[2] A native of southern Russia, the zebra mussel most likely made its way to North America through the release of ballast water from cargo ships traveling from the Black Sea to the Great Lakes.

This was most likely the way that they were introduced to California: agricultural inspection stations have reported finding mussels on the hulls or motor compartments of at least 19 trailered boats arriving into the state.

[3] In addition to being able to travel long distances during both immature and mature stages of life, zebra mussels can produce up to several hundred thousand eggs in a single season.

[1] The Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuss) is another aquatic nuisance species that has spread to the Great Lakes, Wisconsin, and Michigan, after first being discovered in the St. Louis River Estuary of the Duluth-Superior Harbor in 1986.

Mitten crabs (Eriochir sinensis) from China were first sighted in San Francisco Bay in 1992, and are suspected of being purposely introduced to initiate a fishery.

[11] In the case of aquatic habitats, nonindigenous species can reduce nutrient availability and water quality, or make land prone to erosion, like the mitten crab that burrows into levees.

Globalization has allowed people to travel farther and quicker, but differences in cultures and laws are difficult to navigate and they comprise a mismatched patchwork of rules.

Uniform standards would require all in the maritime industries to follow the certain practices and use certain technologies in order to prevent invasions, but these procedures can be seen as too costly and time-consuming, and there are disagreements about which to adopt.

It authorizes the government to produce guidelines for how to guard against the introduction and dispersal of invasive species, regulations for vessel operations and crew safety, and education and training programs to promote compliance.

The breadth of NISA touches multiple levels of government, from federal to local, because the spatial scale of dealing with invasive species ranges from large to small.

[24] One of its main goals was to establish the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to work closely with lower levels of government in order to address the problems with zebra mussels.

Six years after NANPCA, more invasive species were found to be causing negative impacts across the country, and Congress moved to expand the original act.

Through NISA, the control of invasive species moves beyond zebra mussels and ballast water, although those two issues remain high in importance and priority.

NISA reauthorizes the Task Force, as established by NANPCA, and it is responsible for developing the guidelines, regulations, education and training programs, ecological surveys, and information clearinghouse described in the act.

The Task Force is composed of 13 federal agencies, but the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the co-chairs.

FWS provides an Executive Secretary who is essentially the leader of the Task Force, responsible for not only issuing guidelines and regulations, but also for maintaining records and submitting reports to Congress.

For the purpose of controlling these species' introductions and dispersal, the Executive Secretary of the Task Force is given the responsibility of issuing voluntary guidelines for ships carrying ballast water.

The plans help state governments identify problems and solutions, and allows them to work on smaller, more practicable and nuanced levels than within the federal framework.

[29] Based on the discrepancy between the lack of broad national efforts and the proliferation of individual state plans throughout the country, it would seem that this is the more successful strategy in publicizing and managing the issue of invasive species.

The panels encourage cooperation from both private and public sectors by setting priority issues, coordinating programs and efforts, and promoting research and education.

[29] Due to the widespread and complex nature of the issue regarding invasive species and their introductions into sensitive habitats, there are a number of stakeholder groups that are affected by NISA.

In the case of managing ballast water, technical assistance and support from biologists and ship engineers are crucial in developing guidelines that are both effective and feasible.

Newer ships are also being built with better ballast technology, and new trainings, education programs, and plans have been effective in raising awareness about invasive species.

Its scope was broader than its predecessor, NANPCA, and it initiated a number of new strategies aimed at promoting collaboration, research, and education, which have actually been more successful than the guidelines and regulations put forth.

By focusing so heavily on ballast water, it neglects other significant pathways of invasive species introductions, as well as geographic locations that are not common sites for transoceanic trade.

[25] Increasing populations and travels around the world contribute to the risk of introducing non-native species, and these issues must be addressed if better management and control are expected.

Additionally, though federal, guidelines and regulations to mitigate invasive species should be tailored to fit the specific needs of a geographical location, since each is unique in a number of ways.

Increasing research and monitoring with required vessel reporting can help improve prevention efforts, and reduce further needed budgets to maintain new invasive species potentials altogether.

[25] Criticism comes from a lack of adaptability and robustness as global trades and travel increases the number and complexity of invasive species introduction each day.

In other words, as long as a cargo ship remains within 200 nautical miles off the US coast, it is not considered a biological threat to Great Lakes waters.