SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
80–225PS
2002
RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 20, 2002
Serial No. 107–72
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
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
ELYSE STRATTON Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 20, 2002
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement by Representative James A. Barcia, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Prepared Statement by Representative Constance A. Morella, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel I:
Statement by the Honorable Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate to Congress from the Territory of Guam
Written Statement
Panel II:
Dr. David M. Lodge, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Dr. L. David Smith, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, Smith College
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Ms. Maurya B. Falkner, Ballast Water Program Manager, California State Lands Commission
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Discussion
Resources for Research
Who Should Take the Lead?
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Role of NISA Reauthorization
Economic Incentives for Ballast Water Control
Distinguishing Pathways of Introduction
Proposed Ballast Water Regulations
Funding for Research
Other Sources of Introduction
Health Effects of Invasive Species
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. David M. Lodge, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Dr. L. David Smith, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, Smith College
Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute
Proposed Criteria for Determining Whether Proposed Technologies Meet NISA Requirements
Ballast Water Treatment Residuals, Environmental Laws and How They May Relate
Ms. Maurya B. Falkner, Ballast Water Program Manager, California State Lands Commission
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers from Congressman Robert A. Underwood, June 16, 2002
Appendix material for Gregory M. Ruiz Testimony, Role of the Smithsonian Institution in Coastal Invasion Research
National Invasive Species Council, Summary and Update, Research Task Team Actions, June 19, 2002
RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002
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 Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
80225a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Research Priorities for
Aquatic Invasive Species
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose
On Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House Science Committee will hold a hearing on research priorities to support the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). NISA establishes a federal program to control the spread of aquatic nuisance species and the brown tree snake. The hearing will examine gaps in our understanding of how invasive species are introduced and spread, and what research is required to enable state and federal officials to better manage aquatic invasive species.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee plans to explore several questions, including:
What research is needed to assess the relative risk of different invasion pathways?
What types of monitoring (for example, ecological surveys and pathway surveys) would support early detection of, and rapid response to, the introduction of an invasive species?
What research is required to enable more accurate characterization of the likelihood of a species becoming invasive once it is introduced?
What research is required to support the development of standards for ballast water and ''whole ship'' treatment?
What research programs should we pursue to develop new technologies to control the introduction of invasive species by ships entering or moving about U.S. waters?
2. Background
Aquatic invasive species damage infrastructure, disrupt commerce, crowd out native species, reduce biodiversity and threaten human health. Non-native species have been brought into the U.S., both intentionally and unintentionally, since the European discovery of the New World. Trappers introduced nutria (a rodent similar to a muskrat) to bolster the domestic fur industry, others introduced the purple loosestrife plant because it added rich color in gardens, but both have now become serious threats to wetlands. Many unintentional introductions have resulted from species hitching a ride in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the U.S. Zebra mussels, for example, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most non-native species do not survive because the new environment does not meet the species' biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions, such as lack of natural enemies, or an environment that fosters propagation, that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem. Only a small fraction of these non-native species become ''invasive species,'' which are defined as plants, animals, micro-organisms or viruses that are: 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 has caused enormous economic and environmental damage.
Zebra mussels clog lakes and waterways and adversely affect fisheries, public water supplies, irrigation, water treatment systems, and recreational activities, costing the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past ten years. In saltwater habitats, the European green crab has been associated with the demise of the soft-shell clam industry in New England, with an estimated cost to the industry of $44 million a year. While precise economic impacts are difficult to assess, a study by Cornell University scientists estimates that the total annual economic losses and associated control costs of invasive species in the U.S. is about $137 billion a year.
Invasive species also cause environmental damage that is 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.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressional Action
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 diverse, and largely consists of a series of regional 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 establishes a comprehensive approach to this issue, and no one agency is responsible for the prevention, control, monitoring of, and research on, 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, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers share responsibility for implementing the Act.
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 ballast water program for ships entering the Great Lakes. This Act also required the Coast Guard to study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of ballast exchange or other technologies in controlling invasive species.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NISA and the underlying 1990 legislation have been criticized for not going far enough to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species, and the agencies responsible for implementing the Act have failed to carry out many of its provisions, including setting standards for ballast water treatment, conducting ecological assessments, and prescribing management actions. Great Lakes states have been particularly upset with the lack of progress and implementation of NISA because new invasive species have been discovered since the mandatory ballast exchange measures of NISA went into effect. Many states have developed, or are in the process of developing, their own regulations and standards for treatment of ballast water. In addition, the amount of money the Congress has actually appropriated for this Act has been minimal and efforts to solve the problems addressed in the statute have been scattered.
Research Needs
Research underlies every aspect of detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and restoring ecosystems. Research is crucial to ensure that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. There are four broad areas in which new or expanded research could support the management objectives of NISA: 1) a better understanding of the pathways through which invasive species are introduced and the relative risk posed by these pathways; 2) an improved understanding of the vulnerability of ecosystems to invasion and the ''invasibility'' of species (the likelihood of a species becoming invasive once it is introduced); 3) research to support the development of interim and final standards for treatment of ship pathways; and 4) research to develop and deploy cost-effective ballast water control technologies, and to support a program to test, compare and certify different technologies. Each of these areas is discussed in greater detail below.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pathway Analysis
Scientists and policy makers have identified many pathways by which aquatic invasive species are introduced into U.S. waters. Water discharged from ships' ballast tanks has been identified as the most important pathway. As such, this pathway has received the most research, funding, and regulation. However, other pathways must also be addressed if we are to undertake a comprehensive effort to reduce the threat that invasive species pose. Other pathways that present significant threats include additional ship vectors (for example, hull fouling and equipment), the seafood industry, species brought over as pets, research (including biosupply houses and scientists), aquaculture, restoration projects, and aquariums. For instance, the seafood industry moves large volumes seafood long distances and hitchhiking species (including diseases and parasites) can be found in seafood crates.
Currently, little is known about the relative risks of the various pathways by which aquatic invasive species are introduced. Research can help to identify pathways that may play a significant role in these introductions and to characterize the species that are introduced, and the practices that contribute to their introduction. Further research can help characterize the relative risks of different pathways as well as identify new pathways, thus enabling optimal use of resources in controlling invasion.
Ecological and Biological Surveys and Research
Effective monitoring can enable early detection and rapid response, and helps to indicate whether control methods and technologies are working, but this will require research to develop and test monitoring and control protocols, methods, tools, and strategies.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ecological surveys include information on the structure and composition of ecosystems and how the ecosystems change over time. These surveys track the introduction and establishment of invasive species and indicate the biological, economic, cultural, and ecological factors that influence an ecosystem's vulnerability to an invader.
Pathway surveys characterize what organisms are introduced through various pathways, in what quantities, when, where they come from and where they are released. Ballast water surveys, in which ballast water is tested to determine the composition of organisms being released, are one example of a pathway survey. Pathway surveys have been conducted in several regions in the U.S., but one need identified by scientists is standardization and expansion of these surveys nationally.
One way that ecological and pathway surveys can be used is to help inform research to determine the ''invasibility'' of specific species. By monitoring both what species are being introduced through specific pathways and what species are established within ecosystems, it is possible to assess which non-native species are likely to be invasive. In this way, it may be possible to identify the characteristics of the most harmful species, which have ecosystem-level impacts, and use these characteristics to set priorities for which species to prevent, monitor and control.
Another area of research involves monitoring species that thrive in ecosystems abroad that are similar to those ecosystems found in the U.S. The record of a species' invasiveness in other geographic areas can be a predictor of its ability to invade and become established in the U.S. Through this kind of research, it may be possible to identify species that might pose a threat to U.S. ecosystems if introduced. This research would allow prevention efforts to target intentionally introduced species that appear to have a significant threat of becoming invasive.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Development of Interim and Final Standards for Treatment of Ship Vectors
The current standard for treatment of ballast water is ''at least as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling infestations.'' Ballast water exchange (BWE) involves replacing coastal water with open-ocean water during a voyage. This process reduces the density of coastal organisms in ballast tanks in order to lower the probability of survival of these organisms in U.S. waters. However, the Coast Guard has found it difficult to quantify the effectiveness of BWE, even though they are required to do so by NISA. The Coast Guard believes that the rate of effectiveness may vary greatly among vessels, organisms, and shipping routes. Several studies have indicated that BWE is not effective in preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species, and it cannot be performed safely on many ships and on coastal voyages.
On May 1, 2001, the Coast Guard published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on how to establish a ballast water treatment standard. The Coast Guard sought comments on four alternatives to BWE. The first alternative would set a standard based on the assumption that BWE is 100% effective. The second alternative would set a standard based on the measured average effectiveness of BWE across vessel types, and species types. The third alternative would set a standard based on best available technology. The fourth alternative would set a standard based on the biological requirements of U.S. waters that would receive ballast water. On March 4, 2002, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this topic.
Research is required to support all aspects of this standard-setting process including the assessment the effectiveness of BWE and the determination of the most effective yet feasible interim standard. Research is also required to support the development of methods to certify that ships are meeting this interim standard.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, research is required to support the development of a final ''whole ship'' standard for treatment of all ship pathways. A ''whole ship'' approach to the final standard is important so that species that are carried in other parts of the ship than ballast water are also addressed by the standard. In order to determine a final ''whole ship'' standard, research must identify the contribution of different ship modes (such as hull fouling and ballast water) to species introductions, and identify environmentally sound control methods to reduce transfers of these organisms.
Ballast Water Treatment Technologies
Research can help support the development of ballast water treatment technologies and protocols to test, compare and certify these technologies. Researchers (funded by both federal and state programs) and private companies are currently working on developing and testing new technologies to treat ballast water. Some examples of these technologies include onshore treatment, thermal treatment, UV treatment, chemical treatment, filtration and ozone treatment. While many of these technologies could serve as an alternative to BWE, there is little data on the overall effectiveness or environmental impact of these various treatment technologies. Many researchers and federal and state invasive species program managers have pointed out the need for a central resource to test, compare and certify ballast water treatment technologies.
Congress appropriated $2.25 million in FY02 in the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ballast water technology demonstration program which began in 1998. Under this program, NOAA has sponsored research on a wide range of alternatives for ballast water management including ultraviolet light, ozone injection, biocides, dissolved air flotation, filtration, onshore treatment, and separation. However, most of these projects have been bench-scale, laboratory research and few onboard systems have been tested.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Witnesses
Dr. David Lodge is a Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Lodge is the past Chair of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the National Invasive Species Council, and he has broad technical expertise on the unique research challenges that invasive species present and the impacts of invasive species. Supported by a Rhodes Scholarship, Dr. Lodge earned his Ph.D. from Oxford University in 1982 and joined the Notre Dame faculty in 1985.
Dr. David Smith is an Assistant Professor of Biological Science at Smith College. He is currently conducting research on invasion pathway dynamics for invasive species in New England. Prof. Smith has a M.S. in Marine Science from the University of South Carolina and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Maryland.
Dr. Greg Ruiz is a Senior Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. He has published widely on the subject of invasive species and currently is a member of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. He has been involved in efforts to monitor invasive species introductions in the Chesapeake. Dr. Ruiz has a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of California at Berkeley.
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute, and has been co-principal investigator and biological team leader of the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project since 1996. She has been a member of the United States delegation to the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (ballast water working group) since 1996. Ms. Cangelosi is also a member of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Invasive Species Council, organizing national support for NIS appropriations, and serving on the ANS Task Force Committees.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Maurya Falkner is a Staff Environmental Scientist with the Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission and Program Manager for the Ballast Water Management and Control Program. Ms. Falkner is a member of the Ballast Water Shipping Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project, and the State of Oregon's Ballast Water Task Force. She is the Principle Investigator on a National Sea Grant/USFWS funded project entitled ''West Coast Regional Applied Ballast Management Research and Demonstration Project.'' Ms. Falkner is a graduate of Colorado State University and earned an MS in ecology and BS in zoology.
Chairman EHLERS. I now call the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards to order, and I apologize for the delay caused by the general vote. I am pleased to welcome everyone to today's hearing where we will learn what research is needed to better understand how to deal with aquatic invasive species. If you have never heard the term invasive species before, you may be curious to know why we are focusing an entire hearing on this topic. I happen to have in my hand here right now a bottle full of the most damaging aquatic invaders that we have. This container holds several hundred zebra mussels taken out of Saginaw Bay in Michigan, which is the territory of my ranking member, Mr. Barcia from Michigan. All of these would fit in the palm of my hand and they all look fairly harmless. However, right now there are millions upon millions of zebra mussels infesting the Great Lakes and some other lakes and causing enormous harm.
Over the past 10 years, government and citizens on the Great Lake Basin has spent $3 billion mitigating problems caused by zebra mussels. Let me repeat that, $3 billion just within the Great Lakes Basin. These creatures clog our waterways, crowd out native species, plug up water intake pipes and create problems for boaters who have to spend time and money cleaning their boat hulls. And this example relates only to the damage caused by one species in a region that has an estimated 160 invasive aquatic species.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Great Lakes Basin and the Gulf of Mexico are host to over 800 aquatic invasive species just in these two regions, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many other lakes, rivers and bays have similar problems. Add to the mix the numerous terrestrial invasive species, and you begin to understand and see how, as one study estimated, invasive species cost the United States a whopping $137 billion each year. Let me repeat that number too, $137 billion each year. Yet, as we will hear from one of our witnesses today, the Federal Government spends only $21 million annually on research supporting the control, mitigation or elimination of invasive species. Even more troubling, we spend only approximately $6 million annually on research to support efforts to prevent these invaders from entering the U.S.
Research supports every part of dealing with the threat that invasive species pose, and today we'll hear testimony on several areas where we need more research in order to effectively combat these species.
First, we will hear about why and how people trying to prevent non-native species from entering the U.S. need a better understanding of all of the pathways through which these species travel. Ballast water and ships' exterior hulls, bait buckets, aquaculture and aquaria are all examples of paths that aquatic invasive species travel when they enter domestic waters. Second, we will hear how the Federal Government needs a better assessment of the relative risk that each of these pathways may pose. Third, we will hear how better monitoring and surveys can help us respond rapidly to new threats and inform us about the risks that species may pose to our economy and environment. Fourth, we will hear about research the Federal Government must do to develop comprehensive standards, that when applied, will reduce the risk that ships pose for introducing invasive species. Lastly, we will learn about proposals to support the development of technologies that will curb the flow of invaders from ships. All of these areas are critical components of a balanced and comprehensive invasive species research agenda.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is may hope that at the end of today's hearing, we will have a clear picture of the research priorities needed to prevent and manage aquatic invasive species. Congress can then deliberate about the best ways to support this research and how we can ensure the research results become part of management decisions. I will continue to be very active in advocating for and supporting the research necessary to address the enormous threat that is posed by invasive species.
I'll look forward to hearing from this panel. We thank them for being here, and I will now recognize the Subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Barcia, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS
I am pleased to welcome everyone to today's hearing where we will learn what research is needed to better understand how to deal with aquatic invasive species. If you have never heard the term ''invasive species'' before, you may be curious to know why we are focusing an entire hearing on this topic. I happen to have one of the most damaging aquatic invaders in my hand right now. This container holds several hundred zebra mussels taken out of the Saginaw Bay in Michigan. All of them would fit in the palm of my hand and look fairly harmless. However, right now there are millions of zebra mussels infesting the Great Lakes causing enormous harm.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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. Let me repeat that: $3 billion! These creatures clog our waterways, crowd out native species, plug up water intake pipes and create problems for boaters who have to spend time and money cleaning boat hulls. And this example relates only to the damage caused by one species, in a region that has an estimated 160 invasive aquatic species.
The Great Lakes Basin and the Gulf of Mexico are host to over 800 aquatic invasive species—just in these two regions. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many other lakes, rivers, and bays have similar problems. Add to the mix the numerous terrestrial invasive species, and you begin to see how, as one study estimated, invasive species cost the United States a whopping $137 billion each year. Let me repeat that $137 billion. Yet as we will hear from one of our witnesses today, the Federal Government spends only $21 million annually on research supporting the control, mitigation, or elimination of invasive species. Even more troubling, we spend only approximately $6 million annually on research to support efforts to prevent these invaders from entering the U.S.
Research supports every part of dealing with the threat that invasive species pose. And today we will hear testimony on several areas where we need more research in order to effectively combat these species.
First, we will hear about why and how people trying to prevent non-native species from entering the U.S. need a better understanding of all the pathways through which these species travel. Ballast water and ships' exterior hulls, bait buckets, aquaculture, and aquariums are all examples of paths that aquatic invasive species travel when they enter domestic waters. Second, we will hear how the Federal Government needs a better assessment of the relative risk that each of these pathways may pose. Third, we will hear how better monitoring and surveys can help us respond rapidly to new threats and inform us about the risks that species may pose to our economy and environment. Fourth, we will hear about research the Federal Government must do to develop comprehensive standards, that when applied, will reduce the risk that ships pose for introducing invasive species. Lastly, we will learn about proposals to support the development of technologies that will curb the flow of invaders from ships. All of these areas are critical components of a balanced and comprehensive invasive species research agenda.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my hope that, at the end of today's hearing we will have a clear picture of the research priorities needed to prevent and manage aquatic invasive species. Congress can then deliberate about the best ways to support this research and how we can ensure the research results become part of management decisions. I will continue to be very active in advocating for and supporting the research needed to address the enormous threat that is posed by invasive species.
I look forward to hearing from the panel, and now recognize the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Barcia.
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially for calling this very timely meeting once again to visit this critical issue that our Nation is confronting. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing, and as most of you know, this hearing is the second this Subcommittee has held during this Congress on this very important issue.
Invasive species are a growing problem that we need to address with a proactive approach. Michigan's location on the shores of four of the five Great Lakes has provided us with many benefits. It has also posed many challenges in our attempt to control the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in our state's waters. Invasive species have changed the basic nature of the Great Lakes' ecology, which we still do not fully understand. Ballast water has been one of the largest sources of invasive species in the Great Lakes. Representative Hoekstra and I reintroduced the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act last year to require the Department of Transportation to develop ballast water standards to prevent the introduction of invasive species to the Great Lakes through ballast water, yet we still do not have ballast water standards.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clearly, we still have a great deal of work to do to control the invasive species that are already established. Recent estimates of the impact of invasive species throughout the Nation indicate costs of over $100 billion each year. While it is important to develop safe and effective control programs, we need to do more to identify potentially harmful species and prevent their introduction. Research and development will play an important role in this type of effort.
In Michigan, our experience is that species are only labeled invasive after it is almost always too late to control their spread or damage. However, invasive species are not a Michigan problem or even a Great Lakes problem. Invasive species problems are found throughout this country. The Federal Government must take a leadership role in funding research and development and in disseminating the results to state and local governments. I am concerned that we may not be sufficiently funding the appropriate research.
In addition, we need to do a better job of synthesizing and organizing the information we do have to help state and local resource managers work with a diverse group of stakeholders to develop effective prevention and control strategies.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our distinguished panel of witnesses about how we can improve the Federal research and outreach on invasive species, and I thank all of you for participating today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barcia follows:]
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JAMES A. BARCIA
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
This hearing is the second this Subcommittee has held during this Congress on this very important issue. Invasive species are a growing problem that we need to address with a pro-active approach.
Michigan's location on the shores of four of the five Great Lakes has provided us with many benefits, but it has also posed many challenges in our attempt to control the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in our state waters.
Invasive species have changed the basic nature of the Great Lakes ecology, which we still do not fully understand. Ballast water has been one of the largest sources of invasive species in the Great Lakes.
Rep. Hoekstra and I reintroduced the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act last year to require the Department of Transportation to develop ballast water standards to prevent the introduction of invasive species to the Great Lakes through ballast water. Yet, we still do not have ballast water standards.
Clearly, we still have a great deal of work to do to control the invasive species that are already established. Recent estimates of the impact of invasive species throughout the nation indicate costs of over $100 billion dollars each year. While it is important to develop safe and effective control programs, we need to do more to identify potentially harmful species and prevent their introduction. Research and development will play an important role in this type of effort. In Michigan, our experience is that species are only labeled invasive after it is almost always too late to control their spread or damage.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, invasive species are not a Michigan problem or even a Great Lakes problem. Invasive species problems are found throughout this country. The Federal Government must take a leadership role in funding research and development and in disseminating the results to State and local governments. I am concerned that we may not be sufficiently funding the appropriate research. In addition, we need to do a better job of synthesizing and organizing the information we do have to help state and local resource managers work with the diverse group of stakeholders to develop effective prevention and control strategies.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our distinguished panel of witnesses about how we can improve the federal research and outreach program on invasive species. I thank all of you for participating today.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Barcia. It's my pleasure today to introduce for the first panel, one witness, a colleague of ours. And I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Underwood who is Guam's delegate in Congress, and he will be testifying for five minutes. I might also mention that he probably has a greater ratio of shoreline to land mass than anyone representing any state in the union.
Panel I:
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barcia, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impact of the brown tree snake problem in Guam and to advocate strongly for the setting of new research priorities that would meet the objectives of the National Invasive Species Act. Most of you are probably familiar with the brown tree snake problem from lurid pseudo-docudramas on the Discovery Channel which departs from its usual scientific base programming visiting the exhibit at the National Zoo, showing the native Guam rail running around oblivious to the brown tree snake merely inches from her path, from environmentalists or from my own comments representing Guam.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today I want to reiterate the damages caused by the brown tree snake on Guam, state that current research priorities have not effectively reduced the number of snakes in Guam, and to advocate new priorities that are clearly necessary to meet the objectives for brown tree snake control that are laid out in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
The non-native brown tree snake is causing substantial environmental and economic damage in Guam. This mildly venomous reptile was accidentally introduced to Guam after World War II and has flourished in the island's ecosystem. Currently, over one million snakes are estimated to currently exist in Guam on an island that is only 30 miles long and 200 square miles.
The snakes are responsible for the extinction of ten of the 13 native bird species, two of three bat species, half of the 12 native lizard species. The loss of these species, the island's pollinators and seed dispensers and insect predators have caused shifts in the plant species that have resulted in further ecological damage. Brown tree snakes have also been economically costly to Guam. Brown tree snakes are known to climb high-voltage wires and short out electrical transformers. Just last Friday, we had an island-wide power outage caused by brown tree snakes. It is also important to prevent the spread of brown tree snakes from Guam to new locations.
This island invasion of Hawaii by non-native species including the brown tree snake has been named as the greatest threat to Hawaii's economy and natural environment. However, I believe that funding projects that will actively reduce the number of brown tree snakes in Guam will help prevent the snakes from being established elsewhere, which have been found in Texas, Saipan and Hawaii.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lastly, I wish to state that one of the greatest costs of the brown tree snake may be the damage to the general public's image of Guam. Guam's private sector economy is driven by tourism. When you mention Guam, people don't normally think of Guam's beautiful beaches and hotels. Instead, because of sensationalist television programming trumpeting brown tree snake terror, people retain images of brown tree snakes dripping off tree branches and of their sliding into rooms and biting babies as they sleep. In fact, the majority of all snakes live in the jungle away from human contact and are active mainly at night. The snake is only mildly venomous and its bite is no worse than a bee sting, and people rarely see the snake themselves unless they're looking for them.
Brown tree snake control was first legislatively mandated in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The Brown Tree Snake Control Committee created under section 1209 states that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Taskforce shall undertake a comprehensive environmentally sound program in coordination with regional, territorial, state and local entities to control the brown tree snake. The bulk of research monies to control brown tree snakes have been directed at prevention, basic biological research, trapping and barrier technologies.
However laudable and important these projects are, none have substantially reduced the number of snakes on Guam. Reducing the number of brown tree snakes overall should be an important research priority rather than just controlling them in Guam. It would be comparable to ensuring that a Federal effort would be simply designed at keeping the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes and not moving them elsewhere, and that's basically the general Federal Government's participation. The brown tree snake has been the poster child for control programs. An image of a brown tree snake is on the very first page of the National Invasive Species Management Plan for 2001. It is time that we think outside the box. New innovative snake reduction research projects seeking funding, including discovering how to lure the snakes into traps using pheromones or other chemical substances or finding an effective way to deliver Tylenol to the snakes, which kills them. We must increase our focus from plans to exclude snakes from not only transport facilities and fenced-off areas, but to include plans to work to achieve the eradication or reduction of the brown tree snake problem.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To this end, I present four items. One, fund scientists or researchers whose research concentrates on actively reducing the number of brown tree snakes rather than focus primarily on preventative control measures. Two, research that receives Federal monies should be evaluated regularly using performance-based measures. These measures would assess not only if a project had completed its stated goals, but it could examine how well the research fits into the broader efforts to reduce and control brown tree snake numbers. Three, designate a central individual at the Interior Department, perhaps on the National Invasive Species Council, to review brown tree snake efforts to ensure local, territorial, state and Federal cooperation and coordination and to establish policy directives that work for both snake exclusion and action oriented population reduction efforts and to monitor how projects are funded. Four, seek innovative strategies for future funding. The majority of brown tree snake funding currently comes from governmental sources, much of it out of the Office of Insular Affairs, which really means that money that is normally directed at territorial projects are now diverted to brown tree snakes, and Office of Insular Affairs has no expertise in this area.
To conclude, I think that the traditional methods have not worked. They have been focused too much on control and not enough on eradication. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barcia, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impact of the brown tree snake problem in my home district of Guam and to advocate strongly for the setting of new research priorities that would meet the objectives of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA).
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I. Brown Tree Snake on Guam
Most of you are probably familiar with the brown tree snake problem from lurid psuedo-docudramas on the Discovery Channel, visiting the exhibit at the National Zoo that show the native Guam Rail running around oblivious to the brown tree snake housed mere inches from her path, from environmentalists, or from my own comments as the Congressman representing Guam.
Today, I want to reiterate the damages caused by brown tree snake on Guam, state that current research priorities have not effectively reduced the number of snakes on Guam, and to advocate that new priorities are clearly necessary to meet the objectives for Brown Tree Snake Control that are laid out in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).
The non-native brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is causing substantial environmental and economic damage on Guam. This mildly venomous reptile was accidentally introduced to Guam after World War II, and it has flourished in the island's ecosystem. Currently, over one million snakes are estimated to currently exist on Guam, an island that is only thirty miles long and 200 total square miles.
The snakes are responsible for the extinction of 10 of 13 native bird species, two of three bat species, and half of the 12 native lizard species. The loss of these species—the island's pollinators, seed dispersers, and insect predators—has caused shifts in the plant species that have resulted in further ecological damage.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Brown tree snakes have also been economically costly to Guam. Brown tree snakes are known to climb high voltage wires and short out electrical transformers. While this problem has been limited by the use of preventative technology, the costs of damaged electrical infrastructure and loss of productivity continue. There are also substantial costs associated with efforts to prevent the snakes from being transported away from Guam and introduced to other islands. The sheer number of snakes on Guam, coupled with the facts that the snakes are active at night and like to hide in small areas, have resulted in snakes stowing away in air transport and shipping vessels. Brown tree snakes from Guam have been found in Texas, Saipan, and Hawaii. Preventative measures, including trapping, barriers, and checking transports using Jack Russell terriers to sniff out snakes, have required cooperation among numerous federal agencies and the governments of Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
It is important to prevent the spread of brown tree snakes from Guam to new locations. The silent invasion of Hawaii by non-native species, including the brown tree snake, has been named as the ''greatest threat to Hawaii's economy and natural environment and to the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people.'' However, I believe that funding projects that will actively reduce the numbers of brown tree snakes on Guam will help prevent the snakes from being established elsewhere.
Lastly, I wish to state that one of the greatest costs of brown tree snakes may be their damage to the general public's image of Guam. Guam's private sector economy is driven by tourism. When you mention Guam, people don't think of Guam's beautiful beaches and hotels—instead, because of sensationalist television shows trumpeting brown tree snake terror, people retain images of brown tree snakes dripping off tree branches and of their sliding into homes and biting babies as they sleep. In fact, the majority of all snakes live in the jungle away from human contact, and are active mainly at night. The snake is only mildly venomous, and it's bite is no worse than a bee sting to most adults. Visitors to Guam rarely see brown tree snakes.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
II. Brown Tree Snake Prevention and Control—Research Priorities for Guam
Brown tree snake control was first legislatively mandated in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA). The Brown Tree Snake Control Committee, created under Section 1209, states that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force shall ''undertake a comprehensive, environmentally sound program in coordination with regional, territorial, State and local entities to control the brown tree snake''.
The bulk of research monies to control brown tree snake have been directed at prevention, basic biological research, trapping, and barrier technologies. However laudable and important these projects are, none of these types of research have substantially reduced the number of snakes on Guam!
Reducing the number of brown tree snakes overall should be an important research priority. However, due to the lack of clear sources of funding and accountability by federal agencies, I believe it has been difficult to achieve this goal and the original intent of NANPCA and NISA. Currently, $2.3 million is funded through the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) at the Interior Department. This money goes to other federal agencies and territorial governments. OIA does not have the expertise on invasive species. Greater coordination within the Interior Department is necessary to properly coordinate internally as well as among the other federal agencies and territorial governments.
The brown tree snake has literally been the poster-child for control programs—an image of a brown tree snake adorn the very first page of the National Invasive Species Management Plan for 2001. It is past time that we think outside the box. New, innovative snake reduction pheramones or other chemical substances, or finding an effective way to deliver Tylenol to the snakes (the drug acetaminophen in Tylenol is toxic to reptiles). We must increase our focus from plans to exclude snakes from only transport facilities and fenced off areas to include plans that work to achieve eradication or reduction of the brown tree snake population on Guam.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
III. Priorities for Control and Coordination
To this end, I present to you four items, which, while detailed here for brown tree snake, can be applied in a generalized fashion to combat invasive species at large.
1. Fund scientists or researchers whose research concentrates on actively reducing the numbers of brown tree snakes, rather than focus primarily on preventative control measures to keep the brown tree snake from leaving Guam and entering new locations.
2. Research that receives federal monies should be evaluated regularly using performance based measures. These measures would assess not only if a project had completed its stated goals, but it would examine how well the research fits into the broader efforts to reduce and control brown tree snake numbers.
3. Designate a central individual at the Interior Department, perhaps on the National Invasive Species Council or the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, to review brown tree snake research efforts, to ensure local, territorial, state, and federal cooperation and coordination, and to establish policy directives that work for both snake exclusion and action oriented population reduction efforts, and to monitor how projects are funded.
4. Seek innovative strategies for future funding. The majority of brown tree snake funding currently comes from governmental sources. There should be greater coordination with the private sector and non-governmental organizations in pursuing other funding opportunities, given the significant economic and ecological implications associated with the brown tree snake.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IV. Conclusion
To conclude, traditional methods of snake control, such as trapping and barrier technologies, that are currently being implemented have proven insufficient to eradicate, or even successfully control, brown tree snakes on Guam. Therefore, new research priorities must be created that fund strategies that will actively reduce snake populations, provide performance based evaluations of grants given to brown tree snake research, and new partnership to opportunities must be explored. Most importantly, we must designate one official to act as a clearinghouse for brown tree snake research and grant coordination, and we must create accountability and increase coordination among agencies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to present my views on to the Subcommittee.
Chairman EHLERS. Well, thank you for your testimony. It's interesting how invasive species problems occur everywhere in the world, and we certainly sympathize with your plight and hope we can find a solution to it. I've thought of a few while you were talking, and I'll talk to you privately later.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I hope they don't involve, you know, getting St. Patrick out to Guam or something like that. I hope that it's really scientifically based. And, you know, just for the record, I think I've been contacted by every snake diviner in this country for the past six or seven years telling me how they can control it if I would just get them a ticket to come out to Guam.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Yes. Well, perhaps you can be St. Underwood and drive the snakes out.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes.
Chairman EHLERS. As you well know, we normally do not have a question time for Members of Congress, but we thank you very much for your testimony and appreciate you appearing here.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much.
Chairman EHLERS. And if there's no objection, all additional opening statements submitted by Subcommittee Members will be added to the record without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morella follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on invasive species. Between the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, both Michigan and Maryland have a huge stake in this issue and I appreciate your commitment to keeping this subject on the forefront of the Committee's agenda.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Invasive species represent a clear and grave threat to both our ecology and our economy. Economic costs are over a hundred billion dollars per year and are steadily rising. What's more, globalization and the increased mobility of both people and goods are only exacerbating the problem. The expansion of capitol markets and increased global trade are constantly creating new and more efficient vectors for the introduction of potentially damaging species. Research and oversight is sorely needed to manage this expansion and prevent the introduction of harmful invasive species while maintaining commercial growth and development.
Unfortunately, our efforts are poorly positioned to address these new threats. Research, and management dollars tend to be concentrated on dealing with established organisms, rather than preventing the arrival of new ones. We continue to spend all of our efforts on bailing the boat, rather than plugging the leak. Our priorities have to change. More time must be spent on understanding the process by which these species invade our environment and developing ways to prevent their arrival. And as with any ongoing and uncertain effort, sound policy decisions must be made to effectively implement known solutions without discouraging new and innovative alternatives.
In addition, our current efforts are a bit haphazard. Research dollars seem spread out over a broad range of agencies and collaboration among efforts seems limited. They are also regionally concentrated and I worry that regional solutions are not being exported to other areas. I am concerned about the level of organization and will be interested in the witnesses' comments regarding the need for a coordinating body or expanded authority for the National Invasive Species Council.
I know we have a distinguished panel of witnesses today and I am eager to hear their testimony. I hope they will give us a candid assessment of our current status and concrete steps for future action. Thank you.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH
I would like to thank Chairman Ehlers for holding this hearing today to help us explore the ways we can prevent the damaging behavior of invasive species. Being from Michigan, I am well aware of the problems zebra mussels have posed to the Great Lakes region. Over the past ten years, the Great Lakes community has collectively spent about $3 billion to mitigate the destruction zebra mussels have caused to lakes, waterways, fisheries, public water supplies, irrigation, and water treatment systems.
I join Chairman Ehlers' call for more research to investigate causes and preventative measures associated with invasive species. In 1996, we amended the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevent and Control Act to establish a mandatory ballast water program in the Great Lakes area and on a voluntary basis for the rest of the Nation. We must use further research to determine ways we can effectively fight the threats caused by the introduction of invasive species.
I look forward to using today's hearing as a benchmark for further research into this matter. Invasive species have proven to be damaging and costly for not only the Great Lakes, but the entire Nation as well.
Chairman EHLERS. At this point, we will turn to our second panel. The experts that we have invited to testify, please take a seat at the table. Thank you for being with us today. I would like to introduce the second panel. We will begin with Dr. David Lodge, who is a professor of biological sciences at the University of Notre Dame, close enough to Michigan so that you know it's a very good school. He is also the past chair of the Advisory Committee of the National Invasive Species Council. Next, we have Dr. David Smith, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Smith College. Following him will be Dr. Greg Ruiz, who is a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Could you just tell me where you are located on that because I know they have several?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RUIZ. Yes. In Edgewater, Maryland on the shore of Chesapeake just below Annapolis.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Next, someone who is not a stranger to us, Ms. Allegra Cangelosi who is a senior policy analyst at the Northeast Midwest Institute, which also includes Michigan. And finally, Ms. Maurya Falkner, who is a staff environmental scientist with the marine facilities division of the California State Lands Commission and program manager for the Ballast Water Management and Control Program. As our witnesses I believe have been told, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. We ask you to honor that to the greatest extent possible, and if you exceed it by very much, terrible things will happen to you. Either a trap door will open or you won't get tenure if you don't have—and after you've all testified, then each of us will have five minutes to ask questions of you. We will begin with Dr. Lodge.
Panel II:
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID M. LODGE, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
Dr. LODGE. Thank you. I do have tenure at Notre Dame, so how many extra minutes does that get me? I appreciate the introduction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members for the honor of being here to talk to you today about the important issue of aquatic invasive species. As you know from my resume, I come from an academic institution where we have a lot of invasive species related research going on, including research on rusty crayfish, zebra mussels, Eurasian river ruffe, which is a fish. We're working on a couple of other things that I'll mention during the next five minutes. And most recently, we've been working on combining economic and ecological analyses, something that I think is very important in order—research to do that is very important in order to help us decide how to spend scarce resources in response to this issue of invasive species.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to start, though, with a little family history. The gentleman in the middle of this picture is my great-grandfather. He's very proud in this picture of the plant in the foreground, which he's responsible for introducing into his part of central Alabama in the late 1930's. This plant, of course, is kudzu. It was very effective at controlling erosion, but now we are very aware, painfully aware of it's role as a nuisance, a very expensive nuisance. And like brown tree snake and like most other invasive species, we will never rid the country of kudzu. It's here. This invasion, like most other invasions, is forever. Unlike other forms of pollution, chemical pollution for example, this is the least reversible form of pollution. Chemicals, if we stop putting them in the environment, we can correct that problem. Chemicals don't reproduce. Kudzu and other invasive species do reproduce. These invasions, unfortunately for the most part, are forever. And while terrestrial invasions are painfully obvious like kudzu, the invasions that are going on underwater, while perhaps less apparent to most people, are equally important and equally expensive.
The sea lamprey is a great example that we've had for about a hundred years in the Great Lakes. The good news is that we know how to kill it. We know how to kill it because a lot of basic biological research was done early on to learn the intricacies of the life cycle of sea lampreys and to pinpoint its vulnerabilities to selective toxins. The bad news is conducting this costs us $14 million per year in perpetuity. If we wish to control its abundance at levels below which we cause damage to the fishery, this is one invasive species that we know how to kill that costs $14 million per year in perpetuity. These and many other examples would suggest that we need to be putting more attention on prevention in order to keep these sorts of train wrecks from happening.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, there are lots of other species besides brown tree snake, kudzu and sea lamprey waiting in the wings. This example from San Francisco Bay illustrates the accelerating rate with which species are arriving in concert with global commerce. Again, we need to prevent this. But if we look at the spending by the Federal Government in recent years, what we see is a research portfolio that's been effective in part in some of the later stages of invasions on control, for example, where a great deal of money is spent. But the proportion of the research portfolio spent on prevention, indicated here about $6 million per year in recent years, is a very low, too low, a proportion of what we've been spending. We need much more emphasis on research.
Well, what would that ideal research portfolio look like? I would argue that to begin with, it's got to include a major component of pathway analysis. We've done a decent job in recent years, as we'll hear from other panelists, about ballast water research, about ship-related research, which as you'll notice on this graph is quite far down on a national scale. These are fragmentary but the best data that we have that indicate clearly that at a national level, there are lots of other pathways, and we simply have virtually no research trying to understand these pathways, research that would lead to prevention.
We need to know what species are coming so that we can think about what to do about them. One such effort in the Illinois Mississippi River is showing these two species of alien carps that are increasing dramatically in abundance, as that graph indicates, and they are within a year of invading Lake Michigan unless additional steps are taken. We need to know whether those carp and other species are worth spending resources on. And by the way, those carp are an imminent danger. But there are other species that invade that aren't. We need to know. We need to be able to distinguish those species. Some of the research by my post-doc Cindy Kolar at Notre Dame and I have been doing indicate, for example, these five species that are not yet in North America are ones that we ought to be paying real attention to because they're likely to cause severe problems if they were introduced. This kind of research should focus our attention on screening and prevention. We need to know how to improve the barrier in the canals that connect the Illinois River with Lake Michigan so we can stop those Asian carp and the hundreds of other species from moving in either direction and continuing to spread.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And finally, all these research goals that I've just had time to barely mention, call for three underlying infrastructure needs. The first one refers to the fact that we often don't know what we're looking at when we, for example, sample ships at Notre Dame and try to identify what's in them. There are lots of organisms there, but we don't have the underlying expertise in the biological research community to guide those efforts. Ecological forecasting is what we need to be looking forward the sort of research that would inform prevention, and if the opportunity arises, I can talk more about that. And finally, as the National Management Plan points out, we need much better coordination among the Federal agencies in order to have a balanced portfolio with respect to prevention and the other research needs on this important issue. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lodge follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. LODGE
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I am honored to have the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I thank the Committee, especially Chairman Ehlers, for the invitation to testify. As you may know from my resume, I come to the issue of aquatic invasive species from the perspective of an active researcher in this field and from my experiences at the science-policy interface. I am a Professor of biology at the University of Notre Dame, where my colleagues and I have on-going research that includes the following topics: measuring and controlling the impact of invasive rusty crayfish; forecasting the spread and impact of zebra mussel and Eurasian river ruffe; quantifying the risk of ship-related releases of invasive species through both ship sampling and population modeling; developing species screening protocols, focused initially on fishes in the Great Lakes; and combining economic and ecological risk analyses to guide allocation of resources among management options. I am the past Chairman and current member of the national Invasive Species Advisory Committee.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me begin with some painfully obvious examples, from my own experience, of terrestrial invasive species. At the birdfeeders in my backyard in urban South Bend, IN, the three most common birds by far are starlings, house sparrows, and house finches. All three of these are invasive species, obvious to any person because of their ubiquity and abundance. All are serious nuisances across most of North America. In central Alabama, my great grandfather introduced kudzu onto his farm in the late 1930s. Like many other farmers, he did so to control erosion, with the strong encouragement of the national, State, and county governments. Now, kudzu is a major nuisance across the southern U.S., and it is still spreading.
Underwater—in our lakes and rivers—there are many more species that are less visible, but just as damaging to our native ecosystems and often to our nation's economy. Invasive species are the leading cause of the loss of freshwater biodiversity. Invasive aquatic species are what we want to focus on today. In southern Lake Michigan, for example, where recreational and commercial anglers used to harvest vast numbers of prized native yellow perch, now only invasive round gobies are caught. In the lakeside economically depressed areas in northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan, where poor boys and girls used to be able to catch their dinner off the breakwaters, fishing is now futile. I've had this experience myself: pulling in small and useless goby after goby, with not a single native or useful fish species in hours of fishing.
When most of us think of invasive species, we tend to get engrossed in the idiosyncratic details of the latest unexpected arrival—round goby, rusty crayfish, green crab, purple loosestrife, Caulerpa seaweed, hydrilla, zebra mussels, whirling disease of trout, and Asian carp. Unfortunately, a complete list of alien species that are already a problem would be thousands of names long. Reading such a list would seem almost as heavy as a reading of the names on the Vietnam Memorial—only this list would be a list of perpetrators, not dead heroes. Such a reading would constitute a litany of terrific environmental and economic damage. For example, the most recent—but very incomplete—accounting suggests that invasive species cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year. And as I will suggest, our nation could have avoided most of those costs with much smaller investments in prevention and control, and the research to support those efforts. And if we don't begin those investments now, the list of invasive species will continue to grow at an accelerating rate, driven by the rapid globalization of trade.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Especially for biologists, but apparently also for the media and government leaders like yourselves, learning the details of each invasive species—like how many eggs a zebra mussel spews out or which lake they've colonized most recently or how exactly they clog up pipes—is all too often very fascinating. With respect to solving the broader problem of invasive species, though, indulging all the details of today's invasive species is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns. Or, for a more environmental metaphor, like studying a few individual trees when the goal is to describe the forest. While we are preoccupied learning about and reacting to today's nuisance species, 100s more species are silently crossing our borders. Today, I want to recommend some steps to take in research to avoid missing the forest for the trees. We have already begun to take some of these steps in the Nation's research infrastructure, but we are woefully behind on others.
The background: the universal process of species invasions
The foundation for an effective research portfolio must be an understanding of the underlying process that is common to every invasion. The process of invasion is best envisioned as a series of transitions through which a species must pass to become a nuisance (Fig. 1). Every species is, of course, native somewhere. Although species do occasionally expand their ranges without human assistance, movement of humans and their commerce has increased the rate at which species move beyond their natural confines by a hundred-fold to a million-fold. The major human pathways that move aquatic species include ships (ballast tank discharges and movements of species on ship hulls); dispersal through canals; stocking by private and public agencies; aquaculture escapes; the aquarium trade; the watergarden trade; the live bait trade; the biological supply trade; and the live food trade. The order in which I have listed these pathways constitutes a plausible guesstimate of their relative importance in introducing species into the U.S., but, as I will emphasize later, we have very poor estimates of the absolute or relative importance of different pathways on a regional or national scale.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some of these pathways are ''intentional'' while others are ''unintentional.'' Intentional pathways include the aquarium trade, where introducing novel species into trade is often a key to business success. The goal of such pathways is not usually to introduce species into the environment, but that is the inevitable consequence of the common behavior of vendors and consumers like you and me. In some special cases, including intentional stocking and bioterrorism, the goal is to have species become established in natural environments. Unintentional pathways include ballast discharge and canals, where it is not a goal to introduce species into the natural environment, but it is known that thousands-to-millions of individuals of tens-to-thousands of species are nevertheless regularly released (ballast) or provided a conduit for dispersal from connected watersheds (canals).
Once a species is entrained in a pathway, it must survive transport so that it is deposited in the new environment alive (Fig. 1). This is increasingly common because transport times have declined dramatically in recent decades as, for example, ships and planes have become faster. If a species is released in a new environment alive, it is then referred to as an ''alien'' or ''exotic'' or ''nonindigenous'' species.
80225b.eps
If a species is deposited alive in a new environment in sufficient numbers under favorable conditions, it will establish a self-sustaining population (Fig. 1). Of the species that become established, some will remain localized, while others will spread. Of those that spread, some will reduce the biodiversity of native species, damage ecosystems, or cause economic harm (Fig. 1). Sea lamprey, green crab, Caulerpa, and zebra mussels are all examples of this last group of species, which are, of course, the species of greatest concern.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The proportion of transported species that become invasive is small, as reflected by the declining thickness of arrows (Fig 1). However, because the absolute number of species being transported is increasingly large, a large and growing number of nuisance species emerges every year. Forecasting which species are likely to spread widely and cause damage has not been, but should be, an important research goal.
The management implications that emerge from recognizing this universal invasion process (Fig. 1) are straightforward. Prevention is possible only early in the process; there is only a brief window of opportunity to discover a newly established species and eradicate it; and mitigation and maintenance control—when they are possible at all—are the only options after a species has spread (Fig. 1). Of depressing significance by comparison with terrestrial species (which we often know how to selectively kill), we simply do not know how to selectively kill most—probably well over 90 percent—of aquatic species. By the time a species has become a nuisance, it is usually too late for effective response, because the technology for control does not exist, because the response would be more expensive than society is currently willing to pay, or both. Thus, the most common past outcome has been that we simply adapted to the environmental and economic damage perpetrated by most invasive species. But that is not the only option, and certainly not the best option, as I will illustrate below.
In the context of endangered species, you've probably heard it said that ''extinction is forever.'' Unfortunately, it is also usually true that invasion is forever. Biological invasions are the least reversible form of pollution. In contrast, most other forms of pollution—like the nitrogen and sulfur compounds of air pollution, the CFCs that destroy ozone, and PCBs—degrade or get buried, and the problems they cause decline eventually, if only we stop adding molecules of them to the environment. Chemical pollutants, in other words, do not reproduce; species do. Even if we stop adding individual round gobies to Lake Michigan, their populations will continue to grow, they will spread down the Mississippi River, and their environmental and economic damage will grow exponentially.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Controlling sea lamprey in the Great Lakes is an especially instructive and sobering success story. Because of their unusual life history and biology (including a 7-year larval stage aggregated in streams), they are susceptible to a toxin (TFM) that (at the appropriate concentration) does not kill many other species and does not have to be applied lake-wide. In other words, we know how to kill them without killing everything else. That is the encouraging part. The sobering part is two-fold. First, we simply do not know how to kill most other aquatic nuisance species without killing great numbers of non-target species. Second, the cost of successful monitoring and control of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes is $14 million per year, paid jointly by the U.S. and Canada since about 1956. Barring dramatic new discoveries, such costs will continue in perpetuity if we are to continue to protect the fisheries of the Great Lakes. With such high recurring costs for just one species, it is easy to see that a dollar invested in research and prevention would pay huge dividends to society. Given the irreversibility of most species pollution, prevention should be the primary focus. As we will see, however, prevention has not been the primary focus in management or in the research supporting management.
Now that we have a common context for evaluating the challenges of invasive species, I will focus on research in support of invasive species management. In general, my message will be that we need to be proactive, which is in striking contrast to past practice, which was largely reactive. As an example, until recently in the Great Lakes, about 95 percent of research dollars were spent on species after they had become established—way down at the bottom of the invasion process, where little management could actually be done (Fig. l). What is needed is additional research and management at the earlier stages of the invasion process, when prevention, eradication, and restoration are still possible. I elaborate below on the current and ideal research portfolios in support of invasive species management.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Current invasive species research portfolio
The current federal portfolio of research on aquatic invasive species is meager indeed (Table 1), especially in comparison with the costs imposed on society by invasive species and in comparison with research investments on terrestrial invasive species. More importantly, it is simply inadequate to inform the protection of the natural capital and ecosystem services provided to humans by our aquatic ecosystems. A composite of the two years for which data exist (Table 1) suggests the following. The Federal Government has recently been spending about $27 million per year on aquatic invasive species research, about 22 percent of which is being spent on prevention-related research, while the majority is spent on impact-related and control-related research on species that are already nuisances. Considerably more money is being spent on research on terrestrial invasive species (primarily on agricultural invasive species), especially by the Department of Agriculture. Dramatically larger amounts of money (on the order of $500 million per year; GAO 2000) are being spent for on-the-ground control of invasive species (not research) by a variety of departments, mostly for terrestrial plants (but including on the order of $20–30 million per year for control of aquatic fishes, invertebrates, and plants). Clearly, compared to the threat to the Nation's aquatic resources at risk, the investment in research is paltry, and unlikely to enhance our ability to forecast and prevent the problem of aquatic invasive species from continuing to increase rapidly.
80225c.eps
Ideal invasive species research portfolio
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In contrast to the current reality (Table 1), the ideal invasive species research portfolio would include a dramatically increased research effort relevant to steps that are early in the invasion process, where prevention or early detection and rapid response is possible. Below, I elaborate briefly on selected themes that would strengthen our on-going research efforts, and add research essential to supporting prevention. Achieving the goals under discussion for a potentially re-authorized National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NISA) would be impossible without substantial investments in these research themes.
A. Pathway analysis and establishment risk. The central questions for each pathway are: What species are being transported and how many individuals? How potentially harmful are these species? What proportion is finding its way into the natural environment? How is the risk of establishment related to the number of individuals released or escaped? Much of this research must include collaborations among scientists and social scientists (trade specialists, economists, political scientists) to be most relevant to supporting management. I believe that we'll hear more on this topic from Dr. Smith.
1. Quantifying the current absolute and relative importance of all major aquatic pathways. Continuing research on ship-related pathways is critical, but quantifying other pathways—many of which are growing at phenomenal rates—is essential. Some other pathways, e.g., canals, have been as important historically as ships, and are increasingly important because of improvements in water quality and because more invasive species are waiting in neighboring watersheds to disperse. Unfortunately, we currently rely on piecemeal information that, for example, tells us that two species of Asian carp (silver and bighead carp) are dispersing rapidly up the Illinois River and are within a few months of Lake Michigan via the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Predicting the importance of future pathways, by source region, as global patterns of trade and methods of transportation change.
3. Theoretical and experimental research is required to relate the risk of establishment and harm (the risk we should manage) to the number of species and individuals in transport. This issue is especially relevant to setting standards, and I believe we'll hear more about that from Ms. Cangelosi.
B. Monitoring and early detection. To avoid responses to new invasions that are too late to be effective, research is required on methods to increase our capacity to detect species in shipments and newly established species. Research is required on technology (including detection systems and remote sensing), sampling designs, strategies of targeting surveillance areas, and strategies to maximize the effectiveness of public participation in detection of new species. The current proposal from NSF to initiate the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) responds in part to this need. This need is also entirely consistent with the needs for increased biosecurity surveillance. I believe that we will hear more on monitoring from Dr. Ruiz.
C. Screening and risk analysis protocols. Currently, few, if any, prohibitions exist on the importation of aquatic species into the country or movement of species across state boundaries. This is especially true of animals (USDA APHIS screens some aquatic plants and plant pests). Decisions on which species to allow into the country are made on the basis of a qualitative, expert opinion process; this approach leaves the process vulnerable to criticism, and the country open to more invasive species. Other countries, e.g., Australia and New Zealand, are far ahead of the U.S. on research and management at this stage of the invasion process.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. A solid research foundation exists for more rigorous, quantitative approaches to risk analysis, and more research is urgently needed to further develop such approaches and make them operational for management and regulation. The goal of such research should be to produce protocols that are quantitative, transparent, and repeatable.
2. Interdisciplinary research is required to develop risk analysis approaches that explicitly incorporate the feedbacks between ecological risks and economic costs and benefits. The goal of such research should be to provide guidance for allocations of resources between prevention and control, for example.
Such risk analyses have their most obvious application to intentional introductions, but will also be important in assessing the risks of unintentional pathways once some knowledge exists about the species likely to be in an unintentional pathway.
D. Control methods and technology. Research in support of the development of pathway-specific (for unintentional pathways) and species-specific (especially for intentional pathways) control methods that minimize non-target effects in the most cost effective way is largely missing for aquatic species, and it is essential. Even if we improve our prevention effectiveness, we will always be faced with some widespread invasive species for which our only option is control. For terrestrial plants and animals, many effective methods (e.g., selective herbicides, selective animal toxins or delivery systems, biological control) have been developed and applied widely. Such capacity is largely lacking for aquatic organisms, and research should be the foundation of such efforts. One exception is the large on-going research effort on ballast water management, about which we'll hear more from Dr. Faulkner. My point, however, is that research efforts of equal magnitude are also required for other pathways and species. Historical records indicate, for example, that in the Great Lakes, about one third to one half of alien species have been introduced by ships, but currently other pathways are probably growing more quickly.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, improvements in canal barrier technologies are urgently needed for the Great Lakes (especially at Chicago), Lake Champlain, and many other sites. Silver and bighead carp are moving up the Illinois River toward Lake Michigan and are likely to colonize Lake Michigan within one year. One or both of these species have a high probability of doing irreparable harm to the fisheries and ecosystems of the Great Lakes, and should be stopped. The electronic barrier recently installed in the Chicago canal is known to be only partially effective, and needs to be made lethal within the next year. On-going research to tune the electronic barrier to best exclude carp, and to develop the methods for greater lethality, need to be speeded up dramatically, and the results implemented immediately.
E. Measuring and predicting environmental impacts of invasive species. The risk posed by a species or pathway is partly a function of its environmental impact. Thus it is essential to improve our capacity to measure existing impacts and forecast future impacts.
1. Research on impacts at the genetic, population, community, and ecosystem levels is essential. How the impact of invasive species interacts with other on-going environmental changes is also important to predict.
2. Research to develop better methods for economic valuation of environmental impacts is critical to provide a common currency for overall risk analyses.
F. Overall research infrastructure. Let me make explicit what is implicit in the research needs highlighted above, which is the need for dramatically improved research infrastructure in three areas: systematics and taxonomy; ecological forecasting; and interagency coordination.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Research and training in systematics and taxonomy have lapsed seriously in the U.S., and require major new investments if we have any hope of successful pathway analysis, monitoring and early detection, and control. We have to know which new species we are looking at. We also need to know their evolutionary relationships to other species we may know more about, as a guide to their characteristics and vulnerabilities. In addition, basic data on the ranges of different taxa—on the natural boundaries of biogeographic provinces—are essential to evaluate the risks of movements of ships, for example, in U.S. coastal waters. Such research has historically been funded by NSF, but has suffered greatly in recent decades. This research and training must extend beyond the obvious, well known species like fishes to include invertebrates, parasites, and pathogens, which pose equally large threats to our security, our economy, and our environment.
2. Ecological forecasting. All the parts of the research prescription above fit under the larger need to develop models and their empirical parameters to forecast species invasiveness and ecosystem invasibility, focusing explicitly on each stage in the invasion process (Fig. 1). We need to anticipate what is coming and what its consequences would likely be, if we are to rationally allocate resources to prevention, monitoring and early detection, rapid response, and control.
Building a long-term research infrastructure in ecological forecasting is as essential to our nation's well-being as weather forecasting is to the agriculture and economic forecasting is to our banking and business communities. This effort will require strong collaboration by ecologists with population biologists, specialists in systematics and taxonomy, ecosystem scientists, climatologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Interagency coordination on research portfolio. As Table 1 and the sections above suggest, the current federal approach to invasive species research is a hodgepodge of under-funded IRAs dangerously concentrated in one market sector (response to established invasive species) rather than the appropriately diversified investment portfolio essential to effectively support our nation's response to invasive species. Research relevant to prevention is especially missing. The current pattern is for different agencies to specialize their research on different taxonomic groups, different habitats, and/or different stages in the invasion process (but not on prevention). As pointed out in the National Management Plan (see especially Action Items 45 and 46; National Invasive Species Council 2001), better coordination on research among departments and agencies is required. The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) is the only entity that is expressly mandated to foster interagency coordination across all taxa, ecosystems, and stages of invasion. It also has under its purview not only research, but management. Thus, NISC and its associated Invasive Species Advisory Committee should be a focal body in designing and coordinating the Nation's research portfolio, in collaboration with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and its associated regional panels.
Without more research that is targeted to the different stages of the invasion process—especially earlier stages of invasion—we cannot hope to efficiently allocate the nation's resources to slowing the onslaught of invasions. Thank you again for the opportunity to offer my thoughts on the foundation that research provides for the critical management needs posed by invasive species.
Please enter my entire written and oral testimony into the published record. I look forward to responding to your questions.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional sources
General Accounting Office. 2000. Invasive species: Federal and selected state funding to address harmful, nonnative species. GAO/RCED–00–219. Available on-line at a www.gao.gov
Mack, RN, D Simberloff, WM Lonsdale, H Evans, M Clout, and FA Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710. Available on-line at http://www.esa.org/issues.htm
National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: Management Plan. Available on-line at www.invasivespecies.gov
National Research Council. 2002. Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests. National Academy Press. Available on-line at www.nap.edu
Working Group on Research, Information sharing, Documentation and Monitoring. 2000. National Invasive Species Council. Available on-line at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/wrkgrps.shtml#research
Contact information: Dr. David M. Lodge, Department of Biological Sciences, P.O. Box 369, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; Phone: office 574–631–6094, Dpt. office 574–631–6552; Fax: 574–631–7413; E-mail: lodge.1@nd.edu
80225d.eps
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
80225e.eps
80225f.eps
80225g.eps
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for good kick off testimony. Dr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF DR. L. DAVID SMITH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, SMITH COLLEGE
Dr. SMITH. Good morning. My name is David Smith. For the last nine years, I've been studying pathways for marine biological invasions. In the 1980's, we witnessed the catastrophic introduction of the zebra mussel to the Great Lakes. This species was almost certainly brought in by ocean-going ships. Since then many more ship-borne invasions have been documented. Indeed, shipping is probably the primary vector for aquatic invasions.
But shipping is clearly not the only pathway for aquatic invasions. For example, the introduced seaweed Caulerpa now carpets large expanses of the Mediterranean Sea bottom. In 2000, Caulerpa was found in waters off southern California. The most likely mechanism was release of water from a home aquarium. To date, over $3 million has been spent in unsuccessful attempts to eradicate the seaweed before it spreads. Some in the seafood industry in the Mid-Atlantic States would like to introduce the Japanese oyster for harvest. In 2001, one state went ahead with an experimental grow out of these exotic oysters in its waters. Neighboring states were unable to prevent such an intentional release. The European green crab has become established along the U.S. Pacific Coast and now threatens commercial shellfish operations. We believe that the green crab was a stowaway in shipments of bait worms sent from New England to San Francisco. This is a prime example of a seemingly minor vector causing a major invasion. What these examples illustrate is the tremendous potential for different pathways to introduce aquatic species to U.S. Coastal waters. Because control efforts can be both costly and controversial, the best strategy is to prevent unwanted introductions in the first place. The design of effective prevention programs, however, requires that we, one, know which pathways are actively moving species, two, understand how each pathway operates, and three, determine whether the risks vary from region to region.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Besides shipping, the major pathways that move live aquatic organisms are fisheries, which include the seafood, aquaculture and bait industries, the pet aquarium industry, research and educational organizations and restoration projects. Collectively, these pathways move hundreds to thousands of aquatic species daily.
I've been asked to rank these pathways as to risk. After shipping, frankly it is difficult to do so because we lack critical information. To address these gaps in our knowledge, we must take a three-pronged approach. First, we need to conduct baseline research to understand how these pathways operate. Second, we need active involvement by the stakeholders that make up each pathway. Third, we need to educate the public about the consequences of aquatic invasions. With support from NOAA Sea Grant, my colleagues and I have begun to collect such information through surveys of non-shipping pathways in New England. The questions asked were framed to permit direct comparisons among pathways. We wanted to know which species a pathway was moving and in what quantities, whether shipments contained hitchhiking organisms, what safeguards were employed by the organization, and whether the organization was even aware of the issue of aquatic invasions. The goal is to identify weak links in each pathway where invasion potential is greatest.
Involvement of stakeholders is critical. Any effective initiative will require assistance of knowledgeable individuals within each pathway. Workshops are an excellent way to alert stakeholders to the risks and solicit their help and creativity in problem-solving.
The third component, educating the public, is also crucial. Industries can exercise the utmost care in handling live aquatic organisms, but it will be for naught if individual consumers handle their purchases carelessly.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What are needed are coordinated, systematic regional studies of pathways. Institutions at the local level are best situated to conduct these studies. The data, however, should be collected uniformly and fed into a centralized database so that meaningful comparisons can be made and the information will be available to all. There needs to be better coordination between researchers, regulatory agencies and stakeholders in gathering and in reporting information. Findings from pathway studies should be incorporated into Invasive Species Management Plans and into industry management practices. In a time of budgetary constraints and pressing issues of national importance, one might choose to ignore the problems associated with aquatic invasions. We would do so at great environmental and economic cost. As a Nation, we need to make a concerted effort to understand how these pathways operate to prevent unwanted species from establishing along our coastlines. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF L. DAVID SMITH
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is David Smith. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Smith College in Massachusetts. For the last 9 years, I have been studying pathways for marine biological invasions. In the 1980s, scientists, government officials, and the public were galvanized by the catastrophic introduction of the zebra mussel to the Great Lakes. This species was almost certainly brought in by ocean-going ships. Since then, many more ship-borne invasions have been documented. Indeed, shipping is the primary vector for aquatic invasions, because of the tremendous number of vessels involved; the abundance and diversity of species that are moved; and the fact that these stowaways are released directly into coastal waters. A single large cargo carrier can release over one billion organisms into a harbor when it dumps its ballast water.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But, shipping is clearly not the only pathway for marine invasions. For coastal areas that receive little ballast water, shipping may not even be the primary avenue. The list of documented invasions by non-shipping pathways is long. Here are three examples. In 1984, the tropical green seaweed Caulerpa taxifolia was released accidentally into the Mediterranean Sea. The suspected source was a nearby public aquarium. Caulerpa now carpets large expanses of the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Why is this of concern to the United States? In the summer of 2000, small populations of Caulerpa were found in waters off southern California. The most likely mechanism was the release of water from a home aquarium. Over three million dollars have been spent, to date, in unsuccessful attempts to eradicate the seaweed. Let me describe a different invasion scenario. Some in the seafood industry in the Mid-Atlantic States would like to introduce the Japanese oyster Crassostrea ariakensis to Chesapeake Bay. The goal is to enhance declining stocks of native oysters for harvest. In 2001, the state of Virginia went forward with an experimental grow-out of these introduced oysters in its waters. An adjoining state objected. Because there is no federal oversight, though, the dissenting state had no means to prevent the introduction of an exotic species in shared waters. If these oysters are able to reproduce, they will almost certainly spread along much of the Atlantic seaboard. Invasive species can also be transferred from coast-to-coast by way of domestic trade. In the last decade, the European green crab Carcinus maenas has become established on the U.S. Pacific coast. It is a voracious predator and one that threatens west coast commercial shellfish operations. We believe that the green crab was a stowaway in shipments of bait worms sent from New England to San Francisco. This is a prime example of a seemingly minor vector causing a major invasion.
What these examples illustrate is the tremendous potential for different pathways to introduce marine species to U.S. coastal waters, intentionally and unintentionally. Once established, marine invaders are difficult to eradicate, and control methods can be both costly and controversial. The best strategy for avoiding these costs is to prevent unwanted introductions in the first place. The adage ''an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' certainly applies here. The design of effective prevention programs, however, requires that we: (1) know which pathways are actively moving marine species; (2) understand how each pathway operates; and (3) determine whether the risks vary among pathways or from region to region. For example, the pet aquarium industry moves many tropical marine plants and animals to New England. These organisms are unlikely to survive the cold waters off of New England were they to escape. That same assurance, however, cannot be made should these organisms find their way into the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have alluded to several pathways in my examples. Besides shipping, the major pathways that move live marine organisms are: (1) fisheries, which include the seafood, aquaculture, and bait industries; (2) the pet aquarium industry; (3) research and educational organizations, including teaching and research institutions, biotechnology companies, and public aquaria; and (4) salt-marsh and sea grass restoration projects. Collectively, these pathways move hundreds to thousands of marine species in large numbers on a daily basis. Other pathways operate less frequently, but still pose a risk. For example, floating dry docks and drilling platforms can be moved from ocean to ocean. Many of the organisms attached to these huge structures travel along as hitchhikers.
I have been asked to rank these various pathways as to relative risk. I believe that shipping does present the greatest risk. At present, however, I am hard pressed to distinguish among the non-shipping pathways. This uncertainty exists, because we lack the necessary information to conduct an adequate risk assessment. Given the present gaps in our knowledge, two outcomes are likely: (1) either no action will be taken to prevent invasions, or (2) uninformed policies will be implemented which may ultimately prove ineffective or costly. To prevent either of these undesirable outcomes, we need to take a three-pronged approach. First, we need baseline research to understand better how these pathways operate. Second, we need active involvement by the stakeholders that make up each pathway. Third, we need to educate the public about the consequences of marine invasions.
With support from NOAA Sea Grant, my colleagues and I adopted this 3-part approach to compare pathways that move live marine organisms into and out of New England. For the research component, we developed and administered a written questionnaire to organizations in six different non-shipping pathways. The questions were designed to permit direct comparisons among pathways, and they should be applicable to other regions of the country. We wanted to know what species a pathway was moving; in what amounts and how often; whether shipments contained non-target organisms (i.e., hitchhikers); what protocols, safeguards, or disposal methods were employed by the organization to prevent unwanted releases; and whether the organization was aware of the issue of marine invasions. Our ultimate goal is to identify weak links in each pathway where invasion potential is greatest. Similar studies should be undertaken in other regions.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Involvement of stakeholders is critical to lessen the risk of unwanted introductions. Any effective regional or national initiative will require the assistance of knowledgeable and committed individuals within each pathway. Workshops are an excellent way to establish contacts with stakeholders, alert them to the risks, and solicit their help and creativity in problem solving. In some cases, solutions may be simple. They need only be brought to the broader attention of the industry. For example, bait sellers typically pack their live product in seaweed to keep it moist. This seaweed, however, can harbor many other species, and the contents are often dumped into the water at the end of the day. At a recent MIT Sea Grant workshop, a bait shop owner told us that rather than pack his bait worms in seaweed; he uses damp, shredded newspaper, which is clean of additional organisms. All solutions will not be so simple, but some at least are and can be adopted easily at little cost.
The third component (i.e., educating the public) is also crucial. Industries can exercise the utmost care in transporting, handling, and selling live marine organisms, but it will be for naught if the individual consumer releases his or her bait, or aquarium fish, or discarded oyster shells into the local water body. Following the MIT Sea Grant workshop, an aquatic pet store owner decided to write an article on invasive species for his industry trade magazine. Thus, one concerned stakeholder will potentially influence hundreds of other store owners and thousands of customers around the country. The same store owner is now working with the Massachusetts Bay National Estuary Program to develop a survey and educational materials for aquatic pet owners.
What are needed are coordinated, systematic studies of pathways in each coastal region of the United States. Researchers and regulatory agencies at the local or regional level are, perhaps, best situated to conduct these studies. The data, however, should be collected uniformly and fed into a centralized database, so that meaningful comparisons can be made and the information will be available to all. The National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse, which is currently in place to monitor ship arrivals, could serve as such a model. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center jointly operate this program. There needs to be better coordination between researchers, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders in gathering and reporting information. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service already collects data on international seafood imports. Comparable data for the trade of domestic seafood, however, are absent. Regardless, these data sets often lack the necessary resolution in terms of species names and counts needed to assess risk. Such information, however, could be gathered fairly easily as part of on-going monitoring efforts. Findings from these studies need to be incorporated into invasive species management plans that are being developed regionally and nationally. Best management practices should be distributed to and adopted by each pathway. Finally, there needs to be oversight and guidelines for intentional introductions at the national, rather than the state level, because, as indicated earlier, introduced marine species are not constrained by man-made borders.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a time of budgetary constraints and pressing issues of national importance, one might choose to ignore the problems associated with invasive species. We would do so at great economic and environmental cost. As a nation, we need to make a concerted effort to understand how both shipping and non-shipping pathways operate in order to prevent unwanted species from establishing along our coastlines. Reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) is an important step. We can accomplish these goals with better funding for research; increased coordination among research institutions, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders; and greater public outreach. Thank you.
BIOGRAPHY FOR LESLIE DAVID SMITH
Department of Biological Sciences & Environmental Science & Policy Program, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063; (413) 585–3828 (tel); (413) 585–3786 (fax); ldsmith@smith.edu (e-mail)
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Zoology (1990). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Dissertation co-advisors, G.J. Vermeij & A.H. Hines
M.S., Marine Science (1985). University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Thesis advisor, B.C. Coull
B.A., Biology (major); History (minor) (1981). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Graduated with Highest Distinction
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Assistant Professor (2001–present). Department of Biological Sciences & Environmental Science & Policy Program, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Faculty member (2001–present). Graduate Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Assistant Professor (1995–2001). Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston & Marine Science Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts.
Research Associate (1998–2004). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland.
Postdoctoral Fellow (1994–1995). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland.
Postdoctoral Research Associate (1993–1994). Williams College-Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut.
Postdoctoral Research Associate (1992–1993). Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta & Bamfield Marine Station, British Columbia.
Postdoctoral Fellow (1990–1992). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Doctoral Research (1985–1990). Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Master's Research (1983–1985). Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Research Technician (1981–1983). Department of Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
TEACHING INTERESTS
Marine invertebrate zoology, Conservation biology, Invasion biology, Marine benthic ecology, Evolutionary ecology
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Biological invasions, particularly in marine systems.
Adaptive significance of phenotypic plasticity in predator-prey interactions.
Evolutionary ecology of marine invertebrates especially crustaceans and molluscs.
SCHOLARSHIP & RESEARCH
Grants awarded
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Externally reviewed
National and MIT Sea Grant College Programs (2001–2003): Aquatic Nuisance Species: Understanding the Dynamics of Invasion Pathways to New England. Principal investigator, L.D. Smith; Associate investigators, J. Pederson, J.T. Carlton. $120,224.
National Science Foundation (1999–2002): The influence of water temperature on predator-induced defensive responses and life-history trade-offs in a marine intertidal snail. Co-Principal Investigators, L.D. Smith & G.C. Trussell. $185,939.
National and MIT Sea Grant College Programs (1999–2001): Research and outreach to prevent and control aquatic nuisance species invasions: Identification and ranking of transport vectors of marine bioinvaders to and from New England. PI, L.D. Smith; Associate investigators, J. Pederson, J.T. Carlton. $170,081.
National, Maryland, MIT Sea Grant College Programs (1997–1999): The relative importance of ballast water from domestic ship traffic in translocation of nonindigenous species among the U.S. ports. Co-PIs, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, & J.T. Carlton. $237,000.
Maryland Sea Grant College Program (1996–1998): Susceptibility of Chesapeake Bay to invasions of non-indigenous species associated with ballast water. Co-PIs, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, D.W. Coats, L.D. Smith, & J.T. Carlton. $142,542.
NATO Collaborative Research Grant (1994–1996): Changes in ballast water assemblages during transoceanic voyages. Co-PIs, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton, J. Lenz, S. Gollasch, & M. Dammer. $6,433.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Department of Defense Legacy Program (1994–1996): The role of U.S. Navy vessels to ballast-mediated invasions in Chesapeake Bay. Co-PIs, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, & J.T. Carlton. $461,000.
Smithsonian Scholarly Studies Program (1994–1996): Effects of ballast water transport and prolonged darkness on survival and development of exotic aquatic species. Co-PIs, G.M. Ruiz, L.D. Smith, A.H. Hines, & J.T. Carlton. $70,000.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (1994–1995): Biological invasions of Chesapeake Bay: a historical analysis. Co-PI with G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, L.D. Smith, D.W. Coats & J.T. Carlton. $72,500.
Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research (1987 & 1989)
Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation Grant (1988)
Lerner-Gray Fund for Marine Research (1987)
Internally reviewed
Smith College Committee on Faculty Compensation & Development (2002). Travel and support for field research in Oregon. L.D. Smith. $1,639.
Smith College Science Venture Fund (2002–2003). Teaching initiative in Invertebrate Zoology. L.D. Smith. $18,625.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Northeastern University Short-Term Research Grant in Cooperative Education (1997–1998): Identifying skills and establishing links for marine-related cooperative education experiences. L.D. Smith. $3,983.
Northeastern University Research and Scholarship Development Fund (1996–1997): Investigating the effects of variation in prey resistance on claw morphology and performance in an introduced crab. L.D. Smith. $8,900.
Smithsonian Marine Station Fund (1989)
Chesapeake Bay Fund, Zoology, University of Maryland (1986, 1987, 1988, 1989)
Graduate School Fund, University of Maryland (1986, 1988)
Refereed publications
Wonham, M., J.T. Carlton, G.M. Ruiz, and L.D. Smith. 2000. Fish and ships: relating dispersal frequency to invasion success. Marine Biology 136:1111–1121.
Smith, L.D. and J.A. Jennings. 2000. Induced defensive responses by the bivalve Mytilus edulis to predators with different attack modes. Marine Biology 136:461–469.
Trussell, G.C. and L.D. Smith. 2000. Induced defenses in response to an invading crab predator: an explanation of historical and geographic phenotypic change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97:2123–2127.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Smith, L.D., M.J. Wonham, L.D. McCann, G.M. Ruiz, A.H. Hines, and J.T. Carlton. 1999. Invasion pressure to a ballast-flooded estuary and an assessment of inoculant survival. Biological Invasions 1:67–87.
Lavoie, D.M., L.D. Smith, and G.M. Ruiz. 1999. The potential for intracoastal transfer of nonindigenous species in the ballast water of ships. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48:551–564.
Brock, R.E. and L.D. Smith. 1998. Recovery of claw size and function following autotomy in Cancer productus (Decapoda:Brachyura). The Biological Bulletin 194:53–62.
Juanes, F. and L.D. Smith. 1995. The ecological consequences of limb damage and loss in decapod crustaceans: a review and prospectus. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 193:197–223.
Smith, L.D. 1995. Effects of limb autotomy and tethering on juvenile blue crab survival from cannibalism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 116:65–74.
Smith, L.D. and A.R. Palmer. 1994. Effects of manipulated diet on size and performance of brachyuran crab claws. Science 264:710–712.
Smith, L.D. 1992. The impact of limb autotomy on mate competition in blue crabs Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Oecologia 89:494–501.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Smith, L.D. and A.H. Hines. 1991. The effect of cheliped loss on blue crab Callinectes sapidus Rathbun foraging rate on soft-shell clams Mya arenaria L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 151:245–256.
Smith, L.D. and A.H. Hines. 1991. Autotomy frequency in blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) populations: geographic, temporal, and ontogenetic variation. The Biological Bulletin 180:416–431.
Smith, L.D. 1990. Patterns of limb loss in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, and the effects of autotomy on growth. Bulletin of Marine Science 46:23–36.
Smith, L.D. and B.C. Coull. 1987. Juvenile spot (Pisces) and grass shrimp predation on meiobenthos in muddy and sandy substrates. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 105:123–139.
80225h.eps
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. Dr. Ruiz.
STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY M. RUIZ, SENIOR SCIENTIST, SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. RUIZ. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. Today I wish to review briefly the current state of knowledge about invasions of marine and aquatic ecosystems underscoring some key gaps. In particular, I wish to highlight the importance of tracking invasion patterns and rates as the fundamental building block for both invasion science and management.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, invasions have become a potent force of ecological change and impact many dimensions of human society. Non-native species now dominate many aspects of our fresh water and marine communities. Invasions have caused dramatic shifts in food webs, disease outbreaks and commercial fisheries. Every ecosystem is vulnerable to invasion to some degree. Scores to hundreds of non-native species are established in our bays and estuaries. The rate of newly detected invasions is increasing in North America, as elsewhere. There remain several key gaps in invasion science, and the national strategy, that limit effective management and policy.
One clear priority is prevention of new invasions through vector management. Although management of established invasions has merit, the approach and success of such efforts are often idiosyncratic to the particular invasion and it remains difficult to predict which species will become invasive. In contrast, strategies to prevent new invasions can be directed at key transfer mechanisms or vectors. Unlike management of established invasions on a species-by-species basis, vector management can act simultaneously to interrupt the broad scale transfer and invasion of many species.
Tracking invasions is of paramount importance to vector management, both to measure vector strength or the contribution of specific vectors to new invasions and to assess the long-term effect of vector disruption, those management efforts to restrict the flow of new invasions. Only standardized field measures can inform us about vector strength, the where, when and how of invasions, and the efficacy of vector disruption to reduce the flow of new invasions.
Field measures are necessary to address critical questions such as: how are invasion rates changing over time, how does invasion risk and susceptibility vary among regions, which vectors are responsible for invasions, is their measurable change in the rate of invasions that corresponds to management actions such as vector disruption? Importantly the dose-response relationship between the number of organisms released and the number of new invasions established remains poorly resolved. Yet understanding this relationship is key to developing effective standards and methods for vector disruption, such as those advanced for ships' ballast water. Field measures combined with experiments are necessary to resolve this relationship. Moreover, only tracking of invasions through field-based measures can confirm the efficacy of vector disruption, testing for the desired effect of management action. Although my primary focus here today is prevention, I note also that any rapid-response system relies upon an effective field based detection system. No national program exists presently to collect standardized measures that are needed to reliably measure rates and patterns of invasion for the country. Numerous analysis or ecological surveys describe patterns of invasion. These surveys are primary literature reviews providing a synthesis of published records. Although very instructive, these surveys rely upon by-catch data and have severe limitations or biases. Because these data were not collected to address our questions, this creates a fundamental weakness in our ability to guide and evaluate management efforts. Importantly, piecing together data from existing programs would suffer from similar limitations.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To effectively measure invasion patterns and rates requires use of standardized quantitative surveys that are replicated at many sites and repeated regularly over time. As a minimum, one lead research group should be charged with oversight and coordination of these surveys. Furthermore, a distributed network of research groups may be the most effective model. For example, the lead group could establish standard protocols, provide central services in taxonomy and data management, develop demonstration sites, and serve to coordinate replicated surveys among the network of collaborating researchers working at sites throughout the country. The development of a distributed network with centralized services would assure rapid access to current information, which could inform analyses of invasion patterns and rapid response actions. Without improved field measures, we are often left guessing about the status and trends of invasion in the country. We presently lack the data needed to rigorously test many key hypothesis, develop robust predictions and evaluate the success of management actions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. RUIZ
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Gregory Ruiz. I am a Senior Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), where I head the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory—the largest research program in the U.S. to focus on the invasion of coastal ecosystems by non-native species. This research group provides synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-related patterns on a national scale (see Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record, p. 119, Appendix I for further details).
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, I wish to highlight briefly the current state of knowledge about the vulnerability of marine and aquatic ecosystems to invasion. I also wish to review some key gaps in our understanding, that limit efforts to reduce the risk and impacts of invasions, and what is being done to address these gaps. I will focus particular attention on the importance of tracking invasion patterns and rates—as the fundamental building block for invasion science and management—without which we are left guessing about (a) the status and trends of invasions in the country and (b) the effectiveness of management strategies to stem the flow of new invasions.
Current State of Knowledge
Biological invasions, the establishment of non-native or nonindigenous species outside of their historical range, are fundamentally changing the structure and function of the earth's ecosystems. The extent of invasions has become increasingly clear over the past decade. It is now evident that non-native species dominate many aspects of freshwater and marine communities throughout the world. For example, we know that over 500 nonindigenous species (NIS) have become established in coastal marine habitats of North America, and hundreds of NIS can occur in a single estuary. Compared to marine systems, far more research has been done on the extent of invasions in terrestrial and freshwater habitats, where the number of NIS established in North America alone is now estimated conservatively to exceed 10,000.
Importantly, not only have many NIS become established, but many communities are now dominated by NIS in terms of number of organisms, biomass, and ecological processes. In some cases, it is clear that invasions have caused dramatic shifts in food webs, chemical cycling, disease outbreaks, and commercial fisheries. Although the impacts of most invasions remain unexplored, there is no doubt that biological invasions have become a major force of ecological change, as well as economic and human health impacts, operating on a global scale.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Every ecosystem is vulnerable to invasion by non-native species. Studies sponsored by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Defense, and various state and private entities have demonstrated that scores to hundreds of non-native species are established in individual bays and estuaries—occurring on all coasts—of the United States. Studies elsewhere in the world demonstrate a similar pattern, suggesting all systems are susceptible to invasion to some degree.
The rate of detected marine invasions in North America has increased exponentially over the past two hundred years. Furthermore, this pattern appears very robust across various habitats, taxonomic groups, and global regions. This apparent increase in invasion rate, combined with significant impacts, has greatly elevated public and scientific concerns, about invasions in recent years.
As a result of Congressional legislative action in 1990 and 1996, we have learned a great deal about the scope of the problem, and efforts to reduce the risks and impacts of further invasions are at various stages of implementation—through multiple federal agencies, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and a wide range of partnerships with state, university, and private entities.
However, the problem is complex, involving hundreds to thousands of species that impact our society in a dizzying number of ways—from fishery catches and water supplies to human disease—and there remain several key gaps in invasion science and the national strategy that limit effective management and policy.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vector Management
One clear priority is prevention of new invasions through vector management. Although management and control of established invasions can have merit, the approach and success of such efforts are often idiosyncratic to the particular invasion, and it remains difficult to predict which NIS will become ''invasive'' and have severe impacts. In contrast, strategies to prevent new invasions can be directed at key transfer mechanisms (or vectors), the sources for contemporary invasions. Unlike management of established invasions on a species-by-species basis, a strategy of vector management can simultaneously prevent many new invasions through interruption of the transfer process.
Vector management involves three fundamental components: Vector Strength, Vector Analysis, and Vector Disruption. First, an assessment of Vector Strength is required to identify the relative importance of various vectors. This is accomplished by analysis of data on the patterns and rates of invasion, identifying which vectors are responsible for invasions (i.e., the relative importance of different vectors in space and time). Second, Vector Analysis is needed to describe the operational aspects of how, where, when, and in what quantity a vector delivers viable organisms (propagules) to the recipient environment. Among other things, this component identifies potential targets for management action. Third, some form of Vector Disruption is designed and implemented to restrict the flow of propagules (i.e., reduce the risk of new invasions) to the recipient environment.
Tracking invasions, through standardized field surveys, is of paramount importance to vector management, both to measure Vector Strength—or the source of new invasions—and to assess the long-term effect of Vector Disruption on invasion rates and patterns. I wish to focus my testimony on the role and status of contemporary surveys in vector management, and as a source of additional information for rapid response and various control measures. My colleagues on this panel are addressing various aspects of vector operation and methods to disrupt the movement of species through these vectors.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rationale for Tracking (Monitoring) Invasions Patterns & Rates
Measuring invasion patterns and rates through regular, standardized, field-based surveys is the cornerstone of invasion science and invasion management. Without this information base, many fundamental questions in marine invasion ecology will remain unresolved, limiting advances for basic science as well as its ability to guide effective management and policy.
Only contemporary, standardized field measures can inform us about (a) the spatial patterns and tempo of invasion—the where, when, and how of invasions—and (b) the efficacy of Vector Disruption to reduce new invasions. Knowledge about contemporary patterns of invasion is needed to guide efficiently and effectively our management and policy decisions. Importantly, tracking invasions pattern, and especially long-term changes in invasion rate in association with Vector Disruption efforts, is essential for adaptive management—testing for the desired effect of management action and whether further adjustments are required.
More specifically, such field-based measures are necessary to address the following questions:
Are invasion rates changing over time?
How does invasion risk (i.e., rates and extent of invasion) vary among regions?
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are all regions equally susceptible to invasion?
What factors influence susceptibility and risk of invasion?
What characteristics are associated with successful invasions?
Using analysis of Vector Strength (above), which vectors and geographic regions are responsible for, observed invasions? How is this changing over time?
Is there measurable change in the rate of new invasions that corresponds to management actions (i.e., Vector Disruption, above)?
What is the dose-response relationship between vector-specific supply (or disruption) and invasion rate, and what should the target or standard be for Vector Disruption?
The latter two questions are particularly relevant to current discussion about standards or goals for Vector Disruption, such as ballast water treatment. The ''dose-response'' relationship between the number of propagules (organisms) released and invasion success (establishment) remains poorly resolved, yet understanding this relationship is key to developing effective standards and Vector Disruption. Field based measures, combined with experiments, are necessary to resolve this relationship. Moreover, only tracking of invasions through field-based measures can confirm the efficacy of Vector Disruption to reduce the rate of new invasions.
Although my primary focus is on use of field-based data for prevention, I also note the important role of such data for eradication and control efforts of established species. There has been considerable discussion in the past 2 years about development of an ''early detection, rapid-response'' capability in response to new invasions or outbreaks (e.g., see recent report by the General Accounting Office). Although the scope of this may vary, from attention to a small subset of species to a wider spectrum of potential invasions, any rapid-response system by definition relies upon an effective field-based detection system.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Status of Tracking (Monitoring) Invasion Patterns & Rates
Numerous analyses now exist to describe patterns of invasion. These analyses result primarily from literature reviews, providing a synthesis of published reports. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) has developed the National Database of Marine and Estuarine Invasions, to summarize existing data on marine invasions. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a complementary national-level database for freshwater invasions. Under a Cooperative Agreement, SERC and USGS are coordinating the further development of these databases, along with analyses and electronic access of the resulting information.
Although these existing ''ecological surveys'' have been very instructive in highlighting the scope of invasions in aquatic and marine habitats, the specific patterns and rates must be viewed with a great deal of caution—because the data include very strong temporal and spatial biases. This bias results especially from uneven collection effort and taxonomic expertise. In essence, the data used in these analyses are ''by-catch'' and have limitations, as they were not collected for this purpose. A review of these issues is presented in a recent article entitled ''Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes, and Biases,'' (Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2000, Vol. 31:481–531).
Although existing syntheses provide useful information and apparent patterns, the information quality is insufficient to support robust conclusions about actual rates and patterns. This creates a fundamental weakness in our ability to guide and evaluate management efforts. In essence, we cannot address the questions outlined above with the existing data. For example, we, cannot now estimate the rate of new invasions, or whether more invasions have occurred, at Tampa Bay (FL), Juneau (AK), Chesapeake Bay (MD/VA) or Port Arthur (TX).
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NISA called for ''ecological surveys'' to better understand the patterns of invasion. Multiple such surveys have occurred, and these have provided some important insights about the extent of invasions. However, to date, these surveys suffer from the same issues as outlined above, because they have been primarily literature-based surveys.
At the present time, there exists no national program designed to collect the type of standard, repeated, quantitative, and contemporary measures across multiple sites that is needed to measure rates and spatial patterns of invasion. Although this has been evident for many years, and was the focus of a workshop in 1998 (sponsored by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and SERC, and presented to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force), a program to address this gap has not emerged to date. Importantly, piecing together data from existing programs, as has been suggested, will likely suffer limitations—similar to those that exist today—because these programs were not designed explicitly to measure invasion patterns.
Most recently, SERC has initiated a series of quantitative surveys across 15–20 different bays in North America, focusing on sessile invertebrates. Funded by Department of Defense, National SeaGrant, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, this work is intended to compare pattern of invasions among sites, using one standardized survey (in one year) at each bay. Although this is not presently a sustained effort, it moves toward developing a quantitative baseline, and could serve as a prototype for repeated, temporal measures.
Approach to Track (Monitor) Invasions
To effectively measure invasion patterns and rates, as needed to address the questions outlined above, requires the use of standardized, quantitative surveys that are replicated at many sites and repeated regularly over time. Multiple sites are necessary, because significant variation exists among sites—such that one or a few sites cannot serve as a proxy for others—but also because measures of such spatial variation is necessary to test for (a) spatial variation in invasibility and (b) the relationship between propagule supply and invasion. Further, repeated measures are necessary to build statistical confidence about the existing assemblage of species (or develop a baseline) with which to measure temporal changes.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a minimum, one lead group should be charged with oversight and coordination of the surveys to develop standardized protocols, provide continuity in taxonomic identification, and manage, analyze, and interpret the resulting cumulative data. Without such oversight, as is presently the case, measures of invasion patterns and rates will remain uneven and cannot contribute to a larger picture (beyond an individual site) or be used to address questions (as above) on a national scale.
Although I emphasize the importance of identifying a lead science group to coordinate and oversee surveys, providing many centralized services, a distributed network of research groups (including the lead group) may be the most effective model. For example, the lead group could establish standard protocols, develop some demonstration sites, and serve to coordinate replicated surveys among the network of collaborating researchers (including those universities as well as state or federal labs) who work at many sites throughout the country. Further, field-based surveys at each site could include some standardized core elements (i.e., identical across all sites) and possibly some measures that are of particular interest at only a subset of sites.
A distributed network would require clear and frequent communication across sites, to achieve coordinated and standardized measures. A clear advantage with such a network approach would lie in the local implementation of surveys, drawing on local or regional expertise in a cost-effective manner. Further, the development of a distributed network with centralized services, including especially data management and analyses, would assure rapid access to current information—which could inform analyses of invasion patterns and rates or rapid-response actions. Further, such a distributed network is readily scalable, allowing for established links and coordination with many groups—both nationally and overseas.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond the specifics of survey design, there are many other elements that require attention, having important consequences for the possible analyses and interpretation, including: (i) taxonomic identification, (ii) reference material, (iii) geographical information, (iv) information management, and (v) environmental characteristics. One role of the coordinating group would be implementation of standard protocols across each of these areas (see Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record, p. 123, Appendix II for brief discussion).
Conclusions
Understanding invasion patterns and processes depends critically upon high-quality empirical measures. Current observation and theory have resulted in a conceptual framework for invasion ecology. However, the empirical data needed to rigorously test many key hypotheses, develop robust predictions, and evaluate the success of management actions lag far behind. This gap is especially conspicuous for marine systems, existing both in the quality and quantity of descriptive data. At the present time, most analyses that evaluate patterns of invasion or test specific hypotheses derive data from the existing literature, or ''by-catch'' data, which is extremely uneven in space and time. Quantitative field surveys, which employ standardized and repeatable measures, can be used to remove such bias and greatly advance invasion science and management.
80225i.eps
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Ms. Cangelosi.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MS. ALLEGRA CANGELOSI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, NORTHEAST-MIDWEST INSTITUTE
Ms. CANGELOSI. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My testimony addresses scientific research needed to support prevention of new introductions of aquatic invasive species by ships. In summary, I hope to be persuasive that Congress should fashion a research program that is routed in the future of ballast management, that is onboard ballast treatment and the whole-ship perspective. The program should have the dual purpose of addressing immediate policy needs and of expanding the overall research base. I would like to refer the Committee to my written testimony in response to its first question regarding existing practices of ballast management and focus my oral testimony on research needs in support of interim and final standards for ships.
NISA requires—the National Invasive Species Act requires ships to either purge their ballast water in the open ocean, an operation known as Ballast Water Exchange, or conduct an environmentally sound treatment that is at least as effective as ballast water exchange. In general, an interim standard for treatment will allow R&D to proceed while ballast water exchange is still the default method. Down the line and at a date certain, all ballast management practices, including ballast water exchange, should be held to a final biologically based standard designed to reduce the risk of organism transfers by ships to levels society considers acceptable. It is my view that very little additional research is needed to establish the interim standard for treatment. The percent volumetric purge in a successful ballast water exchange operation, roughly 95 percent, dictates the optimal theoretical, biological effectiveness of that operation. Actual biological effectiveness is quite a bit lower and has been measured as low as 39 percent because not all organisms flow freely with the water and the volumetric exchanges are not always complete. A 95 percent reduction in live organisms then offers a ready benchmark for alternative treatment systems to clearly meet or exceed actual ballast water exchange effectiveness.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alternative approaches to establishing this equivalency carry a heavy research burden that is not appropriate to an interim standard. The Coast Guard has proposed complex side-by-side real time comparisons between treatment and ballast water exchange on each ship seeking approval for a novel treatment. This requirement yields information about ballast water exchange that is of research interest but of little programmatic value, while it foists a major obstacle on the motivated few among ship owners who care to pioneer the transition to treatment. Congress instead should focus limited research resources on the implementation of the interim standard and all aspects of the final standard.
The following specific actions are needed. First, we need to improve the effectiveness in the near term of our default practice ballast water exchange. The Coast Guard should develop a simple operational performance measure such as a dye test so that ship owners can clearly establish the number of tank purges required to achieve the 95 percent volumetric exchange on their particular ship. Along with NOAA, the Coast Guard should also investigate additional best practices such as more routine tank cleanings as ways to add effectiveness to ballast water exchange. Second, Congress should place a high priority on putting tools in the toolbox of potential ballast treatments. Venture capital will not be available until the regulatory structure is in place. The ballast technology demonstration project in the National Invasive Species Act has been invaluable in creating a farm team of prospective ballast treatment technologies ready for shipboard testing. This work should be maintained and expanded. Third, Congress should assure that type approval for ballast treatment is efficient and effective. So far, the Coast Guard and the EPA's environmental technology verification program are generating a protocol for technology verification that is likely to become the basis of a type approval system. It is a stand alone process intended to mimic at a single shore-based facility all relevant source water, seasonal, tank and voyage conditions encountered by ships. That's a tall order and the complexity and perspective costs of this protocol will far exceed any other yet developed by these agencies. Experience with type approval of marine sanitation devices instructs us as to the importance of ground truthing such systems against shipboard performance. An integrated shore-based and shipboard approach could also afford economic efficiencies. Congress should direct EPA and the Coast Guard to research and design a type approval process which maximizes cost effectiveness and accuracy. Fourth, Congress must assure that we not miss the forest for the trees when it comes to preventing the movement of organisms by ships. Single-mindedness relative to ballast water may not be a cost-effective approach. Some argue that hull fouling is at least as great a problem as ballast water. Congress should direct the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences to convene experts to identify all modes by which organisms are moved by ships and access their relative importance. The group should investigate the most efficient ways to reduce the overall risk of organism transfer by whole ships. Fifth, studies are needed to elucidate, if possible, the concentrations of organisms of concern in ballast discharge. Is a single red-tide cyst sufficient to spur a bloom? Does every last bacterium have to be eliminated from ballast water to render it safe? Given margins of error, is this an attainable objective? The U.S. Geologic Survey, NOAA and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center should lead this research in collaboration with a broad range of other research institutions. As part of this effort, the Geologic Service should lead experimental research to explore residual risk of ballast discharge treated to a given standard. Linkage between U.S.G.S. field stations in the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Coast and elsewhere would be advantageous to this end. The Great Lakes Environment Research Lab within NOAA and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center should also lead intensive, ecologic, and ballast discharge surveys to access the continuing flow of invasive species into U.S. receding systems, and to analyze any changes in the rates and patterns of invasions associated with the Ship Vector Management Program. Sixth, Congress should direct the EPA to lead a research program to advance development of environmental soundness screening methods and development of environmentally sound tools for prevention and control of invasive organisms. And finally, Congress should maintain a broad authority for Sea Grant research in NISA to enable scientists outside of government to check the math of Federal efforts to prevent organism transfers by ships. Assumptions relative to protocols, inoculation pressure, environmental soundness and program effectiveness would all be fair game. Similar research should be funded in the National Science Foundation. I wish to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cangelosi follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEGRA CANGELOSI
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My testimony addresses scientific research needed to support effective and efficient prevention of new introductions of aquatic invasive species by ships.
I have been engaged in aquatic invasive species policy development for over twelve years, including at the regional, national and international levels. Since 1996, I have co-led with Rick Harkins of the Lake Carriers' Association, the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, the first research effort in the United States to test alternative ballast treatment technology in the ship-board and shore-based contexts.
Research is needed to support immediate implementation of an interim standard for ballast treatment, and the development and implementation of a final ''whole ship'' standard to come into effect within 10 years. With this testimony, I hope to be persuasive that Congress should fashion a federal scientific research program to address the dual needs of 1) generating specific information in support of provisional protocols to move implementation of the interim standard forward in the absence of perfect information; and 2) expanding the currently meager overall research base on the ship pathway for invasions through diverse exploratory science to inform and test those provisional protocols and guide policy toward the best final standard for ballast treatment.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I conclude that to accomplish this goal, Congress will need to expand existing research and create some new research initiatives. The recommendations in this testimony include that Congress should direct:
The USCG and EPA to review alternative approaches to type-approval of ballast treatment systems, and post-type-approval monitoring. This review should include direct monitoring of ship discharge scenarios, shore-based scenarios and combinations thereof. The agencies should design an integrated type-approval and post-type-approval monitoring process which maximizes cost-effectiveness and accuracy.
The EPA to conduct research to advance environmental soundness of ballast management, including through developing a screening processes, and more environmentally sound tools for prevention and control of invasive organisms;
NOAA and the FWS to expand the Ballast Technology Demonstration Program (authorized in NISA) to encompass technologies to monitor and reduce other modes of organism transport on ships;
USGS to create a research network through its existing fisheries research field stations to lead collaborative experimental research at the bench, pilot and shipboard levels to ground-truth assumptions on ballast treatment effectiveness, and mesocosm studies to explore critical inoculation levels and residual risk;
USGS, NOAA (GLERL), and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) to undertake extensive ecological and ballast discharge surveys to analyze any changes in the rates and patterns of invasions associated with ship vector management.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Need for Both Targeted and Exploratory Research
The effectiveness of various treatment standards for preventing species transfers by ships, and proposed methods for meeting standards, are relatively new subjects of scientific inquiry. As a result, very few assumptions have been thoroughly tested, and no standard methods yet exist. The exploratory stage of the research means society stands to gain a great deal by encouraging research using diverse approaches and hypotheses.
But the time for methodical advancement from basic to applied science in this arena of environmental protection has lapsed. We seek immediate relief from the onslaught on invasive species arriving in our waters. This demand for action—now—drives interest in policy solutions that are consistent nationally and even internationally relative to reducing ship-mediated transfers of species.
In essence we find ourselves in a situation in which it is too soon to exclude diverse approaches to research, and too late to wait for exploratory research to mature into a set of standard research methods. The solution is for Congress to promote intensive experimentation with alternate approaches while provisional protocols are developed using existing science. The secret to success will be for the provisional protocols to stay as close to subject of the research as possible, and for these approaches to be accompanied by good ground-truthing exercises. Finally, success lies in Congress creating the ability to make swift mid-course corrections with new information.
Strengths and Limitations of Existing Practices
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The dominant practice for treatment of ballast water is currently an operational practice called open ocean ballast water exchange (BWE). This practice has several advantages: it is available today, requires no capital investment and low operational costs, leads to reductions in numbers of near coastal organisms in ballast water, and creates discharge of no new residuals. However the limitations on the practice argue for it to be an interim measure only. In summary, these limitations are that BWE is:
Not usable by ships which are at their load limit with cargo;
Ships which are full of cargo—termed NOBOBs for ''no ballast on board''—cannot fully purge their ballast tanks without exceeding their load limit, yet they carry ballast residuals which can be resuspended and discharged into U.S. waters in subsequent ballast operations. Many ships enter U.S. waters after operating outside the EEZ in the NOBOB condition because it is most profitable to carry payload on every voyage. This reality is especially true for Seaway-sized vessels which are smaller than most other ocean-going cargo ships.
Not useful in near-coastal voyages;
Ballast water exchange reduces the number of alien near-coastal organisms transferred into U.S. waters by ships by purging the near-coastal water taken up in harbors in the high seas, and replacing it with open ocean water. The open ocean water also contains organisms, but these organisms are adapted to open ocean conditions and are less likely to survive in near coastal conditions. Ballast water exchange is therefore not effective in near coastal voyages. Replacement of near coastal water (and organisms) with near coastal water (and organisms), does not alter the probability of survival of the organisms subsequently discharged into harbors. In fact, such near coastal exchanges could actually ''refresh'' the water and biota in the tanks such that they are more capable of survival in a new harbor.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not always safe for ships;
The fleet that visits the Great Lakes does not consider routine BWE a safety risk, especially because the ships entering the Great Lakes may utilize an alternative discharge zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence if weather conditions on the open ocean are unfavorable for the operation. But other ship owners caution strongly against requiring all ships to undertake BWE due to safety concerns. Lloyd's Register published a study recommending hazard analyses for each ship that plans to undertake it.
Incomplete, variable, and perhaps unknowable effectiveness even under favorable circumstances; and
BWE effectiveness is highly variable and extremely difficult to measure accurately. A Report of the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force summarized the range of BWE estimates as ''39 percent to 99.9 percent, depending upon the taxonomic groups and ships studied.'' These estimates reflect effectiveness for a subset of tanks on a single ship often on a single voyage. Analysis of the average effectiveness of BWE as a prevention practice across a fleet and/or over time would reveal lower per voyage estimates to account for the voyages on which BWE is not carried out at all due to safety, load and voyage pattern constraints.
Difficult to monitor and therefore enforce.
Currently, the USCG takes salinity measurements to determine if a BWE has occurred in the high seas. This approach is universally regarded as inaccurate. Yet, there is no ready approach to conducting effective monitoring of BWE. Three approaches are currently being experimented with: 1) the Newcastle Method which requires careful scrutiny and cross-checking of ship logbooks with engine room data, such as fuel consumption and pump data, indicating operational activity, 2) installation of a ''black box'' into the ship's pump to log data on pump use and global location during use; or 3) careful physical, chemical, and biological monitoring or coastal organisms and water conditions in ships ballast discharge.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some ships have begun to add best practices recommended by the International Maritime Organization to BWE to mitigate some of these limitations. In particular, the fleet of salt-water ships which visit the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway is required by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to undertake more frequent BWE and cleaning of sediments from their tanks, and greater selectiveness in uptake of ballast water to minimize organism content. These practices will help to address just one of the limitations, but the one of greatest concern to the Great Lakes region—the ineffectiveness of BWE for ships in the fully-loaded condition.
A handful of vessels which visit U.S. waters have installed treatment alternatives to BWE, inspired largely by the federal mandatory ballast program in the Great Lakes, and state level programs in California and Washington. Three passenger ships, a container ship, and a small chemical tanker have installed (or are installing) cyclonic separation and UV. In addition, a Seaway-sized bulk cargo carrier installed a copper ion treatment system, and an oil tanker in the TAPS trade is experimenting with ozone treatment.
Treatment offers many advantages over BWE. Paramount among them is the scope of their applicability. Treatments can be implemented equally effectively in coastal or transoceanic voyages and afford benefits whether the ship is empty or full of cargo. Most systems are designed for operation during ballasting operations, i.e., in port, making them less vulnerable to safety problems associated with high seas and weather conditions. Monitoring mechanisms can be engineered into them, making them easier to evaluate and enforce.
The principal downside associated with treatment can hopefully be resolved by Congress. There is still no approval process or standard for treatments, even though treatment has been an option for ships to meet regulations for 12 years in the Great Lakes region. This means that any ship which equips itself with treatment runs the risk that the treatment will not be approved once such a system is developed. If the USCG creates an onerous approval process, even ships with successful innovative treatments may face a great deal of expense to earn the ability to forego BWE.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other limitations vary with the system selected. For larger physical/mechanical systems, they may include capital costs for retrofitting on existing ships and additional crew-time that may be consumed in maintenance of the systems. If the system is a chemical biocide, crew safety concerns associated with handling toxic material, impact of the chemical on tank linings and chemical residuals in discharge become a concern.
Research Needed to Assess BWE and Develop Interim Standards—Only a Little
The National Invasive Species Act provides that ships may utilize alternatives to BWE that are environmentally sound, and approved by the Secretary of Transportation as being as effective or more effective than BWE—the default alternative. An interim standard is needed to allow research and development of treatment alternatives to proceed while BWE is still accepted as the default method. How can this narrative standard be transformed into a number and process for ship owners and treatment vendors in the near-term?
First, the concept of environmental soundness needs to be better defined. The Environmental Soundness Working Group of the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee (which I chaired) investigated the extent to which existing law already provides an environmental soundness screen for ballast treatments. The study indicated that no standing federal environmental law or set of laws comprehensively addresses ballast treatment. Many treatment vendors make claims of environmental soundness in relation to their systems. Criteria for environmental soundness and verifying independent research is needed to address this objective.
In terms of how to establish the interim standard for treatment effectiveness, I believe the regulating agency has had three options. All of them would yield standards which could be expressed in terms of a percent kill, inactivation or removal relative to intake. Options 1 and 2 carry a heavy research burden. Only option 3 will yield results in a time frame and at an expense appropriate to an interim standard.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Option 1: Conduct experiments on a subset of vessels in each major class of ships over a series of voyages to establish estimates of BWE effectiveness by ship class.
I advocated this approach a few years ago in a submission to the ANS Task Force Ballast Water and Shipping Committee, when there were foreseeable years available before a treatment installation might actually be proposed for approval. We no longer have time to await the findings of such an effort. Moreover, that research which has been undertaken in this regard has proven to be expensive, highly variable, and slow. Comprehensive assessments of the biological effectiveness of ballast water exchange requires sorting out ''who is who'' in the ballast tank before and after the open ocean purge, as well assessing, as for treatment, the numbers and conditions of organisms in the ballast uptake stream before and after BWE. Additional BWE effectiveness studies may help us to understand ship-mediated invasions generally, but they are not appropriate to the targeted research designed to inform development and implementation of an interim standard. The GloBallast Workshop on ballast treatment held in London in March of 2000 also recommended that we not continue to invest programmatic funds in defining BWE biological effectiveness.
Option 2: Require side-by-side BWE vs. treatment comparisons on any ship that seeks approval of a treatment system.
This approach adheres to the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law, and also will slow progress toward a transition to shipboard treatment from BWE. Certainly, from the standpoint of the agency responsible for approving proposed treatments, direct comparisons at the expense of the ship owner are efficient (in terms of regulator time and resources), and seemingly risk-free. But this approach is not efficient or risk-free for the Nation. A single comparison between BWE and treatment on an operating ship is of questionable value given the variability of BWE as noted above. Multiple comparisons would be onerous to the point of being punishing. Moreover, there will be an over-representation of studies in some classes of ships, and next to none in others. But most important, this approach is counterproductive to policy objectives. It foists a burden of gaining unnecessary information on the motivated few among ship owners who care to pioneer the transition to ballast treatment. This approach will only slow progress toward ballast treatment.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, it is the approach of choice for the regulating agency. Last year, the Coast Guard recommended that the Stolt Company undertake such a study when that ship owner became the first to formally request a waiver from BWE requirements to test a treatment alternative. This approach also appears in the Coast Guard's proposed approach to experimental approval of alternative treatments.
Option 3: Use percent volumetric exchange in BWE as a surrogate for optimal biological effectiveness.
A ready approach is available for creating an estimate for BWE effectiveness for purposes of establishing an interim standard for alternative treatments (i.e., a floor for treatment effectiveness). The percent volumetric exchange in a BWE represents its optimal theoretical biological effectiveness. This approach will lead to the approval of alternative systems which clearly meet or exceed actual BWE effectiveness, and the spirit of the law.
At best, flow-through BWE (using IMO and USCG guidelines) will yield a 95 percent volumetric exchange of near coastal water for open ocean water. The empty-refill technique would likely yield something similar or only slightly higher because some volume in the tank is unpumpable and will always contaminate the refill. Therefore, this option will result in a standard of at least 95 percent removal of ambient plankton relative to intake (which could be expressed as a set of absolute concentrations or as a size class of given taxa relative to a standard intake, if desired). With actual biological effectiveness of both methods often much lower than the volumetric exchange potential, alternative treatments which meet such a standard will meet or exceed BWE effectiveness.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research Needed to Implement Interim Standards—A Better Use of Limited Dollars
Instead of more experimental assessments of biological effectiveness of BWE, research in support of interim standards should be focused on the following questions:
What is the most efficient and effective type-approval and monitoring process for ballast treatments?
Currently, the Coast Guard and EPA's ETV program are generating a protocol for shore-based type-approval as a stand-alone process. Alternative approaches using direct shipboard monitoring have not been thoroughly explored, nor have approaches which integrate shore-based and shipboard tests. Experience with type approval of Marine Sanitation Devices instructs as to the importance of ground-truthing such systems against shipboard performance. Such an integrated approach could also afford efficiencies. Congress should direct EPA and the USCG to lead a review of alternative approaches to type-approval of ballast treatment systems, and post-type-approval monitoring. This review should include direct monitoring of ship discharge scenarios, shore-based scenarios and combinations thereof. The agencies should design an integrated type-approval and post-type-approval monitoring process which maximizes cost-effectiveness and accuracy. The protocol should include direct monitoring and evaluation of treated ballast discharge from ships at a minimum as a ground-truthing practice.
How can we mitigate the impact of coastal ships while technologies for treatment are still being developed?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BWE is not designed for coastal voyages, but some argue that it may have limited applicability. Others are concerned that near coastal exchanges could be counterproductive. NOAA and SERC should conduct experimental studies on each marine coast to determine the distance from shore necessary to assure that organisms in an exchange will not drift to near coastal environments in a viable state. These agencies should also seek to identify alternate exchange zones on each coastline.
How can we optimize BWE effectiveness during the period it is used to meet federal requirements?
Congress should direct the USCG and MARAD to lead the development an efficient performance test for BWE such as a dye study so that ship owners can clearly establish the number of tank purges required to achieve 95 percent volumetric replacement on their particular ships. These agencies should also investigate the ways and to what extent that additional best practices can improve the effectiveness of BWE. Examples include partial ballast purges during NOBOB voyages to remove bottom sediments, routine ballast exchanges in the high seas, and care in ballast uptake to avoid algal booms. Monitoring methods for such practices are also needed.
What technologies can serve as ballast treatments?
Congress should place a high priority on adding tools to the tool box of potential ballast water treatments. Venture capital for these technologies will not be available until the regulatory structure is in place. Congress should direct NOAA and the FWS to maintain the Ballast Technology Demonstration Program (authorized in NISA). It should also expand the program to encompass technologies to monitor and reduce other modes of organism transport on ships in preparation for the final standard (see below). This competitive grants program has been invaluable in creating a ''farm team'' of prospective ballast water treatment systems ready for shipboard testing, and researchers to help solve pressing problems of ship-mediated invasions. This work is not yet done. EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Small Business Administration should include support for research and development of ballast treatment in their existing grant programs directed at inventors.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is the effectiveness of the interim standard? What are the residual risks of post-treatment/BWE residuals on receiving systems?
Congress should authorize USGS, NOAA (GLERL) and the SERC to lead intensive ecological and ballast discharge surveys to assess the continuing inoculation pressure on U.S. receiving systems. Congress should authorize the USGS to lead collaborative experimental research to explore critical inoculation levels, and residual risk of ballast discharge treated to a given standard. Concerted experimental work is needed at the bench scale, pilot scale, on board ships, and using mesocosms to accomplish this objective. Linkage between USGS field stations in the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Coast would be advantageous in the research this program could accomplish.
What are environmental soundness criteria and how can we best screen proposed treatments for environmental soundness?
Congress should direct the EPA to lead a research program to advance development of environmental soundness screening methods and environmentally sound tools for prevention and control of invasive organisms.
How's our math?
Congress should maintain the broad authority for Sea Grant research authorized under NISA to enable scientists outside of government to ''check the math'' of the federal program associated with prevention of organism transfers by ships. Assumptions relative to protocols, inoculation pressure, environmental soundness and program effectiveness would all be fair game. Similar research should be funded in the National Science Foundation Program.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research for Development of a Final ''Whole Ship'' Standard
The above research efforts will also support development and implementation of a final ''whole ship'' standard, but more research will also be necessary to meet this policy objective. To support development and implementation of a final ''whole ship'' standard, Congress should also authorize research to determine:
What levels of reduction in live organisms required to reduce and eliminate risk to receiving systems?
Bench scale, mesocosm and direct field studies are needed to begin to elucidate the inoculation pressure that constitutes a risk to receiving systems. Does every last bacterium have to be eliminated from ballast water? If so, is the error margin such that it may not be worth the effort? Are coastal bacteria already ubiquitous? Are more copepods required to initiate a population than rotifers? Is a single red tide cyst sufficient to spur a bloom? USGS, NOAA and SERC should lead this research in collaboration with a broad range of resource agencies and other research institutions.
What is the relative role of other ship-related modes of organism transport, such as hull fouling and operational equipment, and how can we best reduce the overall risk of organism transport by ships?
Congress should direct the NRC/NAS to convene biological scientists and other experts to 1) identify modes by which organisms are transferred to new locations by ships (e.g., hull fouling, ship equipment, or ballast water); 2) assess the state of science around estimation of the risk of organism transfer generally by these various modes; 3) assess to the extent possible, the relative risk of transfer of various taxonomic groups associated with each of these modes, and 4) recommend approaches for reducing transfers of organisms on a ''Whole Ship'' basis, including approaches to standards relevant to the various modes. The group should identify research needed to improve the information base, including economic information.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What changes if any are occurring in the rates and patterns of invasions attributable to ships, and what if any of these changes be attributed to the prevention program?
Congress should direct SERC and the USGS to lead extensive ecological and ballast discharge surveys to analyze any changes in the rates and patterns of invasions associated with ship vector management.
Conclusions
In summary, Congress should fashion a research program that is rooted in the future of ballast management, i.e., treatment methods and the whole ship perspective. It should contain initiatives to address immediate policy needs, and a broader research base to nourish general understanding which will inform and check policy decisions.
Congress should assure that type-approval for ballast treatment not suffer the same pitfalls as type-approval for marine sanitation devices. To achieve this, Congress should invest public dollars in a type-approval system that is as close to the subject of research (i.e., the ship) as possible, and which is integrated with post-approval monitoring. Federal agencies should take a cautious and incremental approach to establishing any major type-approval process using surrogates for shipboard conditions.
Congress should also place an immediate priority on establishing an environmental soundness research program within EPA, so that we do not find ourselves back pedaling from previously approved ballast treatments at some point in the future as we have with anti-fouling paints. Finally, Congress should assure that outstanding research needs not encumber the transition to ballast treatment. In particular, motivated ship owners which seek approval for innovative ballast treatment should not face onerous and complex research requirements in the near-term.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sources
Carlton JT, Reid DM & van Leeuwen H (1995) Shipping Study. The Role of Shipping in the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal Waters of the United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an Analysis of Control Options. The National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES–6. Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC and Groton, Connecticut. Report Number CG–D–11–95. Government Accession Number AD–A294809
GloBallast (2001) Global Ballast Water Management Program. International Maritime Organization. http://globallast.imo.org
Karakminas L (2000) An Investigation of Ballast Water Management Methods with Particular Emphasis on the Risks of the Sequential Method. Lloyd's Register of Shipping. http://www.optimarin.com/PDF%20Files/LloydsListReport.pdf
''Summary and Recommendations on Ballast Water Discharge Standards'' from the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee to the ANS Task Force, November 2000
BIOGRAPHY FOR ALLEGRA CANGELOSI
Allegra Cangelosi is senior policy analyst and ecosystem team leader for the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Ms. Cangelosi has coordinated national and regional efforts leading to enactment of the National Invasive Species Acts of 1990 and 1996, and annually organizes national support for NIS appropriations. She is a member of the United States delegation to the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization which is negotiating international ballast management requirements, and co-leads the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project. Ms. Cangelosi is also a member of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Invasive Species Council. She is currently coordinating an effort to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Cangelosi holds a Masters of Science in Resource Development from Michigan State University, and a B.A. in Biology from Kalamazoo College.
80225j.eps
Chairman EHLERS. And thank you for your testimony. Ms. Falkner.
STATEMENT OF MS. MAURYA B. FALKNER, MARINE FACILITIES DIVISION, CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
Ms. FALKNER. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. Just to give a little background, California's Ballast Water Management Program came into effect on January 1, 2000 and established a mandatory statewide multi-agency program that is generally overseen by my agency. Each agency was chosen and given responsibilities based on their expertise and they must consult with one another on the progress that they're making as well as with the U.S. Coast Guard.
Under the Law, California State Lands Commission was given authority to approve environmentally sound alternative treatment technologies, and as Representative Underwood pointed out, lots of phone calls, lots of folks coming out saying they've got the solution. They've got the best thing since sliced bread that will work on ballast water treatment. However, when you follow up with conversations with most of these folks, there's very little background information to support their claims. Most of these well meaning individuals have very little experience with shipboard operations, with the suite of organisms that must be dealt with, as has been pointed out already here, and with the basic scientific process that needs to be worked through before anyone can certify a technology as meeting some standard. It's surely the case in California that there are no current technologies that would be certified by the state, either singly or in combination. There are some promising technologies out there that have been worked up. Filtration, some of the work that Ms. Cangelosi has been doing on self-cleaning filters look promising, though it's unlikely that they will meet a standard in and of themselves. UV radiation has been studied extensively. We actually have two vessels that have an ultraviolet radiation system onboard these vessels are under our demonstration project in California. Again, there are a lot more questions that have come up than answers and the results thus far are pretty inconclusive. Ozone is being evaluated. That looks promising, but there's crew safety issues and vessel corrosion issues that need to be address. Deoxygenation kind of hit the screen at the end of last year and there was a lot of interest by the maritime industry because it has anticorrosive capabilities and it also can kill a substantial number of organisms, though again, it's unlikely to be the answer. And finally, there's several chemical biocides that we're looking at in California. They look very promising. But, again we're dealing with crew safety issues, environmental soundness issues. Does not really help much if you're discharging all this stuff and killing everything within the harbor or on the way into the harbor. So there are many more questions that have come up regarding technology than we have answers for. And again, as I stated, there's not a single system or a combination of systems that we're aware of in California that would be certified right now.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Progress has been slow. There are people who are working on it, but progress has been slow, and a lot of that, I believe, are due to three primary causes. First, there's not a mandatory national program and there is no interim or final standard in place. The majority of the maritime industry in California is very unwilling to invest in technology until it's required to do so, understandably so. It's a million dollar investment. Those interested in taking the lead on technology development are unwilling to invest the large capital cost needed to put on a yet un-proven system that may not meet a future standard. So without a mandatory program and without standards in place, the industry is hesitant to move forward. Also, inadequate funding is a huge issue. Right now, as I mentioned previously, most of the organizations or the groups that are contacting us with technology are small businesses who have very limited funds. They come to us with potential treatments and we don't have the financial means to move forward, and there is no program right now at the Federal level to do that either. We need a systematic program that builds from the research level through focused research and prototype development to shipboard applications to finally certification and verification. This needs to be a strong Federal program with appropriate funding with key organizations being responsible for advancements.
Testing and comparing and certifying technology is also incredibly difficult. You might have technology that looks appropriate, but we don't have any test procedures. And it's already been mentioned by several of the other panels that we need to have standardized procedures so that we can determine whether or not a system actually meets a given standard. Shipboard trials are of utmost importance. You can take things at a lab level and they look quite nice. They have great efficacy, but you can only address so many issues at a bench level or lab level scenario. Moving up to shipboard trials with dedicated protocols again are necessary.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allegra has already mentioned the ETV program that the Coast Guard is working with. They're developing standards. Another opportunity or another possible opportunity is to develop something like the National Oil Spill Response Test Facility that's in New Jersey. Develop something like that that could test ballast water treatment systems under a larger scale prior to being put onto shipboards and then move from there.
A key part of the overall national program is the demonstration program. And unfortunately, though we have got some interesting results out of that program, it's been rather underfunded and defused. It's based more on basic science principles where the best program or best research proposal gets funded. That may not necessarily help move the field of ballast water treatment technology forward. I think that the coordination is improving over the last couple years. It has improved. We actually had a meeting in Maryland where all of the previous recipients of dollars were given an opportunity to get together and discuss our results. Pitfalls that we've all experienced, as Allegra can testify as well, doing shipboard testing is incredibly difficult. And the best-laid plans frequently go out with the ballast water.
In conclusion, there are several promising technologies out there that are being evaluated, however progress has been slow and unorganized. Most of the treatment systems are still in the very early developmental stages. We need a nationally coordinated, well-funded research program that systematically approaches innovative—innovation and development through resource—research and development of shipboard applications, finally the certification and implementation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Falkner follows:]
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAURYA B. FALKNER
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, my name is Maurya Falkner. I am the Program Manager for the Ballast Water Management and Control Program at the California State Lands Commission. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning before the Subcommittee of Environment, Technology and Standards regarding ballast water treatment technologies and associated program and research needs.
On October 8, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 703 (Public Resources Code, Sections 71200–71271), creating the Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act, which became effective on January 1, 2000. The Act addresses a problem that becomes more serious each day as international commerce increases resulting in a corresponding increase in the speed with which nonindigenous aquatic species (NAS) are being introduced to the waterways of California and the rest of the United States. The introduction of NAS has created ecological, operational, and engineering disasters in many areas of the United States and worldwide. Nonindigenous aquatic species are commonly reported in the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, San Diego Harbor and many smaller harbors and embayments throughout California.
OVERVIEW
The California Legislature recognized the significance of the problem and established, through passage of the law, a state program that addresses the issue by making ballast water management mandatory. The law established a statewide multi-agency program with the intent to control the introduction and spread of nonindigenous aquatic species in the waters of the State. Responsible State agencies identified in the law include the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Board of Equalization (BOE). Each agency is required to work in cooperation with the others in collecting data, developing reports and conducting research into the extent of current invasions, and potential long-term solutions to the problem of NAS introductions. CSLC is responsible for enforcing the law through a statewide monitoring and inspection program.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The law applies to all U.S. and foreign vessels that enter California waters after operating outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Vessels are prohibited from discharging ballast water into State waters unless the operator has carried out a mid-ocean ballast water exchange procedure, discharges ballast to an approved shore-based treatment facility, or is using an environmentally sound alternative shipboard treatment technology approved by CSLC. Shore-based treatment facilities designed to treat for NAS are not currently available, although the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the City and County of San Francisco are conducting research on this option and the East Bay Municipal Utility District has expressed interest in exploring this option further. Finally, there are no shipboard systems approved at this time in California. The shipboard systems tested to date have inconclusive results, but research continues.
Compliance and Monitoring
Under Section 71205(a) of the law, ship agents, along with the master, owner, operator or person in charge is responsible for submitting a ballast water reporting form for each voyage prior to the vessel leaving the first port of call in California. Civil penalties are authorized for failure to comply with the requirements of the law. As a result of substantial outreach and education, numerous meetings with ship agents and owners and the initiation of a monthly electronic notification system, current compliance regarding form submission exceeds 94 percent, compared to the 30.4 percent compliance reported for the national voluntary program (Ruiz et al., 2001). CSLC is responsible for data collection and analysis and has developed a database similar to that of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse's. Information is gathered on vessel traffic patterns and their ballast water management practices/procedures. We inspect about 25 percent of all the vessels entering California waters in order to verify compliance with the law. Our inspectors check vessel ballast water management plans and procedures, test the salinity of ballast water to determine if exchanges have actually been done, and conduct outreach and education for the vessels' crews on this issue.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Partnerships
In January 2001, CSLC and the U.S. Coast Guard formalized a Cooperative Agreement to streamline our respective programs. Our goals are to reduce duplicative inspections; data share at the regional and national level; and cooperate in research programs addressing ballast water treatment technology and management verification techniques. In January 2002, CSLC and the U.S. Coast Guard began coordinating our evaluations of ballast water treatment systems under a Draft Advanced Approval Program.
The Advanced Approval Program is a joint pilot program between CSLC and the U.S. Coast Guard. With CSLC acting as lead, the two agencies intend to conduct an audit of a treatment system on a specific vessel, evaluating the biological efficacy, as well as the engineering and operational components of the system. The Program is designed to provide an incentive to ship owners and operators to install experimental or prototype treatment systems with demonstrated potential for effective destruction of NAS. The CSLC and vessel owner will enter into an agreement whereby valuable experimental data accrues to the State and the public at large and the vessel owner receives advanced approval for the system installed, until the sunset of the California law, which is January 1, 2004, unless extended by legislation.
CSLC staff are also active members in several ballast water related groups, including the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the Ballast Outreach Advisory Team, Oregon's Ballast Water Management Task Force, the Pacific Ballast Water Working Group and the Pacific Ballast Water Pilot Project. Participants work toward consistent ballast water management regulations on a national and regional level while sharing data and information on feasible treatment technologies.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Funding
The law also created the Exotic Species Control Fund to support each agency's program. The amount of the fee is based on agency budgets approved by the State's Legislature and totals $7.62 million over four years. Budgets cover the CSLC's ballast water inspection and monitoring program, biological surveys to determine the extent of NAS introductions in state waters, conducted by CDFG, and the evaluation of alternatives to mid-ocean exchange, conducted by SWRCB. Funding for the Program is through the assessment of a fee for each qualifying voyage, which is collected by the BOE. The Fee amount is under the authority of the CSLC. In January 2000, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed made up of members of the maritime industry and state agencies. The TAG has proved beneficial in determining an appropriate fee amount and addressing issues related specifically to the implementation of the California law and meets regularly to assess the effectiveness of the Program and the status of the Fund. Currently the fee is $400/voyage.
The BOE is responsible for the collection and deposition of fees into the Fund. In 2001, a return (self-reporting) process was initiated by BOE to reduce the overall number of billings, though not the amount of the revenue collected. With the assistance of industry representatives, a return form was developed allowing the larger owner/operator/agents to self-report their vessel voyages. Eight major shipping companies have opted to utilize this format since July 2001. An additional 30 more accounts could benefit from the return process. While the number of operator/owner combinations continues to grow and adds some complexity to the registration and billing process, things are running smoothly. This is evidenced by a compliance rate approaching 98 percent.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research
In August 2000, the CSLC was awarded a $150,000.00 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to implement the West Coast Demonstration Project. Our proposal calls for the CSLC to identify a volunteer vessel and contract with a marine engineering firm to conduct full-scale engineering analysis and designs for the retrofit of an on-board, ballast water treatment system. CSLC will financially assist the vessel owner by providing a portion of the cost of the ballast water treatment system, and in conjunction with the SWRCB, evaluate the effectiveness of the particular system under operational conditions. In December 2001, the Port of Oakland agreed to match the USFWS funds, doubling the funds available for this project.
Three vessels (R.J. Pfeiffer, Sea Princess, and Polar Endeavor) were initially considered for participation in the Demonstration Project. Due to concerns regarding overall capital costs and intrinsic safety, Polar Tankers, Inc. owner of the Polar Endeavor, declined to participate in the Project. The two remaining ships, the R.J. Pfeiffer of Matson Navigation Corp. and the Sea Princess of Princess Cruises, have installed the Optimar Ballast System (Hyde Marine, Inc.) discussed later. This system was selected because it has undergone limited testing and evaluation with good preliminary results and was requested by the ship owners.
The operational effectiveness of each vessel's treatment system is being evaluated in partnership with the SWRCB. The SWRCB is supporting this portion of the project using funds appropriated from the California Exotic Species Control Fund. The SWRCB has developed a Research Team utilizing the scientific expertise from San Jose State University Foundation and San Francisco State University. The Research Team has developed an overall experimental design, along with sampling and analysis protocols. The protocol development is being carried out in consultation with U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center staff.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Sea Princess was retrofitted with the treatment system in late summer 2001 and has undergone preliminary at-sea evaluations. Preliminary results of those evaluations are inconclusive. Problems with corrosion and bio fouling have been identified as possible causes for these poor results. The problems are in the process of being corrected and additional evaluations are planned for later this year. The R.J. Pfeiffer completed her retrofit in May 2002, with at-sea evaluations expected in mid to late 2002. The CSLC and U.S. Coast Guard are currently conducting a joint evaluation of the R.J. Pfeiffer's treatment system under the Advanced Approval Program.
CSLC was given the authority, by the law to approve environmentally sound, alternative treatment technologies designed to remove or inactivate organisms entrained in ballast water. Soon after the law went into effect, technology developers and vendors began contacting my office. Since January 2000, we have received information on or had conversations regarding nearly twenty potential treatment technologies. What is immediately obvious in most of these discussions is the developmental immaturity of these systems. Very little background testing, even at the laboratory level, has been conducted. Furthermore, there is a general lack of experience among developers with regards to maritime operations and vessel specific needs, such as volumes, flow rates, etc. Furthermore, many technology promoters have little experience with the scientific method and principles of experimental design.
The maritime industry in California appears very interested in advancing treatment technology and is willing to cooperate with regulators and developers to this end. However, strong federal leadership, development and testing facilities and adequate funding are needed.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
AVAILABLE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Treating ballast water to remove or inactivate potentially harmful invasive species is a challenging problem. Treatment technologies must address variable water quality parameters (temperature, salinity, nutrients, suspended solids, etc.), high flow-rates, large volumes, a diversity of organisms, and ballast water residence times. Effective treatment technology is further complicated by the variability of ships, shipping routes and ports. The identification of a single treatment technology for all species, ships, and port conditions is unlikely. Rather a suite of treatment technologies will undoubtedly need to be developed to treat ballast water.
Shipboard treatment systems are the most flexible for managing ballast water and will be the focus here. However, shore-based systems should be considered for smaller terminals, those with limited, but dedicated vessel calls, and as an option for older vessels nearing the end of their service life.
A number of candidate treatment technologies have been identified as possible solutions to preventing or reducing the introduction of NAS via ballast water discharges. Three recent publications have listed and described many of these options (NRC 1996, IWACO 2001, Great Lakes Ballast Water Initiative 2002). Many of these technologies borrow from the wastewater treatment industry and include mechanical, physical and chemical processes. They range from filtration and cyclonic separation to ultraviolet irradiation, ultrasound, electro-ionization, deoxygenating, heat, ozone, and chemical biocides.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The increasing awareness of the problem of organism transfer via ships' ballast has encouraged research into some of these treatment technologies. In most cases, these are the efforts of private concerns that have taken the initiative on this issue. As mentioned previously, there is a general lack of experience among developers with regards to maritime operations, vessel specific needs, and many technology promoters have little experience with the scientific method and principles of experimental design. Issues related to biological efficacy, environmental soundness, vessel and crew safety, engineering integration, operational and maintenance requirements and costs are unresolved. A nationally led, defined and integrated program is needed to provide developers an opportunity to test and refine their systems. A facility similar to the National Oil Spill Response Test Facility could be developed to guide technology developers, further encouraging innovation.
Treatment systems currently being evaluated in California include the Optimar Ballast System, installed on four vessels (three passenger and one container vessel), two of which are involved in California's West Coast Demonstration Project, mentioned earlier. The system is a two-staged treatment system. The first stage includes an in-line cyclonic separator designed to remove material heavier than seawater. This stage is used during ballasting operations where separated particles can be discharged back into the source waters. The second stage treatment uses ultraviolet irradiation that has been shown to kill or deactivate biological organisms, including bacteria and viruses. This second stage treatment is performed during ballast and deballasting operations.
Early experimental work by the Northeast-Midwest Institute led to important improvements in the Optimar system including a redesign of the ultraviolet treatment unit that increases the number of lamps and the retention time of water moving through the unit. Both these changes purportedly increase the ultraviolet irradiation intensity. This ''next generation'' system has been installed on three of the above mentioned vessels. As noted earlier, two of these vessels are part of California's West Coast Demonstration Project (Sea Princess and R.J. Pfeiffer); the third vessel (Star Princess) is requesting admission into California's Advanced Approval Program. Preliminary results on the Sea Princess showed no difference between treatment and control tanks. Additional evaluations are scheduled later this year.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
California is also working with developers on two chemical biocides. Both chemicals (AcroleinTM by Baker Perkolite and SeaKIeenTM by Vitamar, Inc.) have shown high kill rates at relatively low concentrations under laboratory and limited scale shipboard studies. Questions regarding environmental soundness and regulatory constraints, crew safety, integration with existing ship operations, costs, and verification have yet to be addressed. Additional work addressing these questions is being developed.
Carnival Cruise Lines is conducting preliminary experimental work on an electro-ionization system (MEP, Inc.) that produces various ionized gases including chlorine, oxygen and nitrogen to kill organisms in ballast water. A limited shipboard test of the system was conducted in March 2002 with encouraging results. Questions regarding the systems' biological efficacy over a wide range of organisms, environmental soundness, integration with vessel and crew, and costs remain unanswered. Carnival Cruise Lines intends to pursue these questions and apply for submission into California's Advanced Approval Program later this year.
Holland America Lines is approaching the issue of NAS somewhat differently. Passenger vessels produce large volumes of graywater daily, generally more than they require as ballast on any given voyage. Graywater is generated from showers, galleys, laundry and other non-sewage sources. Holland America Lines has installed an immersed membrane bioreactor system (ZENON Environmental Inc.) on several of their vessels to treat graywater. The previously land-based system uses bio-oxidation and membrane ultra filtration to treat up to 187,562 gallons per day. Holland America Lines proposed to use this treated graywater as ballast, theoretically eliminating the risks associated with NAS discharge when ballast water is released. This solution is limited in its application; most commercial cargo vessels do not produce enough graywater to be used as ballast; however, this may become one effective solution for the passenger vessel industry.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional research that California is following with interest includes work being conducted on self-cleaning filtration systems by Ms. Allegra Cangelosi (Northeast-Midwest Institute). These systems can remove the majority of larger organisms, but are not effective on bacteria and viruses. This improved system may enhance NAS reduction if combined with other treatment systems (e.g., ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides).
Dr. William Cooper (Univ. of North Carolina) and his colleagues are evaluating an ozone treatment system onboard a crude oil tanker. The ozonation system consists of a central ozone generator and gas compressor. Tanks can be ozonated individually or in groups. Preliminary results showed on average, 99 percent removal of bacteria, its performance with respect to higher organisms at the field scale is yet unresolved. Issues regarding crew safety, corrosion, vessel integration, and costs need additional research. Additional research to address some of these questions is scheduled to continue this summer.
Tamburri et al., (2001) reported on the potential benefits of deoxygenation of ballast water on reducing survivability of NAS with added anticorrosive benefits; an important issue to the maritime industry. The proposed treatment would utilize nitrogen gas to deoxygenate ballast water, reducing corrosion in ballast tanks while killing many potential NAS. Shipboard research by Dr. Tamburri (Univ. of Maryland) and his team is planned for later this year.
Shore based research is also underway around the country. Dr. T.D. Waite (Univ. of Miami), with funding from the U.S. Coast Guard, is evaluating the effects of various water quality parameters on self-cleaning screens, ultraviolet irradiation and cyclonic separation. Dr. F. Dobbs (Old Dominion Univ.) and Dr. R. Herwig (Univ. of Washington) are both looking more closely at ultraviolet irradiation. These projects have helped us understand the effects of water quality parameters on treatment effectiveness.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, several others entities around the world are trying to identify effective technologies. Some of the technologies mentioned have been tested under laboratory conditions; others are at an experimental shipboard testing phase, while only a few have undergone full scale testing aboard an operational vessel, albeit all have been of short duration and to date, appear ineffective. Most of the shipboard systems are still considered experimental, undergoing additional refinement and evaluation. Their effectiveness at removing or eliminating the threat of invasive species is still unclear.
There are fundamental scientific, engineering and operational questions still needing to be addressed on these systems. As such, there is not enough conclusive information to recommend any single treatment option or a combination of treatment options for certification in California. However, there are promising technologies that California is interested in admitting into the Advanced Approval Program for long-term shipboard evaluation.
BARRIERS AND NEEDED RESEARCH
Three barriers can be cited for the slow progress in technology development at the national level. The first is the absence of a mandatory ballast water management program that focuses on alternative ballast water treatment, rather than ballast water exchange. Second is the failure to establish an interim and final treatment standard. Third, is the diffuse and inadequate funding for research. The majority of the maritime industry is understandably unwilling to invest in technology until required to do so by law. Those companies that are interested in taking the lead on this issue are unwilling to invest large amounts of capital in yet unproven treatment systems without assurances that the alternative is likely to meet regulatory requirements now and for the reasonably foreseeable future.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently, R&D on ballast water treatment technology is diffuse and underfunded—the federal ballast water technology demonstration program, operated by NOAA provides little more than two million dollars annually. Geographic earmarks, providing funding for research and development for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, further hamper it. While these locations are certainly deserving of protection, the problem is not regional, and treatment system developers should not be penalized, nor the pace of advancement slowed, because of geographic constraints.
Efforts to develop the suite of treatment systems are fairly small scale. While we applaud the efforts by developers to advance their technologies, national leadership is needed. NAS introductions are an insidious international, national, and local problem and require continued and increased leadership of the U.S. Coast Guard, at the domestic and international level.
The effort to develop effective technologies should be one of integrated phases.
Phase 1—R&D on basic and innovative technology
Phase 2—Prototype development
Phase 3—Shipboard applications
Phase 4—Certification and Implementation
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Phase 1 should include government guided private and institutional research, with the eventual goal of eliminating the introduction of NAS on all vessels through standardized technology. Currently, there are several funding sources that, at least theoretically, can support such work, including the current Ballast Water Treatment Demonstration Program and Sea Grant. Increased funding to U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center would also be an effective use of money, as these groups are already involved in the formative stages of solutions to this problem. The U.S. Navy has significant expertise and could greatly improve progress in developing treatment options if tapped more directly and in a directed and programmatic fashion. The commercial shipping industry must have a strong role in system development.
Phase 2 is one of focused research and engineering that takes promising approaches through to working prototypes. This process should incorporate specific constraints and needs of defined classes of vessels. Again, the U.S. Navy could provide a great deal of expertise here. Alternatively, federally funded center(s) similar to the Ohmsett National Oil Spill Response Test Facility in New Jersey, could be established providing environmentally safe places to conduct objective testing and develop technologies to control NAS introductions via ballast water discharges. There is currently not a significant source of funding for this phase.
Phase 3 is one of fitting and refining prototypes through shipboard trials over extended periods and broad ranges of operating conditions. There is currently no source of public funding for such extended efforts. While the Ballast Water Demonstration Project does fund shipboard tests, currently these are by necessity short-term projects given the limited resources (funding). The efforts to facilitate the development of effective technology through conditional approval of experimental shipboard installations and providing U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) vessels as test platforms are useful components of an integrated technology development program, but are not substitutes for adequate funding. Individual shipboard tests will span several years, require qualified and interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers, and cost several million dollars each, including installation and scientific costs.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Phase 4 is the certification of a suite of effective treatment technologies. Upon certification, these technologies will be implemented throughout the maritime industry. This will require funding for the science and engineering oversight and decision making to generate, from the results of Phase 1–3, standards or criteria for each of the technologies. Once these are certified effective for use, installations on a large-scale can/will follow. Research should continue, because the future may bring the ''magic bullet'' that kills NAS, is simple to use, and does not threaten vessel, crew or the environment.
STRUCTURING A TEST PROGRAM
Testing, comparing and certifying treatment technologies do not necessarily need to occur within the same ''program.'' Testing for purposes of certification does not require that the tested systems be compared to one another. Under a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard, the Engineering, Testing and Verification (ETV) Program is developing a process to test and verify the capabilities of ballast water treatment systems. The initial effort is directed at developing protocols and infrastructure for standardized land-based tests under highly controlled conditions. Only through the provision of such controlled conditions can test results be rigorously analyzed.
The narrow range of conditions that can be achieved in land-based tests cannot be broadly generalized to all real-world shipboard situations. Thus, it will be very useful to have a shipboard component to the ETV program, although the cost of such an effort will be substantial. Further, ''verification'' of technological capabilities may, and usually does, extend well beyond the issues pertinent to ''certification.'' Verification may include evaluation of many factors of interest to the maritime industry, such as operation, maintenance, and training issues that are not connected to the certification question.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testing, evaluating and comparing treatment technologies should be integral components of the R&D program. These activities should follow existing, accepted, procedures in research and engineering. Care should be taken, however, not to get overly prescriptive about the study methods. Researchers should have flexibility to design studies appropriate to the specific phases and objectives of the research. That said, there would be value in developing some consensus ''industry'' standards in order to maximize comparability among projects.
There are significant research needs related to implementing verification and, more particularly, certification programs. The specific regulatory standard(s) promulgated for ballast water discharges will require standardized and validated methods for the identification and enumeration of a broad suite of organisms in ballast water. Typically, laboratory protocols require identification of a suite of lab species. These species must then be grown in sufficient quantities to allow statistically valid tests. If indicator species or groups of organisms are to be used, either in land-based or shipboard tests, the species used must be selected, through careful experiments, to provide the necessary sensitivity and breadth of response to treatments. If used, land-based testing using test organisms will require significant work to develop the large-scale methods to produce sufficient numbers of the test organisms. Land-based large-scale tests will also require the development and pilot testing of an infrastructure of test facilities with the appropriate physical capabilities. These are programmatic research needs that may require significant resources and time to conduct. Importantly, certification or verification through standardized shipboard tests using ambient organisms will also have an associated array of methodological research needs that have been largely unapprised to date.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BALLAST WATER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
This program as described in the Federal Register dated June 6, 2002, offers $2.1 million for ballast water research and technology demonstration projects. This is the latest in a series of funding opportunities offered by the Federal Government to support the development and demonstration of ballast treatment technologies. While a number of projects have been funded under this program and California is a recipient of some of those dollars, the Program appears to be rather diffuse and somewhat ineffective at this time. Three factors contribute to this observation: inadequate funding, insufficient coordination and lack of research focus.
Federal funding for this program is inadequate. Research needs far exceed available funds. Much of the available monies are earmarked for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, leaving only $250,000 available to the rest of the Nation. The Federal Ballast Water Demonstration Program would be improved by removing these geographic barriers and/or increasing funding amounts for the rest of the country. It is difficult to understand why so little money is dedicated to the prevention of NAS invasions, when there is adequate evidence regarding the large cost of responding to these invasions (Pimental 1999).
Little coordination of past research effort and organized data sharing has occurred. However, NOAA organized a workshop for principle investigators funded under the federal program in March 2002. The workshop was an opportunity for agencies and researchers to communicate their results and discuss lessons learned. Additional annual mandatory workshops should be incorporated into the Program.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the current federal program has no particular focus. Research is currently based on a ''basic science'' format, where the best project is funded, whether or not it builds on previously funded work. This results in a diffuse program with little interconnection or continuity. The Federal research program would benefit by taking an applied science approach, wherein research results from prior years work guides subsequent research and addresses specific management questions. This year's request for proposals is an improvement over past years in that there are additional conditions that must be met to receive consideration for funding. For example, projects proposing shipboard installation must show that adequate prior pilot-scale work has been conducted.
That said, minor successes have occurred within the Program. For example, the West Coast Demonstration Project identified engineering and operational issues that are applicable to future demonstration projects, regardless of technology. As mentioned previously, systems evaluated under the Great Lakes Demonstration Project have undergone substantial improvements based on the results of that work.
CONCLUSIONS
The potential economic and ecological impact of invasive species is enormous. They are second only to habitat destruction in threatening endangered species nationwide. Ships' ballast water often contains bacteria and viruses that may pose a threat to public health. NAS control has gigantic economic impacts to municipalities, tourism and agriculture. It is widely accepted that NAS invasions are increasing nationwide.
Under the California and Great Lakes mandatory programs, vessels are required to manage their ballast water prior to its discharge. Management options include complete retention of ballast water, mid-ocean exchange prior to discharge, or the use of alternative treatment technologies. Mid ocean exchange is currently the most widely used management option, but appears to be of limited usefulness. Mid-ocean exchange should be viewed as a short-term solution, until effective treatment technologies are developed.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several promising treatment technologies are being evaluated (e.g., deoxygenation, chemical biocides, ultraviolet irradiation and ozone) however not enough conclusive information is available to recommend any for certification in California. The development of effective technologies requires a national coordinated, well-funded research program based on basic R&D, prototype development, shipboard applications and certification and implementation components.
REFERENCES
IWACO. 2001. Standards for Ballast Water Treatment. Prepared for the Ministry of Transport and Public Works, North Sea Directorate.
Great Lakes Ballast Water Initiative. 2002. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Treatments prepared as a result of the Council of Great Lakes Governors 2001 Annual Meeting.
National Research Council. 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introduction of NonIndigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water, Washington, D.C.
Pimental, David. 1999. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. Presented at AAAS Conference in Anaheim, California (January 24, 1999).
Ruiz, G.M., A.W. Miller, K. Lion, B. Steves, A. Arnwine, E. Collinetti, and E. Wells. 2001. Status and Trends of Ballast Water Management in the United States. First Biennial Report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tamburri, Mario N., Kertin Wasson, and Masayasu Matsuda. 2002. Ballast Water Deoxygenation Can Prevent Aquatic Introduction While Reducing Ship Corrosion. Biological Conservation 103:331–341.
BIOGRAPHY FOR MAURYA B. FALKNER
Ms. Falkner is a Staff Environmental Scientist with the Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission. She is the Program Manager for the Ballast Water Management and Control Program. The program was inaugurated as a result of the passage of the State's Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act in October 1999. Ms. Falkner is a member of the Ballast Water Shipping Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project, and the State of Oregon's Ballast Water Task Force. She has been with the Commission since December 1996, where in addition to her ballast water program management duties, she is responsible for the design of scientific investigations, reviewing proposed research and monitoring projects, lease applications and environmental impact reports.
Prior to joining State Lands, Maurya was a Research Associate at Colorado State University, where she was the Program Manager for the Central Grasslands Global Change Project, Ecosystems Studies Group. She also worked as a lead person on research projects involving endangered and threatened plant species on Department of Defense Installations in Colorado, Hawaii and Texas. Maurya is a graduate of Colorado State University and earned an MS in ecology and BS in zoology.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Discussion
Resources for Research
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, and thank you to all the witnesses. I really appreciate your testimony. It's good to have such expertise available to this committee.
I—we will begin the question period. I will start off with some questions. I have many more than can be answered in five minutes, but we'll probably have several rounds of questioning unless business of the floor intervenes.
First, just a simple question, but it strikes me as a huge problem. And I don't know what resources we have in this country to do the research. How many experts would you believe we have in the U.S. who would be available to begin tackling this immediately if we began making more research grants available? Are we talking in the 10's, in the 50's, the 100's, the 1,000's? Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. I would wager a guess that we'd probably be in the low 100's. One hundred, perhaps now who are in research institutions, universities, and Federal state labs, as well as many very interested graduate students, who are basically focusing on this issue.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. And I see general agreement with that. Dr. Lodge, you wanted to add something?
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. LODGE. I'm in complete agreement with that. And I'd say one more indication that there is capacity out there ready to work is looking at the success rate of proposals for the few programs that have targeted invasive species research, the success rates are low. There are far more people who are capable of doing the work out there, wanting to do the work, than have the money to do it.
Chairman EHLERS. Right. But obviously not the experience at this point. I find that interesting. It's a problem that's costing our nation $137 billion a year, and we have 100 or 200 people working on it and not much Federal funding. That's something we have to change. That gets to the next question.
Some of you have addressed this in greater or lesser detail. Ms. Cangelosi addressed it probably in the greatest detail. But I'm interested, really, what Federal legislation is needed, what type of research should be done, how much is it going to cost us to fund that research, and finally, the question that Congress always asks, how are we going to pay for it? I would appreciate each of you addressing those questions. What legislation is needed? Who should—if we should be doing this research, how would we pay for it? And also from order of magnitude across, we'll go down the line. Dr. Lodge?
Dr. LODGE. I was hoping you'd start at the other end, so I'd have time to think.
Chairman EHLERS. Well, I could do that, if you wish.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Women are usually faster thinkers. I don't like to make sexist comments, but I thought that was appropriate.
Dr. LODGE. I won't take offense to that. And my wife would agree. What we have now is an under-funded and uncoordinated approach to this. And there are different agencies that have expertise at doing different components of this. So the answer to your question can't be a simple one.
We're talking about, let me just give one locally that we found out. We suggest that just for zebra mussels alone, to keep them from spreading to the next lake, it would be worth society investing on the order of $200,000 to $300,000 per year to do that, just to keep the mussels from spreading to the next lake with a big power plant on it. In comparison—so that suggests that we should be investing a great deal more.
Some of that money, perhaps, might come from a private sector. But the Federal Government has to play a key role, because the Federal Government is the only one that can coordinate these efforts. Now I think we're talking the needs for research on—in the 100 millions of dollars range. I can't give you a clearer answer than that at the moment.
Who Should Take the Lead?
Chairman EHLERS. Just another question that comes up. As you mentioned—other members can address this. You've mentioned a large number of agencies of the U.S. Government operating. And the question is, should we try to designate one single agency to take the lead, or should we try it through some of the other approaches we're taking, what we call crosscutting efforts, such as we're doing with the climate change. Which do you think?
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. LODGE. My reaction to that, which is consistent with the recommendations made in the National Management Plan that comes from the National Invasive Species Council, is that we need a cross-cutting budget effort. That's a first step in order to get on the table what is currently being done. And that can be used as something of a road map to say which agencies have the expertise to direct certain kinds of research. But we clearly need a coordinating body. And we've got two potential ones on the table, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council, which perhaps in concert would be the entities that could coordinate this most effectively.
Chairman EHLERS. Do you think the Council could play that role of the overall coordination?
Dr. LODGE. I—yes, it is charged with playing that role. And I think what is a little different——
Chairman EHLERS. Basically, do they have enough clout with all the agencies to actually accomplish it?
Dr. LODGE. It's a beginning effort. It needs more clout and more resources to play the role that it's charged with effectively.
Chairman EHLERS. Just an observation; I think we should consider treating alien species the way we consider treating terrorists, in which the best thing to do is to keep from getting there in the first place. So maybe the obvious thing is to put it in Homeland Security, which, at the moment, has a lot of clout and a lot of money. I—my time has actually expired. If addressed here, you can go through it quickly, and if you want to add to it, I'll—we'll do it during the second round. Dr. Smith?
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SMITH. I guess in terms of the legislation, certainly if we could strengthen the present NISA, the National Invasive Species Act, and use that as a vehicle to increase funding, that would be very desirable. It's good to have these coordinating agencies, like the Council, and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, but you also need, I think, the ground level research organizations that can actually do the research. These people can coordinate—these councils can coordinate the activities, but you do need to be able to fund the basic research on the ground. And so, you need labs equipped to do that with the expertise to do that.
I was one of the fortunate group that received part of that six million dollars in toward research and funding toward prevention. And clearly six million dollars is not close to what's needed to address the issue. We're just scratching the surface in terms of what we need to do to understand how the pathways operate, what they're moving, when they're moving it, and what the weak points are. And I would say an order of ten more, in terms of funding, would be necessary, because if you could prevent it, then you don't have to worry about the costs later down the road for trying to control and clean it up, which are astronomical.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. I think my colleagues addressed well the order of magnitude of funding that's required. I'd like to comment just briefly on the sort of distributive model, who should do it. I think there is a lot of expertise in the country, and we should take advantage of that. And so a distributive model approach, as I advocated in my testimony, I think, makes a lot of sense.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of the coordinating body, just to amplify on that, I think the coordination is very important. As Dr. Smith suggested, we really do need leads, groups that will not just coordinate but actually go on the ground and advance things. And I have great respect for the Council and for the Task Force and what they do, but to a large extent, that's coordinating and information sharing. And so I would like to draw that function as distinctly separate from the lead or the group that's actually going to drive our research agenda that is needed.
And finally, just to comment——
Chairman EHLERS. Um-hum.
Dr. RUIZ [continuing]. About Homeland Security. As you may know, New Zealand has a name for this issue involving prevention of invasions—and that's bio-security.
The Role of NISA Reauthorization
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. Ms. Cangelosi, you really gave a lot of comments on that. Do you have anything else to add?
Ms. CANGELOSI. Very little. I would like to reiterate that the National Invasive Species Act reauthorization would be a fine vehicle. It currently lacks a comprehensive and integrated approach to research to support all of the programmatic and AIDSA-net bills, so we desperately need that. I believe the multiple lead agency approach is the right approach and that the other advantage to designating lead agencies is that there is some accountability for the outcome for that research as well. And I'm thinking, while we might be getting maybe a little more than six million a year right now for all of the research in support of aquatic invasive species management, we may well need to go up to 25 to 30 initially to get these programs underway.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Ms. Falkner?
Ms. FALKNER. I agree with the reauthorization of the NISA. In the California model, we chose to apply responsibilities to agencies based on their expertise. The Department of Fish and Game has responsibilities to conduct biological surveys to determine what the status of state waters are. And the State Water Board is to evaluate alternative treatment technologies and work with us on demonstration projects. State Lands Commission was given the responsibility of being the overall lead. And this was with regard, again, to ballast water. So it's a subset of all of the other issues, but again, to pick expertise of the key areas that you need to address and to make agencies responsible for carrying out those responsibilities. And that has, I think, been a success of our program in California. We are all accountable to our legislature and to the public on this. And so——
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. I have some responses to that, but my time is expired. Next simply is to recognize Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. I want to begin by acknowledging the leadership of our Chair on this. So much of what happens on Capitol Hill is driven by polls or is driven by contributions or political influence. I can guarantee you invasive species don't fit anywhere near the top on that. In fact, I would encourage you, if nothing else, you get together after this and think of forming a PAC. You can come up with a clever name, but it might get more attention. But this Chairman has led the way on this. This is a part of many, many hearings. And he deserves great credit for that. I have great respect for that.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He mentioned earlier though, how do we pay for this? Mr. Chairman, I think the more appropriate question is how do we pay for not doing it, because we are in fact paying billions of dollars a year by virtue of having not taken care of this problem. And it's costing us a tremendous amount.
Economic Incentives for Ballast Water Control
One question on that front, Dr. Lodge. It seems to me there are no economic incentives whatsoever for a private entity, while I'm not being critical of them, to try to control, for example, invasions in ballast water. Where is the incentive for a private entity? It's all on the down side for the responsible player. Is there any economic incentive, or should there be?
Dr. LODGE. I agree with your assessment that the basic problem here is all of these environmental and economic costs are externalities. With respect to the industries, the individuals, the commercial activity that's responsible for it. We benefit, obviously, all of us, from that commercial activity, but these are externalities that are not being taken into account right now. So I think for some of these pathways and industries there has—it has to be on the table, not just how much should we be—should we spend, but who needs to pay. And where there's clear responsibility and a clear economic benefit derived from importing things, for importing live organisms, for example, it would seem only fair to me to suggest that part of the bill could be paid by those who are benefiting.
Mr. BAIRD. Related to that, I'm interested in just—I have this question. I'm well aware of how much our nation spends on environmental permitting, on technology to clean up air pollution, on clean water technology, on non-point source runoff, you name it. A significant amount of money is spent on that, but the cost of the damage of invasives to our environment, our ecosystem seems to me to be actually perhaps even greater than the cost of the manmade pollutants that we've spent so much time and effort to regulate. I'm interested in your thoughts on that, not that we shouldn't regulate the one, but that we're—we may be at a point where we're spending our money in the wrong way given the threats we've got here. I really believe that, seriously, but I'm interested in your thoughts. And I'll open it up.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Distinguishing Pathways of Introduction
Dr. SMITH. I think in terms of pathways, there's sort of, two different types of pathways. Some pathways intentionally want to put an introduced species into the water for agricultural purposes or seafood, that sort of thing, or it's just an easy byproduct like the bait industry dumping these things in. Those are the ones that we really have to worry about.
There are other parts of these pathways where they really aren't actively trying to put these things in the water. And if they get in there, it's just an accident. Those are the types of things that could be easily controlled, I think, with permitting types of things to make sure you're not releasing water untreated into the local water body. In fact, you've got two different tactics. One is just sort of almost like a chemistry lab. You want to keep things safe. You want to handle dangerous materials safely to keep them out of the environment.
The other issue is a little trickier where they're actively trying to put organisms into the water. And that I would almost adopt the pharmaceutical industry type of—anybody shouldn't be able to bring a drug on the market without testing. I'm not sure that anybody should be able to bring in an organism without having some background knowledge of whether it's going to be a risky organism or not.
Mr. BAIRD. We have a huge problem in my district with spartina grass, which some of you know of. It's just destroying our estuary environments. It's really devastating some of the most pristine estuaries on the Pacific coast and it's a nightmarishly difficult problem to control. And of course, zebra mussels are not yet on the West Coast. If they get there, it will be billions of dollars cost to us. I've actually drafted the legislation and introduced it to support the 100th Meridian Initiative. We've got folks in the audience here who have been working on that to try to keep them from coming from the great state of Michigan to get a better education on the West Coast. But we've really got to stop that from happening.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Proposed Ballast Water Regulation
Ms. Cangelosi, you mentioned something I really wasn't quite sure I understood. The Coast—you apparently have some concern about the manner in which the Coast Guard is going about drafting its proposed ballast water regulation, and you feel that may actually impede a better way to do it, if I understood.
Ms. CANGELOSI. Okay. The Coast Guard has had a huge task on its hands here. And it's to be commended for the way that it's going about it in general. There are a couple of things that I think could interfere with our policy objectives of getting ships to move from ballast water exchange to the treatment. And these are the things that I raised in my testimony.
One is that the Coast Guard is struggling with how to ''operationalize,'' if you will, a narrative standard in the National Invasive Species Act into something on the ground. And that narrative standard is that any treatment that a ship might like to use has to be as good or better than ballast water exchange.
Ballast water exchange is notoriously difficult to tune down in terms of its biological effectiveness. And here we can err on the side of too much precision rather than moving on and getting the treatment on ships. So my caveat in my testimony is that we not burden those who have treatments in hand with also providing a precise estimate of ballast water exchange on their ship, but instead supply them with a benchmark that they can shoot with that that's a good estimate for generally ballast water exchange.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second concern is around the type approval process. In the area of marine sanitation devices, there was a big disconnect that we've recently discovered between what we determine through type approval and what actually happens on the ship and in its discharge. And my caveat is that we integrate shipboard monitoring with any type approval or have it become part of type approval, so that we don't run into those same problems. Thank you.
Mr. BAIRD. That's very helpful. I'll look forward to the—if you can provide a little more detailed description of that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Funding for Research
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. Return to a few other questions. The personnel I surveyed about how to pay for it and the general reaction is the Federal Government should be the one that both coordinates and pays for it.
The difficulty is, as you know, our budgets are very tight, and it's very hard to get something that does not appear to be an immediate need. That means there's two aspects to it.
One is to educate the public on the importance of this so that they, in fact, will alert their representatives that they want some of the tax money pay for it.
The other is the possibility of a specialized tax dedicated to this. Now I know a lot of Members of Congress don't like a dedicated tax. But my experience is oftentimes that's the only way to really attack the problem because, otherwise, there exists at the vagaries of other things that might suddenly happen, such as the attack on New York, which totally rearranges the budget. I don't know if you have any suggestions on a dedicated tax.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, the ballast water problem has an obvious target with a dedicated tax in the shipping industry, however, they would not be happy with paying for the research when they know they're also going to have to pay to treat the ballast water. But at any rate, that's something we deal with. But there may be other dedicated sources of revenues that you could think of, so let me just throw that open. And this time, we will start on the other end. Ms. Falkner, any comments on how we can really make certain that this is funded appropriately?
And how we can educate the public about this.
Ms. FALKNER. In California, our program is paid entirely through fees that are assessed on the maritime industries. So every voyage that comes in is assessed a fee. And we actually sat down with the industry. And you're right. They didn't like it. They still don't like it. But we have 98 percent compliance with paying the fee on an international industry, so we are pretty proud of that and pretty proud of the industry for stepping forward.
They actually—in California, they were—they requested the research language to be put in the law, because they didn't want to be going through all of this management if it wasn't to any end. They wanted the biological surveys conducted. They wanted monies put forward on treatment technologies.
And so though they don't like the idea of a fee, and they, you know—even folks now who are supporting the idea of paying for the program, they don't like the principle of having to pay that fee.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It may be too narrow of a fee, you know, in California for the ballast water program. Perhaps there are some other maritime related industries that should be evaluated as well, but we've spent a lot of time in the state educating the public. There's been quite a bit of activity both from the regulators to the environmental organizations trying to bring this issue to the forefront. So fee-based is an option, at least, like you say, for distinct groups. Beyond that, you know, abuse tax. I'm not sure, maybe Allegra has better ideas on that or someone else.
Chairman EHLERS. Go ahead.
Ms. CANGELOSI. I believe that this is a crucial question. It is the only way that we will have a credible Federal program managing invasive species for the reasons that you mentioned. An upside of it, as well, to those that may in the regulated community and subject to fees or other assessments is that it's an opportunity—it presents an opportunity for government to create incentives for those that are going above and beyond the call of duty. The fees can be relaxed in those cases.
How can it be done? We have a couple models out there. Certainly, the California model, which is a straight-up fee dedicated to the issue that it covers ballast management is a good model.
We also have ongoing assessments from ships in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. And there are a lot of issues around how that money is used and whether more is being taken in than is actually being used for harbor maintenance and that may offer an opportunity. Another model is the All-pollution Liability Fund. It deserves a careful look. Some people suggest that insurance, like a liability fund, is appropriate in the area of ballast management where, if it isn't done, the externalities are an expense to someone like the Great Lakes Region. And there should be some way to compensate for instances in which a prevention screen has failed.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I also agree that any kind of a fee structure can easily be generalized to other aspects of aquatic invasive species management, such as permits for planned importations. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. I think that a fee-based system has a lot of merit for all the reasons that have been stated and outlined. I think it's a viable approach, and I think it could be tailored to many of the different pathways that we know to be actively delivering species.
I would note beyond the examples given to us that some other countries have gone that way as well. Australia implemented a fee-based system for arriving ships and, in addition to supporting research on ballast water at issue—were successful in encouraging states and individual ports to provide funding to do surveys of what species are actually present in their port systems. So there are a number of models out there to suggest fees could be quite an effective approach. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Smith?
Dr. SMITH. And I think the stance is that those who tend to benefit economically from moving some of these species around should probably be involved in helping to pay in case something goes awry.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would potentially adopt a model where there's been lots of economic studies, and I'm not that up on them, that have been done looking at pollution, chemical pollution or whatever, and how to deal with how the polluter should, perhaps, safeguard and pay and for instance, put money into escrow and then see if the species that they bring in, if it causes no harm after they've done some earlier assessments, if it ends up causing no harm, they get their money back. If the species ends up causing some damage, then you use that money to help in some of the clean up for rapid response. Those are—I think we need to do some creative types of solutions and involve the industry and try and prod them along more with a carrot, hopefully, in most cases.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Lodge?
Dr. LODGE. As I suggested earlier, and in agreement with the other panelists, I think the polluter pays is a principle that's worth seriously considering. But I want to suggest two issues there.
One is that right now most industries, most individuals are free to bring into this country whatever organisms they'd like to. And so if you wanted—for those sorts of pathways, to tax them, you have a problem right away, because you don't know who they are. So I think this has to be linked with discussions of regulation. There has to be a system by which people who want to bring things into this country and perhaps move them around within the country as well must undergo some sort of screening. The species that are proposed and the pathways that are proposed must undergo some kind of screening.
That serves two purposes. It tells you who to tax, if that's where you want to go. And it allows you to engage the research and screening needs, which are critical. We need to be in a position where we can decide whether a species is a risk or not.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I believe that in addition to the lack of funding, the reason that the Federal agencies, who are the regulatory agencies responsible for this, the reason they haven't done it very well is that methods that would depend on research simply aren't there. But they could be there with an investment. I think that's where the Federal funding has to come into play to assist the scientific community to come up with better screening methods that might inform this. And that's what a recent National Research Council Panel has recommended.
Chairman EHLERS. We've talked a lot about ballast water issues, and I'd like to ask questions about a few other things. Before I do, I want to just—one last question on ballast water, a rather immediate one.
Ms. Cangelosi, you commented that we need an interim standard immediately in ballast water. Is the Panel in general agreement that we just have to settle on something immediately——
Ms. CANGELOSI. Yes.
Chairman EHLERS [continuing]. To take action? Yes, Lodge, Smith, Ruiz, yes. Everyone's nodding their head yes. And let the record show that it's unanimous. Good.
Other Sources of Introduction
As I say, we've talked a lot about ballast water. What about some of the other issues? Fleets coming in by air, for example, or even by land from our neighboring countries of Mexico and, of course, we are now getting a lot of traffic through Mexico into the U.S. and Canada. What—where are the invasives coming from other than ballast water and to what are extent are they a danger? Are people literally trying to take these in purposefully through Customs or inadvertently through Customs or what are the various organisms and pathways that are active there? Dr. Lodge?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. LODGE. Well, I showed today in one of those graphs, which illustrates the potential breadth—or the actual breadth of pathways. I wouldn't for a moment pretend that those data have the authority that we'd like for them to have. We really don't have most of those pathways quantified. But I would draw attention to the fact that we don't know the current situation, but what's, perhaps, even more important is to be forecasting what the future is.
I'm just going to give two examples. The water garden trade, the backyard pond trade, and the live food trade, each of those, the best evidence that I've seen suggests are growing at an enormous rate. The water garden trade, for example, had 80 percent per year. Now that's a trade in which organisms are brought in and people purposely put them in their backyards in the environment.
So those are the kind of pathway that we need to keep our eye on the future as well to see what's going to happen, where is the next ship going to come from, and where is the next shipment of water garden trade organisms going to come from? So we just don't have the answers to any of those questions now. We just have a virtual absence of research on pathways other than ballast water.
Chairman EHLERS. Anyone else wish to comment? Allegra?
Ms. CANGELOSI. Bait, live food, pets, gardens, aqua-cultures, packaging, incidental to other shipments, and perhaps one of the biggest sleeper issues is floating platforms that may be used for the oil industry or within the Navy that are moved very slowly, and they are like floating aquatic communities and they move off the Pacific Ocean——
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. I just wanted to add that certainly we need to understand how the factors operate and what's coming into the country. But we also need to understand what happens once it arrives, once it comes across our border. I think, not to just stop and look at just what's coming in, but to follow that pathway all the way through to find out the fate of those organisms.
In some cases, it represents significant risks when the intention is to transfer organisms to the wild, if you will. In other cases, they'll end up on the dinner table, and the risk of invasion is much lower.
And so I think we need to be clear about the linkage between what a pathway is delivering and what the fate and the ultimate risk of an introduction actually is.
Dr. SMITH. In the survey that we administered to a number of different pathways in New England. We specifically asked them what species they were moving, and in the large majority of the responses, it was very general terms, ''We are moving rock fish or clams or crabs.''
And so we really have no good way of identifying whether there are certain particular species that we need to be worried about and whether those are coming in. Some organizations, like the National Marine Fishery Service do keep some records of what's coming in from foreign sources. We had a horrible time trying to get any types of Ids on product that was being moved domestically. The data just are not there.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Any other comments on that? Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. One more comment in what Dr. Smith suggested domestically is also true for imports coming from overseas. I know the custom records are really quite general as to the identity of imported organisms. For example, this is true for imported live bait. And that doesn't really help identify what the potential risks are associated with that shipment, not only the species. Information's not available. Oftentimes the quantity and identity of organisms simply isn't documented.
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Lodge?
Dr. LODGE. I have one more thing as well. We often do tend to focus on things coming into the country, but as other panelists have suggested, we need to keep our eye on the ball of what's going on in the country as well and just highlight the example that I provided earlier.
There are canals that link the Mississippi River drainage, which is a third of the continental United States with the Great Lakes drainage. These are different biological provinces that have been artificially linked by canals. Those canals are a conduit, have already been a conduit, as you well know, for zebra mussels. That's how they got to New Orleans. That's how round gobies are moving in the—in that direction, and it's also how those carps that I highlighted are moving up toward Lake Michigan.
So there's a clear example where we know what to do. The management needs to proceed quickly in concert with research so that we learn something about the effort that's ongoing in the canals in Chicago, so that we can better apply it in the next canal, like Lake Champlain.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman EHLERS. Are there other channels from one system to the Great Lakes other than the Chicago Canal?
Dr. LODGE. It's actually a network of canals in Chicago, but the electric barrier that's been installed near Romeo, south of Chicago, is at a point above which all of those canals merge. So it is a good single choke point where we can theoretically cut a species' movement off, but the investment hasn't yet been made that is adequate to do that.
Health Effects of Invasive Species
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. We're beginning to wind down here, so bear with me. Health effects, what health effects do we have to worry about? What pathogens are being introduced that affect people directly as a result of invasive species? Do you have a few examples, or are there none? Dr. Ruiz?
Dr. RUIZ. Yes, we know that many organisms in marine and freshwater environments are pathogenic to humans. And there are some examples of some of those being moved around the world and actually successfully colonizing. Some of the dinoflagellates, single-celled organisms that form red tides, can produce toxins that impact humans. Effects range from paralytic shellfish poisoning to amnesic shellfish poisoning which can cause severe illness and even death in some cases.
It's fair to say that we have a very poor picture, at this point, of the microbial world and what's being moved around either in ships or by other pathways, other mechanisms. We know that spectacular numbers of bacteria and viruses are moved around the world in ships.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know that a number of these are pathogenic forms—bacteria, viruses, protists (like giardia)—that can impact human health. But the direct and unequivocal link between the transfer and, say, outbreaks of disease in human populations is difficult to make.
We also know that the frequency of diseases are increasing in marine organisms, and we see outbreaks in both human populations and those of marine organisms. And sometimes, those pathogens are novel. They're ones that we don't know from a particular region. They may even be new to science like, say, Pfeisteria—a dinoflagellate associated with fish kills in the Mid-Atlantic region and a recent concern to human health. Whether the transfer process has exacerbated the risk to human health, in many of those cases, isn't clear.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Let me just make a few comments in conclusion. Obviously, this hearing is about research. And we'll be introducing legislation on this and pursuing it aggressively.
We're going to need a lot of help from you and others in the community that, as a researcher myself, I see—I—two comments. I am very impressed with the research that you are doing. You really have outlined very carefully and clearly in this hearing what you are doing, what needs to be done, where we have to go.
However, at the same time, I am appalled at how much more we have to do in order to really understand the issues. There's a tremendous amount of work that has to be done to ensure that we know what we're doing and that we simply don't repeat the errors of your grandfather. Simply thinking that we understand something, we allow its introduction, because we think it may take care of another invasive species and create a bigger problem. We really have to do some very, very careful and clear research to make certain we understand that.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And that's why I raised the issue of how to pay for it. Obviously, my bill will not deal with taxes, because then if it got out of this committee, it would go to the Ways and Means Committee, and die a very quick death. But that issue has to be addressed, and if we are able to get my legislation passed into law, then we'll have to jointly address that.
But let me also urge you to continue to work very publicly on this issue. We need much more information and knowledge transmitted to the public. NISA reauthorization also has to take place, but that also has to be beefed up considerably. But we need much better legislation on that score as well. And we simply need more public support.
I have seen a few programs on TV, maybe there have been a lot more. I've seen a few excellent programs, but I'd like to see a lot more. And perhaps you can activate the other researchers, the other individuals in this field to be very proactive in transmitting this to the public in a very understandable way of what's going on and particularly making the public aware of how much it is costing them and how it is affecting their lives.
Few people are aware of the obvious things, like the zebra mussels or kudzu plants or things of this sort, but they're not aware of all of the ramifications and how much it's affecting our country.
I'm not trying to preach to you, but I do preach to scientists all over the country, because as scientists, we tend to do a terrible job of letting the public know what we do and particularly, presenting it in an understandable fashion.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I encourage you to work on that. I will certainly do what I can. And that's also one of the side purposes of this hearing, to get the word out on one incredible problem we face and how much it's costing us.
Your testimony, as I said, has been superb. It fits very well into our program of what we're trying to do. And I thank you very much for being here. It's been most helpful. Thank you very much. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. David M. Lodge, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Questions Submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Please explain why collaborations are important among natural scientists and social scientists (for example economists and political scientists) in analyzing pathways by which invasive species enter the country and the risks they pose. What specific types of research should they collaborate on?
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. Collaborations among natural scientists and social scientists on the pathways by which invasive species enter the U.S. (and are moved around within the U.S.) are essential for the following five reasons. First, pathways are central components of economic activity and are thus a natural focus of study for economists and political scientists. Unless preventative action is taken, invasive species are inevitably increased by increased economic activity. While many advantages to most citizens accrue from globalization of trade, increased invasive species are one undesirable side-effect. Biologists need guidance from social scientists on how trading patterns will change over time. For example, changing patterns of trade suggest that China may become a much more important source of species invading the U.S. in the near future. For biologists to identify pathways, understand emerging pathways, and forecast future invasive species from China and elsewhere, collaboration with social scientists is necessary.
Second, the negative impacts of invasive species are expressed in part as economic damage. Therefore, commercial activity often directly responds to invasive species, and would respond to any internalization of the costs of invasive species that taxes or regulations might impose. There is then potentially a strong feedback, as economic activity is both a cause and a responder to invasive species. Ecologists cannot forecast invasions without collaboration with social scientists, and social scientists cannot forecast economic activity with an understanding of the impacts of invasive species (Leung et al., in press).
Third, because the costs of invasive species are often borne by different industries or constituent groups than those that benefit from the importation of species (either intentionally or unintentionally), social equity issues are prominent. For social scientists to suggest appropriate social policy to remedy such situations, they must collaborate with biologists to first develop an appropriate understanding of current and potential future invasions.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, because invasive species in the U.S. often come from other countries (and the U.S. is a source of invasive species in other countries), the equity issues are elevated to the level of international laws, treaties, agreements, and conventions. While the immediate causes of concern are biological, the full dimensions and certainly the solutions to the problem are moral, economic, and legal. The problems caused by invasive species are inherently multidisciplinary.
Fifth, appropriate public education and outreach efforts require collaboration among scientists, technology transfer experts, communications experts and others.
Some possible types of collaborative research that would guide policy and management include:
Forecasting how the identity, magnitude, and source countries of pathways will change over time, and what species are likely to be delivered, and at what risk to the U.S. economy and environment (Clark et al., 2001)
Valuing environmental damage in dollars so that environmental effects of invasive species can be rigorously incorporated into risk analyses
Economic analysis to guide the allocation of scarce resources toward prevention vs. mitigation actions, i.e., deciding whether it is more cost-effective to prevent invasions or react to them after species are established
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Developing and evaluating the effectiveness of different strategies of public education and outreach on invasive species
Q2. Current research efforts tend to focus on specific species. Some experts, however, have suggested that research should be more focused on pathways that invasive species use to enter the country. What are the benefits and drawbacks of focusing prevention efforts on specific pathways vs. specific species?
A2. Choosing between pathway and species-specific approaches is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Rather, these two approaches are complementary, and prevention-oriented research must include stronger components of both pathway and species-specific risk analysis. The research to support both is currently weak, and therefore the policy and management of prevention is currently grossly inadequate relative to the risk from invasive species. Because policy and management will almost always be most effectively tailored to specific pathways, pathway analysis should be the guide to species-specific analyses. For intentional pathways like the pet trade, in which known species are the products being transported, species-specific risk analyses are obviously of paramount importance. Even for unintentional pathways, species-specific risk analyses are important. Once a pathway and its source region are known, it will be much clearer what species are likely to be introduced by that pathway. Then, species-specific analyses are a critical component in the assessment of the risk posed by that pathway, even if the pathway is an unintentional pathway like ballast water. For example, consider two pathways that are transporting the same number of species and the same number of individuals. It is possible, however, that one pathway is transporting relatively low-risk species while another pathway is transporting species that are much more likely to cause economic or environmental damage. The risk of the latter is obviously greater, and the management and policy responses should be more stringent. Based on the knowledge that many ships enter the Great Lakes with organisms from the Ponto-Caspian basin in Eurasia, Kolar & Lodge (in press) screened the fishes from that region with a statistical model based on past introductions to the Great Lakes. Of the 66 species Ponto-Caspian fishes screened, 5 were forecast to pose a high risk to the Great Lakes. The management of ballast might be altered to avoid those species. See response to Question 1 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia for more details on this example.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3. Can you elaborate on what research is needed to develop technologies to increase our ability to detect invasive species?
A3. First, we need to better apply existing expertise and technology to increase our detection of invasive species. Currently, for example, APHIS inspects only an extremely small proportion (2%) of imported shipments. In addition to lack of technology, shortages of staff and taxonomic expertise (see Question 5 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia) are major components of this problem. In part, then, this simply means that we need a greatly expanded corps of taxonomically-trained professional inspectors at locations where commerce arrives in the country.
Second, the effectiveness of inspections and early warning systems could be improved greatly with better technology. While I am not a technology expert, three obvious areas for research and development include: 1) greater development and use of web-based photographic taxonomic keys, distribution maps, and other resources to assist efficient identification and risk screening at the point of entry; 2) improvement and adaptation of existing remote sensing technology to quantify pathway traffic (e.g., ships, trucks, planes, etc.), and to locate newly established, still localized populations of species (perhaps especially terrestrial plants) that could be eradicated; and 3) rapid genetic screening (using molecular methods) to detect the occurrence of diseases and other microbes of concern and to discriminate larger species of concern from morphologically similar species not of concern.
Other sorts of technology should be used to build detectors specialized for locating organisms of particular concern (e.g., the vibration detectors used to locate Asian long horn beetles feeding inside trees). If the funds for research are provided, no doubt other existing technologies could be adapted to make more cost-effective our efforts to detect species in transport (see Question 6 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia).
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q4. How will research on the pathways by which invasive species enter the country help identify new pathways that invasive species might use? On what specific questions regarding such pathways should Federal efforts focus to ensure that future pathways are identified?
A4. As explained in response to Question 9 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia, many current pathways are recognized, but poorly quantified (Claudi & Leach, 1999). The first priority should be to better quantify those pathways, especially those like canals, the live food trade, the water garden trade, and aquaculture that are known to be growing rapidly. To identify new pathways, biologists need to collaborate with specialists in patterns of trade, commercial activity, travel, etc., to develop forecasts for future patterns of organism movement. The sorts of experts and agencies that biologists should engage include industry groups, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Center for Disease Control, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, NOAA, APHIS, and other agencies within the new Homeland Security Department. Executive Order 113120 and the National Management Plan (NISC, 2001) require all federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities with respect to invasive species. Stronger compliance with that requirement would identify new pathways that require attention.
Q5. Can you characterize the threat posed by introduced pathogens to human health? To what extent do we need additional research to better understand this threat?
A5. The threat posed by introduced pathogens to the health of humans, agricultural plants and animals, and game animals is large and growing. The following recent examples highlight these well known threats: cholera and other water borne diseases have been transported in ballast water; citrus canker; west Nile virus in wildlife, livestock and humans; chronic wasting disease in deer (and related diseases in livestock and humans); whirling disease in trout; and oyster disease. Because of the direct health or economic impact of such pathogens, they are the invasive species that have historically been the best detected and to which responses have been most vigorous. This is now even more true because of concerns about bioterrorism and the formation of the Homeland Security Department. Funding for these concerns has increased greatly in recent years—especially the last year—via the CDC and NIH.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In contrast, funding for research on the detection and response to pathogens of species that are not of economic concern has been practically non-existent. The role of parasites and diseases on natural populations and ecosystems has been traditionally funded by NSF (and Sea Grant for coastal and Great Lakes habitats), and has been modest at best (see Question 2 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia).
Q6. There are many different federal agencies doing many different types of research on invasive species, yet, as you pointed out in your testimony, we still have some critical areas where further research is needed. As Congress works on reauthorizing the National Invasive Species Act, what approach would you recommend to focus research to address these needs? Specifically, should Congress reorganize and consolidate research done by various entities into one federal agency, or should Congress build upon existing expertise and assign research responsibilities to a variety of agencies?
A6. Different federal agencies have invasive species-related research programs focused on different habitats, organisms, and goals. Because these different sets of expertise have developed over many years, it would be counterproductive to try to merge the invasive species research component of each of these agencies into one invasive species research agency. Congress should not try to focus the relevant research in one federal agency. Rather, the relevant research components in each agency should be increased in a well coordinated way. Agencies that focus on natural areas, in particular, will require proportionately large increases, because research important to human health and agriculture is better funded already (see my answer to Question 5).
While I do not recommend trying to merge existing research programs, I do recognize a great need for better research coordination. In my own experience a year ago, program officers for two similar extramural research programs on invasive species in the same agency were unaware of the other program! Coordination must improve dramatically. The appropriate entity for coordinating the federal invasive species research portfolio is the National Invasive Species Council (NISC). NISC is the only federal entity with a mandate that is sufficiently broad to coordinate research on all taxonomic groups of species in all habitats. It is already charged by Executive Order with such research coordination, and should be given increased authority and resources to carry out that mandate. Overall, then, my recommendation is for Congress to consolidate the authority of NISC as the body to coordinate federal research that would remain distributed across a number of agencies (especially USGS, EPA, NOAA, NSF, USDA, and ACE). Within these agencies, the external, competitive grants programs, in particular, should increase to draw on the considerable expertise outside of government that can be more efficiently brought to bear on timely topics in invasive species research.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia
Q1. Is it possible to devise a screen to determine the potential for a species to become invasive? Do we currently know enough about the characteristics of organisms and about how they react when introduced into new ecosystems to devise screening protocols? What additional research is needed to move us into a more pro-active mode?
A1. For many years, APHIS has used largely qualitative screens to assess the risks associated with intentional importation of plants and potential plant pests (NRC, 2002). While these have served an important purpose, recent research has demonstrated that is possible to devise more quantitative, transparent screening tools that are accurate enough to apply in the management and policy arena (Reichard & Hamilton, 1997; Groves et al., 2001; Kolar & Lodge 2001, in press). Productive complementary approaches include statistical models that identify climate zones that are similar to the native habitat of a species (''climate matching''), and models that compare species characteristics to those of species known to be invasive (''trait-based models'') (NRC, 2002).
At the same time, few such screens are ready for application right now because the research on these quantitative approaches only began in earnest in the last 5–10 years. One key to successful development of such methods is to take much more targeted approaches than were proposed in the early years of research on invasive species. Approaches must be appropriately focused in at least three aspects. First, because different factors (e.g., different species traits) are important at different stages of invasion (See Figure 1 in my written testimony, e.g., at the establishment stage vs. the spread stage), each stage of invasion must be modeled independently (Kolar & Lodge, 2001). Second, because different environmental characteristics and different traits are of different importance in different groups of organisms, one group of organisms at a time must be studied (e.g., characteristics important for successful invasion in fishes will be different than those in birds). Third, because any invasion includes a strong interaction between the putative invader and the ecosystem being invaded (i.e., the characteristics of the ecosystem also matter), models must be based on the characteristics of the ecosystem(s) in mind.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One example of this approach is our recent work on invasions of the Great Lakes by fishes (Kolar & Lodge, in press). Using historical records of invasion and contemporary information on species characteristics, we built statistical models comparing the characteristics of fish species that had successfully invaded (become established) to those that had failed (been introduced but did not become established). The characteristics for which statistically significant differences between the two groups existed can then be used as diagnostic characteristics with which to screen potential invaders. In our example, our model had greater than 90% accuracy in correctly classifying species with a known history of success or failure. We built similarly successful models for the spread stage and for the impact stage of invasion (see Figure 1 in my written testimony). On the assumption that history is our best guide to the future, we then screened fishes that might be introduced into the Great Lakes via a variety of pathways including ballast water, aquaculture, the bait trade, and the aquarium trade (Kolar & Lodge, in press). As an initial exercise, we focused our screening on fishes from the Ponto-Caspian basin in Eurasia because there is currently lots of trade among that region, northern Europe, and North America. After screening 66 Ponto-Caspian fishes, we forecast that 5 species would be very likely to become established, spread, and cause a rapid impact if they were introduced: tyulka (Clupeonella cultriventris); monkey goby (Neogobius fluviatilis); Eurasian minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus); Black Sea silverside (Atherina boyeri); and European perch (Perca fluviatilis) (Kolar & Lodge, in press). Thus, the results of our quantitative, repeatable, transparent statistical model should target increased monitoring and management on those species especially. Importation of these species into the U.S. should not be allowed because of their potential threat to the Great Lakes.
Such trait-based approaches to species screening must proceed hand-in-hand with pathway analyses, a consideration of the number of individuals being transported, likelihood of escape, and other components of risk analysis (see response to Question 2 from Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia). No single approach should be seen as exclusive.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, there will be no single silver bullet screening tool that is accurate for all taxonomic groups in all phases of invasion in all habitats. Instead, the development of screens must proceed systematically and aggressively given the increasing onslaught of invasive species in the U.S. Research funding to support the development of such screening tools is grossly inadequate to the urgent threat, and must be increased if the goals and schedule for screening implementation called for in the National Management Plan are to be achieved. We were able to do the work on fishes because of the rich history of basic research on fishes in the U.S. and abroad. For many other taxonomic groups, however, such basic biological knowledge is lacking or not easily available; thus support for core biological research provides information critical to the development of screening protocols (see Question 7). If adequate research funding were made available, and adequate coordination of the research and policy development existed, such screening tools could be created and implemented for high priority taxonomic groups and ecosystems in the next 1–5 years.
Q2. In your written testimony you provided a comprehensive list of the categories of research that are needed to make progress on the problem of invasive species. Table 1 of your written testimony provides a list of different federal agencies that have in-house research programs, extramural grant programs, or a combination of these with funding and expertise on invasive species. As an academic researcher, which of the agencies listed would you be most likely to apply for research funds? Assuming that you have a high quality proposal, what is the likelihood that your proposal would receive funding? How is the likelihood of receiving funding affected by having a research proposal focused on prevention versus one focused on control? What level of funding could you expect, over what time period?
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A2. Academic researchers at leading institutions are most likely to apply to NSF, where calls for proposals are typically general and allow for a substantial degree of investigator-driven topic selection. NSF's research portfolio, which is entirely extramural, typically leads the way in intellectual development. Most research at agencies that typically have more mission-driven mandates is in-house (e.g., USDA Agricultural Research Service, which has a large, but entirely intramural, research portfolio). One exception to the small size of extramural research programs is the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), but it is focused on terrestrial, agriculturally-oriented programs. At other agencies, that include aquatic research and research on natural areas, external grants programs are typically small, but nevertheless provide important sources of funding for more specialized groups of academic researchers (e.g., NOAA Sea Grant, Army Corps of Engineers [ACE], and EPA). In recent years, for example, NOAA Sea Grant has provided funding for research on aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes and coastal areas (but not inland waters). Sea Grant has been particularly effective at fostering rigorous research on the basic-applied interface, including research on prevention. For example, Dr. James Carlton's important work on documenting the organisms in ballast water (Carlton & Geller, 1993) and our recent development of screening tools (Kolar & Lodge, in press; see Question 1) was developed initially with Sea Grant support. In our case, NSF and EPA funding are supporting further development of these lines of research.
Statistics from NSF show that over the last 10 years, the success rate of proposals judged to be worthy of funding in the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) has averaged 25% (range of 16–30%, with a downward trend over time). Over the same time period, the average duration of grants has been 2.7 years (range of 2.5–2.9, with an upward trend), while the average award amount has been $51,000/year (range of $39,000–$69,000, with no trend based on inflation-adjusted dollars). Over recent years, NSF has added a few programs that award longer (up to 5 years) and larger grants (up to $600,000/year over 5 years) for large interdisciplinary teams of natural and social scientists, but there are few such awards.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the NOAA Sea Grant programs that target invasive species research (the research component of the ANS Research and Outreach competitions), the situation is slightly better than at NSF: for the 2001–2002 grant cycle, the success rates of full proposals was 34%. It is important to note, though, that full proposals are roughly half of the pre-proposals—those that were judged to be important and high quality. Average award size for Sea Grant ANS research projects was about $86,000/year, usually for two years. These low success rates and relatively small awards for both NSF and Sea Grant proposals discourage talented investigators from writing proposals (which require weeks/months of effort to prepare). Thus, the research capacity exists to make much more rapid progress on invasions, but the capacity is seriously under-used.
It is critical to note that there is a major gap—virtually a complete absence of funding sources—for extramural funding on natural areas and wildlife-oriented concerns. This is because for terrestrial ecosystems, USDA's concerns are primarily with protecting agriculture and forestry production; for aquatic ecosystems, Sea Grant's mandate is limited to the Great Lakes and coastal areas, and the Army Corps of Engineer's concerns are largely with maintaining navigation. What is critically needed then is funding for research with a focus on conservation and management of natural areas, including inland lakes and rivers. The obvious agency to administer such research would be the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which is the only agency whose mission focuses on the management and conservation of natural areas in all ecosystems. USGS, however, currently has little, if any, extramural research program, and an overstrained capacity for intramural research.
While the inclusion of prevention-oriented descriptions have increased in recent calls for proposals (at Sea Grant and NSF, for example), prevention is still under-funded to a large degree. Thus research proposals focused on documenting, understanding, and reacting to established species still fare better than those aimed at prevention.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3. Table 1 of your written testimony lists seven federal organizations that fund work on invasive species. The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) operates under temporary authority granted through an Executive Order. Should there be an overarching group such as NISC charged with overseeing a federal policy on all types (marine, freshwater, and terrestrial) of invasive species? The previous and current Administrations support the activities of NISC. However, NISC has no permanent authority in law. Would it be beneficial to codify NISC formally in law to elevate its status within the Federal Government and ensure continuity over time?
A3. Yes, NISC authority should be increased and codified in law. It is the only government entity that has the breadth of scope necessary to coordinate federal activities on invasive species. By breadth of scope, I mean expertise over all kinds of plants and animals in all kinds of ecosystems in the country, plus an understanding of the international dimensions of the problem. Without increased authority for NISC, the federal response to invasive species, including the federal research portfolio, will remain incomplete and scattershot at best, and few will even realize the gravity of the situation. The role of NISC, as described in Executive Order 13112, should be one of coordination, but to be effective in that role, it requires greater authority and resources (see next question).
Q4. Historically, interagency committees have had success in fostering communication among different agencies and in developing plans for coordinated activities. However, success at coordinating budgets has been more limited. Do you see a plan for a comprehensive federal research program such as the one you have laid out emerging from the work of the National Invasive Species Council? Would a comprehensive plan for research include plans to increase core budgets for existing programs, create new programs, or include a combination of both approaches?
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A4. Yes, efforts by NISC are leading to greater coordination that is revealing the inadequacies and needs in the federal research portfolio. Specifically, efforts to gather past and existing budgets of all relevant agencies into a single cross-cut invasive species budget will be fruitful as a guide to the creation of future federal budgets that are more complete and balanced with respect to the needs for invasive species research.
Only with such comprehensive knowledge of existing program expenditures and goals, will optimal future budgetary allocations be possible. However, it is abundantly clear that core programs at NSF, Sea Grant, EPA, USGS, and other agencies are woefully under-funded on invasive species (see Question 2). And what is practically missing from the federal portfolio is research on pathways just the sort of research that the National Management Plan highlights as critical to improving prevention of invasive species. Perhaps a new program of extramural research is necessary to answer that need, with a mission agency or agencies (e.g., USGS) being the most appropriate to take the lead.
Q5. Taxonomy appears to have fallen out of favor in recent years as an area of study. Do we have sufficient trained people to do the taxonomic work required to identify introduced species? Historically, which agency has provided the funding for taxonomic work? Are current funding levels for taxonomic work sufficient? How important are museum collections and historical, natural history information in understanding the change in distribution of species?
A5. The U.S. does not have sufficient numbers of people trained in taxonomic and systematic work to meet the need in invasive species research, monitoring, and management. The slow death of graduate programs in taxonomy and systematics (the source of trained taxonomists), the lack of support for museums and natural history collections, and the decline in funding available for taxonomically-oriented research has been noted and lamented by many leading biologists for at least a decade now. As the older generation of specialists dies, we are literally losing generations of accumulated expertise that is more vital now than at any time in past decades.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, in my laboratory at Notre Dame, our efforts to quantify the risk posed by ships, the bait trade, the water garden trade, the biological supply trade, and the pet trade as pathways is impeded greatly by the dearth of available expertise to identity the organisms that we sample. Even if a specialist in a given taxonomic group exists, he or she is usually so swamped with similar requests for help that help is either not available or delayed literally for years. For example, there are about four real experts in the U.S. who have the training to authoritatively identify freshwater snails (which are one of the more common and well known aquatic groups). The difficulty for smaller, less-studied taxonomic groups is great indeed. When we cannot even identify an organism, we certainly cannot begin to gather the necessary information to assess the risk that it poses. This problem is echoed by every pathway researcher, inspector, and regulator to whom I talk.
I endorse the recommendation made by Dr. Ruiz in his written testimony to develop one or more centralized taxonomic centers for research and training, and to provide the taxonomic services vital to the conduct of other invasive species research. Dr. Ruiz described this as a distributed network of invasive species research with centralized taxonomic services, which is an excellent idea.
Historically, NSF has been the major supporter of doctoral training and research in taxonomy and systematics, but current levels of funding are tragically insufficient. Likewise, museum collections often provide reference collections to assist in identification of organisms, and crucial benchmarks for recreating the history of invasions. Museums are vitally important as records of past distributions and characteristics of organisms, but they are often inadequately staffed.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time that invasive species studies are putting increasing demands on an already poor national taxonomic infrastructure, taxonomic expertise is also increasingly needed for other urgent studies on biodiversity and on natural products pharmaceutical research, for example. Thus, the decline in taxonomic studies is retarding research and technology development in multiple areas important to conservation, economic growth, and human health.
The low overall success rate at NSF (especially in the Division of Environmental Biology [DEB]; see Question 2) is holding back a lot of the research specifically on invasive species, as well as more general research into population dynamics, taxonomy, community ecology, and ecosystems that would be useful in combating invasive species (Sakai et al., 2001). It is particularly disappointing, then, to see that the NSF budget is not fairing as well as it should in this year's Congressional marks (especially in the Senate).
Q6. You mentioned an NSF proposal to create a National Ecological Observatory Network. Please describe this proposal and the role it could play in monitoring and detection of invasive species.
A6. NEON is an initiative proposed by NSF in its 2003 budget request to create a network of consortia across the U.S. According to literature distributed by NSF, the purposes of NEON are to serve as a platform for answering large-scale ecological questions; identify regional and continental-scale environmental problems like invasive species; stimulate the development of new instrumentation and technologies for rapid and widespread measurements of environmental importance; and provide real-time detection of environmental change as a result of biological (e.g., invasive species) or chemical agents. In addition, the NEON program would link academic institutions, museums, and government agencies to collaborate on environmental problems. In its publications, NSF has often mentioned invasive species as a major example of the sort of problem that NEON would be designed to detect, quantify, and respond to. New technologies and approaches to monitor and measure the occurrence of invasive species (see Question 3 from Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers) would be a feature of NEON.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q7. In Figure 1 of your written testimony you provide a description of the main features of the process of non-native species establishment. What relationship, if any, does this process have to the processes of hybridization and speciation that are the subject of disciplines such as population biology and evolutionary ecology? Historically, which agency has provided the funding for this work?
A7. Historically, NSF has funded work on the fundamental biological processes of speciation, hybridization, colonization of habitats during natural succession, and other aspects of population biology at the nexus of evolution and ecology. These core areas of biological research are foundational for many aspects of the study of invasive species. On the topic of invasive species (as for so many other topics), there is no clear boundary between pure and applied science, and NSF-funded research is critical to the development of better approaches to the understanding and management of invasive species. In fact, hybridization between native and nonindigenous species has recently been recognized as a major cause of the decline of many native species (Rhymer & Simberloff, 1996; Perry et al., 2002), and NSF research will be the primary vehicle for study of this phenomenon. For example, the Biocomplexity program at NSF is currently supporting several major projects that focus on invasive species, including a major UC-Davis based project on outreach and management aspects of hybridization between native and nonindigenous salt marsh grasses (Spartina spp.) on the west coast of the U.S. Core programs in population biology, systematics, and biocomplexity could foster rapid progress on invasive species with additional funding.
Q8. Clearly we need additional research to fill in knowledge gaps. However, information must also be synthesized and transferred to resource managers, vendors of live organisms, and the public. Do we have sufficient funding, mechanisms, and programs in place to synthesize the information we do have and to transfer it in a user-friendly fashion to resource managers, vendors, and the public?
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A8. No, we do not have adequate coordination among scientists, stakeholders, and public relations experts, although researchers have been encouraged in recent years by NSF and Sea Grant calls for proposals, for example, to build in public outreach and education components. Sea Grant, in particular, has been very effective at this. But Sea Grant's statutory focus is limited to the ocean and the Great Lakes, and NSF responds largely to investigator-driven proposals. Thus, much greater coordination is needed, especially to ensure more complete habitat and regional involvement in education efforts.
Efforts to get the public involved in prevention may often be ineffective because they are not adequately grounded in appropriate scientific information. For example, most of the public relations material produced to encourage the boat-trailering public to slow the spread of zebra mussels instructs boat owners to wash their boats, motors, live wells, and bilges with a chlorine solution, but recent research shows what is sufficient is much simpler. The only appreciable mechanism by which boats that have been temporarily in the water transport zebra mussels is when zebra mussels are attached to strands of vegetation caught on boat motors and trailers. Such material is easy to see and remove. The much more complicated instructions often given to boaters may very well discourage boaters from doing even the simplest, sufficient inspections that really matter. This is just one illustration of how it is vital that scientists work closely with public education experts so that the appropriate information is given to the public to maximize the usefulness of research. In addition, research on the effectiveness of different education and outreach methods is needed to make future efforts better.
USGS is one agency that is well-placed (but under-staffed) to accomplish this interface among science, public education, and natural resource management. USGS needs a larger, scientifically trained corps to translate scientific research results into effective on-the-ground management and public education.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q9. What are the pathways, other than ballast water that, convey non-native species to new environments? How well studied are these other pathways relative to the ballast water pathway? How do the levels of funding available for the study of these other pathways compare to the funding available for the study of ballast water? Are current research programs flexible enough to encourage a balanced research program that addresses these other pathways?
A9. For two reasons, ballast water was an appropriate early target for trying to slow the introduction of aquatic invasive species. First, ballast water has been and still is a major pathway by which species have been introduced into the Great Lakes and coastal waters of the U.S. (Cohen & Carlton, 1998). Second, it is also an example of what is often called ''unintentional,'' i.e., as far as the shipping industry is concerned, the transportation of living organisms in the ballast tanks and on the ship's hull is coincidental to the main commercial goal (transportation of goods in the cargo holds). This means that the shipping industry has no inherent interest in opposing the reduction of their role as a pathway (as long as their main commercial interest does not suffer greatly). Thus the continuing efforts to increase the effectiveness of ballast water management and/or treatment technologies is essential because the current approaches are clearly inadequate.
80225q.eps
However, it is equally important that other pathways get increased attention. Not only are other pathways important for coastal waters and the Great Lakes (Mills et al., 1993), but they are especially important for inland lakes and rivers (Claudi & Leach, 1999; Figure 1). While the data in Figure 1 are fragmentary and therefore inadequate as a basis for making policy, they are compelling as an argument to increase research that can provide more detailed policy-relevant conclusions. Clearly, there are many other unintentional and especially intentional pathways that are currently important, and that are likely to increase in importance. Over the past few decades, the aquarium industry has been the primary pathway for the establishment of well over 100 species of fishes in Florida (Fuller et al., 1999). As an example of a pathway that will become more important in the future, the water-garden trade has recently been growing at about 80% annually in the U.S., and many invasive (including some illegal) plant and animal species are in trade, with the express intention of having them introduced in back yards, from where they can easily escape into more natural environments (Lodge, 2000a,b; Kolar & Lodge, 2000). Likewise the live food trade, in which snakehead fishes are one prominent species, is growing rapidly and is very poorly documented and regulated.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the exception of intentional stocking and the pet and aquarium industry, most of the pathways in Figure 1 have had little, if any, systematic research on them because there has been little funding for the purpose. The research agenda on aquatic invasive species needs to be dramatically expanded, with explicit calls for research to quantify the importance of these and potential future pathways. For coastal waters and the Great Lakes, Sea Grant would provide a natural vehicle for fostering such research, but for inland waters, another agency or agencies (perhaps including USGS or ACE) must increase funding for relevant research. Because of the large number and variety of pathways, the level of funding adequate to the threat would be greater than that currently contemplated for ballast water management and treatment research.
Q10. Often work with non-native species requires permits from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and/or the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service to import or sample or transport these organisms. What barriers exist related to permitting or other regulatory matters when doing research on invasive species, or more specifically pathways analysis? Are permits obtainable in a timely fashion to conduct research? Does the research community apply for a general permit or are there specific permits that are only provided for the purposes of research?
A10. All the relevant management and regulatory agencies approved the National Management Plan's call for increased pathway analysis (NISC, 2001). Nevertheless, many researchers have found that the same agencies will not issue the necessary scientific collecting permits under conditions that are essential to collect accurate data. Many species are sold under ambiguous common names or sometimes under incorrect scientific names. Thus, in order to accurately identify and quantify species in trade, biologists must possess and examine specimens carefully. Because there is always a possibility that a species purchased (from a mail-order company, for example) may be an illegal species (e.g., APHIS for those species on the federal noxious plant list, FWS for species listed under the Lacey Act), researchers must have permits to possess such species. The problem is that the agencies will not issue such permits without also requiring that researchers report vendors that are selling listed species. Under such a condition, even vendors who are doing their best to abide by existing lists will not provide full access to the species they sell and will not provide other information, in case they are mistakenly selling illegal species. This inflexibility on the part of permitting agencies guarantees that one goal of the National Management Plan—reliable quantification of species currently in trade—will not be met.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my own experience and the experience of many other researchers to whom I have spoken, vendors will not cooperate in providing full access to species in trade nor access to records of past sales (important in quantifying the numbers and locations sold, which are critical components of assessing risk) without first being assured that the research will not result in prosecution should they be found to be selling listed species.
Most vendors would be quite willing to cooperate if they could be assured that research project records would not be used in prosecutions. Most vendors would like to cooperate because it is not their intention to be selling listed species, and they want to know if they should change their products or practices. Even for vendors who knowingly sell illegal species, the regulatory agencies would benefit greatly from learning through extramural research about their prevalence and practices.
It is important to note that the goal of the research recommended by the National Management Plan is not simply to quantify illegal sales. Rather the goal of such pathway analyses is to quantify the numbers of many other species in trade so that the relative risk of different species (even those not listed) and of different pathways can be rigorously assessed. The fixation of the permitting agencies on the relatively rare circumstance of illegal sales is preventing the gathering of critical information on the many other species in trade.
If the agencies do not have the legal authority to grant researchers immunity from reporting specific vendors, then it is urgent for such a legal mechanism to be created. If the agencies have the authority but are being unnecessarily conservative, then they need to be instructed to grant such permits for the purposes of scientific research.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
References cited
Benson, A.J. 1999. Documenting over a century of aquatic introductions in the United States. Pages 1–31. In: R. Claudi and J.H. Leach, eds., Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts, Lewis Publishers, New York. 464 pp.
Carlton, J.T. and J.B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette—the global transport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261:78–82.
Clark, J.S., S.R. Carpenter, M. Barber, S. Collins, A. Dobson, J. Foley, D.M. Lodge, M. Pascual, R. Peilke, Jr., W. Pizer, C. Pringle, W.V. Reid, K.A. Rose, O. Sala, W.H. Schlesinger, D. Wall, and D. Wear. 2001. Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293:657–660.
Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach, eds. 1999. Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts, Lewis Publishers, New York. 464 pp.
Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558.
Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, J.D. Williams, M.D. Bethesda. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication Number 27.
Groves, R.H., F.D. Panetta, and J.G. Virtue (eds.). 2001. Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, 243 pp.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Kolar, C. and D.M. Lodge. 2000. Freshwater nonindigenous species: interactions with other global changes. Pages 3–30 In: H.A. Mooney and R.J. Hobbs (eds.), Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press.
Kolar, C. and D.M. Lodge. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:199–204.
Kolar, C.S. and D.M. Lodge. Ecological predictions and risk assessments for alien species. Science (in press).
Leung, B., D.M. Lodge, D. Finnoff, J.F. Shogren, M.A. Lewis and G. Lamberti. (in press). An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure: Bioeconomic Risk Analysis of Invasive Species. Proceedings: Biological Sciences.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25:7–20.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries 25:21–23.
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton, C.L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19:1–54.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: Management Plan. Available on-line at www.invasivespecies.gov
National Research Council. 2002. Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests. National Academy Press. Available on-line at www.nap.edu
Perry, W.L., D.M. Lodge, and J.L. Feder. 2002. Importance of hybridization of indigenous and nonindigenous freshwater species: an overlooked threat to North American biodiversity. Systematic Biology 51:255–275.
Reichard, S.H., and C.W. Hamilton. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11:193–203.
Rhymer, J.M., and D. Simberloff. 1996. Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27:83–109.
Sakai, A.K., S.G. Weller, F.W. Allendorf, J.S. Holt, D.M. Lodge, J. Molofsky, K.A. With, S. Baughman, R.J. Cabin, J.E. Cohen, N.C. Ellstrand, D.E. McCauley, P. O'Neil, I.M. Parker, and J.N. Thompson. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:305–332.
Contact information:
Dr. David M. Lodge, Department of Biological Sciences, P.O. Box 369, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; Phone: office 574–631–6094; Dpt. office 574–631–6552; Fax: 574–631–7413; E-mail: lodge.1@nd.edu
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. L. David Smith, Assistant Professor of Biological Science, Smith College
Questions Submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. In the surveys that you have conducted thus far, how would you characterize the level of awareness among people involved in invasive pathways (ship owners, for example) of the issue of invasive species?
A1. The level of awareness of marine invasive species varied substantially among the pathways we surveyed. For example, 94 percent of the researchers we surveyed were familiar with marine invasive species. In contrast, only 41 percent of those interviewed in the seafood industry; 54 percent of those in the bait industry; and 69 percent of respondents in the pet aquarium industry were familiar with marine invasive species. It is encouraging, however, that a sizable majority of those who reported that they were not familiar with marine invasions indicated that they would like to learn more. This interest was true for all pathways and suggests to me that education efforts targeted at each industry could be helpful. Note that our survey focused on non-shipping pathways, and the figures reported reflect the Massachusetts portion of our study only.
Q2. How would the surveys you describe help us to understand the relative risk of the different pathways that invasive species use to enter the country? Could these surveys help to identify new pathways?
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A2. The surveys we have developed are a first step toward providing the types of information necessary to assess relative risk posed by the pathways. Ideally, surveys can provide information on the types and amounts of species being moved, their provenance, the transport mechanisms, company handling practices and level of awareness. Not all pathways are going to be of equal risk in different regions of the country; hence, the need to take a region-by-region approach.
Based on the preliminary results of our surveys, I am not sure we will be able to list entire pathways in rank order of risk. The situation is more complex. Rather, we see weak points within each pathway that may contribute to an invasion (but the points of risk are not the same across pathways or regions). For example, compared to the pet aquarium industry, the seafood pathway in Massachusetts imports relatively few non-native species (and thus might be considered low risk in terms of species diversity). The seafood industry, however, handles huge volumes of live marine product compared to the pet aquarium industry, and many seafood operations are much closer to the water than pet aquarium wholesalers or retailers (and thus the seafood pathway may pose higher risks in these aspects). In terms of regional influences, the release of marine aquarium pets in cold New England waters may not be high risk, because most imported marine species are tropical and would not survive. In contrast, similar releases in Florida would pose a significant risk.
While surveys are a useful approach, their reliability depends on who responds. If only a small handful of individuals or businesses take the time to respond or respondents do not answer truthfully, results may not be representative of the pathway at large. More meaningful results may be obtained if the survey is promoted within (but not designed by) the industry. The expertise and assistance of knowledgeable stakeholders in the various pathways are essential here. One of the side benefits of a broad-scale survey is that it has the potential to raise awareness of the issue within the pathway, regardless of who responds.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Surveys can identify changing behaviors within a pathway (e.g., a new market opening up or a new species being brought to market) that could signal a new avenue for invasion. Surveys, however, are not likely to pick up entirely new pathways for introduction.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia
Q1. In your written statement you indicated that we need baseline research to understand how the pathways for introduction of non-native species operate. What would a model baseline research program look like? To which federal agencies could you apply and expect to receive funding for a research proposal addressing this subject? Which federal agencies are currently doing in-house research on this subject? Is there state funding available to fund research in this area? Are we funding some of this work now, but not at sufficient levels?
A1. A model baseline research program to understand how pathways operate would have the resources to: (a) determine the potential pathways operating in a region; (b) identify and survey a subset of individuals and businesses in each pathway to determine what they imported or exported and how they handled the product; (c) examine water outfall areas and shipments for both non-native target and non-target organisms (i.e., hitchhikers); (d) establish links with representatives in each pathway to work to mitigate risks; (e) conduct trial runs of suggested improvements in handling practices to assess their effectiveness; (f) educate the industry on best management practices and the consumer on their responsibilities; (g) assess experimentally those species that pathways wish to introduce for their survival capacity in conditions comparable to those of local waters; and (h) connect with similar research programs (e.g., in other regions of the country) and coordinate data collection and analyses. Because of the complexity and the scale of the problem (multiple species, pathways, regions), such a research program would need funding for more than one or two funding cycles.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At present, NOAA's Sea Grant program appears to be the primary federal agency funding such research in aquatic systems. Other funding exists through EPA (e.g., National Estuary Program), the Department of Defense Legacy Program, and perhaps through U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service. I am not aware of federal agencies doing significant in-house research on this subject. If state funding is available, it is not a large amount and would certainly vary from state to state. It is my opinion that industries that stand to profit from the intentional or unintentional introductions of non-native species should be asked to share some of the expense for research, education, or control.
Given the magnitude and complexity of the problem of invasive species in the U.S. and the tremendous burden it places on our economy, the amount of funding for research on the matter is trivially small. Rather than spend limited state and federal dollars on control and mitigation costs after damaging invasions occur (which is what we do now), the sensible approach is to prevent non-native species from establishing in the first place. To accomplish this, we need adequate funding (at least an order of magnitude more) to investigate where the weak points exist in major pathways.
Q2. Would the research strategies needed to better understand the risk of introduction of invasive species for intentional and unintentional pathways differ? If the research strategies differ, in what respects do they differ? Presumably, if we could develop better screening methods to determine the potential for an introduced species to become invasive in a particular setting we could reduce the risk of invasive species from intentional pathways. Is it likely that we would be able to devise a system for evaluating the potential invasiveness of an introduced species?
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A2. Research strategies to assess the risk of introduction through intentional and unintentional pathways will differ in some respects. I define an intentional pathway as one that is actively trying to introduce or raise a non-native species in open waters. Maricultural operations (including salmon farms), stock enhancements, and restoration projects that place non-native species in local water bodies are obvious examples. As long as operations are legal, researchers can study them relatively easily by surveying the individuals or businesses directly and by collaborating with state or federal regulatory agencies to gather information.
Research strategies to assess the risk of unintentional pathways will vary in approach. It is important to note that the nature of the activities of several of these 'unintentional' pathways almost guarantees introductions of non-native species. For example, there is no intent to introduce aquatic species by the shipping industry. Over the last 2 decades, researchers have sampled ballast water for all types of organisms. Their results have shown unequivocally that ballast water carries a diverse assemblage of organisms and, thus, poses a high risk for introducing aquatic species. In recent years, the number of floating drilling platforms and floating dry docks has increased. Like ships' ballast water, these enormous structures can indiscriminately transport a diverse group of organisms. This pathway needs to be investigated in a manner similar to that of earlier ballast water studies.
Assessing the risk of unintentional releases through other types of pathways (e.g., the seafood trade, pet aquarium industry, or bait industry) will require a better understanding of industry handling practices and consumer behavior. Surveys can shed light on both aspects. Funding needs to be made available to (a) pursue leads generated by the surveys and (b) sponsor workshops and programs to devise better management practices and to influence customer behavior. In addition, for these types of pathways, we need to incorporate and improve tracking information already kept by a number of federal and state agencies. For example, we need to know what species are being imported if we are to assess the risk they pose. We also need to have records of what species are being transported domestically.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In term of screening, all non-native species should be viewed as potentially invasive and should be subjected to rigorous criteria before being imported or moved domestically. Ideally, the screening would bar any species that is likely to survive in the conditions of a local habitat, unless a very strong case can be made that the species will not proliferate. As an example, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms approved the introduction of Japanese nori (a red alga) for mariculture in Maine, because water conditions were too cold for it to reproduce (but not so cold that it could not survive and grow on racks). For the vast majority of species, though, it will be extremely difficult to devise a screening methodology that will predict whether a particular species will become a nuisance if it survives in local water conditions. There are simply too many unknown variables. If a species is clearly maladapted for local conditions (e.g., cold-water species in Florida), then restrictions could be relaxed. At the very least, we need to expand the present 'Black List' to include species and their congeners (quickly and with minimal red tape) known to have already caused damaging invasions elsewhere.
Q3. What role, if any, do environmental changes such as wetland transformation, over-fishing, and nutrient loading play in facilitating or deterring invasion of ecosystems by non-native organisms?
A3. Undoubtedly, environmental changes are playing an important role in influencing the success and extent of invasions. The studies needed to answer this important question, however, are only just beginning to be conducted in freshwater and marine systems. In part, the dearth of information has been due to a lack of awareness of the phenomenon (until recently) by many aquatic scientists. This lack of attention, in turn, has meant that little money has been directed toward such work.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Highly disturbed systems are thought to be more susceptible to invasion than less disturbed systems. Environmental changes, such as wetland transformation, over-fishing and nutrient loading, may stress a healthy ecosystem and make it vulnerable to invasion. Evidence suggests that communities may experience an 'invasional meltdown' in which changes wrought by one or more invading species facilitate the establishment of other non-native species.
Q4. What were the seven non-shipping pathways you looked at in your New England study? How did these non-shipping pathways rank with respect to risk of invasion? Are there other relatively simple solutions that people can employ to minimize risk of introducing invasive species such as the case of the bait packing that you site in your testimony?
A4. The pathways we examined in our New England study were: (a) the seafood industry, (b) the bait industry, (c) the pet aquarium industry, (d) the aquaculture industry, (e) research and educational organizations, (f) public aquaria (e.g., New England Aquarium), and (g) wetlands and sea grass restoration projects. In terms of ranking these pathways, I would refer you to my response to Chairman Ehler's second question (paragraph 2).
There are simple solutions to minimize the risk of introducing species similar to that illustrated in the bait-packing example. The primary objective should be to keep the non-native species from reaching the local water body. Pathways that hold live marine organisms should never have flow-through systems that empty into the local water body. Water should be re-circulated or treated properly prior to disposal (e.g., filtered and chlorinated). Solid by-products associated with any live marine product (e.g., oyster shells, seaweed packing, unused bait) should be disposed of in a landfill. Undoubtedly, other simple solutions exist. They require (a) knowledge of the handling practices used by a particular pathway; (b) industry-wide awareness of the need for safe handling; and (c) a little ingenuity.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
Questions Submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Can you define what you mean by ''ecological survey'' and explain why these surveys are important in informing prevention and control efforts? Can ecological surveys tell us which ecosystems are most vulnerable? If so, how would this knowledge help in prevention efforts?
A1. The term ''ecological survey'' is used in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)—and is considered broadly by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and associated federal agencies—as a general approach to measure or assess patterns of invasion by non-native species in the Nation's bays, estuaries, and other waters. NISA does not specify particular methods for conducting an ecological survey, and there exist many different methods available—which differ in the strength of inferences that can be drawn. I have used the term in the same context, referring to the general approach.
The goal of ecological surveys, as discussed in NISA (section 1102), is to assess the following key attributes of invasions in our waters:
The source(s) of invasions, in terms of geographic origin and mechanism of introduction (or vector);
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How invasion patterns vary in space and time; and
How effective management actions, including ballast water management, are in reducing the rate of new invasions.
More pragmatically, ecological surveys (hereafter surveys) are a fundamental building block for invasion science and invasion management, providing critical information for prevention and control, as follows:
First, surveys provide a tracking system to determine which species have colonized, or are in the process of colonizing, our aquatic habitats. With knowledge about the taxonomic identity and biology of these organisms, it is often possible to identify the mechanism or vector of introduction. This tells us which vectors and geographic source regions have resulted in successful invasions, historically and presently.
Second, analysis of survey data—the cumulative picture across all non-native species identified—can be used to estimate the relative importance of vectors or geographic source regions in space or time.
Third, such an assessment of vector importance (possibly by source region) can be used to prioritize where prevention efforts are best directed, to reduce the largest number of future invasions.
Fourth, detection of particular invasions in surveys may be used to trigger particular management actions. For example, detection of species known to have relatively large impacts may trigger control measures to either prevent further spread or, if detected at an early stage of colonization, eradication.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond informing and directing initial management actions, surveys also provide an important feedback system to assess how well prevention measures work in reducing new invasions. Although we can assess the change in delivery of organisms by a particular vector, and how this is affected by management actions, this does not tell us the effect of management action(s) on the actual number of invasions. Since we don't know enough about the quantitative ''dose-response'' relationship between number of organisms delivered and invasion success, it is critical to actually measure the efficacy of management action by invasion rate. Thus, should invasions continue to occur at an unacceptable rate (despite management actions), this indicates that further steps are required.
Surveys also inform our understanding of which ecosystems are most susceptible to invasions as well as what factors may contribute to invasion resistance. Although invasions can occur in all ecosystems, there is clearly a great deal of variation in the number of established invasions among systems. Analysis of this pattern, using standardized surveys across many bays and habitats, can be used to test for correlation with specific biological or environmental characteristics—asking which factors explain most of this variation. This approach can identify a suite of factors that may affect the success or failure of non-native species to establish—such as salinity regime, habitat disturbance, flow regime, or biological diversity—and help focus management actions to particular regions or habitats that are most vulnerable.
I recommend this approach (using surveys) to test statistically for such associations, advancing our understanding of susceptibility to invasions, but I also believe a further experimental approach is desirable. This additional step is used to test whether the there is a cause-effect relationship, or simply an association, between invasion outcome and particular factors. Thus, analyses of actual invasion patterns by surveys are necessary but not sufficient, by themselves, to guide management decisions about susceptibility or resistance to invasions.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. In your statement, you stress the importance of collecting standardized, repeated information about what species are being introduced and becoming established. In order to gather useful data, how many surveys need to be conducted at how many sites, how often, and for how long? How can we best allocate resources to collect this information?
A2. Yes, standardized surveys are key to the analysis of temporal and spatial patterns of invasion, and to effectively guide management actions (as outlined above). NISA does not specify particular methods for conducting ecological surveys. Although existing surveys provide useful information, underscoring the significance of invasions in our nation's marine and freshwater systems, they were not implemented in a coordinated, standardized fashion. As a result, we have a patchwork of information that is very uneven in quality and quantity among sites. Our ability to compare the extent of invasions among sites—such as individual bays or habitats—is very limited. Thus, we cannot reliably assess the relative importance of different vectors in many locations, the rate of invasions historically or into the future (in response to prevention measures), or variation in susceptibility to invasion among sites or habitats. Many of these issues are outlined in a recent article entitled ''Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes, and Biases'' (Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2000, Volume 31, pages 481–531).
In 1998, a workshop was convened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Smithsonian Institution to consider the design of surveys on a national scale that address the current needs. This included as participants most of the researchers who had conducted ecological surveys at that time. The general recommendations were for surveys at approximately 13 different coastal bays, distributed throughout the country, to be repeated on a regular basis over a 10-year period. Although the primary focus of the workshop was on coastal systems, a similar level of commitment was considered desirable for freshwater ecosystems, including the Great Lakes.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I agree with these general recommendations, concerning especially the use of many sites over a 10-year period. This approach will establish a solid base of data for analyses (as above) and as a reference to measure changes in invasion rates in the future, as follows:
1. Inclusion of many sites provides a robust measure of national patterns and, importantly, variation among sites. It would be misguided to assume surveys in one or two estuaries could represent patterns for the entire country, as each bay may be somewhat different. Thus, management decisions should be based upon a broader-based analysis across geographically distributed bays, which occur in many different geographic regions of the country—which represent different biogeographic zones (or biological communities), with different environmental conditions, and are exposed to different vector activities. Moreover, it is this variation among sites that will be especially instructive in understanding differences in susceptibility to invasions and the underlying mechanisms for susceptibility.
2. Repeated surveys (e.g., over a 10-year period) provide statistical confidence in our measures of established non-native species in each estuary. Multiple time points create a statistical distribution (mean, range, and standard error) for the number of non-native species detected. This distribution provides a solid basis to measure changes in the rate of invasion over time. Importantly, we should expect some variation in detection of established invasions, due to changes in environmental conditions that cause changes in population abundances. For example, some species are abundant in years of high rainfall versus low rainfall, possibly due to salinity effects on the marine community. Thus, our ability to include such year-to-year and seasonal variation enhances the resolution to detect and track new invasions over time.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Combining this background information, I believe the best approach to ecological surveys—to provide the research needed for effective management and policy—should include the following elements:
Multiple sites that are distributed geographically, to encompass the full spectrum of biogeographic provinces, environmental conditions, and vector activity. This should include marine/estuarine and freshwater systems. I suggest a minimum of 10 coastal bays, distributed among the three coasts (Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico). I also suggest a minimum of 10 freshwater systems, which are also distributed across the country and include the Great Lakes.
Surveys at each site repeated at least every 2 years, providing a minimum of 5 surveys, over a 10-year period.
A subset of the sites should be designated as ''Core Demonstration Sites'' in both marine and freshwater systems, perhaps 3 for each—one on each coast. More intensive and extensive measures should be implemented at these Core Sites on a continuous basis (i.e., seasonal and annual) over the same 10-year period. These sites serve multiple purposes. First, they provide finer resolution measures that help interpret patterns across sites. Second, they provide a ''proving grounds'' to develop and test methods. Third, they provide for demonstration of methods to be implemented at the other survey sites.
In terms of resource allocation and implementation, I suggest a two-tier approach that involves a distributed network of research groups:
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, a lead research group or team should be designated and tasked with (a) development of specific, standardized protocols, (b) implementation/maintenance of surveys at the ''Core Demonstration Sites,'' (c) data management and analyses, and (d) communication across the broader distributed network of survey sites. This provide clear source of information and centralized services (e.g., a national database and public access of all data, analyses, and reports) for the survey program.
Second, a distributed network of other research groups—university researchers, museums, State and Federal agencies, etc.—who implement surveys at marine and freshwater sites throughout the country.
In general, this distributed model for surveys takes full advantage of existing regional expertise and minimizes the expense and time associated with travel. This provides an opportunity for heavy student involvement and training. Moreover, the development of centralized coordination, protocol development, and data management by a lead group would serve to standardize measures, reduce expenses, and increase information access.
Q3. How do the types of information gathered in monitoring efforts for invasive species overlap with the types of information needed for surveillance of possible biological agents that may enter our waters and threaten our security?
A3. Although there is overlap, I see these as somewhat different issues, which require different approaches.
Most discussion of biological agents that threaten our security probably refer to pathogenic organisms that impact human health, causing illness and even death; such agents may or may not be contagious. Thus, surveillance for these types of organisms would be rather specific for particular pathogens, and would likely rely upon microbiological approaches and molecular methods of detection.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Discussion of monitoring efforts for invasive species can be classified into two general categories: (a) broad scale ecological surveys or pathway of non-native species—as above—and (b) surveys designed specifically for ''early detection—rapid response'' focused on particular target organisms of concern. Although the latter could overlap with the approach used for surveillance of biological agents, most of the current efforts are not focused on micro-organisms or human pathogens. So the overlap is relatively small at the present time.
There are some areas of overlap, or potential links, between invasive species and national security that could be further developed, including:
Vectors that deliver many of the invasive species now detected in monitoring efforts are potential entry points for biological agents, and these could be screened for specific pathogens of concern to human health.
Biological invasions that have a significant impact of fishery resources or water resources threaten economic stability in some cases. Programs to detect and prevent invasions by these organisms are thus relevant broadly to national security.
Nonetheless, the type of surveillance required to detect biological agents is rather different, in scope and approach, from that used to monitor invasive species.
Q4. Taxonomy appears to have fallen out of favor in recent years as an area of study. Do we have sufficient trained people to do the taxonomic work required to identify introduced species? Historically, which agency has provided the funding for taxonomic work? Are current funding levels for taxonomic work sufficient? How important are museum collections and historical, natural history information in understanding the change in distribution of species?
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A4. We do not have sufficient taxonomic expertise in the U.S., as necessary to identify introduced species. Taxonomy has indeed fallen out of favor in recent years. As systematists retire in museums and academic institutions, both within the U.S. and overseas, many simply have not been replaced, resulting in a significant erosion of taxonomic expertise on a global scale. For many groups of organisms, the remaining taxonomic experts are at or near retirement, with few being trained to take their place. Even where taxonomic expertise still exists, the volume of material awaiting identification has outstripped the capacity to process this material.
This erosion of the number of experts is attributed in large part to a decline in positions available to systematists. Historically, both academic institutions and museums supported systematists among their faculty. Classical systematics is relatively rare in academic institutions today. Furthermore, the number of curators supported by museums has also declined.
Recent efforts by the National Science Foundation have been geared to training the next generation of systematists and rebuilding taxonomic capacity. These current efforts are critical, especially from the perspective of resolving the identity of many introductions, but the current funding devoted to this effort should be expanded, as we have a long way to go.
Although a significant increase in funding is warranted for taxonomic work and training, a major deterrent remains the lack of a clear career path—in the form of positions at academic institutions and museums—to encourage and maintain expertise in this area.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As to museum collections, these provide a critical resource for understanding the historical distribution of many species—needed to correctly identify invasive species and document their range shifts. First, museums serve as an archive of voucher specimens from previous collections. This allows examination of early materials for comparison with recent material, to detect the arrival of new organisms—either based upon morphological or molecular characteristics. Second, museums also provide ready access to global distribution patterns for many species. This latter aspect may allow for prediction of future invasions, based upon knowledge of current distribution and vector activity and based upon the environmental features associated with the current distribution. In short, museum collections should be viewed as an integral component and key resource for invasion research.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia
Q1. In your testimony you recommended that we do more quantitative biological surveys of aquatic environments to determine the variety and distribution of species present and we repeat these surveys periodically. How often should these surveys be repeated? There will be finite funding to support these activities. How should we allocate funds between initial surveys to assess vulnerability of ecosystems and repeat surveys of vulnerable ecosystems?
A1. I have addressed some of these issues in my response to Congressman Ehlers' questions about the goals and design of surveys. I will elaborate further on the trade-off between initial surveys and repeated surveys.
As outlined in my previous comments, and as you suggest, initial surveys and repeated surveys serve different purposes. The initial surveys provide an assessment of not only the extent of invasions but also the relative importance of specific transfer mechanisms (vectors) and source regions that deliver non-native species. In my view, this provides critical information for management action, allowing efficient targeting of those vectors and geographic regions that are most active sources of invasion. We should expect the relative importance of vector and source region to vary geographically. For this reason, initial surveys should include multiple sites along each coast—both in freshwater and marine habitats.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you indicate, initial surveys also can be used to examine differences in susceptibility to invasion among geographic locations and habitats. This also requires comparable analysis among many different systems. At first analysis, we can simply rank systems as to the number of non-native species present or the relative abundance of non-native species, providing one measure of vulnerability. However, in addition, I believe we should seek the underlying reason(s) for variation in extent of invasion (or susceptibility) among systems—providing a stronger basis for management decisions that may be generalized across the country. In essence, this latter approach can provide more explanatory power. Since we cannot survey all sites, this approach seeks to identify those factors that most influence invasion success, creating the potential for management action to focus effort more efficiently on abating invasions based upon these ''risk factors.'' (Please note that I have discussed some additional aspects of this approach in response to earlier questions, above.)
To represent the full spectrum of environmental conditions and vector activity that influence invasion patterns, providing adequate resolution, I believe we need initial surveys at a minimum of 20 different sites—10 marine (bays and estuaries) and 10 freshwater sites.
Repeated surveys also provide critical information for management and policy, tracking how invasion rates and patterns are changing over time. As outlined above, I believe this tracking system is critical to (a) provide an early alert to new invasions that result from a new vector or activity and (b) assess the efficacy of management activities over time. While initial surveys provide a strong underpinning for management actions to prevent new invasions, repeated surveys assess the efficacy of these measures—telling us whether the management strategy is working to reduce invasions.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we have seen in the Great Lakes ecosystem, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about how well ballast water exchange has worked to reduce the rate of new invasions. In my view, this confusion exists partly because there are no repeated, quantitative surveys that reliably measure changes in invasion rate over time. More broadly, there is no program established in the country to assess changes in invasion rate for coastal systems in response to management action.
Unfortunately, I strongly believe we need both initial and repeated surveys, since they serve different purposes. For this reason, I have suggested in my earlier comments that the initial surveys be repeated at each site on a regular basis. If forced to reduce this effort, I would advance the initial surveys, and I would implement repeated measures for at least the ''Core Demonstration Sites'' outlined above. The approach maximizes the amount of information needed immediately for management and policy decisions and implements a tracking system—though more limited than desirable—to measure changes over time.
Q2. You recommend the establishment of multiple research groups to do biological surveys. Should the Federal Government establish these research groups in conjunction with State governments? How many information repositories for survey data should we have? Should repositories be established by region or organized by type of ecosystem being surveyed? Which agency of the Federal Government would be best suited to acting as the coordinator for all of the biological survey information? Have the lists of invasive species, noxious weeds, and other types of relevant listings kept by States been compiled and compared?
A2. I have also addressed some of these issues in my response to Congressman Ehlers' questions and will expand on a few points.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I recommend establishing a leadership team for surveys organized by ecosystem type, whereby one group focuses largely on freshwater ecosystems and one on marine/estuarine ecosystems. The two lead groups would design and coordinate efforts in the respective ecosystem types. The lead groups would be research organizations and would be charged with implementing surveys at the ''Core Demonstration Sites'' (as discussed earlier).
Although the two groups in the leadership team would work closely together to design the overall program approach, it is desirable to have each as a lead in the respective ecosystem type—including the design of surveys, implementation, and data management—as marine and freshwater systems are rather different in habitat types, taxonomic groups, and researchers and taxonomists with appropriate expertise. With this strategy, there would be two repositories for resulting information—one for freshwater and one for marine/estuarine—although these can be linked electronically for analyses and public access.
While I suggest the leadership team establish the overall structure, standardized protocols, central services (e.g., data management and access), and surveys at the ''Core Demonstration Sites,'' I believe surveys at additional sites should involve other research groups. In essence, I suggest the program be designed as a distributed network of researchers, coordinated closely with the leadership team and conducting surveys at sites in their respective regions throughout the country. This approach takes advantage of regional expertise and reduces overall costs associated with travel. These additional research groups would likely include universities (faculty and students), state partners, and possibly some federal research laboratories.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this model, I believe the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are in the best position to provide leadership for this program. SERC has the largest research program on marine invasions in the country, with a staff of 25 biologists, and has been active in the field for a decade. USGS has been very active on similar research terrestrial systems and freshwater systems.
Furthermore, each organization has developed a complementary database (or repository) for nationwide information on invasions in marine systems (SERC) and freshwater systems. I would note that SERC and USGS have already developed a Memorandum of Understanding—signed in February 2001—to coordinate research and information management associated for invasions in marine and freshwater ecosystems. In short, I believe the capacity, experience, and coordination already exists between these organizations to effectively implement the outlined strategy.
With respect to aquatic invasive species, SERC and USGS have compiled extensive records from states and other sources throughout the country. This is an active and ongoing process.
Q3. Has anyone examined Federal and State policies to determine whether any of these might be contributing to the introduction of invasive species? (e.g., policies on fish stocking, promotion of trade in live organisms, plantings as part of dune stabilization programs)
A3. This is an important area, where much can be accomplished to prevent new invasions, and there has been an upsurge in such activity in the past few years.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you well know, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 encouraged the development of ''state management plans.'' These are now completed for a number of states, and others are under development. One of the key components of these plans is an analysis of current activities and policies within the state that may result in introductions, and plans to reduce the associated risk of introductions.
More recently, in 1999, President Clinton issued an executive order mandating federal agencies to cooperate to limit the ecological, economic and public health impacts of invasions nationally (Executive Order No. 13222). Among other elements, this created the National Invasive Species Council and called for federal agencies to review and revise policies that result in introductions. The Council has further developed a national management plan with steps geared at further review and policy change in this respect.
Although these are encouraging and effective activities, there is still more that can be done. There is very limited knowledge, review, and control of which species are imported into the country or across state boundaries—this is especially true of the pet industry and bait industry.
Furthermore, it appears that there is often rather limited review and federal oversight over intentional introductions into aquatic habitats. This is underscored by the recent experimental plantings of non-native oysters into Chesapeake Bay by Virginia. Although there axe concerns by surrounding states about the potential spread of this organism, should it become feral, this decision can be made solely by Virginia. There is no established review process or jurisdiction for federal or regional interests. Moreover, it is my understanding that the U.S. is required to inform the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), as a signatory state to a specific agreement on this issue, of any such planned introductions. This has not occurred, and there seems to be some confusion in what agency should respond.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although there is now a study underway at the National Academy of Science to focus on the non-native oyster example, there is clearly a gap the current framework to provide adequate evaluation and oversight for live imports.
Q4. What would an effective field-based detection system for invasive species look like? How should we prioritize monitoring? Should we be looking at physical factors of systems such as their water residence times, connection to other systems, proximity to ports and/or cities as a way to assess the possibility for an invasive species to spread?
A4. I have addressed many of these issues in my earlier comments on the design and approach to ecological surveys and will elaborate briefly.
I believe it is critical to consider the environmental conditions associated with invasions, as this provides the basis to understand both the factors and mechanisms that underlie invasion outcome—successful establish or failure of non-native species upon arrival. For this reason, initial surveys should be conducted at many geographically distinct sites, which differ in environmental characteristics and supply (or vector) characteristics. Physical and chemical environmental conditions should be measured in parallel with each site (within a survey) where biological data are collected to identify non-native species. This approach permits the use of statistical methods to identify (test for) those factors that explain most of the observed variation in extent of invasion among and within sites.
This approach uses a statistical model to identify where, under what environmental conditions, most invasions occur. Such information would allow management efforts to focus on particular locations (conditions), which have experienced most invasions. Further, this could be used to allocate effort for monitoring and detection—as an early warning system.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the present time, I don't believe we have sufficient knowledge (about the relative importance of environmental conditions, habitat types, or other factors for colonization of non-native species) to restrict monitoring by surveys to particular locations. This is one clear goal for the initial ecological surveys.
I would also like to draw a distinction between the ''ecological surveys'' and detection efforts associated with an ''early warning system.'' The former are designed to provide key information about sources and rates of invasion—across different sites, habitats, and environmental conditions—and the essentially track how this is changing over time. This information is used to direct and evaluate management actions, focused largely on vectors and pathways of invasion. Although surveys may provide some ''early detection capability'' this is not the primary goal.
In contrast, an ''early warning system'' would require a more focused effort to detect a limited number of particular (known) species of concern. To have an early warning system would require frequent monitoring of specific habitats for a finite suite of organisms. In my opinion, it is not feasible to monitor for all organisms on a frequent basis—and allow for rapid response—due to obvious logistical and cost constraints. The goal of ''early warning detection'' is to trigger particular management actions (e.g., eradication, containment, etc.) for the target species. Using a focused list of species for such early warning detection, it is possible presently to locate ''sentinel sites'' sites for detection at locations with specific habitat and environmental conditions appropriate for the target species.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute
Questions Submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. What goal should a final ''whole ship'' standard ideally be based on (for instance, best available technology or the capacity of the receiving ecosystem)? What research do we need to define that goal? What research do we need to determine the standard necessary to meet that goal?
A1. The goal for a ''whole ship'' standard should be to eliminate the risk of species translocation by ships as a whole. The goal should be implemented using best available technology economically achievable. This approach will drive technology toward science based treatment objectives.
The goal of risk elimination creates a need for research to determine any threshold inoculation levels of various taxa that may be ''de minimus,'' and to determine the extent to which various facets of the ship (ballast water, hulls, anchor chains, etc.) may contribute to species translocation in addition to ballast water. Implicit in the best available technology implementation formula is a need for research to determine the relative effectiveness of various approaches to control (applicable to the various facets of the ship) and for incentives to spur technology development.
Q2. In your testimony, you state that we need research to better understand the degree to which any treatment choice should reduce the number of live organisms in order to eliminate the risk invasive species pose to the ecosystems they enter. How would the monitoring program described by Dr. Ruiz support this kind of research, and what additional research do you believe is necessary?
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A2. Monitoring changes in the rates and patterns of invasions and relating those changes to advances in pathway management is the only way to finally determine if programmatic efforts are ''enough'' to slow or stop invasions via that pathway. This type of monitoring and analysis is very slow and difficult, however. Researchers must find a way to accurately detect changes in species composition of vast aquatic systems, and to have accurate information about shipping practices. All of this information must be controlled for changes in shipping volume and voyage patterns, as well as changes in the conditions of the source and receiving ecosystems. Many replicates over a long period of time are the only remedy for the degree of variation inherent in this sort of data.
Therefore, I recommend that this long-term survey research and data analysis be complemented by shorter-term experimental research at the bench and pilot scales at USGS field stations. In this sort of setting the effects of various inoculation levels on mesocosm standing systems can be analyzed under controlled conditions. The various field stations of the USGS, particularly those located in the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes and the East Coast, offer contrasting ambient water conditions and biological communities, such that data from identical experiments could be compared across systems.
Data from these experiments would not be sufficient as a stand-alone set of information for determining residual risk to U.S. receiving aquatic systems associated with any ballast or whole ship treatment standard. They could, however, provide a preview of longer-term survey results. In addition, these experimental data could help us to draw conclusions regarding the potential effectiveness of prescribed treatment levels in a wider variety of circumstances than could be effectively surveyed through long-term monitoring.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3. You testified that the Navy should have a larger role in efforts to prevent and manage invasive species? What expertise does the Navy have, and what role do you envision the Navy playing in conducting research?
A3. The Navy has vast research resources for improving ship operations and technology. Understandably, these resources are devoted to the needs of military vessels. These needs are significant in their own right. However, it is also likely—especially in the case of hull fouling—that the needs of military ships are generalizable to the merchant fleet.
A requirement that the military research and develop methods to address organism transfers by its own fleet, therefore, could result in significant advances adaptable to the broader merchant fleet while addressing a significant environmental concern directly related to the Navy fleet.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia
Q1. In your written testimony, you indicated that we need a better definition of ''environmental soundness'' of ballast water treatment systems. Has the Working Group you chair come up with a definition of environmental soundness? What definition should be used, and what criteria should be used to evaluate environmental soundness of ballast water treatments?
A1. Environmental soundness is defined in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 as ''methods, efforts, actions or programs to prevent introductions or control infestations of aquatic nuisance species that minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem and adverse effects on non-target organisms and ecosystems and emphasizes integrated pest management techniques and nonchemical measures.'' The Working Group accepted this definition as its starting point. This definition is still useful.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a separate paper to the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee, I suggested specific criteria for evaluating environmental soundness of ballast treatments (attached; see pp. 100–101). To summarize, the paper suggests that all treatment proposals show compliance with international, federal and state environmental laws, and consistency with the NISA definition of environmentally sound. Specific considerations for determining environmental soundness should include the extent to which there may be:
Acute impacts on receiving systems, including the atmosphere, and fresh and salt water systems as applicable
Cumulative and/or long-term impacts on receiving systems as above
Impacts, acute or cumulative, resulting from interactions with pollutants or organic matter within the tanks or receiving system
Sensitivity to voyage specifics which may change (e.g., does the technology require a retention time to degrade which may not be met if the voyage pattern undergoes an unexpected change? Is it only environmentally sound in fresh water use?)
Life-cycle pollution potential (i.e., including manufacture, transportation and disposal).
Q2. It appears that ballast water exchange is a highly imperfect method for addressing invasive species problems and that it is not always possible to utilize this method. Is it time we just abandoned ballast water exchange and concentrated efforts on setting design specifications and standards for ballast water treatment technologies by instituting mandatory ballast water treatment?
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A2. It is too soon to categorically abandon ballast water exchange for two reasons. First, we may not have suitable substitutes for certain ships for some time (e.g., those with extremely large ballast capacities and pump rates, and ships with little remaining useful life). Second, we do not know the extent to which BWE could prove competitive with treatment in terms of effectiveness if it is held to a performance standard, and accompanied with other best management practices such as sediment removal. It is fair to say that BWE could and should be abandoned immediately relative to new ships, because effective and affordable ballast treatment becomes much less of challenge if it can be incorporated into the ship's design and installed in the ship yard.
An expanded and aggressive ballast technology demonstration program, and incentives and encouragement for ships to install treatments will be critical to bringing useful alternatives to the market place.
Q3. You have suggested that we move toward a ''whole ship'' standard. Dr. Falkner's testimony appears to suggest that a one-size-fits-all policy will not work given the diversity of ships, shipping patterns, port conditions, and organisms. Has the model of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system been considered here? It seems that a HACCP-type system that looks at the various critical points for potential invasions via shipping would be one way to address this. Do you think that this type of approach is feasible?
A3. It is true that ''one size won't fit all.'' But that does not stand in the way of implementing a ''whole ship'' standard. Ships should be required to utilize best available technology economically achievable to achieve a goal of eliminating risk of the transfer of non-native organisms by the whole ship. The standard should be developed separately for each class of ship, and for new versus existing ships, because there will be a great deal of variation in what may be applicable to such categories of vessel. Meeting a whole ship BAT standard, in practice, would entail installing or implementing a suite of technologies and practices to reduce the potential risk caused by that ship to an acceptable level. While I am not familiar with the specific hazard analysis and critical control point process you reference, I believe it would be compatible with and useful to this approach.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One area in which I believe hazard analysis is not appropriate relative to ballast management is in the determination of high, medium and low risk voyages based on environmental matching of points of origin and destination. This approach is highly speculative, imprecise, and expensive. In the end, it would distract us from the objective of implementing prevention through installing treatments on ships.
Proposed Criteria for Determining Whether
Proposed Technologies Meet NISA Requirements
For Discussion by Ballast Water and Shipping Committee
ALLEGRA CANGELOSI, NORTHEAST-MIDWEST INSTITUTE
JUNE 21, 1999
NISA-Related Screening
Parameters for evaluating technologies for use as substitutes for ballast exchange include safety, cost, practicability, environmental soundness and effectiveness. Regarding safety, NISA calls upon the USCG to adopt national guidelines which generally protect the safety of ships. The USCG and classification societies have criteria in place for screening installations on ships for safety. Experts in marine engineering and naval architecture should evaluate existing procedures to determine if they need to be revised to accommodate special circumstances of ballast treatment technology proposals. What is and what is not acceptable cost and practicability may vary from company to company, and NISA logically assumes that the proposing company will evaluate technologies for these parameters prior to proposing them as substitutes.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Accordingly, the remaining concerns of the USCG pursuant to NISA in evaluating technologies axe environmental soundness and biological effectiveness, and NISA directly authorizes the Coast Guard to approve the use of substitutes for ballast exchange which are environmentally sound (as defined in the Act), and are as effective or more effective than ballast exchange. This paper proposes an approach to screening technologies for these parameters.
Two-Tiered Screening
In making determinations about environmental soundness and effectiveness, the Coast Guard could utilize the same two-tiered approach that the U.S. is proposing to the IMO for alternative technologies. The system would involve an initial screening to qualify a technology for a trial status; followed by a more involved and comprehensive screening to qualify a technology for full acceptance as an available substitute for ballast exchange. Screening for the trial status could be much less rigorous than screening for full inclusion in the list of acceptable substitute for ballast water exchange. Data collected during the trial stage could be adequate to support inclusion of the technology in a permanent list of acceptable substitutes.
Specific Considerations
Like for safety and practicability evaluations, the USCG, at least initially, will have to consider the specific voyage pattern and ballast discharge pattern of prospective host vessels (or vessel/voyage type) in evaluating environmental soundness and efficacy. Ultimately, some technologies may prove acceptable only for certain ship types or voyage patterns.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Listed below are considerations which the USCG should weigh for evaluating environmental soundness and biological effectiveness. Consistent with NISA, the USCG should make a determination in favor of allowing a technology if, on the whole, the technology as applied to the proposing vessel, will likely be as effective or more effective than ballast exchange (defined by studies currently underway) with respect to a range of taxonomic groupings. Noting that ballast exchange is not free of environmental impacts (notably, air emissions and fuel expense from increased pump use), a similar standard could be applied to the evaluation of environmental soundness, namely that a technology meeting legal requirements should be accepted if it is as environmentally sound or more environmentally sound than ballast water exchange. However, environmental soundness and effectiveness should be considered independently, as much as possible. Considerations in evaluating the alternative technology should include:
1. Environmental Soundness—All proposals should show compliance with international, federal and state environmental laws and consistency with the requirement that any chemical treatments be part of an integrated pest management strategy within the NISA definition of ''environmentally sound.'' The technology's environmental soundness should be compared with the environmental soundness of ballast water exchange. Specific considerations should include:
Acute impacts on receiving systems, including the atmosphere, and fresh and salt water systems as applicable
Cumulative and/or long-term impacts on receiving systems as above
Impacts, acute or cumulative, resulting from interactions with pollutants or organic matter within the tanks or receiving system
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sensitivity of the environmental soundness to voyage specifics which may change (e.g., does the technology require a retention time to degrade which may not be met if the voyage pattern undergoes an unexpected change? Is it only environmentally sound in fresh water use?)
Life-cycle pollution potential (i.e., including manufacture, transportation and disposal)
2. Biological Effectiveness—Proposers should show that the technology is able to kill or remove organisms in a variety of taxonomic groupings such as fish, macrozooplankton, microzooplankton, cysts and eggs, bacteria, protozoa and viruses. Effectiveness with respect to a surrogate organism's life stages, such as Artemia, could provide a streamlined approach to showing technology effectiveness on most of the above taxa. The technologies' effectiveness should be compared to the effectiveness of ballast water exchange as described by current research. Because ballast water exchange may be more or less effective depending upon the ship's voyage and discharge pattern, these specifics must also be taken into account. Other considerations include:
Applicability to coastal as well as transoceanic voyages
Ability of the USCG to monitor and track use of the technology
Durability of system on board a ship and lifespan of components
Ability of operators to detect system malfunction
Sensitivity of the technology's efficacy to voyage specifics which may change (e.g., Is it effective only in less turbid conditions?)
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Quality of Supporting Information—The extent and amount of supporting information should also be a major consideration for the USCG in making its evaluation. Considerations include:
Extent to which necessary permits are in hand (the absence of necessary permits should be a show stopper until they are obtained)
Independence of the environmental soundness and biological efficacy analysis (the more independent the better)
Extent to which the information has been peer reviewed (this is an essential practice in experimental tests to help assure that decisions are made on the basis of meaningful results)
Depth of environmental and efficacy analysis (Are considerations cited above left to speculation? Is the research depth appropriate to the tier sought?)
Ballast Water Treatment Residuals,
Environmental Laws and How They May Relate
PREPARED FOR THE BALLAST WATER AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE
BY THE WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDNESS
DECEMBER 3, 2000
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
REVISED BASED ON COMMENTS, MARCH 15, 2001
I. Introduction
This paper explores the extent to which existing law may screen the use of prospective chemical (and other) ballast treatments for environmentally soundness, and whether there is a need for additional safeguards.
Non-native species can be extremely harmful to the receiving environment and the economy it supports. The leading vector for unintentional transfers of aquatic species to new environments is the ballast water of ships. In 1996, Congress called on all ships entering U.S. waters from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone to conduct ballast management to reduce the threat of species transfers. Specifically, the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) states that ships should exchange ballast water in the high seas to purge their tanks of near coastal organisms, or ''use environmentally sound alternative ballast water management methods if the Secretary [of transportation] determines that such alternative methods are as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic nuisance species.''
Open ocean ballast water exchange, while highly effective in some applications, poses difficult operational and effectiveness problems in others. In particular, the management measure is not applicable to coastal voyages and voyages in which the ship is full of cargo. For this reason, alternatives to BWE are being explored actively as substitutes for BWE. So far, proposed alternatives employ physical, mechanical and/or chemical treatment technologies.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As noted above, to be approved, NISA requires that the alternatives must themselves be environmentally sound. In NISA, the definition of environmentally sound is ''methods, efforts, actions or programs to prevent introductions or control infestations of aquatic nuisance species that minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem and adverse effects on non-target organisms and ecosystems and emphasizes integrated pest management techniques and nonchemical measures.''
While the NISA definition of environmental soundness discourages use of chemicals as a treatment emphasis, chemical treatments are not ruled out as part of an integrated approach to prevention. In 1999, the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee members discussed the need to develop criteria to guide the Coast Guard in determining the environmental soundness of proposed ballast water treatment alternatives, especially chemical treatment, pursuant to NISA. Some felt that existing national, international and state laws are probably adequate to assure environmental soundness, so that a proposed treatment that is legal is likely also environmentally sound. However, others were not convinced that this was the case. It was conceded that the Committee lacked adequate information about the existing legal framework and environmental implications of proposed treatments. The Committee decided to assemble a working group of environmental law and science experts to examine NISA's mandate to ensure that alternative treatments are environmentally sound, our existing legal framework and how the two may relate.
This paper explores the extent to which there may be national, international or state laws already in existence to protect the environment from any adverse impacts caused by chemical ballast water treatment residuals or other environmental impacts of ballast treatment systems. The general conclusion of the paper is that no existing laws explicitly address this concern except the requirement in the National Invasive Species Act that the USCG approve only environmentally sound methods of treatment as meeting the ballast management requirement. A few existing laws appear applicable to chemical treatment residuals in ballast water, but only under certain circumstances. Several other laws are arguable avenues for regulation, but they are also arguably not applicable, and litigation or revisions to statutory language may be necessary to clarify applicability. Most important, there is currently no comprehensive prescreening requirement other than that contained in NISA which would apply to all or even most instances of chemical treatment residuals discharged in ballast water to U.S. waters. The paper concludes that careful prescreening of proposed ballast treatments for possible adverse impacts is the most economical and environmentally protective approach, but that use of monitoring and discharge limits is also important. It recommends the following steps be taken:
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the short term, the USCG should work with the U.S. EPA to develop and apply a prescreening method to determine whether proposed treatments meet the environmentally soundness requirement within NISA. The onus should be on the proposer of the treatment to show environmental soundness.
If trade-offs are necessary or otherwise accepted, the USCG should work with the ANS Task Force to develop an approval process which promotes the development and use of increasingly environmentally benign treatment methods over time.
The EPA should work with states to ensure the development of protective water quality criteria and effective permit requirements and use monitoring where treatment residuals are likely to be discharged.
In the longer term, regulations and statutes protecting fresh and marine aquatic systems from pollution (such as the CWA and MPRSA) should be revised and clarified to clearly cover chemical ballast treatment residuals.
This document does not represent an official position of any department or organization. Rather it is background information and a set of recommendations to help further informed discussion.
II. Caveats and Considerations
The following factors complicate the analytical task of determining the extent to which existing environmental laws are adequately protective of the environment against harm from chemical treatment residuals in ballast water:
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Legal authority can be unclear and often is defined over time through litigation.
The written law may explicitly state or it may imply authority over a specific regulatory need. So far, only one federal law explicitly requires environmental soundness of ballast water treatment: the National Invasive Species Act. In all other cases, if authority exists, it is implied.
For example, long before chemical ballast treatments were contemplated, the Marine Protection Restoration and Sanctuary Act and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL) exempted discharges incidental to routine operations of ships from consideration by the statute. Do discharges of chemical treatment residuals in ballast water fall under this exemption, or was the exemption not intended for them?
In addition to this ambiguity, there are sometimes apparent ''mixed messages'' between statutory language and regulatory language. The Clean Water Act offers a well known example relevant to ballast water. The CWA requires permits for all discharges to U.S. waters, yet EPA regulations implementing the law exclude discharges deriving from routine ship operations. Does the CWA cover ballast water discharges, including chemical residuals of ballast treatment? Clearly, yes. Is ballast water covered under the regulations implementing the law? Maybe, but the EPA is definitely not regulating ballast discharges at present.
These ambiguities can only be resolved through administrative action, statutory amendment or litigation forcing a court interpretation. Unfortunately, each of these avenues takes a great deal of time, and often are not agressively pursued unless damage is already occurring.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Laws cover specific environmental protection functions.
Most environmental laws are crafted with particular functions in mind. Environmental protection functions include:
examining potential environmental impacts of a federal action (NEPA),
pre-screening and prevention of harmful pesticide uses (FIFRA),
monitoring pesticide use (FIFRA, to some extent),
monitoring discharges of residuals (CWA?),
regulation of waste disposal (RCRA, MPRSA)
imposing permit restrictions on discharges to prevent impact on fisheries (Magnuson),
and permit restrictions on discharges to prevent impacts on water quality (CWA?, State laws).
For environmental protection with respect to ballast water treatment residuals to be comprehensive, it clearly should include many of these functions, especially prescreening and monitoring of use, and invoke many of these statutes. Because none except NISA explicitly addresses ballast treatment residuals, collective jurisdiction may fall well short of the goal of comprehensiveness.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NISA provision on environmental soundness is itself limited in function though it was crafted with ballast treatment residuals in mind. The clear intent is to limit USCG approval of acceptable ballast treatment methods to those which are environmentally sound pursuant to its definition. However, the NISA requirement relates only to the authority of the Secretary to accept measures as meeting ballast management requirements under the act. This requirement does nothing to protect the environment from chemical residuals in ballast discharges, generally. In particular, residuals from chemical ballast treatments applied in addition to or outside of the NISA obligation are not covered. Ships in coastal trade do not require USCG approval of treatment methods. Similarly, ships treating ballast water prior to the U.S. regulations becoming mandatory do not require the USCG approval. Finally, ships which utilize chemicals in addition to BWE would not have to pass any USCG environmental screen.
3. Laws have specific geographic scope.
Each statute also carries its own geographic jurisdiction. Use of environmental statutes not designed for ballast treatment residuals to regulate them is particularly problematic because ships move about the globe, and treatments may be added or discharged in many different locations relative to waters of concern. Treatment chemicals could be added in a foreign port for discharge in a U.S. port. Alternatively they may be added in a U.S. port for discharge into another U.S. port. The discharge of a chemical could be carried out initially in the high seas to dilute the concentrations to a level acceptable in near coastal areas. The discharge also could take place entirely in an inland water system or port of call.
Some geographic limitations relate to international conventions regarding the authority of States (i.e., nations) over their contiguous waters. Internationally recognized jurisdictional zones of potential relevance to residuals discharges are defined in the Law of the Sea Convention. The most important areas of potential relevance to the residuals discharges are: internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), continental shelf, and high seas. These areas are drawn from the baseline, which must be done in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Generally, the authority of a coastal State (like the U.S.) both to make and enforce rules for the protection of the marine environment is greater in those areas that are nearer to its shore than in those areas that are farther from its coast.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Within those areas the U.S. has clear authority to regulate, there are other geographic jurisdictional boundaries of authority implied or more explicitly stated in law. These limitations relate to other geographic considerations such as state/federal/international relationships, and relationships to other laws. For example, the Federal Insectice, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act applies only to chemicals manufactured or distributed in the U.S. The Clean Water Act potentially pertains to activities in, and possibly affecting, the zone within three miles of shore. Meanwhile, the Marine Protection Restoration and Sanctuaries Act addresses ocean dumping in the territorial sea. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) codifies in U.S. law obligations under the MARPOL Agreement, including ship operations in the high seas.
IV. Obligations Pursuant to International Law
In this section, the term ''State'' is used in its international context, and means nations. It is important to note that pursuant to the Law of the Sea Convention, all States, including flag States, have a duty to protect the marine environment. Though the U.S. is not a signatory to the Convention, it treats its obligations as customary international law. However, international law does as much to limit and define State authority to regulate as it does to create obligations on States to carry out environmental protection measures. Thus, ships are obligated to navigate with due regard to the interests of port and coastal States and comply with the laws adopted by them in accordance with the Convention. The Convention in turn limits and otherwise defines the authority of States to regulate ships.
The delineation of the zones and State authority is generally as follows:
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Internal waters of a State are those on the landward side of the baseline and include lakes, rivers, and many bays. The territorial sea is not to exceed 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline.
For ships entering internal waters, coastal States have broad authority to protect its marine environment and to prescribe the conditions for access to their ports and can generally act unilaterally under domestic law as long as the measures do not discriminate against, or among, foreign vessels. A coastal State could, therefore, impose almost any regulation on the discharge of ballast water treatment residuals as a condition of port entry.
The coastal State's sovereignty extends to the territorial sea. The exercise of this sovereignty, however, is subject to certain rules of international law, including the right of innocent passage. In accordance with the Convention and as a right of sovereignty, countries are allowed to adopt unilaterally laws and regulations, including those relating to the innocent passage of vessels through the territorial sea with respect to things such as the safety of navigation and regulation of maritime traffic, the conservation of living resources, and the preservation of the environment. They may not, however, adopt unilateral measures relating to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign vessels in innocent passage unless these measures give effect to generally accepted international rules and standards of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
The most important constraint on the regulatory authority of countries in the territorial sea is that the laws and regulations may not have the practical effect of denying, hampering, or impeding the right of innocent passage. Although it may be easy to identify those instances where a regulation totally denies innocent passage, the more difficult question is identifying those instances where a regulation places a burden on navigation which is significant enough to hamper or impair innocent passage. This question is perhaps the most important in determining the appropriate enforcement measures a country can take against vessels in innocent passage.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thus, with regard to the regulation of ballast water treatment residuals in the territorial sea (assuming such discharges were to be treated as a part of innocent passage), a coastal State may still regulate the discharge of such residuals as a regulation of maritime traffic, the conservation of living resources, and the preservation of its environment. If the discharge of such residuals related to a requirement for the design, construction, manning, or equipment, such a requirement would have to give effect to an IMO rule or standard. Finally, a discharge restriction must not hamper, deny, or impede innocent passage. If the enforcement of such restrictions has an impact on navigation, relevant Convention provisions on enforcement safeguards and rules would have to be carefully followed.
2. The contiguous zone is adjacent to the territorial sea and is not to exceed 24 miles from the baseline.
A coastal State may, in its contiguous zone, exert the control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws that it has adopted within its territory and territorial sea and may punish the infringement of these laws committed within its territory or territorial sea. To the extent that a discharge of ballast water residuals can be defined as an infringement of these laws, a coastal State may exert control over the ship which has conducted this discharge.
3. The EEZ overlaps the contiguous zone and is beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
In the EEZ, a country has sovereign rights to conserve and manage living natural resources and jurisdiction for protection and preservation of the marine environment. The Convention also recognizes the right of freedom of navigation in the EEZ, consistent with due regard for the rights of the coastal State and in compliance with laws that a State has adopted consistent with the Convention.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Article 211 of the Convention provides guidance on the types of measures that can be adopted by a country to regulate—for purposes of prevention of pollution of the marine environment—foreign vessels exercising the freedom of navigation in the EEZ. In examining this Article, it must be remembered that the definition of ''pollution'' under the Convention is extremely broad and covers the introduction of ''substances or energy'' into the marine environment which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life. The discharge of ballast water treatment residuals could thus be defined as pollution under the Convention.
Article 211 directs States—acting through the IMO or a diplomatic conference to establish international rules and standards to prevent, reduce, and control vessel source pollution and promote the adoption of routing systems designed to minimize both pollution damage to the interests of coastal countries and the threat of accidents that might result in pollution. In the EEZ, countries are—for the most part—limited to the adoption of laws and regulations that conform to and give effect to generally accepted international rules and standards established through the IMO or a diplomatic conference. A coastal State also has authority under Part V of the Convention to protect its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage its natural resources.
The Convention also safeguards the interests of countries in the protection of the marine environment in the event that international rules and standards fail to address ''special circumstances.'' In certain instances, a country—in a clearly defined area of the EEZ—may apply to the IMO for special mandatory measures for the prevention of pollution from vessels. However, in the past, IMO has rarely adopted measures apart from those provided for generally in its various instruments.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the EEZ, coastal States can clearly regulate the discharge of ballast water treatment residuals if they are giving effect to a rule or standard adopted by the IMO. States could also petition the IMO for a rule to address the discharge of such residuals if there are special circumstances to do so and the IMO has not adopted any rule to address this discharge. Finally, under Part V of the Convention, as an exercise of its sovereign rights, a State may be able to regulate unilaterally the discharge of residuals in order to protect its ability to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage its natural resources.
4. The high seas consist of all waters not included in the internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ, or archipelagic waters of a State.
All ships have the right to navigate on the high seas. As noted above, since all States have a duty to protect the marine environment under the Convention, flag States should ensure that the navigation by its ships on the high seas do so in a manner that fulfills this obligation. If the IMO has adopted a general requirement relating to ballast water treatment residuals, the flag State is responsible for ensuring that its ships comply with this requirement. Finally, the Convention requires that ships operate in this area with due regard for the interests of other States. Therefore, there should be a consideration of any adverse impacts on a State's EEZ before a discharge of ballast water treatment residuals.
5. The continental shelf is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area that extends beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory or 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The last area set forth by the Convention is the continental shelf. The continental shelf of some countries may extend far beyond 200 nautical miles, but in general, it cannot—in accordance with the Convention—extend beyond 350 nautical miles from the baseline. A coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources, including living and non-living. Although a coastal State may not infringe or unjustifiably interfere with navigation over the shelf, if the discharge of ballast water treatment residuals adversely impacts its natural resources, a State may be justified in regulating such discharges.
Many of the specific obligations of ships to protect the environment are defined in the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention).
The London Convention and its 1996 Protocol, which is not yet in force, govern the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea. The definition of dumping means in pertinent part ''any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea.'' Since ''other matter'' is such a broad term and since ballast water treatment residuals are deliberately disposed of from a vessel, then arguably such discharges would fall under the London Convention. If the argument that these discharges were covered under the Convention prevailed, they would have to comply with the prohibitions or the disposal permit system.
The Convention, however, also defines what is not to be construed as dumping. Dumping does not include ''the disposal at sea of wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels. . .and placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof.. . .'' The loading and discharging of ballast water in and of itself could clearly be defined as part of the normal operations of a vessel. Thus, a strong argument could be made that any residuals from treating ballast water, and which are discharged along with the ballast water, are also included in the normal operations of a vessel and thus outside the ambit of the Convention.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
V. Obligations Under Domestic Laws
Several federal and state laws other than NISA could be interpreted to apply to regulation of ballast treatment residuals in some cases. None addresses regulation needs for ballast treatment residuals in general.
1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—Applicable only to licensing and registration of pesticides distributed in the U.S.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide act (FIFRA) provides a statutory framework under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), primarily through a registration process, regulates the sale, distribution, use and disposal of pesticides in the United States. As the standard for registration of a pesticide, FIFRA sec. 3(c)(5) requires that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
A similar standard applies to the reregistration of existing pesticide products and Agency approval of experimental use of unregistered pesticides under Section 4. FIFRA sec 2(bb) defines ''unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' as: ''(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) [21 U.S.C. 346a].''
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order for the Agency to be able to make well-informed ''unreasonable adverse effects'' determinations, FIFRA sec. 3(c)(2) gives EPA broad authority, before and after registration, to require specific testing by registrants and applicants and submission of the resulting data to the Agency. [7 U.S.C. 136a-c.] Registrants and applicants are under a continuing obligation to provide the Agency with adequate information about their products to demonstrate that the products meet the statutory standard for registrability.
Antimicrobial Pesticides
The Antimicrobials Division (AD), within the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which is part of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), is responsible for managing registration activities of antimicrobial pesticides as mandated by FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, and the regulations issued thereunder in 40 CFR 162.
In addition, the Division may issue Experimental Use Permits under the authority of section 5 of FIFRA and emergency exemptions from registration requirements under the authority of Sec. 18 of FIFRA. Specifically, AD/OPP is responsible for registering and reregistering use patterns and products of antimicrobial pesticides, wood preservatives, antifoulant paints, and algaecides that contain pesticidal claims. Registrants submit registration/reregistration applications, containing proposed labels with pesticidal claims, to the Agency for review and approval.
In doing so, registrants must comply with all pertinent regulations, including the data requirements of Part 158, and specifically, Subpart W. Subpart W lists those scientific studies that registrants are required to submit to support registration/reregistration of proposed use patterns and products: toxicology, efficacy, product chemistry, residue chemistry, environmental fate chemistry, ecotoxicology, and human exposure.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Agency reviews these scientific data and performs labeling and classification assessments as well as human and environmental risk characterizations for pesticide use patterns and products submitted for registration and reregistration. In doing so, USEPA performs two types of determinations: 1) ''Unreasonable adverse effects'' determinations (for all use patterns); and 2) Determinations that pesticide residues will be ''safe'' to the general population, infants, and children (for dietary use patterns only).
Registration/Reregistration
When all data requirements are fulfilled, and the Agency determines that ''unreasonable adverse effects'' are not likely to occur from the use patterns (all use patterns) and/or pesticide residues will be ''safe'' (dietary use patterns), a pesticidal product is registered (new product) or reregistered (existing product).
As part of such registration, the product is assigned an EPA Registration Number by the Agency. This number is used to identify the product from other products being sold in the marketplace.
Gaps?: Only applies to chemicals distributed for use in the United States (pesticides used by ships entering U.S. waters from outside the U.S. would not be screened through this program). Monitoring usually doesn't occur for most pesticides registered unless some concerns arise, an accident happens, or the monitoring is a ''condition'' of the registration. FIFRA registration could make monitoring a requirement, but it's a very difficult one to follow up on—especially, if it involves large bodies of water with extensive dilution.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Toxic Substances Control Act—NOT APPLICABLE?
TSCA requires that information be submitted to EPA 90 days prior to any new chemical being manufactured or imported into the for distribution in the U.S. Information must also be submitted prior to any significant new uses for existing chemicals. EPA may limit, restrict, or prohibit the U.S. manufacture, distribution or use of these chemicals based upon this information. TSCA exempts pesticides and drugs from premanufacture requirements because they are regulated under other statutes (e.g., FIFRA). The premanufacture (PMN) review requirements would not apply to any use considerations if a chemical was manufactured outside of the U.S. Whether they would apply to a chemical manufactured here, shipped elsewhere, and then discharged here, is a good question. There are other aspects of TSCA that relate to effects of using chemicals that are separate from the PMN requirements. But once a chemical is being used to kill or otherwise affect some organisms, it no longer comes under TSCA, but rather FIFRA. TSCA does review the manufacturing process and the discharges that would occur as a result of manufacturing.
Question: Does exemption include the ''Other Testing Requirements,'' Recordkeeping and Recording Requirements, and the Substantial Risk Information Requirement? Are importation/exportation requirements relevant?
3. THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)—APPLICABLE only to ''wastes''
RCRA requires precautions in the handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Questions: Do sediments from ballast tanks already meet the definition of hazardous wastes? Would sediments treated with chemical biocides be evaluated for whether they constitute hazardous waste?
4. FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 33 U.S.C. 1251 ET SEQ. (CLEAN WATER ACT)—APPLICABLE only to state and territorial waters, and currently regulations exempt routine operational discharges from ships
The CWA regulates discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters. The EPA, or the states, if so designated by EPA, issue permits for discharges of specific pollutants from point sources under the NPDES program (section 402 of the CWA). Currently the implementing regulations exclude discharge of materials incidental to ship operations, but this exception is being contested by petitioners. If applicable, this program could limit the types and amounts of biocides that can be released to the environment, require control technology as appropriate, require monthly discharge monitoring reports and set forth precautions to address non-compliance incidents. The location of the discharges would be important, as additional requirements can be imposed in coastal and impaired waters.
Section 402: Permit Program
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of ''any pollutant by any person'' into waters of the United States, unless done in compliance with specified sections of the Act, including the permit requirements in Section 402. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System set up under Section 402, EPA assigns discharge conditions, including technology-based controls requirements, to its permits to ensure that discharges meet all applicable standards set under the Clean Water Act.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, NPDES permits issued to discharges into the territorial sea(see footnote 1) also must comply with ''ocean discharge criteria'' specifically designed to prevent the degradation of those waters, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 403.(see footnote 2)
Currently, an EPA regulation specifically exempts ballast water from the NPDES permit program.(see footnote 3) In January 1999, a petition was made to the EPA by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, on behalf of conservation groups, commercial and recreational fishing interests, Native American tribes and California water agencies, to regulate ballast water discharges under the NPDES permit program in Section 402. The petition argues that EPA's regulation exempting ballast water from the NPDES permit program is illegal, and should be repealed, because EPA does not have the authority to create categorical exemptions from the Act or to establish regulations clearly contrary to express statutory requirements.(see footnote 4) EPA projects that its draft response to the petition will be printed in the Federal Register in mid-December, 2000.
Section 303(d): Regulation of Discharges into Impaired Waters
If a pollutant is threatening or impairing use of a water body,(see footnote 5) the water body violates water quality standards and must be listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as ''water quality limited'' for that pollutant.(see footnote 6)
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA or the state then must establish the ''total maximum daily load'' (TMDL) of the offending pollutant that can be released into the water body and still ensure that the water meets water quality standards, within a ''margin of safety.''(see footnote 7)
A water body whose use is impaired by a ballast water-borne pollutant could be ''listed'' under Section 303(d); if so, EPA or the state must identify the maximum load of that pollutant that can be safely discharged into that water body. If ballast water is discharged into a ''listed'' water body and contains the problem pollutant(s) for that water body, significant restrictions can be placed on such discharge.
In California, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has already listed San Francisco Bay as being impaired for invasive species, and has begun a process to determine how to regulate ballast water discharges of this ''priority pollutant.''
Section 312: Regulation of Marine Sanitation Devices
The CWA (section 312) requires vessels with installed toilet facilities and operating on the navigable waters of th U.S. to contain operable marine sanitation devices certified as meeting standards and regulations promulgated under section 312. Section 312 also allows establishment of zones where discharge of sewage from vessels is completly prohibited. Amendments made to section 312 in 1996 will require, where appropriate, the use of marine pollution control devices for operational, non-sewage, discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces. (CITE)
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gaps?: Currently, regulations exempt discharges incidental to ship operation. Even if this authority did apply to ballast water, it would not pertain to chemical discharges outside the territorial sea (3 miles) under the CWA. Within the territorial sea, there are few aquatic criteria. EPA has set aquatic criteria for only about fifty (50) chemicals total, most of which pertain to discharges to fresh water. States implement NPDES programs in most coastal areas and may do so to significantly differing degrees. EPA and states usually do not develop water quality criteria for chemicals until they have become a problem. Criteria and standards take a long time to set.
5. MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT 16, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (MPRSA or OCEAN DUMPING ACT)—APPLICABLE?
MPRSA regulates the ocean dumping of wastes, provides for research on ocean dumping, and protects marine sanctuaries. Covers discharge of pollutants unless they are covered by other statutes. Covers all dumping of pollutants beyond the three-mile territorial sea.
The Ocean Dumping Act prohibits the unpermitted dumping of ''any material transported from a location outside the United States'' into the territorial sea of the United States (i.e., within three miles of shore), or into the zone contiguous to the territorial sea (i.e., within 24 miles of shore), to the extent discharge into the contiguous zone would affect the territorial sea or territory of the United States.(see footnote 8)
''Dumping'' is defined broadly as ''a disposition of material.''(see footnote 9) The statute contains specific exemptions from this term, including the ''routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of, or operation of motor-driven equipment on, vessels.'' Arguments could be made that this exemption applies to ballast water, or that it narrowly applies only to discharges related to engines, motors, etc., as opposed to ballast water.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The statute has not yet been applied to ballast water discharges, but if it were, it would provide an important extension of the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, which stop at the three-mile ''territorial sea'' limit.
Gaps?: There may not be water quality standards for treatment chemicals.
6. National Environmental Policy Act—APPLICABLE
The objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 are to encourage productive and beneficial harmony between humans and the environment, to promote the prevention and elimination of environmental degradation, to stimulate the health and well-being of humans, to improve the understanding of the nation's ecosystems and natural resources, and to establish an Environmental Quality Council
(http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm).
NEPA authorizes all agencies of the Federal Government to, among other things, include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which related to the proposed action.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Pursuant to the Executive Order 13112 on invasive species, NEPA guidance will be updated to consider invasive species impacts. A component of this revision will consider impacts of treatment and prevention mechanisms.
7. Other Federal Laws
Other sources of federal law possibly pertaining to discharges of treated ballast water and sediments but not evaluated here include the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. Based upon legal opinions, it would appear that the ESA would override every existing U.S. law that did not specifically exempt endangered species. The Supreme Court (Hill v. TVA) found that Congress intended the ESA to take precedence [even] over the primary missions of each federal agency. The Coast Guard is currently working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and probably the National Marine Fisheries Service, in what is called a ''proactive conservation review'' under the Endangered Species Act that covers a wide variety (possibly all) activities that could have an effect on T&E species. The invasive species issues should be raised in that context.
8. State Laws
State WATER QUALITY LAWS—APPLICABLE?
Many states have their own water quality acts that could be used to address the discharge of treatment residuals in ballast water. These are at least as stringent as the Clean Water Act, and can be more stringent (such as in the case of California). These are important laws to consider in determining whether and where polluted ballast can be discharged.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Example: California
Under California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, California Water Code 13000 et seq., ''any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state'' must file with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board a report of the discharge.(see footnote 10)
Pursuant to the Act, the local Regional Water Quality Control Board then prescribes ''waste discharge requirements'' related to control of the discharge.(see footnote 11) The Act defines ''waste'' broadly and the term has been applied to a diverse array of materials.(see footnote 12)
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has determined that ''ballast water and hull fouling discharges cause pollution as defined under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,''(see footnote 13) raising the possibility that the Act may be actively used to regulate such discharges.
2. Example: Washington State
Washington has a law which requires all ballast water to be exchanged or treated prior to discharge in Washington waters after July 1, 2002. Once this goes into effect, treated ballast water must meet a standard set by rule of the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission. This commission will also establish protocols for evaluating the adequacy of exchanged ballast water. The statute that provides authority for the commission to regulate ballast water discharges is RCW 77.120.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WAC173–201A–040 Toxic Substances states that toxic substances shall not be introduced above the natural background levels in waters of the state which have the potential either singularly or cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water uses, or cause acute of chronic toxicity to sensitive biota. The total residuals of Chlorine are limited to a one hour average concentration of 19.0 mg/L more than once every three years on average (acute) or 11.0 mg/L for a four day average not to be exceeded more than once every three years (chronic) in fresh water or 13.0 mg/L and 7.5 mg/L respectively in marine water. Toxic substances not currently listed in the subsection are subject to USEPA Quality Criteria for Water (40 CFR 131.36, The National Toxics Rule). WAC173–201A–030 sets standards for temperature, pH, and turbidity that cannot be exceeded, due to human activities, for various waters of the state.
WAC 173–220, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, may be pertinent if the discharge falls within the category of a pollutant, requiring an NPDES permit for the discharge.
3. Example—State of Michigan
The relevant statute in the state of Michigan is the NREPA (Act 451 of 1994), Part 31. Under that statute, the ''Part 21 Rules'' for Wastewater Discharge Permits contain additional authority. These authorities are applicable to all surface or groundwaters of the state of Michigan. Through Part 31—3104(1), the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is designated to negotiate and cooperate with other governments concerning water resources of the state. Under 3105, the DEQ may enter private property to investigate pollution. Under 3106, the DEQ shall establish standards and issue permits for storage and discharge of any harmful substance to assure compliance with standards. Under 3109, a person shall not directly or indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to any of the following: (a) To the public health, safety, or welfare. (b) To domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of such waters. (c) To the value or utility of riparian lands. (d) To livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to the growth, propagation, or the growth or propogation thereof be prevented or injuriously affected; or whereby the value of fish and game is or may be destroyed or impaired. A violation of this section is prima facie evidence of the existence of a public nuisance and in addition to the remedies provided for in this part may be abated according to law in an action brought by the attorney general in a court of competent jurisdiction. Rules Part 21 2104(b) associates a floating craft or vessel with a point source. Part 2106 requires persons discharging waste to possess a permit. Exemptions include human sewage from vessels but there are no other exemptions for vessel discharges.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE LAWS—APPLICABLE?
State fish and wildlife laws may contain pollutant control provisions, and thus to discharge of ballast containing chemical or other pollutants. The California Fish and Game Code Section 5650, for example, states broadly that ''it is unlawful to deposit in, permit to pass into, or place where it can pass into the waters of this state. . .any substance or material deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird life.'' Each such discharge is subject to a penalty of up to $25,000. The section does not apply to permitted discharges.
VI. Summary and Conclusion
International law provides broad authority to port States (i.e., nations) to place restrictions on ships as a condition of port entry. However, because of exemptions for or heretofore inattention to ship-based sources, existing environmental safeguards in U.S. federal and state law neither comprehensively nor inarguably provide for a comprehensive environmental soundness screen, including prescreening, use monitoring, discharge limitation and water quality monitoring for ballast treatment residuals. The significance of ballast water discharges as a pollutant source demands that we implement existing controls to the full extent of the law, and make clarifications needed ASAP to ensure that we are not damaging our resources. Changes to statutory or regulatory language of the CWA and MPRSA could do much to strengthen and clarify existing safeguards. However, litigation and statutory amendment, in particular, take a long time and often require measurable damage something we would like to prevent. In the absence of these clarifications, or pending them, the NISA requirement that only environmentally sound measures be approved as acceptable substitutes for ballast water exchange stands as the best available tool for addressing potential adverse impacts of ballast treatment residuals. In conclusion, the working group recommends:
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the short term, the USCG should work with the U.S. EPA to develop and apply a prescreening method to determine whether proposed treatments meet the environmentally soundness requirement within NISA. The onus should be on the proposer of the treatment to show environmental soundness.
If trade-offs are necessary or otherwise accepted, the USCG should work with the ANS Task Force to develop an approval process which promotes the develoopment and use of increasingly environmentally benign treatment methods over time.
The EPA should work with states to ensure the development of protective water quality criteria and effective permit requirements and use monitoring where treatment residuals are likely to be discharged.
In the longer term, the language of regulations and statutes protecting fresh and marine aquatic systems from pollution (such as the CWA and MPRSA) should be revised and clarified to clearly cover chemical ballast treatment residuals.
VII. Working Group Contributors and Participants
This was a ''virtual'' working group, conducting all of its business via e-mail. As such, there was never a fixed membership. The document benefited from the contributions and comments of the following individuals.
Lindy Johnson—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Norm Cook—Environmental Protection Agency, FIFRA
Judith Weis—Rugers University
Linda Sheehan—Center for Marine Conservation
Scott Smith—WA, Department of Ecology
Ed Michael—Great Lakes United
Frederika Moser—State Department
Dorn Carlson—Environmental Protection Agency
Dennis Edwards—Environmental Protection Agency, FIFRA
Roland Ferry—Environmental Protection Agency
Maurya Faulkner—California Lands Commission
Larry Turner—Environmental Protection Agency
Fred Kenney,—U.S. Coast Guard
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allegra Cangelosi—Northeast-Midwest Institute, Working Group Chair
80225r.eps
80225s.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Ms. Maurya B. Falkner, Ballast Water Program Manager, California State Lands Commission
Questions Submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Why do we know so little about what criteria define an effective control technology? What additional research do we need to develop these criteria, and how can we use these criteria to develop a testing protocol?
A1. We actually know that a technology capable of killing or removing ALL planktonic organisms would be defined as effective and any technology that does not meet that achievement, and most do not, would be rated with reduced effectiveness. The uncertainty results from the almost impossible task of rating effectiveness over a wide range of organisms that overlap in size, function, resistance and damage-potential. Our current scientific knowledge does not allow us to differentiate between ''harmless'' and ''harmful'' organisms that may be carried in ballast water. Therefore, all introduced organisms are potentially harmful. Organisms carried in ballast water range in size from bacteria and viruses, measured in microns, to large fish that can be measured in feet. Additionally, the collection of organisms includes many that can theoretically establish reproducing populations from as few as a single introduced individual. For these reasons it is very difficult to settle on a number, or a size range, of organisms that would be acceptable to introduce. The solution—zero discharge—is severely complicated by vessel design and operational constraints (i.e., large amounts of ballast water and pumping rates). Setting a standard of anything less than 100 percent removal will be primarily a political decision, based on perceived risk and the difficulty of prevention. Once the standard is set, the task of developing a testing protocol must then be developed. Though this is relatively straight forward, it is not necessarily easy. We must identify methods of detecting and enumerating the organisms of interest and we must develop engineering protocols under which tests will be conducted. The organisms of interest will likely be a combination of ambient organisms found naturally in waters used for testing and standard test organisms used in known quantities to provide comparability among tests.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Coast Guard and EPA are currently sponsoring the development of standardized testing protocols in the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. A technical panel of subject experts from many Federal and State agencies and academic institutions are developing the ETV protocols. Many of these experts are also involved directly in Federal, State, and private efforts to evaluate the capabilities of prototype treatment systems.
Q2. In Ms. Cangelosi's written testimony, she indicated that we need a better definition of ''environmental soundness'' of ballast water treatment systems. To what extent has your department dealt with this question, and have you come up with a definition of environmental soundness? What criteria should be used to evaluate environmental soundness of ballast water treatments? Who should do research on developing this criteria, and how should it be coordinated with the overall research and management effort?
A2. To be environmentally sound, ballast water treatment discharges should not result in violations of the Federal Clean Water Act or State Clean Water Acts (if more stringent). It would be unnecessarily duplicative with other legislation and likely delay technology development if developers had to ensure that each process has no possible adverse effects beyond those addressed by existing regulations.
Q3. Both you and Ms. Cangelosi testified that the Navy should have a larger role in efforts to prevent and manage invasive species. What expertise does the Navy have, and what role do you envision the Navy playing in conducting research?
A3. The Navy is effectively the largest ship owner in the U.S. and subject to a wide range of environmental regulations and policies. Under the Uniform National Discharge Standard, set up under the Clean Water Act Section 312(n), the Navy has been addressing ballast water issues since the mid-1990s. Because of the unique nature of building and operating their vessels, the Navy has developed a great deal of expertise in testing, evaluating and refining environmental technologies for use on vessels. The applicability of some of these technologies has extended beyond the military to the private sector. By bringing the Navy's experience and infrastructure to bear on the ballast water problem, they could greatly advance the pace of progress.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q4. In order to reduce the threat posed by invasive species, it is important for a ballast water treatment technology to reduce the numbers of all types of organisms, including microorganisms and pathogens. If a treatment technology effectively eliminates pathogens from ballast water, can we assume that all other organisms will be eliminated?
A4. No. Organisms vary greatly in their susceptibility to different types of treatment processes. Bacterial pathogens may be killed effectively by relatively low doses of ultraviolet radiation, while much greater doses are required to kill larger organisms such as nematodes or copepods. An important technical problem that still to be addressed is the identification of suitable indicator organisms that can be used to assess the effectiveness of treatment technologies. The EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program has identified and is initiating a program of research to evaluate and validate a set of indicator species for testing ballast water treatment systems.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Minority Member James A. Barcia
Q1. You appear skeptical that a single technology for treating ballast will be found that will be effective for all species, ships, and port conditions. Is the State of California looking at the possibility of establishing separate criteria to be met by ships of different classes or different procedures that will be acceptable for different ports?
A1. No. We do not foresee requiring the use of a particular technology or procedure for different vessel classes or ports; rather, we foresee establishing a treatment standard, in conjunction with the USCG and other federal and state agencies. This will allow the maritime industry to comply with that standard in any environmentally sound manner that is feasible for them.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. Since the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) became law in 1996 we have had a policy on ballast water, but apparently, we still have no ballast water treatment technologies and ballast water exchange appears to be ineffective as a control measure. Should the regulations to control the introduction of invasive species that we have in NISA eliminate or phase out the option of ballast water exchange and simply require ballast water treatment?
A2. Development of effective and practicable treatment technologies that can be used on the great variety of vessels that carry ballast water will take a number of years, and even when technologies become available for a particular class of vessels there may be significant lag periods before all such vessels can be fitted by existing world shipyard capacity. Thus, exchange should be preserved as a management option as long as necessary. Clearly, however, for vessel classes that have to use exchange because of a lack of alternatives, there should be an effort to improve the efficacy and practicability of exchange through improvements in ballast system designs. Rather than phasing out exchange as a management option, it would be more valuable to think about eventually holding this management practice to the same requirements as treatment alternatives. Although this may seem unrealistic, given that exchange currently is much less than 100 percent effective, it would permit the industry the widest range of tools to meet regulatory requirements.
Q3. You believe the Federal Ballast Water Demonstration Program is under funded at 2.1 million per year. What do you estimate would be needed to fund the projects that the state of California has identified? By how much should this program be increased? If ballast water management were mandatory, would it initiate more private sector funding for technology development?
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3. In the FY02 competition for Ballast Water Demonstration Project funds, there were proposals for over $12 million in funds, and these represent only a small proportion of the potential projects that are in progress or under consideration. Bringing a ballast water treatment system to completion, from concept to full-scale prototype, tested successfully on board ships is extremely expensive. For example, it cost one private consortium over $2 million to install and test one system on one ship, and much basic work remains to be done before the system is ready for general use. This cost does not include the expense of the R&D that was required to get the system to the prototype state.
One way to estimate the cost of a program that would result in effective treatment options would be to evaluate the costs of similar technology development efforts by the Navy, adjusting for any cost differences between private and public sector R&D efforts. In addition to funding limitations, there is another ''problem'' with the federal Demonstration Project. As mentioned in my written testimony, federal funds are currently distributed through a competitive grant program where the best project is funded, whether or not it builds on previously funded work. This has resulted in a diffuse program with little interconnection or continuity. Under the current model, proposals received do not necessarily represent the technologies with the best chance of effectively treating ballast water, nor necessarily advance the overall development of technologies. The Demonstration program would benefit by taking an applied science approach, wherein research results from prior years work guides subsequent research and addresses specific management questions. The work of developing effective technologies for the wide array of operating ship types requires a directed research effort supported by longer term funding. Regarding private sector funding for technology development, the maritime industry has repeatedly stated that a mandatory program would result in movement on this issue, therefore the best approach would be to mount a public-private partnership to develop effective technologies on an accelerated schedule, through provision of significant federal matching funds.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q4. You state in your testimony that there has been little coordination of past research efforts and that organized data sharing has been limited. Does the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse effort need to be expanded to overcome the information-sharing problem? What should NOAA do to better coordinate and organize the research efforts on ballast water treatment?
A4. The National Ballast Information Clearinghouse is an adequate start. All federal grant recipients should be required to submit their project information to the Clearinghouse. More importantly, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should require that funded investigators participate in yearly workshop to disseminate and discuss project results. These meetings will serve to inform researchers of each other's work and inform potential applicants to the type of work that is necessary for successful grant applications. In March 2002, the first such meeting was hosted by NOAA and was widely supported by all participants. Additionally, funding agencies should require timely written reports on completed work. There is often a significant lag period between completion of a project and availability of written reports on the work. This is mainly due to the fact that academic researchers put more emphasis on publishing research findings in peer-reviewed professional journals (which may take years), than in producing ''gray literature'' reports to funding agencies. In part, this is another example of the difference between supporting basic research on fundamental scientific questions versus directed R&D on specific technologies.
Q5. Do other countries have ballast water management programs? I believe the State of Washington is developing a ballast water management program. Have you been working with other states along the west coast to coordinate your efforts?
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A5. The European Union has funded (5 million Euros) a directed public-private research program, called MARTOB and led by researchers at the University of Newcastle in the U.K. This effort aims to develop effective and commercially marketable technologies for specific classes of vessels. Singapore, probably the largest shipping hub in the world, has also been looking into ballast water management technologies for several years. These are independent, and in some cases commercially sensitive, efforts. The USCG and the EPA–ETV Program are attempting to coordinate and collaborate with these efforts to the extent possible. The CSLC is coordinating and collaborating with the USCG on technology testing protocols and experimental approval processes. It is the CSLC's goal to work collaboratively with the USCG on all aspects of the State's ballast water management program. The CSLC also attempts to coordinate with other West Coast states. We are members of the Pacific Ballast Water Group Oregon's Ballast Water Management Task Force. Participants work toward consistent ballast water management regulations on a national and regional level while sharing data and feasible treatment technologies.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
80225p.eps
APPENDIX MATERIAL FOR GREGORY M. RUIZ TESTIMONY
APPENDIX I
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Role of the Smithsonian Institution in Coastal Invasion Research
MARINE INVASION RESEARCH LABORATORY,
SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
(MAY 2002)
Overview
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), located on the shore of Chesapeake Bay, is a leading national and international center for research in the area of non-native species invasions in coastal ecosystems.
SERC has developed the largest research program in the U.S. to focus on coastal invasions.
A primary goal of SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory is to provide the fundamental science that is critical to develop effective management and policy in this topic area. In short, SERC's invasion research bridges the gap between science and policy, to develop a scientific understanding that is key to guide and evaluate management strategies for invasive species.
The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has a staff of approximately 20 biologists, who conduct research throughout the country and overseas. Since it's inception 10 years ago, the laboratory has been a nationwide training center in invasion ecology for roughly 35 technicians, 4 graduate students, 5 postdoctoral researchers, and 40 undergraduate summer interns. The students and technicians arrive from all over the country, staying for 3 months to many years. Many participants in this program have gone on to graduate training and academic or government positions in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington, and Washington, D.C.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research Program
As a national center, SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory provides synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-related patterns for the country. Under the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, the U.S. Coast Guard and SERC created the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse, hereafter Clearinghouse, to collect and analyze national data relevant to coastal marine invasions (see Box 1). Established at SERC in 1997, the Clearinghouse measures:
Nationwide Patterns of Ballast Water Delivery and Management. All commercial ships arriving to all U.S. ports from overseas report information about the quantity, origin, possible control measures for their ballast water—a primary mechanism for transfer of non-native marine species throughout the world. At present, SERC receives roughly 20,000 such reports per year. Every two years, SERC provides a detailed analysis and report to U.S. Coast Guard and Congress on the patterns of ballast water delivery by coastal state, vessel type, port of origin, and season. A key issue is the extent to which ships undertake ballast water exchange, a management technique to flush potential invaders out of the tanks prior to arrival in U.S. waters. SERC's analyses are used by U.S. Coast Guard and Congress to assess national needs with respect to ballast water management and to track program performance.
Rates and Patterns of U.S. Coastal Invasions. SERC has developed and maintains a national database of marine and estuarine invasions to assess patterns of invasion in space and time. This database compiles a detailed invasion history of approximately 500 different species of plants, fish, invertebrates, and algae that have invaded coastal states of the North America. Among multiple uses, the database identifies which species are invading, as well as when, where, and how they invaded; it also summarizes any existing information on the ecological and economic impacts of each invader. Over the long-term, this database will help assess the effectiveness of various management strategies (such as ballast water management, above) in reducing the rate of invasions. More broadly, this information is a valuable resource for many user groups—from resource managers and scientists to policy-makers and industry groups.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
80225k.eps
SERC has further expanded the scope of Clearinghouse activities to improve the quantity and quality of data on coastal marine invasions that are used to (a) assess the rates and patterns of invasion and (b) inform key management decisions at national, regional, and local levels. Through competitive grants, we have initiated two components in this area, including:
Nationwide Field Surveys. SERC has implemented an ambitious program of field surveys to detect new invasions, as well as measure contemporary patterns and effects of invasions, for 15–20 different bays throughout the country (see Figure 1). Our intent is to expand this program to include additional regions, providing a national baseline of information with which to evaluate invasion rates. The resulting information will contribute to the national database (above) and will be used both to document patterns of invasion and to assess the effects of management on invasion rates (as discussed above).
Comprehensive National Database. SERC has established a formal agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the U.S. Geological Survey's Caribbean Research Center to develop a comprehensive database of all freshwater and marine invasions in the United States. SERC maintains a database of exotic marine species (above), and the U.S.G.S. maintains a complementary database for exotic freshwater species. Our goal is to functionally link these databases, creating web-based access to key information about each species for managers, researchers, policy-makers and the public.
In addition to the Clearinghouse role of analysis and interpretation of national data, SERC also conducts research to understand underlying mechanisms of species transfer, invasion, and ecological effects of invasions. This research serves a dual purpose of advancing our fundamental knowledge of invasion processes and using this knowledge to improve prediction and management strategies for invasions. Some selected examples of our research in these areas, funded by external grants and contracts, include:
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Measuring the Patterns and Processes of Species Transfer Associated with Shipping. The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has measured the density and diversity of organisms in the ballast water of approximately 450 different commercial vessels, primarily oil tankers and bulk cargo carriers that arrived to Chesapeake Bay and Port Valdez, Alaska. This has been a collaborative and cooperative research program with the shipping industry, over the past 8 years, to better assess the risks of invasion and effectiveness of various management techniques to reduce that risk. We are now expanding this research to include container ships arriving to San Francisco Bay, expanding existing measures to include a different vessel type and geographic region than the previous studies.
Assessing the Magnitude and Consequences of Pathogenic Microorganism Transfer by Ships. Very little is known about the relative risks of pathogens, both for humans and commercially important species, which are transferred in ballast water. SERC's invasion program is measuring the concentration of microorganisms and human pathogens, including Vibrio cholerea (causitive agent of epidemic human cholera), discharged into U.S. waters with the ballast water of ships. In addition, we are conducting experiments to test the viability and potential significance of these transfers to result in newly established populations, or invasions, of pathogenic organisms.
Measuring the Ecological Impacts of Non-Native Species. SERC has implemented a broad range of field-based and experimental studies to measure the effects of marine invasions in coastal ecosystems, including impacts on commercial fishery resources. Much of this work to date has focused on the European green crab (Carcinus maenas) impacts in California and New England. We have also implemented experiments in California and Virginia to test for effects of particular fouling organisms on invaded communities, and the extent to which this is exacerbated by human disturbance (e.g., pollutants, hypoxia, etc.). The overall goal of work in this area is to understand and predict impacts of invasions across a diverse array of coastal communities.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testing Invasibility of Communities. We have just begun manipulative laboratory and field experiments to test environmental and biological factors that influence invasibility of marine communities. Our work in this area focuses on microorganisms and invertebrates. The main objective of this research is to measure the dose-response relationship between delivery of organisms and subsequent invasion, and how this may vary across different environmental and biological conditions. This approach has direct bearing on the effect (and target) for management strategy to reduce the delivery of non-native organisms by ships or other vectors.
Feasibility of Eradication and Control of Established Marine Invasions. SERC has also initiated work to test the feasibility of eradication and control for a non-native marine snail in San Francisco Bay. This is effectively a demonstration project to critically examine management strategies, based upon key habitat and biological characteristics, and develop the decision process (i.e., under what conditions and for which species) and capacity for eradication.
Geographic Coverage
SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory, with staff based at Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay, has established research sites throughout the U.S. to implement its research programs, in collaboration with researchers from approximately 25 different academic institutions and federal or state agencies. For example, active projects and collaborations are on-going in the following states: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Washington, D.C.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Internationally, SERC has become increasingly active over the past 5 years. A primary goal of the international program is to foster information exchange arid build complementary, comparative, and collaborative research programs. For example, the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has active collaborations in many areas of invasion ecology with the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CSIRO, Australia). This includes comparative analyses of invasion patterns and effects, as well as development of an international standard for databases on marine invasions. Another long-term, collaboration exists with scientists in Israel, where we have measured changes in the ballast water communities during roughly 20 different voyages between Israel and Chesapeake Bay. SERC also has been a participant and sponsor of international conferences and workshops on marine invasion ecology.
Although SERC programs are active at the national and international scales, a great deal of this effort has also focused on understanding invasion issues at the regional scale. In fact, this program has conducted research on invasions in nearly every coastal state in the country, producing regional understanding as well. Examples include:
Analysis of invasion patterns for Chesapeake Bay over the past 400 years, representing the first such analysis for the Chesapeake as well as any estuary in the eastern U.S. This documents the invasion history of 160 non-native species established in this Bay.
Analysis of extent of invasions for Prince William Sound, Alaska, providing the most detailed analysis in the world to assess the risks of invasion for a high-latitude system.
For more information about the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory contact: Monaca Noble, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, Maryland 21037, USA; Phone: (443) 482–2414; FAX: (443) 482–2380; e-mail: noble@serc.si.edu; website: http://invasions.si.edu/
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
80225l.eps
APPENDIX II
Design and Implementation of Field-Based Surveys to Measure Invasion Patterns
Excerpted from: Ruiz GM & CL Hewitt. In press. Toward understanding patters of coastal marine invasions: a prospectus. In: Invasive aquatic species of Europe (E Leppakoski, S Olenin, & S Gollasch, eds.), Kluwer Academic Press.
Below, we outline key elements to the design and implementation of field surveys, providing examples of programs to survey marine invasions in Australia and the United States. We emphasize the paramount importance of standardized, repeatable measures as the fundamental building blocks for analysis of invasion patterns. We intend this review to be illustrative rather than prescriptive; importantly, there are multiple measures that can achieve the same goals, and we have discussed only a subset. Further, although we do not wish to discount the value of synthesis methods or the use of VSS for particular purposes, we emphasize QSS as the best approach to avoid unwanted bias, providing the highest degree of resolution and repeatability.
3.1.2 Design of field surveys
Field surveys include many elements that must be addressed explicitly in the process of design, implementation, and analysis. Thus far, as a central theme, we have focused exclusively on the general approach used to collect invasion records, emphasizing quantitative survey methods (QSS). There are clearly many aspects of survey design to consider. In addition, other elements that require attention, having important consequences for the possible analyses and interpretation, include: (i) taxonomic identification, (ii) reference material, (iii) geographical information, (iv) information management, and (v) environmental characteristics. We discuss briefly each of these elements below.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Field survey. Surveys are characterized by the specific method of sampling as well as the spatial and temporal scales of sampling, number of samples, and variables measured in each sample. For example, hard substrate communities can be sampled by destructive removal of all organisms in a specific area, by deployment and retrieval of settling plates, or by photographic methods. Samples may be restricted to a particular port or region, a particular habitat type (e.g., depth, substrate, wave exposure), a specific spatial dispersion (random, stratified random, uniform, haphazard), and particular time periods (e.g., seasons or years). Finally, the number of samples collected, method of examination (e.g., use of microscope, inclusion of all taxa), the type of analysis (species present, abundance, size structure) may also vary.
Each of these attributes defines functionally the ''search effort'' and can greatly influence the number or type of species detected (e.g., Rosenzweig 1996; Hayek & Buzas 1997). Although search effort should be standardized across space or time, when comparing spatial or temporal patterns (respectively), the most appropriate design will depend upon the goals (e.g., see recent review by Yoccoz et al. 2001, with emphasis on detection and spatial variation in field surveys).
Taxonomy & reference material. The quality of data that result from surveys depends greatly upon taxonomic identification and knowledge. There are at least two different issues associated with taxonomic knowledge that impact data quality and analysis of invasions. First, taxonomic expertise is clearly critical to the correct identification of species, as many organisms may go undetected by the untrained observer. Such under-detection can occur even for those with good working knowledge of a local biota who may be unaware of species from other regions that are similar in appearance.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, historical knowledge of the distribution of many species or particular regions may be poorly resolved, causing many species to go undetected as NIS. For example, many species that are now cosmopolitan may have originally been restricted to a particular geographic region prior to dispersal by human activities. In addition, the biota for some regions, such as eastern North America or many tropical regions, were poorly described prior to extensive human movement, creating the potential for many early invasions to be undetected.
Although the issue of taxonomic identification may appear easily addressed, there are now many groups of organisms for which taxonomic experts are rare or non-existent. Resources and expertise in taxonomy have eroded throughout much of the world in the past decades (National Research Council 1995). As a result, identification of all species may not be immediately available for each survey. This underscores the importance of establishing reference or voucher collections, which can play a critical role in providing comparative material for both confirmation of known species and resolution of unknown species. Ideally, such reference collections would include both morphological and genetic vouchers, as molecular tools may be particularly effective in resolving taxonomy in some cases (e.g., Geller 1996).
The status of many species as exotic or native remains problematic and difficult to resolve. To acknowledge this problem, Carlton (1996b) advocates the term ''cryptogenic'' to describe species of uncertain origin (not clearly native or exotic at a specific location). Thus, in addition to taxonomic identification of species, each should be classified among the three categories: native, non-native, or cryptogenic to a particular region. Using only two categories for analysis of invasion patterns may lead to erroneous conclusions, whereas including a category for cryptogenic species provides an explicit assessment of existing biogeographic knowledge for each species and region. Taxa for which species resolution is not possible should therefore be regarded as cryptogenic until either native or introduced status can be ascertained.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Geographic information and information management. The utility of surveys can be enhanced greatly by using existing tools to (i) reference all data in a geographically explicit fashion and (ii) manage all data in a referential database. Obtaining the latitude and longitude of all sites with a geographical positioning system (GPS), with any additional site descriptions, can be critical for many analyses of temporal or spatial patterns of invasion, especially using results from past surveys or across multiple independent surveys. Furthermore, databases can provide a powerful tool both to manage survey data, making it possible to rapidly link or share data on a broad scale (Ruiz 1998), and to add further information for analyses (see below).
Environmental conditions. Environmental conditions may be responsible for, or shape, many invasion patterns. For example, current, temperature, salinity, or nutrient characteristics may play an important role in the invasibility of particular sites or the dominance of particular taxa (e.g., Baltz & Moyle 1993; Carlton 1996a; Hayes & Hewitt 2000; see also Ruiz et al. 1999, and references therein).
Although the primary focus of many surveys is detection of NIS or measurement of invasion patterns, it is desirable to measure environmental conditions associated with each survey site, and possibly each sample, during the survey period. This approach provides a rich source of information on local conditions, often not readily available at the appropriate scale, which can be used to test formally some specific hypotheses about invasion patterns and whether particular covariates explain a significant amount of observed variation.
3.1.3 Case histories: implementation of field surveys in Australia and the U.S.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Quantitative field surveys have been undertaken on a continental scale in both Australia and the United States. Both programs were designed explicitly to measure patterns of invasion and test a broad range of hypotheses about invasion patterns and mechanisms. While these survey programs are intended to measure current spatial and taxonomic patterns of invasion in each country, they were also designed to (i) develop a baseline for measurement of temporal patterns and (ii) provide a basis for comparison across continents.
Within each program, the use of standardized protocols for the quantitative surveys as well as associated elements (i.e., information management, geographically explicit data, and environmental conditions) has been a high priority. This focus on standardization is key to removing potential sources of bias and enhancing the utility of the current surveys (as discussed above). However, this approach is also intended to permit direct comparisons with measures in other geographic regions or future surveys (i.e., spatial replication and repeated measures, respectively), establishing quantitative data for comparisons across multiple geographic and temporal scales.
Although both survey programs have evolved somewhat independently, we are now developing a collaborative approach for comparisons between Australia and the U.S. Here, we discuss briefly the scope and features of each survey program. Some of the collaborative elements that are presently underway, as well as potential future directions, are discussed in the next section.
Australia—surveys of multiple habitats. Over the past 6 years, Hewitt (and others) have implemented an ambitious program of quantitative field surveys, or port baseline surveys, which are focused in bays throughout Australia with major commercial ports (Fig. 1a). These surveys were designed to sample the resident biota across a wide range of habitats (Hewitt & Martin 1996, 2001), including: (i) hard substrate photographic and comprehensive ''scrape'' samples for fixed areas of vertical surfaces that are at multiple depths; (ii) soft-sediments—core samples of fixed area and depth; (iii) mobile epibenthic biota (e.g., crabs and fish)—traps that are set for standard time periods.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Great care has been given not only to the spatial dispersion and replication of samples for the port surveys, but also other key elements (Hewitt & Martin 1996, 2001). More specifically, sample processing and preservation is standardized, information for each sample is geographically referenced, taxonomic identification is verified by taxonomic experts, specimens are maintained in a reference collection, and resulting data is managed with database tools that include environmental information. This level of detail was necessary in order to guarantee consistency in sampling intensity and quality as additional groups undertook port baseline surveys.
Results from the Australian port surveys are just now emerging. CRIMP (Hewitt et al.) has conducted or been involved with over 16 surveys around Australia and 21 additional port surveys have been conducted (or currently being implemented) by at least six external organizations using the methods of Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) (Fig. 1a). Hewitt et al. (1999) presented detailed results of the port survey for a single bay, Port Philip Bay. In addition, some initial analyses of invasion pattern across 4 temperate and 4 tropical bays found that 49.2 percent of NIS detected by the surveys occurred in the tropics (Hewitt 2002). Among these 8 bays, there was a significant increase in number of recognized invasions with latitude (Fig. 2; F[,] = 7.26, p = 0.036, r = 0.555; Hewitt 2002). Although this preliminary latitudinal pattern requires further analyses, including consideration of the possible importance of cryptogenic species in the result (as discussed above), it illustrates the use of survey data to test key hypotheses about important correlates to invasion pattern in space or time.
United States—surveys of fouling communities. A similar, broadscale program of quantitative field surveys has been implemented in the U.S., although this program focuses exclusively on fouling communities at the present time. In each of 16 different bays and estuaries (Fig. 1b), the epifaunal fouling community is being surveyed by Ruiz and colleagues using settling plates (14×l4cm collectors made of polyvinyl chloride, or PVC), and boring organisms such as shipworm and gribbles are surveyed with wood blocks. At all bays, plates are deployed in a stratified, random design. As a minimum for each bay, 200 PVC plates are deployed during the summer in a standardized fashion: the high salinity zone (>20 PSU) is divided into 10 equal-area strata; 20 plates and 2 wood blocks are randomly distributed in a single block (1 km length) in each stratum; the plates are each located at the same depth (1 m below MLLW). After 3 months, the plates and blocks are collected, and all organisms present are identified to species.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Using this survey method, additional measures are underway at three core sites to assess the effect of time (season, year, and duration of deployment), depth, and salinity on species richness (i.e., number or percent of NIS detected). Three bays were selected as core sites, one on each coast of the U.S., including Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Tampa Bay (Fig. 1b). In addition, at each core site, results of this survey method are being compared to the port survey methods (for hard substrata) being used in Australia (Hewitt & Martin 1996, 2001).
80225m.eps
80225n.eps
The fouling community surveys began in 1999, and analyses are only just beginning. Despite clear differences in survey method between the U.S. fouling surveys and the Australian port surveys, the methods for taxonomic identification, geo-referenced information, reference collections, and data management are nearly identical. The parallel nature of these two survey programs stems from (i) our collaborative development of the fouling surveys and (ii) the similar goals that are driving both survey programs. More specifically, the data from fouling surveys will be used to test for correlation of invasions with latitude, vector activity, and various environmental and community characteristics. In addition, we expect to use the fouling, surveys as baseline for analysis of temporal patterns of invasion through repeated measures, especially at the core sites.
4. Conclusions and Future Directions
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Understanding of marine invasions that can lead to accurate predictions and effective management is greatly limited by the paucity of contemporary surveys, especially those that control adequately for search effort and provide confidence in data quality. Two types of critical gaps are evident in existing surveys. First, data on marine invasions is not presently available for many global regions. Second, where available, data on marine invasions are incomplete and of variable quality among sites, as many assessments are not contemporary and most of the existing data have been collected largely as ''by-catch'' from a composite of methods. These gaps place significant constraints on interpretation of the existing data and, in particular, its value to basic and applied issues in invasion ecology.
80225o.eps
Although numerous studies have used synthesis methods to summarize the invasions known for particular regions, underscoring the prevalence of NIS and some providing important insights (e.g., Cohen & Canton 1995, 1998; Hewitt et al. 1999.; Reise et al. 1999), the approach suffers from an uneven and largely undocumented search effort. More specifically, each synthesis study uses a unique assortment of data, gleaned from the cumulative historical records in each target region, creating conspicuous differences in the data quality (methods, taxonomic and habitat focus, taxonomic expertise) and quantity (amount and temporal distribution of research) among studies. As a result, it remains difficult to assess the degree of bias in patterns of invasion that emerge from synthesis methods, and to compare data or patterns across studies that use this method. In our view, there exists no adequate method to standardize these historical ''by-catch'' data, and to remove the many biases that may result, from synthesis methods.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We advocate the use of standardized, quantitative surveys to measure patterns of invasion. This approach removes many biases evident in the existing data and can be used to develop a high-quality information base necessary to (i) test hypotheses about marine invasions, (ii) develop robust predictions, and (iii) guide management and policy decisions.
The survey programs described for Australia and the U.S. provide two examples of standardized, quantitative surveys that can be replicated in space and time. Although each program is focused primarily on a single country, some efforts are also underway to expand the geographic scope of each survey method and to develop common information management tools that can be used elsewhere. More specifically, the U.S. fouling community survey has been replicated at two sites is Australia, Swan River (Perth) in Western Australia and Sydney Harbor in New South Wales, and at least one of these locations will become a core site for temporal measures (as described above).
In addition, the Australian port survey programme is being replicated by the International Maritime Organization Global Ballast Water Management Programme (in conjunction with the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Development Program) in six demonstration sites: Brazil, China, India, Iran, South Africa, and Ukraine (IMO 2001). Similarly, the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries has embarked on a port survey programme, primarily using the Hewitt and Martin (1996, 2001) methods.
In a collaborative effort, the Australian and U.S. survey programs have also developed a common database format for management of data on marine invasions, resulting from their respective surveys as well as other sources. This tool assures our respective data is collected and managed in similar fashion, and should facilitate comparisons and analyses across continents that eve are now planning. We intend to make this database tool freely available to others who may wish to use it, creating opportunities for further collaborations and comparisons.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We call for a concerted international effort to implement standardized, quantitative field surveys that can provide high-quality and comparable data across the globe. This appears ambitious at first glance. However, many independent research programs that measure marine invasion patterns already exist in countries throughout the world. Furthermore, many countries are calling for development of ''early-warning systems,'' ''early-detection systems,'' and ''rapid-response programs'' that will require (by definition) some level of monitoring for new arrivals by standardized surveys.
A coordinated program of standardized surveys and data acquisition across countries could provide an effective and efficient approach to collect key data, needed to advance invasion ecology in marine systems. This strategy should be advanced at both the national and international level. There are many possible methods that could be adopted for standardized surveys, of which we have discussed only two as examples. A set of standard surveys and information management, implemented broadly, would pay tremendous dividends in two general ways:
(i) Replication of a standard survey would increase the low sample size that now exists on a country-by-country basis, improving greatly the resolution, power, and generality of analyses. Thus, data collected from throughout the world can provide important insights into invasion processes in Europe or any other global region.
(ii) Invasions in one global region are greatly relevant as potential future invasions to another, but no clear system exists for information exchange on new invasion, or their biological and environmental characteristics, that may be important for other regions. Concerted information management could serve this purpose.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To implement such a program, we suggest creation of a distributed international network. More specifically, research on invasions is conducted at a series of nodes that are in communication with each other. Anyone can participate in the network, which would develop and use a set of guidelines to include at least some standard protocols for field surveys and data management in their research program. Ideally, the network could both engage those groups or individuals involved presently in invasion research and encourage/facilitate participation by others. Control of the research and resulting data would remain with each participant for their respective component(s), and efforts for establishing cross-system comparisons or data-sharing would be negotiated among the participants. We have begun to develop this network approach to understanding marine invasion patterns, beginning with coordinated activities between Australia and the U.S., and we invite others to join us.
NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
Summary and Update,
Research Task Team Actions
June 19, 2002
Research is a key component of the National Invasive Species Council's Management Plan. Federal agencies participating in the Council are cooperating to move forward on the research and monitoring necessary to effectively control invasive species. Why is research and monitoring an essential component of a national strategy to prevent and control invasive species? It is estimated that 50,000 exotic species have been introduced into the United States, and that thousands of new species are introduced every year. Yet only about one percent of these species are highly invasive. Our current capabilities cannot predict which species will become destructive invaders. Research is critical not only to the development of this predictive capability, but also to fortify every point in our defense against invasive species.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What else can research and monitoring do to control invasive species?
Research will improve technologies to detect incoming invasives, strengthen capacity to identify such species, and increase understanding of the ecological requirements of the species themselves and how they displace native species, particularly rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Reseach can identify the complex factors that facilitate establishment and spread of invasive species in natural ecosystems and in the productive ecosystems of agriculture, forestry, range, and aquaculture. For known invaders, early documentation of new infestations and expanded monitoring of existing invasions are increasingly critical. Additional research is required to develop the new tools, the integrated, cost-effective measures that we need to reduce the impact of invasive species and to facilitate restoration of healthy ecosystems.
The U.S. research and monitoring infrastructure in federal sector must be fortified to maximize our defense against invasive species. This will require:
1. Inventorying existing research and monitoring efforts
2. Improving the core research capacities of federal agencies, enabling rapid research response to new threats
3. Building research and monitoring partnerships among agencies with complimentary capabilities and with other stakeholders, and
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Coordinating ongoing efforts in order to minimize overlap and fill gaps.
The Federal Research Task Team is working to coordinate existing research activities and make recommendations to the full Invasive Species Council on specific research and monitoring needs and the mechanisms to assure efficient and effective use of research funding.
For further information contact: Tom Muir, Federal Research Task Team Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, 703–648–5114; tom–muir@usgs.gov
(Footnote 1 return)
''Territorial sea'' refers to ocean waters from the shoreline to three miles from shore. (33 U.S.C. §1362(8).)
(Footnote 2 return)
33 U.S.C. §1343(a).
(Footnote 3 return)
40 C.F.R. §122.3(a).
(Footnote 4 return)
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1377 (1977); Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984); City of Chicago v. EDF, 114 S.Ct. 1588 (1994).
(Footnote 5 return)
''Uses'' of water bodies can include drinking, fishing, swimming, wildlife propagation, etc.
(Footnote 6 return)
33 U.S.C. §1313(d).
(Footnote 7 return)
33 U.S.C. §1313(d)(1)(C).
(Footnote 8 return)
33 U.S.C. §1411(b).
(Footnote 9 return)
33 U.S.C. §1402(f).
(Footnote 10 return)
Water Code §13260(a).
(Footnote 11 return)
Water Code §13263(a).
(Footnote 12 return)
Water Code §13050(e).
(Footnote 13 return)
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, ''Draft Exotic Species TMDL Workplan—Workload,'' pp. 2, 8–9 (May 7, 1999).