40 



Unique features of our water resources and coastal zones have, over the millen- 

 nia, fostered intricate and long-standing species associations. Together, these asso- 

 ciations comprise the web of life which supports our economy and our culture. In 

 the Great Lakes region, like other coastal regions, the web of life is unique, diverse, 

 and productive. But exotic species can change all this in the blink of an eye. 



While aquatic organisms enter the Great Lakes through many avenues, perhaps 

 the greatest threat is by discharge of ballast water from commercial vessels. The 

 impact of this ballast discharge has been especially dramatized by the zebra mussel 

 infestation which now plagues the ecology and industrial infrastructure of our re- 

 gion. Already, rare native clams have become extinct in zebra mussel infested por- 

 tions of the basin, and users of raw water (such as power plants, sewage systems, 

 and factories) have spent millions in extra maintenance costs for zebra mussel re- 

 moval. We have real concerns that the zebra mussel, or one of the many other non- 

 native species that have been unintentionally introduced into our waters, may ulti- 

 mately destroy our lucrative commercial and sport fishing industry. 



Folks used to chuckle when I mentioned the very name of our uninvited guest, 

 the "zebra mussel". Despite its name, there's nothing pretty about it. But now, it's 

 no longer a laughing matter. Nor is the appeau-ance of a fish called the European 

 River Ruffe, which is rapidly growing in numbers in the western end of Lake Supe- 

 rior. Fortunately, the very cold waters of Lake Superior are not the optimal habitat 

 for this rather aggressive bottom dweller and help to slow its spread. But if this 

 fish gets transplanted to Lake Erie, it could well thrive and decimate our beloved 

 native perch themselves. For those who prize catching the perch for a Uving or just 

 for pleasure, this could have devastating effects. 



In 1990, we were finally able to begin addressing the hazards which exotic species 

 pose for the economy and natural systems of the United States. The presence in our 

 waters of the zebra mussel, the River Ruffe, and over 100 other non-indigenous spe- 

 cies attested to a major gap in our Nation's environmental policies — a gap that could 

 seriously compromise all our other efforts at preserving biodiversity. 



It was also apparent that, while we as a Nation invest over $200 million annually 

 (fiscal year 1995) to protect our agricultural resources from newly-introduced species 

 of crop pests, and another $100 million-plus to control those pests which are already 

 here, we hadn'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 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, which estab- 

 lished a national program to prevent and control unintentional introductions of for- 

 eign aquatic species. 



In addition, this Act created a ballast management requirement for ships entering 

 the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system. These vessels must now ex- 

 change ballast at sea, or otherwise manage their ballast water to effectively reduce 

 the probability of transfer of foreign organisms. The law also set up an interagency 

 Aquatic Nuisance Task Force, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- 

 istration (NOAA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and implement a na- 

 tional program to prevent and control aquatic nuisance species. 



Though this multi-agency approach has been difficult to coordinate at times, it 

 really is the only way to achieve any success. Look at the agencies involved: the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service specializes in the management of inland resources; NOAA 

 addresses near-coastal areas; the Coast Guard enforces shipping requirements to re- 

 duce new introductions; the Army Corps of Engineers develops the engineering solu- 

 tions to zebra mussel removal; and, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as- 

 sesses the environmental 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 authoriza- 

 tion level is around $12 million per year, it gets about one-sixth of that ($2 million), 

 primarily from the Fish and WildUfe Service. Compared to the $200 million-olus na- 

 tional price tag for crop pest prevention and abatement, what we get out of the Task 

 Force is a real bargain. 



We as a Nation need to do more to prevent and manage the impacts of destructive 

 aquatic species from foreign lands. Yet the budgets of key agencies assigned to 

 spearhead this effort really do not reflect a commitment to get the job done. In par- 

 ticular, NOAA has never allocated fimds to fulfill its obligation to develop and im- 

 plement a national aquatic nuisance program, even though it is a Co-Chair of the 

 interagency Acquatic Nuisance Task Force. Instead, the agency seeks to reprogram 

 the limited funds that Congress has provided for Great Lakes-related provisions of 

 the Act to address its national concerns. This approach is a dead-end street; it will 

 only spread already inadequate resources so thin that nothing will get done. So I 

 would urge NOAA and the other agencies involved to get serious about this environ- 



