Great
Lakes Regulation of Ballast Water
Presented
to
Senator
Ken Sikkema
Monroe, Michigan
April 10, 2000
Margaret Dochoda
Fishery Biologist
Great Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission
is pleased to provide comments about exotic species introduced into the Great
Lakes through ballast water discharge. We appreciate all you have done, Senator, to address this critical
issue.
The
fisheries of the Great Lakes are extremely valuable resources. The fisheries generate up to $4 billion
annually for the region, support 75,000 jobs, provide recreation to nearly 5
million anglers, and are important to our natural heritage. It is imperative that we do everything
possible to sustain the fisheries and to make them more vibrant.
Today, one of the biggest
threats this valuable fishery faces is biological pollution. Organisms from all over the world, living in
the ballast of ocean-going vessels, arrive in our Great Lakes every day. Through the discharge of ballast water,
these organisms are virtually invited to make the Great Lakes their permanent
home. Although most organisms
introduced into the Great Lakes die or do not reproduce, some do make it, and
the consequences are not only harmful to the environment and economically
costly, but they are also permanent.
Nobody knows this better
than the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The commission was formed in 1955 in part to address the devastating
impact of the sea lamprey, an exotic pest introduced into the Great Lakes
through shipping canals. Sea lampreys
are enormously destructive to the fishery and, despite the successful control
program which we deliver, they remain a constant threat to the prosperity of
the fishery, should controls be relaxed.
I use the example of the sea lamprey to illustrate that once an exotic
species takes hold, the species is here to stay.
Sea lampreys, of course, are
not the only pest species we contend with.
Since the 1800s, 145 exotic species have become established in the Great
Lakes aquatic ecosystem, with almost one-third of those being introduced since
1970. According to Dr. Ed Mills of
Cornell University et al, in a landmark study of exotic species in the Great Lakes,
ballast water discharge is the prime vector for the exotic species that harm
our fishery. It is no coincidence,
indeed, that the surge in exotic species introductions has been coincidental
with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.
High-profile introductions
of the late 1980s—particularly the zebra mussel and the Eurasian ruffe—helped
prompt the governments of Canada and the United States to pass legislation to
regulate ballast water, in particular to call for exchange of ballast water
prior to a ship’s entering the Great Lakes.
I am sad to report, Senator,
that despite ballast control measures, the rate of new introductions has not
slowed. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, in a letter being sent to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s
Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to the Honorable Madeline Albright, the U.S.
Secretary of State, has thus concluded that the ballast-water-exchange programs
of Canada and the United States on their own do not adequately protect the
Great Lakes from additional introductions of exotic species. The letter will be available shortly
(http://www.glfc.org). The commission
further concludes that while it is likely that some exotic species were denied
access to the Great Lakes because of ballast programs, mounting evidence
strongly indicates that additional controls need to be implemented.
These conclusions are based
on the fact that since 1989, when government programs for ballast exchange
began, seven new animal species, originating from areas previously associated
with ballast-water introductions, have become established in the Great
Lakes. These species include:
·
The
tubenose goby in 1990
·
The
round goby in 1990
·
The
quagga mussel in 1991
·
The
New Zealand mud snail in 1991
·
The
amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus in
1995
·
The
cladoceran water flea Cercopagis pengoi in 1998, and
·
The
amphipod Corophium mucronatum in 1997
The commission notes that
juvenile specimens of Chinese mitten crabs and European flounder have also been
reported in the decade since ballast exchange commenced. These two species can live but do not
reproduce in freshwater, and, thus, biologists can reliably establish the date
of introductions. I have with me today, as an example, a
flounder that was caught just two weeks ago by an Ontario commercial
fisherman in Lake Erie. This flounder
is not native; it most likely came in through ballast as a juvenile and has
been living in the Great Lakes for the past few years. The continuing discovery of specimens such
as this further supports our contention that ballast water from oceangoing
ships continues to threaten the
integrity of the Great Lakes.
Anglers, commercial
fishermen, and environmentalists—major stakeholders in the health of the Great
Lakes fishery—are deeply concerned as well. Environmentalists note with alarm
the long-term threats of this biological pollution to the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Fishers are reporting
decreased success, fish in poor condition, and major shifts in fish
communities. Due to habitat loss and
exotic invaders, North American aquatic ecosystems are said to be experiencing
extinctions at a rate equivalent to that of tropical rain forests. Here in the Great Lakes, probably due to
interactions with the ballast invader zebra mussel, we are currently witnessing
the loss of major prey items such as the amphipod Diporiea and endangered species such as the northern riffleshell
clam.
The Advisors to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission have weighed-in on this issue. Advisors—who are citizens nominated by state
governors and appointed by the commission—represent the sport fishery, the
commercial fishery, the public-at-large, and state agencies. Over the years,
they have voiced concern about the influx of exotic species. Most recently, during last month’s Lake
Committee meetings held in Ann Arbor, advisors from all states bordering Lake
Michigan passed a resolution that commended Senator Sikkema for introducing
Senate Bill 955 and urged other Great Lakes states to follow Michigan’s
lead. I have attached a copy of their resolution
to this statement, for your consideration.
Exotic species is a problem
that also concerns management agencies basinwide. During the recent Lake Committee meetings, fishery managers from
state, intertribal, and provincial agencies discussed the issue and supported
efforts to control completely all the biological components of ballast within
the Great Lakes basin. The lake committee members noted that non-native
organisms have profoundly influenced native species and food webs. The next introduction could add to the
devastation. So, state, tribal and
provincial fishery managers agree that more needs to be done to address this
priority problem.
Senator, the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission is encouraged by your efforts to eliminate future
introduction of exotic species into the Great Lakes through ballast water
discharge. Your legislation draws attention to this critical issue and serves
to remind governments that bold action needs to be taken to address this
problem. The commission feels very strongly
that exotic species introductions threaten the very existence of our valuable
fishery and must be stopped—now.
Thank you, again, for
holding these hearings and for your action to address this serious
problem. I thank you for considering my
testimony and am pleased to answer any questions.