<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:24893.wais]
PROTECTING OUR GREAT LAKES: BALLAST WATER AND THE IMPACT OF INVASIVE
SPECIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-98
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-893 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ed Schrock, Staff Director
Erik Glavich, Professional Staff Member
Alex Cooper, Clerk
Krista Boyd, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 9, 2005................................ 1
Statement of:
Brandt, Stephen, director, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory........................................ 67
Brauer, Kurt, chair, Natural Resources Committee, Michigan
Council of Trout Unlimited................................. 125
Cox, Mike, attorney general, State of Michigan............... 26
Dinsmore, Jason, policy specialist, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs......................................... 118
Metcalf, Kathy, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America........................................ 99
Moore, Commander Kathleen, Chief, Environmental Standards
Division, U.S. Coast Guard................................. 61
Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, GAO........................................... 37
Schornack, Dennis L., chairman, U.S. Section International
Joint Commission........................................... 93
Weakley, James H.I., president, Lake Carriers' Association... 112
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brandt, Stephen, director, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, prepared statement of................. 70
Brauer, Kurt, chair, Natural Resources Committee, Michigan
Council of Trout Unlimited, prepared statement of.......... 127
Cox, Mike, attorney general, State of Michigan, prepared
statement of............................................... 31
Dinsmore, Jason, policy specialist, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, prepared statement of.................. 121
Metcalf, Kathy, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of
Shipping of America, prepared statement of................. 102
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 6
Moore, Commander Kathleen, Chief, Environmental Standards
Division, U.S. Coast Guard, prepared statement of.......... 64
Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, GAO, prepared statement of.................... 40
Schornack, Dennis L., chairman, U.S. Section International
Joint Commission, prepared statement of.................... 95
Weakley, James H.I., president, Lake Carriers' Association,
prepared statement of...................................... 114
PROTECTING OUR GREAT LAKES: BALLAST WATER AND THE IMPACT OF INVASIVE
SPECIES
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs,
Committee on Government Reform
Fair Haven, MI.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., at
the Anchor Bay High School Auditorium, 6319 County Line Road,
Fair Haven, MI, Hon. Candice S. Miller (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lynch, and Westmoreland.
Staff present: Edward Schrock, staff director; Erik
Glavich, professional staff member; Alex Cooper, clerk; and
Krista Boyd, minority counsel.
Mrs. Miller. Good afternoon. There are some making sure
we're organized here and ready to go.
I certainly want to first of all bring the Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs to order. And, I want to thank everybody for
attending today's hearing.
This is quite a remarkable thing, actually. We're trying to
bring Washington to Michigan, in the 10th Congressional
District of Michigan----
Voice. Turn up the volume.
Mrs. Miller [continuing]. Specifically.
Can you hear us there?
Voice. No.
Mrs. Miller. Whoever's in charge of sound, maybe I need to
bring it a little closer to me.
How about that? Is that helpful?
Voice. Yeah.
Mrs. Miller. All right. We'll try to remember to talk into
the microphones here as we can.
Today we're going to be having a hearing on invasive
species, on the kind of impact, and principally negative, in
many cases very negative, that invasive species have on our
magnificent Great Lakes, and principally through ballast water.
And I certainly want to take a few moments to thank many of
the individuals who have helped us to make this hearing
possible today.
And let me thank everybody who's involved with the Anchor
Bay School District certainly. And in particular, I want to
thank Anchor Bay High School for all of their assistance, and
the Principal here, Judy Stefanac. She was just here a moment
ago, and I see her out in the audience there.
And she gave me a fantastic tour of this school. And it
certainly is not what the high schools that many of us are used
to or think about where we came from. It's just a fantastic
facility. The community is so very proud of it.
I think that this hearing today will hopefully provide the
citizens of the 10th Congressional District, and the people
throughout the southeast Michigan, and hopefully the students,
in particular the students, an opportunity to understand a
little bit about the Federal Government, and how it works, and
the hearing process, and etc. And we wanted to have this
hearing in a high school so students would be able to
understand that things that happen at the Federal level and in
Washington, DC, seem so far away from them, but in fact they're
very, very pertinent to their lives and do have an impact. And
I know we have some students in the audience today. And
hopefully they'll understand the government. It certainly does
matter in their lives; and we do live in a democracy. And
perhaps my generation has not done the best job of being a
steward of our environment, but we look forward to the next
generation, you young people that join with us today or who
will be using this hearing as part of your curriculum, that
we're looking to you to do a better job, perhaps, than what
we've done. And we're interested in trying to afford you the
information that we can about a very, very important issue in
our area.
As well, this hearing is being broadcast through a five-
county area, all the way up to the very tip of the thumb, and
will as I said, be used in high schools throughout the entire
district, the 10th District.
I also want to thank Mark Cummins of the Macomb
Intermediate School District, who was very helpful today, and
Terry Harrington of the St. Clair County Regional Educational
Service Agency. These are the individuals who have really
helped to put together the broadcast and the mechanics, if you
will, of orchestrating today's proceedings.
And we have a number of witnesses. And I will introduce
each of them as we begin our hearing. They've come from across
Michigan, from other parts of our country, from Washington, DC.
And all of them want to talk about ballast water management,
the Regulatory Drain Board that our Nation has, and the impact
of the invasive species on our economy and our environment.
As I stated, we're prepared to examine the Federal
Government's efforts to stop the threat that invasive species
pose on our Great Lakes and on our Nation's very delicate
aquatic ecosystems. This issue is vitally important to all
residents of the Great Lakes region, not just those of us in
Michigan, but every one of the States, and the Canadian
government as well in the entire basin.
Lake St. Clair, in fact, where the dreaded zebra mussels
were first discovered, was just a few miles from where we're
sitting here today. This is a very little tiny thing, about the
size of a thumbnail, maybe even smaller, that has really
devastated the lakes and started a chain of events that has
lead us here today.
Since the zebra mussel's introduction in 1988, the threat
and the impact of endangered species has not subsided. The
zebra mussels has spread to waterways throughout the eastern
United States; and non-native species such as the round goby
are absolutely devastating our native fish populations and
destroying the ecosystem as we know it.
In fact experts, and we'll hear some of this testimony
today, actually estimate that we currently have over 180
different types of invasive species in the Great Lakes.
With the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway back in 1959,
trade through the Great Lakes expanded. And, of course, this
was a very good thing for Michigan, and the Great Lakes basin
trade, particularly on our Great Lakes as a very important
artery and economic impetus for us. On the other hand, with the
increase of this trade, the threat of invasive species exploded
as well, and it continues to be as high as ever.
In response to the introduction of the zebra mussels,
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ballast water
management regulations for ships carrying ballast water that
enter the Great Lakes after operating outside of U.S. waters.
The Coast Guard issued final mandatory regulations in April
1993. Realizing that the threat posed by invasive species was
not contained strictly to the Great Lakes, Congress then
directed the Coast Guard to expand its regulations to a
national level. In response, the Coast Guard issued an interim
rule which established voluntary national guidelines in 1999.
These voluntarily guidelines became mandatory effective on
September 27, 2004.
The Coast Guard is a Federal agency that wears many, many
hats. And we're going to have an opportunity to introduce a
representative from the Coast Guard here today. And although we
may have some tough questions about how the Coast Guard is
handling invasive species, let me just say particularly this
week, after the unbelievable work that we have seen
demonstrated by the U.S. Coast Guard in response to Hurricane
Katrina on our gulf, it has been an amazing thing for the
entire Nation to watch the Coast Guard. Not only as we see you
on the front line of the war on terror, but now as the Coast
Guard has responded, as we would have always expected you to
do, but you did so unbelievably well, and honorably, and
bravely, saving literally tens of thousands of our fellow
Americans in the gulf.
And I think we, on behalf of a very grateful Nation, to
Commander Moore of the Coast Guard, I'd like to thank you and
the entire Coast Guard, as you've been a wonderful thing to
see, I think, the Coast Guard and how they responded as well.
But in addition to all of this, the Congress has also given
the Coast Guard the responsibility of regulating many aspects
of shipping on U.S. water, and that includes the discharge of
ballast water. And in the 15 years since Congress has directed
the Coast Guard to deal with the invasive species issues,
critics have charged that the Coast Guard efforts have been
ineffective. The threat has not decreased, and regulations
exempt heavily loaded ships with no ballast water on board.
These ships are commonly called NOBOBs. They account for 90
percent of all ships entering into the Great Lakes system.
That's NOBOBs, as I say, no ballast water on board. And they
contain residual water in their ballast tank, and pose a very
great threat.
On August 31st, just a week and a half ago, the Coast Guard
issued voluntarily guidelines for NOBOBs. But critics argue
that more aggressive action is needed now. And I think in light
of the fact that we're just a week and a half after those
regulations had been issued, it's very important that we have
this hearing. It's very timely today.
Currently the only accepted ballast water management
practice is a mid-ocean ballast water exchange. There exists no
Coast Guard approved alternate methods to treat ballast water,
mainly because the Coast Guard has been unable to approve any
methods because it's failed to establish a measurable standard
for ballast water that's safe to be discharged. This standard,
which is referred to as a ``discharge standard,'' is necessary
if the shipping industry is to develop and to install
technologies that can treat ballast water as effectively as a
ballast water exchange. The international community established
its own discharge standard in February 2004. The Coast Guard
led these international efforts.
Clearly there is much more action that needs to take place
at home, and there's signs that the Coast Guard is getting
ready to issue its own discharge standard. And I certainly hope
that Commander Moore, who joins us today, can expand a little
bit on the efforts the Coast Guard is taking to improve the
ballast water regulatory framework.
In the Great Lakes region, it's been estimated that $8
billion has been spent thus far since the zebra mussel's
introduction, to mitigate the damage that it has caused; with
another $5 billion price tag in the next 10 years. Scientists
have estimated that 10 billion round gobies reside in the
northern half of Lake Erie alone.
Invasive species destroy our ecosystems. And unless the
door is shut, these very nasty little creatures will continue
to hitch a ride in ballast tanks across the Atlantic, and find
new homes right here in our magnificent Great Lakes.
The State understands this. In fact, no less than 10 States
have passed laws governing ballast water. The State of
Michigan, for example, has passed a law that defines ballast
water as pollution. And we require ships to obtain a permit
before it can be discharged.
Additionally, a coalition of Great Lakes States petitioned
the Coast Guard in 2004, asking them to act on the problems
posed by NOBOBs. These States have even reported legal efforts
to get the EPA to regulate ballast water through the Clean
Water Act.
And why have the States taken these measures? Because they
are very, very frustrated. They've seen the devastating impact
of invasive species, and they feel as though the Federal
Government has not done its job to help them.
Preventing the introduction of endangered species requires
a cooperative effort between different Federal agencies,
States, and certainly the international community. It will take
a lot of work to remove this threat posed by the ballast water
of ships.
So we've seen the problem, and now we need to work together
to find a solution.
And I'm pleased that we've been able to assemble a fine
young panel of witnesses. We're looking forward to hearing from
all of them so we can have a better understanding of what we
might be able to do at the congressional level of the Federal
Government. And we want to thank all of you for coming.
And before we start here, I also want to extend my
gratitude to the other members of the subcommittee who have
joined with us here today, my other two colleagues. First of
all a ranking member, Stephen Lynch, Congressman Stephen Lynch
is from Massachusetts. And let me just give you a brief
introduction of him.
Congressman Lynch was actually first born into the U.S.
Congress in October 2001, and has been re-elected twice. He
represents Massachusetts 9th Congressional District, and he's a
lifelong resident of south Boston. Prior to his career as a
public servant, Ranking Member Lynch worked as a structural
iron worker for 18 years, and he served as the president of the
Iron Workers Union. And as an iron worker, he worked at the
General Motors in Framingham, MA, and the General Dynamics
Shipyard in Quincy, and also the U.S. Steel Plant in Gary, IN.
Mr. Lynch continues to live in south Boston with his wife
Margaret and their 5-year-old daughter Victoria.
We certainly welcome you, Congressman Lynch. We appreciate
you coming so very, very much.
And also Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, who joins us from
Georgia actually. He entered the Congress this year. He's a
freshman. He said he wanted to come to Congress so he could be
referred to as a freshman again, it's like being in high
school. But he represents Georgia's 8th Congressional District,
which stretches from the suburbs of Atlanta to Macon into
Columbus. He served in the Georgia State House of
Representatives for 12 years, the last 3 years as minority
leader there before coming to Washington. And, actually before
becoming a public servant, he started his own building company.
And if you've had a chance to see some of the things that
are happening in northern Macomb County, see, we have a lot of
building going on there which we're very proud of.
So Mr. Westmoreland and his wife Joan have been married for
36 years. They have three children, and four grandchildren. So
we welcome them both here as well.
And I see that our State Attorney General Mike Cox has also
joined us, and we're going to be hearing from him in just a
moment. We appreciate you all coming.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.018
Mrs. Miller. I'd like to now recognize the ranking member
for his opening statement. Congressman Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
First of all, I want to thank you, chairman, and also Julie
Stefanac, for being a wonderful host. And I know this is
televised in five districts in this area. I hope it's not
televised in my district, because if people see what you have
here for a beautiful high school, I think I would be under a
lot of pressure to replicate this in my district. It's
absolutely a magnificent example of the priority that Michigan
has given to education.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. And I think it's a wonderful credit to your
political leadership here for having done so. I do appreciate
your leadership. I think I speak for all of the Members of
Congress in appreciation of Chairman Miller and what she has
done to bring the issue of invasive species contaminating our
waterways, not just Great Lakes.
But I actually have the honor of representing the Port of
Boston, and we've just spent several billion dollars on
cleaning up that port, and now we are in fear of the fact that
our waterways, our beautiful harbor, may be contaminated,
compromised by invasive species, just as the people who love
and who appreciate the beauty of the Great Lakes are concerned
about the situation around their homes and in their
neighborhoods.
These invasive species are wreaking havoc on bodies of
water all across the country. And according to the EPA,
invasive species are the second leading cause of species
extension, and a loss of biodiversity in aquatic and marine
environments around the world.
As I said, I have--my office is actually about 50 yards
from Boston Harbor. And we just spent so much money on that
system, and now the ecosystem there is under the same threat
that Lake Michigan and all the Great Lakes are facing. So we
have something in common here. And my hope is that by joining
together in this community and bringing some of these issues to
the forefront, following the leadership of Chairman Miller,
that we can find a solution not only for the Great Lakes, but
also for the Port of Boston, for Boston Harbor, and for all of
our waterways.
I understand that the Great Lakes may be more vulnerable in
a way than Boston Harbor, because we have a flushing effect, if
you will, because of the tides coming in and out, that the
Great Lakes don't have that, that protective characteristic.
And so it's even more important that we find a solution here to
reduce the level of invasive species coming in, and also to
prevent that from occurring in the future.
But the most significant source of invasive species is the
ballast water that ships take on and discharge as they load and
unload cargo. And it's important that shipping, while it is
allowed to continue, and the Great Lakes communities as well as
the east and west coast and the gulf coast rely heavily on
shipping. Ships must be required to manage their ballast water
to prevent the spread of invasive species to the fullest extent
possible.
I'm interested in hearing--we have a great list of
witnesses here. I'm interested in hearing what the Coast Guard
plans to do to insure that Federal regulations are implemented
in full effect, and that they are strengthened to prevent the
invasive species from compromising our waterways. I know this
is a pressing problem for the Great Lakes and for other parts
of the country, and we need Federal regulation, a sort of a
blanket approach, to have a full core press on this type of
danger.
There appear to be some technologies that are out there
that show promise for preventing the transfer of invasive
species. I'm looking forward to hearing from the witnesses
today what kind of progress is being made in terms of that
technology.
I'm also looking forward to hearing from the witnesses
where they believe we can best focus our resources and efforts.
Because if we focus on this problem as we should, I firmly
believe that this is solvable. It's solvable. It's a matter of
resources and of applying ourselves to the problem.
And I think under the leadership of Chairman Miller, we'll
be able to do that. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to
recognize Congressman Westmoreland for an opening statement.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Chairman Miller. And for all
you people in this audience and school children watching,
you'll probably get a sense of the different dialects across
this country with Mr. Lynch and myself. It's probably from one
end of the spectrum to the other.
But I want to thank Chairman Miller for doing this, and for
allowing me to be on the subcommittee.
When I was first elected to Congress, I sat down next to
Chairman Miller, and we were talking about different things,
and started talking about government regulations. And she
explained to me that she was going to be chairman of this
subcommittee. I immediately went back to the office and wrote a
letter requesting to be on the subcommittee, because I know
she's got a heart to do the right thing. And in looking at some
of the over regulations that we have in this country, and in
this case what seems to be maybe some under regulation.
I, too, as Ranking Member Lynch, I have some ports. We have
Savannah, Garden City, and Brunswick in Georgia. We too have
the flushing effect that the Great Lakes don't have. But still,
I think this needs to be an interest to us all.
This is going to be a learning opportunity for me. I have
dealt with the shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel, which effects our
water sources in Georgia, and Alabama, and in the South. I've
never heard of the zebra mussels and some of these other
invasive species that you have here. So I look forward to
listening to the witnesses, especially listening to the Coast
Guard on what their answers might be.
And I again thank Chairman Miller for giving me this
opportunity to be here.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you both. We appreciate that.
Now, because the Government Reform Committee is an
oversight committee and has subpoena authority, it's our
practice in Washington or field hearings to swear in all of our
witnesses. So if you could please stand and raise your right
hands?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
Our first witness on our panel today that joins us, is our
Attorney General Mike Cox. And we certainly do appreciate him
joining with us today.
General Cox was sworn into office on January 1, 2003. He
served in the U.S. Marines prior to receiving his law degree
from the University of Michigan. Attorney General Cox began
work at the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office in Detroit, where
he prosecuted cases of organized crime. He actually tried over
125 jury trials, with a 90 percent conviction rate as well. He
was appointed as the director of the Wayne County Prosecutor's
Homicide Unit in 2002.
Under his leadership, the Michigan Attorney General's
office has been extremely active in its efforts to protect the
Great Lakes. In July 2004, Attorney General Cox helped lead an
effort by the Great Lakes to improve the Federal Government's
actions pertaining to ballast water. And I know he's filed
several lawsuits in that regard, and has had some success on
that. We'll be very interested to hear how all of that is
going.
I am aware that you have a very busy schedule today, so if
you would like to have us ask you questions at the conclusion
of your statement, and then you can be on your way, or if you'd
like to stay, certainly it's your call, sir, whatever your
schedule permits. We're delighted to have you here.
STATEMENT OF MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you, Chairman Miller, and thank you
for having me here. I can make myself available. Whatever works
for the committee, the best workings of the committee.
Thank you Anchor Bay Schools for welcoming us all here. And
of course thank you, Congressman Lynch, for coming here; as
well, Congressman Westmoreland.
You know, when we all discuss the pollution, I think most
of us get a visual image in our mind here of what that means.
And I expect that, Congressman Lynch, when you were back as an
iron worker in south Boston, it might be urban smog, maybe for
you that's the image of pollution; or Congressman Westmoreland,
when you were a builder back in Georgia, maybe it was you're
developing some land and you see some chemical waste in a pond.
Or, for others it might be acid rain polluting a forest.
But for me, one of the strongest images of my life actually
stems from when I was 7, 8 years old, back in the late 60's,
early 70's, right not too far from here on Lake Huron, where we
used to visit. I grew up in Detroit and I would go walking
along the shores of Lake Huron, and there'd be alewives. And 2
weeks of every year, they'd wash up on the shore. And there
would be masses of smelly dying alewives, which are not native
invasive species to Michigan. They actually started off on the
Atlantic coast in Maine.
And they were a huge problem for us back then. They were
getting in the hatcheries of other native fish. And it wasn't
until the State of Michigan, and I think it was the Federal
Government also spent millions of dollars replacing and
replenishing trout and salmon stock, which are predators of
theirs, that we were able to get the problem under control. And
actually, now we've kind of reduced them to just being bait.
But nonetheless, it took a huge intervention of the State
government in order to solve that problem of the invasive
species coming here to the shores of our Great Lakes. And in my
mind, that picture, that image, that's in my mind of pollution,
because that is biological pollution.
And it's--you know, when we think of pollution in a
polluted waterway, or other forms of pollution, generally over
time pollution degrades and declines. Well, invasive species or
aquatic nuisance species as we call them here in the State,
they're a biological pollutant that does not decline or
degrade. As a matter of fact, if not fought, they multiply, and
they become a bigger problem.
You know today, as has been pointed out to you by
Congressman Lynch, you know, invasive species, the species,
aquatic nuisance species are carried in the ballast of larger
ocean-going vessels. When they enter the Great Lakes, aquatic
nuisance species wreak extraordinarily social, economic and
ecological havoc here in Michigan, and all along the eight
States of the Great Lakes. These biological pollutants not only
threaten the Great Lakes' ecosystem, but they also pose a
significant economic threat right here to the State of
Michigan. Commercial and recreational fishing, boating,
beaches, tourism, all suffer as a result of the harmful effects
of these species.
The estimated annual costs of controlling just one aquatic
nuisance species, the zebra mussels, in the Great Lakes that
Congressman Westmoreland alluded to, is estimated anywhere
between $100 and $400 million.
These aquatic nuisance species continue to enter the Great
Lakes at, quite frankly, an alarming rate. Back in February
1999, President Clinton at that point thought it was a big
enough problem that he issued an Executive order directing 10
Federal agencies to do--in essence, to do something about it.
The Federal agencies have done little to prevent the
introduction or further introduction of aquatic nuisance
species via ballast water discharges even though it's some 6\1/
2\ years that have passed.
In fact, since 1973, the EPA has exempted regulation of
``discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel'' from
the Clean Water Act's Normal Permit Discharge Elimination
System Program. The agency, the EPA, applied this exemption to
the ballast water discharges even though, as I said, these
discharges introduce a biological pollutant.
Now as you're aware, the Coast Guard has been given
authority to regulate ballast water discharges throughout what
was originally the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990. However, this regulatory scheme has
been ineffective and continues to be ineffective, primarily
because the Coast Guard's existing rules only apply to vessels
that carry ballast water. By the current practice, the Coast
Guard allows ships to evade any treatment by declaring that
they have no ballast on board, or the term of art is NOBOB. And
seventy percent of the ships entering the Great Lakes, are
NOBOB ships. And despite a claim of being a NOBOB vessel or
ship, they still contain residual water and sludge that
contains aquatic nuisance species.
In a 2005 report, the Great Lakes Environmental Research
Lab concluded that NOBOB ships do introduce aquatic nuisance
species to the Great Lakes. And the greatest threat of invasive
species induction--excuse me, introduction to the Great Lakes,
is ships with fresh or low salinity residual ballast water.
Thus, the Federal Governments actions have been completely
unsuccessful. Biological pollutants continue to enter the Great
Lakes because of the combination of EPA inaction and the Coast
Guard's NOBOB exemption.
As of 2001, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated
that there were 162 aquatic nuisance species in the Great
Lakes. That was as of 4 years ago. And at least 12 that entered
since 1990.
On July 12, 2004, a petition was filed with the Coast Guard
requesting rulemaking to close the NOBOB loophole. The Coast
Guard solicited public comment, as is required, on the best way
to address the NOBOB problem. And in July of this year, 2
months ago, stated it was developing a ballast water discharge
standard to be used to approve ballast water treatment systems.
Yet, thus far, it has not committed itself to any time line to
adopt this.
Last week the Coast Guard issued best management practices
for NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes. Unfortunately,
though, this document is described as a policy. And the best
management practices are only recommendations that cannot be
enforced.
I do not believe the Coast Guard should be the primary
Federal agency. Nonetheless, until--excuse me, in my mind, the
Coast Guard should not be the primary agency, the EPA should.
But until the EPA enacts much needed regulation, the Coast
Guard should quickly close the NOBOB loophole. It is essential
to the future of our Great Lakes that we close our borders
literally to these invasive species.
My primary recommendation, however, as I alluded to, is
that the EPA move quickly to regulate ballast water discharges
under the Clean Water Act. In July 2004, my office, along with
attorney generals from four other Great Lakes States, submitted
the amicus brief in a lawsuit that was going on out in San
Francisco, in the Federal Court there for the Northern District
of California, arguing that the EPA's exemption for ballast
water discharges was unlawful and should be repealed. The court
ruled this past March, on March 31, 2005, that the EPA's
exemption was without authority, and ordered the EPA to repeal
the exemption. My office, along with other Great Lakes
attorneys generals, has now been granted intervener status as
parties, and we've asked the court for a short timeline to
force the EPA to promulgate the final regulations.
However, in the interim, EPA has the authority right now to
quickly develop general permits for classes of discharges. In
addition, the EPA can require vessels to employ best management
practices, such as ballast water exchange in the ocean, which
is a generally beneficial management practice that can reduce
the risk of invasive species of these biological pollutants
right now.
The court will soon determine how the EPA's to regulate
ballast water discharges under the Clean Water Act. While they
wait for effective Federal action, States such as Michigan can
and should be able to try and slow down the explosion of these
invasive species, of these aquatic nuisance species.
With my support, Michigan recently amended its primary
water quality protection statute to require permits starting in
January 2007. These permits will require all ocean-going
vessels operating in Michigan ports, to show that they do not
discharge aquatic nuisance species, or that they use
environmentally sound technologies and methods to prevent the
discharge of these invasive species in ballast water. In
addition, the law creates a multi-state coalition which
promotes existing laws that prohibit biological pollutants from
being discharged. I supported this legislation, and I believe
it is the best way currently available to protect the Great
Lakes, given the lack of adequate Federal regulation.
And unfortunately Senate bill 363, which is talked about
when we talk about this area of regulation, the Ballast Water
Management Act of 2005, is currently being--as I said, it's
currently being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee in
Washington. Senate bill 363 would prohibit Michigan from
imposing any requirement under its new State law that are
inconsistent with Federal requirements. Senate bill 363 would
also prohibit the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
from regulating ballast water discharges under the Clean Water
Act. In addition, new water treatment standards applying to all
vessels wouldn't be required until 2016, some 11 years from
now. Moreover, the bill would continue to keep--excuse me. The
bill would keep current Coast Guard regulations for Great Lakes
in place, including the NOBOB loophole, for at least a year.
I've joined other Great Lakes States' attorney generals in
a joint letter conveying our problems, our dismay with the
bill, especially since it would remove the Clean Water Act
jurisdiction and would preclude States from acting where the
Federal Government has not acted.
Our Great Lakes face devastating consequences if we
continue to allow these biological pollutants to enter our
waters unchecked. Michigan's citizens daily rely on the Great
Lakes for recreation, for drinking water, for environmental
benefits, and for its sustainable economic growth.
The Federal Government has failed to protect our natural
resources from these devastating--from the devastating effects
of these biological pollutants. Effective methods that address
aquatic nuisance species are within our reach as a State and as
a Nation. And I encourage all of us gathered here today to work
together to see them implemented. We must act to protect our
natural resources, so that our children do not have to remember
the beaches of their childhood covered in rotting biological
pollution.
That's the end of my prepared statement. But this morning
when I woke up, if I can indulge--beg your indulgence for 2
more minutes. This morning when I woke up, I remembered--or, I
read in the Detroit News, a local paper, on the first day of my
vacation for this summer, which was August 14th. I was just
hanging around Detroit, and I was going to take my kids
fishing, and swimming, and that sort of stuff in the area.
At any rate, in the Sunday Detroit News, they had an
article about foreign species crowding out local fish here in
Michigan. And it was really pretty interesting. I read the
article, and I had to pull it out to bring here today.
And in this article from the Detroit News, and just 4 weeks
ago, on the west side of Michigan we have the Lake Michigan.
And Lake Michigan, a lot of the problems that happen in Lake
Michigan, transfer over to inland lakes. Well, there's a town
called Muskegon on the west--the west coast of Michigan, on
Lake Michigan. And there's a Muskegon Lake, which historically
was a great fishing area. For years and years, you could get
perch and pickerel, and all sorts of fish out there.
At any rate, every year there's a guy there who started up
a voluntarily fish tournament. And grew--this year there were
400 fisherman, and that he had organized friends and fellow
fishermen. And they had a fishing contest. And, you know, it
used to be that they would--they would try and get perch and
pickerel and trout. Well, this year, these 400 anglers, these
400 fishermen caught 5,000 gobies, some 460 pounds of gobies,
which are worthless as food for humans, and until the mid
eighties, had never been seen in the Great Lakes. They've
caught one perch. I think that dramatically outlines, better
than my testimony could, this problem and the need for the
Federal Government to do something about it.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Attorney General Cox. We certainly
appreciate your attendance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.024
Mrs. Miller. And we will just proceed then with the rest of
our witnesses, and if you can stay for questions, that would be
very helpful for the panel here.
And in the interest of time, I might mention for the
others, I've just been informed--actually, we have these little
lights that we have set up here. When you see the red light,
your 5 minutes is up. I'm not going to cut you off on your 5
minutes, but maybe you would like to try to roll through here a
bit if we could.
Our next witness is Robin Nazzaro. And she is the Director
with the Natural Resources and Environmental team of the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. She's responsible for the
GAO's work on Federal land management issues such as forest and
wildfire management, invasive and endangered species, mining
and grazing, national parks and recreation areas, and Indian
affairs with the Department of the Interior and the Department
of the Agriculture's Forest Service.
She has worked at the GAO since 1979, has demonstrated a
wealth of audit experience, staff office service, and the
diversity of issue area expertise. She has received numerous
GAO honors, including the Comptroller General's Meritorious
Service Award for sustained leadership, and two assisted
Comptroller General Awards for exceptional contributions in
strategic planning.
We certainly thank you for your presence today, and look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, GAO
Ms. Nazarene. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal
Government's response and actions taken to address the
introduction of harmful species from ballast water in ships.
Numerous harmful species have been introduced into U.S. waters
from ballast water. These invasive non-native species have
caused serious damage, that's been noted today, to ecosystems,
businesses, and recreation.
GAO reported in 2002 that at least 160 non-native aquatic
species have become established here in the Great Lakes since
the 1800's. The ballast water used on ships to maintain safe
operations, is considered a major source of these
introductions. The effects are not trivial. The zebra mussel
alone was estimated to have cost over $400--$750 million in
costs between 1989 and 2000.
Today I will summarize the progress made in ballast water
management, and discuss issues that pose challenges for the
Federal Government's program for preventing the introduction of
invasive species into U.S. waters from ships' ballast water.
In summary, the Federal Government has been taking numerous
steps to address the introduction of potentially invasive
species from ballast water in ships for well over a decade. In
1990, in response to the introduction of the zebra mussel, the
Congress passed the Nonindigenous Nuisance Aquatic Prevention
and Control Act. This act focused on preventing the
introduction of organisms from ballast water into the Great
Lakes. In 1996, the National Invasive Species Act re-authorized
and amended the 1990 act, covering--expanding coverage of
ballast water management to all of the Nation's waters.
In response to these laws, the Coast Guard has developed a
series of regulations that have called for both voluntarily and
mandatory actions. The most important requirements include a
call for ships to exchange their ballast water in the open
ocean, at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The law also
allows ships to retain their ballast on board or to treat it
with some other method than the exchange. However, as has been
noted, no alternative methods have been approved for use,
meaning that exchange is the current option for treating
ballast water. As has been noted on the international front,
the United Nation's International Maritime Organization has
been working toward a global solution. In February 2004, the
IMO adopted a convention on ballast water management. But at
the moment, only one country has ratified this convention.
Despite the steps that have been taken, U.S. waters are
still vulnerable to invasive species for several reasons.
First, many ships with potentially harmful organisms in their
ballast tanks are exempt from or are not covered by the
mandatory regulations calling for ballast water exchange.
One category of ships not covered by the ballast water
exchange requirement, are those without pumpable ballast on
board, the so-called NOBOBs that have been mentioned today.
These ships are of a particular concern for the Great Lakes,
for about 80 percent of the ships that are entering from
outside the 200 nautical mile zone fall into this category.
A second category of ships not covered by the requirement
is those that do not travel more than 200 nautical miles from
shore, such as ships traveling from one U.S. port to another,
whether they be Georgia or Massachusetts, and those coming from
foreign waters such as Central or South America.
Second, despite being authorized to do so, the Coast Guard
has not established alternate discharge zones that could be
used by ships that are unable to conduct ballast water
exchanges.
Third, there are numerous concerns that ballast water
exchange is not always effective at removing or killing
potentially invasive species. Specifically, ballast pumps are
not always able to remove all of the original water, sediment
or associated organisms. In addition, elevated levels of
salinity do not necessarily kill all forms of potentially
invasive organisms.
Technologies are being developed that show some progress in
providing more effective removal of potentially invasive
species. Treatment options include water filtration systems,
ultraviolet radiation, chlorine, heat, or ozone. However, the
development of such technology is a daunting task, given the
many operational constraints under which these technologies
must operate on board ships.
The primary impediment to developing these technologies,
however, is the lack of a discharge standard for how clean the
ballast water must be. This standard would help developers
determine how effective their technologies need to be. The
Coast Guard has been working on the discharge standard for
several years, but has not committed to an issuance date.
In conclusion, without this standard, or the development of
additional technology, ballast water exchange is still the only
available treatment method for reducing the amount of
potentially invasive species in ships' ballast water. Thus,
U.S. waters remain vulnerable to invasive species carried
through this mechanism.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.045
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness is Commander Kathleen Moore.
On June 1, 2003, Commander Moore was appointed Chief of the
Environmental Standards Division for the U.S. Coast Guard,
which develops policy and regulations concerning marine
environmental protection, both in the United States and as well
as abroad. She also serves as a Program Manager for the Coast
Guard's Aquatic Nuisance Species Program.
She obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
Engineering and a Master's of Science degree in Engineering
Management from the University of Maryland, as well as a
Masters in Maritime--or, Marine Affairs from the University of
Rhode Island. She left the aerospace industry to join the Coast
Guard in 1990, and has since then completed staff tours at the
Marine Safety Center and field tours in California and Puerto
Rico.
We certainly look forward to your testimony at this time,
Commander.
STATEMENT OF COMMANDER KATHLEEN MOORE, CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS DIVISION, U.S. COAST GUARD
Commander Moore. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I am Kathy Moore, Chief of the Environmental Standards
Division at Coast Guard Headquarters, and a manager of the
Coast Guard's Aquatic Nuisance Species Ballast Water Management
Program. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to
provide the Coast Guard's views on ballast water management.
And I would like to also begin by saying thank you very
much for your very kind words. There are over 4,000 Coast Guard
personnel, both in and out of uniform, that are working very
diligently with great determination and endurance responding to
the tragedy in the gulf.
The administration shares this committee's concerns with
the significant environmental and economic damage that has been
caused by aquatic invasive species, and recognizes that ballast
water discharge is one of the important pathways for such
invasions.
The Coast Guard is a leader in protecting America's
waterways and maritime environment, and we take great pride in
providing valuable services that preserve and protect our
Nation's waters, making them cleaner, safer, and more secure.
The Coast Guard remains committed to providing a leadership
role on ballast water management, both domestically and
internationally, and working diligently with all stakeholders
to protect U.S. waters from the introduction of aquatic
invasive species.
We recognize the practice of ballast water exchange is not
the ideal prevention method to remove the risk of ANS
introductions into ballast water. And in early 2001, through a
series of domestic and international workshops, concluded that
a ballast water discharge standard should address all organisms
at all life stages, that it be concentration-based, it needs to
be set at values that are scientifically sound, environmentally
protective, and enforceable. These criteria formed our approach
in international negotiations at the International Maritime
Organization, as well as our rulemaking, to develop a ballast
water discharge standard.
We are currently completing an Environmental Impact
Statement that analyzes the environmental impact of several
alternative water discharge standards, as well as the cost-
benefit analysis for implementing the rulemaking.
In February 2004, it's already been said the Coast Guard
lead an interagency U.S. delegation to the IMO diplomatic
conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships. The
conference adopted the International Convention for the Control
and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments, which is
a significant step forward in the international effort to
combat aquatic invasive species introduced through ships'
ballast water. The U.S. delegation played a major role in
developing the convention's basic structure and insuring that a
number of key objectives were included in this new treaty.
One significant provision of the convention calls for ships
to meet a ballast water discharge standard according to a
schedule of fixed dates, beginning with certain ships
constructed in 2009. These fixed dates serve as a signal both
to the shipping industry and emerging ballast water treatment
industry of the need for investment, plans, and ballast water
treatment equipment inventory to meet the ballast water
management requirements.
Another key feature of the implementation schedule, is the
phasing out of the ballast water exchange, which means most
ballast water discharges will eventually have to meet a maximum
concentration discharge standard. The standard adopted by IMO,
as I said, is concentration-based, which was desired by the
United States because the concentration approach provides for a
more effective monitoring of compliance and a more uniform
approach to the performance and protective level of reduction/
risk across all vessels. The standard was adopted and, when met
by all vessels, will likely reduce the discharges of
potentially aquatic invasive species via ballast water,
compared to the ballast practices of mid-ocean ballast water
exchange.
An issue of relevance specifically to our Great Lakes, is
the need for management strategies for the vessels that enter
the Great Lakes with no ballast on board, referred to as NOBOB
vessels. In 1993, ballast water management regulations were
promulgated for entry into the Great Lakes addressing ballast
water discharge by its vessels with full ballast tanks. These
regulations remain the most stringent in the world for
restricting the discharge of unmanaged ballast water. However,
many vessels enter the Great Lakes system fully loaded with
cargo, having discharged their ballast water to carry cargo.
Only unpumpable residual water and sediment remain in these
ballast tanks, and their residuals provide the opportunity for
reduction--introduction of aquatic invasive species as their
vessels conduct cargo operations, and take on and discharge
ballast water in our Great Lakes.
This issue was the main focus of the NOBOB project
performed by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab and
its research partners. The project was begun in 2000, with
funding by the Coast Guard, NOAA, and EPA. And the project
results suggested the discharges of residual waters that are
fresh or brackish, that is low salinity, have the highest risk
of introducing aquatic invasive species into our Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard has considered short-term and long-term
strategies to address this risk, and in August 2005 announced
its new policy implementing best management practices. The
policy encourages vessels that may eventually enter our Great
Lakes to conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange, exchanging
ballast on voyages whenever possible. And if such ballast water
exchange is not possible, to flush those empty tanks with the
ocean ballast water to reduce the concentration of organisms
through discharge and salinity shock. The consistent
application of these practices should result in the elimination
of residual water in the ballast tanks, and significantly
reduce the risk of these residuals providing the opportunity
for aquatic invasive species introductions.
The Coast Guard will be sampling vessels entering the Great
Lakes to test the salinity of these residuals and to assess the
application rate of these practices. In addition, there is work
currently underway to assess the effectiveness of increasing
salinity on fresh water organisms commonly found in ballast
tank residual water.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on
the Coast Guard's Ballast Water Management Program. The Coast
Guard looks forward to working with Congress. It will continue
our ongoing efforts to implement an effective ballast
management water regime. And I'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Commander. We appreciate your
comments.
[The prepared statement of Commander Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.048
Mrs. Miller. And our final witness to make an opening
remark, is Doctor Stephen Brandt. Doctor Brandt serves as the
director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
leading institution for aquatic invasive species research. He
received a Ph.D in oceanography and limnology, with a Ph.D
minor in statistical analyses and experimental design from the
University of Wisconsin.
He's been involved in research on the biology of the Great
Lakes region for almost 30 years, and has created the NOAA
National Center for Invasive Species Research. He's also been
the chief scientist on over 80 research cruises, spent over 700
days at sea, published over 70 papers, and given over 200
scientific presentations.
So we certainly welcome you, Doctor, and look forward to
your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BRANDT, DIRECTOR, NOAA GREAT LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Mr. Brandt. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, and
members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about NOAA's research
on the invasive species in the Great Lakes, particularly
regarding no ballast on board or NOBOB vessels, ballast water
treatment technology, and Federal coordination.
About 180 nonindigenous species are already established in
the Great Lakes. This is a serious issue. As the gateway to
America's heartland, the Great Lakes also provide a pathway for
invasive species to spread throughout the United States, as
zebra mussels have done since their first appearance in the
nearby Lake St. Clair. This invasion led directly to the
passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990.
NOAA's primary role in the development of ballast water
management regulations, is to provide the research and
scientific information to make sound policies and to develop
preventive measures and treatments that are effective.
The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory [GLERL],
is NOAA's leading institution for aquatic invasive research. It
also houses the NOAA national center for research on invasive
species, to insure that NOAA's research is coordinated across
regions where it has a broad range of disciplines and strong
partnerships with over 150 institutions which insures that NOAA
meets its legislative mandate to conduct invasive species
research, all of which falls within the priority set by the ANS
task force and the National Management Plan.
As heard, commercial vessel ballast tanks are, by far, the
most significant means for moving aquatic species around the
globe. Ballast water exchange is the only approved management
method. However, only a few studies on a few organisms on a few
vessels have examined the effectiveness of open ocean ballast
exchange. And results vary widely from 35 to 95 percent
effectiveness. The lack of detailed assessments of this
process, is a fundamental gap in comparing the value of ballast
water exchange to alternative strategies.
The overall ballast water issue is complicated by the
architecture of the ballast tank, which differs from vessel to
vessel. Tanks are often honeycombed and not designed for easy
access for thorough flushing. Reliable and appropriate
treatment of ballast water is still in development.
In 1996, Congress set up the ballast water management
demonstration program to develop new management technologies.
This competitive grants program was administered by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA, with the Maritime
Administration providing testing platforms. To date we have
sponsored 54 projects on 8 of the 9 technologies that the
National Research Council listed as having potential
application. Among these are filtration, thermos treatment,
bioscience and others. Additionally no sea grant program has
sponsored 23 ballast-related projects. Although several
technologies hold promise, none of them were fully tested at
full-scale operational conditions.
Invasions have continued since ballast exchange began.
Recent data show that 90 percent of the foreign vessels
entering the Great Lakes are NOBOB, or declaring no ballast on
board. However, some of the water and sediment remains in
ballast tanks even after complete pump out. These vessels are
not covered by ballast water exchange regulations. Water that
is eventually taken on to main trim can mix with these
residuals and be discharged later. The magnitude of such risks
for invasion is not clear.
NOAA, through GLERL, is conducting the first ever research
on NOBOBs, and just completed a large program to characterize
the biota found in NOBOB vessels, to assess its sediment
accumulation versus ballast management practices, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of mid-ocean exchange.
In the 42 NOBOB vessels surveyed, water and sediment
residuals contained in the first group of live biota, including
dozens of noninvasive species not yet recorded in the Great
Lakes. And some of those were in resting stages, which are
extremely resistant to adverse conditions. Detailed reports are
available in an extensive report published in May.
Other major conclusions were simply: NOBOB vessels are
effective for nonindigenous species; lowering the risk of
NOBOB-related invasive species can be accomplished with
diligent application of good management practices, and perhaps
salt water flushing and ballast water exchange itself isn't
perfect.
In many ways, the recent progress we have seen, is the
result of a virtually unprecedented degree of cooperation by a
number of different Federal agencies, universities, and the
private sector. This cooperation's been fostered by the
interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, chaired by
NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, in addition to the
National Invasive Species Council, which also helps with
coordinating actions and policy more broadly across 13 Federal
departments and agencies.
Another recent example of coordination occurred when the 11
agency regional working group established by the President's
Great Lakes Executive order developed a rapid response and
coordinated a sampling program in response to the discovery of
a snake head fish off Chicago, that within days confirmed that
this was an isolated case. Indeed, the NOBOB investigation
itself that we talked about, is another good example of
collaboration between NOAA, the Great Lakes Protection Fund,
Coast Guard and EPA, universities, and very importantly, the
shipping community.
In summary, we are optimistic that ongoing research and
collaboration will lead to a number of promising technologies
in the future. This concludes my testimony, and I'll be happy
to respond to any questions that you might have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.061
Mrs. Miller. Again, we appreciate you all being here. I'm
sure we have plenty of questions for all of you. I might start
with Attorney General Mike Cox, if I could.
I know that you've been following this very closely, and
you've certainly been a leader in our State, and from a legal
standpoint as well in working with the other attorney generals
that have concerns in their States as well. Is there any legal
authority that the State of Michigan would have, perhaps the
DEQ or what have you, to actually board a ship out in the Great
Lakes to see if they're in compliance with our State statute?
Mr. Cox. Well, Chairman Miller, the recently passed bill,
now statute, will allow our Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality to board and to permit ships that travel
in the Great Lakes. You know, without a doubt, once that starts
happening, our statute will be challenged by the shipping
industry saying that we're violating their interstate commerce
laws. We are confident we can defend that statute, and we are
working with a number of other States to come up with model
statutes--and furthermore, under the--under this Clean Air Act
and Clean Water Act, we worked--our Department of Environmental
Quality worked with the EPA already, and has delegated
authority. But that being said, and I don't want to be
redundant, but there really is a need here first and foremost
for Congress to get the EPA to act, OK, for long-term, and in
the interim, the Coast Guard.
And it's kind of interesting. I looked at some prior GAO
reports or testimony from the U.S. Senate by Doctor Nazzaro's
predecessor. And in 2003, it was estimated 70 percent of the
ships in the Great Lakes were NOBOBs. Doctor Nazzaro told us it
was 80 percent, and then Doctor Brandt told us it was 90
percent, which if anything seems to indicate an increasing
vulnerability by the Great Lakes to NOBOB, for the problem of
NOBOBs and the need for the Coast Guard to do something now.
The GAO report back in 2003 also pointed out the real
problem as to why I and other attorneys generals had to get
involved. The Federal efforts don't seem to have clear goals,
and there's no way of measuring that they're getting anywhere.
You know, the EPA promulgating rules could change all of that,
or the Congress forcing the EPA to do that could change all of
that.
The result would be, Michigan wouldn't have to worry about
this sort of problem. Indiana wouldn't have to worry about this
sort of problem; Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin. And--because
rightfully we have eight States in our union that border the
Great Lakes.
And this rightfully should be addressed first and foremost
by the EPA. And unfortunately it's been forced upon the Coast
Guard by default. You know, the Coast Guard ought to--they're a
uniform service, we ought to be allowing to free them up to
protect our homeland as they're--which is their primary
mission.
So a roundabout answer is yes, we have the means right now.
They're going to be challenged in Federal Court, I expect. The
best long-term solution is the answer that your committee and
the EPA can provide.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. You know, during the last
Congress actually, and this would go to your consternation
about whether or not the EPA should take the lead role or
perhaps the process should remain with the U.S. Coast Guard,
but during the last Congress, I had introduced legislation in
which we would have required that ocean vessels coming into the
Great Lakes system would have to have at least a 95 percent
discharge of their ballast water before they left the
Eisenhower Lock in the St. Lawrence Seaway there. And it would
require that the Coast Guard would do the inspections. I've not
re-introduced that legislation. My hope is at the end of this
hearing, I'll have enough information to fine-tune that. But we
held off on that at this time, because of waiting for the Coast
Guard to issue their standards. And so, I'm still not certain
whether it really rests with the EPA or the Coast Guard. There
has to be some triggering mechanism, somebody to actually
enforce this. And that would seem logical to me to have the
Coast Guard to be the one to enforce whatever Federal
legislation we might have. Certainly you don't have the ability
to do that with every ship, nor do I think that you'd want to
do that, but certainly on a random basis, I think, if we were
to get to standards there.
I might ask the Attorney General Cox again, what is your
observation of the kind of response, how yourself and your
other colleagues have gotten from the Federal agencies that are
in the bull's-eye of your lawsuit?
Mr. Cox. Well, we won out in the District Court out in
California, Federal District Court out in California. The EPA
is going to dig in their heels, and that isn't the end of the
battle by any means. And we're going to have to pursue this.
And quite frankly, I myself, philosophically as a lawyer,
feel uncomfortable having to sue a Federal body to perform its
federally mandated role. But in large part it's become a matter
of self-defense for States along the Great Lakes. And we've
unfortunately had to go the route of, you know, going to the
courts. And the EPA is digging in, and they're not changing in
the short run. Hopefully your hearings will provide a little
persuasion.
Mrs. Miller. Madam Moore, you are in the hot seat today,
but if I could address that question to you? When do you think
the Coast Guard would be effective to issuing a discharge
standard? Perhaps you could enlighten us on that.
Commander Moore. September 2003, we issued a notice
announcing our intent to publish an Environmental Impact
Statement. That was the second step that we had taken in the
rulemaking development process for the discharge standard rule.
We had done it with advance notice of proposed rulemaking just
prior to that, to which we have received 40 comments to the
docket.
We are currently receiving chapters of that EIS and
reviewing them. We're having the work done outside the Coast
Guard at this point. We are very much expecting in the next
several months, few months, to be able to issue the
Environmental Impact Statement.
That Environmental Impact Statement, as you know, is a
NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act requirement to
support--it's one of the supporting documents required for
Federal rulemaking. A NEPA document can be a number of
different levels, depending on the environmental impacts of the
rule itself. And the environmental impacts of the ballast water
discharge standard could be so significant, that the full, long
analysis called the Environmental Impact Statement is the work
required under this rule. We are completing that.
We are also currently completing a cost-benefit analysis
and regulatory analysis that are also required documents to
support the rule. As well, we are working with our Federal
agency partners, EPA, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife, in making sure
that our science is defensible, it's valid, it's excellent, and
it's correct before we issue this discharge standard.
As well, we're working with the stakeholders in terms of
trying to get a handle on what the cost of this rulemaking
would be on the United States, and making sure that we have the
adequate benefits achieved by setting a particular discharge
standard at a level to offset the cost of the ruling. I guess
the next--the most near term time line or milestone that we're
going to see, is the publishing of the Draft Problematic
Environmental Impact Statement. And that's yet some several
months away.
Mrs. Miller. The short answer would be, then, that perhaps
in 18 months, 2 years? And once it is--you do have the
standard, how long would it actually take to implement such a
thing? Do you have any idea there.
Commander Moore. Once this standard is established, it will
come out essentially two times. It will come out as a proposed
rule, notice of proposed rulemaking, and that standard then
would be published out for the first time. The environmental
process will give the results of the analysis of definite
alternatives.
Once the standard is announced and the rule itself, we'll
also have an implementation schedule. In other words, what
vessels it will apply to on what scheduling. That
implementation schedule will tell vessels then when they can
expect to have approvable equipment installed on board that
would be able to discharge to meet that standard.
It's important to know that the discharge standard serves
two roles, and they're very different, and they're very
important.
The ballast water discharge standard's first role is to
help the Coast Guard evaluate the performance of ballast water
treatment technologies. Right now, under the NISA/NANPCA
language, a system, in order to be approved by the Coast Guard,
has to be as effective as ballast water exchange in reducing
the risk of aquatic nuisance species introduction. And as we've
already heard, ballast water exchange has a range of
effectiveness.
One of the reasons why the Coast Guard made a decision to
move toward the ballast water discharge standard, was to lock
in that performance standard for ballast water treatment
systems to be able to meet.
The other role that the ballast water discharge standard
will have, though, and one great benefit that it has in terms
of the regulatory issue, is it gives us an ability to determine
that the discharge from the system on the vessel is compliant
through the life of the vessel. So that we know once installed
approved equipment is on board, it is also continuing to
function as it's designed. And that dual role of the discharge
standard is a very important element of having a discharge
standard, and not having the systems that are approved separate
from having a discharge standard.
Mrs. Miller. Commander, you spoke, you mentioned several
times that the concentration approach is the preferred
approach. Could you explain a little bit what is meant by that
term concentration approach.
Commander Moore. Certainly. The way the concentration
approach works essentially, is a family of organisms. Typically
we're looking at families established certainly by a time--I'm
sorry, by a size range. In the international, that size range
is greater than 50 microns, organisms greater than 50 microns.
That's technically zoaplank, and all the way up to fish. And
then organisms smaller than 50 microns but greater than 10
microns, that is the organisms that tend to fall in the
bicrondic category. And then, finally, there's a third category
that are the microbes or bacteria kinds of organisms, and those
are also in a concentration-based standard.
So that the way the standard would work, is that per volume
of ballast water discharged, only a--no more than a maximum
number of organisms--or, less than a max number of organisms
would be permitted in that volume of discharge. And so that's a
samplable quantity in a laboratory setup under an approving
system, and then it is also a sample of water quality.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Representative Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, Commander, I want to say thank you for your
service to our country. It is deeply appreciated. I have a
great relationship with my Coast Guard commander in the port of
Boston.
I notice that yourself, and actually Ms. Nazzaro, point to
this convention, this International Maritime Organization
Convention. And I'm just concerned. I know the situation that
we have right now in the Great Lakes and other coastal areas. I
know the amount of encroachment we've had with invasive
species. And I'm looking here at, for instance, the amount of
time it's taken for us to develop the standard, and we're not
there yet. It began in 2001, and we still have I don't know how
long to go. But I'm just seeing a very quick encroachment and
the possibility of irreversible damage to the Great Lakes, and
yet this bureaucratic process just goes very, very slow or on
different time lines. And it concerns me greatly.
And then I see here that, first of all, the conference
adopted the International Convention which it calls upon, it
calls upon shippers, shipping companies, vessels to adopt
certain standards. Is that--when you say calls upon, and I
notice yourself and Ms. Nazzaro used the exact same sentence,
is this mandatory?
Commander Moore. Yes, sir, the convention is mandatory.
Mr. Lynch. The convention is mandatory.
Commander Moore. The convention is mandatory for parties.
In other words, if a country ratifies, and then sufficient
countries with sufficient shipping gross tonnage ratify the
convention, then that treaty then enters into force, the
parties are bound by the mandatory requirements of the
convention, yes.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Well, that's encouraging. And the other
thing that troubled me was, it talked about calling on ships to
meet a ballast water discharge standard according to a schedule
of fixed dates, beginning with ships constructed in 2009.
Commander Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Do you see the problem with that? If we don't
apply the standard until--or, if we end up with a situation
where ships are not under the burden of this regulation unless
they're constructed in 2009, and if the average life of one of
these vessels is 30 or 40 years, then even out in 2030, 2040,
we have a very small percentage of the vessels that are going
to be subject to this rule, and the rest are out from
underneath the protection that you and I and the rest of us are
trying to provide.
Commander Moore. Yes, sir. The schedule of fixed dates
begins with vessels newly constructed in 2009. But the existing
vessels that you are concerned with, begin to come under the
coverage of that standard beginning in 2012, and then on until
all vessels are under the standard by 2016.
And the reason for that, sir, is the quantity and number of
vessels, just shear number of vessels that we have to install
equipment, and the challenges faced by existing vessels
retrofitting equipment into confined areas in their engine
rooms, say, that and overcoming the challenges of retrofitting
significant equipment on existing vessels. That's why the use
of existing vessels have a longer time line with which to be
able to design, purchase and install this equipment.
Mr. Lynch. I understand.
Commander Moore. Existing vessels are covered.
Mr. Lynch. So, Commander, what you're saying, is that by
putting this out there, the manufacturers, at least the ships
and the ballast systems themselves, they'll be influenced by
this regulation, and so they'll modify them in a way that they
won't be the honeycomb design that they are now, which is very
tough to flush and very tough to clean out, and that are prone
to carrying sediment; they'll be influenced so that we'll be
able to adapt the new technology to those vessels.
Commander Moore. Sir, what we're seeing, are a number of
adaptations on several different levels. First, I think in
terms of ballast water treatment systems under development,
ballast water treatment systems, many of them, if not most of
them, have either a filtration or separation component to them
so that the accumulation of sediment is going to be
dramatically reduced as the installation of these systems
proceeds.
Many of the systems are actually an in-line system. In
other words, they're going to be dealing with the organisms in
the ballast water while they are being pumped aboard or
overboard of the vessel. So the actual need to modify the tank
structure, which would be very expensive in these vessels, is
not going to be needed. The honeycomb structure of the ballast
tanks, the advantage to that is that it allows for smoother
cargo spaces and the efficient loading and offloading of cargo.
So having the structure within the ballast tanks, is actually a
good thing. It's tough for ballast water exchange
effectiveness, but if we are able to treat the ballast water
before it gets into the tank, then that honeycomb structure no
longer becomes an impediment.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Very good. And the question is generally for
all four panelists. And I do appreciate, as the other Members
do, your appearance here. Are there technologies that you see
in grappling with this problem? Do you see some technologies
that offer greater promise than others?
Ms. Nazzaro. Yes.
Commander Moore. Yes, sir. I'll just go first. We are
seeing a tremendous growth in the development of novel
technologies. I think we're seeing a great deal of input from
water treatment industries that have typically performed
outstanding work on land trying to adapt themselves to the
maritime environment. Of course a ship environment is very
difficult. But you're seeing filtration technologies, the
adaption of ultraviolet light for the disinfection; you're
seeing chemical oxidizing and non-oxidizing biocides being
used. There's a number of non-chemical biocide type treatments,
where either the oxygen is removed from the water, or some
other water chemistry changes are being effected on the water
so that it does not--no longer supports those organisms. As we
heard Doctor Brandt testify, there are a number of organisms
that are very tough to kill. And we are exploring what are
those response relationships between some of these treatment
systems and the organisms themselves. So there's still a great
deal of developing work. And the industry is certainly in its
development stage. There are a number of treatment systems that
are showing promise, have been installed on ships, are being
actively, very thoroughly tested right now.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you.
And if I could, Mr. Brandt, I know that you mentioned in
your testimony there are various studies out there in terms of
even the efficacies of using this--what do they refer to it,
swish and spit, where they bring in the salt water and get the
loose--the residual water in the ballast tank.
Are you suggesting there that there should be more studies
done around that, that aspect of this?
Mr. Brandt. Yeah. I think that what we've seen by
interviewing the shippers, is that some of those ships that do
use that swish and spit, which particularly if they bring water
in shortly after they've had sediment brought on board, they
were in a turbid area taking on ballast water. If they can
rinse that out right away before that sediment becomes hard,
those kind of ballast water management strategies can be very
effective at reducing the amount of sediment.
There's the similar sort of an argument could be made for
taking on salt water and swishing it around, and having salt
water overlying the sediment rather than the fresh wash. I
think those are techniques that can be applied right away and
could be effective.
One of the things, though, that we've noticed, that some of
these animals are very hardy. Their resting eggs can withstand
no oxygen in water, they can go through a fish's digestive
tract. They can live for decades. And once they get back into
the water, they can resurface and grow. And those animals are
hard to kill.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you.
And last, Attorney General Cox, I notice in your testimony
you were fairly critical, deservedly I believe, of Senate bill
363, that would prohibit the State of Michigan which came up
with a very innovative way to categorize this problem, this
pollution----
Mr. Cox. Right.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. And to get at it through the EPA. A
very--I think it's instructive, and I'm going to bring it to
the attention of my folks in Massachusetts.
In terms--and it also, 363, at least the plain reading of
it, would prevent the EPA from regulating ballast water
discharges under the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Cox. Right.
Mr. Lynch. It's the same preemption argument. What about
the idea that if the Coast Guard comes up with its standard and
Michigan wanted to do more, wanted to do more than what the
standard might require? As the chief law enforcement officer
for the State of Michigan, what is it your opinion that--what
would that do to your wishes to be more protective of the Great
Lakes?
Mr. Cox. Well, Congressman, I think part of my opposition
to the Senate bill 330--or excuse me, 363 not allowing the
States to have any role, is the part of that same bill that in
essence says don't apply the Clean Water Act, and don't do a
number of the things we need to rectify the situation right
now. And my opposition, based upon not allowing the States some
role, you know, might completely disappear if we could get the
EPA to do what it should have been doing all along. I mean,
it's a very practical political matter.
This is a problem I think we, at the States, would rather
not even have to worry about. It's only because it's dropped at
our doorstep and we aren't getting the sort of Federal response
that is needed, that we argue for a role for States.
You know, I understand there's--you know, it's a very
complicated problem. But as I look at the time line here, you
know, in 1990 with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention Control Act, 1999 President Clinton's EO, 2001 the
task force finally starts up. And maybe in 2012 there might be
some relief on existing ships with regard to NOBOB. So that's
22 years that the Great Lakes are taking it on the chin maybe
waiting for some Federal action. And again, that's why us
States have to--why we're forcing ourselves up to the table.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Representative Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you.
And, Commander, let me compliment you and the Coast Guard
for the job that you're doing on the gulf coast too, but I
would like to ask you a couple of questions.
I notice that there are three different ways, I guess,
that--or procedures on exchanging this ballast water. One says
prior to discharging ballast water in U.S. waters, perform a
complete ballast water exchange, and in an area no less than
200 nautical miles from any shore, retain ballast water on
board the vessel. Or prior to the vessel entering U.S. waters,
using an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast
water management that has been approved by the Coast Guard.
If these ships don't do that, it says there's a fine levied
for $27,500 per day that this ship has not performed one of
these. And I think the figure's been given that there was about
a 90 percent compliance rate.
How do you know that?
Commander Moore. Sir, we get on board every ship carrying
ballast water and entering into the Great Lakes. And we
evaluate a random sample of the tanks on board to insure that
the salinity in those tanks reflects the salinity
representative of mid-ocean water versus the salinity
representative of coastal brackish or fresh water.
Mr. Westmoreland. So you actually board the ships.
Commander Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. Have you had to issue any fines?
Commander Moore. No, sir. There's a practical collision
with actually ending up issuing a fine for a vessel that has
not completed an exchange. We have a reporting requirement that
before they enter the system, we have a report from them on
what the vessel actually did. If they for some reason have a
tank that they have not completed an exchange on, what they
will do is then they will say that they have no intention to
discharge the contents of that tank. One of the advantages that
we have, is the ability then to give them an order that says
that they cannot discharge the contents of that tank and then
determine on their exit by both the quantity of ballast water
in that tank and again measuring the salinity in that tank, to
determine that it's not say completely fresh Great Lakes
ballast water; that they have in fact not discharged the
ballast water into the Great Lakes. So by virtue of the system
that's set up in terms of reporting, sampling and enforcement,
we haven't had an opportunity, if you will, to actually exert a
fine in the Great Lakes system.
There are new regs in place obviously nationwide. There
have been some fines and tickets associated with compliance
around the country. But the Great Lakes is a unique kind of a
system with an entry into the system. And we've been--had no
fines within the Great Lakes.
Mr. Westmoreland. So what you're basically telling us, is
that you feel like the Coast Guard regulations right now are 90
percent successful, and that all of the problems that are
happening in the Great Lakes is coming from that 10 percent
that are not compliant.
Commander Moore. It's interesting to think about the influx
of ballast water into the Great Lakes, but that is really only
part of the contribution of nonindigenous species into the
Great Lakes. In terms of shipping, vessels also have some
fouling associated with shipping, and so there might be other
places on the ship that organisms completely unrelated to
ballast water may be carried into the system. And there are
also other sources of nonindigenous species into the Great
Lakes completely separate from Great Lakes shipping. So I don't
think that you can actually ascribe the increased rate of
invasions completely to ballast water. While there is, as we've
already discussed, the risk because some of these unmanaged
residuals turn out to be--some fraction of them turn out to be
fresh or brackish water and may have organisms that are
compatible with the Great Lakes, that's probably not the sole
source of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes.
Mr. Westmoreland. So what would you say was the percentage
of these invasive non-natural species coming in that comes from
ballast water.
Commander Moore. I have no way to make that assessment. The
only thing I can do, is reduce the risk or eliminate the risk
that ballast water is contributing noninvasive--or,
nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes.
Mr. Westmoreland. Attorney General Cox, you seem to be a
sportsman that enjoyed the outdoors. Are there any natural
predators for the--what is it, the round oby or----
Mr. Cox. The goby? No.
Mr. Westmoreland. The goby.
Mr. Cox. No. The zebra mussel. Some folks think that
there's some natural predatation evolving, but Doctor Brandt
might have a better idea than I do of that.
But I think that brings up a point that is very germane to
this issue about aquatic nuisance species. By and large, we
don't have scientists arguing about whether this is a good idea
or a bad idea. This isn't like global warming where people talk
about, you know, increased regulations of CO2, you know,
whether global warming's related to that, or whether CO2's that
bad or not. By and large that I know of, there's no scientists
who say these species are good for us or good for the Great
Lakes.
So I think it's against that context, or I would hope it's
against that context, that everyone approaches what the EPA and
the Coast Guard, or whatever part of the Federal Government
engages this problem, you know, how they approach their
timelines.
It's just, you know, this is--this is a problem that keeps
dumping itself into the Great Lakes. You know, 10 percent of
the vessels not being compliant. Congressman Miller knows
better than I, but if you drive 15 miles from here to Port
Huron, and you can watch within an hour, on any given hour you
can watch tens if not hundreds of vessels go by, and you start
to realize 10 percent matters; 8 percent matters.
So again, I'm getting back to your original question, I
don't believe there's any natural predators. There's some
thought that there might be, but again that's probably Doctor
Brandt would know better than I.
Mr. Brandt. I'd like to try and address that a little bit.
The goby actually and the zebra mussels came from the same
region. In fact, when the zebra mussel came here first,
followed by the goby, the goby came into a habitat where it had
its natural food, which in some sense is a zebra mussel. So
what the goby has done, is they also feed on other fish that
compete with a number of the fish and natural species. Yellow
perch is one of those examples.
One thing to be remembered, though, is that eradication of
these species, except immediately after their appearance--but
once they've entered the Great Lakes and have become
established, eradication is almost impossible. We've had great
success in trying--at great cost, in trying to control the sea
lamprey. But we've not eradicated any other species in the
Great Lakes that has become fully established.
And I think what those folks that manage fisheries and that
are--the problem they face, is that the entire ecosystem is
changing. Every time a new species comes in and takes over, the
system has changed. And they need to look at their regulations,
the way they manage the system in that way. And that's a very
difficult thing to do.
Mr. Westmoreland. Now, Doctor Brandt, one final question,
Madam Chairman. You mentioned the sea lamprey. I know that they
are treating that with a chemical or a spray I guess. Has there
been any research into any of these other species, such as the
zebra mussel or the goby.
Mr. Brandt. There's a lot of research to try and control
them in areas where they're causing a lot of problems, like
intake of water--municipal water sources or power plants, and
there's ways to control those. There's means that can be used
to reduce their attachment to these solid structures.
There's a very interesting research in Australia that is
looking at genetic techniques that are trying to control the
species once they've become established. None that's going on
in the United States at present.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, thank you for each one of you
commenting, coming in and testifying today.
Ms. Chairman, that's all the questions that I have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And I want to thank all the
panelists for appearing today. And if any of the Members have
any further questions of them, you can certainly submit them,
and then we'll have them respond and made a part of the
congressional record here for the subcommittee.
Again, as well, we want to thank you all for coming, and
we'll take a brief recess while we impanel our next group of
witnesses.
Thank you so much.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Miller. All right. We're going to restart our hearing
here.
And once again, because the Government Reform Committee is
an oversight committee and has subpoena authority, we ask that
you please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
Our first witness today is Mr. Dennis Schornack. Mr.
Schornack was appointed to chair the U.S. Section of the
International Joint Commission by President George W. Bush, and
he assumed the office on April 8, 2002. And during his tenure
at the IJC, he has focused on the problem of aquatic invasive
species, and he's testified on the subject both before the U.S.
Congress and the Canadian Parliament.
Mr. Schornack's leadership of the IJC caps a 25 year career
at the top levels of the State government, including 11 years
in senior positions for Michigan Governor John Engler.
Most notably, he co-led the development of Annex 2001,
which is an agreement among the eight Great Lakes States and
two Canadian provinces to manage Great Lakes water uses and
diversions.
He earned his B.A., B.S. and Master's degrees from Michigan
State University, as well as a Masters in public health from
the University of Michigan.
We appreciate you coming today, Mr. Schornack, and look
forward to your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS L. SCHORNACK, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SECTION
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Schornack. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and members of
the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee today.
And I particularly want to commend Chair Miller for
convening this session at a high school, because you're exactly
right, the key to being a good steward of the Great Lakes, is a
great education. And what students learn today, will be
reflected in healthier, better managed, more sustainable lakes
tomorrow.
I also commend you for your leadership on many critical
issues confronting the Great Lakes, from invasive species, to
toxic spills, to the erosion in the St. Clair River. You've
been a staunch defender of the Great Lakes, and your work is
greatly appreciated.
Like you, though, I'm increasingly frustrated at the slow
pace of progress to reduce the risk of invasion, and thereby
protect the Great Lakes from alien species. In my view, aquatic
invasive species are the No. 1 threat to the biosecurity of the
Great Lakes, and it's time for everyone who cares about the
Great Lakes to stand up, and speak out, and with one voice tell
Washington and the Congress to do something and to do it now.
What is it that we should ask Congress to do? To me, it's
obvious that congressional action and oversight are required to
speed up the process, to cut through the confusion of competing
approaches, and to set a clear, protective discharge standard,
and to set clear lines of authority and responsibility.
If we've learned one thing in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina, it's that solving problems becomes exponentially
harder when multiple agencies are in charge or think they are
in charge. The result: everybody and nobody is in charge.
Conversely, seemingly intractable problems can be successfully
tackled when authority, resources and responsibility are
focused in one agency. And in the case of aquatic invasive
species, I believe that agency is and should remain the U.S.
Coast Guard.
Our goal of keeping the Great Lakes closed to invasion but
open to commerce, is being pursued along several regulatory
pathways at the international, national, and subnational
levels. These treaty-based administrative and legislative
pathways have been described in part in previous testimony.
And with each of these regulatory pathways, the key step is
setting a ballast water discharge standard. Setting a
successful standard requires the following basic elements, in
my opinion: First and foremost, the standard must be
biologically protective of the Great Lakes. In short, it has to
work.
Second, it must be enforceable, meaning that the test to
meet the standard must be quick, it must be simple, and it must
be without ambiguity.
Third, it must be fairly applied to all ships capable of
carrying ballast water.
Fourth, it must be achievable either by technology, the use
of an environmentally benign biocide, or some management
practice, or a combination of these factors.
And last, but of no less importance, the standard must be
coordinated with Canada to allow for maximum protection of the
lakes and the maximum opportunities for cooperative testing and
efficiencies in enforcement. Ideally, the standard should be
the same, because invasive species recognize no boundaries.
These actions would position the United States as a world
leader in the protection of a world-class resource. However,
the Great Lakes are a shared resource. So to be effective and
fully protective of the lakes, these actions must be
coordinated with Canada.
Frankly, I think this gives our two countries the perfect
opportunity to examine their policies as part of the review of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that was just about to
commence this January. A review process would allow the two
parties to step back from the day-to-day needs of management
programs, to develop a harmonized, coordinated approach, based
on a single standard. To me, if a new Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement achieves a common strategy between our two countries
on an aquatic invasive species, it will be a resounding
success.
Finally, the subcommittee should be also aware of other
ways to stop the discharge of untreated ballast water in the
Great Lakes. An example is the transshipment of goods from
ocean vessels to lakers prior to their entry into the Great
Lakes. Goods that could not be transshipped to vessels might be
moved to trucks and railroad lines. In this regard, a recent
study by Doctor John Taylor of Grand Valley State University--I
believe he's in the audience today--revealed that the estimated
additional cost of this option would be roughly $55 million per
year, an amount that was far less than the annual cost to water
and power industries attributed to invasive species.
Now, I mention this alternative, because this study sets a
benchmark for the cost of any regulation this Congress or the
Coast Guard might adopt. If regulatory compliance costs are
greater than $55 million per year, then transportation modes
for these cargos may shift.
Congress and regulators must be aware of such impacts, so
that they can be fully informed and prepared to make the
decisions needed to protect both the economy and the ecology of
the Great Lakes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express our views,
and I certainly look forward to answering your questions.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Schornack.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schornack follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.065
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness is Kathy Metcalf. She serves
as the director of Maritime Affairs for the Chamber of Shipping
of America, which is a national trade organization that
represents U.S. interests in the maritime industry. Its members
are composed of operators, owners and charters of tankers,
chemical carriers, containerships and bulk carriers that are
either U.S. flagged or have interests in the continued
viability of the U.S. maritime industry.
She has sat in this position since 1997, and in her
capacity represents maritime interests before Congress and
Federal and State agencies and in the international arena as
well.
Prior to coming to the Chamber of Shipping, she served in
various positions in the energy industry, including deck
officer aboard large ocean-going tankers, marine safety and
environmental director, corporate regulatory and compliance
manager, and State government affairs manager.
We appreciate you coming in today, Mrs. Metcalf, and we
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KATHY METCALF, DIRECTOR, MARITIME AFFAIRS, CHAMBER
OF SHIPPING OF AMERICA
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be back in high school. And at our age, it is always a good
feel.
While I'm presenting my testimony today on behalf of my
organization, I think I want to make the point that we are but
one of a number of organizations that are members of an
informal shipping industry ballast water coalition. And my
colleague to my left, Mr. Weakley, as well as other
organizations, have put that organization together, informal as
it may be, well over 3 years ago, when we sensed the need for
the industry, the entire industry, not just this trade
association or another, to really get off the line, off the
mark if you will, and move forward on this issue.
Now, while I have not cleared this testimony through them,
I will ask the recognition of the Chair, that attached to my
written testimony is coalition testimony I presented on June
15th to the Senate Commerce Committee, which serves as really
the foundation of my testimony today.
It is absolutely reasonable that this hearing be held here,
because unfortunately, this area was the first documented--one
of the first documented victims of invasive species in the
United States. And because of that, I think there's an
appreciation in this region, there's an absolutely critical
need for a strong national program--actually, a strong
international program. But given the variations and the speed
of various international initiatives, it certainly is
understandable in the part of the United States and some of the
regions within the United States, that a national program at
the very least be established.
It's important that it be at least a national program,
because it needs to regulate an international business. The
colleague to my right has mentioned Canada and the United
States. But the bottom line is that some of these critters, if
you will, have the ability to float in currents and whatnot
over long, extended periods. And it's important that we have an
international system because the critter in New Mexico that's
not controlled may become our next invasive species as well.
For 20 years, the industry's been working on this
internationally, and at national levels as well as State
agencies. And the basic industry position has four elements.
One is, as I indicated, a mandatory national program.
A strong Federal program has been espoused by three State
environmental agencies of which I have worked with this
problem. They didn't want these strong Federal programs (sic),
so the States individually do not have to create the same thing
perhaps with different results.
The second is a need, absolutely critical need for a
quantitative ballast water standard that's based on
concentration.
The third is we need to get stuff on the ships. What works
great in the laboratory but doesn't work on a ship, is of no
benefit to us in the long-term.
And finally, understanding the delicacy of this terminology
even in Washington, but particularly at a field hearing, there
is a need for Federal preemption in this issue for a lot of
reasons; not the least of which is to promote the consistency
in a national program and, therefore, promote the compliance of
vessels as they call on U.S. ports.
I'm happy to say today that the IMO convention achieved all
of those but the preemption. Thank goodness they didn't deal
with national preemption on a national treaty.
But I'm even happier to say today that Senate 363 does deal
with it. It does not shut States out from participating in the
process of creating a standard. It simply says that once the
Federal Government has agreed on a standard with input from all
State levels, that it will become the national program.
Why should we preempt State initiatives? Well, the past
argument, put quite simply, is the reason. Ships travel across
boundaries. So do invasive species. Let's control them the
right way, and in a way that's predictable to not only
business, but also to the environment, so we can do good right
now, as soon as possible.
Treatment technologies, as indicated by previous witnesses,
there's a lot of them. The one thing we can all agree on, is
there is no silver bullet that would provide the necessary
efficacy on all ships on all voyages in all water bodies. So
there's a need for the development. And it is happening.
Once the IMO convention placed--put in place a quantitative
standard, it happened that the vendors and ship owners began to
work together. And I'm quite proud that three of our member
companies actually are testing three separate technologies on
three different types of ships in three different geographies,
one of which is the Great Lakes.
Finally, I would just say on the need for a quantitative
standard in any program, if we can visualize someone in a dark
room shooting at a target that's not there with their eyes
closed, that's what the agencies, both State and Federal, the
shipping industry, the environmental groups have had to deal
with prior to the creation of a numerical standard. We now have
a target. The lights are beginning to come up in the room, and
we're beginning to focus in on achieving that.
And finally, as far as the necessity for the Federal
statute to be the controlling statute for ballast water, the
Attorney General from Michigan indicated the suit. Well, we are
also interveners in that lawsuit on the other side. And we
believe it's important to create a system of management for
ballast water. We do not believe the NPDS program was created
nor intended to apply to sources that move across
jurisdictional boundaries.
The best example I can think of right now, would be if we
suddenly decided that rather than create Federal automotive
emission standards, that every State would permit every vessel
that went through it, as opposed to a Federal standard by which
we can all rely.
So again I thank you. We are committed to working with the
Federal agencies and the Congress, and hopefully moving Senate
363 to a successful conclusion, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.075
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness is James Weakley. Mr. Weakley
became the president of the Lakes Carriers' Association on
January 16, 2003. And in his capacity, he acts as the chief
spokesman for the U.S.-Flag Great Lakes carriers, representing
the industry on a variety of issues. He graduated from the U.S.
Coast Guard Academy in 1984. And as an Engineering Officer, he
traveled aboard the Coast Guard Cutter MIDGETT.
In 1993, he entered the private sector, joining the
Interlake Steamship Co., where he served as personnel director
and later as operations manager. He was recalled to active duty
following the events of September 11th, and was thereafter
awarded the Department of Transportation 9-11 Medal. He also
has received several other medals, and serves on the boards of
numerous marine associations.
Mr. Weakley, we appreciate your service to our Nation, and
we appreciate your attendance here today, and look forward to
your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS'
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weakley. Thank you, Ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Lake Carriers' Association deeply appreciates the
opportunity to address what is undoubtedly the most important
environmental issue currently facing the Great Lakes, invasive
species. The industry and the Federal Government must work
together tirelessly to find solution to this vexing problem,
otherwise more nonindigenous species will be introduced into
the Great Lakes via ballast water from ocean-going vessels.
Everyone involved in the Great Lakes shipping has an
obligation to keep the Great Lakes open to commerce but closed
to exotics. Lake Carriers' Association has been a leader in the
efforts to end this invasion, and pledges to cooperate in the
future in any way possible.
Our members annually move as much as 125 million tons just
here on the Great Lakes. Iron for the steel production, coal
for power generation, and limestone for construction are our
primary commodities. The problem with aquatic invasive species
must be solved so that waterborne commerce on the Great Lakes
can remain the safest and most efficient way to move raw
materials that drive the regions and our Nation's economies.
However, as a starting point, we must recognize that U.S.
flag dry-bulk cargo vessels, commonly referred to as Lakers,
operate exclusively within the Great Lakes and enclosed aquatic
ecosystems. Therefore, Lakers have never introduced an invasive
species to the Great Lakes. These invaders have been introduced
via ballast water from the ocean-going vessels or Salties.
Nonetheless, Lake Carriers' Association is committed to finding
ways to stop future introductions.
In 1993, the Association became the first maritime
organization in North America to institute voluntarily
practices to slow the spread of invasives that have been
introduced to the Great Lakes by ocean-going vessels.
LCA pioneered research on filtration and treatment of
ballast water for possible application on Salties, and over
time has developed additional ballast water management
practices for its members to implement to lessen the spread of
the established exotic species.
We must further note that there are significant design and
operational differences between the Salties and the Lakers.
Therefore, a system or a practice that is viable on an ocean-
going vessel, may not be effective on a Great Lakes dry-bulk
cargo vessel. A Saltie requires as much as 3 million gallons of
ballast water when emptied of cargo, and loads or discharges at
a relatively slow water. A Saltie can in fact be in port for
days. The largest U.S.-Flag Lakers load or discharge cargo in a
matter of hours, taking on as much as 15 million gallons of
ballast. Simply put, a system that can treat 3 million gallons
of ballast over 1 or more days on a Saltie, would be
overwhelmed by the Laker's flow rate of 80,000 gallons per
minute.
Therefore, I must reiterate that the only way to stop
introductions of invasive species, is to develop a system or
operating procedures that will remove or block nonindigenous
species from the ballast water of ocean-going vessels. Since
LCA's members do not operate ocean-going vessels, we defer to
other operators to make specific recommendations for the new
requirements for Salties.
However, the reality is that those nonindigenous species
that have established themselves in the Great Lakes, are going
to migrate throughout the system over time. There are no
natural barriers separating the Great Lakes. Therefore,
whatever measures are eventually required of Salties, would
have little or no value on Lakers. Again, Lakers confine their
operations exclusively to the enclosed aquatic ecosystem. Their
ballast water contains only what is already in the Great Lakes.
LCA members have voluntarily implemented ballast water
management practices to slow the spread, but no shipboard
system or practice can eliminate exotics that have taken root
in the Great Lakes. As a draft of port, the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration declares, ``Once these invasions have
been launched, they are irreversible.''
The war against future introductions of nonindigenous
species will be won or lost in the ballast tanks of ocean-going
vessels.
Thank you, Madam, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to appear before you. I'll be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weakly follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.079
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness is Jason Dinsmore. Mr.
Dinsmore serves as the resource policy assistant for the
Michigan United Conservation Clubs [MUCC]; which has
represented the views of millions of conservationists since
1937, with over 500 affiliated clubs whose mission is to
conserve, protect, and enhance Michigan's natural resources and
our outdoor heritage.
He serves as the expert in wildlife issues at MUCC, has a
B.S. from Michigan State University in fisheries and wildlife.
He's also pursuing his Masters in fisheries and wildlife, and
has worked managing wildlife for the Department of Natural
Resources and the Living Science Foundation.
He's an active member of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust's
Scientific Advisory Team, as well as serving on several other
State advisory boards.
We thank you for your presence here today, Mr. Dinsmore,
and look forward to your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF JASON DINSMORE, POLICY SPECIALIST, MICHIGAN UNITED
CONSERVATION CLUBS
Mr. Dinsmore. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the
committee.
Just as a quick illustration of how important this topic is
to us, just yesterday I was reclining on a beach in Sutton's
Bay in northern Michigan, and I got called back a little early
from the vacation because no one else could cover the meeting
here today. And it is very important to us, and very important
to me as well. And my wife--it took a little convincing, but I
made it here OK.
I guess I'll move forward just in the name of time here.
Michigan United Conservation Clubs is a statewide conservation
organization that has represented the views of millions of
conservationists since 1937. As you mentioned, MUCC has over
500 affiliate clubs, with over 200,000 members, and 6,000
individual members, all united to insure conservation of
Michigan's natural resources.
The members of MUCC, are people who understand the balance
between economy and ecology. It's this understanding that makes
us conservationists. A conservationist believes in the wise use
of resources. We see the benefits of taking from nature for
man's benefit and enjoyment, but we also respect and care for
our resources, understanding that we if we take all of it or
use it wastefully today, there will be nothing left for
tomorrow or our next generations.
Michigan's hunters and anglers have been paying to protect,
conserve, and keep Michigan's natural resources healthy and
productive since the first hunting and fishing licenses were
issued two decades ago.
There are a lot of issues that greatly concern Michigan's
hunters and anglers. And at the top of this list is aquatic
invasive species, or aquatic nuisance species depending on who
you ask. Nothing's as frustrating as being told there's nothing
that can be done about a problem that's invaded your home and
begun to destroy the very resources you have been working your
whole life to protect.
Surrounded by the Great Lakes, Michigan has ample
opportunity to see the changes brought about by aquatic
invasive species. A large chunk of Michigan's economy depends
on healthy fishery. There are over 1 million anglers residing
in Michigan, and over 353,000 people visit Michigan just to
fish. These anglers contribute over $830 million to Michigan's
economy when you add up the license fees, hotel rooms, fishing
equipment, boat rentals and, purchases, food and drinks, gas
and so on. Think of all the jobs these services provide. And
the very base of many of these expenditures is a healthy Great
Lakes fishery.
MUCC is grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and
we are even more grateful that Congressman Miller has called us
here. We have been waiting for someone to take a corrective
approach at the Federal level, and I'm glad to see Michigan's
own Congressman taking on that role. This hearing is an example
of the forward thinking and motivated behavior that is
necessary if we are going to protect the Great Lakes from
further invasion.
In addition to that, we would ask Congressman Miller to
consider the following suggestions: We need strong leadership
in Congress to seek out and collaborate with Canadian leaders
and international people, as was mentioned before, on this
issue, especially in dealing with ballast water controls.
Ultimately fixing the problem in the United States means
nothing if the invasives can still enter through Canada or
other national means.
We would urge Congressman Miller to fill this critical and
often overlooked role, by supporting a reference from the U.S.
Government to the International Joint Commission, asking them
to address the needs for coordination and harmonization for
invasive species prevention and control.
Also, insure that the Coast Guard's voluntarily best
management practices [BMP's], program for NOBOBs becomes
mandatory and fully enforced as soon as possible.
We would also ask that you please take the lead in
advancing recommendations to the Great Lakes Regional
Collaborative, including their recommendation that the
government may not be able to implement mandatory ballast
standards/technology by 2011. We need to have a backup plan in
case this occurs. We would ask Congressman Miller to take on
this role by calling for the study and development for a
transshipment study of the Great Lakes, which would help keep
out ocean-going ships and the invasives that carry ballast
water--they carry if ballast water technology fails to be
feasible in a timely solution.
Development of transshipment study would be the first time
this type of innovative thinking would enter the political fray
and maybe a solution not only to preventing introduction of
invasive species but to a beleaguered economy. Can we translate
the transfer of goods from ocean-going vessels into trains and
lake carriers into jobs and economic growth within the region?
We believe so.
Finally, Congress and the administration failed to move in
a timely manner. We would ask that you help the other Great
Lakes States move forward with legislation as similar or
stronger to that which Michigan has done, to stop the spread of
invasive species via ballast water. We would also ask that you
fight to protect the ability of the Great Lakes States to enact
its own regulations, stronger than those of the Federal
Government, which may be lacking.
The problems and challenges caused by invasive species have
increased over the years as the Great Lakes region takes its
place in this world's ever expanding global economy. We are
likely to see more imports and exports from around the globe in
the future, not less. And the transport of these goods leads to
the greater threat of invasive species being imported along
with lumber, textiles, and other goods.
Michigan's conservationists want to see a booming economy.
We want to see the Great Lakes prospering and thrive. They are
the backbone that support our way of life and our livelihoods.
But in order for the Great Lakes to thrive, we need to prevent
the spread of new invasive species.
I see my time is up, so I'll end it there. Once again, any
questions.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dinsmore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.083
Mrs. Miller. And our final distinguished panelist is Kurt
Brauer. He is with the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited. Mr.
Brauer currently serves as the Chair of the Natural Resources
Management and Conservation Advocacy Committee within that
organization. He is the past president of the Paul H. Young
Chapter of Trout Unlimited in Troy, MI.
And the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited has 24 local
chapters, and over 7,500 individual members. And there are over
140,000 members of Trout Unlimited across our great Nation.
Mr. Brauer, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KURT BRAUER, CHAIR, NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Brauer. Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of
myself and our 140,000 members of Trout Unlimited nationwide.
I'd also point out that since Trout Unlimited was
established in the great State of Michigan in 1959, it has
worked diligently to conserve, protect, and restore native and
naturalized populations of trout and salmon and the waterbeds
upon which these economically important and beautiful sport
fish depend.
I always approach the topic of invasive species with some
trepidation. This is because two of the four trout species that
many of our members pursue and attempt to conserve, are
actually introduced species themselves. Those would be the
brown trout and the rainbow trout, which were introduced in
Michigan at the end of the 19th century from Europe and the
Pacific Northwest respectively, in an effort by early
conservation officials to establish sport fisheries in heavily
degraded environments.
There are other known exotics have acclimated themselves to
and impacted our region. Infamous new residents such as the sea
lamprey, the zebra mussel, and the Asian Big Head Carp are far
but a few. Sometimes referred to as nuisance aquatic species,
our organization prefers a more descriptive term, biological
pollutants, as I think Attorney General Cox referred to them.
The aquatic ecosystems of our region are heavily impacted
systems, which can and should be actively managed to achieve a
variety of recreational, economic, and societal goals. And this
is where the challenge with biological pollutants comes in.
Once in the system, they are virtually impossible to eradicate.
Unlike with toxins and non-living pollutants, once you control
the source of those, you achieve a cleanup, and they don't
reproduce themselves. With these living biological pollutants,
even if you clean up 95 percent of them, they grow back, and
you accomplish nothing in the meantime.
This means that the only appropriate and effective
management strategy for biological pollutants, is to control
their vectors of introduction and transport. The Michigan
Council of Trout Unlimited has two policy positions related to
this issue. The first: the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited
supports the passage of legislation to prevent the importation
of exotic species in ship ballast water as well as by other
means.
The second falls under the heading of cold water habitat
restoration and may be a little bit less obvious. Our second
policy consideration is that the Michigan Council of Trout
Unlimited supports the modification and removal of damns as
part of a comprehensive river restoration effort.
The Michigan Council does not support the removal of the
first barriers to fish passage upstream from the Great Lakes.
And in part, that is to keep out some of the invasive species,
such as the sea lamprey.
But these policy positions are pragmatic, particularly in
regards to damns. Damns do very bad things to rivers, to the
hydrology, to the thermal regimes, and they--but they also
effectively protect our streams from many of the undesirable
biological pollutants that currently reside in the Great Lakes.
On the national level, Trout Unlimited is actively involved
in issues related to the management of undesirable exotic
aquatic species. As a side note, it might surprise you to learn
that the lake trout, which is an important native species of
the Great Lakes region and which was almost eradicated by an
invasive species, the sea lamprey, is actually an introduced
exotic species in Yellowstone Lake, and threatens the survival
of the native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. This puts Trout
Unlimited in the unique position of advocating for the
restoration in one location, and the eradication in another
location of the same species of fish. So it's a national view
on the basic species within our country, as opposed to invasive
species coming from other countries, the Caspian Sea.
Trout Unlimited's national policy related to exotic aquatic
species is as follows: the objective is to prevent and minimize
the harmful impacts of nuisance invasive species on salmonids.
Programs and projects include eradication of selected non-
native western trout to restore native trout, and reducing the
impact of whirling disease on native and wild trout.
That sums up my comments, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brauer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4893.085
Mrs. Miller. All right. Thank you very much.
And we're going to--I'm certainly going to keep my
questions to a bare minimum here in the interest of time. I
should say my colleagues have to catch a flight tonight, and we
know what traffic is like on I-94, so we're going to wrap this
up in about 10 minutes here.
But I might ask generally, I guess of the panel. I notice
there was quite a bit of difference between Attorney General
Cox's comments about whether the EPA or Coast Guard should be
the lead agency for compliance, as well as quite a bit of
difference of opinion between some of the panel now and the
previous panel about the Senate bill 363.
And I think Mr. Schornack mentioned that he thought the
Coast Guard, not the EPA, should be the agency regulating
ballast water. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of
everyone's feeling there. Should it be the Coast Guard or the
EPA?
Do you want to start with that, Mr. Schornack?
Mr. Schornack. I'd be pleased to start there.
Chair Miller, Congress has already spoken to the lead
agency and what act is to be employed in the regulation of
invasive species or in the case of ships' ballast water, and
that's--they've chosen the Coast Guard. And the Coast Guard has
ample authority to board ships. Foreign vessel captains are
familiar with them.
We have case--if they were only to get off the dime. I
think the real problem here is time and that is moving too
slowly. I think you heard Commander Moore speak very
articulately to the scientific aspects of the regulation of
ballast water, along with Mr. Brandt from NOAA. They've been
working very closely together. And the Coast Guard is the right
agency. They deal with ships.
The EPA has very little experience with ships. They've been
reluctant to engage in the business of regulating ballast
water. It even took a judge in San Francisco to basically say
that the Clean Water Act applied. And the very programs under
the Clean Water Act are not designed to fix--in terms of the
NPDES program, the Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
that's designed to deal with a given waterway with total
loadings of chemical pollutants to a given waterway. And it
deals with fixed sources, not mobile sources.
It's also delegated to all of the States, including all of
the--or, delegated to States, including all of the eight Great
Lakes States have delegated authority. That means, as Kathy
Metcalf pointed out, that you could end up with a patchwork
quilt of regulations that would make it very difficult to
achieve the goal of closing the door to invasives, but keeping
them open to commerce, because the ships would not be able to
meet all of these varying requirements. And with that, I really
think that.
And there's also the prospect of delays in terms of
litigation under the Clean Water Act. I think there have been
problems with litigation. That's how we wound up with this
judge in the first place deciding that the Clean Water Act
should be employed.
But I think a good, strong message to the Coast Guard,
putting a single agency in charge, one that's familiar with
this problem, is the right way to go.
Mrs. Miller. OK.
Ms. Metcalf. In the interest of I-94, I'll second it,
with--to Mr. Schornack's comments. I'll second what he said,
with this specific comment: absolutely the Coast Guard should
be the lead agency. I would question whether or not S. 363
really prohibits the EPA from participating. What I would
suggest is that it charges the Coast Guard with creating and
implementing the standard. And I would hope most certainly, and
I know my organization--and I'll leave it to Mr. Weakley to
refer to his position on this--is we would expect the EPA to be
consulted on this, most definitely, because that is where the
expertise is in the Federal Government for establishing
environmental standards. But that is not where the expertise is
in regulating ships.
The other point I would make, is that there is a need, as
Commander Moore said, for the standard to be set in a
legislation. If you think it's been slow thus far, it's going
to be just as slow because NEPA, from what I'm told by the
agencies, creates a more time-consuming process for a new
standard to be created than would be the case if the standard
was included in the legislation.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Weakley.
Mr. Weakley. Panel, I would certainly echo the comments
that preceded mine. I would add to that the matter of
practicality and enforcement regime, as someone that's been an
inspector for the Coast Guard, and also someone that's been
inspected as a vessel operator, the Coast Guard is trained in
inspecting vessels. They go on to enforce a myriad of--in fact,
we'll tell you it's for all applicable U.S. laws. It's one-stop
shopping. I think it's a far more efficient system than what
we'd incur under an EPA and PDS permit process. So I think that
from enforceability and visibility, I think the Coast Guard is
the more practical agency to be the lead.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Do the other two have an opinion on
that particular question.
Mr. Dinsmore. Madam Chair, I know enough to know--to say
when I don't know. We don't have a policy per se on who should
be the regulatory authority, the EPA or the Coast Guard. Our
concerns are mainly--when I say our, I'm referring to MUCC, are
mainly with regard to enforcement of regulations. Regardless of
who the regulatory body is or may be, we would like to see
those regulations enforced to the fullest extent. That's our
main concern here.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Brauer. Madam Chair, the Michigan Council of Trout
Unlimited does not have a policy with respect to the specific
question. I will say that from my own belief, the Coast Guard
is best suited to enforce the regulations, and perhaps the EPA
is best suited to help them establish the standards under which
ballast water can be regulated.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, thank you.
Member Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just have one
question.
Mr. Schornack, in your testimony, it's on page 3, you say
that the United States wants the ballast--the standard. The
discharge standard that the IMO adopted is weaker than what the
United States wanted and has been questioned by many experts as
not being fully protective of the Great Lakes. I wonder if you
could just sort of give me the delta. What's the difference
between what is our ideal, and what was actually adopted?
Mr. Schornack. Well, sure, I can.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Schornack. The Coast Guard was of course--which has
been the lead agency in charge of this issue for over 15 years,
was chosen by the President to lead the American delegation to
the International Maritime Organization Conference last year.
Of course, that's a branch of the United Nations. And there are
many, many countries involved.
But the standards that the United States took to that
convention, was 100 fold--100 times tougher in terms of the
numbers of creatures per volume of water. If it was 100--just
using an example, without--I can't pull the numbers right out
of my head here. But let's say it was 100 for--the IMO was 100,
it was 10 times less for the United States.
So in the end, the negotiated standard at the conference
was in fact watered down. And I'm not an expert enough to say
that the standard achieved in the IMO convention was--is not
protective at all, but I have heard experts say that they're
very disappointed with the IMO standard. They do not feel that
it is much more protective than ballast water exchange, which
is what we have today.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Well, thank you. That's helpful.
I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Representative Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Madam.
Let me just make a comment about the EPA versus the Coast
Guard. The EPA's position, and I'm not speaking for them, but I
can just imagine that theirs would only be on the cleanliness
of the water and have nothing to do with any kind of organism
or anything else coming in the water. In fact, you might find
yourself protecting these species over here if you get the EPA
involved in that.
Mr. Dinsmore, one question. In your written statement that
you submitted, you had that there's an annual cost of $137
billion. Is that a misprint? Is that supposed to be million, or
is that truly billion dollars?
Mr. Dinsmore. I'm looking for that right now.
Mr. Westmoreland. It's on the first page.
Mr. Dinsmore. I don't have that here in front of me. I'm
trying to find that right now. The statement that we have, the
official statement that was printed out and given copies to the
representatives or to the committee, was not developed by me.
It was developed by our associate. And I don't have that here
in front of me unfortunately.
I do know that--was that in regard to the zebra mussel
period, or the invasive species as a whole? I know the national
total is in the millions.
Mr. Westmoreland. It just says over 160 invasive species
have entered the Great Lakes ever since the opening of the St.
Lawrence Seaway in 1959, with control costs estimated at $137
billion per year.
Mr. Dinsmore. I can say I've heard that number tossed out
before. I can't say that specific one, unfortunately, because I
did not draft those comments there in front of you.
I do know that the control costs that are being figured,
are not direct costs borne by the persons whose control that
zebra mussel or whatever it may be that has the problem right
there in front of them. It's the overall costs, costs from loss
of activity, costs in direct control, indirect costs that are
borne by the manufacturer or the industry as a whole. They do
total into the billions at that point. I'm not sure of the
exact figure unfortunately for you.
Mr. Westmoreland. Let's deal with this $137 million, it's
still----
Mr. Dinsmore. It's still a large number, yes.
Mr. Westmoreland. It's still a lot of money. And I'm just
wondering how much of that would be local funds, and how much
of it is either State or Federal funds? I don't suppose you
would know that either, would you.
Mr. Dinsmore. I know a lot--well, in my short bio that was
provided to you, which I heard for the first time now as well.
I didn't--before coming here, I didn't see----
Mr. Westmoreland. That's OK.
Mr. Dinsmore. Until just recently, I sit on the Scientific
Advisory for the Great Lakes Fishery's Trust. And I know that
as a trust we dedicate or have dedicated millions of dollars
toward research in regards to invasive species. So that's one
of those. You know, I'm sure there's a nonprofit one there as
well. Anglers of Michigan don't do--dedicate quite a bit of
their license fees toward research and other control measures.
I didn't see if anybody mentioned before that type of program.
I don't know the exact breakdown, but I do know that it's a
collaborative effort between both State, Federal, and non-
profit realms.
Mr. Westmoreland. And one last question. Mrs. Metcalf, I
hope you can answer this. When you were taking in ballast water
or putting out ballast water, does it use the same port for
taking it in as putting it out? Does it have an intake and
outtake, or does it just have one that serves as both.
Ms. Metcalf. Generally it can--depending on ship type, but
generally it's the same inlet and outlet. However, when a ship
conducts an exchange, particularly if it's of a type known as
flow through or dilution, the ballast water may actually come
in through the sea chest and below the water line, but exit
through the tank top as it's being pushed out of the tank by
the sea water coming in.
But relative to that, back to treatment technologies,
because most ballast water does traverse through common piping
from a common inlet and outlet, that's why we want to hit the
treatment right there at that point.
Mr. Westmoreland. Good. And I was thinking, you know, a
backwash type situation. If you had an inlet and an outlet, you
know, you could hook something up and continually backwash it
without, you know, actually draining it. I mean, you would have
a source to get it into a filtering system or something without
putting it back into the water.
Ms. Metcalf. Right. Yes, sir. In fact, a number of the
treatment systems that are being tested on board right now have
an applicator. You don't even have to go through a loop. You've
got a certain application rate for, for instance, ultraviolet
or heat or physical separation that allows us--hopefully will
allow us, even on the larger ships, to hit the ballast water as
it's moving past into the tanks.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, ma'am.
No further questions, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Miller. All right. Thank you very much.
I certainly want to thank again our witnesses. It's been
very, very enlightening. And if any of the committee members
have further questions, we'll submit them to you, and perhaps
your could answer them for us, and we would put them in the
record. I want to be very helpful.
I want to again thank our gracious host, and the
hospitality that's been offered to the subcommittee by the
Anchor Bay High School and Anchor Bay School District, and
Principal Stefanac as well, and all of the students. So we
certainly appreciate the attendance today.
And with that, I will call the meeting in adjournment.
Thank you very, very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>