April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

 

1 

2 

3 BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE STANDARD 

4 

5 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

6 

7 April 2008 

8 

9 Prepared by the 

10 United States Coast Guard 

11 
 October 2007 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Ballast Water Discharge Standard – Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

6. AUTHOR(S): 

Greg Kirkbride1, Brad McKitrick1, Bivan Patnaik1, Andrew Solow2, Richard Everett1, and 

Katherine O’Dell1

 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

55 Broadway 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

United States Coast Guard 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard 

2100 Second Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20593 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

1

United States Coast Guard; 2Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

The U.S. Coast Guard proposes to implement a ballast water discharge standard to prevent or reduce the number of nonindigenous 

species introduced into US waters. Five alternatives are considered with respect to their impacts to the environment from setting a 

ballast water discharge standard. Three of the concentration based alternatives were analyzed with an ecological model to 

ascertain their effects on marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments; threatened and endangered species; and essential fish 

habitat, as well as socioeconomic resources. Based on the modeling analysis, the alternatives provide varying estimated levels of 

reductions of nonindigenous species introductions, ranging from minor to major. The environmental impacts of a discharge 

standard would likely be beneficial. Furthermore, the attendant negative impacts from the discharge of nonindigenous species on 

the aforementioned resources would likewise decrease as the standards become more stringent.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

National Environmental Policy Act, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 

environmental impacts, ballast water, non-indigenous species. 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF REPORT 

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

1 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

 

1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 The Coast Guard would like to thank the Department of Transportation’s John A. Volpe 

7 National Transportation Systems Center for its invaluable and significant contribution to 

8 this Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

iv 

1 

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3 LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... ix 

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 

5 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................... 1 

6 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 

7 1.2 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................ 2 

8 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................... 4 

9 1.4 Scope of Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4 

10 1.5 Related Activities ...................................................................................................... 6 

11 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 7 

12 1.7 Cooperating Agencies’ Involvement......................................................................... 8 

13 1.8 Expert Panel Involvement ......................................................................................... 8 

14 2 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 1 

15 2.1 Alternatives Development Process ........................................................................... 1 

16 2.2 Alternatives Identified for Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

17 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action .................................................................................... 5 

18 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations (Preferred Alternative)

19 5 

20 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations .................................... 6 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

v 

1 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations .................................... 6 

2 2.2.5 Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization .............................................................. 6 

3 2.2.6 Alternatives Initially Considered, But Not Further Analyzed: Percent 

4 Reduction Standards ...................................................................................................... 7 

5 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 8 

6 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 1 

7 3.1 Background and Overview ........................................................................................ 1 

8 3.2 Resources Dismissed From Further Consideration ................................................... 3 

9 3.3 Nonindigenous Species ............................................................................................. 3 

10 3.4 Marine Ecosystems ................................................................................................... 4 

11 3.4.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 4 

12 3.4.2 Habitats and Organisms ..................................................................................... 4 

13 3.5 Estuarine Ecosystems ................................................................................................ 9 

14 3.5.1 Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 10 

15 3.5.2 Habitats and Organisms ................................................................................... 10 

16 3.6 Freshwater Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 14 

17 3.6.1 Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 15 

18 3.6.2 Habitats and Organisms ................................................................................... 16 

19 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 20 

20 3.8 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................. 21 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

vi 

1 3.9 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................... 22 

2 3.9.1 Value of U.S. Aquatic and Coastal Resources ................................................. 22 

3 3.9.2 Overview of Current Economic Status ............................................................ 23 

4 3.9.3 Economic Overview of Current Nonindigenous Species Status ...................... 25 

5 3.9.4 Water-Dependent Infrastructure ....................................................................... 27 

6 3.9.5 Subsistence ....................................................................................................... 28 

7 3.9.6 Tourism and Recreation ................................................................................... 30 

8 3.9.7 Commercial Fishing ......................................................................................... 31 

9 3.9.8 Recreational Fishing ........................................................................................ 33 

10 3.9.9 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 34 

11 3.9.10 Public Health and Shipping Safety ................................................................ 36 

12 3.9.11 Costs of Ballast Water Management .............................................................. 37 

13 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 1 

14 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 

15 4.2 Background ............................................................................................................... 2 

16 4.2.1 The Invasion Process ......................................................................................... 2 

17 4.2.2 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of Nonindigenous Species .............. 7 

18 4.3 Analytical Methods and Results ............................................................................... 9 

19 4.3.1 Analytical methods ............................................................................................ 9 

20 4.3.2 No Action Alternative Effectiveness ............................................................... 11 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

vii 

1 4.3.3 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Effectiveness .............................................................. 12 

2 4.3.4 Alternative 5 Effectiveness .............................................................................. 16 

3 4.4 Resources Analyzed ................................................................................................ 16 

4 4.4.1 Marine, Estuarine, and Freshwater Ecosystems, Threatened and Endangered 

5 Species, and Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 17 

6 4.4.2 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 19 

7 4.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 21 

8 4.6 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .................. 25 

9 4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................................... 25 

10 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................................. 25 

11 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION ............................................. 1 

12 5.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 .............................................................................. 1 

13 5.1.1 Biological Assessment ....................................................................................... 1 

14 5.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ............................. 2 

15 5.3 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.................................................................... 2 

16 6 RESOURCES UTILIZED ............................................................................................... 1 

17 APPENDIX A: Technical Report Environmental Methodology, Analysis, and Results ..... 1 

18 APPENDIX B: Fish and Wildlife Service - Listed and Proposed Species ........................... 1 

19 APPENDIX C: National Marine Fisheries Service – Listed and Proposed Species............. 1 

20 APPENDIX D: Sample of Federal Consistency Determination Letter ................................ 1 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

viii 

1 APPENDIX E: Federally Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs ......................... 1 

2 APPENDIX F: Treatment Technologies ................................................................................ 1 

3 APPENDIX G: Summary of Comments ............................................................................... 1 

4 APPENDIX H: Regulatory Analysis Executive Summary .................................................... 1 

5 APPENDIX I: Timeline of Ballast Water Requirements and Guidelines.............................. 1 

6 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ix 

1 LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

BWD ballast water discharge 

BWDS ballast water discharge standard(s) 

BWE ballast water exchange 

BWM ballast water management 

BWT ballast water treatment 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

CFU colony forming unit 

DMS Docket Management System 

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EA Environmental assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FPEIS Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

FR Federal Register 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

x 

GDP gross domestic product 

GSP gross state product 

HAB harmful algal bloom(s) 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration 

ml milliliters 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

NAA no action alternative 

NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NIS nonindigenous species 

NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOBOB No Ballast Onboard 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSF National Science Foundation 

ppt parts per thousand 

PVA Population Viability Analysis 

SGBOSV Study Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UV ultraviolet 

VHS viral hemorrhagic septicemia 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-1 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 Purpose and Need 

3 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has evaluated the impacts to the environment from 

4 a range of alternative ballast water discharge standards (BWDS). A BWDS would be used 

5 to approve ballast water management systems (BWMS) that are effective in preventing or 

6 reducing the introduction of nonindigenous species (NIS) via discharged ballast water. 

7 The USCG is the lead federal agency for this action under the authority of the 

8 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) as 

9 reauthorized and amended in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). 

10 Ballast water is taken on by a vessel to increase the water draft, change the trim, regulate 

11 the stability, or maintain stress loads within acceptable operational limits. The term NIS 

12 refers to organisms found outside of their native or historical range. In cases where they 

13 invade ecosystems, NIS may alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, impact 

14 commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, contribute to potential 

15 risks to human health, and generally create detrimental economic impacts (USCG 2003). 

16 Ballast water discharge (BWD) is a major pathway for NIS introduction from vessels 

17 operating in or entering U.S. waters. 

18 On September 26, 2003, the USCG announced its proposed action to establish a BWDS 

19 that is effective in preventing the introduction and spread of NIS via discharged ballast 

20 water. (68 FR 55559). This Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 (DPEIS) addresses the effects on the human and natural environment of five alternatives 

22 for the proposed regulatory action to establish a BWDS. (68 FR 55559). The USCG will 

23 use this DPEIS to make an informed decision about a BWDS and to understand the 

24 nationwide environmental and socioeconomic implications of the decision. 

25 Alternatives 

26 Alternative 1 is the no action alternative (NAA) and would not establish a BWDS. 

27 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would establish maximum acceptable discharge concentrations for 

28 various types of potential NIS with the goal of reducing introductions and associated 

29 impacts. Alternative 5 is essentially a requirement for sterilization of ballast water. 

30 Alternative 1: No Action 

31 This alternative would not establish a BWDS at all but would continue the existing BWM 

32 program. As currently framed, the mandatory Ballast Water Management (BWM) 

33 program, established in 2004, directs ships to conduct mid-ocean exchange, retain ballast 

34 water onboard, or use an environmentally sound management method approved by the 

35 USCG. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-2 

1 Alternatives 2-4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 

2 Under Alternatives 2-4, maximum discharge concentrations for living organisms would be 

3 established. Each of these alternatives is stated in terms of two different organism size 

4 classes and the number of living organisms per volume discharge for each size class. A 

5 third class, microorganisms, is specified in terms of indicator bacteria and the number of 

6 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml). The standard becomes progressively 

7 more stringent from Alternative 2 to Alternative 4 (Alternatives 3 and 4 are 10 times and 

8 100 times more stringent than Alternative 2, respectively). The NAA was used as a 

9 baseline for comparison of the impacts of Alternatives 2-5. 

10 Table ES-1 shows the concentrations of organisms allowed under each alternative. 

11 Table ES-1: Allowable concentration of organisms in BWD, by size, for Alternatives 2-4. 

Large 

Organisms 

> 50 

microns in 

size 

Small 

Organisms 

>10 and ≤50 

microns in 

size 

Bacteria 

Toxigenic Vibrio 

cholerae (O1 and 

O139) 

E. coli Intestinal 

Enterococci

Alternative 2 <10 per m3 <10 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <250 cfu 

per 100 ml 

<100 cfu per 

100 ml 

Alternative 3 <1 per m3 <1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu 

per 100 ml 

<33 cfu per 

100 ml 

Alternative 4 <0.1 per m3 <0.1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu 

per 100 ml 

<33 cfu per 

100 ml 

 12 

13 Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization 

14 Alternative 5 would require the removal or inactivation of all living membrane-bound 

15 organisms (including bacteria and some viruses) larger than 0.1 micron. 

16 Affected Environment 

17 The U.S. contains a variety of aquatic ecosystems. For the purposes of this DPEIS, we 

18 evaluated three categories: marine, estuarine, and freshwater. Analysis of aquatic 

19 ecosystems involves consideration of the structure and function of these ecosystems as a 

20 whole, as well as the ecological value and roles played by specific habitats and organisms. 

21 These categories are further broken down by physical, chemical, and biological 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-3 

1 characteristics for analysis in this DPEIS. The health of U.S. aquatic ecosystems is 

2 variable and is affected by many factors, such as invasive species and habitat change or 

3 loss. Threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat (EFH), and socioeconomics 

4 are also addressed. 

5 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of NIS 

6 Predicting the success of even well-studied populations of NIS is difficult in the context of 

7 assessing the aggregate effect of the alternatives on the rate at which NIS are introduced 

8 and become established in U.S. waters. There is limited information on the majority of 

9 aquatic organisms. Predicting when successful invasions will occur is an emerging field, 

10 and the Coast Guard utilized recent breakthroughs in ecological modeling to analyze the 

11 impacts to the environment from ballast water mediated invasions. An evaluation of 

12 potential approaches that could be used to support the analysis in this DPEIS identified 

13 Population Viability Analysis (PVA) as the best method to assess the probability of NIS 

14 establishment. 

15 Environmental Consequences 

16 The analysis of potential environmental impacts is based on the changes in the 

17 concentrations of NIS in BWD. For the purposes of this DPEIS, it is assumed that the 

18 implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would not have additional adverse impacts on 

19 environmental and socioeconomic resources. Based on this assumption, the alternatives 

20 considered in this DPEIS differ only in their potential to reduce the probability of NIS 

21 threatening the ecological stability of infested waters or other resources dependent on such 

22 waters. The impacts of implementing the BWDS defined under each alternative are 

23 determined by the respective reduction in the number of living organisms that are 

24 introduced. Consequently, Alternatives 2 through 5 are assumed to potentially reduce NIS 

25 introductions and their associated potential adverse environmental and socioeconomic 

26 impacts to different degrees. 

27 Below is a table comparing all five alternatives with respect to their impacts on the 

28 resources analyzed in the DPEIS. 

29 Table ES-2: Comparison of Alternatives 

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Marine 

Ecosystems

Current impacts 

would continue – 

trophic 

interactions1

, 

changing 

community 

structures2

, 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structures, 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structures, fewer 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structures, 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-4 

harmful algal 

blooms (HAB), 

effects on 

ecosystem 

services3

fewer HAB HAB fewer HAB 

Estuarine 

Ecosystems

Current impacts 

would continue –

erosion, turbidity, 

trophic 

interactions, 

changing 

community 

structures, HAB, 

effects on 

ecosystem services 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem 

services 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in less 

erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, lessened 

negative impacts on 

ecosystem services 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem 

services 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 

Freshwater 

Ecosystems

Current impacts 

would continue – 

erosion, trophic 

interactions, 

changing 

community 

structures, effects 

on ecosystem 

services 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem 

services 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in less 

erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, lessened 

negative impacts on 

ecosystem services 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less erosion, fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem 

services 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species

Current impacts 

would continue, 

trophic 

interactions, 

changing 

community 

structures, HAB, 

disruption of food 

sources, effects on 

ecosystem services 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, 

fewer HAB, less 

disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts on 

ecosystem services 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less 

disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts on 

ecosystem services 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, 

fewer HAB, less 

disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts on 

ecosystem services 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 

Essential Fish 

Habitat

Current impacts 

would continue, 

trophic 

interactions, 

changing 

community 

structures, HAB, 

degradation of 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, 

fewer HAB, less 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less 

degradation of 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, 

fewer HAB, less 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-5 

habitat degradation of habitat habitat degradation of habitat 

Socioeconomics Disruptions of 

fisheries, fouling 

of environment, 

reduction in 

tourism due to 

fouling, higher 

costs from NIS 

impacts & 

responses to them 

Minor to moderate 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less fouling of the 

environment, fewer 

fishery disruptions, and 

less revenue lost from a 

decrease in tourism due 

to NIS impacts on the 

environment 

Moderate reduction 

in NIS 

introductions, 

resulting in less 

fouling of the 

environment, fewer 

fishery disruptions, 

and less revenue 

lost from a decrease 

in tourism due to 

NIS impacts on the 

environment 

Moderate to major 

reduction in NIS 

introductions, resulting 

in less fouling of the 

environment, fewer 

fishery disruptions, and 

less revenue lost from a 

decrease in tourism due 

to NIS impacts on the 

environment 

Unquantified. 

Impacts would likely 

be greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives 

Resources listed are from Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Reduction amounts, and therefore environmental impacts, are based on the 

modeling results described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Further descriptions of the environmental impacts are found in 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Alternatives 2 – 5 are compared to the No Action Alternative (both BWE and no BWM) as a

baseline. 

Notes: 1. Trophic interactions pertain to the feeding relationships between organisms in a food web. 

 2. Community structure refers to the physical structure and composition, as well as energy flows, of a community of organisms. 

 3. Ecosystem services are those resources and processes that are performed by natural systems for which there is human demand 

 and benefit. 

 1 

2 In conclusion, the potential impacts from applying the alternatives would range from a 

3 continuation of current or projected levels of NIS introductions, establishment, and 

4 associated adverse impacts on U.S. resources to prevention of NIS (larger than 0.1 

5 micron), progressing from Alternative 1 to Alternative 5. The potential impacts of 

6 Alternatives 2 through 4 are expected to have varying results and varying levels of 

7 reductions in adverse effects on ecological and socioeconomic resources from the 

8 reduction in the mean rate of successful introduction and establishment of NIS. Despite all 

9 the uncertainties and complexities involved, it can be concluded that Alternatives 2 

10 through 4 may result in varying degrees of reduction in the adverse ecological and 

11 associated socioeconomic impacts from NIS introduced via BWD; and Alternative 5 

12 ensures prevention of NIS (that are larger than 0.1 micron) introduced via ballast water and 

13 their associated adverse impacts. Impacts of the BWDS alternatives on socioeconomic 

14 resources would be similar to those for ecosystem resources in that the effects would likely 

15 be beneficial, although difficult to measure. 

 16 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-1 

1 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

2 1.1 Introduction 

3 Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

4 (NANPCA) [P.L. 101-646], the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is the lead federal 

5 agency in implementing regulations to reduce or prevent the introduction of nonindigenous 

6 species (NIS) via shipping activities in U.S. waters. Therefore, the USCG is proposing to 

7 establish a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) that would be used to approve 

8 alternative ballast water management (BWM) systems that prevent or reduce the 

9 introduction of NIS from ballast water discharged into U.S. waters. 

10 A major pathway for NIS introduction is ballast water discharge (BWD) from vessels 

11 operating in U.S. waters or entering U.S. waters from foreign waters. NIS refers to 

12 organisms found outside of their native or historical range. In cases where they invade 

13 ecosystems, NIS may alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, impact 

14 commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, result in potential risks 

15 to human health, and generally cause detrimental economic impacts (USCG 2003). 

16 Ballast water means water taken on by a vessel to increase the water draft, change the trim, 

17 regulate the stability, or maintain stress loads within acceptable operational limits. 

18 Ballasting reduces stress on the hull of the vessel, increases stability, aids propulsion, aids 

19 maneuverability, and compensates for weight loss from fuel and water consumption or 

20 cargo load changes (NRC 1996). In port, vessels take on ballast water to increase vessel 

21 water draft, therefore decreasing the air draft to allow vessels to fit under bridges or cranes. 

22 Vessels also continuously deballast and reballast during cargo loading and unloading to 

23 maintain stability and structural integrity. Ballast water is taken onboard through sea 

24 chests using ballast pumps, by flooding, or by gravity feed. 

25 Introductions of NIS into U.S. waters have occurred for more than 400 years (see chapter 4 

26 for a detailed description of the process). Studies show that the rate of NIS introductions to 

27 U.S. waters is increasing (Carlton and Hodder 1995, Ruiz et al. 2000b). Furthermore, 

28 introduced NIS have been cited as the second largest threat to endangered species after 

29 habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen 1998). For example, in the 1980s, NIS were identified as a 

30 significant environmental concern with the introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena 

31 polymorpha) to the Great Lakes, most likely via BWD. The zebra mussel first attracted 

32 attention by clogging domestic water supply and electric-generating facility intake pipes, 

33 thus causing costly infrastructure damage and management efforts. Today, the zebra 

34 mussel continues to spread extensively throughout the United States causing considerable 

35 ecological and economic harm. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-2 

1 1.2 Regulatory Background 

2 Congress enacted NANPCA on November 29, 1990. The purposes of NANPCA are: 

3 • To prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal of NIS into waters of the U.S. 

4 through BWM and other requirements; 

5 • To coordinate federally conducted, funded, or authorized research; and to federally 

6 coordinate prevention control, information dissemination, and other activities 

7 regarding the zebra mussel and other aquatic NIS; 

8 • To develop and carry out environmentally sound control methods to prevent, 

9 monitor, and control unintentional introductions of NIS from pathways other than 

10 BWE; 

11 • To understand and minimize ecological and economic impacts of NIS that become 

12 established, including the zebra mussel; and 

13 • To establish a program of research and technology development and assistance to 

14 states in the management and removal of zebra mussels. 

15 Under NANPCA, Congress directed the USCG to develop a national program of specific 

16 regulations and guidelines intended to prevent or reduce the introduction and control the 

17 spread of NIS via the discharge of ballast water from those vessels entering U.S. waters 

18 after operating outside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ, as defined in 33 

19 CFR Part 151, Subpart C, extends from the baseline of the territorial sea of the U.S. 

20 seaward 200 miles. 

21 On April 8, 1993, the USCG published a final rule, “Ballast Water Management for 

22 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes” [58 FR 18330]. The final rule mandated the use of 

23 BWM practices by ships entering the Great Lakes after operating outside the EEZ. On 

24 December 30, 1994, the USCG published a final rule, “Ballast Water Management for 

25 Vessels Entering the Hudson River” [59 FR 67632], which expanded the mandatory BWM 

26 requirements for the Great Lakes to portions of the Hudson River (north of the George 

27 Washington Bridge) that connect to the Great Lakes. The BWM practices mandated for 

28 use in the Great Lakes and portions of the Hudson River are found in 33 CFR Part 151, 

29 Subpart C, and include the following: 

30 • Mid-ocean exchange of ballast water 200 nautical miles from shore and 2000 

31 meters deep; 

32 • Retaining ballast water onboard; or 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-3 

1 • Using an environmentally sound alternative BWM method that has been 

2 determined by the USCG to be as effective as BWE in reducing, preventing, or 

3 controlling the introduction of NIS. 

4 The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) [P.L. 104-332] reauthorized and 

5 amended NANPCA and mandated the USCG to issue BWM guidelines and regulations 

6 applicable to all U.S. waters. Under NISA, Congress authorized the USCG to establish a 

7 mandatory BWM program [69 FR 44952], if shipping industry compliance under the 

8 initially established national voluntary guidelines was insufficient. NISA also authorized 

9 the “use [of] environmentally sound alternative BWM methods, if [the USCG] determines 

10 that such alternative methods are at least as effective as ballast water exchange (BWE) in 

11 reducing or preventing, and controlling infestations of aquatic nuisance species.” This 

12 includes any method, effort, or program to prevent or reduce NIS introductions or control 

13 infestations, that minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and function of an ecosystem, 

14 and minimizes adverse effects on nontarget organisms and ecosystems (USCG 2003). 

15 On May 17, 1999, the USCG published an interim rule [64 FR 26672] and finalized it on 

16 November 21, 2001 [66 FR 58381]. The rule set voluntary BWM guidelines applicable to 

17 all U.S. waters, except for the Great Lakes and the Hudson River where the mandatory 

18 BWM requirements remained in effect, and mandated BWM reporting requirements. Both 

19 the voluntary BWM guidelines and the mandatory reporting requirements applied to 

20 vessels entering U.S. waters after operating in waters outside the EEZ. The rule also 

21 promoted ballast water management for all vessels operating within U.S. waters (defined 

22 as the waters of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American 

23 Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands). 

24 In pursuit of identifying an environmentally sound alternative BWM method that is as 

25 effective as BWE, the USCG published a notice and request for public comments on May 

26 1, 2001, “Potential Approaches to Setting Ballast Water Treatment Standards” [66 FR 

27 218071]. The notice invited responses on four conceptual approaches to BWT standards 

28 and posed questions, all of which were developed in meetings of the Ballast Water and 

29 Shipping Committee of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The comments 

30 submitted revealed a wide range of opinion and indicated the need for further discussion. 

31 Subsequently, on March 4, 2002, the USCG published an advance notice of proposed 

32 rulemaking, “Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. 

33 Waters” [67 FR 9632], and requested comments on the development of a BWT goal and an 

34 interim BWT standard. Next, the USCG decided to publish a notice of intent (NOI) on 

35 September 26, 2003 [68 FR 55559], announcing USCG’s intent to prepare a DPEIS (this 

36 document) to assess the impacts of developing a BWDS and solicited public and agency 

37 input to the scope and content of the DPEIS. 

38 The USCG also published the final rule on the mandatory BWM program for all U.S. 

39 waters, under NISA, on July 28, 2004 [69 FR 44952]. This program requires vessels that 

40 operate outside the U.S. EEZ to use one of the following BWM practices: conduct mid-
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-4 

1 ocean BWE 200 nautical miles from any shore, retain ballast water onboard, or use a 

2 USCG-approved alternative method. Because there are currently no approved alternative 

3 methods, BWE and retention of BW are the only available methods of BWM. Some 

4 vessels may not be able to conduct BWE depending on vessel design, age, load, sea 

5 conditions, and safety concerns. Additionally, vessels capable of introducing NIS into 

6 U.S. waters are not limited to those that operate outside the U.S. EEZ. Finally, even when 

7 conducted, the effectiveness of BWE in removing NIS from ballast tanks can be quite 

8 variable. These drawbacks combine to make BWE less than desirable as a long-term 

9 approach to reducing or preventing introductions of NIS via BWD. Recognizing that 

10 BWE is not a long-term solution, NISA allows the USCG to approve alternative BWM 

11 methods if they are found to be at least as effective as BWE in reducing the risk of NIS 

12 introductions. 

13 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

14 The purpose of the proposed action is for the USCG to establish a BWDS, which would be 

15 used to approve alternative BWM methods. The need for the action is to prevent or reduce 

16 the introduction of NIS via discharged ballast water from vessels entering U.S. waters after 

17 operating outside the EEZ, and from vessels operating within the U.S. EEZ. 

18 The USCG believes that to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS, the BWDS must be 

19 biologically protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable. Therefore, the USCG is 

20 working to develop a BWDS and approval process for alternative BWM methods based on 

21 the level of protection needed to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS. Furthermore, 

22 the applicability of the BWDS and BWM methods approval process must be sufficiently 

23 inclusive to capture all relevant vessels. The development of a BWDS presents a complex 

24 challenge because: 

25 • Technologies for removing NIS from ballast water are in the early stages of 

26 development; 

27 • Approved technologies should be compatible with existing vessels as well as future 

28 vessel designs; 

29 • Development of the BWDS and approval process for alternative BWM methods 

30 requires close collaboration among multiple stakeholders (government agencies, 

31 scientific community, water treatment experts, shipping industry, etc.). 

32 1.4 Scope of Analysis 

33 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S. Code (USC) 4321] and 

34 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-5 

1 Procedural Provisions of NEPA” [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] establish policies and 

2 procedures that ensure environmental information is available to decision makers, 

3 regulatory agencies, and the public before federal agencies implement certain actions. The 

4 USCG implementing policy for NEPA requirements is specified in “National 

5 Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering 

6 Environmental Impacts” [Commandant Instruction M16475.1D] (USCG 2000). NEPA is 

7 a public process intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an 

8 understanding of environmental consequences and to take actions that protect, restore, and 

9 enhance the environment. These decisions should be made based on scientific analysis, 

10 expert agency comments, and public scrutiny of readily available environmental 

11 information. 

12 The USCG has prepared this Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

13 (DPEIS) to satisfy NEPA requirements associated with the development of the BWDS 

14 rulemaking for NIS in ballast water. Preliminary scoping indicated that there might be 

15 potential for both beneficial and adverse impacts to the environment as a result of 

16 establishing a BWDS. Furthermore, limited scientific information on aquatic NIS invasion 

17 ecology led to the decision to prepare a comprehensive DPEIS document – rather than a 

18 less comprehensive document such as an Environmental Assessment (EA). Overall, a 

19 DPEIS improves the ability of the USCG to analyze the potential environmental impacts of 

20 a BWDS. Lastly, the USCG prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 because a BWDS would impact vessels entering and/or operating in a large geographic 

22 area and a wide variety of U.S. ecosystems. Any proposed BWDS would meet the CEQ 

23 definition of “a broad Federal action such as the adoption of agency programs or 

24 regulations” [40 CFR 1502.4 (b)], and programmatic environmental review processes are 

25 typically used for such broad federal actions. 

26 This DPEIS identifies and assesses reasonable alternatives for the proposed action 

27 (including the NAA), addresses the consequences of a BWDS on the human and natural 

28 environments, and presents potential measures to avoid or minimize any adverse effects 

29 upon the quality of the human and natural environment. The USCG will use this DPEIS to 

30 make an informed decision in relation to a BWDS and to fully understand the national 

31 level environmental and socioeconomic implications of the decision. 

32 Implementation of a BWDS to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS potentially 

33 involves two environmental impact analyses: 

34 • An evaluation of NIS introductions and associated potential environmental 

35 consequences from a BWDS and an evaluation of current BWM practices in place; 

36 and 

37 • The potential for environmental impacts from the use of particular BWD 

38 technologies and methods to meet the established standards. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-6 

1 This DPEIS only addresses the first environmental impact analysis because any regulatory 

2 action would be technology independent and allow vessel owners to decide what particular 

3 technology or method they deem most appropriate to comply with the BWDS. As stated 

4 above, the objective of a BWDS is to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS via 

5 discharged ballast water, not to promote the implementation of specific BWT technologies 

6 or methods. The appropriate level of environmental review (e.g., subsequent NEPA, 

7 Endangered Species Act, and Fishery Conservation and Management Act reviews) will be 

8 developed to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the 

9 implementation and operation of specific treatment technologies and methods to meet the 

10 BWDS. For informational purposes, some potential BWT technologies are summarized in 

11 Appendix F. 

12 The USCG is the lead agency for the BWDS rulemaking. The U.S. Environmental 

13 Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic 

14 and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

15 Service (APHIS) participated in the DPEIS preparation as cooperating agencies in 

16 accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. 

17 1.5 Related Activities 

18 The USCG is currently working on other projects related to addressing NIS impacts in 

19 U.S. waters. These projects are outside of the scope of establishing a BWDS and, hence, 

20 not the focus of this DPEIS. 

21 • The Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program. The USCG established this 

22 program on January 7, 2004 [69 FR 1082], under which vessel owners can apply 

23 for acceptance of their vessels into the program and install and test experimental 

24 BWT systems. This program is expected to facilitate the development of these 

25 technologies, which would create more options for vessel owners seeking 

26 alternatives to BWE. 

27 • Ballast Water Management for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes That Declare No 

28 Ballast Onboard (NOBOB). The USCG published a notice of policy on August 31, 

29 2005 [70 FR 51831] establishing best management practices for NOBOB vessels 

30 entering the Great Lakes. The policy recommends that, prior to entering the EEZ, 

31 NOBOB vessels conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast-laden 

32 voyages 200 nautical miles from shore and in water 2000 meters deep whenever 

33 possible. If unable to conduct mid-ocean BWE, the USCG recommends that 

34 vessels conduct saltwater flushing of their empty ballast water tanks in an area of 

35 200 nautical miles from any shore, whenever possible. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-7 

1 Introductions of NIS through BWD are a global concern. The USCG leads the U.S. 

2 government delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the organization 

3 responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from vessels. In 

4 September 1995, the IMO identified the NIS threat as a major issue confronting the 

5 international maritime community. To address the issue, in 1997, the IMO adopted 

6 voluntary guidelines, “International Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of 

7 Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens from Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment 

8 Discharges.” In February 2004, the IMO adopted a convention, “International Convention 

9 for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments” (BWM 

10 Convention), which establishes BWM procedures and includes an international standard 

11 for BWD. The USCG coordinated this effort with the EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Department 

12 of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD), the U.S. Department of 

13 Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Department of State (DOS). The BWM Convention opened 

14 for ratification in February 2004, and under its terms does not enter into force until one 

15 year after ratification by 30 countries representing not less than 35 percent of the gross 

16 tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. As of October 2007, ten countries have signed 

17 the BWM Convention. 

18 1.6 Public Involvement 

19 NEPA requires public involvement in the decision making process for federal projects that 

20 require a formal environmental review process, such as a DPEIS. In accordance with this 

21 requirement, the USCG published a notice of intent on September 26, 2003 [68 FR 

22 55559]to prepare a DPEIS for the proposed BWDS rulemaking, which solicited public and 

23 agency input into the development of the scope and content of the DPEIS and requested 

24 suggestions on the ideal means of notifying and involving the public in the process. 

25 The above notice also advised that five public scoping meetings would be held during the 

26 public comment period. The scoping meetings were held during late October and early 

27 November 2003 in New Orleans, Louisiana; Oakland, California; Cleveland, Ohio; 

28 Norfolk, Virginia; and Washington, D.C. The purpose of the scoping meetings was to 

29 solicit the public’s comments on possible environmental issues associated with the 

30 proposed action and alternatives for reducing or preventing the introduction and the spread 

31 of NIS in U.S. waters. All written comments on the notice were placed in the Department 

32 of Transportation’s electronic Docket Management System (DMS). The DMS makes 

33 electronic submission and viewing of comments and other submissions available on the 

34 Internet at http://dms.dot.gov/, under docket number USCG-2001-10486. All relevant 

35 comments received during the comment period of the notice and the public scoping 

36 meetings have been considered and those relevant to the DPEIS have been addressed. 

37 After the publication of this DPEIS, the USCG will provide a comment period and public 

38 meetings. Any notice of public meetings will be published in the Federal Register. All 

39 relevant comments, both written and oral, provided during the comment period and in any 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-8 

1 public meeting will be considered in the preparation of the Final PEIS (FPEIS) and will 

2 become part of the administrative docket. 

3 1.7 Cooperating Agencies’ Involvement 

4 Four cooperating agencies have extensively worked with the Coast Guard in the 

5 development of the DPEIS. They are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 

6 Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Animal 

7 and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Coast Guard held a cooperating agency 

8 workshop in May of 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. At this workshop, the agencies 

9 further developed and refined the DPEIS and the modeling approach. 

10 1.8 Expert Panel Involvement 

11 An expert panel consisting of scientists (credentials and background can be found in 

12 Chapter 6) reviewed and validated portions of the DPEIS and the modeling approach.
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-1 

1 2 ALTERNATIVES 

2 This chapter describes and compares the alternatives that the USCG evaluated as part of 

3 the development process for a BWDS. Furthermore, it discusses the alternatives 

4 development process, the alternatives considered by the USCG, and those alternatives 

5 dismissed from further analysis. 

6 2.1 Alternatives Development Process 

7 The USCG published a notice and request for public comments on May 1, 2001, “Potential 

8 Approaches to Setting Ballast Water Treatment Standards” [66 FR 21807], inviting 

9 comments on four conceptual approaches to BWT standards. Furthermore, it posed all of 

10 the questions developed in the meetings of the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee of 

11 the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The comments submitted revealed a 

12 wide range of opinions and indicated the need for further discussion. Therefore, the USCG 

13 sponsored three separate expert panel workshops to discuss and make recommendations on 

14 the quantitative expression of BWT standards for the prevention or reduction of the 

15 introduction of NIS. Academic and industry professionals with expertise in environmental 

16 engineering participated in the workshops, and they evaluated the BWT systems and the 

17 biology and ecology of organisms carried in ballast water. 

18 Participants of the April 2001 workshop held in Mystic, Connecticut drafted 

19 recommendations for short- and long-term standards that are based on the following three 

20 functional groups: 

21 • coastal holoplankton (species that spend their entire lifecycle in the water column), 

22 meroplankton (species that spend a portion of their lifecycle in the water column), 

23 and demersals (species living on or near the ocean floor), and their respective life 

24 stages; 

25 • phytoplankton, cysts, and algal propagules and their respective life stages; and 

26 • Enterococci and Escherichia coli. 

27 The short-term proposal recommended standards of removal or inactivity in ballast water 

28 for specific types of organisms in each functional group. The long-term proposal 

29 recommended complete removal or inactivity in ballast water of the first two functional 

30 groups and their respective life stages and the same level of removal or inactivity for the 

31 third functional group. 

32 At the May 2001 workshop held in Oakland, CA, participants also proposed short- and 

33 long-term standards. The short-term proposal recommended a size threshold whereby no 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-2 

1 living organisms larger than that threshold should be discharged in ballast water. It also 

2 recommended that ballast water be treated to meet federal criteria for contact recreation. 

3 The proposed long-term standard established a goal of zero living organisms discharged. 

4 Subsequently, the USCG published an ANPRM, “Standards for Living Organisms in 

5 Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters” [67 FR 9632] and a request for 

6 comments in March 4, 2002, on the development of a BWT goal and an interim BWT 

7 standard. 

8 The USCG, DOS, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) co-sponsored the third 

9 workshop held at the NSF offices in February 2003 (Arlington, VA). Unlike the first two 

10 meetings, this workshop included a large number of international participants. The 

11 participants agreed that BWT standards should be established to reduce the introduction 

12 and establishment of NIS via ballast water. The participants suggested a step by step 

13 approach for developing BWT standards that would make the concentration targets more 

14 stringent over time. This group reviewed a number of alternative standards under 

15 consideration by the international community, and they recommended the following: 

16 • BWT standards should be expressed as concentrations of organisms rather than a 

17 required percent reduction of the initial concentration in ballast water. The latter 

18 would be difficult to enforce or verify upon discharge without specific knowledge 

19 of initial concentrations. Further, percent reduction requirements produce varying 

20 actual discharge concentrations, which are not based on either biological (level of 

21 protection required to greatly prevent or reduce invasions) or technical (detection 

22 limits) grounds. 

23 • At a minimum, the initial standard should be set as an allowable concentration of 

24 organisms larger than a specified size criterion, taking into account the expected 

25 capabilities of technology. The use of size criteria was recognized as providing a 

26 balance between protection and practicability. 

27 • BWT standards should foster the development of BWT technology. 

28 • The allowable concentration of organisms larger than the size criterion should be 

29 set at a limit of detection determined by the specific sampling and enumeration 

30 methods chosen. 

31 The participants also discussed how microorganisms could be addressed by focusing on 

32 taxa of concern, such as specific pathogens that affect humans and commercially important 

33 species. Ideally, the allowable concentrations for microorganisms would be set below the 

34 minimum inocula required for infection. However, there currently is no basis for a 

35 scientific, defensible, and enforceable discharge standard for microorganisms. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-3 

1 In March 2003, the Study Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV) discussed 

2 BWT standards during its annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. At the annual 

3 meeting, the participants summarized available information on the concentration of 

4 organisms in untreated ballast water at the time of discharge. The summarization 

5 attempted to inform the SGBOSV about the necessary level of reduction to be achieved by 

6 the standard. SGBOSV, recognizing the inherent risk with any discharge and the current 

7 concentrations delivered in untreated ballast water, recommended standards at least three 

8 orders of magnitude below the observed median concentrations for zooplankton and an 

9 equivalent or higher level of reduction for phytoplankton. 

10 In September 2003, the USCG published a notice of intent with a request for comments 

11 [68 FR 55559] to develop a BWDS and the scope of the DPEIS. Although initial Federal 

12 Register publications regarding standards for BWD used the phrase “BWT standards,” 

13 with this notice, BWT became BWD because the critical issue has always been the quality 

14 of the ballast water actually discharged from vessels. Therefore, beginning with this 

15 notice, the emphasis is on requirements related to BWD. This change was in line with the 

16 development of BWDS at IMO. A discussion of the comments received in response to that 

17 notice is in Appendix G. 

18 In both the international and domestic efforts, a key issue has been the quantitative nature 

19 of the effluent standard that would apply to BWD. Discussions about organism size and 

20 concentration level have raised a number of issues, including: 

21 • The size ranges of organisms; 

22 • the concentrations of organisms in the intake water and in ballast water at the time 

23 of discharge; 

24 • the practicability of detecting and enumerating small organisms present in ballast 

25 water in very low concentrations; and 

26 • the difficulty of treating ballast water to remove a large fraction of the organisms.

27 Based on the information collected during the workshops described above, international 

28 discussions, and comments received from the Federal Register notices, the USCG has 

29 determined that the BWDS would be expressed as a concentration of organisms per 

30 volume that may not be exceeded in discharged ballast water. The efforts described above 

31 have resulted in various BWDS, with the consensus that the BWDS should be expressed as 

32 a critical concentration, and that size categories, reflective of the natural size distributions 

33 of zooplankton, protists, and bacteria, are helpful in setting criteria (Fig. 1-1). 

 34 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-4 

 1 

2 Figure 2-1: Size distribution of the major taxonomic groups of planktonic organism carried 

3 in ships’ ballast water. 

4 2.2 Alternatives Identified for Analysis 

5 Based on the workshop discussions, international discussions, and comments received 

6 from the Federal Register notices, as well as the input provided through the scoping 

7 process, the USCG has selected five alternatives to be evaluated in this DPEIS. The 

8 alternatives include the no action alternative (Alternative 1); three alternatives that would 

9 establish different levels of maximum concentrations for living organisms in discharged 

10 ballast water (Alternatives 2-4); and a requirement for discharged ballast water with no 

11 detectable organisms larger than 0.1 micron (Alternative 5). 

12 The three concentration-based alternatives, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would be more 

13 stringent than Alternative 1, but less stringent than Alternative 5. They would result in the 

14 discharge of no more than a particular number of living organisms greater than a cutoff 

15 size in microns per volume of ballast water and a colony forming unit-based standard for 

16 indicator microorganisms. These three alternatives would establish maximum acceptable 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-5 

1 discharge concentrations for various types of potential NIS in order to reduce introductions 

2 and associated impacts. Alternative 2 is equivalent to the IMO standard, while 

3 Alternatives 3 and 4 are more stringent, each by an order of magnitude. 

4 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

5 This alternative would not establish a BWDS. Instead the mandatory BWM program 

6 established according to the directives in NISA would continue to be applicable to vessels 

7 entering U.S. waters. This BWM program requires all vessels carrying ballast water into 

8 U.S. waters after operating outside of the EEZ to do one of the following: conduct a mid9 ocean exchange beyond the EEZ in an area more than 200 nautical miles from any shore; 

10 retain ballast water onboard, or use an environmentally sound method approved by the 

11 USCG. A vessel is not required to deviate or delay its voyage, nor place itself at risk, to 

12 conduct a ballast water exchange. Additionally, those vessels that do not go beyond 200 

13 nautical miles from shore are not required to conduct a ballast water exchange, except 

14 when entering the Great Lakes and Hudson River. Finally, few vessels have the ability to 

15 retain ballast water onboard and environmentally sound methods have not been approved 

16 by the USCG. Therefore, mid-ocean exchange is the only viable BWM option. If the 

17 USCG did not establish a BWDS, then we would have to develop an approval program 

18 showing that the BWT technology used by a vessel would be at least as effective as mid19 ocean BWE for that same vessel. 

20 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations (Preferred Alternative) 

21 Under this alternative, the level of living organisms (per volume) that could be discharged 

22 under this alternative (by size class) is: 

23 • For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 

24 10 per cubic meter of ballast water. 

25 • For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 

26 discharge less than 10 per milliliter (ml) of ballast water. 

27 • For bacteria, discharge of indicator microorganisms such that: 

28 o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 

29 less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 ml. 

30 o E. coli occur at a concentration less than 250 cfu per 100 ml. 

31 o Intestinal Enterococci occur at a concentration less than 100 cfu per 100 ml. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-6 

1 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 

2 Under this alternative, the level of living organisms (per volume) that could be discharged 

3 under this alternative (by size class) is: 

4 • For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 

5 one per cubic meter of ballast water. 

6 • For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 

7 discharge less than one per ml of ballast water. 

8 • For bacteria, discharge of indicator microorganisms such that: 

9 o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 

10 less than 1 cfu per 100 ml. 

11 o E. coli occur at a concentration less than 126 cfu per 100 ml. 

12 o Intestinal Enterococci occur at a concentration less than 33 cfu per 100 ml. 

13 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 

14 Under this alternative, the level of living organisms (per volume) that could be discharged 

15 under this alternative (by size class) is: 

16 • For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 

17 0.1 per cubic meter of ballast water. 

18 • For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 

19 discharge less than 0.1 per ml of ballast water. 

20 • For bacteria, discharge of indicator microorganisms such that: 

21 o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 

22 less than 1 cfu per 100 ml. 

23 o E. coli occur at a concentration less than 126 cfu per 100 ml. 

24 o Intestinal Enterococci occur at a concentration less than 33 cfu per 100 ml. 

25 2.2.5 Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization 

26 This alternative calls for the elimination of all living organisms larger than 0.1 micron in 

27 ballast water. This alternative would require the removal or inactivation of all membrane-
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-7 

1 bound organisms (including bacteria and some viruses). If implemented, this alternative 

2 would be the standard established for ships that want their BWT technology approved by 

3 the USCG. Thus, those ships that had approved BWT technologies onboard that meet 

4 Alternative 5 would discharge virtually no living organisms into U.S. waters. 

5 2.2.6 Alternatives Initially Considered, But Not Further Analyzed: Percent 

6 Reduction Standards 

7 The first two workshops and the ANPRM [67 FR 9632] explored the use of percent 

8 reduction standards in approving BWT technologies. Percent reduction means the 

9 percentage of organisms removed from ballast water prior to discharge. However, at the 

10 third workshop (discussed in Section 2.1) and during subsequent analyses the USCG 

11 concluded that BWDS would be more appropriate if expressed as concentrations of 

12 organisms rather than a required percent reduction of the initial concentration taken on in 

13 ballast water. Percent reduction standards would be difficult to enforce or verify upon 

14 discharge without specific knowledge of initial concentrations of organisms in the ballast 

15 water because such data is, at best, very limited. Further, percent reduction standards 

16 produce varying actual discharge concentrations, which are not based on either biological 

17 (level of protection required to greatly prevent or reduce invasions) or technical (detection 

18 limits) grounds. Thus, percent reduction standards would not be further considered. 
April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-8 

1 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives 

 2 

3 Below is a table comparing all five alternatives with respect to their impacts on the resources analyzed in the D4 Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives 

Resource

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(preferred alternative)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Marine Ecosystems

Current impacts would continue – trophic interactions1, changing 

community structures2, harmful algal blooms (HAB), effects on ecosystem services3

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structures, fewer HAB 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structures, fewer HAB 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structures, fewer HAB 

Estuarine Ecosystems

Current impacts would continue –erosion, turbidity, trophic interactions, changing community structures, HAB, effects on ecosystem services 

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 
April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-9 

Freshwater Ecosystems

Current impacts would continue – erosion, trophic interactions, changing community structures, effects on ecosystem services 

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Current impacts would continue, trophic interactions, changing community structures, HAB, disruption of food sources, effects on ecosystem services 

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less disruption of food sources, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less disruption of food sources, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less disruption of food sources, lessened negative impacts on ecosystem services 

Essential Fish Habitat

Current impacts would continue, trophic interactions, changing community structures, HAB, degradation of habitat 

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less degradation of habitat 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less degradation of habitat 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community structure, fewer HAB, less degradation of habitat 

1 
April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-10 

 1 Socioeconomics

Disruptions of fisheries, fouling of environment, reduction in tourism due to fouling, higher costs from NIS impacts & responses to them 

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less fouling of the environment, fewer fishery disruptions, and less revenue lost from a decrease in tourism due to NIS impacts on the environment 

Moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less fouling of the environment, fewer fishery disruptions, and less revenue lost from a decrease in tourism due to NIS impacts on the environment 

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less fouling of the environment, fewer fishery disruptions, and less revenue lost from a decrease in tourism due to NIS impacts on the environment 

Resources listed are from Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Reduction amounts, and therefore environmental impacts, are based on described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Further descriptions of the environmental impacts are found in Chapter 4, EnConsequences. Alternatives 2 – 5 are compared to the No Action Alternative (both BWE and no BWM) as a baseline. Notes: 1. Trophic interactions pertain to the feeding relationships between organisms in a food web.  2. Community structure refers to the physical structure and composition, as well as energy flows, of a community of orga 3. Ecosystem services are those resources and processes that are performed by natural systems for which there is human d

2 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-1 

1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

2 3.1 Background and Overview 

3 This chapter describes the United States environmental resources relevant to the analysis of 

4 the impacts of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The resources that may be affected 

5 by the alternatives are described in their current condition, including current NIS impacts to 

6 those resources. The affected environment in this DPEIS includes the coastal zone of U.S. 

7 states and territories extending from the shoreline outward for 200 nautical miles (EEZ), the 

8 Great Lakes, and navigable inland waterways. 

9 This chapter provides a general discussion of aquatic ecological principles and a description 

10 of the basic functional components and regional variations within marine, estuarine, and 

11 freshwater ecosystems of the U.S. Topics include a general description of the biological 

12 structure (organisms) and the basic functional components (food web and habitat 

13 interactions) within the ecosystems. It also describes the economic importance of these 

14 ecosystems to the U.S., including their value to recreational and commercial fishing, marine 

15 commerce, water-dependent infrastructure, subsistence living, coastal tourism, 

16 environmental justice, and public health and safety. This chapter presents the current 

17 conditions of aquatic ecosystems for the resources analyzed and a discussion of current NIS 

18 impacts to these resources. The impacts of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4, are 

19 based on this description of U.S. aquatic ecosystems. 

20 The ability of NIS to alter population, community, and ecosystem structure and function is 

21 well documented (Drake et al. 1989; Elton 1958; Mooney and Drake 1986; Vitousek et al. 

22 1987). Ecosystem-level changes in water, nutrient, energy cycles, productivity, and 

23 biomass directly affect ecological resources, and in turn, affect human society. 

24 Furthermore, ecosystem-level consequences of NIS have major implications, which affect 

25 human economic systems and public health. 

26 The U.S. contains an assemblage of aquatic (marine, estuarine, and freshwater) ecosystems 

27 spread over diverse geographical regions including the EEZ’s 4,453,068 square miles (Pew 

28 2003). This DPEIS focuses on the national implications of the alternatives; therefore, it is 

29 useful to identify the regional and functional characteristics of these ecosystems. Aquatic 

30 ecosystems are dynamic in nature, consisting of interdependent relationships among the 

31 physical, chemical, and biological components of the system. Analysis of aquatic 

32 ecosystems involves consideration of the structure and function of these ecosystems as a 

33 whole, as well as the ecological value and roles played by specific habitats and organisms. 

34 Ecosystem structure and function describe the complex processes that define the ecology of 

35 a system, including predator-prey relationships, grazing, nutrient cycling, and other 

36 interactions. In addition, the non-living components of the ecosystem, including the 

37 physical and chemical properties of aquatic ecosystems, will be presented. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-2 

1 All aquatic ecosystems contain complex food webs comprising multiple biological “layers,” 

2 or trophic levels. The first trophic level is the foundation of all ecosystems. It consists of 

3 bacteria, otherwise known as microorganisms, and primary producers (phytoplankton, free4 floating marine plants, and algae) that create their own nourishment using sunlight through 

5 photosynthesis. The next trophic level comprises primary consumers, such as herbivorous 

6 marine animals (copepods that feed directly on plankton in the water column, detritus, and 

7 benthic algae). The third trophic level contains secondary consumers, including omnivores 

8 such as fish and mollusks, and small heterotrophs such as carnivorous copepods, 

9 amphipods, and jellyfish that feed on primary consumers. The highest trophic level is 

10 dominated by large, heterotrophic marine animals such as large fish, sea turtles, and marine 

11 mammals. Bacteria and other infaunal microorganisms (organisms that live within the 

12 substrate) act as decomposers, breaking down waste produced by other organisms or 

13 feeding on dead plant or animal material. These microorganisms may constitute a numeric 

14 majority of the species found in ballast water. (Carlton 1999; Carlton 2001; Galil and 

15 Hulsmann 1997; McCarthy and Crowder 2000). 

16 United States marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems are currently affected by many 

17 stressors, such as: 

18 • Nutrient runoff. Nutrient runoff has a moderate to severe effect on up to 60 percent 

19 of U.S. coastal rivers and bays. This nutrient runoff can trigger harmful algal 

20 blooms (HABs) and lead to the degradation or loss of seagrass, kelp beds, and coral 

21 reefs that are vital as spawning and nursery grounds for fish. Nutrient pollution 

22 reportedly causes a dead zone the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico each 

23 summer. 

24 • Overfishing. Approximately 30 percent of the assessed fish populations are 

25 considered to be over-fished or fished unsustainably. 

26 • NIS. Over 175 NIS are reportedly established in San Francisco Bay alone. Overall, 

27 there have been 374 documented invasive species in U.S. waters, 150 of which have 

28 arrived since 1970 (Pew 2003). 

29 • Oil runoff. An average of approximately 11 million gallons (equivalent to the 

30 Exxon Valdez oil spill) of oil runs off U.S. streets into surface waters every eight 

31 months. 

32 The structure and function of aquatic and coastal ecosystems – and their overall health – are 

33 adversely affected by increased stress from human activities, which have altered these 

34 systems for a long period of time. However, the scale, intensity, and rate of human 

35 activities and associated impacts have significantly increased in the past century from 

36 factors such as population growth, higher levels of consumption, and technological 

37 advances. These are important factors when considering the cumulative impacts of the 

38 alternatives in Chapter 4. For example, human population concentration in coastal areas is 

39 expected to continue to increase with time, increasing the potential for human impacts. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-3 

1 Human impacts on aquatic and coastal resources have resulted in declines in natural 

2 systems and populations as a result of habitat destruction and resource exploitation, 

3 increases in harmful events such as disease epidemics and algal blooms, and issues 

4 associated with aquatic and coastal pollution. The cumulative effect of these impacts has 

5 resulted in changes in aquatic and coastal biodiversity and resource sustainability. 

6 Given the complexity and spatial and temporal variability of aquatic ecosystems, it is useful 

7 to demarcate boundaries when defining baseline conditions. Aquatic ecosystems are 

8 divided into three major categories (marine, estuarine, and freshwater) based on ecological, 

9 physical, and geographic characteristics. It is important to note, however, that critical 

10 interactions between terrestrial environments and aquatic ecosystems often exist. This 

11 relationship will be presented where relevant. 

12 3.2 Resources Dismissed From Further Consideration 

13 The following resources were dismissed after initial analysis determined that they would 

14 not be affected in a significant manner and, therefore, will not be considered further in this 

15 DPEIS: transportation; coastal barrier systems; archaeological, cultural, and historic 

16 resources; and floodplains. The alternatives are not expected to have any measurable 

17 effects on routes or frequency of transportation. In reference to coastal barrier systems, 

18 actions of the USCG are exempt under Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier Resource Act. 

19 Similarly, no measurable effects on land resources, including floodplains, are expected. 

20 3.3 Nonindigenous Species 

21 Nonindigenous species have the potential to disrupt aquatic ecosystems at all food web 

22 levels. NIS can adversely impact native biodiversity by causing changes in the relative 

23 abundance of native species and individuals that are of ecological and economic 

24 importance. Thus, they could have direct and indirect impacts to threatened and 

25 endangered marine flora and fauna. Introduced NIS are one of the main sources of risk to 

26 threatened and endangered species, second only to habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen 1998). 

27 NIS can change the structure of communities, causing a breakdown in structure and rapid 

28 reorganization (Sanders et al. 2003). The FWS considers NIS to be significant contributing 

29 factors in determining the “threatened” or “endangered” status of many native species 

30 (OTA 1993; Ruiz et al. 1997). Currently, the FWS and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

31 Service (NMFS) list 150 fish as protected based on their threatened or endangered status. 

32 Invasive species can affect water quality in marine, estuarine, and riverine environments. 

33 Introduced non-native algal species from ballast water, recreational boating, dredging 

34 activities, and shellfish transfer (e.g., seeding) combined with nutrient overloading may 

35 increase the intensity and frequency of algal blooms. An overabundance of algae can 

36 degrade water quality upon bacterial decomposition, which depletes oxygen levels in an 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-4 

1 ecosystem. Oxygen depletion can result in “dead zones,” murky water, seagrass and coral 

2 habitat degradation, and large-scale fish kills (Deegan and Buchsbaum 2005). 

3 3.4 Marine Ecosystems 

4 The affected coastal zone of the U.S. (states and territories) consists of marine ecosystems 

5 extending 200 nautical miles from the shoreline. These ecosystems support typical marine 

6 biota and are defined by elevated salinity (~35 ppt) (Cowardin et al. 1979). They are 

7 exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and include sandy beaches, shallow 

8 coastal bays that lack freshwater inflow from rivers and streams, and exposed rocky coasts 

9 that provide little or no shelter from wind and waves. A large number of these marine 

10 ecosystems have been highly invaded by NIS. 

11 The current health of U.S. marine ecosystems is considered impaired, with the largest 

12 pollution threat to coastal marine life being excess nitrogen loading from agricultural 

13 runoff, stormwater, and other sources. Human exploitation of the oceans has gone on so 

14 long that scientists agree that there is no clear historical baseline by which to measure 

15 healthy ecosystems. People measuring the health of marine environments against the best 

16 that they remember has led to a phenomenon called the “shifting baseline syndrome” (TOC 

17 2003). 

18 3.4.1 Physical Environment 

19 Seawater is defined by a range of environmental properties, such as salinity, temperature, 

20 and turbidity, which vary from region to region. The seasonal and spatial variation in water 

21 temperature reflects the influence of the local climate, circulation patterns of ocean 

22 currents, latitude, distance from shore, and depth. Turbidity is a measure of suspended 

23 solids in the water column and reflects water clarity. It varies depending on depth, distance 

24 from the shoreline, and sources of suspended solids. In open ocean waters, which are 

25 generally not affected by these factors, turbidity is generally much lower. Marine 

26 ecosystems have varying substrates, ranging from muddy and sandy bottoms to rocky 

27 shoreline cliffs. 

28 3.4.2 Habitats and Organisms 

29 Marine environments can be divided into two major realms: benthic (seafloor) and pelagic 

30 (overlying water). The littoral (tidal) system, a subdivision of the benthic realm, contains 

31 the intertidal zone (high tide to low tide) and subtidal zone (0 to 200 meters deep). 

32 In marine ecosystems of the tropics and southern temperate areas, coral reefs, mangroves, 

33 and seagrass beds play a crucial role in biodiversity and marine life production. Temperate 

34 marine ecosystems include a wide variety of commercially important species, such as 

35 shrimp, crabs, lobsters, cod on the East Coast, and salmon and crab on the West and 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-5 

1 Alaskan coasts. In the arctic regions of Alaska, marine systems include critical plankton 

2 populations that form the biological foundation for populations of fish and marine 

3 mammals. 

4 The structure and function of the habitats within marine ecosystems are complex and not 

5 always defined by physical boundaries. For example, they can incorporate land-based 

6 organisms, such as terrestrial birds that may fly to the pelagic zone to feed, or terrestrial 

7 predators, which may forage at the shoreline. Complex interactions often occur, both 

8 within the marine ecosystem and between ecosystems. 

9 Subtidal Benthic Environment 

10 Benthic environments contain the organisms living on and within the sediments. Soft 

11 bottom sand and mud substrates dominate the continental shelf and include unvegetated 

12 communities and seagrass beds. Rocky bottoms are either submerged extensions of rocky 

13 shores or outcrops of varying size, which provide anchors for organisms. Organisms 

14 inhabiting these areas can be classified into two major categories: epifauna (organisms that 

15 live on or are associated with the surface of the substrate) and infauna (organisms that live 

16 within the substrate). Epifaunal organisms dominate rocky bottoms, while infaunal 

17 organisms dominate soft bottoms. 

18 Extensive areas within the subtidal benthic zone in the U.S. lack vegetation. This 

19 predominantly unvegetated environment consists of four major taxonomic groups of 

20 various infaunal and epifaunal organisms: polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, and 

21 mollusks. Although this region lacks vegetation, diatoms (phytoplankton), detritus from 

22 nearby seagrasses and algae beds, and nutrient runoff from land all provide food. 

23 Carnivorous bottom fish such as rays and flatfish, as well as sea turtles and marine 

24 mammals, feed upon benthic invertebrates. 

25 Subtidal rocky surfaces are not as abundant as soft bottom substrates, but they are common 

26 in some regions of the U.S., such as the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. These hard 

27 substrates in the subtidal zone are generally densely covered with low-growing plants and 

28 stationary suspension-feeding animals. Organisms in this habitat can be divided into two 

29 major groups: colonial encrusting species or single individuals that settle together to form 

30 large clumps of species. Often these communities are protected in some regions by large 

31 kelp. 

32 There are two major types of aquatic plant communities that inhabit the subtidal benthic 

33 environment of marine ecosystems: seagrass beds and kelp forests. Because of their 

34 extensive areas and high densities, seagrass beds have high productivity and provide a large 

35 portion of the total primary production of inshore waters. The beds are habitats for large 

36 numbers of organisms, including burrowers and motile animals. Furthermore, birds, fish, 

37 sea urchins, and sea turtles use the seagrass beds to escape predation and to graze. 

38 Extensive seagrass beds exist in many U.S. ecosystems, although declines have been 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-6 

1 measured in many areas, generally due to human activities. Kelp forests are mainly found 

2 along hard-bottom, rocky shorelines of the U.S. and consist of large brown algae 

3 (Nybakken 1993). These forests are located throughout a large part of the cold temperate 

4 regions, including the north Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. They form an extensive habitat 

5 composed of several vertical layers, which provide distinctive niches for a wide variety of 

6 marine organisms. 

7 The marine invertebrate populations of the U.S. are extensive and span a wide variety of 

8 taxonomic groups, including macroinvertebrates, mollusks and crustaceans, and also many 

9 zooplankton, copepods and amphipods. These organisms can be good indicators of 

10 watershed health because they are influenced by the concentration of oxygen, nutrients, 

11 toxic chemicals, and habitat quality. 

12 Another ecosystem within the subtidal zone is coral reefs. The U.S. has jurisdiction over 

13 coral reefs covering an estimated 7,600 square miles in the tropical-subtropical belt around 

14 the equator (NOAA 2002). Warm water coral reefs are among the largest living biological 

15 systems in the world, and their survival is dependent on key biological and physical factors 

16 such as temperature, light, turbidity, and salinity. Coral reefs provide foraging habitat and 

17 shelter to thousands of species of flora and fauna. Additionally, cold-water corals, 

18 sometimes referred to as deep-sea corals, may occur as solitary individuals or form both 

19 reef-like structures and thickets that provide habitats for numerous species. These corals, 

20 such as Lophelia pertusa and Paragorgia arborea, are found in cold oceanic waters 

21 worldwide and occur anywhere from near the surface to 1,000 meters in depth, but are most 

22 commonly found between 200 and 400 meters (lophelia.org). 

23 A variety of coral species have been introduced into U.S. waters via BWD and other 

24 sources. For example, nonindigenous coral species can harm native coral species by 

25 colonizing the native species’ habitat; competing with the native species over limited, 

26 overlapping resource needs; and ultimately replacing them within the ecosystem. Coral 

27 reef degradation has increased as a result of changing climate, coastal development, 

28 overfishing, disease, and NIS. 

29 Intertidal Environment 

30 The intertidal zone is the area where the ocean meets the shoreline, between the upper 

31 reaches of water at high tide and the lower reaches of water at low tide. Wave and tidal 

32 action contribute to a wide array of environmental factors that make the intertidal zone a 

33 physically challenging place for its inhabitants and determine the geographic limits of its 

34 organisms. The upper intertidal zone, which is exposed to air for much of the day, is 

35 typically occupied by few species, whereas the lower intertidal zone, usually submerged 

36 during both high and low tide, is populated by many organisms. The intertidal habitat can 

37 be divided into three sub-types: rocky, sandy, and muddy shorelines. Muddy shorelines are 

38 discussed in Section 3.4 (Estuarine Ecosystems). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-7 

1 Rocky intertidal shores – common in the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Alaskan 

2 waters, the Pacific Islands waters, and the Caribbean waters of the U.S. – can be classified 

3 according to their flora and fauna. The uppermost zone, the supralittoral fringe or spray 

4 zone, is barely reached by the ocean’s salty spray and only the highest tides and winter 

5 storm waves flood this area. This area is a habitat for periwinkles, limpets, barnacles, and 

6 lichens. The middle part of the intertidal zone, the midlittoral zone, is habitat for 

7 periwinkles, limpets, chitons, crabs, barnacles, and mollusks. Below the midlittoral zone is 

8 the infralittoral fringe, which extends from the lowest low tide to the upper limit of large 

9 kelp. This zone includes sea stars, sea urchins, small fish, and different types of algae. 

10 Sandy shores are a common feature throughout U.S. coastlines. In this habitat, primary 

11 producers are limited to benthic diatoms and free-floating phytoplankton. Because there is 

12 little primary production, infaunal and epifaunal animals must rely on food from 

13 phytoplankton, organic debris, or other animals. 

14 Wetlands are a combination of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They are lands where 

15 water saturation is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the 

16 types of plant and animal communities. Water sources include rivers, lakes, ocean areas, or 

17 wet spots. Wetlands provide habitat for a diverse array of species, including fish, crabs, 

18 shellfish, and birds (particularly waterfowl and wading birds). Also, they provide services 

19 such as nursery areas, flood mitigation, water filtering, and food. The importance of 

20 wetlands to fish and wildlife is reflected by the large proportion of threatened and 

21 endangered species that require wetland habitats. Some of these species have potential 

22 commercial value. In addition, the biological diversity of natural resources found in 

23 wetlands is critical for research, education, and recreational activities (EPA 2004). 

24 Wetlands also have public value for storm abatement, aquifer recharge, water quality 

25 improvement, aesthetics, and general subsistence. 

26 Since the early nineteenth century, extensive introductions of marine invertebrates have 

27 occurred within the intertidal zone throughout North America. NIS such as the Asian shore 

28 crab, green crab, and the Eastern oyster have been used as models for understanding NIS 

29 introduction patterns and successes (Carlton and Mann 1996; Grosholz and Ruiz 1996; 

30 Grosholz et al. 2000; Lohrer and Whitlach 1997). 

31 Water Column (Pelagic) Environment 

32 The first trophic level of the water column consists of thousands of species of bacteria and 

33 plankton. The distribution of plankton in U.S. marine waters is highest off the continental 

34 shelf and in temperate inshore waters, which span both the east and west coastlines. 

35 Planktonic organisms are divided into two primary types: phytoplankton and zooplankton. 

36 Phytoplankton are responsible for most of the photosynthetic activity in the oceans. 

37 Zooplankton, the heterotrophic animal component of plankton, include a variety of species 

38 that mainly feed on other copepods and phytoplankton. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-8 

1 Small marine animals feeding directly upon plankton in the water column comprise the 

2 intermediate links in the marine food web and include free-swimming macroinvertebrates 

3 such as jellyfish and small pelagic fish. In turn, these small animals provide prey to larger 

4 marine animals such as fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. Large marine fish 

5 are at the top trophic level of marine food webs, fulfilling a critical function in marine 

6 ecosystems, both ecologically and economically. Ecologically, marine fish are vital to the 

7 marine food web as upper trophic level carnivores that prey on smaller fish and 

8 invertebrates. Even though seabirds are not part of the water column community, they are 

9 upper-trophic carnivores whose diet consists of water column organisms. As part of the 

10 terrestrial food web, marine fish serve as prey to upper trophic birds such as gulls and terns. 

11 There are a large number of seabird species, and they spend the majority of their time living 

12 and feeding on the open ocean, coming to land only to breed and feed their young. They 

13 are an important structural link in marine ecosystems because they are physically capable of 

14 flying long distances to forage and nest and often utilize all habitats of marine ecosystems. 

15 In ballast water, microorganisms may constitute a numeric majority of the species found. 

16 (Carlton 1999, 2001; Galil and Hulsmann 1997; McCarthy and Crowder 2000). 

17 Phytoplankton, particularly diatoms and dinoflagellates, can be especially abundant and 

18 may cause the HAB known as “red tides”(Carlton and Geller 1993; Hallegraeff 1993; NRC 

19 1996) or produce toxic compounds. Toxins can bioaccumulate in high trophic level marine 

20 animals, which can accumulate relatively large amounts of the toxin and show symptoms of 

21 contamination (Bushaw-Newton and Sellner 1999). Despite the inherent variability in, and 

22 limited knowledge of HAB and their geographical distribution, NIS introduced via BWD 

23 and other sources may have contributed to the increase in the frequency, intensity, and 

24 duration of HAB events in U.S. waters (Hallegraeff 1993). The adverse effects of HAB on 

25 marine mammals can range from cell and tissue damage to organism mortality. 

26 Approximately one-half of the world’s marine mammal species are present within the U.S. 

27 EEZ. All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

28 (MMPA), and many of them are further protected under the Endangered Species Act of 

29 1973 (ESA). Twenty-seven marine mammal species (or populations) are currently listed as 

30 depleted under the MMPA, and twenty of these are also listed as threatened or endangered 

31 under the ESA. NOAA administers the protection programs for these species and has 

32 designated critical habitat for all species that require it. Additionally, four further species or 

33 populations of manatees and sea otters that reside in U.S. territory are endangered or 

34 threatened, and their management is administered by the FWS. One subpopulation of the 

35 grey whale was delisted twenty-four years after it was listed as endangered. Additionally, 

36 there are 37 species or populations of marine mammals protected by the MMPA that are not 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-9 

listed as depleted (NMFS, n.d.).1 1 Similar to fish, marine mammals play a vital role as top2 down consumers. Marine mammals range in their dietary consumption. Some species, 

3 such as baleen whales, may feed entirely on plankton and small fish. Other species of 

4 marine mammals (i.e., dolphins, toothed whales, and polar bears) can feed on crustaceans, 

5 large fish, seals, or birds. 

6 Although the majority of marine fish in the U.S. are native to a specific region, the U.S. 

7 Geological Survey (USGS) has listed 272 non-native fish species in the U.S., 56 of which 

8 are marine (USGS 2006). Although roughly half of these species have been introduced 

9 from one region of the U.S. to another, a large portion has been introduced from foreign 

10 sources. 

11 3.5 Estuarine Ecosystems 

12 Estuarine ecosystems are habitats where fresh and marine waters mix, for example, where a 

13 river or stream meets the ocean. Estuaries’ unique physical and chemical characteristics are 

14 influenced by the tides and the mixing of fresh and seawater. Estuarine ecosystems are 

15 located along all coasts. The numerous estuarine habitats of the U.S. are well distributed 

16 throughout the climatic zones and vary in size. This unique environment supports a variety 

17 of wildlife and fisheries, which contribute substantially to the economy of the U.S. (EPA 

18 2005). 

19 Estuaries usually have greater temperature and salinity variations than marine waters. As a 

20 result, estuarine species are characterized by their tolerance to broad fluctuations in their 

21 physical environment. The influx of freshwater, sediment, and nutrients from the land 

22 mixes with the salty oceanic waters containing additional nutrients to create a highly 

23 productive ecosystem. Thus, estuaries play a critical role as foraging grounds and nurseries 

24 for marine species, including some commercially important fish and crustaceans. Common 

25 species found in estuaries include algae, marsh grasses, mangrove trees (in the tropics), and 

26 a variety of fish, worms, oysters, and crabs. 

27 The overall condition of U.S. estuarine ecosystems is “fair” (EPA 2005). In 2001, 23 

28 percent of the nation’s estuarine areas were considered impaired for swimming, fishing, or 

29 supporting marine species (USCOP 2004). A large number of estuarine systems have been 

30 highly invaded by NIS. For example, in San Francisco Bay – which has frequently been 

 

1

 Stock assessment reports for all marine mammals can be found at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-10 

1 used for modeling of estuarine processes, including NIS invasion rates and effects – over 

2 two hundred NIS have been identified, such as the Chinese mitten crab (Cohen and Carlton 

3 1995). Additionally, nonindigenous microorganisms have become established in many 

4 estuarine waters. The introduction of nonnative pathogens, such as viral hemorrhagic 

5 septicemia (VHS), which negatively impact native organisms through parasite or disease 

6 transmission, can be particularly destructive to the estuarine ecosystem. 

7 3.5.1 Physical Environment 

8 Estuaries are commonly semi-enclosed areas, which take the form of bays, shallow lagoons, 

9 coastal plain estuaries, coastal plain salt marshes, and fjords. The salinity profile of a 

10 typical estuary varies greatly and depends on tidal cycles, rainfall, drainage slopes, soil 

11 texture, vegetation, water table depth, fresh water influx, and fossil salt deposits. Because 

12 salt water is denser than fresh water, it sinks and flows along the bottom, forming a salt 

13 wedge, with the less dense freshwater flowing out along the surface. 

14 Water temperatures within estuaries can fluctuate considerably on diurnal and seasonal 

15 cycles. Estuaries can heat up or cool down more quickly than larger water bodies because 

16 of their relatively large surface area and fairly shallow depth. Furthermore, the freshwater 

17 input can also raise or lower the temperature of an estuary. 

18 Suspended sediments, detritus, and plankton influence the turbidity of an estuary. 

19 Freshwater inputs often carry high levels of suspended particles and can stir up the fine 

20 estuarine sediments. As the suspended particles in the fresh water meet the salt water, they 

21 aggregate and form a zone called the turbidity maximum. Further from shore, these 

22 aggregated particles begin to settle out and form rich sediment. Wind speed, water current, 

23 human and wildlife activity, and estuary type play additional roles in turbidity levels. 

24 Estuaries receive more nutrient inputs per unit surface area than any other type of 

25 ecosystem (NRC 1993) because of their semi-restricted nature, the continual ebb and flow 

26 of tides, and the inflow of sediment from upland sources. 

27 3.5.2 Habitats and Organisms 

28 As with marine ecosystems, the ecological structure of estuaries can be divided into three 

29 subsystems or habitats: subtidal benthic, intertidal, and pelagic. 

30 The physical elements and organisms of these habitats have unique, yet interdependent 

31 functions that comprise the overall estuarine ecosystem. The subtidal benthic habitats are 

32 associated with the bottom substrate past the intertidal area and are permanently submerged 

33 by tidal water. Subtidal organisms function on or within the floor of the estuary and 

34 include many types of sea grasses, seaweeds, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, mollusks, 

35 crustaceans, and mussels. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-11 

1 Intertidal habitats include the area between high and low tide marks, and their exposure to 

2 air varies depending on the tide cycle. Plant species found within the intertidal zone of the 

3 estuary generally include leafy grasses or red mangrove trees. Animals within the intertidal 

4 zone, such as polychaetes, gastropods, and filter feeders, usually forage for food along the 

5 bottom. 

6 The pelagic habitat encompasses the water column portion of the estuary. The plankton 

7 populations of the water column vary with current, salinity, temperature, and tides. Fish 

8 that utilize the estuaries tend to migrate into the marsh during high tides. 

9 Subtidal Benthic Environment 

10 Subtidal benthic organisms function on or within the floor of the estuary. This habitat can 

11 support a vast array of organisms, all of which play a role in the healthy functioning of the 

12 ecosystem. Organisms inhabiting the benthic region of an estuary can be classified as 

13 infauna, epifauna, or demersal (bottom-dwelling fish that feed on other benthic organisms). 

14 Typical estuarine benthic infauna can include protozoa, bacteria, mollusks, worms, and 

15 crustaceans, and these types of organisms occupy several trophic levels in the estuarine 

16 food web. 

17 Diatoms and other species act as primary producers, creating their own nourishment using 

18 sunlight. Primary consumers feed on plankton, detritus, and benthic algae, while secondary 

19 consumers feed on primary consumers. The bacteria and other infaunal microorganisms act 

20 as decomposers, breaking down the waste products of organisms or feeding on dead plant 

21 or animal material. The benthic epifaunal community in a typical estuary consists of 

22 oysters, mussels, seagrasses, crabs, sea stars, and snails. Finally, an estuarine demersal 

23 community includes organisms that live or feed on the bottom of an estuary. 

24 As with the marine ecosystem, there have also been extensive introductions of 

25 nonindigenous mollusks in estuarine ecosystems throughout North America since the early 

26 19th century. Thirty species have become established on the Pacific Coast, eight on the 

27 Atlantic Coast and one on the Gulf Coast. Nineteen of the thirty Pacific Coast NIS occur in 

28 San Francisco Bay alone (Carlton 1992). There, the Asian clam has reached densities of 

over 10,000/m2 29 at the expense of native biota (Carlton 1992). Invertebrate NIS have had 

30 severe ecological impacts in many regions of the U.S. The elevated densities of Asian 

31 clams and other introduced invertebrates have become the primary mechanism controlling 

32 phytoplankton biomass in portions of the San Francisco Bay. This has impacted native 

33 zooplankton, shrimp, and fish populations (Cohen and Carlton 1995). Such breakdowns of 

34 established ecosystems can result in alterations of physical processes such as sedimentation 

35 rates and nutrient cycling. The physical environment may experience elevated erosion rates 

36 due to burrowing by invertebrate NIS (e.g., isopods, crayfish, and crabs) (Cohen and 

37 Carlton 1995). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-12 

1 There is relatively little research published on ballast water transport of plant species. 

2 However, it is known that floating and detached seaweeds and seagrasses may be entrained 

3 in ballast water (NRC 1996). It is well established that the consequences of nonindigenous 

4 aquatic plants have been extensive. The introduction of NIS can have deleterious effects on 

5 native aquatic plants as well as serious implications beyond the aquatic ecosystem level. In 

6 the San Francisco Bay estuary, over 20 nonindigenous plant species have been identified 

7 (Cohen and Carlton 1995). The potential adverse impacts of these species include 

8 competitive replacement of native cordgrass; altered habitat for wetland plants and animals; 

9 altered sediment dynamics; and loss of shorebird foraging habitat (Callaway and Josselyn 

10 1992). 

11 Intertidal Environment 

12 The estuarine intertidal subsystem functions as vital habitat to a number of organisms. 

13 These habitats generally range from unvegetated cobble, gravel, sand, or mud beds to 

14 productive and emergent wetlands. Because species inhabiting the upper portion of an 

15 intertidal zone may receive water only through wave splashes and sprays, they must be 

16 adapted to long periods of exposure to air. 

17 Organisms typically found in upper intertidal zones of estuaries include macroalgae, lichen, 

18 snails, limpets, crabs, and microscopic invertebrates and arthropods. This section of the 

19 intertidal zone serves as a feeding area for terrestrial organisms as well. Estuaries support a 

20 variety of terrestrial mammals (e.g., raccoons and opossums) that forage and prey along the 

21 shore. Shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors can live, feed, and reproduce in estuaries. 

22 Muddy shores, a part of the upper intertidal zone, have high concentrations of organic 

23 matter and lack significant wave action. They form in estuaries, bays, lagoons, and harbors. 

24 These low-slope areas are termed mud flats and are unique environments because they have 

25 two separate layers where primary production occurs: the superficial layer where diatoms, 

26 algae, and seagrasses carry on photosynthesis and a deep, oxygen-depleted layer where 

27 bacteria carry on anaerobic respiration. Primary consumers on muddy shores include 

28 polychaetes, nematodes, and bivalves. These organisms are primary consumers, but unlike 

29 herbivores, they feed on bacteria and organic particles, rather than plants. In turn, they are 

30 consumed by carnivorous animals including moon snails, some crabs, fish, and birds. 

31 The middle intertidal zone contains an abundance of barnacles as well as their primary 

32 predator, whelks. A diverse assemblage of seaweed species may found in this area. 

33 Mussels, sea stars, and spiny lobsters thrive in the intertidal zone. The mammals and birds 

34 that exploit the upper intertidal area will also search for food in this area at low tide. 

35 A large variety of species inhabit the lower intertidal zone, partially because it is an easier 

36 place to live and feed. Kelp, seaweed species, and seagrass beds thrive in this area, 

37 providing food and shelter to a variety of lower intertidal organisms. Sea stars, snails, and 

38 worms are a few of the invertebrates that may inhabit this zone along with clams, sea 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-13 

1 anemones, sea urchins, and octopuses. Because this region is almost constantly submerged, 

2 many types of fish feed here and use seagrass beds as shelter for their eggs and larvae. The 

3 mammals and shore birds that feed along the shore will not generally venture into this 

4 deeper zone, although some species of birds will forage for fish underwater. 

5 Vegetated areas can be found throughout the upper, middle, and lower regions of the 

6 intertidal zone. Aquatic plants serve many critical functions in estuarine ecosystems. 

7 Plants act as a food source for numerous species and play crucial roles in nutrient cycling, 

8 water clarity, and erosion control. Plant habitats can also function as essential shelter for 

9 juveniles or other vulnerable organisms. Native seagrass beds have been adversely affected 

10 by NIS through competition and habitat alteration. 

11 Many different groups of birds (49 common shorebird species) can be found in U.S. 

12 estuaries and other marine coastal regions. Waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and swans, 

13 typically nest on the ground near lakes, rivers, or estuaries. Although not all waterfowl 

14 consume fish, they all depend in some way on marine, freshwater, and estuarine systems for 

15 their food. Invertebrates found in shallow water or sediment comprise a majority of the 

16 shorebird diet. Invasive species’ impacts on bird health include changes in shorebird 

17 foraging habitat and increased competition (Callaway and Josselyn 1992). 

18 Estuarine intertidal wetlands consist of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands. 

19 They are usually semi-enclosed by land, but have partial access to oceanic water either 

20 temporally or spatially. Estuarine wetlands are very important habitats which can contain 

21 vegetation and animals such as cattails, algae, seagrasses, mangroves, cypress, clams, 

22 mussels, and crayfish (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

23 Estuarine wetlands have been invaded and adversely affected by animal and plant NIS from 

24 ballast water and other sources (EPA 2004). For example, the Chinese mitten crab, 

25 potentially introduced via BWD, has affected native invertebrates and the ecological 

26 structure of estuarine wetland communities in California. It disrupts fishing operations by 

27 competing with and preying on native species, damaging native habitats, and reducing 

28 biodiversity (Cohen and Carlton 1997). The current species composition of U.S. estuarine 

29 plants includes many NIS that have become widely established over time. In the waters of 

30 Florida alone, 23 nonindigenous aquatic plant species have become established (McCann et 

31 al. 1996). 

32 Water Column (Pelagic) Environment 

33 The water column habitat encompasses the areas of the estuary that are distinct from the 

34 shoreline and the floor of the estuary. Microorganisms, plankton, invertebrates, and fishes 

35 inhabit the water column. As primary producers, phytoplankton are vital to the estuarine 

36 food web structure and are consumed by zooplankton as well as higher trophic-level 

37 organisms. The abundance and species composition of phytoplankton typically fluctuate 

38 seasonally and geographically. These oscillations and the role of phytoplankton as the base 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-14 

1 of the food web can influence higher trophic-level species. When nutrient levels in an 

2 estuary are relatively low, diatoms are typically the dominant species of planktonic 

3 organism. 

4 Increased nutrient levels can contribute to algal blooms. Algal blooms are a natural part of 

5 the seasonal growth cycle and provide a valuable food source to estuarine and open ocean 

6 environments. However, a nutrient overabundance may cause large-scale blooms which 

7 will negatively impact the estuarine ecosystem and present health threats to many species. 

8 Zooplankton are also an important food source for the larval forms of many fish species, 

9 which use the shallow waters in estuaries for nurseries and protection. Major estuarine 

10 zooplankton species include copepods, protists, and amphipods. 

11 Estuaries serve as important breeding and nursery habitats for pelagic fish and play a vital 

12 role in many commercial and recreational fisheries. Approximately 75% of the U.S.’s 

13 commercially important fish and shellfish depend on estuaries at some stage in their life 

14 cycle (NMFS 2006a). For example, anadromous species such as salmon hatch in upstream 

15 areas and migrate to the open ocean as juveniles. Anadromous species spend a few days to 

16 a few months resting, feeding, and physiologically adjusting to the salinity changes in 

17 estuarine areas between downstream migration and the open ocean. 

18 Several marine mammal species, particularly seals and dolphins, can be found in estuaries 

19 in the U.S. These mammals often serve as top predators in the food web. Manatees feed on 

20 submerged vegetation, helping to regulate the plant populations in an estuary. This grazing 

21 action may encourage the growth of other aquatic plants and their associated organisms. 

22 Harbor seals can typically be found in large numbers in New England estuaries, while 

23 estuaries on the west coast of the U.S. are often used by seals, sea otters, and sea lions. 

24 3.6 Freshwater Ecosystems 

25 Freshwater ecosystems are located throughout the U.S. They include rivers, streams, lakes, 

26 and wetlands. The Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, along with their associated 

27 watersheds, are the two most significant freshwater ecosystems in the U.S. 

28 The current health of U.S. freshwater ecosystems can be summarized as follows. The Great 

29 Lakes system’s overall condition is fair to poor based on a variety of ecosystem indicators 

30 (EPA 2005). States reported that out of those that were assessed, only 61% of the river and 

31 stream miles, 54% of the lake acres, and 22% of the Great Lakes shoreline miles fully 

32 support the water quality standards evaluated (EPA 2000). Every Great Lake is under at 

33 least one fish consumption advisory (EPA 2005). 

34 U.S. lakes provide drinking water for communities and supply water for industry, irrigation, 

35 and hydropower. Rivers and lakes also provide a variety of recreational opportunities and 

36 are important components of the freshwater fishing industry. They function as 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-15 

1 transportation corridors for both human activities and natural processes. Rivers and 

2 associated lakes transport nutrients from terrestrial systems to coastal areas, and therefore 

3 substantially impact other ecosystems. Rivers, lakes, and streams support a rich and diverse 

4 community of species including plankton, rooted and floating aquatic plants, grazing snails, 

5 clams, insect larvae, crustaceans, fish, and amphibians. Furthermore, many terrestrial birds, 

6 insects, and mammals depend on these local freshwater ecosystems. 

7 U.S. freshwater ecosystem species have been affected by NIS introductions, as well as by 

8 habitat destruction and other human-mediated factors. For example, NIS have become a 

9 significant component of the food web in the Great Lakes with 162 NIS identified by 2001 

10 (NOAA 2004a). Additionally, in the Mississippi River, over 100 NIS have been identified 

11 across at least nine taxonomic groups (USGS 2004a). North America's rivers and stream 

12 species are dying out five times faster than animals living on land and three times faster 

13 than marine mammals (American Rivers 2005). This is due in great measure to the threat 

14 posed by NIS to such fauna and the ease with which they spread in freshwater ecosystems. 

15 3.6.1 Physical Environment 

16 Freshwater is defined as having low salt content, usually less than 0.5 ppt. The salinity 

17 levels of a freshwater body are influenced by climatic (rainfall) and terrestrial (rock and soil 

18 weathering) processes. A river’s currents can cause weathering of its riverbanks, releasing 

19 salts and other minerals into the water. Additionally, terrestrial evaporation can leave 

20 behind salt which can be washed into a freshwater body during rain events. 

21 Water temperatures in lakes or ponds can vary with the seasons. Furthermore, because 

22 lakes are relatively still, the water is able to separate into different layers (stratification). In 

23 warmer seasons, the surface layer is heated by sunlight, while bottom layers remain cold. 

24 Separating these layers is the thermocline, a transition layer which is characterized by its 

25 abrupt temperature changes. During the summer months there is very little mixing between 

26 the layers, leading to well-defined boundaries between warm and cold waters. In the fall, as 

27 the surface waters cool, stratification breaks down and water exchange between the layers 

28 increases, leading to more uniform water temperatures. During the colder months, surface 

29 waters of temperate freshwater bodies typically freeze over while bottom waters remain 

30 fluid. This temperature stratification is critical to the long-term survival of freshwater 

31 organisms which retreat to deeper waters during the winter. 

32 River or stream temperature can be extremely variable as well. The river or stream origin 

33 (e.g., glacier, wetland, or spring) dictates its initial temperature. The character of a river or 

34 stream shoreline can also cause temperature fluctuations: a shady shoreline will be 

35 considerably cooler than a river fully exposed to sunlight. Similarly to lakes and ponds, 

36 depth and season can affect overall river temperature. Finally, the nature of the runoff 

37 entering the river from the watershed can influence temperature. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-16 

1 Many factors can contribute to the turbidity of a river or lake. Temperature changes can 

2 cause turbidity, although this turbidity is transient. Other factors affecting turbidity can 

3 include freshwater inflow, watershed runoff, wave action (if the lake is large), human 

4 activity, bottom-feeding fish, and suspended particles. For example, turbidity increases can 

5 be caused by plankton, such as algae, particularly during periods of warmer temperatures, 

6 longer daylight, and increased nutrient input. 

7 3.6.2 Habitats and Organisms 

8 The two freshwater ecosystems discussed in this section (lakes and rivers) can be divided 

9 into subsystems with unique physical and biological characteristics. The subsystems 

10 maintain a strong relationship with each other and cannot function independently. Lake and 

11 river ecosystems do not usually possess physical boundaries that exclude or include 

12 organisms, nutrients, or other resources. Many organisms are able to move freely between 

13 lakes and rivers, and some are able to inhabit estuaries and oceans. The function of a 

14 freshwater ecosystem depends on the interchange of resources with other ecosystems. 

15 However, this interdependence with terrestrial and marine ecosystems makes lakes, rivers, 

16 and other freshwater bodies susceptible to NIS. 

17 Lake and Pond Environments

18 Lake, pond, and some freshwater wetland environments consist of water systems that are 

19 fairly tranquil. Similar to estuarine and marine ecosystems, lakes can be partitioned into 

20 distinct biological zones according to their physical structure. The littoral zone of a lake is 

21 closest to the shoreline and is the area where sunlight is capable of penetrating the water, 

22 allowing aquatic plants to thrive and contributing to the overall high productivity of the 

23 zone. The pelagic or limnetic zone (water column) of a lake lies beyond the littoral zone, in 

24 open water where shoreline processes have less influence and where sunlight may also 

25 reach. The profundal zone lies beneath the level to which sunlight can penetrate and 

26 applies only to very deep lakes. Due to the lack of light and the dominance of decay 

27 processes, oxygen levels are too low for sustaining life other than fungi and bacteria. 

28 Finally, the benthic zone of a lake includes the species living on or in the bottom layers of 

29 sand or mud whose composition and numbers depend on the amount of available organic 

30 matter. 

31 The benthic organisms (benthos) found in lakes are far more abundant and diverse in the 

32 littoral zone than in the profundal zone. The profundal zone is usually low in species 

33 diversity, consisting primarily of decomposers such as bacteria and fungi. The feeding and 

34 digesting activities of benthic organisms serve as important nutrient cycling pathways, 

35 providing nitrogen and phosphorus to photosynthetic organisms. The rates at which the 

36 benthos can excrete nutrients also have implications for lake ecosystems, such as 

37 influencing the species composition of algae, macrophytes, and decomposers. Although 

38 decomposers can be found in all parts of a lake, they are the dominant organisms in the 

39 deeper zones. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-17 

1 Microorganisms constitute a vital foundation for most aquatic ecosystem food webs. 

2 Phytoplankton abundance may be one of the determining factors for the suitability of a 

3 habitat to NIS colonization. For example, high densities of plankton are essential for the 

4 colonization of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes region. In addition, NIS can have adverse 

5 impacts on plankton populations by predating native communities at higher rates than those 

6 exerted by other native organisms or by selective predation (Naddafi et al. 2007). 

7 Lake plants can be grouped as emergent, floating, or submergent. Large plants 

8 (macrophytes) are an integral part of a lake’s ecosystem function. For example, plant 

9 leaves and stems can act as substrate for snails or insects, and dragonflies lay their eggs on 

10 the plant stems just below the water line. The dense growth of these plants also provides 

11 shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat for many species. Furthermore, these plants 

12 contribute to the diet of some waterbirds and larger mammals. Many of these plant species, 

13 such as hydrilla, waterlettuce, alligatorweed, torpedo grass, and water hyacinth are 

14 extremely invasive (McCann et al. 1996). 

15 Lacustrine (lake-associated) and palustrine (e.g. ponds, marshes, and bogs) freshwater 

16 wetlands are situated in topographic depressions. Organisms inhabiting them may include 

17 snails, midges, crayfish, mollusks, clams, algae, and many vascular plants. These wetlands 

18 often contain vegetation such as alder, willow, spruce, maple, ash, oak, and cypress 

19 (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

20 Nonindigenous species have established themselves in lake ecosystems in the U.S. Perhaps 

21 the best known example of freshwater invasion is the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and 

22 Mississippi River. This mollusk attaches itself to surfaces in such high densities that it can 

23 clog pipes and foul other important structures, such as boat hulls or buoy bases. Zebra 

24 mussels also have the capacity to crowd out native mollusk species or interfere with such 

25 basic functions as respiration, reproduction, feeding, growth, and movement. Native 

26 mollusk communities have been affected by NIS – one estimate is that another 127 

27 freshwater mussel species will become extinct in the next 100 years if no conservation 

28 efforts are initiated (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999, Williams and Neves 2003). Or, native 

29 mussel communities could persist and coexist with zebra mussels at much lower population 

30 densities and/or in poorer health than before zebra mussel invasion (Strayer and Malcolm, 

31 2007). 

32 In 2005, a freshwater strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) was discovered in 

33 freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater 

34 species throughout much of the Great Lakes. It has also been found in preserved samples 

35 from as far back as 2003. Since 1988 the virus, a finfish pathogen, was only known to exist 

36 in marine fish off both coasts (USDA 2006). Genetic studies have determined that the 

37 strain in the Great Lakes is most closely related to the North Atlantic strain (Gagné et al. 

38 2007). Ballast water is a plausible vector; however, there is no way to definitively 

39 determine how this pathogen arrived in the Great Lakes. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-18 

1 In lakes, fish generally represent the top of the food web. Many lake fish utilize both the 

2 littoral and limnetic zones. The littoral zone, with its abundance of macrophytes and other 

3 microhabitats, can provide protective nursery habitat for the eggs and young of some fish 

4 species (e.g., bass, walleye). However, due to the low abundance of plankton in littoral 

5 waters, most of these fish will migrate to more open waters of the limnetic zone to feed as 

6 adults. Most fish species, like sunfish or perch, spend time in the limnetic zone, feeding 

7 primarily on zooplankton. Piscivorous fish – those that feed on other fish – will also 

8 congregate in these open waters, preying on the planktivorous species. Other species, such 

9 as catfish, prefer foraging for food in the benthic habitats. 

10 Fish may not be as numerically abundant in ballast water as other phyla (Wonham et al. 

11 2001). Most fish introductions have been caused by stocking, release by hobbyists, or 

12 accidental release from aquaculture. Once established in a new environment, fish can 

13 spread over broad geographic areas. A classic example is the Eurasian ruffe 

14 (Gymnocephalus cernuus), which was introduced via ballast water to the St. Lawrence 

15 River in the mid-1980s. Since its introduction, it has spread rapidly through rivers, bays, 

16 and lakes in the Great Lakes area. Furthermore, the ecological and geographical expansion 

17 of the ruffe has injured native fish populations (OTA 1993). Other nonindigenous fish, 

18 such as the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), 

19 the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), the white perch (Morone americana), and the sea 

20 lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) have spread rapidly and caused major environmental and 

21 economic problems (Fuller et al. 2006; Mills et al. 1993; Tomelleri and Eberle 1990). 

22 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a stringy and submerged plant that is 

23 highly invasive and aggressively competes with native plant communities, reducing 

24 biodiversity. Dense mats of watermilfoil can clog propellers, impair swimming, restrict 

25 boating and fishing accesses, and affect water quality. It has less value as a food source for 

26 waterfowl than the native plants it replaces (Aiken et al. 1979). Although fish may initially 

27 experience a favorable edge effect, overabundant growth of watermilfoil negates any short28 term benefits that it may provide fish in healthy waters, because its high densities cause a 

29 lower abundance and diversity of invertebrates that serve as fish food (Keast 1984). The 

30 growth and aging of the thick watermilfoil vegetation also degrades water quality and 

31 depletes dissolved oxygen levels (Engel 1995; Honnell et al. 1992). 

32 Terrestrial organisms, such as amphibians, birds, and mammals, also utilize lake 

33 ecosystems. Amphibians are often found in abundance in lake environments; salamanders 

34 and frogs spend the majority of their breeding seasons in the vicinity of a freshwater body, 

35 where their eggs are laid. Some birds hunt for juvenile fish in the shallow littoral zone, 

36 while others may pursue fish in the limnetic zone. Other species of birds prefer to feed on 

37 insect eggs or larvae attached to macrophytes. Mammals such as bear or mink may hunt for 

38 fish in littoral areas and play a vital role in nutrient cycling through food ingestion and 

39 waste excretion. 

40 River and Stream Environments 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-19 

1 River and stream environments consist of flowing water systems. Similar to other aquatic 

2 ecosystems, rivers can be divided into zones that differ physically and biologically. The 

3 surface of a river is the top-most zone, consisting of the area from the air-water interface 

4 down a few centimeters into the water. In this zone, gases (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, and 

5 carbon dioxide) are exchanged between the water and the atmosphere. A river also has a 

6 water column zone directly below the surface of the water. The benthic zone of a river is 

7 located at the sediment-water interface, which consists of sediment, rocks, other substrates, 

8 and organisms. 

9 A river system’s benthic community is determined by the material that makes up the bottom 

10 of the riverbed and the availability of various microhabitats. Riverine benthos can range 

11 from burrowing macroinvertebrates to organisms that live on the surface of the benthic 

12 environment. These organisms are an important link in the riverine food web, feeding on 

13 detritus or plankton found on or in the riverbed and being preyed upon by larger organisms. 

14 The decomposition of dead benthic organisms also adds nutrients back into the benthic 

15 environment, which can be exploited by aquatic plants and other animals in the food web. 

16 Most large plant species are not capable of thriving in a river ecosystem because strong 

17 currents can batter their leaves and stems. However, some species have adapted to the 

18 rough environment by attaching themselves to rocks or other substrates or by evolving 

19 more hydrodynamic profiles. Other species grow only along the immediate shoreline, 

20 where the current is reduced. Some riverine macrophytes may alter the velocity and flow of 

21 the stream, and provide microhabitats for many organisms (Dodds and Biggs 2002). 

22 Riverine wetlands occur within a river’s channel and have salinities of less than 0.5 ppt. 

23 Organisms may be adapted to the flowing water environment by having a streamlined shape 

24 and strong connections to the substrate. Organisms in these wetlands may include snails, 

25 insects, algae, mollusks, and a wide array of vascular aquatic plants (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

26 While some fish spend their entire lives in the riverine environment, others migrate between 

27 fresh and saltwater ecosystems. Some species (anadromous) will spend the majority of 

28 their lives in the ocean, only migrating up a river for spawning. For example, salmon, 

29 sturgeon, and striped bass young spend their juvenile life in the river before migrating to the 

30 ocean. Conversely, other species of fish (known as catadromous), e.g., the American eel, 

31 spend most of their lives in freshwater and move to the ocean for reproduction. The 

32 juvenile catadromous fish will move to freshwater after hatching. 

33 Microhabitats in a river play a large role in determining where species are found. Some 

34 species prefer inhabiting river pools and other slower-moving areas of a river while other 

35 species thrive in the main channel. Bain and Knight (1996) found that slow-moving 

36 shallow areas of a river tend to possess the highest diversity, as well as densities, of fish. 

37 Riverine fish feed on benthic macroinvertebrates and the juveniles or eggs of other fish. 

38 They form one of the highest levels in a riverine food web, and they are also an important 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-20 

1 recycler of nutrients. In addition, the decomposition of fish in the river provides food for 

2 lower-level organisms, including benthic macroinvertebrates and a variety of decomposers. 

3 Like lake environments, riverine environments have many physical and biological 

4 connections with terrestrial systems. Runoff from upland areas provides a river with 

5 copious amounts of nutrients, organic matter, and sediment. Birds, mammals, and 

6 amphibians use the river for a variety of resources, including supplementing their diets by 

7 catching fresh fish or by feeding on carcasses. 

8 Many NIS have become established in portions of U.S. riverine ecosystems. For example, 

9 zebra mussel populations inhabit some rivers, specifically the Mississippi and Missouri 

10 Rivers. Furthermore, nonnative fish species such as the common carp now populate the 

11 Mississippi River. It is more difficult to manage the spread of riverine NIS than those 

12 found in lakes, due to more rapid flow, the inability to cordon off an entire river for 

13 treatment, and the close link among rivers and other aquatic ecosystems. 

14 More information about all of these organisms and environments can be found in the cited 

15 references. 

16 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

17 Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (Public Law 93-205, as 

18 amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.) to conserve and protect threatened and endangered species 

19 and their habitats. The definition of “species” in the ESA includes any subspecies of fish or 

20 wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or 

21 wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries 

22 Service share responsibility for implementing the ESA. The FWS is primarily responsible 

23 for terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory birds, while the NMFS manages those 

24 species inhabiting marine environments, including anadromous fish. 

25 There are currently ~260 marine-, estuarine-, and freshwater-associated species listed as 

26 either threatened or endangered under the ESA (see Appendices C and D for lists). Some 

27 endangered species could be threatened with extinction due to the combined impact of NIS 

28 introduction and the existing environmental circumstances (Ricciardi 2001; Sanders et al. 

29 2003; Strayer and Malcolm 2007). Almost 40 native mussel species occur in the 

30 Mississippi River, some of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered (FWS 

31 2003). The zebra mussel threatens some of these indigenous species of mussel with 

32 extinction. Additionally, the quagga mussel, introduced into the Great Lakes in 1989, may 

33 impact them or hasten their extinction (USGS 2005). Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

34 brevirostrum), which are federally endangered, are under many threats, amongst them 

35 habitat degradation and dredging operations, and they may also be threatened by 

36 introductions of white sturgeon (NatureServe 2007). NIS have been identified as a 

37 contributing factor in the listing as threatened or endangered of over 50% of fish species 

38 and 33% of invertebrates, which includes mollusks and crustaceans (OTA 1993). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-21 

1 3.8 Essential Fish Habitat 

2 In 1996, Congress made significant revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

3 Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, P.L. 94-265, as amended; 16 

4 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and refined the focus of fisheries management by emphasizing the 

5 need to protect fish habitat. Section 303 (a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically 

6 requires that fishery management plans identify as essential fish habitat (EFH) those areas 

7 that are necessary to fish for their basic life functions. EFH is defined as “...those waters 

8 and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

9 “Waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological 

10 properties that are used by fish. “Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures 

11 underlying the waters, and associated biological communities. “Necessary” refers to the 

12 habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a 

13 healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a 

14 species’ full life cycle. 

15 The Magnuson-Stevens Act gives eight regional fishery management councils (councils) 

16 and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Highly Migratory Species 

17 Division the authority to manage living marine resources within their respective areas 

18 (Pacific, North Pacific, Western Pacific, New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 

19 Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico). Each council creates management plans for fishery 

20 resources in federal waters. The NMFS and the eight councils have described and 

21 identified EFH for the federally managed species in their respective fishery management 

22 plans (NMFS 2006b). NMFS and the councils have also designated habitat areas of 

particular concern, a subset of EFH.2 23 

24 Section 305(b)(2)-(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines a process for NMFS and the 

25 councils to comment on activities proposed by Federal agencies’ actions that may adversely 

26 impact areas designated as EFH. Specifically, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 

27 on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely impact EFH. This 

28 consultation process is usually integrated into existing environmental review procedures in 

29 accordance with, for example, NEPA, ESA, or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, to 

30 provide the greatest level of efficiency. As part of the EFH consultation process, the 

31 guidelines require Federal action agencies to prepare a written EFH assessment describing 

the effects of their actions on EFH (50 CFR 600.920(e)(1)).3 32 The EFH assessment is 

 

2

 Maps and other descriptions of EFH can be found at the websites of the regional fishery management 

councils, by going to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index_i.htm. 

3

 Guidance on conducting EFH consultations is found at the following web site: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/efh/EFH%20Consultation%20Guidance%20v1-1.pdf 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-22 

1 necessary for NMFS to provide the Federal agency with efficient and effective EFH 

2 conservation recommendations for any action that would adversely affect EFH. Within 30 

3 days of receiving NMFS conservation recommendations, the acting Federal agencies must 

4 provide a detailed written response to NMFS that includes measures proposed for avoiding, 

5 mitigating, or offsetting the impact of a proposed activity on EFH. If the Federal action 

6 agency does not adopt NOAA Fisheries' conservation recommendations, it must provide an 

7 explanation. Fishery Management Councils may also choose to comment on proposed 

8 actions that may adversely impact EFH. 

9 3.9 Socioeconomics 

10 3.9.1 Value of U.S. Aquatic and Coastal Resources 

11 As discussed above, U.S. waters cover a broad range of physical and biological conditions, 

12 from warm, tropical to cold Arctic waters and from coastal to oceanic environments that 

13 support a wide variety of marine resources and wildlife. The U.S. EEZ is the largest in the 

14 world, spanning over 13,000 miles of coastline and containing 3.4 million square nautical 

15 miles of ocean—larger than the combined land area of all fifty states (USCOP 2004). The 

16 living resources that compose aquatic and coastal environments, and the ecological 

17 processes that sustain them, form a foundation for the quality of human life. They provide 

18 food, medicines, and industrial products. In addition, aquatic and coastal resources provide 

19 spiritual and recreational benefits. 

20 Aquatic and coastal resources also provide a wide variety of ecological services, including 

21 pollutant absorption, climate regulation, prevention of coastal and seabed erosion, 

22 maintenance of water quality, and storage and recycling of nutrients, as well as acting as 

23 indicators of global, regional and local environmental change. For example, coastal areas 

24 provide critical habitats that serve as spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for 

25 finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Coastal resources also provide feeding, 

26 breeding, and sheltering habitat for 85% of waterfowl and other migratory birds (EPA 

27 2005). Healthy estuaries are a rich source of nutrients and food organisms, and they 

28 contribute to the productivity of adjacent coastal waters and often support valuable fisheries 

29 as a result. Marshes trap sediments and filter nutrients and chemicals from the water. Coral 

30 reefs provide physical structure, food, and protection for a great diversity of marine 

31 organisms. Furthermore, the coral itself is composed of carbonate, which has been 

32 produced by animals and plants in a process that sequesters large quantities of carbon 

33 dioxide from the environment. 

34 Aquatic and coastal resources provide considerable value to the U.S. economy. In 2000, 

35 ocean-related activities directly contributed more than $117 billion to the economy and 

36 supported well over two million jobs. By including coastal activities, more than $1 trillion, 

37 or one-tenth of the nation’s annual gross domestic product (GDP), is generated within the 

38 nearshore zone. Annually, U.S. ports handle more than $700 billion in merchandise, while 

39 the cruise industry and its passengers account for another $12 billion in spending. It is 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-23 

1 estimated that more than thirteen million jobs are connected to maritime trade. Offshore oil 

2 and gas operations continue to expand, with annual production valued at between $25 and 

3 $40 billion (EPA 2005). In summary, aquatic and coastal resources provide essential 

4 economic, environmental, aesthetic, recreational, and cultural benefits to society. 

5 3.9.2 Overview of Current Economic Status 

6 The estimated annual economic activity within the ocean, coastal, estuarine, and freshwater 

7 regions of the U.S. contributes to one-third of the gross national product (NOAA 1995). 

8 Seventy-five percent of the U.S. gross state product (GSP) in 2000 originated from coastal 

9 states (states bordering oceans and the Great Lakes), with half of the U.S. economy 

10 stemming from coastal watershed counties (Colgan 2003). Coastal watershed counties 

11 encompass areas in which major rivers and streams flow through to oceans and the Great 

12 Lakes. Near shore areas of the U.S., which are generally those ZIP codes nearest the 

13 shoreline of the U.S., produce more than 11 percent of U.S. economic output (Colgan 

14 2003). 

15 The U.S. ocean economy employs 2.3 million people and a GSP of $117 billion. The ocean 

16 economy is that portion of economic activity that can be directly related to the ocean. The 

17 ocean economy is comprised of 1.6 percent of employment, ranging from 17.7 percent of 

18 Hawaii’s employment to 0.6 percent of Ohio and Indiana’s employment. Tourism and 

19 recreation have provided all of the recent job growth to the ocean economy of the U.S. 

20 within the last decade, while other ocean economy sectors (living resources, minerals, ship 

21 and boat building, and transportation) have declined in employment (Colgan 2003). As a 

22 comparison, ocean-related employment was almost 1-1⁄2 times larger than agricultural 

23 employment in 2000, and total ocean-related economic output was 2-1⁄2 times larger than 

24 that of the farm sector (USCOP 2004). 

25 Most international commerce for the U.S. is shipped through coastal waters, 99.8 percent 

26 by weight and 18.1 percent by value. In 1990, estimated waterborne commerce in the U.S. 

27 totaled 850 million metric tons valued at $465 billion. Foreign trade is an increasingly 

28 important element of the U.S. economy, currently accounting for over 20 percent of the 

29 GDP (EPA 1994). 

30 The commercial fishing industry’s total annual value exceeds $28 billion, with the 

31 recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. 

32 retail trade in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion (USCOP 2004). Over 8 million U.S. 

33 saltwater anglers catch an estimated 312 million fish annually (Dalton 2000). Over 350,000 

34 coastal residents rely on fishing for their livelihood and over 34 million Americans fish for 

35 recreation (FWS 2001). Of the nation's 267 major stocks—representing 99 percent of all 

36 landings—approximately 20 percent are either already overfished, experiencing 

37 overfishing, or approaching an overfished condition. In addition, a 2003 report noted that 

38 there is insufficient information on status of over 30 percent of the major stock and most of 

39 the minor stock, which makes an actual determination of their status extremely difficult 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-24 

1 (NMFS 2003b). Although fishery resources have become increasingly stressed, the 

2 demand for fishery products has grown. The U.S. is unable to meet the demand for seafood 

3 products resulting in a fishery trade deficit of $7 billion a year (FAS 2005). 

4 In addition to valuable resources and commerce, coastal environments offer some of the 

5 most scenic landscapes and appealing climates and have helped to attract approximately 

6 153 million residents to coastal counties, making the coastal zone the most urbanized area 

7 of the U.S. (Crossett et al. 2004). More than 37 million people and 19 million homes have 

8 been added to coastal areas during the last three decades, driving up real estate values and 

9 requiring ever greater support services. An average of 3,600 people a day are moving to 

10 coastal counties, which projects to a 2015 coastal population of 165 million (USCOP 2004). 

11 Over half of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties that make up only 17 percent of 

12 the contiguous land area. Over the past 30 years, 46 percent of residential development and 

13 40 percent of commercial and industrial development have occurred in the U.S. coastal 

14 zone. From 1999 to 2003, 43 percent of the nation's total single-family housing permits and 

15 51 percent of the nation's total multi-family housing units were issued in coastal counties 

16 (Crossett et al. 2004). 

17 Coastal tourism and recreation—including restaurants, lodging, recreation services, marinas 

18 and boat dealers—represents one of the largest and fastest growing categories of spending 

19 in the marine sector. In 2000, over 63 million Americans visited beaches (NSRE 2000). 

20 While no one statistic exists on coastal recreation’s contribution to the nation's economy, 

21 individual coastal counties and states attribute large amounts of their income to water22 oriented activities. For example, Hawaii's coral reefs generate $360 million a year to the 

23 local economy (Cesar 2002); Florida's Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe 

24 counties reported in 2000-2001 that recreational diving, fishing, and viewing activities 

25 contributed $4.4 billion in local sales and almost $2 billion in local income (Johns et al. 

26 2003); and California's coastal industries contributed more than $22 billion in GSP in 2002 

27 (NOEP 2004). The Great Lakes beach visits are estimated as high as $1.65 billion (US 

28 COP 2004). In addition to beach-going income, registered recreational boats in the Great 

29 Lakes total around 3.7 million, about one third of the Nation's total (USPC 2002); 

30 recreational boating results in over $35 billion in annual economic activity in the eight 

31 Great Lake states (GLRC 2005). 

32 The continued maintenance of coastal environmental quality is important for major sectors 

33 of the U.S. economy, including fisheries and tourism. Degradation of environmental 

34 quality is evident in many areas of the U.S. coastline. For instance, in 2004, only 21 

35 percent of estuarine waters assessed by the EPA were unimpaired (good condition) whereas 

36 35 percent were impaired (poor condition) and 44 percent are threatened (fair condition) for 

37 aquatic life or human use (NOAA 2004a). The degraded environmental quality of the 

38 coastline, of course, has a direct impact on the industries and activities that rely heavily on 

39 the water, such as the commercial and sport fishing industries, subsistence fishing, and the 

40 tourism and recreation industries. It may also have an impact on the value of water-related 

41 infrastructure. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-25 

1 3.9.3 Economic Overview of Current Nonindigenous Species Status 

2 Bioinvasions of aquatic ecosystems can result in adverse economic impacts on industries 

3 that are dependent on those ecosystems. The purpose of this section is to discuss the costs 

4 associated with bioinvasions of aquatic ecosystems, and specifically to discuss the overall 

5 economic harm attributable to bioinvasions resulting from the introduction of NIS through 

6 ballast water. Subsequent sections discuss the costs (economic harm) associated with (1) 

7 water-dependent infrastructure, (2) subsistence, (3) tourism and recreation, (4) water-related 

8 subsistence activities, (5) commercial fishing, and (6) recreational (sport) fishing. These 

9 are the primary economic activities in the U.S. identified as being impacted by aquatic 

10 bioinvasions. Quantification of some of the economic impacts, as well as a reliable 

11 assessment of public health risks (and costs) related to bioinvasions of aquatic ecosystems 

12 remain problematic. 

13 The overarching goal of the USCG’s ballast water initiatives is the reduction or prevention 

14 of new introductions of NIS into U.S. aquatic ecosystems. It has been argued that the 

15 reduction or prevention of new introductions of NIS and the immediate eradication of new 

16 colonies of NIS is the most effective and cost-effective method to handle bioinvasions 

17 (Mack et al. 2000). Control measures undertaken in response to established colonies of NIS 

18 are usually site-specific and several methods are usually necessary to achieve any degree of 

19 success (Benson 2000), resulting in extensive expenditures. It should be noted, however, 

20 that “[t]he optimal management of species introductions is a topic of considerable on-going 

21 research. A central issue in this research concerns the conditions under which the control—

22 as opposed to prevention or eradication—of a species introduction is optimal” (Solow 

23 2005). 

24 Overall, it has been estimated that the total economic damages attributable to NIS in the 

25 U.S. exceeds $120 billion annually (Pimentel et al. 2000). This estimate is for all NIS, 

26 including those impacting human health and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Damages 

27 and costs of controlling aquatic invaders totals approximately $7.8 billion (Pimentel et al. 

28 2005). Studies of the socioeconomic impacts of NIS introductions are difficult to perform 

29 (Randall and Gollamudi 2001) and are currently sparse. Previously derived estimates of the 

30 overall economic damages attributable to all NIS do not exist. 

31 The U.S. currently spends hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, annually to 

32 mitigate the effects of past bioinvasions. In 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office 

33 (GAO; since then renamed the Government Accountability Office) surveyed ten federal 

34 departments to determine national expenditures on NIS activities (both terrestrial and 

35 aquatic). This is the most recent publicly available survey of the activities of these 

36 departments with respect to NIS-related expenditures. Eight agencies on the Invasive 

37 Species Council—the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, 

38 Treasury, Transportation, and the EPA—as well as the Smithsonian Institution and the 

39 National Science Foundation, collectively spent $513.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and 

40 $631.5 million in FY 2000 for the management and control of NIS (GAO 2000). 

41 Prevention of NIS introductions received the largest percentage of funding—about 51 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-26 

1 percent in FY 1999 and 49 percent in FY 2000 (GAO 2000). The GAO also surveyed 

2 seven states—California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York—to 

3 determine selected state expenditures on NIS activities. Florida spent the most ($94.5 

4 million in 1999 and $127.6 million in 2000) on managing and controlling invasive 

5 terrestrial and aquatic species (GAO 2000). California reported the second highest 

6 expenditures ($82.6 million in 1999 and $87.2 million in 2000) (GAO 2000). The GAO’s 

7 survey did not address the mitigation expenditures of the 43 states not surveyed or of U.S. 

8 territories, local governments, or private industry and individuals. 

9 Many efforts are currently being undertaken to control NIS in the U.S. The following are 

10 examples of current or proposed control efforts and their associated costs: 

11 • FWS has developed a detailed management strategy to control the spread of 

12 zebra mussels and other NIS west of the 100th meridian. The cost of this 

13 strategy was proposed at $5 million over 5 years (Mangin 2001). 

14 • Control and research costs for Chinese mitten crab management included $1 

15 million in federal funds from 2000 to 2001 (Carlton 2001). 

16 • Control and monitoring costs for the Mediterranean green seaweed 

17 (Caulerpa taxifolia) in southern California was $2.33 million in 2000-01 

18 (Carlton 2001). 

19 • Florida’s Aquatic Plant Management Section currently manages the control 

20 of 11 nonindigenous aquatic plants in Florida’s 1.3 million acres of public 

21 waters: hydrilla, water hyacinth, water lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant 

22 salvinia, hydrophilia, paragrass, torpedograss, water spinach, West Indian 

23 marshgrass, and wild taro (Schardt and Ludlow 2000). The section’s budget 

24 was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY2001. 

25 • The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), most heavily introduced in the early 

26 1950s, was particularly devastating to the Lake Superior fishery. The impact 

27 of the sea lamprey, coupled with intensive commercial fishing, reduced Lake 

28 Superior’s commercial lake trout harvest from 3.1 million pounds in 1951 to 

29 only 380,000 pounds in 1960. The commercially important whitefish 

30 harvest dropped 17 percent a year from 1955 to 1960 (Maybee 2001). The 

31 sea lamprey control effort, a mandatory program jointly funded by the U.S. 

32 and Canada, currently costs approximately $15 million per year (GAO 

33 2003). Over $10 million is spent annually on chemical sea lamprey control 

34 (Jude et al. 2002). 

35 • The cost to control, damage to property values, health costs, and other 

36 factors relating to the European green crab invasion is estimated at about $44 

37 million annually (Corn et al. 1999). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-27 

1 • Asian clam management is estimated at $1 billion annually (Corn et al. 

2 1999). 

3 • The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) may be harming commercial 

4 and sport fisheries in the Great Lakes. To prevent it from moving into the 

5 Mississippi River watershed from the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of 

6 Engineers constructed an underwater electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary 

7 and Ship Canal (Corn et al. 1999). Federal funding alone for the project is 

8 $1.2 million (Glassner-Shwayder 1999). 

9 3.9.4 Water-Dependent Infrastructure 

10 Water-dependent infrastructure includes water intake pipes, storm sewer drains, docks, 

11 piers, canals, dams, navigation locks, and facilities such as electric power plants, drinking 

12 water treatment plants (including power, pipes, pumps, and treatment unit processes), water 

13 storage facilities (including tanks, pumps, and pumping stations), and water distribution 

14 systems (including feeder and transmission mains). Water-dependent infrastructure is 

15 affected by unexpected interruptions caused by disruption or contamination by NIS (EPA 

16 2001). 

17 Invasive invertebrates, such as the zebra mussel, have adversely impacted water-dependent 

18 infrastructure by fouling intake pipes and screens, causing equipment malfunction and 

19 overheating, and jamming valves and other mechanisms. These impacts have affected 

20 electric power generation stations, drinking water treatment plants, industrial facilities, and 

21 navigation lock and dam structures. Additionally, invasive water plants have caused 

22 problems on rivers and canals. Examples of problems caused by NIS at water-dependent 

23 infrastructure in the U.S. include the following: 

24 • Reported total zebra mussel-related expenses for 339 facilities, including marinas, 

25 recreational facilities, hospitals, colleges, impoundments and reservoirs, fish 

26 hatcheries and aquaculture facilities, navigation locks, shipping companies, public 

27 agencies, industries, drinking water treatment facilities, and electric power 

28 generation facilities in the Great Lakes region, were over $69 million (with a mean 

29 expenditure of $206,000 per facility) from 1989 through 1995. Total annual 

30 expenditures at these facilities increased from $234,000 in 1989 to over $17 million 

31 in 1995 (O’Neill 1997). 

32 • Great Lakes municipalities annually spend between $20,000 and $360,000 per 

33 municipality on zebra mussel control at drinking water intakes (ANSTF 2003, 

34 Glassner-Shwayder 1999). At least 12 nuclear power plants averaged $825,000 per 

35 plant annually on zebra mussel control costs (Glassner-Shwayder 1999). Large 

36 water users in the Great Lakes, including municipalities and industries, spent about 

37 $120 million from 1989 to 1994 to combat the spread of zebra mussels (Martin and 

38 Moy 2002). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-28 

1 • Fouling damage from the Asian clam is estimated to be about $1 billion per year 

2 (OTA 1993). 

3 • In the summer of 1998, local authorities had to deal with damage to irrigation 

4 facilities caused by as many as 30,000 adult Chinese mitten crabs migrating 

5 downstream in the Sacramento River delta (Carlton 2001; Corn et al. 1999). The 

6 burrowing of mitten crabs also threatens banks, levees, and dikes protecting 

7 agriculture and urban areas (ANSTF 2005). 

8 • The brown mussel (Perna perna) has caused biofouling damage along the Western 

9 Gulf Coast (Corn et al., 1999). 

10 • The green mussel (Perna viridis) is established in Tampa Bay and is currently 

11 causing biofouling problems at power plant cooling water intakes. 

12 • Hydrilla and water hyacinths clog flood control and irrigation systems. Hydrilla in 

13 drainage canals can greatly reduce flow, resulting in flooding and damage to canal 

14 structures and banks. In irrigation canals, hydrilla impedes the flow of water and 

15 clogs the intakes on irrigation pumps. Hydrilla can also disrupt the flow needed for 

16 adequate water-cooling in utility cooling reservoirs. Annual U.S. expenditures to 

17 control aquatic weeds (most of them nonindigenous, such as the water hyacinth) are 

18 reported to be $113 million (Pimentel et al. 2005). 

19 • Invasions of hydrilla and water hyacinth were considered a significant factor in the 

20 2001 closing of the Rio Grande due to sedimentation and the subsequent halting of 

21 river discharge into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately $50,000 was spent on 

22 mechanical control of water hyacinth in the Rio Grande in the summer of 2001. 

23 3.9.5 Subsistence 

24 Subsistence living in the U.S. involves Native American, Alaskan, and Hawaiian tribes, as 

25 well as the inhabitants of the U.S. territories that include Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

26 Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. 

27 The Indigenous Environmental Network (see http://www.ienearth.org/) notes that 

28 indigenous peoples depend on the fish, aquatic plants, and wildlife to a greater extent and in 

29 different ways than the general population. Many indigenous peoples are reliant on a 

30 subsistence-based lifestyle. Consumption and use of aquatic resources not only meets basic 

31 nutritional and economic needs, but also provides resources for cultural, traditional, and 

32 religious purposes (Maybee 2001). Examples of subsistence fishing and related activities in 

33 the U.S. include the following: 

34 • The Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes have the reserved right to 50 percent of the 

35 salmon harvest for subsistence use in the Lower Klamath River (the Yurok harvest 

36 85 percent of the salmon). The Yurok Tribe, with 4,000 members, is the largest 

37 tribe in California. With the coho salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-29 

1 Species Act, and steelhead being considered for the listing, the minimal subsistence 

2 needs for these tribes are not being met (Gustaitis 1998). 

3 • In Washington State, the Makah tribe is dependent on shellfish (mussels, clams, 

4 scallops and crabs) and marine mammals (California sea lions and gray whales) and 

5 is exploring shellfish aquaculture (mussels and scallops) as a source of income 

6 (ORHAB 2004). 

7 • The use of beluga in Bristol Bay, Alaska, is part of a long subsistence tradition in 

8 the region. Currently, beluga whales are hunted in Bristol Bay for a number of 

9 purposes, including feeding families, feeding dog teams, and sharing and 

10 exchanging of beluga products between families and communities. Research in 

11 1993 estimated that about 39 beluga were taken by hunters from nine communities 

12 in Bristol Bay (Chythlook and Coiley, 1994). 

13 • Of the estimated 43.7 million pounds of wild foods produced in rural Alaskan 

14 communities annually, subsistence fisheries contribute about 62 percent: 60 percent 

15 from finfish and 2 percent from shellfish. On average, subsistence fisheries provide 

16 about 230 pounds of food per person per year in rural Alaska. Subsistence harvests 

17 represent only about 2 percent of the annual harvest of wild resources in Alaska. 

18 Commercial fisheries take 97 percent of the wild resource harvest and sport fisheries 

19 and hunts take about 1 percent. The estimated total subsistence harvest of salmon in 

20 Alaska in 2000 (based on annual harvest assessment programs) was 960,791 fish 

21 (ADFG 2002a). 

22 Some indigenous peoples in the U.S. have organized fishery management systems allowing 

23 them sizable subsistence and small commercial catches. In a number of cases, indigenous 

24 peoples living in the U.S. and its territories legally hold subsistence-fishing rights. For 

25 instance, some Native American tribes have held treaty rights for subsistence fishing and 

26 hunting since the early 1800s. Treaty fishing rights can pertain to finfish, shellfish, and in 

27 some instances, marine mammals (whales and seals). In the case of Lake Superior, tribes 

28 have gone to court to re-affirm tribal rights to fish. Those rights were retained in the 

29 treaties of 1836, 1842, and 1854, when the tribes ceded lands to the U.S. government. The 

30 Jondreau and Fox decisions in Michigan and the Gurnoe decision in Wisconsin upheld the 

31 reserved right of the tribes to fish both for commercial and subsistence purposes. The tribes 

32 regulate treaty harvest in Lake Superior, and tribal fishermen adhere to restricted quotas to 

33 provide opportunity for non-Indian fishing, as well (GLIFWC 2004). 

34 Fish stocks and water quality are linked to the health of an ecosystem and to the activities 

35 that occur in the watershed. NIS can impact both fish species and water quality, causing 

36 disruptions to local food webs. These disruptions can impact subsistence fishing and, in 

37 turn, the livelihoods of people who rely on it, as the following examples illustrate: 

38 • In the Great Lakes region, the once abundant Diporeia (a tiny shrimp-like 

39 invertebrate living in lake bottom mud) is now non-existent in Lakes Michigan and 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-30 

1 Huron and is rapidly declining in other areas due to the zebra mussel invasion. 

2 Diporeia is an essential food for whitefish and other major species and is essentially 

3 a key link in the Great Lakes food web. Its decline threatens to produce a sharp 

4 decline in related fisheries. This decline affects the fisheries of the Chippewa 

5 Indians of the Great Lakes region. (U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 2001). 

6 • In Alaska, salmon is a renewable resource worth millions of dollars to commercial 

7 interests, sport fisheries, and native Alaskan subsistence. Many of the great runs of 

8 Pacific salmon are now depressed and depleted due to the introduction of the 

9 Atlantic salmon (ADFG 2002a). Although five Pacific salmon species are endemic 

10 to this region, salmon farmers have turned to exotic Atlantic salmon because they 

11 are easier to culture in net pens. The use of net-pen culturing facilities to raise 

12 Atlantic salmon poses a serious threat to wild Pacific salmon. Due to accidental 

13 spills or weather-related damage to the rearing facilities, some Atlantic salmon have 

14 escaped into marine waters of the Pacific Ocean, and have been found in Alaskan 

15 waters (Brodeur and Busby 1998). 

16 3.9.6 Tourism and Recreation 

17 Clean water, healthy aquatic habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable environment are 

18 fundamental to successful tourism. Similarly, bountiful living aquatic resources (fish, 

19 shellfish, wetlands, and coral reefs) are of critical importance to many recreational 

20 experiences (NOAA 2004b). 

21 Tourism-related aquatic activities, including recreational fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving, 

22 and other aquatic and beach activities involve millions of tourists, provide tens of millions 

23 of jobs, and generate tens of billions of dollars in business revenues. For instance, coastal 

24 tourism is reported by NOAA (2004b) to provide 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion 

25 annually in goods and services. The U.S. coastline is visited by more than 90 percent of all 

26 foreign visitors traveling to the U.S. Americans spend at least 10 days a year near a coast, 

27 and approximately 180 million people visit U.S. coastlines each year (NOAA 2004b). 

28 Coastal states earn 85 percent of all U.S. tourism revenues largely due to the attraction of 

29 their beaches. Studies have shown that beaches are the leading tourist destination in the 

30 U.S., followed by national parks and historic sites (NOAA 2004b). For example, Miami 

31 Beach, Florida reported more tourist visits annually (21 million) than were made to any 

32 National Park Service property. Miami Beach has more than twice the combined number 

33 of tourist visits to Yellowstone (2.6 million), the Grand Canyon (4.0 million), and Yosemite 

34 (3.3 million) National Parks (Houston 1996). 

35 As with tourism-related aquatic activities, recreational activities involving U.S. aquatic 

36 resources are very important to the economy. Recreational boating, for instance, generated 

37 $30 billion in retail expenditures in 2003, including expenditures for new and used boats, 

38 motors and engines, accessories, safety equipment, fuel, insurance, docking, maintenance, 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-31 

1 repairs, storage, and other expenses (U.S. Census 2004). The eight Great Lakes states have 

2 about 3.7 million registered boats, or about a third of the U.S. total. Six of the Great Lakes 

3 states are ranked in the top ten in total number of boat registrations, with Michigan and 

4 Minnesota having the largest numbers of boats registered (NOAA 2004b). 

5 The industries supporting tourism and recreational activities can be rapidly and 

6 dramatically impacted by changes in water quality. The introduction of NIS has resulted in 

7 the disruption of the enjoyment of recreational activities and aesthetic qualities of the 

8 coastal areas, as well as to the local wildlife in many areas. Nonindigenous aquatic plants, 

9 such as hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water lettuce, are altering fish habitats, choking 

10 waterways, altering nutrient cycles, and reducing recreational use of rivers and lakes 

11 (Pimentel et al. 2000). The following examples illustrate some of the problems that NIS 

12 can introduce: 

13 • The intentionally introduced Philippine seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii and K. 

14 striatum) now covers large areas of the coral reefs in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, reducing 

15 their potential tourist value (Carlton 2001). In addition, the State of Hawaii Aquatic 

16 Invasive Species Management Plan estimates that the Kihei coast in Maui could lose 

17 close to $20 million in revenue each year as result of algal blooms (ANSTF 2005). 

18 • A study of Orange Lake, a recreational fishing destination designated as a Fish 

19 Management Area by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

20 indicated that the economic activity on the lake was almost $11 million annually, 

21 but in years when hydrilla covers the lake, these benefits are almost entirely lost. 

22 Statewide costs for controlling hydrilla in Florida in the 1980s totaled 

23 approximately $50 million. Today, hydrilla is the most costly aquatic plant to 

24 manage, with an annual expenditure of $14.5 million (Pimentel et al. 2005). From 

25 1980 to 1993, management of all nonindigenous aquatic plants by state and federal 

26 agencies cost approximately $120 million (OTA 1993). 

27 3.9.7 Commercial Fishing 

28 Recreational and commercial fisheries (both capture and aquaculture) contribute 

29 economically and socially to numerous U.S. communities. Some of the commercial 

30 fisheries include stocks of bluefish, cod, haddock, and flounder in the north and mid31 Atlantic; shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico; mackerel, anchovy, and sardine in southern 

32 California; rockfish, hake, and sole in the Pacific Northwest; and salmon, pollock, cod, and 

33 halibut in Alaska (NMFS 2003a). Seemingly minor fluctuations in fish numbers, species 

34 composition, and fish health can have widespread effects on local communities, regional 

35 economies, and the ecosystem at-large. Once established in a new environment, fish can 

36 easily spread over broad geographic areas. The USGS currently lists 624 nonindigenous 

37 fishes in the U.S. (USGS 2006), and approximately 35% have been introduced from foreign 

38 sources. In states such as Florida and Hawaii, foreign sources dominate fish introductions. 

39 Of the 30 extinct fishes in the U.S., NIS were a factor in 80% of the extinctions (Fuller et 

40 al. 1999). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-32 

1 The domestic commercial fish and shellfish industry, which obtains its catch from many 

2 fresh and saltwater sources, including the Columbia River, the Great Lakes, the Atlantic 

3 and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico, contributes $45 billion to the U.S. economy 

4 annually (ERS 2004). This contribution reflects not only direct effects—the value of the 

5 fish and shellfish harvested—but also indirect effects, which include the processing of the 

6 fish and shellfish for market, servicing of the commercial fishing fleet, and repairing and 

7 maintaining commercial fishing gear. Statistical highlights provided by NMFS (2003a) 

8 state that U.S. commercial landings (in all fifty states) for 2002 were 9.4 billion pounds, 

9 which were valued at $3.1 billion dollars. Of the 9.4 billion pounds, 7.2 billion were for 

10 food and 2.2 billion were for industrial purposes (bait and animal food). Rebuilding U.S. 

11 fisheries has the potential to restore and create tens of thousands of family wage jobs and 

12 add at least 1.3 billion dollars to the U.S. economy (POC 2003). 

13 Invasions of NIS can disrupt commercial fisheries (both capture- and culture-based), as 

14 well as recreational fisheries, leading to adverse impacts on local and regional economies. 

15 The following examples illustrate some of the problems that the commercial fish and 

16 shellfish industry in the U.S. has experienced as a result of the introduction of NIS: 

17 • The annual estimated economic cost of the European green crab to shellfish 

18 harvesting in the U.S., including clams and oysters, is about $44 million (Corn et al. 

19 1999). 

20 • The Eurasian ruffe, a NIS, is estimated to cause between $23.5 million and $141 

21 million annually in damages to the yellow perch fishery in the Great Lakes. Yellow 

22 perch is important to both commercial and recreational fishing in the Great Lakes 

23 (Leigh 1998). 

24 • In the summer of 2000, millions of Pacific spotted jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata) 

25 were observed for the first time in the northern Gulf of Mexico along the coasts of 

26 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. It was estimated that the jellyfish population 

had risen to an estimated 6 million in an area covering 58 square miles (150 km2 27 ). 

28 Shrimp fishery operations in Mobile Bay were impacted by the jellyfish clogging 

29 nets and consuming immense amounts of plankton and shrimp eggs (Graham and 

30 Purcell 2001). 

31 • Species currently being commercially harvested from Lake Superior include lake 

32 trout, whitefish, herring, chubs (deepwater ciscoes), siscowet (deepwater lake trout) 

33 and smelt. Native lake herring once provided an annual commercial harvest of 18 

34 million pounds, but the herring declined to near extinction by the mid-1970s. The 

35 introduction of smelt, a NIS, along with intense commercial fishing, may have 

36 played a key role in the decline of herring. Since 1979, smelt populations have 

37 declined significantly and herring have rebounded (MSGP 2004). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-33 

1 3.9.8 Recreational Fishing 

2 As with commercial fishing, recreational fishing adds tens of billions of dollars both 

3 directly and indirectly to the U.S. economy. During the 1990s, recreational fishing 

4 contributed $69 billion annually to the U.S. economy (Pimentel et al. 2000). For 2002, 

5 NMFS (2003a) reports that 378 million fish were caught for recreational purposes in states 

6 bordering the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (excluding Texas) and 42 million fish were caught 

7 on the Pacific Coast (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). Estimates of the value of marine 

8 recreational fishing in excess of expenditures range from $100 to $589 per angler, resulting 

9 in an estimate of $140 million per year in recreational fishing values (USCOP 2004). 

10 The Great Lakes Fishery Resource Restoration Study (Burkett et al. 1995) determined that 

11 the Great Lakes fishing industry is valued at $6.89 billion and supports 75,000 sport 

12 fishing-related jobs, as well as 9,000 commercial fishing-related jobs. Both lake trout and 

13 salmon support a viable charter and recreational fishing fleet contributing significantly to 

14 Minnesota’s economy (MSGP 2004). Charter and non-charter recreational fishing on the 

15 Minnesotan waters of Lake Superior contributed approximately $9.74 million dollars in 

16 direct expenditures to the state in 1990. Charter fishing businesses generated between 

17 $8.41 million and $11.65 million, while non-charter recreational fishing generated between 

18 $4.25 and $5.89 million (Gunderson and Kreag 1991). 

19 As with commercial fisheries, invasions of NIS can disrupt recreational fisheries, leading to 

20 adverse impacts on local and regional economies. The following illustrate some of the 

21 problems that recreational fisheries in the U.S. have experienced as a result of the 

22 introduction of NIS: 

23 • The fishhook flea (Cercopagis pengoi), a NIS, is fouling fishing lines for 

24 recreational anglers, frequently forcing the anglers to cut off their lines when they 

25 cannot reel them in (Glassner-Shwayder 1999). 

26 • Peacock bass (Cichla spp.) were introduced to control other nonindigenous fish and 

27 also as a game fish in southeast Florida canals, but the bass is slowly reducing 

28 populations of indigenous bass and bream (OTA 1993). 

29 • The blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea), introduced by the Florida Game and Fresh Water 

30 Fish Commission as a possible weed-control and sport fish, competes directly with 

31 indigenous fishes and is now established in a number of Florida counties (OTA 

32 1993). 

33 • Hydrilla infestations in just two Florida lakes cause an estimated $10 million in 

34 recreational losses for those lakes annually (Pimentel et al. 2000). Hydrilla can 

35 interfere with recreational and commercial vessel navigation, hamper swimming, 

36 displace native vegetation, and damage sport fish populations (Corn et al. 1999). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-34 

1 • The Eurasian ruffe, a NIS, was introduced into Duluth, MN/Superior, WI, Harbor in 

2 the early 1980s and spread 150 miles eastward along the south shore of Lake 

3 Superior and was then transported via ballast water to Lake Huron. It has been 

4 blamed for the precipitous decline of nine native fish species and is now more 

5 abundant than all other fish species combined (Kates 2002). Native fish populations 

6 – especially yellow perch, emerald and spottail shiners, trout perch, and brown 

7 bullhead – have declined in locations where ruffe have become established (USGS 

8 2004b). The decline in value of sport and commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes 

9 due to the ruffe infestation are expected to be $119 million (ANSTF 2003). 

10 3.9.9 Environmental Justice 

11 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

12 Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and address, 

13 as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

14 of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The 

15 Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive Order recognizes the 

16 importance of procedures under NEPA to identify and address environmental justice 

17 concerns. The memorandum states that each federal agency shall analyze the 

18 environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of federal 

19 actions, including effects on minority and low-income communities. 

20 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

21 was established to conduct regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with 

22 tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications; to 

23 strengthen the U.S. government-to-government relationships with Native American tribes; 

24 and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Native American tribes. Policies 

25 that have tribal implications refer to regulations, legislative comments or proposed 

26 legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one 

27 or more Native American tribes; on the relationship between the federal government and 

28 Native American tribes; or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 

29 federal government and Native American tribes. 

30 The process to identify disproportionate impacts associated with the alternatives and to 

31 ensure compliance with this directive involves: 

32 • Identification of the potentially affected population; 

33 • characterization of the study area with respect to minorities and low income 

34 populations; 

35 • determination of the potentially significant adverse impacts of the proposed action 

36 and alternatives; and, 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-35 

1 • evaluation of the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 

2 minority and low-income populations. 

3 Native American tribes have held treaty rights for fishing and hunting since the early 1800s. 

4 Treaty fishing rights pertain to finfish, shellfish, and in some instances, marine mammals 

5 (whales and seals) (NOAA 2003). These rights are part of the Native American, Alaskan, 

6 and Hawaiian people’s traditional culture, livelihood, and subsistence. Subsistence fishing 

7 and hunting is a way of life that includes historical practices and can be a critical cultural 

8 component that helps to hold a tribe together. Many tribes have organized fishery 

9 management systems allowing them sizable subsistence and small commercial catches. 

10 Fish stocks and water quality are linked to the health of an ecosystem and to the activities 

11 that occur in the watershed. As discussed throughout this DPEIS, NIS can impact various 

12 commercial and recreational fish species and water quality; and consequently can impact 

13 watershed systems causing disruptions to the food web. The following are two examples of 

14 the effect NIS has had on some Native American fisheries and the subsistence of some 

15 tribes: 

16 • In the Great Lakes region, the once abundant Diporeia (a small shrimp-like 

17 creature) is now non-existent in Lakes Michigan and Huron, and is rapidly declining 

18 in other areas due to zebra mussel invasion. Diporeia is a necessary food source for 

19 whitefish and other major species, and is essentially a key link in the Great Lakes 

20 food web. Its decline threatens to produce a sharp decline in related fisheries, 

21 perhaps resulting in an ecological disaster. This decline affects the fisheries to 

22 which the Chippewa Indians of the Great Lakes region have rights. The Sault Ste. 

23 Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian 

24 Affairs in support of the Great Lake Ecology Protection Act to ensure that vessels 

25 entering the Great Lakes do not discharge ballast water that could introduce or 

26 spread NIS, and that ballast water and its associated sediments are treated through 

27 the most effective and efficient technologies available, now and in the future (U.S. 

28 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 2001). 

29 • In Alaska, salmon is a renewable resource worth millions of dollars to commercial 

30 interests, sport fisheries, personal use, Native Alaskan subsistence, and fishing 

31 economies. Historically, the enormous number of native salmon played an 

32 important role in defining the entire Pacific Northwest and Alaska’s unique 

33 character and economy. Recently, many of the great runs of Pacific salmon are 

34 depressed and depleted to the point of being listed by NMFS as a threatened and 

35 endangered species (ADFG 2002b). In the early 1980s, British Columbia and 

36 Washington began the use of net-pen culturing facilities to raise salmon. Although 

37 five Pacific salmon species are endemic to this region, salmon farmers chose to farm 

38 exotic Atlantic salmon because they are easier to culture in net pens. Due to 

39 accidental spills or weather-related damage to the rearing facilities, some of these 

40 fish have escaped into marine waters of the western Pacific Coast and occurrences 

41 of Atlantic salmon have been found in commercial fisheries in Alaskan waters 

42 (Brodeur and Busby 1998). For example, in 1990, the farming of salmon in Alaska 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-36 

1 was banned to protect wild stocks from the danger of disease and pollution, as well 

2 as the possibility of escaped farm fish breeding with wild fish (ADFG 2002b). The 

3 Atlantic salmon poses a serious threat to the wild Pacific salmon and the Pacific 

4 Coast ecosystem (Brodeur and Busby 1998). Introductions of non-native species 

5 have frequently resulted in unexpected, and often catastrophic, consequences from 

6 habitat destruction, disease, parasites, hybridization, reproductive proliferation, 

7 predation and competition (ADFG 2002b). 

8 3.9.10 Public Health and Shipping Safety 

9 While the introduction of bacteria and viruses through ballast water is a growing concern, 

10 potential public health impacts remain virtually unexplored by scientists (Ruiz et al. 2000b). 

11 Concentrations of bacteria and viruses in ballast water have been found at very high 

12 levels—up to six to eight times higher than those for other taxonomic groups in ballast 

13 water—suggesting that invasions may be relatively common (Carlton and Geller 1993; 

14 Drake et al. 2001; Drake et al. 2002; Ruiz et al. 2000b). For example, human pathogen 

15 microorganisms are common in coastal waters and have been found in the ballast water of 

16 vessels (Grimes 1991; McCarthy and Khambaty 1994; Ruiz et al. 2000b). 

17 During the 1997 and 1998 shipping seasons, samples were taken from the ballast tanks of 

18 28 transoceanic vessels (Knight et al. 1999; Reynolds et al. 1999; Zo et al. 1999). The 

19 sampling revealed the presence of a host of microorganisms, many of which are human 

20 pathogens, including fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, clostridium, salmonella, E. coli, 

21 Vibrio cholerae, crytosporidium, giardia, and enteroviruses. The presence of these 

22 organisms demonstrated the survival of human pathogens during transoceanic transport of 

23 ballast water. It has been shown that certain microbial organisms can survive and become 

24 successfully established following BWD, thereby becoming vectors for human exposure. 

25 In 1991, during routine monitoring, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) isolated 

26 Vibrio cholerae O1 (the bacterium responsible for human cholera) from oysters and oyster27 eating fish in Mobile Bay, Alabama (Drake et al. 2001; Eichold et al. 1993). Shortly after, 

28 a study by Ruiz et al. (Ruiz et al. 2000b) examined the presence of bacteria in the ballast 

29 water of vessels entering the Chesapeake Bay from foreign ports. This study measured 

30 overall bacteria counts and also specifically targeted the bacteria Vibrio cholerae O1 and 

31 O139. Vibrio cholerae was found in all of the vessels sampled and both serotypes were 

32 detected in 93 percent of the vessels. Risks of human exposure from BWD containing 

33 Vibrio cholerae are unknown. 

34 The global increase in HAB via BWD poses an increased risk to human health. Some algal 

35 species contain powerful toxins, which can adversely affect fish, birds, and humans through 

36 the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. Paralytic shellfish poisoning, diarrheic 

37 shellfish poisoning, amnesic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, and 

38 ciguatera fish poisoning are associated with natural toxins produced by HAB-forming 

39 diatoms and dinoflagellates. For instance, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning was introduced to 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-37 

1 New Zealand via ballast water. Human ingestion of these toxins can result in symptoms 

2 ranging from nausea and dizziness to tumors, short-term memory loss, muscular paralysis, 

3 and even death from respiratory failure (Hallegraeff 1993). In U.S. waters, the deaths of 

4 one million menhaden in North Carolina’s Pamlico Sound in 1991, 150 endangered Florida 

5 manatees in 1996, and 400 California sea lions along the central California coast in 1998 

6 have all been attributed to HAB (McKay and Mulvaney, 2001). HAB disrupt aquaculture, 

7 wild fisheries, and coastal tourism. In the past two decades, their effects have expanded 

8 from a few scattered coastal areas to nearly all coastal states (Burke et al. 2000). 

9 Additionally, there are safety concerns related to ballast water exchange. As ballast water 

10 is removed from vessels, maneuverability and stability may be compromised. Any 

11 reduction in ballast water levels may result in sloshing within the tanks, affecting vessel 

12 stability (Hay and Tanis 1998). In addition, movement of ballast water within a vessel can 

13 impose shear stresses and bending moments, which may compromise structural integrity 

14 (Hayes and Hewitt 1999). While complete deballasting/reballasting is viewed as the more 

15 effective method of ballast water exchange, dilution/flushing methods tend to be safer. 

16 This method, however, poses several individual safety concerns, as malfunctions during the 

17 dilution process could result in over-pressurization of ballast tanks resulting in weakening 

18 or splitting hull welds. To avoid this risk, tank lids or manhole covers may be removed, but 

19 this technique may present other safety issues for the crew and vessel (Hay and Tanis 

20 1998). 

21 3.9.11 Ballast Water Management 

22 Since October 2004, all vessels, U.S. or foreign, operating in U.S. waters, and bound for 

23 U.S. ports or places, must submit reports of their BWM practices (33 CFR 151.2041). 

24 These vessels, depending on whether they had operated outside the U.S. EEZ, must conduct 

25 BWM. BWM through mid-ocean exchange does not generally require capital investment 

26 in equipment. Costs associated with BWE are primarily due to additional fuel costs to run 

27 ballast pumps plus maintenance, repair, and labor. For further information, see USCG 

28 (2008). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-1 

1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

2 4.1 Introduction 

3 This chapter describes and compares the potential environmental and socioeconomic 

4 consequences associated with the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The impacts on the 

5 environmental and socioeconomic resources in Chapter 3 are evaluated in this chapter; 

6 however, the structure of this chapter is condensed in order to avoid redundancy. 

7 Additionally, it evaluates the cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of a 

8 BWDS. 

9 The analysis of potential impacts is based on the changes in the concentrations of NIS in 

10 BWD after implementing each alternative. This DPEIS does not consider the potential 

11 impacts associated with the implementation of BWT technologies and methods to be used 

12 by stakeholders to meet the BWDS implemented, such as chemical residuals, reaction by13 products, thermal pollution, energy use, and dockside impacts. 

14 The impacts associated with those methods may include, but are not limited to, 

15 environmental impacts from the treatment technologies used and economic impacts to the 

16 shipping industry from the costs incurred to implement them. Such impacts would be 

17 analyzed as part of supplemental environmental reviews as industry develops technologies 

18 that could be used to meet the BWDS. Because there would be a separate environmental 

19 review process for individual methods, for the purposes of this DPEIS it is assumed that the 

20 implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely benefit or at least have no 

21 additional adverse impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources. 

22 Based on the previous assumption, the alternatives considered in this DPEIS differ only in 

23 their potential to reduce the probability of NIS introduction and establishment. Therefore, 

24 this chapter is organized by resource topics, with impacts of the alternatives discussed 

25 under the resources. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the BWDS defined 

26 under each alternative are determined by the respective reduction in the number of 

27 organisms that are introduced. The reduction in number of organisms introduced is 

28 expected to reduce NIS invasions. Consequently, Alternatives 2 through 5 are assumed to 

29 provide different levels of benefits (and no additional adverse impacts) by potentially 

30 reducing NIS introductions and their associated potential adverse environmental and 

31 socioeconomic impacts. 

32 The first part of this chapter provides a brief summary of the invasion process and the 

33 current state of scientific knowledge regarding the prediction of invasion and potential 

34 impacts of NIS. Then, a description of the analytical methodology used for the analysis, 

35 along with the analytical results and their interpretation, is presented. Finally, the potential 

36 impacts resulting from the implementation of the alternatives upon the resources identified 

37 in Chapter 3 are discussed. These resources are: marine ecosystems, estuarine ecosystems, 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-2 

1 freshwater ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitats, and 

2 socioeconomic resources. They were selected because they may be directly or indirectly 

3 impacted by the implementation of a BWDS, or because direct impacts to these resources 

4 could result in secondary impacts to other resources. 

5 Direct effects would likely occur spatially and temporally near where vessels discharge 

6 ballast water. Indirect effects would probably occur spatially and temporally farther from 

7 the discharge zone. Also, organisms at both higher and lower trophic levels would be 

8 impacted by the nonindigenous species’ characteristics, such as what it consumes, what 

9 feeds on it, what it displaces, toxins it may release, etc. 

10 For example, direct impacts on organisms in marine, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystems 

11 may cause secondary impacts to socioeconomic resources (e.g., tourism and recreation, 

12 commercial fishing, and infrastructure) by negatively affecting the communities that 

13 tourists visit or the quality of the environment they want to look at (algae growths, 

14 unpleasant odors, lack of diversity). Marine, estuarine, and freshwater resources were 

15 analyzed to determine the potential impact that the alternatives could have on the chemical 

16 and physical environment and habitats and organisms comprising those ecosystems. 

17 Additionally, threatened and endangered species and essential fish habitats were evaluated, 

18 given their ecological and societal value. Lastly, socioeconomic resources were analyzed to 

19 determine the potential impacts of the alternatives on human and economic systems, 

20 including public health and safety. 

21 4.2 Background 

22 4.2.1 The Invasion Process 

23 When assessing the overall impacts of NIS introduced via ballast water, there are seven 

issues to consider4 24 : 

 

4 (2) and (3) are different, since (2) represents a category of species that can grow to adulthood and produce 

multiple cohorts of larvae, and (3) may grow to reproductive maturity and produce one larval cohort, but will 

not live long enough to produce multiple cohorts, and are more likely to be washed off the walls in the 

deballasting process in the port. (4) and (5) are different for the same reason: (4) represents a category of 

species that can produce multiple larvae into the system, whereas (5) represents a more transient biota. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-3 

1 (1) the planktonic life in suspension in the ballast water itself (in ballast tanks and 

2 ballasted cargo holds); 

3 (2) the fouling organisms that settle on the lower walls of ballast tanks;

4 (3) the fouling organisms that settle on the walls of ballasted cargo holds;

5 (4) the infaunal organisms living in benthic sediment communities in ballast tanks; 

6 (5) the infaunal organisms living in benthic sediments in ballasted cargo holds; 

7 (6) the encysted stages in (4); and 

8 (7) the encysted stages in (5). 

9 The BWDS prescribed under the alternatives focus on reducing the organisms classified 

10 under category (1) above, but may not fully address those under categories (2) through (7). 

11 Thus, a BWDS does not address all potential introductions associated with ballast water. 

12 Nonetheless, treatment technologies and methods used to reduce the concentrations of 

13 organisms in ballast water itself (category (1) above) should lead to long-term reductions of 

14 organisms in all other categories. Thus, the overall potential introductions of NIS via 

15 ballast water systems – and associated impacts – could be larger and more significant than 

16 those estimated if only considering category (1) organisms. 

17 Potential impacts of NIS cover ecological, economic, industrial, societal, political, and 

18 many other aspects in the region where the successful establishment occurs. However, 

19 since the organisms that were introduced or prevented from introduction by reducing 

20 category (1) above are unknown, it is very challenging to determine which of these aspects 

21 could have had reduced impacts by the implementation of a BWDS. 

22 NIS that are able to establish reproductively viable populations are of particular concern 

23 because they are capable of expanding their population size and spreading to new locations 

24 without further human transportation. For the purposes of this DPEIS, the analysis focuses 

25 on the transport of organisms in ballast water and release into a new location (introduction) 

26 and the evaluation of whether these organisms provide the basis for survival and successful 

population growth (establishment). NIS introduction5 27 occurs when an organism survives 

transport by a vector6

 and is released into a new environment. Establishment7 28 occurs when 

 

5

 Introduction means the physical introduction of one or more living organisms into the environment via 

ballast water. 

6

 Ballast water is the vector of interest in this DPEIS, but many others exist and play an important role in the 

dispersal of NIS worldwide, including ships’ hulls (fouling organisms), drilling platforms and dry docks, 

fisheries activities, and the aquarium pet industry. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-4 

1 the introduced organism initially thrives. The establishment is successful when the 

2 organism is introduced, reproduces, and spreads in its new environment. 

3 Many factors affect the survival, spread, and proliferation of introduced organisms, 

4 including basic climatic factors, food resources, the nature of the reproductive biology of an 

5 organism, and the presence or absence of competitors, predators, and parasites (Carlton 

6 1996). The dispersal of introduced NIS occurs through vectors – the physical means or 

7 agent for transporting a species. In broad terms, introduction of NIS involves five 

8 sequential events and establishment involves two additional events, each having an 

9 associated probability of occurrence, listed in the seven items below Impacts occur when 

10 an introduced organism alters the ecology, food web, or fisheries, or otherwise disrupts the 

11 natural ecosystem or socioeconomics of an environment or region. If an introduced species 

12 establishes a reproductively viable population, those impacts may be amplified. Each of 

13 these events is briefly described below, based on information provided by Dr. James T. 

14 Carlton (Carlton 2005). The events demonstrate the overall context of the NIS invasion 

15 process. 

16 1. Probability of interfacing with transport vector – Organisms in the water column 

17 may or may not be immediately adjacent to the vessel at the moment the vessel 

18 is in a position to engage the local biota by drawing in ballast water. There is 

19 large temporal variability (determined by currents, tides, temperatures, salinity, 

20 stochastic events such as storms, as well as random probability) of the 

21 probability of interfacing with the transport vector, which can change within 

22 minutes to hours (as well as seasonally). This temporal variability determines 

23 which organisms are or are not available for transport to a different location. 

24 2. Probability of transport vector engaging specific organisms – From the pool of 

25 available organisms immediately next to the vessel, only a subset of them are 

26 actually taken into the ballast water tank or ballastable cargo hold (see 

27 description below). That is, being adjacent to the ship and within the effective 

28 zone of a vessel’s ballast water intake at the time of ballasting does not 

29 necessarily result in uptake. For example, organisms such as some shrimp and 

30 fish actively detect a water current (like the one created by the uptake of ballast 

31 water) and swim away from it. In addition, other organisms may not be engaged 

32 in the water flow as readily as others, even when acting as passive particles (e.g., 

33 planktonic organisms), due to their size, shape, or relative density. 

 

7

 Establishment refers to the situation in which an introduction gives rise to a reproductively viable 

population. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-5 

1 3. Probability of surviving the transport event – A substantial number of factors, 

2 such as the uptake process, light, oxygen, voyage duration, and other variables 

3 during transport, interact to determine the probability of a transported 

4 organisms’ survival until release. Because there are potentially thousands of 

5 organisms being transported in ballast water, it is particularly difficult to 

6 characterize the probabilities, except in very broad terms (i.e., the large 

7 variability in terms of the type of organisms entrained, as well as the physical 

8 conditions in the ballast water, creates both ‘species specific’ and ‘voyage 

9 specific’ probabilities). It is important to distinguish between the two different 

10 ballast systems (dedicated ballast tank and ballastable cargo hold). It is possible 

11 that ballast tanks would not be completely emptied after each voyage, leading to 

12 colonies of viable organisms that remain for a considerable period of time. 

13 These organisms could essentially re-seed the ship with larvae or other 

14 propagules and pose a risk for future introductions even without new ballasting. 

15 4. Probability of being released – Not all organisms transported are released from 

16 the vector; for example, if not all of the ballast water is released, organisms in a 

17 ballast tank may not leave the ballast tank. Or the organisms in question could 

18 be fouling species that attach themselves to the inside of the tank or embed in 

19 the sediment that collects in the ballast tank. Organisms in a ballasted cargo 

20 hold are always either fully discharged (since the cargo now replaces 100% of 

21 the ballast water) or die in transport (organisms that have settled on the cargo 

22 hold walls die of exposure, desiccation, or smothering by the cargo) (Carlton 

23 2005). 

24 5. Probability of initial survival upon release – Regardless of inoculum size (the 

25 number of released individuals of any life stage), most released organisms (and 

26 perhaps all released organisms for most discharge events) do not survive after 

27 release. In addition, the discharge process can also result in injury to transported 

28 organisms due to physical contact with the ship systems. The scientific 

29 community does not have a complete understanding of the reasons for this, 

30 although some of the many potential causes include post-transport physiological 

31 weakness, post-transport starvation, physiological mismatch with the new 

32 environment once released, predation (consumption) at the release site, and 

33 competition with the resident biota. A large number of vessels arriving in U.S. 

34 coastal waters discharging millions of organisms (e.g., diatoms, copepods, worm 

35 larvae), as countless ships have done for decades, appear to have resulted in 

36 relatively few invasions. This fact is interpreted by the scientific community as 

37 the result of failure of initial survival. 

38 6. Probability of establishing the first reproducing population – As a general 

39 proposition, the probability that an organism reproduces and becomes 

40 successfully established is positively related to the number of individual 

41 organisms of that species that are introduced. Thus, the number of organisms 

42 released via ballast water is a potentially important determinant of the 

43 probability that an organism establishes its first reproducing population. The 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-6 

1 probability that an inoculum may result in an established population may also be 

2 largely dependent on dilution of the inoculum, hydrodynamics of water flow, 

3 and local microtopographic features, which affect the distribution of introduced 

4 organisms in the new environment. Those factors affect the ability to reproduce 

5 by influencing the probability that organisms of the same species interact with 

6 each other. However, there are a number of life stages and reproductive modes 

7 which may characterize organisms in ballast water. For example, the presence 

8 of ovigerous (egg-bearing) females, bacteria, and spore-releasing organisms can 

9 result in elevated reproductive potential of the organism in the receiving waters 

10 and is independent of the number of organisms released. 

11 7. Probability of establishing long-term reproducing populations – The 

12 establishment of long-term reproducing populations depends on a wide range of 

13 biological and physical variables. In addition, it is important to note that there is 

14 no scientific consensus about the meaning of "long-term" reproducing 

15 populations. For example, there are many scientists who, observing a new 

16 invader with multiple populations in a specific ecosystem and with multiple 

17 generations represented, argue that sampling needs to be conducted some time in 

18 the future (5 or 10 years) to verify whether the species is still present before 

19 concluding that long-term establishment has occurred. For the purposes of this 

20 DPEIS, it is assumed that when a species is widespread, with multiple 

21 generations in a specific ecosystem, it is established. However, it is important to 

22 clarify that established populations may go extinct at some time in the future. 

 23 

24 While each event is important, the most critical events in realizing the potential impacts of 

25 the NIS are release and establishment of a reproductively viable population. If neither 

26 introduction nor long-term establishment of NIS occurs, the invasion is prevented. 

27 Additionally, even if initial release occurs, the impacts of the NIS introduction are reduced 

28 if long-term establishment does not occur. Therefore, NIS management is best 

29 accomplished by preventing introduction and establishment, which translates into 

30 minimizing release. Setting a discharge standard may reduce release and thus decrease the 

31 probability of introduction and establishment. 

32 The above summary of the invasion process illustrates the many subtleties and complexities 

33 that lead to the breadth and depth of variables that need to be considered to analyze the 

34 alternatives and their potential implications. It is important to clarify that, while the 

35 likelihood that any given individual of a particular species might go through all the steps 

36 previously described and become successfully established in the long-term is quite low, the 

37 likelihood that a vessel will release live organisms from ballast water is high, especially 

38 given the large volumes of ballast water discharged annually in U.S. ports. The 

39 predominance of ballast water as a transport means for aquatic NIS is particularly relevant 

40 for transoceanic introductions, for which vessel-mediated transport is virtually the only 

41 vector. Consequently, substantially reducing or eliminating the probability of successful 

42 introductions associated with this vector by implementing a BWDS should substantially 

43 reduce the overall probability of vessel-mediated and other vector-mediated successful 

44 establishments of NIS (Davis 2005). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-7 

1 4.2.2 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of Nonindigenous Species 

2 Biological and physical interactions in aquatic ecosystems are highly complex. Aquatic 

3 organisms are not static, isolated entities that merely occupy space in the water column or 

4 the benthic environment of aquatic ecosystems. They interact dynamically with their 

5 physical, chemical, and biological environment. In addition, there is limited information 

6 about the biology and ecology of the majority of aquatic species. This limitation, together 

7 with the variability involved in the transportation of aquatic organisms via ballast water, 

8 makes it extremely difficult to predict which organisms, from a potential pool of thousands 

9 of species that are delivered, will become successfully established and will impact the 

10 environment. 

11 Invasion rates vary considerably with region and propagule delivery (vector) history. One 

12 of the main factors to be considered is the large variability in the densities (concentrations) 

13 of organisms transported via ballast water. Sampling studies show that organism densities 

14 in a ballast tank or ballasted cargo hold can range from as little as 1 individual per cubic 

15 meter (very low densities) to thousands per cubic meter (very high densities) (Carlton 2001, 

16 Cohen 1998). Low densities generally refer to sampling schemes targeting multicellular 

17 forms or larger protozoans and single-celled algae. In many cases, however, the bacterial 

18 and viral components may exist in greater densities. 

19 Furthermore, the potential number of organisms released by a vessel could be considerable 

20 depending on the total amount of ballast water discharged. In addition, survival varies 

21 greatly in transit. However, in general, the longer the voyage, the more organisms die. 

22 Exceptions are species that reproduce in situ in the water column, species that reproduce 

23 from the ballast benthic communities and shed larvae into the water column, and organisms 

24 that go into a cryptic stage, such as dinoflagellates, which can be dormant in the sediments 

25 when stressed. 

26 The introduction and establishment of organisms into a new environment is so complex and 

27 full of variability and uncertainty that it has been compared to a game of ecological roulette 

28 (Carlton and Geller 1993). The invasion process (and the probability of occurrence) 

29 presented in detail above can be summarized and related to the seven events listed earlier in 

30 this section, as follows: 

31 • An organism may or may not travel on a vector, such as ballast water - events (1) 

32 and (2); 

33 • If an organism is entrained, it may or may not survive the voyage – event (3); 

34 • If the organism survives the voyage, its release into a new environment may or may 

35 not be successful – event (4); 

36 • If the organism is successfully released into a new environment, it may live or die – 

37 event (5); 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-8 

1 • If the organism does not die upon introduction, it may still not reproduce – event 

2 (6); and 

3 • Even if successful at reproducing, a variety of existing conditions in the new 

4 environment may inhibit the organism from becoming established – event (7). 

5 Therefore, predicting which organisms arrive; their origin; the time of their arrival; and 

6 whether they survive, persist, spread, and proliferate is exceptionally challenging. 

7 Furthermore, predicting the ecological or economic impacts of NIS is even more difficult 

8 since cause and effect relationships would need to be established and well-defined (Carlton 

9 2001). It is important to clarify that the difficulty lies in the prediction of which organisms 

10 will be released, will become established, and what the associated impacts may be, even if 

11 the likelihood of organisms being released is considerable. 

12 An additional complicating factor is that a large number of species have no invasive signal 

13 (history of invasion potential) in their native environments. Thus they are not studied by 

14 the scientific community to determine their potential invasive capacity and impacts if 

15 established in a new environment. Some of the main ecological factors that determine the 

16 invasive capacity of organisms in a new environment (even when this behavior is not 

17 apparent in native populations) include niche availability, lack of predation, resource 

18 abundance, and competitive advantage. 

19 For example, the shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus is of no particular concern in its 

20 native Asia, but has had significant ecological impacts since being introduced to the U.S. 

21 Atlantic coast in the 1980s. In the 19 years since its discovery at Cape May, NJ in 1988, it 

22 has spread and can now be found in large numbers from Maine to the Carolinas. To make 

23 matters worse, detailed studies in Japan reveal that this crab is strictly a rocky shore 

24 (intertidal) species. However, on the U.S. Atlantic coast, it has become established in at 

25 least five different habitats. Thus, the invasion potential and impact of this species (and 

26 potentially many others) was not predictable from knowledge of its biology and ecology in 

27 its native environment (Carlton 2005). 

28 Predicting the fate of even well-studied populations is an extremely difficult, if not 

29 impossible, process (Ludwig 1999). The populations of concern are difficult to identify, 

30 and there is little predictive knowledge as to which species have invasion potential. Hence, 

31 the problem is even more challenging in the context of assessing the aggregate effect of the 

32 alternatives on the rate at which NIS are introduced and become established in U.S. waters. 

33 As a consequence, it is impractical to conduct individual analyses for all potential species in 

34 all systems. 

35 However, ecological principles strongly suggest that reductions in the number of living 

36 organisms initially introduced via ballast water would reduce the probability of successful 

37 establishment of NIS and associated impacts. Therefore, to address the programmatic 

38 nature of the BWDS, a generic and relatively simple quantitative analytical approach is 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-9 

1 needed to evaluate the potential impacts of the alternatives associated with their effect on 

2 introduction and establishment of NIS. Such an approach has been used for the analysis in 

3 this DPEIS and is described in the forthcoming section. 

4 4.3 Analytical Methods and Results 

5 4.3.1 Analytical methods 

6 The approach used in this DPEIS relates initial population size and extinction probability to 

7 determine the probability of successful establishment of NIS. The main premise of the 

8 model is that a decrease in the number of living organisms initially introduced reduces the 

9 probability that a population becomes successfully established. This premise is widely 

10 supported in the scientific literature (see Appendix A). The model, its application, and its 

11 scientific complexities and limitations are discussed in detail in Appendix A. This 

12 analytical approach is used to assess the effectiveness of the alternatives in controlling the 

13 introduction and establishment of NIS, and thus their potential for reducing associated 

14 ecological, economic, and social impacts of NIS. 

15 The BWDS in Alternatives 2 through 5 are intended to decrease the probability of NIS 

16 establishment by reducing the number of individual organisms that are introduced via 

17 BWD. The alternatives differ in the degree to which they would prevent introduction of 

18 individual organisms in different size classes and hence, the degree to which they increase 

19 extinction probability of NIS. To compare the alternatives in a quantitative way, it is 

20 necessary to have an understanding of the relationship between the number of individual 

21 organisms that are introduced (initial population size) and extinction probability. 

22 In principle, such an understanding could be obtained through empirical observations. That 

23 is, the alternatives could be applied and the results – in terms of the rates of successful 

24 organism introduction – could be observed. Unfortunately, data of this kind are not 

25 available because of all the potential species that would need to be considered. Given the 

26 national relevance of the BWDS rulemaking, the USCG decided to use an analytical 

27 approach that would assess and compare the potential impacts of the alternatives on a 

28 quantitative (albeit relative) basis, in lieu of other approaches. 

29 Information availability is more problematic when addressing microorganisms. As stated in 

30 Chapter 2, there currently is no basis for a scientific, defensible, and enforceable discharge 

31 standard for microorganisms. 

32 An evaluation of potential approaches that could be used to support the analysis for this 

33 DPEIS identified Population Viability Analysis (PVA) as the best method to assess the 

34 probability of NIS establishment (see Appendix A for a discussion of the merits of PVA 

35 and the other approaches considered). PVA is widely accepted in conservation biology 

36 (Beissinger and McCullough 2002; Boyce 1992). It has been used as a tool for guiding 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-10 

1 conservation decision-making and has been recognized by governmental science advisory 

2 boards, professional organizations such as the Ecological Society of America, and non3 governmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (Morris and Doak 2002). In 

4 conservation biology, an understanding of the relationship between population size and 

5 extinction probability has been of central importance to evaluate strategies to reduce the 

6 likelihood of extinctions. There, the concern is that the initial population size of an 

7 endangered species be large enough to ensure a high probability of survival. In the context 

8 of this DPEIS, the concern is that the initial NIS population size be small enough to ensure 

9 a high probability of extinction. PVA’s precepts are directly applicable to the counterpart 

10 of this concept, which is increasing the likelihood of extinctions; this is the primary aim of 

11 BWM. PVA is performed by developing a mathematical model of the dynamics of the 

12 population of interest and then using this model to predict the effect of varying initial 

13 population size on extinction probability and other measures of interest to conservation. 

14 The decrease in introductions of organisms released via BWD is dependent on the complex 

interplay of a number of factors8 15 . The quantitative measurement of all these factors is 

16 especially difficult for even one species, let alone the thousands being transported daily in 

17 ballast water. Thus, a simplifying model was sought to provide insight into the potential 

18 relative impacts of the alternatives. 

19 The PVA analysis in this DPEIS is based on the diffusion model proposed for the analysis 

20 of population viability by Dennis et al. (1991). The model involves two main parameters, 

21 one relating to population growth rate and the other to population variability around mean 

22 growth. In conjunction with an estimate of the proportional reduction in initial population 

23 size resulting from the alternatives, this model allows for a comparison of the alternatives in 

24 terms of their effects on the probability of reduced introductions of organisms. 

25 The diffusion model provides an assessment of the relative, proportional effectiveness in 

26 increasing extinction probability of a particular BWDS as compared to the current options 

27 under the No Action Alternative (untreated BW or BWE). We did not perform a 

28 comparison in absolute terms because it would be very difficult and the results would be 

29 highly uncertain given current scientific knowledge of invasive species ecology (Ludwig 

30 1999). Since the No Action Alternative is the baseline, the current levels of successful 

 

8

 Some of these factors are the types of organisms; their reproductive mode; their life stage; their nutritional 

status; the physical match between source and receiving waters; the time of the year; suitable substrate (if the 

species has a benthic phase); the presence of other invaders that might facilitate establishment; presence of 

native or non-native competitors, predators, parasites, or diseases that might inhibit establishment; pollutants 

in the receiving waters; and frequency of release of a given organism. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-11 

1 introductions, establishment, and associated impacts are assumed to continue if no BWDS 

2 is implemented. 

3 Two analyses were performed with this model to estimate effects on inoculum size of the 

4 alternatives. The method was to determine by what multiplicative factor the extinction 

5 probability of a population (with an inherently positive growth rate) increases when the 

6 initial population size discharged via ballast water (from a single vessel) is reduced by a 

7 given multiplicative factor. This factor is then used to calculate the increase in extinction 

8 probability for each alternative. The model was used first for the simplest case of a single 

9 species in one discharge event, to illustrate the general analytical approach, and then for the 

10 more complicated case of a vessel discharging multiple species to better assess the relative 

11 differences of the alternatives. 

12 Although this approach provides a first order approximation for extinction probability as a 

13 function of organism size and numbers, the abundances of organisms are highly variable in 

14 time and space, depending on a variety of factors. While quantitative information is 

15 developed and presented in the forthcoming sections, it is very important to emphasize that, 

16 given the inherent complexities of ecological systems, the NIS invasion process, and the 

17 lack of information in the field of invasion biology, the results provide valuable yet limited 

18 information about the relative effectiveness of the alternatives. After thorough evaluation 

19 of alternative approaches, the USCG believes that PVA with a diffusion model is the best 

20 methodology to analyze the alternatives in a meaningful and scientifically defensible way. 

21 4.3.2 No Action Alternative Effectiveness 

22 All of the alternatives could reduce the probability of introduction of organisms. The 

23 reduced introductions are expected to decrease establishment of NIS populations. 

24 However, it is important to highlight that this relationship is not necessarily linear since 

25 many species can potentially become established with only a single individual. 

26 Two measures are commonly used when monitoring and evaluating efficacy of mid-ocean 

27 exchange (one option under the NAA): the volume of water that has been replaced in the 

28 ballast tanks and the removal of organisms from the ballast water tanks during the exchange 

29 process. These measures of mid-ocean ballast water exchange have been the focus of 

30 several studies. The results vary considerably and are dependent upon vessel type (design), 

31 exchange method, ballasting system configuration, exchange location, and method of study. 

32 One group of studies suggests that the efficacy of ballast water exchange is 80-99 percent 

33 per event (Dickman and Zhang 1999; Hines and Ruiz 2000; Rigby and Hallegraeff 1993; 

34 Smith et al. 1996; Taylor and Bruce 2000; Zhang and Dickman 1999). Other studies 

35 demonstrate that the volumetric efficiency of BWE ranges from 50-90 percent (Battelle 

36 2003; USCG 2001; Zhang and Dickman 1999). Recent work by Ruiz et al. (in NOAA 

37 2007) has shown that BWE can range from 88% efficacy of BW removal in container ships 

38 to between 97% and 99% in tanker ships, container ships, and bulk carriers. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-12 

1 Locke et al. (1993) found a 67-87 percent exchange efficacy in removal of brackish-water2 tolerant organisms from ballast water after mid-ocean exchange. Furthermore, studies 

3 using methlylene blue dye in ballast tanks have shown up to a 95 percent efficacy. 

4 Specifically, a 75-95 percent (for the phytoplankton community) efficacy was demonstrated 

5 in a test where ballast water was flushed through tanks for a continuous nine hours 

6 (equivalent to three tank volumes) (Wonham et al 1996). Smith et al. (1996) showed a 

7 reduction in concentrations of larvae and plankton by 50-90 percent in ballast tanks after 

8 mid-ocean exchange. Ruiz et al. (NOAA 2007) found that empty-refill BWE removed 

9 between 80% and 95% of zooplankton and 74% and 93% of phytoplankton (mean values 

10 from multiple samples). Finally, a zero reduction may occur when organisms elude mid11 ocean discharge by occupying ballast tank sediment. 

12 Mid-ocean BWE reduces the organism density by a factor of one-tenth (lower bound) to 

13 zero (upper bound) (USCG 2003). The density of organisms in ballast water may change 

14 during a voyage through reproduction and mortality. Generally, densities tend to decline 

15 over time, but this is not always the case (USCG 2003). 

16 A second NAA option is to retain ballast water onboard while in U.S. waters. For example, 

17 newer ship designs have created fresh water ballast systems where a ship is able to retain 

18 ballast water onboard. Because no ballast water is discharged, we expect no effects to any 

19 of the threatened, endangered, and proposed species such as the leatherback sea turtle, 

20 Atlantic salmon, white abalone, and shortnose sturgeon or to their habitats including 

21 essential fish habitats located in the freshwater, estuarine or marine ecosystems. 

22 The third option under the NAA is ballast water treatment (BWT). Treatment technologies 

23 and methods (see Appendix F) used to reduce the concentrations of organisms in ballast 

24 water should lead to long-term reductions of organisms in the other categories listed in 

25 section 4.2.1. Thus, all the NAA options would likely reduce, but not eliminate, the 

26 introductions and the spread of NIS from ballast water discharges. 

27 4.3.3 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Effectiveness 

28 The results are stated in terms of the mean rate of successful NIS introductions, as a range 

29 of percentages, compared to the NAA. The mathematical formulation of the model and 

30 detailed results are presented in Appendix A. 

31 The mean rates of successful introductions relative to the NAA, predicted for each of the 

32 three concentration-based standards alternatives, for smaller and larger organisms, are: 

33 Table 4-1: Single species case: Range of values of fr (mean rate of successful 

34 introductions relative to the baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c

35 and f used in the analysis (See Appendix A for details) 

fr (smaller organisms) fr (larger organisms)
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-13 

Alternative [> 10 and ≤ 50 μm] [> 50 μm]

2 0.92-1.0 0.50-1.0 

3 0.67-1.0 0.50-1.0 

4 0.67-1.0 0.41-1.0 

 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

 7 

8 

9 Table 4-2: Multiple species case: Relative efficiencies of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for Ne

10 = 1, 100 using ‘no management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines, from values 

11 in Table 5-8 (See Appendix A for details). 

 Ne = 1 Ne = 100

Alternative ‘No BW 

Management’ 

Exchange ‘No BW 

Management’ 

Exchange 

2 52% 37% 78% 63%

3 73% 64% 94% 90%

4 88% 85% 100% 100%

 12 

13 Figure 4-1: Single species case: Effectiveness of Alternatives 2-4 compared to the NAA 

14 (See Appendix A for details) 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-14 

 1 

 2 

3 Table 4-2: Multiple species case: Effectiveness of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, compared to 

4 the NAA (See Appendix A for details) 

Effectiveness of Alternatives (Single-species)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fr (smaller organisms) Fr (larger organisms)

Alternative and Organism Size

Mean Rate of Successful Introductions 

(Relative to NAA)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-15 

 1 

2 Interpretation of analytical results 

3 The values presented in Table 4-1 can thus be interpreted as meaning that the mean rate of 

4 successful introductions under: 

5 • Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) is expected to be between 92% and 100%, and 

6 50% and 100% of the mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for 

7 smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 

8 • Alternative 3 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 

9 mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for smaller and larger 

10 organisms, respectively; and 

11 • Alternative 4 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 41% and 100% of the 

12 mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for smaller and larger 

13 organisms, respectively. 

14 The reduction in the mean rate of successful introductions is the complement of the ranges 

15 of values presented above. As a result, the reduction in the mean rate of successful 

16 introductions, as compared to the NAA under: 

Effectiveness of Alternatives (Multi-species)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No Mgmt Exchange No Mgmt Exchange

Ne=1 Ne=100

NAA Option and Assumed Extinction Threshold

Percent effectiveness over the NAA

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-16 

1 • Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) is expected to range between no reduction and 

2 an 8% reduction, and no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger 

3 organisms, respectively; 

4 • Alternative 3 is expected to range between no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 

5 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 

6 and 

7 • Alternative 4 is expected to range between no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 

8 no reduction and a 59% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively.

9 The values in Table 4-2 represent the percent increase in q(m) over the baseline scenarios 

10 that each alternative provides. For example, for an Ne of 1, Alternative 2 (preferred 

11 alternative) is estimated to be 52% more effective than what would be expected for q(m)

12 under the No BW Management baseline scenario. 

13 The values in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are not directly comparable to each other. They measure 

14 two different probabilities and provide a range of outcomes for a particular BWDS. 

15 However, most vessels will have initial organism densities greater than the organism 

16 densities set by the alternatives so that vessels meeting any of the alternatives will achieve a 

17 reduction in the densities in most cases. 

18 The multiple species scenarios presented here are more ecologically realistic than 

19 evaluating a single species scenario. The multiple species results show that the treatment 

20 alternatives result in a moderate reduction in the probability of at least one new species 

21 becoming established to a complete absence of risk of introduction. The specific reduction 

22 depends upon the alternative selected and the size class of the organism considered, but the 

23 modeling results for multiple species support the conclusion that more stringent treatment 

24 alternatives will substantially reduce the likelihood of new ballast water introductions. 

25 4.3.4 Alternative 5 Effectiveness 

26 Alternative 5 was not modeled with PVA since it is essentially a requirement for 

27 sterilization of BW. This alternative would assure that no living organisms larger than 0.1 

28 micron are released via ballast water and would therefore prevent any associated impacts. 

 29 

30 4.4 Resources Analyzed 

 31 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-17 

1 4.4.1 Marine, Estuarine, and Freshwater Ecosystems, Threatened and Endangered 

2 Species, and Essential Fish Habitat 

3 The impacts to marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems would be similar at this high 

4 level of analysis, and hence they were addressed as a group. Because threatened and 

5 endangered species are part of marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems, and because 

6 essential fish habitat is necessarily part of the environment that has been described, those 

7 resources were also addressed in this section. 

8 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 

9 Because the NAA was used as a baseline, adverse impacts to marine ecosystems, estuarine 

10 ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, and EFH under this 

11 alternative were assumed to continue at current levels of successful introductions and 

12 establishments of NIS. Thus, no change in current and projected levels of adverse impacts 

13 caused by NIS is expected under the NAA. Given the large amount of unknown 

14 information involved, the expected impacts under the NAA were not quantified. 

15 There are many direct and indirect impacts of invasive species on marine, estuarine, and 

16 freshwater resources, as well as on threatened and endangered species and EFH. Williams 

17 et al. (2002) found that many well-studied food webs in different environments have short 

18 trophic connections between multiple species. This indicates that species are tightly 

19 connected through trophic interactions, and any effects (such as increased predation, release 

20 of toxic compounds, niche filling, etc.) caused by NIS have the ability to propagate quickly 

21 through the entire food web. Additionally, introductions of nonnative species can increase 

22 invasivity of historical nonnative populations that formerly weren’t invasive. This was 

23 demonstrated in a study of native mussels, nonnative clams, and nonnative crabs, where the 

24 newly introduced crabs selectively predated the native mussels, thereby freeing the 

25 nonnative clams (which had been living in the area for at least fifty years without having a 

26 population explosion) from competition and facilitating their spread in the ecosystem 

27 (Grosholz 2005). Such interactions are likely to occur in many other ecosystems among 

28 many different species, but have not yet been observed. The risk of such an occurrence 

29 would continue under Alternative 1. Finally, ecosystem services such as pollutant 

30 absorption, climate regulation, prevention of coastal and seabed erosion, maintenance of 

31 water quality, and storage and recycling of nutrients that are provided to humans can be 

32 compromised by NIS changing the structure and function of those ecosystems. 

33 Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) 

34 The impacts (or side effects) associated with the methods used to meet the BWDS defined 

35 under each alternative may be analyzed under separate environmental review processes, but 

36 are not addressed in this DPEIS. Because only the implementation of the BWDS is being 

37 analyzed, no additional adverse impacts are likely to occur under Alternatives 2 through 5. 

38 In fact, the standard is predicted to provide varying degrees of benefits (according to the 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-18 

1 standard selected) to marine ecosystems, estuarine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, 

2 threatened and endangered species, and EFH. 

3 From PVA modeling results, the implementation of Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) 

4 could result in a 0% to 50% reduction in the mean introduction rate of NIS with respect to 

5 the NAA. It could be between 37% and 78% more effective, in the multiple species 

6 analysis, as the options under the NAA. Direct positive effects of this are that native 

7 species might have fewer resource competitors and predators, and more prey (due to the 

8 lack of NIS’ competition for food). Indirect positive effects stem from the reasons cited 

9 above: maintaining ecosystem structure and function, more resistance to the effects of 

10 climate change, and maintenance of ecosystem services. 

11 Highly productive habitats such as coral reefs and mangroves might experience a 

12 proportionally larger indirect benefit from reductions in NIS introductions than would less13 productive habitats because they provide food and shelter to so many other species. 

14 Alternative 3 

15 The implementation of Alternative 3 could result in a 0% to 50% reduction of the mean 

16 introduction rate of NIS, relative to the NAA. Additionally, it could be between 64% and 

17 94% more effective in the multiple species analysis as the options under the NAA. 

18 Alternative 3 could be moderately more effective for smaller organisms than Alternative 2 

19 (preferred alternative).

20 Impacts to marine, estuarine, freshwater, threatened and endangered species, and EFH 

21 resources under Alternative 3 are expected to be of a similar nature to those under 

22 Alternative 2 (preferred alternative), only reduced proportionally. Alternative 3 is expected 

23 to be somewhat more environmentally beneficial than Alternative 2. 

24 Alternative 4 

25 The implementation of Alternative 4 could result in a 0% to 59% reduction of the mean 

26 introduction rate of NIS, relative to the NAA. Additionally, it could be between 85% and 

27 100% more effective in the multiple species analysis than the options under the NAA. 

28 Impacts to marine, estuarine, freshwater, threatened and endangered species, and EFH 

29 resources under Alternative 4 are expected to be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

30 with proportional reductions in effects stemming from the reductions in discharged 

31 organisms. Alternative 4 is expected to be somewhat more environmentally beneficial than 

32 Alternative 3. 

33 Alternative 5 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-19 

1 Alternative 5 is the only alternative that assures that no living organisms larger than 0.1 

2 micron are released via ballast water and therefore prevents their associated impacts to 

3 these resources.

4 As with Alternatives 2 through 4, impacts under Alternative 5 are expected to be similar 

5 and will occur to the same marine, estuarine, freshwater, threatened and endangered 

6 species, and EFH resources, with proportional reductions from the number of discharged 

7 organisms. This alternative is expected to be considerably more beneficial than 

8 Alternatives 2-4. Despite that this is essentially sterilization of ballast water, some 

9 organisms will still be released because the standard only applies to organisms greater than 

10 0.1 micron in diameter; living organisms smaller than this would still be released. 

11 4.4.2 Socioeconomics 

12 Socioeconomic resources listed in Chapter 3, sections 3.9.4 through 3.9.10, would likely be 

13 improved by setting a BWDS. Economic sectors dependent on the health of aquatic and 

14 coastal resources would benefit from overall healthier ecosystems with fewer invasive 

15 species. 

16 Costs of Alternative Ballast Water Discharge Standards 

17 Costs for ships to comply with Alternatives 2-5 were investigated hypothetically in order to 

18 determine costs. The cost estimates contain a very high degree of uncertainty, as Coast 

19 Guard-approved ballast water treatment systems (BWTS) do not yet exist. 

20 The Coast Guard has estimated the costs of achieving the BWDS (Alternative 2) based on 

21 the installation and operational costs of the BWTS. We estimated the installation costs 

22 based on the number of vessels that will have to install or retrofit ballast water systems each 

23 year for each vessel type. We apply this data together with the one-time capital and 

24 installation costs to develop overall implementation costs. We calculated the operational 

25 costs based on maintenance and fuel consumption costs for different ballast water pump 

26 sizes. We converted the operational costs into per cubic meter costs utilizing the pumping 

27 rate of the system. More detailed information on the estimated costs is contained in 

28 Appendix H. 

29 

30 Alternative 1 

31 Alternative 1 is the NAA, therefore the cost would not change. 

32 Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) 

33 Over a 10-year period, the projected total installation and operating cost for systems 

34 capable of meeting the Alternative 2 standards is approximately $1.35 billion using the 3 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-20 

1 percent discount rate and $1.18 billion using the 7 percent discount rate. These costs 

2 include those associated with new vessels constructed during the 10-year period (USCG 

3 2008). There is minimal operating experience with BWTS and, consequently, it is difficult 

4 to quantify possible future economies of scale that could bring costs down (USCG 2008). 

5 For comparison, Lloyds Register has published estimates for the IMO ballast water 

6 standard, which is equivalent to Alternative 2 (preferred alternative), with capital costs in a 

7 broader range of from $145,000 to $2.3 million per ship subject to the IMO standard 

8 (Lloyds Register 2008). 

9 Alternative 3

10 Costs associated with the more stringent standards of Alternatives 3 and 4 are even less 

11 certain that those for Alternative 2 (preferred alternative). Capital and operational costs will 

12 certainly increase. Best estimates at this time are an approximate doubling of capital and 

13 operating costs for Alternative 3 when compared to Alternative 2 (USCG 2008). 

14 Alternative 4 

15 Costs associated with the more stringent standards of Alternatives 3 and 4 are even less 

16 certain that those for Alternative 2 (preferred alternative). Capital and operational costs will 

17 certainly increase. Best estimates at this time are an approximate quadrupling for 

18 Alternative 4, when compared to Alternative 2 (USCG 2008). 

19 Alternative 5 

20 At this time, the most feasible approach for achieving the Alternative 5 standard is through 

21 the elimination of ballast water discharge. For some vessel types, such as large 

22 containerships and roll on/roll off vessels, this may be a practical option. For other vessel 

23 types, such as bulk carriers, it is not possible to eliminate discharge of ballast without 

24 considerable reduction in cargo carrying capacity—estimated to be up to 35 percent of the 

25 payload (USCG 2008). 

26 Benefits of Ballast Water Discharge Standards 

27 The benefits of BWDSs are difficult to quantify due to the complexity of the ecosystems 

28 and a lack of knowledge about the specific species found in each ballast water discharge 

29 event. However, evaluation of costs associated with existing invasions allows the cost of 

30 discharge standards to be compared to what might be avoided. Because the amount of 

31 shipping traffic and the number of incidents of invasions per year are both increasing, 

32 historical data provide a lower bound for the basis of benefit evaluation. The primary 

33 benefits of Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) have been enumerated in previous sections 

34 detailing the environmental consequences of NIS invasions. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-21 

1 The BWDS is likely to reduce the number of new invasions because the likelihood of 

2 establishment decreases with reduced numbers of organisms introduced per discharge. 

3 The more stringent discharge standards (Alternatives 3 and 4) would be expected to further 

4 strengthen these benefits. Inoculation sizes should decrease in proportion to the reduction 

5 in concentrations. 

6 We assessed the functional benefits prior to comparing monetary benefit measures. The 

7 primary functional benefits of Alternative 2 are: 

8 • A reduction in the concentration of all organisms leading to lower numbers of these 

9 organisms being introduced per discharge; 

10 • The elimination of the exemptions in the BWM regulations leading to the discharge 

11 of unmanaged ballast water (e.g., safety concerns during exchange, deviation/delay 

12 of voyage required to travel to acceptable mid-ocean exchange location). 

13 We calculated potential benefits of the BWDS by estimating the number of invasions 

14 reduced and the range of economic damage avoided. We use information on the invasion 

15 rate of invertebrates from shipping reported by Ruiz et al. (2000) to project the number of 

16 future shipping invasions per year. To estimate the potential economic harm that may be 

17 caused by these invasions, we assigned a cost per invasion based on the limited available 

18 data on the range of costs and damages incurred by past invasions. Based on the cumulative 

19 impacts of invasions, we have calculated a mid-range estimate of annual costs for all 

20 harmful BW-introduced invasions over the 10-year period of 2012 to 2021 at $2.016 

21 billion, at a 7% discount rate and assuming no BWM (USCG 2008). 

22 The damages avoided (benefits) for Alternative 2 range from a minimum of $6 million to a 

23 maximum of $553 million, depending on the efficacy of Alternative 2, with a mid-range 

24 estimate of $165-$282 million per year at a 7% discount rate (USCG 2008). 

25 4.5 Cumulative Impacts 

26 This section summarizes the cumulative impacts of the NEPA alternatives analyzed in this 

27 DPEIS on the resources of concern. They can occur in both temporal and spatial 

28 dimensions. In the case of this analysis, the relevant timeframe includes the implementation 

29 and operational phases of the proposed action. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Proposed 

30 Action involves a large geographic area, spanning the EEZ, estuarine, freshwater, and 

31 coastal areas of the entire United States and its territories. 

32 CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA define cumulative 

33 impacts as “the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of 

34 the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-22 

1 regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

2 actions”, 40 CFR § 1508.7. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

3 collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. 

4 The significance of an action’s cumulative impacts depends on how they compare with the 

5 environmental baseline and relevant resource thresholds (e.g., regulatory standards) (CEQ 

6 1997). The environmental baseline is presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

7 Because this is a Programmatic EIS and environmental resources are not evaluated at a 

8 specific, itemized level, resource thresholds are not presented. (Such a NEPA analysis 

9 would be undertaken during the approval process for individual BWT technologies.) 

10 Below is a summary of some of the main elements that could result in cumulative impacts 

11 to environmental resources. 

12 Some NIS introductions would continue with each of the alternatives, including sterilization 

13 (which only addresses organisms larger than 0.1 micron). Implementation of the NAA 

14 would likely continue the status quo of cumulative effects from current USCG BWM 

15 regulations and policies. [69 FR 44952 and 70 FR 51831]. Introductions from those 

16 BWDs regulated by the standard would be expected to decrease, by a relative amount 

17 depending on the alternative. NIS would also continue to be introduced by BWD not 

18 subject to the standard and from other vectors. A ship as an entity is "biologically dirty", 

19 with organisms being associated with several subvectors, including the hull, anchor system, 

20 sea chest, internal seawater piping system, and the bilges. Nonetheless, the comparatively 

21 large volume of ballast water and its protection from open-ocean conditions during transit 

22 implies that BWD is likely to be a primary source of NIS associated with shipping. There 

23 are also non-ship sources of NIS introductions, including livewells in fishing boats, 

24 aquariums, and introductions for sport fishing. Impacts of NIS from BWD also have to be 

25 considered as additive to NIS that have already become established. 

26 With regard to hull fouling, implementation of a BWDS could conceivably result in more 

27 NIS introductions from that source because increased costs to meet the BWDS could lead to 

28 less frequent hull cleaning (Carlton 2005). However, these externally attached hull fouling 

29 organisms are exposed to conditions during transit much harsher than those experienced by 

30 populations present in untreated ballast water, including large fluctuations in temperature 

31 and salinity during transoceanic transits. Thus, the fouling organisms could be exposed to 

32 conditions similar to or more severe than the effect of open ocean BWE on internal ballast 

33 water populations (Davis 2005). The result is that the risk of invasion from hull fouling 

34 populations is likely to be lower than that for ballast water populations, but certainly not 

35 insignificant and is under current investigation (Ruiz and Carlton 2003, Ruiz et al. in prep). 

36 Thus, a holistic model would be appropriate to address potential successful introductions of 

37 NIS from the vessel as a vector, and not just the individual means (e.g., ballast water). The 

38 reduction or elimination of the introduction pressure exerted by ballast water is likely to 

39 reduce the overall probability of successful establishment of NIS via vessels, but does not 

40 guarantee it. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-23 

1 If Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 are chosen as the BWDS, then technologies to treat ballast water 

2 may be developed to comply with this standard. NEPA analyses may be done for these 

3 technologies, which may cause environmental impacts. What these impacts might be is 

4 unknown, but it is foreseeable that some technologies may be approved, and thus their 

5 environmental impacts would be added to the environmental impacts from implementing 

6 the BWDS. 

7 Aquatic and coastal resources are under continuously increasing pressure from human 

8 activities, including coastal development, fishing, industrial processes, agriculture, and 

9 resource exploitation. The cumulative effects of these activities have resulted in significant 

10 impacts to aquatic and coastal habitats, biodiversity losses, and a reduction in resource 

11 sustainability. Given the large and increasing impacts of NIS on ecological and economic 

12 aquatic and coastal resources, the potential changes to these cumulative effects resulting 

13 from implementation of the alternatives can range from negligible to potentially significant 

14 when compared to the contributions from all other relevant actions (e.g., overfishing, 

15 habitat degradation, eutrophication, oil pollution, and losses of living marine resources). 

16 Reduced oxygen levels caused by excessive nutrient loadings within the northern Gulf of 

17 Mexico from the Mississippi River drainage basin have been linked to extensive die-offs of 

18 coastal fishes. Furthermore, excessive nutrient loadings from river basin drainages within 

19 the Northeast shelf ecosystem may be the cause of the growing frequency and extent of 

20 harmful algal blooms, the emergence of marine mammal and human pathogens, and 

21 changes in the gene pool of wild stocks from inadvertent releases of cultured stocks (USGS 

22 1999). 

23 Habitat alterations have taken place in rivers and estuaries, as well as in coastal zones, as a 

24 result of urbanization, including alteration of freshwater flows, erosion, introduction of 

25 toxic chemicals and other contaminants into the waters, introduction of NIS, and 

26 degradation of the aquatic habitats essential to the survival of living aquatic resources. 

27 Approximately 50% of the U.S. population lives close to major freshwater systems, such as 

28 the Great Lakes, or coastal waters. There are numerous demographic trends that suggest 

29 these conditions and threats are not likely to change in the immediate future. Thus, as the 

30 nation grows, further growth in coastal zones is expected. Coastal development often alters 

31 aquatic and coastal ecosystems and affects living marine resources (EPA 2005). 

32 Shipping has been subject to voluntary and mandatory BWM regulations, such as BWE, 

33 depending on vessel size, areas of operation, and other elements. Thus, if the volume of 

34 shipping remains at the same level, ballast-mediated invasions are likely to be reduced. 

35 However, changes in the volume of shipping and in trade routes, as well as changes in 

36 ballast water systems and their operation, would either decrease or increase BW discharges, 

37 and hence the level of NIS introductions. Thus, a BWDS would be expected to decrease 

38 NIS introductions from distinct BW discharge events, but the total number of introductions 

39 could still increase due to increases in global trade. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-24 

1 On a national level, the cumulative effects of the alternatives on aquatic and coastal 

2 resources in the U.S. cannot be accurately estimated given the complexities and limited 

3 scientific knowledge described earlier. Implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would 

4 likely improve, and at least not adversely impact environmental and socioeconomic 

5 resources. Additionally, no harmful cumulative impacts are expected since their 

6 implementation would likely result in a reduction of current NIS impacts. In that case, 

7 cumulative benefits to aquatic and coastal resources would likely result. 

8 Alternative 1, the NAA, is expected to result in the highest level of detrimental cumulative 

9 impacts to the environment since it continues the current levels of NIS introductions. 

10 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are expected to proportionally reduce detrimental cumulative 

11 impacts in relation to the stringency of the standard adopted. Alternative 5 is expected to 

12 further reduce, though not completely eliminate, cumulative impacts resulting from NIS 

13 introductions because NIS introductions from other sources will continue, as will 

14 introductions of organisms smaller than 0.1 micron from BWD. 

15 Alternative 1 will continue current cumulative effects, such as facilitation of one invasive 

16 species by another later-arriving invasive species (Ricciardi 2001). Such interactions have 

17 been observed to occur as many as 50 years from the time of a first introduction (Grosholz 

18 2005). This reassembly of co-evolved food webs (several species from alien habitats 

19 colonizing a new habitat and functioning as they had in their old environment), as well as 

20 facilitative interactions between species with no co-evolutionary history, can increase the 

21 impacts from any introduction of NIS (Ricciardi 2001). Climate change and habitat loss are 

22 two other variables that can contribute to the cumulative effects of NIS. Increasing winter 

23 water temperatures in the mid and high latitudes (Christensen et al. 2007) can provide more 

24 favorable conditions for invasive species to become established. This can be compounded 

25 by greater competitive advantage of introduced species compared to native species. 

26 Stachowitz et al. (2002) found that increased winter water temperatures were correlated 

27 with increased recruitment of nonnative sea squirts and concluded that continued climatic 

28 warming could facilitate invasions of species from warmer, or at least less extreme, 

29 climates into New England coastal waters. Continued habitat degradation due to pollution 

30 and development in coastal areas indicates that continued introductions of NIS will have 

31 cumulative impacts on these ecosystems. Any reduction in the number of new invasions 

32 could reduce this cumulative impact. 

33 Alternatives 2 through 5 may continue to have negative cumulative impacts since they will 

34 not completely prevent new introductions. All the impacts cited above for Alternative 1 

35 could continue to occur under Alternatives 2-5. However, according to Ricciardi (2001), 

36 any effort to reduce the invasion rate of NIS can have positive cumulative impacts on the 

37 existing ecosystem by reducing synergistic reactions between NIS. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-25 

1 4.6 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 

2 NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

3 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, 40 CFR 

4 §1502.16. Special attention should be given to impacts that narrow the range of beneficial 

5 uses of the environment in the long-term or pose a long-term risk to human health or safety. 

6 This section evaluates the short-term benefits of the proposal compared to the long-term 

7 productivity derived from not pursuing the proposal. Short-term effects to the environment 

8 are generally defined as a direct consequence of a project in its immediate vicinity. 

9 A BWDS is not expected to require use of environment resources and is expected to have 

10 long term benefits for the environment. 

11 4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

12 NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of “. . . any irreversible 

13 and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action 

14 should it be implemented.” Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related 

15 to the use of nonrenewable resources and the effects that the uses of these resources have on 

16 future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a 

17 specific resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable 

18 time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected 

19 resource that cannot be restored as result of the action (e.g., disturbance of wildlife habitat); 

20 or is lost as a result of inaction (e.g., failure to monitor and treat vegetation to prevent 

21 infestation by pests). 

22 Setting a BWDS is not expected to require use of nonrenewable resources or to cause loss 

23 in value of an affected resource. However, the No Action Alternative may well cause loss 

24 of habitat or species that cannot be restored. 

25 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

26 This section identifies unavoidable adverse effects that may occur as a result of 

27 implementing the Proposed Action or one of its alternatives. Setting a BWDS is not 

28 expected to have any unavoidable adverse effects. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-1 

1 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND 

2 CONSULTATION 

3 5.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 Threatened and endangered species are protected at the Federal level under the Endangered 

5 Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (P.L. 93-205, 81 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). 

6 The purpose of the ESA is to ensure that Federal agencies make all attempts to conserve 

7 endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The FWS and the NMFS are the 

8 responsible administrative authorities of the ESA. The FWS is primarily responsible for 

9 terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory birds, while the NMFS generally deals with 

10 anadramous fish and species that inhabit marine environments. Anadromous fish are fish 

11 that spend most of their life in marine environments, but migrate into freshwater rivers to 

12 spawn. 

13 All Federal agencies must consult with the FWS and NMFS, in accordance with Section 7 

14 of the Endangered Species Act, to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

15 continued existence of listed species. The USCG initiated informal consultation with the 

16 FWS and the NMFS in 2004. This included letters, phone conversations, and a series of 

17 meetings to determine if any endangered or threatened species could be affected by 

18 establishing a BWDS. USCG will continue to consult with both federal services to ensure 

19 that establishing a BWDS will likely benefit, and at least have no additional adverse 

20 impacts on threatened, endangered, and proposed species or designated and proposed 

21 critical habitats. 

22 5.1.1 Biological Assessment 

23 The U.S. Congress enacted the ESA to provide a means to conserve ecosystems and 

24 endangered and threatened species that depend upon them. All Federal agencies must (1) 

25 seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and (2) utilize their authorities to 

26 further the purposes of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to 

27 ensure that any action that is authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely 

28 to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or 

29 adverse modification of habitat of such species which has been designated as critical 

30 habitat. To ensure such actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

31 listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, these 

32 federal agencies must consult with the FWS and NMFS, who administer the ESA. The tool 

33 used by the Services to analyze impacts to listed species is the Biological Assessment and 

34 their decision is documented in a Biological Opinion. 

35 Threatened and Endangered Species Determination 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-2 

 1 

2 The USCG examined the potential effects to threatened, endangered, and proposed species 

3 and relevant proposed and designated critical habitat. The USCG concluded that under 

4 Alternative 1, impacts to threatened and endangered species via NIS introductions would 

5 continue. The USCG has determined that Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 analyzed in this DPEIS 

6 should provide beneficial effects, and are not likely to adversely affect, threatened, 

7 endangered, and proposed species, and their critical habitat. This is based on the analysis 

8 and conclusions presented in Chapter 4 of this document. Any methods or procedures to 

9 achieve the BWDS would require further future and separate environmental analysis and 

10 Section 7 consultations before they are implemented. 

11 5.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

12 The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding 

13 all actions or Proposed Actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect 

14 EFH. “Adversely affect" refers to the creation of any impact that reduces the quality or 

15 quantity of EFH. Federal activities that occur outside an EFH but that may, nonetheless, 

16 have an impact on EFH waters and substrate must also be considered in the consultation 

17 process. The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that consultation regarding EFH should be 

18 consolidated, where appropriate, with the interagency consultation, coordination, and 

19 environmental review procedures required by other Federal statutes, such as NEPA, the 

20 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the ESA. 

21 EFH consultation requirements can be satisfied through concurrent environmental 

22 compliance requirements if the lead agency provides NMFS with timely notification of 

23 actions that may adversely affect EFH and if the notification meets requirements for EFH 

24 assessments. 

25 This DPEIS addressed the potential effects the Alternatives would have on EFH. The 

26 USCG concluded that under Alternative 1, EFH impacts via NIS introductions would 

27 continue. The US Coast Guard concluded that Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not adversely 

28 affect EFH. However, any methods or procedures to implement the BWDS would require 

29 further future and separate environmental analysis and a potential EFH consultation. 

30 5.3 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

31 The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C.A. §1451-1465) was 

32 passed by Congress to effectively manage the uses and resources of the Nation’s coastal 

33 zone. The enactment of the CZMA resulted from a range of Congressional findings 

34 involving the preservation, protection, development, restoration and enhancement of 

35 resources of the U.S. coastal zone. The following are just three of the Congressional 

36 findings that directly relate and serve as supporting needs for the proposed rule: 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-3 

1 “1) The increasing and competing demands upon the lands of our coastal zone 

2 occasioned by population growth and economic development, including 

3 requirements for industry, commerce, residential development, recreation, 

4 extractions of mineral resources and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, 

5 waste disposal, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, 

6 have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient rich areas, 

7 permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for 

8 public use, and shoreline erosion. 

9 2) The habitat areas of the coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine 

10 resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and consequently extremely 

11 vulnerable to destruction by man’s alterations. 

12 3) New and expanding demands for food, energy, minerals, defense needs, 

13 recreation, waste disposal, transportation, and industrial activities in the Great 

14 Lakes, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and the Outer Continental Shelf 

15 are placing stress on these areas and are creating the need for resolutions of serious 

16 conflicts among important and competing uses and values in coastal and ocean 

17 waters.” (CZMA, Section 302) 

18 In accordance with the CZMA, each Federal action within or outside the coastal zone that 

19 affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a 

20 manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practical, with the enforceable policies of 

21 the approved state coastal zone management programs. Additionally, each Federal agency 

22 carrying out such an activity shall provide a Federal consistency determination to the 

23 relevant State agency and shall undertake the activity, to the maximum extent practicable, 

24 consistent with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal zone management 

25 programs (§ 1456, Section 307). 

26 The implementation of the Alternatives will result in a BWDS, thereby potentially affecting 

27 the Nation’s coastal zone. Therefore, in compliance with the requirements of CZMA, the 

28 USCG will initiate Federal Consistency Determinations for 29 States and 5 U.S. Territories 

29 (see Appendix E) that require reviewing CZM plans, and issuing federal consistency 

30 determination letters (See Appendix D). Each federal consistency determination letter will 

31 explain to each State and U.S. Territories that the USCG’s action is consistent, to the 

32 maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable polices of each State’s and U.S. 

33 Territories approved CZM plan. 

 34 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-1 

1 6 RESOURCES UTILIZED 

2 LIST OF PREPARERS

3 U.S. Coast Guard

4 Bivan Patnaik 

5 Environmental Protection Specialist and Program Manager 

6 B.S. Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University 

7 M.S. Environmental Sciences, Johns Hopkins University 

 8 

9 Greg Kirkbride 

10 Environmental Specialist and Project Manager 

11 B.S. Economics, U.S. Coast Guard Academy 

12 M.B.A Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

13 M.S. Environmental Science and Policy, Johns Hopkins University 

 14 

15 Rich Everett, Ph.D. 

16 Environmental Protection Specialist, Technical Advisor 

17 B.S. Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz 

18 Ph. D. Zoology, University of California, Berkley 

 19 

20 Brad McKitrick 

21 Economist/Environmental Specialist and Project Manager 

22 B.S. General Studies (Economics) 

23 M.S. Environmental Policy and Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

 24 

25 Sage Systems Technologies, LLC

26 Kate O’Dell 

27 Environmental Specialist 

28 B.S. Environmental Science & Policy and Geography, University of Maryland at College 

29 Park 

30 M.A. Geography, University of Maryland at College Park 

 31 

32 Diana Combs 

33 Environmental Specialist 

34 B.A. Political Science, Drew University 

35 J.D. Vermont Law School 

 36 

37 Mirabelle Oczkowski 

38 Marine Transportation Specialist 

39 B.A. International Affairs, George Washington University 

 40 

 41 

 42 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-2 

1 Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.

2 Sean Gallagher 

3 Marine Transportation Specialist 

4 B.A. Political Science, University of Florida 

5 J.D. Syracuse University College of Law 

 6 

7 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

8 Andrew Solow, Ph.D. 

9 Senior Scientist and Marine Policy Center Director 

10 B.S. Economics, Harvard University 

11 Ph.D. Geostatistics, Stanford University 

 12 

13 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

14 Paul Valihura, Ph.D. 

15 Environmental Scientist and PEA Manager 

16 B.S. Industrial Management, Lowell Technological Institute 

17 M.S. Environmental Studies, University of Lowell 

18 Ph.D. Urban and Environmental Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

 19 

20 José G. Mantilla 

21 Environmental Engineer 

22 B.S. Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Universidad Javeriana, Colombia 

23 M.S. Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

 24 

25 EG&G Technical Services 

26 Sarah Townsend 

27 Senior Environmental Specialist/Planner 

28 B.A. Environmental Science, University of Wollongong, Australia 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-3 

1 LIST OF REVIEWERS

2 United States Coast Guard

3 Ms. Zante Capuno 

4 Environmental Protection Specialist and Natural Resources Program Manager 

5 B.A. Economics, University of the Philippines 

6 M.A. Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines 

 7 

8 Ms. Susan Hathaway 

9 Assistant Manager, NEPA Program 

10 B.A. Politics and Government 

11 Ohio Wesleyan University 

 12 

13 The above reviewers reviewed the DPEIS in November 2007 

 14 

15 Williams College

16 James T. Carlton, Ph.D. 

17 Professor of Marine Sciences 

18 Director, Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport 

19 Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis 

 20 

21 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

22 Cabell Davis, Ph.D. 

23 Senior Scientist, Biology Department 

24 B.S. Biology, University of Tampa 

25 Ph.D. Marine Biology, Boston University 

 26 

27 Smith College

28 David Smith, Ph.D. 

29 Associate Professor, Biological Sciences 

30 B.A. Biology, University of Virginia 

31 M.S. Marine Science, University of South Carolina 

32 Ph.D. Zoology, University of Maryland 

 33 

34 Battelle Science and Technology International

35 Carlton Hunt, Ph.D. 

36 Research Leader 

37 B.A. Chemistry, Doane College 

38 M.S. Chemical Oceanography, University of Connecticut 

39 Ph.D. Chemical/Geochemical Oceanography, University of Connecticut 

 40 

41 The above reviewers provided review on the following sections in the Fall of 2005: 

 42 

43 • Section 3.1: Background 

44 • Section 3.4: Marine ecosystems 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-4 

1 • Section 3.5: Estuarine ecosystems 

2 • Section 3.6: Freshwater ecosystems 

3 • Section 3.7: Threatened and endangered species 

4 • Section 3.8: Essential fish habitats 

5 • Technical report: environmental methodology, analysis, and results 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

13 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-5 

1 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 

2 Environmental Protection Agency

3 John Lishman 

4 Office of Water 

 5 

6 Henry Lee 

7 Office of Research and Development 

 8 

9 Katherine Bruce 

10 Office of Water 

 11 

12 Kathy Hurld 

13 Office of Water 

 14 

15 Michael Slimak 

16 Office of Research and Development 

 17 

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

19 Pat Carter 

20 Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation 

 21 

22 Pam Thibodeaux 

23 Division of Environmental Quality 

 24 

25 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

26 Liz Fairey 

27 Office of Habitat Conservation 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 29 

30 Dr. Jan Gooch 

31 Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research 

32 National Ocean Service 

 33 

34 Steve Kokkinakis 

35 Office of Program Planning and Integration 

 36 

37 David MacDuffee 

38 Office of Habitat Conservation 

39 NOAA, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 

 40 

41 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

42 P. Gary Egrie, DVM 

43 National Aquaculture Program 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-6 

1 REFERENCES

2 ADFG. 2002a. Atlantic Salmon: A White Paper. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

3 Juneau, AK. Web site: 

4 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/as/docs/as_white2002.pdf. 

5 ADFG. 2002b. Alaska Subsistence Fisheries: 2000 Annual Report. Alaska Department of 

6 Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. 

7 Aiken, S.G., P. R. Newroth, and I. Wile. 1979. “The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 

8 Myriophyllum spicatum L.”. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59: 201-215. 

9 American Rivers. 2005. Endangered Species. Web site: 

10 http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AMR_content_2a88. 

11 ANSTF. 2005. State of Hawaii Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Aquatic 

12 Nuisance Species Task Force. Web site: 

13 http://www.anstaskforce.gov/mgtplans.htm. 

14 ANSTF. 2003. “What are Aquatic Nuisance Species and Their Impacts?” Aquatic 

15 Nuisance Species Task Force. Washington, DC, January 2003. Web site: 

16 http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ansimpact.htm. 

17 Bain, M. B., and J. G. Knight. 1996. “Classifying Stream Habitat Using Fish Community 

18 Analyses.” In Proceedings of the Second IAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, 

19 Ecohydraulics 2000. M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. 

20 Côté, eds. Institute National de la Recherche Scientifique-Eau, Ste-Foy, Quebec, 

21 Canada. 

22 Battelle Duxbury Operations. 1998. Ballast Water Secondary Treatment Technology 

23 Review. Prepared for the Northeast Midwest Institute. Washington, D.C. August 

24 1998. 

25 Beissinger, S. R. and D. R. McCullough. 2002. Population Viability Analysis. University 

26 of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 

27 Benson, A. J. 2000. “Documenting Over a Century of Aquatic Introductions in the United 

28 States.” In Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. 

29 R. Claudi and J. H. Leach, eds. Pp. 1-31. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, FL. 

30 Boyce, M. 1992. “Population Viability Analysis”. Annual Review of Ecology and 

31 Systematics 23: 481-506. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-7 

1 Brodeur, R. D. and M. Busby 1998. “Occurrence of an Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar in the 

2 Bering Sea.” Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin 5(1): 64–66. 

3 Burke, L., Y. Kura, K. Kassem, C. Revenga, M. Spalding, and D. McAllister. 2000. Pilot 

4 Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Coastal Ecosystems. World Resources 

5 Institute, Washington, D.C. 

6 Burkett, D. P., D. N. Busch, J. R. McClain, M. E. Holey, T. R. Busiahn, and M. C. 

7 Fabrizio. 1995. Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. Report to 

8 Congress. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great 

9 Lakes Coordination Office and Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office. Web site: 

10 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ashland/glstudy.html. 

11 Bushaw-Newton, K. L., and K. G. Sellner. 1999. “Harmful Algal Blooms.” State of the 

12 Coast Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

13 Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Web site: http://state-of14 coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/hab_14/hab.html. 

15 Callaway, J. C., and M. N. Josselyn. 1992. “The Introduction and Spread of Smooth 

16 Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in South San Francisco Bay.” Estuaries 15(2): 

17 218–26. 

18 Carlton, J. T. 1992. “Introduced Marine and Estuarine Mollusks of North America: An 

19 End-of-the 20th-Century Perspective.” Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2): 489–

20 505. 

21 Carlton, J.T. 1996. “Marine Bioinvasions: The Alteration of Marine Ecosystems by 

22 Nonindigenous Species.” Oceanography 9(1): 36–43. 

23 Carlton, J.T. 1999. “Quo Vadimus Exotica Oceanica? Marine Bioinvasion Ecology in the 

24 Twenty-First Century.” In Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 

25 Conference. J. Pederson, ed. Pp. 6–23. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea 

26 Grant College Program and MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 

27 Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in United States Coastal Waters: Environmental 

28 Impacts and Management Priorities. Prepared by Williams College and Mystic 

29 Seaport for the Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

30 Carlton, J.T. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 

31 December 15, 2005. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-8 

1 Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller. 1993. “Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of 

2 Nonindigenous Marine Organisms.” Science 261: 78–82. 

3 Carlton, J. T. and J. Hodder. 1995. “Biogeography of Coastal Marine Organisms: 

4 Experimental Studies on a Replica of a Sixteenth Century Sailing Vessel.” Marine 

5 Biology 121: 721–30. 

6 Carlton, J. T. and R. Mann. 1996. “Transfers and World-Wide Introductions.” In The 

7 Eastern Oyster: Crassostrea virginica. Victor S. Kennedy, Roger I.E. Newell, and 

8 Albert F. Eble, eds. Pp. 691–706. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. 

9 CEQ. 1997. “Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy 

10 Act”. Council on Environmental Quality. January 1997. 

11 Cesar, H. 2002. Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program. A joint program of the 

12 University of Hawaii and Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. 

13 Web site: http://www.hawaii.edu/ssri/hcri. 

14 Christensen, J. H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R. K. 

15 Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C. G. Menéndez, J. 

16 Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton. 2007: Regional Climate Projections. 

17 In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

18 Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

19 Climate Change Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

20 Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

21 United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

22 Chythlook, M., and P. Coiley. 1994. The Subsistence Use of Beluga Whale in Bristol Bay 

23 by Alaska Natives, 1993. Technical Paper No. 231. Alaska Department of Fish 

24 and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau, AK. 

25 Cohen, A. N. 1998. Ships’ Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into 

26 the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. 

27 Cohen, A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States 

28 Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and 

29 Delta – Biological Study. Report No. PB96-166525. Final Report to the U.S. 

30 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 

31 Cohen A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1997. “Transoceanic Transport Mechanisms: The 

32 Introduction of the Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis to California.” Pacific 

33 Science 51(1): 1–11. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-9 

1 Colgan, C. S. 2003. The Changing Ocean and Coastal Economy of the United States: A 

2 Briefing Paper for Conference Participants. Waves of Change: Examining the 

3 Role of States in Emerging Ocean Policy, September 3–4, 2003. National 

4 Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Washington, DC. 

5 Corn, M. L., E. H. Buck, J. Rawson, and E. Fischer. 1999. Harmful Non-Native Species: 

6 Issues for Congress. 

7 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 

8 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the 

9 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

10 Crossett, K., T. J. Culliton, P. Wiley, and T. R. Goodspeed. 2004. Coastal Trends Report 

11 Series. Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008. U.S. 

12 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

13 National Ocean Service, Washington, D.C. Web site: 

14 http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/supp_cstl_population.html. 

15 Dalton, Penelope D. “Testimony of Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator For 

16 Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on the Essential Fish 

17 Habitat Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

18 Management Act Before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 

19 Wildlife and Oceans, Committee On Resources”. March 9, 2000. Web site: 

20 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/publication/efh/final%20EFH

21 %20testimony.htm. 

22 Davis, C. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 

23 December 15, 2005. 

24 Deegan, L. A. and R. N. Buchsbaum. 2005. “The effect of habitat loss and degradation on 

25 fisheries”. In: The decline of fisheries resources in New England: Evaluating the 

26 impact of overfishing, contamination, and habitat degradation. R. N. Buchsbaum, 

27 W. E. Robinson, and J. Pederson, eds. Pp. 67-96. MIT Sea Grant College 

28 Program, Cambridge, MA, MITSG 05-5. 

29 Dennis, B., P. L. Munholland, and J. M. Scott. 1991. “Estimation of growth and extinction 

30 parameters for endangered species”. Ecological Monographs 61: 115-143. 

31 Dickman, M. and F. Zhang. 1999. “Mid-Ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 

32 Water. 2: Effects of vessel type in the transport of diatoms and dinoflagellates from 

33 Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 

34 253-262. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-10 

1 Dodds, W. K., and B. J. F. Biggs. 2002. “Water Velocity Attenuation by Stream 

2 Periphyton and Macrophytes in Relation to Growth Form and Architecture.” 

3 Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21(1): 2–15. Web site: 

4 http://www.ksu.edu/doddslab/journalarts/dodds%20and%20biggs%20jnabs%20200

5 2.pdf. 

6 Drake, J. A., K. Choi, G. M. Ruiz, and F. C. Dobbs. 2001. “Global Redistribution of 

7 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities.” Biological Invasions 3: 193–

8 99. 

9 Drake, J A., G. M. Ruiz, B. S. Galil, T. L. Mullady, D. O. Friedmann, and F. C. Dobbs. 

10 2002. “Microbial Ecology of Ballast Water during a Transoceanic Voyage and the 

11 Effects of Open-Ocean Exchange.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 233: 13-20. 

12 Drake, J. A., H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. 

13 Williamson, eds. 1989. Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley & 

14 Sons, New York. 

15 Eichold, B. H., J. R. Williamson, C. H. Woernle, and R. M. McPhearson. 1993. “Isolation 

16 of Vibrio cholerae O1 from Oysters – Mobile Bay.” Morbidity and Mortality 

17 Weekly Report 42(5): 91–93. 

18 Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen and Co., 

19 Ltd., London. 

20 Engel, S. 1995. “Eurasian Watermilfoil as a Fishery Management Tool”. Fisheries 20(3): 

21 20-27.

22 EPA. 1994. The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement. 

23 EPA, Washington, DC. 

24 EPA. 2000. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection 

25 Agency. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/execsum.pdf. 

26 EPA. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research 

27 and Development/Office of Water, Washington, D.C. September 2001. Web site: 

28 http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html. 

29 EPA. 2004. America’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water. Washington, 

30 D.C. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/vital/toc.html. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-11 

1 EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Office of 

2 Research and Development/Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Web site: 

3 http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/index.html. 

4 ERS. 2004. Infrastructure and Rural Development Policy, Economic Research 

5 Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web site: 

6 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Infrastructure/InfrastructureWater.htm 

7 FAS. 2005. “U.S. Seafood Imports Continue to Soar.” International Trade Report July 8, 

8 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service. 

9 http://www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/Fish10 Circular/Market_News/IATR_Seafood_Imports.pdf 

11 Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into 

12 Inland Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 

13 27. U.S. Geological Service, Biological Resources Division, Gainesville, FL. 

14 Fuller, P., E. Maynard, and D. Raikow. 2006. Morone americana. USGS Nonindigenous 

15 Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. 

16 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=777. Revision Date: 

17 August 11, 2005. 

18 FWS. 2001. 2001 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

19 FHW/01-NAT. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

20 and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Web site: 

21 http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fhw01-us.pdf. 

22 FWS. 2003. “Chicago Summit Generates Possible Solutions to Exchange of Harmful 

23 Invasive Species in Midwestern Waterways”. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

24 Web site: www.fws.gov/midwest/chicago/summit.pdf 

25 Gagné, N., A-M. MacKinnon, L. Boston, B. Souter, M. Cook-Versloot, S. Griffiths, and G. 

26 Olivier. 2007. “Isolation of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from 

27 mummichog, stickleback, striped bass and brown trout in eastern Canada.” Journal 

28 of Fish Diseases. 30: 213-223. 

29 Galil, B. S., and N. Hulsmann. 1997. “Protist Transport via Ballast Water – Biological 

30 Classification of Ballast Tanks by Food Web Interactions.” European Journal of 

31 Protistology 33: 244–53. 

32 GAO. 2000. “Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, 

33 Nonnative Species”. U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO/RCED-00-

34 219. GAO, Washington, D.C. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-12 

1 GAO. 2003. “Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress 

2 Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals”. U.S. Government 

3 Accountability Office. GAO-03-515, April 2003.

4 Glassner-Shwayder, K. 1999. “Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species.” Briefing 

5 paper presented at the Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species Workshop, 

6 Chicago, IL, October 20–21. 

7 GLIFWC. 2004. Lake Superior Indian Fishery. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

8 Commission, Odanah, WI. 

9 GLRC. 2005. A Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. Draft Action Plan. 

10 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of National Significance. U.S. Environmental 

11 Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Web site: 

12 http://www.glrc.us/. 

13 Graham, W. M., and J. E. Purcell. 2001. “Introduction: Social, Economic, and Ecological 

14 Issues Involving Jellyfish Blooms. In Jellyfish Blooms: Ecological and Societal 

15 Importance, Proceedings of the International Conference on Jellyfish Blooms, J. E. 

16 Purcell, W. M. Graham, and H. J. Dumont, eds. Dordrecht and Boston, Kluwer 

17 Academic. 

18 Grimes, D. J. 1991. “Ecology of Estuarine Bacteria Capable of Causing Human Disease: 

19 A Review.” Estuaries 14(4): 345–60. 

20 Grozholz, E.D. 2005. “Recent biological invasion may hasten invasional meltdown by 

21 accelerating historical introductions.” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102 (4): 1088-1091. 

22 Grosholz, E. D., and G. M. Ruiz 1996. “Predicting the Impact of Introduced Marine 

23 Species: Lessons form the Multiple Invasions of the European Green Crab 

24 Carcinus maenas.” Biological Conservation 78: 59–66. 

25 Grosholz, E. D., G. M. Ruiz, C. A. Dean, K. A. Shirley, J. L. Maron, and P. G. Connors. 

26 2000. “The Impacts of a Nonindigenous Marine Predator in a California Bay.” 

27 Ecology 81(5): 1206–24. 

28 Gunderson, J., and G. Kreag. 1991. Estimated Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing 

29 on Minnesota Waters of Lake Superior. NSGD# MINNU-G-91-007. Minnesota 

30 Sea Grant Program, Duluth, MN. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-13 

1 Gustaitis, R. 1998. “Mending the Klamath Watershed.” California Coast and Ocean. 

2 Web site: 

3 http://www.ceres.ca.gov/coastalconservancy/coast&ocean/autumn98/a02.htm. 

4 Hallegraeff, G. M. 1993. “A Review of Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Apparent Global 

5 Increase.” Phycologia 32(2): 79–99. 

6 Hay, C. H., and D. Tanis. 1998. “Mid-Ocean Ballast Water Exchange: Procedures, 

7 Effectiveness, and Verification for BAL9701. Examination of Efficiency of Ballast 

8 Water Exchange Practices and Degree of Ship Compliance with NZ Ballast-Water 

9 Mandatory Controls and Voluntary Guidelines”. Cawthron Report No. 468. 

10 Prepared by Cawthron Institute and Battelle for the New Zealand Ministry of 

11 Fisheries. 

12 Hayes, K. R., and C. L. Hewitt. 1999. “Quantitative Biological Risk Assessment of the 

13 Ballast Water Vector: An Australian Approach.” In Marine Bioinvasions: 

14 Proceedings of the First National Conference. J. Pederson, ed. Pp. 370–86. MIT 

15 Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA. 

16 Hines, A. H. and G. M. Ruiz. 2000. Biological Invasions of Cold-Water Coastal 

17 Ecosystems: Ballast-Mediated Introductions in Port Valdez/Prince William Sound, 

18 Alaska. Final Project Report. Report to Regional Citizens' Advisory Council of 

19 Prince William Sound. 

20 Honnell, D., J. D. Madsen, and R. M. Smart. 1992. “Effects of aquatic plants on water 

21 quality in pond ecosystems”. Proceedings: 26th Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant 

22 Control Research Program. Report A-92-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

23 Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

24 Houston, J.R. 1996. “International Tourism and U.S. Beaches”. Shore and Beach: 

25 Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association 64(2): 3-4. 

26 Johns, G. M., V. R. Leeworthy, F. W. Bell, and M. A. Bonn. 2003. “Socioeconomic Study 

27 of Reefs in Southeast Florida”. Hazen and Sawyer, Final Report for Broward, 

28 Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties as Revised on April 18, 2003. 

29 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and National Oceanic and 

30 Atmospheric Administration. Web site: 

31 http://www.marineeconomics.noaa.gov/pubs/welcome.html. 

32 Jude, D., E. Stoermer, and T. Johengen. 2002. “Non-Indigenous Species”. In: The Great 

33 Lakes: Ecology, Interactions, Impacts, and Future Research Directions. University 

34 of Michigan Great Lakes Symposium: Our Challenging Future. A Review of the 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-14 

1 State of Great Lakes Research. Michigan SeaGrant. Web site: 

2 www.miseagrant.org/symposium. 

3 Kates, W. 2002. “Ecology, Economy Feel Impact as Species Invade Great Lakes.” Great 

4 Lakes Article. Great Lakes Environmental Directory, Duluth, MN. Web site: 

5 http://greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/060702_exotic_species.htm. 

6 Keast, A. 1984. “The Introduced Aquatic Macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as Habitat 

7 for Fish and Their MacroinvertebratePprey”. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 

8 1289-1303. 

9 Knight, I. T., C. S. Wells, B. Wiggins, H. Russel, K. A. Reynolds, and A. Huq. 1999. 

10 “Detection and Enumeration of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in the Ballast Water 

11 of Transoceanic Cargo Vessels Entering the Great Lakes.” Abstract Q-71 in 

12 Proceedings of the General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. 

13 American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 

14 Leigh, P. 1998. “Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes 

15 Fishery.” Journal of Great Lakes Resources 24(2): 351–60. 

16 Locke, A. D., M. Reid, H. C. Van Leeuwen, W. G. Sprules, and J. T. Carlton. 1993. 

17 “Ballast Water Exchange as a Means of Controlling Dispersal of Freshwater 

18 Organisms by Ships”. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 50: 2086-93. 

19 Lloyds Register. 2007. Ballast Water Treatment Technology, Current Status. June 2007. 

20 Lohrer, A. M., and R. B. Whitlach. (1997). “Ecological studies on the recently introduced 

21 Japanese Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus), in Eastern Long Island Sound.” 

Proceedings of the 2nd 22 Northeast Conference on Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

23 Species. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication CTSG-97-02, 49-60. 

24 Lophelia.org. Accessed June 10, 2007. http://www.lophelia.org/ 

25 Ludwig, D. 1999. “Is It Meaningful to Estimate a Probability of Extinction?” Ecology 80 

26 (1): 298-310. 

27 Mack, R. N., D. S. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 

28 2000. “Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and 

29 Control.” Ecological Applications 10(3): 689–710. 

30 Mangin, S. 2001. “The 100th Meridian Initiative: A Strategic Approach to Prevent the 

31 Westward Spread of Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species.” 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-15 

1 Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

2 Service. February 2001. 

3 Martin, R., and P. Moy. 2002. “Prevention and Control of Exotic Aquatic Species.” Lake 

4 Line 22(1):17–19. 

5 Maybee, M. 2001. “Indigenous Peoples Update.” Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat News 

6 9(6). http://glhabitat.org/news/glnews171.html. 

7 McCann, J. A., L. N. Arkin, and J. D. Williams. 1996. Nonindigenous Aquatic and 

8 Selected Terrestrial Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of Introduction, 

9 Present Distribution, and Significant Ecological and Economic Effects. Published 

10 on the Internet, March 1996, by the University of Florida, Center for Aquatic 

11 Plants, Gainesville. Web site: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html. 

12 McCarthy, H. P., and L. B. Crowder. 2000. “An Overlooked Scale of Global Transport: 

13 Phytoplankton Species Richness in Ballast Water.” Biological Invasions 2: 321–2. 

14 McCarthy, S. A., and F. M. Khambaty. 1994. “International Dissemination of Epidemic 

15 Vibrio Cholerae by Cargo Ship Ballast and Other Nonpotable Waters.” Applied 

16 and Environmental Microbiology 60: 2597-601. 

17 McKay, B., and K. Mulvaney. 2001. “A Review of Marine Major Ecological Disturbances 

18 (MMEDs).” Endangered Species UPDATE 18(1):14–24. 14 Jan. 2003. 

19 Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, C. L. Secor. 1993. “Exotic Species in the Great 

20 Lakes: A History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions”. Journal of 

21 Great Lakes Research 19(1): 1-54. 

22 Mooney, H. A. and J. A. Drake. 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America 

23 and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

24 Morris, W. and D. Doak. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice 

25 of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 

26 MSGP. 2004. “Superior Pursuit: Facts about the Greatest Great Lake”. Minnesota Sea 

27 Grant Program, Duluth, MN. Web site: 

28 http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/tourism/pursuit.html. 

29 Naddafi, R., K. Pettersson, and P. Eklöv. 2007. “The Effect of Seasonal Variation in 

30 Selective Feeding by Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on phytoplankton 

31 community composition.” Freshwater Biology. 52: 823-842. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-16 

1 NatureServe. Explorer. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer 

2 NMFS. No date. “Marine Mammals.” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. 

3 Accessed 11 July 11, 2007. 

4 NMFS. 2003a. Statistical Highlights: Fisheries of the United States, 2003. U.S. 

5 Department of Commerce, NOAA. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries 

6 Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD. 

7 NMFS. 2003b. Sustaining and Rebuilding. NMFS 2003 Report to Congress. The Status of 

8 United States Fisheries. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. National Marine 

9 Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. Web site: 

10 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.pdf. 

11 NMFS. 2006a. National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, 

12 Fisheries and Economics. Web site: 

13 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconectio

14 ns/num5.htm. Accessed: March 16. 2006. 

15 NMFS. 2006b. National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat Protection Division. Essential 

16 Fish Habitat (EFH). Web site: 

17 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index.htm. Accessed: 

18 March 16, 2006. 

19 NOAA. 1995. Setting a New Course for United States Coastal Ocean Science. Phase I: 

20 Inventory of Federal Programs. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

21 and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 

22 NOAA. 2002. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 

23 Associated States: 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

24 Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal 

25 Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 

26 NOAA. 2003. National Marine Sanctuaries. Web site: http://sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/. 

27 NOAA. 2004a. GLERL Nonindigenous Species Research Program. U.S. Department of 

28 Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Great Lakes 

29 Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), Ann Arbor, MI. Web site: 

30 http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/nsmain.html. 

31 NOAA. 2004b. International Year of the Ocean Fact Sheets: Coastal Tourism. U.S. 

32 Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-17 

1 National Ocean Service/National Sea Grant Program, Silver Spring, MD. Web 

2 site: http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/facts/tourism.htm. 

3 NOAA. 2007. Current State of Understanding About the Effectiveness of Ballast Water 

4 Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) 

5 Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and 

6 Analysis of Existing Information. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142. 

7 Ruiz, G.M. and Reid, D.F., eds. 

8 NOEP. 2004. California: 1999–2000 State Summary of Coastal and Ocean Social and 

9 Economic Trends. National Ocean Economic Program, California State University 

10 at Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA. Web site: 

11 http://noep.csumb.edu/Download/statesum/CalSummary.pdf. 

12 NRC. 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Research Council. 

13 National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

14 NRC. 1996. Stemming the Tide – Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by 

15 Ships’ Ballast Water. National Research Council. National Academy Press, 

16 Washington, DC. 

17 NSRE. 2000. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000: Project 

18 Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 and 2010. U.S. Department of 

19 Commerce, NOAA. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Silver 

20 Spring, MD. Web site: 

21 http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/projection_exec_sum.pdf. 

22 Nybakken, J. W. 1993. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. Harper Collins, New 

23 York. 

24 O'Neill, C. R., Jr. 1997. Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels – Results of the 1995 

25 National Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse Study. New York Sea Grant 

26 Institute. 

27 ORHAB. 2004. HAB Impacts on Washington Coast. Olympic Region Harmful Algal 

28 Blooms. Web site: http://www.orhab.org/impacts/index.html. 

29 OTA. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. U.S. Congress Office 

30 of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC. 

31 Pew. 2003. “America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. A Report to 

32 the Nation: Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy”. Pew Oceans 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-18 

1 Commission. May 2003. Web site: 

2 http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_report_summary.pdf. 

3 Pimentel, D. L., R. Z. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. “Environmental and 

4 Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States”. BioScience

5 50(1): 53-65. 

6 Randall, A. and H. Gollamudi. 2001. “Dealing with the Analytical Challenges of 

7 Valuation: Aquatic Nuisance Species Control”. In: Revealing the Value of 

8 Protecting the Great Lakes. Northeast Midwest Institute and National Oceanic and 

9 Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, pp.157-166. 

10 Reynolds, K. A., I. T. Knight, C. S. Wells, I. L. Pepper, and C. P. Gerba. 1999. “Detection 

11 of Human Pathogenic Protozoa and Viruses in Ballast Water Using Conventional 

12 and Molecular Methods.” Abstract Q-318. General Meeting of the American 

13 Society for Microbiology, Chicago, IL. 

14 Ricciardi, A. 2001. “Facilitative Interactions Among Aquatic Invaders: Is an ‘Invasional 

15 Meltdown’ Occurring in the Great Lakes?” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513-

16 2525. 

17 Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. “Extinction Rates of North American 

18 Freshwater Fauna.” Conservation Biology 13(5):1220–2. 

19 Rigby, G. R. and G. M. Hallegraeff. 1993. “Shipping Ballast Water Trials on the Bulk 

20 Carrier M.V. Iron Whyalla”. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Ballast 

21 Water Research Series. Australian Government Publishing Service. Report No. 2. 

22 Canberra. 

23 Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton. 2003. “Invasion Vectors: A Conceptual Framework for 

24 Management”. In: Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies, G. M. 

25 Ruiz and J. T. Carlton, eds. Pp. 459-504. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

26 Ruiz, G.M., P. W. Fofonoff, J. T. Carlton, M. J.Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000a. 

27 “Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, 

28 Processes, and Biases.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 481-531. 

29 Ruiz, G. M., T. K. Rawlings, F. C. Dobbs, L. A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R. R. 

30 Colwell. 2000b. “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships.” Nature 408: 49–

31 50. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-19 

1 Ruiz, G. M., J. T. Carlton, E. Grosholz, and A. Hines. 1997. “Global Invasions of Marine 

2 and Estuarine Habitats by Nonindigenous Species: Mechanisms, Extent, and 

3 Consequences.” American Zoologist 37: 621–32. 

4 Ruiz, G. M., A. W. Miller, R. A. Everett, and B. P. Steves. In prep. “Hull Fouling as a 

5 Vector for Marine Invasions: A Biogeographical Analysis of Ship Arrival Patterns 

6 in the United States”. 

7 Sanders, N. J., N. J. Gotelli, N. E. Heller, and D. M. Gordon. 2003. “Community 

8 Disassembly by an Invasive Species”. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 100 (5): 2474-2477. 

9 Schardt, J. and J. Ludlow. 2000. “Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in 

10 Florida Public Waters”. Aquatics 22(1): 9-13. 

11 Smith, L. D., M. J. Wonham, L. D. McCann, D. M. Reid, G. R. Ruiz, and J. T. Carlton. 

12 1996. Shipping Study II: Biological Invasions by Nonindigenous Species in United 

13 States Waters: Quantifying the Role of Ballast Water and Sediments, Parts I and II. 

14 Final Report of National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project 

15 R/ES-6 to Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard. Report No. 

16 CG-D-02-97. Government Accession No. AD-A321543. 

17 Solow, A. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 

18 December 15, 2005. 

19 Stachowitz, J., J. Terwin, R. Whitlach, and R. Osman. 2002. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99 

20 (24):15497-15500. 

21 Strayer, D. L. and H. M. Malcolm. 2007. “Effects of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena 

22 polymorpha) on Native Bivalves: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?” 

23 J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 26(1): 111-122. 

24 Taylor, M. D. and E. J. Bruce. 2000. “Mid-Ocean Ballast Water Exchange: Shipboard 

25 Trials of Methods for Verifying Efficiency”. Prepared by Cawthron Institute and 

26 Battelle for the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Cawthron Report No. 524. 

27 TOC. 2003. “The Shifting Baseline Syndrome”. The Ocean Conservancy. Web site: 

28 http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/fsShiftingBaselines.pdf?docID=2

29 10. 

30 Tomelleri, J.R., and Eberle, M.E. 1990. Fishes of the Central United States. University 

31 Press of Kansas. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-20 

1 US Census Bureau. 2005. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005. 

2 Washington, DC. 

3 USCG. 2000. “National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Regulations and Policy 

4 for Considering Environmental Impacts.” U.S. Coast Guard. COMDTINST 

5 M16475.1D. U.S. Department of Transportation, USCG, Washington, DC. 

6 November 29, 2000. 

7 USCG. 2001. “Report to Congress on the Voluntary National Guidelines for Ballast Water 

8 Management”. USCG, Washington D.C. 

9 USCG. 2003. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water Management 

10 Program for United States Waters. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 

11 Washington, DC. 

12 USCG. 2008. Standards for Living Organisms in Ship’s Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. 

13 Waters: Final Draft Regulatory Analysis for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.U.S. 

14 Department of Homeland Security, USCG, Washington, DC.

15 USCOP. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. U.S. Commission 

16 on Ocean Policy. Washington, DC. 2004. ISBN#0–9759462–0–X. Web site: 

17 http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report

18 .pdf. 

19 USDA. 2006. “Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia: Emerging Disease Notice.” July 2006. 

20 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_files/vhsgreatlak

21 es.htm. 

22 USGS. 1999. “Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources”. U.S. Geological 

23 Survey. Web site: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/index.htm. 

24 USGS. 2004a. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. U.S. Geological Service. Web site: 

25 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. 

26 USGS. 2004b. Eurasian Ruffe. U.S. Geological Service. Upper Midwest Environmental 

27 Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI. Web site: 

28 http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/eurasian_ruffe.html. 

29 USGS. 2005. “Nonindigenous Species Information Bulletin. Asian Shore Crab, Japanese 

30 Shore Crab, Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan) (Arthropoda: 

31 Grapsidae)”. U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, FISC, Aquatic Resource 

32 Studies, Gainesville, FL. Web site: 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-21 

1 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Asian_shore_crab/asian_shore_crab

2 .html. 

3 USGS. 2006. Nonindigenous Species Database. U.S. Geological Service. Web site: 

4 http://nas.er.usgs.gov. 

5 USPC. 2002. Great Lakes Strategy 2002 – A Plan for the New Millennium. U.S. Policy 

6 Committee for the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

7 Washington, D.C. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/. 

8 U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 2001. Oversight Hearing to Receive Testimony 

9 on the Goals and Priorities of the Member Tribes of the Midwest Alliance of 

10 Sovereign Tribes/Intertribal Bison Cooperative for the 107th Congress. Testimony 

11 of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Concerning Natural Resource 

12 Issues. June 19, 2001. 

13 Vitousek, P. M., L. R. Walker, L. D. Whiteaker, D. Mueller-Dombois, and P. A. Matson. 

14 1987. “Biological Invasion by Myrica faya Alters Ecosystem Development in 

15 Hawaii.” Science: 238: 802-804. 

16 Wilcove, D. S., and L. Y. Chen. 1998. “Management Costs for Endangered Species.” 

17 Conservation Biology 12(6): 1405–7. 

18 Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 2003. “Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining 

19 aquatic resource”. Web site: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/f076.htm - 15629 

20 Williams, R. J., E .L. Berlow, J. A. Dunne, A-L. Barabási, and N. D. Martinez. 2002. 

21 “Two degrees of Separation in Complex Food Webs”. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99(20): 

22 12913-12916. 

23 Wonham, M .J., W. C. Walton, A. M. Frese, and G. M. Ruiz. 1996. “Transoceanic 

24 Transport of Ballast Water: Biological and Physical Dynamics of Ballasted 

25 Communities and the Effectiveness of Mid-Ocean Exchange”. Technical Report. 

26 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Foundation and the Compton Foundation. (p. 42). 

27 Wonham, M. J., W. C. Walton, G. M. Ruiz, A. M. Frese, and B. S. Galil. 2001. “Going to 

28 the Source: Role of the Invasion Pathway in Determining Potential Invaders.” 

29 Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 1–12. 

30 Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. “Mid-Ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 

31 Water. 1: Seasonal Factors Affecting the Transport of Harmful Diatoms and 

32 Dinoflagellates”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 243-25. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-22 

1 Zo, Y., C. Grimm, M. Matte, G. Matte, I. T. Knight, A. Huq, and R. R. Colwell. 1999. 

2 “Detection and Enumeration of Pathogenic Bacteria in Ballast Water of 

3 Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resistance to Common 

4 Antibiotics.” Abstract Q-317. General Meeting of the American Society for 

5 Microbiology, Chicago, IL. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-1 

1 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL 

2 METHODOLOGY, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-2 

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 2 

3 LIST OF TABLES 3 

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 

5 2.0 A QUATIC NIS INVASION PROCESS 7 

6 2.1 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of NIS 10 

7 3.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC 

8 NIS IMPACTS 13 

9 3.1 Evaluation Criteria 13 

10 3.2 Analytical Methodologies Initially Considered 14 

11 4.0 RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 21 

12 4.1 Rationale for Selection of Population Viability Analysis 

13 as the Preferred Analytical Methodology 21 

14 4.2 Description of Population Viability Analysis and 

15 Application to the Analysis of the NEPA Alternatives 23 

16 4.3 Discussion and Limitations of Population Viability 

17 Analysis 26 

18 5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 28 

19 5.1 Single Species Scenario 28 

20 5.2 Multiple Species Scenario 34 

21 5.3 Conclusions 40 

22 6.0 REFERENCES 42 

23 7.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 45 

24 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-3 

1 LIST OF TABLES

2 Table 5-1: Values of f (factor measuring the reduction in the initial population size of NIS) 

3 for each size class of organisms. .................................................................................... 31 

4 Table 5-2: Extinction probabilities (Pe) for selected values of c (biological parameter) and 

5 density of organisms. ..................................................................................................... 33 

Table 5-3: Range of values of fe (extinction probability factor fe = f

-c 6 ) for Alternatives 2, 3, 

7 and 4, for the values of c (Table 5-2) and f (Table 5-1) used in the analysis of 

8 alternatives. .................................................................................................................... 33 

9 Table 5-4: Range of values of fr (mean rate of successful introductions relative to the 

10 baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c and f used in the analysis ..... 34 

11 Table 5-5: Estimated percentage of ships that would be affected by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

12 compared to the baseline Alternatives 1A (no action) and 1B (ballast water exchange).

13 ........................................................................................................................................ 38 

14 Table 5-6: Estimated quartiles, mean, and standard deviation of the total initial number of 

15 organisms released (N0(m)) in a single ballast water discharge for the Alternative 

16 management options. Values for Alternatives 1A (“no action”), 1B (ballast exchange), 

17 and 2 (the IMO standard) from Minton et al., 2005. ...................................................... 39 

Table 5-7: Ordered relative abundances of 12 species under the geometric model (12). 18 π j = 

19 the relative proportion of the total abundance comprised by each species. ................... 40 

20 Table 5-8: The probability q(m) that at least one species is successfully introduced for each 

ballast water management option assuming the median value of ) ( 21 0 mN from Table 5-

22 6, the relative abundances in Table 5-7, and for Ne = 1, 100 and c = 0.000008, 0.00008.

23 ........................................................................................................................................ 41 

24 Table 5-9: Relative efficiencies of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for Ne = 1, 100 using ‘no 

25 management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines, from values in Table 5-8. ....... 42 

26 

27 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-4 

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

2 This report was prepared to provide the technical foundation for the Draft Programmatic 

3 Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) developed in support of the United States Coast 

4 Guard (USCG) Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS) rulemaking. The USCG is the 

5 lead Federal agency in preventing the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species 

6 (NIS) via shipping activities in U.S. waters. As such, the USCG is proposing to establish a 

7 BWDS that is effective in preventing or reducing the introduction and spread of NIS via 

8 discharged ballast water. A major pathway for the introduction of NIS is ballast water 

9 discharged from vessels entering U.S. waters after operating in foreign waters. In cases 

10 where they invade native ecosystems, NIS can alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and 

11 biodiversity, impact commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, 

12 result in potential risks to human health, and generally cause detrimental economic impacts 

13 (USCG 2003). 

14 To satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance requirements in 

15 relation to the proposed BWDS rulemaking for NIS in ships’ ballast water, the USCG is in 

16 the process of preparing a DPEIS. The USCG will use the DPEIS to make an informed 

17 decision in relation to the BWDS rulemaking and to fully understand the national 

18 implications of the decision. The DPEIS presents the alternatives developed by the USCG 

19 as part of the BWDS rulemaking process and addresses their potential consequences on the 

20 natural and human environments. The alternatives considered in this DPEIS relate to the 

21 development of a national program to aid in the prevention and reduction of the introduction 

22 of NIS from BWD into U.S. waters. The purpose of the DPEIS is to identify the potential 

23 environmental impacts from the concentrations of living organisms remaining in discharged 

24 ballast water that meet the BWDS prescribed under each alternative. Therefore, the analysis 

25 of potential impacts is based on the changes in the concentrations of organisms in BWD. 

26 The implementation of a BWDS for preventing or reducing the introduction of aquatic NIS 

27 involves two levels of environmental impact consideration: (1) an evaluation of aquatic NIS 

28 introduction and associated potential consequences; and (2) the potential environmental 

29 impacts from the particular management methods used to meet the established standard. 

30 This Technical Report only addresses the first level of environmental impact consideration. 

31 It does not consider the potential impacts associated with the implementation of BWT 

32 technologies and methods to meet the BWDS implemented (including chemical residuals, 

33 reaction by-products, thermal pollution, energy use, and dockside impacts). Thus, the NEPA 

34 alternatives considered in this DPEIS differ only in their respective reduction in the 

35 concentration of individual organisms introduced. 

36 The technical report will assess feasible analytical methodologies for the evaluation of the 

37 potential consequences to the natural and human environments of the NEPA alternatives 

38 analyzed in the DPEIS and recommend a preferred approach for performing the analysis, 

39 and describe the results and conclusions of the analysis. As explained in detail below, the 

40 high degree of complexity of aquatic ecosystems, the limited knowledge of the ecological 

41 interactions taking place in them, and the large variability involved in the transport of 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-5 

1 aquatic organisms via ballast water, make it extremely difficult to predict which NIS are 

2 introduced, which may become established, and especially, which may have adverse effects 

3 on the ecosystems they invade. Thus, a scientifically valid approach (e.g., evidence of 

4 historical applications and validation) that uses the best available science and data (within 

5 reasonable resource constraints) and allows for the evaluation and comparison of the 

6 potential consequences of the NEPA alternatives presented in the DPEIS is needed, in order 

7 to provide a useful tool for the USCG in the decision-making process. This technical report 

8 provides the technical support for the USCG to select a valid and defensible analytical 

9 approach and analyzes the impacts of the BWDS rulemaking on the natural and human 

10 environments. 

11 The Volpe Center and Dr. Andrew Solow, Senior Scientist and Director of the Marine 

12 Policy Center at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution developed the proposed 

13 environmental analysis methodology. Dr. Solow is an expert in the fields of environmental 

14 statistics, ecological modeling, and statistical ecology. A scientist review team, composed 

15 of Dr. James Carlton, Director of the Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and 

16 Mystic Seaport and Professor of Marine Sciences at Williams College; Dr. David Smith, 

17 Associate Professor of Biological Sciences at Smith College; and Dr. Cabell Davis, Senior 

18 Scientist of the Biology Department at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, reviewed 

19 this work. All of these scientists are internationally recognized for their significant 

20 contributions to the fields of marine bioinvasions, ballast water transport of NIS, and the 

21 dynamics of plankton assemblages. The comments provided by the scientist review team 

22 were addressed and incorporated, and a revised environmental analysis methodology was 

23 developed and provided to the USCG and the cooperating agencies for review and comment. 

24 The agency comments were incorporated, and the proposed environmental analysis 

25 methodology was presented to the USCG. 

26 The Volpe Center and Dr. Solow developed the analysis, results, and conclusions of the 

27 selected methodology, including the implementation of the model selected for the analysis. 

28 This work constitutes the main components of this technical report, which was also 

29 evaluated by the scientist review team, the USCG, and cooperating agencies. In addition, 

30 Dr. Carlton Hunt, Senior Scientist at Battelle Science and Technology International, 

31 reviewed the methodology, analysis, results, and conclusions. Dr. Hunt has extensive 

32 experience in marine resources and NEPA compliance. All relevant and practicable 

33 comments from the reviewers were addressed and incorporated, with the aim of enhancing 

34 the work and its presentation. This comprehensive approach allowed the USCG to develop 

35 a scientifically defensible methodology to support the analysis of the NEPA alternatives in 

36 the DPEIS. 

37 Section 2 of this technical report provides an overview of the aquatic NIS invasion process 

38 and a review of the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the prediction of aquatic 

39 NIS invasions and its associated impacts. This background information provides important 

40 context for evaluating the analytical methodologies considered. The next section presents a 

41 summary of the criteria and process used to evaluate the different methodological 

42 approaches considered, the approaches evaluated, and descriptions of their conceptual and 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-6 

1 practical advantages and limitations. The potential applicability of the approaches to the 

2 analysis of the NEPA alternatives is highlighted. 

3 Based on the evaluation of the approaches considered, Section 4 of the technical report 

4 describes the analytical methodology recommended for use in support of the analysis 

5 presented in the DPEIS. This includes a description of the rationale for the selection of the 

6 recommended methodology, and the way in which it allows analysis and differentiation of 

7 the levels of potential impacts under the NEPA alternatives. The description of the 

8 recommended analytical methodology includes a summary of the theoretical approach and 

9 general assumptions, the data used, and the main advantages and limitations. Then, in 

10 Section 5 the technical report presents the results obtained from the analysis, which are the 

11 basis for the interpretation and conclusions presented in the Environmental Consequences 

12 Chapter of the DPEIS. Finally, Section 6 presents the references used for preparing the 

13 document and the scientific literature researched for evaluating alternative methodological 

14 approaches, selecting the recommended approach, and performing the analysis. 

 15 

 16 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-7 

1 2.0 AQUATIC NIS INVASION PROCESS

2 This section provides a brief summary of the scientific understanding of the aquatic NIS 

3 invasion process. It highlights the factors and events related to the introduction and 

4 successful establishment of aquatic NIS transported by a vector (e.g., ballast water). For the 

5 purposes of the DPEIS, the analysis focuses on the transport of individual organisms in 

6 ballast water and release into a new location (introduction), and the evaluation of whether 

7 these individuals provide the basis for successful population growth and survival 

8 (establishment). 

9 NIS introduction occurs when a species survives transport by a vector and is released into a 

10 new environment. Establishment occurs when the introduced species reproduces and 

11 spreads in its new environment. Thus, in simple terms, it is assumed that NIS are introduced 

12 when individual organisms are transported in ballast water and released into a new, non13 native, location, whereas establishment occurs when introduced NIS establish a viable 

14 population. Impacts occur when an introduced species establishes a population that alters 

15 the ecology, food web, or fisheries, or otherwise disrupts the natural ecosystem or 

16 socioeconomics of an environment or region. 

17 Many factors affect the survival, spread, and proliferation of introduced species, including 

18 basic climatic factors and food resources, the nature of the reproductive biology of a species, 

19 and the presence or absence of competitors, predators, and parasites (Carlton 1996). The 

dispersal of introduced NIS occurs through vectors9 20 – the physical means or agent for 

21 transporting a species. In broad terms, the successful establishment of NIS involves seven 

22 sequential events, each having an associated probability of occurrence: (1) interface of 

23 species with transport vector; (2) vector take-up (engaging) of specific species; (3) survival 

24 of the transport event; (4) release from vector; (5) initial survival upon release; (6) 

25 establishment of first reproducing population; and (7) establishment of long-term 

26 reproducing populations. 

27 Each of these events is briefly described below, in a summary largely drawn from Carlton 

28 (1985). Some of these events may not be directly relevant to the discussion of potential 

29 impacts of BWDSs in this DPEIS, but they help in presenting the overall context of the NIS 

30 invasion process: 

 

9

 Vector is the physical means or agent by which a species is transported. Ballast water is the vector of interest 

in this DPEIS, but many others exist and play an important role in the dispersal of NIS worldwide, including 

ships’ hulls (fouling organisms), drilling platforms and dry docks, fisheries activities, and the aquarium pet 

industry. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-8 

1 1. Probability of interfacing with transport vector – species in the water column may or 

2 may not be immediately adjacent to the vessel at the moment the vessel is in a 

3 position to engage the local biota by drawing in ballast water. There is large 

4 temporal and spatial variability (determined by currents, tides, temperatures, salinity, 

5 stochastic events such as storms, as well as random probability) of the probability of 

6 interfacing with the transport vector, which can change within minutes to hours (as 

7 well as seasonally and annually). This temporal and spatial variability of the 

8 probability of interface determines which species are or are not in the available 

9 species pool for transport to a different location. 

10 2. Probability of transport vector engaging specific species – only a subset of the pool 

11 of available species immediately next to the vessel are actually taken into the vessel. 

12 That is, being adjacent to the ship and within the effective zone of a vessel’s ballast 

13 water intake at the time of ballasting does not necessarily result in uptake. For 

14 example, species such as some shrimp and fish actively detect a water current (like 

15 the one created by the uptake of ballast water) and swim away from it. In addition, 

16 other species may not be engaged in the water flow as readily as others, even when 

17 acting as passive particles (e.g., planktonic organisms), due to their size, shape, or 

18 relative density. 

19 3. Probability of surviving the transport event – a substantial number of factors interact 

20 to determine the probability of a transported species surviving before being released. 

21 For example, the uptake process (including injury due to physical contact with the 

22 ship and its systems), light, temperature, salinity, oxygen, food, voyage duration, and 

23 other variables during transport all play an important role. Given the fact that there 

24 are thousands of species being transported in ballast water, it is particularly difficult 

25 to characterize the probabilities, except in very broad terms (i.e., the large variability 

26 in terms of the type of organisms entrained as well as the physical conditions in the 

27 ballast water, creates both ‘species specific’ and ‘voyage specific’ probabilities). 

28 4. Probability of being released – not all species transported are released; for example, 

29 organisms in a ballast tank may not leave the ballast tank, if not all of the water is 

30 discharged, or if the organisms in question are fouling species that attach themselves 

31 to the inside of the tank or imbed in the sediment that collects in the ballast tank. 

32 Organisms in a ballasted cargo hold are always either fully discharged (since the 

33 cargo now replaces 100% of the ballast water) or die in transport (organisms that 

34 have settled on the cargo hold walls die of exposure, desiccation, or smothering by 

35 the cargo) (Carlton 2005). It is important to distinguish between these two different 

36 ballast systems (ballast tank and ballastable cargo hold) because of the long-term 

37 potential of ballast water in ballast tanks to not result in complete release after each 

38 voyage, which can then lead to colonies of living organisms in ballast tanks that 

39 remain there for a considerable period of time. These organisms could essentially re40 seed the ship with larvae or other propagules, and pose a risk for future introductions 

41 even without new ballasting. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-9 

1 5. Probability of initial survival upon release – regardless of inoculum size (the number 

2 of released individuals of any life stage), most released species (and perhaps all 

3 released species for most discharge events) do not survive after release. In addition, 

4 the discharge process can also result in injury to transported organisms due to 

5 physical contact with the ship systems. The scientific community does not have a 

6 complete understanding of the reasons for this, although some of the many potential 

7 causes include post-transport physiological weakness, post-transport starvation, 

8 physiological mismatch with the new environment once released, predation 

9 (consumption) at the release site, and competition with the resident biota. Over the 

10 decades, numerous vessels arriving in U.S. coastal waters have discharged millions 

11 of organisms (e.g., diatoms, copepods, worm larvae), which have appear to result in 

12 relatively few invasions. This fact is interpreted by the scientific community as the 

13 result of failure of initial survival. However, there is no certainty in this, as many 

14 other factors could be coming into play, including: many of the organisms could 

15 have survived but not reproduced, and therefore failed to establish permanent 

16 populations; invasions could simply be overlooked for abundant, but poorly studied 

17 organisms and as such not recognized as invaders (seriously skewing our 

18 appreciation of the extent of invasions); or some established species that are 

19 considered rare may have population levels so low that they are below our ability to 

20 detect them without targeted searches. 

21 6. Probability of establishing the first reproducing population – as a general 

22 proposition, the probability that a species reproduces and becomes successfully 

23 established is positively related to the number of individual organisms that are 

24 introduced. Thus, the number of organisms of a particular species released via 

25 ballast water is a potentially important determinant of the probability that a 

26 population establishes its first reproducing population. However, it is important to 

27 highlight that the probability that an inoculum may result in an established 

28 population may also be largely dependent on dilution of the inoculum, 

29 hydrodynamics of water flow, and local microtopographic features, which affect the 

30 distribution of introduced organisms in the new environment. Those factors affect 

31 the ability to reproduce by influencing the probability that organisms of the same 

32 species interact with each other. However, there are a number of life stages and 

33 sexual and asexual reproductive modes which may characterize organisms in BW. 

34 For example, the presence of ovigerous females, bacteria, and spore-releasing 

35 organisms can result in elevated reproductive potential of the species in the receiving 

36 waters and is independent of the number of organisms released. 

37 7. Probability of establishing long-term reproducing populations – the establishment of 

38 long-term reproducing populations is dependent on a wide range of biological and 

39 physical variables. In addition, it is important to note that there is no scientific 

40 consensus about the meaning of "long-term" reproducing populations. For example, 

41 there are many scientists who, observing a new invader with multiple populations in 

42 a specific ecosystem and with multiple generations represented, argue that sampling 

43 needs to be conducted some time in the future (5 or 10 years) to verify whether the 

44 species is still present before concluding that long-term establishment has occurred. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-10 

1 For the purposes of this DPEIS, it is assumed that when a species is widespread, with 

2 multiple generations in a specific ecosystem, it is established. However, it is 

3 important to clarify that established reproducing populations may go extinct at some 

4 time in the future. 

5 While each event is important and must be realized for invasion success, the most critical 

6 event for prevention of invasions is release. If the numbers released are sufficiently low that 

7 establishment does not occur the invasion is prevented. 

8 2.1 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of NIS 

9 Biological and physical interactions in aquatic ecosystems are highly complex. Aquatic 

10 organisms are not static, isolated entities that merely occupy space in the water column or 

11 the benthic environment of aquatic ecosystems; they interact dynamically with their 

12 physical, chemical, and biological environment as components of an ecosystem. In addition, 

13 there is very limited information about the biology and ecology of the majority of aquatic 

14 species. The BWDS rulemaking is national in nature and thus applicable to widely diverse 

15 aquatic ecosystems throughout the U.S., thus increasing the relevance of the limitations of 

16 our knowledge for analyzing the alternatives in the DPEIS. These limitations, together with 

17 the variability involved in the transport of aquatic organisms via ballast water, makes it 

18 extremely difficult to predict which NIS from a potential pool of thousands of species are 

19 likely to be delivered, which NIS are likely to become successfully established, and which 

20 NIS are likely to significantly affect the invaded ecosystems. 

21 The introduction and establishment of species into a new environment is so complex and full 

22 of variability and uncertainty, that it has been called “a game of ecological roulette” (Carlton 

23 and Geller 1993). The complexities associated with – and the limited knowledge of – the 

24 invasion process make predicting which organisms arrive, their origin, the time of their 

25 arrival, and whether they survive, persist, spread, and proliferate, an exceptionally 

26 challenging problem. 

27 Invasion rates vary dramatically with region and propagule delivery (vector) history. One of 

28 the main factors to be considered in the current context is the large variability in the 

29 densities of organisms transported via ballast water. Sampling studies show that organism 

30 densities in ballast water can range from very low (as little as 1 individual per cubic meter) 

31 to very high (thousands per cubic meter) (Carlton 2001, Cohen 1998). Low observed 

32 densities are generally associated with sampling schemes targeting multicellular forms or 

33 larger protists. In many cases, however, the bacterial and viral components may exist in 

34 higher concentrations. Furthermore, the potential number of organisms released by a given 

35 vessel could be considerable depending on the total amount of BW discharged. In addition, 

36 survival varies greatly in transits. However, in general, the longer the voyage, the more 

37 organisms die. Exceptions are species that reproduce in situ in the water column or that 

38 reproduce from the ballast benthic communities and shed larvae into the water column, and 

39 organisms that go into a resistant or dormant stage such as dinoflagellates cysts that can 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-11 

1 persist in the sediments when stressful conditions are intolerable for vegetative or 

2 reproductive stages. 

3 The extinction threshold (or conversely, the minimum number of organisms necessary for 

4 successful establishment) is unknown for most species under most conditions. For many 

5 organisms, the initial population sizes required for successful establishment upon release 

6 may be much lower than generally predicted. In theory, even a single organism, if 

7 monoecious, hermaphroditic, or parthenogenic, could establish a successful population. 

8 Many species that have such cycles have been found to be capable of successful 

9 establishment (Sakai et al. 2001) because they only need one individual to invade a new 

10 environment (Davis 2005). Thus, it is very difficult to determine whether a very small 

11 initial population size or a very large one led to successful establishment of a particular NIS. 

12 Understanding this would require detailed knowledge of the precise life stage of the specific 

13 species in question that would be released, in what numbers, into what ecosystem, and with 

what hydrodynamic10 14 conditions at the moment of release. Unfortunately, (most of the time, 

15 for most species, for most release events, at most places), only limited information is 

16 available, thus limiting the possibility of providing a more definitive assessment of the 

17 probability of invasion (Carlton 2005). It follows from the discussion above (e.g., in theory 

18 even a single organism of a particular species can lead to successful establishment) that it is 

19 impossible to accurately predict whether individuals of unknown species in a given vessel 

20 on a given voyage will become successfully established when released in a new 

21 environment, or go extinct. 

22 An additional complicating factor is that a large number of species are not studied to 

23 determine their potential invasive capacity in a new environment. Some of the main 

24 ecological factors that determine the invasive capacity of organisms in a new environment 

25 include niche availability, lack of predation, resource abundance, and competitive 

26 advantage. 

27 For example, the shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus is of no particular concern in its native 

28 Asia, but it became a highly invasive species (with significant ecological impacts) when 

 

10 In invasive species ecology, the "lagoonal hypothesis" argues that a few individuals can find themselves in a 

retention system that prevents loss due to export, such that a population can become established from a very 

small initial population size. This can be interpreted as meaning that most species simply do not successfully 

become established because upon release the individuals become so dispersed that the organisms do not locate 

each other to reproduce (not applicable to asexually reproducing species) even if some of these individuals 

survive and settle as transient species and establish an initially successful population. Thus, local (stochastic) 

events may facilitate invasion from a very small number of released organisms. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-12 

1 introduced to the U.S. Atlantic coast in the 1980s. In the 19 years since its discovery at 

2 Cape May, NJ in 1988, it has spread and can now be found in large numbers from Maine to 

3 the Carolinas. Further, detailed studies in Japan reveal that this crab is strictly a rocky shore 

4 (intertidal) species in its native range. However, on the U.S. Atlantic coast, it has become 

5 established in no fewer than five different habitats (USGS 2006). This was not a predictable 

6 outcome; thus, the invasion potential and impact of this species (and potentially many 

7 others) was not predictable from knowledge of its biology and ecology in its native 

8 environment (Carlton 2005). 

9 The context provided above sets the broader stage of the invasion process, and summarizes 

10 the variables that need to be considered to analyze the alternatives and their potential 

11 implications. It is important to clarify that, while (in general) the likelihood that any given 

12 individual of a particular species might go through all the steps previously described and 

13 become successfully established in the long-term is quite low, the likelihood that a vessel 

14 will release live organisms from ballast water is high. 

15 Current scientific knowledge makes predicting the fate of even a single population for even 

16 well studied organisms a very challenging problem. Indeed, Ludwig (1999) has argued that 

17 it is essentially impossible. The problem is even more challenging in the context of 

18 assessing the aggregate effect of the BWDSs (specified under the alternatives) on the rate at 

19 which NIS are introduced and become established in U.S. waters. This is because the 

20 populations of concern are difficult to identify and not well-studied. Predicting the 

21 ecological or economic impacts of NIS that successfully become established is even more 

22 challenging because cause and effect relationships would need to be established and well23 defined (Carlton 2001) and the current poorly resolved state of scientific knowledge makes 

24 the latter very difficult. It is important to clarify that the difficulty lies in the prediction of 

25 which species will become established and the nature and extent of their subsequent 

26 impacts, even if the likelihood of organisms being released is considerable. 

27 Management measures aimed at reducing the number of organisms released are implicitly or 

28 explicitly aimed at reducing the probability that a population will become established or, 

29 equivalently, increasing the probability that the relatively small initial population will 

30 become extinct after introduction. Thus, the BWDSs prescribed under the alternatives differ 

31 in the degree to which they reduce the number of organisms that are introduced via 

32 discharged ballast water. The number of individual organisms introduced will be referred to 

33 as the initial population size. Even when transport and release occur, ballast water 

34 management efforts that reduce the number of organisms released (such as the alternatives 

35 analyzed in the PEIS) can help to prevent successful establishment. As a general 

36 proposition, the probability that a population will become extinct is inversely related to the 

37 initial population size of the species of interest. 

38 NIS become successfully established when individual organisms are transported in ballast 

39 water and released into a new location in sufficient number to establish a population. If the 

40 number of released organisms is small, then they may simply die out before a population can 

41 become established. Small populations are more likely to go extinct than larger ones as a 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-13 

result of inbreeding depression11, genetic drift12 1 , and demographic stochasticity (related to 

2 the threat of chance birth or death events) (Boyce 1992). Therefore, the alternatives differ in 

3 the degree to which they increase extinction probability, or put another way, reduce the 

4 probability of establishment of NIS, by reducing the initial population size of NIS 

5 introduced via ballast water. 

 

11 Inbreeding depression is defined as a reduction in fitness and vigor of individuals as a result of increased 

homozygosity through inbreeding in a normally outbreeding population.

12 Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution that acts in concert with natural selection to change the 

characteristics of species over time. It is a stochastic effect that arises from the role of random sampling in the 

production of offspring. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-14 

1 3.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC 

2 NIS IMPACTS

3 This section provides the context for selecting an appropriate analytical methodology for 

4 evaluating and comparing the NEPA alternatives. This section begins with a discussion 

5 about the science of predicting a NIS invasion and its associated impacts. This discussion 

6 highlights the complexities associated with evaluating the alternatives and thus provides the 

7 necessary background for developing criteria for assessing the relative merits of the 

8 analytical methods considered. Additionally, the discussion provides general information 

9 regarding accepted (and validated) methodologies used in the scientific community to 

10 analyze the potential environmental impacts of aquatic NIS. The different approaches 

11 considered are briefly described, highlighting their theoretical differences, advantages, and 

12 limitations. The potential applicability of the different approaches to the analysis of the 

13 environmental impacts of the NEPA alternatives is also summarized. 

14 3.1 Evaluation Criteria 

15 This section describes the general requirements for analytical approaches that can be used to 

16 assess the effectiveness of the BWDSs prescribed under the alternatives in controlling the 

17 introduction and establishment of NIS. This section presents a summary of the main criteria 

18 developed for evaluating the analytical methods considered and recommending an approach 

19 to be used to understand the potential ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the 

20 alternatives. In doing so, this section focuses on the practical implications of the alternatives 

21 and the analysis needed to evaluate and compare them. 

22 Based on the requirements of NEPA, the analysis of the potential ecological consequences 

23 of the alternatives and thus the preparation of the Environmental Consequences section of 

24 the DPEIS must be based on a methodology that: (1) is scientifically valid (e.g., evidence of 

25 historical applications and validation); (2) uses the best available science and data; and (3) 

26 can be implemented within reasonable agency resource constraints. The analytical 

27 methodologies shall allow the evaluation and comparison of the potential consequences of 

28 the NEPA alternatives presented in the DPEIS, in order to provide a useful tool for the 

29 USCG in the decision-making process. 

30 The main goal of the analysis needed to evaluate and compare the potential impacts of the 

31 alternatives is to address the question: what is the likely effect on species establishment of 

32 reducing the initial number of individuals introduced in ballast water discharge? There are 

33 three basic approaches to address this question: (1) expert judgment; (2) empirical analysis 

34 involving either experimental data or historical data; and (3) modeling of population 

35 dynamics. 

 36 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-15 

 1 

2 3.2 Analytical Methodologies Initially Considered 

3 This section summarizes the main analytical approaches that could potentially be used for 

4 the analysis and comparison of the impacts of the NEPA alternatives. The analytical 

5 methodologies considered were selected based on their potential applicability for the 

6 analysis of the potential environmental impacts of aquatic NIS under the BWDSs prescribed 

7 in the alternatives. 

8 Expert Judgment 

9 The scientific community is only beginning to understand the dynamics of introduced 

10 populations and their potential ecological and economic impacts. In the absence of well 

11 defined empirically validated relationships, qualitative conclusions with respect to the 

12 effectiveness of the alternatives could be developed, based on expert judgment from 

13 scientists with extensive research experience in the field of aquatic invasive species ecology. 

14 Although such judgments have undeniable value, an approach based on expert judgment 

15 would violate the first two criteria under NEPA for the analysis of potential ecological 

16 consequences. Expert judgment would not be scientifically valid as demonstrated by 

17 evidence of historical applications and validation and would not be based on the use of the 

18 best available science because current scientific knowledge allows for the development of a 

19 more objective, analytical approach. Furthermore, given the severity of ecological and 

20 economic impacts due to NIS, the USCG decided that it would be preferable to develop and 

21 implement an analytical approach that would allow evaluation and comparison of the 

22 potential impacts of the alternatives on a quantitative basis, in order to provide more 

23 objective information to the decision-maker. 

24 Empirical Analysis 

25 To compare the alternatives in a quantitative way, it is necessary to have an understanding 

26 of the relationship between the number of individual organisms that are introduced (initial 

27 population size) and extinction probability. In principle, such an understanding could be 

28 assessed through empirical observations. That is, through designed experiments in which 

29 the initial numbers of introduced individuals are varied (to represent the implementation of 

30 the alternatives) and the rate of successful species introductions and establishments are 

31 observed and measured. However, such designed experiments would be unethical and 

32 probably illegal due to the potential for adverse and irreversible impacts. Thus, these kinds 

33 of data are not readily available, especially in light of all the potential species that would 

34 need to be considered. Importantly, the analysis of data arising from such an experiment 

35 would be exceedingly difficult, because ascertaining the fate of even a single species in an 

36 aquatic environment would be extremely challenging. 

37 Historical Analysis 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-16 

1 This approach focuses on the projection of future ecological conditions based on historical 

2 information. This post-hoc approach requires accurate identification of the types of 

3 organisms that have been introduced in the past, and, importantly, by which vectors. One of 

4 the main problems with this approach is that most of the data available from the scientific 

5 literature addresses only the last stage in the invasion process. For example, records are 

6 usually only available for established long-term reproducing populations, and not for 

7 organisms that were introduced but failed to establish successfully. In addition, the use of 

8 historical analysis may not be well suited to the analysis of the potential implications of the 

9 different alternatives under consideration because intentional introductions have rarely, if 

10 ever, involved the broad suites of organisms typically carried in ballast water. For the most 

11 part, intentional introductions of aquatic organisms have involved commercially important 

12 species using handling procedures designed to maximize survivorship during transport and 

13 physiological condition upon introduction, such as fish stocking. Furthermore, although 

14 “natural” experiments exist, they have not been adequately controlled or monitored, making 

15 them very difficult to interpret. Thus, because historical analysis does not adequately 

16 address the central question for the analysis and comparison of the alternatives, it was not 

17 considered further. 

18 Life-history analysis 

19 Life-history analysis focuses on analyzing the changes undergone by organisms throughout 

20 their life cycle and the interactive effects of these changes on the dynamics of populations. 

21 A growing body of recent literature supports the contention that statistically significant 

22 relationships exist between life history characteristics and the potential for invasiveness. 

23 Thus, life-history studies can be valuable for examining the introduction of invasive species 

24 and identifying critical life history stages during which management measures and strategies 

25 (i.e., BWDS) will be most effective. In addition, life-history theory can also be used to 

26 develop predictions of species likely to become serious pests once successfully established 

27 (Sakai et al. 2001). 

28 However, such generalizations usually fall short when studying the invasion potential of 

29 particular species. Studies suggest that features specific to the taxonomic group and to the 

30 habitat being invaded are also important in determining invasion success. Thus, the best 

31 approach for investigating traits of invaders might be one in which species are classified into 

32 functional groups with anticipated similar traits and where the focus is narrowed to 

33 particular habitat types (Sakai et al. 2001). 

34 Many organisms have received little or no study in their native environments, thus limiting 

35 the predictive ability of life-history analysis for diverse assemblages of plankton. In 

36 addition, the very large number of potential species that would need to be considered and the 

37 diversity of receiving ecosystems that would need to be analyzed make this analytical 

38 approach far too unwieldy given the many different possibilities that would need to be 

39 modeled. Life-history analysis is better suited for predicting the invasion potential and 

40 associated impacts of specific species of interest rather than for evaluating the effect of 

41 alternatives on large suites of species under highly variable circumstances. Thus, since life-
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-17 

1 history analysis does not adequately address the central question for the analysis and 

2 comparison of the alternatives, it was not considered further. 

3 Demographic Analysis 

4 Demographic analysis can be used to examine the establishment and impacts of invasive 

5 species. Coupled with information about the genetics, evolution, and interactions of 

6 invasive species and native species in invaded communities, demographic analysis may lead 

7 to predictions of the relative susceptibility of ecosystems to invasion by particular species, 

8 predictions of potential impacts resulting from successful establishment of invasive species, 

9 better methods for removal of key species, and predictions of the subsequent effects of 

10 removal (Sakai et al. 2001). 

11 In general, detailed information of demographic processes (e.g., growth, reproduction, 

12 dispersal, competition, species interactions) is essential for analyzing the population 

13 dynamics (and hence the potential for successful establishment and associated impacts) of 

14 invasive species. However, as is the case with life-history analysis, demographic analysis is 

15 better suited for predicting the invasion potential and associated impacts of specific species 

16 of interest for which extensive information is available. Thus, since demographic analysis is 

17 not well suited for analyzing the potential implications of the alternatives, it was not 

18 considered further. 

19 Invasion spread analysis 

20 Invasion spread analysis can be used to analyze the spread of invasive species once 

21 successfully established. Several basic features of invasions, such as initial lags in 

22 population growth, rate of geographic spread, and features of geographic spread have been 

23 addressed using a variety of population modeling approaches (Sakai et al. 2001). 

24 Predictions of the rate and direction of spread of invasive species that have already become 

25 established are critical to evaluating the potential impacts of NIS. There is a strong body of 

26 scientific literature on the factors influencing broad-scale spread, such as long-distance 

27 dispersal, spatial and temporal heterogeneity, and Allee effects. In addition, range 

28 expansion models have been applied directly to resource management questions, such as 

29 which aquatic ecosystems are most likely to be invaded by a NIS of interest. Finally, non30 spatial, stage-structured models can also lead to valuable insights into the population biology 

31 of invasive species and have been used to estimate the potential effectiveness of control 

32 strategies that target specific life history stages. 

33 Invasion spread analysis is focused on describing in a quantitative way the spatial spread of 

34 populations as an invasion progresses. There are spatial and temporal variations in factors 

35 affecting spread, as well as large uncertainties in the density of organisms. Thus, even 

36 though classical invasion models are often successful in predicting spread rates, they give no 

37 indication of the spatial patterns arising from spatial correlations between individuals, as 

38 well as regarding the possibly patchy structure of the invasion “wave” (Lewis and Pacala 

39 2000). Thus, their predictive ability with regards to initial NIS establishment is limited. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-18 

1 Spatially explicit models, such as gravity models, allow dispersal to occur in heterogeneous 

2 environments over both short and long distances, and thus provide predictions of occurrence 

3 and spatial distribution of invasive species, hence overcoming the limitation of traditional 

4 invasion spread models (MacIsaac et al. 2004). 

5 However, as is the case with life-history analysis and demographic analysis, invasion spread 

6 analysis is better suited for predicting the spread potential of specific species of interest, 

7 rather than the potential for initial establishment. Thus, because invasion spread analysis 

8 does not address the relationship between inoculation size and probability of establishment, 

9 it is not well suited for analyzing the potential implications of the alternatives and to develop 

10 national level conclusions in support of the DPEIS, it was not considered further. 

11 Ecological niche modeling 

12 Ecological niche modeling is focused on predicting the potential geographic course of an 

13 invasion based on the ecological niche characteristics of a species in its native geographic 

14 distributional area. This approach is based on the premise that ecological niches constitute 

15 long-term stable constraints on the potential geographic distributions of species. The main 

16 goal of the approach is to produce a hypothesis about which ecological features are within a 

17 species’ niche and which are not. Therefore, this approach applies to almost any species for 

18 which a natural range is known, not merely well-studied species. The ecological niche 

19 model can then be projected onto an area of interest to identify geographic regions that 

20 present ecological conditions inside and outside of the species’ niche, thus producing a 

21 hypothesis of a potential geographic distribution for the species. The information on the 

22 potential spatial distribution of the species of interest can then be used to evaluate the 

23 potential impacts associated with the invasion process (Townsend 2003). 

24 As is the case with life-history analysis, demographic analysis, and invasion spread analysis, 

25 ecological niche modeling is better suited for predicting the spread potential of specific 

26 species of interest. In addition, as discussed above, we have little or no knowledge about the 

27 actual invasive abilities of most organisms, thus limiting the predictive ability of this 

28 approach, which is based on the assumption that organisms can only invade when the 

29 conditions in the new environment match those in their native environment. Because 

30 ecological niche modeling does not address the relationship between inoculation size and 

31 probability of establishment, and it is not well suited for analyzing the potential implications 

32 of the alternatives and to develop national level conclusions in support of the DPEIS, it was 

33 not considered further. 

34 Statistical and probabilistic analysis 

35 Stochastic population growth is of significant practical importance for predicting the fates of 

36 introduced and endangered populations. Stochastic analysis is a key element for evaluating 

37 temporal changes in populations. Temporal changes in gene frequency and population size 

38 are stochastic because events such as birth and death processes, predator-prey and 

39 competition interactions, reproduction, and survival cannot be predicted at the individual 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-19 

1 level but must be evaluated at the population level (Engen et al. 1998). In addition, the 

2 physical and biological environments of populations also change in often unpredictable 

3 ways, introducing additional stochasticity in ecological systems, which needs to be 

4 considered in order to understand the nature of population fluctuations. Thus, stochastic 

5 properties of population fluctuations are an important factor to consider when evaluating 

6 management measures like the ones dictated by the BWDS considered in the DPEIS. 

7 It has been proposed that stochastic models of population growth provide a reasonable 

8 method for conducting risk analysis for biological invasions. However, one of the main 

9 shortcomings of most stochastic models is that they are based on an assumption of no 

10 density dependence within populations. In addition, despite the widespread use of stochastic 

11 models for predicting future population growth, model predictions are only beginning to be 

12 validated with observational and experimental data. Furthermore, most studies have focused 

13 on the accuracy of quantitative estimates of extinction probability in natural populations and 

14 do not control for factors like environmental variation (Drake and Lodge 2004). Results 

15 from experiments in which environmental variation was manipulated along with initial 

16 population size and carrying capacity suggest that environmental variation can have an 

17 effect on population persistence time. The theory of population growth in variable 

18 environments predicts that increasing variation in environmental variables will increase the 

19 probability of extinction and decrease the average time to extinction (Lande and Orzack 

20 1988; Drake and Lodge 2004). In addition, some studies suggest that environmental 

21 variation will lead to a decrease in the probability of establishment and an increase in the 

22 time to establishment. 

23 The application of this analytical approach would require extensive knowledge of the 

24 organisms present in ballast water and comparison of that data with the organisms that 

25 actually become established. However, data on what organisms are present in ballast water 

26 is very limited and localized. In addition, data on what organisms actually become 

27 established as a consequence of ballast water mediated introductions is also very limited 

28 because most of the research focuses on particular species with potential for actual or 

29 perceived impacts. Thus, because this approach is not well suited for analyzing the potential 

30 implications of the alternatives and to develop national level conclusions in support of the 

31 DPEIS, it was not considered further. 

32 Population dynamics simulation models 

33 A comprehensive understanding of the structure (species composition and relative 

34 abundance) and function (energy flow and nutrient cycling) of aquatic ecosystems is 

35 necessary to understand the potential effects of environmental fluctuations and stressors 

36 such as the introduction and successful establishment of NIS. The structure, function, and 

37 dynamics of aquatic ecosystems can only be understood by considering biological processes 

38 at the level of individual populations acting in concert with processes over the domain of the 

39 entire community (Mann 1988). Local processes at the species level permanently change 

40 macroscopic properties of the system, which then impose new constraints on the species 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-20 

1 themselves (Mann 1988). Thus, a holistic approach is necessary for the derivation of 

2 ecological patterns at the ecosystem level (Gaedke 1995). 

3 However, the complexity of aquatic ecosystems does not allow the consideration of 

4 ecosystem dynamics in its entirety, forcing one to abstract from the particular situation 

5 under study. Therefore, ecosystem dynamics should be studied from as many angles as 

6 possible. This task is facilitated by the use of conceptual and mathematical models. 

7 Models, as simplified descriptions of the real world, portray distinct features of the natural 

8 systems they are designed to represent. Hence, mathematical models of population 

9 dynamics aid in the understanding of the dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Models are 

10 designed to either reproduce observed biological, physical, and chemical patterns or predict 

11 the effects of natural or anthropogenic environmental fluctuations on the temporal and 

12 spatial dynamics of the structure and function of the ecosystems they describe. 

13 Based on consultation with experts in the field of aquatic invasive species ecology and 

14 plankton ecology, the USCG decided that the focus of the analysis should be on developing 

15 a quantitative approach based on ecological principles that allows the alternatives to be 

16 evaluated in a relative manner. A model of population dynamics provides such an 

17 alternative approach. However, given the complexities associated with predicting the 

18 introduction and successful establishment of NIS and the unavailability of detailed 

19 information on the biology and ecology of most species carried in ballast water, it is evident 

20 that a generic and simple approach that requires relatively little data is needed to analyze the 

21 alternatives. This eliminates from further consideration complex modeling approaches that 

22 require extensive data for validation of the results, as well as species-specific approaches. 

23 This includes most structured and non-structured modeling approaches. 

24 Dynamic simulation models allow the unique possibility of studying the dynamic nature and 

25 spatiotemporal organization of aquatic ecosystems. In addition, they represent a coherent 

26 way to investigate direct and indirect cause-effect relationships of a large number of 

27 dynamic interacting processes (Gaedke 1995). However, they require extensive data and 

28 can have a high degree of complexity, which makes them inapplicable for the purposes of 

29 the analysis of the alternatives in the DPEIS. In addition, many of the available studies 

30 model the distribution of a single species, predicting its absence or presence, the abundance 

31 of a single species, or the total number of non-native species distributed across an area, 

32 which even though valuable for other purposes, do not aid in the analysis of the NEPA 

33 alternatives. Thus, this approach was not considered further. 

34 Ecological principles and empirical evidence strongly suggest that reductions in the number 

35 of living organisms initially introduced via ballast water reduce the probability of successful 

36 establishment of NIS. Therefore, a generic and relatively simple quantitative analytical 

37 approach is needed to evaluate the potential impacts of the alternatives associated with their 

38 effect on introduction and (thereby) establishment of NIS. The quantitative relationship 

39 between population size and extinction has been the subject of considerable attention in 

40 conservation biology, for example, in the literature on Minimum Viable Population (MVP) 

41 size (e.g., Soulé 1987). 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-21 

1 In the context of conservation, the concern is that the population size of an endangered 

2 species be large enough to ensure a high probability of persistence. In the context of 

3 preventing biological invasions, the concern is that the initial size of an introduced 

4 population be small enough to ensure a high probability of extinction. 

5 With the exception of initial population size, all of these factors depend greatly on very 

6 unpredictable circumstances that will vary from discharge to discharge. Given the fact that 

7 the alternatives establish (by definition) the initial population size of introduced NIS (albeit 

8 not species-specific), an approach that relates initial population size to the probability of 

9 successful establishment will provide the best means to evaluate the potential impacts of the 

10 alternatives. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-22 

1 4.0 RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

2 This section describes in detail the recommended analytical methodology for the analysis of 

3 the potential environmental impacts of the NEPA alternatives in support of the DPEIS. The 

4 discussion covers the rationale for the selection of the recommended methodology and the 

5 details of the methodological approach selected, including a summary of the theoretical 

6 approach and general assumptions, the data used, and its main advantages and limitations. 

7 Finally, this section highlights the way in which the recommended approach allows for the 

8 analysis of differential relative probabilities of establishment under the five NEPA 

9 alternatives, and thus provides a useful tool for the USCG in the decision-making process. 

10 Rationale for Selection of Population Viability Analysis as the Preferred 

11 Analytical Methodology 

12 Understanding the relationship between population size and extinction probability has been 

13 of central importance in conservation biology, where the goal is typically to decrease, rather 

14 than increase, the extinction probability. The main approach to addressing this question is 

15 called Population Viability Analysis (PVA). PVA refers to the use of quantitative methods 

16 to predict the likely future status of a population or collection of populations of conservation 

17 (or extinction) concern. PVA is performed by developing a mathematical model of the 

18 dynamics of the population of interest and using this model to predict the effect of varying 

19 the initial population size (or other factors) on extinction probability and other variables of 

20 interest in conservation (Boyce 1992). PVA is typically used to assess the conservation 

21 status of a particular population and therefore typically involves the development of a model 

22 of the dynamics of each population of interest separately. 

23 PVA is well suited to analyze the relative probabilities of extinction (the complement of the 

24 probability of ‘successful’ establishment) of nonindigenous species introduced to aquatic 

25 ecosystems in U.S. waters via ballast water. In principle, the approach is similar to the one 

26 used for conservation biology applications, but with different goals. Theoretical and 

27 practical applications of PVA to the analysis of the establishment of nonindigenous species 

28 in new environments have also been developed (Drake and Lodge, 2004). 

29 The use of PVA for analyzing and comparing the NEPA alternatives is recommended for 

30 four main reasons. First, PVA formalizes in quantitative terms the perspective strongly 

31 suggested by ecological principles and empirical evidence: that reductions in the number of 

32 living organisms introduced reduces the probability of successful establishment of NIS. 

33 This is a relationship that holds true for most taxa, except under highly unusual 

34 circumstances (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Simberloff, 1989; Carlton, 1996; Williamson, 

35 1996; Kolar and Lodge, 2001). Second, PVA (as recommended here for use in support of 

36 the analysis for the DPEIS) focuses on the analysis of extinction and acknowledges (in 

37 principle and through the analytical results) that except when the risk of extinction is 1.0, an 

38 introduction is possible. In other words, unless the BWDS results in complete sterilization 

39 of ballast water, there is a risk of NIS introduction. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-23 

1 Third, unlike many of the other models, PVA is appropriate for BWD in that it is not used to 

2 predict which species are more likely to establish, their rates of spread after release, or how 

3 life-history stages might affect the outcome. Lastly, existing empirical data supply 

4 information for the model’s parameters and thus allow the decision makers to use PVA to 

5 aid in their analysis. Specifically, taxonomic and numerical data on organisms in untreated 

6 BW are available and can be compared to the concentrations expected under the alternatives. 

7 PVA directly addresses the problem at hand, and data are available to implement the 

8 approach. Thus, the PVA approach meets the three main criteria set forth in Section 3 

9 because there is evidence of historical applications (Drake, 2004; Dennis et al., 1991), 

10 validation and assessment (see scientific publications evaluating the performance of PVA in 

11 the PVA literature review section in Chapter 7), it uses the best available science and data, 

12 and it is resource effective and practical to implement within reasonable agency constraints. 

13 PVA is widely accepted as the approach of choice in conservation biology (Boyce 1992; 

14 Beissinger and McCullough 2002), and its value as a tool for guiding conservation decision15 making has been recognized by the National Research Council, the Ecological Society of 

16 America, and The Nature Conservancy (Morris and Doak 2002). 

17 A central issue in undertaking this kind of analysis is the choice of the population model, 

18 with emphasis on the level of detailed data needed for the analysis, and the practicability of 

19 implementation based on data limitations and other constraints. The model recommended 

20 for use in the analysis of the NEPA alternatives is called a diffusion model. Although the 

21 diffusion model has a long history in population biology, it was first proposed by Dennis et 

22 al. (1991) as a routine tool for assessing the dynamics and extinction properties of a single 

23 population. 

24 The limitations of PVA have been widely studied. Among the challenges most extensively 

25 discussed in the literature are the difficulty of estimating population parameters when data 

26 are limited, the difficulty in identifying sources of stochasticity, and the large confidence 

27 intervals around probability estimates. A more fundamental challenge to PVA is that 

28 biological populations change through time according to processes like density dependence 

29 that are extremely difficult to capture by most population viability models. The lack of 

30 density dependence in diffusion models has stimulated interest in developing more 

31 sophisticated, nonlinear models to estimate density-dependent population parameters for use 

32 in PVA (Sabo et al. 2004). However, a larger number of parameters results in much larger 

33 data needs. As mentioned before, data on organisms introduced via ballast water and the 

34 proportion of species introductions that are successful is sparse at best. In addition, even if 

35 data were available, density-dependent parameter estimation is much more numerically 

36 intensive than the simple model required to estimate parameters using the diffusion model. 

37 Finally, the lack of density dependence is not a particularly relevant problem for populations 

38 introduced at relatively low initial abundances, as are the ones of interest in the current 

39 problem.

40 The diffusion model is recommended for the analysis because, in addition to meeting the 

41 three criteria described in Section 3, it has the following advantages. The diffusion model is 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-24 

1 a mainstay of PVA and is widely supported in the scientific literature (Dennis et al. 1991). 

2 The diffusion model has been shown to provide a good approximation to the dynamics of a 

3 population – such as a population of organisms immediately upon introduction – that is well 

4 below carrying capacity where density dependence is expected to be weak (Saether and 

5 Engen 2002). Lande and Orzack (1988) showed theoretically that this model provides a 

6 reasonable approximation of the dynamics of a population well below its carrying capacity. 

7 The model is relatively simple, involving only two parameters, and as explained before, for 

8 practical reasons it is not feasible to develop a complicated model for each combination of 

9 taxon and environment; particularly given the paucity of population data for species 

10 introduced into new environments. Lastly, the diffusion model provides a generic (not 

11 species-specific) model that, in conjunction with other information, is used to provide a 

12 general assessment and evaluation of the alternatives. A non-technical description of the 

13 diffusion model and its results is given in Morris and Doak (2002). 

14 Given the current state of knowledge in the field of aquatic invasive species ecology, and 

15 after thorough evaluation of alternative approaches, this report recommends that PVA with a 

16 diffusion model is the best methodology to analyze the alternatives in a meaningful and 

17 scientifically defensible way considering the information available. The PVA approach 

18 meets the criteria set forth in Section 3 and provides valuable information regarding the 

19 relative changes in the probability of successful establishment of NIS under the alternatives 

20 considered in the DPEIS. 

21 Description of Population Viability Analysis and Application to the Analysis of 

22 the NEPA Alternatives 

23 This section describes the recommended analytical approach for assessing the effect of 

24 reducing initial population size on the extinction probability of an introduced species. To be 

25 useful in assessing and comparing the effectiveness of the alternatives, the approach must be 

26 relatively simple and generic. The approach outlined here is based on the diffusion model 

27 proposed for population viability analysis by Dennis et al. (1991), which is arguably the 

28 simplest mathematical model relating initial population size and extinction probability. 

29 Let N(t) be the size of a population at time t and let X(t) = log N(t). A simple model of the 

30 dynamics of this population is: 

31 )( μ += σ tdWdttdX )( (1) 

where μ is the instantaneous growth rate, σ

2 32 (σ > 0 ) is the instantaneous variance of the 

33 population of interest in the diffusion model, and dW(t) is a normal random variable with 

34 mean 0 and variance 1. Under this model, N(t) follows geometric Brownian motion with 

35 drift. The expected population size at time t is: 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-25 

) 2 exp()0())((

2

NtNE tt

σ 1 = μ + (2) 

Extinction results for the diffusion model are as follows. Define a lower threshold ne 2 at 

which the population can be thought of as extinct and let e nx e 3 = log . The probability that a 

population with initial size N(0) will ever attain size ne 4 (extinction threshold – the 

5 population size below which the population is viewed as extinct) is given by: 

1 0

0)/2exp(

≤

−= >

μ

pe d μσμ 6 (3) 

where ) /)0(log()0( e =−= nNxXd e 7 . Under this model, a population with negative drift 

8 parameter μ is certain to go extinct regardless of the initial population size. The initial 

9 population size does, however, influence the distribution of the time T to extinction. For 

10 example, the expected value of T is: 

11 −= dTE /)( μ (4) 

12 so that reducing d by reducing X(0) will reduce the expected time to extinction. It is 

assumed that > NN e 13 ( . Provided the growth rate )0 μ is positive, the probability in (3) can 

14 be rewritten as: 

c = ee NNp ))0(/( 15 (5) 

where the population parameter 2 16 c = /2 σμ . For a population with positive growth 

parameter, the extinction probability pe 17 is less than 1 and depends on the initial population 

18 size N(0) through d. The control parameter is the initial population size N(0). Consider the 

effect on pe 19 of reducing the initial population size by a factor f (by which the density of 

20 organisms is reduced under each alternative, with 1 e )0(/ ≤ fNN ≤ . The upper bound of 

21 this condition merely reflects that f is a fractional proportion. The lower bound eliminates 

22 from consideration cases in which the initial population size is reduced below the extinction 

23 threshold. When this occurs, the population is, by definition, extinct upon introduction. It is 

24 straightforward to show that the resulting extinction probability is: 

e

c

e pffp − )( = 25 (6) 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-26 

1 That is, reducing the initial population size by a factor of f increases the extinction 

2 probability by the factor fe, which measures the effect on extinction probability of reducing 

3 initial population size by a factor f: 

c

e ff − 4 = (7) 

For specified values of ne 5 and the volume of BWD, these results can be used to assess the 

6 proportion of the baseline mean rate of successful introduction achieved under the 

7 regulatory alternatives. This factor is given by: 

e

e

r p

fp f −

− = 1

)(1 8 (8) 

9 The alternative ballast water discharge standards compared in the NEPA assessment can be 

10 expressed in terms of the proportion of organisms in different size classes that will be 

11 prevented from being introduced. Thus, the relationships presented above can be used to 

12 provide an assessment of the relative effectiveness in increasing extinction probability by 

13 taxonomic group of a particular ballast water discharge standard. Here, relative 

14 effectiveness is measured by the proportional increase in extinction probability over the ‘no 

15 management’ option (No Action Alternative). The analytical approach proposed can be 

16 used to compare the alternatives in relative terms (e.g., Alternative 5 results in no 

17 introduction of nonindigenous species via ballast water, and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 increase 

18 extinction probability by different factors when compared to the No Action Alternative), but 

19 not in absolute terms. 

20 The objective of the analysis is to determine by what multiplicative factor the extinction 

21 probability of a population (with an inherently positive growth rate) increases when the 

22 initial population size discharged via ballast water (from a single vessel) is reduced by a 

23 given multiplicative factor. This multiplicative factor is determined by the concentrations of 

24 organisms allowed under the different alternatives. The effect of increasing extinction 

25 probability (through the implementation of a BWDS) is the reduction in the expected 

26 number of successful introductions through ballast water discharge. 

The goal of such a relative assessment is to estimate the factor ( e 27 f ) by which the probability 

28 of extinction (Pe) increases in response to a decrease in the initial population size, as defined 

29 in equation (7). To do so, it is necessary to have estimates of the population parameters μ

30 and σ and the factor f, by which the initial population size is reduced due to a ballast water 

31 management option. Information about the size distribution of individuals in different 

32 species groups (e.g., larval fish, macrozooplankton, microzooplankton, etc.) can be used to 

33 give a rough estimate of the factor f by which the introduced population would be reduced 

34 by alternative management measures, particularly if the management measures are 

35 predicated on size thresholds. The value of f is equal to the ratio of the density of organisms 

36 that can be discharged under the particular management option to the density under the ‘no 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-27 

1 management’ option. Estimates of the latter value for representative taxa or taxonomic 

2 groups are available in the literature. Note that, when management options are expressed in 

3 terms of allowable density of organisms above a particular size (e.g., 50 microns), the factor 

4 f for a particular taxonomic group will depend on the proportion of individuals in the group 

5 above that size. Thus, f will equal 1 in the case where all individuals are below this size. 

6 To use these results to provide an assessment of the absolute effectiveness of a particular 

alternative, it is necessary to assess the extinction probability pe 7 under the ‘no management’ 

8 option (No Action Alternative). To do so requires an estimate of the quantity d (see 

9 equation 3 and explanation) involving both the initial population size under the No Action 

Alternative and the threshold population size ne 10 . Estimates of the former can be based on 

11 estimates of the density of organisms and the volume of ballast water discharged (which 

12 varies with vessel and type). A different approach to assessing absolute effectiveness would 

13 be to estimate the current rate of introductions per unit of ballast water discharged. 

Multiplying this quantity by the estimate of e 14 f would provide an estimate of the number of 

15 introductions per unit of ballast water discharged under the specified management option 

16 and multiplying this result by the projected total ballast water discharged would provide an 

17 estimate of the overall number of future introductions under this option. As noted, however, 

18 it is difficult to estimate the current rate of introductions. 

19 Discussion and Limitations of Population Viability Analysis 

20 The approach outlined above involves using a generic model of population dynamics to 

21 estimate in a simple way the relative effect of a proportional reduction in the initial 

22 population size on the extinction probability of an introduced taxon or taxonomic group. As 

23 shown, this model involves two parameters: one related to the population growth rate and 

24 the other to population variability around mean growth. In addition, to estimate the effect of 

25 a given BWDS on the proportional reduction in the initial population size of a particular 

26 taxon or taxonomic group requires knowledge of the density of organisms in untreated 

27 ballast water (or ballast water that has undergone mid-ocean exchange). Knowledge of the 

28 size distribution of the taxon or group in ballast water would be useful; however, based on 

29 the status of current scientific knowledge, this issue has not been taken up to any degree in 

30 the current analysis. 

31 Although this approach provides a first order approximation for extinction probability as a 

32 function of organism size, the abundances of organisms are highly variable in time and 

33 space, depending on a variety of factors, including the source populations, the receiving 

34 ecosystem characteristics, and the likelihood of NIS competent to invade. While 

35 quantitative information is developed and presented in the forthcoming section, it is very 

36 important to highlight that, given the inherent complexities of ecological systems and the 

37 invasion process and the lack of information in the field of aquatic invasive species ecology, 

38 the results provide limited, yet valuable, information about how the relative effectiveness of 

39 the alternatives are likely to compare. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-28 

1 The recommended approach has a number of limitations, which are important to highlight to 

2 provide the appropriate context for interpreting the results. First, the diffusion model, as 

3 with any model, is at best an approximation to the dynamics of a real population. Second, 

4 there are not good estimates of the necessary population parameter values ( μ , the 

instantaneous growth rate, and σ

2 5 , the instantaneous variance of the population growth rate) 

6 available in the literature as these parameters vary with environmental and other conditions 

7 and are extremely difficult to estimate for natural populations. As a result, considerable 

8 uncertainty attaches to the estimate of the extinction probability factor and the mean rate of 

9 successful introductions relative to the baseline (No Action Alternative). Indeed, in the 

10 context of assessing the viability of a single population, these difficulties in specifying and 

11 fitting a population model have led some to question the value of PVA (e.g., Ludwig 1999). 

12 To a degree, these concerns are allayed in the present context where interest centers not on 

13 estimating the actual rates of establishment, but instead on the relative differences in the 

14 probabilities of establishment resulting from the management options, which enables 

15 comparison of the NEPA alternatives. 

16 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-29 

1 5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

2 The alternatives under consideration have the effect of increasing the probability of 

3 extinction of NIS by limiting the initial number of organisms that are introduced via 

4 discharged ballast water. NIS may become established when introduced via BWD in 

5 sufficient initial number to avoid extinction; this assumption is consistent with ecological 

6 theory that holds that the viability of a population is related to its initial size. However, it 

7 is important to highlight that this relationship is not necessarily linear since many species 

8 can potentially become established with only a single individual. 

9 Below, the diffusion-based model is used first for the simplest case of a single species in 

10 one discharge event to illustrate the general analytical approach, and then for the more 

11 complicated case of a vessel discharging multiple species to better assess the relative 

12 differences of the alternatives. 

13 5.1 Single Species Scenario 

14 For the purpose of presenting the summary of the results obtained, the four variables of 

15 interest are: 

16 f Measures the reduction in the initial population size of NIS as 

17 a result of the implementation of the BWDS prescribed 

18 under each of the alternatives 

2 19 c = /2 σμ Is a biological parameter, where μ is the instantaneous growth 

rate and 2 20 σ is the instantaneous variance of the population of 

21 interest in the diffusion model 

22 fe Measures the effect on extinction probability of reducing 

23 initial population size by the factor f 

24 fr Measures the proportion of the mean rate of successful 

25 introductions achieved under the NEPA alternatives relative to that 

26 under the No Action Alternative. 

27 In order to quantify the factors fe and fr to assess a particular ballast water management 

28 measure (alternative standard) aimed at reducing initial population size, it is necessary to 

29 determine the factor f by which the measure reduces initial population size. The 

30 following alternatives expressed in terms of the allowable density of organisms by size in 

31 discharged ballast water are considered in the DPEIS: 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-30 

1 • Alternative 1: No Action Alternative – no BWDS is implemented (BWE is the 

2 preferred option if vessels can conduct it). 

3 • Alternative 2 : 

4 o less than 10 organisms per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μm in 

5 minimum dimension 

6 o less than 10 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μm 

7 in minimum dimension 

8 • Alternative 3: 

9 o less than 1 organism per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μm in 

10 minimum dimension 

11 o less than 1 organism per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μm in 

12 minimum dimension 

13 • Alternative 4: 

14 o less than 0.1 organisms per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μm in 

15 minimum dimension 

16 o less than 0.1 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μm 

17 in minimum dimension 

18 • Alternative 5: Essentially requires complete sterilization (of organisms larger than 

19 0.1 μm) 

20 To determine the reduction in initial population size (f) of NIS resulting from 

21 implementation of the applicable BWDSs for each alternative, it is necessary to have an 

22 estimate of the density of organisms in unmanaged ballast water. This density varies 

23 considerably from taxon to taxon and vessel to vessel based on the geographic origin of 

24 the BW, as well as on a seasonal basis. The literature reviewed (e.g., Cohen 1998 and 

Minton et al 2005) suggests that a reasonable range of densities is 102

-104 25 organisms per 

cubic meter for larger organisms (larger than 50μm) and 10-4-102 26 organisms per milliliter 

27 for smaller organisms (between 10μm and 50μm) for unmanaged ballast water. The 

28 results reported by Cohen (1998) summarizing densities of organisms in ballast water 

29 cover a wide range of taxonomic groups including zooplankton and phytoplankton. 

30 Under the No Action Alternative, the existing ballast water management regulatory 

31 regime will continue. Under this regulation (33 CFR 151) vessels are required to conduct 

32 mid-ocean ballast water exchange, retain ballast on board, or use an alternative 

33 management practice approved by the Coast Guard. Approved alternatives are not yet 

34 available for use, and indeed, one of the purposes of establishing the ballast water 

35 discharge standard is to provide a performance metric for the approval of such systems. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-31 

1 Due to the lack of approved alternatives, vessels needing to discharge foreign ballast 

2 water in a U.S. port must first conduct ballast water exchange. With the exception of 

3 vessels bound for the Great Lakes, exchange must be conducted by vessels only if it can 

4 be performed safely and at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land. To make the 

5 situation even more complicated, even when vessels are able to conduct ballast water 

6 exchange, the actual efficacy of the practice in reducing the concentration of 

7 nonindigenous coastal organisms can be quite variable. This variability is a consequence 

8 of the complex set of variables that affect the degree to which the exchange process 

9 actually results in the replacement of water, and an even more complex set of biological 

10 variables, including morphology and behavior that result in organisms not being affected 

11 by exchange as if they were particles of water. 

12 Thus, under the current regulatory regime, which would continue in the case of the No 

13 Action Alternative, a range of reductions is achieved by vessels that meet the legal 

14 requirements of the regulations, from no reduction for vessels that can not conduct 

15 exchange safely to over 90% reduction by vessels with relatively simple ballast tank 

16 designs that conduct empty-refill exchange. However, due to the difficulty in estimating 

17 the real average reduction in propagule numbers that results from these extremely 

18 variable circumstances, for the purposes of this initial analysis, ballast water exchange 

19 will be considered to be the baseline alternative. Mid-ocean BWE reduces the density of 

organisms by an order 10-1-100 20 (USCG 2003). The upper bound on this range 

21 corresponds to no reduction in density of organisms. 

22 Using these ranges of values for the concentration of organisms in unmanaged ballast 

water and the reductions achieved by BWE, the corresponding density ranges are 101

-104 23 

organisms per cubic meter for larger organisms (larger than 50μm) and 10-5-102 24 

25 organisms per milliliter for smaller organisms (larger than 10μm and smaller than or 

26 equal to 50μm) in exchanged ballast water. It was conservatively assumed that the 

27 density of organisms under each alternative would be the maximum allowed. The 

28 corresponding ranges of values of f (the factor by which a management measure reduces 

29 the concentration of discharged organisms) for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are presented in 

30 Table 5-1 for the two size classes of organisms under consideration. Values for the No 

31 Action Alternative and Alternative 5 are not presented since they represent the baseline 

32 and sterilization, respectively. Note that, in the case of smaller organisms, the lower 

33 bound of the mean density range is already below the regulatory limit (in which case, the 

34 regulatory limit set by the BWDSs would have no effect). Most vessels will have initial 

35 organism densities greater than the organism densities set by the alternatives so that 

36 vessels meeting any of the alternatives will achieve a reduction in the densities in most 

37 cases. 

38 

39 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-32 

1 Table 5-1: Values of f (factor measuring the reduction in the initial population size 

2 of NIS) for each size class of organisms. 

Alternative f (smaller organisms) 

[> 10 and ≤ 50 μm] 

f (larger organisms) 

> 50 μm

Alternative 2 0.1-1 0.001-1 

Alternative 3 0.01-1 0.0001-0.1 

Alternative 4 0.001-1 0.00001-0.01 

3 

4 To estimate fe , the effect on extinction probability of reducing initial population size by 

5 the factor f , estimates of the biological parameter c are needed. However, c varies 

6 considerably from taxonomic group to taxonomic group and from one set of 

7 environmental conditions to another, making it inherently difficult to quantify. 

8 Moreover, the value of c for the same taxon can be considerably different for different 

9 environmental conditions in the receiving waters. Where c has been estimated, it has 

10 usually been done for well studied populations of relatively large organisms over time 

11 spans encompassing many generations. The literature attests to a wide variety of taxa 

12 contained at high population densities in the ballast water of individual vessels and 

13 concludes that an introduced population has only a small probability of becoming 

14 established. For example, after surveying the literature, the USCG (2003) estimated a 

15 range on the order of 0.0001 to 0.01 for the probability of establishment. The 

16 corresponding range for extinction probability (Pe) is 0.9999 to 0.99. Thus, it is likely 

17 that a large majority of introduced populations exhibit negative growth so that c is less 

18 than 0. For these populations, extinction is certain. This implies that the extinction 

19 probability for a population with c greater than 0 must be considerably lower than the 

20 range cited above. 

21 The analysis presented here assumes a range of values of c of 0.001 to 0.1. To illustrate 

22 the relationship between c in this range and extinction probability, consider the situation 

23 of a BWD of 10,000 cubic meters. Taking the extinction threshold ne (i.e., the population 

24 size below which the population is viewed as extinct) as 1, the extinction probabilities, 

defined as c 25 = ee NNp ))0(/ for selected values of c and initial density (N(0)) of organisms 

26 are shown in Table 5-2. 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-33 

1 Table 5-2: Extinction probabilities (Pe) for selected values of c (biological 

2 parameter) and density of organisms. 

Initial Density, N(0) (organisms per cubic meter) 

c 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 106 108 

0.001 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 

0.01 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.76 

0.1 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.10 0.06 

3 (Note: To convert organisms per millimeter to organisms per cubic meter, multiply by 

106 4 .) 

5 Particularly for small values of c, the relative insensitivity of extinction probability to the 

6 density of organisms – and therefore, because discharge volume is fixed, to initial 

7 population numbers – is notable. 

8 The ranges for f and c given above can be combined to determine the ranges for the 

9 multiplicative factor fe by which the baseline extinction probability Pe would be increased 

10 for large and small organisms under the alternatives. The values for fe are shown in Table 

11 5-3. 

Table 5-3: Range of values of fe (extinction probability factor fe = f

-c 12 ) for Alternatives 

13 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c (Table 5-2) and f (Table 5-1) used in the analysis of 

14 alternatives. 

[> 10 and ≤ 50 μm] [> 50 μm]

Alternative c f fe (smaller 

organisms)

f fe (larger 

organisms)

Alternative 2 0.001 - 0.1 .1 – 1.0 1.0-1.26 .001 – 1.0 1.0-2.0 

Alternative 3 0.001 - 0.1 .01 – 1.0 1.0-1.58 0.0001-0.1 1.0-2.51 

Alternative 4 0.001 - 0.1 .001 – 1.0 1.0-2.0 0.00001-

0.01 

1.0-3.16 

15 Note: The lower bound of the ranges of fe corresponds to the combination of the largest 

16 value of f under the option with the smallest value of c, while the upper bound 

17 corresponds to the combination of the smallest value of f with the largest value of c. 

18 As seen from the results above, the extinction probability of organisms discharged in BW 

19 increases as the factor measuring the reduction in the initial population size of NIS 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-34 

1 decreases. For instance, for Alternative 2, a population of smaller organisms with c of 

2 0.1, reducing the population size by a factor (f) of 0.1 results in a reduction factor (fe) for 

3 the probability of extinction of 1.0. Thus, as expected, the extinction probability is higher 

4 the more stringent the BWDS. 

5 These results can be used to assess the factor fr representing the proportion of the mean 

6 rate of successful introductions achieved under the alternatives relative to that under the 

7 No Action Alternative. Assuming, as above, an extinction threshold of 1 and a BWD 

8 volume of 10,000 cubic meters, the range of values of fr for smaller and larger organisms 

9 for the NEPA alternatives are presented in Table 5-4. 

10 For illustrative purposes, the value of fr of 0.41 estimated in Table 5-4 for larger 

11 organisms under alternative 4 can be interpreted as meaning that the mean rate of 

12 successful introductions under alternative 4 is expected to be 41% of that under the No 

13 Action Alternative. Thus, the smaller the value of fr, the larger the reduction in the rate 

14 of successful introductions. Likewise, a value of fr of 1.0 can be interpreted as meaning 

15 that there is no expected reduction in the rate of successful introductions relative to the 

16 No Action Alternative. Most vessels will have organism densities greater than the 

17 organism densities set by the alternatives so that vessels meeting any of the alternatives 

18 will achieve a reduction in the densities in most cases. 

19 Table 5-4: Range of values of fr (mean rate of successful introductions relative to the 

20 baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c and f used in the analysis 

fr (smaller organisms) fr (larger organisms)

Alternative [> 10 and ≤ μm] [> 50 μm]

2 0.92-1.0 0.50-1.0 

3 0.67-1.0 0.50-1.0 

4 0.67-1.0 0.41-1.0 

21 

22 The values presented in Table 5-4 can thus be interpreted as meaning that the mean rate 

23 of successful introductions under: 

24 • Alternative 2 is expected to be between 92% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 

25 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 

26 and larger organisms, respectively; 

27 • Alternative 3 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 

28 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 

29 and larger organisms, respectively; and 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-35 

1 • Alternative 4 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 41% and 100% of the 

2 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 

3 and larger organisms, respectively. 

4 The reduction in the mean rate of successful introductions is the complement of the 

5 ranges of values presented above. As a result, the reduction in the mean rate of 

6 successful introductions, as compared to the No Action Alternative under: 

7 • Alternative 2 is expected to range between no reduction and an 8% reduction, and 

8 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 

9 • Alternative 3 is expected to range between no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 

10 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 

11 and 

12 • Alternative 4 is expected to range between no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 

13 no reduction and a 59% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively. 

14 For this illustration for the single species case, the effect on the mean introduction rate of 

15 smaller organisms ranges between no reduction and a minor reduction (8%) in moving 

16 from the No Action Alternative to Alternative 2; between no additional reduction and a 

17 moderate additional reduction (the reduction in the mean introduction rate increases from 

18 8% to 33%) in moving from Alternative 2 to Alternative 3; and between no additional 

19 reduction and a negligible additional reduction (the reduction in the mean introduction 

20 rate remains at 33%) in moving from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4. For larger 

21 organisms, the effect on the mean introduction rate ranges between no reduction and a 

22 significant reduction (50%) in moving from the No Action Alternative to Alternative 2; 

23 between no additional reduction and a negligible additional reduction (the reduction in 

24 the mean introduction rate remains at 50%) in moving from Alternative 2 to Alternative 

25 3; and between no additional reduction and a minor additional reduction (the reduction in 

26 the mean introduction rate increases from 50% to 59%) in moving from Alternative 3 to 

27 Alternative 4. 

28 Multiple Species Scenario 

29 The goal of this analysis is to assess the impact of alternative ballast water management 

30 options on the probability that a single ballast water discharge containing multiple species 

31 in different concentrations will result in at least one successful introduction. The 

32 alternative BWM options considered here are generally the same as above for the single 

33 species scenario, except that here we consider the two alternatives that are possible under 

34 the “no action” alternative, in which the current regulatory regime continues. Under that 

35 regime, vessels are required to conduct exchange if it is safe to do so and their route 

36 permits. Thus, two management end-points are possible under the no action alternative – 

37 no management and mid-ocean ballast water exchange. These are identified as 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-36 

1 Alternatives 1A and 1B, respectively, in the following analysis. As above, Alternative 5 

2 in the NEPA assessment is not considered here as that alternative represents the 

3 sterilization of ballast water, resulting in the absence of organisms greater than 0.1 μm. 

4 Alternative 1A. No BW management 

5 Alternative 1B. Ballast water exchange 

Alternative 2. < 10 individuals m-3 6 

Alternative 3. < 1 individual m-3 7 

Alternative 4. < 0.1 individuals m-3 8 

9 For convenience, it is useful to begin by sketching the calculation required to address the 

10 scenario involving the discharge of multiple species. In general, the calculations 

11 performed above for a single species will need to be performed and summed for multiple 

12 species. As above, it will be necessary to make several assumptions, both to simplify the 

13 problem to a manageable level and to accommodate the lack of data on some key 

14 parameters. Let ) j (mp be the probability that species j is not successfully introduced in 

15 a single ballast water discharge under alternative management option m (hereafter 

16 referred to as alternative m). Assuming that, other things being equal, results for 

17 different species are independent, the probability under alternative m of at least one 

18 successful introduction is given by: 

∏=

−=

n

j

mq j mp

1

19 ( (9) )(1)

20 where n is the number of species contained in the discharge that are not already 

21 successfully established in the receiving waters. These species will be referred to here as 

22 ‘new’. 

23 The alternative m (the discharge standard under consideration) determines the allowable 

24 total concentration ρ(m) of individual organisms in the discharge. The probability that 

the species is not successfully introduced ( mp )(j 25 ) depends on the absolute number 

mN )( oj 26 of individuals of species j contained in the discharge. This number is 

27 (approximately) given by the product: 

oj ρ ×= dmmN ×π j 28 ( (10) )()

where d is the volume of discharge and π j 29 is the relative abundance of species j in the 

30 ballast water. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-37 

1 The number ) oj (mN is the size of the initial inoculum of species j. Under the population 

2 model considered here, the probability of species j not being introduced in a single 

discharge ( mp )(j ) is related to the initial size of the inoculum of species j ( mN )( oj 3 ) 

4 according to: 

j c 5 j = oje mNNmp ))(/()( (11) 

where Ne 6 is the extinction threshold (which is assumed to be the same for all species) 

and j 7 c is the population parameter for species j. The expression in (11) assumes that the 

8 extinction threshold is below the initial inoculum size (i.e., ) < oje (mNN ). Otherwise, 

9 species j is extinct upon arrival. 

10 In order to perform the calculation outlined above, it is necessary to have information 

11 about: 

12 • The total concentration ) ρ(m of organisms in ballast water under the various 

13 alternatives (including the baseline alternatives of ‘no BW management’ and 

14 ‘ballast water exchange’; 

15 • The volume of ballast water discharge; 

16 • The number and relative abundance of new species contained in the discharge; 

17 and 

18 • The population parameter cj for each of these new species. 

19 Minton et al. (2005) analyzed the relative differences in the total number of organisms 

20 discharged (ρ(m)) between “no management”, ballast water exchange, and the IMO 

21 ballast water discharge standard (Alternative 2) for organisms of size greater than 80 μm. 

22 According to Minton, et al. (2005), ballast water exchange reduces this concentration by 

23 a factor of 0.1 (i.e., a 90% reduction). The estimated proportion of ships that would be 

24 affected by Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 based on data cited by Minton et al. and provided 

25 by G. Ruiz are reported in Table 5-5 for the ‘no management’ baseline and the ballast 

26 water exchange baseline. 

27 

28 

29 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-38 

1 Table 5-5: Estimated percentage of ships that would be affected by Alternatives 2, 3, 

2 and 4 compared to the baseline Alternatives 1A (no action) and 1B (ballast water 

3 exchange). 

 ‘No Management’ Ballast Water 

Exchange 

Alternative 2 95.5 82.5 

Alternative 3 99.7 95.5 

Alternative 4 99.7 99.7 

4 

5 The values for Alternative 2 are slightly different from those provided in Minton, et al. 

6 (2005) of 96.2% for ‘no management’ and 82.8% for ballast water exchange. Thus, if 

7 the baseline for comparison were to be all vessels conducting exchange, then if 

8 Alternative 2 (the IMO standard) were implemented, 82.5% of vessels would have 

9 discharges with lower concentrations of organisms than that resulting from exchange; 

10 95.5% would have discharges with lower concentrations if Alternative 3 were 

11 implemented; and 99.7% would have discharges with lower concentrations if Alternative 

12 4 were implemented. 

13 Minton et al. (2005) combined concentration data with data on ballast water discharge 

14 volume to provide the quartiles, mean, and standard deviation for estimates of the total 

15 number ) o (mN of organisms in a single ballast water discharge event for the ‘no 

16 management’, ballast water exchange, and IMO concentration standard ( < 10 individuals 

m3 17 , equivalent to Alternative 2 here) options. 

18 Without access to the data on individual ballast water discharges, it is not possible to 

19 calculate the corresponding quantities for Alternatives 3 and 4. However, a reasonable 

20 approximation can be based on the following argument. If no baseline concentrations 

were < 10 individuals m-3 21 , then a conservative assumption is that all concentrations under 

Alternative 2 would be reduced to the <10 individuals m-3 22 standard. Under this 

23 assumption, the quartiles, mean, and standard deviation of ) o (mN under Alternatives 3 

24 and 4 are equal to 10% and 1%, respectively, of the corresponding quantities under 

25 Alternative 2. Although the assumption that all baseline concentrations exceed the 

standard of 10 individuals m-3 26 is not correct, Table 5-5 indicates that the great majority 

27 do, particularly for the ‘no management’ baseline . The quartiles, mean, and standard 

28 deviation of the distribution of the total number of organisms discharged ( ) o (mN ) under 

29 the alternative management options are reported in Table 5-6. The values for the first 

30 three Alternatives are taken from Table 1 of Minton, et al. (2005), while the values for 

31 Alternatives 3 and 4 are based on the approximation that all concentrations under 

Alternative 2 are equal to the standard of 10 individuals m-3 32 . 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-39 

1 Table 5-6: Estimated quartiles, mean, and standard deviation of the total initial 

2 number of organisms released (N0(m)) in a single ballast water discharge for the 

3 Alternative management options. Values for Alternatives 1A (“no action”), 1B 

4 (ballast exchange), and 2 (the IMO standard) from Minton et al., 2005. 

Alternative 1st

 Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Mean Standard 

Deviation 

1A - ‘No 

Management’ 

5 ×1063.2 6 ×1085.1 6 ×1083.9 7 ×1012.2 7 ×1083.8

1B – BWE 4 ×1063.2 5 ×1085.1 5 ×1083.9 6 ×1012.2 6 ×1083.8

2 (IMO) 3 ×1016.5 4 ×1015.1 4 ×1072.4 4 ×1035.4 4 ×1042.7

3 2 ×1016.5 3 ×1015.1 3 ×1072.4 3 ×1035.4 3 ×1042.7

4 1 ×1016.5 2 ×1015.1 2 ×1072.4 2 ×1035.4 2 ×1042.7

5 

6 Available information regarding the number of ‘new’ species (i.e., non-indigenous 

7 species that have not yet been successfully introduced) and their relative abundances in 

8 the ballast water of a single vessel is limited and fragmentary. Figure 6(b) of Smith, et al. 

9 (1999) indicates an average of around 12 large (> 80 μm) taxa in unexchanged ballast 

10 water. This is an underestimate of the number of species as individuals were typically 

11 not identified to the species level. Moreover, the proportion of these taxa that are ‘new’ – 

12 which will vary with the location of discharge – is either unknown or unreported. Smith, 

13 et al. (1999) reported that the relative abundances of taxa in unexchanged ballast water 

14 tend to be uneven, with the dominant taxon comprising 50% or more of the total. For the 

15 purposes of this analysis, the exact number of species used in the analysis is not critical. 

16 To proceed, following the findings of Smith et al. (1999), it will be assumed that the 

17 ballast water of a single vessel contains 12 ‘new’ species, that the most abundant species 

18 comprises 50% of the total abundance, and that the ordered relative abundances follow 

19 the geometric model: 

j

j 20 π = 5.0 (12) 

21 for j = 1, 2, ..., 12. The relative abundances under this model are given in Table 5-7. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-40 

1 Table 5-7: Ordered relative abundances of 12 species under the geometric model 

(12). 2 π j = the relative proportion of the total abundance comprised by each species. 

Species j Species j

1 0.5 7 0.00781

2 0.25 8 0.00391

3 0.125 9 0.00195

4 0.0625 10 0.00098

5 0.03125 11 0.00049

6 0.01563 12 0.00024

3 

4 Because the sum of these terms is 0.9998 rather than 1.0, this provides only a rough 

5 approximation of relative abundances. However, the discrepancy has no effect on 

6 subsequent calculations. 

7 To complete the calculations, it is necessary to specify values of the population parameter 

8 c. No direct information about c – which will vary between species and discharge 

9 locations – appears to be available for the types of organisms and circumstances 

10 considered here. However, a reasonable range for c can be based on the following 

11 calibration. It is widely recognized that the probability of successful introduction from a 

12 single ballast water discharge is very small. If this were not the case, then the very large 

13 annual number of discharges would have resulted in far higher numbers of introductions. 

Suppose that the extinction threshold Ne 14 is set at 1 individual. If we assume that the 

probability that the median ‘no management’ discharge of a total of 6 15 ×1085.1 individuals 

16 (Table 5-6) distributed across 12 species with relative abundances as given in Table 5-7 

17 results in no introductions is equal to 0.999 then c = 0.000008, and if we assume the 

18 probability is an order of magnitude less, or 0.99, then c = 0.00008. This calculation, 

19 which assumes the same value of c for all species in a discharge and also assumes that 

any species with an initial inoculum < Ne 20 has probability 0 of successful introduction, is

relatively insensitive to Ne . For example, if Ne 21 is set at 100, the corresponding values of 

22 c are 0.000015 and 0.00015. 

23 In Table 5-8, the estimated probability ) (mq (the probability under management option m

24 of at least one successful introduction as defined in (9) is reported for the median of the 

25 initial numbers ) o (mN given in Table 5-6 for each management option, assuming that a 

26 ballast water discharge contains 12 species with relative abundances given in Table 5-7, 

27 for extinction thresholds of 1 and 100 and values of c of 0.000008 and 0.00008 for all 

28 species. 

π j π j
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-41 

1 Table 5-8: The probability q(m) that at least one species is successfully introduced 

for each ballast water management option assuming the median value of )( 2 0 mN

3 from Table 5-6, the relative abundances in Table 5-7, and for Ne = 1, 100 and c = 

4 0.000008, 0.00008. 

Ne c m q(m) Ne c m q(m) 

1 0.000008 No action 0.00095 100 0.000008 No action 0.00051 

Exchange 0.00073 Exchange 0.00030 

Alternative 2 0.00046 Alternative 2 0.00011 

Alternative 3 0.00026 Alternative 3 0.00003 

Alternative 4 0.00011 Alternative 4 0.0 

0.00008 No action 0.0095 0.00008 No action 0.0051 

Exchange 0.0073 Exchange 0.0030 

Alternative 2 0.0046 Alternative 2 0.0011 

Alternative 3 0.0026 Alternative 3 0.0025 

Alternative 4 0.0011 Alternative 4 0.0 

5 

Note that, for a fixed value of the extinction threshold Ne 6 and a fixed alternative 

7 management option, the probability q(m) reported in Table 5-8 increases essentially 

linearly with the population parameter c. For this reason, for fixed Ne 8 , the relative 

9 efficiency of a particular alternative – defined as the ratio of q(m) for that alternative to 

10 the corresponding value for a specified baseline alternative – does not depend on c. 

11 Increasing Ne results in a decreasing probability of establishment because small 

12 populations of species are introduced in numbers below the value of Ne. In Table 5-9, the 

13 relative efficiencies of Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are reported for 1 Ne = and 100 using 

14 both ‘no management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-42 

1 Table 5-9: Relative efficiencies of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for Ne = 1, 100 using ‘no 

2 management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines, from values in Table 5-8. 

 Ne = 1 Ne = 100

Alternative ‘No BW 

Management’ 

Exchange ‘No BW 

Management’ 

Exchange 

 2 52% 37% 78% 63%

 3 73% 64% 94% 90%

 4 88% 85% 100% 100%

3 

4 The values in the table represent the percent increase in q(m) over the baseline scenarios 

5 that each alternative provides. For example, for an Ne of 1, Alternative 2 is estimated to 

6 be 52% more effective than what would be expected for q(m) under the No BWM 

7 baseline scenario. 

8 5.3 Conclusions 

9 As expected from ecological principles, the results of the PVA model show that the more 

10 stringent the standard is, (and thus the greater the reduction in initial population size) the 

11 greater the increase in extinction probability, and thus the greater the resulting reduction 

12 in the mean rate of successful introductions. In summary, the PVA diffusion model 

13 provides estimates of the relative decrease in the mean rate of successful introductions 

14 under the alternatives. The multiple species scenarios presented here are more 

15 ecologically realistic than evaluating a single species scenario. The multiple species 

16 results show that the treatment alternatives result in a moderate reduction in the 

17 probability of at least one new species becoming established to a complete absence of 

18 risk of introduction. The specific reduction depends upon the alternative selected and the 

19 size class of the organism considered, but the modeling results for multiple species 

20 support the conclusion that more stringent treatment alternatives will substantially reduce 

21 the likelihood of new ballast water introductions. 

22 In comparison to larger organisms, very little information is available about introductions 

23 of nonindigenous microbial taxa through BWD. For example, although microbes 

24 generally are known to occur at high densities in ballast water, the species composition is 

25 unknown and it is therefore not possible to quantify the potential for introductions of 

26 microbial NIS (Drake et al. 2001). It is possible to say, on first principles, that reducing 

27 the number of individual microbes introduced into a new environment is likely to reduce 

28 the probability of establishment. This conclusion is supported by the analyses above in 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-43 

1 which Ne=1 because microbial organisms are often capable of rapid asexual population 

2 growth from a single cell. Thus, the same general conclusions derived for smaller and 

3 larger organisms above also apply for microbes. 

4 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-44 

1 6.0 REFERENCES

2 Beissinger, S.R. and McCullough, D.R. 2002. Population Viability Analysis. University 

3 of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 

4 Boyce, M. 1992. “Population Viability Analysis”. Annual Review of Ecology and 

5 Systematics 23: 481-506. 

6 Carlton, J.T. 1985. “Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine 

7 Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water”. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual 

8 Review 23: 313–371. 

9 Carlton, J.T. 1996. “Marine Bioinvasions: The Alteration of Marine Ecosystems by 

10 Nonindigenous Species”. Oceanography 9(1):36–43. 

11 Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced Species in United States Coastal Waters: Environmental 

12 Impacts and Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia. 

13 Carlton, J.T. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 

14 December 15, 2005. 

15 Carlton, J.T. and Geller, J.B. 1993. “Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of 

16 Nonindigenous Marine Organisms”. Science, 261(5117): 78-82. 

17 Cohen, A.N. 1998. Ships’ Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into 

18 the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. 

19 Davis, C. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 

20 December 15, 2005. 

21 Dennis, B. 2002. “Allee Effects in Stochastic Populations”. Oikos 96: 389-401. 

22 Dennis, B., Munholland, P.L., and Scott, J.M. 1991. “Estimation of Growth and 

23 Extinction Parameters for Endangered Species”. Ecological Monographs 61: 115-143. 

24 Drake, J.M. 2004. “Allee effects and the risk of biological invasions”. Risk Analysis 24: 

25 795-802. 

26 Drake, J.M. and Lodge, D.M. 2004. “Effects of Environmental Variation on Extinction 

27 and Establishment”. Ecology Letters 7: 26-30. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-45 

1 Drake, L.A., Choi, K.H., Ruiz, G.M., and Dobbs, F.C. 2001. “Global Redistribution of 

2 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities”. Biological Invasions 3(2): 193-199. 

3 Engen, S., Bakke, O., and Islam, A. 1998. “Demographic and Environmental 

4 Stochasticity – Concepts and Definitions”. Biometrics 54: 840-846. 

5 Gaedke, U. 1995. “A Comparison of the Whole-Community and Ecosystem Approaches 

6 (Biomass Size Distributions, Food Web Analysis, Network Analysis, Simulation Models) 

7 to Study the Structure, Function, and Regulation of Pelagic Food Webs”. Journal of 

8 Plankton Research 17(6):1273–1305. 

9 Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. 2001. “Progress in Invasion Biology: Predicting Invaders”. 

10 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16( 4): 199-204. 

11 Lande, R. and Orzack, S.H. 1988. “Extinction Dynamics of Age-Structured Populations 

12 in a Fluctuating Environment”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

13 85(19): 7418–7421. 

14 Lewis, M.A. and Pacala, S. 2000. “Modeling and Analysis of Stochastic Invasion 

15 Processes”. Journal of Mathematical Biology 41: 387–429. 

16 Liebhold, A. and Bascompte, J. 2003. “The Allee Effect, Stochastic Dynamics, and the 

17 Eradication of Alien Species”. Ecology Letters 6: 133-140. 

18 Ludwig, D. 1999. “Is It Meaningful to Estimate a Probability of Extinction?” Ecology

19 80(1): 298-310. 

20 MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. 

21 Princeton, Princeton University Press. 

22 MacIsaac, H.J., Borbely, J.V.M., Muirhead, J.R., and Graniro, P.A. 2004. “Backcasting 

23 and Forecasting Biological Invasions of Inland Lakes”. Ecological Applications 14(3): 

24 73–783. 

25 Mann, K. H. 1988. “Towards Predictive Models for Coastal Marine Ecosystems”. In 

26 Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology, L. R. Pomeroy and J. J. Alberts, eds. Springer, New 

27 York, N.Y., pp. 291–316. 

28 Minton, M.S., Verling, E., Miller, A.W., and Ruiz, G. M. 2005. “Reducing Propagule 

29 Supply and Coastal Invasions Via Ships: Effects of Emerging Strategies”. Front. Ecol. 

30 Environ. 3(6): 304-308. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-46 

1 Morris, W. and Doak, D. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice 

2 of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 

3 Sabo, J.L., Holmes, E.E., and Kareiva, P. 2004. “Efficacy of Simple Viability Models in 

4 Ecological Risk Assessment: Does Density Dependence Matter?” Ecology 85(2): 328-

5 341. 

6 Saether, B. and Engen, S. 2002. “Including Uncertainties in Population Viability 

7 Analysis Using Population Prediction Intervals”. In: Population Viability Analysis. S. 

8 Beissinger and D. McCullough, eds. Chicago University Press, Chicago. 

9 Sakai A.K., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A., 

10 Baughman, S., Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ellstrand, N.C., McCauley, D.E., O' Neil, P., 

11 Parker, I.M., Thompson, J.N., and Weller, S.G. 2001. “The Population Biology of 

12 Invasive Species”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32 (1): 305-332. 

13 Simberloff, D. S., 1989. “Which Insect Introductions Succeed and Which Fail?” In: 

14 Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective. J. A. Drake, H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. 

15 H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson, eds., SCOPE 37, pp. 61-75. 

16 New York, John Wiley & Sons. 

17 Smith, D.L.; Wonham, M.J.; McCann, L.D. 1999. “Invasion Pressure to a Ballast18 Flooded Estuary and an Assessment of Inoculant Survival”. Biol. Inv. 1: 67-87. 

19 Soulé, M. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, 

20 Cambridge. 

21 Townsend, A. 2003. “Predicting the Geography of Species’ Invasions Via Ecological 

22 Niche Modeling”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4): 419-433. 

23 USCG. 2003. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water Management 

24 Program for United States Waters. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 

25 Washington, D.C. 

26 USGS, 2006. “Nonindigenous Species Information Bulletin: Asian Shore Crab, Japanese 

27 Shore Crab, Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan) (Arthropoda: Grapsidae)” 

28 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Asian_shore_crab/asian_shore_crab.html 

29 Williamson, M. 1996. Biological Invasions. London, Chapman & Hall. 

30 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-47 

1 7.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2 Population Viability Analysis:

3 Brook, B.W., Cannon, J.R., Lacy, R.C., and Mirande, R. 1999. “A Comparison of the 

4 Population Viability Analysis Packages GAPPS, INMAT, RAMAS and VORTEX for the 

5 Whooping Crane (Grus Americana)”. Animal Conservation 2: 23-31. Cambridge 

6 University Press. 

7 Brook, B.W., O’Grady, J.J., Chapman, A.P., Burgman, M.A., Arcakaya, H.R., and 

8 Frankham, R. 2000. “Predictive Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis in 

9 Conservation Biology”. Nature 404: 385-387. 

10 McCarthy, M.A., Possingham, H.P., Day, J.R., and Tyre, A.J. 2001. “Testing the 

11 Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis”. Conservation Biology 15: 1030. 

12 Morris, W., Doak, D., Groom, M., Kareiva, P., and Fieberg, L. 1999. A Practical 

13 Handbook for Population Viability Analysis. The Nature Conservancy. 

14 http://www.training.fws.gov. 

15 Reed, J.M., Mills, L.S, Dunning, J.B., Menges, E.S., McKelvey, K.S., Frye, R., 

16 Beissinger, S.R., Anstett, M-C., and Miller, P. 2002. “Emerging Issues in Population 

17 Viability Analysis”. Conservation Biology 16(1): 7-19. 

18 Staples, D.F., Taper, M.L., and Dennis, B. 2004. “Estimating Population Trend and 

19 Process Variation for PVA in the Presence of Sampling Error”. Ecology 85(4): 923-929. 

20 

21 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-48 

1 NIS Invasion Prediction and Impact Analysis:

2 Cushing, J.M., Constantino, R.F., Dennis, B., Desharnais, R.A., and Henson, S.M. 1998. 

3 “Nonlinear Population Dynamics: Models, Experiments and Data”. Journal of 

4 Theoretical Biology 194: 1-9. 

5 Dennis, B., Desharnais, R.A., Cushing, J.M., and Constantino, R.F. 1995. “ Nonlinear 

6 Demographic Dynamics: Mathematical Models, Statistical Methods, and Biological 

7 Experiments”. Ecological Monographs 65(3): 261-281. 

8 Drake, J.M., Lodge, D.M., and Lewis, M. 2005. “Theory and Preliminary Analysis of 

9 Species Invasions from Ballast Water: Controlling Discharge Volume and Location”. 

10 American Midland Naturalist 154: 459-470. 

11 Gerber, L.R. and Hilborn, R. 2001. “Catastrophic Events and Recovery from Low 

12 Densities in Populations of Otariids: Implications for Risk of Extinction”. Mammal 

13 Review 31(2): 131–150. 

14 Hulme, P.E. 2003. “Biological Invasions: Winning the Science Battles but Losing the 

15 Conservation War?” Oryx 37(2): 178-193. 

16 Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. 2001. “Progress in Invasion Biology: Predicting Invaders”. 

17 Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16(4): 199-204. 

18 Landis, W.G. 2004. “Ecological Risk Assessment: Conceptual Model Formulation for 

19 Nonindigenous Species”. Risk Analysis 24(4): 847-858. 

20 Lodge, D.M. 2003. “Predicting the Identity, Spread, and Impact of Future 

21 Nonindigenous Species in the Great Lakes”. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 2003 

22 Project Completion Report. 

23 Ludwig, D. 1996. “Uncertainty and the Assessment of Extinction Probabilities”. 

24 Ecological Applications 6(4): 1067-1076. 

25 MacIsaac, H.J., Grigorovich, I.A., and Ricciardi, A. 2002. “Reassessment of Species 

26 Invasions Concepts: the Great Lakes Basin as a Model”. Biological Invasions 3: 405-

27 416. 

28 MacIsaac, H.J., Robbins, T.C., and Lewis, M.A. “Modeling Ships’ Ballast Water as 

29 Invasion Threats to the Great Lakes”. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

30 Sciences 59: 1245-1256. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-49 

1 Neubert, M.G., and Caswell, H. 2000. “Demography and Dispersal: Calculation and 

2 Sensitivity Analysis of Invasion Speed for Structured Populations”. Ecology 81:1613–

3 1628. 

4 Neubert, M.G., and Parker, I.M. 2004. “Projecting Rates of Spread for Invasive 

5 Species”. Risk Analysis 24(4): 817-831. 

6 Stacey, P.B. and Taper, M.L. 19902. “Environmental Variation and the Persistence of 

7 Small Populations”. Ecological Applications 2(1): 18-29. 

8 

9 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-50 

1 Organisms in Ballast Water:

2 Bailey, S.A., Duggan, I.C., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Jenkins, P.T., and MacIsaac, H.J. 2003. 

3 “Viability of Invertebrate Diapausing Eggs Collected from Residual Ballast Sediment”. 

4 Limnology and Oceanography 48(4): 1701-1710. 

5 Carlton, J.T. 1985. “Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine 

6 Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water”. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual 

7 Review 23: 313–371. 

8 Carlton, J.T., 1992. “Introduced Marine and Estuarine Mollusks of North America: An 

9 End-of-the-20th-Century Perspective”. Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2): 489-505. 

10 Carlton, J.T., Reid, D.M., and vanLeeuwen, H. 1995. “Shipping Study: The Role of 

11 Shipping in the Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organism in the Coastal Waters 

12 of the United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an Analysis of Control Options”. 

13 National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6, U.S. Coast 

14 Guard Rept. No. CG-D-11-95, Contract/Grant No. DTCG-91-F-HMR337-1. April 1995 

15 Final Rept. by Maritime Studies Program, Williams College, Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT, 

16 to U.S. Coast Guard, Groton, CT, and U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, 

17 D.C. 

18 Carlton J.T. 1996. “Pattern, Process, and Prediction in Marine Invasion Ecology”. 

19 Biological Conservation 78(1): 97-106. 

20 Chu, K.H., Tam, P.F., Fung, C.H., and Chen, Q.C. 1997. “A Biological Survey of Ballast 

21 Water in Container Ships Entering Hong Kong”. Hydrobiologia 352: 201-206. 

22 Dickman, M. and Zhang, F. 1999. “Mid-ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 

23 Water. 2: effects of vessel type in the transport of diatoms and dinoflagellates from 

24 Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 253–

262 25 

26 Drake, L.A., Choi, K.H., Ruiz, G.M., and Dobbs, F.C. 2001. “Global Redistribution of 

27 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities”. Biological Invasions 3(2): 193-199. 

28 Hallegraeff, G.M. and Bolch, C.J. 1991. “Transport of Toxic Dinoflagellate Cysts Via 

29 Ships' Ballast Water”. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22(1): 27–30. 

30 Hallegraeff, G.M., Bolch, C.J., Bryan, J, and Koerbin, B. 1990. “Microalgal Spores in 

31 Ship's Ballast Water: A Danger to Aquaculture.” pp. 475-480 in Toxic Marine 

32 Phytoplankton, E. Granéli, B. Sundström, L. Endler and D. M. Anderson (eds.). Elsevier, 

33 New York 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-51 

1 Joachimsthal, E.L., Ivanov, V., Tay, J.H., and Tay, S.T. 2003. “Flow Cytometry and 

2 Conventional Enumeration of Microorganisms in Ships' Ballast Water and Marine 

3 Samples”. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46(3):308-13. 

4 Kelly, J.M. 1993. “Ballast Water and Sediments as Mechanisms for Unwanted Species 

5 Introductions into Washington State”. Journal of Shellfish Research. 12(2): 405-410. 

6 McCarthy, H.P. and Crowder, L. 2000. “An Overlooked Scale of Global Transport: 

7 Phytoplankton Richness in Ships’ Ballast Water”. Biological Invasions 2: 321-322. 

8 McCarthy, S.A. and Khambaty, F.M. 1994. “International Dissemination of Epidemic 

9 Vibrio cholerae by Cargo Ship Ballast and Other Nonpotable Waters”. Applied 

10 Environmental Microbiology 60(7): 2597–2601. 

11 Rigby G.R., Steverson I.G., Bolch C.J., and Hallegraeff G.M. 1993. “The Transfer and 

12 Treatment of Shipping Ballast Waters to Reduce the Dispersal of Toxic Marine 

13 Dinoflagellates”. Pp. 169-176 in: Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea, Smayda, T.J. 

14 and Shimizu, Y. (eds.). Elsevier Science Publishers, New York. 

15 Rigby G.R. and Hallegraeff G.M. 1996. “Ballast Water Controls to Minimize the 

16 Translocation and Establishment of Toxic Marine Phytoplankton – What Progress Have 

17 We Made and Where Are We Going?” Pp. 201-204 in: Harmful and Toxic Algal 

18 Blooms, Yasumoto, T., Oshima, Y., and Fukuyo, Y. (eds.). Intergovernmental 

19 Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 

20 Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., and 

21 Colwell, R.R. 2000. “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships”. Nature 408(6808): 

22 49-50. 

23 Smith, L.D., Wonham, M.J., McCann, L.D., Reid, D.M., Carlton, J.T., and Ruiz, G.M. 

24 1995. “Shipping Study II: Biological Invasions of Nonindigenous Species in United 

25 States waters: Quantifying the Role of Ballast Water and Sediments Parts I and II”. U.S. 

26 Coast Guard Rept. No. CG-D-02-97, Contract/Grant No. DTCG-91-F-HMR337-1. July 

27 1996 Final Rept. by Maritime Studies Program, Williams College, Mystic Seaport, 

28 Mystic, CT, and Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, to U.S. 

29 Coast Guard, Groton, CT, and U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 

30 Smith, L.D., Wonham, M.J., McCann, L.D., Ruiz, G.M., Hines, A.H., and Carlton, J.T. 

31 1999. “Invasion Pressure to a Ballast-Flooded Estuary and an Assessment of Inoculant 

32 Survival”. Biological Invasions 1: 67-87. 

33 Subba Rao, D.V., Sprules, W.G., Locke, A., and Carlton, J.T. 1994. “Exotic 

34 Phytoplankton From Ships' Ballast Waters: Risk of Potential Spread to Mariculture Sites 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-52 

1 on Canada's East Coast”. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 937, 

2 51 pp. 

3 Sutherland, T.F., Levings, C.D., Elliott, C.C., and Hesse, W.W. 2001. “The Effect of a 

4 Ballast Water Treatment System on the Survivorship of Natural Populations of Marine”. 

5 Marine Ecology Progress Series 210:139-148. 

6 Williams, R.J., Griffiths, F.B., Van der Wal, E.J., and Kelly, J. 1988. “Cargo vessel 

7 ballast water as a vector for the transport of non-indigenous marine species”. Estuarine, 

8 Coastal and Shelf Science 26: 409–420. 

9 Wonham, M.J. and Carlton, J.T. 2005. “Trends in marine biological invasions at local 

10 and regional scales: the Northeast Pacific Ocean as a model system”. Biological 

11 Invasions 7: 369-392. 

12 Yoshida, M., Fukuyo, Y., Murase, T., and Ikegami, T. 1996. “On-board Observations of 

13 Phytoplankton Viability in Ships' Ballast Tanks Under Critical Light and Temperature 

14 Conditions”. Pp. 205–208 in Harmful and Toxic Algal Blooms, Yasumoto, T., Oshima, 

15 Y., and Fukuyo, Y. (eds.). Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 

16 Zhang, F. and Dickman, M. 1999. “Mid-Ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 

17 Water. 1: seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and 

18 dinoflagellates”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 243–251 

19 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-53 

1 Population Growth Rates and Variability:

2 Alpine, A. and Cloern, J. 1988. “Phytoplankton Growth Rates in a Light-limited 

3 Environment, San Francisco Bay”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 44: 167-173. 

4 Cadee, G.C. and Hegeman, J. 2002. “Phytoplankton in the Marsdiep at the End of the 

5 20th Century; 30 Years Monitoring Biomass, Primary Production, and Phaeocystis 

6 Blooms”. Journal of Sea Research 48(2): 97-110. 

7 Carlson, C.A., Ducklow, H.W. 1996. “Growth of Bacterioplankton and Consumption of 

8 Dissolved Organic Carbon in the Sargasso Sea”. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 10: 69-85. 

9 Clark, R.A., Frid, C. L. J. and Batten, S. 2001. “A Critical Comparison of Two Long10 term Zooplankton Time Series from the Central-west North Sea”. Journal of Plankton 

11 Research 23(1): 27-39. 

12 DuRand, M.D., Olson, R.J., and Chisholm, S.W. 2001. “Phytoplankton Population 

13 Dynamics at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-series station in the Sargasso Sea”. Deep-Sea 

14 Research II (48): 1983-2003. 

15 Edvarsen, A., Zhou, M., Tande, K.S., and Zhu, Y. 2002. “Zooplankton Population 

16 Dynamics: Measuring in situ Growth and Mortality Rates Using an Optical Plankton 

17 Counter”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 227: 205-219. 

18 Gallego, A., Heath, M.R., Basford, D.J., and Mackenzie, B.R. 1999. “Variability in 

19 Growth Rates of Larval Haddock in the Northern North Sea”. Fisheries Oceanography

20 8(2): 77-92. 

21 Goericke, R, 1998. “Response of Phytoplankton Community Structure and Taxon22 Specific Growth Rates to Seasonally Varying Physical Forcing in the Sargasso Sea off 

23 Bermuda”. Limnology and Oceanography 43(5): 921-935. 

24 Goericke, R. and Welschmeyer, N.A. 1998. “Response of Sargasso Sea Phytoplankton 

25 Biomass, Growth Rates and Primary Production to Seasonally Varying Physical 

26 Forcing”. Journal of Plankton Research 20: 2233-2249. 

27 Hall, R.I. and Norman, D.Y. 1997. “Comparing Annual Population Growth Estimates of 

28 the Exotic Invader Bythotrephes Using Sediment and Plankton Records”. Limnology and 

29 Oceanography 42(1): 112-120. 

30 Hopcroft, R.R., Roff, J.C., Webber, M.K., and Witt, J.D.S. 1998. “Zooplankton Growth 

31 Rates: The Influence of Size and Resources in Tropical Marine Copepodites”. Marine 

32 Biology 132(1): 67-77. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-54 

1 Imai, K., Nojiri, Y., Tsurushima, N., and Saino, T. 2002. “Time Series of Seasonal 

2 Variation of Primary Productivity at station KNOT (44°N, 155°E) in the sub-arctic 

3 western North Pacific”. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography

4 49(24): 5395-5408. 

5 Kirchman, D., Ducklow, H., and Mitchell, R. 1982. “Estimates of Bacterial Growth from 

6 Changes in Uptake Rates and Biomass”. Applied Environmental Microbiology 44: 1296-

7 1307. 

8 Landry, M.R., Haas, L.W., and Fagerness, V.L. 1984. “Dynamics of Microbial Plankton 

9 Communities: Experiments in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii”. Marine Ecology Progress Series

10 16: 127-133. 

11 Liang, D. and Uye, S. 1996. “Population Dynamics and Production of the Planktonic 

12 Copepods in a Eutrophic Inlet of the Inland Sea of Japan. II. Acartia omorii”. Marine 

13 Biology (Historical Archive) 125(1):109-117. 

14 Malone, T.C., Pike, S.E., and Conley, D.J. 1993. “Transient Variations in Phytoplankton 

15 Productivity at the JGOFS Bermuda time series station”. Deep Sea Research (Part I, 

16 Oceanographic Research Papers) 40(5): 903-924. 

17 Marty, J.C. and Chiaverini, J. 2002. “Seasonal and Interannual Variations in 

18 Phytoplankton Production at DYFAMED time-series station, northwestern Mediterranean 

19 Sea”. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 49(11): 2017-2030. 

20 Nelson, D.M., Brzezinski, M.A. 1997. “Diatom Growth and Productivity in an 

21 Oligotrophic Midocean Gyre: a 3-yr record from the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda”. 

22 Limnology and Oceanography 42: 473-486. 

23 Ohman, M.D. and Hirche, H.J. 2001. “Density-Dependent Mortality in an Oceanic 

24 Copepod Population”. Nature 412: 638-641. 

25 Roman, M.R., Dam, H.G., Gauzens, A.L., and Napp, J.M. 1993. “Zooplankton Biomass 

26 and Grazing at the JGOFS Sargasso Sea time series station”. Deep Sea Research (Part I, 

27 Oceanographic Research Papers) 40(5): 883-901. 

28 Shiah, F.K. and Ducklow, H.W. 1995. “Multiscale Variability in Bacterioplankton 

29 Abundance, Production, and Specific Growth Rate in a Temperate Salt-Marsh Tidal 

30 Creek”. Limnology and Oceanography 40(1): 55-66. 

31 Tang, E.P.Y. 1995. “The Allometry of Algal Growth Rates”. Journal of Plankton 

32 Research 17(6): 1325-1335. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-55 

1 Worden, A.Z., Nolan, J.K., and Palenik, B. 2004. “Assessing the Dynamics and Ecology 

2 of Marine Picophytoplankton: The Importance of the Eukaryotic Component”. 

3 Limnology and Oceanography 49(1): 168-179. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-1 

APPENDIX B: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - LISTED AND 

PROPOSED SPECIES 

Fish and Wildlife Service – Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Designated or 

Proposed Critical Habitat 

Common Name ESA Status Scientific Name Critical Habitat 

FISH/SHELLFISH 

Alabama Cavefish Endangered Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Designated 

Alabama Sturgeon Endangered Scaphirhynchus suttkusi 

Amber Darter Endangered Percina antesella Designated 

Arkansas River Shiner Threatened Notropis girardi 

Atlantic Salmon Endangered Salmo salar 

Bayou Darter Threatened Etheostoma rubrum 

Blackside Dace Threatened Etheostoma rubrum 

Bluemask Darter Threatened Phoxinus cumberlandensis 

Blue Shiner Threatened Cyprinella caerulea 

Boulder Darter Endangered Etheostoma wapiti 

Bull Trout Threatened Salvelinus confluentus 

Cahaba Shiner Endangered Notropis cahabae Designated 

Cape Fear Shiner Endangered Notropis mekistocholas Designated 

Cherokee Darter Threatened Etheostoma scotti 

Conasauga Logperch Endangered Percina jenkinsi Designated 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-2 

Delta Smelt Threatened Hypomesus transpacificus Designated 

Duskytail Darter Endangered Etheostoma percnurum 

Etowah Darter Endangered Etheostoma etowahae 

Goldline Darter Threatened Percina aurolineata 

Gulf Sturgeon Threatened Acipenser oxyhynchus desotoi 

Designated 

(proposed) 

Leopard Darter Threatened Percina pantherina Designated 

Maryland Darter Endangered Etheostoma sellare 

Okaloosa Darter Endangered Etheostoma okaloosae 

Ozark Cavefish Threatened Amblyopsis rosae 

Palezone Shiner Endangered Notropis albizonatus 

Pallid Sturgeon Endangered Scaphirynchus albus 

Pygmy Madtom Threatened Cottus paulus 

Relict Darter Endangered Etheostoma chienense 

Sacramento Splittail Threatened Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 

Santa Ana Sucker Threatened Catostomus santaanae 

Short-nosed Sturgeon Endangered Acipenser brevirostrum 

Slackwater Darter Threatened Etheostoma boschungi Designated 

Slender Chub Threatened Erimystax cahni Designated 

Smoky Madtom Endangered Noturus baileyi Designated 

Snail Darter Threatened Percina tanasi 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-3 

Spotfin Chub Threatened Cyprinella monacha Designated 

Tidewater Goby Endangered Eucyclogobius newberryi Designated 

Topeka Shiner Endangered Notropis topeka 

Vermillion Darter Endangered Etheostoma chermocki 

Waccamaw Silverside Threatened Menidia extensa Designated 

Watercress Darter Threatened Etheostoma nuchale Designated 

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

Alabama Red-bellied 

Turtle Endangered Pseudemys alabamensis 

American Crocodile Endangered Crocodylus acutus Designated 

Atlantic Salt Marsh 

Snake Threatened Nerodia clarkii taeniata 

Bog Turtle Threatened Clemmys muhlenbergii 

California Red-legged 

Frog Threatened Rana aurora draytonii 

Copperbelly Water Snake Threatened Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta 

Eastern Indigo Snake Threatened Drymarchon corais couperi 

Flattened Musk Turtle Threatened Sternotherus depressus 

Flatwoods Salamander Threatened Ambystoma cingulatum 

Giant Garter Snake Threatened Thamnophis gigas 

Golden Coqui Threatened Eleutherodactylus jasperi Designated 

Green Sea Turtle Threatened Chelonia mydas 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-4 

Guajon Threatened Eleutherodactylus cooki 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Endangered Eretmochelys imbricata Designated 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea 

Turtle Endangered Lepidochelys kempii 

Lake Erie Water Snake Threatened Nerodia sipedon insularum 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered Dermochelys coriacea Designated 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened Caretta caretta 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Threatened Lepidochelys olivacea 

Puerto Rican Crested 

Toad Threatened Peltophryne lemur 

Ringed Map Turtle Threatened Graptemys oculifera 

San Francisco Garter 

Snake Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia 

Yellow-blotched Map 

Turtle Threatened Graptemys flavimaculata 

Birds

Attwater’ s Greater 

Prairie-chicken Endangered Tympanuchus cupido attwateri 

Bald Eagle Threatened Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Brown Pelican Endangered Pelecanus occidentalis 

California Clapper Rail Endangered Rallus longirostris obsoletus 

California Least Tern Endangered Sterna antillarum browni 

Eskimo Curlew Endangered Numenius borealis 

Hawaiian Coot Endangered Fulica americana alai 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-5 

Hawaiian Common 

Moorhen Endangered Gallinula chioropus sandvicensis

Hawaiian Dark-rumped 

Petrel Endangered Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis 

Hawaiian Stilt Endangered Himantopus mexicanus knudseni 

Least Tern Endangered Sterna antillarum 

Light-footed Clapper 

Rail Endangered Rallus longirostris levipes 

Marbled Murrelet Threatened Brachyramphus marmoratus 

Mississippi Sandhill 

Crane Endangered Grus canadensis pulla Designated 

Newell’s Shearwater Threatened Puffinus auricularis newelli 

Piping Plover Threatened Charadrius melodus Designated 

Puerto Rican Sharpshinned Hawk Endangered Buteo platypterus brunnescens 

Roseate Tern Threatened Sterna dougallii dougallii 

San Clemente 

Loggerhead Shrike Endangered Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi 

San Clemente Sage 

Sparrow Threatened Amphispiza belli clementeae 

Short-tailed Albatross Endangered Phoebastria albatrus 

Spectacled Eider Threatened Somateria fischeri Designated 

Steller’s Eider Threatened Polysticta stelleri Designated 

Western Snowy Plover Threatened Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Designated 

Whooping Crane Endangered Grus americana Designated 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-6 

Wood Stork Endangered Mycteria americana 

Mammals

Alabama Beach Mouse Endangered Peromyscus polionotus 

ammobates Designated 

Gray Bat Endangered Myotis grisescens 

Indiana Bat Endangered Myotis sodalis Designated 

Ozark Big-eared Bat Endangered Corynorhinus townsendii ingens 

Virginia Big-eared Bat Endangered Corynorhinus townsendii 

virginianus Designated 

Salt Marsh Harvest 

Mouse Endangered Reithrodontomys raviventris 

Southern Sea Otter Threatened Enhydra lutris nereis 

West Indian Manatee 

(=Florida) Endangered Trichechus manatus Designated 

Invertebrates

Anthony’s Riversnail Endangered Athearnia anthonyi 

Armored Snail Endangered Pyrgulopsis pachyta 

Behren’s Silverspot 

Butterfly Endangered Speyenia zerene behrensii 

California Freshwater 

Shrimp Endangered Syncaris pacifica 

Cylindrical Lioplax Endangered Lioplax cyclostomaformis 

Flat Pebblesnail Endangered Lepyrium showalteri 

Lacy Elimia Threatened Elimia crenatella 

Magazine Mountain 

Threatened Mesodon magazinensis 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-7 

Shagreen

Morro Shoulderband 

(=banded dune) Snail Endangered Helminthoglypta walkeriana 

Myrtle’s Silverspot 

Butterfly Endangered Speyeria zerene myrtleae 

Noonday Snail Threatened Mesodon clarki nantahala 

Oregon Silverspot 

Butterfly Threatened Speyeria zerene hippolyta 

Painted Rocksnail Threatened Leptoxis taeniata 

Plicate Rocksnail Endangered Leptoxis plicata 

Round Rocksnail Threatened Leptoxis ampla 

Royal Marstonia Snail Endangered Pyrgulopsis ogmoraphe 

Shasta Crayfish Endangered Pacifastacus fortis 

Slender Campeloma Endangered Campeloma decampi 

Tulotoma Snail Endangered Tulotoma magnifica 

Mussels

Alabama Lampmussel Endangered Lampsilis virescens 

Alabama Moccasinshell Threatened Medionidus acutissimus 

Appalachian Elktoe Endangered Alasmidonta raveneliana 

Appalachian Monkeyface 

Pearlymussel Endangered Quadrula sparsa Designated (proposed) 

Black Clubshell Endangered Pleurobema curtum 

Carolina Heelsplitter Endangered Lasmigona decorata 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-8 

Chipola Slabshell Threatened Elliptio chipolaensis 

Coosa Moccasinshell Endangered Medionidus parvulus 

Cracking Pearlymussel Endangered Hemistena lata 

Cumberland Bean 

Pearlymussel Endangered Villosa trabalis 

Cumberland Elktoe Endangered Alasmidonta atropurpurea 

Cumberland Monkeyface 

Pearlymussel Endangered Cumberland intermedia 

Cumberlandian 

Combshell Endangered Epioblasma brevidens 

Curtis’ Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma florentina curtisi 

Dark Pigtoe Endangered Pleurobema furvum 

Dromedary Pearlymussel Endangered Dromus dromas 

Dwarf Wedge Mussel Endangered Alasmidonta heterodon 

Fanshell Mussel Endangered Cyprogenia stegaria 

Fat Pocketbook 

Pearlymussel Endangered Potamilis capax 

Fat Threeridge Endangered Amblema neislerii 

Fine-lined Pocketbook Threatened Lampsilis altilis 

Fine-rayed Pigtoe Endangered Fusconaia cuneolus 

Green-blossom 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum 

Gulf Moccasinshell Endangered Medionidus penicillatus 

Heavy Pigtoe Endangered Pleurobema taitianum 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-9 

Higgins’ Eye 

Pearlymussel Endangered Lampsilis higginsi 

Alabama (Inflated) 

Heelsplitter Threatened Potamilus inflatus 

Little-wing Pearlymussel Endangered Pegias fabula 

Louisiana Pearlshell Threatened Margaritzjfera hembeli 

Flat Pigtoe Mussel Endangered Pleurobema marshalli 

Northern Riffleshell Endangered Epioblasma torulosa ran giana 

Ochlockonee 

moccasinshell Endangered Medionidus simpsonianus 

Orange footed 

Pearlymussel Endangered Plethobasis cooperianus 

Orange-nacre Mucket Threatened Lampsilis perovalis 

Ouachita Rockpocketbook Endangered Arkansia wheeleri 

Oval Pigtoe Endangered Pleurobema pyiforme 

Ovate Clubshell Endangered Pleurobema perovatum 

Oyster Mussel Endangered Epioblasma capsaeformis 

Pale Lilliput 

Pearlymussel Endangered Toxolasma cylindrellus 

Pink Mucket 

Pearlymussel Endangered Lampsilis orbiculata 

Purple Bankclimber Threatened Elliptoideus sloatianus 

Purple Bean Endangered Villosa perpurpurea 

Purple Cat’s Paw 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma obliquata obliquata 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-10 

Ring Pink Mussel Endangered Obovaria retusa 

Rough Pigtoe Endangered Pleurobema plenum 

Rough Rabbitsfoot Endangered Quadrula cylindrica strigillata 

Scaleshell Endangered Leptodea leptodon 

Shiny Pigtoe Endangered Fusconaia cor 

Shinyrayed Pocketbook Endangered Lampsilis subangulata 

Southern Acornshell Endangered Epioblasma othcaloogensis 

Southern Clubshell Endangered Pleurobema decisum 

Southern Pigtoe Endangered Pleurobema georgianum 

Speckled Pocketbook Endangered Lampsilis streckeri 

Stirrup Shell Endangered Quadrula stapes 

Tan Riffle Shell Endangered Epiolasma florentina walkeri 

Tar (River) Spinymussel Endangered Elliptio steinstansana 

Triangular Kidneyshell Endangered Ptychobranchus greeni 

Tubercled-blossom 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma torulosa torulosa 

Turgid-blossom 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma turgidula 

Upland Combshell Endangered Epioblasma metastriata 

White Wartyback 

Pearlymussel Endangered Plethobasus cicatricosus 

White Cat’s Paw 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-11 

Winged Mapleleaf 

Mussel Endangered Quadrula fragosa 

Yellow-blossom 

Pearlymussel Endangered Epioblasma florentina florentina 

Insects

Hine’s Emerald 

Dragonfly Endangered Somatochlora hineana 

Hungerford’s Crawling 

Water Beetle Endangered Brychius hungerfordi 

Northeastern Beach Tiger 

Beetle Threatened Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis 

Puritan Tiger Beetle Threatened Cicindela puritana 

Plants

Beach Layia Endangered Layia carnosa 

Clover Lupine 

[Tidestrom’s lupine] Endangered Lupinus tidestromii 

California Sea Blite Endangered Suaeda californica 

Coastal Dunes Milkvetch Endangered Astragalus tener var. titi 

Contra Costa Goldfields Endangered Lasthenia conjugens 

Howell’s Spineflower Endangered Chorizanthe howe/lu 

Island Rush-rose Threatened Helianthemum greenei 

La Graciosa Thistle Endangered Cirsium loncholepis 

Laguna Beach Liveforever Threatened Dudleya stolonifera 

Lyon’s Pentachaeta Endangered Pentachaeta lyonii 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-12 

Marsh Sandwort Endangered Arenaria paludicola 

Menzies’s Wallflower Endangered Erysimum menziesii 

Prairie Dawn Endangered Hymenoxys texana 

Robust Spineflower Endangered Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta

Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak Endangered Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. 

maritimus 

Santa Cruz Island Rockcress Endangered Sibara filifola 

Sea Beach Amaranth Threatened Amaranthus pumilus 

Sensitive Joint-vetch Threatened Aeschynomene virginica 

Soft Bird’s Beak Endangered Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis 

Sonoma Spineflower Endangered Chorizanthe valida 

Suisun Thistle Endangered Cirsium hydrophilum var. 

hydrophilum 

Ventura Marsh Milkvetch Endangered Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 

lanosissimus 

Water Howellia Threatened Howellia aquatilis 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-1 

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE – 

LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES 

Common Name Population Name ESA Status Scientific Name Critical Habitat

FISH/SHELLFISH 

Salmon, atlantic Gulf of Maine OPS Endangered Salmo salar 

Salmon, chinook Upper Willamette River Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Lower Columbia River Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Puget Sound Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Central Valley spring-run Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Snake River fall-run Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook California Coastal Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Snake River spring/summerrun Threatened Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Sacramento River winter-run Endangered Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chinook Upper Columbia River springrun Endangered Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 

Salmon, chum Columbia River Threatened Oncorhynchus keta Designated 

Salmon, chum Hood Canal summer-run Threatened Oncorhynchus keta Designated 

Salmon, coho Oregon Coast Threatened Oncorhynchus kisutch Designated 

Salmon, coho Central California Coast Threatened Oncorhynchus kisutch Designated 

Salmon, coho Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast Threatened Oncorhynchus kisutch Designated 

Salmon, sockeye Ozette Lake Threatened Oncorhynchus nerka Designated 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-2 

Salmon, sockeye Snake River Endangered Oncorhynchus nerka Designated 

Sawfish, smalltooth U.S. DPS Endangered Pristis pectinata 

Steelhead Middle Columbia River Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead California Central Valley Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Upper Willamette River Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Northern California Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Steelhead Lower Columbia River Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Snake River Basin Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead South-Central California Coast Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Central California Coast Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Upper Columbia River Endangered Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Steelhead Southern California Endangered Oncorhynchus mykiss Designated 

Sturgeon, green Southern DPS Threatened Acipenser medirostris 

Sturgeon, Gulf Range-wide Threatened Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Designated 

Sturgeon, shortnose Range-wide Endangered Acipenser brevirostrum 

Abalone, white California Endangered Haliotis sorenseni 

PLANTS 

Seagrass, Johnson’s Range-wide Threatened Halophila ]ohnsonii Designated 

INVERTEBRATES 

Coral, elkhorn Range-wide Threatened Acropora palmata 

Coral, staghorn Range-wide Threatened Acropora cervicornis 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-3 

MARINE MAMMALS 

/ SEA TURTLES 

Sea Lion, Steller East of 1440

 Long (Eastern 

US) Threatened Eumetopias jubatus Designated 

Sea Lion, Steller West of 1440

 Long (Western 

US) Endangered Eumetopias jubatus Designated 

Seal, Caribbean monk Range-wide Endangered Monachus tropicalis 

Seal, Guadalupe fur Range-wide Threatened Arctocephalis townsendi 

Seal, Hawaiian monk Hawaiian Islands Endangered Monachus schauinslandi Designated 

Seal, Mediterranean 

monk Mediterranean Sea Endangered Monachus monachus 

Whale, blue Range-wide Endangered Balaenoptera musculus 

Whale, bowhead Range-wide Endangered Balaena mysticetus 

Whale, fin Range-wide Endangered Balaenoptera physalus 

Whale, gray Western North Pacific 

(Korean) Endangered Eschrichtius robustus 

Whale, humpback Range-wide Endangered Megaptera novaeangliae 

Whale, killer Southern Resident Endangered Orcinus orca Proposed 

Whale, right Range-wide Endangered Eubalaena glacialis Designated 

Whale, sei Range-wide Endangered Balaenoptera borealis 

Whale, sperm Range-wide Endangered Physeter macrocephalus 

(catodon) 

Turtle, green sea Range-wide Threatened Chelonia mydas Designated 

Turtle, green sea Mexican Breeding Population Endangered Chelonia mydas 

Turtle, green sea Florida Breeding Populations Endangered Chelonia mydas 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-4 

Turtle, hawksbill sea Range-wide Endangered Eretmochelys imbricata Designated 

Turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea Range-wide Endangered Lepidochelys kempii 

Turtle, leatherback sea Range-wide Endangered Dermochelys coriacea Designated 

Turtle, loggerhead sea Range-wide Threatened Caretta caretta 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

D-1 

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF FEDERAL CONSISTENCY 

DETERMINATION LETTER 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

E-1 

APPENDIX E: FEDERALLY APPROVED COASTAL 

ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

STATES and U.S. TERRITORIES 

Alabama 

Alaska 

American Samoa 

California 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Guam 

Hawaii 

Illinois (inactive) 

Indiana 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Carolina 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

Texas 

US Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

Washington 

Wisconsin 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-1 

APPENDIX F: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 

The following represents types of ballast water treatment technologies that may be used 

by vessels to achieve the ballast water standards: This information is not meant to be 

detailed or all-inclusive. 

SEPARATION PROCESSES 

Filtration 

Filtration is intended to physically remove organisms (via mesh strainers or media filter) 

from ballast water at their place of origin, leaving ballast water that can either be treated 

further by other means or that no longer contains organisms that are a potential threat to a 

receiving U.S. water body. Filtration can be done by filtering ballast water before it 

enters a ship or while the water is being discharged from a ship. Studies have shown that 

based on the most practical filter size most zooplankton and some phytoplankton and 

dinoflagellates can be removed, but not bacteria and viruses (Northeast Midwest Institute 

and Glosten-Herbert and Hyde Marine, 2002). Potentially, additional treatment would be 

required to ensure kill effectiveness due to the myriad of types and sizes of marine 

organisms and viruses found in ballast water. 

Cyclonic Separation Treatment

Cyclonic separation via a hydrocyclone is accomplished with no moving parts and 

consists of a hollow, central core with a helical geometry that tapers at one end. The flow 

of ballast water enters via the widest section of the core and is subsequently subjected to 

increasing centrifugal force as it is accelerated down a tapering helical path. This 

centrifugal force separates organisms and sediment from ballast water. However, 

conventional cyclonic separators are limited to separating solids with a specific gravity 

significantly greater than water. Many types of organisms (e.g., bacteria, pathogens, and 

most zooplankton and phytoplankton) would therefore not be separated from the ballast 

water. In some instances cyclonic separators may be effective in killing or otherwise 

inactivating certain types of zooplankton. Additional treatment would be required to 

ensure kill effectiveness due to the neutral buoyancy of a myriad of marine organisms 

and viruses found in ballast water. 

BIOCIDES 

Physical

Ultraviolet Radiation
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-2 

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is generated by an electric arc struck through an inert carrier 

gas located within a sealed glass tube. Heat from the arc causes vaporization of the 

mercury contained within the sealed tube. The mercury becomes ionized and gives off 

UV radiation. The tube is made up of special quartz glass which transmits 70-90% of the 

produced UV radiation into the ballast water where it kills and/or chemically alters 

microorganism on contact. UV radiation triggers photochemical reactions of cellular 

nucleic acids in microorganisms. When a microorganism is exposed to UV treatment, the 

organism’s DNA absorbs it. If the organism receives a sufficient amount of UV photons 

in a short period of time, the organism’s DNA will not replica therefore, the organism’s 

cells are unable to reproduce. For short-lived microorganisms (e.g., viruses, and 

bacteria), this means that a sufficiently dosed community of microorganisms would be 

killed during or soon after treatment. Studies have shown UV has detrimental effects on 

certain zooplankton, phytoplankton, bacteria, and viruses. (Northeast Midwest Institute 

and Glosten-Herbert and Hyde Marine, 2002). 

Thermal (Heat) Treatment

Ballast water is heated, usually by using the “waste” heat from the engine cooling system, 

or exhaust stacks of a vessel. A number of engineering approaches have been proposed, 

from heating water in the ballast water tanks to using sequential arrays of heat 

exchangers, to heat and then cool water external to the tanks during ballasting or during 

the voyage. Heating ballast water to high enough temperatures, maintained for a 

sufficient period of time can be an effective treatment. Heat treatment kills aquatic 

organisms by denaturing cellular proteins and/or increasing metabolism beyond 

sustainable levels. Death by metabolism shutdown generally occurs quicker and at lower 

temperatures for more complex organisms. Thermal treatment effectiveness is a function 

of species’ tolerances, temperature, rate of temperature change, and exposure period. 

Research has shown thermal treatment to be effective against, some invertebrate larvae, 

phytoplankton, dinoflagellate cysts and larger organisms such as fish. But is not effective 

against most pathogenic bacteria or viruses. 

Ultrasonic Treatment 

Ultrasonic treatment uses high frequency energy to cause vibration in ballast water to kill 

microorganisms. Ultrasonic treatment systems use transducers to convert electrical 

energy into vibratory energy of a specific amplitude and frequency. When this energy is 

passed through ballast water, microscopic gas bubbles quickly form, expand, and 

implode. In the area immediately surrounding the bubbles, there are extreme 

temperatures and pressures, which increase chemical reactivity, polymer degradation, and 

free-radical production. Exposure of aquatic microorganism to ultrasonic treatment 

results in cellular disruption and organism death. Similar to heat treatment, ultrasonic 

treatment effectiveness on microorganisms is a function of the magnitude of the 

transmitted energy and the exposure period. Survivors of ultrasonic treatment are not 

likely to experience genetic mutation. Traditional methods of ultrasonic treatments are 

reviewed in Stemming the Tide (NRC, 1996), which states that effectiveness is variable 

when treatment is applied to higher organisms such as zebra mussel and fish. NRC 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-3 

concluded however, that such ultrasound systems could destroy fungi, yeasts, and 

pathogenic bacteria. 

Electric Pulse Treatment 

Electrical treatment in the form of either a high-energy pulse or electrical field is 

generated in ballast water tank or water intakes and pipes. The energy from this 

treatment produces chemical reactions and intense cavitations in the ballast water, which 

is destructive to biological materials. Studies have shown that this treatment is lethal to 

several organisms, such as success brine shrimp, bacteria (E. coli), and zebra mussels. 

Magnetics 

Ballast water is passed through a magnetic field generated by ferromagnetic or 

electromagnetic devices. The biological and chemical effects of magnetic systems are 

not well understood, but it is thought that the organic and inorganic components of living 

organisms in the water are altered by the magnetic field (NRC, 1996). Magnetic forces 

have been shown to kill certain invertebrates, such as zebra mussels. In laboratory tests, 

zebra mussels were exposed to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic waves by water 

that was pumped through an extremely low frequency electromagnetic wave generator. 

Results showed that the electromagnetic waves affected their ability to develop a shell, 

causing them to die within 40 days. Furthermore, it interrupts the zebra mussel's ability 

to absorb and keep calcium (Ryan, 1998). This method has not been tested on a wide 

variety of organisms in seawater so its effectiveness for treating ballast water is yet to be 

determined. 

Chemical

Deoxygenation 

In deoxygenation, oxygen is removed from the ballast water by introducing an inert gas 

such as nitrogen or by binding the oxygen to a chemical additive (sulfur dioxide or 

sodium sulfite). Since most potential invasive species require oxygen to survive this 

deoxygenation of the ballast water can be toxic to a range of fish, invertebrate larvae, and 

aerobic bacteria. However, it is ineffective against anaerobic bacteria, and cyst and spore 

stages, including dinoflagellates cysts. Therefore, it would provide only a partial solution 

to effectively killing all organisms in ballast water. An added benefit of deoxygenating 

ballast water with nitrogen is the reduction of corrosion in the ballast water tanks. 

Oxidizing Biocides 

Oxidizing biocides, notably chlorine or ozone either can be added to ballast water to kill 

microorganisms by destroying their cell membranes through oxidization. Oxidization is 

where a molecule that is electron deficient removes an electron from another molecule. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-4 

Chlorine 

Chlorine is an inexpensive and effective disinfectant for ballast water. The most common 

chlorine chemicals that can be used for ballast water treatment are compounds such as 

sodium hypochlorite (liquid) or liquified chlorine gas. Sodium hypochlorite generated by 

a hypochlorite generator or liquified chlorine gas can be piped to the ballast tanks and be 

allowed to freely mix with the ballast water. As an oxidizing biocide it kills plankton, 

zooplankton, and other microorganisms by destroying cell membranes through 

oxidization. Chlorine also has a high acute toxicity to larger aquatic life, with 

concentrations as low as 0.29 ppm killing trout and 0.71 to 0.82 ppm killing sunfish. 

Impact to ships ballast tank from the corrosion is a concern. 

Ozone 

Ballast water can be treated with ozone as it flows through a device that bubbles ozone 

gas into the water. Most of this gas dissolves into the water, decomposes, and reacts with 

other chemicals in the ballast water to kill organisms by destroying cell membranes 

through oxidization. Oxidization is where a molecule that is electron deficient removes 

an electron from another molecule. Ozone is not appropriate for the removal of species 

such as dinoflagellate cysts and some zooplankton, but could be used to control 

phytoplankton, bacteria, viruses, amoebae, and some protozoa. Ozone is not as effective 

in eliminating larger organisms. Ozone is also likely to be affected by oxidant demand 

from sediments in ballast tanks, may cause corrosion or interfere with corrosion 

protection, and be reduced by iron if used for shipboard treatment. 

Non-oxidizing Biocides 

Non-oxidizing biocides include a large inventory of compounds commonly used in 

industry (e.g., glutaraldehyde-based chemicals) for treating the growth of organisms in 

cooling tower water and other areas where large amounts of biological growth or 

sediment accumulation occur. Non-oxidizing biocides work like pesticides by interfering 

with reproductive, neural, or metabolic functions of microorganisms, such as by 

inhibiting respiration. One non-oxidizing biocide, gluteraldehyde, has been shown to kill 

a wide variety of microorganisms. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-1 

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

Discussion of Comments

 From the Notice of intent with request for comments published on September 26, 

2003 (68 FR 55559), and public scoping meetings that took place in fall 2003, we 

received 85 comment submissions on the issue. We considered all public comments. 

Some commenters raised issues or points that have been incorporated into the DPEIS. 

All relevant comments are summarized below and grouped into specific categories. 

Similar comments are combined when appropriate. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, which would not establish a BWDS. 

Instead the mandatory BWM program established according to the directives in NISA 

would continue to be applicable to vessels entering U.S. waters. 

• Two commenters said that Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) should not remain an 

option. Another commenter stated that the DPEIS should discuss the impact of 

BWE. 

• The Coast Guard received ten comments that opposed the no action alternative or 

found it unacceptable. 

 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Alternatives 2 through 4 

Alternatives 2 through 4 consist of concentration-based discharge standards 

specifying maximum discharge concentrations for living organisms for vessels 

discharging ballast water in U.S. waters, with the level of living individuals (per volume) 

that could be discharged, by size class, and for bacteria and viruses. 

• Three commenters said that discharge standards should be predicated on the 

concentration of organisms released into receiving waters and not on their 

percentage decreases following treatment of ballast water. Another commenter 

supported a concentration-based standard to apply to all vessels and voyages, that 

is not port or organism specific, but is specific to size and the discharge of ballast 

water. 

• One commenter stated that allowing the discharge of specific concentrations for 

various organisms may give some NIS entry into U.S. waters. Also two 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-2 

commenters cautioned that risk depends not only on the concentration of 

organisms in ballast water, but also on the total number of individual organisms 

released. 

• Two commenters said the proposed BWDS should focus on maximum size rather 

than concentration to facilitate enforcement; and the discharge of ballast water 

with organisms greater than 50 to 75 microns should be prohibited. 

• Two commenters said the size distinction should be discarded because 

empirically, the threat imposed by NIS is not diminished by size. 

• One commenter wanted the Coast Guard to consider load of organisms vs. 

concentration-based standard.

• Three commenters stated that the concentrations for the BWDS under these 

alternatives should be based on sound scientific information, and should be 

proven — not just predicted — to prevent an introduction of invasive species with 

a single or cumulative discharge of ballast water. 

• One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard apply risk-based or science-based 

information to the structure of these alternatives and cross-link the BWDS with 

technology to determine what is achievable.

• Two commenters support a risk-based approach to define the BWDS, with one of 

those specifying its application to finding an acceptable organism concentration. 

• One commenter did not support these alternatives because current ecological 

science lacks the predictive certainty required to identify what is the minimal size 

or number of organisms that can be safely discharged without the threat of 

establishment. 

• Another commenter stated that many native and non-native species may assume 

an invasive role if environmental conditions become favorable. Attempting to 

define acceptable densities on an organism in ballast water that may be discharged 

would also be an unrealistic goal. 

• Referencing these alternatives, one commenter stated that a species-based 

approach may not be valid because all species have a potential for introduction 

into new environments. It is hard to predict which species will take off, so an 

organism-blind approach will treat all organisms as bogeys. 

• Two commenters stated that a precise definition of viable organisms is needed. 

• One commenter said that the Coast Guard needs to identify numbers of organisms 

for these alternatives before doing the DPEIS. 

• One commenter wanted to ensure that the concentration approach in Alternatives 

2-4 considers water-specific environmental issues, specifically, by-products or 

treatment products. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• Eight commenters recommended adopting a concentration based BWDS. 

• Two commenters advised that if one of these alternatives is adopted, careful 

attention must be paid to mechanisms of enforcement and to scientific 

information about how the risk of invasion relates to propagule pressure, the 

number of species, and the abundance of organisms introduced. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-3 

• One commenter stated that under some scenarios, Alternatives 2 - 4 could prove 

difficult to manage and enforce. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is a standard requiring discharge of no detectable organisms larger 

than 0.1 micron, and removal or inactivation of all membrane-bound organisms 

(including bacteria), and most viruses. 

• One commenter noted that Alternative 1 proposes that water be treated until 

sterile. This approach may compromise the integrity of the BWM program due to 

its all-or-nothing approach. Domestic drinking water usually contains trace levels 

of toxic and noxious elements and substances, but water quality regulations define 

what concentrations are acceptable. Many native and non-native species may 

assume an invasive role if environmental conditions become favorable. 

Attempting to define acceptable densities of an organism in ballast water that may 

be discharged would be an unrealistic goal. 

• One commenter had difficulty envisioning a program designed to “prevent” the 

introduction of NIS in U.S. waters based on what is known about the many ways 

species may be introduced and the current limitations of treatment processes. The 

commenter suggested that “reducing” the risk of introduction is a more feasible 

approach in implementing such a program because various organizations are 

developing and assessing treatment options, and have favored a working criterion 

of approximately 90 percent effectiveness. 

• One commenter stated that the goals of the BWDS should be aligned with 

Alternative 1, but that the practical approach should use maximum acceptable 

discharge concentrations for zooplankton, phytoplankton, and microbes. 

• One commenter said that if nationwide consistency is necessary or desirable, then 

the technology-based standard must be sufficiently stringent to protect the most 

sensitive ecosystems (i.e., must be close or equal to 100 percent kill rate).

 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• Three commenters stated that the sterilization of ballast water is an unrealistic 

goal, and another stated that it would be difficult to achieve. 

• Two commenters said that ballast water should be treated to drinking water 

standards; therefore, they supported Alternative 1.

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-4 

General Comments

The following are comments that do not refer to any specific alternative. They are 

classified according to subject matter. 

Alternatives in General 

• Two commenters said that the variety of vessel types, receiving waters and 

species life histories calls for a flexible approach to ensure that the most effective 

and environmentally friendly alternatives are used. 

• Another commenter raised the idea of a risk-based approach to define the 

standard. An additional commenter stated they would like a standard that looks at 

a risk assessment approach to find a risk-based acceptable organism 

concentration. 

• Ten commenters stated that while the alternatives suggested by the Coast Guard 

in the Notice of intent (68 FR 55559) are all possible, they hope that the Coast 

Guard will expand the list of alternatives to include less conventional, but equally 

viable, solutions. 

• One commenter explained that while the “quality of ballast” water is a critical 

issue, this could be expanded to include “quantity” of ballast water. Two 

variables that should be considered in a treatment program are the organisms and 

volume of water treated. 

• Two commenters stated that a perspective considering both quality and quantity 

of discharge is lacking in the current documentation. 

• One commenter supported a residual toxicity standard rather than a micro count 

standard. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• One commenter said that a performance standard needs to be adopted so that 

technology vendors will begin development. 

• One commenter suggested that rather than focusing on specific, one-time 

standards or assessing whether alternative treatment technologies are as effective 

as ballast water exchange, the Coast Guard should focus on setting effective; 

environmentally sound treatment standards for ballast water discharge more 

generally. 

• Fifteen commenters stated that the BWDS must use the best available technology 

that is economically feasible, and specifically that economic costs should be 

considered. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-5 

Bacteria and Other Specified Organisms

• Three commenters said that appreciating the size of resting cysts is fundamental 

to setting a scientifically defensible size-exclusion standard. Additionally, one of 

the commenters stated that dinoflagellate cysts should be considered in the 

standard. 

• Two commenters wanted the Coast Guard to exempt bacteria and other single-cell 

organisms from the BWDS because ballast water is only one of many bacteria 

vectors and only a fraction of existing bacteria have been discovered. The 

commenter further stated that chemical treatments that kill bacteria are 

environmentally unfriendly, not practical for shipping, and not economically 

sensible. 

• One commenter said that the scope of the DPEIS should include the concept of 

bacteria as a universal phenomenon and should address whether it should be 

included in the standard instead of creating a standard independent of a vector that 

includes all organisms within a determined concentration and size. 

• Two commenters stated that species exhibiting Allee effects (diminished 

population growth rates at small population sizes) will require a threshold 

population size to establish a BWDS. Allee effects occur in all sexually 

reproducing species, but this is not true of most microorganisms, cladocera, and 

oligochaetes. 

• Three commenters noted that analyses of Vibrio cholerae show some degree of 

antibiotic resistance in 76 percent of isolates from ballast tank samples in the 

Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. If genes encoding for antibiotic resistance 

were transferred in ballast tanks, then it would amplify risks associated with shipmediated transport of bacteria and their subsequent release into receiving ports. 

• Eleven commenters stated that the scope of the DPEIS should include an 

emphasis on public health, water contamination, and spread of human pathogens 

that could potentially undermine efforts to protect public health. An additional 

commenter preferred that human pathogen indicator species be eliminated since 

they are found everywhere in the world. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

Indicator Species

• Two commenters said that the DPEIS should assess whether species that pose a 

high risk of future invasion should be designated as a type of indicator species 

that needs greater attention than other species (e.g., a more stringent standard, a 

more specific test method, and/or increased volume or frequency of sample 

collection). They further stated that the DPEIS should address the question of 

balance between such relatively highly studied indicator species and other less 

studied species that may be capable of similar damage. The DPEIS should poll 

scientific opinion on this question. To the extent that the BWDS relies on a list of 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-6 

indicator species, the DPEIS should consider the mechanism by which such a list 

is created, who created the list, and also when and if the list is updated. Another 

commenter supported careful use of indicators to measure the level of pollutants 

being discharged into the water. Yet, another commenter said that the discussion 

in Alternative 2 should address indicator species for both salt and fresh water. 

• Two other commenters stated that the DPEIS should include a rigorous statistical 

analysis of the conclusions that can be drawn from measured concentrations of 

indicator species. It may be reasonable to use indicator species as a surrogate 

measure of other species, but the relationship is not a matter of simple proportion; 

it must be addressed statistically. 

• Two commenters stated that the presence or abundance of indicator species such 

as Vibrio cholera and Escherichia coli does not necessarily describe the 

composition of invasive microbes. These species are ubiquitous and may be 

found in high concentrations in heavily impacted coastal waters. 

• One commenter preferred that human pathogen indicator species be eliminated 

since they are found everywhere in the world. 

• One commenter stated that research to define indicator species is critical. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

 

• A commenter also stated that as research progresses, the BWDS should be 

regularly updated to be successful in preventing new indicator species of varying 

characteristics from being discharged in ballast water. 

This comment is not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the Coast 

Guard will consider this comment when drafting any subsequent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

BWT Standard

• One commenter urged the Coast Guard to consider the alternative of a BWT 

standard, because it is similar to drinking water from a regulatory perspective. 

Also, two commenters think a BWT standard is more readily enforceable, given 

the present state of technology. It would set a legal limit on the concentration of 

viable organisms that could be carried in the ballast water of vessels navigating in 

U.S. waters. 

 

The Coast Guard considered this comment when developing the DPEIS. 

National Standard

• Three commenters supported a national standard to level the playing field and 

elaborated that a strong Federal standard would prevent states from developing 

their own more stringent standards. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-7 

• One commenter stated that to protect the health of their waterways, states need to 

have the opportunity to provide input into the process of developing a BWDS.

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

 

International Standards and Cooperation

• Two commenters encouraged the development of a BWDS that will be consistent 

with international regulations. 

• Two commenters noted that a discharge, rather than reduction, standard is an 

important step in international consistency of regulations. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Ballast Water Origin & Destination

• Several commenters wanted the DPEIS to consider the question of whether a 

single standard is adequate for the entire range of salinity encountered in U.S. 

waters, or, alternatively, whether separate standards may be needed for ballast 

water that will be discharged into salt, brackish, or fresh water. The BWDS 

should deal with all types of water communities (marine, estuarine, and fresh 

water). 

• Three commenters said the DPEIS needs to address the movement of NIS from 

port to port, within and between the Great Lakes and U.S. waters.

 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• One commenter proposed the idea of exempting species on a port-by-port basis. 

Another commenter asked the Coast Guard to consider a geography-based 

approach, looking at port of origin and the potential for given species being 

present. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Comments on the Great Lakes

• Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard should include an analysis for 

alternatives that may be plausible and appropriate for the Great Lakes, even if 

they may not be for saltwater ports. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-8 

The Coast Guard considered this comment when developing the DPEIS. 

• One commenter said that some of the ideas proposed in the Great Lakes region to 

“prevent” ballast water introductions include prohibition of all vessel entries. The 

alternative means that the movement of products and goods to and from this 

region could have substantial environmental and socioeconomic effects. Three 

commenters said that the DPEIS should evaluate the possibility of requiring 

ocean-going vessels bound for the Great Lakes to transfer cargo to rail or truck 

carriers, and of banning ocean-going vessels from entry into the Great Lakes. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Comments on Exemptions— No Ballast Onboard (NOBOB) Vessels

• Two commenters explained that NOBOB vessels pose a greater collective risk of 

ballast-mediated introductions, especially of species that are capable of diapauses 

or production of resistant life stages. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• Several commenters addressed (NOBOB) vessels. One of these commenters 

stated that there should be interim standards for NOBOB vessels, for example, a 

method in which there is a partial exchange of ballast water to remove residual 

sludge that accumulates in the ballast tanks of NOBOB vessels. Another 

commenter stated that the BWDS will exempt intercoastal travel, will not address 

NOBOB vessels, and cannot be quantified, and that the Coast Guard must develop 

a more logical interim standard. A third commenter said that the Coast Guard 

should be regulating NOBOB vessels in the Great Lakes - the NOBOB exemption 

appears to be contrary to Federal law and should therefore be discontinued. 

These comments are not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the 

Coast Guard will consider these comments when drafting any subsequent notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Development Schedule [Adaptive Standard]

• One commenter wanted to expedite the DPEIS and asked for a timeline. Another 

commenter requested that the DPEIS be a high priority to reflect the urgency of 

protecting the Great Lakes from new invasions. As a first-tier environmental 

review, the DPEIS should be completed quickly to allow for more substantive 

action to occur in a timely manner. The commenter is concerned that no timeline 

for finalizing the DPEIS is presented in the Notice of Intent, published in the 

Federal Register. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-9 

 This comment is not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the Coast 

Guard will consider this comment when drafting any subsequent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Biological Environment 

• Two commenters stated that any BWDS must be based on biological 

effectiveness. 

• One commenter said that the Coast Guard should focus on aquatic invasive 

species and their threat in order to find practical methodologies for dealing with 

them. 

• One commenter remarked on the need to consider biology in developing the 

BWDS. This commenter and fifteen others stated that the scope of the DPEIS 

should consider ecosystem and environmental damage and the ecological effects 

of the BWDS on all ecosystems. 

• Eleven commenters stated that it is virtually impossible to determine which 

species will integrate into U.S. waters and become invasive, because a very high 

percentage of these species may be low risk, if introduced to a new environment. 

Developing a generic standard for a species could be difficult because survival of 

an introduced species will be strongly influenced by the receiving environment. 

• Three commenters stated that for treatment standards to be biologically effective, 

they should include all types of organic species, such as planktonic species, 

bacteria, viruses, and all aquatic species of plants, animals, and invertebrates. 

• One commenter thought that consideration of life stage information should be 

included in the evaluation and development of the BWDS. 

• Two commenters said that regardless of the approach used to select a BWDS, it 

must accord with three criteria: (1) the approach must be based on current theory 

in invasion biology, which indicates that spatial spread and/or nonlinearities in 

population dynamics create thresholds in the probability of establishment; (2) the 

approach will account for differences among species; and (3) the approach must 

apply to a range of species. 

• One commenter brought up the long-term effect of dead bio-matter 

accumulations. Another commenter wanted the Coast Guard to consider the 

effect of any introductions of contaminants and contaminant processing within the 

ecosystem. 

• Two commenters expressed concern about the Coast Guard’s ability to develop a 

BWDS in terms of environment size (i.e., ecologically distinct regions). One of 

these commenters also noted that closed aquatic systems and their boundaries 

should be very carefully defined. 

• Two commenters recommended using a computer model to determine a threshold 

or quantity of a specific viable NIS that constitutes risk to a given ecosystem. 

• One commenter said that the short-term costs of preventive measures should be 

judged against the alternative, which is permanent degradation of aquatic 

ecosystems and permanent losses of aquatic resources. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-10 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

• One commenter wanted to address marine sanctuaries or aquatic reserves with 

additional regulations. 

This comment is not within the scope of the notice of intent. However, the Coast 

Guard will consider this comment when drafting any subsequent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards. 

Physical Environment

• One commenter discussed the additive impacts to water quality from treated 

ballast water that is discharged in port. Another commenter said that the BWDS 

should address water quality impacts such as changes in water characteristics, 

temperature, and pH. 

• One commenter asked about the impact of the BWDS on air quality. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 

Socioeconomic Environment

• Eight commenters stated that socioeconomic costs and effects should be 

considered. An additional commenter stated that trade agreements and 

competitive commerce should be considered in the Coast Guard’s socioeconomic 

analysis. 

• One commenter said that the Coast Guard needs to look at domestic and foreign 

commerce. 

• Three commenters stated that the DPEIS should consider recreational 

opportunities, including ecotourism, and four commenters asked about the impact 

of the BWDS on commercial and recreational fishing. 

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-1 

APPENDIX H: REGULATORY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 

This section presents a summary of the USCG Regulatory Analysis for the Standards for 

Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in the U.S. water rule (USCG 

2008). 

Under Executive Order 12866, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is required to 

conduct an analysis of the costs, benefits, and other impacts for a significant rulemaking. 

We expect this rulemaking to be economically significant (i.e., the rulemaking would 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more). 

This preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA) provides supporting documentation for the 

regulatory evaluation in the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for 

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters 

[USCG-2001-10486]. We did not attempt to replicate precisely the regulatory language 

of the proposed rule in this RA. The regulatory text, not the text of this RA, would be 

legally binding. 

The unintentional introduction of nonindigenous species (NIS) into the waters of the 

United States via the discharge of vessels’ ballast water continues to pose a serious risk to 

coastal facilities and global biodiversity. Current U.S. regulations require ballast water 

discharge (BWD) to reduce introductions of NIS. Currently, the primary method for 

controlling ballast water discharged in U.S. waters is a mid-ocean exchange of ballast 

water obtained from waters outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Concern 

remains that this approach to ballast water management is not sufficiently effective in 

preventing the introduction of NIS nor can many vessels conduct ballast water exchange 

because of safety issues and/or voyage constraints. 

The U.S. is proposing a rule to establish a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) for 

the allowable concentrations of living organisms discharged via ballast water into U.S. 

waters. While it has been adopted by the International Maritime Organization, it has not 

been ratified by enough countries to bring it into force as an international requirement 

yet, though the Coast Guard expects this to eventually be ratified. This rulemaking is 

consistent with the IMO proposed BWDS under the International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments (also known as Ballast 

Water Management (BWM) Convention) of February 2004. 

This document provides a summary of the evaluation of the economic impacts associated 

with the implementation of standards limiting the quantities of living organisms in 

vessels’ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters. The focus of this assessment is to 

analyze the costs and benefits of implementing the proposed IMO standard (Alternative 

2). We considered the following five alternative standards for this rulemaking: 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-2 

Alternative 1: No Action 

The No Action Alternative would not establish a BWDS but would continue the existing 

BWM program. Currently, the mandatory BWM program, established in 2004, directs 

vessels to conduct mid-ocean exchange, retain ballast water onboard, or use an 

environmentally sound management method approved by the USCG. 

Alternatives 2-4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 

Alternatives 2-4 would establish maximum discharge concentrations for viable 

organisms. Each of these alternatives is stated in terms of two organism size classes and 

the number of viable organisms per volume discharged by each size class. A third class: 

microorganisms; is specified in terms of indicator bacteria and the number of colonyforming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml). The standard becomes progressively more 

stringent from Alternative 2 to Alternative 4 (Alternatives 3 and 4 are 10 times and 100 

times more stringent than Alternative 2, respectively). 

Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative and analyzed in depth in this RA. 

Table H-1 shows the concentrations of organisms allowed under each alternative. 

Table H-1 Allowable concentration of organisms in BWD, by size, for Alternatives 2-4 

Large 

Organisms > 

50 microns in 

size 

Small 

Organisms >10 

and ≤50 

microns in size 

Bacteria 

Toxigenic Vibrio 

cholerae (O1 and 

O139) 

E. coli Intestinal 

Enterococci

Alternative 2 <10 per m3 <10 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <250 cfu per 

100 ml 

<100 cfu per 

100 ml 

Alternative 3 <1 per m3 <1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 

100 ml

<33 cfu per 

100 ml

Alternative 4 <0.1 per m3 <0.1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 

100 ml

<33 cfu per 

100 ml

Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-3 

Alternative 5 would require the removal or inactivation of all living membrane-bound 

organisms (including bacteria and some viruses) larger than 0.1 micron. 

Population Affected

This proposed rule will affect vessels operating in U.S. waters1 equipped with ballast 

tanks, including vessels bound for offshore ports or places. These vessels are required to 

install and operate USCG approved ballast water management systems (BWMS) before 

discharging ballast water into U.S. waters. Additionally, whether or not the vessel 

traveled 200 nautical miles offshore is not a factor in determining applicability. This 

means that some vessels that operated exclusively in the coastwise trade (within the 

EEZ), and were previously exempt from having to perform BWE, would now be required 

to meet the BWDS. 

The primary source of data used in this analysis is the Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement (MISLE) system and Ballast Water Reporting Forms submitted to the 

National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). MISLE is the USCG database 

system for information on vessel characteristics, arrivals, casualties, and inspections. The 

NBIC database is maintained by the Smithsonian and provides information on the amount 

of ballast water discharged in U.S. ports for the all vessel types calling on U.S. waters. 

Since October 2004, all U.S. and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters and bound for 

U.S. ports or places must submit reports of their BWM practices to the NBIC database. 

33 CFR 151.2041. 

Approximately 7,575 vessels from the current vessel population, of which 2,616 are U.S. 

vessels, would be required to meet the BWDS. Full implementation is required by 2016. 

The installation requirements for new and existing vessels are phased in over the 2012 

through 2016 period. Table H-2 presents the number of potential vessels operating in 

U.S. waters that would be covered under the proposed BWDS. 

 

1

 Waters of the United States means waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in 33 

CFR 2.3, including the navigable waters of the United States. For 33 CFR Part 151, subpart C and D, the 

navigable waters include the territorial sea as extended to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, pursuant to 

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-4 

Table H-2 Potential vessels affected by BWD Standards 

Type of Vessel Classification Criteria a

Vessels Operating in U.S. Waters 

(2007)

U.S. 

Vessels 

Foreign 

Vessels 

Total 

Number of 

Vessels 

Bulk carriers

Handy <50,000 DWT 22 1,050 1,072

Panamax 50,000-80,000 DWT 11 509 520

Capesize >80,000 DWT 6 46 52

Tank Ships

Handy <35,000 DWT 6 116 122

Handymax-Aframax 35,000-120,000 DWT 19 709 728

Suezmax 120,000-160,000 DWT 3 100 103

VLCC 160,000-320,000 DWT 1 154 155

ULCC > 320,000 DWT 0 16 16

Container ships

Feeder <500 TEU 27 39 66

Feedermax 500-1000 TEU 10 51 61

Handy 1000-2000 TEU 10 126 136

Subpanamax 2000-3000 TEU 38 172 210

Panamax >3000 TEUb 29 174 203

Postpanamax >3000 TEUc 21 272 293

Other vessels

Passenger ship All sizes 166 129 295

Gas carrier All sizes 6 118 124

Chemical carrier All sizes 23 513 536

RORO All sizes 66 321 387

Combination vessel All sizes 170 22 192

General cargo All sizes 1,166 258 1,424

Fishing Vessels All sizes 731 16 747

OSVs All sizes 85 48 133

Total 2,616 4,959 

7,575 

a. Vessel classifications source: USGC (2004) 

b. Vessel length and beam within Panama Canal limits. 

c. Vessel length or beam exceed Panama Canal limits. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-5 

This rulemaking is consistent with the IMO BWDS proposed at the International 

Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments (also 

known as BWM Convention) of February 2004. For the purposes of this RA, we consider 

the bottom-line costs of this rulemaking to involve U.S. vessels only. Nevertheless, we 

anticipate that the development of treatment technology will involve the world fleet, not 

only the U.S. fleet alone. Also, for the purpose of this rulemaking, we do consider all 

vessels operating in U.S. waters when developing the average per vessel installation and 

operating unit costs since the U.S. fleet is relatively small and not representative of all 

vessel types. 

Costs of Alternative Ballast Water Discharge Standards 

The IMO BWM Convention has spurred development of alternative ballast water 

management systems (BWMS) that will enable vessels to meet the IMO discharge 

standard (Alternative 2). Various technologies are being evaluated in shipboard trials and 

land-based laboratory testing. 

Not all systems are appropriate for all vessel types. Estimated annual operating costs for a 

BWMS is 2 to 4 times the cost of using mid-ocean BWE. The increased operational costs 

relate, in part, to the use of chemicals or other agents in the BWMS and are also due to 

the treatment of certain discharges not required under current regulations. Cost estimates 

contain a degree of uncertainty because these emerging technologies are in their 

formative stages. The BWMS on ships is a new process for which there is minimal 

operating practical experience. Any discussion of the treatment technologies, 

effectiveness, costs, and operating issues is provisional. 

Approximately 4,758 BWMS installations for the U.S. vessels would be required by 2021 

because of projected fleet growth. We expect the highest annual costs to come between 

2012 and 2016, as all of the existing fleet must meet the standards according to the phasein schedule proposed by the rule (Table H-3). The primary cost-driver of this rulemaking 

is the installation cost for all existing vessels. After 2016, we estimate operating costs to 

be substantially less. 

For the purposes of estimating the total operational cost of BWMS, we multiply the 

operating costs by the proportion of vessels we have estimated to be treating ballast each 

year. However, once a vessel begins treatment of ballast water, its operational cost 

carries into the future. Therefore, the total cost of the BWMS during the installation 

period will increase substantially due to the cumulative nature of operating BWMS. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-6 

Table H-3 Costs to the U.S. vessels to comply with IMO Convention (Alternative 2) BWD Standard 

($Mil) 

Year 

Installation Costs Treated 

Ballast 

Water 

(m3)

Annual Operating Costs Total Cost 

3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount

2012 $247.68 $238.42 1,132,153 $0.19 $0.18 $247.87 $238.61

2013 $241.64 $223.91 2,241,913 $0.37 $0.34 $242.00 $224.25

2014 $246.22 $219.63 3,442,354 $0.54 $0.48 $246.77 $220.11

2015 $199.62 $171.40 4,459,499 $0.68 $0.59 $200.30 $171.99

2016 $194.97 $161.15 5,562,279 $0.83 $0.68 $195.80 $161.84

2017 $42.51 $33.82 5,705,753 $0.82 $0.66 $43.33 $34.47

2018 $42.44 $32.51 5,874,496 $0.82 $0.63 $43.26 $33.14

2019 $42.38 $31.24 6,047,200 $0.82 $0.61 $43.20 $31.85

2020 $42.32 $30.03 6,223,966 $0.82 $0.58 $43.14 $30.62

2021 $42.26 $28.87 6,404,897 $0.82 $0.56 $43.09 $29.44

Total $1,342.04 $1,171.00 $6.73 $5.32 $1,348.77 $1,176.31

Annualized $157.33 $166.72 $0.79 $0.76 $158.12 $167.48 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

We estimate that the first-year total (initial) cost of this rulemaking to be $239 million 

based on a 7 percent discount rate and $248 million based on a 3 percent discount rate. 

Over the 10-year period of analysis (2012-2021), the total cost of Alternative 2 for the 

U.S. vessels is approximately $1.18 billion using the 7 percent discount rate and $1.35 

billion using the 3 percent discount rate. Our cost assessment includes existing and new 

vessels. 

The costs associated with the higher standards of Alternatives 3 and 4 (one-tenth and onehundredth of Alternative 2, respectively) are more speculative. Capital and operational 

costs could increase. We estimate that the costs for Alternative 3 would be double those 

for Alternative 2, and that the costs for Alternative 4 would be quadruple those for 

Alternative 2. 

At this time, the most feasible approach for achieving the Alternative 5 standard 

(essentially sterilization) is through the elimination of ballast water discharge. For some 

vessel types, such as large containerships and roll on/roll off vessels, this may be feasible. 

For other vessel types, such as bulk carriers, it is not possible to eliminate discharge of 

ballast without significant reduction in cargo carrying capacity - up to 35 percent of the 

payload. 

We compared the costs of implementing Alternative 2 for BWDS (the alternative 

proposed in the NPRM) to shipping revenues and consumer retail prices for goods 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-7 

typically transported by vessels. We have also compared amortized installation costs to 

long-term charter rates. These costs typically represent less than one percent of long-term 

charter rates. Costs to the consumer are further diluted because maritime transportation 

costs generally represent only one to two percent of the retail cost of goods. Although the 

overall cost of implementing this proposed rule is significant, the cost will not be 

noticeable by the consumer because the costs will have minimal impact on the costs of 

goods and services. 

Economic Costs of Invasions of Non-indigenous Species 

NIS introductions, occurring at increasingly rapid rates, contribute to the loss of marine 

biodiversity and have associated with it significant social, economic, and biological 

impacts Avoided costs associated with future NIS invasions represent one of the benefits 

of BWM. Economic costs from invasions of NIS range in the billions of dollars annually. 

Evaluation of these impacts was difficult because of limited knowledge of the patterns 

and basic processes that influence marine biodiversity. The most extensive review to date 

on the economic costs of introduced species in the U.S. includes estimates for many types 

of NIS, and is reflected in Table ES-4. 

Table H-4 Estimated Annual Costs of Aquatic Introduced Species ($ 2007) 

Species Costs 

Fish $5.7 billion 

Zebra and Quagga mussels $1.06 billion 

Asiatic clam $1.06 billion 

Aquatic weeds $117 million 

Green Crab $47 million 

Note: See Chapter 5 "Economic Cost of Invasions of Non-indigenous 

Species" for additional details and source information. 

Though a particular invasion may have small direct economic impacts, the accumulation 

of these events may cost in the billions of dollars every year. However, only a few 

invasions to date have led to costs in the billions of dollars per year. 

Ballast water discharge and hull-fouling are the two main vectors by which NIS are 

introduced into the marine environment associated with shipping. The proposed BWDS 

will not address hull fouling. The relative impact of ballast water and hull fouling vectors 

has not been fully understood (Ruiz 2002). 

Benefits of Ballast Water Discharge Standards 

The benefits of BWDS are difficult to quantify because of the complexity of the 

ecosystem and the lack of understanding about the probabilities of invasions based on 

prescribed levels of organisms in ballast water. However, evaluation of costs associated 

with previous invasions (described above) allows a comparison of the cost of discharge 

standards versus the potential costs avoided. Because the amount of shipping traffic and 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-8 

the number of incidents of invasions per year are both increasing, historical data provide 

a lower bound for the basis of benefit evaluation. 

We evaluated the functional benefits prior to comparing monetary benefit measures. The 

primary functional benefits of Alternative 2 are: 

• A reduction in the concentration of all organisms leading to lower numbers of 

these organisms being introduced per discharge; and 

• The elimination of the exemptions in the BWM regulations leading to the 

discharge of unmanaged ballast water (e.g., safety concerns during exchange, 

deviation/delay of voyage required to travel to acceptable mid-ocean exchange 

location). 

This overall strategy should reduce the number of new invasions because the likelihood 

of establishment decreases with reduced numbers of organisms introduced per discharge 

or inoculation. 

We calculate potential benefits of the BWDS by estimating the number of invasions that 

would be reduced and the range of economic damage that would be avoided. We use 

information on the invasion rate of invertebrates from shipping, as reported by Ruiz et al. 

(2000), to project the number of future shipping invasions per year. We then estimate the 

number of fish and aquatic plant invasions based on the historical relationships of fish 

and plant invasions compared to invertebrate invasions. We then adjust the projected 

invasions to account for the fraction of invasions that are attributable to ballast water and 

the fraction of invasions that cause severe economic damage. The resulting projection of 

the number of ballast water invasions that will cause harm is displayed in Table H-5. 

Table H-5 Estimated Number of Ballast Water Invasions that Cause Harm 

Year Invertebrate Fish Aquatic Plant 

2012 0.372 0.074 0.149 

2013 0.381 0.076 0.152 

2014 0.390 0.078 0.156 

2015 0.399 0.080 0.160 

2016 0.409 0.082 0.164 

2017 0.419 0.084 0.168 

2018 0.429 0.086 0.172 

2019 0.439 0.088 0.176 

2020 0.450 0.090 0.180 

2021 0.461 0.092 0.184 

Total 4.149 0.830 1.659 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-9 

To estimate the potential economic harm that may be caused by these invasions, we 

assign a cost per invasion based on the limited available data on the range of costs and 

damages incurred by past invasions. As no comprehensive estimate is available on the 

costs from past invasions, we do not try to develop a composite cost estimate for all 

invasions, but instead select a low and high estimate for fish, aquatic plants, and 

invertebrates based on representative species. We then calculate a mid-point for the 

range and calculate costs for future invasions using all three values. The resulting ranges 

of costs per invasions are summarized in Table H-6. 

Table H-6: Range of Annual Costs Associated with Selected NIS Introductions ($ 2007) 

Low-Range Mid-Range High Range 

Fish $ 15,805,000 [1] $ 160,547,000 $ 305,289,000 [2] 

Invertebrates $ 19,538,000 [3] $ 539,769,000 $ 1,060,000,000 [4] 

Aquatic Plants $ 4,507,000 [5] $ 214,585,500 $ 424,664,000 [6] 

[1] From Jenkins 2001, economic impact of sea lamprey on Great Lakes, updated from 2001$ 

[2] From Leigh 1998, commercial and recreational fishing benefits lost due to ruffe invasion of Great Lakes, 

updated from 1998$ 

[3] From Connelly et al. 2007, cost of Zebra Mussel control at WTP and electric generation facilities, updated 

from 2004$ 

[4] From Piementel et al. 2005, cost of Zebra Mussel or Asian Clam, updated from 2005$ 

[5] From Rockwell 2003, cost to control Water Hyacinth in Louisiana, updated from 2003$ 

[6] From Pimentel 2005, cost to control Eurasion watermilfoil, updated from 2005$ 

We assume that once an invasion is established, it will continue to generate costs and/or 

damages for each year subsequent to the invasion. Thus, an invasion that occurs in the 

first year of our analysis (2012) will incur costs/damages in each of the next 10 years 

(through 2021). 

Based on the cumulative impacts of invasions, we have calculated a mid-range estimate 

of annual costs for all harmful ballast water-introduced invasions over the 10 year period 

of 2012 to 2021 at $2.016 billion at a 7 percent discount (Table H-7). These estimates 

assume no ballast water management. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-10 

Table H-7 Potential Cost ($Mil)/Damage of BW Invasion over a 10-year Period 

Range of NIS Costs 

Total Cost for 

(3% disc. rate) 

Total Cost for 

(7% disc. rate) 

Low Range $ 83 $ 75 

Mid Range $ 2,232 $ 2,016 

High Range $ 4,382 $ 3,957 

The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (USCG 2008) estimates the 

reduction in the mean rate of successful introductions of various alternative standards. In 

comparison with the existing practice of ballast water exchange, Alternative 2 is between 

37 percent and 63 percent effective in preventing invasions when fully implemented. We 

use these estimates of the reduction in the rate of invasions to estimate the economic 

cost/damage avoided as a result of a BWDS. 

As discussed earlier, the implementation of the Alternative 2 BWDS will be phased-in 

over several years. During the phase-in period of 2012-2016, there is considerable 

uncertainty as to how effective the measures will be in preventing invasions. This is 

because only a subset of ships will have implemented ballast water management in any of 

these years. There is also uncertainty as to the availability and effectiveness of ballast 

water management technologies in the early stages of implementation. For these reasons 

we conservatively assume that no invasions will be avoided before the end of this period 

(2012-2016), which may lead to an underestimate of potential benefits. 

The resulting damages avoided for Alternative 2 range from a minimum of $6 million 

and the maximum is $553 million with a mid-range estimate of $165-$282 million per 

year at a 7 percent discount rate2

 (Table H-8). 

 

2

 The large range in the estimates of benefits from preventing invasive species is due to the natural 

variability in the amount of damage caused by any individual species (i.e., different species can cause a 

wide range of damages from very little in a small area to large, widespread damages). In addition, the 

method, scope, and magnitude used throughout the literature to estimate a dollar value of the damages 

caused by invasions introduces a considerable amount of uncertainty into the estimates. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-11 

Table H-8: Potential Annual Benefits (Averted Cost), in Millions, of BW Invasion over a 10-year 

Period 

Alternative 2 Low Range Costs Per 

Species 

Mid Range Costs Per 

Species 

High Range Costs Per 

Species 

Reductions in 

Mean Rate of 

Invasion 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

Low Effectiveness - 

37% 

$ 7 $ 6 $ 194 $ 165 $ 380 $ 325 

High Effectiveness 

- 63% 

$ 12 $ 10 $ 330 $ 282 $ 647 $ 553 

The annualized cost for U.S. vessels over the 10-year period of 2012-2021 for Alternative 

2 is estimated at $167 million at a 7 percent discount rate. Thus, quantified benefits are 

roughly equal to estimated costs for the mid-point benefits estimate of Alternative 2 Low 

Effectiveness. The high range annual cost estimate of $307 million is roughly equal to 

the high range benefits estimate of Alternative 2 Low Effectiveness. 

FigureH-1: Range of Quantified Benefits and Annual Costs for Alternative 2 

(7% Discount Rate, $2007) 

Low Mid High

 Low Mid High

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

Benefits

Alt 2 Low 

Effectiveness

Benefits 

Alt 2 High 

Effectiveness

Average Annualized Costs

The cumulative economic damages avoided would equal cumulative costs incurred by 

2019 for Alternative 2 assuming a higher reduction rate of 63 percent and in 2021 for 

Alternative 2 assuming a low reduction in invasion rate of 37 percent. Figure H-2 

illustrates the cumulative costs of the BWD in relationship to the damages avoided. 
 April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-12 

Figure H-2: Comparison of Cumulative Costs and Benefits 

(7% Discount Rate, $2007, Mid-Point Invasion Estimate) 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Benefits, Alt 2 Low: 37% 

Reduction in Invasion Rate

Benefits, Alt 2 High: 63% 

Reduction in Invasion Rate 

Cumulative Domestic Costs
April 2008 

USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-1 

APPENDIX I: TIMELINE OF BALLAST WATER REQUIRE

1990 

Ballast Water Terminology 

Ballast water management (BWM) and ballast water exchange (BWE) are terms used as part of the USCG-established program of mandatory requirements (e

voluntary guidelines (established 2001). The USCG established acceptable BWM methods, including BWE, holding water onboard, discharging ballast water at aan alternative USCG-approved BWM method. BWM is mandated for vessels entering the Great Lakes and the Hudson River but is voluntary for the rest of U.S. wBallast water treatment (BWT) is discussed in the May 1, 2001, Notice of Request for Public Comments which published four conceptual approaches to BWT s

assessing the effectiveness of BWT relative to BWE. Ballast water discharge (BWD) standard emerges in the September 26, 2003, Notice of Intent that states that, “Although the initial Federal Register publications standards, the critical issue has always been the quality of the ballast water actually discharged from the vessels. Therefore, beginning with this notice the emphasballast water discharges” [68 FR 55560]. Thus the term BWDS emerged. 

2001 [May 1] Approaches to Setting Ballast Water Treatment Standards, Notice of Request for 

Public Comments: Published four conceptual approaches to ballast water treatment (BWT) standards and on approaches for assessing the effectiveness of BWT relative to BWE. 

200LiviWaNotregutermbegarela(BWfocuqualdiscterm 

1993 [April 8] BallastWater Management for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes: Established mandatory ballast water management (BWM) procedures for vessels entering the Great Lakes. 

1996 [October 26]National Invasive Species Act: Congress reauthorized and amended direction to USCG to prevent the introduction of NIS via ballast water. 

1990 [November 29]Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act:Congress directed USCG to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species (NIS) via ballast water prior to ships entering the Great Lakes. 

2002 [March 4] Standards for Living OrgShip’s Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. WAdvanced Notice of Proposed Rulemakinfor Comments: Published the developmenstandard and requested public comments to BWT goal and standard. USCG asked commdetermine alternative BWM methods that arenvironmentally sound and as effective as oin preventing and controlling nonindigenou

species. 

1994 [December 30]Ballast Water Management for Vessels Entering the Hudson River:Established mandatory BWM procedures for vessels entering the Hudson River. 

2001[November 21] Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,Final Rule (voluntary) Title 33 CFR Part 151: USCG finalized the interim rule of 1999 establishing a program of mandatory reporting requirements and voluntary management guidelines.

1999 [November 17] Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,Interim Rule, Title 33 CFR Part 151: USCG established a program of mandatory reporting requirements and voluntary management guidelines. USCG established acceptable BWM methods, including ballast water exchange (BWE), holding water onboard, discharging ballast water at an approved reception facility, or using an alternative USCG-approved BWM method. BWM is mandated for vessels entering the Great Lakes and the Hudson River but is voluntary for the rest of U.S. waters.