SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
74–542PS
2001
COMBATING THE INVADERS:
RESEARCH ON NON-NATIVE SPECIES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 26, 2001
Serial No. 107–25
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
NICK SMITH, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK UDALL, Colorado
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JIM MATHESON, Utah
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JOHN MIMIKAKIS Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
BEN WU Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARY DERR Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 26, 2001
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Statement by Representative James Barcia, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement by Representative Constance Morella, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel I
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra, Member of Congress from Michigan
Panel II
Dr. David L. Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Co-Chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts; Director, The Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport
Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council
Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Mr. Scott S. Smith, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator; Western Regional Panel Director of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Discussion
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Outreach and Education
Ballast Tank Research
Ballast Water Treatment Technology
Cost and Environmental Harm from Invasive Species
Outreach
Prevention and Control of Invasive Species
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Written Testimony, Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra, Member of Congress from Michigan
Written Statement
Dr. David L. Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Co-Chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Written Statement
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts; Director, The Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Written Statement
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Written Statement
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Scott S. Smith, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator; Western Regional Panel Director of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Written Statement
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Testimony of the Aquatic Plant Management Society
Submitted Testimony of the National Association of Maritime Organizations
Submitted Testimony of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
Submitted Testimony of the Great Lakes Commission
Submitted Testimony of the American Farm Bureau Federation
Invasive Species in Subcommittee Members' Home Areas
''Foreign Species Seize Share of U.S. Habitat,'' Chicago Tribune, April 16, 2001
COMBATING THE INVADERS: RESEARCH ON NON-NATIVE SPECIES
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
74542a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Combating the Invaders:
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research on Non-Native Species
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2001
11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
I. Purpose
On Thursday, July 26, 2001 the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing to receive testimony regarding federal agencies' on-going research on invasive species and the coordination efforts of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council. The Subcommittee is reviewing the research provisions in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to determine if they need to be updated or improved.
The Subcommittee will hear testimony from:
Panel I:
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Panel II:
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1) Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Co-Chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Accompanied by: Ms. Cathleen Short, Assistant Director, Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Co-Chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
2) Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council;
3) Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts; Director, The Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport;
4) Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
5) Mr. Scott Smith, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator, Western Regional Panel Director of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Background
The introduction of non-native invasive species is not new to United States. In relatively modern times, people have brought non-native flora and fauna into the United States, both intentionally and unintentionally, for a variety of reasons since the New World was discovered. Intentional introduction of species ranges from the practical to the more aesthetic. For example, trappers introduced nutria (which is a rodent similar to a muskrat) to bolster the domestic fur industry, while people introduced the purple loosestrife plant because it added rich color in gardens. Both nutria and purple loosestrife are now serious threats to wetlands. Many unintentional introductions have been the result of species hitching a ride in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the United States—zebra mussels, for example, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not all species brought into the country are harmful to local economies, people, and/or the environment. Most non-native species do not survive because the environment does not meet the species' biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions (lack of natural enemies, environment that fosters propagation, etc.) that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem. Only a small fraction of these non-native species become an ''invasive species'', which is defined as a species that is: 1) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. However, this small fraction can cause enormous damage.
Damage from Invasive Species
Invasive species wreak havoc on an ecosystem in a number of ways. Invasive animals consume resources upon which native species depend, destroy crops or sensitive habitat, and alter the food chain in an ecosystem by becoming the dominant predator. Invasive plants crowd out native species or upset an ecosystem to such an extent that native plants and animals can no longer survive. Other invasive species cause far-reaching effects, such as the threat that West Nile virus poses to animal and human health from New York to Florida.
Estimating the total economic impact of harmful non-native species is extremely difficult. No single organization accumulates such statistics comprehensively. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species cost Americans $137(see footnote 1) billion annually. This includes the cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. Just one species can cost government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, etc.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond economic impacts, invasive species create ecological costs that are even more difficult to quantify. For example, sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 to $15 million annually. However, we do not have a good measure of the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader. Another example is the brown tree snake, which is responsible for the extinction of dozens of bird and lizard species on Guam. In fact, invasive species are now the number two threat to endangered species, right behind habitat loss. Quantifying the loss due to extinction of these species is nearly impossible.
When is a species invasive?
Determining the threat that a non-native species poses to an ecosystem is difficult. Many non-native species persist in their new environment but are simply classified as a nuisance. For example, crabgrass and dandelions are not native to the United States but have persisted here and do not pose a serious threat to the environment. Some invasive species provide short-term benefits before they cause harm, and some species continue to provide benefits even when they are causing harm. For example, in the 1930s the federal government encouraged farmers to plant kudzu to fight erosion. This prolific weed has now become a serious threat to native plants. Other species pose a threat almost immediately, as is the case with the West Nile virus.
Determining the threshold of when a species is merely a nuisance versus a threat to the economy and ecosystem is one of the most difficult tasks facing researchers and government agencies. There is no systematic approach for determining the relative threat that a non-native species poses, and for deciding what to do if it does pose a threat. Unfortunately, various federal agencies dealing with invasive species are forced to allocate resources for control and mitigation only after they damage the economy or the environment.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research
Research supports all the prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education efforts that deal with invasive species. It assists policymakers by identifying gaps in knowledge, authority and program policies, and it helps them prioritize resources among efforts carried out by Federal, State, local and tribal governments and the private sector to combat invasive species.
Significant scientific questions are raised when policymakers analyze the risks and benefits of intentionally introducing a non-native species that could be beneficial in the short-run, but may or may not pose a threat in the future. Agencies must also utilize research when deciding how to address the various vectors (via seaway, air, land, river, etc.) for unintentional introduction of species and how to allocate resources to ensure they are focusing on the routes with greatest potential for invasions.
Invasive research falls into two broad categories—basic and applied. Basic research focuses on gathering ecological information (life history, physiology, potential habitats, etc.) about invasive species and on developing strategies to prevent them from establishing a viable population in the U.S. These efforts include activities ranging from basic field studies to the comparative risk assessment of potential invasion pathways. These activities help scientists determine the possible impact of invasions, and thus help policy-makers settle on the appropriate level and type of response.
Applied research confronts the threat posed by a specific invasive species. Agencies react to threats and damage from invasives in many ways, and applied research can help them understand how to control, monitor and even eradicate an invasive species. Agencies, however, have cited the need for more applied research, including: developing and testing enhanced environmentally sound control and restoration methods; developing better methods and technologies for managing invasion pathways such as ballast water and horticultural materials; and improving the ability to assess and monitor invasive species.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Numerous agencies conduct research to help efforts to combat invasive species. Below is a table that shows funding for both basic and applied research at the various agencies. Federal agencies have cited that one of the problems keeping them from developing more comprehensive and pro-active research programs is that much of the funding and attention is focused on immediate responses to combat established invasive species.
74542b.eps
74542c.eps
Congressional Action
Congress has passed numerous laws dealing with this issue. As far back as 1900, Congress recognized the damage invasive species could cause and passed the Lacey Act, which made it illegal to import, export, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants without proper authorization. However, because the threat from invasive species is so vast and diffuse, and largely consists of a series of disconnected crises, legislation dealing with the problem consists of a patchwork of laws and rules governed by a wide range of state and federal agencies. To this day, no one federal law has a comprehensive approach for addressing this issue, and no one agency is solely responsible for prevention, control, monitoring and/or research of invasive species.
One of the more recent congressional actions was the passage of The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. This legislation established a federal program to prevent the introduction of, and to control the spread of, unintentionally introduced aquatic nuisance species and the brown tree snake. The Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, the Coast Guard, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers share responsibility for implementing this effort.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The legislation also established the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force within NOAA to develop a coordinated program for protection, monitoring, control, and research. However, most of the Task Force's work has focused on reacting to various invasions. It has not, as yet, developed a strategic plan on how to address the threat from non-native species. So far, its coordination efforts have largely consisted of bringing agencies together, rather than taking a more comprehensive, pro-active approach to setting priorities for prevention, control, and research.
In 1996, Congress amended the 1990 Act with the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). This legislation continued to focus on aquatic nuisance species by creating a voluntary national ballast water management program and a mandatory one for ships entering the Great Lakes. This Act also required the Coast Guard to study and report to Congress the effectiveness of controlling invasive species through ballast exchange or other technologies.
NISA and the underlying 1990 legislation, have been criticized as inadequate and flawed, and the agencies responsible for implementing the Act have failed to carry out many of its provisions, including setting standards for ballast water treatment and ecological assessments or management actions. Great Lakes states have been particularly upset with the lack of progress and implementation of NISA since new invasive species have been discovered well after the mandatory ballast exchange measures of NISA went into effect. In addition, the amount of money actually appropriated for this Act has been minimal and efforts to solve the problems addressed in the statute are scattered.
NISA expires on September 30, 2002, and Congress will likely take up legislation to reauthorize the Act next year. The House Science Committee, which has jurisdiction over research components of this Act, is interested in conducting oversight to determine why there has been a lack of progress on invasive species research and to evaluate possible solutions.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Invasive Species Council
In an effort to bring together the various, disparate federal programs dealing with terrestrial and aquatic invasive species, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13112 in 1999, which created the National Invasive Species Council. The Council's mission is to provide national leadership regarding invasive species and ensure that Federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective.
In order to accomplish this objective, the Council is comprised of cabinet secretaries from the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation, in addition to the Administrator of the EPA. The Council differs from the ANS Task Force in that it was convened at the department level (as opposed to the agency level) and focuses on both aquatic and terrestrial species. The Council's goals are to provide top-level leadership on invasive species issues, coordinate cross-cutting budget initiatives, and establish clear roles, tasks, and priorities for various programs dealing with invasive species.
The Executive Order mandated that the Council issue a National Invasive Species Management Plan to recommend performance-oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of success for Federal agency efforts concerning invasive species. This plan, completed in January 2001, is the Federal Government's first attempt to develop a government-wide strategy for dealing with the complex issues associated with invasive species. While the plan lays out goals in numerous areas, it lacks specific details on how it will actually accomplish and implement the goals. It also does not spell out specific cross-cut funding requests needed to accomplish these goals.(see footnote 2)
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conclusion
Among the questions policymakers have asked are: How is this research coordinated, is there overlap, and how is research applied toward dealing with threats? A 1993 study by the Office of Technology Assessment and more recent studies the Congressional Research Service have pointed out that inadequate coordination between by the various programs has hindered efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy, and the underlying research, for dealing with invasive species. Policymakers tend to view this problem on a species by species basis rather than as a comprehensive problem with ''invasive species.'' As such, resources are dedicated to finding ways to combat specific threats instead of creating more holistic solutions, such as models to assess the relative risks of different pathways of introduction, the potential that a planned introduction of a non-native species might go awry and lead to it becoming invasive, and a set of environmentally sound prevention and control tools.
While the species by species approach has had some success and provided valuable insight into specific species, agencies and researchers now realize that the invaders are winning. As more non-native species enter the United States and become invasive, policymakers are searching for new solutions. The National Invasive Species Council was created specifically to help address this problem. It is still an unanswered question as to whether its efforts will help us bring the threat from invasive species under control.
Other questions and issues to be discussed in the hearing:
1) What is the best way to identify priorities and allocate resources for research to support the various ways of dealing with/addressing threats from invasive species?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2) What tools have the research community and government agencies established for determining the threat that a non-indigenous species poses in terms of it becoming an invasive species, and is this an area that needs further attention from Congress?
3) What is the role of the National Invasives Species Council in setting objectives for both basic and applied research on invasive species, and how does the Council coordinate this research across agencies?
4) Does the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 need to be updated to reflect the role that the Council will play in coordinating interagency research efforts on invasive species?
5) Does the federal government need to set broad strategic research objectives/goals in the areas of prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education for invasive species? If so, what is the appropriate authority to set these objectives and how would they be implemented? What models could Congress look to for authorizing and funding these objectives?
6) How do researchers view the role of both federal and state government in terms of addressing research needs in the areas of prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education for invasive species?
7) Can research be better organized by giving agencies specific task and roles, and then holding them accountable to these objectives?
74542d.eps
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Combating the Invaders: Research on Non-Native Species
Chairman EHLERS. I now call the Subcommittee on Environment and Technology and Standards to order. It is a pleasure to welcome you here. I will give a brief opening statement and then turn to the Ranking Member for his statement.
It is a pleasure to have you here today. We have a special hearing today and I am pleased to welcome you to that, titled, ''Combating the Invaders: Research on Non-Native Species.'' Most of the movies which talk about invaders are talking about aliens. And that is a very popular topic. But frankly, invaders from the non-human species and non-outer space species are doing far more damage than any known aliens have ever done to this country. And so I think it is a much more apt topic for this hearing. We are waging a vigorous battle against invasive species, but sometimes I fear we are losing the war.
Recent studies have shown that about 50,000 non-native species have entered the United States, with more pouring through our borders every day. Most of these species are either beneficial or pose no threat. However, a small percentage of them become what we call invasive, causing economic and ecological damage. This small percentage can and does cause tremendous damage.
Over the past 10 years, governments and citizens in the Great Lakes Basin have spent $3 billion mitigating the problems caused by zebra mussels. These creatures clog our waterways, crowd out native species, plug up water intake pipes, and create problems for boaters that have to spend time and money cleaning hulls. These—this example shows the damage caused by only one species, in a region that has an estimated 160 invasive aquatic species.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By the way, I have a little jar of zebra mussels here taken from Saginaw Bay, home area of Congressman Barcia. And these—if anyone wants to look at them, we can pass them around. They are not to be munched, but you can look at them. They do look like munchies, but don't try them.
The Great Lakes Basin and the Gulf of Mexico alone are host to 800—over 800 invasive aquatic species—just in those two regions. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Add the numerous terrestrial invasive species to the mix, and you begin to see how, as one study estimated, invasive species cost the United States a whopping $137 billion each year. The scope of invasions across the country is daunting.
Today we will hear testimony on a most important aspect of this issue: How research supports the prevention, monitoring, control, response and education efforts to combat invasive species.
Research can help us identify gaps in knowledge, authority and program policies, and prioritize resources among efforts carried out by federal, state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector. But a research agenda on invasive species must be coordinated among several Federal agencies, state agencies, and private institutions in order to ensure that results are fed back into on-the-ground efforts to deal with invasive species.
I have found that research efforts on this issue, like those for climate change and information technology, require careful review regarding how multiple agencies can effectively coordinate a comprehensive agenda. Cross-cutting issues such as this require strong coordination models if efforts to address them are to be successful.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased that the National Invasive Species Council was formed to help address this specific concern, and I hope that the Bush Administration will embrace the Council. However, I am concerned that the Council may not have sufficient authority to ensure that the numerous Federal agencies will work together. Congress needs to review the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and update it to reflect the new role that the Council will play in all invasive species issues. We must also look at how we can strengthen the intergovernmental model upon which the Council is based to ensure that resources are properly allocated and coordinated among the various Federal agencies.
I want to thank our witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules today to testify and the people that provided us with our second invasive species panel. The U.S. Geological Survey provided us with most of the species on the table, so I want to especially thank them for their effort.
As a former teacher, I am a great believer on hands-on use of equipment, species, animals, plants, and so forth. And I thank you very much for providing that living example. I have never seen a Nutria, as an example. And from the name, I thought it was a nutritional supplement of some type, and, perhaps, it is. But that is not the main problem with it.
But I just want to get back to that figure I talked about a moment ago—$137 billion cost to our economy annually. Now, we are very worried about invasions from other countries, but the invasive species are causing more damage than any foreign government has ever caused through their attempt. And since we are spending over $200 billion on our military to combat foreign intruders who bear arms, who have done very little damage, I think we can afford to spend considerably more on combating these invasive species, which are costing us $137 billion.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to hearing from this Panel. We have a great Panel today, as well as being honored by Congressman Hoekstra, who will open it shortly. But now, I would like to recognize the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Barcia.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON J. EHLERS
Good morning!
I welcome you to today's hearing, titled ''Combating the Invaders: Research on Non-Native Species.'' This certainly is an apt title for the hearing—we are waging a vigorous battle against invasive species, but I fear we are losing the war.
Recent studies have shown that about 50,000 non-native species have entered the United States, with more pouring through our borders every day. Most of these species are either beneficial or pose no threat. However, a small percentage of them become ''invasive,'' causing economic and ecological harm. This small percentage can and does cause tremendous damage.
Over the past ten years governments and citizens in the Great Lakes Basin have spent three billion dollars mitigating the problems caused by zebra mussels. These creatures clog our waterways, crowd out native species, plug up water intake pipes and create problems for boaters that have to spend time and money cleaning hulls. And this example shows the damage caused by only one species, in a region that has an estimated 160 invasive aquatic species.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Great Lakes Basin and the Gulf of Mexico alone are host to over 800 invasive aquatic species—just in these two regions. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Add the numerous terrestrial invasive species to the mix, and you begin to see how, as one study estimated, invasive species cost the United States a whopping $137 billion each year. The scope of invasions across the country is daunting.
Today we will hear testimony on a most important aspect of this issue: How research supports the prevention, monitoring, control, response and education efforts to combat invasive species.
Research can help us identify gaps in knowledge, authority and program policies, and prioritize resources among efforts carried out by federal, state, local and tribal governments and the private sector. But a research agenda on invasive species must be coordinated among several federal and state agencies and private institutions in order to ensure that results are fed back into on-the-ground efforts to deal with invasive species.
I have found that research efforts on this issue, like those for climate change and information technology, require careful review regarding how multiple agencies can effectively coordinate a comprehensive agenda. Cross-cutting issues such as this require strong coordination models if efforts to address them are to be successful.
I am pleased that the National Invasive Species Council was formed to help address this specific concern, and I hope that the Bush Administration will embrace the Council. However, I am concerned that the Council may not have sufficient authority to ensure that the numerous federal agencies will work together. Congress needs to review the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and update it to reflect the new role that the Council will play in all invasive species issues. We must also look at how we can strengthen the intergovernmental model upon which the Council is based to ensure that resources are properly allocated and coordinated among the various federal agencies.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank our witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to testify and the people that provided us with our second ''invasive species panel.'' The U.S. Geologic Survey provided us with most of the species on the table, so I want to especially thank them for their effort.
I look forward to hearing from the panel and would like to now recognize the Subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Barcia.
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming our distinguished Panel to this morning's hearing and thank the Chairman for scheduling this very timely hearing. And also, offer a warm welcome to our dear friend and colleague from Michigan, Congressman Hoekstra, who has truly championed this issue in the Congress. And, Pete, thanks for being here to illustrate to everyone in the room, as far as those who are in attendance, as well as the record, about the importance of this issue and the fact that Congress must act and must act quickly.
Today's hearing on invasive species is a very important issue, and one that I also have long been interested in addressing. In Michigan, we are very familiar with the toll that invasive species take. Zebra mussels, sea lampreys, and alewives to name just a few, cost Great Lakes residents millions of dollars each year.
Just a month ago, Representative Hoekstra and I held events in Michigan on the subject of invasive species and ballast water treatment. Stakeholders who attended included the shipping industry, Federal agencies, fisheries' representatives, and local sportsmen organizations. This disparate group of individuals was united by a common concern—the devastating impact of invasive aquatic species on the Great Lakes indigenous fish and shellfish populations.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Invasive species are not just a problem in the Great Lakes. Throughout the United States, invasive species cost Americans billions of dollars each year. A recent study by a Cornell University biologist estimates the cost of fighting non-native plants and animals at $137 billion per year, as the Chairman has noted in his opening statement. I realize that the majority of our efforts thus far have been on eradicating or controlling an invasive species once it has been identified, which occurs only after it has become a nuisance. However, this is a reactive stance. And I am hoping that today's hearing will provide some guidance on how to develop a more proactive program for dealing with invasive species.
I also realize that research and development will provide the underpinnings of any effective policy. Effective programs to eradicate or control invasive species, catalog species that are here, identify pathways of invasions, and potential invasive species all require a strong research component. These research and development results must be implemented in agency action plans and they must be transmitted to the appropriate state and local officials. One of my biggest concerns is effective coordination in information sharing mechanisms between Federal agencies and our state governments.
Originally, we looked at an invasive species problem on the local scale, and then it became a regional issue, and now, we are beginning to examine the problem at the national level. However, invasive species are an international concern, both from an import and export standpoint. Unfortunately, it seems that invasive species also get caught up with trade protocols as well.
Therefore, I hope our panelists can address how they feel about this issue—how they feel this issue can be and should be addressed from the global standpoint as well. We have an excellent group of panelists here today who can address this issue from a cross-cutting perspective. I hope that they will consider this a first step in working with the Committee to strengthen the National Invasive Species Act and our research activities in this field.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make an opening statement and, again, welcome our first very distinguished guest, Congressman Hoekstra, our great colleague from Michigan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barcia follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM BARCIA
I want to join my colleagues in welcoming our distinguished witnesses at this afternoon's hearing.
I want to say up front that I fully support ocean and Great Lakes research and exploration. The oceans, and indeed most large bodies of water, are some of the least understood aspects of our planet. Yet, they have a tremendous impact on our lives. The oceans and the Great Lakes serve as a food supply, a water supply, and play an important role in weather patterns and our environment. Every child learns in their early geography lessons that the oceans cover approximately two-thirds of the earth's surface. Often this is the extent of their knowledge.
Although great strides have been made in public education—and Dr. Ballard has been one of the pioneers in education, the oceans still remain in large part a mystery to the public.
I was surprised to learn even how little we know about the Great Lakes. As Dr. Beeton points out in his testimony some of the data used for preparing charts for navigation dates back to the 19th century. With the current low water levels of the Great Lakes, I would have assumed that we had the most recent data for our navigational charts. I will also admit to a parochial interest in wanting to learn more about Dr. Beeton's proposal for a Great Lakes coastal observatory system. I could not agree more with you that often times we are stymied in developing effective solutions to problems facing the Great Lakes because of a lack of information.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today to explain the importance of ocean exploration and research and look forward to your testimony.
Chairman EHLERS. I thank you, Congressman Barcia. Following standard Science Committee practice, there will be no additional opening statements. But with no objection, all additional opening statements submitted by the Subcommittee members will be entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CONNIE MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on invasive species. Michigan and the other Great Lakes States have been at the forefront of this issue for decades and I congratulate you on your continued leadership.
Invasive species represent a grave threat to our economy and our ecology. Celebrated examples like the sea lamprey and the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, Australian jellyfish in the Gulf of Mexico, or the leafy spurge in the Great Plains may serve to draw our attention to specific cases but the problem is much more widespread. With globalization and increased mobility of goods and people, new vectors for the introduction of new and potentially damaging species are being created and without adequate oversight new crises will arise.
Complicating matters is the fact that not all new species are problematic. After all, many aspects of our environment, including ourselves, were not indigenous to America. I'm not sure that I want to characterize my immigrant ancestors as an invasive species, but many of us can trace our roots back to a time when we weren't here. Other more typical examples include wheat, cattle, and a host of other species we have brought over from the old world. In addition, some introductions have been vital to combating invasive species. The use of flea beetles to combat leafy spurge or weevils to fight musk thistle in the Midwest are two such examples. I am curious to learn how scientists and ecologists evaluate the pros and cons in determining the risks.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, I am fearful that our current efforts have focused too strongly on flora and fauna. While certainly important, new threats have arisen from the viral and bacterial world. West Nile Virus, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopaty (mad-cow disease), and hoof-and-mouth disease are merely the first of potentially many examples. I would hope that the panelists will be able to comment on this rising threat and what condition we are in to combat it.
It is now my pleasure to introduce a colleague of mine from the great State of Michigan, representing the second best area in Michigan. He has had a long-term interest in the invasive species problem, and has introduced legislation last year. Which, incidentally, I also wanted to credit a member of the Michigan Senate, Mr. Kenneth Sikkema, also from our area, who introduced a bill in the Michigan Senate about stopping invasive species from coming in, in the ballast of ship water. This bill has passed the State Senate. I believe it has also passed the State House. I don't know if the Governor has signed it yet.
Mr. Hoekstra has taken the lead in introducing similar legislation in the House and has also worked with me on this issue. He is—has a deep interest, since he borders the lake shore and they particularly suffer from this. It is now my pleasure to recognize my colleague and neighbor, Congressman Peter Hoekstra.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER HOEKSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that I could submit my entire written testimony for the record, and I will summarize it.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would also take exception to your earlier comment about me representing the second nicest part of the state. I appreciate you being deferential to Mr. Barcia, but I have been to Mr. Barcia's district, and there is no reason why West Michigan should take a back seat to the eastern side of the state. The—I appreciate the friendship of my two colleagues from the State of Michigan and the other members of the Panel who have taken an interest in this issue.
The—and I also thank them for their kinds words, recognizing that the legislation that I have introduced is only part of a comprehensive fix to this invasive species issue. This Committee, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, plays a key role in developing the total package for solving this problem in the future. And that is that research in methods to deal with the invasive species that we now find present, that research direction and funding come from this Committee. You are responsible for putting together that package and I look forward to working with you on legislation in the research area to make sure that that happens.
Also, this Committee has responsibility for developing the legislation that will identify the research that is necessary to perhaps inhibit the introduction of more invasive species into our ecosystems. So, again, I look forward to working with this Subcommittee to put together a total package, recognizing that the efforts that I have taken are only a small part of the total effort that needs to be undertaken to really put together a package that we can say addresses this issue completely.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are absolutely right, this problem has impacted my district significantly. I represent 150 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. The invasive species that have entered the Great Lakes, the zebra mussels, are impacting a number of my communities. One of the ugliest creatures that I think Jim Barcia and I have ever seen is not a sea lamprey laying on the table—it is an aquarium full of sea lamprey and grabbing in and taking a look at one of—what one of those suckers looks like up close and putting them on your hand.
And, you know, they have, at one point in time, almost devastated the sports or the fishing in the Great Lakes. You know, they have had a tremendous impact in the community. And now, with the round gobie, they begin to threaten the perch populations in some of our Great Lakes. So they have had a tremendous impact, both economically and environmentally. Once these creatures are established, they are very hard, if almost impossible, to ever get rid of and they become a permanent part of our environment.
Let me just talk briefly about the legislation that we have introduced. Our legislation is intended to take a look at one of the ways that a number of these species have been introduced into the Great Lakes, and that is what we believe through the ballast water and ballast water exchange from ships coming into the Great Lakes from other parts of the world.
What our legislation requires or requests is that the Department of Transportation move ahead with introduction of rules and regulations to control the discharge of ballast water, and requires the Department of Transportation to take a look at best practices and current available technologies and develop a new set of rules and regulations that will provide further protection. It is not the final solution. It is not a complete solution. But we believe it is an appropriate interim step to take at this time.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You know, the bottom line is, I want to stop—and, as you guys have indicated as we have worked together, you want to also put in place any additional reasonable protections to the introduction of new invasive species into the Great Lakes.
We believe that this bill is a reasonable step to take in the interim. As additional research is completed and as technology moves forward, we believe that this is a good place to start. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time and be open to any questions or comments that you may have.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, Congressman Hoekstra. I appreciate the testimony. Normal practice here is not to question Congressional witnesses because we have plenty of time to talk to you elsewhere, and your time is valuable as well.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. We will see you on the 8:30 flight tonight.
Chairman EHLERS. Yes. Right.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. All right.
Chairman EHLERS. But I really appreciate your interest and your efforts in this line, and we hope that we can produce a bill that will address the research aspects of it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Great. Thank you very much.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for being here. Next, I am pleased to introduce our second Panel today. We have some outstanding witnesses and I ask them to take their place at the witness table.
Let me proceed with the introduction of the Panel. First, we have Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA. Dr. Evans also co-chairs the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. He is also accompanied by Ms. Cathleen Short, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She serves as the other Co-Chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. And I understand, Dr. Evans, that you may have to leave before the hearing concludes, and, if so, that Ms. Short will fill in for you at that point.
Next witness is Ms. Lori Williams, who is the Executive Director of the National Invasive Species Council. I seem to be missing a nameplate here. I think our staff is locating it. Thanks.
Next, we—I am pleased to introduce Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. He also serves as Director of the Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport.
Dr. Stephen Brandt serves as Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And our final witness on the Panel, I am going to recognize Congressman Baird from Washington for the introduction, and also for an additional announcement he wishes to make. Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. I am sorry. I was listening to the vote call. Would you like me to introduce—thank you very much. I am pleased to introduce Scott Smith. Scott is with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. And he comes to us as an expert in invasive species. He has been one of the pioneers in helping states develop invasive species management plans. Only nine of 50 states have actually produced and approved aquatic nuisance species management plans since they were directed to do so in 1990, and Washington State is among those.
Scott is the full-time ANS coordinator hired by Washington State. He is an expert in developing and implementing state plans and assisted many other states in coordinating and developing their own plans. He has also given us invaluable advice, as we have crafted a piece of legislation we will introduce next week, designed to control the westward spread of invasive species, including, for example, the zebra mussel. Scott has been tremendously helpful in that.
We will be introducing this legislation next week. I hope to chat with the Chair and Ranking Member about possibly cosponsoring that and other members of this Committee. And I want to say that Scott takes this so seriously, he interrupted a family vacation to join us here, and I am very grateful that he did, and I look forward to his testimony.
Chairman EHLERS. I appreciate you doing that and coming here. Perhaps, later you can explain to me what a family vacation is. Something most of us don't experience here. All right. We will—as the witnesses know, testimony is limited to five minutes. We have the little clock and you have the lights there to indicate. As long as it is green, you are in fine shape. When it turns yellow, you are in your last minute, and when it turns red, a trap door opens in the floor underneath you. So we urge you to stay within the five minutes. We will also impose that same five-minute limit on the questions from the members here. So I will begin now with Dr. Evans.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID EVANS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; CO-CHAIR OF THE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES TASK FORCE
Dr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and members of the Subcommittee as well. I am David Evans, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA, and I am also the Co-Chair of Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. And with me today is Ms. Kathy Short from the Fish and Wildlife Service, who is the other Co-Chair of the Task Force. And we appreciate the opportunity to present an overview of our research as was mandated by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.
Aquatic nuisance species pose a severe threat to our Nation's ecological and socioeconomic well-being. Since the '80's, we have one new species invasion every 12 weeks in San Francisco Bay alone. These species are non-native plants, animals, or disease-causing microbes that enter and spread through inland and coastal waters. While much remains to be done, I believe that the Task Force and our partners have met a significant number of the research needs that were mandated by the Act.
We have addressed the problem of zebra mussels aggressively and have some success: we looked at a range of ballast water technologies, sponsored research to respond to and monitor nonindigenous species, reinvigorated our Oyster Disease Program, and created new ways of reaching the public and educators on the issue.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Act has charged the Task Force with prevention, detection, monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species. The Task Force complements other ongoing invasive species research activities. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts research on sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers research on aquatic weed control spans decades.
The Act's early emphasis was on zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Although the zebra mussels are so widely spread that it is unlikely they will ever be eradicated, Task Force agencies have successfully conducted research with private partners implementing control mechanisms and have minimized zebra mussel impact.
While the Task Force itself does not conduct or sponsor research, leaving that to individual agencies, such as NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, it has played a key role in defining the objectives and provides an excellent opportunity for coordination among the Federal agencies involved. It ensures that various agencies share information. It involves Federal agencies and stakeholders in seeking solutions to particular problems.
Some of the specific committees, such as the Brown Tree Snake Control Committee, meet regularly and identify priority research projects and appropriate lead agencies. Although it has sometimes been difficult to conduct joint projects because of the bureaucratic limitations that we often face, members have, nevertheless, made a serious effort, and I think we have a good record of coordinated research.
The Task Force has made aquatic nuisance species information available to a variety of stakeholders. For example, New York Sea Grant has set up the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse, a technical library. With 6,000 publications on aquatic nuisance species, it is probably the largest collection of scientific papers and gray literature on a single aquatic nuisance species in the world, the zebra mussel. A worldwide resource, the library recently provided information to Australia on methods to eradicate potentially invasive mollusks.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the early competitive research grants awarded through NOAA's Sea Grant Program focused on zebra mussels, but we have expanded as other issues have been identified. Over the last four years, the program has funded research on 34 different species. Based on the Act's priorities, we have funded projects in the area of prevention, monitoring, and control. In addition, individual Sea Grant institutions consider aquatic nuisance species significant enough that they have sponsored approximately $600,000 in projects our of their core funds in each of the past two years.
A recent international scientific conference on marine bioinvasions, an estimated h of the scientific papers presented by U.S. scientists had received at least partial funding through the Sea Grant program.
We have also made an effort to coordinate our competitions with other members of the Task Force and the regional panels. We have asked regional panels to identify research priorities in their regions. The peer-review panels, which recommend final selections have included representatives from other task force agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, EPA, Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.
The development of ballast water management technology provides another example of how agencies coordinate research efforts. Although primary responsibility for the competitive research grants lies with Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA, it has become a coordinated and a cooperative effort among all Task Force members.
NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service put out a joint request for proposals and evaluate them. EPA and Coast Guard meet periodically to inform each other of research activities and prevent duplication. In addition, NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service have asked EPA and the Coast Guard to sit on peer-review panels which actually make the recommendations for projects to be funded. We have also moved rapidly to address the issues of ships carrying no ballast on board. And I think Dr. Brandt will comment more on that in his testimony.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was asked to comment on the role of the National Invasive Species Council. The Council has a broader taxonomic scope than the Task Force, looking beyond just aquatic species. And this is probably of great benefit to us, because many of the technologies which are appropriate in nonaquatic environments also can be applied, and we work closely with members of the Council.
The Act has focused largely on applied research. Other basic research questions have yet to be addressed, such as factors in habitat vulnerability, factors that make particular species invaders, and how global climate change will effect invasion patterns. The Council can look broadly across taxonomic groups and identify gaps in research. The Task Force and the Council all work—also work to develop new partnerships. For example, involvement of the Department of Treasury on the Council may have facilitated the joint project between the U.S. Customs Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to identify live bait imports.
When Congress passed the Act initially in 1990, it exhibited a very sophisticated grasp of the issue of invasive species by not passing zebra mussel control alone. Instead, it recognized that a particular vector of ballast water was likely to cause future introductions. The Task Force has responded to this issue, and I believe that we are now at the point where we will also be looking at other vectors—hull fowling, aquaculture, recreational boating, and so on.
Additional work needs to be done on control technologies. There are entire taxonomic groups for which we have no idea of eradication methods. As an example, last summer, large numbers of Australian spotted jellyfish appeared in the Gulf of Mexico and there is concern that they could affect fishery resources in that area. There are a wide variety of problems that need to be addressed. I believe that the Task Force is well-suited toward providing interagency coordination in this matter and there are a number of successes that we can point to.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, and, members, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I think a lot of work remains to be done and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we try and make progress in this very difficult area.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. Unfortunately, for those of you who are not familiar with the Congress, it is very Pavlovian here. When the bells ring, we go and vote. And the bells rang twice. We have 5 minutes and 24 seconds left to respond and vote. So I declare a recess pending the return of the Chair.
[Recess]
Chairman EHLERS. I call the hearing to order. Normal courtesy is to wait for at least one member of the minority party to return, but since I know several of you have time pressures, the minority staff has granted the permission to proceed. We will next proceed with Dr. Carlton.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES T. CARLTON, PROFESSOR OF MARINE SCIENCES, WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS; DIRECTOR, THE MARITIME STUDIES PROGRAM OF WILLIAMS COLLEGE AND MYSTIC SEAPORT
Dr. CARLTON. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is James Carlton, and I have studied aquatic invasions since 1962.
This is the Japanese Rapa Whelk. It is a massive, tall, clam-and-oyster eating snail, first found in 1998 here in Chesapeake Bay. The last thing Chesapeake Bay needed was something that ate oysters and clams.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Mediterranean killer seaweed Caulerpam was discovered in southern California this past summer. And, as Dr. Evans mentioned, last summer, too, the Indo-Pacific jellyfish invaded the Gulf of Mexico—6 million jellyfish, weighing up to 44 pounds each, were found in a 60-square mile area, impacting fishery operations from Alabama to Texas.
What all this means is that research to prevent, understand, and manage invasions is more pressing now than when zebra mussels first arrived.
It also means that our legislation was very effective. While we must get more serious about prevention, the existence of the National Invasive Species Act meant that agencies were empowered and that some funding was available. NISA and its predecessor created vastly heightened awareness of invasions, and when new invasions were discovered, the reaction was clearer and stronger than had they invaded a decade earlier.
What is the role of the research university in addressing the threat of invasions? Beyond its fundamental role to define the basic science, theory, and ecology of invasions, an ideal role is one of partnerships—where universities work with government agencies, nonprofit organizations and industry to produce the solutions that we now need, far faster than if they were working on their own.
The Great Lakes Ballast Water Demonstration Project, the federally funded portions of which included NOAA and EPA, did exactly this. Led by Northeast Midwest Institute and the Lake Carriers Association, the Project also draws on university researchers and government agencies to produce an understanding of the biological and engineering requirements for ballast management. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center's marine bioinvasion laboratory, the Nation's largest, coordinates its work extensively with university researchers nationwide. And yet another example is the role of the university in studying technical components of ballast water and other vector management solutions.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But what we can expect from invasion research is only proportional to what we invest in it, and that investment over the past ten years has been strikingly disproportionate to the nature of the problem.
In 2000–2001, Sea Grant has available $2.7 million for all research on all aquatic invasions in lakes, rivers, and coasts of the entire United States, ranging from science to management to education. $2.7 million would fund 50 projects at $54,000 each in federally contributed dollars, which, after overhead, leaves $35,000 per project to blaze new trails into innovative cutting-edge research. This barely supports one technician.
In contrast, to attempt to eradicate only one species, the killer algae, the State of California spent 2.3 million last year, equal to 85 percent of Sea Grant funds nationally.
If we want to do something about invasions, we have to get serious about supporting those who want to do something.
How do we prioritize prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education? All are important. They should not compete with each other. These are horizontal priorities, not vertical priorities. Each is critical. For example, what we need now is a national baseline study to establish what invasions are here if we are to understand the effectiveness of management plans to reduce future invasions.
Lead agencies need to be assigned by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council to take charge of each of these missions, and their assignments must be as clear as zebra mussel-infested water.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, more vectors move more species faster than ever before. 7,000 species flow around the world in ballast water this morning. And yet two major Pacific coast invasions arose from other vectors—the European green crab, threatening west coast fisheries, likely arrived with seaweed shipped with bait worms from Maine, and the Chinese mitten crab, millions of which clog California waterways, was likely illegally released.
If we can get a rock off the moon, we can address invasions. Ten years of hard work have produced the beginnings of serious research endeavors, serious response, and serious management. We are now poised to demonstrate that we mean to support the research to get the job done and done right. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Ms. Williams. Would you turn on your microphone, please?
STATEMENT OF MS. LORI WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, and, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Invasive Species Council, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue and the Council's role in addressing the problem of invasive species, specifically in the area of research coordination.
Invasive species, as you have heard, come in all sizes, shapes, and varieties. Although there are hundreds of non-native species in this country, only a small percentage is considered invasive. They can be plants, animals, insects, pathogens, and parasites. Some examples on our display to your right, including the Nutria, which is a semi-aquatic rodent that destroys wetlands, including over one million acres within the National Wildlife Refuge System alone. Formosan termites threaten the unique historical resources in New Orleans and elsewhere. Giant Salvina is an aquatic weed that can spread quickly and choke off waterways.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I understand from the Forest Service today that South Korea has announced they will no longer accept any shipments or imports of U.S. wood and timber products because of the sudden—fear of the sudden oak death, which is an invasive species that affects many tree species, especially on our west coast. Invasive species all have one thing in common. They can cause great harm to the environment, the economy, and, in some cases, animal and human health.
In my brief statement today, I will focus on coordination issues and the Council's role in coordination. Invasive species do not respect jurisdictional or bureaucratic boundaries. They impact Federal land and water resources, states, tribal interests, local governments, private landowners, and commercial interests, as well as the resources and economies of other nations.
Therefore, an effective response to these biological invasions must be coordinated, interdepartmental, and multi-jurisdictional. Coordinated research planning is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts, wasting the limited resources, to develop a coherent research plan, and to maximize collaborative synergy among researchers.
The National Invasive Species Council was established in February 1999 by Executive Order 13112 in great measure to enhance coordination, collaboration, and provide direction to Federal invasive species programs. There are over 22 Federal agencies that are involved in this important program, and coordination is vital. The Council members are the Secretaries of ten Federal departments with invasive species responsibilities. It is co-chaired by USDA, Interior, and Commerce. Other members include Treasury, Transportation, State, Defense, Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Council's small staff does not, itself, conduct research. The Council includes agencies which have bureaus, such as the Agricultural Research Service, the Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey that provided the displays to your right, and NOAA, who we have heard from today. Others along with these agencies are the ones that conduct the research.
And each Council member, department, and agencies address multiple research topics. Invasive species is just one of these. Each agency has its own procedures and authorities in place to establish research priorities and obtain public input.
The Council's role is to help coordinate overall research efforts on invasive species, especially research issues that are common across taxa or relate to very broad invasive species issues. The Council works closely with other coordinating bodies on specific aspects of the issue, including the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, who we heard from today, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Executive Order also created a 32-member group of non-federal stakeholders who represent diverse geographic areas, expertise, and interests. This is the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and we are very pleased to have Dr. Carlton, who serves on that committee, along with many other academic and research experts. It has provided very important input to the entire process for the Council.
The Executive Order called on the Council to develop a Federal action plan to reduce the impacts of invasive species. The management plan was finalized early this year following an extensive public involvement process. The plan sets out a number of broad strategic goals for research and other aspects. The plan is the first document to set out a comprehensive Federal action plan for invasive species.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several key recommendations of the plan relating to research include the importance—and we have heard about that a lot today—of working cooperatively with state and local governments, private landowners, and other stakeholders. The plan directs the Council to prepare a comprehensive invasive species cross-cut budget, which would include research items. This is an important tool for research planning, collaboration, coordination, and priority-setting. In general, research priorities need to be tied closely into the central goals of the overall strategy to combat invasive species if they are to be supported.
During the plan development process, the Council requested input on some research needs, and a number of these are the same research needs that were highlighted by Dr. Evans. This includes additional research to improve our ability to assist—to assess, excuse me, the risk of non-native species becoming invasive. Better baseline data and monitoring is essential. Improved data on economic environmental impacts of invasive species.
With that, I will close, but there were many other priorities identified in the plan and I invite anyone to look at our web site and view the other recommendations. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Dr. Brandt. Would you turn your microphone on, please?
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN B. BRANDT, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. BRANDT. Good afternoon. I am the Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before your Subcommittee and testify on what I believe to be the fundamental research issues on invasive species. My examples are from the Great Lakes, but the comments apply nationally.
Why are we interested in invasive species? Clearly, they have a significant ecological and economic cost to the Nation estimated in the billions of dollars. You are threatened by invasives if you fish, swim, eat fish or seafood, are a recreational boater, if you drink Great Lakes' water, if your state depends on tourist dollars, or if you pay taxes.
The—over the past few decades, the rates of invasions have accelerated. There have been 12 new species introduced into the Great Lakes since the appearance of zebra mussels in 1988. Large aquatic environments are most vulnerable. The large size and complexity make it difficult to initially detect a new invader and virtually impossible to eliminate it. Examples include the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico, and Chesapeake Bay.
The only successful control effort in the Great Lakes has been for the sea lamprey, shown here in the slide, which required an extensive, focused research effort to identify a chemical that could control this animal, and the control program still costs about $15 million per year to support. Once established, an invader is—has permanently altered the ecosystem. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
The impact can be large and immediate, can be small and more sinister, or can change with time. For example, the alewife has been altered from beach litter to a valuable food source for trout and salmon in the Great Lakes by effective management programs.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Great Lakes are considered the poster child for invasive species ever since the appearance of the zebra mussels gained the attention of the Nation. The Great Lakes are really unique because they provide the heart way—or the gateway to America's heartland. You need only to look at the spread of the zebra mussels throughout the Nation. It currently threatens all freshwater systems, including those on the west coast. The Great Lakes are also experienced with invaders, a significant value to the U.S., and, as an international border, represent unique opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities.
GLERL is one of—is the leading institution for aquatic species invasion research within NOAA and has a legislative mandate to carry out such research. We have a strong history and fundamental belief in collaboration and partnerships to support our mission of conducting high-quality research, and clearly do so on invasive species research. We directly participate in the Great Lakes panel of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force since its inception and helped to develop the National Invasive Species Management Plan.
We have recently taken the lead to develop strategic plans on invasive species within OAR and NOAA as well. Our current research is focused on design to help prevent introductions and to understand ecological impacts so they can be minimized. In particular, we are looking at the effectiveness of ballast water exchange. We are trying to examine the importance of vessels that do not have ballast on board, NOBOB vessels, as vectors. NOBOB vessels are 75 percent of the ships that enter the Great Lakes. We are looking at chemical treatment possibilities, the impact of recent invaders on the food web and also the impact of the recent decline of a very valuable prey species on the fish community in the Great Lakes.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is general agreement on the research priorities. Prevention and control are critical and ballast water is the dominant vector for invasions in aquatic ecosystems. Nine of the 12 recent invaders in the Great Lakes are believed to have originated from ballast water introductions. Research is also needed to minimize the ecological and economic impacts of invaders. In spite of our efforts, species will continue to successfully invade our coastal ecosystems.
New invaders reduce the reliability and cost effectiveness of management decisions. Basic understanding of the ecosystem is essential to make management decisions effective, to minimize the impact, and to make the impact assessment of each new invader somewhat easier. We also need to understand invader biology and management strategies.
Finally, I was asked to comment on resource allocation and coordination. The National Management Plan, as well as CENR, agree that the country needs a strong capability for addressing invasion problems as they arise, wherever they arise, especially in large aquatic environments.
They also agree that long-term studies ensure fundamental ecosystem understanding, and that a core of expertise is available, given the complexities of the issue, of multidisciplinary approaches, will have the greatest impact. Coordination is well-established along a number of different regions, levels, especially regionally. These efforts should continue.
Collaborative reports largely agree on the basic needs and priorities. More emphasis now needs to be placed on implementation and action related to these planning efforts, particularly with regards to research. Implementation at the regional level is most practical and makes most sense since different ecosystems have different invaders, ecological and economic impacts, and pathways.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope that this brief summary and my written comments will be useful. Thank you again for your invitation to appear today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. And I should tell you that the bells you heard indicated that the House is standing in recess. So we should not be interrupted for a bit. Next, Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT SMITH, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES COORDINATOR, WESTERN REGIONAL PANEL DIRECTOR OF THE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES TASK FORCE
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman Baird, for the introduction, and Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. I am really honored to be here today with you to share my views with you on invasive species research. And I think it was worth passing up a vacation for a little while to be here with you.
I hope to bring to you today a state and regional perspective on this issue. As you can see from the slide on the left, aquatic weeds can ruin your favorite fishing hole. And fish and wildlife agencies are very, very concerned about this issue.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and I met with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recently, and their message to us was very clear. That they are extremely concerned about this issue. That they do not now have the capacity or the ability to deal with the issue and they need our help in order to do it. And I think Congressman Baird's bill will go a long way toward helping us to build that capacity to address this issue.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The slide on the right is zebra mussels encrusting a boat. And I must tell you that in the past six months, we have found two boats coming into the State of Washington that have live zebra mussels encrusted on them. We found those at the port of entry weigh station with the state patrol. And that just highlights the fact that zebra mussels are coming into our area and we do need to do more if we expect to be proactive and expect to prevent that kind of an introduction from happening.
This is a slide of spartina. Spartina is about to destroy an entire intertidal habitat in Washington, and we are very concerned about that. We are using state funds. And I must say that we are very proud that NOAA and Sea Grant are helping us with this issue with some of the research funds that they have. The European green crab and mitten crab have been mentioned. Again, NOAA and Sea Grant funds are being used for research to help us with these issues.
The aquaculture industry in Washington is very concerned about the impacts green crab could have. And the mitten crab could actually hurt salmon recovery by impacting bypass facilities on the Columbia River. So we really don't want them.
I would like to share with you briefly sort of my vision of how ANS coordination could take place. I do believe we need the National Invasive Species Council to coordinate on both terrestrial and aquatic species, and we need the ANS Task Force to continue to focus on aquatic nuisance species with an emphasis on Federal coordination. The regional panels, I believe, have an emphasis on state coordination, and we are the link between the state and Federal efforts and coordination on regional projects.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps one of the weakest links that we have in our whole program today of aquatic nuisance species, of dealing with it proactively, is on the state level. I think that we need to have state aquatic nuisance species committees, an ANS coordinator in each state, and state plans.
Specifically, again, I think that the Task Force should continue to lead coordination research efforts on aquatic nuisance species. We need to increase assistance to the states for the creation and implementation of state ANS management plans. Right now, there are only about nine states that have taken advantage of that. We need all 50 to take advantage of it and to have state ANS management plans. And we are going to need to help those states to do that.
We also need to make ballast water treatment research funds available to all states. Currently, some of the ballast water treatment technology research funds are limited to the Great Lakes and to the Chesapeake Bay. There have some great research come out of there, but I think we need to expand that to all and let the west coast and the Gulf have a chance at those funds also.
I think we need to improve the use of regional panels and use the regional panels better, which we are in the process of doing, I think, to help identify priorities and allocate resources.
I thought I would briefly show you how the regional panels currently lay out. The Western Regional Panel consists of 19 states, and Texas is a member of both the Western Regional Panel and the Gulf States Panel. The Great Lakes Panel is probably the oldest—is the oldest and the best established of all the panels. The Northeast Panel has just been formed. And you can see there are a number of unaffiliated states. And I think we need to fix that. We need to get all states affiliated with a panel.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The regional panels support aquatic nuisance species. The regional panels provide assistance to the states to develop aquatic nuisance species management plans and regional efforts. And they can improve our efforts to—we can improve our efforts to prevent the spread of zebra mussels through state and regional planning efforts and the Hundredth Meridian Program.
State—I will tell you a little bit about the State of Washington, what we have done. We have done all three of these things. I am the Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator in Washington. Our state legislature established an Aquatic Nuisance Coordination Committee. We have about 60 members on that committee, and it is a fine committee for getting our act together on aquatic nuisance species issues on a state level. And we were, I think, the fourth state to write a state management plan, which has been very helpful to bring in funds from different areas.
The zebra mussels are our nightmare in the west. We can't count that high as to how much it is going to impact us. And I am proposing a three-pronged approach here. And I—this is included in Congressman Baird's legislation. This is a very proactive approach, that if we do this, I believe it will help us to prevent the spread of zebra mussels.
We need to focus funds on states that had infested waters to make sure that boats coming out of those waters are clean. Now, if they get through that, then we need to increase our educational efforts on the hundredth meridian across states that are at the hundredth meridian. Any boat coming across there should receive some education that they could be a potential spread for zebra mussels. I think that will help our efforts a great deal.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, we need to focus on areas that do not have zebra mussels and make sure that they have education and inspection programs there to ensure—that is our last line of defense, to make sure that we can catch a vessel, a boat, coming into those waters before it goes into the water.
Also, on ballast water issues, I think we need to promote ballast water treatment research and development and we need to establish ballast water treatment technology facilities. And I will give you an example of one of those. This is a picture of the U.S. Geological Service Marrowstone Island Fisheries Research Center, which is in Washington. Congressman Norm Dicks was very instrumental in helping us to get funding to do this. This facility could be renovated into a premier ballast water treatment technology research center. And I will tell you, we will not be able to set rigorous standards for ballast water treatment and we will not be able to tell the shipping vessel industry what equipment works and what equipment does not work unless we have a facility like this.
So, in closing, I will tell you I believe that the National Invasive Species Reauthorization is an excellent opportunity for us to move forward and be proactive and prevent a lot of new introductions. And I thank you all for taking an interest in this.
Discussion
Outreach and Education
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony, and I appreciate the testimony of all witnesses. As you noticed, Dr. Evans had to leave. Ms. Short, welcome to the Panel.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a—I yield myself five minutes for the initial questioning. And it is striking listening to your testimony. I thought I knew something about invasive species. After all, I live in Michigan, which suffers a great deal from it. I did not, before now, understand the full dimensions of it. And if I didn't, I suspect most citizens of this country don't.
What efforts have been made or should be made by you, the research community, by other individuals, people affected by this, to publicize, in some unified manner, this problem to the citizens of this country, whether through soliciting TV programs from the TV networks, or things of this sort? I am interested in any comments that any of you have about how we can really direct more public attention to you, because—and there is a method to my madness. It is not just educational. You cannot get very much funding for anything out of the Congress unless people are supportive of it and are writing their Members of Congress telling them this is a high priority. So I would appreciate any suggestions any of you might have. Ms. Williams.
Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Education and outreach—we all talk about it a lot and we all know it is important. But I think it is one of the most critical aspects of all of this. And there are a lot of excellent education materials that have been developed.
And the charge to the Council under the plan is to, one, make sure we know and can access and give people access to the excellent materials that are already out there. Take the knowledge of what has already been developed and develop a national education campaign about this entire issue. Involve the Advisory Committee and the private sector, they can do some things and work with advertising agencies and do things that it is hard for us to do in the Federal Government.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So this is an essential element of the plan. It is an essential element of prevention, as you have heard today And I don't think we can underestimate it.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Others? Ms. Short?
Ms. SHORT. I would like to—thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to give you some specific examples of things that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in, as well as some of the other Federal agencies. We worked with John Walsh of America's Most Wanted to do a poster that we have distributed of America's least wanted. That has been very popular.
We have also been involved in putting together press kits on invasive species issues which we have distributed widely to the press. There have also been recently at least two public television videos that have been cosponsored by a number of Federal agencies and have been shown fairly widely on television. So I think there a number of efforts going on to try to help increase public awareness, in many cases, with the goal of not only making the public aware that there is a problem, but also potentially changing public behavior that may be inadvertently be contributing to the spread of the problem, such as the hundredth meridian.
Chairman EHLERS. Anyone else? Dr. Carlton?
Dr. CARLTON. Thank you. I certainly agree with Ms. Williams and Ms. Short that we have produced a tremendous amount of very useful material and there are some tremendous posters and flyers out there. When I go to marine field stations and aquatic research sites and marinas and all the places we do our work on the coast, I almost never see any of these materials. What we need to do is give these agencies that have produced this superb material just more money to print a few million more copies and some postage money and get these things out there.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You can go to a tremendous number of places where undergraduate students are working all along the coastline and they would never see any of these materials. And so we just need to get the material that is there out there in a really substantive way. Educational institutions know how to do this. People who offer education programs manage to get posters up in every yacht club and marina in America. And, yet, we don't see the same posters for the invasive species. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Brandt.
Dr. BRANDT. I also agree that the education and outreach is vitally important. The Sea Grant Extension Program within NOAA has been very effective at getting the word out, I think, in coastal communities in particular, and, in particular, on the zebra mussel. I think if you do go to the interior of the U.S., you do talk to folks that know something about the zebra mussel. But I think that is about as far as it goes. There is a lot more effort that needs to be placed at looking at the threats of all the other invasives that are out there, and to also make the point that it is not just a coastal issue. It is a national issue.
Chairman EHLERS. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Very, very briefly. I wish we had a Smokey the Bear. I wish we had some kind of mascot or something that would make this sort of a household word. I also do wish that we had some mechanism of having a comprehensive national program on this with standardized kinds of messages and, perhaps, slogans. And maybe the use of some name—big name star that could help us to get people's attention.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Well, I have heard of smoked eel. Maybe you can do something with that. I appreciate your suggestions, but I think—I believe it was Dr. Carlton, hit it on the nail—it is not in the public awareness. It is not getting out there. Now, I can suggest a method, but I will not advocate it. But clearly, if one put a small surcharge on all boat licenses, fishing licenses, other aquatic activities, water bills, things of this sort, to reflect the true cost of it, you would soon have the public's attention. I am not advocating that, as I say, but clearly, any tax proposal certainly gets attention.
We have to think of something that will do something similar. I agree that a TV star, although that is not your favorite cause, I am sure, but if you can get some big names. But particularly, get on the other networks and not just the public television networks. That would be helpful as well. So I appreciate any—your ideas and anything else you can come up with, and we will try to work on it from our end. I—my time has expired. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Barcia.
Ballast Tank Research
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have sort of a two-part question and I would like each of the guests to respond. And I want to, of course, welcome all of you, and especially Dr. Brandt who has done so much in the Great Lakes region on this issue. And, Dr. Brandt, we are grateful for all of your efforts back home in the State of Michigan in terms of helping with this problem that confronts our sport fishery, the recreational use of our Great Lakes shoreline.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think one of my colleagues mentioned—it was Congressman Hoekstra mentioned he had about 200 miles of shoreline. I actually have about 600 miles of shoreline on Lake Huron that snakes around the thumb and Saginaw Bay region up to Alpena basically from the Port Huron area on the south of my district. So it is a very important issue to all of us back home and we appreciate all of you sharing your expertise with us.
Currently, 75 percent of all ships entering the Great Lakes are no ballast on board. And in your testimony I noticed that many of you mentioned your program on testing sediment on the no ballast on board tanks is limited to about ten to 20 samples per year. And I just have a two-part question. Why are we taking so few samples? And if sampling were increased, would this shorten the time for meaningful results to be available for biological and management practices for ships entering the Great Lakes? And if all of you or any of you would like to respond, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Dr. BRANDT. Okay. I will respond since that is our research program. This program began last year. It is a 3-year program. It is a cooperative effort between a variety of universities, University of Windsor, the Smithsonian Institute, NOAA, the shipping industry, as well. It is co-funded by NOAA, as well as the EPA, Coast Guard, and Great Lakes Protection Fund.
The—getting into ballast tanks and sampling the sediments that are there is a very difficult process. It requires folks to have specialized training. It is more similar to caving. People need to have lights. They need to have the air flushed out. It is sort of a dangerous operation to get into these tanks. It also requires close cooperation with the shipping community to allow our folks and the liability to get on board and get into these vessels.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Once they are in there, it is a complicated honeycomb system where people are crawling through manhole-size structures to get in and sample the sediments that are there. It is also—once these sediments and water are sampled, it requires looking at by a lot of technical experts and different taxonomy.
We are looking at small zooplankton. We are looking at fish. We are looking at algae and a variety of things. This takes taxonomic expertise, which is costly to go through and look at, to look for things that you haven't seen before and try to identify them. The reason that there are only ten to 20 vessels is that is the amount of funds that can cover ten to 20 vessels per year to be sampled.
The—it does require a lot more vessels to be looked at. One of the things that is being examined, for example, is looking at management waste—or ballast water management strategies. There are a variety of strategies out there where the vessels might take on some water, swish it around, try and reduce the sediments. If you go on different vessels, they have different amounts of sediments. They also come from different regions. The vessels also have different structures. Each vessel is different. Some have some big tanks. Some have some—just a complex configuration.
All those can contribute to the degree, let us say, of contamination of exotic species in them. And that is one of the primary purposes of this research, to see if you can look at a number of vessels that are using different management strategies already that they can use right now, which ones are most effective. That requires larger sample sizes.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you. Anyone else care to respond? I think Dr. Brandt did a superb job in answering that question. If anyone else—Dr. Carlton?
Dr. CARLTON. If I could just second Dr. Brandt's comments, I have been caving in the ballast tanks and it certainly is a complicated and difficult procedure and requires a tremendous amount of funds to really do the analyses that are necessary. So I certainly want to emphasize that.
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you very much.
Chairman EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield his last few seconds?
Mr. BARCIA. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I should have done that once——
Chairman EHLERS. Is there any possibility that we can, as part of this, change the ship's structure to make it easier to purify the ballast tanks? In other words, is there something structurally in the design that can be changed without impairing the function of the ship, or is the structure that is out there so important that we can't do that on future shipbuilding?
Dr. BRANDT. I can answer by saying that different ship structures are more effective than—some ship structures are more effective than others in having clean tanks. You go into some tanks and they are clean and those structures appear to be more effective. I do not know enough about ships to say whether or not they can be changed. But my guess is these ships are—the ballast tanks and structures are designed for the ships and any restructuring of them can alter the safety of the vessel.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. I will make enemies of the shipping industry again. But I did one time when—I mentioned earlier Senator Sikkema introduced the bill in the Michigan Senate to require chlorination of all tanks, and the next day there was someone representing a port authority in my office saying, you just can't do that. It costs too much. And I said, well, that is okay. I will let you continue what you are doing, but instead we will have you pay for the damage that the invasive species cause. And I said you can pay each boat owner in Michigan $230 every 2 years to clean off the bottom of their boat and so forth. Somehow that didn't appeal to him either. So—we next recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the expert on the Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. If there are any biologists in the room, they will probably correct you on that statement, Vern. So are they chlorinating all the ballast water up in Michigan, since they didn't go for the other one?
Chairman EHLERS. Not yet.
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay.
Chairman EHLERS. But the bill has passed the Senate and the House.
Ballast Water Treatment Technology
Mr. GILCHREST. Oh. Great. I was disappointed to see that Maryland is not affiliated with these regional task forces and we will try to correct that as soon as possible. Connie and I will put a call into the Governor's office this afternoon.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Carlton, you mentioned there are posters all over the country that could be put up at marinas and other places. I guess, could you just notify our office where they are in Maryland and we will go pick them up and put them up as soon as possible? I—and I would like seriously to take some of those posters. We often travel to every county talking to the Chamber of Commerce, county commissioners, you name it. And what I would like to do, as part of that, is to take these posters around and discuss the issue with them, because we have—and I don't know how many thousands of miles of coastline I have on the Chesapeake Bay, but there is a lot. And so, we will see if we can get each chamber, county commissioners, to make this a priority.
The other thing I think would be interesting, if we not only put them up at marinas, but every nursery that we can reach, to encourage them to sell local indigenous trees or flowers or plants and—to the extent that it is possible, and maybe even pick a goal or a time frame to eliminate all their exotics and then encourage their staff, as people come to buy flowers or plants, to buy local-grown things.
The question I have, though, is how far are we away from technology to reasonably and effectively treat ballast water? Is that—is it available now? Is it down the road somewhere? Should we just—you know, I would like the State of Maryland to not allow anybody in before their ballast water is tested out on the high seas. That is probably somewhat unreasonable. But are we close to some type of technology to do that?
Dr. CARLTON. There is a lot of work going on. There is no question about it. We have numerous research groups, both in the United States and internationally, looking at a whole variety of alternatives to open-ocean exchange. And that ranges from filtration to heating the water to UV to hydrocyclonics to chemical treatments.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we are in a position right now, at the beginning of the decade, where there is a lot of work going on, trying to seek exactly what are some of the most powerful and best and most efficient technologies that can be installed upon real ships. And some of those treatments have been installed on real ships. My sense is we are at the start of what is going to be a tremendous amount of activity in this decade to see the implementation of one or more of these technologies, not necessarily only one. Some of them go in tandem, in terms of doing a first order and a second order, maybe even a third order treatment. We also have to keep aware of the kinds of work that is going on internationally because there are other research groups in many parts of the world.
Mr. GILCHREST. Does the IMO—International Maritime Organization—have this as any kind of a priority?
Dr. CARLTON. IMO hears on a—at least once or twice a year, often hears the results of what is going on with technological assessments around the world and tries to do some level of coordination. They, themselves, aren't doing any of the research, but they certainly are the platform where we hear all the research that is going on. So I am optimistic that what we are going to be seeing in the shorter versus the long term is——
Mr. GILCHREST. Does that mean three, five years?
Dr. CARLTON. Yeah. Three to five years or less that we are going to be able to see something that is going to be very actively available. And we have treatments now aboard—various kind of treatments being experimented with, aboard vessels that are out there, whether it is in Australia or North America, and in other places as well. So it certainly is one of the cutting-edge research fields right now with a lot of people interested, including the entrepreneurial and industrial world, which would be delighted to find that sort of thing that they can provide to some 70,000 ships at sea.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. And I guess it wouldn't hurt if we emphasized a little more appropriation for this particular issue.
Dr. CARLTON. Not at all.
Mr. GILCHREST. Before my time is up, I just had a quick sort of parochial question on the butternut canker. It is—I guess there is a problem with butternut trees. The question I have, though—the picture that I see here—I have seen something that looks awful similar on maple, tulip poplars, and willow trees, right around my house. I was just wondering if that is something similar. Could it be the same thing? I just got that question in, Mr. Chairman, before my time was——
Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. I will not say that I am any kind of an expert on butternut canker, but we have just been handed an information sheet we will get to you and we can also provide a lot of expertise from USDA and others to look into this and other problems. I just—I wanted to mention that we, on the Council, have been working closely with the horticultural and nursery industries and we have held—USDA and the Council was involved with this—held a workshop recently to work specifically with nurserymen in getting the word out and working with them on how to get the word out at the nurseries about the concern over invasive species.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to tell my colleagues that the Nutria, that large-looking beast, came from my district.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired. We recognize Mr. Baird from Washington.
Cost and Environmental Harm from Invasive Species
Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair and I commend the Chair for hosting this hearing. You know, if you are out in your district and you ask the people what is on their mind, they will say education or health care or crime. It is pretty unusual for you bump into someone who says, by God, you have got to stop those invasive species. But I have two questions for you. First of all, if you were to talk to the Congress at large and say, what is the cost benefit ratio—as I mentioned earlier, I will be introducing some legislation to prevent the western spread of, for example, the zebra mussel. What is the—what is your estimate of the cost benefit ratio? If we were to spend, say, $10 million to save it, how much will we—or to stop it, how much will we save over the next decade or so based on what you know from elsewhere?
Dr. CARLTON. I will give a broader answer to that. I am not sure of any particular ratio. But the numbers that we have heard before, in terms of the Pimentel, et al., study for the hundred billion and more, is widely perceived as an underestimate. So that ten million may not compare so much to a hundred billion as it may, in fact, compare to a trillion dollars. That when you look at the study that was done that produced that number of $139 billion a year, and, in fact, did not take into account many things that classical economists take into account, in terms of the impact on all the collateral sorts of things that when a family was going to come to an area for recreation that, in fact, they didn't come and, therefore, they didn't buy the gasoline to come there and impacted other sorts of facilities along the way.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, in fact, it is very likely that the number—whatever ratio we have in mind, is always going to be a minimum. It is very hard to be hyperbolic here economically.
Ms. WILLIAMS. I think even if we look at the amount of money we are spending now—especially in the agricultural area to try to keep these pests out or to control them once they get out of control, what we saw in developing the plan was the real emphasis on early detection and rapid response. The idea of raising the capability to detect pests early and then eradicate them. Right there, you can eliminate millions and millions and millions of dollars of the cost of controlling some of these existing species. So even when you don't know the exact cost benefit ratio—and I would say we need some more data on what the impacts are—you can just look at what we are spending now and say that efforts to do early detection and rapid response are cost-effective now compared to what we are spending.
Outreach
Mr. BAIRD. Let me ask a second question related to this. All of us here are, in a way, involved in a marketing enterprise and we think in terms of constituent groups. And I think of, say, the Columbia River Basin, there are a number of constituent groups—agriculture, fishing, barge traffic, and electrical generation, etcetera. As you are thinking about getting this out—a poster is a fine thing, but it is a poster. What specific groups, interest groups, have you talked to, to get them to understand this is in your vital, personal, or organizational interest, and how can we reach out to those groups in a better way?
Dr. BRANDT. I will respond briefly. The—again, through Sea Grant extension and—there has been a lot of effort to reach out to user groups in the coastal area. And I think the coastal areas are far more familiar with these issues. Certainly, in the State of Michigan, there is no problem finding a user group that is interested in the issue of zebra mussels or exotics. We have recently had requests from Oklahoma to send Sea Grant extension agents to Oklahoma and talk to them about the impact of the zebra mussels in their river systems. And I think that is the kind of effort that is going to be needed. And the users you mentioned and—are the type of users you need, as well as the general public.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will give you one anecdotal example. In the Huron River in Ann Arbor, the zebra mussel has infested many of the areas that are used by canoeists to go in shallow water, beach their canoe, and walk and swim. This can no longer be done because the zebra mussel does not allow them to walk without cutting their feet.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. In Washington, we have made a lot of outreach efforts and especially to the Recreational Boating Association. They have been very supportive of these efforts. Not only can they move these species around, but when a species is introduced into a lake, it can ruin their favorite boating lake. So I think we need to make more outreach to them. Also, aquaculture industry is in the same situation. They can introduce these species, but they can also be impacted by them. And they have also been supportive.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you very much. I applaud your efforts. I—those of us who are interested in this or have seen the damage it can produce, I sometimes feel like right now, somewhere crossing on I–90 or I–80 is a boat laden—I am serious about this—and if it gets in, it costs billions down the road and we may not be stopping it. It is really pretty scary economically. It seems absurd to tell your constituents you are fighting to protect them from the zebra mussels. But the reality is, if you are not, you are not doing your job back here. And if the Congress doesn't appreciate the significance of it now, we will appreciate the significance of it the hard way a few years from now. Thank you very much for all your efforts, and thanks to the Chair.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. It is a pleasure to recognize one of the most faithful attenders at the Science Committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.
Prevention and Control of Invasive Species
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a keen interest in this subject, and we, in Minnesota, take these issues extremely seriously. And I really am proud of the fact that most boaters and fisherman in Minnesota are paying very close attention to both zebra mussels and Eurasian Milfoil. But I have to say, and I am very interested in the testimony and I appreciate what—the work that you are doing. But I have to sort of express a somewhat different point of view. And that is that it seems to me that the answer we get to almost every question that is posed before this Committee is, well, we need to study it more. Control is a good thing.
But I really think what the American people, and particularly boaters in my state, want, are solutions. I mean, limiting the movement of the zebra mussel is certainly something we have to all be part of. And I don't disagree with that. But I haven't heard so far this morning—and I apologize, I have been in and out—I haven't heard an answer, a solution. And I think that is what we want to hear. You know, we can't just continue to put more money into studying and studying and studying. We want some solutions. Americans—and one thing that defines Americans is we expect results. Anybody want to comment?
Mr. SMITH. I would say, I don't know if you heard my talk or pieces of it, but I think Congressman Baird's bill gives some very proactive, real solutions. It doesn't just study it. One of the things I have been big on is—I call it a three-pronged approach to preventing the spread of zebra mussels and any other aquatic nuisance species. It can work for any of them—is to address it at the infested waters. Boats that are coming out of these infested waters should simply be cleaned. And the states that have these infested waters should implement programs to make sure that those boats are clean before they move to another water in the state or outside of the state. That is sort of a first line of defense.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second line of defense could be—for the west, anyway, could be at the hundredth meridian, to educate boaters that are coming across that they could potentially be carrying these species. And hopefully that will spur some activity for them to clean their boats off.
And the third and final line of defense is at the states that do not have these species to implement programs where they can have educational activities or require that boats have some washing if they are found to have these species on them. And also to have an enforcement element of that. The State of Minnesota has an excellent program for this, I think, for making sure that boats do not have the species.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. But my concern is—I am not opposed, you know, to playing defense. But that essentially assumes that we have surrendered the Mississippi River to the zebra mussel and that we have surrendered Lake Minnetonka to Eurasian Milfoil. I don't think we want to surrender. I mean, what is the offensive plan? Yeah.
Ms. SHORT. I think that you have really hit a very fundamental issue in the whole invasive species arena. The tug of war between trying to have scientific certitude and taking action is one we struggle with every day. And I think there probably are some fundamental issues there that deserve a lot of attention in terms of how do we focus research efforts on practical solutions.
How do we bridge that gap between research and making a management decision or taking an action on the ground? How do we develop an arsenal of tools that we know we can use before we are confronted with an emergency situation and we are struggling to know how to respond? How do we put in place prevention kinds of mechanisms so that we are not always dealing reactively to something that is here? And we clearly don't have the answers to those questions and we are struggling with how to get them.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How does something like the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force take its research priorities that it identifies and somehow interject those into the research that is going on in such a way that we can focus research on answering a question as opposed to having many different research capabilities going on around the country that don't necessarily focus enough on one issue to come up with those kinds of answers.
So I think that is a very real issue and a very difficult question to answer, but one that is vital to answer if we are really going to make any headway.
Ms. WILLIAMS. I guess I would go back to prevention itself and the necessity to develop science-based approaches to risk assessment if you are going to try to keep things out—and once they are in, it is very difficult. You haven't surrendered, but you have given up the easy win. But to keep these species out, you have got to have the scientific information, the scientific basis to show industry or whoever wants to bring these species in, that in this particular case, there is a high risk that this species is going to become invasive. And in many cases, we just don't have the research to show that. And I think that is why it is linked to the—research is linked to the solution. And I agree with you—it needs to be carefully linked to an overall plan to solve the problem rather than research for research's sake.
Dr. CARLTON. Congressman, I think that is an excellent question and I made remarks earlier that what we see as a result, the research for looking at solutions is proportional to the dollar investment. For a tremendous number of programs that are funded by Federal Governments and sometimes state governments, we often hear numbers of $50 million for research or $100 million for research in different departments. And it is small money in general. And yet that sometimes does give us good solutions.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't think anybody knows if we can remove Eurasian Water Milfoil and what we will get in 100 years later from now in terms of whether we can do that technologically. But the kind of money that is available in general to look at that comes down to a few tens of thousands of dollars per research project. My guess is that if someone said we have $100 million to ask if we can do something about Eurasian Water Milfoil, that is not much money prorated over the next decades, that there would be a lot of interest in going for a real jugular solution.
And right now, if you take the entire aquatic nuisance species budget from Sea Grant and award it to 50 projects, as I mentioned earlier, and after overhead that the University would take, and so on, it comes out to around $35,000 matching Federal money per project that could be proposed along the lines of eradication of Milfoil. And it just isn't very much money compared to the kinds of things that we normally invest in problems of this scale.
So while it is very typical to come here before the House and say, we just need more money, it—my sense is that if we, in fact, got very serious about a level of funding that is quite different than we have seen in the past couple of decades, that the research community would be very interested in seeking those solutions and would get very novel about where they might want to go with them.
Dr. BRANDT. It is my belief that in the large aquatic environments, such as the Mississippi River, that once a species has successfully invaded, that eradication is virtually impossible. All you need to do is think about how it originally originated in the system. Use a very small inoculation to think that you would have to eliminate that animal absolutely everywhere in order to eliminate it from the system, as well as eliminate it from—you would need to eliminate it from the source regions as well.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One solution to this is adaptive management. Who would have thought in the '60's that the alewife would now become a very valuable resource in the Great Lakes. The alewife is an exotic species. It was considered a pest and now it is considered—I have seen newspaper headlines that say, ''Save the Alewife.'' That was an adaptive management strategy. It took a few decades, but it was a strategy to specifically introduce a predator into that system that would try to control that animal and it turned into a booming economy for the Great Lakes region.
That probably is a success story. It involved introduction of another invader. I am not promoting that at all—or another exotic. But I do think management agencies really need to be adaptive in their looking at these systems. When the system changes, they need to understand the system and they need to be ready to make management decisions and have that flexibility to make management decisions that can minimize any impact or possibly take advantage of any invasions.
Chairman EHLERS. The——
Mr. SMITH. Real briefly, on control, I think one of the most promising areas for effective control is biocontrol. And we are using a biocontrol agent in Washington to help us with spartina. And it has also been very successfully used with purple loose strife. And I know it has been proposed for other aquatic weeds also.
Conclusion
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. And he asked the question I was going to ask in follow up. So that saved us a little time. I want to thank the Panel very much. You—we have just begun to peel the onion in this hearing. And I thought I knew something about it. I am amazed at how much more I have to learn. And I think that is probably true of the Members of Congress in general.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, as an important matter of educating the public, attempting to identify natural enemies, as you have just discussed, which can be very helpful in, perhaps, not eliminating, but at least controlling some of the invasive species. But it is clear that we need better coordination of this and, as Dr. Carlton has said, more funding for the research.
One of the difficulties that we have in the Congress and in the Administration, the Executive Branch, which I am trying to develop solutions for, is the incredible diversity of committees, agencies, and funding sources, dealing with problems involving oceans, coasts, aquatic nuisance species, and so forth. And I am hoping we can develop some system to better coordinate it so that we can, indeed, direct these programs.
Ms. Williams, you referred, in your testimony, to the cross-cutting budget issues. But—and that is all fine and good, except where does the accountability come from then? How can we be sure that agencies will spend their money for the purposes that we intend? So I—as I say, we have just begun to open the issue here, but there is a much broader issue, and that is, trying to make the Congress and the Executive Branch function better and in a more unified fashion on issues that—of the type that we have been discussing here.
I did arrange, incidentally, just a week ago, for a combined hearing with the Resources Subcommittee that deals with these areas. Between the two subcommittees we cover a lot of the territory, but there is much more to be done, including the work that the Navy does, which, after all, spends probably more money on aquatic research than any government agency.
So I pledge to you that we will continue this effort. We will continue working on the problem. But we are going to need extensive help from you and from the—from any other agencies that can help educate the public and not only change their habits, but change their desire to really get at the problem and make some meaningful changes.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a few closing formalities. If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional statements from the members and for answers to any follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists. Without objection, so ordered. And I presume the Panel will be willing to answer written questions submitted later.
I also want to thank the USGS and others who were involved in putting together the silent panel over there. That is—as an ex-professor, that is what I love to see and we need more use of those sorts of objects in political hearings. Thank you very, very much, again, for your testimony, for your interest, for your advice, and, thank you to all those in the audience for attending. I appreciate your interest in this major problem as well. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX 1:
Written Testimony, Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER HOEKSTRA
I commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee (Mr. Ehlers) for calling today's hearing. You, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Democratic Member, our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), have taken a strong leadership role in focusing the research community in Michigan and across the Nation on the problem of invasive species. The research funded under the authority of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) and the Nonindigeneous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, make possible the best responses we have been able to muster against the scourge of invasive species. Such research helps make possible the development of the techniques to stem the introduction of new invasive species in the most effective manner. Such research helps to develop the techniques for dealing with those invasive species that have established a beachhead, helping us to retard their spread and deal with the severe problems they create. The research programs provide the tools to more effectively wage war against invasive species.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Second Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent, includes roughly 150 miles of some of the most beautiful shoreline of Lake Michigan. On a day-to-day basis, the quality of life and indeed, the very livelihood of many of my constituents is directly linked to the health of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes.
As you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Barcia, know all too well the problems created by invasive species have had an immense impact on the Great Lakes Region. Over the next ten years, it is estimated that the infamous zebra mussel will have an economic impact of more than $5 billion on U.S. and Canadian industries in the Great Lakes region.
The introduction of additional non-native species to the Great Lakes is one of the largest economic and environmental threats to the Great Lakes region today. We can debate which techniques will best stem their introduction or adequacy of the effectiveness of current laws, but there is little debate that once an invasive species become established its impacts are too frequently profound. Invasive species have the ability to decimate entire ecosystems of native species. They aggressively compete for food resources and habitat. They often destroy the food chain supporting native species or interfere with their reproduction, hastening extinction.
Worse yet, once these intruders are established, they, and all of their adverse consequences, become a permanent part of our environment. Let me say that again, these invasive species, and all the problems that they bring with them, all too frequently become a permanent part of our Great Lakes ecosystem.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Worse yet, we remain all too vulnerable to these intruders. Our current defenses are inadequate. For now, we a losing the battle against these Great Lakes intruders.
What is one of our most prominent sources of the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes? It is the ballast tanks of vessels entering the Great Lakes. Invasive species like the zebra mussel and spiny water flea, came to the Great Lakes through ballast water. If there is anything we have learned from the zebra mussel it is that the Great Lakes and the people who rely on them—for food, recreation and income—have found the price of living with them unacceptably high, both environmentally and economically.
How then do we, as stewards of the Great Lakes, preserve this precious resource from further intruders and further degradation? I feel that our best option is to improve our defenses against further introductions. To me this means focusing on better stemming introductions through ballast water.
I have introduced H.R. 1680 focusing on defending against new invasive species being introduced into the Great Lakes through ballast water. I am gratified to have you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barcia and many of our colleagues representing Great Lakes states as co-sponsors.
My legislation seeks to accelerate action by Secretary of Transportation and the Commandant of the Coast Guard to stem the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes from ballast water and the sediments contained in ballast tanks. Concrete action under the basis 1990 legislation and the 1996 amendments contained in NISA has been painfully slow. Action has been paralyzed by seemingly endless analysis. While we await the required analyses and standards, new invasive species have been introduced and taken-up residence, and the people of the Great Lakes region have been paid the price.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I recognize that the Committee on Science does not have jurisdiction over the regulatory process that our legislation seeks to accelerate, but you can accelerate the research that will continuously improve the techniques for the destruction of invasive species in ballast water and sediments in ballast tanks. In the meantime, we must implement the techniques at hand. That's what our bill does through an open, structured regulatory process that provides multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute their ideas and to make their views known.
In building a better defense for the Great Lakes against the introduction of new invasive species, we must make vigorous use of the most effective tools currently available, while awaiting the improved techniques derived from additional research and its application through the free enterprise system.
We need to move forward on both fronts as aggressively as we can. The Great Lakes deserve no less.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID L. EVANS
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am David Evans, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I am also the designated NOAA co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. I appreciate the opportunity to present an overview of our research as mandated by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me begin by talking about the challenge we've been invited to address today. Since the middle of the 19th century, an average of one new nonindigenous aquatic species has threatened an American ecosystem every 36 weeks. The number increased to one new species every 24 weeks by 1970 and since the mid-80s has risen to one new species every 12 weeks for the San Francisco Bay alone. This has resulted in substantial ecological and socioeconomic damage in many regions of the nation. We have referred to aquatic nuisance species as ''America's Most Unwanted'' or nature's invaders. They are non-native plants, animals or disease-causing microbes that enter and spread through inland and coastal waters. I believe that the Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council, and their non-federal partners brought in through such programs as the National Sea Grant College Program, have met the research needs mandated in the Act. We have:
addressed the problem of zebra mussels aggressively and with great success;
looked at a range of new ballast water technologies and have moved into a new phase of implementation of those technologies;
sponsored research to respond to and monitor nonindigenous species issues;
reinvigorated our Oyster Disease Program; and
created new ways of reaching the public and educators on this issue.
Yet there is much to be done since the problem persists. For example, additional work needs to be done on control technologies. I will touch on the important activities being conducted by other members of the Task Force with much of my discussion focusing on NOAA's activities. I'd like to begin by examining what has been accomplished under those sections of the Act which specify research activities. Then I'll discuss our efforts in coordinating the programs and improvements that could be made.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, I would like to outline the current legislation guiding our programs and how it provides for our activities. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 charges the Task Force generally with prevention, detection and monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species. As supporting elements, there are provisions for both research and education activities. The key research components of the Act are contained in §§1102, 1202(f)(3), and 1202(i). While §1202 charges the Task Force with its general duties, §1102 provides that NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will conduct a competitive research program to demonstrate technologies and practices related to ballast water management.
Section 1202(f)(3) makes provisions for the NOAA Sea Grant College Program and the Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Units to fund a competitive research program to study all aspects of aquatic nuisance species. In addition, the authorization subsection for this provision—section 1301(b)(4)—contains an authorization for the USDA's Land Grant College Program to receive grants to conduct aquatic nuisance species research. To date, only the Sea Grant Program has received funding under this section, and there may be technical difficulties with the statutory language for the other two entities. The Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Units are no longer under the authority of FWS, but are part of the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Because §1202(f)(3) does not contain a reference to the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, there is uncertainty as to how such a program would be structured.
Section 1202(i) provides for a zebra mussel control program. Under this subsection the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with developing a program of research, technology development and demonstration for the environmentally sound control of zebra mussels in and around public facilities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with developing a competitive research grant program to identify environmentally sound methods for controlling the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species such as the zebra mussel. Finally, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) is authorized to conduct research on prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My statement would be incomplete if I did not mention the fact that some of the agencies represented by members of the Task Force are conducting research activities on aquatic nuisance species under other programs. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to conduct research on sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had an extensive research program on aquatic weed control for several decades. The Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture has conducted research on biocontrol agents for aquatic weeds as part of a broader biocontrol research program. Additionally, EPA also has sponsored research under other legal authorities.
I would like to provide a brief description of research activities under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. When the Act was first passed, there was a strong emphasis on a single species, the zebra mussel, in a single region, the Great Lakes. In §1202(i), the Congress identified a series of tasks relating to zebra mussels. These are:
''research and development concerning the species life history, environmental tolerances and impacts on fisheries and other ecosystem components, and the efficacy of control mechanisms and means of avoiding or minimizing impacts;
tracking the dispersal of the species and establishment of an early warning system to alert likely areas of future infestations;
development of control plans in coordination with regional, State and local entities; and
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
provision of technical assistance to regional, State and local entities. . ..''
Although zebra mussels are so widely spread that it is unlikely that they ever will be eradicated, I think that the members of the Task Force have successfully accomplished these tasks. In terms of the research elements, we know the biological parameters of the species and its impact on ecosystems and can predict which aquatic systems are likely to be vulnerable to infestation. Although zebra mussel mitigation will be a continuing cost for utilities and other industries, research conducted by NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and private industry has identified mitigation methods, and no municipality should have to face the situation once faced by Monroe, Michigan, when its water intake system was totally clogged with zebra mussels.
In addition to conducting the research, the members of the Task Force have made an effort to make the information available to a variety of stakeholders. The Corps of Engineers has published and distributed a series of technical papers and a CD–ROM on zebra mussel control methods. NOAA has made a similar effort through its National Sea Grant College Program. Very early on, it was recognized that there needed to be a source for technical papers on zebra mussels. New York Sea Grant has set up a technical library, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse. With 6,000 publications on aquatic nuisance species, it probably contains the largest collection of scientific papers and gray literature on a single aquatic nuisance species in the world: the zebra mussel. These papers are available to researchers and resource managers over the entire world. They recently provided information to Australia on methods to eradicate a potentially invasive mollusk. The collection not only includes information from peer reviewed journals, but contains gray literature and translations of material published in eastern Europe. In the case of zebra mussels, inclusion of ''gray literature'' is particularly important because a significant portion of the research has been conducted by private industries whose priority is developing workable methods and not necessarily publication in scientific journals. The Clearinghouse began as a technical library on zebra mussels and has now expanded to include a variety of other aquatic nuisance species. NOAA's Sea Grant institutions have also prepared publications and videotapes on zebra mussels and conducted a number of workshops and a satellite conferences for resource managers in both coastal and inland states, the latter effort in partnership with USDA. These have been very successful outreach projects.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory has conducted extensive research on the ecological impacts of zebra mussels. We continue to discover new—if somewhat disturbing—information. Members of the subcommittee may have seen information recently released on the reduction in populations of the shrimp-like amphipod Diporeia in Lake Michigan. Diporeia normally make up to 70 percent of the living biomass on the lake bottom. They are at the base of the food web and are the major prey source for species such as yellow perch and whitefish. In addition, prey fish for adult salmon and trout feed on the amphipods. Diporeia populations seem to be dropping because of competition with zebra mussels for resources.
In addition to work on zebra mussels, GLERL has been involved in other work on aquatic nuisance species. They currently are involved in a project evaluating the use of biocides for treatment of ballast water. Last year, they hosted a workshop with eastern European scientists to identify potential invaders from the Ponto-Caspian region. GLERL also moved expeditiously to investigate the level of risk associated with ships entering the Great Lakes system with ''no ballast on board.'' GLERL is leading a cooperative effort to address this issue. Other members of the research team are from the University of Michigan, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Old Dominion University, and the University of Windsor in Ontario. The project is jointly funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, NOAA, EPA, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Dr. Stephen Brandt, the Director of GLERL, will be providing additional detail on their activities in his testimony today.
As referenced earlier, §1202(f)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act makes provisions for the NOAA Sea Grant College Program and the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Units to work together. Within NOAA, all of the activity under §1202(f) has been conducted by the National Sea Grant College program. Originally, most of the sponsored research was focused on zebra mussels but as issues identified with other aquatic nuisance species have arisen, the scope of these competitive grants has been significantly expanded. During the period 1999–2000, Sea Grant funded 60 different projects. A summary of the projects is attached. To give an idea of the magnitude of the issue, over the last four years, the program has funded research on 34 different species. We have made an effort to address each of the priorities identified in the Act and have funded projects in the areas of prevention, monitoring and control. I should also note that Sea Grant's contribution is not limited to appropriations made under the Act. Individual Sea Grant institutions consider aquatic nuisance species so significant that they have sponsored approximately $600,000 in projects out of their core funds in each of the past two years. We have also made an effort to coordinate this competition with other members of the Task Force and the Regional Panels. We have asked the Regional Panels to identify research priorities in their regions. The peer review panels which recommend the final selections have included representatives from other Task Force agencies including FWS, USGS, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a very real sense, the Sea Grant program has played a major role in defining the research agenda on aquatic nuisance species. At a recent international scientific conference on marine bioinvasions, an estimated two-thirds of the scientific papers presented by U.S. scientists had received at least partial funding through the Sea Grant program.
During the reauthorization of the Act in 1996, §1104 was added to set up a competitive research program for the development of ballast water management technology. Although primary responsibility for this program lies with FWS and NOAA, ballast water technology is so significant that it has become a coordinated, cooperative effort among all of the Task Force members. NOAA and FWS have put out a joint request for proposals and jointly evaluated the proposals received. Because both EPA and the Coast Guard also have been involved in ballast water research, the federal agencies meet periodically to inform each other of activities and to prevent duplication. In addition, NOAA and FWS have asked EPA and the Coast Guard to sit on the peer review panel which recommends the projects to be funded under §1104.
Since the last reauthorization, the members of the Task Force have sponsored research on a wide range of alternatives for ballast water management including excimer ultraviolet light, ozone injection, organic and inorganic biocides, dissolved air flotation, filtration, onshore treatment, and cyclonic or centrifugal separation. Some of the projects have involved totally new technologies while others have addressed engineering problems. As an example, while the Great Lakes Protection Fund provided funding for basic research on filtration, the demonstration program looked at development of an automatic backflush system so that filters would not get clogged. Throughout this effort, we have encouraged partnerships between academia, industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations in order to maximize the leverage of Federal funding.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several of these technologies look promising, and research is now entering into a new phase—moving from the laboratory to shipboard testing and demonstration in real-world situations. Two approaches look particularly promising. The first, another example of interagency collaboration, is taking place on-board the Maritime Administration (MARAD) ship Cape May in Baltimore Harbor. The ship was provided by MARAD while equipment and in-kind match were supplied by the industrial partner. Federal funding was provided by NOAA, and substantial matching funds were supplied by the State of Maryland Ports Administration. The equipment that has been installed is a centrifugal separator to clear larger organisms and particles from the water followed by either ultraviolet treatment or one of two biocides to kill organisms not removed by the separator. EPA has been involved with a similar project involving hydrocyclonic separation (via a centrifugal separator as noted above) and ultraviolet treatment on a cruise ship on the west coast.
The second approach is an enhancement of the ongoing Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, a collaboration among the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Lake Carriers' Association, the State of Minnesota, several universities, and the Great Lakes Protection Fund. This project involves both shipboard and barge testing. The system being tested involves either screen filtration or cyclonic separation followed by ultraviolet treatment.
The Subcommittee has asked us to elaborate on what research the Task Force does to address the threat of invasive species. The Task Force itself does not conduct or sponsor research. The authorizations and appropriations are provided for individual federal agencies. However, the Task Force has played a key role in defining objectives and provides an excellent opportunity for coordination among the federal agencies involved. At a very basic level, the existence of the Task Force ensures that various agencies share information. There is much more, though. The Task Force committees involve both federal agencies and stakeholders in seeking solutions to particular problems and identifying how to combine resources and expertise. As an example, recognizing that we should be looking ahead, the Task Force has asked its Ballast Water and Shipping Committee to make recommendations on future research priorities. Some of the species specific committees such as the Ruffe Control Committee and the Brown Tree Snake Control Committee meet regularly and identify priority research projects and appropriate lead agencies. Although it has sometimes been difficult to conduct joint projects because of bureaucratic limitations, the members have, nevertheless, made an effort to do so. As is pointed out above, individual members of the Task Force have sought to involve other agencies expertise in making decisions. For example, the Corps of Engineers has asked NOAA and other members of the Task Force to participate in its review of potential zebra mussel research projects.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have been asked to address the role of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and how the Task Force works with the Council. Created by Executive Order in 1999, the NISC works to provide national leadership regarding invasive species. The specific focus of the Council is to ensure that federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective. I foresee much the same potential with the National Invasive Species Council that we have experienced with the Task Force. Often we may wear taxonomic blinders and not be aware of what is happening in other areas. Those of us in the aquatic arena might possibly benefit from methods used to prevent introductions of livestock diseases, insects, and plants. Development of various protocols may be facilitated by contact with those who have already made an effort even if it is for a different taxonomic group. Most of the research conducted under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act has been applied research. We have only been able to do a little work on invasion processes and how they work. Other basic research questions have yet to be addressed. These include issues such as factors in habitat vulnerability, factors that make particular species successful invaders, the time-lag phenomenon, and how global climate change will affect invasion patterns. By looking at issues which extend across taxonomic groups and habitats, the Council can serve a role in identifying broad research issues that need to be addressed. In addition, they provide a different perspective in identifying gaps in our research efforts. Finally, by participating in the Council, there may be an opportunity to develop new partnerships. As an example, the involvement of the Department of the Treasury on the Council may have facilitated a joint project between the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify live bait imports.
The Subcommittee asked that I address the issue of what tools have been developed for determining the threat that a specific nonindigenous species may pose in terms of invasiveness. The Task Force recognized the need for such a tool and asked its Risk Assessment and Management Committee to develop a protocol. In 1996, they provided the Task Force with a Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process. I am submitting a copy of the protocol to the Subcommittee. In developing the protocol we not only had the advantage of having input from the federal members of the Task Force, but we also involved the private sector. The document has been so well received that the Wisconsin and Minnesota state governments have adopted it into their own review process and Florida has used it.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I indicated that I would address areas in which there is room for improvement. First, I think that we could probably do a better job of monitoring and early detection. This is particularly important if we are to respond rapidly to incipient invasions. We continue to receive initial reports of species from unlikely sources. The members of the Subcommittee may have seen the report about a month ago that the first report of the Asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus, in Maine came from a 10-year-old child. While the child was extremely proud and was interviewed on television, it may not speak highly of our own monitoring capabilities. The Asian clam species, Potamocorbula amurensis, which has had major impacts on the food chain in the northern part of San Francisco Bay, was first reported by a junior college class. Our shortcomings in this area are probably due to a couple of factors. First, monitoring in aquatic systems requires a major resource commitment, both in terms of human and financial resources. And we have not developed protocols or technology for monitoring the problems.
When Congress initially passed the Act in 1990, it exhibited a sophisticated grasp of the issue of invasive species. It certainly would have been possible to pass what was merely a zebra mussel control act. Instead, the Congress also recognized that a particular vector was likely to be responsible for future introductions. Therefore, many of the activities in the Act relate to addressing the issue of ballast water as a vector. The Task Force members responded to this issue, and I think that we are well on the way to implementing technologies and regulations to minimize the impact of this vector. We are now at a point where we should also be looking at other vectors such as hull fouling and aquaculture.
Finally, I think that additional work needs to be done on control technologies. There are entire taxonomic groups for which we have no idea of eradication methods. As an example, last summer large numbers of Australian spotted jellyfish, Phyllorhiza punctata, appeared in the Gulf of Mexico and there is concern that it could affect fishery resources in the area. In some areas, the jellyfish were so abundant that they removed virtually 100 percent of the zooplankton from the water column. Zooplankton constitute the prey base for many fish species and include larval fish themselves. Even though we recognized the threat posed by this organism, we currently do not know what methods would be effective in controlling a jellyfish species.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I think that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force can point to significant achievements. However, I do not think that we have solved the problem of aquatic invasive species. Much work remains to be done, and I know that all of the Task Force members are committed to continuing our efforts in this area. This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
74542e.eps
74542f.eps
74542g.eps
74542h.eps
BIOGRAPHY FOR DAVID L. EVANS
Dr. David L. Evans currently serves as the Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), Department of Commerce (DOC), with an annual budget of $360M. He directs OAR's scientific Research and Development (R&D) programs in coastal, ocean, marine, atmospheric, and space and geophysical sciences, through research laboratories and a network of university-based programs across the country, including 11 cooperative institutes and 29 Sea Grant Colleges. Nearly half of OAR's resources is spent on an extramural R&D effort that focuses on weather, climate, and environmental resources—the results of which support and enhance NOAA's current and future products, services, and mission.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to joining. OAR, Dr. Evans served as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, with responsibility for the conservation, management, and utilization of U.S. living marine resources with an annual budget of $350M. He directed Fisheries programs and developed policies on domestic and international fisheries management, conservation and protection measures for marine manuals, their habitats, and the environmental impact of human activities on living marine resources. While in Fisheries, Dr. Evans' most notable accomplishments were the implementation of a major restructuring of NMFS' field components, ensuring scientific integrity, promoting the sustainable use of living marine resources, and building bridges between the scientific community, the Congress, and the fisheries constituents. He successfully negotiated resolution of issues between fishers and the federal regulatory function to maintain a balance between economic viability and conservation.
Dr. Evans was the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA, and the NOS Senior Scientist. During his tenure with NOS, he facilitated better integration of programs as diverse as nautical charting and coastal zone management, broader application of ocean and coastal products and services, and ensured unassailable scientific and technical credibility for all programs. He built partnerships between state and local governments and the federal agency. He began the first commercial contracting for hydrographic and geodetic services to complement federal capabilities. He established the NOAA Center for Coastal Ecosystem Health in Charleston, South Carolina, which contributes to improved management strategies for achieving coastal, ecological, cultural, and economic sustainability and was instrumental in establishing the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine and Environmental Technology at the University of New Hampshire. For Dr. Evans' excellence in meeting NOAA's mission and strategic goals in environmental stewardship and sustainable development, he was awarded the NOAA Administrator's Award.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before joining NOAH in 1992, he was the Program Manager for the Physical Oceanography Program at the Office of Naval Research where he managed the basic research program. Prior to moving to Washington, he was a tenured professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island (URI) where he conducted research in areas such as large-scale ocean circulation, satellite remote sensing, instrument development, acoustic ambient noise, and ocean microstructure.
Dr. Evans has a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island [1975] and is the author of numerous scientific publications. He received his BA from the University of Pennsylvania [1968] in mathematics. He is a native of Media, Pennsylvania, where he taught high school mathematics before attending graduate school at URI. He is married and lives with his wife and two youngest children in Arlington, VA.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Questions for Dr. David Evans Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; submitted by the House Science Committee
Question #1: Should the federal government set government-wide priorities for invasive species research, for example, in areas such as prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education? If so, what is the appropriate authority to set these priorities and how will they be coordinated among the various agencies and departments of the federal government? What models could Congress look to for authorizing and funding these objectives?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Response: The Federal government should set general parameters on research priorities and identify gaps in current research. However, such efforts should not attempt to define specific projects. The National Invasive Species Council (NISC), with input from its Non-native Invasive Species Advisory Committee, is the logical authority to set priorities for invasive species research.
Research would be facilitated if it were easier to combine resources on joint projects. Currently, each agency has its own pool of resources—both human and financial. However, project success is likely to require the expertise of more than one agency. Forest fire management is a structural model in which successful pooling of resources has occurred.
Question #2: In your testimony you mentioned that the Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council and their non-federal partners have met the research needs mandated in the Act. However, the number of species introduced along with the threat they pose continues to grow, while our understanding of the various vectors of introduction is limited.
Is a better understanding of these vectors an important part of combating invasive species?
If so, are there other important areas in which a better understanding is critical to dealing with invasive species?
Should the NISA be updated to reflect new research needs?
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Response: The major focus of the National Invasive Species Act has been to prevent new introductions from ships' ballast water, but there are other vectors of introduction that also have the potential to cause harm, including the pet and aquarium trades, hull fouling, aircraft and their cargo, aquaculture, transport of live seafood, and the bait industry. At this point, we cannot adequately assess risks of introductions from these other vectors, and we need to develop an understanding of their role in the worldwide expansion of non-indigenous species. For the National Invasive Species Act to address the invasive species issue in a comprehensive manner, there needs to be explicit recognition that there are other vectors besides ballast water that deserve attention. Although Sea Grant does support a few small projects carrying out limited evaluations of other vectors, other agencies will need to be involved providing additional resources necessary to fully assess the risk from those vectors and to develop cost-efficient approaches to reduce impacts. The necessary resources should be identified in a revised National Invasive Species Act.
Question #3: In your testimony you mentioned that one of the areas that needs to be improved is doing a better job on monitoring and early detection.
How can we improve these aspects of dealing with invasive species?
Is it because of a lack of funding, authority under the National Invasive Species Act, or both?
Response: One of the lessons we have learned is that while prevention is clearly the most cost-efficient mode of dealing with potential invasions, early detection is critically important when prevention has failed. There is often a narrow window of opportunity for dealing with new invasions when the numbers are still small and the population is relatively confined. Once that opportunity has passed and the invading population has begun to expand, the best we can generally hope to do is limit the rate of further spread. But we cannot rely on the occasional serendipitous detections of new invasions such as those that were mentioned in the testimony; the best tool we can have is comprehensive monitoring programs in place around our Nation's coasts.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional legal authority is not necessary to improve monitoring and early detection. Section 1202 of the Act provides authority for monitoring activities, and a revised National Invasive Species Act should retain clear authority for such monitoring programs. One of the elements for a successful monitoring program is development of a common protocol so that results can be compared among different sites. A first step was taken in this direction at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, held at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in 1998, entitled Forum on Ecological Surveys of Aquatic Nuisance Species. NOAA will be conducting a workshop January 14–18, 2002 for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) on the development of such a protocol. The outcome of the workshop is expected to be a plan that will detail the scope, frequency, and sampling methodology that will be used for ecological surveys in the NERRS. The workshop results will be reported to the Task Force. Once developed, we are hopeful that the protocol will serve as a model for other members of the Task Force. The resulting programs will clearly have to be partnerships among local, state, and Federal agencies, the universities and NGOs in order to implement such large-scale monitoring programs.
It should be recognized that an adequate monitoring program will be both labor intensive and costly. Current budgeting and personnel resources have necessitated the prioritizing of activities by NOAA and other Task Force members. Thus far, we have focused on the immediate problems of prevention and control. However, the Task Force has developed a draft five-year strategic plan which places a greater emphasis on early detection and rapid response. In order to be effective in this area, a greater emphasis will have to be placed on monitoring activities.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question #4: In your testimony, you mentioned the use of the Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Risk Analysis Review Process.
Other than Wisconsin and Minnesota, what other states use the Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Risk Analysis Review Process?
Why don't more states use this protocol?
Response: The State of Florida also used the protocol, although not formally adopted for use, to evaluate an introduction. Originally, the protocol was developed for use by Federal agencies. However, Wisconsin and Minnesota formally adopted the protocol for use because they considered it to be adequate for their needs. Each state has its own laws and methods for evaluating intentional introductions; therefore, they may choose to adopt protocols that suit the needs of that particular state.
Question #5: In your testimony you mentioned the database on the New York Sea Grant website.
Can you tell us the difference between this clearinghouse database and the ones housed at USGS and the Smithsonian?
Is there overlap in these databases?
Could they be consolidated or coordinated better?
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Response: The three databases have different, but complementary, purposes. The Smithsonian and USGS databases each contain records of occurrences and a summary of known facts about a particular species. The Clearinghouse on Aquatic Nuisance Species is not so much a database as it is a technical library. Even though the New York Sea Grant website does contain a list of publications on various aspects of particular species (e.g., life history and control methods), the primary purpose of the Clearinghouse is to make technical publications available to user groups. User groups can request copies of papers published in scientific journals or in the ''gray'' literature.
An effort has been made to make sure that there is no overlap among these resources. The Smithsonian and USGS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding because both databases record species occurrence. Under the memorandum, USGS will concentrate on freshwater species while the Smithsonian will concentrate on marine species. When the Clearinghouse on Aquatic Nuisance Species decided to expand their collection to include literature on ballast water, they saw to it that they were not duplicating an activity. The Smithsonian indicated that they would be collecting data from vessels reporting this data under Coast Guard regulations. Also, the Smithsonian will conduct some of their own research on ballast water. The Smithsonian does not wish for their database to become a technical library of science and engineering publications on ballast water.
Question #6: The Task Force appears to play a key role in defining objectives and coordinating among federal agencies.
Please give examples of some of the Task Force's objectives that require coordination among multiple agencies and how the Task Force ensured that each agency worked to achieve the objective.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Has the Task Force developed a strategic plan for future research needs?
Response: The Task Force and member agencies work together to formulate common goals. Member agencies are generally willing to join in Task Force efforts when specific needs are identified. By using committees within the Task Force to address important issues, the Task Force involves all of the key players. This approach has probably been more effective than a formalized structure because it makes for a shared commitment.
Interagency cooperation is apparent in the cases of ballast water and zebra mussel research because these were primary areas of focus in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, as amended (NANPCA). Member agencies in both cases make certain that other interested agencies are represented in the rating of competitive projects by peer review panels. In the case of ballast water, the agencies that fund ballast water research meet regularly to ensure that efforts are not duplicated and that priority issues are addressed. When the serious issue of ''no ballast on board'' was put forward by the Great Lakes Regional Panel of the Task Force, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Coast Guard worked together on a joint research project to determine the risk associated with ballast as a vector. The Task Force's Ballast Water and Shipping Committee was tasked with recommending priorities for ballast water research. Their report is expected in October 2001. Similarly, the Task Force established a committee to oversee the high degree of coordination required to conduct zebra mussel research soon after the National Invasive Species Act was passed.
There are instances when a Task Force committee produces recommendations that identify appropriate leads on a specific action following identification of a Task Force objective that is not exclusively focused on research. Such is the case with the species control plans. The Risk Assessment and Management Committee developed a protocol which can be used by the agencies and examined specific species at the request of the Task Force or individual agencies.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Task Force recently completed the final draft of a five-year strategic plan. The plan identifies priorities which will require research coordination. The Task Force considers research, education, and outreach to be cross-cutting issues that support the three primary responsibilities (prevention, detection and monitoring, and control) outlined in the NANCPA. Therefore, rather than operate under a separate research plan, research is included as a key element within the three objectives.
Question #7: In your testimony you mention that conducting joint research projects has been hindered because of bureaucratic difficulties.
Can you give examples of these difficulties and what you believe is necessary to resolve them.
Do you believe the NISC will face similar difficulties?
How does it plan to deal with them?
Response: Current requirements make funding joint projects difficult. Many opportunities for joint projects are missed because the ability to pool resources is inhibited. Agencies must itemize their contributions to a unified project in order for interagency fund transfer to occur. For example, one agency agrees to buy the boat for a project, another agency to buy the motor, and yet another to buy the nets for what is, in reality, a single project. Although not a research project, funding of the rapid response to the Caulerpa taxifolia infestation in California required a Memorandum of Understanding to allow transfer of funds from NOAA. In this case, interagency coordination was hindered when funding was negotiated among several agencies.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Invasive Species Council recognized in the National Invasive Species Management Plan issued last January that joint cooperation is inhibited by the current process for interagency transfer of funds. Action item 5 of the NISC management plan stated, ''. . .the Council will prepare an analysis of barriers to coordinated actions among Federal agencies, including legal and policy barriers and barriers relating to the transfer and pooling of funds for invasive species projects. The analysis will include consideration of a standard Memorandum of Understanding that would allow interagency transfer of funding for invasive species actions identified in the Plan.''
Unique opportunities for joint monitoring projects may exist in locations where NOAA has facilities and programs in the vicinity of other agencies, such as EPA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Despite the efficiency gained from having a single entity to handle the administrative functions for a project, extra lengths have been taken in some instances to coordinate efforts due to extremely high priority. In those instances in which the Congress has provided joint responsibility among Federal agencies or wishes to encourage a greater degree of cooperation, it might consider granting joint project authority that would facilitate pooling of resources.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES T. CARLTON
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is James Carlton, and I have studied aquatic invasions since 1962.
This is the Japanese Rapa Whelk—a massive 6'' tall clam-and-oyster eating snail, first found in 1998 here in Chesapeake Bay. The last thing Chesapeake Bay needed was something that ate oysters and clams.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Mediterranean ''killer seaweed'' Caulerpa was discovered in southern California this past summer.
And last summer the Indo-Pacific jellyfish invaded the Gulf of Mexico—6 million jellyfish, weighing up to 44 pounds each, were found in a 60 square mile area, impacting fishery operations from Alabama to Texas.
What all this means is that research to prevent, understand and manage invasions is more pressing now than when zebra mussels first arrived.
What all this means is that we must effectively use the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council to focus, coordinate, and synchronize these research mandates.
It also means that our legislation was very effective: while we must get more serious about prevention, the existence of the National Invasive Species Act meant that agencies were empowered and that some funding was available. NISA and its predecessor created vastly heightened awareness of invasions, and when new invasions were discovered, the reaction was clearer and stronger than had they invaded a decade earlier.
What is the role of the research university in addressing the threat of invasions? Beyond its fundamental role to define the basic science, theory, and ecology of invasions, an ideal role is one of partnerships—where universities work with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry to produce the solutions that we now need, far faster than if they were each working on their own.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Great Lakes Ballast Demonstration Project (the federally- funded portions of which included NOAA and EPA) did exactly this: led by Northeast Midwest Institute and Lake Carriers Association, the Project also draws on university researchers and government agencies to produce an understanding of the biological and engineering requirements for ballast management. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center's marine bioinvasion laboratory, the nation's largest, coordinates its work extensively with university researchers nationwide. And yet another example is the role of the university in studying technical components of ballast water and other vector management solutions.
But what we can expect from invasion research is only proportional to what we invest in it, and that investment over the past 10 years has been embarrassing.
In 2000–2001 Sea Grant has available 2.7 million dollars for all research on all aquatic invasions in lakes, rivers, and coasts of the entire United States—ranging from science to management to education. 2.7 million funds 50—fifty—projects at $54,000 each in federally contributed dollars—which after overhead leaves $35,000 per project to blaze new trails into innovative cutting-edge research; this barely supports one technician.
In contrast, to attempt to eradicate only one species—the killer algae—the State of California spent 2.3 million dollars last year—equal to 85% of Sea Grant funding on invasions nationally.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we want to do something about invasions, we have to get serious about supporting those who want to do something.
How do we prioritize prevention, response, monitoring, control, and education? All are important. They should not compete with each other. These are horizontal priorities—not vertical priorities. Each is critical. For example, what we need now is a national baseline study to establish what invasions are here, if we are to understand the effectiveness of management plans to reduce future invasions. Lead agencies need to be assigned by the Task Force and the Council to take charge of each of these missions, and their assignments must be as clear as zebra mussel-infested water.
Today more vectors move more species faster than ever before. 7,000 species flow around the world in ballast this morning. And yet two major Pacific coast invasions arose from other vectors—the European green crab, threatening west coast fisheries, likely arrived with seaweed shipped with bait worms from Maine, and the Chinese mitten crab, millions of which clog California waterways, was likely illegally released.
If we can get a rock off the moon, we can address invasions. Ten years of hard work have produced the beginnings of serious research endeavors, serious response, and serious management.
We are now poised to demonstrate that we mean to support the research required to get the job done—and done right.
Thank you.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
74542i.eps
74542j.eps
74542k.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Dr. Carlton did not respond to the questions posed by members after the hearing.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORI WILLIAMS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Invasive Species Council (Council), thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Council's role in addressing the problem of invasive species, specifically in the area of research coordination.
Council structure and role regarding invasive species
Invasive species come in all sizes, shapes and varieties. Although there are hundreds of non-native species in this country, only a small percentage is considered to be invasive. They can be plants, animals, insects, pathogens or parasites. They can occur in both land and marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments; examples include Nutria, which is a semi-aquatic rodent that destroys wetlands, including over one million acres within National Wildlife Refuges. According to USDA, over $30 million has been spent in efforts to control the Asian long horned beetle that has destroyed trees in Chicago and New York and, if eradication is unsuccessful, may spread to the entire northeastern United States. Formosan termites threaten the unique historical resources in New Orleans and elsewhere. Giant Salvina is an aquatic weed that can quickly spread and choke off waterways. Pathogens such as plum pox and citrus canker destroy valuable agricultural crops. West Nile virus, which can kill horses and birds and is transmitted to humans by mosquitoes that feed on infected animals, has spread to 14 Eastern states and the District of Columbia since its introduction several years ago. Invasive species all have one thing in common—they cause great harm to the environment, the economy, and in some cases animal and human health throughout the nation and around the world.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Invasive species do not respect jurisdictional or bureaucratic boundaries. They impact federal land and water resources, states, tribal interests, local governments, private landowners and commercial interests as well as the resources and economies of other nations. Therefore, an effective response to these biological invasions must be coordinated, inter-departmental and multi-jurisdictional.
The National Invasive Species Council was established in February 1999 by Executive Order 13112. The Order was drafted in response to a letter from 500 scientists and land managers expressing concern about invasive species and the lack of a coordinated, strategic approach among the over 22 federal agencies involved in dealing with the problem. The Council members are the Secretaries of ten federal departments with invasive species responsibilities. It is co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture (USDA), Interior, and Commerce. Other members include the Departments of Treasury, Transportation, State, Defense, Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Agency for International Development. The Council coordinates all types of federal invasive species efforts including all taxa; and works closely with other coordinating bodies on specific aspects of the issue, such as the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) represented here today. The Executive Order also created an Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). This 32-member group of non-federal stakeholders represents diverse geographic areas, expertise and interests. ISAC has provided critical focus and input to the Council's work, and includes academic experts and researchers.
EO 13112 called on the Council to develop a strategic blueprint for coordinated and effective federal action to reduce the impacts of invasive species. The National Invasive Species Management Plan was finalized early this year following an extensive process of public involvement. The Plan is the first document to set out a comprehensive federal action plan on invasive species. The Executive Order calls for measurement of federal agency performance to determine the long-term effectiveness of actions in controlling invasive species. Expensive operations to contain species need to demonstrate that they are achieving results towards a desired outcome. It includes 57 action items related to coordination and leadership, prevention, early detection and rapid response, control, restoration, international cooperation, education and outreach and research. Both the Executive Order and the Plan emphasize the importance of working jointly and cooperatively with state and local governments, private landowners, industry and other stakeholders. In fact, the bulk of control costs for many invasive species are born by state and local governments. Full implementation of the Plan and building successful partnerships with state and local governments will greatly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of federal efforts to combat invasive species.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently, Council departments and agencies are beginning the process of implementing the action items called for in the Plan. Many items can be implemented within current budgets and authorities. Committees and task teams are being set up to implement action items in the Plan that require extensive coordination; many of these groups will include members of ISAC, the states and other stakeholders. A number of Plan action items will require new proposals, the details of which have not yet been developed. Council staff is in the process of briefing new Administration officials about these aspects of the Plan.
What research does the Council conduct to assist in this role?
The Council's small staff does not itself conduct research, although several staff members have extensive research backgrounds. The Council includes agencies, which have bureaus such as the Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service (Research and Development Division), the Economic Research Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and others that conduct invasive species research. In addition, the Council contains many agencies that contribute to research efforts and utilize research results to combat invasive species, such as the Cooperative State Education and Extension Service. ISAC includes a number of academics and members representing private sector organizations that conduct and utilize research. In addition, the Plan recognizes research as an essential underpinning of all efforts to prevent and control invasive species.
What is the best way to identify priorities and allocate resources for research to support the various ways of addressing threats from invasive species?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Council's role is to help coordinate overall research efforts on invasive species, especially research issues which are common across taxa or relate to broader invasive species issues—as opposed to specific research topics, such as development of ballast water technologies which are coordinated by ANSTF. Outside input is important to ensuring that research conducted will be targeted to high priority issues and that products resulting from the research will be utilized. The Council supports a more effective national response to invasive species, including a targeted scientific effort linked to management needs. The Council is directed by the Executive Order to encourage planning and action at local, tribal, state, regional and ecosystem-based levels. It is also charged with getting input from ISAC and other stakeholders about federal invasive species efforts, including research issues.
Council activities and structure assist in coordinating efforts. The Council and ISAC meet about three times per year, however meetings of Council technical representatives occur throughout the year. The three liaisons from the co-chair departments and the Council's staff of seven work together at the South building of the Interior Department. In addition, the Department of Commerce's liaison to the Council, and a Council detailee from USDA, work directly with ANSTF providing a direct link to the Task Force. These working relationships enhance coordination efforts.
Coordinated research planning is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts wasting limited resources; develop a coherent research plan; and maximize collaborative synergy among researchers. The Plan directs that the Council work with the Smithsonian Institution, the National Science Foundation and Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) to improve overall research capacity to address invasive species. In addition, the Plan directs the Council to prepare a comprehensive invasive species crosscut budget, including research. This will provide an important tool for research planning and coordination. The Council will provide an informational chart summarizing current invasive species funding related to research for the Committee. It will provides the initial information we can build upon to develop a comprehensive crosscut budget.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the Plan development process, the Council requested input from ISAC and other stakeholders about high-priority research needs. Several important areas of emphasis and research gaps are highlighted in the Plan. One gap identified is the need for additional research to improve our ability to assess the risk of a non-native species becoming invasive and better information about which species are invasive in other nations to better target prevention efforts.
Key recommendations of the Plan in the research area include:
An investigation of the ''lag period'' associated with many invasive species that occur between initial introduction, establishment, and invasion outbreaks to understand why species long present in an area suddenly become invasive. The Brazilian pepper tree in Florida is a dramatic example of this issue.
Research to expedite the identification of effective and environmentally sound control methods that can be used for rapid response efforts designed to eradicate or stop the spread of newly discovered invasive species before they become established and spread. Currently, there is no method to eradicate or control the invasive spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza) that threaten Gulf fisheries and other resources.
Research on how and to what extent invasive species affect populations of native species, endangered and threatened species, habitats, and biodiversity. Experts estimate that invasive species have contributed to the placement of up to 46 percent of the plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act (according to a study completed by David Wilcove). The brown tree snake alone is likely to have driven nine of Guam's eleven native land bird species to extinction.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research to determine how and to what extent (including economic impacts) invasive species alter ecosystem functions (e.g., water quality, hydrology, nutrient cycling, and disturbance regimes such as fire cycles), agricultural, economic, and social processes. The critical task of educating and informing the public about the true impacts of invasive species is impossible without sound data and research. In many cases information is anecdotal or incomplete.
Research to develop and test monitoring methods and tools, necessary to support prevention, and containment of invasive species. Monitoring is essential to determine the nature and scope of the problem and test whether management strategies are working.
The research planning process is greatly enhanced by inter-disciplinary exchanges among scientists. The Plan calls for scientific exchanges by researchers from around the U.S. and internationally
Most importantly, research priorities need to be closely tied to the central goals of the overall strategy to combat invasive specie. Research results also need to be ''user-friendly'' and broadly disseminated to stakeholders and field personnel.
How are research efforts conducted by various agencies, institutions and universities coordinated? And how does this research and coordination, or lack thereof, lead to implementation of research results?
Council member departments and agencies address multiple research topics, only one of which is invasive species. Each agency has its own procedures and authorities in place to determine its research priorities and obtain public input on those priorities. For example, USDA's Agricultural Research Service conducts national research planning workshops in locations all over the country to get public and stakeholder input. The Cooperative Research Education and Extension Service holds public meetings around the country to solicit public input on their programs. There also are a number of targeted efforts to coordinate different aspects of invasive species research. As you will hear today from Mr. Dave Evans, ANSTF works to coordinate aquatic research. The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) established an interagency Task Team on Invasive Species to assist with the coordination of federal invasive species efforts.(see footnote 3)
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A central goal of the Council's Management Plan is to improve coordination of the full spectrum of invasive species with additional input from outside stakeholders. Most of the Plan's research action items relate to this central goal. The process of partnering with stakeholders early in the research planning process and maintaining those ties as research is conducted helps increases the likelihood that the research results will be appropriate for stakeholder needs and will be transferred to stakeholders and implemented. The Plan calls for the Council to work with stakeholders to identify personnel and resources needed to sustain fundamental research and tactical or field-level scientific support for invasive species efforts both in terms of direct federal efforts and enhancement of current competitive grants programs as well as support of public and private research. It is clear no one entity or institution can provide all the research support needed to answer the complex questions raised by invasive species. A coordinated approach to encourage federal, state, university and private efforts to target key invasive species questions will provide the best results possible for the least resources.
Does the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 need to be updated to reflect the role of the Council will play in coordinating interagency research efforts on invasive species?
The Administration is in the process of developing a position on the reauthorization of NISA. However, it is clear that Council members strongly support the current legislation and that the establishment of the ANSTF by NISA significantly strengthened invasive species programs directed at aquatic species. Thus far, NISA has focused almost exclusively on aquatic species, whereas the Council deals with all types and taxa of invasive species. Currently, the Council has a very close and cooperative relationship with the ANSTF, with several staff serving as liaisons to both the Council and to ANSTF. ANSTF was involved in drafting the Plan and is helping to implement specific action items of the Management Plan.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Strategic research goals
The Management Plan sets out a number of broad strategic research objectives to support coordinated action on invasive species. It is to be up-dated every two years and provides an overall blueprint that will be augmented by more specific research planning efforts conducted by member agencies. Much work remains to be done to implement the action items outlined in the Plan and ensure adequate stakeholder input. Development of a comprehensive crosscut budget as discussed above would assist with planning, prioritization and leveraging of federal research efforts. Additional work to build partnerships with state and private research efforts (also discussed above) is essential. Given the scope and complexity of this issue, while elements of other approaches to other issues are helpful, no single model may be adequate. In addition to the Council and the Plan providing an all-taxa government-wide context for more specific efforts, elements of the inter-agency approaches to deal with wildfires, restore the Florida Everglades, and protect coral reefs are also relevant. More targeted efforts to coordinate research, such as ANSTF, are also essential.
What tools has the Council established for the determining the threat that a non-indigenous species poses in terms of it becoming an invasive species, and is this an area that needs further attention from Congress?
Prevention is a major emphasis of both Executive Order 13112 and the work of the Council. Federal efforts play an extremely important role in this area, including longstanding and ongoing efforts by USDA, DOI, and other Council members (including Treasury and Commerce). The Management Plan emphasizes the need for additional research to help evaluate which species are likely to become invasive as well as development of other information and tools to aid prevention. International cooperation in research and other areas is critical to improving prevention. In addition, the Plan proposes that screening processes for different types of invasive species be developed and tested in consultation with stakeholders. A key aspect of this will be to build on our existing science-based risk assessment process to develop a comprehensive and coordinated risk assessment process for all taxa to ensure that species brought in for commercial sale do not become invasive. Congressional support for sustained research that provides the scientific underpinning for this effort may be necessary if we are to better prevent the introduction of invasive species. The Plan also calls for additional efforts and research to examine and address the highest risk pathways—the means by which invasive species move into the country and between regions.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conclusion
The National Invasive Species Council's mission is to improve coordination and effectiveness of federal efforts to deal with all types of invasive species and work cooperatively with the many stakeholders affected by this problem. There are many good programs and worthwhile research efforts that deal with invasive species at both the federal and state levels. Rather than create new programs, the goal of the Council and the Plan is to help work cooperatively to set research priorities to provide the greatest support for the overall goals of preventing and minimizing the harmful affects of invasive species on our environment, economy and in some cases our health. Thank you for your time and attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses provided by Lori C. Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (Council); Questions submitted by the House Science Committee
Question 1) In your testimony you wrote, ''Full implementation of the Plan and building successful partnerships with state and local, governments will greatly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of federal efforts to combat invasive species, and ''A number of Plan action items will require new proposals, the details for which have not yet been developed''.
a) How will these new proposal(s) be developed and how will they be implemented?
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan), which was approved January 18, 2001, contains 57 different action items in eight categories of invasive species activities. The action items each have deadlines. Almost all of the items will require further refinement and definition before being implemented. The Council is in the process of establishing 12 implementation task teams and subcommittees made up of both federal and nonfederal representatives to assist with implementation of the action items. In addition, the Order calls for the Plan to be revised and updated every two years.
The majority of the action items can be accomplished or at least partially accomplished given existing agency authorities arid budgets. However, a certain number of action items require either additional legislative or budget authority before they can be completed. Four example, under the ''Early Detection and Rapid Response'' category, the Council, in consultation with the States, will develop and recommend to the President draft legislation for rapid responses to incipient invasions, including the possibility of permanent funding for rapid response efforts. This proposal would require additional legislative and possibly budget authority. How such a proposal would be implemented would depend on the details of the proposal, but would be the responsibility of the departments and agencies as specified under possible new legislation and coordinated through the Council.
b) What is the timeline for developing and implementing these proposals?
Deadlines for action items vary. For those action items requiring the development of new proposals and the passage of legislation, timelines are more uncertain. The council has engaged in an expedited review of action items with the goal of developing tasks and timelines for their accomplishment. The Council has made rapid response a high priority.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One Plan action item directs the Council to develop and propose to the President draft legislation to authorize matching federal funds for state invasive species control programs. A number of bills relating to this proposal have been introduced or are being considered separately by interested members of both the House and the Senate. The Council has testified and provided comments regarding one of these proposals, H.R. 1462, introduced by Congressman Hefley.
c) What will happen if agencies do not include new proposals outlined in the plan by including in their budget submission to OMB and Congress?
In some cases, one or more of the Council departments has included funding for implementing an action item within the Plan in their FY2002 budget and these items are moving forward, for example:
Plan Prevention action item 13 calls for APHIS and FWS to dedicate additional resources to strengthening inspection services at ports of entry. In FY2002, USDA's an additional $13 million was provided to Agricultural Quarantine Inspection, over the FY2001 funding level, for its efforts to exclude agricultural pests and diseases at ports of entry.
The Research section of the Plan calls for increased research in the areas of identifying ways to determine which species are likely to become invasive and examining lag time issues. EPA recently awarded (in late FY 0 1) research grants totaling more than $3.5 million to study invasive species in the United States. These grants are for three years and have been awarded to seven universities and one nonprofit institution to better understand the spread of invasive species and their ecological consequences.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Early Detection and Rapid Response section of the Plan called for the development and improvement early detection methods. In FY2002, USDA's Agricultural Research Service has an additional $5 million to research, among other issues, systematics of classification of insects and weeks, which will help with early identification of key current and new invasive species.
The Council is working with agencies to ensure proposals outlined in the Plan are included in the budget process so they can be considered for inclusion in the agency's budget submission. For most of the new proposals, considerable work remains to be done in developing the details and working with federal and in some cases State and local governments to design, effective mechanisms.
Question 2) In your testimony you wrote, ''Each agency has its own procedures and authorities in place to determine its research priorities and obtain public input on those priorities.''
a) What mechanism, if any, ensures that the priorities of individual agencies reflect those established in the National (invasive Species) Management Plan?
No single mechanism currently exists to ensure that individual agency priorities reflect those of the Plan. A number of steps are being taken to improve communication and coordination among the agencies on research priorities.
The Research Subcommittee now being established to implement the Plan will include representatives of all the departments that sponsor or do invasive species research. A critical Plan directive calls on the Council to work with the Smithsonian, National Science Foundation and Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) to develop and coordinate research capacity to enhance invasive species research addressing all aspects of the problem. By working with all the core research entities and developing a coordinated approach this should help ensure, that the plans for agency research are consistent with the broader goals of the Plan.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another action item calls on the Council, consulting with many stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive invasive species research component of an invasive species crosscut budget for FY 2003. (see answer to 2(b) below)
Within USDA, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service has is already considering whether research proposals would contribute to the completion of the plan's action items in making certain research grant awards.
b) Does a mechanism exist to reconcile any differences?
The coordination effort of the Council is the primary mechanism to reconcile differences between agency research budgets and the priorities of the Plan. The Council members are the Secretaries (or Administrators) of ten federal departments that have important invasive species programs and activities. The Council is charged with providing a high level of overall coordination and policy development on an extremely broad range of different invasive species including plants, animals, pathogens and parasites, whether aquatic or terrestrial. An invasive species research crosscut budget will be developed that will be closely linked to accomplishing the goals of the Plan and will help to identify and coordinate research priorities. A number of the action items in the Plan are broad in scope and may encompass a number of more specific and targeted research efforts by individual agencies. The goal of the Council is to enhance coordination, leverage resources, ensure critical areas are addressed, and share information.
Question 3) It seems as if there is overlap between the missions of the Aquatic Nuisance Species task Force and the National Invasive Species Council.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How do the missions of the Task Force and Council differ and do they compliment each other?
The Council's mission is to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and coordination of federal efforts to prevent and control invasive species broadly. The Council members are the Secretaries of ten federal departments that have important invasive species programs and activities. The Council is charged with providing a high level of overall coordination and policy development on an extremely broad range of different invasive species including plants, animals, pathogens and parasites, whether aquatic or terrestrial. The Council is directed to work closely with other government bodies that coordinate specific types of invasive species, including the Task Force. Executive Order 13112 established the Council in 1999 to provide broad leadership and coordination regarding those issues, such as information management, prevention, research, international cooperation and other issues common to many different types of invasive species. By considering issues which extend across taxonomic groups and habitats, the Council can help identify priorities, gaps in current efforts, and new partnerships.
The Task Force was established by the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101–636, as amended) to coordinate federal activities at the agency level related to aquatic nuisance species (aquatic invasive species). The legislation also directed the Task Force to establish regional panels to ensure coordination at the regional level for aquatic species and contained very specific provisions regarding ballast water research and management. There is an overlap between the Council and the Task Force in terms of the charge to coordinate federal aquatic invasive species programs. These missions are complementary inn that the Council and Task Force work closely on coordination and policy issues. The Department of Commerce Liaison to the Council is also NOAA's representative to the Task Force. In addition, the Task Force role is much more targeted and specific and addresses specific issues related to aquatic species. The Council provides a high-level, general policy direction and review and is not usually involved in detailed, aquatic-specific issues unless related to broader invasive species matters. The departments of the agencies represented on the Task Force also serve on the Council and therefore positions taken by the Council and Task Force are consistent and harmonized.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN B. BRANDT
Good morning. My name is Stephen Brandt. I am Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of NOAA Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. I am here representing the Great Lakes region. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your Subcommittee and testify to what I believe to be the fundamental research issues facing the nation with regards to this critically important issue on invasive species. I have been involved in research on the biology of the Great Lakes for nearly 30 years and currently co-chair the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers of the International Joint Commission. My focus today will be on research of aquatic invasions. I will use examples from the Great Lakes, although I believe the comments apply nationally. The written testimony addresses the following topics:
Aquatic species invasions: What is the problem?
Why the interest in the Great Lakes?
What is the role of NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory?
What are the research priorities?
What is the best way to allocate resources?
How are research efforts coordinated? What is the role of the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force?
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Aquatic Invasive Species: What is the Problem?
One of the most critical issues facing Great Lakes and marine coastal waters is invasive species. An invasive species is defined as a species that establishes a reproducing population in an ecosystem outside its historical range. Over the past few decades the global movement of goods and people has increased, and along with it the rate of invasive aquatic species introductions appears to be accelerating. Natural barriers that limited the range of aquatic organisms are being rapidly overcome by anthropogenic activities such as water-borne high-speed commerce and transportation, recreational boating, coastal development that changes water quality and/or destroys natural habitats, the aquarium and bait trades, and aquaculture. Invasive aquatic species have caused significant economic losses and ecological disruptions in the U.S. and elsewhere.
To give you some idea of the scope of the problem, we only need to look at one of the key vectors in species spreading: ship traffic. One estimate suggests that there are over 35,000 vessels every day plying the oceans, transporting over 3,500 species in their ballast tanks to ecosystems outside of their native range. The interconnection of river systems by canals has broached the natural barrier that existed by watershed separation and their drainage basins and continually adds new species to the pool of potential invaders and exacerbates the problem. The spread of Caspian Sea species, such as the zebra mussel, across Europe to the Baltic Sea and eventually to the Great Lakes is a classic example of this. A species can spread to other systems once it becomes established in an ecosystem. Again, the zebra mussel demonstrates the quickness and resulting impact that can happen. The zebra mussel has dramatically altered Great Lakes ecosystems, affected valuable fisheries, and has now spread throughout the Mississippi River drainage basin, thousands of inland lakes, and is threatening the West Coast (Figure 1).
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Invasive species are identified as a leading cause of species extinction and loss of biodiversity in aquatic environments worldwide, perhaps second only to habitat loss. Invasive species can replace or eliminate native species, change nutrient and contaminant cycling, affect ecosystem productivity, and cause losses of economically valuable fisheries. Some invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, can change the structure of entire ecosystems and cause direct economic harm by clogging water intakes for municipal or industrial uses. The resulting economic damages are shared by all natural resource beneficiaries including industrial and municipal water users, recreational boaters, the fishing public, riparians, vessel operators, and beach users.
Invasive species have added billions of dollars to the costs of doing business in, or using the natural resources of, affected ecosystems. A 1993 study by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, 1993) found that at least 4,500 foreign plant and animal species have become established in the United States over the last two centuries. Of these, about 15%, or about 700 of these species, have resulted in significant economic costs to the country. OTA evaluated in more detail the economic damage attributable to just 79 of these 700 harmful species and concluded that since the turn of the century they have cost the American public an estimated $97 billion in damages to natural resources and lost industrial productivity. A more recent report (Pimental et al., 1999) supports estimates that the nation is now spending tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year to deal with the effects of all invasive species. This expense is probably equal to and may exceed the total annual cost of all natural disasters in the U.S. In the Great Lakes alone, the annual cost of just reducing the population of one exotic species, the sea lamprey, is about $15M.
Once established in an ecosystem, the invader has, by definition, changed that ecosystem. Each new invader will have its own niche and type of impact. The degree of impact on the ecology of the ecosystem and on the economy can be small or large and can even change through time. For example, the alewife, a pelagic fish in the Great Lakes, was considered a costly nuisance in the early 1960s. It is now considered extremely valuable as the primary food source for the trout and salmon that support the multi-billion dollar sports fishery. It was a management decision (the introduction of these sports fish into the Great Lakes) that eventually changed the value of this exotic species. In some cases, an invader may actually benefit one segment of the economy or a particular user group at the expense of others. Harmful affects can often be minimized with early detection, understanding, and prediction of potential impacts and adaptive management.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While aquatic invasive species can be a problem in any body of water, large coastal ecosystems with significant human development appear to be the most vulnerable and most severely affected aquatic environments in the United States (including Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories). Examples include the Great Lakes (>150 established nonindigenous invasive species), the San Francisco Bay estuary (>240 established nonindigenous invasive species), the Chesapeake Bay (>160 established nonindigenous invasive species), the Gulf of Mexico (>700 established nonindigenous invasive species), and Hawaii's coral reef ecosystems. In these types of large ecosystems, it is costly and very difficult to control an invader population and nearly impossible to eliminate the invader.
Why the Interest in the Great Lakes?
Great Lakes Experience and Reputation with Invasive Species: Invasive species are of particular importance to the Great Lakes, and the Great Lakes are often considered the 'Poster Child' example for aquatic species invasions in the United States. As such, the Great Lakes may be in the best position to contribute to solutions to the problem. The Great Lakes have been cognizant and have been dealing with and managing invasive species for nearly half a century. The sea lamprey and alewife were two of the key invaders into the Great Lakes in the 1950's, having reached the upper lakes aided by the interconnecting canals. These invaders were costly to the Great Lakes. Management efforts have been directed at control either though direct means (with the sea lamprey) or through the introduction of a predator, the Pacific salmon, for the alewife. More recently, the zebra mussel invasion into the Great Lakes has captured the attention of the nation on this issue.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Great Lakes History: Since the 1800s, nearly 160 invasive aquatic organisms have become established in the Great Lakes. The most notorious of these are the sea lamprey (from the Atlantic) and the zebra mussel (from Eurasia). The lamprey devastated lake trout fisheries in the lakes until an extensive research effort produced a chemical population containment strategy. The zebra mussel is believed to be at least partly responsible for profound changes to the lower food web of the Great Lakes. They are now believed responsible for the recent recurrence of massive blue-green algal blooms in some areas of the lakes, which has contributed to taste and odor problems plaguing numerous municipal water supplies. The impact of zebra mussels on fishes is projected to be profound. Zebra mussels have also fouled industrial and municipal water intakes, which must now be chemically treated on a regular basis throughout the summer months to keep them flowing. Estimates of the annual cost of zebra mussel control and mitigation range from $100 to $400 million per year in the Great Lakes basin, but the zebra mussel has already spread throughout most of the eastern half of the country.
The rate of new aquatic species invasions in the Great Lakes increased during the 20th century. Almost 33% of the established invasive species in the Great Lakes basin have entered during the last 40 years. Ballast tanks are now considered the number one vector for invaders. Since 1985 a total of 14 new species have been introduced (Figure 2) and established, the latest in the year 2000 (Daphnia lumholtzi). Nine of the 14 new species are natives of the Caspian Sea—Black Sea basins of eastern Europe (Ponto-Caspian basins), but the Baltic Sea may be the direct source for many of these Ponto-Caspian invaders. The Atlantic coast is the second most dominant source for nonindigenous species in the Great Lakes. Since 1993 at least one new amphipod (Echinogammarus ischnus) and several new zooplankton (e.g., Cercopagis pengoi) from the Ponto-Caspian region of eastern Europe, have been identified in the Great Lakes in spite of ballast water exchange requirements imposed in the early 1990s. Another small freshwater amphipod, Dikerogammarus villosus, has recently been identified as the latest Ponto-Caspian native that is on the move across Europe, and is believed to pose a serious threat to the Great Lakes.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are between 500 and 600 transoceanic entries of commercial shipping vessels per year through the St. Lawrence Seaway into the Great Lakes. Of these, over 75% enter as NOBOBs (No Ballast on Board) and are not subject to ballast water management requirements. Although we have learned much about the Great Lakes ecosystem since the 1960s, it is now in a state of ecological transition and biological flux caused by recent invaders expanding their presence and exerting their individual and aggregate impacts. Thus, science and management are dealing with a continually changing ecosystem.
The Great Lakes basin is the aquatic gateway to the heartland of America and a hot spot for aquatic species introductions to major interior sections of the U.S. While the spread of aquatic species introduced in most U.S. coastal ecosystems is generally restricted to adjacent contiguous coastal ecosystems, the Great Lakes provide a pathway for freshwater-adapted invasive species to spread throughout the interior waters of the central and eastern United States. One need only examine the spread of zebra mussels to understand this—they are now found outside the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River system as far west as eastern Arkansas, as far south as the Mississippi delta below New Orleans, Louisiana, and east as far as the Hudson River estuary north of New York City.
The Great Lakes region has been a leader in responding to the aquatic invasive species threat. The Great Lakes are one of the most heavily managed large aquatic ecosystems in the world. A framework of organizational involvement and collaboration from all segments of society exists in the Great Lakes region that, I believe, is unsurpassed in any other region of the country. The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species has already formulated regional research and technology priorities and recently issued a ballast water management policy statement that identifies key regional needs focused on this high priority issue.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Great Lakes are largely a closed ecosystem. Most of the region's coasts are open to the ocean and, therefore, commonly subjected to species migrations into and out of the ecosystem. This openness may help to buffer these areas to new invaders from an ecological perspective. The closed and freshwater nature of the Great Lakes makes them unique.
The Great Lakes have significant economic, ecological, and human health value to the nation. The Great Lakes cover about 95,000 square miles and are the largest surface freshwater supply in the world (90% of the U.S. surface supply). The freshwater nature of the Great Lakes, and the fact that many people rely directly on the Great Lakes for drinking water, makes any changes to the ecosystem particularly relevant to human health issues. The Great Lakes themselves represent a valuable economic resource for power generation and cooling water, municipal and industrial waste, commercial shipping, tourism, and recreational and commercial sports fishing. Recreational fishing alone has been valued at over $4 billion per year. The Great Lakes also provide over 1,000 miles of an international border and are, therefore, covered by various international treaties and commissions such as the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
What is the role of NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory?
GLERL's Mission and Responsibilities
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) is one of 12 Federal research laboratories within the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research line office of NOAA. GLERL is the only such laboratory with a completely coastal mission and is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. GLERL has been in existence for over 25 years.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The mission of GLERL is to conduct high-quality research and provide scientific leadership on important issues in both the Great Lakes and marine coastal environments leading to new knowledge, tools, approaches, and awareness.
GLERL achieves its mission through basic and applied research, monitoring, technology development, information synthesis and assessment, multi-institutional partnerships, scientific leadership and education. GLERL houses a unique combination of scientific expertise in biogeochemical, hydrological, ecological, physical limnology, fish ecology, and oceanographic sciences. GLERL's research is currently organized into eight broad research themes: Nonindigenous Species, Integrated Long-Term Monitoring and Assessment, Ecosystem Dynamics and Food Webs, Aquatic Contaminants, Episodic Events, Climate Change and Variability, Water Resources, and Hydrodynamics and Physical Processes. The broad range of disciplines is needed to adequately understand and address the important and complex issues that confront the effective management of aquatic environments. GLERL's strength and future lies in the breadth of science and the ability to bring multiple disciplines to bear on today's problems from an ecosystem perspective. GLERL works to determine and forecast how ecosystems are changing, the nature and causes of those changes, and the impact of those changes on human and economic scales. During its history, GLERL has made important scientific contributions to the understanding and management of the Great Lakes and other coastal ecosystems.
GLERL has a strong history and fundamental belief in collaboration and partnerships. GLERL has a formal Cooperative Institute with the University of Michigan (The Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystem Research) that provides a direct bridge between GLERL and academic institutions throughout the Great Lakes basin. Overall, GLERL's research is coordinated with a number of agencies, institutions, and the user community at a number of levels and in a number of ways. For example, research scientists collaborate on a scientist-to-scientist basis routinely in order to take advantage of each other's expertise and avoid duplication. Other coordinating efforts occur through Policy committees, the International Joint Commission (IJC) Council of Great Lakes Research managers, scientific meetings and workshops. GLERL also houses the headquarters of the International Association for Great Lakes Research. Current active collaborations of GLERL scientists include 240 scientists representing approximately 150 institutions spread across 27 states, 5 provinces of Canada, and 14 foreign countries. These institutions cover 19 federal agencies, 50 universities, and 25 other types of entities, which include U.S. and foreign private institutions and state and local institutions. GLERL scientists serve on a number of scientific and advisory committees such as the IJC Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, the technical Science Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Binational Climate Committee. A Sea Grant extension agent was recently placed at GLERL with the responsibility to provide a two way linkage with the Great Lakes coastal community via the existing network of nearly 70 Sea Grant extension agents in the region. The goal is to ensure that GLERL's research gets to those who could use it and also to make sure that user needs are being met by GLERL's research. GLERL scientists thus play a critical role in academic, state, federal, and international partnerships, provide information to support decisions that affect the environment, recreation, public health and safety, and the economy of the Great Lakes and coastal marine environments.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GLERL's Role and Activities in Invasive Species Research
The Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPACA) and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) recognized the serious threat posed by invading species to the nation's environment and economy and called on Federal agencies to take steps to reduce their impact. Among the requirements for the Department of Commerce were support of research to develop measures to prevent new introductions and control existing invasions, support for research to cover all aspects of aquatic nuisance species, support for the interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (NOAA is co-chair), and development of alternative technologies to treat ballast water. NOAA's existing invasive species resources and activities are focused on aquatic issues in keeping with its mission responsibilities. NOAA's primary activities have been in support of applied and basic research, monitoring of coastal ecosystems, and educational extension (principally through the National Sea Grant Program). The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory is NOAA's leading institution for aquatic invasive species research and has a legislative mandate to carry-out such research. GLERL has two members on the Great Lakes Regional Panel of the ANS task force and has actively served on that panel since its inception. GLERL scientists have also served on various committees of the National Invasive Species Council to help develop the National Invasive Species Management Plan and work in direct collaboration with other agencies on these activities including the Coast Guard and EPA. GLERL has also taken the lead to develop a 5-year strategic plan for invasive species research within OAR and has drafted a larger scale plan for NOAA. All of GLERL's current research on invasive species falls within the priorities set by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and builds directly on the National Management Plan.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GLERL's Current Research Projects on Invasive Species
The primary purpose of GLERL's invasive species research on invasive species is to expand our knowledge of invasive pathways and the biology and ecological impacts of nonindigenous species in the Great Lakes. Research involves field investigations on Lake Michigan, Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, and other sites to monitor ecosystem changes and community responses to invading species, and to examine the ecology of the organisms themselves. Research also includes laboratory experiments to examine the biology (feeding, development, physiology) and ecological interactions of the invading organisms, including toxicokinetics and bioaccumulation of toxics. The focus of this program has historically been limited primarily to the zebra mussel.
Assessment of transoceanic NOBOB vessels and low-salinity ballast water as vectors for nonidigenous species introductions to the Great Lakes
NOAA is presently leading a three-year multi-institutional research program (Figure 3) to characterize the biota found in NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes and to evaluate the effectiveness of at-sea ballast water exchange. Approximately 75% of the ships entering the Great Lakes have no declarable ballast on board (NOBOB) but often contain sediments and water that cannot be removed. Many organisms have been found in these materials. The objectives of the research are to characterize the biota in NOBOB tanks entering the Great Lakes, conduct time-series experiments in NOBOB ballast tanks refilled in the Great Lakes, and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of mid-ocean exchange in reducing populations of fresh and brackish-water organisms in ballast tanks. The number of samples that can be processed under the existing program is limited to between 10 and 20 ships per year. Results will provide information related to biological and management practices for ships entering the Great Lakes. This research is a collaboration among GLERL, three universities, the Smithsonian Institution, and the shipping industry. It is funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund (state generated resources), NOAA, USEPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and participating institutions.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Disinfection of Ballast Water with Chemical Disinfectants
In a joint project with the University of Michigan, GLERL is examining the potential use of glutaraldehyde as a disinfectant for ballast waters. The objective is to establish both the range for effective disinfection by determining the concentration required to kill 90% of a population in 24 h and the concentration that would not result in a chronic response for released material. From the laboratory work, 500 ppm of glutaraldehyde would be required for the more resistant organisms. At this rate for vessels with no ballast on board to treat the residual in the tanks, the cost would be about $6000 per voyage (about 0.7% increase in freight rate per metric ton or about 0.3% of the gross revenue per voyage). This work has been expanded to include information on hypochlorite (chlorine) for comparison with the glutaraldehyde and to incorporate a surfactant to enhance the toxicity of the glutaraldehyde. From the recent studies, concentrations of hypochlorite as high as 500 ppm may be required if sediments were in the system as the hypochlorite reacts with the sediments and is partially deactivated. The ongoing studies have not yet addressed the treatment of cysts and resting eggs of aquatic species that reside in the sediment. Studying these resistant forms is complex and will require a team of scientists covering several disciplines. These may be the most important forms to attack, as they can hatch once discharged into a new environment.
Effects of Diporeia declines on fish diet, growth, and food web dynamics in southeast Lake Michigan
Prolific declines in the abundance of the benthic amphipod Diporeia threaten to alter fish diets, growth, and food web dynamics in Lake Michigan. Diporeia is an important component of the diet of several fish species and a critical link between primary production and fish production. This disappearance is believed to be associated with the appearance of the zebra mussel, but the mechanism is unknown. For several fish species, including bloater (Coregonus hoyi), whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), Diporeia is the principal prey. These fish are, in turn, the primary food of the trout and salmon that support most of the Great Lakes sports fishery. Research is examining the impact of the disappearance on the diet, food web, and distributions of key Lake Michigan fish (alewife, rainbow smelt, slimy sculpin, bloater, whitefish) at a site where Diporeia has disappeared (St. Joseph, MI) to a site where Diporeia is declining (Muskegon, MI) and a site where Diporeia are still abundant (Little Sable Point = 30 km north of Muskegon). This three-year project began in January 2000.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The impacts of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, on the lower food web of Saginaw Bay
The objectives of this project are to identify and understand changes in the abundance, biomass, and composition of the lower food web of Saginaw Bay that have resulted from the invasion of the zebra mussel; to construct a model of carbon flow through the ecosystem and determine major changes in pathways, which may have been caused by the zebra mussel; and to monitor changes in the abundance and distribution of the zebra mussel in the bay. The project was started in 1990 and has accumulated the most detailed and longest multi-year set of data on the changes in an aquatic ecosystem following an infestation by zebra mussels.
The ecological implications of the spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederestroemi) and the fish hook water flea (Cercopagis pengoi) on Great Lakes food webs
The feeding habits of the fish hook water flea, a recent invader, are completely unknown. A laboratory-based study will help to define the feeding mechanisms and food preferences of these two abundant zooplankton invaders. Field studies are examining the seasonal and vertical distributions and abundances of these two species in nearshore Lake Michigan. Research results will help to define the role of these species in Great Lakes food webs and the potential impact of these invaders on Great Lakes fish communities.
Tumor-like anomalies in Lake Michigan zooplankton
Tumor-like anomalies (TLAs) have been identified as a serious emerging threat to the food web in Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes owing to the high frequency of large TLAs found on zooplankton by GLERL, EPA, and University of Michigan. At a recent workshop on the phenomenon at GLERL, the present state of knowledge of the lesions was reviewed and an agenda for research was developed. At times, TLA's can affect 50–70% of the copepods of certain species. The occurrence of lesions was highly variable temporally and spatially in Lake Michigan. The NOAA Cooperative Oxford Laboratory and the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals at George Washington University classified several TLAs types based on gross appearance and histologic manifestations. The histologic exams showed that the TLAs were not neoplastic, i.e., not cancerous. It is yet to be determined whether the anomalies were caused by invasive parasites.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GLERL's Recently Completed Research Projects on Invasive Species
The role of zebra mussels in promoting harmful alga blooms in the Great Lakes
Because of their high abundance and very high filtering rates in aquatic ecosystems, zebra mussels remove a significant portion of the primary production. This research examined the selective feeding mechanisms of the zebra mussel. Improvement of water clarity has been seen in Lakes Erie and St. Clair; however, in Lake St. Clair, the increased water clarity may have contributed to massive blooms of vascular macrophytes that have washed up on shore and fouled beaches. In the inner portion of Saginaw Bay, water clarity improved in midsummer of 1991 and 1993; but in 1992 and 1994 there were marked decreases in water clarity owing to massive large phytoplankton blooms. There have also been outbreaks of near-bottom blooms of the filamentous alga Spirogyra, which have later washed up on beaches. Research showed that zebra mussels were the cause. Decaying algal blooms are believed to cause taste and odor problems in drinking water.
Influence of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) on the accumulation of organic contaminants in the food web
The goal of this project was to assess the impact of the zebra mussel on the distribution of contaminants primarily PCBs and PAHs, in ecosystems dominated by this organism. The feeding activities of zebra mussels may result in faster deposition of sediments and may also change the composition and mobility of materials on the bottom.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What are the research priorities?
Fundamental research is critically needed to improve the scientific basis for two important and equal parts of this issue:
1. Prevention and control of the spread of invasive species.
2. Minimizing the ecological and economic impacts of a species invasion.
Research on Prevention and Control
BACKGROUND
Prevention is the nation's first line of defense for invasive species. Species can enter an aquatic ecosystem along a number of pathways. However, the transport and discharge of ballast water by transoceanic ships is recognized as the leading unintentional pathway for aquatic species introductions. Several studies have shown the presence of numerous living organisms within the ballast tanks of vessels arriving from overseas. For example, since 1985, 14 new invasive aquatic species have become established in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River drainage basin, nine of which are endemic to the Caspian Sea-Black Sea region of Europe (Ponto-Caspian species) and were most likely transferred by ballast water (Ricciardi and MacIsaac, 2000). Two of these Ponto-Caspian invaders appear to have entered the Great Lakes after 1993, the year mandatory ballast exchange was implemented for ships entering the Great Lakes. In addition, a single European flounder and another Ponto-Caspian amphipod, Corophium mucronatum, were found in the lakes in the later half of the 1990s. Although the flounder is unable to reproduce in freshwater, and there is no evidence of a reproducing population of Corophium, their discovery after several years of ballast water exchange also suggests that exchange cannot completely eliminate new introductions.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I mentioned earlier, GLERL is conducting research on NOBOBs and how to prevent species invasions from the residual water and sediments that they carry. These residuals can contain a wide assortment of plants, animals, and microorganisms, including so-called ''resting stages'' such as cysts or resting eggs. The life cycles of many invertebrates, algae (including toxic dinoflagellates), protozoan, and bacterial species include the capability of producing resting stages. Resting stages are typically rare under favorable conditions and frequently occur when environmental conditions deteriorate. Production of resting stages ensures long-term viability of the population because they are extremely resistant to adverse conditions including anoxia, noxious chemicals, freezing, and passage through digestive tracts of fish and waterfowl. Resting eggs of invertebrates and cysts of dinoflagellates usually sink when released. Resting stages may remain viable in sediments in a virtual suspended metabolic state for decades or even centuries (Hairston et al., 1995) and can germinate or come to life under a combination of favorable light, temperature, and other environmental conditions.
Sediment accumulation in ship ballast tanks can be appreciable, depending on elapsed time since the ship was last dry-docked. For example, double-bottom tanks of a cargo vessel contained up to 30 cm of ballast sediment after only 2 years of use (Hamer et al., 2000). A recent compilation of 13 separate European studies recorded a total of 990 different species in a combination of ballast water and sediment samples (Gollasch et al., 2000). Tank sediments, therefore, can serve as a repository for particles, living or otherwise, that fall from the water within the tank. With respect to issues of biopollution, sediment in a NOBOB tank will likely contain a temporally integrated assortment of organisms found in the water columns that overlay it days and weeks earlier, even months and possibly years earlier in the case of resting stages of organisms.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Water taken on as ballast by a NOBOB vessel in a U.S. port to maintain trim and stability during operations between ports can mix with residual ballast water, sediment, and any associated invasive organisms, and later be discharged into U.S. waters as the vessel moves between a succession of ports. Thus, ballast-water operations of NOBOB vessels present a risk of invasion, but the magnitude of such risk remains unresolved. Little is known about the relationship between accumulation of sediment, biological content, and ballast-water management practices of ocean vessels. This problem is particularly acute in the Great Lakes where U.S. Coast Guard data show that since 1993 over 75% of vessels entering the Great Lakes do so as NOBOBs and have thus not been subject to inspection, regulation, or the ballast water management requirements that were implemented in the early 1990s.
SPECIFIC RESEARCH NEEDS RELATED TO SHIP BALLAST
How effective is Open Ocean Ballast Exchange?
The efficacy of open-ocean exchange with respect to minimizing species introductions is arguable. So far only a few studies have examined the effectiveness of open-ocean ballast exchange, the only ballast water management practice approved by the United States to date. Existing studies have been restricted to just a few vessel types and assessed the effect of exchange for only a few organisms. Our lack of knowledge and detailed assessments concerning the mechanics and effectiveness of ballast water exchange represents a fundamental gap in determining the value of exchange compared to alternative strategies, as a barrier to future invasions. This is a national issue of importance to all coastal regions and a program could be implemented at the national level.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, within such a national implementation, the special needs related to the Great Lakes must be acknowledged. For the Great Lakes, the protective effects of exchange may be greater than for other coastal regions. For ships bound to marine U.S. coastal waters, the prevention and protection effect of exchanging ballast water with open-ocean water is primarily one of dilution, resulting in a reduction in the concentration of organisms in the ballast water. The concentration of organisms in open-ocean water is much lower than in coastal areas where ships are likely to have taken-on their original ballast water. For ships bound for the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world, exchange with open-ocean water plays two prevention/protection roles: it will reduce the number of organisms present in the ballast water through dilution, but it can also kill many organisms from foreign fresh or low-salinity brackish coastal areas that are adapted to freshwater and thus salinity intolerant. Most organisms adapted to freshwater cannot survive in salt water, and most marine organisms will not survive in freshwater. In addition, even if marine species survive they are unlikely to be able to reproduce and thus less likely to be invasive in the Great Lakes. There are clear exceptions. For example, most ships sampled during 1995 at the entrance to the Great Lakes carried an assortment of live marine, brackish, and freshwater fauna, despite having fully exchanged ballast water on the open-ocean (Harvey et al., 1999). The fishhook waterflea, Cercopagis pengoi, almost certainly invaded Lake Ontario since 1993, subsequent to mandated open-ocean exchange (MacIsaac et al., 1999). Salt water species that have a freshwater life stage can do very well in the Great Lakes (e.g., sea lamprey, alewife and Pacific salmon).
How can Species Introductions Associated with Ballast Tanks be Prevented or Reduced?
Ballast tanks are, by far, the most significant means by which aquatic species are being moved around the globe. Research and technology development are the keys to workable and effective methods to eliminate invasive species introductions from ballast water and tanks. However, the problem is complex. The architecture of ballast tanks differs from vessel to vessel. Many ballast tanks are partitioned into relatively small compartments, like a honeycomb, with interconnecting holes for water movement. Most ballast tanks are not designed for easy access and most are crisscrossed with ribbing for structural support that can disrupt the flushing of material from the tank, or the mixing of a biocide throughout the tank. Some tanks have a low, flat profile, while others are cavernous.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reliable and affordable technology for effective treatment of ballast water, either before it enters a ship, or while in the ballast tanks, has not been developed. Various alternative ballast water treatment technologies are in varying stages of testing. The two most common approaches being worked on include physical removal of organisms or treatment to kill them. In addition, methodologies for dealing with pathogens and parasites and affirmation that treatment technologies are effective against them are needed. An additional problem encountered is finding full-scale ballast tanks in which such testing can be performed.
Ballast water treatment and effluent standards and/or test methods have been proposed. Although various methods are being tested for treatment of ballast, there is no standard by which to measure, compare, or evaluate the effectiveness of these new technologies and methods. Research (e.g., risk assessment) can provide the basis for setting such standards and assure that any ballast water pumped into the ballast tank of a vessel or out into the aquatic environment would not pose a higher risk of introducing invasive species.
Evaluate NOBOB Vessels as Biological Invasion Vectors.
Although circumstances vary from ship to ship, some water and entrained sediment usually remains in ballast tanks even after complete pump-out. Although this is likely important at the national level, it is particularly acute in the Great Lakes region where 75–90% of the foreign vessels entering are declared NOBOB. Consider a tank holding 1500 metric tons of water when full. If only 1% of that volume is unpumpable, then up to 15 metric tons (15 cubic meters, or about 4,000 gallons) of water would remain. Reflected across the numerous tanks (as many as 26 or more) each ship possesses, a significant volume of ballast water and mud can remain on board. As ballast water treatment technologies are developed and tested, their effectiveness in dealing with the NOBOB residuals must be evaluated.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chemical disinfection is one of several potential methods for treating ballast water to prevent the spread of invasive species. There are several issues that must be addressed to provide materials that can be used safely and effectively: (1) The operational safety of disinfection chemicals needs to be determined; (2) The potencies of disinfectants need to be established so that appropriate concentrations can be selected; (3) The confidence limits of the toxicity are needed to establish the limits associated with biocide treatments; (4) Data on degradation rates and pulsed exposures are needed to mesh with dilution models so that safe discharge of treated ballast can be determined; (5) Appropriate chronic toxicity data should be developed to permit calculation of reasonable discharge limits to protect the environment; (6) The effectiveness of the biocides in the ballast water environment needs to be demonstrated as well as the treatment ability to attain complete exposure in all parts of the ballast tanks (microbes, viruses, and some fouling organisms may be attached to the walls or buried in mud on ledges well above the few inches of residual material on the bottom of the tanks), and (7) the effect of the chemical on the ballast tanks and hull structures.
The effects of different management practices on reducing the biological invasion risk associated with NOBOB tanks is also a fruitful area for research. Use of best management practices may enhance the effectiveness of new treatments by reducing the amount of mud present during treatment. As part of this effort, research is needed to develop remote measurement capabilities that allow better measurements of the amount of sediment accumulated across the entire ballast tank.
Patterns, Corridors, and Vectors of Invasion
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A major barrier to planning for and preempting future invasions is trying to identify where future species invasions may originate and what species may pose the highest potential risk of successfully invading that ecosystem. Comprehensive analyses of recent and past patterns of species invasions by coastline, region, or coastal ecosystem will help to identify the most significant invasion corridors or pathways by which invasive species are brought to our coastal ecosystems. Monitoring and analysis of global trade patterns will help to identify future shifts in likely invasion corridors leading to the U.S. This will provide an information base of significant source-recipient pair relationships between specific geographic areas and ecosystems, which can be used to focus assessment of biological invasion risk and threat. A regional implementation is required, since different regions have different patterns, corridors, and pathways. Once key pathways and corridors that link foreign aquatic ecosystems to U.S. coastal waters are identified, scientific collaboration with the scientists in those ''source'' countries needs to be established to identify and gather information about species within those ecosystems that are likely invaders of U.S. coastal waters.
Research Required to Minimize the Ecosystem and Economic Impacts of Successful Invaders
Research Priority
Once a species has become established in an ecosystem, the ecosystem by definition has changed and the species is nearly impossible to eradicate. An invader redefines the ecosystem. Unlike many chemical contaminants that dissipate through time, invasive species do not have a 'half-life' and are here to stay. We can try to contain the species. It is very difficult to actually accomplish this in large ecosystems because each new invader has its own unique life history and place in the ecosystem. Therefore, management needs to adapt to its presence. The sooner that adaptation can be made, the greater the chance is to minimize the species impact. How can this be done?
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of fundamental importance is; How does that changed ecosystem affect the ecology and economy of the region? What will be the extent of the impact? And can we adapt our management strategies to accommodate it presence? This requires answers to two critical and equally important questions;
(1) What is the basic biology, life history, and reproductive strategy of the invasive species?, and
(2) How will this new species fit into and change the ecosystem functioning?
The answer to the second question clearly demands that we know how the ecosystem functions to begin with. Fundamental ecosystem understanding and long-term data sets will lead to early detection and evaluation. Once there is a basic understanding of the ecosystem, assessing the role of each new invader is somewhat easier. In contrast, once a species enters, it is too late to ask, what was the ecosystem like before the invader arrived? A study that lasts only 1–2 years is insufficient because the natural year-to-year variability in an ecosystem can be high or unknown.
New invaders reduce the reliability of management decisions unless the ecosystem is redefined. Management decisions are heavily dependent on ecosystem understanding. Revision of management strategies can only be accomplished on the basis of scientific understanding of the changes that have occurred. Ecosystem models can then be modified to account for the invasive species and their new role in the ecosystem structure and to test various management adaptations, to determine which, if any, achieve the desired results. Such research must be tailored to the regional level.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As new invaders are identified, basic biological knowledge for the organisms of most concern must be obtained to identify vulnerabilities that might be exploited for prevention or control. Research to determine and document the biological life-cycles, feeding, and reproductive strategies of targeted organisms is essential. The research is most valuable when placed in the context of existing knowledge and models of how the recipient ecosystem functions. Not all organisms that are introduced into an ecosystem become invasive. What make some species good invaders and others not? Why do some ecosystems appear more vulnerable to invaders than others? Basic investment in the scientific field of invasion biology will make significant contributions to resolving this issue.
The impact of invaders on an ecosystem is complex; often the effects of invaders can be realized only indirectly or may be additive to the effects of other stresses. Multidisciplinary studies have the best hope of resolving the ecological and economic consequences on ecosystems that have hosted or might be host to future aquatic species invasions. Such studies are essential to developing a sound scientific basis for either restoration of native species and habitat conditions in these damaged ecosystems, or, perhaps more likely, to help us adapt our (human) uses and expectations for these damaged ecosystems.
For example, the Great Lakes ecosystem is one of the most highly managed ecosystems in the United States. Many of the present management approaches are based on studies and models that were developed before the major incursions of invasive species in the 1980s starting with the spiny water flea. The zebra mussel has had perhaps the most profound effect on the Great Lakes ecosystem, second only to human beings. Studies to modify existing ecosystem management models or develop new models that accurately account for the food web and energy flow changes caused by the species that have invaded since the mid-1980s are critically needed.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many large ecosystems may be permanently altered by a single invader, or may suffer an ''invasional melt-down'' as proposed by Simberloff and Von Holle (1999). The ''melt-down'' model postulates that ecosystems become more easily invaded as the cumulative number of species introductions increases, and that facilitative interactions between invaders can exacerbate the spread and impact of invaders. Species from the same native food web may have a facilitative relationship that increases the likelihood of invasion once one or more key organisms have successfully invaded a target ecosystem. For example, the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), and amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus comprise a facilitative assemblage in the Great Lakes. All three organisms are native to the Ponto-Caspian basins of southeastern Europe. Since 1985 nine other Ponto-Caspian species have successfully invaded the Great Lakes. This may be the best example of what is meant by ''invasional meltdown'' where each successive invader appears to make success by another invader all the more likely.
The ANS Task Force developed a Risk Assessment protocol. Several countries (e.g., Australia, New Zealand) are applying risk-assessment approaches to aid in the management of potential invasive species by assessing the relative invasion and economic/ecological risk represented by particular species. When successful, such information may be used to prioritize and focus research activities and resources, and to identify opportunities for proactive prevention management. However, ecological risk assessment is a relatively new tool that has seen little success in the invasive species arena, and is still constrained by lack of information and uncertainties related to the invasion process. It has been applied with varying degrees of success to other types of pollution hazards, particularly chemical and radiation hazards. There is much developmental work to be done to establish the framework needed to apply it to invasive species issues. Research is needed to investigate, develop, and test ecological risk assessment methods and techniques for specific application to invasive species issues as well as other types of tools. Other approaches are also needed.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Monitoring and long-term assessment are essential components of this type of research. Monitoring can evaluate natural year-to-year variation in the ecosystem against which any impacts by invaders can be assessed, In addition, monitoring can provide early warning of an invader's presence. Such approaches are most effective and economical if developed with the use of existing monitoring programs. Monitoring must be targeted to the regional level, but integrated at the national level. Cost-effective tools and sustainable approaches in support of both rapid (''early-warning'') detection of new species, and systematic long-term data collection to document the pattern of spread and history of invasions are needed. The critical question that has yet to be answered is: How do you successfully and efficiently monitor the arrival of something you do not know is coming, nor where it will arrive, nor when it will arrive (without incurring huge costs)? New molecular and genetic approaches may have promising applications to this problem and may be able to provide a rapid early-detection signal when new biological material is found.
Restoration of Native Species and Conditions
It is nearly impossible to fully 'restore' the ecosystem, particularly for large aquatic ecosystems. Development of sound restoration strategies and tools, including procedures for detailed site assessments, provide the basis for restoration decisions. Restoration programs often need to be tailored. The goals (ecosystem function restoration, restoration of a native species population) of restoration must be identified and an assessment made of the likelihood for successful elimination or control of the invasive species. Research may be needed to develop elimination or control strategies for the invasive organisms before restoration can be implemented. Also, invasive species tend to be associated with disturbed ecosystems and there may be cumulative or additive effects from multiple problems, of which invasive species may be only one. This also needs to be taken into account when considering an attempt at restoration. In some cases, the correct decision will be to adapt existing management practices and uses of the ecosystem to the presence and impacts of an invasive species. However, due to the large and interconnected nature of such large ecosystems such as the Great Lakes, it is unlikely that the ecosystem can be effectively restored to a previous state, although it may be possible to successfully or partially restore the structure, function, or native species population.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Invasive species affect and disrupt both the established structure and the function of ecosystems. If an invasive species can be eliminated or controlled, and the changes and related damage to the ecosystem are limited, partial recovery is possible but is often a lifetime commitment. A classic example is the partial recovery of lake trout in the Great Lakes following sea lamprey control. Sea lampreys entered the Great Lakes system through manmade locks and shipping canals in the 1800s. Lampreys attach to fish with a sucking disk and sharp teeth, which are used to feed on the fish's body fluids, more often than not resulting in death to the fish. According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, each sea lamprey can kill 40 or more pounds of fish. Under some conditions, only one of seven fish will survive an attack. Sea lampreys had a disastrous impact on Great Lakes fisheries, including some responsibility for the collapse of lake trout, whitefish, and chub populations in the Great Lakes during the 1940s and 1950s. During the 1950s, federal scientists tested thousands of compounds before determining that one, TFM (3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol), is highly effective and selective in controlling sea lampreys without significantly impacting other species. This discovery was based, in part, on knowledge of the detailed life history of the organism, which allowed researchers to target the larval form as the most vulnerable to control. Since its discovery, TFM has been used as the primary means to control sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes, and its application has reduced sea lamprey populations in the lakes considerably. This has allowed fish like the lake trout a chance to survive in the lakes long enough to reproduce or to be harvested.
Regional Approaches: Effective Coordination and Research Efficiency
The invasive species is nationwide and is most effectively coordinated at the national level. However, implementation at the regional (coastal) or ecosystem level is most practical and makes the most sense, since different U.S. ecosystems will have different invasive species issues and characteristics, i.e., the ecological and economic impacts, source regions, mechanisms, and pathways for invasion will not be the same, nor of the same importance.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, the most effective approach to coordinating across levels of government and between agencies is to do so at the regional level. Large regional aquatic ecosystems such as the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, the Pacific Northwest including San Francisco Bay, Florida Bay, Hawaii (especially coral reefs), and Prince Edward Sound in Alaska are all at various stages of addressing aquatic invasive species issues and problems. Some are further ahead than others and each has a unique set of political, economic, and ecological considerations that must be addressed. Therefore, attempting a ''one-size-fits-all'' approach is not advisable. These regions appear to be hot spots for aquatic species invasions or have been identified as highly vulnerable to invasion. Many of them have developed substantial documentation on the issue in their region, and are mobilizing to take action. Several of them have organized invasive species panels or other oversight groups.
How are research efforts coordinated? What is the role of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force?
A number of reports have been completed that identify the basic needs and priorities on how we should be dealing with invasive species. In general these reports are in agreement that we need to address 6–9 key issues. For example, Executive Order 13112, issued in February 1999, ordered Federal agencies to take steps to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic costs. Specifically,
(i) Prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, the National Invasive Species Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce (NOAA) and Interior, recently issued a National Management Plan (National Invasive Species Council, 2001), which outlines a broad-based national program covering the following nine topics:
T31. Coordination and Leadership (Assure that Federal agency activities are coordinated, effective, partner with States, and provide for public input and participation.) 2. Prevention (The first-line of defense and, over the long term, the most cost-effective strategy against invasive species is preventing them from becoming established. Diverse tools and methods are needed to prevent invasive species from becoming established in ecosystems where they are not native. A risk-based approach is mandated and requires consideration of the likelihood an invasive species will establish and spread, as well as the degree of harm it could cause.) 3. Early Detection and Rapid Response (Early detection of new introductions and quick coordinated responses are needed to eradicate or contain invasive species before they become too widespread and control becomes technically and/or financially impossible.) 4. Control and Management (Prevent the spread of established invasive species and lessen their impacts through control measures. For certain invasive species, adequate control methods are not available or populations are too widespread for eradication to be feasible.) 5. Restoration (Restoration is an integral component of comprehensive prevention and control programs for invasive species that may keep invasive species from causing greater environmental disturbances. Although restoration efforts have certain elements in common, each invasion and area is unique. Restoration projects need to be based both on general principles and site-specific considerations and analysis.) 6. International Cooperation (Invasive species are an international problem requiring international cooperation. The U.S. cannot succeed in addressing its domestic invasive species problems, unless it takes a leadership role in international cooperation.) 7. Information Management (Incompatible database formats and other factors impede information sharing. A coordinated, up-to-date information-sharing system is needed which emphasizes the use of the Internet for documenting, evaluating, and monitoring impacts from invasive species on the economy, the environment, and human and animal health.) 8. Education and Public Awareness (A successful plan to address invasive species issues will depend on the public's understanding and acceptance of the actions needed to protect our valuable resources.) 9. Research (Research supports each aspect of the Plan and a well-supported broad national research program is needed. Complementary research projects ranging from basic investigations with broad application to highly targeted applied efforts are required.)
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Synopses of the roles and activities of Federal and State agencies are found in OTA (1993), Corn et al. (1999), and the National Invasive Species Council (2001).
Coordination is required and is well established along a number of different levels (Federal agencies, states, regional panels and workgroups, and local organizations). Scientist to scientist communication, cooperation, and coordination on invasive species research is excellent This occurs within regions, across the nation, between different agencies, and is beginning internationally. This is particularly true for research efforts. Coordination and planning efforts have been very successful and should continue. More emphasis now needs to be placed on implementation and action related to these planning efforts, particularly relative to research.
I hope that this summary has been useful. I would be happy to address any questions.
Thank you again for the invitation to appear today.
REFERENCES
Corn, M.L., E. Buck, J. Rawson, and E. Fisher, 1999. Harmful Non-native Species: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Washington, DC. Order Code RL30123. 50 pp.
Gollasch, S. and 14 others. 2000. Life in ballast tanks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (in review).
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hairston, N.G., Jr., R.A. Van Brunt, C.M. Kearns, and D.R. Engstrom. 1995. Age and diapausing eggs in a sediment egg bank. Ecology 76:1706–1711.
Hamer, J.P., T.A. McCollin, and I.A.N. Lucas. 2000. Dinoflagellate cysts in ballast tank sediments: Between tank variability. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40:731–733.
Harvey, M., M. Gilbert, D. Gauthier and D.M. Reid. 1999. A preliminary assessment of risks for the ballast-water-mediated introduction of nonindigenous organisms in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2268. 56 p.
MacIsaac, H.J., I.A. Grigorovich, J. Hoyle, N.D. Yan, and V. Panov. 1999. Invasion of Lake Ontario by the Ponto-Caspian predatory cladoceran Cercopagis pengoi. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:1–5.
National Invasive Species Council, 2001. National Management Plan—Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge. U.S. Dept of Interior, Washington, DC.
Office of Technology Assessment, 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States, OTA–F–565 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).
Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison, 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50(1): 53–65.
Ricciardi, A. and H. MacIsaac, 2000. Recent mass invasion of the North American Great Lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:62–65.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Simberloff, D. and B. Van Holle, 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: Invasional meltdown? Niol. Invasions 1:21–32.
74542l.eps
74542m.eps
74542n.eps
74542o.eps
74542p.eps
74542q.eps
74542r.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; questions submitted by the House Science Committee
Question #1: Does GLERL have a plan for the next phase of invasive research? Do you have research priorities? How much would the plan cost?
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Answer: The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) is assisting in the development of a long-term plan for invasive species research. In his written testimony, Dr. Brandt outlined the overall research priorities needed on invasive species. Fundamental research is critically needed to improve the scientific basis for two important and equal parts of this issue: 1) prevention and control to stop the inflow and spread of new aquatic organisms, particularly via ship ballast and 2) minimizing the ecological and economic impacts of species invasions by developing the fundamental ecosystem understanding, knowledge base and adaptive management strategies. GLERL's current research program reflects both of these priority areas as well as our available resources and expertise: chemical biocide research, no ballast on board (NOBOB) research, effects of new invaders on Great Lakes food web, and effects of food web changes on Great Lakes living resources. GLERL's near-term research priorities are to expand the level and comprehensiveness of our array of research programs on both of these issues, if possible.
GLERL is also helping NOAA develop a long-term national approach with regional implementation and has put forward a detailed plan to NOAA that outlines a long-term national approach with regional implementation. Several themes are being considered under this approach, based on the nine topical areas identified in the National Invasive Species Management Plan developed by the National Invasive Species Council, available online at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/actiond.shtml. The themes include:
Improve the Scientific Basis for Prevention, Control and Interdiction of Aquatic Species Invasions;
Monitor U.S. Coastal Ecosystems for New Species Invasions;
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Risk Assessment Tools and Approaches;
Restore Native Ecosystems Damaged by Aquatic Species Invasions;
Develop Scientific and Technological Collaborations with International Partners;
Coordinate NOAA's Regional and National Response to the Aquatic Species Invasions;
Aquatic Invasive Species Scientific Information Networks and Databases; and
Develop Public Education Programs.
Question #2: In the interim period while these studies are underway, what should policymakers do to stem the tide of invasive species?
Answer: Effective policy and management decisions require sound scientific information. The extent of the problem associated with empty ballast tanks (such as found on NOBOB vessels) and the types of ballast water management practices that are most useful cannot be assessed with any confidence until the present study is much further along and perhaps expanded. The use of biocides is similarly problematic, since the presence of sediments, the types of organisms in those sediments and possibly the types of sediments greatly affect the concentration and cost required to assure complete disinfection of NOBOB tanks. Therefore, it would be difficult for policymakers to take scientifically sound regulatory action at this time on NOBOB ballast tanks. A hearing on the problem associated with NOBOB vessels that invited shipping company representatives to address ballast-water management practices currently in-use or potentially available to minimize residual ballast material, especially sediments, would provide useful information.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On a national level, ballast tanks clearly remain the primary vector by which new organisms may be introduced to our coastal ecosystems. The problem associated with discharge of untreated foreign ballast water is well known. Presently the only risk reduction mechanism available related to foreign ballast water discharge is mid-ocean ballast exchange. In addition to the Federal mandatory ballast water exchange regime for the Great Lakes, some states, such as California, have implemented laws requiring mandatory ballast exchange and reporting, with stiff penalties for non-compliance. Data gathered by the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse indicate that without mandatory requirements and penalties for non-reporting, vessel compliance is less than 33% (perhaps as low as 25%) outside the Great Lakes. Although ballast exchange does not provide 100% protection, when properly carried out it should produce a significant reduction in the risk associated with ballast water discharge.
Reporting of comprehensive information about all ballast operations conducted in the waters of the United States (i.e., for each ballast tank, the intake, discharge and source history and the volume of water moved) is particularly valuable information for NOBOB vessel operations, since they often ballast and deballast locally as their cargo changes. Such information would help Federal and state agencies in designing and planning aquatic invasive species monitoring programs by identifying those areas subjected to the greatest ballast tank discharge pressure. Presently, such information is not uniformly available for all coastal areas, especially the Great Lakes.
Question #3: What is the effect on technology development by not having a standard to measure, compare or evaluate ballast water treatment?
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Answer: Two types of standards should be distinguished: a scientific standard and a regulatory standard. The development of a set of scientific standards that provides a common base to compare the living biological content in water across taxa would provide measures to compare the effectiveness of different technologies. This scientific standard can be developed without setting regulatory standards.
A regulatory standard would be based on an assessment of the risk factors associated with ballast discharge and the successful introduction of new species. There are many technology developmental projects underway. The development of a regulatory standard may provide a stimulus or incentive to expand these types of programs. The lack of a regulatory standard does make it difficult for system engineers to identify what endpoint must be achieved by their system. The required endpoint will determine the cost and biological effectiveness of the treatment (i.e., a system that removes all biota will be more expensive than one that removes only 90% of all biota). This, in turn, will determine how competitive a system will be and may also serve to eliminate some technologies that prove incapable of achieving the required treatment endpoint in a cost-effective manner.
Question #4: What is your assessment of efforts to develop a ballast water standard?
Answer: The U.S. Coast Guard leads domestic efforts to develop a standard for ballast water treatment. Development of standards requires detailed information on what routinely is discharged from a ballast tank as well as the risk of a successful introduction associated with biota in any water. However, the level of existing research that has been conducted to this point is not sufficient to understand what makes for a successful invasion. The research that could provide the information that would provide a sound scientific basis for setting a defensible standard has not been conducted. The teams working on establishing such a standard face an uphill battle. It is clear that we cannot maintain international waterborne commerce and achieve a level of zero risk, yet no one is sure what the standard should be, or what level of risk is acceptable. The Coast Guard is making as much progress as can be expected given the limitations on resources and scientific information and has involved the appropriate stakeholder and expert communities.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT S. SMITH
I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to express my views regarding non-native species research and our ability to address the problems associated with invasive species. The ideas expressed in this testimony are based on my experience as the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator and chair of the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species.
Aquatic invasive species cause economic damage to a wide variety of public and private industries, and environmental damage that reduces the quality of life for the citizens of our nation. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile. People and goods are being moved all over the world faster than ever before, often with inadequate regard for the intentional or unintentional movement of invasive species. Research and coordination efforts inspired by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act of 1990, the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 and the Invasive Species Council have greatly increased our understanding of pathways that move invasive species, and new methods for prevention and control. Our current challenge is to use this new knowledge to enhance our current efforts to implement an integrated set of international, national, state and local programs that empower real solutions to this global problem.
The reauthorization of NISA is an excellent opportunity to better define the roles of various federal and state agencies, integrate authorities, and to build greater capacity for real solutions. No one agency or organization has the resources to fully address the problem. Our current system could be improved to more clearly divide-up the work and take advantage of existing strengths within each organization.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An important role of the Invasive Species Council is to provide top-level leadership on invasive species issues. The roles of various agencies addressing invasive species should be more clearly defined. Additional tasks for the council could be to provide international coordination and leadership on broad issues that are common to both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species. One example of an important terrestrial and aquatic issue is the development of a coordinated federal and state program designed to prevent the intentional introduction of potentially invasive aquatic or terrestrial plants and animals.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force should continue to lead the federal effort for coordination and research on aquatic species. The specific issues that drive the worlds of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species are as different as water and air. Separate organizations are needed to address each. The Task Force itself does not conduct research, but serves to coordinate the research activities of member agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are co-chairs of the Task Force and both have made significant contributions to ANS research. The ANS research grant program implemented by NOAA/Sea Grant is an excellent program that has produced high quality ANS research with clear management implications. The program is well managed and adequately funded for general ANS research. Funding for ballast water treatment technology research and development should be increased and made available to any state that wishes to apply. Much of the existing ballast technology funding is restricted to the Great lakes or Chesapeake Bay. One small grant ($300,000) is available to any state for ballast water treatment research through U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
The ballast technology research conducted with these funds has greatly increased our knowledge. The research conducted in the Great Lakes and lead by Allegra Cangelosi of the Northeast Midwest Institute was especially useful. The U.S. Coast Guard is in the process of implementing a program to verify and certify the performance of various types of ballast treatment technologies in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency. This will require the development of standardized protocols for testing and specialized laboratories to conduct tests. The U.S. Geological Service has a facility on Marrowstone Island in Washington State that could be renovated into a world-class ballast water treatment research facility. Renovation costs are estimated at $1.6 million with an annual operation budget of $500,000. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Service efforts are much needed. The shipping industry needs to have credible research to compare the efficiency of various treatment technologies. Regulatory agencies need standardized methods and ballast water treatment research facilities to measure the technologies performance against a standard. Rigorous standards for the discharge of treated ballast water cannot be implemented without these efforts.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is authorized by NISA to fund the implementation of state ANS management plans that have been approved by the Task Force. This effort has been very useful to some states, but the current program to approve and fund state ANS management plans has two problems that should be addressed in the reauthorization of NISA. To date, only about 9 of our 50 states have produced an approved ANS management plans in the 11 years the program has existed. All states must produce these plans if we hope to implement an effective national program. Many states recognize the importance of creating a state ANS plan, but simply do not have the financial resources and expertise to produce it. New programs are needed that inspire states to write these plans. The second problem is the amount of funding available to implement state plans. Approximately $850,000 is currently available to all states that have an approved plan. Some states do not produce plans because they believe the funding for implementation is too small to warrant the effort involved in the plans production. The funding available for the implementation of state plans should be increased to an annual appropriation of 10 million dollars.
Research findings that demonstrate new methods to improve ANS management will not be effectively used if states do not build the capacity to implement them. Washington State has improved its capacity to address ANS issues in three ways. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife hired a full-time ANS Coordinator. The Washington State legislature established an ANS committee to improve state coordination and a state ANS management plan was produced. Research and coordination efforts in Washington State have resulted in the establishment of a European green crab monitoring and control program, a zebra mussel monitoring and inspection program, and a ballast water management program. If every state had an ANS Coordinator, ANS Committee and a state ANS plan, then effective state programs could be implemented and coordinated with regional, nation and international efforts. Reauthorization of NISA should strive to improve state ANS management programs.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regional ANS panels are an important link between the states and the national Task Force. The regional ANS panels should be funded to assist their member states in the production of these plans, to build the capacity for effective regional programs, and to bring a state and regional perspective to the national Task Force. Many states are currently affiliated with a regional panel, but new panels should be formed to include every state in a regional panel. Annual work plans from the regional panels should provide the ANS Task Force with a useful tool to identify priorities and allocate resources that are important to the states and regions. Regional panels will require additional funding. For example, the Western Regional Panel could use an annual appropriation of $600,000 to produce an effective regional program for its 19 member states.
A coordinated state, regional and national ANS management program can reduce the spread of ANS. Impacts from highly destructive species such as the zebra mussel can be reduced and new introductions can be prevented from major pathways such as ballast water. Empowering states to implement prevention programs and strengthening the 100th meridian program can improve our ability to win the zebra mussel war. The cost of implementing proactive prevention programs is far less than reacting to new introductions.
In Summary:
NISA should be reauthorized and strengthened.
Efforts to prevent the spread of zebra mussels should be improved.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
States need more support for the creation and implementation of ANS management plans.
Regional panels need additional resources to assist states in the implementation of regional programs.
Ballast water research and testing facilities are needed.
74542s.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses from Scott S. Smith, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator; Western Regional Panel Director of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
1. How much money does the state of Washington and the states in your regional network spend to combat invasives? How does regional coordination work?
State efforts to combat invasive species are generally fragmented and uncoordinated, which makes it hard to even compile how much is spent. The states of Oregon and Idaho are in the process of establishing Invasive Species Councils to improve coordination. Washington State has established an Aquatic Nuisance Species Committee to coordinate aquatic invasive species efforts. The State of Washington spends over $3 million per year on invasive species, not including agricultural and forest pest management or federally funded projects.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (WRP) was formed by the National Invasive Species Act to coordinate state and federal efforts among 19 western states. The WRP receives very limited funding and does not have sufficient staff to collect information on how much money western states spend on invasive species. The WRP is encouraging all western states to form invasive or aquatic invasive species councils to improve their ability to address the problem. State representatives on the WRP understand the severity of the problem, but often are unable to act due to the lack of resources.
2. What is the effect on technology development by not having a standard to measure, compare or evaluate ballast water treatment?
Technology developers are assuming that a ballast water treatment standard will be set that requires the removal of close to 100% of all life forms. Developers are competing to produce technologies that can kill everything and do it cheap. A standard is simply a way of consistently evaluating the effectiveness of a technology, and approving it for use. Setting a standard will not, by itself, increase technology development. Establishing an approval process and mandating ballast treatment (exchange or alternative treatment) will inspire technology development. Vessel owners are understandably reticent to purchase treatment technologies that have not been approved by regulatory agencies. Without mandate and approval, vessel owners do not purchase technologies—technology developers have no income or means to improve their technologies through commercial use, and progress toward the development of cheap, effective technologies is hampered.
We should focus on approving the best available technologies for use, and work towards developing the infrastructure needed to create and evaluate a standard.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2A. What is your assessment of efforts to develop a ballast water standard?
The major impediment to the development and implementation of a standard is the lack of protocols and facilities to conduct verification testing. A standard is of no use if technologies cannot be verified and certified as meeting the standard. The U.S. Coast Guard is initiating efforts to develop a verification and certification process. This is a much-needed effort, but it will take time to develop. An interim approval process should be developed to approve promising technologies for use prior to the full development of a standard and technology certification process.
3. From a state perspective how important is international coordination in dealing with invasive species? Can you give us examples of international coordination efforts?
Invasive species do not respect political boundaries. The United States could develop programs to reduce the risk of importing invasive species, but new invasions could spread to our lands if neighboring nations do not implement effective invasive species management programs. Washington State is bordered by Canada and we share major fresh and marine waters. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Task Force was formed to address marine issues of common concern and invasive species is one of those issues. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided funding to agencies in British Columbia to promote a joint green crab monitoring and control program. Washington is working with the Port of Vancouver B.C. to jointly implement a ballast water treatment program that will minimize ballast treatment costs between B.C. and Washington ports. Additional costs for ballast management should not be allowed to result in the loss of trade for either Washington or British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife sent a representative to speak at a ballast water meeting sponsored by the International Maritime Organization in London to promote international cooperation.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. How could we improve the coordination between federal efforts to control invasive species—particularly those of the ANS Task Force—the states?
Regional panels, such as the WRP, are the link between federal and state efforts to combat aquatic invasive species. The WRP has raised awareness among western states on the issue and is developing new strategies to improve the ability of each state to implement effective aquatic invasive species management programs. The major impediments to improving state invasive species management efforts are the lack of staff and funding for implementation. The WRP has the knowledge to assist states in developing effective programs that would reduce economic and environmental damage, if provided with adequate staff and funding.
APPENDIX 2:
Additional Material for the Record
74542t.eps
TESTIMONY OF THE AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
The Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS) is pleased to have the opportunity to provide the following comments on aquatic invasive species, and specifically aquatic invasive plants. APMS is a non-profit, professional organization dedicated to advancing the science and technology for managing invasive and problem aquatic vegetation. Our membership is comprised of scientists and professionals working in industry, academia, local, state and federal government. The APMS also maintains strong affiliation with seven regional chapters across the country and two international chapters.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our comments will address the nature of aquatic invasive plant problems, the role of applied research to remedy the problems and the current status of the key programs of applied research on invasive aquatic plants. We are deeply concerned about the consequences and implications of the limited financial support currently available for these programs.
Invasive aquatic plants threaten our nation's water resources, and a coordinated national research capability is vital for developing environmentally-sound and cost-effective techniques for managing these plants and limiting their spread. Currently, excellent specialized research and development facilities and expert staff are in place within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and cooperating academic institutions. However, these capabilities will remain functional only if sufficient funding is maintained.
Scope of Problem
Most aquatic vegetation is beneficial by providing fish and wildlife habitat, filtering excess nutrients, and stabilizing shorelines. However, a few invasive aquatic plant species introduced into the United States have spread explosively. These problem species have overwhelmed water bodies, resulting in billions of dollars in management costs, ecological damage, and lost revenues each year. The problems include: disruption of navigation; increased flooding; loss of hydroelectric power generation; reduced quality and quantity of water for irrigation, domestic and industrial uses; degraded water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species); accelerated sedimentation of lakes and reservoirs; depressed property values (and loss of associated tax bases); and loss of recreational and business opportunities.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Like the watersheds they infest, invasive aquatic plants are not confined by political boundaries, rather they spread across and between states causing regional and often national problems. The worst among these plants include: the floating waterhyacinth of the Gulf Coast, South Atlantic states, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (CA); the submersed Eurasian watermilfoil now established in 46 U.S. states; and the submersed hydrilla, established in all Gulf Coast and South Atlantic states, California, Connecticut, Tennessee, and the D.C. vicinity. These weeds are extremely fast growing plants that have multiple ways of spreading rapidly through and between water systems. Control is difficult and eradication nearly impossible. Therefore, management efforts must be coordinated and consistent to contain these invasive plant populations at low levels.
Other invasive and exotic plants, such as purple loosestrife in the northern and northeastern states, arundo and salt cedar in sensitive riparian areas of the arid west, melaleuca in the Florida everglades and phragmites in eastern estuaries and marshes, are degrading valuable aquatic ecosystems by overrunning native wetland and riparian communities. Giant salvinia, an aquatic invasive plant first found in the United States in the mid 1990's, is now spreading rapidly in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Colorado, with pioneer infestations already threatening six other southern states and California. Egeria currently impairs the important Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta resource. Another species, culerpa, that has become a serious problem in the Mediterranean, was found and hopefully contained in one bay near San Diego last summer.
Invasive Aquatic Plant Research Efforts
Federally sponsored applied research and technology development for the management of invasive aquatic plants is conducted primarily by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Aquatic Plant Control Research Program (CE–APCRP) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA–ARS). Together, these agencies also support and help coordinate cooperative research and teaching programs at Land-Grant universities and other state universities.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CE–APCRP
Although basic science is necessary to expand scientific horizons, applied science is required to solve the problems we are facing today. A major concern with aquatic invasive plants is their impact on water resources, and the Corps is the leading water resource management agency in the U.S. The CE–APCRP has been the leading applied R&D program on invasive aquatic plants in support of our Nation's water resources for over thirty years. During this time the Corps has built an unequalled research capacity including personnel, facilities, and equipment (ERDC Vicksburg, MS, and associated aquatic ecosystem research facilities in Lewisville, TX, and Spring Valley, WI). It has acquired technical expertise and contracting experience in operational control and built good working relationships with the states. This provides important feedback to the research effort.
The CE–APCRP provides ecologically based, integrated management strategies for invasive aquatic plants, which include restoration of beneficial native plants, biological control measures for long-term control, and species-selective chemical control methods that target invasive species and leave desirable native species unharmed. The areas of technical focus in the CE–APCRP are biological control, chemical control, ecological assessment, management strategies and applications. The development of novel technologies for preventing the initial introduction and spread of non-indigenous aquatic plant species over large acreages will achieve significant cost savings. Research efforts focused on replacing problem aquatic species with native species will improve aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife. New technologies under development will help implement clean water initiatives by restoring aquatic systems harmed by non-indigenous aquatic plant species. Evolving control technologies, using combinations of biological and chemical agents to provide careful selective control of invasive species will minimize cost and environmental stress.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technologies developed from this research program are of great benefit to federal and state natural resource management agencies, and are also widely used by irrigation districts, lake associations, and farmers to manage invasive aquatic plants. For example, research has led to:
successful release and establishment of insect agents (in cooperation with USDA Foreign Exploration laboratories) that selectively feed on invasive plant species;
significant reductions in herbicide application rates that control target plants while minimizing impacts on native vegetation;
linkage of ecological strategies to improve the integration of biological, mechanical, and chemical management techniques.
Although individual states can develop capacity to manage some current plant infestations of local waters, none have sufficient resources to respond to new and emerging aquatic pest species. This is another area where the Corps research and development expertise is invaluable. The Corps' Vicksburg, MS research facilities and Jacksonville, FL operations support center are equipped to transfer technology and operations information necessary for quick and effective responses to new problems.
The research capacity of the CE–ACPRP is coupled with an effective technology transfer system that delivers guidance to numerous CE districts, other federal agencies (USFWS, USGS, USBR, TVA), state partners and the private sector. Specific examples of technology transfer vehicles include: computer-based information systems, technical manuals, field demonstrations, information bulletins, peer-reviewed journal articles, professional meetings, special reports, technical workshops and short courses, exhibits and demonstrations, simulation models, videos, and worldwide web access (http://www.wes.army.mil/el/aqua).
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
USDA–ARS
The USDA–ARS research on aquatic plants is managed from its Beltsville headquarters and is implemented at laboratories in Ft. Lauderdale, FL and in the Exotic and Invasive Weed Research unit at Albany, CA. The Albany unit consists of three laboratories: Davis, Reno, and Albany. Research is focused on invasive aquatic plants that impair storage and delivery of irrigation water, or otherwise impact agricultural systems. Technologies derived from this research are transferred to sister USDA action and regulatory agencies (e.g., APHIS), state action agencies, irrigation districts and other water management and supply stakeholders.
Through its cooperative research with CE–APCRP, USDA–ARS has conducted overseas explorations and quarantine studies for effective biological control agents to control waterhyacinth, hydrilla, and alligatorweed. Other products include basic knowledge to increase efficacy of safe herbicides and to match aquatic weed biology with best management practices. Current projects are aimed at developing effective biological controls for salt cedar, giant reed, cape ivy, and melaleuca. Future research will result in development of new, predictive models for aquatic plant growth and for interaction with biological control agents using 3–D digital scanning systems.
The programs in CE–APCRP and USDA–ARS are complementary and coordinated, and together utilize current resources as efficiently as possible. For example, the USDA–ARS Foreign Exploration laboratories provide critically important sources for selecting biological control agents. Through cooperative research projects, USDA–ARS and CE–APCRP provide an effective synergy in developing solutions to increased threats from invasive aquatic plants and protecting aquatic resources.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Land-Grant Institutions and Other Academic Institutions
Key universities and colleges have historically partnered with both USDA–ARS and CE–APCRP in coordinated research on invasive plants. Prioritization of issues and avoidance of duplication is facilitated by federal agency-university cooperative programs such as the USDA–CSREES funding for Land-Grant institutions. The programs have provided an important focus on state, local, and regional needs and provide training for graduate-level students whose research makes a significant contribution to the discovery of improved aquatic plant management. Several Land-Grant institutions house USDA–ARS laboratories and staff, or house closely allied research programs (e.g., University of Florida, University of California-Davis, University of Nevada-Reno, Purdue University, North Carolina State University, and Michigan State University). In addition, other universities including Portland State University, Minnesota State University and the University of North Texas have allied research programs that focus on regional or local invasive aquatic plant issues. All of these academic institutions are also essential partners in public outreach and education and in extension activities that facilitate technology transfer. For example, the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants provides exemplary aquatic plant management technology transfer through its web site at (http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu).
An additional key role of the university aquatic plant research effort is the recruitment and training of students to enter the profession. This is emerging as a critical need and a primary concern of the APMS, such that in cooperation with the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation we are now sponsoring a rotating competitive research fellowship to fund the training of graduate students.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is imperative that an adequate annual resource base is provided to maintain the coordinated invasive aquatic plant research effort required to meet the challenges described in this testimony. It is important that we maintain these resources today and demonstrate a commitment to managing these problems in the future as well. Doing so will encourage interested students to pursue careers in invasive aquatic plant management By doing so, we will ensure that our nation's valuable aquatic resources are protected and enhanced for future generations. Thank you for addressing this important issue.
TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARITIME ORGANIZATIONS
Regarding On-Going Research on Invasive Species
BY HELEN A. BROHL, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARITIME ORGANIZATIONS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement regarding federal agencies' on-going research on invasive species and the coordination efforts of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council.
The National Association of Maritime Organizations (NAMO) was established in 1993 to coalesce maritime-related organizations from throughout the United States. There are currently 22 members representing all coasts of the United States. [Attachment 1]. I am the executive director of the U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association—a NAMO member—currently serving a two-year term as president of NAMO. NAMO's primary emphasis is the safe and efficient navigation of vessels through the waters of the United States.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you are undoubtedly aware, 95% of trade in which the United States engages by volume is carried on the water in ocean-going and coastwise cargo ships. The growth of trade and associated growth in port activities in the United States is the reason that the federal government has initiated a ''Marine Transportation System'' (MTS) program to coordinate and integrate maritime agencies, programs and funding. It is the reason that the House Transportation Committee held a port congestion hearing in May 2001. Trade is essential for the economic well-being of our country and transport by vessel is the major facilitator.
NAMO has kept abreast of the on-going issue of invasive species from ballast water transfer and the possible threat from ''no-ballast-on-board'' (NOBOB) status. NAMO submitted a nominee to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and was disappointed that only two representatives from commercial maritime were selected, neither of which represented our membership. NAMO indirectly represents the owner/operators of vessels engaged in the international trades with the United States and recognizes that the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) is an urgent issue and that the transfer of non-native species into the United States has occurred via ballast water transfer in U.S. waters.
It is not always recognized that it was the shipping community that initiated the early effort to stem ballast transfers by implementing a self-imposed program for open-ocean ballast exchange which was subsequently taken on by the U.S. Coast Guard and is now mandatory in the Great Lakes and under voluntary guideline implementation for the rest of the United States via federal legislation. It was the shipping community that spearheaded one of the earliest trials for ballast water treatment through filtration. And the shipping community continues to work on a number of levels with federal and academic authorities to address the question of both species transfer viability as well as transfer prevention.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Frankly, NAMO concurs with the Subcommittee that it is time to step up applied research dollars to directly address ways in which to stem the transfer of ANS via ballast water and sediment. To the extent that the federal government needs to set broad strategic research objectives with regard to ballast transfers, we believe that a goal must be clear from the beginning to minimize the chance that the goal will be changed ''midstream'' causing industry to have to redirect it's investment of time and money. Shipping is a precarious business in which most companies survive on small margins and cannot afford to reinvest in additional technologies or make advance investment on the possibility of new standards. Applied research dollars for the ballast tank vector must be directed toward that goal. Within that directive must be a mandate to clearly research the effectiveness of enhanced ballast management and whether some sort of incentives can be incorporated to promote such within the industry. Enhanced ballast/ship management is a possible way to immediately minimize ANS transfers without the long and expensive development of technologies for treatment by maintaining ships ballast tanks and implementing enhanced ballast exchange management as part of regular ship operations, not just before entering U.S. waters.
The U.S. Coast Guard is expected to report soon to Congress that 75% of vessels outside of the Great Lakes are not complying with voluntary ballast exchange before entering U.S. ports. However, it has not yet been determined to what extent ballast exchange is effective. It has been reported to be both extremely effective in reducing the risk of transfer and not effective at all. It is clear, however, that ballast exchange efforts which are practiced throughout the voyage life of a vessel rather than just as a vessel enters U.S. waters and where ballast water environments are taken into account can reduce the risk of transfers. Proper ballast tank management will include regular cleaning of ballast tanks such that residual tank sediment is kept to a minimum. Where there is little or no residual sediment in ballast tanks, NOBOB essentially becomes no problem. And, NOBOB has become the hot issue in the past two years. Therefore, NAMO supports the continuation of an open-ocean ballast exchange program in conjunction with additional research to determine the effectiveness of ballast exchange and that the race for treatment technologies not overshadow this viable management solution.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While there are indications that Masters of cargo vessels in the international trades are prepared to act beyond the formal management plans which presently lack much of this ''holistic'' ship management approach, NAMO believes that efforts should be made by involved agencies and organizations to start providing Masters and crews with the tools they need to promote effective manage of their vessels while further study of ANS viabilities of ballast tanks is further studied. By judiciously ballasting and exchanging ballast whenever the occasion presents through an international voyage, by limiting intake to the extent practicable in turbid waters, maximizing intake in areas of high salinity or where thermal shock could be a factor, they are endeavoring to manage the problem at the highest possible level and may go far to minimize risk.
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 created the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force within NOAA to develop a coordinated program for protection, monitoring, control and research. It is our understanding that this Task Force was to create regional task forces by which regional recommendations would be forwarded to the national. To this date, only the Great Lakes has a fully operational committee and Chesapeake Bay is progressing. NAMO asks that stronger efforts be made to create additional regional groups and that, from the beginning, commercial maritime interests be included. The Great Lakes Task Force, for example, has recently accepted participation from international maritime interests in the Great Lakes but at the request of maritime. This participation has significantly contributed to a strong science-industry partnership in ballast tank studies which would have previously been met with skepticism by all parties. These studies may go a long way to addressing the ANS viability issue.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the federal research efforts are directed more toward applied research in ballast assessments, there may be more reports of the difficulty in getting in situ studies set-up. This is because a cargo vessel is not a laboratory but a working, moving plant, so to speak. There are economic and safety limitations which prohibit easy application of laboratory treatments. The Subcommittee may have heard that filtration trials have not been effective on the scales needed for a large cargo vessel. However, there are other problems with assessing treatments. For example, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has asked for a trial of chlorine treatment of ballast water. A vessel-owning company would like to assist but has found that for insurance and safety reasons cannot allow chlorine in the ballast tank without knowing exactly how chlorine will impact the ballast tank itself. A shipboard alternative is being used instead.
Also, it has also been found in at least two studies—one in Washington State and one in the Great Lakes—that sampling ballast tank sediment for research is extraordinarily difficult—not the least of which is the requirement that there be certified closed space entry personnel—because of the inaccessibility of ballast tank access and the timing of unloading/loading cargo to an empty ballast tank. It cannot be presumed. that what works in the laboratory works on a vessel. Yet, the nature of vessels makes it difficult to transfer the experiments. NAMO recommends that federal research dollars be spent to create a ballast tank simulator to more quickly assess treatments, technologies, and standards.
The National Association of Maritime Organizations cannot emphasize enough the importance of a national approach to addressing ballast water transfers of ANS. State-by-state regulation is devastating to the precariousness of the marketplace. In order to keep the proverbial ''level playing field'' in vessel requirements, there must be a national requirement or, preferably an international requirement.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Invasive Species Council as created by presidential directive seems remote and it is our understanding that ballast-specific transfers are now handled by the Task Force rather than the Council. The Council's January 2001 plan was so broadly worded that it did little more than to reiterate what has already been said. NAMO believes that the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse created by the Department of Transportation and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have done an excellent job by which research priorities can be assessed and that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force should be allowed to complete their current work to develop ballast standards—primarily because there is better access to this committee as compared to the department level executives of the Council. However, we disagree with what we view is a development in the Task Force that research dollars should not provide seed money for technology development. An industry partnership must be considered rather than only relying on industry to respond to government standards. Further, the federal government should be working with IMO to promote ballast technologies in new builds of vessels. We would also recommend funding to SERC for more analysis of the data they are compiling which may prevent duplication of effort and more clearly prioritize future funding directions.
Lastly, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of including the maritime industry in the process of assessing, researching, and creating policy regarding ANS transfers via commercial shipping. Our members are constantly surprised at the misinformation and misunderstanding that many scientists have on how a ship operates. Many have no idea what a ballast tank looks like or how it works but continue to make assumptions. Yet, we find that a strong industry-research-governmental partnership has been extremely productive toward finding solutions rather than laying blame. Industry must be included as much as possible on the federal level as well as in regional initiatives.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would be pleased to respond to any questions.
Helen A. Brohl
President, National Association of Maritime Organizations
973–345–2534
brohlco@cs.com
www.namo.org
74542u.eps
74542v.eps
74542w.eps
74542x.eps
74542y.eps
74542z.eps
74542aa.eps
74542bb.eps
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TESTIMONY OF THE GREAT LAKES COMMISSION
The Great Lakes Commission, on behalf of its eight member states, is pleased to submit this testimony regarding the research provisions in the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996.
The Great Lakes Commission, a nonpartisan, binational compact agency created by state and U.S. federal law, has coordinated the work of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species since 1991. Chartered under U.S. federal law, the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species is responsible for advancing aquatic nuisance species (ANS) prevention and control efforts in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. The Panel, a binational body comprised of representatives from government (state, provincial, federal, tribal), business and industry, universities, citizen environmental groups and the larger user community, is responsible for coordinating prevention and control initiatives in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region, including research, policy development, and information and education. The Panel also advises the national ANS Task Force on prevention and control needs.
The Great Lakes Commission, working with the Great Lakes Panel, has completed more than a dozen projects addressing legislative, policy, outreach, planning and scientific aspects of ANS prevention and control. Three recent examples of these projects are: A Great Lakes Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species; A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species; and Legislation, Regulation and Policy for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species: Model Guidance for Great Lakes Jurisdictions.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The introduction and spread of ANS is an issue posing a significant risk to the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Over 145 documented nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species have become established in the Great Lakes system since the middle of the 19th century. The rate of introductions has increased significantly in the last 50 years due largely to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway system and attendant waterborne commercial traffic. The ballast water of commercial vessels has been identified as a leading vector for the introduction and spread of such species and, once established, controlling the spread of these species is both technically difficult and expensive. Control efforts for purple loosestrife, zebra mussels and sea lamprey alone have been assessed at $365 million per year on a national scale. In the absence of controls, it has been estimated that the zebra mussel alone would result in costs estimated at $5 billion over the next 10 years.
The Great Lakes Panel on ANS and the Great Lakes Commission have recently developed a policy statement and sponsored a symposium that highlighted the research priorities needing attention as reauthorization of VISA moves forward.
The Ballast Water Policy Statement, endorsed by all members of the Great Lakes Panel on ANS, features 41 recommendations related to ballast water management. These recommendations are intended to guide the development of criteria for ballast water management practices and treatment technologies; ensure consistency among ballast management laws and programs in Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin jurisdictions; and promote the identification of ballast management research needs and development of new technology options. The research-related recommendations have been included below, and a copy of the policy statement is attached to this testimony.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In an effort to develop recommendations to support NISA reauthorization, the Great Lakes Commission and the Great Lakes Panel hosted the symposium Looking Forward, Looking Back: Assessing Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control on May 16–17th. This workshop examined the progress realized under NISA, and identified gaps and unmet needs with an emphasis on ballast management/no ballast on board issues. Once the proceedings document has been completed it will be widely distributed to Congress and key decision makers within the ANS policy community.
Both of these projects have developed a variety of recommendations focused on improving ANS prevention and control efforts. Research efforts on ANS prevention and control issues are in need of substantially increased funding, particularly in the areas of ballast water management practices and treatment technologies, monitoring efforts for new invasions and the spread of previously-introduced species, and environmentally sound biological and chemical control options for ANS.
Preliminary Panel recommendations for NISA reauthorization, as they relate to research, include:
Establish secure, dedicated, long-term, federal funding that will provide sufficient support for research, ballast water sampling and monitoring, and demonstration projects for ballast water management practices and technologies.
Require reporting by all ships entering U.S. waters, including coastwise and foreign arrivals, on the source and status of their ballast. Develop a technology feasibility study center able to assess technologies prior to demonstration on actual ships to speed the discovery process.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Develop and utilize mechanisms to expedite sharing and widespread dissemination of research results on ballast water management practices and technologies, such as a single Internet site, that cross-links research topics with projects, researchers and funding organizations.
Modify the funding mechanisms for ANS research to provide for the research needs required to confront an invasion within a reasonable time frame.
Authorize and appropriate funding to develop and test rapid response mechanisms to expand the scope of containment tools available to resource managers in the event of a new ANS discovery.
Transform the required ecological surveys outlined in NISA from a status report to a trend analysis to gauge prevention/control success. Use these surveys as part of a comprehensive ANS monitoring program: a key to early detection.
Authorize and appropriate funding for research focused on environmentally sound biological and chemical control options for ANS.
The problem of nonindigenous invasive species is second only to habitat loss as a factor causing significant declines in biodiversity. Strengthening the research-related components of invasive species will help prevent ANS introduction and spread, and, therefore, help diminish future losses in the biodiversity of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence ecosystem and the U.S. as a whole. We applaud leadership in Congress that has directed laws, policies, programs and resources at this critical issue, and we look to a reauthorized NISA to build upon and enhance the research that supports ANS prevention and control efforts.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Submitted by:
Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.
President/CEO
Great Lakes Commission
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: (734) 665–9135
Fax: (734) 665–4370
E-mail: mdonahue@glc.org
74542cc.eps
74542dd.eps
TESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
The American Farm Bureau Federation is the largest general farm organization in the United States, representing the interests of more than five million member families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Our members produce virtually every commodity produced in the United States. We offer this statement for the record on the critical issue of combating invasive species.
Invasive plants and animals pose an extremely serious problem for agriculture. Harmful plant and animal pests devastate thousands of acres of croplands and rangelands. A recent study from Cornell University estimated that invasive plants and animals cost the American people $137 billion every year.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A 1996 Bureau of Land Management report estimates that invasive plants alone infest over 100 million acres across the United States. The same report says that these plants spread across another million acres each year—an area twice the size of the State of Delaware. It further finds that harmful plants negatively impact an additional 4,600 acres of federal lands in the western United States PER DAY.
Invasive species also take a heavy environmental toll. Many invasive species threaten plant, animal or human health. The recently introduced West Nile Virus illustrates the human health risks that invasive species can pose. They alter plant and animal habitats and ecology. One study estimates that invasive plants and animals have contributed to 35 to 46 percent of all species being listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Harmful new species enter the United States from various sources every day. Some can be carried great distances. The costs are mounting.
Farm Bureau strongly supports an aggressive program at both the state and federal levels to prevent and control invasive species. The management plan recently released by the National Invasive Species Council entitled ''Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge'' provides a framework for addressing these issues.
Critical elements of a successful program include:
1. A Clear Definition of ''Invasive Species.'' In addressing the invasive species issue, it is important to understand that some non-native species are beneficial to man and the environment and therefore should not be considered invasive. The tendency to consider all non-native species to be harmful must be avoided. ''Invasive species'' should not be confused with ''non-native species,'' ''alien species,'' or ''exotic species.''
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because most of agricultural crops and livestock are not indigenous to the areas in which they are raised, it is of utmost importance for agriculture that the definition of ''invasive species'' exclude agricultural products.
The working definition of ''invasive species'' in the management plan is so loosely worded that it could be construed to include agricultural products or other beneficial non-native species as ''invasive.'' It needs to be changed to reflect our concerns expressed above.
2. Effective Coordination Among Federal Agencies. More than 20 different federal agencies currently have some responsibilities or authority for different aspects of the invasive species issue. Many of these programs overlap or operate independently of one another. Many address different aspects of the problem, such as prevention at ports of entry or control of pests after they have become established. Many of these programs have different focus or emphasis. There is a critical need that these authorities, responsibilities and programs be coordinated to achieve maximum results. There must be a coordinated national strategy for addressing the invasive species issue.
3. Effective Coordination Among, Local, State Federal and International Entities. The invasive species problem is a global issue that requires coordination at all levels. Landowners can provide control of invasive animals and plants on their property, and notify state or local officials of the presence of harmful species. The more localized a species can be contained the more effectively the problem can be dealt with. State agencies are responsible for prevention and control of invasive species within their jurisdictions, so effective coordination with federal agencies is vitally important. That coordination is especially important for interstate pests. International coordination is important to prevent the importation of invasive plants and animals into the United States.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Adequate Funding. For a problem of such magnitude, it is appalling that the invasive species issue has received so little funding and so little public attention. Funding is needed to prevent invasive species from entering the United States, for eradication or control of invasive pests, and for research in how to best accomplish both.
5. Research Needs. Because so little is known about the various invasive species, and new invasives are entering the United States, research needs are great. Research is needed in identifying pathways by which invasive species get into the United States so that efforts can be undertaken to prevent their entry. This is crucial in order to prevent additional costly control and eradication projects. Research is needed to predict which species coming into the United States might become economically harmful. The U.S. Geological Survey is already undertaking some of this research and their efforts should be supported. Biological research into life cycles of known invasive species is important in understanding how to control them. Coordination with scientists in the country of origin would greatly help. Research into the most effective and environmentally sound ways to control or eradicate invasive species is also necessary. Good work is being done by the Geological Survey and others, but the problem is so vast and the funding so scant that it is difficult to move forward at the current rate.
We are pleased that the subcommittee is holding this hearing on such an important issue. The American Farm Bureau Federation stands ready to assist the committee in addressing this serious problem.
INVASIVE SPECIES AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS HOME AREAS
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vernon J. Ehlers, James A. Barcia, Nick Smith, Lynn N. Rivers: Zebra mussels were brought to the Great Lakes region via ballast water discharge from European freighters. They can currently be found in 20 states (including NY, MI, MN, and PA), and as far south as the mouth of the Mississippi River. The mollusks clog water intake pipes and water filtration equipment causing economic losses in industry, power generation, and municipal water supplies. Nationwide costs for removal and control of the Zebra Mussel are estimated at $3.1 billion over ten years. Some estimates range as high as $5 billion over ten years for the Great Lakes alone.
The alewife is another example of an invasive species affecting the Great Lakes region. Currently, alewives make up 60–70% of the total fish biomass in Lake Michigan, having eliminated other fish species such as the lake herring and the emerald shiner. This has hurt both commercial and sport fishing in the region. Periodically, alewives have died off in large numbers, and the mass of carcasses washing up on shore has hurt tourism as well.
The spiny water flea is another species deposited in the Great Lakes via ballast water. Experts have yet to determine the impact of this species, but it could be significant. The spiny water flea competes with small fish for food, and reproduces prodigiously. Thus, it has the potential to significantly alter the food web. Moreover, the eggs of this crustacean are easily spread, making it a threat to nearby waterways and lakes.
Sherwood L. Boehlert, Felix J. Grucci, Jr., Anthony D. Weiner: Invasive species are also a problem in New York. One researcher estimates that 20% of the species in the Hudson River are non-native. In comparison, the nationwide average is 8%. Zebra Mussels have infested several of the major rivers, including a drainage that runs through the chairman's district. Purple loosestrife and Water Chestnut are also a problem insofar as they clog waterways, reducing recreational use values and water flow for farms and industries.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Asian long-horned beetle recently arrived in the U.S. via wooden shipping crates from China. It currently infests several communities in the New York City area. In New York City alone nearly 2000 trees were cut down due to beetle infestations between 1995 and 1998. 1998 APHIS regulations designed to force China to fumigate wooden packing crates caused China to threaten a trade war, and drew strong criticism from environmental groups. The beetle has now been found as far away as Chicago.
Ralph M. Hall: Leafy spurge is an aggressive weed originally brought to this country in contaminated seed in 1827. It currently infests 2.7 million acres throughout the contiguous states where it crowds out native species in open areas such as pastures and rangeland. Cattle will not graze on land that is more than 10–20% infested. Consequently, areas infested with leafy spurge suffer a drop in land value and a loss of agricultural jobs. Nationwide estimates of economic losses related to leafy spurge are estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Fire ants are a commonly known invasive species in the South. These ants are aggressive, efficient competitors that move into disturbed areas such as pastures and lawns. Some agricultural and livestock areas are severely affected, and citizens are unable to enter their yards in some residential areas. Direct and indirect damages total more than $300 million annually in Texas alone. Nationwide damages are approximately $2 billion per year.
Constance A. Morella, Wayne Gilchrest: Hydrilla is a common aquatic weed originally imported from Asia for use in aquariums. It displaces native species and causes serious problems with water flow and water use. Such problems include clogged irrigation pumps, flooding due to clogged drainage canals, hindered commercial and recreational navigation, and reduced recreational use value. Hydrilla is found in 16 states (including CT, PA, MD, TX, CA, and WA). Annually, $100 million is spent on controlling aquatic weeds in the U.S., and most aquatic weeds are non-native species.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Originally imported to stimulate the fur industry in 1899, Nutria have established populations in 22 states, and have been sighted in many others. These large rodents are very destructive to marsh vegetation, the loss of which is damaging to juvenile populations of shrimp, crabs, small fish, and oysters. A lack of natural enemies has led to explosive growth in Nutria population that trappers and hunters have been unable to check. The problem is so severe in Maryland that Congress has passed legislation (105–332) to help the state combat the problem.
Christopher Shays: Connecticut is not dramatically affected by invasive species at the present time. However, water chestnut, purple loosestrife, and Asian river clams have all been found in the state. Each has the potential to crowd out native species and cause millions of dollars in economic damage if not properly controlled. Public education and research into economically feasible control programs is necessary to prevent the spread of these and other damaging organisms.
Curt Weldon, Melissa A. Hart, Joseph M. Hoeffel: Pennsylvania does not have major terrestrial invasive species problems, but it shares the same problems as Michigan and other Great Lake states when it comes to aquatic invasive species in Lake Erie. The round goby is but one example. It aggressively feeds on bottom-dwelling fish, snails, mussels, and aquatic insects. It may also consume large quantities of eggs from commercially important fish. Thus, the round goby has the potential to negatively impact the commercial and sport fishing industry in the area. This industry is valued at $4.5 annually and employs 81,000 people.
The rusty crayfish is an invasive species that has invaded Pennsylvania from elsewhere in the U.S. More aggressive than its local counterparts, this crayfish can severely reduce aquatic vegetation, depriving other animals (including important sport fish) of their cover and prey. Declining populations of native crayfish may also affect entire aquatic ecosystems as higher animals are confronted with reduced numbers of familiar prey. Research in this area is ongoing as scientists attempt to determine whether or not the rusty crayfish can serve as an alternative food source for animals that normally prey on native species.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gil Gutknecht: Purple loosestrife is an aquatic plant originally imported from Europe in the early 1800's for both aesthetic and medicinal purposes. It can now be found growing wild in 42 of the contiguous states where it crowds out native plants and animals. This vegetative dominance has the potential to place more native species on the endangered species roles, and economic losses from the species are estimated at $45 million per year. In Minnesota alone, purple loosestrife covers more than 50,000 acres, threatening the interests of hunters, trappers, anglers, and others. Beetles have been used as a form of biocontrol, but release programs have not been able to keep up with new loosestrife infestations.
Chris Cannon, Jim Matheson: Spotted, diffuse, and Russian knapweed are widespread throughout the U.S., but are particularly problematic on rangelands in the West where it infests 32.3 million acres in 16 states. 65,500 acres in Utah were infested in 2000, and several species were on the rise. These weeds damage wildlife habitat, and are unpalatable to livestock. In nearby Montana, knapweed infestations cost $42 million in lost livestock productivity and control costs. The body of research on knapweed control has grown rapidly over the past decade, and numerous chemical and biological control programs have been developed.
Zoe Lofgren, Joe Baca: California has numerous damaging invasive species. Prominent among these is the yellow starthistle. Closely related to knapweed, yellow starthistle causes the same trouble with livestock and native vegetation as knapweed. Yellow starthistle is also toxic to horses. It poses a threat to orchards and annual grasslands as well, due to its ability to deplete soil moisture. It is estimated that this weed causes $16 to $56 million in water conservation losses alone. By 2000, yellow starthistle had infested 17 million acres in California, and was continuing to expand its range. As with knapweed, a base of research knowledge is currently developing, and numerous control strategies are being tested and utilized.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chinese immigrants originally imported the Asian river clam as a food item in 1938. It is currently found in the state of every member on the subcommittee, but it is very prevalent in California. The clam often damages the habitat of native species (both plant and animal) and competes with them for limited resources. Much like the Zebra Mussel, it fouls water intake pipes as well, causing an estimated $1 billion in losses nationwide.
Honeybee mites pose a significant threat to the agricultural industry of California. These tiny European and Asian mites obstruct the air passages of adult bees (sometimes fatally) and cause deformities in juveniles. This greatly reduces the pollination services of commercial colonies, which in turn drives up the cost of pollination for $10 billion worth of crops nation-wide. Food prices are affected in turn, as is honey production. Wild colonies of bees are often wiped out by even moderate infestations, but this may have a positive side effect. Africanized honeybees are equally affected, and their northward spread may have been checked by the spread of the mites. Strategies for controlling the mites primarily focus on making the bees less susceptible. Resistant bees have been introduced, and researchers are investigating the possibility of feeding bees special foods to make them less appealing to the mites.
Mark Udall: Ten percent of all native species in Colorado have been replaced by nonnative species. Various types of knapweed, yellow starthistle, and leafy spurge are all present in the state. In 2000 over 250,000 acres in Colorado were infested with knapweed alone.
Brian Baird: Cordgrass is a species of marine grass accidentally introduced to Washington from the east coast more than 100 years ago. When cordgrass spreads to a mudflat environment it establishes itself and turns the area in to high marsh. This greatly alters the basic food web, and many ecologically and commercially important species are affected as a result. The state government considers the spread of cordgrass serious enough to term it an ''environmental disaster''. Though no exact total is available (due to the wide variety of state, local, non-profit, and tribal organizations that participate), millions of dollars are spent each year in an attempt to eradicate cordgrass.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
J. Randy Forbes: The Formosan termite has spread throughout the southeastern United States since the end of World War II, and has recently reached Virginia. Though their method of destruction is the same as that of domestic termites, this Asian species is much more rapid in its devastation of trees and buildings. Control of Formosan termites is very difficult since pesticides sprayed on the outside of trees and buildings have little effect on the insects inside. Nation-wide estimates of damage are approximately $1 billion annually.
74542ee.eps
74542ff.eps
74542gg.eps
74542hh.eps
74542ii.eps
74542jj.eps
74542kk.eps
74542ll.eps
74542mm.eps
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(Footnote 1 return)
The complete study can be found at http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/jan99/species–costs.html
(Footnote 2 return)
The complete plan can be found at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nmp.shtml
(Footnote 3 return)
The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established to advise and assist the NSTC in increasing the effectiveness and productivity of federal research and development efforts in the area of the environment and natural resources. CENR addresses science policy and research and development that cut across agency boundaries and provides a formal mechanism for interagency coordination relevant to domestic and international environmental and natural resources issues. CENR has identified invasive species as a priority focus for integrated ecosystem research, for which the Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (CENR/SES) has established an interagency Task Team on Invasive Species (TTIS). CENR members include representatives from the White House, NOAA, Smithsonian Institution (SI), EPA, DOE, NASA, NSF, USDA, OMB, DOI, DHHS, DOT, DHUD, DOD, State, FEMA, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of the Coordinator for Meteorology, Central Intelligence Agency, and Council on Environmental Quality.