Aquatic Alien Invasive Species

Aquatic Alien Invasive Species: Living with the Uncertainty of Biological Pollution in the Great Lakes

The Great Lakes ecosystem is an uncertain, fragile environment subject to biological pollution by aquatic species that continue to enter the lakes from the ballast water of foreign, ocean-going ships and other means. Since the release of the International Joint Commission’s Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality in September 2001, possible actions to address ecological and economic costs of aquatic invasive species have been discussed in detail and some progress made. ¹ Specifically:

• The U.S. National Aquatic Invasive Species Act reauthorizing the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 was introduced in Congress, but has not been passed.



• In Canada, regulations requiring mandatory ballast water management practices have been drafted, but not enacted.



• The Great Lakes states, the province of Ontario and many localities have instituted bans against the sale and/or transport of live Asian carp and snakehead species.



• The design and construction of a second electrical barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, to prevent migration of invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River drainage basins should be finished in September 2004 before the existing electrical barrier reaches the end of its design life in 2005. This will ensure that a barrier remains in place to protect the Great Lakes from species such as Asian carp; however, a serious funding shortage must be addressed in order to complete this project as initially designed.



• The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers’ (CCFAM) Task Group on Aquatic Invasive Species has prepared a national action plan for ministerial consideration by September 2004, with an implementation plan to be submitted by September 2005.  The federal/provincial/territorial task group’s work is a key element of an overall national strategy to address the threat of invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial in Canada.



• A ballast water test facility established in Florida supports the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to develop protocols to verify the performance of new ballast water treatment technologies.



• In the United States, the Coast Guard, U.S. EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service recently conducted public hearings to evaluate the environmental impact of several proposed options for ballast water regulation. The Coast Guard has instituted a shipboard technology evaluation program for experimental ballast water treatment systems.



• The state of Michigan is implementing its revisions to its ballast water law, Section 3103a of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.² The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality now maintains a list of all oceangoing vessels it regards to be in compliance with ballast water management codes. Since March 2002, any owner or operator not on this list, or anyone in the state who has contracts to transport cargo with a vessel operator not on the list, are not eligible for new grants, loans or awards administered by the department.



• The International Maritime Organization adopted the Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments in February 2004. This United Nations agency, responsible for the safety and security of shipping and preventing marine pollution by ships, is to be commended for their successful work in negotiating a ballast water convention. The new Convention requires all ships to: implement a ballast water and sediment management plan; carry and complete a ballast water management record book; and undertake ballast water management procedures to a specific standard. The Convention also contains noteworthy provisions allowing member states to adopt stricter standards, requires all ships to implement ballast water exchange by date certain, and states that no ships will be exempted indefinitely from complying with these standards. Moreover, the Convention provides incentives for shippers to test and evaluate promising ballast water treatment technologies (the Convention has not yet been ratified by the required 30 member states carrying 35 percent of global tonnage).

While these initiatives are encouraging and should prove beneficial over time, the flow of new invasive species to the Great Lakes has not been stopped. In 2001, scientists estimated that 162 invasive species had entered the lakes from all pathways. Today, some scientists have raised that estimate to more than 170 non-indigenous fish, invertebrates, plants, algae, protozoa and parasites, and predict that one new non-indigenous species will be discovered in the lakes about every eight months. ³ The International Maritime Organization standards for ballast water discharge will become effective 12 months after ratification by 30 member states, representing 35 percent of the world merchant shipping tonnage. Even under the best scenarios, provisions of the Convention could take at least five to eight years to come into full force. Given the current rate of introductions, the Great Lakes could be at risk from 8 to 12 additional non-indigenous species during that time. Any one of these new invaders could prove to be as ecologically and economically destructive as those already in the system, if not more so.

A binational, regional plan is essential if we have any hope of stopping this influx before the Convention is ratified and implemented. There are limited points where controls are needed to halt aquatic alien invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. For instance, sea-going ships gain access by a single gateway, the St. Lawrence River Seaway, which the United States and Canada share. The numbers and classes of foreign ships that ply the waters of the lakes — as well as the cargoes they carry — are well documented, and are significantly more manageable than those found throughout the entire international maritime shipping industry. The provisions of the International Maritime Organization Convention recognize the need for regional cooperation, stating that a party may individually, or jointly with other parties, impose additional measures to prevent, reduce or eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through ships’ ballast water and sediment.

The Commission strongly encourages and remains hopeful that Canada and the United States will develop a regional approach for the Great Lakes. This approach should meet or exceed the International Maritime Organization standards, tighten requirements for ships carrying residual ballast water and sediment, and put the regulatory development process on a fast track.

New introductions of aquatic species could add to the serious economic costs on the order of hundreds of millions a year and ecological damage in Great Lakes, affecting both countries. ⁴ The governments cannot afford to gamble with the future of this extraordinary natural resource and, until effective, strictly enforced prevention measures are put into place, the ecological sustainability of the lakes remains at risk.