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

24–893 PDF 2005

PROTECTING OUR GREAT LAKES: BALLAST

WATER AND THE IMPACT OF INVASIVE SPECIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 2005

Serial No. 109–98

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ED SCHROCK, Staff Director

ERIK GLAVICH, Professional Staff Member

ALEX COOPER, Clerk

KRISTA BOYD, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 9, 2005 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Brandt, Stephen, director, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory ..................................................................................................... 67

Brauer, Kurt, chair, Natural Resources Committee, Michigan Council

of Trout Unlimited ........................................................................................ 125

Cox, Mike, attorney general, State of Michigan ............................................ 26

Dinsmore, Jason, policy specialist, Michigan United Conservation Clubs .. 118

Metcalf, Kathy, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of Shipping of America ................................................................................................................... 99

Moore, Commander Kathleen, Chief, Environmental Standards Division,

U.S. Coast Guard .......................................................................................... 61

Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO .. 37

Schornack, Dennis L., chairman, U.S. Section International Joint Commission ........................................................................................................... 93

Weakley, James H.I., president, Lake Carriers’ Association ........................ 112

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Brandt, Stephen, director, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory, prepared statement of .............................................................. 70

Brauer, Kurt, chair, Natural Resources Committee, Michigan Council

of Trout Unlimited, prepared statement of ................................................. 127

Cox, Mike, attorney general, State of Michigan, prepared statement of ..... 31

Dinsmore, Jason, policy specialist, Michigan United Conservation Clubs,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 121

Metcalf, Kathy, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of Shipping of America, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 102

Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 6

Moore, Commander Kathleen, Chief, Environmental Standards Division,

U.S. Coast Guard, prepared statement of ................................................... 64

Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 40

Schornack, Dennis L., chairman, U.S. Section International Joint Commission, prepared statement of .................................................................... 95

Weakley, James H.I., president, Lake Carriers’ Association, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 114

(1)

PROTECTING OUR GREAT LAKES: BALLAST

WATER AND THE IMPACT OF INVASIVE SPECIES

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

Fair Haven, MI.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., at the

Anchor Bay High School Auditorium, 6319 County Line Road, Fair

Haven, MI, Hon. Candice S. Miller (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Lynch, and Westmoreland.

Staff present: Edward Schrock, staff director; Erik Glavich, professional staff member; Alex Cooper, clerk; and Krista Boyd, minority counsel.

Mrs. MILLER. Good afternoon. There are some making sure we’re

organized here and ready to go.

I certainly want to first of all bring the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs to order. And, I want to thank everybody for attending today’s hearing.

This is quite a remarkable thing, actually. We’re trying to bring

Washington to Michigan, in the 10th Congressional District of

Michigan——

VOICE. Turn up the volume.

Mrs. MILLER [continuing]. Specifically.

Can you hear us there?

VOICE. No.

Mrs. MILLER. Whoever’s in charge of sound, maybe I need to

bring it a little closer to me.

How about that? Is that helpful?

VOICE. Yeah.

Mrs. MILLER. All right. We’ll try to remember to talk into the

microphones here as we can.

Today we’re going to be having a hearing on invasive species, on

the kind of impact, and principally negative, in many cases very

negative, that invasive species have on our magnificent Great

Lakes, and principally through ballast water.

And I certainly want to take a few moments to thank many of

the individuals who have helped us to make this hearing possible

today.

And let me thank everybody who’s involved with the Anchor Bay

School District certainly. And in particular, I want to thank Anchor

2

Bay High School for all of their assistance, and the Principal here,

Judy Stefanac. She was just here a moment ago, and I see her out

in the audience there.

And she gave me a fantastic tour of this school. And it certainly

is not what the high schools that many of us are used to or think

about where we came from. It’s just a fantastic facility. The community is so very proud of it.

I think that this hearing today will hopefully provide the citizens

of the 10th Congressional District, and the people throughout the

southeast Michigan, and hopefully the students, in particular the

students, an opportunity to understand a little bit about the Federal Government, and how it works, and the hearing process, and

etc. And we wanted to have this hearing in a high school so students would be able to understand that things that happen at the

Federal level and in Washington, DC, seem so far away from them,

but in fact they’re very, very pertinent to their lives and do have

an impact. And I know we have some students in the audience

today. And hopefully they’ll understand the government. It certainly does matter in their lives; and we do live in a democracy.

And perhaps my generation has not done the best job of being a

steward of our environment, but we look forward to the next generation, you young people that join with us today or who will be

using this hearing as part of your curriculum, that we’re looking

to you to do a better job, perhaps, than what we’ve done. And we’re

interested in trying to afford you the information that we can about

a very, very important issue in our area.

As well, this hearing is being broadcast through a five-county

area, all the way up to the very tip of the thumb, and will as I said,

be used in high schools throughout the entire district, the 10th District.

I also want to thank Mark Cummins of the Macomb Intermediate School District, who was very helpful today, and Terry Harrington of the St. Clair County Regional Educational Service Agency. These are the individuals who have really helped to put together the broadcast and the mechanics, if you will, of orchestrating today’s proceedings.

And we have a number of witnesses. And I will introduce each

of them as we begin our hearing. They’ve come from across Michigan, from other parts of our country, from Washington, DC. And

all of them want to talk about ballast water management, the Regulatory Drain Board that our Nation has, and the impact of the

invasive species on our economy and our environment.

As I stated, we’re prepared to examine the Federal Government’s

efforts to stop the threat that invasive species pose on our Great

Lakes and on our Nation’s very delicate aquatic ecosystems. This

issue is vitally important to all residents of the Great Lakes region,

not just those of us in Michigan, but every one of the States, and

the Canadian government as well in the entire basin.

Lake St. Clair, in fact, where the dreaded zebra mussels were

first discovered, was just a few miles from where we’re sitting here

today. This is a very little tiny thing, about the size of a thumbnail,

maybe even smaller, that has really devastated the lakes and started a chain of events that has lead us here today.

3

Since the zebra mussel’s introduction in 1988, the threat and the

impact of endangered species has not subsided. The zebra mussels

has spread to waterways throughout the eastern United States;

and non-native species such as the round goby are absolutely devastating our native fish populations and destroying the ecosystem

as we know it.

In fact experts, and we’ll hear some of this testimony today, actually estimate that we currently have over 180 different types of

invasive species in the Great Lakes.

With the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway back in 1959, trade

through the Great Lakes expanded. And, of course, this was a very

good thing for Michigan, and the Great Lakes basin trade, particularly on our Great Lakes as a very important artery and economic

impetus for us. On the other hand, with the increase of this trade,

the threat of invasive species exploded as well, and it continues to

be as high as ever.

In response to the introduction of the zebra mussels, Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ballast water management regulations for ships carrying ballast water that enter the Great Lakes

after operating outside of U.S. waters. The Coast Guard issued

final mandatory regulations in April 1993. Realizing that the

threat posed by invasive species was not contained strictly to the

Great Lakes, Congress then directed the Coast Guard to expand its

regulations to a national level. In response, the Coast Guard issued

an interim rule which established voluntary national guidelines in

1999. These voluntarily guidelines became mandatory effective on

September 27, 2004.

The Coast Guard is a Federal agency that wears many, many

hats. And we’re going to have an opportunity to introduce a representative from the Coast Guard here today. And although we

may have some tough questions about how the Coast Guard is handling invasive species, let me just say particularly this week, after

the unbelievable work that we have seen demonstrated by the U.S.

Coast Guard in response to Hurricane Katrina on our gulf, it has

been an amazing thing for the entire Nation to watch the Coast

Guard. Not only as we see you on the front line of the war on terror, but now as the Coast Guard has responded, as we would have

always expected you to do, but you did so unbelievably well, and

honorably, and bravely, saving literally tens of thousands of our

fellow Americans in the gulf.

And I think we, on behalf of a very grateful Nation, to Commander Moore of the Coast Guard, I’d like to thank you and the

entire Coast Guard, as you’ve been a wonderful thing to see, I

think, the Coast Guard and how they responded as well.

But in addition to all of this, the Congress has also given the

Coast Guard the responsibility of regulating many aspects of shipping on U.S. water, and that includes the discharge of ballast

water. And in the 15 years since Congress has directed the Coast

Guard to deal with the invasive species issues, critics have charged

that the Coast Guard efforts have been ineffective. The threat has

not decreased, and regulations exempt heavily loaded ships with no

ballast water on board. These ships are commonly called NOBOBs.

They account for 90 percent of all ships entering into the Great

Lakes system. That’s NOBOBs, as I say, no ballast water on board.

4

And they contain residual water in their ballast tank, and pose a

very great threat.

On August 31st, just a week and a half ago, the Coast Guard

issued voluntarily guidelines for NOBOBs. But critics argue that

more aggressive action is needed now. And I think in light of the

fact that we’re just a week and a half after those regulations had

been issued, it’s very important that we have this hearing. It’s very

timely today.

Currently the only accepted ballast water management practice

is a mid-ocean ballast water exchange. There exists no Coast

Guard approved alternate methods to treat ballast water, mainly

because the Coast Guard has been unable to approve any methods

because it’s failed to establish a measurable standard for ballast

water that’s safe to be discharged. This standard, which is referred

to as a ‘‘discharge standard,’’ is necessary if the shipping industry

is to develop and to install technologies that can treat ballast water

as effectively as a ballast water exchange. The international community established its own discharge standard in February 2004.

The Coast Guard led these international efforts.

Clearly there is much more action that needs to take place at

home, and there’s signs that the Coast Guard is getting ready to

issue its own discharge standard. And I certainly hope that Commander Moore, who joins us today, can expand a little bit on the

efforts the Coast Guard is taking to improve the ballast water regulatory framework.

In the Great Lakes region, it’s been estimated that $8 billion has

been spent thus far since the zebra mussel’s introduction, to mitigate the damage that it has caused; with another $5 billion price

tag in the next 10 years. Scientists have estimated that 10 billion

round gobies reside in the northern half of Lake Erie alone.

Invasive species destroy our ecosystems. And unless the door is

shut, these very nasty little creatures will continue to hitch a ride

in ballast tanks across the Atlantic, and find new homes right here

in our magnificent Great Lakes.

The State understands this. In fact, no less than 10 States have

passed laws governing ballast water. The State of Michigan, for example, has passed a law that defines ballast water as pollution.

And we require ships to obtain a permit before it can be discharged.

Additionally, a coalition of Great Lakes States petitioned the

Coast Guard in 2004, asking them to act on the problems posed by

NOBOBs. These States have even reported legal efforts to get the

EPA to regulate ballast water through the Clean Water Act.

And why have the States taken these measures? Because they

are very, very frustrated. They’ve seen the devastating impact of

invasive species, and they feel as though the Federal Government

has not done its job to help them.

Preventing the introduction of endangered species requires a cooperative effort between different Federal agencies, States, and certainly the international community. It will take a lot of work to remove this threat posed by the ballast water of ships.

So we’ve seen the problem, and now we need to work together

to find a solution.

5

And I’m pleased that we’ve been able to assemble a fine young

panel of witnesses. We’re looking forward to hearing from all of

them so we can have a better understanding of what we might be

able to do at the congressional level of the Federal Government.

And we want to thank all of you for coming.

And before we start here, I also want to extend my gratitude to

the other members of the subcommittee who have joined with us

here today, my other two colleagues. First of all a ranking member,

Stephen Lynch, Congressman Stephen Lynch is from Massachusetts. And let me just give you a brief introduction of him.

Congressman Lynch was actually first born into the U.S. Congress in October 2001, and has been re-elected twice. He represents

Massachusetts 9th Congressional District, and he’s a lifelong resident of south Boston. Prior to his career as a public servant, Ranking Member Lynch worked as a structural iron worker for 18 years,

and he served as the president of the Iron Workers Union. And as

an iron worker, he worked at the General Motors in Framingham,

MA, and the General Dynamics Shipyard in Quincy, and also the

U.S. Steel Plant in Gary, IN.

Mr. Lynch continues to live in south Boston with his wife Margaret and their 5-year-old daughter Victoria.

We certainly welcome you, Congressman Lynch. We appreciate

you coming so very, very much.

And also Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, who joins us from

Georgia actually. He entered the Congress this year. He’s a freshman. He said he wanted to come to Congress so he could be referred to as a freshman again, it’s like being in high school. But

he represents Georgia’s 8th Congressional District, which stretches

from the suburbs of Atlanta to Macon into Columbus. He served in

the Georgia State House of Representatives for 12 years, the last

3 years as minority leader there before coming to Washington. And,

actually before becoming a public servant, he started his own building company.

And if you’ve had a chance to see some of the things that are

happening in northern Macomb County, see, we have a lot of building going on there which we’re very proud of.

So Mr. Westmoreland and his wife Joan have been married for

36 years. They have three children, and four grandchildren. So we

welcome them both here as well.

And I see that our State Attorney General Mike Cox has also

joined us, and we’re going to be hearing from him in just a moment. We appreciate you all coming.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mrs. MILLER. I’d like to now recognize the ranking member for

his opening statement. Congressman Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Chairman Miller.

First of all, I want to thank you, chairman, and also Julie

Stefanac, for being a wonderful host. And I know this is televised

in five districts in this area. I hope it’s not televised in my district,

because if people see what you have here for a beautiful high

school, I think I would be under a lot of pressure to replicate this

in my district. It’s absolutely a magnificent example of the priority

that Michigan has given to education.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. And I think it’s a wonderful credit to your political

leadership here for having done so. I do appreciate your leadership.

I think I speak for all of the Members of Congress in appreciation

of Chairman Miller and what she has done to bring the issue of

invasive species contaminating our waterways, not just Great

Lakes.

But I actually have the honor of representing the Port of Boston,

and we’ve just spent several billion dollars on cleaning up that

port, and now we are in fear of the fact that our waterways, our

beautiful harbor, may be contaminated, compromised by invasive

species, just as the people who love and who appreciate the beauty

of the Great Lakes are concerned about the situation around their

homes and in their neighborhoods.

These invasive species are wreaking havoc on bodies of water all

across the country. And according to the EPA, invasive species are

the second leading cause of species extension, and a loss of biodiversity in aquatic and marine environments around the world.

As I said, I have—my office is actually about 50 yards from Boston Harbor. And we just spent so much money on that system, and

now the ecosystem there is under the same threat that Lake Michigan and all the Great Lakes are facing. So we have something in

common here. And my hope is that by joining together in this community and bringing some of these issues to the forefront, following

the leadership of Chairman Miller, that we can find a solution not

only for the Great Lakes, but also for the Port of Boston, for Boston

Harbor, and for all of our waterways.

I understand that the Great Lakes may be more vulnerable in

a way than Boston Harbor, because we have a flushing effect, if

you will, because of the tides coming in and out, that the Great

Lakes don’t have that, that protective characteristic. And so it’s

even more important that we find a solution here to reduce the

level of invasive species coming in, and also to prevent that from

occurring in the future.

But the most significant source of invasive species is the ballast

water that ships take on and discharge as they load and unload

cargo. And it’s important that shipping, while it is allowed to continue, and the Great Lakes communities as well as the east and

west coast and the gulf coast rely heavily on shipping. Ships must

be required to manage their ballast water to prevent the spread of

invasive species to the fullest extent possible.

I’m interested in hearing—we have a great list of witnesses here.

I’m interested in hearing what the Coast Guard plans to do to insure that Federal regulations are implemented in full effect, and

25

that they are strengthened to prevent the invasive species from

compromising our waterways. I know this is a pressing problem for

the Great Lakes and for other parts of the country, and we need

Federal regulation, a sort of a blanket approach, to have a full core

press on this type of danger.

There appear to be some technologies that are out there that

show promise for preventing the transfer of invasive species. I’m

looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today what kind of

progress is being made in terms of that technology.

I’m also looking forward to hearing from the witnesses where

they believe we can best focus our resources and efforts. Because

if we focus on this problem as we should, I firmly believe that this

is solvable. It’s solvable. It’s a matter of resources and of applying

ourselves to the problem.

And I think under the leadership of Chairman Miller, we’ll be

able to do that. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. And now I’d like to recognize Congressman Westmoreland for an opening statement.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Chairman Miller. And for all

you people in this audience and school children watching, you’ll

probably get a sense of the different dialects across this country

with Mr. Lynch and myself. It’s probably from one end of the spectrum to the other.

But I want to thank Chairman Miller for doing this, and for allowing me to be on the subcommittee.

When I was first elected to Congress, I sat down next to Chairman Miller, and we were talking about different things, and started talking about government regulations. And she explained to me

that she was going to be chairman of this subcommittee. I immediately went back to the office and wrote a letter requesting to be

on the subcommittee, because I know she’s got a heart to do the

right thing. And in looking at some of the over regulations that we

have in this country, and in this case what seems to be maybe

some under regulation.

I, too, as Ranking Member Lynch, I have some ports. We have

Savannah, Garden City, and Brunswick in Georgia. We too have

the flushing effect that the Great Lakes don’t have. But still, I

think this needs to be an interest to us all.

This is going to be a learning opportunity for me. I have dealt

with the shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel, which effects our water

sources in Georgia, and Alabama, and in the South. I’ve never

heard of the zebra mussels and some of these other invasive species that you have here. So I look forward to listening to the witnesses, especially listening to the Coast Guard on what their answers might be.

And I again thank Chairman Miller for giving me this opportunity to be here.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you both. We appreciate that.

Now, because the Government Reform Committee is an oversight

committee and has subpoena authority, it’s our practice in Washington or field hearings to swear in all of our witnesses. So if you

could please stand and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

26

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

Our first witness on our panel today that joins us, is our Attorney General Mike Cox. And we certainly do appreciate him joining

with us today.

General Cox was sworn into office on January 1, 2003. He served

in the U.S. Marines prior to receiving his law degree from the University of Michigan. Attorney General Cox began work at the

Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office in Detroit, where he prosecuted

cases of organized crime. He actually tried over 125 jury trials,

with a 90 percent conviction rate as well. He was appointed as the

director of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Homicide Unit in 2002.

Under his leadership, the Michigan Attorney General’s office has

been extremely active in its efforts to protect the Great Lakes. In

July 2004, Attorney General Cox helped lead an effort by the Great

Lakes to improve the Federal Government’s actions pertaining to

ballast water. And I know he’s filed several lawsuits in that regard,

and has had some success on that. We’ll be very interested to hear

how all of that is going.

I am aware that you have a very busy schedule today, so if you

would like to have us ask you questions at the conclusion of your

statement, and then you can be on your way, or if you’d like to

stay, certainly it’s your call, sir, whatever your schedule permits.

We’re delighted to have you here.

STATEMENT OF MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF

MICHIGAN

Mr. COX. Well, thank you, Chairman Miller, and thank you for

having me here. I can make myself available. Whatever works for

the committee, the best workings of the committee.

Thank you Anchor Bay Schools for welcoming us all here. And

of course thank you, Congressman Lynch, for coming here; as well,

Congressman Westmoreland.

You know, when we all discuss the pollution, I think most of us

get a visual image in our mind here of what that means. And I expect that, Congressman Lynch, when you were back as an iron

worker in south Boston, it might be urban smog, maybe for you

that’s the image of pollution; or Congressman Westmoreland, when

you were a builder back in Georgia, maybe it was you’re developing

some land and you see some chemical waste in a pond. Or, for others it might be acid rain polluting a forest.

But for me, one of the strongest images of my life actually stems

from when I was 7, 8 years old, back in the late 60’s, early 70’s,

right not too far from here on Lake Huron, where we used to visit.

I grew up in Detroit and I would go walking along the shores of

Lake Huron, and there’d be alewives. And 2 weeks of every year,

they’d wash up on the shore. And there would be masses of smelly

dying alewives, which are not native invasive species to Michigan.

They actually started off on the Atlantic coast in Maine.

And they were a huge problem for us back then. They were getting in the hatcheries of other native fish. And it wasn’t until the

State of Michigan, and I think it was the Federal Government also

spent millions of dollars replacing and replenishing trout and salmon stock, which are predators of theirs, that we were able to get

27

the problem under control. And actually, now we’ve kind of reduced

them to just being bait.

But nonetheless, it took a huge intervention of the State government in order to solve that problem of the invasive species coming

here to the shores of our Great Lakes. And in my mind, that picture, that image, that’s in my mind of pollution, because that is biological pollution.

And it’s—you know, when we think of pollution in a polluted waterway, or other forms of pollution, generally over time pollution

degrades and declines. Well, invasive species or aquatic nuisance

species as we call them here in the State, they’re a biological pollutant that does not decline or degrade. As a matter of fact, if not

fought, they multiply, and they become a bigger problem.

You know today, as has been pointed out to you by Congressman

Lynch, you know, invasive species, the species, aquatic nuisance

species are carried in the ballast of larger ocean-going vessels.

When they enter the Great Lakes, aquatic nuisance species wreak

extraordinarily social, economic and ecological havoc here in Michigan, and all along the eight States of the Great Lakes. These biological pollutants not only threaten the Great Lakes’ ecosystem,

but they also pose a significant economic threat right here to the

State of Michigan. Commercial and recreational fishing, boating,

beaches, tourism, all suffer as a result of the harmful effects of

these species.

The estimated annual costs of controlling just one aquatic nuisance species, the zebra mussels, in the Great Lakes that Congressman Westmoreland alluded to, is estimated anywhere between $100 and $400 million.

These aquatic nuisance species continue to enter the Great Lakes

at, quite frankly, an alarming rate. Back in February 1999, President Clinton at that point thought it was a big enough problem

that he issued an Executive order directing 10 Federal agencies to

do—in essence, to do something about it. The Federal agencies

have done little to prevent the introduction or further introduction

of aquatic nuisance species via ballast water discharges even

though it’s some 61⁄2 years that have passed.

In fact, since 1973, the EPA has exempted regulation of ‘‘discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel’’ from the Clean

Water Act’s Normal Permit Discharge Elimination System Program. The agency, the EPA, applied this exemption to the ballast

water discharges even though, as I said, these discharges introduce

a biological pollutant.

Now as you’re aware, the Coast Guard has been given authority

to regulate ballast water discharges throughout what was originally the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act of 1990. However, this regulatory scheme has been ineffective

and continues to be ineffective, primarily because the Coast

Guard’s existing rules only apply to vessels that carry ballast

water. By the current practice, the Coast Guard allows ships to

evade any treatment by declaring that they have no ballast on

board, or the term of art is NOBOB. And seventy percent of the

ships entering the Great Lakes, are NOBOB ships. And despite a

claim of being a NOBOB vessel or ship, they still contain residual

water and sludge that contains aquatic nuisance species.

28

In a 2005 report, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab

concluded that NOBOB ships do introduce aquatic nuisance species

to the Great Lakes. And the greatest threat of invasive species induction—excuse me, introduction to the Great Lakes, is ships with

fresh or low salinity residual ballast water.

Thus, the Federal Governments actions have been completely unsuccessful. Biological pollutants continue to enter the Great Lakes

because of the combination of EPA inaction and the Coast Guard’s

NOBOB exemption.

As of 2001, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that

there were 162 aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes. That

was as of 4 years ago. And at least 12 that entered since 1990.

On July 12, 2004, a petition was filed with the Coast Guard requesting rulemaking to close the NOBOB loophole. The Coast

Guard solicited public comment, as is required, on the best way to

address the NOBOB problem. And in July of this year, 2 months

ago, stated it was developing a ballast water discharge standard to

be used to approve ballast water treatment systems. Yet, thus far,

it has not committed itself to any time line to adopt this.

Last week the Coast Guard issued best management practices for

NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, though,

this document is described as a policy. And the best management

practices are only recommendations that cannot be enforced.

I do not believe the Coast Guard should be the primary Federal

agency. Nonetheless, until—excuse me, in my mind, the Coast

Guard should not be the primary agency, the EPA should. But

until the EPA enacts much needed regulation, the Coast Guard

should quickly close the NOBOB loophole. It is essential to the future of our Great Lakes that we close our borders literally to these

invasive species.

My primary recommendation, however, as I alluded to, is that

the EPA move quickly to regulate ballast water discharges under

the Clean Water Act. In July 2004, my office, along with attorney

generals from four other Great Lakes States, submitted the amicus

brief in a lawsuit that was going on out in San Francisco, in the

Federal Court there for the Northern District of California, arguing

that the EPA’s exemption for ballast water discharges was unlawful and should be repealed. The court ruled this past March, on

March 31, 2005, that the EPA’s exemption was without authority,

and ordered the EPA to repeal the exemption. My office, along with

other Great Lakes attorneys generals, has now been granted intervener status as parties, and we’ve asked the court for a short

timeline to force the EPA to promulgate the final regulations.

However, in the interim, EPA has the authority right now to

quickly develop general permits for classes of discharges. In addition, the EPA can require vessels to employ best management practices, such as ballast water exchange in the ocean, which is a generally beneficial management practice that can reduce the risk of

invasive species of these biological pollutants right now.

The court will soon determine how the EPA’s to regulate ballast

water discharges under the Clean Water Act. While they wait for

effective Federal action, States such as Michigan can and should be

29

able to try and slow down the explosion of these invasive species,

of these aquatic nuisance species.

With my support, Michigan recently amended its primary water

quality protection statute to require permits starting in January

2007. These permits will require all ocean-going vessels operating

in Michigan ports, to show that they do not discharge aquatic nuisance species, or that they use environmentally sound technologies

and methods to prevent the discharge of these invasive species in

ballast water. In addition, the law creates a multi-state coalition

which promotes existing laws that prohibit biological pollutants

from being discharged. I supported this legislation, and I believe it

is the best way currently available to protect the Great Lakes,

given the lack of adequate Federal regulation.

And unfortunately Senate bill 363, which is talked about when

we talk about this area of regulation, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005, is currently being—as I said, it’s currently being

considered by the Senate Commerce Committee in Washington.

Senate bill 363 would prohibit Michigan from imposing any requirement under its new State law that are inconsistent with Federal requirements. Senate bill 363 would also prohibit the EPA, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating ballast

water discharges under the Clean Water Act. In addition, new

water treatment standards applying to all vessels wouldn’t be required until 2016, some 11 years from now. Moreover, the bill

would continue to keep—excuse me. The bill would keep current

Coast Guard regulations for Great Lakes in place, including the

NOBOB loophole, for at least a year.

I’ve joined other Great Lakes States’ attorney generals in a joint

letter conveying our problems, our dismay with the bill, especially

since it would remove the Clean Water Act jurisdiction and would

preclude States from acting where the Federal Government has not

acted.

Our Great Lakes face devastating consequences if we continue to

allow these biological pollutants to enter our waters unchecked.

Michigan’s citizens daily rely on the Great Lakes for recreation, for

drinking water, for environmental benefits, and for its sustainable

economic growth.

The Federal Government has failed to protect our natural resources from these devastating—from the devastating effects of

these biological pollutants. Effective methods that address aquatic

nuisance species are within our reach as a State and as a Nation.

And I encourage all of us gathered here today to work together to

see them implemented. We must act to protect our natural resources, so that our children do not have to remember the beaches

of their childhood covered in rotting biological pollution.

That’s the end of my prepared statement. But this morning when

I woke up, if I can indulge—beg your indulgence for 2 more minutes. This morning when I woke up, I remembered—or, I read in

the Detroit News, a local paper, on the first day of my vacation for

this summer, which was August 14th. I was just hanging around

Detroit, and I was going to take my kids fishing, and swimming,

and that sort of stuff in the area.

At any rate, in the Sunday Detroit News, they had an article

about foreign species crowding out local fish here in Michigan. And

30

it was really pretty interesting. I read the article, and I had to pull

it out to bring here today.

And in this article from the Detroit News, and just 4 weeks ago,

on the west side of Michigan we have the Lake Michigan. And

Lake Michigan, a lot of the problems that happen in Lake Michigan, transfer over to inland lakes. Well, there’s a town called Muskegon on the west—the west coast of Michigan, on Lake Michigan.

And there’s a Muskegon Lake, which historically was a great fishing area. For years and years, you could get perch and pickerel,

and all sorts of fish out there.

At any rate, every year there’s a guy there who started up a voluntarily fish tournament. And grew—this year there were 400 fisherman, and that he had organized friends and fellow fishermen.

And they had a fishing contest. And, you know, it used to be that

they would—they would try and get perch and pickerel and trout.

Well, this year, these 400 anglers, these 400 fishermen caught

5,000 gobies, some 460 pounds of gobies, which are worthless as

food for humans, and until the mid eighties, had never been seen

in the Great Lakes. They’ve caught one perch. I think that dramatically outlines, better than my testimony could, this problem

and the need for the Federal Government to do something about

it.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Attorney General Cox. We certainly appreciate your attendance.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mrs. MILLER. And we will just proceed then with the rest of our

witnesses, and if you can stay for questions, that would be very

helpful for the panel here.

And in the interest of time, I might mention for the others, I’ve

just been informed—actually, we have these little lights that we

have set up here. When you see the red light, your 5 minutes is

up. I’m not going to cut you off on your 5 minutes, but maybe you

would like to try to roll through here a bit if we could.

Our next witness is Robin Nazzaro. And she is the Director with

the Natural Resources and Environmental team of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She’s responsible for the GAO’s

work on Federal land management issues such as forest and wildfire management, invasive and endangered species, mining and

grazing, national parks and recreation areas, and Indian affairs

with the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Agriculture’s Forest Service.

She has worked at the GAO since 1979, has demonstrated a

wealth of audit experience, staff office service, and the diversity of

issue area expertise. She has received numerous GAO honors, including the Comptroller General’s Meritorious Service Award for

sustained leadership, and two assisted Comptroller General

Awards for exceptional contributions in strategic planning.

We certainly thank you for your presence today, and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GAO

Ms. NAZARENE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you,

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I’m pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Government’s

response and actions taken to address the introduction of harmful

species from ballast water in ships. Numerous harmful species

have been introduced into U.S. waters from ballast water. These

invasive non-native species have caused serious damage, that’s

been noted today, to ecosystems, businesses, and recreation.

GAO reported in 2002 that at least 160 non-native aquatic species have become established here in the Great Lakes since the

1800’s. The ballast water used on ships to maintain safe operations, is considered a major source of these introductions. The effects are not trivial. The zebra mussel alone was estimated to have

cost over $400—$750 million in costs between 1989 and 2000.

Today I will summarize the progress made in ballast water management, and discuss issues that pose challenges for the Federal

Government’s program for preventing the introduction of invasive

species into U.S. waters from ships’ ballast water.

In summary, the Federal Government has been taking numerous

steps to address the introduction of potentially invasive species

from ballast water in ships for well over a decade. In 1990, in response to the introduction of the zebra mussel, the Congress passed

the Nonindigenous Nuisance Aquatic Prevention and Control Act.

This act focused on preventing the introduction of organisms from

ballast water into the Great Lakes. In 1996, the National Invasive

Species Act re-authorized and amended the 1990 act, covering—exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:19 Jul 12, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24893.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
38

panding coverage of ballast water management to all of the Nation’s waters.

In response to these laws, the Coast Guard has developed a series of regulations that have called for both voluntarily and mandatory actions. The most important requirements include a call for

ships to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean, at least

200 nautical miles from the shore. The law also allows ships to retain their ballast on board or to treat it with some other method

than the exchange. However, as has been noted, no alternative

methods have been approved for use, meaning that exchange is the

current option for treating ballast water. As has been noted on the

international front, the United Nation’s International Maritime Organization has been working toward a global solution. In February

2004, the IMO adopted a convention on ballast water management.

But at the moment, only one country has ratified this convention.

Despite the steps that have been taken, U.S. waters are still vulnerable to invasive species for several reasons. First, many ships

with potentially harmful organisms in their ballast tanks are exempt from or are not covered by the mandatory regulations calling

for ballast water exchange.

One category of ships not covered by the ballast water exchange

requirement, are those without pumpable ballast on board, the socalled NOBOBs that have been mentioned today. These ships are

of a particular concern for the Great Lakes, for about 80 percent

of the ships that are entering from outside the 200 nautical mile

zone fall into this category.

A second category of ships not covered by the requirement is

those that do not travel more than 200 nautical miles from shore,

such as ships traveling from one U.S. port to another, whether they

be Georgia or Massachusetts, and those coming from foreign waters

such as Central or South America.

Second, despite being authorized to do so, the Coast Guard has

not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by

ships that are unable to conduct ballast water exchanges.

Third, there are numerous concerns that ballast water exchange

is not always effective at removing or killing potentially invasive

species. Specifically, ballast pumps are not always able to remove

all of the original water, sediment or associated organisms. In addition, elevated levels of salinity do not necessarily kill all forms of

potentially invasive organisms.

Technologies are being developed that show some progress in

providing more effective removal of potentially invasive species.

Treatment options include water filtration systems, ultraviolet radiation, chlorine, heat, or ozone. However, the development of such

technology is a daunting task, given the many operational constraints under which these technologies must operate on board

ships.

The primary impediment to developing these technologies, however, is the lack of a discharge standard for how clean the ballast

water must be. This standard would help developers determine

how effective their technologies need to be. The Coast Guard has

been working on the discharge standard for several years, but has

not committed to an issuance date.

39

In conclusion, without this standard, or the development of additional technology, ballast water exchange is still the only available

treatment method for reducing the amount of potentially invasive

species in ships’ ballast water. Thus, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to invasive species carried through this mechanism.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be

pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the subcommittee may have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness is Commander Kathleen Moore.

On June 1, 2003, Commander Moore was appointed Chief of the

Environmental Standards Division for the U.S. Coast Guard, which

develops policy and regulations concerning marine environmental

protection, both in the United States and as well as abroad. She

also serves as a Program Manager for the Coast Guard’s Aquatic

Nuisance Species Program.

She obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master’s of Science degree in Engineering Management from the University of Maryland, as well as a Masters in

Maritime—or, Marine Affairs from the University of Rhode Island.

She left the aerospace industry to join the Coast Guard in 1990,

and has since then completed staff tours at the Marine Safety Center and field tours in California and Puerto Rico.

We certainly look forward to your testimony at this time, Commander.

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER KATHLEEN MOORE, CHIEF,

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DIVISION, U.S. COAST GUARD

Commander MOORE. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee.

I am Kathy Moore, Chief of the Environmental Standards Division at Coast Guard Headquarters, and a manager of the Coast

Guard’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Ballast Water Management Program. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to provide the

Coast Guard’s views on ballast water management.

And I would like to also begin by saying thank you very much

for your very kind words. There are over 4,000 Coast Guard personnel, both in and out of uniform, that are working very diligently

with great determination and endurance responding to the tragedy

in the gulf.

The administration shares this committee’s concerns with the

significant environmental and economic damage that has been

caused by aquatic invasive species, and recognizes that ballast

water discharge is one of the important pathways for such invasions.

The Coast Guard is a leader in protecting America’s waterways

and maritime environment, and we take great pride in providing

valuable services that preserve and protect our Nation’s waters,

making them cleaner, safer, and more secure. The Coast Guard remains committed to providing a leadership role on ballast water

management, both domestically and internationally, and working

diligently with all stakeholders to protect U.S. waters from the introduction of aquatic invasive species.

We recognize the practice of ballast water exchange is not the

ideal prevention method to remove the risk of ANS introductions

into ballast water. And in early 2001, through a series of domestic

and international workshops, concluded that a ballast water discharge standard should address all organisms at all life stages,

that it be concentration-based, it needs to be set at values that are

scientifically sound, environmentally protective, and enforceable.

These criteria formed our approach in international negotiations at

the International Maritime Organization, as well as our rulemaking, to develop a ballast water discharge standard.

62

We are currently completing an Environmental Impact Statement that analyzes the environmental impact of several alternative

water discharge standards, as well as the cost-benefit analysis for

implementing the rulemaking.

In February 2004, it’s already been said the Coast Guard lead an

interagency U.S. delegation to the IMO diplomatic conference on

Ballast Water Management for Ships. The conference adopted the

International Convention for the Control and Management of

Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments, which is a significant step forward in the international effort to combat aquatic invasive species

introduced through ships’ ballast water. The U.S. delegation played

a major role in developing the convention’s basic structure and insuring that a number of key objectives were included in this new

treaty.

One significant provision of the convention calls for ships to meet

a ballast water discharge standard according to a schedule of fixed

dates, beginning with certain ships constructed in 2009. These

fixed dates serve as a signal both to the shipping industry and

emerging ballast water treatment industry of the need for investment, plans, and ballast water treatment equipment inventory to

meet the ballast water management requirements.

Another key feature of the implementation schedule, is the phasing out of the ballast water exchange, which means most ballast

water discharges will eventually have to meet a maximum concentration discharge standard. The standard adopted by IMO, as I

said, is concentration-based, which was desired by the United

States because the concentration approach provides for a more effective monitoring of compliance and a more uniform approach to

the performance and protective level of reduction/risk across all

vessels. The standard was adopted and, when met by all vessels,

will likely reduce the discharges of potentially aquatic invasive species via ballast water, compared to the ballast practices of midocean ballast water exchange.

An issue of relevance specifically to our Great Lakes, is the need

for management strategies for the vessels that enter the Great

Lakes with no ballast on board, referred to as NOBOB vessels. In

1993, ballast water management regulations were promulgated for

entry into the Great Lakes addressing ballast water discharge by

its vessels with full ballast tanks. These regulations remain the

most stringent in the world for restricting the discharge of

unmanaged ballast water. However, many vessels enter the Great

Lakes system fully loaded with cargo, having discharged their ballast water to carry cargo. Only unpumpable residual water and

sediment remain in these ballast tanks, and their residuals provide

the opportunity for reduction—introduction of aquatic invasive species as their vessels conduct cargo operations, and take on and discharge ballast water in our Great Lakes.

This issue was the main focus of the NOBOB project performed

by NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab and its research partners. The project was begun in 2000, with funding by

the Coast Guard, NOAA, and EPA. And the project results suggested the discharges of residual waters that are fresh or brackish,

that is low salinity, have the highest risk of introducing aquatic

invasive species into our Great Lakes.

63

The Coast Guard has considered short-term and long-term strategies to address this risk, and in August 2005 announced its new

policy implementing best management practices. The policy encourages vessels that may eventually enter our Great Lakes to conduct

mid-ocean ballast water exchange, exchanging ballast on voyages

whenever possible. And if such ballast water exchange is not possible, to flush those empty tanks with the ocean ballast water to

reduce the concentration of organisms through discharge and salinity shock. The consistent application of these practices should result in the elimination of residual water in the ballast tanks, and

significantly reduce the risk of these residuals providing the opportunity for aquatic invasive species introductions.

The Coast Guard will be sampling vessels entering the Great

Lakes to test the salinity of these residuals and to assess the application rate of these practices. In addition, there is work currently

underway to assess the effectiveness of increasing salinity on fresh

water organisms commonly found in ballast tank residual water.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the

Coast Guard’s Ballast Water Management Program. The Coast

Guard looks forward to working with Congress. It will continue our

ongoing efforts to implement an effective ballast management

water regime. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Commander. We appreciate your comments.

[The prepared statement of Commander Moore follows:]

64

65

66

67

Mrs. MILLER. And our final witness to make an opening remark,

is Doctor Stephen Brandt. Doctor Brandt serves as the director of

the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, which is the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s leading institution for aquatic invasive species research. He received a Ph.D in

oceanography and limnology, with a Ph.D minor in statistical analyses and experimental design from the University of Wisconsin.

He’s been involved in research on the biology of the Great Lakes

region for almost 30 years, and has created the NOAA National

Center for Invasive Species Research. He’s also been the chief scientist on over 80 research cruises, spent over 700 days at sea, published over 70 papers, and given over 200 scientific presentations.

So we certainly welcome you, Doctor, and look forward to your

testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BRANDT, DIRECTOR, NOAA GREAT

LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Mr. BRANDT. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, and

members of the subcommittee.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about NOAA’s research on

the invasive species in the Great Lakes, particularly regarding no

ballast on board or NOBOB vessels, ballast water treatment technology, and Federal coordination.

About 180 nonindigenous species are already established in the

Great Lakes. This is a serious issue. As the gateway to America’s

heartland, the Great Lakes also provide a pathway for invasive

species to spread throughout the United States, as zebra mussels

have done since their first appearance in the nearby Lake St. Clair.

This invasion led directly to the passage of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

NOAA’s primary role in the development of ballast water management regulations, is to provide the research and scientific information to make sound policies and to develop preventive measures

and treatments that are effective.

The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory [GLERL],

is NOAA’s leading institution for aquatic invasive research. It also

houses the NOAA national center for research on invasive species,

to insure that NOAA’s research is coordinated across regions where

it has a broad range of disciplines and strong partnerships with

over 150 institutions which insures that NOAA meets its legislative

mandate to conduct invasive species research, all of which falls

within the priority set by the ANS task force and the National

Management Plan.

As heard, commercial vessel ballast tanks are, by far, the most

significant means for moving aquatic species around the globe. Ballast water exchange is the only approved management method.

However, only a few studies on a few organisms on a few vessels

have examined the effectiveness of open ocean ballast exchange.

And results vary widely from 35 to 95 percent effectiveness. The

lack of detailed assessments of this process, is a fundamental gap

in comparing the value of ballast water exchange to alternative

strategies.

The overall ballast water issue is complicated by the architecture

of the ballast tank, which differs from vessel to vessel. Tanks are

68

often honeycombed and not designed for easy access for thorough

flushing. Reliable and appropriate treatment of ballast water is

still in development.

In 1996, Congress set up the ballast water management demonstration program to develop new management technologies. This

competitive grants program was administered by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and NOAA, with the Maritime Administration providing testing platforms. To date we have sponsored 54 projects on

8 of the 9 technologies that the National Research Council listed

as having potential application. Among these are filtration, thermos treatment, bioscience and others. Additionally no sea grant

program has sponsored 23 ballast-related projects. Although several technologies hold promise, none of them were fully tested at

full-scale operational conditions.

Invasions have continued since ballast exchange began. Recent

data show that 90 percent of the foreign vessels entering the Great

Lakes are NOBOB, or declaring no ballast on board. However,

some of the water and sediment remains in ballast tanks even after

complete pump out. These vessels are not covered by ballast water

exchange regulations. Water that is eventually taken on to main

trim can mix with these residuals and be discharged later. The

magnitude of such risks for invasion is not clear.

NOAA, through GLERL, is conducting the first ever research on

NOBOBs, and just completed a large program to characterize the

biota found in NOBOB vessels, to assess its sediment accumulation

versus ballast management practices, and to evaluate the effectiveness of mid-ocean exchange.

In the 42 NOBOB vessels surveyed, water and sediment residuals contained in the first group of live biota, including dozens of

noninvasive species not yet recorded in the Great Lakes. And some

of those were in resting stages, which are extremely resistant to

adverse conditions. Detailed reports are available in an extensive

report published in May.

Other major conclusions were simply: NOBOB vessels are effective for nonindigenous species; lowering the risk of NOBOB-related

invasive species can be accomplished with diligent application of

good management practices, and perhaps salt water flushing and

ballast water exchange itself isn’t perfect.

In many ways, the recent progress we have seen, is the result

of a virtually unprecedented degree of cooperation by a number of

different Federal agencies, universities, and the private sector. This

cooperation’s been fostered by the interagency Aquatic Nuisance

Species Task Force, chaired by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife

Service, in addition to the National Invasive Species Council, which

also helps with coordinating actions and policy more broadly across

13 Federal departments and agencies.

Another recent example of coordination occurred when the 11

agency regional working group established by the President’s Great

Lakes Executive order developed a rapid response and coordinated

a sampling program in response to the discovery of a snake head

fish off Chicago, that within days confirmed that this was an isolated case. Indeed, the NOBOB investigation itself that we talked

about, is another good example of collaboration between NOAA, the

69

Great Lakes Protection Fund, Coast Guard and EPA, universities,

and very importantly, the shipping community.

In summary, we are optimistic that ongoing research and collaboration will lead to a number of promising technologies in the future. This concludes my testimony, and I’ll be happy to respond to

any questions that you might have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Mrs. MILLER. Again, we appreciate you all being here. I’m sure

we have plenty of questions for all of you. I might start with Attorney General Mike Cox, if I could.

I know that you’ve been following this very closely, and you’ve

certainly been a leader in our State, and from a legal standpoint

as well in working with the other attorney generals that have concerns in their States as well. Is there any legal authority that the

State of Michigan would have, perhaps the DEQ or what have you,

to actually board a ship out in the Great Lakes to see if they’re in

compliance with our State statute?

Mr. COX. Well, Chairman Miller, the recently passed bill, now

statute, will allow our Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality to board and to permit ships that travel in the Great

Lakes. You know, without a doubt, once that starts happening, our

statute will be challenged by the shipping industry saying that

we’re violating their interstate commerce laws. We are confident

we can defend that statute, and we are working with a number of

other States to come up with model statutes—and furthermore,

under the—under this Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, we

worked—our Department of Environmental Quality worked with

the EPA already, and has delegated authority. But that being said,

and I don’t want to be redundant, but there really is a need here

first and foremost for Congress to get the EPA to act, OK, for longterm, and in the interim, the Coast Guard.

And it’s kind of interesting. I looked at some prior GAO reports

or testimony from the U.S. Senate by Doctor Nazzaro’s predecessor.

And in 2003, it was estimated 70 percent of the ships in the Great

Lakes were NOBOBs. Doctor Nazzaro told us it was 80 percent,

and then Doctor Brandt told us it was 90 percent, which if anything seems to indicate an increasing vulnerability by the Great

Lakes to NOBOB, for the problem of NOBOBs and the need for the

Coast Guard to do something now.

The GAO report back in 2003 also pointed out the real problem

as to why I and other attorneys generals had to get involved. The

Federal efforts don’t seem to have clear goals, and there’s no way

of measuring that they’re getting anywhere. You know, the EPA

promulgating rules could change all of that, or the Congress forcing

the EPA to do that could change all of that.

The result would be, Michigan wouldn’t have to worry about this

sort of problem. Indiana wouldn’t have to worry about this sort of

problem; Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin. And—because rightfully we

have eight States in our union that border the Great Lakes.

And this rightfully should be addressed first and foremost by the

EPA. And unfortunately it’s been forced upon the Coast Guard by

default. You know, the Coast Guard ought to—they’re a uniform

service, we ought to be allowing to free them up to protect our

homeland as they’re—which is their primary mission.

So a roundabout answer is yes, we have the means right now.

They’re going to be challenged in Federal Court, I expect. The best

long-term solution is the answer that your committee and the EPA

can provide.

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that. You know, during the last Congress actually, and this would go to your consternation about

whether or not the EPA should take the lead role or perhaps the

84

process should remain with the U.S. Coast Guard, but during the

last Congress, I had introduced legislation in which we would have

required that ocean vessels coming into the Great Lakes system

would have to have at least a 95 percent discharge of their ballast

water before they left the Eisenhower Lock in the St. Lawrence

Seaway there. And it would require that the Coast Guard would do

the inspections. I’ve not re-introduced that legislation. My hope is

at the end of this hearing, I’ll have enough information to fine-tune

that. But we held off on that at this time, because of waiting for

the Coast Guard to issue their standards. And so, I’m still not certain whether it really rests with the EPA or the Coast Guard.

There has to be some triggering mechanism, somebody to actually

enforce this. And that would seem logical to me to have the Coast

Guard to be the one to enforce whatever Federal legislation we

might have. Certainly you don’t have the ability to do that with

every ship, nor do I think that you’d want to do that, but certainly

on a random basis, I think, if we were to get to standards there.

I might ask the Attorney General Cox again, what is your observation of the kind of response, how yourself and your other colleagues have gotten from the Federal agencies that are in the

bull’s-eye of your lawsuit?

Mr. COX. Well, we won out in the District Court out in California, Federal District Court out in California. The EPA is going to

dig in their heels, and that isn’t the end of the battle by any

means. And we’re going to have to pursue this.

And quite frankly, I myself, philosophically as a lawyer, feel uncomfortable having to sue a Federal body to perform its federally

mandated role. But in large part it’s become a matter of self-defense for States along the Great Lakes. And we’ve unfortunately

had to go the route of, you know, going to the courts. And the EPA

is digging in, and they’re not changing in the short run. Hopefully

your hearings will provide a little persuasion.

Mrs. MILLER. Madam Moore, you are in the hot seat today, but

if I could address that question to you? When do you think the

Coast Guard would be effective to issuing a discharge standard?

Perhaps you could enlighten us on that.

Commander MOORE. September 2003, we issued a notice announcing our intent to publish an Environmental Impact Statement. That was the second step that we had taken in the rulemaking development process for the discharge standard rule. We

had done it with advance notice of proposed rulemaking just prior

to that, to which we have received 40 comments to the docket.

We are currently receiving chapters of that EIS and reviewing

them. We’re having the work done outside the Coast Guard at this

point. We are very much expecting in the next several months, few

months, to be able to issue the Environmental Impact Statement.

That Environmental Impact Statement, as you know, is a NEPA,

National Environmental Policy Act requirement to support—it’s

one of the supporting documents required for Federal rulemaking.

A NEPA document can be a number of different levels, depending

on the environmental impacts of the rule itself. And the environmental impacts of the ballast water discharge standard could be so

significant, that the full, long analysis called the Environmental

85

Impact Statement is the work required under this rule. We are

completing that.

We are also currently completing a cost-benefit analysis and regulatory analysis that are also required documents to support the

rule. As well, we are working with our Federal agency partners,

EPA, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife, in making sure that our science is

defensible, it’s valid, it’s excellent, and it’s correct before we issue

this discharge standard.

As well, we’re working with the stakeholders in terms of trying

to get a handle on what the cost of this rulemaking would be on

the United States, and making sure that we have the adequate

benefits achieved by setting a particular discharge standard at a

level to offset the cost of the ruling. I guess the next—the most

near term time line or milestone that we’re going to see, is the publishing of the Draft Problematic Environmental Impact Statement.

And that’s yet some several months away.

Mrs. MILLER. The short answer would be, then, that perhaps in

18 months, 2 years? And once it is—you do have the standard, how

long would it actually take to implement such a thing? Do you have

any idea there.

Commander MOORE. Once this standard is established, it will

come out essentially two times. It will come out as a proposed rule,

notice of proposed rulemaking, and that standard then would be

published out for the first time. The environmental process will

give the results of the analysis of definite alternatives.

Once the standard is announced and the rule itself, we’ll also

have an implementation schedule. In other words, what vessels it

will apply to on what scheduling. That implementation schedule

will tell vessels then when they can expect to have approvable

equipment installed on board that would be able to discharge to

meet that standard.

It’s important to know that the discharge standard serves two

roles, and they’re very different, and they’re very important.

The ballast water discharge standard’s first role is to help the

Coast Guard evaluate the performance of ballast water treatment

technologies. Right now, under the NISA/NANPCA language, a system, in order to be approved by the Coast Guard, has to be as effective as ballast water exchange in reducing the risk of aquatic nuisance species introduction. And as we’ve already heard, ballast

water exchange has a range of effectiveness.

One of the reasons why the Coast Guard made a decision to

move toward the ballast water discharge standard, was to lock in

that performance standard for ballast water treatment systems to

be able to meet.

The other role that the ballast water discharge standard will

have, though, and one great benefit that it has in terms of the regulatory issue, is it gives us an ability to determine that the discharge from the system on the vessel is compliant through the life

of the vessel. So that we know once installed approved equipment

is on board, it is also continuing to function as it’s designed. And

that dual role of the discharge standard is a very important element of having a discharge standard, and not having the systems

that are approved separate from having a discharge standard.

86

Mrs. MILLER. Commander, you spoke, you mentioned several

times that the concentration approach is the preferred approach.

Could you explain a little bit what is meant by that term concentration approach.

Commander MOORE. Certainly. The way the concentration approach works essentially, is a family of organisms. Typically we’re

looking at families established certainly by a time—I’m sorry, by a

size range. In the international, that size range is greater than 50

microns, organisms greater than 50 microns. That’s technically

zoaplank, and all the way up to fish. And then organisms smaller

than 50 microns but greater than 10 microns, that is the organisms

that tend to fall in the bicrondic category. And then, finally, there’s

a third category that are the microbes or bacteria kinds of organisms, and those are also in a concentration-based standard.

So that the way the standard would work, is that per volume of

ballast water discharged, only a—no more than a maximum number of organisms—or, less than a max number of organisms would

be permitted in that volume of discharge. And so that’s a samplable

quantity in a laboratory setup under an approving system, and

then it is also a sample of water quality.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Representative Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, Commander, I want to say thank you for your service

to our country. It is deeply appreciated. I have a great relationship

with my Coast Guard commander in the port of Boston.

I notice that yourself, and actually Ms. Nazzaro, point to this

convention, this International Maritime Organization Convention.

And I’m just concerned. I know the situation that we have right

now in the Great Lakes and other coastal areas. I know the

amount of encroachment we’ve had with invasive species. And I’m

looking here at, for instance, the amount of time it’s taken for us

to develop the standard, and we’re not there yet. It began in 2001,

and we still have I don’t know how long to go. But I’m just seeing

a very quick encroachment and the possibility of irreversible damage to the Great Lakes, and yet this bureaucratic process just goes

very, very slow or on different time lines. And it concerns me greatly.

And then I see here that, first of all, the conference adopted the

International Convention which it calls upon, it calls upon shippers, shipping companies, vessels to adopt certain standards. Is

that—when you say calls upon, and I notice yourself and Ms.

Nazzaro used the exact same sentence, is this mandatory?

Commander MOORE. Yes, sir, the convention is mandatory.

Mr. LYNCH. The convention is mandatory.

Commander MOORE. The convention is mandatory for parties. In

other words, if a country ratifies, and then sufficient countries with

sufficient shipping gross tonnage ratify the convention, then that

treaty then enters into force, the parties are bound by the mandatory requirements of the convention, yes.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Well, that’s encouraging. And the other thing

that troubled me was, it talked about calling on ships to meet a

ballast water discharge standard according to a schedule of fixed

dates, beginning with ships constructed in 2009.

87

Commander MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LYNCH. Do you see the problem with that? If we don’t apply

the standard until—or, if we end up with a situation where ships

are not under the burden of this regulation unless they’re constructed in 2009, and if the average life of one of these vessels is

30 or 40 years, then even out in 2030, 2040, we have a very small

percentage of the vessels that are going to be subject to this rule,

and the rest are out from underneath the protection that you and

I and the rest of us are trying to provide.

Commander MOORE. Yes, sir. The schedule of fixed dates begins

with vessels newly constructed in 2009. But the existing vessels

that you are concerned with, begin to come under the coverage of

that standard beginning in 2012, and then on until all vessels are

under the standard by 2016.

And the reason for that, sir, is the quantity and number of vessels, just shear number of vessels that we have to install equipment, and the challenges faced by existing vessels retrofitting

equipment into confined areas in their engine rooms, say, that and

overcoming the challenges of retrofitting significant equipment on

existing vessels. That’s why the use of existing vessels have a

longer time line with which to be able to design, purchase and install this equipment.

Mr. LYNCH. I understand.

Commander MOORE. Existing vessels are covered.

Mr. LYNCH. So, Commander, what you’re saying, is that by putting this out there, the manufacturers, at least the ships and the

ballast systems themselves, they’ll be influenced by this regulation,

and so they’ll modify them in a way that they won’t be the honeycomb design that they are now, which is very tough to flush and

very tough to clean out, and that are prone to carrying sediment;

they’ll be influenced so that we’ll be able to adapt the new technology to those vessels.

Commander MOORE. Sir, what we’re seeing, are a number of adaptations on several different levels. First, I think in terms of ballast water treatment systems under development, ballast water

treatment systems, many of them, if not most of them, have either

a filtration or separation component to them so that the accumulation of sediment is going to be dramatically reduced as the installation of these systems proceeds.

Many of the systems are actually an in-line system. In other

words, they’re going to be dealing with the organisms in the ballast

water while they are being pumped aboard or overboard of the vessel. So the actual need to modify the tank structure, which would

be very expensive in these vessels, is not going to be needed. The

honeycomb structure of the ballast tanks, the advantage to that is

that it allows for smoother cargo spaces and the efficient loading

and offloading of cargo. So having the structure within the ballast

tanks, is actually a good thing. It’s tough for ballast water exchange effectiveness, but if we are able to treat the ballast water

before it gets into the tank, then that honeycomb structure no

longer becomes an impediment.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Very good. And the question is generally for all

four panelists. And I do appreciate, as the other Members do, your

appearance here. Are there technologies that you see in grappling

88

with this problem? Do you see some technologies that offer greater

promise than others?

Ms. NAZZARO. Yes.

Commander MOORE. Yes, sir. I’ll just go first. We are seeing a

tremendous growth in the development of novel technologies. I

think we’re seeing a great deal of input from water treatment industries that have typically performed outstanding work on land

trying to adapt themselves to the maritime environment. Of course

a ship environment is very difficult. But you’re seeing filtration

technologies, the adaption of ultraviolet light for the disinfection;

you’re seeing chemical oxidizing and non-oxidizing biocides being

used. There’s a number of non-chemical biocide type treatments,

where either the oxygen is removed from the water, or some other

water chemistry changes are being effected on the water so that it

does not—no longer supports those organisms. As we heard Doctor

Brandt testify, there are a number of organisms that are very

tough to kill. And we are exploring what are those response relationships between some of these treatment systems and the organisms themselves. So there’s still a great deal of developing work.

And the industry is certainly in its development stage. There are

a number of treatment systems that are showing promise, have

been installed on ships, are being actively, very thoroughly tested

right now.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Thank you.

And if I could, Mr. Brandt, I know that you mentioned in your

testimony there are various studies out there in terms of even the

efficacies of using this—what do they refer to it, swish and spit,

where they bring in the salt water and get the loose—the residual

water in the ballast tank.

Are you suggesting there that there should be more studies done

around that, that aspect of this?

Mr. BRANDT. Yeah. I think that what we’ve seen by interviewing

the shippers, is that some of those ships that do use that swish and

spit, which particularly if they bring water in shortly after they’ve

had sediment brought on board, they were in a turbid area taking

on ballast water. If they can rinse that out right away before that

sediment becomes hard, those kind of ballast water management

strategies can be very effective at reducing the amount of sediment.

There’s the similar sort of an argument could be made for taking

on salt water and swishing it around, and having salt water overlying the sediment rather than the fresh wash. I think those are

techniques that can be applied right away and could be effective.

One of the things, though, that we’ve noticed, that some of these

animals are very hardy. Their resting eggs can withstand no oxygen in water, they can go through a fish’s digestive tract. They can

live for decades. And once they get back into the water, they can

resurface and grow. And those animals are hard to kill.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Thank you.

And last, Attorney General Cox, I notice in your testimony you

were fairly critical, deservedly I believe, of Senate bill 363, that

would prohibit the State of Michigan which came up with a very

innovative way to categorize this problem, this pollution——

Mr. COX. Right.

89

Mr. LYNCH [continuing]. And to get at it through the EPA. A

very—I think it’s instructive, and I’m going to bring it to the attention of my folks in Massachusetts.

In terms—and it also, 363, at least the plain reading of it, would

prevent the EPA from regulating ballast water discharges under

the Clean Water Act.

Mr. COX. Right.

Mr. LYNCH. It’s the same preemption argument. What about the

idea that if the Coast Guard comes up with its standard and Michigan wanted to do more, wanted to do more than what the standard

might require? As the chief law enforcement officer for the State

of Michigan, what is it your opinion that—what would that do to

your wishes to be more protective of the Great Lakes?

Mr. COX. Well, Congressman, I think part of my opposition to the

Senate bill 330—or excuse me, 363 not allowing the States to have

any role, is the part of that same bill that in essence says don’t

apply the Clean Water Act, and don’t do a number of the things

we need to rectify the situation right now. And my opposition,

based upon not allowing the States some role, you know, might

completely disappear if we could get the EPA to do what it should

have been doing all along. I mean, it’s a very practical political

matter.

This is a problem I think we, at the States, would rather not

even have to worry about. It’s only because it’s dropped at our

doorstep and we aren’t getting the sort of Federal response that is

needed, that we argue for a role for States.

You know, I understand there’s—you know, it’s a very complicated problem. But as I look at the time line here, you know, in

1990 with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention Control

Act, 1999 President Clinton’s EO, 2001 the task force finally starts

up. And maybe in 2012 there might be some relief on existing ships

with regard to NOBOB. So that’s 22 years that the Great Lakes

are taking it on the chin maybe waiting for some Federal action.

And again, that’s why us States have to—why we’re forcing ourselves up to the table.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Thank you. I yield back.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Representative Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.

And, Commander, let me compliment you and the Coast Guard

for the job that you’re doing on the gulf coast too, but I would like

to ask you a couple of questions.

I notice that there are three different ways, I guess, that—or procedures on exchanging this ballast water. One says prior to discharging ballast water in U.S. waters, perform a complete ballast

water exchange, and in an area no less than 200 nautical miles

from any shore, retain ballast water on board the vessel. Or prior

to the vessel entering U.S. waters, using an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water management that has been

approved by the Coast Guard.

If these ships don’t do that, it says there’s a fine levied for

$27,500 per day that this ship has not performed one of these. And

I think the figure’s been given that there was about a 90 percent

compliance rate.

90

How do you know that?

Commander MOORE. Sir, we get on board every ship carrying

ballast water and entering into the Great Lakes. And we evaluate

a random sample of the tanks on board to insure that the salinity

in those tanks reflects the salinity representative of mid-ocean

water versus the salinity representative of coastal brackish or fresh

water.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So you actually board the ships.

Commander MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Have you had to issue any fines?

Commander MOORE. No, sir. There’s a practical collision with actually ending up issuing a fine for a vessel that has not completed

an exchange. We have a reporting requirement that before they

enter the system, we have a report from them on what the vessel

actually did. If they for some reason have a tank that they have

not completed an exchange on, what they will do is then they will

say that they have no intention to discharge the contents of that

tank. One of the advantages that we have, is the ability then to

give them an order that says that they cannot discharge the contents of that tank and then determine on their exit by both the

quantity of ballast water in that tank and again measuring the salinity in that tank, to determine that it’s not say completely fresh

Great Lakes ballast water; that they have in fact not discharged

the ballast water into the Great Lakes. So by virtue of the system

that’s set up in terms of reporting, sampling and enforcement, we

haven’t had an opportunity, if you will, to actually exert a fine in

the Great Lakes system.

There are new regs in place obviously nationwide. There have

been some fines and tickets associated with compliance around the

country. But the Great Lakes is a unique kind of a system with an

entry into the system. And we’ve been—had no fines within the

Great Lakes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So what you’re basically telling us, is that

you feel like the Coast Guard regulations right now are 90 percent

successful, and that all of the problems that are happening in the

Great Lakes is coming from that 10 percent that are not compliant.

Commander MOORE. It’s interesting to think about the influx of

ballast water into the Great Lakes, but that is really only part of

the contribution of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes. In

terms of shipping, vessels also have some fouling associated with

shipping, and so there might be other places on the ship that organisms completely unrelated to ballast water may be carried into

the system. And there are also other sources of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes completely separate from Great Lakes

shipping. So I don’t think that you can actually ascribe the increased rate of invasions completely to ballast water. While there

is, as we’ve already discussed, the risk because some of these

unmanaged residuals turn out to be—some fraction of them turn

out to be fresh or brackish water and may have organisms that are

compatible with the Great Lakes, that’s probably not the sole

source of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So what would you say was the percentage

of these invasive non-natural species coming in that comes from

ballast water.

91

Commander MOORE. I have no way to make that assessment.

The only thing I can do, is reduce the risk or eliminate the risk

that ballast water is contributing noninvasive—or, nonindigenous

species into the Great Lakes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Attorney General Cox, you seem to be a

sportsman that enjoyed the outdoors. Are there any natural predators for the—what is it, the round oby or——

Mr. COX. The goby? No.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. The goby.

Mr. COX. No. The zebra mussel. Some folks think that there’s

some natural predatation evolving, but Doctor Brandt might have

a better idea than I do of that.

But I think that brings up a point that is very germane to this

issue about aquatic nuisance species. By and large, we don’t have

scientists arguing about whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.

This isn’t like global warming where people talk about, you know,

increased regulations of CO2, you know, whether global warming’s

related to that, or whether CO2’s that bad or not. By and large

that I know of, there’s no scientists who say these species are good

for us or good for the Great Lakes.

So I think it’s against that context, or I would hope it’s against

that context, that everyone approaches what the EPA and the

Coast Guard, or whatever part of the Federal Government engages

this problem, you know, how they approach their timelines.

It’s just, you know, this is—this is a problem that keeps dumping

itself into the Great Lakes. You know, 10 percent of the vessels not

being compliant. Congressman Miller knows better than I, but if

you drive 15 miles from here to Port Huron, and you can watch

within an hour, on any given hour you can watch tens if not hundreds of vessels go by, and you start to realize 10 percent matters;

8 percent matters.

So again, I’m getting back to your original question, I don’t believe there’s any natural predators. There’s some thought that

there might be, but again that’s probably Doctor Brandt would

know better than I.

Mr. BRANDT. I’d like to try and address that a little bit. The goby

actually and the zebra mussels came from the same region. In fact,

when the zebra mussel came here first, followed by the goby, the

goby came into a habitat where it had its natural food, which in

some sense is a zebra mussel. So what the goby has done, is they

also feed on other fish that compete with a number of the fish and

natural species. Yellow perch is one of those examples.

One thing to be remembered, though, is that eradication of these

species, except immediately after their appearance—but once

they’ve entered the Great Lakes and have become established,

eradication is almost impossible. We’ve had great success in trying—at great cost, in trying to control the sea lamprey. But we’ve

not eradicated any other species in the Great Lakes that has become fully established.

And I think what those folks that manage fisheries and that

are—the problem they face, is that the entire ecosystem is changing. Every time a new species comes in and takes over, the system

has changed. And they need to look at their regulations, the way

92

they manage the system in that way. And that’s a very difficult

thing to do.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Now, Doctor Brandt, one final question,

Madam Chairman. You mentioned the sea lamprey. I know that

they are treating that with a chemical or a spray I guess. Has

there been any research into any of these other species, such as the

zebra mussel or the goby.

Mr. BRANDT. There’s a lot of research to try and control them in

areas where they’re causing a lot of problems, like intake of

water—municipal water sources or power plants, and there’s ways

to control those. There’s means that can be used to reduce their attachment to these solid structures.

There’s a very interesting research in Australia that is looking

at genetic techniques that are trying to control the species once

they’ve become established. None that’s going on in the United

States at present.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, thank you for each one of you commenting, coming in and testifying today.

Ms. Chairman, that’s all the questions that I have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. And I want to thank all the panelists

for appearing today. And if any of the Members have any further

questions of them, you can certainly submit them, and then we’ll

have them respond and made a part of the congressional record

here for the subcommittee.

Again, as well, we want to thank you all for coming, and we’ll

take a brief recess while we impanel our next group of witnesses.

Thank you so much.

[Recess.]

Mrs. MILLER. All right. We’re going to restart our hearing here.

And once again, because the Government Reform Committee is

an oversight committee and has subpoena authority, we ask that

you please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

Our first witness today is Mr. Dennis Schornack. Mr. Schornack

was appointed to chair the U.S. Section of the International Joint

Commission by President George W. Bush, and he assumed the office on April 8, 2002. And during his tenure at the IJC, he has focused on the problem of aquatic invasive species, and he’s testified

on the subject both before the U.S. Congress and the Canadian

Parliament.

Mr. Schornack’s leadership of the IJC caps a 25 year career at

the top levels of the State government, including 11 years in senior

positions for Michigan Governor John Engler.

Most notably, he co-led the development of Annex 2001, which is

an agreement among the eight Great Lakes States and two Canadian provinces to manage Great Lakes water uses and diversions.

He earned his B.A., B.S. and Master’s degrees from Michigan

State University, as well as a Masters in public health from the

University of Michigan.

We appreciate you coming today, Mr. Schornack, and look forward to your testimony, sir.

93

STATEMENT OF DENNIS L. SCHORNACK, CHAIRMAN, U.S.

SECTION INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. SCHORNACK. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and members of

the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before

the subcommittee today.

And I particularly want to commend Chair Miller for convening

this session at a high school, because you’re exactly right, the key

to being a good steward of the Great Lakes, is a great education.

And what students learn today, will be reflected in healthier, better

managed, more sustainable lakes tomorrow.

I also commend you for your leadership on many critical issues

confronting the Great Lakes, from invasive species, to toxic spills,

to the erosion in the St. Clair River. You’ve been a staunch defender of the Great Lakes, and your work is greatly appreciated.

Like you, though, I’m increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of

progress to reduce the risk of invasion, and thereby protect the

Great Lakes from alien species. In my view, aquatic invasive species are the No. 1 threat to the biosecurity of the Great Lakes, and

it’s time for everyone who cares about the Great Lakes to stand up,

and speak out, and with one voice tell Washington and the Congress to do something and to do it now.

What is it that we should ask Congress to do? To me, it’s obvious

that congressional action and oversight are required to speed up

the process, to cut through the confusion of competing approaches,

and to set a clear, protective discharge standard, and to set clear

lines of authority and responsibility.

If we’ve learned one thing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it’s

that solving problems becomes exponentially harder when multiple

agencies are in charge or think they are in charge. The result: everybody and nobody is in charge. Conversely, seemingly intractable

problems can be successfully tackled when authority, resources and

responsibility are focused in one agency. And in the case of aquatic

invasive species, I believe that agency is and should remain the

U.S. Coast Guard.

Our goal of keeping the Great Lakes closed to invasion but open

to commerce, is being pursued along several regulatory pathways

at the international, national, and subnational levels. These treatybased administrative and legislative pathways have been described

in part in previous testimony.

And with each of these regulatory pathways, the key step is setting a ballast water discharge standard. Setting a successful standard requires the following basic elements, in my opinion: First and

foremost, the standard must be biologically protective of the Great

Lakes. In short, it has to work.

Second, it must be enforceable, meaning that the test to meet the

standard must be quick, it must be simple, and it must be without

ambiguity.

Third, it must be fairly applied to all ships capable of carrying

ballast water.

Fourth, it must be achievable either by technology, the use of an

environmentally benign biocide, or some management practice, or

a combination of these factors.

And last, but of no less importance, the standard must be coordinated with Canada to allow for maximum protection of the lakes

94

and the maximum opportunities for cooperative testing and efficiencies in enforcement. Ideally, the standard should be the same,

because invasive species recognize no boundaries.

These actions would position the United States as a world leader

in the protection of a world-class resource. However, the Great

Lakes are a shared resource. So to be effective and fully protective

of the lakes, these actions must be coordinated with Canada.

Frankly, I think this gives our two countries the perfect opportunity to examine their policies as part of the review of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement that was just about to commence

this January. A review process would allow the two parties to step

back from the day-to-day needs of management programs, to develop a harmonized, coordinated approach, based on a single standard. To me, if a new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

achieves a common strategy between our two countries on an

aquatic invasive species, it will be a resounding success.

Finally, the subcommittee should be also aware of other ways to

stop the discharge of untreated ballast water in the Great Lakes.

An example is the transshipment of goods from ocean vessels to

lakers prior to their entry into the Great Lakes. Goods that could

not be transshipped to vessels might be moved to trucks and railroad lines. In this regard, a recent study by Doctor John Taylor of

Grand Valley State University—I believe he’s in the audience

today—revealed that the estimated additional cost of this option

would be roughly $55 million per year, an amount that was far less

than the annual cost to water and power industries attributed to

invasive species.

Now, I mention this alternative, because this study sets a benchmark for the cost of any regulation this Congress or the Coast

Guard might adopt. If regulatory compliance costs are greater than

$55 million per year, then transportation modes for these cargos

may shift.

Congress and regulators must be aware of such impacts, so that

they can be fully informed and prepared to make the decisions

needed to protect both the economy and the ecology of the Great

Lakes.

Thank you again for the opportunity to express our views, and

I certainly look forward to answering your questions.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Schornack.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schornack follows:]

95

96

97

98

99

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness is Kathy Metcalf. She serves as

the director of Maritime Affairs for the Chamber of Shipping of

America, which is a national trade organization that represents

U.S. interests in the maritime industry. Its members are composed

of operators, owners and charters of tankers, chemical carriers,

containerships and bulk carriers that are either U.S. flagged or

have interests in the continued viability of the U.S. maritime industry.

She has sat in this position since 1997, and in her capacity represents maritime interests before Congress and Federal and State

agencies and in the international arena as well.

Prior to coming to the Chamber of Shipping, she served in various positions in the energy industry, including deck officer aboard

large ocean-going tankers, marine safety and environmental director, corporate regulatory and compliance manager, and State government affairs manager.

We appreciate you coming in today, Mrs. Metcalf, and we look

forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KATHY METCALF, DIRECTOR, MARITIME

AFFAIRS, CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF AMERICA

Ms. METCALF. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to

be back in high school. And at our age, it is always a good feel.

While I’m presenting my testimony today on behalf of my organization, I think I want to make the point that we are but one of a

number of organizations that are members of an informal shipping

industry ballast water coalition. And my colleague to my left, Mr.

Weakley, as well as other organizations, have put that organization

together, informal as it may be, well over 3 years ago, when we

sensed the need for the industry, the entire industry, not just this

trade association or another, to really get off the line, off the mark

if you will, and move forward on this issue.

Now, while I have not cleared this testimony through them, I

will ask the recognition of the Chair, that attached to my written

testimony is coalition testimony I presented on June 15th to the

Senate Commerce Committee, which serves as really the foundation of my testimony today.

It is absolutely reasonable that this hearing be held here, because unfortunately, this area was the first documented—one of

the first documented victims of invasive species in the United

States. And because of that, I think there’s an appreciation in this

region, there’s an absolutely critical need for a strong national program—actually, a strong international program. But given the

variations and the speed of various international initiatives, it certainly is understandable in the part of the United States and some

of the regions within the United States, that a national program

at the very least be established.

It’s important that it be at least a national program, because it

needs to regulate an international business. The colleague to my

right has mentioned Canada and the United States. But the bottom

line is that some of these critters, if you will, have the ability to

float in currents and whatnot over long, extended periods. And it’s

important that we have an international system because the critter

100

in New Mexico that’s not controlled may become our next invasive

species as well.

For 20 years, the industry’s been working on this internationally,

and at national levels as well as State agencies. And the basic industry position has four elements. One is, as I indicated, a mandatory national program.

A strong Federal program has been espoused by three State environmental agencies of which I have worked with this problem.

They didn’t want these strong Federal programs (sic), so the States

individually do not have to create the same thing perhaps with different results.

The second is a need, absolutely critical need for a quantitative

ballast water standard that’s based on concentration.

The third is we need to get stuff on the ships. What works great

in the laboratory but doesn’t work on a ship, is of no benefit to us

in the long-term.

And finally, understanding the delicacy of this terminology even

in Washington, but particularly at a field hearing, there is a need

for Federal preemption in this issue for a lot of reasons; not the

least of which is to promote the consistency in a national program

and, therefore, promote the compliance of vessels as they call on

U.S. ports.

I’m happy to say today that the IMO convention achieved all of

those but the preemption. Thank goodness they didn’t deal with

national preemption on a national treaty.

But I’m even happier to say today that Senate 363 does deal with

it. It does not shut States out from participating in the process of

creating a standard. It simply says that once the Federal Government has agreed on a standard with input from all State levels,

that it will become the national program.

Why should we preempt State initiatives? Well, the past argument, put quite simply, is the reason. Ships travel across boundaries. So do invasive species. Let’s control them the right way, and

in a way that’s predictable to not only business, but also to the environment, so we can do good right now, as soon as possible.

Treatment technologies, as indicated by previous witnesses,

there’s a lot of them. The one thing we can all agree on, is there

is no silver bullet that would provide the necessary efficacy on all

ships on all voyages in all water bodies. So there’s a need for the

development. And it is happening.

Once the IMO convention placed—put in place a quantitative

standard, it happened that the vendors and ship owners began to

work together. And I’m quite proud that three of our member companies actually are testing three separate technologies on three different types of ships in three different geographies, one of which

is the Great Lakes.

Finally, I would just say on the need for a quantitative standard

in any program, if we can visualize someone in a dark room shooting at a target that’s not there with their eyes closed, that’s what

the agencies, both State and Federal, the shipping industry, the environmental groups have had to deal with prior to the creation of

a numerical standard. We now have a target. The lights are beginning to come up in the room, and we’re beginning to focus in on

achieving that.

101

And finally, as far as the necessity for the Federal statute to be

the controlling statute for ballast water, the Attorney General from

Michigan indicated the suit. Well, we are also interveners in that

lawsuit on the other side. And we believe it’s important to create

a system of management for ballast water. We do not believe the

NPDS program was created nor intended to apply to sources that

move across jurisdictional boundaries.

The best example I can think of right now, would be if we suddenly decided that rather than create Federal automotive emission

standards, that every State would permit every vessel that went

through it, as opposed to a Federal standard by which we can all

rely.

So again I thank you. We are committed to working with the

Federal agencies and the Congress, and hopefully moving Senate

363 to a successful conclusion, and I’d be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness is James Weakley. Mr. Weakley

became the president of the Lakes Carriers’ Association on January

16, 2003. And in his capacity, he acts as the chief spokesman for

the U.S.-Flag Great Lakes carriers, representing the industry on a

variety of issues. He graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1984. And as an Engineering Officer, he traveled aboard

the Coast Guard Cutter MIDGETT.

In 1993, he entered the private sector, joining the Interlake

Steamship Co., where he served as personnel director and later as

operations manager. He was recalled to active duty following the

events of September 11th, and was thereafter awarded the Department of Transportation 9–11 Medal. He also has received several

other medals, and serves on the boards of numerous marine associations.

Mr. Weakley, we appreciate your service to our Nation, and we

appreciate your attendance here today, and look forward to your

testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT, LAKE

CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. WEAKLEY. Thank you, Ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Lake Carriers’ Association deeply appreciates the opportunity to

address what is undoubtedly the most important environmental

issue currently facing the Great Lakes, invasive species. The industry and the Federal Government must work together tirelessly to

find solution to this vexing problem, otherwise more nonindigenous

species will be introduced into the Great Lakes via ballast water

from ocean-going vessels.

Everyone involved in the Great Lakes shipping has an obligation

to keep the Great Lakes open to commerce but closed to exotics.

Lake Carriers’ Association has been a leader in the efforts to end

this invasion, and pledges to cooperate in the future in any way

possible.

Our members annually move as much as 125 million tons just

here on the Great Lakes. Iron for the steel production, coal for

power generation, and limestone for construction are our primary

commodities. The problem with aquatic invasive species must be

solved so that waterborne commerce on the Great Lakes can remain the safest and most efficient way to move raw materials that

drive the regions and our Nation’s economies.

However, as a starting point, we must recognize that U.S. flag

dry-bulk cargo vessels, commonly referred to as Lakers, operate exclusively within the Great Lakes and enclosed aquatic ecosystems.

Therefore, Lakers have never introduced an invasive species to the

Great Lakes. These invaders have been introduced via ballast

water from the ocean-going vessels or Salties. Nonetheless, Lake

Carriers’ Association is committed to finding ways to stop future

introductions.

In 1993, the Association became the first maritime organization

in North America to institute voluntarily practices to slow the

spread of invasives that have been introduced to the Great Lakes

by ocean-going vessels.

113

LCA pioneered research on filtration and treatment of ballast

water for possible application on Salties, and over time has developed additional ballast water management practices for its members to implement to lessen the spread of the established exotic

species.

We must further note that there are significant design and operational differences between the Salties and the Lakers. Therefore,

a system or a practice that is viable on an ocean-going vessel, may

not be effective on a Great Lakes dry-bulk cargo vessel. A Saltie

requires as much as 3 million gallons of ballast water when

emptied of cargo, and loads or discharges at a relatively slow

water. A Saltie can in fact be in port for days. The largest U.S.-

Flag Lakers load or discharge cargo in a matter of hours, taking

on as much as 15 million gallons of ballast. Simply put, a system

that can treat 3 million gallons of ballast over 1 or more days on

a Saltie, would be overwhelmed by the Laker’s flow rate of 80,000

gallons per minute.

Therefore, I must reiterate that the only way to stop introductions of invasive species, is to develop a system or operating procedures that will remove or block nonindigenous species from the ballast water of ocean-going vessels. Since LCA’s members do not operate ocean-going vessels, we defer to other operators to make specific recommendations for the new requirements for Salties.

However, the reality is that those nonindigenous species that

have established themselves in the Great Lakes, are going to migrate throughout the system over time. There are no natural barriers separating the Great Lakes. Therefore, whatever measures

are eventually required of Salties, would have little or no value on

Lakers. Again, Lakers confine their operations exclusively to the

enclosed aquatic ecosystem. Their ballast water contains only what

is already in the Great Lakes.

LCA members have voluntarily implemented ballast water management practices to slow the spread, but no shipboard system or

practice can eliminate exotics that have taken root in the Great

Lakes. As a draft of port, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

declares, ‘‘Once these invasions have been launched, they are irreversible.’’

The war against future introductions of nonindigenous species

will be won or lost in the ballast tanks of ocean-going vessels.

Thank you, Madam, and members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before you. I’ll be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weakly follows:]

114

115

116

117

118

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness is Jason Dinsmore. Mr. Dinsmore

serves as the resource policy assistant for the Michigan United

Conservation Clubs [MUCC]; which has represented the views of

millions of conservationists since 1937, with over 500 affiliated

clubs whose mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance Michigan’s

natural resources and our outdoor heritage.

He serves as the expert in wildlife issues at MUCC, has a B.S.

from Michigan State University in fisheries and wildlife. He’s also

pursuing his Masters in fisheries and wildlife, and has worked

managing wildlife for the Department of Natural Resources and

the Living Science Foundation.

He’s an active member of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust’s Scientific Advisory Team, as well as serving on several other State advisory boards.

We thank you for your presence here today, Mr. Dinsmore, and

look forward to your testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF JASON DINSMORE, POLICY SPECIALIST,

MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS

Mr. DINSMORE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of

the committee.

Just as a quick illustration of how important this topic is to us,

just yesterday I was reclining on a beach in Sutton’s Bay in northern Michigan, and I got called back a little early from the vacation

because no one else could cover the meeting here today. And it is

very important to us, and very important to me as well. And my

wife—it took a little convincing, but I made it here OK.

I guess I’ll move forward just in the name of time here. Michigan

United Conservation Clubs is a statewide conservation organization that has represented the views of millions of conservationists

since 1937. As you mentioned, MUCC has over 500 affiliate clubs,

with over 200,000 members, and 6,000 individual members, all

united to insure conservation of Michigan’s natural resources.

The members of MUCC, are people who understand the balance

between economy and ecology. It’s this understanding that makes

us conservationists. A conservationist believes in the wise use of resources. We see the benefits of taking from nature for man’s benefit

and enjoyment, but we also respect and care for our resources, understanding that we if we take all of it or use it wastefully today,

there will be nothing left for tomorrow or our next generations.

Michigan’s hunters and anglers have been paying to protect, conserve, and keep Michigan’s natural resources healthy and productive since the first hunting and fishing licenses were issued two

decades ago.

There are a lot of issues that greatly concern Michigan’s hunters

and anglers. And at the top of this list is aquatic invasive species,

or aquatic nuisance species depending on who you ask. Nothing’s

as frustrating as being told there’s nothing that can be done about

a problem that’s invaded your home and begun to destroy the very

resources you have been working your whole life to protect.

Surrounded by the Great Lakes, Michigan has ample opportunity

to see the changes brought about by aquatic invasive species. A

large chunk of Michigan’s economy depends on healthy fishery.

There are over 1 million anglers residing in Michigan, and over

119

353,000 people visit Michigan just to fish. These anglers contribute

over $830 million to Michigan’s economy when you add up the license fees, hotel rooms, fishing equipment, boat rentals and, purchases, food and drinks, gas and so on. Think of all the jobs these

services provide. And the very base of many of these expenditures

is a healthy Great Lakes fishery.

MUCC is grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and we

are even more grateful that Congressman Miller has called us here.

We have been waiting for someone to take a corrective approach at

the Federal level, and I’m glad to see Michigan’s own Congressman

taking on that role. This hearing is an example of the forward

thinking and motivated behavior that is necessary if we are going

to protect the Great Lakes from further invasion.

In addition to that, we would ask Congressman Miller to consider

the following suggestions: We need strong leadership in Congress

to seek out and collaborate with Canadian leaders and international people, as was mentioned before, on this issue, especially

in dealing with ballast water controls. Ultimately fixing the problem in the United States means nothing if the invasives can still

enter through Canada or other national means.

We would urge Congressman Miller to fill this critical and often

overlooked role, by supporting a reference from the U.S. Government to the International Joint Commission, asking them to address the needs for coordination and harmonization for invasive

species prevention and control.

Also, insure that the Coast Guard’s voluntarily best management

practices [BMP’s], program for NOBOBs becomes mandatory and

fully enforced as soon as possible.

We would also ask that you please take the lead in advancing

recommendations to the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative, including their recommendation that the government may not be able

to implement mandatory ballast standards/technology by 2011. We

need to have a backup plan in case this occurs. We would ask Congressman Miller to take on this role by calling for the study and

development for a transshipment study of the Great Lakes, which

would help keep out ocean-going ships and the invasives that carry

ballast water—they carry if ballast water technology fails to be feasible in a timely solution.

Development of transshipment study would be the first time this

type of innovative thinking would enter the political fray and

maybe a solution not only to preventing introduction of invasive

species but to a beleaguered economy. Can we translate the transfer of goods from ocean-going vessels into trains and lake carriers

into jobs and economic growth within the region? We believe so.

Finally, Congress and the administration failed to move in a

timely manner. We would ask that you help the other Great Lakes

States move forward with legislation as similar or stronger to that

which Michigan has done, to stop the spread of invasive species via

ballast water. We would also ask that you fight to protect the ability of the Great Lakes States to enact its own regulations, stronger

than those of the Federal Government, which may be lacking.

The problems and challenges caused by invasive species have increased over the years as the Great Lakes region takes its place

in this world’s ever expanding global economy. We are likely to see

120

more imports and exports from around the globe in the future, not

less. And the transport of these goods leads to the greater threat

of invasive species being imported along with lumber, textiles, and

other goods.

Michigan’s conservationists want to see a booming economy. We

want to see the Great Lakes prospering and thrive. They are the

backbone that support our way of life and our livelihoods. But in

order for the Great Lakes to thrive, we need to prevent the spread

of new invasive species.

I see my time is up, so I’ll end it there. Once again, any questions.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dinsmore follows:]

121

122

123

124

125

Mrs. MILLER. And our final distinguished panelist is Kurt

Brauer. He is with the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited. Mr.

Brauer currently serves as the Chair of the Natural Resources

Management and Conservation Advocacy Committee within that

organization. He is the past president of the Paul H. Young Chapter of Trout Unlimited in Troy, MI.

And the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited has 24 local chapters, and over 7,500 individual members. And there are over

140,000 members of Trout Unlimited across our great Nation.

Mr. Brauer, we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KURT BRAUER, CHAIR, NATURAL RESOURCES

COMMITTEE, MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF TROUT UNLIMITED

Mr. BRAUER. Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of myself

and our 140,000 members of Trout Unlimited nationwide.

I’d also point out that since Trout Unlimited was established in

the great State of Michigan in 1959, it has worked diligently to

conserve, protect, and restore native and naturalized populations of

trout and salmon and the waterbeds upon which these economically important and beautiful sport fish depend.

I always approach the topic of invasive species with some trepidation. This is because two of the four trout species that many of

our members pursue and attempt to conserve, are actually introduced species themselves. Those would be the brown trout and the

rainbow trout, which were introduced in Michigan at the end of the

19th century from Europe and the Pacific Northwest respectively,

in an effort by early conservation officials to establish sport fisheries in heavily degraded environments.

There are other known exotics have acclimated themselves to

and impacted our region. Infamous new residents such as the sea

lamprey, the zebra mussel, and the Asian Big Head Carp are far

but a few. Sometimes referred to as nuisance aquatic species, our

organization prefers a more descriptive term, biological pollutants,

as I think Attorney General Cox referred to them.

The aquatic ecosystems of our region are heavily impacted systems, which can and should be actively managed to achieve a variety of recreational, economic, and societal goals. And this is where

the challenge with biological pollutants comes in. Once in the system, they are virtually impossible to eradicate. Unlike with toxins

and non-living pollutants, once you control the source of those, you

achieve a cleanup, and they don’t reproduce themselves. With these

living biological pollutants, even if you clean up 95 percent of them,

they grow back, and you accomplish nothing in the meantime.

This means that the only appropriate and effective management

strategy for biological pollutants, is to control their vectors of introduction and transport. The Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited

has two policy positions related to this issue. The first: the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited supports the passage of legislation

to prevent the importation of exotic species in ship ballast water

as well as by other means.

The second falls under the heading of cold water habitat restoration and may be a little bit less obvious. Our second policy consideration is that the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited supports

126

the modification and removal of damns as part of a comprehensive

river restoration effort.

The Michigan Council does not support the removal of the first

barriers to fish passage upstream from the Great Lakes. And in

part, that is to keep out some of the invasive species, such as the

sea lamprey.

But these policy positions are pragmatic, particularly in regards

to damns. Damns do very bad things to rivers, to the hydrology, to

the thermal regimes, and they—but they also effectively protect our

streams from many of the undesirable biological pollutants that

currently reside in the Great Lakes.

On the national level, Trout Unlimited is actively involved in

issues related to the management of undesirable exotic aquatic species. As a side note, it might surprise you to learn that the lake

trout, which is an important native species of the Great Lakes region and which was almost eradicated by an invasive species, the

sea lamprey, is actually an introduced exotic species in Yellowstone

Lake, and threatens the survival of the native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. This puts Trout Unlimited in the unique position of

advocating for the restoration in one location, and the eradication

in another location of the same species of fish. So it’s a national

view on the basic species within our country, as opposed to invasive

species coming from other countries, the Caspian Sea.

Trout Unlimited’s national policy related to exotic aquatic species

is as follows: the objective is to prevent and minimize the harmful

impacts of nuisance invasive species on salmonids. Programs and

projects include eradication of selected non-native western trout to

restore native trout, and reducing the impact of whirling disease on

native and wild trout.

That sums up my comments, and I’d be happy to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brauer follows:]

127

128

129

Mrs. MILLER. All right. Thank you very much.

And we’re going to—I’m certainly going to keep my questions to

a bare minimum here in the interest of time. I should say my colleagues have to catch a flight tonight, and we know what traffic is

like on I–94, so we’re going to wrap this up in about 10 minutes

here.

But I might ask generally, I guess of the panel. I notice there

was quite a bit of difference between Attorney General Cox’s comments about whether the EPA or Coast Guard should be the lead

agency for compliance, as well as quite a bit of difference of opinion

between some of the panel now and the previous panel about the

Senate bill 363.

And I think Mr. Schornack mentioned that he thought the Coast

Guard, not the EPA, should be the agency regulating ballast water.

I guess I’m just trying to get a sense of everyone’s feeling there.

Should it be the Coast Guard or the EPA?

Do you want to start with that, Mr. Schornack?

Mr. SCHORNACK. I’d be pleased to start there.

Chair Miller, Congress has already spoken to the lead agency

and what act is to be employed in the regulation of invasive species

or in the case of ships’ ballast water, and that’s—they’ve chosen the

Coast Guard. And the Coast Guard has ample authority to board

ships. Foreign vessel captains are familiar with them.

We have case—if they were only to get off the dime. I think the

real problem here is time and that is moving too slowly. I think

you heard Commander Moore speak very articulately to the scientific aspects of the regulation of ballast water, along with Mr.

Brandt from NOAA. They’ve been working very closely together.

And the Coast Guard is the right agency. They deal with ships.

The EPA has very little experience with ships. They’ve been reluctant to engage in the business of regulating ballast water. It

even took a judge in San Francisco to basically say that the Clean

Water Act applied. And the very programs under the Clean Water

Act are not designed to fix—in terms of the NPDES program, the

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, that’s designed to deal

with a given waterway with total loadings of chemical pollutants

to a given waterway. And it deals with fixed sources, not mobile

sources.

It’s also delegated to all of the States, including all of the—or,

delegated to States, including all of the eight Great Lakes States

have delegated authority. That means, as Kathy Metcalf pointed

out, that you could end up with a patchwork quilt of regulations

that would make it very difficult to achieve the goal of closing the

door to invasives, but keeping them open to commerce, because the

ships would not be able to meet all of these varying requirements.

And with that, I really think that.

And there’s also the prospect of delays in terms of litigation

under the Clean Water Act. I think there have been problems with

litigation. That’s how we wound up with this judge in the first

place deciding that the Clean Water Act should be employed.

But I think a good, strong message to the Coast Guard, putting

a single agency in charge, one that’s familiar with this problem, is

the right way to go.

Mrs. MILLER. OK.

130

Ms. METCALF. In the interest of I–94, I’ll second it, with—to Mr.

Schornack’s comments. I’ll second what he said, with this specific

comment: absolutely the Coast Guard should be the lead agency.

I would question whether or not S. 363 really prohibits the EPA

from participating. What I would suggest is that it charges the

Coast Guard with creating and implementing the standard. And I

would hope most certainly, and I know my organization—and I’ll

leave it to Mr. Weakley to refer to his position on this—is we would

expect the EPA to be consulted on this, most definitely, because

that is where the expertise is in the Federal Government for establishing environmental standards. But that is not where the expertise is in regulating ships.

The other point I would make, is that there is a need, as Commander Moore said, for the standard to be set in a legislation. If

you think it’s been slow thus far, it’s going to be just as slow because NEPA, from what I’m told by the agencies, creates a more

time-consuming process for a new standard to be created than

would be the case if the standard was included in the legislation.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. Weakley.

Mr. WEAKLEY. Panel, I would certainly echo the comments that

preceded mine. I would add to that the matter of practicality and

enforcement regime, as someone that’s been an inspector for the

Coast Guard, and also someone that’s been inspected as a vessel

operator, the Coast Guard is trained in inspecting vessels. They go

on to enforce a myriad of—in fact, we’ll tell you it’s for all applicable U.S. laws. It’s one-stop shopping. I think it’s a far more efficient

system than what we’d incur under an EPA and PDS permit process. So I think that from enforceability and visibility, I think the

Coast Guard is the more practical agency to be the lead.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. Do the other two have an opinion on

that particular question.

Mr. DINSMORE. Madam Chair, I know enough to know—to say

when I don’t know. We don’t have a policy per se on who should

be the regulatory authority, the EPA or the Coast Guard. Our concerns are mainly—when I say our, I’m referring to MUCC, are

mainly with regard to enforcement of regulations. Regardless of

who the regulatory body is or may be, we would like to see those

regulations enforced to the fullest extent. That’s our main concern

here.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. BRAUER. Madam Chair, the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited does not have a policy with respect to the specific question.

I will say that from my own belief, the Coast Guard is best suited

to enforce the regulations, and perhaps the EPA is best suited to

help them establish the standards under which ballast water can

be regulated.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, thank you.

Member Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just have one question.

Mr. Schornack, in your testimony, it’s on page 3, you say that the

United States wants the ballast—the standard. The discharge

standard that the IMO adopted is weaker than what the United

States wanted and has been questioned by many experts as not

131

being fully protective of the Great Lakes. I wonder if you could just

sort of give me the delta. What’s the difference between what is our

ideal, and what was actually adopted?

Mr. SCHORNACK. Well, sure, I can.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. SCHORNACK. The Coast Guard was of course—which has

been the lead agency in charge of this issue for over 15 years, was

chosen by the President to lead the American delegation to the

International Maritime Organization Conference last year. Of

course, that’s a branch of the United Nations. And there are many,

many countries involved.

But the standards that the United States took to that convention, was 100 fold—100 times tougher in terms of the numbers of

creatures per volume of water. If it was 100—just using an example, without—I can’t pull the numbers right out of my head here.

But let’s say it was 100 for—the IMO was 100, it was 10 times less

for the United States.

So in the end, the negotiated standard at the conference was in

fact watered down. And I’m not an expert enough to say that the

standard achieved in the IMO convention was—is not protective at

all, but I have heard experts say that they’re very disappointed

with the IMO standard. They do not feel that it is much more protective than ballast water exchange, which is what we have today.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Well, thank you. That’s helpful.

I yield back.

Mrs. MILLER. Representative Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Madam.

Let me just make a comment about the EPA versus the Coast

Guard. The EPA’s position, and I’m not speaking for them, but I

can just imagine that theirs would only be on the cleanliness of the

water and have nothing to do with any kind of organism or anything else coming in the water. In fact, you might find yourself protecting these species over here if you get the EPA involved in that.

Mr. Dinsmore, one question. In your written statement that you

submitted, you had that there’s an annual cost of $137 billion. Is

that a misprint? Is that supposed to be million, or is that truly billion dollars?

Mr. DINSMORE. I’m looking for that right now.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It’s on the first page.

Mr. DINSMORE. I don’t have that here in front of me. I’m trying

to find that right now. The statement that we have, the official

statement that was printed out and given copies to the representatives or to the committee, was not developed by me. It was developed by our associate. And I don’t have that here in front of me

unfortunately.

I do know that—was that in regard to the zebra mussel period,

or the invasive species as a whole? I know the national total is in

the millions.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It just says over 160 invasive species have

entered the Great Lakes ever since the opening of the St. Lawrence

Seaway in 1959, with control costs estimated at $137 billion per

year.

132

Mr. DINSMORE. I can say I’ve heard that number tossed out before. I can’t say that specific one, unfortunately, because I did not

draft those comments there in front of you.

I do know that the control costs that are being figured, are not

direct costs borne by the persons whose control that zebra mussel

or whatever it may be that has the problem right there in front of

them. It’s the overall costs, costs from loss of activity, costs in direct control, indirect costs that are borne by the manufacturer or

the industry as a whole. They do total into the billions at that

point. I’m not sure of the exact figure unfortunately for you.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let’s deal with this $137 million, it’s

still——

Mr. DINSMORE. It’s still a large number, yes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It’s still a lot of money. And I’m just wondering how much of that would be local funds, and how much of

it is either State or Federal funds? I don’t suppose you would know

that either, would you.

Mr. DINSMORE. I know a lot—well, in my short bio that was provided to you, which I heard for the first time now as well. I didn’t—

before coming here, I didn’t see——

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That’s OK.

Mr. DINSMORE. Until just recently, I sit on the Scientific Advisory for the Great Lakes Fishery’s Trust. And I know that as a

trust we dedicate or have dedicated millions of dollars toward research in regards to invasive species. So that’s one of those. You

know, I’m sure there’s a nonprofit one there as well. Anglers of

Michigan don’t do—dedicate quite a bit of their license fees toward

research and other control measures. I didn’t see if anybody mentioned before that type of program. I don’t know the exact breakdown, but I do know that it’s a collaborative effort between both

State, Federal, and non-profit realms.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And one last question. Mrs. Metcalf, I hope

you can answer this. When you were taking in ballast water or putting out ballast water, does it use the same port for taking it in

as putting it out? Does it have an intake and outtake, or does it

just have one that serves as both.

Ms. METCALF. Generally it can—depending on ship type, but generally it’s the same inlet and outlet. However, when a ship conducts an exchange, particularly if it’s of a type known as flow

through or dilution, the ballast water may actually come in

through the sea chest and below the water line, but exit through

the tank top as it’s being pushed out of the tank by the sea water

coming in.

But relative to that, back to treatment technologies, because

most ballast water does traverse through common piping from a

common inlet and outlet, that’s why we want to hit the treatment

right there at that point.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Good. And I was thinking, you know, a

backwash type situation. If you had an inlet and an outlet, you

know, you could hook something up and continually backwash it

without, you know, actually draining it. I mean, you would have a

source to get it into a filtering system or something without putting

it back into the water.

133

Ms. METCALF. Right. Yes, sir. In fact, a number of the treatment

systems that are being tested on board right now have an applicator. You don’t even have to go through a loop. You’ve got a certain

application rate for, for instance, ultraviolet or heat or physical

separation that allows us—hopefully will allow us, even on the

larger ships, to hit the ballast water as it’s moving past into the

tanks.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, ma’am.

No further questions, Madam Chair.

Mrs. MILLER. All right. Thank you very much.

I certainly want to thank again our witnesses. It’s been very,

very enlightening. And if any of the committee members have further questions, we’ll submit them to you, and perhaps your could

answer them for us, and we would put them in the record. I want

to be very helpful.

I want to again thank our gracious host, and the hospitality

that’s been offered to the subcommittee by the Anchor Bay High

School and Anchor Bay School District, and Principal Stefanac as

well, and all of the students. So we certainly appreciate the attendance today.

And with that, I will call the meeting in adjournment.

Thank you very, very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ