Ballast Bill Set Adrift?

The Muskegon Chronicle is reporting that legislation that would have made ballast water treatment mandatory for ships entering the Great Lakes will not see a vote before the end of the year. That means any efforts to regulate ballast at the national level will have to start fresh in 2009.

Why Not Us?

Back in January 2007, an article in the Denver Post asked an interesting question: Why did the quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), found in several states in the Northeast USA, seem to skip over Colorado in its spread to the west, and end up in Nevada (in Lake Mead)? Well, ask no more, Denver Post. KOAA.com and others are reporting that the quagga mussel has been discovered for the first time in Colorado, in Lake Granby. The lake is actually a storage reservoir located on the Colorado River, which has already seen quagga mussel incursions via its southern tip...Lake Mead. The quaggas are thought to have arrived in the reservoir via ballast discharge.

Pair this with the discovery of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Lake Pueblo in late 2007, and Colorado has no need to feel left out any more!

A Seaway Of Controversy

There's an editorial in last Tuesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to prevent ocean-bound ships from transporting new invasive species into the Great Lakes. The reasoning behind the idea is that freighters should be banned from the Seaway until the shipping industry can prove that appropriate measures are being taken to avoid introducing ballast invaders to the region. The Journal Sentinel also published an in-depth two part article on the subject last week.

Got an opinion on this? The MJS is looking for letters to the editor on the subject - details are at the end of the editorial.

(Thanks to Tracy C. for psychically pointing me towards this story ;-))

But Does It Have A Popcorn Button?

An article in New Scientist details an interesting technique for dealing with ballast invaders: zap them with microwaves. Researchers at Louisiana State University have developed industrial-strength microwave generators that can heat ballast water to 55'C (131'F), killing potentially invasive aquatic organisms (and everything else as well!). Now they're working to find a way to integrate the technology into ships, providing a relatively cheap and effective method of treating ballast water. If you want to learn more, check out the original research, published in last month's issue of Environmental Science & Technology (bonus points to them for providing the entire article free of charge!).

Thanks to Michael K. for sending in a link to this story.

Ballast From The Past

NOAA and the Smithsonian Institution recently released a report summarizing the body of knowledge of ballast water issues in the US. The lengthily titled "Current State of Understanding about the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information" (pdf) is...well ok, that title is so darn long it pretty much describes what the report is about, so I'll skip that part of the summary :-).

Here are some highlights from the report:

• Ballast water exchange can be "highly effective" at preventing the introduction of non-native species. However...
• ...the degree of this effectiveness cannot yet be accurately measured because ballast water management is not properly monitored or regulated. Translation: We need more and better data in order to estimate the rate of introduction of non-native marine species into the US. Thus...
• ...to accurately measure the effectiveness of different ballast water management techniques, a "standardized sampling program" is necessary.
• Current ballast water management regulations do not properly address so-called "NOBOB" vessels (NO Ballast On Board), which are also a vector for invasive species introductions.

Much more detail is available, including a list of introduced species present in the Chesapeake Bay, if you click through to the full report, or you can read NOAA's press release here.

Ballast Blitz

I am posting this from Washington D.C., where I am participating in an effort to educate the U.S. House and Senate about ballast water management. Specifically, we are aiming to encourage the support of House Bill 2830 and Senate Bill 1578 (or whatever amalgam of those two bills is eventually created). It has been more than ten years since the first National Aquatic Invasive Species Act was passed, and that has long expired. Since then, invasive species bills have come up in various incarnations about every two years, but die before they get approved (take a trip down memory lane by searching the ISW using the legalese tag). Seems to me that it's long past time we got back on the path to invasive species prevention, and ballast water management is a good a place as any to start...just ask anyone from the Great Lakes Region).

This event is being sponsored by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a group made up of several non-profit organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Wildlife Federation. I've been personally charged with visiting Congress members from my home state, Massachusetts, to plead our case. If you are concerned about ballast invaders and feeling politically motivated, especially if you are from Massachusetts, take a moment to drop an email to your Senator or Representative and let them know you heard about this issue and that you care!

Like A Boat Out Of Water

An environmental group is calling for drastic measures to prevent the further introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes. According to this article at mlive.com, the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition is suggesting that no international ships be allowed to enter the Great Lakes until the U.S. sets federal regulations for how ballast water is dealt with. They've even gone so far as to commission a study showing what the cost would be of diverting the ships and using alternate transportation for goods (more than $50 million, but far less than the estimated $5 billion/year for invasive species management in the Great Lakes region). It has been five years since the U.S. government first considered the idea of ballast water regulations, and some states have become so frustrated with the lack of activity that they're passing their own laws to deal with the issue.

Thanks to John R. from Don Watcher for sending in a link to the story. Interested readers may also want to check out this related press release from the Great Lakes Coalition.

Sue Do grep -l 'ballast' Michigan/*.law | xargs rm

Canada.com recently posted this report about a lawsuit brought by a group of shipping industry stakeholders from Canada, Barbados and the USA against the state of Michigan. The coalition, made up of shipping companies, shipping associations and a dock company, are claiming that the recently enacted Michigan Ballast Water Act is unconstitutional. They also say that the law places an undue burden on the industry and provides little benefit to the Great Lakes.

I did not read all of the background material from the lawsuit, but it looks like this stems from a state law that went into effect on January 1, 2007, stating that all ships entering a port in Michigan that wish to discharge ballast water must apply for a permit (and pay a fee), treat the ballast water in an approved manner, and report on such treatment. The coalition is upset that a state is trying to do the regulating, saying that it would be more appropriately done at the federal level (How long should Michigan be willing to wait for that to happen? Better yet, why not do it at an international level?).

Interested readers may want to check out this page from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which provides links to several relevant documents. Also, this article from the Muskegon Chronicle names some names from the coalition.

Ballast of the Broken Seas

If you're new to the whole ballast water controversy, the Christian Science Monitor just posted a good summary of it on their website. It will give you the background knowledge you need about the environmental concerns of "no ballast on board" ships and get you up to date on the state-level legislation that's slowly being put in place to compensate for a lack of regularion at the federal level.

Bonus points to the CSM for getting a great quote from marine invasives expert James Carlton:

"Considering that there are over 30,000 ships at sea this morning," writes James Carlton, director of the Williams College-Mystic Seaport Maritime Studies Program, in an e-mail, "the total number of organisms and species in this global 'bioflow' on the morning your readers read your piece could be staggering - billions of individuals, and thousands of species."

Demotion of the Ocean

Back in April 2005, the ISW posted about the Federal judge in California that ordered the EPA to stop exempting ballast water from the Clean Water Act. Now that same judge has gone further, ruling last week that the EPA start regulating ballast water by Sept. 30, 2008. As reported by the Muskegon Chronicle, the EPA agreed...to appeal...again (you didn't think there was a chance they would decide not to appeal, did you?).

Here's a great quote from the article:

"If EPA had spent the last seven years developing a permitting program for ballast water instead of fighting this court battle, not only would our water be safer but our economy would be better protected"

- Deborah Sivas, director of the Stanford University Environmental Law School Clinic

In the meantime, the governors of California, Oregon and Washington have banded together and produced the Agreement on Ocean Health (pdf), and Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill to require that the California State Lands Commission have its own ballast management plan by 2008. Sign On San Diego has the story.

Ballast Blast

Update: Looks like the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005 is moving forward. As reported by MarineLog.com, bill S. 363 was unanimously approved by the Commerce Committee. The ISW reported about this bill, thought by some to usurp state/local ballast management regulations already in effect, last week. Next stop for S. 363 is a vote by the full Senate.

Invader Activists

How often do you get an email from an environmentally-minded group telling you *not* to support a bill that sounds like it's going to protect the environment? That's what arrived in my Inbox this morning from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Seems some senators are trying to push the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005 (S 363) through to a quick approval. Funny, it doesn't seem like that long ago I was posting about NAISA, a much more comprehensive Act. The UCS thinks NAISA is in serious jeopardy if legislation specific to ballast is passed. Me, I think we need to stop dividing up invasive species management into compartments (aquatic vs. terrestrial, freshwater vs. marine, plants vs. animals) and realize that if everyone works together, we can avoid a lot of duplication of effort and maybe even learn things from each other.

Since I can't seem to find any trace of this issue on the UCS website, I am taking the liberty of pasting the whole email here. If one of your senators is on the Commerce committee and you feel strongly about this, I urge you to call before this Thursday to let your opinion be heard.

SSI alert: Urgent. Stop a bad ballast water bill

**************** EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ****************

ISSUE On Thursday, July 21, the Senate Commerce Committee - on which one of your Senators sits - is scheduled to vote on a bill to address invasive species in the ballast water of ships. Unfortunately, this bill is weaker and far narrower than the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA) - which UCS supports. If passed, the bill would reduce NAISA's prospects sharply and delay enactment of stronger policy for years.

THE ACTION Call your Senator.

MAIN MESSAGES: Please do not pass Senate Bill 363 as it stands now. Instead, support S. 770, a means to provide stronger federal leadership in preventing further devastation by aquatic invasive species.

DEADLINE: ASAP. The Committee meets on Thursday morning.

************************************

*** THE ISSUE ***

The U.S. Congress is currently debating bills related to the introduction of aquatic invasive species. The most comprehensive of these bills, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA), was re-introduced into the current Congress (109th) by a bi-partisan group of members. If passed, NAISA would reauthorize and strengthen the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. It contains provisions to: regulate ballast discharge from commercial vessels; prevent invasive species introductions from other pathways; support state management plans; screen live aquatic organisms entering the United States for the first time commercially; authorize rapid response funds; create education and outreach programs; conduct research on invasion pathways, and prevention and control technologies; authorize funds for state and regional grants; and strengthen specific prevention efforts in the Great Lakes.

In contrast to the more comprehensive NAISA, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), with strong support from Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced a limited bill, the Ballast Management Act of 2005 (S 363). This bill addresses only invasive species in the ballast water of ships and so it does not provide the much-needed comprehensive solution to the national problem of invasive species moved by ships nor those introduced by other means. Even worse, its plan for managing ballast water would preempt stronger state laws, stretch out implementation to more than a decade, and usurp existing protections in the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, Senator Inouye's industry-supported bill has gained momentum in the U.S. Senate

On Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee is expected to ready the bill for a vote, or "mark-up" the bill. This mark-up is an opportunity for members of the committee, including one of your Senators, to not pass the Ballast Management Act (S. 363) and ask for comprehensive action on aquatic invaders by supporting NAISA (S. 770).

*** THE ACTION ***

Call your Senator (phone number below) to express your opposition to S. 363, the Ballast Management Act of 2005 and urge him or her to not support the bill when the Commerce Committee considers it later this week.

-- TIMING:

ASAP. The Committee meets on Thursday morning.

-- MAIN MESSAGE:

The Ballast Management Act of 2005 addresses only invasive species in the ballast water of ships. For example, it does not cover potentially invasive aquatic organisms that foul ships' hulls, nor does it address those that are intentionally introduced via aquaculture, the aquarium trade and other means not related to ships. Thus it does not provide the much-needed comprehensive solution to the national problem of aquatic invasive species. Even worse, its plan for managing ballast water would preempt stronger state laws, stretch out implementation of new standards to more than a decade, and usurp existing protections in the Clean Water Act. A more effective solution exists in Senate Bill 770, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA).

Please do not pass S.363 as it stands now. Instead, support S. 770, a means to provide stronger federal leadership in preventing further devastation from aquatic invasive species. Congressional staff can learn more about the bills from leading experts from around the country at two briefings.

-- LET US KNOW: Please send us an email message that tells us what action you took. Send to: ssi@ucsusa.org

*** SUPPORTING MESSAGES ***

Since 1990, the United States has searched for effective means to protect marine and other aquatic resources from invasive species, especially those carried in the ballast water of ships. In both federal legislation and regulation, the trend has been toward more stringent and comprehensive national approaches, based on growing scientific understanding. Where states and regions have judged federal law and enforcement inadequate, they have put stronger programs in place. When federal agencies limited the application of the Clean Water Act to ships' ballast water, citizens' groups have sued - and won.

In contrast, the legislation in S.363 represents a step backward.

Specifically, S.363 would:

• Preempt stronger state laws that require ballast water treatment for over a decade while the bill's standards are implemented;
• Supercede the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under the Clean Water Act, creating a dangerous loophole for at least invasive species and potentially other pollutants discharged in ballast water;
• Delay implementation of ballast water management for an unacceptably long time, relying for over a decade on outdated ballast water exchange - which research has shown to be ineffective;
• Lock-in current Coast Guard regulatory exemptions for the 90% of ships that enter the Great Lakes under a loophole by being classified as having "No Ballast On Board," just when the Coast Guard has committed to tightening regulations for these ships;
• Force a treatment standard for ballast water this is weaker than that which EPA and the Coast Guard decided was needed and, thus, recommended while negotiating the International Maritime Organization's Ballast Water Convention in 2004;
• Exempt additional types of shipping traffic and voyages that contribute to the spread of invasive species.

A more effective solution exists in S.770, the National Invasive Species Act (NAISA). This bill has had input from scientists and the environmental community since 2002 and it was clarified further before re-introduction in early 2005. It contains provisions for research; the nation's first mandatory screening program for certain intentional introductions, and help for states. UCS considers NAISA's passage critical for further progress on national invasive species policy.

Congressional staff can learn more about these issues at two briefings next week. State officials, regional experts, and leading scientists from across the United States will speak and answer questions in the U.S. Capitol building. Briefings are scheduled for:

Tuesday, July 26, 3:00-4:30 pm, SC-6
Thursday, July 28, 1:00-2:30 pm, HC-8

*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***

Shipping is considered the most important vector of aquatic invasive species and the discharge of ships' ballast water is the major means of introducing such species to the Great Lakes, the Columbia River Basin, San Francisco Bay, and other aquatic ecosystems throughout the United States.

It is widely accepted that this process is exacting increasing and substantial costs on the economy, environment, and human health. Aquatic invasive species affect industries, like water and power utilities, commercial and recreational fishing and agriculture. For example, maintaining pipes clogged by just one invader - the zebra mussel - costs the power industry up to $60 million per year. Invaders transported by ballast water affect inland waters as well as coastal ones - as midwestern states affected by zebra mussels in their rivers can attest. Also, ballast water often contains human pathogens, creating threats to those in contact with it.

PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL THE FOLLOWING SENATE OFFICES TO URGE SENATORS TO OPPOSE S. 363. Feel free to pass along this message to others in your state.

*** SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ***

• AR: Mark Pryor, 202.224.2353
• AZ: John McCain, 202.224.2235
• CA: Barbara Boxer, 202.224.3553
• FL: Bill Nelson, 202.224.6551
• MA: John Kerry, 202.224.2742
• ME: Olympia Snowe, 202.224.5344
• ND: Byron Dorgan, 202.224.2551
• NE: Ben Nelson, 202.224.6551
• NH: John E. Sununu, 202.224.2841
• NJ: * Frank Lautenberg, 202.224.3224
• NV: John Ensign, 202.224.6244
• OR: Gordon Smith, 202.224.3753
• VA: George Allen, 202.224.4024
• WV: John D. Rockefeller, 202.224.6472
  
  * Current sponsor of S. 363

UCS overview of NAISA

Library of Congress web site (to read the bills search on S363 and S 770)

National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS)

*****************************************

NOTE: Please send us an email message that tells us what action you took. Send to: ssi@ucsusa.org or UCS, 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 (attn. Jason Mathers).

"NOBOB Not NOOOB," says NOAA

NOAA News Online posted this story about NOBOB (NO Ballast On Board) ships, i.e. ships that are completely loaded with cargo and have no ballast water. A survey of international ships that visit the Great Lakes region revealed that even they are at risk of introducing non-native organisms into the environment. It can happen after the cargo is unloaded, at which time a ship must take on Great Lakes water as ballast. If that ship then visits another port in the Great Lakes to load cargo, the ballast must be dumped...and along with it, all the nasty "residual foreign water and sediment and the organisms therein" that normally is not pumped out. The article links to the full report at the bottom of the page.

EPA = Environmentally Passive Agency?

I had to read this article from The Oregonian twice to make sure I got it right. Apparently the EPA did not consider ballast contaminated with invasive species to be covered under the Clean Water Act. A federal judge has overturned EPA regulations exempting ships from acquiring a permit before dumping ballast water, and now the organization that is supposed to be protecting the environment is expected to appeal the ruling. Not that I think it makes sense from an economic or technological standpoint to suddenly demand that all incoming ships treat their ballast water to kill any potential invasive species. It's just that this is not the same EPA I grew up with.

Replacing the Ballast

U.S. lawmakers and environmentalists are speaking out about the International Maritime Organization's new ballast water regulations, saying that they're too weak to do any good. As reported by the Kansas City Star, the IMO settled on 10-50 non-native organisms per 1 cubic meter of ballast water (depending on their size), but the U.S. wanted .01 organisms per 1 m^3. The regulations aren't set to go into effect until the year 2016. For background about this historic international agreement, brokered by the United Nation's IMO, check out these previous ISW entries.

Calling All Yachtsmen

The International Sailing Federation has posted an article on their website about proposed guidelines for ballast water exchange. Their hope is to get approval for these guidelines, which are designed for ships less than 50 meters in length, from the International Maritime Organization. They are currently seeking comments from yacht owners and builders, asking that they be submitted before an IMO meeting on February 9th. Links to the guidelines and associated documents can be found at the bottom of the page.

EPA Passes the Buck

The EPA has decided to step aside and will not regulate ballast water discharges, according to this article in The Mercury News. The reason given was that the Coast Guard has already taken the lead in regulation. Environmental groups are upset, and some are threatening to sue the EPA, with the goal of getting them to invoke the powerful Clean Water Act in an attempt to stem the flow of countless numbers of non-native aquatic species into U.S. waters. You can read more about what the Coast Guard's doing for ballast water management by clicking here.

Thanks to a member of the ALIENS-L listserver for posting a link to this story.

Check you ballast at the door

Researchers at Portland State University and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have joined together to develop a system to monitor ballast water exchange, according to this article from The Columbian. The scientists are interested in creating standards that will allow them to determine whether a ship has exchanged ballast water mid-ocean. While this is considered to be better for invasive species prevention than dumping ballast in port, it is not a perfect solution, and the search continues for technology that will prevent all non-native species introductions.

Thanks to the Protect Your Waters web site for posting a link to this article.

Ballast Baddies

Back in January, the National Geographic News posted this story about the indirect benefits of a new method of preventing rust in ballast tanks. The ballast tanks of ships, filled with water and/or soil to provide balance, have been traced to the accidental introduction of many non-native species, including such invasives as the Zebra mussel. Now scientists have found that removing the oxygen from ballast water not only helps prevent the tanks from corroding, but also kills a large percentage of some non-native invertebrates. Results of the research were published in the January 2002 issue of the journal Biological Conservation.

Ballast Busters

According to the UN Wire, regulations are being prepared by the International Maritime Organization to encourage the development of technological advances that deal with the continual threat of animal and plant introductions via ballast water. In the past there has been limited success with ozone, filtration, and dumping of ballast away from ports (the unintended effects of this on the open ocean have yet to be determined).