U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–122 PS 2005

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT: NEW

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND

NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT

REAUTHORIZATION

(108–57)

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

AND

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 25, 2004

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MAX BURNS, Georgia

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida, Vice-Chair

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

BOB FILNER, California

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

MIKE THOMPSON, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Vice-Chair

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(IV)
(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Cangelosi, Allegra, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 20

Cox, Joseph J., President, Chamber of Shipping of America, Washington,

D.C., representing the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition ................. 20

Gilmour, Rear Admiral Thomas G., Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection, Washington, D.C., accompanied

by Lieutenant Commander Kathleen Moore, Chief, Environmental Standards Division, and Aquatic Nuisance Species Program Manager, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................................ 8

Hazlewood, Catherine L., Clean Oceans Program Manager, the Oceans Conservancy, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................ 20

Mann, Dr. Roger I., Acting Director for Research and Advisory Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia .......................... 20

Ullrich, David A., Executive Director, Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Chicago,

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 20

Weakley, James H.I., President, Lake Carriers’ Association, Cleveland, Ohio .. 20

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Cangelosi, Allegra .................................................................................................... 36

Cox, Joseph J ........................................................................................................... 48

Gilmour, Rear Admiral Thomas G. ........................................................................ 54

Hazlewood, Catherine L .......................................................................................... 58

Mann, Roger I .......................................................................................................... 78

Ullrich, David A ....................................................................................................... 84

Weakley, James H.I ................................................................................................. 91

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan, James Dexter, Acting

Chief, Fisheries Division, letter to Hon. Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor,

March 26, 2004 ..................................................................................................... 94

Great Lakes organizations, letter, April 28, 2004 ................................................. 95

Hoekstra, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from Michigan, statement 98

Full Scale Ozone Ballast Treatment for Removal of Marine Invasive Species,

executive summary .............................................................................................. 100

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, statement ................... 109

National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, statement .................... 113

Nutech 03, Inc., statement ...................................................................................... 119

Sherman, Tom, President, Aquacide LLC, statement .......................................... 124

Schornack, Hon. Dennis, U.S. Section Chair, International Joint Commission,

statement .............................................................................................................. 127

University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle,

Washington, Dr. Russell Herwig, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Jeffery R. Cordell, Principal Research Scientist, Jake C. Perrins, Research

Scientist, statement ............................................................................................. 132

(1)

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT: NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND NATIONAL

INVASIVE SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION

Thursday, March 25, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR- TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, SUB- COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 p.m. in

room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.

LoBiondo, [chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and

Maritime Transportation] presiding.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Coast

Guard and Maritime Transportation and the Subcommittee on

Water Resources and the Environment, a joint hearing, will commence now this morning.

Today we are meeting to examine the issue of ballast water management, to review the new international standards that were

adopted at the recent meeting of the International Maritime Organization, and to consider the reauthorization of the Ballast Water

Management Provisions of the National Invasive Species Act.

Previous introductions of invasive species via ballast water have

led to severe ecological and economic consequences in many coastal

areas throughout the Nation. It is extremely important that we put

measures in place that will prevent any future introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. Congress has repeatedly taken up

the issue of ballast water management over the past 15 years, imposing increasingly more stringent guidelines and regulations on

commercial vessels. The last major action, the National Invasive

Species Act mandated that vessels undergo ballast water exchange

before entering the Great Lakes.

Recently, the Coast Guard began formulating mandatory regulations for ballast water exchange nationwide. This decision reflects

the need to expand the rules in place in the Great Lakes to all commercial shipping in U.S. waters in order to protect all of America’s

shores from invasive species. However, it may be necessary to set

regulations that require more stringent ballast water management

procedures than the current practice of ballast water exchange. We

should not simply settle for a lower standard of protection if we are

able to achieve something more.

At the recent meeting of the International Maritime Organization, the international community adopted an ambitious standard

which all ballast water-carrying vessels would be expected to com-
2

ply with by the year 2016. While I am happy that the international

community has recognized the importance of ballast water management, I have questions of whether the standard that has been

agreed to is both environmentally proactive and feasible within the

given time frame of less than ten years.

I look forward to hearing all of the witnesses’ testimony in regard to these concerns. I expect that both subcommittees will use

the findings of this hearing to further address measures that will

increase our ability to prevent the invasion of our coastal waters

by non-indigenous aquatic organisms.

I would now like to yield to Chairman Duncan before I go to Mr.

Filner.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You very adequately

covered the subject here today. I want to also welcome everyone to

our hearing on ballast water management.

As Chairman LoBiondo has pointed out, we are meeting today to

review new international ballast water management standards

from the International Maritime Organization, and to consider the

reauthorization of the Ballast Water Provisions of the National

Invasive Species Act in light of these new standards.

This charges that ballast water from ships can result in invasions of aquatic organisms into our waters, displacing native species and seriously impacting marine ecosystems and infrastructure.

We are finding that reducing the introduction and spread of aquatic invasives is a difficult problem to solve. Ballast water exchange

does not appear to be enough to solve the problem. We need alternative ballast water management measures that will protect aquatic ecosystems and infrastructure, ensure ship and passenger safety,

and maintain interstate and foreign commerce.

Some people endorse risk space ballast water standards and believe they will spur the development of new technologies to meet

them. Others, however, believe we will never have the data needed

to develop scientifically credible risk-based standards and, therefore, support technology-based standards.

The international community recently took the first steps to develop alternative ballast water measures. At a recent meeting of

the International Maritime Organization, the international community adopted performance standards for ballast water treatment.

These standards would require vessels to reduce the amount of organisms in discharged ballast water to meet specified levels.

The scientific basis for the level specified in the standards, however, is unclear. Scientists currently do not have the information

needed to establish a scientifically credible standard based on risk.

Data are very limited. It is also unclear whether the standards can

be achieved. Currently there are no ballast water management

technologies that have been demonstrated, or vessels that can meet

the IMO standards.

Many hope that the IMO standards will spur the development of

sufficient technologies to effectively manage this ballast water. I

hope our witnesses today will tell us their views on the feasibility

of developing scientifically credible and effective standards, and the

Coast Guard’s efforts to develop a mandatory ballast water program, including a standard based on risk, the IMO’s ballast water

management standards, and what needs to happen to continue
3

moving forward in international efforts to prevent the introduction

and spread of invasive species in U.S. waters from ballast water

discharges.

This is a very, very expensive problem that we are dealing with.

It is very, very expensive to solve it. How the United States decides

to address these issues will have a tremendous impact both domestically and internationally because of the U.S.’s dominance in overseas trade as an importing and exporting nation.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Chairman Duncan.

Mr. Filner?

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman.

I am surprised to see so many people here on ballast water. To

all of you I say, ‘‘Get a life.’’

[Laughter.]

Mr. FILNER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I did invite Richard Clark

to testify here today, which I understand he is going to say that

ballast water management was seen by the Bush Administration

as an important subject, but not urgent.

Mr. LOBIONDO. I think that is a devastating critique.

Mr. FILNER. We all know that problems occur with the taking of

ballast water in one part of the world and discharging it in our

part of the world. Animals and plants that may thrive in one part,

may have no natural enemies in the new waters in which they

were introduced. We have seen the problems that have occurred.

We have, in fact, grown in our knowledge of this over the last decade or two.

We tried to deal with this problem by requiring vessels, for example, entering the Great Lakes to exchange their fresh water ballast with salt water ballast in the hopes that the fresh water critters would be flushed out of that. Those that remain would not survive in the salt water.

Then we made the ballast water exchange voluntary for our

coastal ports. That has been a failure because many ship owners

were unwilling to participate. Now the Coast Guard is in the process of prescribing regulations to make ballast water exchange mandatory for all ships entering the United States. However, we are

not entirely sure just how effective that exchange is at killing the

plants and animals in that ballast water.

So, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, it is time to move on to

the next phase of the solution, and that is ballast water treatment.

This Committee delayed consideration of legislation to require that

treatment in order to give the International Maritime Organization

sufficient time to develop an international system for ballast water

treatment. The IMO did reach an agreement, but it failed to adequately protect the environment of the United States.

I guess that is what happens when organizations only listen to

ship owners. They, of course, want to do whatever is cheapest, even

though it may not adequately deal with our problem.

In the case the IMO adopted a discharge standard that requires

minimal treatment of the water. I think it is time for Congress to

establish an interim standard for the treatment of ballast water

that will protect our marine environment. Then as the technology
4

improves, the standard can be raised to provide an even greater

protection for the coastal waters.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on their views

on the standards that Congress should enact to help stem the invasion of foreign species into our coastal waters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you

and our colleagues on the Water Resources Subcommittee to develop appropriate legislation.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

I recognize Mr. Gilchrest, who has been doggedly persistent on

this issue for some time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doggedly persistent

with my fellow colleague, Congressman Ehlers, for sure. A number

of things have been mentioned here about causing an imbalance of

the local ecological system which these aquatic species create. That

is a significant problem, and Mr. Filner, we not only recognize that

as a problem, but it is an urgent problem from I hope now both

sides of the aisle.

Mr. Ehlers and I cosponsored a couple of different bills. The bulk

of H.R. 1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, which has

passed through the Science Committee, deals with aquatic nuisance species. The jurisdiction is in this Committee and the Resources Committee.

We hope, as a result of this hearing and as a result of what the

IMO has recently done, we can move that bill through the two

Committees and have it reach the House floor. We hope to have it

passed and signed by the President before the end of this session.

We do not always like the word ‘‘mandatory,’’ but in this case I

think the word ‘‘mandatory ballast water management’’ is appropriate. We will move that through the House Resources Committee

fairly soon. I have a hearing on aquatic nuisance species in Hawaii

on the 15th of April to see what the problems are over there.

I want to make a comment about the IMO. The International

Maritime Organization I think is one of the best entities in the

United Nations. It is filled with engineers, and it is filled with professional people that discuss basically engineering designs, architectural designs, and safety.

So there is almost no politics involved in the IMO. Almost no politics. I am not saying there are politics involved in this particular

consensus that they have come up with, the standards for ballast

water. I do not think so.

I think the IMO and the American continuum in the IMO have

done what they could to work with the consensus community to

move us in the next direction, and the next positive step toward

recognizing that there are problems with species that are invasive

when they get into other waters and other waters.

We know the more famous ones, Zebra mussels, Asian carps. I

know MSX and dermal in the Chesapeake Bay. The list goes on.

It is about a $100 billion problem with it in the United States,

which is pretty significant.

When you compare that with almost the same amount of money

that we rely upon for strong economies in certain areas of the country as far as fisheries are concerned, if you look at recreational
5

fresh water fishing, that is about a $75 billion to $100 billion enterprise.

If you look at the Chesapeake Bay and the impact of invasive

species, that has dramatically caused a decline in that healthy economic. The ecosystem is no longer healthy because the fish are no

longer healthy and their habitat has been infused with this

invasive species. So it is a significant problem.

What I would like to say to the Coast Guard folks that are here

today is this. You do a good job. I am surprised I do not see Joe

in the room. I was hoping I would see Joe Angelo to talk about the

times we had in London together in 1942; no, it was not that long

ago.

I will say that the IMO has done the best job it could under the

circumstances. But now the United States I think has to take a

role of leadership in the world and by doing so, the rest of the

world will respond. I think this is a problem that is more urgent

than many people would suspect.

While foreign species sometimes are compatible with the ecosystems, we are dealing with invasives that are not compatible that

are costing a great deal of money.

I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

your calling the hearing. We look forward to working with you on

moving this bill to the floor.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Now, Mr. Ehlers, again who Mr.

Gilchrest has pointed out, has been very involved and persistent on

this issue. Welcome.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having

this hearing. Today marks an important turning point in the debate over how to deal with the threat posed to our economy and

our environment by aquatic invasive species. One noteworthy fact

is the building of awareness about this issue.

After four hearings in two years among our respective Committees, I no longer need to spend the first three minutes of my opening statement explaining what invasive species are.

For the better part of a decade, the States, Congress, the Administration, the international community and the private sector have

struggled mightily over how to regulate ballast water simply because discharged ballast water from ships is commonly regarded as

the greatest threat for the introduction of aquatic invasive species.

In the Great Lakes this is not just a threat; it is a reality. Zebra

mussels, sea lamprey, and the round gobi are but a few examples

of hundreds of invaders that ships have brought into the Great

Lakes. These alien creatures ruin fishing and cost taxpayers many

millions of dollars each year.

But the debate has now reached a critical point. Last year, Congressman Gilchrest, who has great expertise on this issue, and I introduced two pieces of legislation, H.R. 1080, and H.R. 1081, which,

among many other things, have clear and specific goals for regulating ballast water.

Also last year the Coast Guard took a small but significant step

by proposing that ballast water exchange be mandatory for the entire Nation, not just the Great Lakes. To the consternation of

many, several States also joined the fray by proposing State regulations, a trend that could result in a plethora of varying and poten-
6

tially contradictory regulations for shippers to maneuver through.

Frankly, I cannot blame them because they are very frustrated.

They are seeing the damage occurring in their harbors because we

have not acted.

Finally, last month the international community chimed in, proposing an international framework that calls not only for ballast

water exchange, but also ballast water treatment technology for all

ships.

These seemingly disparate events are encouraging, but I temper

my optimism by taking a larger view of how these pieces fit together and asking this question: What is the clearest path forward

that will finally protect our waters from discharged ballast water?

The answer is made clear by several unfortunate realities. One,

the Coast Guard has not yet taken enough domestic actions to

solve this problem. Two, the standards and time lines in the International Marine Organization’s Convention are troubling in many

respects and it is not clear when they would go into effect. Three,

the State actions, while important in many regards, have several

shortcomings.

It is up to Congress to bring these parties to the table and forge

a consensus on how to protect our waters. What is the clearest

path forward that will finally protect our waters from discharged

ballast water? Reauthorizing the National Invasive Species Act is

the answer.

Let us not spend another decade in debate. Invasive species do

not respect political boundaries or time lines, and like other pollutants, they are self-propagating and have no half-life, and have very

expensive impacts on our Nation.

We should deal with this reality by passing legislation which, at

a minimum, brings an end to ballast water exchange, spells out

clear standards for the treatment of ballast water, gets technology

on ships as soon as next year, and finally, is supported by a robust

research program as outlined in my Invasive Species Research bill,

H.R. 1081.

I want to mention that that is very important because in many

cases we do not know the best answer. We do not even know the

pathways. We do not know the best treatment.

One final note. I want to express my appreciation for the Administration’s work during IMO negotiations. Their strong stand garnered few allies, but they were able to achieve some crucial wins

in a Convention that is only a small step forward. Most notably,

under the treaty, the United States can take domestic actions that

are more stringent than those outlined in the Convention.

We know that the IMO Convention will not adequately protect

our waters, so we should look to domestic legislation to do so. I look

forward to working with the Committee and the Administration to

achieve this goal.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with

you as we write legislation to reauthorize NISA and do the necessary research.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.

I would ask unanimous consent that any member can submit testimony for the record.

Mr. Filner?
7

Mr. FILNER. I would ask unanimous consent that our colleague,

Congressman Stupak of Michigan who is not on this Committee,

but has a longtime record of defending the quality of water in the

Great Lakes can also submit a statement for the record.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection.

Mr. Thompson?

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit revised

and extended comments later on.

I want to thank you for having the hearing. I want to thank all

of my colleagues, who in their opening statements, have expressed

not only their concern, but the importance of this issue.

I represent a harbor up in Northern California, Humboldt Bay,

that I think was the first West Coast port to take this under serious consideration and put in place efforts at the very local level to

deal with the issue of ballast and invasive species, and all the problems that they have.

I am just very concerned that the International Agreement has

overlooked completely the coast-wise, from one port to the next, the

short run ballast problem. It is a real problem. In my State of California, I would guess that we probably have a greater threat on a

short run situation where someone takes on ballasts in San Francisco where they have about 200 recognized invasive species, and

bring those up to Humboldt Bay. We have at least the same threat

as someone coming from a foreign port.

I think the only way to deal with this is on-board treatment. As

we all know, we are probably a long ways away from being able

to do that. I think any agreement that we have and any attempt

to address this problem has to address the issue of coast-wise ballast transportation. I hope that we can certainly focus in on that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Brown?

Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the coast of

South Carolina and several ports, but Charleston is the major port.

Certainly this is a concern of ours. I apologize for being late, and

maybe you have already addressed this, but I am going to give you

one other chance. If you have, I will just take the text from the recorded documents.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Brown, we are in opening statements.

Mr. Brown. I apologize. We are glad to represent Charleston and

are glad to have the Coast Guard’s presence in our area. We certainly look forward to a later discussion this issue. It is a major

concern with our major port.

Thank you.

Mr. LOBIONDO. We will be happy to accommodate your questions

just a little bit down the line.

Mr. Baird?

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chairman. I want to particularly thank

the Coast Guard for their work, but also compliment my good

friend and colleague, Mr. Ehlers, who has been a stalwart champion of this.

You know, invasive species are not something that register very

high on the polls, but they clearly are the second largest cause of

environmental degradation in our country. As the Chair from my
8

Science Committee work pointed out, these things self-replicate.

There are no natural predators.

In several areas in my district we are facing immense challenges

with partinographs in the Willoby Bay. We pray that Zebra mussels do not get into the western slope of the Rocky Mountains’ fresh

water system. Were they to invade the Columbia River system, as

they have the St. Lawrence seaway, we would experience billions

of dollars of devastation, a terrible obstacle to our salmon recovery

efforts, and profound impacts on our power systems.

So your efforts to try to keep that from happening are much appreciated. We pray that it will not happen, but we need to legislate

to make sure it will not happen.

I yield back and thank the gentleman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. I think we have covered all of the members for

opening statements.

Now I would like to welcome our first panel. From the United

States Coast Guard is Rear Admiral Thomas H. Gilmour, Assistant

Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, here in Washington, D.C. He is accompanied by Lieutenant

Commander Kathleen Moore, Chief, Environmental Standards Division, and Aquatic Nuisance Species Program Manager.

Thank you for joining us. Admiral, please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL THOMAS G. GILMOUR, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR MARINE SAFETY, SECURITY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT COMMANDER KATHLEEN MOORE,

CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DIVISION, AND

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES PROGRAM MANAGER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Admiral GILMOUR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of both Committees. As stated, I am Rear Admiral Tom Gilmour. I am the Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety, Security and Environmental Protection. Accompanying me

is our expert on ballast water management, Lieutenant Commander Kathleen Moore, Chief of our Environmental Standards Division.

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide the Coast

Guard’s views on the recently adopted International Convention for

the Control of Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments,

and the National Invasive Species Act Reauthorization.

As pointed out, last month the Coast Guard led the interagency

United States delegation to the International Maritime Organization’s Diplomatic Conference on Ballast Water Management for

Ships. The conference adopted the International Convention for

Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments

2004, which is a significant step forward in the international effort

to combat invasive species introduced by ships’ ballast water.

The key objectives achieved by the U.S. delegation in the negotiations were, number one, the retention of the sovereign right of a

party to impose more stringent measures than the measures in the

Convention consistent with international law. Secondly, implementation of ballast water discharge standards on a schedule of fixed

dates beginning in 2009; phasing out the practice of ballast water
9

exchange; retention of the ability of port States to conduct ballast

water sampling for the purpose of evaluating compliance; and lastly, provisions for the experimental testing of prototype ballast

water treatment systems on operating vessels.

The ballast water discharge standard adopted at the conference

was not this stringent standard proposed by the United States.

However, the standard adopted will still exceed the capabilities of

current technology and when met, should reduce the number of

invasive species via ballast water.

We will evaluate the results of this conference through the Executive Branch interagency process to determine the next steps with

respect to ratification of this instrument.

Working under the broad authorities granted by the current legislation, the Coast Guard’s ongoing program and regulatory efforts

are addressing many of the ballast water management provisions

in the Convention. In this regard, we established the Shipboard

Technology Evaluation Program, STEP, in January 2004 to encourage the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies.

We have final rules currently in clearance for assessing penalties

for non-reporting of ballast water management, and for establishing a national program for mandatory ballast water management.

In addition, we have begun the environmental impact analysis of

several alternative standards in preparation for issuing a rule establishing a single, enforceable, biologically meaningful, and scientifically sound ballast water discharge standards for the United

States.

In considering the legislation for ballast water management to

protect the waters of the United States, I would offer the following

comments. A ballast water management plan and a ballast water

record book should be required for each ship that has ballast water

tanks. Further legislation should recognize the possible impacts of

domestic vessels operating between U.S. ports, and the risks of

transferring non-indigenous species between different aquatic

areas.

There should be authority to continue to evaluate prototype or

experimental ballast water treatment technologies on board operating vessels. A single ballast water discharge standard should be

biologically meaningful, scientifically sound, and enforceable.

We in the Coast Guard have concentrated a great deal of our

time and effort over the last two years to improving maritime security. But we have not, and we will not, neglect the other two legs

of our three-legged stool—marine safety and environmental protection—as part of our business.

All three of these areas are intertwined, supporting our goal to

reduce all maritime risks. Success in all three areas is necessary

if we are to ensure our Nation’s ability and that of our international partners to use the sea safely, securely, fully, and wisely

in our pursuit of common objectives.

Reducing the threat of invasive species introduction through ballast water management is the Coast Guard’s highest environmental priority. Ballast water management rules are three of the

top ten regulatory projects for the Coast Guard, and the top environmental priority for the Coast Guard.
10

Our objective is to develop the best national program for ballast

water management to protect the waters of the United States.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak before both Subcommittees. We look forward to working with our interagency partners, industry, and Congress as we continue our efforts to implement a

way forward for an effective ballast water management regimen for

the United States.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral, very much. I am going to

yield my time to Mr. Gilchrest. I know you have a degree of expertise here. I want to make sure that we get to you and Mr. Ehlers

at the beginning of this.

Mr. GILCHREST. I cringe when anybody says I have a degree of

expertise.

Mr. LOBIONDO. I did not say which degree. I said a degree of expertise.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I have a good deal of interest. My expertise probably leaves much wanting.

The few questions that I have to the Coast Guard relate to our

ability to retain our sovereign right to impose stricter standards.

I think it is a very positive thing. Would you recommend, to this

Committee, that we impose stricter standards than what you

worked out with the IMO?

Admiral GILMOUR. Well, in our proposed rule-making, we are

working certainly in this area. What I think we should do, as I

said, is that that is part of the scientifically supportable and biologically meaningful part. I think we should develop a standard

that is scientifically supportable and biologically meaningful.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there standards in this agreement with the

IMO? Do you have a certain standard to determine whether or not

that ballast water has been cleansed sufficiently? Is there some

kind of a biological standard that you have in this agreement with

IMO?

Admiral GILMOUR. There is a standard, and as I said in my opening statement, it is not the same standard we proposed. But I think

we are a long way from determining, or we are a distance from determining, biologically meaningful and scientifically supportable

standard.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the standards that exist in the agreement

with IMO, you say we do not have the knowledge or the technology

even to meet that standard today?

Admiral GILMOUR. I think that is probably a fair statement, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. The implementation schedule starts in 2009?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. When does the phaseout of ballast water exchange start? What does that mean? You have five provisions with

the IMO. One of them is phasing out ballast water exchange; I

think I heard you say?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir. Although I was not at the conference,

Lieutenant Commander Moore was. That is part of our overall policy to do away with the exchange and to have a biologically meaningful and scientifically supportable standard.
11

Mr. GILCHREST. The overall goal is to do away with ballast water

exchange and to treat the ballast water?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. When does that start? 2009? 2016?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir; I will defer that to Lieutenant Commander Moore.

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir. Sir, in 2012 begins the first applicability of

the D–2 discharge standard to existing vessels. In a way, beginning

in 2009, in fact, vessels will begin to treat to a discharge standard,

but throughout the period out until 2016, some will still continue

to conduct exchange.

After 2016, the exchange is no longer an option and treating ballast water to a ballast water discharge standard is a part of the

Convention.

Mr. GILCHREST. You also made a comment that water sampling

by the home state, I assume that means either Customs or the

Coast Guard, or some entity at these ports that is from the Federal

Government. You had retention of sovereign right to impose more

strict standards?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Does that mean we still go by the schedule of

this process? Can we start testing, using our own standards sooner

than what you have just laid out?

Admiral GILMOUR. Well, yes, sir. Whatever you come up with in

the legislative side, we could certainly go forward with. But, yes,

sir; I think we could start testing. In fact, we would like to start

testing as soon as we can on experimental systems.

To answer your question, we would be the entity through our

Port State Control Program to do ballast water sampling, as we

currently do.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the time frame that you have laid out with

the consensus with the IMO, especially the part about experimental testing for improve ballasted water technology to understand what biological organisms need to be eradicated, do you feel

that the time frame for that is for the IMO, and that experimental

testing needs to take as long as the agreement that you have with

the IMO? We are hoping that it might be accelerated a little bit.

My time is up but I am going to try to throw this out really

quickly and maybe you can answer it at this time or some other

time. Is there any way that you can explain to us this morning how

you come up with standards for the vast array, the myriad of different kinds of biological organisms that respond to so many different things in so many different ways?

Admiral GILMOUR. I guess I will take the second question first.

I think it is an extreme scientific challenge, and we are going to

work with our fellow agencies, EPA, NOAA, and Fish and Wildlife,

as we have to this point, along with industry and scientific folks

to try to determine those very critical scientific issues that you

have brought up.

I would say, as far as testing goes, I think we need a reasonable

time frame to develop the technologies, not only to develop the

standard, but also to give industry and our technologists a chance

to develop the systems, and also within that, to phase out what we

are currently doing.
12

Although we would not say the time frame set out by IMO is unreasonable, I think we will also consider that as we develop requirements.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Either to the Admiral

or to the Lieutenant Commander, what was the negotiating position of Panama, Malta, Cypress, and others? As I understand it,

the U.S. proposed 0.01 for an IMO standard. What did they propose initially?

Ms. MOORE. Sir, off the top of my head, I do not recall.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Was it something like 100?

Ms. MOORE. Yes. Japan and Norway, both of those countries,

provided papers into the conference that specified 100.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now how would 100 vary from normal sea

water or harbor water?

Ms. MOORE. From what little data there is, sir, there has been

some measurement done on the number of organisms, or the concentration of organisms in ballast water. After a number of transits, ballast water being unmanaged, unexchanged, and untreated,

100 is on the order of magnitude of the average, or the median

number for the organisms that show up in unmanaged ballast

water.

We felt very strongly that that was not protective.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. And that does not even use the minimal

sort of ballast water exchange? So it would be lower just by doing

ballast water exchange?

Ms. MOORE. Very possibly.

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. So how is it that the United States decided to compromise a tenth? Ten seems to me, as an international

standard, since 0.01 is to ten as 1 is to 10,000?

Admiral GILMOUR. Something like that.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So something that is 10,000 times less stringent

than ours?

Ms. MOORE. Sir, we strongly advocated a 0.01 and when the vote

came, it was a package vote, and we abstained from the vote in

order not to support the 10.

Mr. DEFAZIO. But if you had voted no, then it would not have

gone forward; is that not correct?

Ms. MOORE. It was a choice between two values.

Mr. DEFAZIO. A majority vote?

Ms. MOORE. It was a majority vote, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thought this was a consensus thing. OK, it was

a majority vote. So we abstained?

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now we have this very weak and very distant

schedule. I guess then we really need to focus on what we are going

to do under port state control? Our standard of 0.01, what do you

think is the most promising? We have had a number of hearings

on this over my years in the Committee, and a number of proposals. What is the most promising technology now?

Admiral GILMOUR. Sir, I would just like to reiterate one piece,

though. We still have the right, through the IMO, to——
13

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure, we can go to 0.01, right. We will impound

their ships.

Admiral GILMOUR. There are a number of technologies that show

promise. Lieutenant Commander Moore can certainly point a lot of

those out, but I think our problem now is they have really not been

tested on the scale of what would be needed for a ballast water system shipboard. We need to work in that area.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I keep asking that question.

In this interim standard of ballast water exchange, is that going

to be required under the IMO?

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Immediately?

Ms. MOORE. On entry into port; yes, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So are we going to establish areas where people

will do this exchange? There is a problem. Many times people do

not want to do it on the high seas. They are worried about stability

and those sorts of things. Are we going to establish areas closer to

the coast line? Are we going to check each vessel, since we are now

checking them for security, will part of our check list become,

‘‘When and where did you exchange your ballast water?’’

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir. The notice is in final review, but we

advocate open ocean exchange, as we do currently on the Hudson

River and in the Great Lakes. Indeed, through our Port State Control Program, we will check ballast water records. We will take

samples, as we currently do, in New York and the Great Lakes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Will you do that for all shipping, then, in the future?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir, as part of our Port State Control Program. We will not only look at the risk for safety as we do, and

security, but we will also develop a risk matrix to look at vessels

considering numerous factors.

Mr. DEFAZIO. You mean like the Watch List issue?

Admiral GILMOUR. It would depend on many things, where they

are coming from, previous experience with those vessels, flag state,

as you pointed out—the same things we do on the safety and security side. So, yes, sir.

One thing I would point out, having been in New York when the

mandatory ballast water program on the Hudson River came. It is

not an exact science. I am probably telling many of you who know

that. It is a difficult thing for our folks to do. It is not always exact

in our ability to measure that. We are really just looking at salinity

at this point.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you.

Chairman Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. I know that we

need to get onto this other panel as quickly as possible. So I will

not be very long.

You said it is not an exact science. According to the materials

that I have been supplied, we really do not have the technology to

deal with this problem as of yet. We do not really have scientific

standards, as of yet. We do not really have the data that we need
14

to make much more than a lightly educated guess about what to

do about this problem.

Based on what I have been told, this is a problem. You are talking about at least hundreds of millions, and maybe even in the billions that we are talking about. What is the Coast Guard doing?

Do you have a group of people doing research on this? I am told

that most scientists have studied these invasive species for awhile,

but there has not been much research done about what to do about

the limits on the organisms and the ballast water and all that.

Admiral GILMOUR. I will answer your question in general, and

then let Lieutenant Commander Moore talk about some of the scientific groups that we are working with.

We have a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we hope to have

completed sometime in the winter of 2005 to set this ballast water

discharge standard. Right now we are partnering with EPA,

NOAA, Fish and Wildlife, and others, to develop an environmental

impact statement to support this rule. But I think as was pointed

out, there are certainly environmental issues. There are cost issues

that we are going to have to consider in this NPRM.

I think there are many promising technologies out there, but as

I said earlier, we just have not looked at them on the full scale of

what we need for ballast water management systems.

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir. The EIS is going to analyze a series of alternative standards and establish their performance with respect to

both the marine environment and also eventually achieveabililty.

In order to develop those standards and define them specifically,

we have been working with NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental

Research Lab, and the Smithsonian’s Environmental Research

Center in Maryland to be able to better understand, first of all,

what are the numbers of organisms presently in ballast water,

what percentage of reduction, or what orders of magnitude of reducing those numbers would really significantly reduce the threat

of an invasion or an introduction.

We have also worked to determine what those values are and

also working to determine what the technologies are that would

achieve those, as well as what the detection methods would be.

So there are many technical problems that we are working with

these institutions, as well as a number of academic institutions, to

solve.

Mr. DUNCAN. I will tell you that I do not know if I have heard

of a more serious problem where there has been less real research

done on it as of yet. I hoped that there was an agreement at this

last IMO meeting in February to start doing a little more research

on this.

The cost of Zebra mussel prevention and remediation just in the

Great Lakes is estimated to be between $100 million and $400 million per year. Now having that wide a variation of the cost estimate just on that one invasive species shows me that people do not

know where we are on this thing. But it also shows that it is a potentially very, very expensive problem. I know the Great Lakes are

huge.

Some of this that I am hearing is just boggling my mind. I think

we need to do more research before we come down with some sort

of standards or rules that are going to cost the consumers of this
15

Nation billions and billions of dollars. It is obviously a serious problem.

But if we get into something without having enough research

and real scientific data to back things up, then we are going to misfire, and we are going to spend a ton of money doing it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you.

Mr. Oberstar, thank you for joining us. The floor is yours.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Costello, and Mr. DeFazio for holding this hearing. This is one of

the most important enduring issues to those of us who live along

the Nation’s fourth seacoast, but it has also become apparent that

the issue of invasive species is important to those who live in the

Nation’s salt water ports as well.

For a long time, our concerns on the Great Lakes were viewed

with somewhat passing interest by those on the salt water ports

until curious species began showing up in their harbors, taken from

distant lands, dumped in their harbors, and causing serious damage to native species.

I guess I have been at this about 40 years now, starting up here

as an administrative assistant to my predecessor, John Blatnik,

who was Chairman of this Committee. I served as an administrator

to the Committee staff, recounting again and again the lesson of

the lamprey eel that entered the Great Lakes, which is one-fifth of

all the fresh water on the face of the earth, in ballast brought in

by a vessel presumably when the Wellen Canal opened in 1829.

It took over 100 years for that creature to spread, take hold, take

up residence in the estuaries of the rivers that discharge into the

Great Lakes, and then explode on the Great Lakes fishery population.

I remember as a high school student the alarm to which the

news was greeted of the plummeting of the lake trout catch in one

year in the Great Lakes from 3 million pounds to 300,000 pounds.

The whitefish fishery went from 2.5 million pounds to 250,000

pounds.

Then began the frantic effort to find ways to combat the lamprey

eel. Eventually lampercide was settled on and now the U.S. and

Canada are collectively spending a little over $6 million for the rest

of our lives. The culprit is ballast water. We all know what it is.

There was expectation that exchange on the high sea would

work. Mr. Ehlers, our resident scientist on the Committee, has

given great thought to it. Mr. Gilchrest has addressed these issues

as well from his perspective as a biologist.

But that has not worked sufficiently because not all of the ballast

water is pumped out. We find that microorganisms reside in the

materials in the tanks of these vessels. We were expecting that the

Coast Guard in the IMO negotiations would negotiate. I commend

the Administration for taking a tough stand.

But the Coast Guard recommended a treatment standard of 0.01

organisms per cubic meter. It seems now that in the final playing

out of the IMO that we are not going to get there. What standard

would you recommend to the Administration and for this Committee to consider for domestic legislation as a ballast water treatment

standard?
16

Admiral GILMOUR. I would think as we look at this, it needs to

be scientifically supportable, biologically meaningful, and for us to

be able to enforce it. But at the same time we want to have a

standard that would stretch technology. The technology does not

exist. We want to go beyond the best technology and stretch the

technology to do something that is meaningful.

So I do not know that we have an exact number. You know the

number we went to IMO with. You know the number that came out

of IMO. We need to, as we are now, work with our partners to try

to come up with an exact standard or work towards a standard.

Mr. OBERSTAR. While we have been deliberating this issue, and

having learned the lesson of the lamprey, your Asian milfoil has introduced itself into the Great Lakes, as well as the roundeyed gobi,

the Zebra mussel that Chairman Duncan so thoughtfully discussed

filters everything out of the water. It is clear water. There is nothing in it. There is a new spiny echinoderm that is destroying

benthic organisms in the harbors in the Great Lakes.

And now there is a new phenomenon in the harbor of Duluth and

Superior where from .10 feet below the surface down to a 10 foot

level, steel pilings are corroding. It has just happened in the last

two years. It has never happened before. We do not know why. Is

it from the sulfur emitted by the Zebra mussels as they are feeding

on the columns below that? We have just never had steel columns

corrode in fresh water in those harbors.

We just are not making progress on this issue. At risk is the

water quality, the quality of life, the fishery, and one-fifth of all the

fresh water on the face of the earth.

Admiral, I have great love and admiration for the Coast Guard.

Yesterday, on behalf of Chairman Young at the Homeland Security

Agency, I sang, ‘‘Keep your hands off the Coast Guard. Let us retain our jurisdiction in this Committee. They do great work. You

are splitting them up and not giving them the resources and the

direction they need.’’

I am disappointed that you are not here recommending the same

standard that you recommended to the IMO. I get frustrated, not

just because I am, but because every environmental organization,

every fisheries group, every port director throughout the Great

Lakes is frustrated, upset, and angry that we do not have better

progress on this issue.

Why are you not prepared to recommend to the Congress the

same standard you recommended to the IMO, at least?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir. I really do share your concerns in all

of these areas. I know your history on the issue and I appreciate

it. I think we can safely say that we would be glad to work with

the other administrative agencies that I mentioned before, and

work with Congressional staffs to develop a standard.

But I think we had a stand at IMO. Others had a vastly different

stand, as was pointed out. The number came somewhere in the

middle. But we need to really take a good scientific look at this

issue.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Admiral, I know how those international shipping

organizations react. In a Committee trip to major maritime points

in Italy and Greece three or four years ago, we raised this issue

directly. The Greek shipping federation was absolutely strung out
17

over our idea of regulating ballast and making them clean it up.

I know what resistance you are up against. But it is our water and

it is our future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.

Unfortunately, you have heard the bells ring, Admiral Gilmour

and Commander Moore. We are down to less than eight minutes.

I apologize. It looks like we have four votes.

Mr. Ehlers, we do not have time to get into questions. Mr. Brown

and Mr. Taylor I think also had questions.

I would ask you to please submit for the record the amount of

money appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and requested in 2005 for

the research you described with NOAA and the Smithsonian, and

any other agencies that we are dealing with. Without objection, so

ordered.

Once again, I apologize.

The Subcommittee will stand in recess until the votes are concluded. At that point Mr. Duncan will be taking over the Chair.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. DUNCAN [ASSUMING CHAIR]. The Subcommittee will come

back to order.

I apologize for this lengthy series of votes that we had, but it

could not be helped.

We will go now to Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just want

to thank the Coast Guard for their testimony and their apparent

willingness to really tackle a problem. I wanted to note that because in the past that has not always been the case. We had some

very negative comments to make about the Coast Guard in the

past. I am pleased to see the change of heart.

Your testimony provided good information about the IMO convention, but there is one key point and that is that 30 countries,

which also represent at least 35 percent of the world’s shipping industries, must ratify the Convention before it actually enters into

force. I am aware that IMO adopted a Convention in 2001 with a

much lower threshold for adoption, 25 countries representing 25

percent, but it still has not entered into force.

Based on your experience with these negotiations, how do you

feel that we are going to make progress on this? When do you think

we will ever get a ratification of the Convention; if ever? Or should

we simply ignore it in our planning?

Admiral GILMOUR. Well, I think guessing when a ratification for

any kind of a convention would be somewhat guess work. But we

do keep close tabs at IMO. Mr. Angelo, who was discussed earlier,

goes to many of our committee meetings. So I would certainly not

ignore it, but at the same time, we plan on going ahead with our

initiatives to address this issue, and indeed have a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ballast water discharge standards.

We are going to continue down the path at the same time IMO

looks at the issue.

Mr. EHLERS. Are you also proceeding along without the best ballast water treatment center at the same time?
18

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir; that would be part of our ballast

water discharge standard, would be some sort of treatment standard.

Mr. EHLERS. All right. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned during your

comments that there is a real need for more research. There is

much that has been done. There is enough known now to establish

an interim standard, but you are absolutely right. We do need considerably more research to really find the best way of doing it, not

just what looks like the best way right now.

That does not prevent us from adopting the interim standard,

but I just wanted to be pointed out that you are absolutely right

on that. That is why I have introduced a bill to do the research

that we need to do on this issue.

Back to the Coast Guard. You mentioned the IMO agreed to include a provision that allows parties to take unilateral actions that

may be more stringent than the Convention. If we were to pass

NISA reauthorization that required tighter time lines and more

stringent standards for treatment of ballast water as a condition

for entering the port, we would be acting in a manner consistent

with the intention of the Convention; would we not?

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, I believe you would, sir.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Earlier you made a comment that the

time line in the IMO is not unreasonable. I am not quite sure what

you meant by that. I think it is unreasonably slow and that we

should move faster than that. I do not know if you even recall making that comment.

Admiral GILMOUR. Yes, sir. Not to try to get into our Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, I guess I would clarify it by saying there are

a number of issues to look at. Number one is setting a standard,

as I said earlier, that is scientifically supportable and biologically

meaningful and that we can enforce. Then reviewing where we are

to that standard is not a process that we can do too quickly. I think

it is an issue of technology, depending on where the standard is

set. I would think that we would have to have ample time in there

to take a look and review the process as we go. I guess I would say,

too, through the Administrative Procedures Act, we do have to look

at alternatives for both environmental impact statements costs and

benefits.

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just make one additional comment on that.

Again, it ties into something that the Chairman observed earlier

about the incredible cost of this. Haste is important in this case.

We have to proceed rapidly with the research. We have to proceed

rapidly with the decisions. We already heard the extent of the

Zebra mussels. It costs taxpayers of this country several hundred

million dollars a year.

I recall when the State of Michigan passed their law, and the

representative of the shipping industry came to see me and said,

‘‘I hope we do not do something like that in Congress.’’ I said, ‘‘Why

not?’’ He said, ‘‘Well, it will cost us too much.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, make

a deal. We will not do it, but we will simply make you liable for

the results of the invasive species. How is that?’’

That was surprisingly not satisfactory to him. The cost is huge

and the prevention is a minor part of the cost of letting them get

in.
19

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Gilchrest?

Mr. GILCHREST. I went through my questions earlier, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. I know you had earlier questions. I did not know

whether you had additional questions or comments?

Mr. GILCHREST. I just had one. It will only take 60 seconds.

The standard that was proposed at the IMO, on what basis was

that proposal made, what scientific conclusions? Mr. Oberstar

asked, ‘‘Is that a suggested standard that the Coast Guard would

propose for the U.S.?’’

Admiral GILMOUR. I think the standard was really based on trying to stretch the technology as much as we possibly could, knowing it is not achievable right now. Through our discharge standard,

we will have to look at a number of alternatives and using the best

data that we have, and the best scientific knowledge we have to do

environmental impact statements and cost benefits.

I guess I would like to say, too, that hopefully through our Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program, we will get some treatment

systems installed on ships.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this just political leverage, then, the 0.01

standard that was proposed at IMO, and there is no value to it?

Admiral GILMOUR. No, sir; I think we have some scientific basis.

I would let Lieutenant Commander Moore talk to it.

Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir; in preparation for the IMO negotiations

over a period time, the U.S. Coast Guard, along with the National

Science Foundation, hosted a series of workshops where we

brought in biologists, marine ecologists, and a number of other expertise to discuss both the pattern, in other words, the format of

the standard, and also what potential values would be recommended.

There were a series of three workshops, and out of them came

a series of recommendations, everything from no detectable amount

of organisms to some values. We looked at those values. We also

looked at a paper submitted to MEPC–49, which is the prior committee meeting that negotiated the draft convention, we looked at

the data submitted there which was an evaluation of what number

of organisms comes into port in an unmanaged ballast tank. In

other words, the number of organisms that appear if you do not do

anything to the ballast.

Looking at those values, both the scientists’ recommendations, as

well as what shows up in unmanaged ballasts, we chose a number

that was several orders of magnitude reduced from what shows up

in unmanaged ballasts. It was around the order of magnitude of

what the scientists were recommending.

With the infancy that invasion biology is at right now, the lack

of science that we have specifically of how many organisms would

constitute an invasion, that was the best that we could do to develop a negotiating position. I think we tried to advocate that as

strongly as possible at IMO.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the same scientific community is there?

Would they make a recommendation for that to be a U.S. standard

right now?

Ms. MOORE. That I do not know, sir.
20

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give us a list? Was it people from the

National Science Foundation?

Ms. MOORE. They sponsored one of the workshops, sir.

Admiral GILMOUR. But I think I would determine it a best guess

for the information we had. We wanted to go forward. We had to

use the best we had, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you, Admiral Gilmour and Lieutenant Moore.

We will move on to the second panel. Thank you very much. You

have been very, very helpful.

The second panel is made up of Joseph J. Cox, who is here to

represent the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition. He is the

President of the Chamber of Shipping of America. He is from

Washington, D.C.

We have James H.I. Weakley, who is President of the Lake Carriers’ Association. He is from Cleveland, Ohio. We have Roger I.

Mann, who is the Acting Director for Research and Advisory

Science at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, from Gloucester

Point, Virginia.

We have Catherine L. Hazlewood, who is the Clean Oceans Program Manager with the Oceans Conservancy from Washington,

D.C. We have David A. Ullrich who is the Executive Director of the

Great Lakes Cities Initiative from Chicago, Illinois. We have

Allegra Cangelosi, who is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Northeast-Midwest Institute. She is also from Washington, D.C.

I am sorry that you have had to wait. Thank you very much for

being here. We always proceed in the order that the witnesses are

listed on the call of the hearing. So, Mr. Cox, we will go with you

first.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH J. COX, PRESIDENT, CHAMBER OF

SHIPPING OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C., REPRESENTING

THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY BALLAST WATER COALITION;

JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION, CLEVELAND, OHIO; ROGER I. MANN, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH AND ADVISORY SCIENCE, VIRGINIA

INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA; CATHERINE L. HAZLEWOOD, CLEAN OCEANS PROGRAM MANAGER, THE OCEANS CONSERVANCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; DAVID A. ULLRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT

LAKES CITIES INITIATIVE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; AND

ALLEGRA CANGELOSI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, NORTHEAST-MIDWEST INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and Chairman

LoBiondo for holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman and members, I

represent the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition. We have

been active on this particular issue for these past four years in

both regulatory and legislative initiatives.

I will make summarizing comments here. Mr. Chairman and

members, we recognize there is a problem here. We support an effort to find a solution that is environmentally protective, technologically achievable, and is practical and economically achievable.
21

We ourselves as representatives of the industry have met with

various vendors. We have interviewed those vendors. We know that

we have all struggled with the question of reviewing technologies

without the benefit of a common standard or measurement technique.

Today we have that standard, recently arrived at in consensus

internationally at the International Maritime Organization. I

would like to make six points relative to that Convention and to

the United States activity in this area.

First, we believe the U.S. should ratify this Convention and it

should form the basis of a robust national preventive program. Second, we strongly support the performance standard in Regulation

D–2 of the Convention. Marine biologists remain in active debate

on the efficacy of various levels, although the levels in D–2 are the

consensus of the international group of experts.

As I listened to the testimony of the Coast Guard panel, Mr.

Chairman and members, it brought to my attention that there is

a regulation D–5 in the Convention which calls for a pre-implementation review of that standard, which would occur three years prior

to the initiation of that standard for a particular type of vessel.

In 2009, new vessels have to have some type of protection within

the standard. That means that in 2006, a short two years from

now, we will be reviewing this standard to see whether or not it

is an appropriate standard.

The earlier testimony also indicated that we do not know whether we can hit the standard that is in the international Convention.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman and members, that if we make the

target small enough, then we will disincline people from a desire

to try to hit that target.

We have an opportunity to set a target and when we hit that target, we have an opportunity to ratchet that target down and make

it smaller for those who are capable of firing the right type of ammunition.

Our third point, Mr. Chairman, is that while ballast water exchange is not required in the Convention until it comes into force,

we support establishing a mandatory program now.

Fourth, the Convention has specific implementation dates that

are rigorous, taking into account the challenges that we are going

to have in developing and installing complex treatment systems on

thousands of existing ships.

Fifth, a shipboard testing program is vital to developing solutions. Scientifically valid testing is costly at $1 million a ship by

our estimate. We support an experimental shipboard testing program, such as the STEP program that we heard the Coast Guard

refer to earlier.

Sixth, and finally, Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the national program as the exclusive method of compliance for vessels

trading in our waters. We believe the levels of control in the Convention, the need for national and international consistency, and

the ability to quickly develop new technology, buttresses the need

for this single national standard.

Mr. Chairman and members, that concludes my verbal testimony. I would certainly be available for questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.
22

Mr. Weakley?

Mr. WEAKLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to address the

hearing. I am James Weakley, President of the Lake Carriers’ Association. We represent 15 American corporations operating 57 U.S.

flag vessels exclusively within the Great Lakes. These companies

annually move as much as 125 million tons of cargo. These cargos,

iron and ore for the steel industry, limestone for the construction

industry, and coal for our utilities, drive our Nation’s economy.

Just as important, we relax along the shores of the Great Lakes

and drink from the world’s largest supply of fresh water. The Great

Lakes are our home.

The lake Carriers’ Association has been a leader in the effort to

find a solution to the problem of ballast water transport and introduction of non-indigenous species. When the ruffe was discovered

in Duluth Superior Harbor, LCA developed the voluntary Ballast

Water Management Plan for vessels trading within the Twin Ports

to prevent the spread of the ruffe from the western basin of Lake

Superior. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the plan ‘‘the

cutting edge of technology,’’ and rightfully so.

Even though vessels call on Duluth Superior more than 1,000

times a year, the ruffe remains largely confined to western Lake

Superior. Only two other populations have been discovered since

voluntary implementation of these procedures.

LCA has also pioneer research on filtration and treatment of ballast water. In partnership with the Northeast-Midwest Institute,

LCA tested ballast water filtration and secondary treatments on a

Canadian-flag Laker and a barge. Filtration showed definite promise, especially when coupled with ultraviolet irradiation as a secondary treatment. There must be more testing and refinements,

but should filtration prove to be one of the solutions, its foundations were laid on the Great Lakes.

Today’s hearing focuses on the International Convention for the

Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments,

which the IMO completed last month, and reauthorization of the

National Invasive Species Act.

While I support the goals of the IMO Convention, I cannot support its ratification. This treaty for the time would govern our domestic waterborne commerce if a U.S.-flag vessel transits the waters of another nation in the course of its voyage between two U.S.

ports.

U.S.-flag Lakers often transit Canadian waters. During a Jones

Act move, for example, on an upbound transit of the Detroit/St.

Clair Rivers, a U.S.-flag Laker alternates between U.S. and Canadian waters 17 times.

This new regulation of domestic Great Lake shipping by the IMO

Convention is unnecessary. U.S.-flag Lakers never leave the system, so their ballast water is not a vector for the introduction of

new exotics. Our ballast water contains only what is already in the

Lakes. We must focus our efforts on preventing new introductions.

Furthermore, the Great Lakes have been traditionally exempt

from IMO Conventions because our operating conditions are so different from those encountered in the ocean trades. Vessels in the

deep sea trades transit different environments on a regular basis.
23

On the Lakes, we operate in waters that are hydrographically connected and form an enclosed aquatic ecosystem.

If, in fact, such moves should be regulated, a bilateral agreement

between the United States and Canada is the most appropriate vehicle for addressing any Lakes-specific issues, not an international

treaty.

The other topic under consideration today is the reauthorization

of the Native Invasive Species Act. LCA supports H.R. 1080 and

H.R. 1081, and commends the sponsors for recognizing that vessels

operating in an enclosed aquatic system need not be subject to full

application of the ballast water regulations that are to come.

Vessels operating exclusively within the enclosed Great Lakes

aquatic system pose no threat to the Great Lakes environments.

The Great Lakes are interconnected. The waters of Lake Superior

flow into the St. Mary’s River, and then are dispersed throughout

the system.

This means that the ruffe, which is migrating along the southern

shore of Lake Superior unchecked, will reach the St. Mary’s River,

and could migrate to the lower Lakes. Therefore, it would be meaningless for vessels that are confined to the Great Lakes to filter or

treat their ballast water.

On the Lakes, our focus must be on finding the means to stop

future introductions via the ballast water on vessels entering from

the oceans. To require U.S.-flag Lakers to treat or exchange their

ballast would have no environmental benefit, but would increase

the cost of delivering raw goods and materials that fuel our Nation’s economy.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weakley.

Dr. Mann?

Dr. MANN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committees, it is

pleasure to be here today.

My testimony will focus on three questions: What data is available to support the setting of specific standards; what level of confidence do we have that a particular standard will have a meaningful impact; and, are the recent IMO standards adequate and should

we adopt them?

Let us start with the first one, the problem. I pose a question:

What are the target organisms of concern given our current understanding of technology and biology, and who amongst the target organisms do we have a chance of eliminating from ballast water

prior to discharge in U.S. waters?

We go up the size scale. Microscopic invaders include single cell

bacteria that might be pathogenics to humans or marine species;

single cell phytoplankton that may change the nature of food

chains; cyst-forming organisms that are responsible for harmful

algal blooms, and the reproductive spores of plants that in final

forms may be large and imposing members of marine communities.

Moving up the size ladder again, we encounter small invertebrates that compete directly with native species, and very importantly, the early life history stages, and by that I mean the eggs

and the larvae of the vast majority of marine animals. The eggs

and larvae stages of larger organisms are abundantly present in
24

ballast water and represent a documented threat for eventual establishment of an invading species in U.S. waters.

Larger still and we encounter adult stages of a wide variety of

organisms, but in general I consider these to be of minor importance because they are generally killed by the filling process, passing through pumps and pellets and so on.

So we have identified a suite of organisms. I think that the eggs

and the larvae of the various life history stages are the ones that

we should be focusing on.

So the answer is that we need to move quickly to control discharge of threat organisms in the reauthorization. NAISA is the

tool. Ballast water exchange is a very limited management tool. Indeed, I believe it is inadequate.

In previous testimony, in November 2002 and in April 2003, I

proposed adoption of a standard of requiring a 100 percent kill of

all organisms in excess of 50 microns. I maintain my support for

this standard.

I have heard many comments on this and previous commentaries

about how difficult this is to set a standard. This is not difficult.

If you look across the hundreds of thousands of species of marine

organisms, you look across their various life history stages, and you

look at the sizes of the eggs and the larvae, there are very good

reasons why they are the size that they are.

It is all to do with evolution. It is not here today. It is not a difficult thing to do. The 50 micron standard is within reach of current technologies. It would be successful in retaining essentially all

of the early life history stages, including eggs, of the vast majority

of aquatic invertebrates, vertebrates, and macroalgae, which have

documented problems in the past.

It is biologically defensible, and it is enforcement. I state quite

clearly that I can teach anybody in this room in 30 minutes how

to check this. It is easy to do.

While this standard will not insure removal of most

phytoplankton and toxic dinoflagellates that cause red tides, a

group that truly causes a serious challenge to any and all of the

current research technologies, it does represent a significant advance.

I believe we should seek uniformity to defensible technologybased standards that will provide technology developers with trackable performance goals, and allow the Coast Guard’s STEP program to certify technologies for commercial application. We have

the pieces in place. Let us do it.

Incremental common sense dictates employment of the best

available tools now, and better tools in due course. Reauthorization

language always allows you in due course to come back and ratchet

up standards.

Let me now address the utility of the recently adopted IMO Convention. Within them I do applaud a number of things: the move

to universal compliance, uniform comprehensive record management, recognition of alternatives to ballast water exchange, testing

and approval, encouraging of the shipping industry to partner in

the development of technologies, and the periodic review of standards. These are all good.
25

But the IMO standard is too little and it is too late. It is too little

in terms of approaching right standards within the size ranges. It

is going to be too late by the time it is ratified. Target organisms

can be based and categorized on size. The tolerance level for the

50 micron standard, and the IMO standard, I just do not think is

good enough. We can do 100 percent.

The 10 to 50 micron standard would include some, but not all,

of the phytoplanktons and toxic dinoflagellates. This is going to be

a very difficult thing both to achieve and extraordinarily difficult

to enforce.

The IMO standard for toxigenic bacteria focuses on such things

as Vibrio cholerae. The standard that is proposed is right at the

very detection limit of Vibrio cholerae in the laboratory. It is essentially unenforceable in practical application at this point in time.

There is also focus on E. coli and Enterococcus. These are bacteria that have extraordinarily short half-lives in marine systems.

They die in salt water, so they are not a problem. In truth, the real

value of these toxigenic bacteria standards are for on-site testing

of technologies before they are approved for installation, just the

sort of the thing that the STEP program was put together to do.

So while I applaud certain of the IMO efforts and products, I do

think that we can do better, and I do think that we should do better.

Again, I thank the Committee. That concludes my statement.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Mann.

Ms. Hazlewood?

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. Hello, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gilchrest,

and staff of the Subcommittees. My name is Catherine Hazlewood

and I am the Clean Oceans Program Manager for the Ocean Conservancy. The Ocean Conservancy is a national nonprofit organization that strives to act for the oceans through science-based advocacy. They are headquartered here in Washington, D.C., but we

have additional offices and staff in Alaska, California, Washington,

Florida, Maine, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the recent adaptation of the Ballast Convention and the U.S. reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act.

Like our colleagues here today, the Ocean Conservancy has long

worked to prevent and to control the spread of aquatic invasive

species. Our efforts to date have ranged from local and regional

projects to national and international policy. We are also a current

appointee to the National Invasive Species Advisory Committee.

Today you have heard and will hear about the specific standards

negotiated at the IMO Convention. While TOC is grateful for the

leadership provided by the U.S. delegation at the Convention, I

would like to use my time today to focus on the need for us to do

better here in the United States.

The U.S. must set a high bar for domestic regulation of invasive

species because they impose such an enormous and growing threat

to our Nation, both environmentally and economically.

There are three main points to my testimony today: First, we

must set more protective ballast standards for ballast water management than the IMO Convention, standards that reflect the les-
26

sons we have learned since the last NISA reauthorization amendments in 1996.

Second, to fully address the problem of aquatic invasive species,

we must address several other vectors and pathways if they are

spread, when we currently do not address, and which the IMO

Convention did not purport to address.

Third, we need to fully support our agencies with all the necessary tools, mechanisms, and funding to prevent and control the

spread of invasives.

Congress has the opportunity to accomplish much of this through

the NAISA legislation which is currently pending before the House

and Senate, and which is sponsored by Mr. Gilchrest.

I would like to take the remainder of my time to address the importance of these three main points in more detail. Number one,

the need for more comprehensive ballast management.

The initial IMO standards are based on exchange, which several

members have noted will fail to protect many species from entering

U.S. waters. Exchanging ballast water is a practice that can range

from 10 percent effectiveness to 95 percent effectiveness.

While it may be a realistic first step for the world as a whole,

the standard does not reflect what the U.S. needs and what it is

currently capable of achieving.

Consider the Great Lakes where, since 1996, the exchange has

been mandatory. Even with the reported 97 percent compliance

rate, new invasive species have continued not just to spread, but

as members have noted, become established within the Great

Lakes.

The IMO Convention fully permits nations to take more stringent action. TOC urges the Committee to move forward with NISA

reauthorization to accomplish this in the United States. We need

a standard that will promote the ongoing development of effective

ballast water treatment technologies, and facilitate improvement

over time.

NAISA would accomplish this through its utilization of a final

standard that is not tied to some specific number or percentage,

but instead it requires the application of the best available technology for the applicable category or class of vessels. This is necessary to promote economic and environmental stringency as well

as technological innovation.

Secondly, I would like to address the point that we should address all vectors. Ballast water exchange is one of many vectors for

the spread of invasive species, but it is not the sole vector. Many

of the species that are most injurious to the United States are

those that were introduced by other means.

Consider, for example, Caulerpa taxifolia, a toxic algae introduced to California waters. It is not known whether or not that

species came from ballast water or if it was from an aquarium enthusiast who dumped the plant once it had overgrown their own

aquarium.

It has been suggested in the past that we address only ballast

water organisms. However, of even higher concern to The Ocean

Conservancy, NOAA has recently announced a goal to quintuple

our production of aquaculture in the open ocean. Without specific

safeguards provided by NAISA, this has the potential for the
27

escapement of genetically-modified, non-native, or even farm-raised

native fish. That remains extremely high.

NAISA would provide us the opportunity to consider these issues

comprehensively. It would provide the Federal Government with

rapid response mechanisms so that when new invasive species

were identified, the Government could work with States to quickly

control and eradicate them. It would provide us with crucial screening provisions so that we could do a better job insuring that that

species did not enter the country illegally.

It would also greatly enhance the ongoing research that has been

done which is critical to help us with the development of better understandings of how these species are spread, their effect on our

environment, and how we may safely address them without causing more harm than we solve.

Finally, I would address my third point very quickly that we

need to provide agencies with the mechanisms to ensure our Federal program will really work through better coordination, through

adequate funding, and some basic enforcement.

Consider our record to date as compared with the State of California which has a State ballast management law in effect. National reporting on ballast water exchange was made mandatory in

1996, yet in 2000, only about one-fifth of the vessels filed mandatory reports. Compare that with the State of California which had

a compliance level at about 75 percent.

We need to utilize NAISA as an opportunity to provide a comprehensible, workable solution.

To conclude, it is widely accepted that the Nation is facing an increasing rate of aquatic species introduction. The known cost of

failing to regulate invasive species discharges in the order of billions of dollars to date, are far higher than the costs associated

with regulation.

If we only ratify the IMO Ballast Water Convention, we ensure

that only the current status quo continues. We urge Congress to do

better, to act quickly to consider NISA reauthorization to prevent

further permanent damage to the Nation’s waterways, and to the

people, wildlife, and industries that depend upon them.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Hazlewood.

Mr. Ullrich?

Mr. ULLRICH. Thank you very much, Chairman Duncan. I greatly

appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. I am Dave Ullrich.

I am the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Cities Initiative,

which is a group of 40 to 50 cities around the Great Lakes. It has

been organized by Mayor Daley of Chicago to get more directly involved in the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.

I want to talk a little bit today about the invasive species, and

particularly ballast water, and to just share a little bit about the

real effects that this is having on cities all around the Great Lakes,

and as we heard in port cities in our coastal areas as well.

This is an urgent problem. I heard Congressman Gilchrest mention that on two separate occasions. It is a very costly problem. The

unique situation here is that we have an opportunity to prevent

disasters from occurring in the future.
28

Having been involved directly over the last six or seven years in

trying to deal with this, I must express some real frustration that

there has not been action sooner because the costs keep piling up.

Cities are bearing the brunt of those costs.

Let us look at just a couple of areas. First of all, in terms of

drinking water, I think everyone has heard about the encrusting of

intake structures, not only for drinking water supply, but for industrial sources as well. We will heard millions, hundreds of millions,

billions of dollars that this is costing. It has spread out over many

different people who have to absorb these costs. It is a very costly

thing that is being dealt with.

Taste and odor problems are related to the presence of the

invasive species and problems that they are causing. Certainly we

have a higher degree of concern about the security of our country.

Water supplies are something of great concern to cities in terms of

providing a high quality reliable source and the threats of intentional or unintentional introductions are something that cities are

greatly concerned about.

Beaches may seem more like an amenity but they are a real element of the quality of life in cities. We dealt with the alewives

where they had to be taken out by front-end loaders in the 1960’s

to deal with them. Zebra mussels came in the 1980’s. The Lake

shores have been covered with them, plus the related problems.

Algal blooms that have come out have required the closing of

beaches. Most recently, there has been an increase in botulism and

deaths of fish and wild fowl washing up on the beaches of the

Great Lakes.

The economic effects, as I have mentioned, have been significant.

I spoke with one of our member cities of Erie, Pennsylvania, and

since 1992 they have spent about $1.6 million alone in Erie, Pennsylvania to deal with the zebra mussel problem in their water supply system. For a city of that size, that is a very significant amount

of money.

It is harming the recreational boating industry as well, with the

higher maintenance costs that are imposed. It makes it more difficult for boaters to enjoy the great waters of the Great Lakes.

The Subcommittees are absolutely correct in terms of focusing on

ballast water because it is the primary pathway for the introduction of new invasive species into the Great Lakes system and into

other ports.

The other thing is that it is a known universe of vessels that can

be dealt with. The medium that needs to be dealt with is in a confined space and can be controlled and can be dealt with. I realize

there needs to be more research, and there always needs to be

more research on proper standards, and proper techniques, but this

cannot keep going on forever.

This does need to be dealt with on a Federal level as well. We

are dealing with a global economy. We have the shipment of goods

going all around the world. It has to have the Federal involvement.

If we get into a patchwork of State and local requirements all over

the Great Lakes or the other coastal areas, it is going to create an

extremely difficult situation for the shipping industry, which would

be inappropriate.
29

The action by the International Maritime Organization is welcome. I wish it had been much sooner. I wish there had been more

stringent requirements that came out of it. It is good that they are

focusing on best management standards, record keeping, and deadlines. But all of those need to be tighter and there needs to be

fewer exceptions that can be allowed under the Convention.

It is good that countries are allowed to impose more stringent

standards. I hope that if the U.S. ratifies this Convention, it will

take the full opportunity to go ahead with more stringent standards than are provided.

There also has to be an assurance of strong compliance and enforcement activity. If they are not met, they are not going to do any

good. The National Aquatic Invasive Act that is in front of you now

is an excellent step to take in dealing with this very serious problem.

The ballast water exchange may have helped somewhat in the

Great Lakes, but as has been pointed out, new species are being

introduced all the time. I think a statement has been provided by

Chairman Schornack of the International Joint Commission that

about every eight months, a new species is being introduced. We

have the opportunity and the ability to stop that.

We must pass NAISA and we must pass it now to require best

management practices, set protective standards, and mandate

record keeping and reporting. We have to have a rapid response capability for those that slip through. There needs to be continued research. We have to provide for inspections and enforcement.

Again, we have an unique opportunity to prevent even more serious problems in the future. It is going to take some action and action quickly. On behalf of the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Mayor

Daley, and the leadership of the other mayors, we strongly urge

you to move ahead with passage of NAISA and other actions to

control this very serious problem.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Cangelosi?

Ms. CANGELOSI. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the Subcommittees for inviting my testimony at this timely hearing on the

recent IMO agreement on ballast water, and on the ongoing urgent

need for Congress to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act

of 1996.

In my written testimony I contrast the Convention with current

and pending domestic policy, including the NISA reauthorization

legislation pending before these Subcommittees, H.R. 1080 and

H.R. 1081, and makes specific recommendations for Congressional

action.

To summarize that analysis, there are some similarities, but also

striking differences between the IMO Convention and existing and

proposed U.S. policy. Some of these differences may present such

serious departures from our pending and existing goals that ratification of the treaty is not useful for domestic purposes.

But given the flexibility and ambiguity built into the convention,

most policy decisions remain in the hands of Congress and Federal

agencies, irrespective of that choice. While that decision is being

made, Congress should work quickly to develop detailed and effec-
30

tive domestic policy, including regional agreements with our neighbors, that draws on the strong points of the agreement, but is not

constrained by its weaknesses.

So what are the strong points of the Convention? It is a true

achievement that an international convention has been crafted to

hold new ships first, and ultimately all ships, to a ballast discharge

performance standard. This approach is consistent with proposed

U.S. Coast Guard regulation, and the pending legislation, NAISA,

which gives agencies four years to promulgate the final environmentally-protected standard analogous to the IMO Convention

standard.

The logic applied to derive a standard for discharges is the second strong point and should be of interest for domestic purposes.

That logic, put forward by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, is that a ballast water standard should require a substantial reduction over the median observed concentrations of organisms in untreated ballast discharge globally.

This approach would, as a policy, normalize ballast discharge

densities, which vary widely, to a consistently low number. Moreover, a treatment system would have to deliver overkill most of the

time to reliably comply, even under worst case scenario densities.

In addition, it might be easier to measure compliance against such

a standard over time, though this utopian enforcement scenario is

still some years off.

Current U.S. policy does not have a standard for ballast discharge. Agencies should give careful consideration to the ICES approach and explore similar approaches to setting standards for sea

chests, ship hulls, and coastal voyages.

What are the weaknesses of the Convention? The formula is

promising but the data set from which the IMO numeric standards

were derived is quite weak for this purpose, so weak that claims

should not be made that this or any standard derived from such

a database is environmentally protective or science based.

Congress should direct agencies to determine the densities or organisms in ballast discharges from ships specifically visiting U.S.

harbors consistent with the research program laid out in H.R.

1081. If a standard is set in law based on existing data, Congress

should make it easy to adjust pending the better information while

using the same formula.

The IMO diplomatic conference altered the ICES recommended

limits for plankton upward, and added limits on concentrations of

pathogenic microbes. The resulting IMO standard has little to recommend for U.S. policy and is a second major weakness of the Convention. If Congress sets a preliminary standard for ballast discharge based on the IMO approach, my written testimony contains

recommendations for some ways to improve it.

Third, the implementation approach of the Convention is the biggest weak point. The Convention makes the assumption that treatments would become available sooner for smaller ballast capacity

ships than large, and stages its deadlines accordingly. This assumption is unnecessary and may not be true. Staggered deadlines

will delay the infusion of the substantial resources of large ship

owners to help solve the treatment question, and create less incentive for vendors to invest in treatments for large ships.
31

The timing within the implementation approach contemplated in

the IMO agreement is painfully slow across the board, too slow for

domestic purposes.

Finally, to further hedge its bets, the Convention sets forth an

open-ended technology review process three years prior to the imposition of the standard, as soon as 2006. There the IMO may vote

to change any aspect of the Convention, its standard, and even,

and perhaps most conveniently, and likely, the deadlines.

NAISA outlines a much better approach to domestic implementation. Agencies are directed to set a performance benchmark for

treatment for each class of new and existing ships based on what

a review of best available technology, economically achievable, can

deliver.

Any technology that can be shown to meet or exceed that performance benchmark would be allowable, and those that cannot

meet it, would not be allowable. Periodic surveys of treatments

available for new and existing ships will lead to the steady, upward

ratcheting of that benchmark toward the environmentally protected

standard.

This approach assures that the best treatments will be used

when they become available rather than delaying the use of methods better than ballast water exchange pending the perfect solution. The ‘‘all or nothing’’ approach will deliver to us nothing.

My other recommendations are summarized in my written testimony. A credible U.S. Federal program to prevent ship-mediated

transfers of exotic organisms will stabilize the regulatory landscape

domestically and provide leadership and experience to the global

community in support of implementation of the international convention.

I urge the Subcommittees to work quickly to enact such a program and to work with their colleagues in the Resources Committee to develop strong provisions addressing the other major vectors

of aquatic invasive species.

Thank you again for allowing me to testify.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much.

Dr. Mann, you say in your testimony the standard requiring 100

percent mortality of all organisms greater than 50 microns, this

standard is technically and economically attainable, it is practically

enforceable and would effectively eliminate these invaders.

Then you go on to the 10 to 50 micron standard would include

some but not all, phytoplankton and so forth. Even 100 percent

mortality here will not eliminate invasions and is probably not attainable. Are you talking there just about the 10 to 50 micron levels?

At another point in your testimony, you said something about

that it would be easy to take care of this problem. Would you explain that to me?

Dr. MANN. Let me go through those in order. I think the 50 micron standard would include all of those life history stages of animals and some plants that have a documented threat, if you look

at everything that is here so far.

In fact, if you go to the back end of the IMO document as it arrived to me over the internet, there were two pages of tables in

there that lists all kinds of organisms that have been moved
32

around the world. If you look at all of those, and if you look at their

early life history stages, they would all be taken out by a 50 micron

standard.

Do I believe that we can get to the point where you can kill everything over 50 microns? If you can kill 98 percent of it, you can

kill 100 percent of it. Organisms that are that small, if you think

about them, they have a lot of surface and not very much volume.

They are all very, very fragile. It is not difficult to kill one; therefore, it is not difficult to kill the lot. I think arguing about the 98

percent versus the 100 percent is a red herring. If you can kill

them, go for it.

How can you test that you have killed them all? That is actually

quite easy as well. That is what I said is easy. I think it is easy

to set the standard based on biology. You do not find many things

that have eggs or larvae that are smaller than 40 microns. There

is a very good reason for this based in the evolution of marine

forms. You see this across worms, crabs, barnacles, shellfish, fish.

Choose whichever group that you want.

How do you test it? That is easy, too. This is a ballast tank and

the ice cubes in it are the organisms. How do you get the ice cubes

out? You pass it through a mesh that will retain the ice cubes. You

can buy 50 micron mesh by the square yard. We have been able

to do it for 30 or 40 years. You pour it through. You retain the old

organisms. You wash them back into a smaller volume.

Then to that you add a dye, a simple dye. The one that we use

in our laboratory is something that is called neutral red. You can

buy it from any supply house. What does neutral red do? It stains

things that are alive red. Things that are not alive do not pick up

the stain.

So you have your organisms concentrated. You let them take up

the dye, if they are alive. Then you add formalin and that kills everything. Now what you end up with in the bottom of here is a mix

of things. Those that were dead before you put the dye in. They are

not red. Those that were alive when you put the dye in, they are

red.

If your ballast tank treatment system works, you will not find a

red organism in the bottom of that. You do not have to know

whether they are the larvae of fish, crabs, barnacles, whatever. All

you have to do is count red things versus not-red things. If there

are no red things in there, you have killed everything.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this. You make it sound so simple

and easy. Maybe it is. You are the expert here and I know almost

nothing about it. But I have been led to believe that there is not

really technology currently available, or that we are not far enough

along that we would really have verifiable technology that could

take care of these problems as simply and as easily as you indicate.

In fact, in our briefing memo, it says, ‘‘Currently there are no

technologies that have been demonstrated aboard vessels that

would meet the standards established by the Convention.’’

Dr. MANN. That statement is correct on a technicality. There are

no technologies that have been demonstrated on vessels. Here you

have part of the problem with this whole process. There are sitting

in this room behind me representatives of at least two companies

who are trying to develop these technologies.
33

When I have given testimony in the past, there have been members of several companies who have come along. They are extraordinarily frustrated because they are investing money in trying to

develop technologies. In the absence of a standard, they cannot sell

anything.

Because they cannot sell anything, they cannot go to the ship

owners. They cannot get the ship owners to participate in the business partnership. The ship owners do not want to spend the money

without having a standard. Everybody is in a do-loop where nothing gets done.

I have worked with one of these, and I believe, and I have seen

this in pilot scale, at 1,000 gallons an hour, that you can get this

to work. I think if you were to fill this bench here with the people

who represent these technology companies, and hold up a standard

in front of them and say simply, ‘‘Can you meet 50 microns, yes or

no? ’’ I think you would have a line of hands here.

But the reason why this has not been demonstrated on ships is

a business issue. In the absence of a standard, these companies

that have already invested millions of dollars, to get them on board

a ship is going to cost more. Shipping lines are not willing to partner in this because there is nothing in it for them at the moment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask this. Do all of you agree that it would

cost in the ball park of a million dollars per vessel to install equipment?

You are shaking your head, Ms. Cangelosi.

Ms. CANGELOSI. I am shaking my head for two reasons. One is

that I do not believe it would cost that much per vessel. That is

a too broad statement given the variety of types of vessels and the

variety of types of treatments.

The other reason is that the price will be set by the market

place. These vendors are savvy enough to hang back and see what

they can get for their treatment. Some of it will depend on how

heavy the installation burden is versus a treatment that does not

have a heavy installation burden. It is too soon to cite a price.

But having that, I can say that I have been working with some

treatment vendors that would propose something less than that to

retrofit a Great Lakes size ship with a treatment system that I

would consider fairly effective.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Cox?

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the same question, I presume. Yes, sir; it is a common misunderstanding by those who do

not recognize our industry. We can buy, for example, a radio and

we can say it is going to cost $50,000 for the radio. But to put the

radio on the ship and to run all of the wiring, and to make sure

that it is done in a proper maritime manner, is easily double that

cost.

When you talk about outfitting these things on vessels, you are

talking about talking it into a ship repair location where you can

do a proper job of getting it in there, gas freeing any parts of the

vessel or the engine room that you are going to have to gas free.

So it is not merely the cost of the piece of equipment. It is the cost

of putting the vessel in there, the cost of the down time of the vessel because you are taking it out of its normal rotation.
34

So that is what we factor in when we say a million dollars a ship.

Now, obviously if there is a small coastal vessel, that price might

be lower.

But, Mr. Chairman, since I have the microphone, that small

coastal vessel might not have the volume of ballast water that we

are talking about treating on large ships where that million dollar

cost is easily met.

For example, we roughly would have probably, in terms of gallons, 16 million to 18 million gallons of ballast on board a ship. So

just using the figure that we heard about treating 1,000 gallons an

hour, you can see that one problem is that you cannot take 16,000

hours to take care of the ballast.

Mr. DUNCAN. I apologize. I have to go to a vote. I am going to

turn this over to Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST [ASSUMING CHAIR]. I am going to yield to Dr.

Ehlers so he can get his questions in. I appreciate your comment.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure I have

time to get my questions in. Whatever I do not get in, I will submit

for the record. I do apologize. I will not able to return because I

have to chair a markup at 1:00.

First of all, I am very pleased that four of the six witnesses on

this panel explicitly support the NISA reauthorization legislation

that Congressman Gilchrest and I authored. I am very pleased

with that. I think that is indicative of the likelihood that this bill

be able to proceed to markup fairly quickly and I hope passage

through the House.

Mr. Cox, among the witnesses here you seem to be in the minority for calling for the U.S. to both ratify and adhere to the IMO

treaty. While I understand and appreciate your concern about an

uneven regulatory environment, you seem to recognize the reality

of the situation by calling for pre-exemption of State regulation.

But as Mr. Ullrich from the Great Lakes Cities Initiative states

in his testimony, State initiatives are born out of the frustration of

essentially transferring the cost of this problem from the shipping

community to the taxpayers. Given that, it is likely to be some time

before we know if the IMO Convention will enter into force and

that this Convention will not protect our resources.

How can we resolve your desire for a level regulatory environment or for the States to protect their taxpayers?

Mr. COX. Thank you, Congressman. I am used to being in a minority. I represent American shipowners. But frankly, sir, I think

you are hitting at a very important point, and that is that we certainly support the Convention being a framework, that establishes

a framework in other words, for the national legislation. By that

we mean that we have a target that we can adopt and begin to

work with and certainly start the process as soon as possible.

I do not think that we said that we should wait for ratification

of the treaty before we start our process. We certainly support ratification of a treaty because it does set an international standard.

It will bring the world into conformance with that international requirement, but at the same time we can start our processes and

base them on the framework that is contained in that convention,

and get on with this process.
35

Mr. EHLERS. I think what we will be trying to do is develop legislation that will stay within the framework of the IMO document,

but set a process where the standards could ultimately be adjusted

based on the best technology that we have so that the States feel

like the resources are being protected. Otherwise, the States are

going to go ahead. I know that. My State did already. California

has done it. Washington is in the process. I think you will have a

real mess on your hands if we do not come up with something good.

If it is not good enough, the States are not going to accept that.

Would you tend to agree with that?

Mr. COX. Yes, sir; I think I tend to agree that a State would

probably want to take some action to protect their citizens if they

felt that the Federal initiative was not being good enough. But I

would suggest that if we use the framework of this Convention to

establish national legislation, that indeed will encompass all the

current requirements that we see in State legislation, and indeed,

I think in all instances go beyond what the current State requirements are. So I think that we are not talking about stepping back

from anything that is currently applicable in this industry. We are

talking about ratcheting it a little bit tighter than what currently

exists.

Mr. EHLERS. I think if we did take care of the States’ concerns,

we would certainly be stronger than the IMO Convention. I do not

see any way around that. Let us face it. The U.S., in spite of all

the shipping that it does, is probably still one of the more pristine

environments.

It is possible that Europe does not worry about it because they

have had ships from other countries coming in and out of their

ports for 500 years. They probably already have every alien species

from the world in their water. But we are still trying to protect our

water, particularly the Great Lakes, but also the coastal waters.

I think we simply have to set a tough standard regardless of

what IMO does and the ships that want to come to our ports are

going to have to meet that.

Mr. GILCHREST. We are down to about five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. We have to go vote. I apologize. I will not be able

to return. I request that I would be able to submit the rest of my

questions. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered.

I have a markup with Mr. Ehlers at 1:00. We have a vote on the

floor right now. Then I have another hearing at 2:00. But we will

stay in touch with all of you folks. I would just replicate the last

comment that Mr. Ehlers made and that is that we have an opportunity for the United States to set the standard for the world. I

think we can do it responsibly and reasonable. That is what we are

going to shoot for.

Thank you all for your testimony. It was very well done.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of their respective Chairs.]
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141

Æ