This year, administrative action, in the form of the Coast Guard rule, is poised to make significant progress in addressing this ecological crisis.

Broadly, the rulemaking is excellent in several regards, but needs to be improved in a few critical areas.
The strong points:

• The proposed rule requires vessels to implement on-board technology to clean their ballast water in a two-phased process. The ‘Phase-Two’ national ballast water discharge standard is excellent. It is as strong as California’s—the most stringent standard of any state—and one thousand times stronger than the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO).
• The rule is being made under the National Invasive Species Act, which does not undermine the authority of the Clean Water Act or the ability of states to protect their waters from biological pollution.
• The rule regulates ballast discharges from most lakers, which operate exclusively on the Great Lakes. Lakers do not introduce invasive species, but they can spread them from lake to lake.

The rulemaking can be improved in regards to the following provisions:

• The “Phase-One” standard is set as the IMO standard, and will provide only minimum improvements over ballast water exchange or ballast tank flushing. The “Phase-One” standard should be stronger than the IMO standard.
• The timeline for implementation wouldn’t require existing vessels to begin installing ‘Phase-One’ technology until 2016 at the earliest. Our freshwaters need protection sooner than that!
• A proposed ‘practicability review’ presents a serious concern. The review could allow the Coast Guard to delay implementation of the phase-two standard indefinitely. The rule needs to set a fixed deadline by which all vessels would have to comply with the phase-two standard.

Following the public comment period, the Coast Guard will prepare responses to public comments and the final rulemaking for publication. We may see a final rule in 12-18 months. In the meantime, efforts will shift to advancing improvements to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ballast management program under the Clean Water Act. This contains some of the country’s strongest enforcement provisions to protect water quality. More on the need for efficient and effective coordination between both federal agencies who have clear authority over ballast, will be discussed in future editions of Great Lakes News.

We hope you have had a chance to participate in this important process! When engaging in public comment, it doesn’t matter how long or short, how simple or detailed. What is important is that government hear your voice. In the case of ballast water management we have been fighting to get to this point for decades.

The first policy attempt to control invasive species from ballast was developed back in 1990 in response to the zebra mussel invasion. The U.S. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) established a voluntary Great Lakes ballast water management program.

When this law was reauthorized in 1996, some incremental improvements were made, such as requiring mandatory ballast tank flushing, and it was renamed the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). There are a number of significant gaps in NISA. Ballast water exchange is the main prevention tool, lakers are exempted from regulation and hitchhikers on hulls are not addressed. NISA came up for reauthorization in 2002. Since that time, Congress was first uninterested and then unable to develop a legislative solution to the invasive species being brought to the U.S. from overseas ships.

The administrative approach through the Coast Guard rule represents a huge step forward in the protection of the Great Lakes. And we’ve reached this point because citizens spoke up. Now that the line is in sight we need one more push to get there.

To learn more about how you can help stop invasive species and take part in this public comment, contact Jennifer Nalbone at jen@glu.org.

The Corps recently began working with the University of Notre Dame to detect the presence of Asian carp through a new DNA test of water samples taken below the barrier. The tests are detecting positive results for the silver carp in locations where traditional techniques have failed to find the fish.

The Asian carp are invasive fish that are harming the environment and economies of the Mississippi and threaten to do the same to the Great Lakes. The term captures four different species of fish- the bighead, black, grass and silver carp. They are voracious filter feeders that can grow to more than 3 feet long and quickly come to dominate a waterbody. They would cause irreversible harm to the Great Lakes by consuming large quantities of algae and zooplankton, muscling out native fish populations. Meanwhile, the giant fish’s tendency to jump out of the water when startled makes them a hazard to boaters.

The electric barrier is located near Romeoville, Illinois on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The barrier sends one volt of electricity continually through the waters, an attempt to repel invasive fish species like the Asian carp from migrating between the basins. The canal itself is a man-made waterway that connects Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River basin. Originally intended as a means for the city of Chicago to overcome sewage problems in the early 20th century, it created an artificial connection through which aquatic invasive species can pass in both directions. This is the only waterway connecting the two basins.

There are three actions that should be taken to stop the carp from invading the Great Lakes. First, the voltage of the barrier can be turned up immediately. Currently the Corps is not operating the barrier at full power due to safety concerns for commercial and recreational canal users. The Corps quickly began safety testing of increased “operating parameters,” including operating the barrier at 2 volts and changing the pulse and frequency of the electric current. At press time, a decision to strengthen operating parameters had not yet been made. Given the imminent crisis, the barrier can, and should be, operated at its highest power setting, four volts.

Second, aggressive monitoring must take place for the remainder of the fish migratory season. If the carp are found past predetermined points, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, working with a group of invasive species experts from around the region, should quickly implement an emergency rapid response plan that they have been developing for over 10 years. Such a plan would probably include an application of a piscticide – fish poison – to knock the population back to a safer distance in the short term. Rapid response should not be considered the long term solution to keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.

Thirdly, when the Water Resources Development Act was passed in 2007 the Corps was authorized by Congress to determine how to restore hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and solve this problem once and for all. The Corps must quickly complete and implement a hydrologic separation plan, because we can’t rely on a barrier which isn’t foolproof, inconsistent monitoring results, and chronic chemical treatment as our only lines of defense.

Sidebar: Disconnection
Coalition member, Alliance for the Great Lakes, has explored preliminary feasibility studies for disconnecting the Great Lakes from the Mississippi basin. Their report identifies five scenarios for complete or partial ecological separation of the basins. This would halt the transfer of Asian carp, as well as other invasive species, between the two watersheds and is a critical piece of invasive species prevention and Great Lakes restoration. The full report is available at www.greatlakes.org/invasives/ecosep.

The US EPA and Environment Canada have released
their assessment of the Great Lakes on several indicators.
For much of the report, status is reported as mixed.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada released the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report. The document reports on progress to address several issues facing the Great Lakes, and indicates whether conditions are improving or worsening.

On the whole, the report finds that conditions in the region are mixed. Some areas, are improving, others deteriorating, and conditions range from poor to good.

Human health status is described as “mixed”, though whether this is improving or getting worse is “undetermined”. Similarly, biotic communities are described as of mixed status, and their trajectory undetermined.

However, the report has more information on biotic communities than human health. This failure to more seriously assess the impacts of conditions in the Great Lakes on human health conditions has long been a concern of community activists.

The most negative of the Great Lakes indicators is invasive species, which is given a “poor” status rating and a “deteriorating” trend by the governments.

Contamination is shown as being of “mixed” status and with an improving trend. For the contaminant phosphorus, however, nearshore conditions are found to be “poor” in all lakes except Lake Superior.

The report is produced following the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), where scientific data is reported and discussed. These conferences pull together scientists, governments and activists from across the Great Lakes region.

Typically, they have been held every two years since 1994. However, in order to save resources, the governments have decided to now hold them every three years. This means that the next conference will be held in 2011 and the next report released in 2012.

To obtain a copy of the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report go to www.binational.net/solec/intro_e.html.

The $475 million investment nearly doubles U.S. federal
spending on Great Lakes priorities. The money will be
spent on cleaning up toxic pollution, fighting invasive
species, restoring habitat, non-point pollution
issues, and monitoring results.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Environmental Protection Agency just completed a series of public meetings to collect public comment and determine the best way to implement President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

A total of eight meetings took place in cities across the Great Lakes. The meetings were well attended by the public, NGOs, and state and federal agencies.

Cameron Davis, special advisor to the U.S. EPA, set the tone before a full auditorium in East Lansing, Michigan, by calling for “urgency, action, and accountability.”

“We know the lakes are hurting, it is time for action,” Davis said.

In Rochester, New York, a packed room voiced strong support for the new commitment to Great Lakes restoration. Commenters stressed accountability, as well as the need to address tributary and watershed deterioration, to coordinate with Canada, and to access the expertise at the local level.

The EPA hopes to maximize the effectiveness of the initiative by hearing from those with on-the-ground knowledge of the priorities in restoring the Great Lakes and what might be missing from the draft outline.

Comments geared toward the draft were consistent and solutions-based. Amongst the comments, a theme of collaboration, public education, health, and prevention of invasive species resonated.

The Restoration Initiative aims to fund projects through a grant process. Projects that tackle problems such as toxic pollution, invasive species, near-shore health and non-point source pollution, habitat and wildlife protection, and evaluation that are considered “shovel-ready” will be considered strong contenders.

This funding is also intended to be a new source of funds. It is not intended to supplant existing resources.

The amount to be allocated in the 2010 budget is still being fine tuned. The House of Representatives has passed the initiative at $475 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $400 million. Once the full EPA budget is approved the total amount of the Initiative will be determined. The total is expected to be between $400 and $475 million. This investment increases federal Great Lakes environmental funding to about $1 billion annually.

These funds are the first installment of a $5 billion dollar Great Lakes trust fund that Obama promised during last year’s presidential election. Eleven agency and cabinet organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security, for example, head-up the development and implementation of the Initiative.

If you would like to learn more about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri. The new grant proposals to restore the Great Lakes are being accepted this fall, with over half of the 2010 total federal funding to be allocated at the local and state level.

Melinda Koslow is the Regional Campaign Manager for the Safeguards Program at the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center. She can be reached at koslowm@nwf.org.

Wordwide, invasive species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity. And while the individual boater or fisher may feel they have a minimal impact, their combined actions can have serious consequences. The zebra mussel, which has plagued the Great Lakes for two decades, has now crossed the continental divide and is found in Lake Mead, Nevada. How did it get there? It was attached to a recreational boat.

A number of animals, plants or various other organisms originating from other regions of the world can grow and spread rapidly in the absence of their natural predators or controls. Invasive species can have devastating effects on native species, habitats and ecosystems. The zebra mussel, sea lamprey and round goby are well known examples of invaders that outcompete native wildlife and throw natural ecosystems out of balance.

With more than 185 invasive species now established in the Great Lakes, the risk of spreading them upstream and downstream is increased as boats or fishing gear (clothing, boats and items used in the water) are transported across the basin and other regions.

There are a few things that recreational users can do to help stop aquatic invasive species. By following a simple procedure each time they leave the water, we can stop aquatic hitchhikers.

By Hélène Godmaire with the collaboration of Doug Jensen University of Minnesota

1. Screen intentional imports
2. Prevent inadvertent introductions
3. Fund early detection and response
4. Create and support federal leadership
5. Fill other funding gaps

Invasive species from multiple vectors are addressed, including the live animal trade and the global shipping industry.

The first step to combating invasive species is to stop them from getting here in the first place. Currently, live animals and plants are actively – and legally – brought into the country for sale in pet stores and nurseries, or to be raised as food. Yet, these organisms are never screened for their potential to invade natural space when they inevitably escape to the wild.

The current law to screen live animal introductions was enacted over 100 years ago and is woefully antiquated. It is slow to respond and is not suited to stopping a potential invader before it arrives. New legislation is required to ensure that animals are screen before they arrive in the country.

Similarly, plants are imported for use in horticulture and nurseries without regard for their invasiveness. The United States needs to follow other countries which have adopted risk screening protocols and significantly reduced the introduction of invasive plants in the process.

Across North America, invasive species introduced via the ballast of ocean ships have caused economic hardship and dramatic and irreversible changes to the natural environment. The United States Congress must pass ballast water regulations that force shippers to treat their ballast water to a standard that stops all invaders from being released in the the Great Lakes and the United State’s other precious waters.

Should an invasive species still find its way into the United States, funding must be designated to allow a swift response to a new detection. When an invader cannot be eliminited, ongoing monitoring and action to prevent further spread of invasive species is critical.

Great Lakes United was a founding member of NECIS, which was created in 2003, and is a national partnership of 16 major environmental organizations, providing an expert and scientific voice on invasive species. The full report can be downloaded here.

The United States Coast Guard has announced a public comment period as it prepares a new Environmental Impact Statement in preparation of potential changes to the rule, Dry Cargo Residues on the Great Lakes.

Great Lakes United will be preparing comments in the coming weeks. For more information on our position, contact Jennifer Nalbone at jen@glu.org.

On December 29, 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on our proposal to issue a final rule that may modify the Dry Cargo Residues on the Great Lakes interim rule and add new conditions for discharges. The EIS is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the scoping process under NEPA, the USCG invites you to participate in the following public meeting:

January 28, 2009 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Hotel Blake
500 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60605

Further details on the EIS, the public meeting, and instructions on how to comment if you cannot attend the meeting can be found at Volume 73, page 79496 of the Federal Register published on December 29, 2008. We will consider all comments and related materials received by March 30, 2009. Further information about dry cargo residues, including a copy of the NOI, can be found on the Coast Guard’s Environmental Standards Division website at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/dry_cargo.asp.

“Seaway acts to flush Great Lakes invaders”
– Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2008

After years of watching new invasive species arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean ships, the St. Lawrence Seaway has finally put in place measures to address ships that arrive in the Great Lakes with “no ballast on board” but still harboring residual water—and invaders—at the bottom of their tanks. In addition to ballasted ships flushing their tanks out in the open sea, these ships are now also required to flush, killing or purging many invaders that may be lurking. While this is not an 100% effective measure, and we must continue to press towards ships meeting national discharge standards, it represents a significant step forward in protecting the Great Lakes.

“IJC abandons gutless plan for dam”
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 18, 2008

Activists from across the region rallied to prevent the International Joint Commission from implementing a management plan for the Moses-Saunders Dam that would have damaging effects on coastal habitat. “Plan 2007” would maintain the status quo for managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River levels. American Rivers has suggested that these management practices have made the St. Lawrence one of America’s most threatened rivers. The IJC is now working on a broader, more inclusive, process for developing a water levels plan that would benefit the environment after suffering 50 years of damage.

“Montreal Selects New Sewage Treatment Technology”

On January 30, 2008, the city of Montreal announced that, after years of study, ozone will be the disinfection technology implemented at its sewage treatment plant. According to the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, it is a big step forward in improving the water quality of the St. Lawrence River and for the benefit of Montrealers and residents downstream.

The ozone technology meets the requirements of Montreal wastewater, in addition to dealing with emerging substances. The Montréal sewage treatment plant treats 2.5 million cubic meters of water daily, about 50 per cent of all wastewater in Quebec. From the perspective of sustainability, this disinfection process takes into account the elimination of viruses and bacteria, emerging new compounds, including pharmaceuticals and surfactants (detergents).

“Congress Passes Great Lakes Legacy Act”
–Targeted News Service, October 1, 2008

Before adjourning for the fall, Congress reauthorized the Great Lakes Legacy Act, providing $54 million per year to clean up toxic pollution across the region. Funding from the legislation is being used to clean up such pollution as contaminated sediments Indiana’s Grand Calumet River (an Area of Concern) and Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River.

Congress passes historic Great Lakes protection
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 23, 2008

After seven years of negotiating the agreements and passing them in the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec, the Great Lakes Compact and its sister international agreement became law this fall. The agreements represent the strongest protections in Great Lakes history against harmful diversions and introduce strict conservation standards for the regions most wasteful water users.

“Minnesota Voters in 2008 Approve $5.5 Billion to Protect Land and Water”
Marketwatch, November 5, 2008

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and Natural Area amendment to Minnesota’s constitution was passed on November 4, raising $300 million every year for 25 years. The funds will go toward cleaning up polluted waters and lands, establishing conservation easements, and other projects to ensure a environmental legacy for future Minnesotans.

The pet, aquarium, food, and bait industries have long imported live animals to Canada and the United States. Inevitably, once in private hands, some of these animals end up on our lands and in our waters after escaping from captivity or being dumped by the owner.

Most of these non-native animals survive temporarily, eventually dying out. But others can flourish and cause serious environmental, health, and economic problems. Not only can the species itself spread—outcompeting and eating our native wildlife or fundamentally altering natural systems—they can also carry exotic diseases and harmful parasites.

For example, Asian carp, once confined to southeastern aquaculture ponds, are thriving in the Mississippi River basin. The fish escaped decades ago during major floods, and are now working their way north to Lake Michigan. Today, the last hurdle keeping these giant, destructive fish out of the Great Lakes is an electric barrier.
Another examples is the northern snakehead fish imported for the specialty food market and the pet trade, has been found in the wild in the Great Lakes basin, and an established population is now disrupting the ecology of the Potomac River in Maryland and Virginia.

Invasive animals are jeopardizing many endangered and threatened species. In the U.S., more than 400 of the 1,352 species protected under the Endangered Species Act are at risk, in part, because of the negative toll of non-native species.

In Canada, 16% of species surveyed by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council are not native to the country. For example, two of Canada’s 11 crayfish species are non-native. The Rusty Crayfish and the Obscure Crayfish were introduced into Ontario as fish bait and now also occur in Quebec. The Rusty Crayfish has spread rapidly across Ontario and has eliminated native crayfish from many lakes and rivers.

The Solution Lies in Strengthening Regulations

Neither Canada nor the United States require that imported animal species be screened to understand their potential to become an invasive species. This lack of policy flies in the face of both common sense and scientific recommendations. The need for such a process has been noted in every major report on invasive species policy for more than a decade.

In the U.S., the Lacey Act, the current law governing animal imports, gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) limited power to declare species “injurious” and prohibit their importation to the United States. This approach, adopted 108 years ago, is excruciatingly slow. On average, it takes about four years to complete so far and only about 40 species have been listed. Experts repeatedly say this law is ineffective.

Recently introduced in Congress, the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act would require the FWS to first assess the potential risks associated with a species proposed for import before deciding whether to allow or prohibit it. This proactive approach will keep potentially harmful animals out by implementing pre-import screening for potentially all imported animals. If enacted, it would be one of the most important policy advances the U.S. has ever made toward blocking imports of harmful invasive species.

Canada is signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which says that parties shall prevent invasive species and recommends precaution when intentionally importing animals and plants. Environment Canada’s Canadian Biodiversity Strategy calls for federal and provincial governments to take all necessary steps to prevent the introduction of harmful alien organisms. A variety of legislation and policies already apply to the importation of alien species into Canada and their movement once they are in the country. Unfortunately, all current legislation is also inadequate in that not one imposes a precautionary pre-importation screening requirement. Without pre-import screening organisms will be in the country before their threat is understood. By then, it is often too late.

One opportunity to change this is in the Fisheries Act of Canada. Dating back to Confederation, the Fisheries Act has since evolved to be a preeminent piece of environmental protection legislation for fish-bearing waters and fish habitat in Canada. Since 2006, legislative overhauls to the Fisheries Act have been proposed by the federal government. Unfortunately, the proposed changes would weaken habitat protection and undermine, rather than protect, fisheries. The lack of adequate consultation on the development of the new bill has also closed the door proper public engagement.

The overhaul bills contain a new section on screening of imports, but fail to articulate a proactive pre-screening approach such as that recommended in the Convention on Biological Diversity, and being pursued in the U.S. Congress. The serious controversy associated with the Fisheries Act overhaul would have to be addressed, and the screening section would need to be significantly modified for this bill to provide Canada the protections necessary to keep out potentially harmful species.

When Congress returns next week it will mean a short window to pass legislation that sets a global precedence for protection from aquatic invasive species. After this window closes the session ends and politicians become absorbed in fall election campaigns. The opportunity to pass this bill will not come again until next year.

Behind the scenes, work is non-stop trying to resolve differences and pass a ballast bill this year. Prior to the recess, the House of Representatives had passed the ballast bill through the Coast Guard Authorization in a landslide vote of 395 to 7. However, the bill is held up in the Senate because of a political logjam.

After decades of slow and inadequate federal leadership, Senators are at odds over who deserves to have authority over ballast, and what kind of authority it should be. With the Great Lakes being permanently changed and real people and their livelihoods impacted by invasions, this is a “form over function” debate that doesn’t resonate strongly with many outside the Beltway.

The dispute is focused on two Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer from California, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee and has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under her jurisdiction, and Senator Daniel Inouye from Hawaii, chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, who has the Coast Guard under his. Both Senators clearly want the problem solved and are from states so severely impacted by invasive species that state programs have already been put in place.

Boxer is blocking a ballast bill passed by Inouye’s committee over questions regarding how the federal authority of the Clean Water Act, and the ability of citizens to sue that it includes, would be impacted. There is also concern that state ballast programs, such as California’s, would be preempted.

Inouye proposed a single national program to give shippers some level of certainty and aimed to make it stringent enough so that a state would not need to set higher standards. Inouye’s bill also largely keeps the program in the hands of the Coast Guard and doesn’t carve out the right for citizens to sue the industry directly like the Clean Water Act did 35 years ago. Unlike in the House, in the Senate, opposition from a single senator is enough to stop a bill.

It’s been slow going at a time when every day counts. Fortunately, some of the divides are being bridged. The main opposition to Inouye’s insistence that there be a single federal standard has been appeased. California’s state standards were very close to the ones proposed in the federal legislation, but overall, were slightly better. The Senate Commerce Committee has redrafted the bill to address California’s objections, including setting the California state standards as the federal U.S. standards. Now with the changes, the California State Lands Commission, the agency in charge of regulating ballast in the state has endorsed the bill.

The second point of contention, dealing with who should be responsible for a ballast program, stems from a July 2008 win in a federal appeals court that requires the EPA to regulate ballast water discharge under the Clean Water Act. As a result, the EPA is finalizing a five year permit that requires ballast water exchange and NOBOB saltwater flushing — basically rubber stamping procedures already in place for all ships entering the Great Lakes under regulations put in place by the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and St. Lawrence Seaway. Over at least the next five years, the EPA permit would afford much weaker standards than those proposed in the Coast Guard program. However, some environmental groups view the ruling as a starting point that will enable them to sue for stronger rules going forward. At the time of writing, this issue has not been resolved.

The bottom line is that if we all share the goal of stopping the next invader, differences will be reconciled and this bill will pass. If negotiations fail, the bill would have to go back to committee under the new 111th Congress, delaying implementation of a globally precedent-setting program and possibly losing some of the strong provisions painstakingly crafted.

As the fall election approaches and the Congressional clock ticks down, every day counts as we work to bridge divides and build support for this excellent bill. If parties come out of their corners, ready to reconcile their differences and not fight over territory, we will see the best protections from aquatic invasive species that the world has ever seen.