Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am David Evans, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I am also the designated NOAA co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. I appreciate the opportunity to present an overview of our research as mandated by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

Let me begin by talking about the challenge we've been invited to address today. Since the middle of the 19th century, an average of one new nonidigenous aquatic species has threatened an American ecosystem every 36 weeks. The number increased to one new species every 24 weeks by 1970 and since the mid-80s has risen to one new species every 12 weeks for the San Francisco Bay alone. This has resulted in substantial ecological and socioeconomic damage in many regions of the nation. We have referred to aquatic nuisance species as "America's Most Unwanted" or nature's invaders. They are non-native plants, animals or disease-causing microbes that enter and spread through inland and coastal waters. I believe that the Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council, and their non-federal partners brought in through such programs as the National Sea Grant College Program, have met the research needs mandated in the Act. We have:

• addressed the problem of zebra mussels aggressively and with great success;
• looked at a range of new ballast water technologies and have moved into a new phase of implementation of those technologies;
• sponsored research to respond to and monitor nonindigenous species issues;
• reinvigorated our Oyster Disease Program; and
• created new ways of reaching the public and educators on this issue.

Yet there is much to be done since the problem persists. For example, additional work needs to be done on control technologies. I will touch on the important activities being conducted by other members of the Task Force with much of my discussion focusing on NOAA's activities. I'd like to begin by examining what has been accomplished under those sections of the Act which specify research activities. Then I'll discuss our efforts in coordinating the programs and improvements that could be made.

First, I would like to outline the current legislation guiding our programs and how it provides for our activities. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 charges the Task Force generally with prevention, detection and monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species. As supporting elements, there are provisions for both research and education activities. The key research components of the Act are contained in §§1102, 1202(f)(3), and 1202(i). While §1202 charges the Task Force with its general duties, §1102 provides that NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will conduct a competitive research program to demonstrate technologies and practices related to ballast water management.

Section 1202(f)(3) makes provisions for the NOAA Sea Grant College Program and the Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Units to fund a competitive research program to study all aspects of aquatic nuisance species. In addition, the authorization subsection for this provision – section 1301(b)(4) – contains an authorization for the USDA's Land Grant College Program to receive grants to conduct aquatic nuisance species research. To date, only the Sea Grant Program has received funding under this section, and there may be technical difficulties with the statutory language for the other two entities. The Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Units are no longer under the authority of FWS, but are part of the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Because §1202(f)(3) does not contain a reference to the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, there is uncertainty as to how such a program would be structured.

Section 1202(i) provides for a zebra mussel control program. Under this subsection the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with developing a program of research, technology development and demonstration for the environmentally sound control of zebra mussels in and around public facilities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with developing a competitive research grant program to identify environmentally sound methods for controlling the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species such as the zebra mussel. Finally, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) is authorized to conduct research on prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.

My statement would be incomplete if I did not mention the fact that some of the agencies represented by members of the Task Force are conducting research activities on aquatic nuisance species under other programs. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to conduct research on sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has had an extensive research program on aquatic weed control for several decades. The Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture has conducted research on biocontrol agents for aquatic weeds as part of a broader biocontrol research program. Additionally, EPA also has sponsored research under other legal authorities.

I would like to provide a brief description of research activities under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. When the Act was first passed, there was a strong emphasis on a single species, the zebra mussel, in a single region, the Great Lakes. In §1202(i), the Congress identified a series of tasks relating to zebra mussels. These are:

• "research and development concerning the species life history, environmental tolerances and impacts on fisheries and other ecosystem components, and the efficacy of control mechanisms and means of avoiding or minimizing impacts;
• tracking the dispersal of the species and establishment of an early warning system to alert likely areas of future infestations;
• development of control plans in coordination with regional, State and local entities; and
• provision of technical assistance to regional, State and local entities...."

Although zebra mussels are so widely spread that it is unlikely that they ever will be eradicated, I think that the members of the Task Force have successfully accomplished these tasks. In terms of the research elements, we know the biological parameters of the species and its impact on ecosystems and can predict which aquatic systems are likely to be vulnerable to infestation. Although zebra mussel mitigation will be a continuing cost for utilities and other industries, research conducted by NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and private industry has identified mitigation methods, and no municipality should have to face the situation once faced by Monroe, Michigan, when its water intake system was totally clogged with zebra mussels.

In addition to conducting the research, the members of the Task Force have made an effort to make the information available to a variety of stakeholders. The Corps of Engineers has published and distributed a series of technical papers and a CD-ROM on zebra mussel control methods. NOAA has made a similar effort through its National Sea Grant College Program. Very early on, it was recognized that there needed to be a source for technical papers on zebra mussels. New York Sea Grant has set up a technical library, the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse. With 6,000 publications on aquatic nuisance species, it probably contains the largest collection of scientific papers and gray literature on a single aquatic nuisance species in the world: the zebra mussel. These papers are available to researchers and resource managers over the entire world. They recently provided information to Australia on methods to eradicate a potentially invasive mollusk. The collection not only includes information from peer reviewed journals, but contains gray literature and translations of material published in eastern Europe. In the case of zebra mussels, inclusion of "gray literature" is particularly important because a significant portion of the research has been conducted by private industries whose priority is developing workable methods and not necessarily publication in scientific journals. The Clearinghouse began as a technical library on zebra mussels and has now expanded to include a variety of other aquatic nuisance species. NOAA's Sea Grant institutions have also prepared publications and videotapes on zebra mussels and conducted a number of workshops and a satellite conferences for resource managers in both coastal and inland states, the latter effort in partnership with USDA. These have been very successful outreach projects.

NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory has conducted extensive research on the ecological impacts of zebra mussels. We continue to discover new – if somewhat disturbing – information. Members of the subcommittee may have seen information recently released on the reduction in populations of the shrimp-like amphipod Diporeia in Lake Michigan. Diporeia normally make up to 70 percent of the living biomass on the lake bottom. They are at the base of the food web and are the major prey source for species such as yellow perch and whitefish. In addition, prey fish for adult salmon and trout feed on the amphipods. Diporeia populations seem to be dropping because of competition with zebra mussels for resources.

In addition to work on zebra mussels, GLERL has been involved in other work on aquatic nuisance species. They currently are involved in a project evaluating the use of biocides for treatment of ballast water. Last year, they hosted a workshop with eastern European scientists to identify potential invaders from the Ponto-Caspian region. GLERL also moved expeditiously to investigate the level of risk associated with ships entering the Great Lakes system with "no ballast on board." GLERL is leading a cooperative effort to address this issue. Other members of the research team are from the University of Michigan, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Old Dominion University, and the University of Windsor in Ontario. The project is jointly funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, NOAA, EPA, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Dr. Stephen Brandt, the Director of GLERL, will be providing additional detail on their activities in his testimony today.

As referenced earlier, §1202(f)(3) of the Nondigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act makes provisions for the NOAA Sea Grant College Program and the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Units to work together. Within NOAA, all of the activity under §1202(f) has been conducted by the National Sea Grant College program. Originally, most of the sponsored research was focused on zebra mussels but as issues identified with other aquatic nuisance species have arisen, the scope of these competitive grants has been significantly expanded. During the period 1999-2000, Sea Grant funded 60 different projects. A summary of the projects is attached. To give an idea of the magnitude of the issue, over the last four years, the program has funded research on 34 different species. We have made an effort to address each of the priorities identified in the Act and have funded projects in the areas of prevention, monitoring and control. I should also note that Sea Grant's contribution is not limited to appropriations made under the Act. Individual Sea Grant institutions consider aquatic nuisance species so significant that they have sponsored approximately $600,000 in projects out of their core funds in each of the past two years. We have also made an effort to coordinate this competition with other members of the Task Force and the Regional Panels. We have asked the Regional Panels to identify research priorities in their regions. The peer review panels which recommend the final selections have included representatives from other Task Force agencies including FWS, USGS, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.

In a very real sense, the Sea Grant program has played a major role in defining the research agenda on aquatic nuisance species. At a recent international scientific conference on marine bioinvasions, an estimated two-thirds of the scientific papers presented by U.S. scientists had received at least partial funding through the Sea Grant program.

During the reauthorization of the Act in 1996, §1104 was added to set up a competitive research program for the development of ballast water management technology. Although primary responsibility for this program lies with FWS and NOAA, ballast water technology is so significant that it has become a coordinated, cooperative effort among all of the Task Force members. NOAA and FWS have put out a joint request for proposals and jointly evaluated the proposals received. Because both EPA and the Coast Guard also have been involved in ballast water research, the federal agencies meet periodically to inform each other of activities and to prevent duplication. In addition, NOAA and FWS have asked EPA and the Coast Guard to sit on the peer review panel which recommends the projects to be funded under §1104.

Since the last reauthorization, the members of the Task Force have sponsored research on a wide range of alternatives for ballast water management including excimer ultraviolet light, ozone injection, organic and inorganic biocides, dissolved air flotation, filtration, onshore treatment, and cyclonic or centrifugal separation. Some of the projects have involved totally new technologies while others have addressed engineering problems. As an example, while the Great Lakes Protection Fund provided funding for basic research on filtration, the demonstration program looked at development of an automatic backflush system so that filters would not get clogged. Throughout this effort, we have encouraged partnerships between academia, industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations in order to maximize the leverage of Federal funding.

Several of these technologies look promising, and research is now entering into a new phase – moving from the laboratory to shipboard testing and demonstration in real-world situations. Two approaches look particularly promising. The first, another example of interagency collaboration, is taking place onboard the Maritime Administration (MARAD) ship Cape May in Baltimore Harbor. The ship was provided by MARAD while equipment and in-kind match were supplied by the industrial partner. Federal funding was provided by NOAA, and substantial matching funds were supplied by the State of Maryland Ports Administration. The equipment that has been installed is a centrifugal separator to clear larger organisms and particles from the water followed by either ultraviolet treatment or one of two biocides to kill organisms not removed by the separator. EPA has been involved with a similar project involving hydrocyclonic separation (via a centrifugal separator as noted above) and ultraviolet treatment on a cruise ship on the west coast.

The second approach is an enhancement of the ongoing Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, a collaboration among the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Lake Carriers' Association, the State of Minnesota, several universities, and the Great Lakes Protection Fund. This project involves both shipboard and barge testing. The system being tested involves either screen filtration or cyclonic separation followed by ultraviolet treatment.

The Subcommittee has asked us to elaborate on what research the Task Force does to address the threat of invasive species. The Task Force itself does not conduct or sponsor research. The authorizations and appropriations are provided for individual federal agencies. However, the Task Force has played a key role in defining objectives and provides an excellent opportunity for coordination among the federal agencies involved. At a very basic level, the existence of the Task Force ensures that various agencies share information. There is much more, though. The Task Force committees involve both federal agencies and stakeholders in seeking solutions to particular problems and identifying how to combine resources and expertise. As an example, recognizing that we should be looking ahead, the Task Force has asked its Ballast Water and Shipping Committee to make recommendations on future research priorities. Some of the species specific committees such as the Ruffe Control Committee and the Brown Tree Snake Control Committee meet regularly and identify priority research projects and appropriate lead agencies. Although it has sometimes been difficult to conduct joint projects because of bureaucratic limitations, the members have, nevertheless, made an effort to do so. As is pointed out above, individual members of the Task Force have sought to involve other agencies expertise in making decisions. For example, the Corps of Engineers has asked NOAA and other members of the Task Force to participate in its review of potential zebra mussel research projects.

We have been asked to address the role of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and how the Task Force works with the Council. Created by Executive Order in 1999, the NISC works to provide national leadership regarding invasive species. The specific focus of the Council is to ensure that federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective. I foresee much the same potential with the National Invasive Species Council that we have experienced with the Task Force. Often we may wear taxonomic blinders and not be aware of what is happening in other areas. Those of us in the aquatic arena might possibly benefit from methods used to prevent introductions of livestock diseases, insects, and plants. Development of various protocols may be facilitated by contact with those who have already made an effort even if it is for a different taxonomic group. Most of the research conducted under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act has been applied research. We have only been able to do a little work on invasion processes and how they work. Other basic research questions have yet to be addressed. These include issues such as factors in habitat vulnerability, factors that make particular species successful invaders, the time-lag phenomenon, and how global climate change will affect invasion patterns. By looking at issues which extend across taxonomic groups and habitats, the Council can serve a role in identifying broad research issues that need to be addressed. In addition, they provide a different perspective in identifying gaps in our research efforts. Finally, by participating in the Council, there may be an opportunity to develop new partnerships. As an example, the involvement of the Department of the Treasury on the Council may have facilitated a joint project between the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify live bait imports.

The Subcommittee asked that I address the issue of what tools have been developed for determining the threat that a specific nonindigenous species may pose in terms of invasiveness. The Task Force recognized the need for such a tool and asked its Risk Assessment and Management Committee to develop a protocol. In 1996, they provided the Task Force with a Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process. I am submitting a copy of the protocol to the Subcommittee. In developing the protocol we not only had the advantage of having input from the federal members of the Task Force, but we also involved the private sector. The document has been so well received that the Wisconsin and Minnesota state governments have adopted it into their own review process and Florida has used it.

Finally, I indicated that I would address areas in which there is room for improvement. First, I think that we could probably do a better job of monitoring and early detection. This is particularly important if we are to respond rapidly to incipient invasions. We continue to receive initial reports of species from unlikely sources. The members of the Subcommittee may have seen the report about a month ago that the first report of the Asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus, in Maine came from a 10-year-old child. While the child was extremely proud and was interviewed on television, it may not speak highly of our own monitoring capabilities. The Asian clam species, Potamocorbula amurensis, which has had major impacts on the food chain in the northern part of San Francisco Bay, was first reported by a junior college class. Our shortcomings in this area are probably due to a couple of factors. First, monitoring in aquatic systems requires a major resource commitment, both in terms of human and financial resources. And we have not developed protocols or technology for monitoring the problems.

When Congress initially passed the Act in 1990, it exhibited a sophisticated grasp of the issue of invasive species. It certainly would have been possible to pass what was merely a zebra mussel control act. Instead, the Congress also recognized that a particular vector was likely to be responsible for future introductions. Therefore, many of the activities in the Act relate to addressing the issue of ballast water as a vector. The Task Force members responded to this issue, and I think that we are well on the way to implementing technologies and regulations to minimize the impact of this vector. We are now at a point where we should also be looking at other vectors such as hull fouling and aquaculture.

Finally, I think that additional work needs to be done on control technologies. There are entire taxonomic groups for which we have no idea of eradication methods. As an example, last summer large numbers of Australian spotted jellyfish, Phyllorhiza punctata, appeared in the Gulf of Mexico and there is concern that it could affect fishery resources in the area. In some areas, the jellyfish were so abundant that they removed virtually 100 percent of the zooplankton from the water column. Zooplankton constitute the prey base for many fish species and include larval fish themselves. Even though we recognized the threat posed by this organism, we currently do not know what methods would be effective in controlling a jellyfish species.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I think that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force can point to significant achievements. However, I do not think that we have solved the problem of aquatic invasive species. Much work remains to be done, and I know that all of the Task Force members are committed to continuing our efforts in this area. This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.