Biological Invasions:
Congress Takes a Second Look

by
Allegra Cangelosi
September 1995

Five years into implementation of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), there is new awareness of the magnitude of the exotic species problem and the difficulty of the management task. As Congress prepares to reauthorize the act, it faces pressure to broaden the prevention program to include coastal areas outside the Great Lakes, while keeping regulatory burdens to a minimum.

The Life and Times of NANPCA '90

The zebra mussel infestation of the lower Great Lakes in 1989 and 1990 exploded before the startled eyes of the region's natural resource managers and industrial water users. Mussel encrustation of intake pipes shut down the Monroe, Michigan, city water supply for two days, bringing the impact of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) directly to the homes of basin residents. Meanwhile, a population of Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), a small forage fish native to Eastern Europe, staged in Duluth/Super-ior Harbor, preparing for an all but inevitable migration from the cold waters of Lake Superior to the more habitable lower Great Lakes.

For fishery and biodiversity experts, the potential impacts of both the zebra mussel and the ruffe hung like the sword of Damocles over the Great Lakes ecosystem. Over time, the two alien species were expected to spread to all five Great Lakes and most of the U.S. freshwater system. Irreversible loss in bio-logical diversity was inevitable; the only question was whether the degradation would be cataclysmic, or gradual and insidious.

These concerns arose from hard experience. The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), native to the Atlantic, caused a near collapse of the Great Lakes fishery in the 1950s. A fortuitous discovery of a chemical lampricide is the only reason the fishery is once again abundant. But lampricide treatments, even coupled with vigorous fish stocking efforts by the states, have been effective only at restoring the rough appearance of the pre-lamprey fishery. They cannot restore the system's previous structure, composition, or self-sustainability. Moreover, without annual lam-pricide treatments, the populations of lampreys would rebound quickly. The annual battle to obtain congressional funding for the lamprey control program provides Great Lakes fishery experts constant incentive to avert the costly and enduring impacts of further exotic species invasions.

Federal lawmakers initiated action on NANPCA in 1989 in response to concern over the potential impact of the Eurasian ruffe on the Great Lakes fishery. But it was the zebra mussel infestation that ultimately filled the act's political sails, helping it cross stormy committee and agency jurisdictional seas to final enactment in just a year. The act, championed by Senator John Glenn (D-OH), enjoyed enthusiastic support of the bipartisan Great Lakes delegation in both chambers, and of several federal agencies, espe-cially the Fish and Wildlife Service. It also benefitted from the commitment of environment committee leaders from outside the basin.

NANPCA set forth a national program for preventing, researching, monitoring, and controlling infestations in U.S. waters of alien aquatic species. It established a standing multi-agency task force (the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force), chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and oversee the program; a policy review of the impacts of intentional introductions of exotic species (such as for sport fishing or biological pest control); a zebra mussel demonstration project; and state aquatic nuisance management planning. The law also created a Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel to help coordinate federal, state, local, and private-sector activities to prevent and control exotic species within the Great Lakes basin. Other provisions addressed the brown tree snake, quarantine protocols for research on exotic species, and risk assessment.

Most importantly, the act assigned to the Coast Guard the task of promulgating voluntary guidelines and, after two-years, regulations to help reduce the probability of new introductions of alien species by commercial vessels. The ballast water of commercial vessels is a leading vector by which alien aquatic species enter U.S. waters. The zebra mussel and the ruffe, along with the spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) and many of the hundred-plus other alien organisms that currently complicate the Great Lakes ecosystem, were transported to the Great Lakes in the ballast holds of transoceanic vessels. Red tide, human cholera, and the brown clam (Perna perna) are examples of ballast stow-aways that have been discharged into U.S. marine coastal environments.

The 1990 act underwent many changes as it moved through the congressional process. Perhaps the most significant was the Senate Commerce Committee's decision to reduce the scope of the Coast Guard's prevention program from national to Great Lakes-only. Besides fiscal concerns, the political rationale for such a change was clear. The impact of ballast-mediated exotic species on the Great Lakes was undeniable. But in areas other than the Great Lakes, there was less awareness of exotic species impacts, and the broader maritime community was under less pressure to change its ballasting practices.

Today's Context

Today, five years after the act's passage, there is growing interest in reforming the measure to better address other U.S. waters. The zebra mussel has become established in much of the freshwater systems of the eastern and midwestern United States, including the upper Mississippi River where it has degraded an economically-valuable commercial mollusk fishery. Similarly, there is new awareness of the threat of non-indigenous species to marine coastal areas. Perna perna, native to the Indo-Pacific region, invaded South America via ballast discharge years ago, and was transported more recently to the Gulf of Mexico near Galveston, Texas. The non-native mussel now threatens mangrove forests, covers boat hulls and other hard surfaces, and could compete with native oysters.

In some cases, concern over the impact of exotic species on aquatic systems beyond the Great Lakes has been elevated to the congressional level. This summer, Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) introduced the Chesapeake Bay Ballast Water Management Act of 1995 (S. 938) to assure that the reauthorization of NANPCA broadens the Coast Guard's ballast management program to include saltwater coasts. In response to the zebra mussel's spread to Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced a measure, the Lake Champlain Zebra Mussel Control Act (S. 1089), to focus reauthorization on the needs of Lake Champlain.

Both legislative measures are rooted firmly in the expressed interests of local constituencies. For example, the Sarbanes bill responds to resolutions passed by the Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania legislatures. A report developed by a wide range of stakeholders and endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission further spells out the recommendations of the states. While the Sarbanes bill proposes national voluntary guidelines for ballast management, the Chesapeake Bay Commission proposal also urges a regulatory system nationally if the participation or effectiveness of the voluntary system is inadequate.

NANPCA 1995

Senator Glenn, author of the 1990 NANPCA, is expected to champion the NANPCA reauthorization, with introduction likely this fall. A bipartisan group of Senators from in and outside the Great Lakes region will likely join him in sponsoring the measure. A companion bill is expected in the House of Representatives. As in 1990, the Senate Commerce Committee is expected to have jurisdiction over the measure's prevention portion, while the Environment and Public Works Committee will consider the remainder of the bill. Both the Resources Committee and the Committee on Infrastructure and Transportation likely will have jurisdiction over part or all of the House measure.

In the stark light of 1995 budget fights, a national regulatory ballast management program, such as the one proposed in the original 1990 bill, appears impractical and unaffordable. To implement such a scheme, the Coast Guard would have to monitor compliance with regulations at each harbor, stretching human and monetary resources beyond their limits. On the other hand, if the Coast Guard were to simply issue national voluntary guidelines, the effort would lack accountability, providing little additional protection for re-gions eager for change, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The Glenn reauthorization proposal is expected to find a middle ground. It will emphasize a voluntary approach in light of the shipping community's positive response to the voluntary phase of the Great Lakes program. But it may reserve some authority for the Coast Guard to promulgate these voluntary guidelines as regulations in coastal regions where reporting or compliance with the voluntary system seems to be lacking. Such an approach would give shippers and ports both the opportunity and incentive to cooperate with voluntary guidelines, while conserving Coast Guard resources for regions with special needs.

Whether voluntary or not, a national ballast management program that employs existing port inspection infrastructure will hold to a minimum additional hassles for ports, shippers, and the Coast Guard. The reauthorization proposal, therefore, is likely to urge a cooperative approach between the Coast Guard and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which already boards vessels to inspect for crop pests. The addition of just a few items on the questionnaire that APHIS routinely distributes to vessel masters could meet new ballast-related reporting needs.

Among other programs that may be included in the 1995 reauthorization proposal are:

• ballast technology demonstrations, similar to those included in a bill passed by the House in the 103rd Congress, that would install or design ballast technologies in commercial vessels in order to prevent the unintentional transfers of exotic species;
• naval ballast management, a provision from the Sarbanes bill, that would incorporate ballast management procedures into naval vessel operations;
• ecological surveys and ballast discharge sur-veys for selected harbor areas to assess the risks and impacts of invasions by exotic species;
• voluntary guidelines for recreational boaters, incorporated within Senator Leahy's legislation, that respond to the recent discovery of live zebra mussels on the hull of a recreational vessel ready to enter California waters; and
• regional coordination panels (through new or existing organizations) for other regions of the country in addition to the Great Lakes.

Although the U.S. government invests more than $100 million annually to prevent new invasions of exotic agricultural pests, less than $1 million is devoted to preventing new introductions of nonindi-genous aquatic organisms that can devastate fisheries and degrade biological diversity. NANPCA's reauth-orization offers Congress an important opportunity to better protect the nation's valuable marine and freshwater resources from exotic pests. But only support from a broad political spectrum and diverse geographic regions can assure enactment.