December 18, 2023
Mr. Jack Faulk
Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, Office of Water (4504T)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
In re: EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482 (EPA standards of performance under the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act)
Dear Mr. Faulk:
The American Fisheries Society and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission together provide the following comments about the EPA’s proposed ballast water rule (Proposed Rule), published on October 18, 2023 pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA).
Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is dedicated to improving the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) was established by treaty between Canada and the United States in 1955 to improve and perpetuate fish stocks of common concern between the two nations. Since the 1980s, both AFS and the Commission have been strong proponents of ballast water regulations, laws, and best management practices that protect the Great Lakes and North American waters because ship ballast is a primary vector for injurious invasive species that hurt the economy and alter and damage the ecology. AFS and the Commission support effective ballast water standards and practices for vessels—new and old—that operate in the Great Lakes. The practices should be uniform across state and international boundaries.
Many of the region’s most damaging invasive species—like zebra and quagga mussels, European ruffe, Bythotrephes—have been brought to the Great Lakes via oceangoing vessels (“Salties”). Several of those species have made the Great Lakes home and have spread throughout the system, mainly by “Lakers,” which are vessels that do not leave the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system yet remain a significant vector for the spread of invasive species. These comments relate to the portions of the Proposed Rule that exempt the Lakers from meaningful action to prevent the spread of invasive species.
As the economic and cultural powerhouse of the region, the Great Lakes generate almost $6 trillion annually in economic activity. The fishery alone generates more than $7 billion each year. The lakes contain 84% of North America’s surface freshwater, supplying tens of millions of Canadians and Americans with drinking water supplies. This natural wonder attracts millions of tourists, enhances property values, and accounts for an unrivaled quality of life.
Invasive species threaten all that is valued about the Great Lakes. Whether accidentally or intentionally introduced, the lakes harbor more than 185 non-native species, many of which are harmful. Once a new invasive species enters the lakes and establishes a population, the ability to control, let alone eradicate, the species is virtually impossible. It is imperative that policymakers take the necessary steps to stop new introductions and prevent the spread of those that are present.
EPA is now considering whether an equipment standard for new Lakers may be technologically available, be economically achievable, and have acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. In 2018, Congress enacted the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA) and directed the EPA to establish national standards for vessel discharges, such as ballast water. In October 2020, EPA released its proposed draft VIDA rules that regulate oceangoing vessels but exempted all Lakers from having to treat ballast water. The Proposed Rule would now require “new” Lakers to install, operate, and maintain ballast water management systems. The existing Lakers would be exempt under the Proposed Rule, leaving a major pathway for invasion open. The Proposed Rule inadequately addresses the significant vector of invasive species from Lakers and, in fact, is a step backward in attempts to protect the Great Lakes from interlake movement of harmful species.
Studies are clear and compelling. Recent sampling and analysis research,[1] conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, builds upon considerable research to confirm that ballast water management systems (BWMS) reduced the abundance of living organisms in Great Lakes ballast water by more than 98%. Based on this assessment, Lakers using BWMS would represent a significant reduction in the risks posed by Great Lakes ships for spreading invasive species. Lakers move and discharge a considerable amount of ballast water[2]. Lake Superior, for instance, has received eleven new species from other Great Lakes, Lake Michigan five, Lake Huron seven, Lake Erie four, and Lake Ontario three[3]. Laker ballast water contains zooplankton and phytoplankton, including invasive species. A Canadian-government assessment3 conducted in 2014 demonstrates the considerable risk Lakers pose by moving species throughout the Great Lakes system and Adebayo et. al.[4] demonstrate that the St. Lawrence River is a gateway to the Great Lakes; Salties leave exotic AIS in the river and Lakers pick them up and bring them to the Great Lakes. According to Casas-Monroy et. al.,[5] Lakers, on a per-discharge basis, carry more non-indigenous zooplankton than other shipping pathways, such as Atlantic and Pacific transoceanic voyages and east coast of Canada coastal domestic voyages. Moreover, Rup et. al.,[6] note that the relatively short nature of interlake voyages accounts for the release of a high volume of healthy organisms, and Casas-Monroy et. al.,[7] assert that the environmental similarity between Laker ports means the likelihood of survival once an organism is discharged is quite high. The literature about the Laker risk is more extensive than cited here.
While AFS and the Commission sympathize with domestic shippers in that they did not transport invasive species into the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes region, the fact remains that Lakers move species throughout the system, either by expediting the expansion of their range or by bringing species to areas where they would not have arrived without human means of transport. Both outcomes hasten and exacerbate the economic and ecosystem losses.
The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act was quite clear in expecting that Lakers be regulated. Indeed, it bears stressing that US law has not exempted Lakers from ballast water regulation and, as such, the proposed rule should require steps to ensure Lakers treat their ballast before discharge into the Great Lakes.
Canada is confident enough in BWMS that it intends to require BWMS on Lakers in the near future. We applaud this requirement and note that, to be effective on the Great Lakes, all vessels operating on both sides of the border—or transcending the border—must adhere to uniform rules and practices. The only thing more frustrating than trying to manage a system as large as the Great Lakes is trying to manage half of a system. Now is not the time to back away from considerable research and development into ballast water systems that could work on all Great Lakes vessels.
AFS and the Commission are encouraged that this Proposed Rule will require new Lakers to install BWMS. That is an essential step in the right direction. However, new Lakers are rarely constructed, and AFS and the Commission contend that continuing to exempt existing Lakers from BWMS will cement the Laker risk for generations to come.
AFS and the Commission are far from alone in calling for more robust ballast water management by Lakers. In 2022, key members of the outdoor recreation industry formed The Aquatic Invasive Species Commission to help stop and reverse the introduction and spread of AIS in the United States. The AIS Commissioners served on a voluntary basis and over the course of several months conducted a series of listening sessions and meetings, during which they received input from experts, including state and federal agency personnel, leading scientists, congressional staff and members, and the fishing industry on various topics to inform this report. AFS and the Commission actively participated in the AIS Commission. The recommendations in the AIS Commission’s report[8] stated clearly that ballast water management efforts should be strengthened by ensuring that all vessels that engage in ballast water discharge be required to adhere to U.S. law and consistent international standards. A revised EPA rule that applies to all Lakers—old and new—is consistent with this recommendation.
The Proposed Rule acknowledges that additional research is needed to explore options and points to Congress’ acknowledgement that practicable ballast water management solutions are needed for Lakers. AFS and the Commission support aggressive research into effective BWMS to ensure such technologies and actions are appropriate. AFS and the Commission endorse, for instance, the AIS Commission’s recommendation that Congress establish a grant fund to encourage installing, using, and maintaining type-approved BWMS to meet regulations. The United States should also participate in national or binational scientific or monitoring programs that report on discharge sample collection and analysis following monitoring requirements, as indicated by the EPA’s Vessels General Permit. In addition, AFS and the Commission endorse the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program, with the express purpose of identifying and piloting BWMS for Great Lakes vessels. The EPA is incorrect, in AFS and the Commission’s view, to exempt Lakers from ballast water management while we wait for more research; such an approach would make Great Lakes protection a perpetually elusive endeavor.
Finally, AFS and the Commission are not persuaded by the argument that costs prohibit the application of BWMS on Great Lakes vessels. The spread of invasive species is costly to everyone, and continually expecting society to absorb the costs of invasive species damage by Lakers is irresponsible public policy. The Lakers already enjoy considerable benefits from a taxpayer-subsidized network of shipping channels and locks. Taxpayers should not have to bear the costs of invasive species spread by Lakers.
The EPA’s goal of protecting the Great Lakes from harmful invasive species falls short by exempting Lakers from meaningful action that can be taken at present. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Robert Lambe Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary Executive Director
Great Lakes Fishery Commission American Fisheries Society
[1] Bailey, S. A., Casas-Monroy, O., et. al. (2023). Efficacy of ballast water management systems operating within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River (2017 – 2022). Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1376: vii + 24p.
[2] Cangelosi, A; Anders, O., et. al. (2018). Great Waters Research Collaborative: Great Lakes Ship Ballast Monitoring Project Technical Report. Lake Superior Research Institute. Available at https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/78497/LSRI-GWRC-TR-GLSBM-1_FINALv2_31May2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y; Casas-Monroy, O., Linley, R.D., et. al., (2014)..National Risk Assessment for Introduction of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to Canada by Ballast Water. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/128. vi + 73 p.
[3] Environment and Climate Change Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). State of the Great Lakes 2019 Technical Report. Cat No. En161-3/1E-PDF. EPA 905-R-20-044. Available at binational.net.
[4] Adebayo, A.A., A. Shan, et. al. (2014). Domestic ships as a potential pathway of nonindigenous species from the Saint Lawrence River to the Great Lakes. Biol Invasions. 16, Pp. 793-801.
[5] Casas-Monroy et. al. (2014).
[6] Rup, M.P., Bailey, S.A., et. al. (2010). Domestic ballast operations on the Great Lakes: potential importance of Lakers as a vector for introduction and spread of nonindigenous species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 67, 256-268.
[7] Casas-Monroy et. al. (2014).
[8] https://www.trcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Aquatic-Invasive-Species-Report-3-28-2023.pdf
