-of-entry on Interstate 90 a few miles west of the Idaho
border. State inspectors, alerted to the danger of aquatic
invaders, examined the boat closely. What they found were live
zebra mussels encrusted on the rudder flaps and the screens and
the cooling system of that boat.
We have heard many people talk about what a scourge zebra
mussels are in the Great Lakes and Eastern watersheds. So far
as we know, they have not arrived in the West yet. Officials
quarantined and cleaned the boat before allowing it to enter
Washington waters.
I think this story really illustrates two key points.
First, aquatic invaders are not only a problem for the coastal
and Great Lakes States. The waters in the inland West are at
risk from zebra mussels and a host of other aquatic invaders.
Second, the modest investment that Washington State made in
training its employees to prevent aquatic invaders paid big
dividends in that one find that they had there. But
Washington's prevention program is really the exception, rather
than the rule. We can only assume that no inspectors in other
States found these zebra mussels as that boat traveled west
across the northern tier of the U.S. In fact, if the boat had
put into Lake Coeur d'Alene or Payette Lake in Idaho, we could
have zebra mussels established in the Upper Columbia River
basin, with potentially devastating impacts to irrigation,
hydropower and recreation.
This story is not an isolated example of the risks these
invaders pose. Idaho communities already spend $250,000 a year
controlling Eurasian water milfoil in some of Idaho's most
important recreational waters, as you alluded to earlier,
Senator Crapo, including Payette and Hayden Lakes. This fast-
growing weed is really choking our shorelines and it is
spreading fast.
You might also be surprised to learn, although Senator
Crapo also talked about this, that the first known infestation
of New Zealand mudsnails occurred not at one of our major port
cities, but in the Snake River, hundreds of miles from the
coast, near Hagerman, Idaho. These invasive mollusks grow in
dense colonies. They have now spread up the Snake River into
the Madison in Yellowstone Park, with unknown consequences for
our native fish populations.
The danger is clear. We need to get prepared, and NAISA is
an essential step in that direction. It will provide critical
tools for States like Idaho and their partners in the battle to
manage aquatic invasives. It is particularly noteworthy that S.
525 adopts the most cost-effective approach by focusing on
prevention, early detection and rapid response, areas where we
all need to improve. The bill will cover all waters of the
U.S., including inland lakes and streams. Critical elements
from our perspective include grants for State management plans,
prevention of introduction by vessels and other pathways, early
detection and rapid response funding, and education and
outreach. Those are some of the keys.
Passage of NAISA will provide important financial and
technical help to States such as Idaho that are just beginning
to address aquatic invaders. Like many States, we have
established an invasive species council that will address or
deal with all the whole spectrum of invasive species, but we
need more help. We need strengthened leadership. We need better
coordination and we need more resources.
This bill goes a long way to providing the tools that
States need, but the Conservancy would be pleased to work with
the committee to strengthen the provisions dealing with inland
States even more.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have provided
additional comments in my written testimony, and would be happy
to take any questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Hargrove.
Mr. Hauser?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HAUSER, AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES
SPECIALIST, VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Mr. Hauser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Jeffords,
for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I am here on
behalf of the State of Vermont in support of this bill.
I consider myself fortunate to live and work in Vermont, a
small State, but with a tremendous reputation for its natural
beauty, environmental integrity and recreational opportunities.
Unfortunately, these qualities are threatened by a large and
very real problem, the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species. The zebra mussel, water chestnut, Eurasian
water milfoil, shown here on my left, and purple loosestrife,
among others, have significant negative economic and ecological
impacts.
More than $2 million of local, State and Federal funds are
spent annually in Vermont to manage and prevent the spread of
these species. More than one-quarter of this goes to the water
chestnut management program on southern Lake Champlain. There
is another photo here that you will see shortly that shows
that. These totals do not include the costs associated with the
degradation of the environment, reduction of lakeshore property
values, or the protection of boats, water intake systems, or
other infrastructure.
There are currently four staff positions within the
Department of Environment and Conservation dedicated to the
management of aquatic invasive species. It is fair to say we
cannot keep up. Aquatic invaders continue to displace native
species, impede boating, fishing and swimming, and strain State
and local budgets.
Despite these problems, Vermont and the other Northeastern
States are relatively fortunate to have had only a fraction of
the non-native species introductions experienced in other parts
of the country. We must seize this opportunity to prevent more
invasive aquatic species from coming our way, and they are
coming. The round goby, the Asian carp, Eurasian ruffe, quagga
mussel, spiny water flea are all non-native species that have
proven to be extremely invasive in other regions of this
country, and are poised to enter water systems of the
Northeast. It is imperative that we prevent this from
happening, and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act can
help.
As you well know, invasive species do not recognize
political boundaries. We in Vermont cannot expect an invasive
species to stop at our border, and experience tells us we
cannot wait for it to cross the border before we take action.
By then it is too late. We must work with other States
throughout the region to build a unified defense.
The National Invasive Species Act is helping us do this
through its authorization and funding of the Northeast Aquatic
Nuisance Species Panel. This panel, which includes
representatives from all the New England States, New York and
Canada, meets regularly to coordinate aquatic nuisance species
spread prevention and management efforts throughout the region.
S. 525 would ensure the continuation of the critical work of
this panel, as well as that of the other panels representing
regions throughout this country.
Provisions of this bill that prevent new introductions of
potentially invasive species to this country will have perhaps
the greatest long-term benefit for Vermont. For example,
although Vermont does not have significant issues directly
related to ballast water dumping, it is vulnerable to non-
native species introduced to the Great Lakes via ballast water.
Lake Champlain along Vermont's western border is directly
connected to the Great Lakes by several canal systems. The
zebra mussel used these routes to enter Lake Champlain from the
Great Lakes in 1993.
Other provisions of this bill would facilitate the transfer
of knowledge gained from the dispersal barrier deployed on the
Chicago River ship and sanitary canal to other canal systems
throughout the country, including those mentioned before. We
welcome this. Authorized and funded under the National Invasive
Species Act, the Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plan has enabled many significant accomplishments in
the fight against aquatic invaders in the Lake Champlain basin
of Vermont and New York, accomplishments too numerous to list
at this time.
While the continued development and approval of State and
interstate management plans is a positive contribution to the
nationwide effort to address invasive species, funding levels
for such plans have not grown for the last several years. This
has resulted in a smaller share for each State with an approved
plan. To be effective, the funding for State and interstate
plans must grow proportionate to the number of approved plans,
not get sliced into smaller and smaller portions. This bill
provides the funding authorization to enable this to happen,
provided of course the actual appropriations are equivalent.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the passage of S.
525 will greatly assist Vermont and I believe the Nation as a
whole in continuing to build on the substantial gains made
under the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 and that of the reauthorization of the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this
morning.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Hauser.
Mr. Weakley?
STATEMENT OF JAMES WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS'
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weakley. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
this legislation so crucial to both the maritime industry and
to the marine environment. We are generally supportive of S.
525.
The Lake Carriers' Association is a member of the Ballast
Water Coalition, although I do not testify on behalf of that
coalition today. I will focus on concerns of the shipping
industry.
The Lake Carriers' Association represents 11 American
corporations operating 57 vessels exclusively on the Great
Lakes. Foreign-flag operators move cargo into the region from
across the oceans. We do not. Our vessels typically move more
than 100 million tons of cargo each year. Those commodities
include iron ore for the steel industry, coal for power
generation, and limestone for the construction industry. As you
can see, tens of thousands of family sustaining jobs depend on
the efficient movement of cargo on the Great Lakes. We not only
earn our wages here, we relax along the shores and we drink
from the world's largest supply of fresh water. It is a place
we call home.
The Lake Carriers' Association has been leading efforts to
find an invasive species solution for more than a decade. In
partnership with government agencies, nongovernment agencies
and shippers, we have invested more than $4 million researching
this complex problem. The Lake Carriers' Association is
committed to finding a solution to the worldwide problem of
ballast water transport of non-indigenous species.
Upon learning of the discovery of the ruffe in the Duluth-
Superior harbor in the late 1980's, LCA produced the voluntary
ballast water management program. Deemed, quote, ``the cutting
edge of technology'' by the Fish and Wildlife Service, our
voluntary efforts have largely contained the ruffe. In
addition, we have installed other voluntary practices. These
practices represent our industry's commitment to slowing what
is inevitable, the migration of newly arrived exotic species.
For example, the ruffe has migrated along the southern shore of
Lake Superior of its own volition.
Therefore, we must focus our energies on prevention of new
exotics into the Lakes and all of the U.S. waterways. The
Lakes, like many waterways, are naturally connected, so absent
a natural predator any fish, insect or plant introduced into
one of the Great Lakes can and will migrate to the others. Like
it or not, the ruffe, zebra mussels and sea lamprey, to mention
a few, are here to stay.
I must emphasize that this issue is not limited to the
Great Lakes basin. The West Coast of the United States, Alaska
and the Chesapeake Bay have been significantly threatened and
remain vulnerable to new invasions. Vessels engaged in
international voyages and foreign-flag vessels sailing between
U.S. ports pose a risk to our ecosystems. Internationally, the
topic is being debated at the International Maritime
Organization. Much of that debate in the international
community seems to be focused on what the standard will be and
how it will be implemented.
In addition to prevention, there are several other themes
for addressing this issue: a clearly defined practical
treatment standard, a Federal solution with worldwide
application, a robust data collection and technological
research system, and the grandfathering of treatment systems
and vessels. I believe that the above approach will lead to a
variety of solutions. From a shipboard perspective, the
critical variables include the volume of ballast water, the
pumping rate, the length of the voyage, the time in port, trade
pattern, and vessel design. The complexity of these variables
make a single solution difficult, if not impossible.
Although we respect the role of the State governments, an
appropriate Federal solution would not only adequately address
this problem, it would save the States enforcement dollars.
This is exactly the type of problem that requires a regional
and therefore a Federal solution. Can you imagine the
complexities of trying to comply with different regulations
promulgated by the eight different States that share the Lakes?
I want to thank the committee for your commitment to
finding a solution to this problem, and conclude by saying that
we must recognize that those exotics that have established
themselves in the Great Lakes basin are now citizens in all but
name. Even the very sophisticated and very successful efforts
of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission have resulted in the
control, but not the elimination of the sea lamprey. Therefore,
our goal must be prevention. It must be prevention of
additional invasions via ballast water from ocean-going
vessels.
I thank you for your time.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Weakley.
Mr. Beers, I want to start with you. I think you raised
some very important issues relating to federalism, States'
rights, private property, sovereignty over water and questions
of the like. You indicated toward the end of your testimony
that a revised bill would be more preferable, one which focuses
specifically on ballast water discharge which controls harmful
aquatic plants and animals on the Federal property and
cooperates with States in their responsibilities over fish and
wildlife and plants.
Could you elaborate a little bit on that third part there,
the cooperating with the States? What types of activities there
do you think would be appropriate and helpful?
Mr. Beers. Recognizing that the States have constitutional
authority over the fish, wildlife and plants, and looking at
what is considered harmful or problematic in the environment
that a State has jurisdiction over. The Federal Government owns
property in some of those States and should I think agree with
the State on what is harmful or not harmful, and if not, deal
with them, but then work to manage, control or even eliminate
those species where appropriate, where the Federal jurisdiction
enters into the State.
There is also the role for national research like we used
to have land grant colleges for, and a lot of international and
import-export responsibilities of the Federal Government that
can be coordinated with the States overall to help everyone
meet the private property owners, the Federal landowners, the
State landowners and the State Governors property rights and
responsibilities for plants and animals that are under their
concern, which affect others.
Senator Crapo. I think that is very helpful. Would you also
agree that Federal support in the area of education or even
Federal grants to help the States is appropriate?
Mr. Beers. Sir, that always sounds good and who can argue
against education, of course not. And who can argue against
grants? But we look at the Endangered Species Act, and we see
where grants under the Endangered Species Act not only have
changed the way universities look at science, but has changed
the way a lot of State departments look at the Federal
Government's jurisdiction expansion regarding those endangered
species. So that the States become grant applicants the same as
the universities do, and that affects their perspective on what
they support, what they say.
We saw earlier today the sort of ``we can tell that you
like rainbow trout, so we are not thinking about rainbow
trout,'' ``we can tell you don't like pike up in Alaska, and
the Atlantic salmon and of course we are going to be concerned
there,'' but the test comes with the court taking the words
that you enact and then having it applied by a judge. That is
what we have seen with the Endangered Species Act and what we
are concerned about.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Hargrove, in this vein, as you are probably aware, I
have been a long-time advocate of State sovereignty over water
management and allocation and use. In fact, I have been
concerned that there has just been over the last few decades,
in fact more than that, a gradual creep of Federal jurisdiction
over State sovereignty in that arena. This is another statute
where there is a very valid need, but one in which if we do not
do it correctly could represent or accomplish a further creep
of Federal control and jurisdiction in areas that traditionally
have been State responsibilities.
I would just like you to comment on that generally and tell
me if you have any ideas about how we can make certain that we
do not extend Federal sovereignty over matters which
traditionally are State issues, water quality, water management
and the like, while we still achieve the objectives that we
need to achieve to protect ourselves.
Mr. Hargrove. Chairman Crapo, I would start off by just
saying that the risks are so grave that we need to weigh those
against the potential misuse of this bill. I would cite as an
example that the concerns over irrigation are valid. The Idaho
Water Users Association came out in support of an invasive
species bill that Governor Kempthorne had in the State
legislature this year, so they are very concerned about it.
I would agree that the more that we can empower the States
and even at the lower local level to deal with these invasive
species, the better. With Senator Craig's bill that is in
Congress for terrestrial weeds, we are seeing the approach
where we are dealing with cooperative weed management areas at
a very local level, where local folks who know the issues are
being empowered by receiving grants that help them fund their
programs, and really get things done on the ground.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hauser and Mr. Weakley, do you have a thought on this?
Mr. Weakley. Well, sir, there is a good model that I am
involved with, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, which is
not addressing the aquatic nuisance species, but the usage of
waters throughout the Great Lake basin. The Great Lakes
Commission is a similar forum, but not necessarily respectful
of the Governors.
If I may add, it is also an issue not just for the States,
but for the mayors. I was at a meeting of the mayors from the
Great Lakes region yesterday, and aquatic nuisance is very much
on their agenda.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Hauser?
Mr. Hauser. There is very little from the Vermont
perspective in this bill that would threaten our sovereignty as
a State. If anything, we feel that many of the problems we are
faced with are problems that arise from things outside of our
control, and greater Federal leadership in addressing those
problems would help us greatly on the State end.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I think I will go to Senator Jeffords now. Senator
Jeffords, do you have any questions?
Senator Jeffords. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hauser, from the State perspective, do you have any
concerns about the rapid response requirements proposed in the
bill?
Mr. Hauser. Not really. We consider rapid response planning
to be a very critical need, and the provisions of this bill
would facilitate the development, implementation and
coordination of rapid response plans at the regional and
Federal level, and would provide much-needed assistance of both
technical and funding to the States for doing their own rapid
response planning.
I would concur with earlier testimony by Mr. Keeney on the
previous panel that it would probably be best to de-link it
from the State management plans as far as the funding goes,
just to ensure that funding is not delayed to the States for
rapid response if in fact the State does not have a management
plan. But we think it is a very important piece of this bill.
Senator Jeffords. This is perhaps related, but critics of
this bill complain that it will be very expensive to fund all
of the programs and initiatives required of the Federal
agencies. What would be your response to this complaint?
Mr. Hauser. I think it is much more expensive to not
properly fund or require proper action on the part of the
Federal agencies. Inaction costs much more. This is clearly an
area and an issue where being proactive is much more cost-
effective. For example, you saw an earlier photo of the
Eurasian water milfoil. Perhaps some time ago, a single action
on the part of the Federal agency could have prevented the
introduction of the Eurasian water milfoil through a screening
process. It did not, so instead in Vermont alone we are
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to address
problems with the Eurasian water milfoil.
We as a Nation clearly need to get ahead of the curve on
invasive species, and we will not do that unless we invest a
considerable amount of money up front and resources up front. I
think the long-term payoffs will be great, however.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses. I
thank the Chairman. I have to go to the floor on the Medicare
bill, so I just appreciate this hearing. It has been very, very
helpful to us, and thank you to the witnesses for their
participation. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords.
I am going to just conclude with a line of questioning that
is similar to what I was discussing with the previous panel,
and that is, in terms of the nature of the threat that invasive
species present to our ecosystems. Sometimes I am not sure that
we generally in the public understand the level of threat that
certain circumstances present to us. I think that some of the
testimony today has indicated how serious the threat to our
ecosystems and to species the introduction, whether it be
voluntarily or involuntarily, of invasive species can
represent.
First of all, let me just ask the panel generally, I am
sure you heard the testimony earlier that this is second to
habitat as a threat to the species and to the management of
ecosystems in our country. Do you agree with that, Mr. Beers?
Mr. Beers. Not at all, not at all, Senator. Mr. Chairman,
that is so overblown. That is generated by a bunch of
bureaucrats that benefit from the endangered species programs,
and a couple of university professors who also get a lot of
grants for that stuff. It is absolutely not true. Ecosystems
have been changing everywhere since time immemorial and will
continue to do so. We have the wherewithal to make our
environment beneficial to us and to manage these species, but
take the salt cedar thing which keeps popping up. Salt cedar is
an nest tree for the endangered willow flycatcher. They do fine
in it. But here we can say, let's do away with that tree, when
we would not do away with it if it was a native tree. Now, does
that make sense? I do not think so.
And the purple loosestrife, another one that keeps being
brought up. I worked on that years ago, and we imported three
insects from over near Russia that feed on it and help keep it
under control. It will eventually fade into our environment. It
makes good honey.
We could go on and on about they have a lot of bad effects
and they have some good effects, and things change; it used to
be worse, and now it is getting worse over here and it is
getting better over here. That will always be the situation. I
think it is wrong to think there is some kind of static
arrangement biologically that depends on when the Asians got
here or when Columbus got here or some other imaginary date
that somehow we need to get back to because that was better. It
was not better, it was only different.
Senator Crapo. You are not saying, are you, that we should
have no concern about the introduction of invasive species?
Mr. Beers. Sure, not at all, not at all. I think we can
manage that, but we are all so oriented to talking about this
problem and the Federal Government should have authority and
educate people and put money to it. In the meantime, you do
just what happens with endangered species. You have taking
without compensation problems; you have all kinds of running
over and stopping of projects and a bunch of things that nobody
could have foreseen, or if they had foreseen it and said that
things would be like that, people would say, well, that is
silly. Nobody intends that. And I think this is going to do
more of the same.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Hargrove?
Mr. Hargrove. First of all, I would just say that in Idaho,
we believe that invasive species may pose the No. 1 threat to
biodiversity in the State.
Senator Crapo. Are you talking about the Nature
Conservancy?
Mr. Hargrove. The Nature Conservancy.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Mr. Hargrove. Looking across our plans and priority areas,
we believe that it may be the No. 1 threat there. If you take
an example like cheat grass that has altered the whole
sagebrush steppe ecosystem and led to the decline of sage
grouse, it has altered the fire regime. We used to have fire
return intervals of 70 to 100 years. They are now two to 5
years. That has just impoverished that whole ecosystem,
millions and millions of acres in Southwest Idaho.
The other point I would just like to quickly make is that
in terms of natural resource issues, this is the one issue
where practically everyone in Idaho agrees and can come
together. We are not seeing the typical battles and
polarization of this issue. We are having Federal agencies,
local agencies, private parties and the State work together on
these issues, from cooperative weed management areas up to the
Idaho Weed Coordinating Committee that I work on, and the
Invasive Species Council. So it is really an issue that has
brought people together to work across boundaries.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Hauser?
Mr. Hauser. Our situation in Vermont is very similar to
that described by Mr. Hargrove in Idaho. It is not a polarizing
issue. We have strong support across all State agencies and
local groups and lake users and citizens for addressing this
issue. It is seen as a very big concern. We believe that it is
very much one of the greatest, if not the greatest threat to
biodiversity in the State.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Weakley?
Mr. Weakley. Senator, being a shipowner, I have to admit
that I have not studied it from a biological perspective. So
where to rank-order it, I do not feel qualified, but I will say
it is a very important issue. If I may be so bold to add, it is
an inadvertent result of what shipowners do, and certainly the
Lake Carriers' Association wants to see this halted, and I
would believe other shipowners as well would like to see this
problem addressed. What we need is a good Federal solution so
that we can move forward in the process.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Weakley.
I appreciate the entire panel and the perspectives that you
bring. Obviously, we have a serious problem, and the proposed
solution to that problem could bring with it a set of its own
problems, and that is the kind of thing, whether it be intended
or unintended consequences, that we must try to make ourselves
aware of here as we craft solutions to this legislation.
I think that the issues on all sides have been pretty
squarely brought forward today, both concerns about the bill as
it is drafted, concerns about what the issues need to be and
what we need to address, and concerns about the consequences
that could come to State sovereignty and to water management
and to private property rights and the like if we do not
address it properly.
So it is very clear that we have an issue that we need to
address. It is also very clear that we have our work cut out
for us in terms of making sure that we parse the issues well
enough that we do not create consequences that are unintended,
either jurisdictionally or in terms of the environment. I
encourage you to give us your continued input and support on
this issue as the committee moves forward.
Without anything further, then, we will excuse this panel
and adjourn the hearing. We thank you all for your attendance
today.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
As global trade increases, so do the number of ships entering
United States' ports. However, these ships not only carry freight, they
come with unintended cargo, aquatic invasive species. The number of
damaging aquatic invasive species has increased in tandem with
globalization having a negative impact on the United States
economically as well as environmentally.
The introduction of such aquatic invasive species as the zebra
mussel has had devastating repercussions. In the Great Lakes alone, it
has cost millions annually to mitigate the problem of clogged intake
valves. Since their introduction from the ballast water of ships, zebra
mussels have spread to more than 20 States. I know my colleague and
Great Lakes congressional Member, Sen. Voinovich, has been working on
this issue for Ohio for quite some time, and I look forward to my
continued work with him to reauthorize the National Invasive Species
Act.
When Congress passed the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990, the legislation focused on problems
specific to the Great Lakes and encouraged increased cooperation
between Federal and State agencies. The reauthorization of this law,
the National Invasive Species Act, took this effort one step further
and expanded ballast water guidelines to the rest of the Nation.
However, though these laws laid the foundation for mitigating the
problem of aquatic invasive species, they failed to adequately address
a number of issues that we hope to remedy with the upcoming
reauthorization.
One of the difficulties of trying to limit the impact of these
destructive exotics is that they do not recognize political boundaries.
Therefore, cooperation and partnerships among not only the Federal
agencies, but the States as well, is critical to minimizing the effects
of harmful aquatic invasive species. The National Invasive Species
Council has strengthened the partnerships and increased communication
between the Federal agencies, but, as cited in the October 2001 GAO
study, the Federal Government lacks a coordinated, comprehensive long-
term plan.
Though I support the reauthorization of NANPCA, I have a number of
concerns regarding some of the language in S. 525. It is my hope that
today's hearing will provide much needed insight into how the
reauthorization should proceed. It is important that we tread carefully
if we decide upon comprehensive reform. States play an integral part in
controlling invasive species, and it is critical that they are given
adequate flexibility to address problems affecting their region. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses to provide insight into how best
to approach this complicated issue and also to highlight their concerns
with the proposed legislation.
__________
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
Good morning. And let me welcome all of our witnesses this morning.
In particular, I would like to welcome Senator Levin, who has been a
long-time champion on the issue of invasive species, and all issues
that will keep those Great Lakes as beautiful as Vermont's Lake
Champlain.
I would also like to welcome Michael Hauser from Montpelier,
Vermont, who will be speaking on one of the later panels.
The waters of the United States continue to face threats from
aquatic invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an
environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14
million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has
invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes.
The environmental costs are also staggering. Invasive species
usually have high reproductive rates, they disperse easily, and can
tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, making them very
difficult to eradicate. They often lack predators in their new
environment and out-compete native species for prey and breeding sites.
S. 525, the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003'',
builds on existing programs and would establish a mandatory National
Ballast Water Management Program and minimum requirements for all ships
operating in the U.S. waters. Ballast water is considered the major
pathway for invasive species introduction.
S. 525 would also address potential introduction of aquatic
invasive species by other pathways, including the pet trade. The
discovery last year of ``snakehead fish'' in nearby Maryland likely
came from the release of aquarium fish.
While this legislation deals with aquatic invasive species and
calls for guidelines to determine whether importing a live organism
should be allowed, the recent outbreak of monkeypox, which has been
traced to the importation of African rodents, is further evidence that
we must be vigilant when permitting imports than can harm not only the
environment, but human health.
The legislation also increases funding for dispersal barrier
projects and research to prevent the interbasin transfer of organisms.
This is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along with
New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes--Lake
Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water
chestnuts and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a
devastating impact.
Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species want to call it
home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake.
Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier
in the Lake Champlain Canal to control invasive species in the lake is
another way to prevent further destructive dispersal of these species.
Thank you, Senator Crapo, for holding this hearing today and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
__________
Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan
I want to thank Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Graham for
holding today's hearing on S. 525, the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act, that Senator Collins and I as well as 16 other Senators
introduced in the Senate and Representatives Gilchrest and Ehlers
introduced in the House. The purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act and to take a
more comprehensive approach toward addressing aquatic nuisance species
to protect the nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of
new introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into
the country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to
implement the provisions of this bill.
The problem of aquatic invasive species is a very real one to
coastal and inland waterways. More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive
species have been introduced into the United States and have become
established, self-sustaining populations since the days of
colonization. These species microorganisms, pathogens, plants, fish and
animals typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new
environments. The result are often ecologically and economically
disastrous.
Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties,
the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes through ballast
water. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States as
far West as Idaho are fighting to control them. Zebra mussels have
changed the dynamics of the Great Lakes. They have decimated native
mussels, allowed toxins to reenter into the food chain, and may be
responsible for creating hypoxic conditions or a ``Dead Zone'' in Lake
Erie. Many of our beaches are littered by zebra mussel shells, and it
is estimated that electrical generation, water treatment, and
industrial facilities spend tens of millions of dollars every year
combating the zebra mussel.
The legislation before you is needed now. It's needed to provide
direction to the U.S. negotiators at the International Maritime
Organization, to create a national ballast water standard rather than
the patchwork of State efforts, and most importantly to move a ballast
water management program forward.
The best effort that we have against invasive species is
prevention. While the U.S. Coast Guard has the authority under existing
law to significantly increase the nation's efforts to prevent the
introduction of aquatic invasive species through the largest pathway of
introduction ballast water there has been very little progress to move
toward technology that is as effective as ballast water exchange. By
requiring the Coast Guard and EPA to set interim and final ballast
water management standards, this legislation allows ballast water
technology to develop to a known standard. This bill requires the Coast
Guard to set an interim standard that would require ships entering a
U.S. port from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone to either use
ballast water exchange or use technology that reduces the number of
living organisms in ballast tanks by 95 percent.
This interim standard in this bill is not intended to be
implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. However, a final
standard is difficult to set today or in the near future because of the
limited research that has been conducted on how clean or sterile
ballast water discharge should be and what is the best expression of a
standard. Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop
new introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable
interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This
interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are
more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water
exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future.
Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to
promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by
whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate.
There are many other important provisions of the bill designed to
prevent and respond to invasive species. All in all, the bill would
cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of
money, but it is a critical investment. However, compared to the
estimated $137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of
this bill is minimal. As those of us facing the havoc caused by
invasive species know, the ecological and economic damage that invasive
species can cause is high.
__________
Statement of Hon. Susan M. Collins, U.S. Senator from the State of
Maine
From Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond,
lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species
threaten Maine's drinking water systems, recreation, wildlife habitat,
lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as Variable Leaf
Milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs
are taking over Southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year,
began their advance into Maine to the potential detriment of Maine's
lobster and clam industries.
Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against
these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of
limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of
our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be
accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide
approach to deal effectively with invasive species. For this reason,
Senator Levin and I have introduced the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act (NAISA) of 2003 to reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. This bipartisan legislation would
create a comprehensive nationwide approach to combating alien species
that invade our shores.
I want to thank Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Graham for
holding a hearing on this issue of national importance.
The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally
introduced into our nation's waters. Invasive species endanger
ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They
disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values,
impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational
experiences, and damaging public water supplies.
In the 1950's, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and
literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the
1980's. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or
find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number
of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940's to fewer than
1500 in the 1950's. European green crabs currently cost an estimated
$44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.
Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our
environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new
invasions. It is too late to stop European green crabs from taking hold
on the East Coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many
other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.
Six months ago, in the Town of Limerick, Maine, one of North
America's most aggressive invasive species hydrilla was found in
Pickerel Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem already
hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the
shoreline out to six feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this
stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's
recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby
lakes and ponds. Research in Vermont shows that invasive plants can
cost shoreline owners over $12,000 each in lost property values on
infested lakes. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly
impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the
State.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most
comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By
authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open
numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill
directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy
cruise of invasive species into US waters through the ballast water of
international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million
per year to develop and implement these regulations.
The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant
program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive
species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of
Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive
species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million
annually for research, education, and outreach.
The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack
them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response
system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take
hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national
monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing
$25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response
fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species
have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next
wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and
destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.
One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic
organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels.
Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a
means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from
plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this
pathway. NAISA would establish a framework to prevent the introduction
of aquatic invasive species by ships. Since the last reauthorization of
this legislation in 1996, there has been growing consensus about the
value of a mandatory national program to prevent movement of organisms
by ships. NAISA will require all ships to prepare Aquatic Invasive
Management Plans, carry out Best Management Practices, and document all
ballast operations and management activities related to this
legislation. The legislation establishes interim standards for Ballast
Water Exchange and Ballast Water Treatment, which will apply to 2010 at
the latest, and requires that a final standard be implemented by 2011.
These measures will ensure that the United States is taking the most
effective actions possible to protect our waters, ecosystems and
industries.
While introduction of aquatic invasive species through ballast
water poses the greatest threat to our waters, non-native species
imported for live food, aquaculture, or the pet trade can escape and
become invasive. The snakehead fish that invaded a Maryland pond last
summer is one example. Currently, there is no uniform, systematic
process for screening or regulating the proposed importation of live
organisms to prevent the introduction of harmful invasive species. The
NAISA legislation creates a screening process for planned introductions
of non-indigenous species not already in trade. The legislation would
prohibit the importation of species that are determined to pose a high
risk of becoming invasive or species with insufficient information to
determine the risk.
Prevention is key, but when it fails, we must respond rapidly to
detect invasive species and stop their spread. This legislation will
help States and regional organizations detect and respond to future
invasions through early detection and rapid response. The bill provides
funding to support ecological surveys to rapidly detect recently
established aquatic invasive species and to develop and implement rapid
response plans to eradicate or control aquatic invasive species. This
provision would support efforts, such as those being undertaken by the
New England Invasive Plant Group, to compile an invasive plant atlas
for the region and create an early warning system to alert States to
invasive plants.
The legislation also takes precautions to ensure that the methods
we use to manage and control invasive species do not adversely affect
health, public safety, or the environment. Ensuring the environmental
soundness of our response is critical if we are to avoid unintended
consequences. In the 1990's, biologists in Maine found DDT and other
pesticides in the mudflats of Maine. In an attempt to eradicate the
green crab, the State and individuals had applied pesticides to the
flats about 50 years earlier. We must be careful that our current
attempts to remove invasive species do not cause even more serious
problems.
Information and education are essential mechanisms to inhibit the
spread of aquatic invasive species. The bill provides funding for
education and information programs to prevent the spread of invasive
species through boating and other activities. This funding will augment
aggressive State efforts to stop the invasion of aquatic species. For
example, Maine has passed two laws to prevent the spread of invasive
species and ban the sale or introduction of 11 invasive aquatic plants
into the State. In October 2002, Maine also adopted an action plan for
managing invasive aquatic species. Educating the public about the
introduction and spread of species is a primary goal of the State's
program. NAISA will support Federal, State and local efforts to raise
public awareness about invasive aquatic species and teach how
individuals can help prevent or stop the spread of these species.
Underpinning this bill is research. The legislation supports
research into the prevention, control and eradication of aquatic
invasive species. Finding effective methods to combat aquatic invasive
species depends on good science. The legislation would provide funds
for research on ecological surveys to assess the rate and patterns of
introductions; pathway surveys to analyze how non-native species may be
introduced into aquatic ecosystems and determine practices that
contribute to the introduction of these species; and technology
development into environmentally sound methods and treatments to
detect, prevent, control and eradicate aquatic invasive species.
Each year, invasive species cost the United States $138 billion.
Nonindigenous species infest and degrade U.S. waterways and coastal
areas in virtually every region of the United States. We are losing the
fight to protect the nation's waters from expensive and environmentally
damaging invasions by aquatic nuisance species. Every day that passes
without protections to prevent new invasions increases the threat that
another exotic species will establish itself, altering the ecosystem in
our great waters.
The NAISA legislation provides the framework for a comprehensive
and coordinated response at the Federal, State and local levels to
prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through
the Senate.
__________
Statement of Barry Hill, Director, Office of Natural Resources and
Environment, General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the difficult issue of managing invasive species
as you deliberate Senate Bill 525,\1\ which would reauthorize the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.\2\
Invasive species harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms
are found throughout the United States and cause damage to crops,
rangelands, waterways, and other ecosystems that is estimated in the
billions of dollars annually. In addition to their economic costs,
invasive species can have a devastating effect on natural areas, where
they have strangled native plants, taken over wetland habitats, crowded
out native species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of food
sources. Conservation biologists rank invasive species as the second
most serious threat to endangered species after habitat destruction.
Overall, scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are recognizing
invasive species as one of the most serious environmental threats of
the 21st century. In October 2002, we issued a report on the Federal
Government's National Management Plan for managing invasive species,
ballast water management, and other issues.\3\,\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\S. 525, 108th Cong. (2003).
\2\Pub. L. No. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4761 (1990) (codified as amended
at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4701-4751).
\3\U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus
and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-
03-1 (Washington, DC: Oct. 2002).
\4\Executive Order 13112 created a National Invasive Species
Council, now composed of 11 Federal departments and agencies, to
provide national leadership on addressing invasive species and to
develop a plan for managing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today is based on our October 2002 report as well as
new work that you requested. Specifically, I will discuss the findings
and recommendations of our October 2002 report that address (1)
progress made by Federal agencies implementing the National Management
Plan and (2) the current state of ballast water management as a pathway
for invasive species. I will also discuss some of the results of new
work we conducted to obtain State perspectives on (1) the gaps in, or
problems with, existing legislation and barriers to addressing
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species and (2) the Federal leadership
structure for addressing invasive species and integration of Federal
legislation on terrestrial invasive species with legislation on aquatic
invasives. To obtain State perspectives, we surveyed the State agencies
typically most involved with invasive species State agencies
responsible for agriculture and natural resources or fish and wildlife
sending surveys to at least two agencies within each of the 50 States.
We received 68 responses from a total of 45 States. We also surveyed
the members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, a Federal
advisory committee established to help the Federal Government develop
and implement its National Management Plan; we received responses from
about two-thirds of the 24 Committee members. We also interviewed
officials in a few States chosen because of their well-established
invasive species programs or the large number of invasive species
present. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We will provide to you the full results
of our survey in a separate product.
Summary
As we reported in October 2002, the National Management Plan for
addressing invasive species lacks a clear long-term desired outcome and
quantifiable measures of performance. While the actions called for in
the plan are likely to contribute to controlling invasive species in a
general sense, it is unclear how implementing them will move the United
States toward a specific outcome, such as reducing new invasive species
by a specific number or reducing the spread of established species by a
specified amount. Federal officials recognize that the plan has
deficiencies and are working on improvements. Currently, the only
performance measure that can be assessed is the percentage of planned
actions that have been completed. By this measure, implementation has
been slow. As of September 2002, Federal agencies had completed less
than 20 percent of the actions that the plan called for by that date,
although they had begun work on others. Reasons for the slow progress
included delays in establishing teams to be responsible for guiding
implementation of the planned actions, the low priority given to
implementation by the National Invasive Species Council and Federal
agencies, and the lack of funding and staff responsible for doing the
work. Some stakeholders expressed the view that the low priority given
to implementing the plan and associated limited progress may be due to
the fact that the Council and plan were created by executive order and
thus do not receive the same priority as programs that are
legislatively mandated. We made several recommendations to the Council
intended to clarify goals and objectives in the National Management
Plan and to improve reporting on the progress of its implementation;
Council agencies generally agreed with our recommendations.
We also reported in October 2002 that current Federal efforts are
not adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the
Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Despite Federal regulations
requiring ships that enter the lakes from more than 200 nautical miles
off the U.S. coast to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean
(that is, in waters deeper than 2,000 meters and farther than 200
nautical miles from the U.S. coast); retain the ballast water on board;
or use an alternative, environmentally sound, method of ballast water
management, aquatic invasive species are still entering the Great Lakes
and establishing themselves in the ecosystem. According to the experts
we consulted, at least two factors contribute to the failure of the
existing regulations to prevent introductions. First, about 70 percent
of the ships that enter the Great Lakes are classified by the Coast
Guard as having no ballast on board and, are therefore, exempt from
open-ocean exchange requirements. However, these ships may in fact
carry thousands of gallons of residual ballast water and sediment in
their drained tanks, and this water and sediment may contain
potentially invasive organisms that may be mixed with water later taken
from, and then discharged into, the Great Lakes. Second, the open-ocean
exchange conducted by ships that have ballast does not effectively
remove or kill all organisms in the ballast tanks. Although Federal
officials believe more should be done to protect the Great Lakes from
ballast water discharges, their plans for doing so depend on the
development of standards and technologies that will take many years. In
the meantime, the continued introduction of invasive species could have
major economic and ecological consequences.
According to our new work, State officials identified a number of
legislative gaps or problems, and other barriers related to addressing
invasive species. A key gap noted in both aquatic and terrestrial
legislation is the lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive
species that are already established or widespread. State officials
said that if there is no Federal requirement, there is often little
money available to combat a species and that a legal requirement would
raise the priority for responding to it. For example, one State
official complained about the lack of authority to control Eurasian
ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several Great Lakes and
causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to the
authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated
control program that is funded by the U.S. and Canada.\5\ In addition,
many State officials frequently cited, as ineffective, the current
Federal standards for ballast water, which only impose requirements on
ships entering the Great Lakes and not other U.S. waters. State
officials also identified the lack of Federal funding for State
invasive species efforts as another barrier they face. In particular,
States were concerned about not having sufficient funds to create
management plans for addressing invasive species, and to conduct
monitoring and detection, inspection and enforcement, and research
activities. Finally, State officials were also concerned with the lack
of cost-effective control measures and insufficient public education
and outreach efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, Sept. 10, 1954, U.S.-Can.,
6 U.S.T. 2836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State officials' opinions on effective Federal leadership
structures for addressing invasive species varied. A National Invasive
Species Council specifically authorized in legislation was most often
identified as an effective leadership structure for managing invasive
species, although many officials also thought that continuing with the
Council as established by executive order would also be effective.
Several Federal agency officials thought that giving the Council
authority in legislation would make it easier for them to implement the
National Management Plan. Regarding the form legislation on invasive
species should take, most State officials were in favor of integrating
legislation on terrestrial invasive species with legislation on aquatic
invasive species, but the margin was relatively small. Many State
officials indicated that the possible benefits of integrated
legislative authority would be increased coordination between Federal
agencies and States and an increased focus on invasive species
pathways, as opposed to specific species. The possible drawbacks
identified included concerns that a single piece of legislation would
not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive
species and may result in reduced State flexibility in addressing
invasives.
Background
As we have reported in the past, the impact of invasive species in
the United States is widespread, and their consequences for the economy
and the environment are profound.\6\ Invasive species affect people's
livelihoods and pose a significant risk to industries such as
agriculture, ranching, and fisheries. The cost to control invasive
species and the cost of damages they inflict, or could inflict, on
property and natural resources are estimated in the billions of dollars
annually. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), each year the Formosan termite causes at least $1 billion in
damages and control costs in 11 States; USDA also estimates that, if
not managed, fruit flies could cause more than $1.8 billion in damage
each year.\7\ Invasive species continue to be introduced in new
locations, with recent examples including the northern snakehead fish
in Maryland, the emerald ash borer in Michigan, and the monkeypox virus
in the Midwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal and
Selected State Funding to Address Harmful Nonnative Species, GAO/RCED-
00-219 (Washington, DC.: Aug. 24, 2000).
\7\Estimates are in 2001 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasive species may arrive unintentionally as contaminants of bulk
commodities, such as food, and in packing materials, shipping
containers, and ships' ballast water. Ballast water is considered a
major pathway for the transfer of aquatic invasive species. Ballast is
essential to the safe operation of ships because it enables them to
maintain their stability and control how high or low they ride in the
water. Ships take on or discharge ballast water over the course of a
voyage to counteract the effects of loading or unloading cargo, and in
response to sea conditions. The ballast that ships pump aboard in ports
and harbors may be fresh, brackish, or salt water. These waters could
potentially contain various organisms that could then be carried to
other ports around the world where they might be discharged, survive,
and become invasive. Other invasive species may be introduced
intentionally; kudzu, for example a rapidly growing invasive vine that
thrives in the southeastern United States was intentionally introduced
from Japan as an ornamental plant and was used by USDA in the 1930's to
control soil erosion.
Federal agencies implement a variety of invasive species-related
programs and activities pursuant to their specific missions and
responsibilities. USDA, for example, spends significant resources on
prevention and control activities for invasive species that harm
agricultural and forest products. USDA is also responsible for
preventing infectious diseases, some of which are considered invasive,
from spreading among livestock. States also play a major role in
addressing invasive species, either through their own programs or
through collaboration with or funding from Federal programs. Such
programs and the amount of resources expended on them vary considerably
among the States.
In response to concerns that we were losing the battle against
invasive species, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 in
February 1999 to prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide
for their control; and minimize their economic, environmental, and
human health impacts. The executive order established the National
Invasive Species Council, which is now composed of the heads of 11
Federal departments and agencies, to provide national leadership on
invasive species and to ensure that Federal efforts are coordinated and
effective, among other things. The executive order also required the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a Federal advisory committee to
provide information and advice to the Council. To achieve the goals of
the executive order, the Council was to develop a national management
plan that would serve as the blueprint for Federal action on invasive
species. S. 525, if enacted, would call on the Council to carry out
several other activities such as implementing a strategy to share
information collected under the proposed legislation and to develop a
program for educating the public about certain pathways for invasive
species; it would also authorize funds for the Council to carry out
these activities.
NATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN LACKS MEASURABLE GOALS, AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
HAS BEEN SLOW
The National Invasive Species Council's management plan, Meeting
the Invasive Species Challenge, issued in January 2001, calls for
actions that are likely to help control invasive species, such as
issuing additional regulations to further reduce the risk of species
introductions via solid wood packing material, developing methods to
determine rapid response measures that are most appropriate for
specific situations, and devoting additional resources to strengthening
inspection services at ports of entry. However, as we observed in our
October 2002 report, the plan lacks a clear long-term goal and
quantifiable performance criteria against which to evaluate its overall
success. For example, the plan does not contain performance-oriented
goals and objectives, such as reducing the introduction of new species
by a certain percentage or reducing the spread of established species
by a specified amount. Instead, the plan contains an extensive list of
actions that, while likely to contribute to preventing and controlling
invasive species, are not clearly part of a comprehensive strategy.
Similarly, many of the actions in the plan call for Federal agencies to
take certain steps rather than to achieve specific results and do not
have measurable outcomes. For example, the plan calls for the Council
to work with relevant organizations to ``expand opportunities to share
information, technologies, and technical capacity on the control and
management of invasive species with other countries.'' The plan also
calls for the Council to support international conferences and
seminars. These types of actions are more process-oriented than
outcome-oriented; taken individually, the actions may be useful, but
judging whether they are successful and have contributed to an overall
goal, will be difficult.
Federal officials involved in developing the plan told us that they
recognize that it has deficiencies and are working on improvements. The
Council acknowledged in the plan itself that many of the details of the
actions called for would require further development in the
implementation phase. The executive director of the Council staff told
us that, in her opinion, given the scope of this first-time effort, it
would have been unrealistic and difficult to agree on specific
measurable goals. She also said that, in many areas, the Federal
Government does not have the data on invasive species conditions needed
to set long-term goals and develop better performance measures. She
said that many of the actions called for in the management plan are
designed to help develop needed data but pointed out that doing so for
some aspects of invasive species management will be difficult given the
comprehensive data needed.
The management plan also called for the Council to establish a
transparent oversight mechanism by April 2001 to report on
implementation of the plan and compliance with the executive order.
This mechanism, however, is just now being set in place. Without this
mechanism, the only available measure that could have be used to assess
overall progress in implementing the plan was the percentage of planned
actions that were completed by the dates set in the plan. By this
measure, implementation has been slow. Specifically, Federal agencies
had completed less than 20 percent of the 65 actions that were called
for by September 2002. Council agencies had started work on over 60
percent of the remaining planned actions, however, including some that
have a due date beyond September 2002. Several actions in the plan that
were completed on time related to the development of the Council's Web
site, which is found at www.invasivespecies.gov. In addition, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the
Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) had sponsored research related to ballast water management.
Nevertheless, a vast majority of the members of the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee, which we surveyed for our October 2002 report, said
that the Council was making inadequate or very inadequate progress.
We found several reasons for the slow progress in implementing the
plan. First, delays occurred in establishing the teams of Federal and
nonFederal stakeholders that were intended to guide implementation of
various parts of the plan. Second, our review of agencies' performance
plans (prepared pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act)
indicated that while some agencies' plans described efforts taken to
address invasive species under their own specific programs, none of the
plans specifically identified implementing actions called for by the
plan as a performance measure. Some stakeholders expressed the view
that the low priority given to implementing the plan and associated
limited progress may be due to the fact that the Council and plan were
created by executive order, and thus do not receive the same priority
as programs that are legislatively mandated. Finally, we also noted a
lack of funding and staff specifically devoted to implementing the
plan.
To address these shortcomings, we recommended that the Council co-
chairs (the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior)
ensure that the updated management plan contains
performance-oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of
success and
give high priority to establishing a transparent
oversight mechanism for use by Federal agencies complying with the
executive order and reporting on implementation of the management plan.
We also recommended that all member agencies of the National
Invasive Species Council with assigned actions in the current
management plan recognize their responsibilities in either their
departmental or agency-level annual performance plans. The agencies
generally agreed with our recommendations.
Since we issued our report, the Council made significant progress
on its first crosscutting budget one of the planned actions in the
management plan that should help to develop performance measures and
promote better coordination of actions among agencies. The Office of
Management and Budget is currently reviewing the Council's proposal for
the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. In addition, according to Council
staff, the oversight mechanism should be finalized in July 2003, and
the first revision to the management plan should be finalized later
this summer.
Current Regulations Concerning Ballast Water Management Are Not
Keeping Invasive Species out of the Great Lakes
According to experts and agency officials we consulted, current
efforts by the United States are not adequate to prevent the
introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes via
ballast water of ships, and they need to be improved. Since 1993,
Federal regulations have required vessels entering the Great Lakes from
outside the Exclusive Economic Zone a zone extending 200 nautical miles
from the shore to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean (that
is, water deeper than 2,000 meters) before entering the zone.
Exchanging ballast water before arriving in the Great Lakes is intended
to serve two purposes: to flush aquatic species taken on in foreign
ports from the ballast tanks and to kill with salt water any remaining
organisms that happen to require fresh or brackish water. If a ship
bound for the Great Lakes has not exchanged its ballast water in the
open ocean it must hold the ballast in its tanks for the duration of
the voyage through the lakes or conduct an exchange in a different
approved location. Data from the Coast Guard show that the percentage
of ships entering the Great Lakes after exchanging their ballast water
has steadily increased since the regulations took effect in 1993 and
averaged over 93 percent from 1998 through 2001. Despite this, numerous
aquatic invasive species have entered the Great Lakes via ballast water
and have established populations since the regulations were
promulgated.
Experts have cited several reasons for the continued introductions
of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes despite the ballast
water regulations. In particular, the Coast Guard's ballast water
exchange regulations do not apply to ships with little or no pumpable
ballast water in their tanks, which account for approximately 70
percent of ships entering the Great Lakes from 1999 through 2001. These
ships, however, may still have thousands of gallons of residual ballast
and sediment in their tanks that could harbor potentially invasive
organisms from previous ports of call and then be discharged to the
Great Lakes during subsequent ballast discharges. There are also
concerns that open-ocean ballast water exchange is not an effective
method of removing all potentially invasive organisms from a ship's
ballast tank.
Federal officials believe that they should do more to develop
treatment standards and technologies to protect the Great Lakes from
ballast water discharges. The Coast Guard is now working to develop new
regulations that would include a performance standard for ballast water
that is, a measurement of how ``clean'' ballast water should be before
discharge within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard is expecting to have a
final rule ready for interdepartmental review by the fall of 2004 that
will contain ballast water treatment goals and a standard that would
apply not only to ships entering the Great Lakes but to all ships
entering U.S. ports from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone. Once the
Coast Guard sets a performance standard, firms and other entities will
be able to use this as a goal as they develop ballast water treatment
technologies. While several technologies are being investigated, such
as filtration and using physical biocides such as ultraviolet radiation
and heat treatment, a major hurdle to be overcome in developing
technological solutions is how to treat large volumes of water being
pumped at very high flow rates. In addition, small container vessels
and cruise ships, which carry a smaller volume of ballast water, may
require different technologies than larger container vessels. As a
result, it is likely that no single technology will address the problem
adequately. Consequently, it could be many years before the world's
commercial fleet is equipped with effective treatment technologies.
Without more effective ballast water standards, the continued
introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes and other
aquatic systems around the country is likely to cause potentially
significant economic and ecological impacts.
We reported in October 2002 that the Coast Guard and the Department
of Transportation's Maritime Administration are developing programs to
facilitate technology development. In addition, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have funded 20 ballast water technology demonstration projects at a
total cost of $3.5 million since 1998 under a research program
authorized under the National Invasive Species Act. Other programs also
support research, and the Maritime Administration expects to make
available several ships of its Ready Reserve Force Fleet to act as test
platforms for ballast water technology demonstration projects. Once
effective technologies are developed, another hurdle will be installing
the technologies on the world fleet.\8\ New ships can be designed to
incorporate a treatment system, but existing ships were not designed to
carry ballast water technologies and may have to go through an
expensive retrofitting process. With each passing year without an
effective technology, every new ship put into service is one more that
may need to be retrofitted in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\A recent study analyzing the market for future treatment
technologies reported that there are over 47,000 vessels in the world
fleet for which ballast water treatment technologies could be
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public and private interests in the Great Lakes have expressed
dissatisfaction with the progress in developing a solution to the
problem of aquatic invasive species introduced through ballast water.
An industry representative told us that she and other stakeholders were
frustrated with the slow progress being made by the Coast Guard in
developing a treatment standard. More broadly, in the absence of
stricter Federal standards for ballast water, several Great Lakes
States have considered adopting legislation that would be more
stringent than current Federal regulations. In addition, in a July 6,
2001, letter to the U.S. Secretary of State and the Canadian Minster of
Foreign Affairs, the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission stated their belief that the two governments were
not adequately protecting the Great Lakes from further introductions of
aquatic invasive species.\9\ They also noted a growing sense of
frustration within all levels of government, the public, academia,
industry, and environmental groups throughout the Great Lakes basin and
a consensus that the ballast water issue must be addressed now. The two
commissions believe that the reauthorization of the National Invasive
Species Act is a clear opportunity to provide funding for research
aimed at developing binational ballast water standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the
International Joint Commission to, among other things, advise the U.S.
and Canadian governments concerning transboundary water quality issues.
The Commission has six members: three appointed by the President of the
United States, with the advice and approval of the Senate, and three
appointed by the Governor in Council of Canada, on the advice of the
Prime Minister. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was created in 1955
by a convention on Great Lakes fisheries between the U.S. and Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 525 sets forth a more aggressive program against the
introduction of aquatic invasive species through ballast water and
related pathways. In particular, it would require ballast water
standards for ships in all waters of the U.S., instead of the current
voluntary program for waters outside of the Great Lakes. It also
specifically authorizes significantly more funding in the form of
grants to States, and Federal funding and grants for research,
including research on pathways, likely aquatic invaders, and
development of cost-effective control methods.
Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering State
perspectives on invasive species legislation and management.
State Officials Cited Several Gaps in Existing Federal Legislation and
Identified Other Barriers to Addressing Invasive Species
State officials who responded to our survey identified several gaps
in, or problems with, existing Federal legislation on aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species, as well as other barriers to their
efforts to manage invasive species.
Perceived Gaps in or Problems with Existing Legislation
According to our new work, the lack of legal requirements for
controlling already-established or widespread invasive species was the
gap in existing legislation on aquatic and terrestrial species most
frequently identified by State officials. Specifically, they said that
this is a problem for species that do not affect a specific commodity
or when a species is not on a Federal list of recognized invasives.
Officials noted that if there is no Federal requirement, there is often
little money available to combat a species and that a legal requirement
would raise the priority for responding to it. For example, one State
official complained about the lack of authority to control Eurasian
ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several Great Lakes and
causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to the
authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated
control program that is funded by the U.S. and Canada. In addition,
some State officials said that in the absence of Federal requirements,
differences among State laws and priorities also pose problems for
addressing established species, for example, when one State may
regulate or take actions to control a species and an adjacent State
does not. Some State officials noted that they have little authority to
control or monitor some species and that getting laws or regulations
for specific species, such as those for the sea lamprey, takes time.
Many State officials also identified ineffective Federal standards
for ballast water as a problem for addressing invasive species.
Specifically, some State officials complained that standards and
treatment technologies, regulations, compliance with reporting
requirements, and penalties for noncompliance are lacking and say that
research and legislation are needed to address the problem. As we
reported in October 2002, Federal regulations for ballast water are not
effective at preventing invasive species from entering our waters and
are only required for ships entering the Great Lakes. Some State
officials also said that Federal leadership is essential to fund
efforts in these areas and to provide coordination among States. As I
have already noted, S. 525 would authorize a more aggressive program
for developing standards and technologies for regulating ballast water.
Although some State officials believe solving the ballast water problem
is possible, some officials pointed to difficulties in doing so with
some methods. Specifically, these officials noted that some
environmentalists are opposed to chemical treatments, while industry
groups have objected to the cost of some technologies. S. 525 would
revise the definition of ``environmentally sound'' (as in
environmentally sound control measures) to delete the emphasis on
nonchemical measures.
Other Barriers to Addressing Invasive Species
State officials reported that inadequate Federal funding for State
efforts was the key barrier to addressing invasive species both aquatic
and terrestrial. In particular, State officials were concerned about
having sufficient funds to create management plans for addressing
invasive species, particularly as more States begin to develop plans,
and for inspection and enforcement activities. State officials also
identified the need for additional funds to conduct monitoring and
detection programs, research, and staffing. In particular, some State
officials noted that uncertainty in obtaining grant funds from year to
year makes it difficult to manage programs, especially when funding
staff positions relies on grants. S. 525 would specifically authorize
significantly more funding in grants to address invasive species than
is specifically authorized under the current legislation.
Many State officials also identified a lack of public education and
outreach as a barrier to managing terrestrial invasive species. Public
education and outreach activities are important components of the
battle against invasive species, as many invasives have been introduced
through the activities of individuals, such as recreational boating,
and the pet, live seafood, and plant and horticultural trades. For
example, the outbreak of the monkeypox virus that has sickened at least
80 people in the Midwest is thought to have spread from a Gambian rat
imported from Africa to be sold as a pet. S. 525 includes efforts
intended to provide better outreach and education to industry,
including the horticulture, aquarium, aquaculture, and pet trades, and
to recreational boaters and marina operators, about invasive species
and steps to take to reduce their spread.
State officials identified a lack of cost-effective control
measures as a key barrier to addressing aquatic invasive species. Some
officials commented that there is a need for more species-specific
research to identify effective measures. For example, one successful
control effort the sea lamprey control program costs about $15 million
per year. However, similar control programs for all invasive species
would be problematic and officials told us that targeted research on
control methods is needed, particularly for aquatic invasive species.
S. 525 would authorize a grant program for research, development,
demonstration, and verification of environmentally sound, cost-
effective technologies and methods to control and eradicate aquatic
invasive species.
State Officials' Opinions Varied on Effective Leadership Structures for
Managing Invasive Species and Whether to Integrate Legislative
Authority on Invasive Species
State officials' opinions varied on the preferred leadership
structure for managing invasive species and whether to integrate
legislative authority on invasive species. Many State officials
indicated that specifically authorizing the National Invasive Species
Council would be an effective management option and favored integrated
authority, but in both cases, the margins were relatively small.
Federal Leadership Structure for Invasive Species
Currently, no single agency oversees the Federal invasive species
effort. Instead, the National Invasive Species Council, which was
created by executive order and is composed of the heads of 11 Federal
departments and agencies, is intended to coordinate Federal actions
addressing the problem. State officials most often identified
specifically authorizing the Council in legislation as an effective
leadership structure for managing invasive species. Almost all of the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee members that responded to our
survey agreed with this approach. During our work for our October 2002
report, the executive director of the Council noted that legislative
authority for the Council, depending on how it was structured, could be
useful in implementing the national management plan for invasive
species by giving the Council more authority and, presumably,
authorizing more resources. Officials from USDA, the Department of
Defense, and EPA also told us that legislative authority, if properly
written, would make it easier for Council agencies to implement the
management plan, as implementing actions under the executive order are
perceived to be lower in priority than are programs that have been
legislatively mandated. Many State officials, however, also believed
that keeping the current Council authority as established by executive
order is an effective option.
Integration of Federal Laws Addressing Invasive Species
As you know, Federal authorities for addressing invasive species
are scattered across a patchwork of laws under which aquatic and
terrestrial species are treated separately. Questions have been raised
about whether this is the most effective and efficient approach and
whether the Federal Government's ability to manage invasive species
would be strengthened if integrated legal authority addressed both
types of invasives. Some believe such an approach would provide for
more flexibility in addressing invasive species; others are concerned
that such an approach would disrupt existing programs that are working
well.
On the basis of the responses from State officials, no clear
consensus exists on whether legislative authority for addressing
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species should be integrated. Overall,
State officials were in favor of integrating legislative authority, but
the margin was relatively small. Differences were more distinct,
however, when we considered the State officials' expertise.
Specifically, we asked officials whether they considered themselves
experts or knowledgeable in aquatic invasive species, terrestrials, or
both. A large majority of the State officials who identified themselves
as having expertise solely in aquatic invasive species were against
integrating aquatic and terrestrial authority. The terrestrial experts
were also against integrated authority, but with a smaller majority.
These positions contrast with those of the State officials who said
they were experts or knowledgeable in both aquatic and terrestrial
invasives; these officials favored integrated authority by a large
majority. About twice as many members of the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee who responded to our survey favored integrating legislation
on aquatic and terrestrial invasive species compared to those who did
not.
Regarding the drawbacks of integrating authority for aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species, many State officials said that it could
be difficult to address all possible situations with invasive species
and some species or pathways may get overlooked, and were concerned
that it may reduce State flexibility implementing invasive species
programs. Some State officials said that the two types of invasives
should be handled separately, since the ecological complexities of
aquatics and terrestrials are very different different pathways of
entry and spread, and different requirements for control methods and
expertise. In addition, some officials stated that combining
legislative authority would result in competition among various
invasive species programs for scarce resources. In particular, one
official referred to the ``issue of the moment'' phenomenon, where a
specific invasive species becomes the focus of great public attention
and receives a large share of resources, while many other species may
get very few resources.
On the other hand, many State officials saw an increased focus on
pathways for invasive species as opposed to on specific species as a
possible benefit of integrating authority for aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species. Such an approach could facilitate more effective and
efficient efforts to address invasive species. Many State officials
also believed that integration of legislative authority could result in
increased coordination between Federal agencies and States. Some State
officials described the efforts needed to address invasives as
requiring broad, interdisciplinary coordination and characterized the
current Federal effort as fragmented and ineffective. In addition, some
State officials said that the classification of species into aquatic or
terrestrial types might not be clear-cut and that the current
separation between them is ``an artificial Federal construct,'' citing,
for example, the difficulty of classifying amphibians.
GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841. Mark Bondo, Mark Braza, Kate Cardamone, Curtis Groves,
Trish McClure, Judy Pagano, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink also made key
contributions to this statement.
______
Responses of Barry T. Hill to an Additional Question from Senator
Allard
Question 1. The legislation proposes that the Coast Guard will
promulgate the regulations for an interim standard, while the EPA will
develop the final standard. The Coast Guard supports a single standard
that is scientifically sound and enforceable, and EPA has concerns that
they should be the ones in charge, as well as issues of rule
promulgation sharing. Some before this committee believe that the
responsibility to develop and promulgate a ballast water discharge
standard should remain with one agency. How should this be addressed?
Who is the right agency?
Response. GAO does not have a view regarding which is the ``right''
agency to develop and promulgate a ballast water discharge standard.
GAO believes that the rulemaking process for ballast water management
should be a cooperative one involving, to some degree, the Federal
agencies with related expertise or a stake in the outcome such as the
Coast Guard, U.S. Maritime Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
Department of the Interior. We have not analyzed whether the Coast
Guard or EPA is the more appropriate lead agency for this effort
although there are reasons why each might be considered the better
choice. For example, the Coast Guard has been dealing with ballast
water for many years and has valuable experience with the shipping
industry. The EPA, on the other hand, has extensive experience in
developing and promulgating environmental standards, such as those
issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act. We are concerned
about switching agency responsibility for developing a standard
midstream-with the Coast Guard starting the process and EPA finishing
it-because the experience and expertise developed in the first part of
the process would need to be transferred during the transition,
possibly delaying the process. Several precedents exist for two
agencies jointly issuing regulations; in other cases, the Congress has
directed an agency to consult with others when developing specific
regulations. These approaches could be considered for ballast water
regulations. In addition, regardless of which agency-or agencies-
actually promulgates a final standard, it is likely that other agencies
will be responsible for implementing and/or enforcing the standard. In
our view, the critical success factors for issuing ballast water
regulations is ensuring effective coordination among the agencies that
are stakeholders to the outcome and/or have relevant expertise, and
adequate resources to develop and promulgate a standard expeditiously.
______
Responses of Barry T. Hill to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Does S. 525 provide clear lines of authority and
accountability to enable State and Federal agencies to work together?
Response. GAO did not conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of S.
525 to determine the sufficiency of the lines of authority and
accountability between Federal agencies and States. Federal and State
cooperation in efforts to deal with invasive species is extremely
important, as the States have a key role in managing invasive species
within their borders. Executive Order 13112 and the national management
plan for invasive species recognize the importance of Federal/State
cooperation; S. 525 continues that theme. However, the bill addresses
only aquatic nuisance species so its potential impact on Federal/State
authority is limited in this way.
GAO has reported generally on different approaches for balancing
Federal and State responsibilities for standard setting and
implementation, and on how the Federal/State relationship differs among
these approaches. For example, regulations that set forth minimum
Federal standards, thereby allowing States to impose stricter
standards, may include a mix of Federal and State implementation as
well as provisions to hold States accountable to Federal requirements.
Standards that are developed jointly by Federal agencies and States,
however, may result in significant State autonomy regarding how and
what is implemented, with accountability stopping at the State level.
See Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State Responsibilities
for Standard Setting and Implementation, GAO-02-495 (Washington, DC:
Mar. 20, 2002), for more details.
Question 2. As you mentioned in your testimony, the GAO reported
last year that implementation of the national invasive species
management plan developed by the Council is possibly being hampered by
the fact that the Council does not have a congressional mandate. Please
provide comments on S. 536.
Response. Some of the Federal officials that GAO interviewed for
the report said that legislative authority, if properly written, would
make it easier for Council departments to implement the management
plan. In addition, the Council recognized in the management plan that
without significant additional resources for existing and new programs
it would not be possible to accomplish the goals of the plan within the
specific timeframes. If passed, S. 536 would legislatively establish
the National Invasive Species Council and authorize funding for the
purposes outlined in the bill. It would also establish a process for
monitoring progress implementing the plan that would include reporting
requirements to the Congress. The components of S. 536 appear very
similar to those of the executive order. However, while the language in
the executive order addressing Federal responsibilities for avoiding
the introduction and spread of invasive species is similar to that in
S. 536, the level of effort necessary to carry out these
responsibilities may change if it becomes a legislative requirement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For example, under the executive order each Federal agency
whose actions may affect the status of invasive species, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, is not to ``authorize, fund, or carry
out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the
introduction or spread of invasive species . . . unless . . . the
agency as determined and made public its determination that the
benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by
invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to
minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.''
S. 536 includes a similarly worded provision but without the ``to the
extent practicable and permitted by law'' caveat.
Question 3. What do you think is the best way to focus research
dollars on aquatic invasive species in general, and more specifically,
the ballast water standard issue?
Response. GAO has not done specific work on research needs for
aquatic invasive species or ballast water standards. Clearly, the
development of a ballast water standard and related technology will
require scientific support from research. Regarding addressing invasive
species in general, overall, the consensus appears to be that
prevention is the most cost-effective method. Identifying successful
preventive measures will require conducting research to identify the
most important pathways for species as well as the species that are
most likely to enter the United States.
Question 3a. You stated in your testimony that State officials
identified ``the lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive
species'' as a legislative gap in dealing with invasive species. First,
can you explain how we fill that gap without imposing an unfunded
mandate on States and localities while providing them with flexibility
to deal with their specific problems?
Response. We reported in our testimony that the lack of legal
requirements for controlling already-established or widespread species
was the gap in existing legislation on invasive species most frequently
identified by State officials. Specifically, State officials said that
this was a problem for species that do not affect a specific commodity
or are not on a Federal list of recognized invasives. State officials
noted that if there is no Federal requirement to control such species,
there is often little money available to do so. These officials believe
that a legal requirement would raise the priority for addressing these
species. State officials also identified inadequate Federal funding for
State efforts as the key barrier to addressing invasive species.
Therefore, while States indicated a need for additional requirements
for addressing invasives, there was also a clear call for additional
funds to carry out needed programs to tackle this difficult problem.
Additional legal requirements for control, however, would not
necessarily be directed solely at States as Federal agencies implement
a wide variety of invasive species control programs and could be given
additional responsibilities.
Regarding States' flexibility, in Regulatory Programs: Balancing
Federal and State Responsibilities for Standard Setting and
Implementation, GAO-02-495, we discuss different approaches to
developing and implementing Federal regulations and the amount of
flexibility these approaches provide to States.
Question 3b. Does, or how can, S. 525 address this issue?
Response. GAO did not comprehensively review S. 525. However, there
are several sections of S. 525 that propose increasing authorizations
to States to carry out specific programs and activities included in the
bill.
Question 4. You stated in your testimony that ``most State
officials were in favor of integrating legislation on terrestrial
invasive species with legislation on aquatic invasive species.'' What
are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?
Response. Regarding the drawbacks of integrating authority for
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, many State officials said
that such an approach could make it difficult to address all possible
situations with invasive species, with the result that some species or
pathways could get overlooked. These officials were also concerned that
integrating legislation could reduce State flexibility in implementing
invasive species programs. Some State officials also said that the two
types of invasives should be handled separately because the ecological
complexities of aquatics and terrestrials are very different-different
pathways of entry and spread, and different requirements for control
methods and expertise. In addition, some officials stated that
combining legislative authority could result in competition among
various invasive species programs for scarce resources. In particular,
one official referred to the ``issue of the moment'' phenomenon, where
a specific invasive species becomes the focus of great public attention
and receives a large share of resources, while many other species get
very few resources.
On the other hand, many State officials saw an increased focus on
pathways for invasive species-as opposed to focusing on specific
species-as a possible benefit of integrating authority for aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species. Such an approach could facilitate more
effective and efficient efforts to address invasive species. Many State
officials also believed that integration of legislative authority could
result in increased coordination between Federal agencies and States.
Some State officials described the efforts needed to address invasives
as requiring broad, interdisciplinary coordination and characterized
the current Federal effort as fragmented and ineffective. In addition,
some State officials said that classifying species into aquatic or
terrestrial types might not be clear-cut and that the current
separation between them is ``an artificial Federal construct,'' citing,
for example, the difficulty of classifying amphibians.
______
Responses of Barry T. Hill to Additional Questions from Senator
Murkowski
Question 1. In your testimony, you mention that there is a lack of
cost-effective control measures for cargo ships and cruise ships to
address their ballast water discharge. Would setting a specific
standard for the removal of organisms from ballast water tend to spur
technological development?
Response. Technology-forcing standards are designed to induce an
industry to develop and implement technology that would otherwise not
be forthcoming, or that would be implemented at a far slower pace. In
past work, we found that technology equipment manufacturers have little
incentive to develop new technologies when there is no specific
environmental standard or requirement (Environmental Protection: Wider
Use of Advanced Technologies Can Improve Emissions Monitoring, GAO-01-
313 (June 22, 2001)). For example, in the case of technology for
measuring the emissions of pollutants into the air by industrial
sources, most air emissions technology improvements had been focused on
making existing technology more reliable and less expensive because
there was no regulatory requirement forcing more advanced technologies.
In these cases, the burden falls on Federal agencies to conduct needed
research and development on new technologies. However, if a standard or
requirement is imposed, technology manufacturers and regulators we
interviewed believed that technology would be developed to meet those
standards or requirements. As an industry trade association
representative noted, ``if regulations are imposed, the technology will
follow.'' However, in some cases, technology development may take
longer than provided for in regulation. For example, while the Clean
Air Act required specific automobile emission reductions within 5
years, the technology was not ready until 6 years after the
deadline.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Joseph A. Grundfest, The Future of United States Securities
Regulation: An Essay on Regulation in an Age of Technological
Uncertainty, Saint John's Law Review, Winter 2001.
Question 2. What are your thoughts on the introduction of ozone to
treat ballast water?
Response. GAO has not conducted an analysis of the treatment
options for ballast water.
__________
Statement of Lori Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive
Species Council
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the National Invasive
Species Council's efforts to deal with the problem of invasive species
and comment on S. 525, the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of
2003''. The Council's mission is to enhance coordination and improve
the effectiveness of Federal efforts, by working cooperatively with
affected stakeholders, to prevent and reduce the damage caused by
invasive species to the economy, the environment and in some cases
animal and human health.
Today, as requested by the Subcommittee, I will briefly outline the
role and activities of the Council and present and summarize the views
and concerns of the Council member departments regarding S. 525, a bill
to reauthorize the National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
of 1990.
Last summer, efforts to eradicate the snakehead fish in Maryland
put the problem of aquatic invasive species on the front page. The
threat that this voracious, predator, discovered in a small pond, could
easily have spread to the Chesapeake Bay if quick action was not taken
by the State of Maryland and local officials, graphically demonstrated
the risks of invasive species and their potential destructive capacity.
The apparent success of Maryland officials in eradicating the snakehead
and Fish and Wildlife Service moving swiftly to regulate the fish under
Federal law has unfortunately been, in the past, the exception rather
than the rule. Too often invasive species have become well-established
and difficult if not impossible to eradicate or contain by the time
action is taken.
The rate of introduction of invasive species has increased
significantly because of increases in travel, trade, and tourism.
Invasive species have caused billions of dollars of economic damage.
Invasive species are the second leading factor in the listing of
species as endangered or threatened. In some cases they are known to
degrade ecosystems and harm animal and human health. Invasive species
do not respect jurisdictional or bureaucratic boundaries. They impact
Federal land and water resources, States, tribal interests, and private
landowners, as well as, other nations. Therefore, an effective response
to these biological invasions must be coordinated, inter-departmental,
and multi-jurisdictional.
The Council is charged with coordinating Federal activities
relating to all invasive species, including aquatic and terrestrial
species. Although our focus today is on aquatic invasive species, many
of the issues and proposed solutions are common across all types of
invasive species. A comprehensive approach including prevention, early
detection and rapid response, research, control, education and
outreach, and international cooperation are key elements in any
strategy to address this complex issue and are included as components
of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (discussed below).
Overview of the National Invasive species Council (Council)
The Council was created by executive order in 1999, Executive Order
13112, (E.O.) not only to address the growing problem of invasive
species but the need for coordination among Federal programs and the
lack of a comprehensive Federal plan to deal with the issue. The
Council is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture,
and Commerce and includes the Secretaries of the Treasury, State,
Health and Human Services, Defense, Transportation, and (most recently)
Homeland Security, as well as, the Administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Agency for International
Development. The E.O. also provides for an Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC), which includes a wide variety of nonFederal experts
and stakeholders to advise the council and provide nonFederal
perspective and input. The key tasks of the Council, in addition to
extensive coordination on invasive species programs and budgets are:
1) drafting and guiding implementation of the National Invasive
Species Management Plan; (executive summary attached)
2) working with Department of State to enhance international
cooperation to prevent and control invasive species;
3) building partnerships with local, State, and tribal governments;
4) organizing and providing enhanced public access to invasive
species information; and
5) enhancing public education and outreach on invasive species
issues.
The Council operates with a small staff--currently four staff with
plans for seven positions--and depends on the work of departmental
liaisons, agency staff and detailees. The Council has no separate legal
and regulatory authority and works through the member departments and
agencies to address invasive species issues on a cooperative basis with
significant stakeholder involvement.
Early in 2001, the Council issues the first edition of the National
Invasive Species Management Plan. The Plan, which includes 57 action
items, is a comprehensive blueprint to address invasive species. Recent
accomplishments include: drafting guidelines for early detection and
rapid response systems; listing significant pathways for introduction
of invasive species; establishing (working with USDA's National
Agricultural Library) an invasive species website that provides
information about all Federal invasive species programs; enhancing
international cooperation by co-sponsoring international invasive
species regional workshops, and beginning work on a North American
invasive species strategy. In addition, the Council has proposed
modifications to the Executive Order (now under review) to enhance the
role of States and tribal interests with the Council. Finally, the
Council has completed the first, performance-based invasive species
crosscut budget for fiscal year 2004 in order to leverage Federal
invasive species programs and resources in three targeted areas, and
proposes to further strengthen budget coordination in fiscal year 2005.
Relationship between the Council and ANSTF
While the Council coordinates invasive species issues at the
departmental level for all types of invasive species, the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) provides agency-level coordination
solely for aquatic species. To avoid any duplication of effort, the
Council is mandated under E.O. 13112 to coordinate with the ANSTF.
Currently, NOAA assists this coordination by having Deputy Assistant
Secretary Tim Keeney serve as their representative to both the Task
Force and the Council. The Council and ANSTF are considering further
ways to consolidate and combine similar activities in the area of
prevention to ensure continued close cooperation and leverage scarce
resources.
General comments on S. 525
S. 525 would reauthorize the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990. In my remarks, as requested by the
Subcommittee, I will provide a brief overview of the Federal agencies
general comments and concerns regarding the reauthorization bill.
Following my testimony agency and departmental officials will provide
additional comments related to their specific concerns.
We support the reauthorization of aquatic invasive species
legislation as an important component of addressing aquatic invasive
(nuisance) species. S. 525 wisely address the full array of aquatic
pathways (such as hull-fouling, live bait, etc.) in addition to the
critical problem of ballast water. There is broad support among Council
members for the bill's comprehensive approach to dealing with aquatic
invasive species problem that is similar to the approach taken in the
National Invasive Species Management Plan. In addition to emphasizing
prevention, it recognizes the need to include a variety of approaches,
including early detection and rapid response, research and monitoring,
control, and education. The bill also recognizes the important
coordination provided by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force for
solely aquatic issues and the broader level of coordination provided by
the Council.
The bill would, for the first time, address planned or intentional
introductions of invasive species in the aquatic arena by calling for
the development of a screening process. This process would evaluate
whether a species being proposed for introduction into the U.S. for the
first time is likely to become invasive. Screening is also an element
of the Management Plan and is critical to prevention efforts.
The bill recognizes and supports important State and regional
efforts through State aquatic nuisance plans and regional panel
activities. Partnerships and multi-jurisdictional efforts are essential
for prevention and control activities. The bill also proposes an
appropriate role for the Council in providing overall guidance on
policy (regarding screening), as well as close coordination on policy
formulation with ANSTF.
Concerns
Addressing the issue of ballast water, the bill appropriately
supports Federal efforts to make ballast water standards mandatory.
Other the provisions of the bill dealing with ballast water are
problematic in a number of ways that will be addressed in more detail
by the Coast Guard and other agencies. Most importantly, while
recognizing the importance of dealing with this issue and the
frustration with progress to date, it is critical that any treatment
standard adopted for any ballast water be biologically meaningful,
based on science and enforceable. It has not been demonstrated that a
standard based on a kill-rate meets these standards, as is currently
proposed in S. 525.
In general, there is concern that some of the provisions of S. 525
are administratively burdensome and inflexible. DOC notes in their
testimony that 31 separate deadlines for administrative action within a
short timeframe (18 months) are included in the bill. In addition,
numerous reporting requirements raise concerns that scarce resources
will be taken up filling out reports. Some of the bills provisions (in
the areas of rapid response and screening for example) are overly
prescriptive and do not allow the agencies and the Council the
flexibility needed to develop and test new methods and provide for
adequate stakeholder input--given the complexity of some of the issues
and policies involved. Reporting requirements for the States may also
be burdensome or create possible barriers to rapid action (such as the
requirement that every State have a rapid response contingency plan in
place--including a provision dealing with education--before being
eligible to receive response matching funds).
The language regarding dissemination of information should be
clarified. While the Council can and should assist with the
coordination and dissemination of information, the action agencies
should remain responsible for dissemination of the information that
they are charged with collecting. Several agencies involved in this
effort have particular expertise and infrastructure to disseminate
information not available to a coordinating body such as the Council.
Along these lines we note that new spending authorized by S. 525 is
not currently included in the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget and
thus the proposal must be considered within existing resources and
priorities. New requirements included in the bill, such as those for
education programs, should be integrated into existing efforts.
As with any comprehensive and complex legislative proposal there
are areas that need improvement. The other Federal representatives on
the panel will provide additional detail and discuss their specific
concerns. The Council is ready to assist the committee with addressing
these general concerns and additional technical issues to improve the
legislation.
I thank the Subcommittee for addressing this important and complex
issue. Working together is our only means to prevent and mitigate the
extensive damage caused by invasive aquatic species. Thank you and I
will be pleased to answer any questions.
__________
Statement of Joseph A. Angelo, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide
our views on Senate Bill 525 (S. 525), to amend the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and to reauthorize
and improve that Act.
The Coast Guard is a leader in ensuring America's marine
environment is protected, and we take great pride in providing valuable
services to the American people that make our nation cleaner, safer,
more mobile, and more secure.
Today, the spread of non-native aquatic species throughout our
waterways 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, and
significant mitigation costs. Aquatic nuisance species invasions can
also cause damage to coastal infrastructure and threaten coastal
industries.
In reauthorizing and amending existing Federal aquatic nuisance
species (ANS) legislation, S. 525 would, among other things, provide
detailed guidance and requirements for the conduct of a Federal ballast
water management program and the establishment of a research program to
support efforts to prevent the introduction of any ANS. We believe this
bill appropriately identifies 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. However, we do
have some specific concerns regarding implementation actions detailed
in this bill, which we believe should be considered.
Working under the broad authorities granted by current legislation,
the Coast Guard's ongoing regulatory efforts are addressing many of the
ballast water management provisions contained in S. 525. 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 National Invasive Species Act, the Coast
Guard is establishing a mandatory national ballast water management
program. Coast Guard efforts also 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 compared to the current state of
ballast water management technology, which is very much in its infancy.
We further believe that the prescriptive requirements and new
management arrangements contained in S. 525 would unnecessarily
complicate and inevitably delay the implementation of an effective
mandatory Federal ballast water management regime.
We are particularly concerned with the bill's inclusion of a
proposed interim ballast water treatment standard. However, the interim
standard that requires the removal of 95 percent of the viable
organisms taken in by the vessel as specified in the bill, presents
near insurmountable monitoring and enforcement challenges. In
consultation with other Federal agencies, the Coast Guard is currently
assessing various options for biologically protective treatment
standards, including standards that would be expressed as allowable
concentrations of organisms in discharged ballast water. In order to
support the treatment technology evaluation process for a ballast water
discharge standard, the Coast Guard is working under a cooperative
arrangement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other
technical experts, to develop verification protocols for ballast water
treatment technologies. 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.
The legislation proposes that the Coast Guard will promulgate the
regulations for an interim standard, while the EPA will develop the
final standard. The Coast Guard supports a single standard that is
scientifically sound and enforceable. The responsibility to develop and
promulgate a ballast water discharge standard should remain with one
agency, and we would like the opportunity to work further with the
Subcommittee in order to clarify specific agency roles.
Another area of concern is the proposed timelines for implementing
various aspects of the ballast water management regulatory regime.
While it is important to promulgate regulations quickly, the timelines
presented in the proposed legislation may significantly inhibit the
participation of the stakeholders. Appropriately, existing rulemaking
procedures provide opportunity for stakeholder input, and accelerating
the timelines would compromise these processes. The Coast Guard
receives valuable input from many sectors including the scientific
community, water treatment technologists, the maritime industry, and
Federal and State agencies, commenting both on the regulatory aspects
of our rules, as well as the environmental consequences of these
rulemakings as agency actions. It is critical to continue to permit
this information exchange.
While the Coast Guard is not assigned responsibilities for
conducting the ecological surveys described in S. 525, the results of
these surveys will likely be used to evaluate the efficacy of our
efforts as well as the efforts of other Federal agencies in reducing
the rate of invasions by aquatic nuisance species. We believe it is
important to coordinate the development of such surveys with the
implementing agencies, such as the Coast Guard.
Thank you for the opportunity to present some of our views on this
bill 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.
__________
Statement of Matt Hogan, Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish
and Wildlife Service). The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
serves as a co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS
Task Force) and I thank you, on both his and the Department of the
Interior's (Department) behalf, for the opportunity to comment on S.
525, the ``National Aquatic Invasive Species Act.'' The Department,
working primarily through the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), 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 last summer, to understand the
broad scope of the problem. The United States continues to see a number
of aquatic species, which may become invasive, crossing our borders,
and we expect this trend to continue. The Department supports the
overall direction of this bill and is encouraged by the leadership and
foresight shown by Congress in addressing this difficult issue.
However, we have some concerns with the bill, and offer 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, these actions must be considered
within existing 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 law, 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 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,
met recently in New Orleans, Louisiana to discuss the aquatic invasive
species issues specific to the Gulf of Mexico region. 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 in 2002. The ANS Task Force is also encouraging the
establishment of a Mid-Atlantic Panel and a Pacific Islands 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.
In General
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 to address some technical details. As this bill is very
comprehensive, we will limit our comments today to several general
areas. One general area of concern relates to the number of reports and
proposed deadlines required by
S. 525. We hope to have the opportunity to work with you and your
staff to try to consolidate some of these reporting requirements to
ensure that we can implement the activities outlined in the Act
aggressively, but also that the timeframes established are meaningful
and manageable.
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, the aquarium and pet trade, 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). A copy of
that plan is available at the following web address: http://
www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nmp.shtml
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 imported 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 last 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 Fish and Wildlife
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 Fish and Wildlife Service
began the process of listing snakeheads as injurious wildlife. That
process was completed when a final rule was published on October 4,
2002. That rulemakes 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
Fish and Wildlife 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 authority to screen species for use in aquaculture only to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Because of the risk to native fish and
wildlife, we believe that both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the
Department of Commerce, should also have a role in screening species
imported to be used in aquaculture.
In addition to evaluating potentially invasive species through the
screening process, the Fish and Wildlife Service would also be
responsible for enforcement of the resulting regulations. Currently,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has 92 uniformed Wildlife Inspectors at
32 staffed ports. In 2002, there were 121,171 wildlife shipments that
were imported or exported through the United States. Of those, 27,218
or 22.5 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 that may also have
responsibility for aquatic invasive species. We embrace the opportunity
to work with 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 13 State and
Interstate Plans approved by the ANS Task Force and a number of other
States are in the process of developing plans. The Fish and Wildlife
Service provided cost-share grants to 15 States and tribes to implement
those approved plans in Fiscal Year 2003. Several additional States are
expected to submit their plans to the ANS Task Force for approval in
2004.
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-1990's, 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.
Early Detection and Monitoring
We support the objectives addressed in Section 301. An early
detection network based on the best available science is important to
reducing the impacts of invasive aquatic species.
Information, Education and Outreach
Education and outreach continue to be critical elements to the
success of invasive species prevention and control. Within the
Department, the Fish and Wildlife 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 Fish and Wildlife Service
have established a 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!
complements 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, which can be utilized
as a means to facilitate public access to survey, monitoring, and risk
assessment information.
Aquatic Invasive Species 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 data bases,
such as the USGS's National Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Data base,
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
are happy to work with you and your staff on 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.
__________
Statement of Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning, Chairman Crapo and Members of the Subcommittee. 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 S. 525, 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. I will then comment on some general concerns with the
legislation as currently drafted, and finally I will touch on some
specific provisions of the bill.
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 S. 525, and the bill would constitute a major rewrite of the
existing law if it is enacted.
Last year, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force adopted a 5-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. S. 525 addresses some gaps in our existing programs.
Even though ballast water continues to be the most significant
pathway for new introductions into coastal waters, there is a need to
systematically assess other 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 pending legislation.
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 approved by the Task Force in November. The
Northeast Regional Panel began to work on its plan at a meeting last
month, and the Great Lakes Panel will work on its plan at a meeting
next week.
NOAA is acutely aware of both the economic and environmental
impacts of aquatic invasives and strongly supports the existing
program. We also support reauthorization of the program. Nevertheless,
we have significant concerns about both general and specific provisions
of the pending legislation.
Our first general concern is that the bill requires 31 separate
actions each with deadlines 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. In some instances, the
Task Force has already initiated action and the deadlines are
reasonable. In other cases, it will be necessary to develop capacity to
implement the activities. We recommend that the Committee 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.
Similarly there is a multiplicity of reporting requirements. Each
report will require a significant commitment of resources that could
actually inhibit implementation activities. NOAA recommends that there
be a single reporting requirement and that the Committee identify
elements to be included in the report.
Title IV of the legislation contains several elements that are
duplicated in other sections of the legislation. In at least one
instance, different agencies are identified to implement the same
activity. Areas that are duplicated include ecological surveys and
developing protocols for those surveys, pathway analysis, performance
tests for ballast water exchange, and dispersal barriers.
In addition to these general concerns, NOAA has concerns with a
number of specific proposals.
Even though progress has been made, ballast water still remains the
most significant pathway for new introductions of nonindigenous species
into coastal waters. Title I of the legislation recognizes that we
still have work to do in this area. Nevertheless, NOAA believes that
some of the elements in Title I need to be revised.
During the last re-authorization in 1996, the need to develop more
effective ballast water management was recognized. As the Coast Guard's
report to the Congress last 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.
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.
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 that is
biologically meaningful and enforceable. NOAA is concerned about a
``kill rate'' being used as a 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 (e.g., the phytoplankton that cause harmful algal
blooms). Some algal blooms in other countries 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 shellfish 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.
NOAA fully supports the provision in Sec. 1101(b)(4) which would
allow approval of experimental technologies for ballast treatment, but
we wonder if it was really the intent of the Congress that such
authority expire after 18 months. NOAA believes that a provision for
onboard testing of promising technologies should remain in place until
final standards become effective, and we suggest that it may be useful
to allow testing of experimental technologies on board ships even after
the standard is in place.
In Title II Section 1105(e)(2), the Congress may intend that there
be a permitting requirement for exceptions to a prohibition on
importation, but NOAA suggests that such a procedure be made explicit.
A formal permitting process would enable the Federal agency of
jurisdiction to place restrictions on handling of organisms after they
are imported. As examples, subsequent transfer of organisms to third
parties could be prohibited, or instructions for proper disposal could
be included. NOAA also suggests that, with a formal permitting
requirement, the exception could be expanded to include entities such
as commercial aquaria which might want to develop educational displays
on invasive species.
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.
As I indicated above, NOAA recognizes that an additional effort
needs to be made on rapid response. We also recognize rapid response
activities must involve State and Local governments. Finally, as co-
chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, we are more than
willing to add a rapid response contingency plan as one of the
components of State Management Plans. We do not believe, however, that
having such a plan in place should be a prerequisite for receiving
matching funds for rapid response to serious invaders. If an invader
presents a serious enough threat to warrant a rapid response action,
the response should be made whether a State has developed a contingency
plan or not.
Similarly, while any activities to improve early detection should
be encouraged, NOAA does not believe that an early detection strategy
should be a prerequisite for a rapid response plan. Recently,
considerable attention has been given to the economic difficulties
facing State governments, and the monitoring necessary for an effective
early detection strategy can be quite costly. Such a provision actually
may discourage States from developing rapid response plans. As
indicated above, we could be in the incongruous situation of being
unable to respond to a serious invasion because a State does not have a
monitoring program set up.
Finally, while education and outreach is an essential part of
prevention and control activities and could be an important element of
a response and is already included in the guidelines for State
Management Plans, a rapid response is essentially an emergency response
and requirements to have education and outreach provisions in place for
addressing pathways and industries which may introduce species is not
an appropriate requirement for a response strategy.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is already working with its
Regional Panels to develop regional rapid response plans, and NOAA is
providing funding during the current fiscal year to help the Panels
develop such plans. The first plan, developed by the Western Regional
Panel, has been completed and approved by the Task Force. As currently
written, the Task Force would be responsible for encouraging
development of such plans, but the Coast Guard would be responsible for
formal approval. NOAA suggests that the Task Force, which includes the
Coast Guard, is the appropriate entity for approval of such plans. It
is important that management agencies are included in this process
which would be accomplished by giving the Task Force responsibility for
formal approval.
NOAA supports the increasing emphasis on research in Title IV and
elsewhere in the bill. 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. Over the last decade, considerable progress
has been made much of which has been the result of the competitive
grant program administered by the National Sea Grant Program under
Sec. 1202(f), but there are still areas in which our knowledge is
seriously deficient.
I would like to discuss two areas as an illustration of our current
challenges.
First, there is inadequate monitoring in aquatic systems. In many
instances, we do not even have baselines 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 Cohen and Carlton is outstanding in
documenting nonindigenous species occurrence in that ecosystem and is
often cited even in terrestrial studies. A similar study of Chesapeake
Bay sponsored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and performed by the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center provides a very good baseline
for Chesapeake Bay. Both the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and
NOAA recognize this shortcoming and have taken first steps to correct
the deficiency in monitoring. 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. Title
IV of the bill would take steps to address this gap by requiring the
development of protocols and setting up a monitoring system.
Second, 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 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 and the Agriculture Research Service have 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 the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a researcher has found that a
pseudomonas bacterium causes extremely high mortality in zebra mussels
and preliminary results indicate that it may be species specific. 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
bivalves are already listed as threatened and endangered.
Chairman Crapo and Members of the Subcommittee, 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. S.
525 would be major rewrite of existing law, and 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 this bill is not
currently included in the President's Budget, and as such, these
actions must be considered within existing 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.
______
Responses of Timothy R.E. Keeney to Additional Questions from Senator
Allard
Question 1. This legislation requires that each State have a rapid
response contingency plan. If the Federal Government requires such a
plan, how do we ensure that all ships that discharge ballast waters are
aware of each State's plan?
Response. As I indicated in my testimony, NOAA is opposed to the
provision that States that a ship will have a rapid response plan as
part of its ballast water management plan. It would be problematic to
develop a plan that would take into account different State contingency
plans. The major responsibilities for a ship during a rapid response
are likely to be: (1) not entering an area where a rapid response
action is occurring, (2) not loading ballast water which could
contribute to the spread of an invasive species, or (3) not discharging
ballast water known to have originated from a rapid response area. In
the case of a rapid response effort, the major requirement for ships
should be to cooperate rather than to have some sort of rapid response
plan specific to an individual ship in place. Port authorities
currently have authority to place conditions on a ship entering its
port and thus, if necessary, it can place specific conditions on a
particular ship in the event that it is necessary to facilitate rapid
response efforts. Therefore, under such conditions, a State specific
plan may not be necessary.
Question 2. The legislation proposes that the Coast Guard will
promulgate the regulations for an interim standard, while the EPA will
develop the final standard. The Coast Guard supports a singe standard
that is scientifically sound and enforceable, and EPA has concerns that
they should be the ones in charge, as well as issues of rule
promulgation sharing. Some before this committee should believe that
the responsibility to develop and promulgate a ballast water discharge
standard should remain with one agency. How should this be addressed?
Who is the right agency?
Response. NOAA believes that the Coast Guard is the appropriate
agency to develop the ballast water discharge (BWD) standard. The Coast
Guard is well along in the process, having already begun developing the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required under the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) for a BWD standard. EPA, NOAA, and
FWS are cooperating agencies under the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations.
______
Response of Timothy R.E. Keeney to an Additional Question from Senator
Murkowski
Question 1. As you know, there are other sources of invasions
besides ballast water. In Alaska, State authorities consider Atlantic
Salmon a serious threat to Alaska species such as salmon and trout due
to competition for prey, possible competition for habitat, and
predation. These fish commonly escape from fish farms in British
Columbia and Washington and have been recovered in Alaska as far north
as the Bering Sea. Is it appropriate for a national plan of attack
against invasive species to address this source? If so, how?
Response. It is appropriate that the legislation place additional
emphasis on pathways other than ballast water, and certainly
aquaculture is a potential pathway. Historically, movement of species
from one area to another for commercial purposes has been a significant
source of introductions. To cite just a couple of examples, the
Japanese oyster drill was introduced with oyster stocks, and net
profits in areas where the oyster drill is present in the State of
Washington are reduced by 50 percent. Genetic studies indicate that
MSX--one of the two diseases that has devastated oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay--probably was introduced from Asia. It should be noted,
however, that actions taken by the aquaculture industry have reduced
the risk of such introductions in the future. As an example, the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has set up a protocol on
the movement of shellfish from one area to another.
As a first step in addressing the issue of Atlantic salmon escapes
on the west coast, NOAA has provided funding to the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission for a workshop on Marine Aquaculture:
Effects on the West Coast and Alaska Fishing Industry. The purpose of
this meeting was to bring together representatives from both the
commercial fishing industry and the aquaculture industry to determine
how a series of issues can best be addressed. The meeting was held in
Seattle on November 17-19, 2003.
__________
Statement of G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Tracy
Mehan, Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate and welcome this opportunity to
discuss the provisions of S. 525, and to consider the continuing
challenges ahead to protect water quality, human health and the
environment against invasive species.
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency shares the Subcommittee's
concerns about protecting the Nation's waters against invasive species.
We commend the Subcommittee and others for bringing attention to the
problems and threats created by invasive species. As you may know, I
came to EPA from Michigan, the Great Lakes State, where interactions
among over 160 known aquatic invaders have severely affected the local
ecosystem structure. Introductions can create new competition, change
trophic levels, alter habitat and impact species interaction. Invasive
species have become one of the greatest threats to U.S. waters and
ecosystems. In fact, invasive species are regarded by biologists
worldwide as the second greatest threat to biodiversity, behind habitat
loss. Invasive species are also a costly economic problem, causing the
United States billions of dollars worth of damage each year.
The complexity of the freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems,
combined with the increased rate of unwanted introductions and more
susceptible environments, contributes to making invasive species a
major challenge in U.S. waters. Invasive species can successfully
invade aquatic ecosystems through a wide variety of pathways, including
but not limited to vessel activities, aquaculture, aquarium trade, fish
stocking, live bait, and research activities.
Most recently, vessels have been the major focus for invasive
species issues. As ballast water is drawn into a ship, living organisms
are removed from their native water environment and brought on board
the vessel. Then these organisms may be discharged into a new
environment. Survival in a new environment is based on a number of
physical, chemical and biological factors, such as temperature,
salinity, and the presence of other organisms that might prey upon the
invaders. Advanced ship technology is also playing a role in invasive
species survival by allowing ships, and any hitch-hiking organisms, to
travel faster and farther. It is estimated that more than 10,000 marine
species (e.g., zebra mussel, Asian clam, green crab) are transported
each day in ballast water, allowing new invasions to occur regularly in
coastal waters.
Other vessel vectors that are of great importance are hull fouling,
i.e., organisms attached to the hull, and No Ballast on Board or
(NOBOB) vessels. NOBOB vessels contain sediments and water slurry that
is unpumpable and may get resuspended and discharged. Studies indicate
that NOBOB vessels can carry viable organisms in the sediment and
residual ballast water, creating additional opportunities for the
establishment of invasive species. Over the past 9 years, approximately
85 percent of all ships entering the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
Seaway have been NOBOB vessels. The remaining 15 percent of the vessels
entering the Great lakes were required to perform ballast water
management. However, the Great Lakes are still being invaded by non-
indigenous species, at an average of one invader every 8 months.
Approximately 15 new species have invaded the Great Lakes since mid
oceanic exchange of ballast water was mandated in 1993. This is the
same number of invasions that occurred during the 1970's and 1980's,
indicating that current ballast water management efforts are not
completely effective. Overall, the current rate of invasions in the
Great Lakes is 66 percent higher than one hundred years ago.
The impacts of invasive species are immediate and often
irreversible. If left unchecked, the number, density, and rates of
species transfers are expected to increase, and along with them,
impacts on our ecosystem, socio-economic well-being, and human health.
Prevention, reduction, and eradication are all integral parts of
dealing with invasive species. Prevention is critical to success, as
once invasive species have become established, eradication is often not
an available or successful tool. In order to be most effective, we need
an integrated national response. We need management programs, including
regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, rapid response efforts, early
warning systems, development of control technologies, research,
monitoring and education. Aggressive efforts are vital, otherwise
introductions will continue to destroy our native environments and our
coastal resources.
EPA ACTIVITIES
Faced with the scope and magnitude of this threat, our collective
efforts to develop policies, conduct research and make programmatic
decisions, informed by rigorous scientific and technical studies, are
crucial. The control of invasive species is important to EPA, and we
look to our partners in the U.S. Coast Guard, other Federal agencies,
States and Tribes, and the port and shipping industries to move
expeditiously to help us meet this major challenge to the health of our
nation's coastal and ocean resources. We look forward to expanding our
partnerships as we make progress against these invaders.
EPA continues to work with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,
chaired by U.S. National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Invasive Species
Council on issues ranging from the national and international control
of ballast water discharges to the regional management and control of
individual invasive species. As a member of the U.S. delegation on the
Marine Environment Protection Committee to the International Maritime
Organization, EPA is helping to negotiate an international ballast
water treaty and standard to address ballast water discharges from
ocean-going vessels.
EPA is also assisting the Coast Guard in the development of
mandatory ballast water management regulations and in the development
of standards for ballast water discharge. These regulations are vital
to our ongoing efforts to prevent invasions from ballast water
discharges. EPA has helped to prepare the environmental analysis for
the management rule, and we will be assisting in the development of the
EIS for the standards rule. This spirit of cooperation is not only
mutually beneficial to our agencies, it enhances our ability to address
this difficult problem.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), in partnership with
other agencies and organizations, is involved with numerous invasive
species research activities, including developing models which could
help to identify which ecosystems are more susceptible to invasions.
These models are being developed to identify the multiple stressors on
a particular ecosystem that could increase its vulnerability.
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program is another
example of our cooperative efforts with Coast Guard and the private
sector. The Coast Guard is interested in developing testing protocols
to support its efforts to establish treatment standards and the
certification of ballast water treatment systems. Such treatment
systems may allow for safer alternatives to the current practice of
open ballast exchange. The ETV Program will test new ballast water
treatment and management technologies as they become available in the
market. This EPA program was created as a means to accelerate the
acceptance of new environmental technologies in the marketplace through
the independent verification of vendor performance claims of any
treatment system for any discharge of concern.
EPA also has developed partnerships for continued research and
action regarding invasive species. The partnerships involve State and
local resource management agencies, non-profits, the National Estuary
Program (NEP), and universities. The NEPs, in particular, have numerous
activities that play a key role in targeting many of the challenges
from invasive species. NEPs have established partnerships in education
and outreach, and have contributed to the development of rapid
assessments and baseline inventories for invasive species. NEPs also
have played an integral role in developing model monitoring and rapid
response programs for invasive species. EPA has used Clean Water Act
Funding for these and other activities that address invasive species.
We believe this is consistent with Section 101 (a) of that Act, which
states, ``The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''
Partnerships and collaborative efforts are key to combating
invasive species. I am encouraged by the multi-faceted opportunities
for partnerships that we have within EPA, among Federal agencies, with
the States and Tribes, and with multiple industry and community
representatives.
S. 525
The bill under consideration by this Subcommittee introduces many
actions intended to help address the issue of invasive species. For
example, the bill addresses the risk of invasion through vectors other
than ballast water. The bill also acknowledges EPA's expertise and
involvement in responding to the challenge.
The goals and concepts behind the actions set forth in S. 525 are
beneficial to combating invasive species. However, the time lines and
authorizations provided are of significant concern. An average rule can
take 4 to 7 years to complete and that does not take into account the
complexity of the invasive species issue. The bill introduces many
actions in addition to the new regulations. If possible, the actions
should be prioritized to appropriately use the authorized funding in
the bill. As the bill stands now, it will be difficult to complete all
of the actions, without at least full appropriation of the authorized
funding.
The bill appears to identify many of the same actions for a number
of different agencies. Although agencies need to work together to
combat the issues of invasive species, different agencies should have
different responsibilities so as not to duplicate work efforts. In
addition to the duplicative work efforts, it is difficult to determine
which agency has the primary role in some of the actions.
The bill provides for sediment management in transoceanic vessels
to be included as a best management practice. The bill also recognizes
the importance of addressing potential introductions of invasive
species from no-ballast-on-board (NOBOB) vessels, particularly in light
of the volume of such vessels in the Great Lakes.
The bill also addresses the issues of ballast water standards.
Specifically, it sets an interim standard of 95 percent removal, which
we believe raises a number of technical issues. Removal relies on
laboratory testing which raises technology maintenance and durability
issues. Percent removal also does not adequately address large volume
discharges, because discharging 5 percent of a tanker ship's volume
could still release millions of organisms per liter. We believe that
the standards should be based on concentration and size of organism,
similar to discussions with the international community. Having an
interim and a final standard could have the unintended effects of
stalling development of a final standard or misdirecting technology
development away from more environmentally protective approaches. EPA
is also concerned that the Bill identifies and designates both EPA and
the Coast Guard as regulating authorities, one for each standard. EPA
and the Coast Guard would like the opportunity to work further with the
Subcommittee in order to clarify specific agency roles, and define a
more appropriate schedule, and discuss the need for an interim
standard. We would also be happy to provide further technical
assistance on this bill. We also note that new spending authorized by
this bill that is not currently included in the President's Budget, and
as such, these actions must be considered within existing priorities.
CONCLUSION
Tremendous progress has been made by EPA and our many Federal,
State, Tribal, local, and private partners in cleaning up our waters
over the last decade. EPA's experience in addressing difficult issues
regarding the health of our environment can help us protect them from
these harmful invaders. We at EPA appreciate your support and
commitment to these vital goals, and look forward to continuing a
collaborative effort to protect and restore our Nation's waters.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to address any
questions you may have at this time.
__________
Statement of James M. Beers, Science Advisor, American Land Rights
Association
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify at your hearing
today.
I represent the American Land Rights Association, an organization
of small property owners in all 50 States.
I worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 30 years in four
States and Washington, DC as a wildlife biologist, special agent, and
refuge manager. I have enforced Injurious Wildlife regulations and
investigated Endangered Species cases both here and in Europe. I have
worked on Invasive Species control programs for nutria and purple
loosestrife. I have attended U.N. Wildlife Conferences and represented
State wildlife agencies fighting a threatened European fur embargo. I
currently write and speak extensively about both Endangered and
Invasive Species.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, S. 525 is based
on erroneous assumptions. Briefly, it is wrong:
1. To characterize all recently arrived plants and animals as
having only exaggerated bad effects and ``reducing biodiversity'' (Sec.
2 Findings 1-10). This striped bass is an ``Invasive Species'' in
numerous lakes, rivers and reservoirs across the Nation as well as in
west coast estuaries. This rainbow trout is another ``Invasive
Species'' in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs throughout the United
States. Fishing license money, State fishery management staffs, charter
boat revenues, boat and boating equipment sales, fishing tackle sales,
tourist revenues, annual Sport Fish Restoration dollars in the
millions, taxidermy business, as well as millions of hours of family
recreation and many fine meals will all be reduced under this
legislation. These fish are typical of many desirable ``Invasive''
plants and animals that increase ``biodiversity'' while benefiting us
all.
2. To infer a Federal concern for plants and animals ``outside the
historic range of the species of which the organism is a member'' (Sec.
1003 (15)). This applies directly to these two fish that have been
widely and purposely introduced for the many direct and indirect
benefits to citizens and aquatic habitats that they create. What does
``historic range'' mean? When Asians arrived 10,000 years ago? When
Columbus arrived? When the Constitution was signed? Camels, horses, and
elephants once thrived here, are they native or ``Invasive Species''?
3. To define Federal aquatic authority as including ``estuarine''
and ``inland waters and wetlands'' (Sec. 1003 (2)). These waters are
nearly all under State jurisdiction. Given the current court case
involving the decade-long dumping of toxic sludge by the US Army Corps
of Engineers through a National Park under an EPA permit reviewed by
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service on the spawning grounds of Endangered shortnose sturgeon in the
Potomac River as it passes Washington, DC, it does not appear prudent
to expand Federal authority in this manner.
4. To infer Federal jurisdiction over ``invasive species'' and
``non-indigenous species'' that ``may cause harm'' (Sec. 1003 (17)) so
broadly defined as to permit any biological competition or increase in
biodiversity to be declared harmful. These two fish for instance eat
other fish and compete with yet others for space and food.
5. To claim authority over ``any fundamental category of taxonomic
classification below a genus or subgenus'' (Sec. 1003 (28)). This
enshrines the unwritten Endangered Species Act principle that
authorizes all manner of Federal intervention to the smallest flock,
school, or stand of any species. This has caused increasing friction
with property owners and many others as the level of Federal concern
descended below that of species to races, varieties, distinct
populations, and even beyond.
Using the need for the Federal Government to regulate ballast
water, a penumbra of Federal authorities and tasks are being created to
mimic the Endangered Species Act. That Act has caused havoc with much
more than property rights and has gone unauthorized for 15 years while
it's reach and annual appropriations continue to grow.
The authority to manage, control, and eradicate plants and animals
is one of those ``powers'' ``reserved to the States'' in the 10th
Amendment. The Federal Government is responsible for the management of
the import, export, interstate, and foreign aspects of these matters.
It is proper that the Federal Government assures clean ballast water
discharges, manages imports and exports, and cooperates with State
governments in the management, control, and eradication of harmful
plants and animals regardless of their origins or arrival dates.
11The American Land Rights Association joins with all citizens
concerned about the loss of not only land property rights but also the
rights of fish owners, aquarium hobbyists, florists, gardeners,
landscapers, boaters, horseback riders, pet owners, hikers, trappers,
duck hunters, fishermen and scores of others whose property rights,
outdoor activities, property rights held in trust by State governments,
and public land access are directly threatened by this proposed
expansion of Federal authority and diminishment of State authority over
aquatic habitats. The task being proposed (encouragement of ``native
species'') is not desirable, not beneficial, not achievable, not
measurable, never-ending, and a public expense beyond comprehension.
Please consider a revised bill that controls ballast water
discharge, controls harmful aquatic plants and animals on the Federal
estate, and cooperates with the States to fulfill the fish, wildlife,
and plant responsibilities assigned them in the Constitution.
Otherwise, S. 525 will, like the Endangered Species Act, radically
modify our basic freedoms while enriching only Federal bureaucracies,
Universities, and the agendas of environmental and animal rights
organizations.
One last observation: The bill's proposed ``whitelist approach''
(Sec. 1105 et al) for controlling imports is fraught with pitfalls. It
is causing problems in Australia and had it been in effect here 200
years ago we would not have brown trout, tulips, Holsteins, or even
house cats here today. Five minutes is not enough time for me to
explain this, but I would offer to point out there is a better approach
that does not impair the trade and freedoms we cherish while minimizing
future, harmful U.N. controls which are likely with Invasive Species as
they have been with Endangered Species under CITES.
Further explanation of these issues may be found on the American
Land Rights Association website, www.landrights.org.
Thank you and I am ready to answer any questions you might have.
______
Responses of James Beers to Additional Questions from Senator Murkowski
Question 1. ``Mr. Beers, your testimony suggests that the Federal
Government should not attempt to exert control over State waters, but
has an appropriate role for ballast water. Many States are struggling
with budget issues that may affect their ability to implement their own
invasive species plans. What role, if any, do you suggest for the
Federal Government in such circumstances?"
Response. Exerting Federal authority over ballast water discharge,
like regulation of interstate commerce, neither involves nor requires
Federal control over State waters or lands. Just as the prevention of
smuggling or terrorism necessitates Federal regulations and Federal
agents while creating Federal requirements and enforcement regimes on
and over State lands and waters without controlling the State lands and
waters; ballast water discharge and the prevention of harmful plant or
animal introduction requires no Federal taking of State authorities.
Any truly Harmful plant, animal, or infectious organism should be
designated by the Federal Government and prevented from entering the
country. Proof of such demonstrable harm should demonstrate significant
potential damage to human health, agriculture, or certain plants or
animals important to American citizens. Such biological entities should
be (and are) prevented from entering the country as much as is humanly
possible. Where and when they breach these safeguards they should be
(and are) pursued and eradicated as quickly as possible by Federal and
State authorities. State waters along the coasts or Great Lakes, like
State lands bordering Canada or Mexico are the busy battlegrounds in
these legitimate and necessary Federal efforts.
The current ``Injurious Wildlife List'' provides a proven approach.
When a species like mongoose is proven (demonstrably and definitively)
to be a danger and seriously harmful it is listed; regulations direct
Federal import regulators to exclude it; and if it breaches the
controls, lethal controls and Federal/State animal specialists
eradicate it immediately. The fact of ``nativeness'' has nothing to do
with it. The fact that it is not established and that it would not
require draconian government controls and billions of dollars to
ultimately not eradicate it has everything to do with it. Applying this
principle to say goldfish or carp (two well established ``non-native''
fish that could be painted by any number of aquatic biologists as
environmentally disruptive) would be incredibly expensive, ultimately
ineffective, and further erode the State authority over plants and
animals while growing Federal authorities and the tax burden--to no
good purpose.
Regarding the issue of States ``struggling with budget issues that
may affect their ability to implement their own invasive species
plans.'' If the Federal Government stepped in and took State authority
every time States were ``struggling with budget issues'' over the past
century; we would have long since ceased being a Republic and become a
centrally ruled nation like France, Australia, or Indonesia.
States Were given and should maintain authority over all plants and
animals within their jurisdiction. Current Invasive Species desires in
many States are simply wishes expressed because of the rumors of
imminent Federal funding availability and their continuing (and
currently acute) desire for more tax money from any source. Many States
will gladly abdicate their Constitutional authorities in this regard
since they are unwilling to protect the rights of their residents from
other Federal intrusions from which they obtain Federal funding. An
example of this would be Endangered Species takings of private property
under the guise of Critical Habitat declarations by Federal bureaucrats
who also approve grants and monetary assistance to State bureaucrats
and University professors in the same States. Another example is the
forced closure of heavily used State highways in National Parks by
Transportation bureaucrats who dispense highway funding to States.
Invasive Species funding is likewise seductive to these same Federal
and State bureaucrats, University professors, and environmental
activists who together testified so overwhelmingly before your
Subcommittee in favor of new Invasive Species legislation. They aim to
create new Federal authorities and begin an annually increasing flow of
Federal dollars for invented problems that will put Endangered Species
abuses and lawsuits to shame.
The role I suggest for the Federal Government in this matter is no
different than the one clearly envisioned when the final Constitutional
Amendment in the Bill of Rights (10th Amendment) was ratified. Federal
authority over interstate and foreign commerce provides all the Federal
authority needed to prevent the introduction of harmful and non-present
plants, animals, or microbes. This entails research on potential
threats; techniques for detecting, preventing, and eradicating harmful
entities; and maintaining regulations and employees to enforce the
Federal legislation to do these things. Invasive Species authority
should remain ``reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.''
In addition, because the Federal Government owns more lands in the
United States than any other landowner, Federal lands (with the
exception of those few lands where Exclusive [of State authority]
Jurisdiction prevails like the Washington Mall and Yellowstone Park)
should be exemplary units managed in accord with State laws and the
standards of the communities wherein they occur. Federal managers
should manage and eradicate harmful plants like knapweed and yellow
starthistle on Federal properties and refrain from imposing urban
standards like the elimination of grazing or hunting in rural areas by
imposing new Federal authorities. Invasive Species authority will
certainly encourage such attempts.
Federal advocates of further involvement in the matter of Harmful
Species (i.e. ``Injurious'') might consider Land Grant University
research on controls for species such as fire ants and kudzu. If the
Environmental Protection Agency can be convinced to permit lethal
control methods and agents, perhaps States would cooperate with each
other and at least reduce the density and distribution of such species.
Eradication is problematic in today's world where agencies, laws,
powerful environmental/animal rights organizations, and regulations
discourage lethal controls generally and problem species once purposely
eradicated, like wolves, are forcibly reintroduced over State
objections by Federal edicts.
State governments can, and do, enforce the plant and animal
standards and distributions desired by their residents. Whether such
species have been in place for 12 months, 12 years, or 500 years;
whether the species were introduced for agriculture, animal husbandry,
hunting, fishing, gardens, or as pets; whether urban residents despise
them or rural people love them, the numbers, distribution, use,
management of, and all decisions involving plants and animals should
remain a primary State responsibility.
Question 2. ``You've suggested that rainbow trout and striped bass,
both popular recreational fish, could be considered invasive species in
some of their present range. Does that represent concern that this
legislation may encourage lawsuits similar to those involving various
ESA and NEPA issues? If so please elaborate.''
Response. Rainbow trout and striped bass greeted the first European
explorers. The striped bass occupied coastal waters and coastal streams
along the Atlantic seaboard and rainbow trout were ubiquitous in clear,
coldwater streams mainly in mountains and northern (US) waters. They
were found to be very desirable due to their commercial abundance,
their tasty flesh, and for the fishing enjoyment they provided
individual fishermen seeking a sporting challenge and a good meal. As a
result they have been ``introduced'' (i.e. transplanted) all over the
US. Striped bass have been placed in reservoirs, Pacific streams in
California, and in streams where they were formerly unknown. Even
greater transplanting took place with rainbow trout that are now found
throughout the Nation in streams, ponds, reservoirs, the Great Lakes,
and even cold tailwaters below southern desert dams.
There is no way to distinguish these transplanted fish from brown
trout (bought from Europe) or goldfish (brought from China) or walking
catfish released from an aquarium and imported from Thailand. All are
``Invasive'', ``non-native'', and ``non-indigenous'' in most of the
waters in which they occur today. Any attempt to refine the
``Invasive'' definition (1492, 1776, etc.) highlights the total lack of
data for such an assertion and the foolishness of judging what should
be on ``that mountain slope'' or in ``those waters'' based on past
circumstances.
There is no doubt that however you define ``Invasive'' in any
Federal legislation, these and similar species that have been moved
about for commercial purposes, sport purposes, or as the result of
water projects like the diversion of the Chicago River or reservoir
construction on the Missouri River will be targeted for extinction over
the majority of their current ranges. Just as court decisions, Federal
regulations, and Universities were manipulated by environmentalists and
animal rights activists using Endangered Species legislative language
and funding; so too will these same entities be further utilized by the
same people using Federal Invasive Species authority.
Endangered Species legislative and regulatory language has been the
tool used to stop public works projects, logging, public land access,
fishing, and many other legitimate American freedoms and needed
improvements. One example of fishing reduction is the unjustified
listing of the bull trout under the Endangered Species Act to justify
the eradication of rainbow trout in hundreds of miles of streams.
Universities are influenced by the possibility of obtaining Federal
grants for study. The ``experts'' on say bats or darters are rewarded
with funds and attention (graduate students, tenure, and recognition)
if their biology asserts vague differences in races or populations as
significant or habitat ``requirements'' as needing more study because
of overblown environmental interactions.
Invasive Species legislation will provoke the same groups to
utilize courts, bureaucrats, and professors in the same way.
Meaningless competition between west coast striped bass and some other
predator will be pictured as very serious by a biology professor.
Courts, bureaucrats, professors (and sad to say, even State agencies
eligible for Federal grants) will be prodded by groups opposed to sport
fishing, commercial fishing, boating, gas engines, shoreline
development, etc. to eradicate the striped bass and replace them with
far less desirable or less utilizable species. This will all be
presented as ``restoring the balance of nature'' and this scenario will
be repeated nationwide until there is no more private shoreline
property, no sport fishing, no commercial fishing, and no boating.
Anyone doubting these intended results need only look at the extreme
agendas and radical activities of environmental and animal rights
groups over the past 20 years. Historical facts speak for themselves.
For the sake of all the things Americans hold dear, from sport
fishing to private property to making a living from the sustainable
harvest of renewable natural resources, please leave authority over
plants and animals at the State level where the Founding Fathers wisely
placed it.
__________
Statement of Sebastian Hargrove, Government Relations Associate, The
Nature Conservancy of Idaho
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of S. 525, the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act or NAISA. I am appearing here today on behalf of
The Nature Conservancy. I will cover three major points in my comments
today:
1) the threat aquatic invasive species pose to the nation's economy
and environment, including the inland West;
2) use of NAISA as an effective tool for addressing this threat;
and
3) improvements that can be made to the bill through a few
technical and substantive amendments.
I. Introduction
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants,
animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
earth by protecting the land and water they need to survive. The
Conservancy has more than 1 million individual members and over 1,900
corporate associates. We currently have programs in all 50 States and
in 30 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 12
million acres in the United States and abroad, and has helped local
partner organizations preserve millions of acres in other nations. The
Conservancy itself owns a network of more than 1,400 preserves in the
United States the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the
world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong
partnerships with other landowners, and tangible results at local
places.
The Conservancy determines where and how to do its work through a
planning process that identifies areas in the country containing the
most viable and important examples of plant and animal communities.
This process further identifies the principal threats to the integrity
of the sites such as land conversion, non-point source runoff, or
repression of natural fire regimes. An overwhelming 94 percent of our
sites have identified invasive species as the most significant threat
to the integrity of biodiversity.
II. The Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species
Non-native, invasive species cause significant economic and
ecological damage throughout North America. Recent estimates state that
invasive species cost the U.S. approximately $130 billion per year and
that 42 percent of the species on the Threatened and Endangered Species
Lists are at risk primarily because of invasive species. Once
established, invasive species displace native species, impede municipal
and industrial water systems, degrade ecosystems, reduce recreational
and commercial fishing opportunities, and cause public health problems.
Aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they
readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to
treat safely. Hundreds of exotic species arrive in U.S. waters every
day through a variety of pathways such as ballast water, boat hulls,
aquaculture and others. Our interest is to prevent these new arrivals,
or to rapidly detect and eradicate if prevention is not possible.
To illustrate the immediacy of the threat of aquatic invasive
species, I would like to recount what happened in Spokane, Washington 2
years ago yesterday on June 16, 2001. On that mild June day, a
trailered 40-foot sailboat pulled into the State of Washington port of
entry on Interstate 90, just a few miles west of the Idaho border.
State inspectors, alerted to the danger of aquatic invasive species,
examined the boat closely and found live zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) encrusted on the rudder flaps, screens, and engine cooling
system. Zebra mussels are a scourge of the Great Lakes and many eastern
watersheds, where they have severely disrupted native ecosystems and
caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and control costs.
Officials quarantined and cleaned the boat before allowing it to enter
Washington waters.
This story illustrates two key points. First, aquatic invasive
species are not only a problem for the coastal and Great Lakes States;
the waters in the inland West are at risk from zebra mussels and a host
of other aquatic invasive species. Second, the modest investment that
Washington State made in training its employees to prevent aquatic
invasive species paid big dividends. But Washington's prevention
program is the exception rather than the rule. We can only assume that
no inspectors in other States found these zebra mussels as the sailboat
traveled west across the northern tier of the U.S. If the boat had put
into Lake Coeur d'Alene or Payette Lake in Idaho, we could have zebra
mussels established in the upper Columbia River Basin, with potentially
devastating impacts on recreation, hydropower, and irrigation.
This story is not an isolated example of the risks posed by aquatic
invaders. Idaho communities already spend a quarter of a million
dollars annually to control Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum) in some of Idaho's most important recreational waters,
including Payette and Hayden lakes. This fast-growing weed is choking
our shorelines and spreading fast.
You might also be surprised to learn that the first known
infestation of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) in the
United States occurred not in one of our major port cities, but
hundreds of miles inland on the Snake River, near Hagerman, Idaho.
These invasive mollusks grow in dense mats and have now spread up the
Snake and into the Madison River in Yellowstone National Park, with
unknown consequences for native fish populations. The danger is clear.
We need to get prepared, and NAISA is an essential step in that
direction.
III. S. 525--The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 will dramatically
upgrade our nation's invasive species program in two very important
ways.
First, NAISA will create new tools to protect and manage inland
waters. Efforts to date have been targeted at severe problems in the
Great Lakes and on the coast. However, aquatic invasive species such as
giant salvinia, purple loosestrife, and zebra mussels threaten inland
waters as well. NAISA will provide tools and coordination to manage
these threats in a broader geographic area.
Second, NAISA will implement the framework recommended by the
National Invasive Species Council for an effective invasive species
management program. This framework calls for a program--coordinated
between all levels of government and with the private sector--that
includes:
Prevention,
Public Outreach and Education,
Early Detection and Rapid Response,
Research and Risk Analysis, and
Control and Management.
S. 525 will provide critical tools for States like Idaho and their
partners in the battle to manage aquatic invasive species. It is
particularly noteworthy that NAISA adopts the most cost-effective
approach by focusing on three areas where we all need to improve:
prevention, early detection, and rapid response. The bill will cover
all waters of the U.S., including inland lakes and streams. Critical
elements of the bill include:
Grants for State Management Plans--Section 501 provides
for State level planning for aquatic nuisance species and authorizes
Federal grants for development and implementation of those plans;
Prevention of Introductions by Vessels--Section 101 will
expand and strengthen existing programs governing ballast water
management the Conservancy supports including a role for the U.S.E.P.A.
in establishing standards;
Priority Pathway Management--Section 201 will establish a
system to help more effectively target prevention efforts by
identifying high-risk pathways for aquatic invasive species
introductions;
Pre-screening of Intentional Introductions--Section 202
establishes a system for pre-screening species newly in trade to limit
importation of high-risk species and help better target prevention
efforts;
Early Detection and Monitoring--Section 301 directs the
existing Aquatic Nuisance Species Task force to coordinate with States,
local, and tribal governments to establish an early detection
monitoring network;
Rapid Response--Section 302 establishes a critical $30
million rapid response fund for States, establishes regional
interagency rapid response teams at the Federal level to provide
assistance upon request to States in implementing rapid response
strategies;
Information, Education, and Outreach--Section 306
establishes public and industry outreach programs to identify high-risk
pathways for introduction (such as marinas), information on techniques
to check and clean recreational vessels, information on how to properly
dispose of live, non-native aquatic organisms in trade, and directs
outreach to maritime, horticultural, aquarium, aquaculture, and pet
trade industries to promote cooperation to prevent new introductions;
and,
Research Title 4 establishes a competitive, peer-reviewed
research program to support prevention, early detection and rapid
response efforts, and evaluate effectiveness of existing programs. This
section also supports research on control and eradication methods and
technology to support effective stewardship on the ground.
We support NISA reauthorization, and feel that this bill is an
excellent starting point. It embodies many principles that will move
the Nation forward in a constructive manner and set a standard
globally.
IV. Recommendations
The Conservancy has recommended a few technical and substantive
changes to the bill to better facilitate work on the ground. We would
be happy to work with the Committee on these amendments. In short, we
recommend the Committee consider the following suggestions:
The legislation should recognize and clarify that treatments should
have a long term, net-positive effect on an ecosystem. We should not
rule out some rapid response or other control, management, or
restoration efforts because they may have discrete, short-term adverse
impacts to nontarget species, if that risk is balanced against the
ability to prevent greater harm in the long term. The Conservancy is
committed to working to develop effective, benign methods for treating
aquatic invasions. But, as we have seen in the effort to control an
invasion of Spartina anglica in North Puget Sound in Washington--large
populations of spartina are at present only effectively controlled by a
combination of mechanical treatment and herbicide application. The
Conservancy is working with partners to test mechanical control
techniques on smaller patches.
With regard to the cost-sharing provisions for grants, the
Conservancy recommends that the Committee expand upon the current
language to allow any match required for activities under the Act to be
met with in-kind activities. In addition, the legislation should be
clarified to State that the Federal share of grants to fund rapid
response contingency strategies should be at least 50 percent or 75
percent--depending on the nature of the activity.
Passage of NAISA will provide important financial and technical
help to States such as Idaho that are just beginning to address aquatic
invaders. Idaho, like many States, has established an invasive species
council that will address all invaders, including New Zealand
mudsnails, Eurasian water milfoil, and zebra mussels, but we need
strengthened leadership, better coordination, and more resources. NAISA
goes a long way toward providing the States the tools they need to
tackle aquatic invaders. The Conservancy would be pleased to work with
the Committee to strengthen the provisions dealing with inland States.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions.
__________
Statement of Michael Hauser, Agency of Natural Resources, Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee members for the opportunity to
provide testimony on Senate Bill 525. I consider myself fortunate to
live and work in Vermont, a small State, but with a tremendous
reputation for its natural beauty, environmental integrity, and
recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, these qualities are
threatened by a large and very real threat--the introduction and spread
of aquatic invasive species. Nearly sixty species of aquatic non-native
plants and animals are known to have taken up residence in Vermont.
While not all of these species have become invasive, those that have,
such as zebra mussels, water chestnut, Eurasian water milfoil and
purple loosestrife, have significant negative economic and ecological
impacts. More than $2 million of local, State and Federal funds are
spent annually in Vermont to manage and prevent the spread of these
species. Approximately one quarter of this goes to managing water
chestnut in southern Lake Champlain alone. These totals do not include
the costs associated with the degradation of the environment; reduction
of lakeshore property values; or the protection of boats, water intake
systems and other infrastructure. Currently within the Department of
Environmental Conservation there are four staff positions dedicated to
the management of aquatic invasive species, and it is fair to say we
cannot keep up. These invaders continue to displace native species;
impede boating, fishing and swimming; and strain State and local
budgets.
Despite these problems, Vermont, and the other northeastern States,
are relatively fortunate to have had only a fraction of the nonnative
species introductions experienced in other parts of the country. This
is not to say Vermont doesn't have major problems from invasive
species, we do, but these problems are likely to increase significantly
if we do not seize this opportunity to prevent more invasive aquatic
species from coming our way. And they are coming, the round goby, the
Asian carp, the Eurasian ruffe, the quagga mussel, the spiny water
flea. Nonnative species that have all proven to be extremely invasive
in other regions of this country are poised to enter water systems of
the Northeast. It is imperative that we prevent this from happening,
and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act can help us do it.
As you well know, invasive species do not recognize political
boundaries. We in Vermont can't expect a species to stop at our border.
Experience tells us that we also can't wait for an invasive species to
cross into the State before we take action--by then it is too late. We
must work with other States throughout the region to build a unified
defense. The National Invasive Species Act is helping us to do this. In
2001 the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel was formed under
authority of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The
Panel, with funding assistance from the Task Force, has developed a
dedicated network of representatives from all six New England States,
New York, and Canada. We meet regularly to share ideas and concerns,
and to coordinate the use of our limited resources. For example, the
Panel is printing a card to assist boaters, resource managers and other
individuals throughout the Northeast in the identification of the
extremely invasive plant, hydrilla. Populations of hydrilla have
recently been found in a few lakes in Connecticut, Massachusetts and
Maine. As a further example of regional coordination, the Panel
recently held a workshop to develop a model aquatic nuisance species
rapid response plan for the Northeast. When completed, the plan will
establish a coordinated region-wide early detection and warning system.
It will also facilitate the development of State aquatic invasive
species rapid response plans that are consistent and coordinated
throughout the region.
Additionally, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel and each
of the other four regional panels developed under the National Invasive
Species Act give the respective regions a strong, unified voice on the
national stage helping to level the playing field. The regional panels,
via the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, enable small States like
Vermont to have their aquatic nuisance species concerns fairly
presented to the Federal agencies distributing funds and making
critical management decisions in this area.
Provisions of Senate Bill 525 that would lead to effective
practices to prevent new introductions of potentially invasive species
to this country will have perhaps the greatest long-term benefit for
Vermont. For example, although Vermont does not have significant issues
directly related to ballast water, it is vulnerable to nonnative
species introduced to the Great Lakes via ballast water dumping. Lake
Champlain, along Vermont's western border, is directly connected to the
Great Lakes by the Champlain Barge Canal, Erie Canal and Saint Lawrence
Seaway systems. The zebra mussel used these routes to enter Lake
Champlain from the Great Lakes in 1993. Of direct relevance, provisions
in Senate Bill 525 would facilitate the transfer of knowledge gained
from the dispersal barrier deployed on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary
Canal to other canal systems throughout the country. This specifically
includes the Champlain Barge Canal which connects the south end of Lake
Champlain to the Erie Canal system and has been implicated in the
introduction of numerous invasive species to Lake Champlain.
The National Invasive Species Act has played a direct role in
helping to address aquatic invasive species issues throughout the Lake
Champlain Basin of Vermont and New York. Authorized under the National
Invasive Species Act, the Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plan was developed and subsequently approved by the Federal
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force in 2000. Since then the Task Force
has provided $370,000 for the Plan's implementation. While this
represents a relatively small percentage of the total aquatic nuisance
species program costs in the Basin, the funds have enabled many
significant accomplishments that would have otherwise been
unattainable. Specifically, Task Force funding has assisted with the
establishment of an Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator position for
the Lake Champlain Basin, has enabled dedicated enforcement of Vermont
aquatic nuisance species laws, has contributed to the Lake Champlain
Water Chestnut Management program, has funded the printing of outreach/
spread prevention literature, and is helping with the development of an
aquatic invasive species rapid response plan for the Lake Champlain
Basin.
Senate Bill 525 would significantly raise the authorized funding
levels for State and interstate aquatic nuisance species management
plans. While the continued development and approval of State management
plans is a positive contribution to the nation-wide effort needed to
address invasive species, funding levels for such plans have not grown
for the last several years. This has resulted in a smaller share for
each State with an approved plan. To be effective, the funding for
State and interstate plans must grow proportionate to the number of
approved plans, not get sliced into smaller and smaller portions. This
bill provides the funding authorization to enable this to happen.
Passage of Senate Bill 525 will greatly assist Vermont, and I
believe the Nation as a whole, in continuing to build on the
substantial gains made under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
Prevention and Control Act of 1990. I encourage you to support this
bill and thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this
afternoon. Time permitting, I will be happy to entertain questions.
______
Response of Michael Hauser to an Additional Question from Senator
Allard
Question. This legislation requires that each State have a rapid
response contingency plan. If the Federal Government requires such a
plan, how do we ensure that all ships that discharge ballast waters are
aware of each State's plan?
Response. The bill provisions require that portions of State rapid
response contingency strategies involving actions by vessels conform to
guidelines established by the Coast Guard (Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating). I assume procedures for due
notification of vessels would be part of those requirements.
__________
Statement of James H.I. Weakley, President, Lake Carriers' Association
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this legislation that
is so crucial to both the maritime industry and the marine environment.
It is Lake Carriers' Association's concern that this bill be crafted
such that both are well served. We are generally supportive of S. 525.
LCA is a member of the Ballast Water Coalition. Although I do not
testify today on behalf of the Coalition, I will focus on the concerns
of the shipping industry.
Lake Carriers' Association represents 11 American corporations
operating 57 U.S.-flag vessels exclusively on the Great Lakes. Foreign-
flag operators move cargo into the region from across the oceans. We do
not. Our vessels typically move more than 100 million tons of cargo
each year. Those commodities include iron ore for the steel industry,
coal for power generation, and limestone for the construction industry.
As you can see, tens of thousands of family sustaining jobs depend on
the efficient movement of cargo on the Great Lakes. We not only earn
our wages here, we recreate along the shores and drink from the world's
largest supply of fresh water. It is a place we call home.
Lake Carriers' Association has been leading efforts to find an
invasive species solution for more than a decade. In partnership with
Government agencies, non-governmental agencies, and shippers, we've
invested more than $4 million researching this complex problem. Our
projects evaluated several ballast water treatment methodologies and
engineering solutions using a barge specifically designed for this
purpose, as well as operational ships and land-based facilities.
Lake Carriers' Association is committed to finding solutions to the
worldwide problem of ballast water transport of nonindigenous species.
Upon learning of the discovery of the ruffe in Duluth/Superior Harbor
in the late 1980's, LCA produced the Voluntary Ballast Water Management
Program. Deemed the ``cutting edge of technology'' by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, our voluntary efforts have largely contained the
ruffe. In addition, we have instituted other voluntary practices to
reduce the threat of transferring other aquatic nuisance species within
the Great Lakes. These practices represent our industry's commitment to
slowing what is inevitable the migration of newly arrived exotics.
For example, the ruffe is migrating along the southern shore of
Lake Superior of its own volition. Therefore, we must focus our
energies on prevention of new exotics into the Lakes and all U.S.
waters. The Lakes, like many waterways, are naturally connected; so
absent a natural predator, any fish, insect, or plant introduced into
one Great Lake can and will migrate to the others. Like it or not, the
ruffe, the zebra mussel, and the sea lamprey, to mention a few, are
here to stay.
I must emphasize that this issue is not limited to the Great Lakes
Basin. The West Coast of the United States and the Chesapeake Bay have
been significantly threatened and remain vulnerable to new invasions.
Vessels engaged on international voyages and foreign-flag vessels
sailing between U.S. ports also pose a risk.
Internationally, the topic is being debated at the International
Maritime Organization. Australia struggles with the same issues and
continues to deal with invasive species. Since the United States is the
world's largest trading partner, what we do impacts the world shipping
community in ways that no other country can. Much of the debate in the
international community seems to be focusing on what the standard will
be and how to implement it. An alternative to the percent based
standard in S. 525, a standard based on the number of organisms living
above a certain size in the treated ballast water has been proposed at
IMO.
It is my sense that this alternative standard is growing in support
at IMO and in the international community. I think that standard does
have merit as an alternative and it seems to be where the debate is
moving to, for the following reasons:
a) It is more clearly defined and, from an engineering perspective,
easier to design to engineers like tight design definitions.
b) From a testing and verification perspective, it may also be
easier to measure and enforce.
c) Also, it may be more practical for manufacturers to build to
that standard.
The primary problem with the 95 percent approach is its vagueness.
Ninety-five percent of what? Even the biologists and scientists may
have a hard time agreeing. With all of the biological differences in
various water samples across a wide spectrum of sizes from different
ecosystems, engineers would find it difficult to develop a system to
meet the requirement.
It also may be byzantine to design a testing protocol to evaluate
equipment based on the 95 percent standard.
At IMO, I think there is a good chance that the standard may be
changed from that of a percent approach to one of an organisms alive
above a size in a standard volume of water. It makes sense for the U.S.
standard to be compatible with the international standard. I also
believe we will act on this long before IMO reaches consensus and
enacts anything. If we lead, others will follow.
From a risk perspective, the question is: Is there a greater risk
by allowing 5 percent of all the biota to remain alive or some unknown
amount below a certain size and a specific number of organisms above
that size to enter the ecosystem? Either methodology does a better job
of protecting the ecosystem than what we have now, and both focus on
prevention.
In addition to prevention, there are several other themes for
addressing this issue: a clearly defined and practical treatment
standard; a Federal solution with worldwide application, robust data
collection and technological research systems; and the grandfathering
of treatment systems and vessels. I believe that the above approach
will lead to a variety of solutions. From a shipboard perspective, the
critical variables include: the volume of ballast water; pumping rate;
length of voyage; time in port; trade pattern; and vessel design. The
complexity of these variables makes a single solution difficult, if not
impossible.
Although we respect the role of State Governments, an appropriate
Federal solution would not only adequately address the problem, it
would save the States' enforcement dollars. This is exactly the type of
problem that requires a regional and, therefore, Federal solution. Can
you imagine the complexities of trying to comply with different
regulations promulgated by the eight States that share the Lakes?
I want to thank the Committee for your commitment to finding
solutions to this problem and conclude by saying we must recognize
those exotics that have established themselves in the Great Lakes are
now citizens in all but name. Even the very successful and
sophisticated efforts of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission have
resulted in the control of but not the elimination of the sea lamprey.
Therefore, our goal MUST BE the prevention of additional introductions
via the ballast water on ocean-going vessels.
Thank you.
______
Responses of James H.I. Weakley to Additional Questions from Senator
Allard
Question 1. This legislation requires that each State have a Rapid
Response Contingency Plan. If the Federal Government requires such a
plan, how do we ensure that all ships that discharge ballast waters are
aware of each State's plan?
Response. It would be difficult to ensure that all ships
discharging ballast are aware of each individual State's response plan.
That is why we favor a Federal solution based on international
agreements and protocols. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 implemented a
response approach that clearly designated the Federal Government as the
response leader while allowing for State and Local input into the
response plan and execution. I believe that the structure for
responding to invasive species should follow the same pattern. That
approach would ensure that all involved parties understood their role,
responsibility, and authority.
Question 2. The legislation proposes that the Coast Guard will
promulgate the regulations for an interim standard, while the EPA will
develop the final standard. The Coast Guard supports a single standard
that is scientifically sound and enforceable, and the EPA has concerns
that they should be the ones in charge, as well as issues of rule
promulgation and sharing. Some before this Committee believe that the
responsibility to develop and promulgate a ballast water discharge
standard should remain with one agency. How should this be addressed?
Who is the right agency?
Response. LCA strongly agrees that the responsibility to develop
and promulgate a ballast water discharge standard should lie with one
agency and, further, that the U.S. Coast Guard is best suited to be
that agency. If more than one agency is involved, the potential for
conflicts and contradictions rises dramatically. I mean no disrespect
to other Federal agencies, but regulations that govern ballast water
procedures must be developed by individuals who are highly
knowledgeable of the marine environment and vessel operations. If
ballast tanks are filled or emptied too quickly or in the wrong
sequence, the resulting stresses can crack or even break the hull, a
result that puts both lives and the environment at risk. We strongly
urge that the U.S. Coast Guard be the sole agency responsible for
development and implementation of a ballast water discharge standard.
______
Responses of James H.I. Weakley to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question. It is my understanding that there is an ongoing lawsuit
between several groups and the EPA on whether the agency should
regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act. What effect would
regulation of this kind have on the shipping industry?
Response. Regulation of ballast water by the EPA under the Clean
Water Act could have a devastating effect on the marine industry.
Operationally, the process for applying for permits, certifying and
testing effluent, and the permutations of ballasting operations could
significantly impact the industry. Our ability to move cargo demands a
regulatory scheme that is streamlined and efficient. Introducing the
EPA into the process would be counter to both of those goals. The U.S.
Coast Guard, steeped in maritime history and knowledge, serves the best
interest of marine transportation without compromising the best
interest of our Nation. The industry could easily be issued
contradictory requirements by the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA,
effectively catching the ship and the vessel operator in a bureaucratic
tug-of-war for control. The sheer number of ballasting operations could
overwhelm the EPA and divert attention from their current duties and
responsibilities. The resulting regulatory gridlock would negatively
impact the environment and the economy. The U.S. Coast Guard, from both
a domestic and international perspective, remains the most qualified
and effective agency for addressing the ballast water issue.
Question 2. What have you learned from your Association's process
of trying to find a solution to the ballast water problem? Please
describe some of your research.
Response. Through our research, we gained a greater appreciation of
the complexity of the problem. We have also been able to focus in on
some of the key variables and concluded that there likely will not be a
single solution or technology that works for every vessel. Volume of
ballast water and rate of flow appear to be the key engineering
variables for treatment systems. Vessel design and trade pattern also
play a role in determining the need for ballast water treatment and the
success of that treatment. More research must be done to understand the
problem before solutions are found.
In the end, there will probably be different solutions for
treatment, depending on the application. There may also be systems
employing a series of treatment at the water intake, water discharge
and during transit or a technological breakthrough may result in a
single system with multiple applications. One thing is clear, there
remains much work to do.
To date, we have evaluated filtration systems, cyclonic separator
systems, and ultra-violet light. We have even evaluated filtrations
systems in combination with ultra-violet light. Our testing
environments have included a Canadian laker trading between the St.
Lawrence Seaway and the Lakes; an American barge moored in Duluth
(Minnesota) Harbor; and an ocean-going tanker.
Question 3. It is my understanding that attendees at the recent
International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species held in Windsor,
Ontario, thought it would be a good idea to dedicate a test ship to
full-scale, on-board ballast water technologies and treatment. Is this
something the government can do to promote research and help find a
solution to the ballast water problem?
Response. At some point, ballast water treatment and equipment
evaluation must be done aboard ship. However, it may not be the best
use of government money to provide a ship dedicated to this purpose.
With research in its infancy, more needs to be done to develop possible
solutions in the laboratory before testing shipboard implementation.
Rather than a single ship dedicated to testing different applications
at different times, a better approach may be to fund specific tests on
multiple ships at the same time. That approach would result in a larger
body of research in a shorter timeframe. The vessel operator, not the
government, would then pay the fixed costs of operating the ship. The
government would only be funding the marginal costs of the ballast
water research. Operational tests could also be done on barges
specifically designed for the test or modified at significantly less
cost for the same information. The government should stimulate research
by funding as much testing as possible with the limited money
available.
__________
Statement of Thomas W. Sherman, President, Aquacide LLC
Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to present Aquacide's views on certain aspects of the Bill,
especially as they pertain to Ballast Water Management.
Aquacide is a ballast water engineering firm consisting of
engineers and scientists with expertise in thermodynamics, fluid/gas
handling, metallurgy, marine biology, naval architecture, marine
engineering, biochemistry, toxicity, waste water treatment, marine law,
patents and licensing. We have been involved in the invasive species
problem for more than 10 years, and participated in the preparation of
Sen. Glenn's Bill, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
The invasion of our waters has been going on for years. Congress
took note of it and passed, in 1990, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA). During the intervening years,
scientists have been driving the Invasive Species train, and while this
has resulted in the accumulation of much needed data, little has
actually been accomplished to stem the tide of invaders. I should add
here that my use of the term ``stem the tide'' is not original.
``Stemming the Tide'' is the title of a book published in 1996 by the
National Research council, which is considered to be the ``bible'' for
those involved in this business.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has been addressing
the issue with numerous international meetings, exchanges of papers,
etc. Also, for years, the Coast Guard has been publishing for comment
proposals for regulating ballast water. The ``community'' of
scientists, shipowners, regulators and others have actively
participated, and the volumes of paperwork accumulated in this process
are a matter of public record.
There is no shortage of data.
But in 13 years, nothing concrete has been achieved. So every day,
thousands of tons of unregulated ballast water containing invasive
species and disease causing pathogens are being discharged into our
waters. Action is clearly required, and that is the thrust of my
remarks today.
Other than voluntary ballast water exchange (BWE), there are no
controls over ballast water being discharged into U.S. waters. We
believe that it is time, as Congress addresses the present legislation,
to move forward and establish mandatory requirements which will
actually begin to stem the tide. In the process of moving forward,
decisions will have to be made, some of which may be painful, but these
decisions must be made. We view the legislation before you as a
crossroads a golden opportunity to transition the process from being
problem oriented to solution oriented.
The scientists and the regulators have had their day in court
(thirteen years of them), and it is now time for the owners, the
builders, the innovators and the engineers to make things happen. While
they are at work, the scientists will continue their work on the
evolving threat.
As Aquacide sees things, the main order of business before this
Committee, as pertaining to ballast water treatment, and where the
decisions need to be taken, is the establishment of mandatory standards
and a timetable for their implementation. This action, which will lead
to consideration and passage by the Congress, should be completed in a
timely fashion. When one considers those thousands of tons of
unregulated ballast water being discharged into our waters, the need
for prompt action is apparent
Only after Congress has set the standards and the timetable can the
owners commit resources needed to get the engineers and builders to
configure the ships to meet the standards. Proper ``grandfathering''
must be built into the process to protect the owners' investments,
which will involve billions of dollars.
The stated goal of Congress is to eliminate the risk of
introduction of non-native species, and plant, animal, or human
pathogens by vessels. This is often called zero discharge. To our
knowledge, Aquacide's thermal pasteurization process is the only
existing technology able to approach this theoretical limit. But
whatever standards are adapted should not limit research which might
lead to alternative treatment methods which, given the evolving threat,
may be required. At this point it is appropriate to point out that the
invasive species threat has already evolved into a public health
threat, given that pathogens are now recognized as part of the
invasion. I note that some of the members of this Committee are also
members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The
public health policy aspects of invasive species require decisionmakers
to lean toward the worst-case scenarios. The public, as they become
more informed about the issue, will demand action rather than inaction.
The first required step of the process is to establish Interim
Standards and we urge the Committee to act promptly to get these
established as soon as possible. At this point, I'm going to borrow an
example from the aerospace world to help view Interim Standards in the
proper perspective.
When, say, the Air Force procures a new aircraft, it doesn't go
immediately into full-scale production. It starts with a prototype,
which is everybody's best estimate as to what the final product will
be. When the prototype is fielded for test, many things show up that
nobody had thought about. The Law of Unintended Consequences plays
large here, as does Murphy's Law. After the prototype is wrung out and
fixed, only then is full-scale production begun. Some call this ``fly
before buy.'' There probably will still be some bugs left, but usually
they are minor. The main thing is not to get set into concrete too soon
in the process. I equate Interim Standards to prototypes. With proper
wording, the bugs in the Interims and there will be some can be worked
out with a minimum of time and effort. These, in turn, will lead to
solid, workable Final Standards. As you probably recall, the Draft of
the Bill before us contains a time line which includes this logical
approach.
Given the importance of Interim Standards, I will lay them out in a
step-by-step format:
1. They should be viewed as the first step toward the congressional
goal of zero discharge.
2. They should be better than Ballast Water Exchange (BWE), or at
least as effective. This will require an arbitrary decision (and the
``community'' knows why it must be arbitrary) as to what is meant by
``as effective as BWE.'' The Coast Guard should, by law, make this
decision, but if there are legal concerns in that Agency over making
such a decision, Congress can make it. In any event, this decision must
be made promptly.
3. They should be viewed as they are titled: Interim. All concerned
parties shippers, Coast Guard, scientists, engineers, etc. will learn
by doing. The prototype analogy.
4. The measurement protocols must be stated and must use commonly
accepted yardsticks. Without these protocols, standards are
meaningless. Physical size (so many microns) is one such measure and
there are also commonly accepted biological measures, (which we favor)
used in the field by Agencies like the EPA, such as Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) and Oxygen Uptake Rate (OUR). These measures have been
studied by the Coast Guard and if approved, would be given Type
Approval, which is in the draft language of the Bill.
5. They should not be stated in terms subject to interpretation,
like ``as clean as drinking water.'' There are many legitimate
definitions of this term. Also, they should not be contingent on future
activity, i.e., using language like ``to be developed.'' They should be
based on data in hand now, which exists in abundance. Final Standards
(including measurement protocols) will be based on lessons learned from
the Interim Standards. Standards must be established which reduce
uncertainty to the absolute minimum. Uncertainty puts an unreasonable
burden on those who must bear the costs of ballast water treatment, the
shipowners.
The above specifics apply to Interim Standards in general. The
Regulatory Agencies appear to be reluctant to accept them as they
require decisionmaking, enforcement, and schedules on their part. But
to comply with the stated intent of Congress in 1990, this action must
be taken. Those who State that the current process is working OK are
clearly unwilling to take the action, because, as stated earlier, in
the 13 years that the current process has been operating, the invasion
continues. There is still nothing on the books.
Hopefully, this hearing will lead to action which, as a minimum,
will result in the establishment of Interim Standards and a schedule.
After all these years, the first steps will have been taken to Stem the
Tide.
We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important
legislation.
Thank you
__________
Statement of Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America
The Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water to the record of the subcommittee's June
17, 2003 hearing on the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003
(S. 525). Our testimony focuses on potential strategies relative to
marine vessels entering US waters from outside the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ).
CSA represents 23 U.S. based companies that own, operate or charter
oceangoing tankers, container ships, and other merchant vessels engaged
in both the domestic and international trades and represents other
entities that maintain a commercial interest in the operation of such
oceangoing vessels.
CSA has been involved in the issue of aquatic invasive species for
over a decade at the international, national and sub-national (local
and regional) levels. We have served as an industry advisor to the US
delegation to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine
Environment Protection Committee working closely with the US Coast
Guard, Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies in
the development of the US position at the IMO. We have also worked with
our international maritime trade association colleagues in identifying
practical and environmentally beneficial solutions to the continuing
problem of aquatic invasive species transportation in the ballast water
of marine vessels.
CSA strongly supports the implementation of a mandatory national
ballast water management program and believes that S. 525 is an
excellent framework within which to design such a system with due
regard to environmental protection, technological feasibility and the
realities of the marine transportation industry. We do have some
concerns with specific aspects of the bill and would be pleased to
discuss these in detail with you at your convenience. However, the
majority of these specific details fall within the purview of several
broad categories which we discuss in further detail below. In addition
to these discussions, we close our comments with responses to
particular issues raised at the June 17, 2003 hearing. We hope you find
this information valuable and informative as we all move forward
together in meeting this environmental challenge.
CSA has identified four key issues associated with the creation and
implementation of a mandatory national ballast water management program
in the United States. The four key issues explained below are seen as
the most critical elements to a practical and environmentally
protective national ballast water management program which minimizes
the disruption to the free flow of maritime commerce.
Technology Performance Standards/Standardized Test Protocols
For over a decade, the challenges associated with the transport of
aquatic nuisance species in ballast water have been recognized. During
this time, a number of technology developers have approached various
segments of the industry with the ultimate goal of installing these
technologies aboard vessels for ``real world'' testing. As a result of
the significant financial investment required for transition from
concept to laboratory to pilot plant to full shipboard installation
(conservatively estimated at US $1,000,000 minimum), stakeholders in
these discussions have asked the obvious question as to whether a
particular technology could be expected to meet future legal
requirements. In the absence of any performance standards, industry and
technology experts have acknowledged the impossibility of answering
this threshold question, which if answerable in the affirmative could
justify the expenditure of the significant financial resources
necessary to take a particular technology from concept to shipboard
installation.
Furthermore, in the absence of any standardized test protocols,
technology developers and some ship owners have borne the cost of
laboratory and prototype testing which have produced promising results
but which, unfortunately, are not comparable from one technology to
another. Standardized test protocols which outline scientifically
acceptable test methods are necessary to provide the necessary
comparability among various tested technologies. These standard test
protocols are currently the subject of a joint public/private effort
organized by EPA under its environmental technology verification
program and in which CSA participates.
While we do not claim any scientific expertise in establishing the
quantitative aspects of a biological standard (which must necessarily
balance achievability with environmental protection), we do propose
that any established standard, whether experimental, interim or final,
should be achievable based on existing or reasonably expected
technology and capable of being installed and operated on new and
existing vessels with a minimum of disruption to ship operations. The
current bill proposes 95 percent kill, inactivation and/or removal
interim standard. We believe that a standard based on size of organism
is far preferable to a format which establishes a particular percentage
for the following reasons. A size based standard would meet the
necessary criteria of biological meaningfulness, scientific soundness
and enforceability. To fully comprehend the necessity of establishing a
standard meeting these criteria requires a review of the problems
created if such criteria were not met, as would be the case with the 95
percent kill, inactivation and/or removal standard proposed.
First, the 95 percent number was chosen as a surrogate equivalency
for the 95 percent volumetric efficiency associated with ballast water
exchange. We do not believe that a direct correlation between
biological and volumetric efficiency is justifiable, particularly when
one notes that various studies attempting to quantify the biological
effectiveness of ballast water exchange have ranged from 29 99 percent,
with variations attributable to the wide range in biological components
of the loaded ballast water, methods of exchange (empty/refill,
dilution) and the criteria organisms which were measured in the loaded
and then exchanged ballast water. Second, a standard based on percent
reduction does not adequately take into account the risk introduced
into the receiving water body. Ballast water loaded from a water body
rich in native organisms and then treated to a 95 percent kill,
inactivation and/or removal criteria, presents a far different risk to
a receiving ecosystem than ballast water loaded in a relatively
``benign'' water body. Third, enforcement and compliance programs
utilizing a percent reduction, presuppose that a sample of water taken
at the load port would then later be analyzed at the discharge port to
enable the determination that a particular percentage of organisms were
in fact killed, inactivated or removed. The reliability of such a
measurement is problematic as the biological composition of the sample
during transit will naturally change as certain organisms may die off
during transit, while others may thrive, based on the environment in
the sample container.
Creation of a performance standard based on size of organism
killed, removed or inactivated eliminates these problems. Removal based
on organism size can be directly related to risk reduction in the
discharged ballast water. Additionally, compliance is more easily
verified since the ballast water would only need be analyzed for
organism size rather than the potentially wide range of organism types
and their concentrations found in ecosystems worldwide.
Experimental Shipboard Testing Program
The key to successful implementation of a national (and
international for that matter) ballast water management program that
transitions from the use of ballast water exchange to ballast water
treatment systems requires a program which provides incentives for
participants to go beyond the status quo (currently exchange) and
results in the installation of a number of ``in test'' technologies
aboard ship. Laboratory and shore side prototypes can only go so far.
It is these shipboard installations operated in the sometime severe
marine environment on a variety of ship types and with ballast water
loaded in a wide range of ports worldwide that will provide us with the
data necessary to establish what is practically achievable and what is
not. Furthermore, such test programs will provide valuable data to
invasion biologists relative to what types of organisms from specific
geographical regions present the greatest threat to US waters. A robust
incentivized experimental shipboard testing program with appropriate
agency oversight and reporting requirements is absolutely critical to a
successful ballast water management program.
Grandfathering Provisions
Most international and US regulations pertaining to shipboard
equipment include grandfathering provisions which provide that
compliance with a standard in place at the time the vessel is
constructed (or undergoes major modification) establishes compliance
for that equipment for the life of the vessel. Such provisions need to
be considered within the context of ballast water treatment systems
which carry significant initial costs and present challenges to
retrofitting new equipment on an already existing vessel. At the very
minimum, compliance life of the treatment system should be linked to
expected return on an investment of this significance and the
(in)ability of an existing vessel to install a new system on an
existing vessel. Grandfathering provisions will also play a critical
role in accelerating the move from ballast water exchange to treatment,
where the outlay for treatment system installation far exceeds the
operating expenses of maintaining the status quo (ballast water
exchange).
International/National/Sub-national Consistency
In the ideal world, requirements established by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), the US, States and local/regional
jurisdictions would mirror one another. Compliance with one would
constitute compliance with the others and provide assurance that
vessels, most of which are engaged in international trade, would not be
subject to different sets of requirements in each port of call. Current
direction at the IMO suggests that the international standards may not
be viewed as sufficiently stringent for US waters, although the US
delegation to IMO is working very hard at achieving that level of
stringency in treaty text which is expected to be finalized at a
Diplomatic Conference in early 2004. Recognizing the limited ability
any one country has to influence the final outcome in international
treaty negotiations, we turn to the ability to at least create this
consistency within US waters, noting the large number of vessels which
call in multiple US ports. Language preempting State programs would be
the ideal solution to this dilemma. However, recognizing the political
baggage which accompanies such preemption text, States, at a minimum,
should be urged to the maximum extent practical, to adopt the national
program as their respective State programs. Based on discussions with
representatives of a number of States' environmental agencies, it is
expected that States' would gladly ``buy in'' to a sufficiently strong
national program which did not place them in the precarious position of
choosing environmental protection at the expense of port
competitiveness.
Recommendations
Establishment of an achievable and environmentally
protective ballast water treatment performance standard utilizing
organism size as the criteria for compliance.
Establishment of a standardized testing protocol for
developing technologies which will enable comparability among test
results for various technologies.
Development of an incentivized experimental shipboard
testing program to maximize the number of technology types being tested
on a wide variety of ship types and over a wide geographic range.
Develop appropriate grandfathering provisions for
treatment systems taking into account the significant investment
required for installation and operation of such systems and (in)
ability to retrofit new systems aboard existing vessels.
Maximize consistency among international, national and
sub-national requirements.
CSA Responses to Issues Raised During the Hearing
Issue: A number of Members expressed concern about enacting a
strong Federal program within the context of traditional States' rights
in control and protection of their waters.
Response: CSA recognizes and supports the notion of States' rights
over control of their marine environment. However, CSA also recognizes
the international nature of marine transportation and the transfer of
aquatic invasive species which necessarily demands a strong
international and national template for controls on which the States
may rely. CSA recommends that Federal preemption language be included
in the bill limited only to those programs addressing prevention
namely, Title I, Section 101 which addresses prevention of ANS
introductions into US waters by vessels. The remaining sections of the
legislation addressing research, early detection, rapid response,
control and outreach would not be subject to Federal preemption and
would be implemented through coordinated Federal/State/private
partnerships.
Issue: A number of witnesses expressed concern over the proposed 95
percent kill, inactivation or removal format for the performance
standard.
Response: We agree with the expressed concerns. As indicated above,
the performance standard must be biologically meaningful,
scientifically sound and enforceable (readily measurable). A standard
based on size of organism meets this criteria, while one based on
percent kill, inactivation or removal does not. In addition, we believe
the standard should also be technologically achievable and practical
taking into account the harsh marine environment in which ballast water
treatment systems must operate.
Issue: A number of Members and witnesses discussed the relative
importance of the various aspects of a national program which must
necessarily include prevention, early detection, response, control,
eradication and outreach.
Response: We believe that prevention of invasions is the lodestone
of a successful program. While appropriate focus should be placed on
early detection, response, eradication and outreach, primary focus
should be placed on keeping the invaders out of our waters in the first
place. History is the unfortunate witness as to the practical
impossibility of eradicating an already invasive species once
entrenched in an ecosystem in all but a very few cases where the
geographic range of the invasion has been limited either through
natural phenomenon or early human intervention. It is also important to
note that the need for attention to program components other than
prevention is necessary due to the fact that the development of
technologies addressing the various vectors of ANS transmission is in
its infancy and, while expected to improve substantially over time, is
not capable of reducing the risk of invasions to zero.
Issue: Several witnesses noted that the proposed legislation is
unclear in some portions as to which, if any, Federal agency is the
``lead'' agency on a particular issue.
Response: We agree that responsibilities of Federal agencies should
be clearly and consistently identified. We also recognize the
complexity of dealing with the aquatic invasive species problem and the
need for all agencies with expertise in a given area to be involved in
the decisionmaking which leads to regulations implementing the
provisions of the bill. It is our understanding that an existing
interagency review process is well equipped to vet proposed regulations
among the interested agencies prior to promulgation. With this system
in place, the responsibilities and roles assigned to the various
agencies under the bill should be clear, consistent with agencies'
known expertise and provide for a single agency to take the lead on a
given initiative. For example, the bill as proposed would require the
Coast Guard to establish the interim standard with the concurrence of
the EPA and in consultation with the ANS Task Force. However, the bill
then proposes that the final standard be established by the EPA with
the concurrence of the Coast Guard and in consultation with the ANS
Task Force. Such inconsistency is difficult to fathom since all three
of these entities (and quite likely other agencies) should be involved
in the development of standards (whether they be interim or final). CSA
believes that a single agency be recognized as the lead agency for
standards development and we assert that agency should be the US Coast
Guard, but only after due consultation with all Federal agencies with
expertise in this area.
Issue: Two witnesses addressed the issue of interim and final
standards in their written testimony and specifically, questioned
whether both an interim and final standard is needed (versus
establishment of a final standard only).
Response: CSA recognizes the inherent difficulties placed before
Federal agencies in transitioning from an interim standard to a final
standard, particularly with regard to what benefits should accrue to a
proactive shipowner who has early on in the process, invested heavily
in an experimental shipboard system which proves to exceed the
effectiveness of ballast water exchange but fails to meet the final
standard. On the other hand, vendors and shipowners absolutely require
now some quantitative criteria, a target if you will, which if met,
qualifies their equipment and the shipboard installation for favorable
compliance treatment under the experimental shipboard testing program
and beyond the final standard implementation date, in order to provide
adequate incentives for early action. Without such incentives, vendors
cannot justify bench and shore scale testing programs and vessel owners
cannot justify the significant outlay to move the technology to full
shipboard installation and testing, a critical step in the development
of promising and increasingly more effective technologies. With such
incentives, entities with proactive programs will be appropriately
rewarded while those who remain in the wings waiting for others to
incur the shipboard testing costs will be required to meet the final
standard by the legislatively mandated implementation date. This issue
has been the subject of much discussion in both international and
national fora and CSA believes that the issue is one more related to
semantics than substance, at least from the industry's perspective. If
the concept of an interim standard is problematic for the enforcement
of the ballast water management program, then CSA suggests inclusion of
a performance standard within the body of the experimental shipboard
testing program. Such inclusion, while not mandatory for participation
in the shipboard testing program, would provide that vessels which do
not meet this standard during the course of the testing, would be
subject to final standard requirements at the implementation date.
Technologies that do meet this (interim or experimental) performance
standard prior to or during the course of the experimental shipboard
testing program would be afforded the benefits of a compliance
designation beyond the final standard implementation date and for an
appropriate term to be determined. Based upon the expected life of
large marine vessel systems, CSA proposes that a 20 year life is an
appropriate starting point. Providing such an incentive is well
justified in light of the need to get a number of promising
technologies installed and under test aboard vessels as such tests will
not only permit a determination of the capabilities of existing
technology but will also begin to provide the much needed data relating
to biological profiles of ballast water loaded at locations around the
world.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and
would be pleased to address any questions or discuss any other related
issues in which you have an interest.
__________
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
U.S. Geological Survey,
June 20, 2003.
Senator Michael Crapo,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-1204.
Senator: On June 17, Senator Crapo chaired the U.S. Senate Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife & Water at hearing on S. 525, a bill ``To amend
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
to reauthorize and improve that Act.'' In connection with this
important topic, I wanted to give you some information and a fact sheet
on the work done by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Western
Fisheries Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
The Western Fisheries Research Center and its six associated
laboratories in California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada are involved
in a number of scientific studies related to the impact of aquatic
invasive species. We work in partnership with a variety of State and
local governments, Tribes and land management agencies to assess the
damage, vulnerabilities and future risks imposed by aquatic invasive
species. We do this work in coastal ecosystems like Puget Sound, large
rivers like the Columbia, sensitive inland desert waters, and many
other estuaries, rivers, wetlands and reservoirs.
One particular concern is the risks posed by ballast water
introduction, and the need to develop effective and economical
treatment methods for ballast water. Zebra mussels, red tide plankton
and human cholera pathogens are just some of the bio-invasives
identified in ballast water discharge. The States of California and
Washington have recently passed laws to regulate discharge of ballast
water, laws that will require sound science underpinning their
implementation. USGS' Marrowstone Marine Station in northern Puget
Sound is actively involved in developing treatment methods, assessing
species transportation risks and other ballast water research.
USGS feels that reliable science is essential to predict and assess
aquatic invasive species risks, and to define and manage problems once
they occur. We assist our partners in determining why and how aquatic
invaders are successful, identifying methods to control populations and
short-stop initial invasions, and in approaches to anticipate new
threats. Our partners include States, Tribes, local governments, State
and private universities, and Federal partners such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, NOAA and our sister agencies within the Department
of the Interior the National Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation.
I invite you to contact me to learn more about the USGS invasive
species science underway in Senator Crapo's District or to visit the
Western Region Fisheries Center or one of our Laboratories.
Sincerely,
Anne Kinsinger
Regional Executive for Biology
USGS Western Region
909 First Avenue, Suite 804
Seattle, WA 98104
Non-Indigenous Species Invasions in the Western United States
More than 6,500 non-indigenous species are now established in the
United States, causing huge economic losses and disrupting valued
American ecosystems. Biological invaders pose risks to native species,
human and wildlife health, and the productivity of agricultural food
supplies. Losses caused by just 79 of these taxa were conservatively
estimated in 1993 by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment to be
more than $97 billion and increasing. Bio-security protection from
dangerous biological introductions--is important to Americans.
The vast mosaic of western U.S. habitats is welcoming to potential
biological newcomers. The invaders include plants, animals and
microbial pathogens. Weeds like cheatgrass and medusahead now dominate
over 3 million acres of public land over 5 western States, fueling many
of the nation's largest wildfires. More than 230 non-native species
have colonized San Francisco Bay, completely altering estuarine food
chains and ecosystem processes. Red tide plankton and human cholera
pathogens have been identified in ballast water discharges. Once
established, these invasive species can degrade habitats of critically
declining native wildlife -- indeed, non-indigenous species are often
the most critical problem facing western threatened and endangered
species, particularly on Pacific islands.
Current USGS research on nonindigenous species cannot fulfill
information needs expressed by western resource managers in the Bureau
of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and numerous tribes, States, and private institutions. Gaps in
the USGS program exist for many of the vulnerable habitats of the west
-- many of which are on Federal lands. Risks posed by the invaders are
frequently unknown, so managers can't act to prevent damage. Knowledge
regarding how to restore native communities once they are degraded by
invasive species is largely nonexistent.
In order to fill these gaps, the USGS needs to enhance science
activity in the west, working within the bureau's Invasive Species and
Emerging Diseases Program. The science would be focused through
partnerships with resource managers and conducted using
multidisciplinary or integrated approaches depending on the nature of
the problem. The initiative would include:
Major Thrusts
Predicting and assessing risks: provide USGS partners with tools
and models to anticipate problems; help to better define and manage
problems once they occur.
Prevention and control: develop strategies and methods to shortstop
initial introductions and cost-effectively control invaders once
established, based on research to determine how and why invaders are
successful.
Information management: serve data and information to inform all
aspects of invasive species management; reveal trends through
monitoring to guide adaptive ecosystem management.
High Priority Topics
Fresh Water/Aquatic: define risks posed by aquatic invertebrates;
identify exotic fishes and their effects upon declining natives;
determine non-native species influences on amphibians; define risks
posed by wetland and riparian weed invaders.
Coastal/Marine: determine the vulnerability of estuarine benthic
communities and planktonic food webs; identify high risk foreign
species in advance; determine threats to estuarine ecology.
Ballast Water: research and develop effective ballast water
treatment methods; assess species transport risks (e.g. by season;
biogeographic region of origin); predict vulnerability to invasion for
particular valued habitats, ecosystems, and native species complexes.
Pacific Islands: develop potential biological controls (e.g. brown
tree snakes); assess risks to island habitats for particular invaders
by region of origin; provide recovery science for threatened and
endangered native species depressed by exotics.
Arid and Semiarid Rangeland: identify changes to fire regimes
caused by non-indigenous invasions; develop restoration technologies;
determine habitat impacts for native wildlife; determine how bio-
invasions interact with human habitat perturbations and climate change.
Microbial pathogens and parasites: develop genetic tools to
identify/diagnose novel pathogens; conduct biocontainment laboratory
disease challenges for novel or incipient pathogens to determine
virulence and assess risk of epizootics; develop treatment tools and
methods.
Process understanding: develop information about the ecological
processes and mechanisms that foster invasiveness of plants, animals,
and pathogens; develop science-based control strategies.