38 



couldn't believe that these things were going to be the huge danger 

 that some people were pointing out they might be. Yet, we went 

 to work on it and went up and talked to the people up by Lsike Erie 

 and we were able in 1990 to get the legislation through. 



There is nothing pretty about zebra mussels, despite their name, 

 and it is no longer any laughing matter. Nor is the appearance of 

 a fish called the European river ruffe, which is rapidly growing in 

 numbers in the western end of Lake Superior. The cold water wa- 

 ters of Lake Superior are not the optimal habitat for this rather 

 aggressive bottom dweller and the temperature helps slow its 

 spread, but if it gets transplanted into Lake Erie it could well 

 thrive and decimate our native perch supplies there. For those who 

 prize catching perch for a living or just for pleasure, it could have 

 devastating results. 



Now, in 1990, we began addressing the hazards which exotic spe- 

 cies pose for the economy and natural systems of the U.S. The 

 presence in our waters of the zebra mussel, the river ruffe, and 

 other 100 non-indigenous species attested to a major gap in our 

 Nation's environmental policies, a gap that could seriously com- 

 promise all of our other efforts at preserving biodiversity. 



It was also apparent that while we as a Nation will invest almost 

 $200 million in fiscal year 1995 to protect our agricultural re- 

 sources from newly-introduced species of crop pests, and another 

 $100 million to control these pests which are gdready here, we 

 haven't been doing much to protect our water-dependent industries 

 from similar threats borne by sea. 



So we were able to work hard and gain passage of the Non-Indig- 

 enous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, which 

 established a national program to prevent and control uninten- 

 tional introductions of foreign aquatic species. In addition, the Act 

 created a ballast management requirement for ships entering the 

 Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system. These vessels must 

 now exchange badlast at sea or otherwise manage their ballast 

 water to effectively reduce the probability of transfer of foreign or- 

 ganisms. 



The law also set up an Interagency Aquatic Nuisance Task 

 Force, led by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 

 ministration and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and im- 

 plement a national program to prevent and control aquatic nui- 

 sance species. Though this multi-agency approach has been difficult 

 to coordinate at times, it really is the only way to achieve any suc- 

 cess. 



Look at the agencies involved. The Fish and Wildlife Service spe- 

 cializes in the mamagement of inland resources. NOAA addresses 

 near-coastal areas. The Coast Guard enforces shipping require- 

 ments to reduce new introductions. The Army Corps of Engineers 

 develops the engineering solutions to zebra mussel removal, and 

 EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, assesses the environ- 

 mental impacts of proposed species control measures. 



The track record of this task force so far has been encouraging, 

 considering the limitations and funding constraints under which it 

 operates. Although its authorization level is around $12 million per 

 year, it gets about one-sixth of that, $2 million, primarily from the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service. Compared to the $200 million-plus na- 



