Tag: ballast

States Pass Feds on Invasives Law

  • Federal restrictions have not stopped importation of invasive species. Now some states are passing laws that will stop some ocean-going ships from docking in their ports. (Photo by Lester Graham)

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:

Transcript

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


People in the shipping business say the problem is Michigan is
the only state in the Great Lakes region that is requiring ocean-
going freighters to install expensive technology as a condition
of using one of its ports.


John Jamian is the president of the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association. He says requiring ocean-going freighters to install
expensive technology before they can dock in Michigan ports won’t
solve the problem. The ships will just go to other Great Lakes
ports.


If a ship goes to Windsor or Toledo that doesn’t have these rules
and regulations, they will discharge their cargo. If there were
any critters on those ships they could still swim or crawl into
Michigan waters, so you still haven’t solved anything.


Jamian represents the owners of ships that travel from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
He says ship owners will very likely avoid Michigan ports, and
choose to unload at ports in other states and Canada:


“The fact of the matter is that they’re not going to put an
expensive piece of equipment just because Michigan calls for it
on their ship when in fact it may not be acceptable anywhere else
in the world and it might just be easier to take that cargo
across the river and unload it where they don’t have these
regulations.”


And for Michigan ports that are near other competing ports,
that’s a concern. Patrick Sutka is the treasurer for Nicholson
Terminal and Dock Company at the Port of Detroit:


“We fear these ships may be going to other ports, such as Windsor
right across the waterway, or other competitors of ours such as
Toledo or Cleveland.”


At the height of the shipping season, there might be three
freighters at a time moored to the docks, offloading steel and
other cargo. A hundred trucks a day will move in and out of the
docking area to get those commodities to factories.


On the dock right now are dozens of stacks of 20-ton slabs of
steel from France and Russia. That Russian steel was most likely
shipped from a port in the Caspian Sea or the Black Sea. The
freighters take on ballast water from those seas for the voyage
to the Great Lakes. That ballast water helps keep the ships low
and steady in the water.


The ships are required to exchange the water in deep ocean mid-
journey. The salt water is supposed to kill the fresh water
organisms. But, some organisms can survive the trip. That’s how
zebra mussels, quagga mussels and the round goby fish made their
way from the Balkans to the Great Lakes.


Those invasive species and others combine to cost the economy an
estimated 5 billion dollars a year. For example, zebra
mussels cost taxpayers and utility customers. It shows up in
your power bill because the utilities have to pay divers to
scrape the crustaceans off pipes carrying cooling water to power
plants.


Shipping companies, port owners, and dock workers’ unions are all
pressuring Michigan to hold off on enforcing its new law. What
they’d really like is for the federal government to step in,
negotiate with Canada, and create a regional set of rules for
combating aquatic invaders:


“…But the federal government has not had the guts or the
gumption to step up to the plate and get this done.”


Patti Birkholz chairs the Michigan Senate Environmental Affairs
Committee. She sponsored the law:


“So we’re going to do it on a state-by-state basis. Our eco-
system within the Great Lakes is what many scientists have termed
‘on the tipping point.’ We cannot deal with any more invasive
species in this system, and we know the majority of the invasive
species come through the ocean-going vessels. They know they’re
the cause. We know they’re the cause. We’ve got to deal with this
situation.”


Michigan’s new law is as much a political statement as anything
else and other states are starting to follow Michigan’s lead.
Birkholz says Wisconsin and New York could pass ballast standards
this year.


In the mean time, Michigan environmental officials say they
intend to enforce the state’s requirements when the Great Lakes
shipping season resumes in the spring. But, so far, no ocean
freighters have applied for a permit to dock at a Michigan Port.


For the Environment Report, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links

State Bans Invaders Where Feds Fail

  • Biologists worry that ships from foreign ports will bring in an even more damaging invasive species called the ‘killer shrimp.’ (Photo by Lester Graham)

One state has a new law in effect to stop ocean-going ships from bringing in foreign pests that can harm the environment.
Rebecca Williams reports neighboring states are watching to see what happens next:

Transcript

One state has a new law in effect to stop ocean-going ships from
bringing in foreign pests that can harm the environment. Rebecca
Williams reports neighboring states are watching to see what happens next:


States are frustrated that the federal government has not stopped pollution
from ballast water.


Michigan is the first state to require all ocean-going ships to have a
ballast water permit to dock at its ports. Shippers can only buy a permit
if they show that they won’t release invasive species into state waters.


Stephanie Showalter directs the National Sea Grant Law Center. She says
it’ll be at least a few months before it’s clear whether the Michigan law
will work.


“Most likely if Michigan’s laws are working and seem easy to implement I’d
suspect the other Great Lakes states would model their legislation very
closely to the Michigan legislation.”


California recently passed its own ballast water law, but it’s not as
restrictive as the Michigan law.


Showalter says the shipping industry could sue Michigan on the grounds that
the law restricts interstate commerce.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

The Invasion of the Quaggas

  • A close-up of the quagga mussel. Quaggas have spread in all of the Great Lakes except Lake Superior. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan Sea Grant Archives)

Whitefish is a main dish for everything from fish boils to fancy dinners all around the Great Lakes region. But in some areas of the Great Lakes, whitefish aren’t doing so well. Rebecca Williams reports on what’s happening to the fish many people love to eat:

Transcript

Whitefish is a main dish for everything from fish boils to fancy dinners all around the Great Lakes region. But in some areas of the Great Lakes, whitefish aren’t doing so well. Rebecca Williams reports on what’s happening to the fish many people love to eat:

(sound of knives getting sharpened and fish being filleted)

Mike Monahan sells fish from all over the world at his seafood market. But he says whitefish is a very popular seller.


“It’s been there forever, and everybody just expects it to be there, and it’s inexpensive. But really it’s a great fish, as far as a nice light delicate fish, I’d put it up against the soles and flounders.”


Monahan says he’s still getting good supplies of whitefish. So, for now, he’s happy.


But some of the people who catch whitefish are worried. Commercial fishers have been hauling in skinnier whitefish in some parts of the lakes. It’s taking whitefish longer to grow to a size worth selling. And in some cases, the fish aren’t fat enough to make a good fillet.


(sound of shorebirds)


Paul Jensen fishes for whitefish in Lake Michigan. He says lately, he’s had to move his boat to deeper waters. That’s because whitefish are hungry and they’re swimming out deeper. They aren’t finding their favorite food. It’s a little shrimp-like creature called Diporeia.


“Diporeia are probably like a Snickers bar to whitefish; they were high in fats, high in lipids and it was their main food – it was very nutritious for them and it affected their growth rate. Eating Diporeia a fish could reach maturity maybe in 18 months or 2 years. Now we’re looking at fish that may take 5 years to get there.”


Whitefish are not eating Diporeia because it’s vanishing. In some places, researchers used to find 10-thousand of the little critters in a square meter of sediment. Now there are very few, or none at all.


Tom Nalepa has been trying to figure out why. Nalepa is a biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab.


“It’s a real scientific puzzle as to why Diporeia is declining. It’s definitely related to the spread of quagga mussels and zebra mussels but that exact negative relationship is kind of elusive at this point in time.”


But Nalepa says he’s sure the invasive mussels are to blame. The mussels got into the Lakes in the ballast tanks of foreign ships. And they’ve spread in all the lakes except Superior.


Tom Nalepa says he’s seen populations of Diporeia crash right around the time the mussels were booming. Nalepa says now, Diporeia’s gone from large areas in most of the Lakes.


That’s bad because Diporeia is an important food source for most of the fish in the Great Lakes.


But for whitefish it’s really crucial. Back in the good old days, Diporeia made up about 80% of their diet.


Tom Nalepa says whitefish are trying to find something else to eat. He’s seeing them switch to a snack food that could make them even skinnier.


They’re starting to eat quagga mussels.


“When whitefish feed on quagga mussels they have to deal with the shell which has no energy content at all and it has to pass the shells through its digestive system so basically the fish feels full when it’s not getting any energy source.”


Nalepa says to the fish, quagga mussels must seem like good food, because there are lots of them.


He says quagga mussels are booming, because they can live in harsher conditions than zebra mussels can. So biologists are predicting quaggas will be even worse for the lakes than zebra mussels.


“Where are things ultimately going to end up? People may just have to get used to fewer fish. Because basically now we’re trading the fish community for the mussel community. The lakes are loaded with mussels instead of fish now. It may be just the way it’s gonna be.”


Some fishermen are already seeing things change. One day last season, Paul Jensen pulled in some of his nets. He was expecting fish.


“It was kind of startling because the amount of quagga mussels that came up with those nets far exceeded the catch of fish. And we hadn’t really equipped the boat with a snow shovel to shovel quagga mussels out of the boat. The impacts are startling because you begin to wonder, if our little net caught these, how many are there and what are the impacts going to be down the road?”


Jensen says he wishes the invaders had never gotten into the lakes in the first place, because there’s no way to predict what effect they’ll have next.


But some scientists worry these changes at the bottom of the food chain will lead to a major collapse of the fish stocks that many people depend on.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Fish Disease Prompts Ban on Ballast Water

An emerging fish disease known as viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, has prompted a proposed ban on the use of ballast water in the Great Lakes. Chuck Quirmbach reports the proposed ban is leading to predictions of economic disruption:

Transcript

An emerging fish disease known as viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, has prompted a proposed ban on the use of ballast water in the Great Lakes. The proposed ban is leading to predictions of economic disruption. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The US Government has put temporary limits on the shipments of live fish from the great lakes states. That’s because of a virus in some great lakes waters that is fatal to fish. The state of Michigan says a better way to prevent that virus from spreading is to ban freshwater ships from taking in ballast water from the lakes that are contaminated.


Jim Weakley is president of the Lake Carriers Association. He says ships couldn’t operate if they couldn’t take on ballast.


“You’re talking about shutting down the movement of iron ore, coal, limestone, cement, salt; all the products we move that keep the manufacturing basis of this area moving.”


Environmental groups support the proposed ban on ballast water intake, saying ballast transfers move around a lot of unwanted species.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Invasives Destroying Great Lakes Food Chain

  • Biologists sorting fish. The populations of smaller fish that game fish eat have collapsed in Lake Huron. (Photo courtesy of MI DNR)

Although zebra mussels have been affecting the ecology of the Great Lakes since they were first found in 1988, researchers are continuously surprised at how much damage they’ve caused. Now, biologists are wondering if zebra mussels and the more recently arrived quagga mussels are to blame for a collapse of the fishery in one of North America’s largest lakes. Lester Graham reports the researchers are also wondering if this collapse is a preview of what will happen to all of the Great Lakes:

Transcript

Although zebra mussels have been affecting the ecology of the Great Lakes since they were first found in 1988, researchers are continuously surprised at how much damage they’ve caused. Now, biologists are wondering if zebra mussels and the more recently arrived quagga mussels are to blame for a collapse of the fishery in one of North America’s largest lakes. Lester Graham reports the researchers are also wondering if this collapse is a preview of what will happen to all of the Great Lakes:


It’s off-season for charter boat fishing and Captain Wayne Banicky asked if we could meet at a local watering hole called the Boat Bar. Captain Banicky takes people out fishing on Lake Huron. Well, he used to. The past few years he’s been charter boat fishing in Lake Michigan. He says fish started to become more scarce on Lake Huron, and he was forced to make the move.


“Economics, pure and simple. Dollars and cents. Once you start seeing a decline and being on the water every day and you see those declines in your numbers, it’s just a matter of time before financially you can’t afford to stay there. Those dock fees aren’t given up free. That’s an expensive tab to pay every year.”


Fishing for most species in Lake Huron is not good. But the story is not just a matter of not stocking enough fish or just a bad year, it’s a matter of a collapse of the bottom of the food chain. It’s not just the fish sport fishers like to catch that are down, it’s their prey: the smaller fish those big game fish eat. Prey fish stocks have collapsed, and supplies of the food those small prey fish eat, the plankton, have also collapsed.


Jim Johnson is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Alpena Fisheries Research Station.


“There was a huge decline in the amount of nutrients available to zooplankton and phytoplankton in the middle of Lake Huron. These are the basic nutrient bits that fish eat. And it appears now to most of us in the scientific community that a large portion of the nutrients that used enter Lake Huron are now being trapped by zebra and quagga mussels and not finding their way to alewives and other prey fish.”


Scientists from different government agencies and universities in the U.S. and Canada had been noticing changes, but things have gone seriously wrong very quickly in Lake Huron, and it might go wrong other places.


Tom Nalepa is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. He says tiny aquatic food sources for fish, such as a shrimp-like organism called diporeia, are declining dramatically in other Great Lakes.


“All the players are in place for it to happen in these other lakes too, you know, the loss of diporeia, the expansion of quagga mussels. And maybe Lake Huron is the first to show a collapse in the prey fish. What does it mean? Well basically, you know, there’s not going to be many fish out there for the sport fisherman to catch anymore.”


And sport fishing is multi-billion dollar industry in the Great Lakes. Back at the Boat Bar, charter fishing boat captain Wayne Banicky says fishing is still good in Lake Michigan, but he worries when he thinks about what happened in Lake Huron.


“I think that the fishery as a whole in the Great Lakes is in serious jeopardy right now. Something’s got to be done.”


But the question is what? What can be done when invasive species are changing an entire ecosystem to the point the fishery collapses?


“I don’t know to be honest with you. I don’t think any one of us knows. It’s scary, that much I will admit to you. It is scary right now.”


And guys like Captain Banicky aren’t the only ones worried.


Jim Johnson at Alpena Fisheries Research Station says you can’t undo the damage that’s already done. It’s just a matter of waiting to see how nature responds to the invasive zebra and quagga mussels and other invaders. Johnson says the key is to prevent more invasive species from being introduced to the lakes.


“The best we can do right now, I think the single most effective thing we as managers can do, is to make it understood by the decision makers just how disruptive the invasive species are and try to put a stop to those.”


The source of many of these invasive species is the ballast tanks of foreign ships entering the Great Lakes. Some regulations have reduced the chance that more invasive species will hitchhike to the Great Lakes, but more are still getting in. In the meantime, agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast Guard say Congress hasn’t given them the authority to regulate foreign ships strictly enough to stop new invasive species from entering.


So, fishery managers can only watch the other Great Lakes for more signs of a collapse of the fisheries as they’ve only been able to stand by and watch happen in Lake Huron.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Keeping Invasive Species Out

  • Ballast holds can carry aquatic species from foreign ports to U.S. ports. Those species can cause severe damage to the ecological system of harbors, lakes and rivers. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:

Transcript

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:


Ships use water for ballast to keep the ship balanced and level. But taking up ballast water in a foreign port also takes up aquatic hitch-hikers, such as zebra mussels.


Most cargo ships on the Great Lakes are American or Canadian and just travel within the lakes. Ships from overseas only make up a small fraction of the cargo traffic to ports in the Great Lakes, but those ships have brought in dozens of invasive species that have hurt the ecology of the lakes. Some invasives eat the eggs of native fish. They compete for food. They cause disruptions that have led to massive die-offs of fish and waterfowl such as seagulls, loons, and terns.


It has also cost industry, and ultimately you. For example, it costs to clean out zebra mussels from water intake pipes, and some fish have become more scarce.


Jennifer Nalbone is with the environmental organization Great Lakes United. She says it’s a real problem.


“One of the greatest tensions that exists in the Great Lakes today is between commercial navigation development and the invasive species that are being brought into the region by a small subset of ships that are operating on the Great Lakes.”


Nalbone says government agencies could require ships from overseas to install filters or treatment systems that would stop the aquatic nuisances from being brought on board. But those agencies have not done anything. They say Congress hasn’t instructed them to do anything.


And Jennifer Nalbone says many in Congress don’t understand much about invasive species and ballast water.


“It’s very difficult to get things done in D.C. when key federal leaders and committees are not from the Great Lakes region, and they want their own projects advanced first.”


You can imagine if you’re a Congressman from Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Arizona, invasive species from ballast water likely are not at the top of your to-do list.


The only thing that is required is overseas ships have to exchange their ballast water with ocean water once they’re at sea. The idea is to flush out the invasives. It’s not been entirely effective because new invasive species have been brought into the Great Lakes since the policy went into effect.


Allegra Cangelosi is a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute. She’s been working on the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project for a decade now, trying to find solutions to the ballast treatment problem.


Cangelosi says since the ballast water exchange policy was put into effect, not much else has been done. She says the hold up now is because some government officials don’t want to do anything until a perfect standard is set for ballast treatment. Cangelosi says it doesn’t have to be perfect.


“No, I mean, I’ve been in this business, I’ve been following this issue since 1989 and this is the worst stalemate I’ve ever experienced on this issue area. And, I think what we need to do is just get real and start to require ships to use treatments that are available. So, if we can get ships to use even an imperfect treatment system that is better than what we’re doing now, that’s the road to getting to the perfect treatment system, and it’s the road to improving prevention in the near term.”


The overseas shipping industry says it’s working on the problem. The International Maritime Organization has set a standard for ballast water treatment, but, it’s voluntary. Almost no foreign ships have volunteered because they don’t want to choose a system that might not meet the standard the U.S. government will someday set.


Adolph Ojard is the Executive Director of the Duluth, Minnesota Seaway Port Authority. He says ballast treatment will happen, eventually.


“I don’t have a timeline right now, but I tell you what, we know the problem is contained within the ballast tank of a ship. So, it’s identified. I would think within the next few years we would have a system that is effective, and then we’ll go through an implementation phase.”


But those who are concerned about damage to the Great Lakes fishery and the entire ecological system say right now more invasives are being introduced by foreign ships every year.


Jennifer Nalbone with Great Lakes United says those foreign organisms have caused enough damage already.


“We certainly have enough information to take action. We know that there are tremendous impacts. So, we don’t need to have yet another species come into the lakes before we say ‘let’s do something now.'”


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered by a judge to treat ballast water like pollution. It’s unclear whether the EPA will accept or challenge that ruling. Meanwhile, quietly, some economists and others are wondering if the price the invasives cost the economy is worth the commerce that the relatively few foreign ships bring to Great Lakes ports.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Is Goby Die Off Good News?

Officials say a disease might be killing an invasive species of fish in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The GLRC’s David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

Officials say a disease might be killing an invasive species of fish in Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The GLRC’s David Sommerstein
reports.

Where the lake and the river meet, people have been finding dead round
gobies.

“Dozens in some cases, hundreds of dead gobies that have been washing up on shores.”

Steve Litwiler is with New York’s Department of Environmental
Conservation. He says a change in water temperature or a poison could
cause the die-off, but initial sampling suggests some kind of disease.

“Is it a disease that could potentially affect other fish? Fortunately right
now the only fish that are dying appear to be the round gobies.”

If only the round gobies die, this could be a good news story. Round gobies
hitched a ride from Europe in the ballast of foreign freighters. They’ve
displaced native species across the Great Lakes by breeding faster and eating
other fishes’ eggs and young.

For the GLRC, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Ten Threats: The Earliest Invader

  • A bridge for a river... this portion of the Erie Canal crossed the Genesee River via an aqueduct in Rochester, NY. This photo was taken around 1914. (From the collection of the Rochester Public Library Local History Division)

The Ten Threats to the Great Lakes” is looking first at alien invasive species. There are more than 160 non-native species in the Great Lakes basin. If they do environmental or economic harm, they’re called invasive species. There are estimates that invasive species cost the region billions of dollars a year. Different species got here different ways. David Sommerstein tells us how some of the region’s earliest invaders got into the Lakes:

Transcript

We’re bringing you an extensive series on Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is guiding us through the reports:


“The Ten Threats to the Great Lakes” is looking first at alien invasive species. There are more than 160 non-native species in the Great Lakes basin. If they do environmental or economic harm, they’re called invasive species. There are estimates that invasive species cost the region billions of dollars a year. Different species got here different ways. David Sommerstein tells us how some of the region’s earliest invaders got into the Lakes:


If the history of invasive species were a movie, it would open like this:


(Sound of banjo)


It’s 1825. Politicians have just ridden the first ship across the newly dug Erie Canal from Buffalo to New York.


(Sound of “The Erie Canal”)


“I’ve got an old mule, and her name is Sal. Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal…”


Chuck O’Neill is an invasive species expert with New York Sea Grant.


“At the canal’s formal opening, Governor DeWitt Clinton dumped a cask of Lake Erie water; he dumped that water into New York Harbor.”


Meanwhile, in Buffalo, a cask of Hudson River water was triumphantly poured into Lake Erie.


“In a movie, that would be the flashback with the impending doom-type music in the background.”


(Sound of ominous music)


It was an engineering and economic milestone, but a danger lurked. For the first time since glaciers carved the landscape twelve thousand years ago, water from the Hudson and water from the Great Lakes mixed.


(Sound of “Dragnet” theme)


Enter the villain: the sea lamprey. It’s a slimy, snake-like parasite in the Atlantic Ocean. It sucks the blood of host fish.


Within a decade after the Erie Canal and its network of feeders opened, the sea lamprey uses the waterways to swim into Lake Ontario. By the 1920’s and 30’s, it squirms into the upper Lakes, bypassing Niagara Falls through the Welland Canal.


What happens next is among the most notorious examples of damage done by an invasive species in the Great Lakes. By the 1950’s, the sea lamprey devastates Lake trout populations in Lake Superior. Mark Gaden is with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.


“They changed a way of life in the Great Lakes basin, the lampreys. They preyed directly on fish, they drove commercial fisheries out of business, the communities in the areas that were built around the fisheries were impacted severely.”


The sea lamprey wasn’t the only invader that used the canals. Canal barges carried stowaway plants and animals in their hulls and ballast. In the mid-1800’s, the European faucet snail clogged water intakes across the region. The European pea clam, purple loosestrife, marsh foxtail, flowering rush – all used the canal system to enter the Great Lakes.


Chuck O’Neill says the spread of invasive species also tells the tale of human transportation.


“If you look at a map, you can pretty much say there was some kind of a right-of-way – railroad, canal, stageline – that was in those areas just by the vegetation patterns.”


Almost one hundred invasive species came to the Great Lakes this way before 1960. O’Neill says every new arrival had a cascading effect.


“Each time you add in to an ecosystem another organism that can out-compete the native organisms that evolved there, you’re gradually making that ecosystem more and more artificial, less and less stable, much more likely to be invaded by the next invader that comes along.”


(Sound of “Dragnet” theme)


The next one in the Great Lakes just might be the Asian Carp. It’s swimming up the Illinois River, headed toward Lake Michigan. Cameron Davis directs the Alliance for the Great Lakes.


“If this thing gets in, it can cause catastrophic damage to the Great Lakes, ‘cause it eats thirty, forty percent of its body weight in plankton every day, and plankton are the base of the food chain in the Great Lakes.”


The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has installed an electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal that might stop the carp. But as long as the canals around the region remain open for shipping and recreation, it’s likely more invaders may hitch a ride or simply swim into the Great Lakes.


For the GLRC, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Closing a Door

  • Coast Guard Marine Science Technician Sheridan McClellan demonstrates some of the equipment used to check the ballast water of foreign ships. Environmentalists believe the Coast Guard should be given the equipment and authority to more thoroughly check the ships for invasive species in ballast water. (Photo by Lester Graham)

In this “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes” series, we found experts across the region point to alien invasive species as the number one challenge facing the Lakes. The Great Lakes have changed dramatically because of non-indigenous species that compete for food and space with native fish and organisms. More than 160 foreign aquatic species have been introduced since the Lakes were opened to shipping from overseas. It’s believed that many of the invasive species hitched a ride in the ballast tanks of ocean-going cargo ships.

Transcript

Today we’ll hear more about Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the next report in the series:


In this “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes” series, we found experts across the region point to alien invasive species as the number one challenge facing the Lakes. The Great Lakes have changed dramatically because of non-indigenous species that compete for food and space with native fish and organisms. More than 160 foreign aquatic species have been introduced since the Lakes were opened to shipping from overseas. It’s believed that many of the invasive species hitched a ride in the ballast tanks of ocean-going cargo ships.


Foreign ships entering the Great Lakes are boarded and inspected in Montreal, long before the ships enter U.S. Waters. Sheridan McClellan is a marine science technician with the U.S. Coast Guard. He says inspectors take samples of the ballast water and test it onboard ship. He demonstrates the equipment at the Coast Guard lab in Massena, New York.


MCCLELLAN: “And when you look through this refractometer, if you look on the right hand side, you will see the salinity… If you’d like to look through it…”


GRAHAM: “Oh, yeah. I see.”


MCCLELLAN: “You see a line?”


GRAHAM: “Right.”


The inspectors want to see salt in the water. That means the ship exchanged ballast water from a freshwater port with ocean water that kills most freshwater organisms hiding out in the ballasts.


“Once we check all the ballast tanks and they’re all good to go, we tell the captain that he’s allowed to discharge his ballast in the Great Lakes if he so desires.”


And that’s it; if the ship’s ballast contains ocean water and the log shows the water came from deep ocean, it’s good to go. Lieutenant Commander James Bartlett commands the Massena station. He says that’s all the Coast Guard can do.


“We’ve been asked if we are actually checking for the organisms and doing, you know, a species count. Right now, that technology’s not available to us nor, really, do we have that capability in our regulations. It’s essentially, it’s a log check, an administrative, and then also a physical salinity check.”


But a ship can also be allowed into the Great Lakes if its ballast tanks are empty. Ships fill their ballasts tanks to keep the vessel stable in the water. When a ship is fully loaded with cargo, it sits deep enough in the water that it doesn’t need ballast water for stability. It’s declared as “No Ballast on Board,” or NOBOB.


But “No Ballast On Board” does not mean empty; there’s always a little residual water and sediment.


(Sound of footsteps thumping on metal)


Deep inside the S.S. William A Irvin, an out-of-service iron ore ship that’s permanently docked in Duluth, Minnesota, Captain Ray Skelton points out the rusty structure of the ballast tanks.


“You can see by all the webs, scantlings, cross members, frames, just the interior supports for the cargo hold itself, and the complexity of this configuration, that it wouldn’t be possible to completely pump all of the tank.”


And a recent study of NOBOB ships found there’s a lot more than just water and sediment sloshing around in the bottom of the tanks. David Reid headed up the study. He says there are live organisms in both the water and the sediment.


“If you multiply it out, you see that there are millions of organisms even though you have a very small amount of either water or sediment.”


And when ships load or unload they discharge or take on ballast water, that stirs up the water and sediment in the bottom of the ballast tanks along with the organisms they’re carrying from half way around the world, and they end up in the Great Lakes.


The shipping industry says for the past few years, the security regulations since 9/11 have been more important to the industry than dealing with ballast water. Helen Brohl is Executive Director of the U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association. She says the shipping industry hasn’t forgotten; it is paying close attention to concerns about ballast water.


“From my perspective, in ten years, ballast water is not an issue, because in ten years there’ll be treatment technology on most ships. We’re moving right along. Ballast, in some respects, is kind of beating a dead horse.”


But environmentalists and others say ten years to get most of the ships fitted with ballast water treatment equipment is too long. New non-indigenous species are being introduced to the Lakes every few months.


The invasive species that are already in the Great Lakes are costing the economy and taxpayers about five billion dollars a year. The environmentalists insist Congress needs to implement new ballast regulations for the Coast Guard soon.


They also say the Environmental Protection Agency should start treating ballast water like pollution before more invasive species catch a ride in the ballast tanks of the foreign freighters and further damage the Lakes.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Hidden Costs of Invasives

  • Foreign ships like this one from Cypress are known as "Salties" around the Great Lakes. These ships are responsible for bringing aquatic invasive species into the Lakes, and we're all paying a price. (Photo by Mark Brush)

In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?

Transcript

Today we begin an extensive series called “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.” The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is our guide through this series:


In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?


Well, let’s say I import widgets.


(Sound of widgets dropping into a cup)


I’ve been getting widgets from somewhere in Asia, but I found out I could get widgets from an eastern European company for a dollar-a-widget cheaper. The factory there can ship them directly to my warehouse in Great Lakes City, USA by ship across the Atlantic and into the Great Lakes.


Pretty good deal. I get good widgets, the shipping costs are cheaper, my profits go up, and it means cheaper widgets at the retail level. Everybody wins, right?


Well, the ship that brought the widgets also brought an alien invasive species that stowed away in the ship’s ballast. A critter that’s native to eastern European waters is now wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes ecosystem.


Aquatic alien invasive species that have invaded the Great Lakes now cost the economy an estimated five billion dollars a year. Five billion dollars of what’s considered biological pollution.


So, who’s paying the price?


Cameron Davis is with the environmental group Alliance for the Great Lakes.


“Unfortunately, in most instances, who pays for those hiddens costs are you and me. We pay for our water agencies to have to clean zebra mussels out of their pipes, we pay our agencies through taxes to have to keep Asian Carp out of the Chicago River, we pay through our taxes in any number of ways to try to fight these invaders.”


So right now, taxpayers and utility ratepayers – even those who never bought a widget and never will – are paying the price. Davis says that’s just not right.


“One of the things we need to do is make sure that those ships are paying full cost for everything that they bring, not just the widgets, but the stowaways like the zebra mussels, things like that that they have on board.”


So, why target the ships?


Dennis Schornack chairs the U.S. Sector of the International Joint Commission. The IJC is a bi-national agency that monitors a water quality agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Schornack says that’s the way it usually works: the polluters pay.


“The cost of the impact of these unwanted creatures is something that’s not baked into the price charged for the widgets. So, somewhere that external cost needs to be captured back into the price. The ship owners themselves are the likely target to pay for this through a permitting fee which, of course, they will pass on to their customers, the people who made the widgets.”


So all of us who buy widgets end up paying a little more, but paying permits and fees could cost shippers more than they can afford. George Kuper is with the Council of Great Lakes Industries. Kuper says he understands the first impulse is to make the shippers pay.


“The problem with that, of course, is the shippers were already close to non-economic as a method of transportation, which puts us right up against an environmental challenge because shipping is by far the most environmentally un-intrusive method of moving large amounts of materials.”


Kuper says using other methods of transportation such as trains or trucks to move that cargo from East Coast ports might burn more fuel and cause more pollution.


But of all the shipping on the Great Lakes, only six percent of the tonnage is carried on ocean-going vessels. The rest is transported on Great Lakes carriers that never leave the lakes and don’t bring in new invasives. So, the question is this: is that six percent of cargo worth the damage that aquatic invasive species cost each year.


Many experts say there is a fairly simple answer to all of this. Technology is available for cargo ships to eliminate invasives from their ballast tanks. Requiring those ships to use that technology would likely add some to the cost of every widget, but supporters of the idea say it would greatly reduce the environmental cost to the Lakes.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links