April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1

2


## BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE STANDARD 3

4 

## Draft Programmatic Environm ental Impact Statement 5

6 

## April 2008 7

8



### Prepared by the 9


### United States Coast Guard 10

11October 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 a ny 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 D avis 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 Kirkbride 1 , Brad McKitrick 1 , Bivan Patnaik 1 , Andrew Solow 2 , Richard Everett 1 , and Katherine O’Dell 1 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; 2 Woods 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 consid ered with respect to their impacts to the environment from sett ing a ballast water discharge standard. Three of the concentration ba sed alternatives were analyzed with an ecological model to ascertain their effects on marine, estuarine, and freshwater e nvironments; threatened and endangered species; and essential fis h habitat, as well as socioeconomic resources. Based on the mode ling 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 o n the aforementioned resources would likewise decrease as the standards become more stringent.

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 14. SUBJECT TERMS 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

1April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement



## ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1

2

3

4

5

The Coast Guard would like to thank the De partment of Transportation’s John A. Volpe 6 National Transportation Systems Center for it s invaluable and significant contribution to 7 this Draft Programmatic Envir onmental Impact Statement. 8April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

iv 1


# TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

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

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

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

1.1 Introduction

.............................................................................................................. . 1 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 ALTERNATIVES

............................................................................................................ 1 14

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

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

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

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Ballast Water Discharg e Concentrations (Preferred Alternative) 18 5 19

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Ballast Wate r Discharge Concentrations .................................... 6 20April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

v 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Ballast Wate r Discharge Concentrations .................................... 6 1

2.2.5 Alternative 5: Essent ially Sterilization .............................................................. 6 2

2.2.6 Alternatives Initially Considere d, But Not Further Analyzed: Percent 3 Reduction Standards ...................................................................................................... 7 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.8 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................. 21 20April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.5 Subsistence

....................................................................................................... 28 6

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

3.9.7 Comm ercial Fishing ......................................................................................... 31 8

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

3.9.9 Environm ental Justice ...................................................................................... 34 10

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

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

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

4.1 Introduction

.............................................................................................................. . 1 14

4.2 Background

............................................................................................................... 2 15

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

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

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

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

4.3.2 No Action Alternative Effectiveness ............................................................... 11 20April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

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

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

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

4.4.1 Marine, Estuarine, and Freshwater Ecosystems, Threatened and Endangered 4 Species, and Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 17 5

4.4.2 Socioeconom ics ............................................................................................... 19 6

4.5 Cum ulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 21 7

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

4.7 Irrev ersible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................................... 25 9

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

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

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

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

5.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conser vation and Management Act ............................. 2 14

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

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

APPENDIX A: Technical Report Environm ental Methodology, Analysis, and Results

..... 1 17

APPENDIX B: Fish and W ildlife Serv ice - Listed and Proposed Species ........................... 1 18

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

APPENDIX D: Sa mple of Federal Consistency Determination Letter ................................ 1 20April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

viii APPENDIX E: Federally Approved Co astal Zone Management Programs ......................... 1 1

APPENDIX F: Treatm ent Technologies ................................................................................ 1 2

APPENDIX G: Summ ary of Comments ............................................................................... 1 3

APPENDIX H: Regulatory An alysis Executive S ummary .................................................... 1 4

APPENDIX I: Tim eline of Ballast Wa ter Requirements and Guidelines.............................. 1 5

6April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ix 

## LIST OF ACRONYMS 1

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service BWD ballast water discharge

BWDS ballast water di scharge 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 OfficeApril 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 Pr otection Act of 1972

NAA no action alternative NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisan ce Prevention and Control Act of 1990

NEPA National Environmen tal Policy Act of 1969 NIS nonindigenous species NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and A tmospheric 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 septicemiaApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-1 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Purpose and Need 2

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has ev aluated the impacts to the environment from 3 a range of alternative ballast water discharg e standards (BWDS). A BWDS would be used 4 to approve ballast water management systems (BWMS) that are effective in preventing or 5 reducing the introduction of noni ndigenous species (NIS) via di scharged ballast water. 6 The USCG is the lead federal agency fo r this action under the authority of the 7 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventi on and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) as 8 reauthorized and amended in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). 9

Ballast water is taken on by a vessel to increas e the water draft, change the trim, regulate 10 the stability, or maintain stre ss loads within acceptable operational limits. The term NIS 11 refers to organisms found outside of their native or historical range. In cases where they 12 invade ecosystems, NIS may alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, impact 13 commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, contribute to potential 14 risks to human health, and ge nerally create detrimental ec onomic impacts (USCG 2003). 15 Ballast water discharge (BWD) is a major pathway for NIS introduction from vessels 16 operating in or entering U.S. waters. 17

On September 26, 2003, the USCG announced it s proposed action to establish a BWDS 18 that is effective in preventing the introducti on and spread of NIS vi a discharged ballast 19 water. (68 FR 55559). This Draft Progr ammatic Environmental Impact Statement 20 (DPEIS) addresses the effects on the human and natural environment of five alternatives 21 for the proposed regulatory action to estab lish a BWDS. (68 FR 55559). The USCG will 22 use this DPEIS to make an informed d ecision about a BWDS and to understand the 23 nationwide environmental and socioec onomic implications of the decision. 24

Alternatives 25

Alternative 1 is the no acti on alternative (NAA) and woul d not establish a BWDS. 26 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would establish maxi mum acceptable discharge concentrations for 27 various types of potential NIS with the goal of reducing introducti ons and associated 28 impacts. Alternative 5 is essentially a requi rement for sterilization of ballast water. 29

Alternative 1: No Action 30

This alternative would not establish a BWDS at all but would con tinue the existing BWM 31 program. As currently framed, the mandatory Ballast Water Management (BWM) 32 program, established in 2004, directs ships to conduct mid-ocean exchange, retain ballast 33 water onboard, or use an environmentall y sound management method approved by the 34 USCG. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-2 Alternatives 2-4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 1

Under Alternatives 2-4, maximum discharge co ncentrations for living organisms would be 2 established. Each of these alternatives is stat ed in terms of two di fferent organism size 3 classes and the number of living organisms pe r volume discharge for each size class. A 4 third class, microorganisms, is specified in terms of indicator bacteria and the number of 5 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml). The standard becomes progressively 6 more stringent from Alternative 2 to Altern ative 4 (Alternatives 3 and 4 are 10 times and 7 100 times more stringent than Alternative 2, re spectively). The NAA was used as a 8 baseline for comparison of the impa cts of Alternatives 2-5. 9

Table ES-1 shows the concen trations of organisms allo wed under each alternative. 10

Table ES-1: Allowable concentration of organis ms in BWD, by size, for Alternatives 2-4. 11 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 m 3 <10 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <250 cfu per 100 ml <100 cfu per 100 ml

Alternative 3 <1 per m 3 <1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 100 ml <33 cfu per 100 ml

Alternative 4 <0.1 per m 3 <0.1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 100 ml <33 cfu per 100 ml

12 Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization 13

Alternative 5 would require the removal or inactivation of all living membrane-bound 14 organisms (including bacteria and some viruses) larger than 0.1 micron. 15

Affected Environment 16

The U.S. contains a variety of aquatic ecosyst ems. For the purposes of this DPEIS, we 17 evaluated three categories: ma rine, estuarine, and freshwater. Analysis of aquatic 18 ecosystems involves consideration of the struct ure and function of these ecosystems as a 19 whole, as well as the ecological value and role s played by specific habitats and organisms. 20 These categories are further broken down by physical, chemical, and biological 21April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-3 characteristics for analysis in this DPEIS. The health of U.S. aquatic ecosystems is 1 variable and is affected by many factors, such as invasive species and habitat change or 2 loss. Threatened and endangered species, essen tial fish habitat (EFH), and socioeconomics 3 are also addressed. 4

Predicting Invasion and Po tential Impacts of NIS 5

Predicting the success of even well-studied populat ions of NIS is difficult in the context of 6 assessing the aggregate effect of the alternatives on the rate at which NIS are introduced 7 and become established in U.S. waters. There is limited information on the majority of 8 aquatic organisms. Predicting when successful invasions will occur is an emerging field, 9 and the Coast Guard utilized recent breakthroughs in ecological modeling to analyze the 10 impacts to the environment from ballast wa ter mediated invasions. An evaluation of 11 potential approaches that could be used to support the analysis in this DPEIS identified 12 Population Viability Analysis (PVA) as the best method to assess the probability of NIS 13 establishment. 14

Environmental Consequences 15

The analysis of pot ential environmental impacts is based on the changes in the 16 concentrations of NIS in BWD. For the purpos es of this DPEIS, it is assumed that the 17 implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 w ould not have additional adverse impacts on 18 environmental and socioeconomic resources. Based on this assumpti on, the alternatives 19 considered in this DPEIS differ only in thei r potential to reduce the probability of NIS 20 threatening the ecological stability of infested waters or other resources dependent on such 21 waters. The impacts of implementing th e BWDS defined under each alternative are 22 determined by the respective reduction in th e number of living organisms that are 23 introduced. Consequently, Alte rnatives 2 through 5 are assu med to potentially reduce NIS 24 introductions and their associated potentia l adverse environmental and socioeconomic 25 impacts to different degrees. 26

Below is a table comparing all five alternat ives with respect to their impacts on the 27 resources analyzed in the DPEIS. 28

Table ES-2: Comparison of Alternatives 29

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Marine Ecosystems Current impacts would continue – trophic interactions 1

, changing community
structures 2

, 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 alternativesApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

ES-4 harmful algal blooms (HAB), effects on ecosystem services 3 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 alternativesApril 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 o n the modeling results described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Further descriptions of the environmental impacts are fou nd in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Alternatives 2 – 5 are co mpared 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 organism s. 3. Ecosystem services are those resources and processes that are performed by natural systems for which there is human deman d and benefit. 1

In conclusion, the potential impacts from a pplying the alternatives would range from a 2 continuation of current or projected levels of NIS introductions, establishment, and 3 associated adverse impacts on U.S. resour ces to prevention of NIS (larger than 0.1 4 micron), progressing from Alternative 1 to Alternative 5. The pot ential impacts of 5 Alternatives 2 through 4 are e xpected to have varying resu lts and varying levels of 6 reductions in adverse effects on ecological and socioeconomic resources from the 7 reduction in the mean rate of successful introduc tion and establishment of NIS. Despite all 8 the uncertainties and complexities involved, it can be concluded that Alternatives 2 9 through 4 may result in varying degrees of reduction in the adverse ecological and 10 associated socioeconomic impacts from NI S introduced via BWD; and Alternative 5 11 ensures prevention of NIS (that are larger than 0.1 micron) introduced via ballast water and 12 their associated adverse impacts. Impacts of the BWDS alternatives on socioeconomic 13 resources would be similar to those for ecosyst em resources in that the effects would likely 14 be beneficial, although difficult to measure. 15

16April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-1 

# 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1



### 1.1 Introduction 2

Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisan ce Prevention and Control Act of 1990 3 (NANPCA) [P.L. 101-646], the United States Co ast Guard (USCG) is the lead federal 4 agency in implementing regulations to reduc e or prevent the introduction of nonindigenous 5 species (NIS) via shipping activ ities in U.S. waters. Therefore, the USCG is proposing to 6 establish a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) that would be used to approve 7 alternative ballast water management (B WM) systems that prevent or reduce the 8 introduction of NIS from ballast water discharged into U.S. waters. 9

A major pathway for NIS introduction is ba llast water discharge (BWD) from vessels 10 operating in U.S. waters or entering U.S. wa ters from foreign waters. NIS refers to 11 organisms found outside of their native or hist orical range. In cases where they invade 12 ecosystems, NIS may alter aquatic and mari ne ecosystems and biodiversity, impact 13 commercial and recreational fisheries, cause in frastructure damage, result in potential risks 14 to human health, and generally cause detrimental economic impacts (USCG 2003). 15

Ballast water means water taken on by a vessel to increase the water draft, change the trim, 16 regulate the stability, or maintain stress lo ads within acceptable operational limits. 17 Ballasting reduces stress on the hull of the vessel, increases stability, aids propulsion, aids 18 maneuverability, and compensates for weight loss from fuel and water consumption or 19 cargo load changes (NRC 1996). In port, vessels take on ballast water to increase vessel 20 water draft, therefore decreasing the air draft to allo w vessels to fit under bridges or cranes. 21 Vessels also continuously deballast and reba llast during cargo load ing and unloading to 22 maintain stability and structural integrit y. Ballast water is taken onboard through sea 23 chests using ballast pumps, by flooding, or by gravity feed. 24

Introductions of NIS into U.S. waters have o ccurred for more than 400 years (see chapter 4 25 for a detailed description of the process). Stud ies show that the rate of NIS introductions to 26 U.S. waters is increasing (Carlton and H odder 1995, Ruiz et al. 2000b). Furthermore, 27 introduced NIS have been cited as the second largest threat to e ndangered species after 28 habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen 1998). For exam ple, in the 1980s, NIS were identified as a 29 significant environmental concern with the introduction of the zebra mussel ( Dreissena 30 polymorpha ) to the Great Lakes, most likely via BWD. The zebra mussel first attracted 31 attention by clogging domestic water supply and electric-generating facility intake pipes, 32 thus causing costly infrastructure damage and management efforts. Today, the zebra 33 mussel continues to spread extensively througho ut the United States causing considerable 34 ecological and economic harm. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-2 

### 1.2 Regulatory Background 1

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

• To prevent unintentional introduction and dispersal of NIS into waters of the U.S. 3 through BWM and other requirements; 4

• To coordinate federally conducted, funded, or authorized research ; and to federally 5 coordinate prevention control, inform ation dissemination, and other activities 6 regarding the zebra mussel and other aquatic NIS; 7

• To develop and carry out environmentall y sound control methods to prevent, 8 monitor, and control unintentional introducti ons of NIS from pathways other than 9 BWE; 10

• To understand and minimize ecological and economic impacts of NIS that become 11 established, including the zebra mussel; and 12

• To establish a program of research and technology development and assistance to 13 states in the management and removal of zebra mussels. 14

Under NANPCA, Congress directed the USCG to develop a national program of specific 15 regulations and guidelines inte nded to prevent or reduce th e introduction and control the 16 spread of NIS via the discharge of ballast wa ter from those vessels entering U.S. waters 17 after operating outside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ, as defined in 33 18 CFR Part 151, Subpart C, extends from the baseline of the territorial sea of the U.S. 19 seaward 200 miles. 20

On April 8, 1993, the USCG published a final rule, “Ballast Water Management for 21 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes” [58 FR 1833 0]. The final rule mandated the use of 22 BWM practices by ships entering the Great La kes after operating outside the EEZ. On 23 December 30, 1994, the USCG published a final rule, “Ballast Water Management for 24 Vessels Entering the Hudson River” [59 FR 67632], which expanded the mandatory BWM 25 requirements for the Great Lakes to portions of the Hudson River (north of the George 26 Washington Bridge) that connect to the Great Lakes. The BWM practices mandated for 27 use in the Great Lakes and portions of th e Hudson River are found in 33 CFR Part 151, 28 Subpart C, and include the following: 29

• Mid-ocean exchange of ballast water 200 nautical miles from shore and 2000 30 meters deep; 31

• Retaining ballast water onboard; or 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-3 • Using an environmentally sound alternative BWM method that has been 1 determined by the USCG to be as effective as BWE in reducing, preventing, or 2 controlling the introduction of NIS. 3

The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) [P.L. 104-332] reauthorized and 4 amended NANPCA and mandated the USCG to issue BWM guidelines and regulations 5 applicable to all U.S. waters. Under NISA, Congress authorized the USCG to establish a 6 mandatory BWM program [69 FR 44952], if shipping industry compliance under the 7 initially established national vol untary guidelines was insufficien t. NISA also authorized 8 the “use [of] environmentally sound alternativ e BWM methods, if [the USCG] determines 9 that such alternative methods are at least as effective as ballast water exchange (BWE) in 10 reducing or preventing, and cont rolling infestations of aqua tic nuisance species.” This 11 includes any method, effort, or program to prev ent or reduce NIS intr oductions or control 12 infestations, that minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and func tion of an ecosystem, 13 and minimizes adverse effects on nontarge t organisms and ecosystems (USCG 2003). 14

On May 17, 1999, the USCG published an inter im rule [64 FR 26672] and finalized it on 15 November 21, 2001 [66 FR 58381]. The rule se t voluntary BWM guidelines applicable to 16 all U.S. waters, except for the Great Lakes and the Hudson River where the mandatory 17 BWM requirements remained in effect, and mandated BWM reporting requirements. Both 18 the voluntary BWM guidelines and the manda tory reporting requirements applied to 19 vessels entering U.S. waters after operating in waters outside the EEZ. The rule also 20 promoted ballast water management for all ve ssels operating within U. S. waters (defined 21 as the waters of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American 22 Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Tr ust Territories of th e Pacific Islands). 23

In pursuit of identifying an environmentall y sound alternative BWM method that is as 24 effective as BWE, the USCG published a not ice and request for public comments on May 25 1, 2001, “Potential Approaches to Setting Balla st Water Treatment Standards” [66 FR 26 218071]. The notice invited res ponses on four conceptual ap proaches to BWT standards 27 and posed questions, all of which were devel oped in meetings of the Ballast Water and 28 Shipping Committee of the Federal Aquatic Nuis ance Species Task Force. The comments 29 submitted revealed a wide range of opinion a nd indicated the need fo r further discussion. 30 Subsequently, on March 4, 2002, the USCG publ ished an advance notice of proposed 31 rulemaking, “Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast W ater Discharged in U.S. 32 Waters” [67 FR 9632], and requested comments on the development of a BWT goal and an 33 interim BWT standard. Next, the USCG deci ded to publish a notice of intent (NOI) on 34 September 26, 2003 [68 FR 55559], announcing USCG ’s intent to prepare a DPEIS (this 35 document) to assess the impacts of developi ng a BWDS and solicited public and agency 36 input to the scope and content of the DPEIS. 37

The USCG also published the final rule on the mandatory BWM program for all U.S. 38 waters, under NISA, on July 28, 2004 [69 FR 44952] . This program requires vessels that 39 operate outside the U.S. EEZ to use one of the following BWM practices: conduct mid- 40April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-4 ocean BWE 200 nautical miles from any shore, retain ballast water onboard, or use a 1 USCG-approved alternative method. Because there are currently no approved alternative 2 methods, BWE and retention of BW are the only available methods of BWM. Some 3 vessels may not be able to conduct BWE depending on vessel design, age, load, sea 4 conditions, and safety concerns. Additionally, vessels capable of introducing NIS into 5 U.S. waters are not limited to those that opera te outside the U.S. EEZ. Finally, even when 6 conducted, the effectiveness of BWE in rem oving NIS from ballast tanks can be quite 7 variable. These drawbacks combine to make BWE less than desirable as a long-term 8 approach to reducing or pr eventing introductions of NIS via BWD. Recognizing that 9 BWE is not a long-term solution, NISA allo ws the USCG to approve alternative BWM 10 methods if they are found to be at least as effective as BWE in re ducing the risk of NIS 11 introductions. 12



### 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 13

The purpose of the proposed action is for the USCG to establish a BWDS, which would be 14 used to approve alternative BWM methods. The need for the action is to prevent or reduce 15 the introduction of NIS via discharged ballast wa ter from vessels entering U.S. waters after 16 operating outside the EEZ, and from vesse ls operating within the U.S. EEZ. 17

The USCG believes that to prev ent or reduce the introduction of NIS, the BWDS must be 18 biologically protective, scient ifically sound, and enforceable. Therefore, the USCG is 19 working to develop a BWDS and approval pr ocess for alternative BWM methods based on 20 the level of protection needed to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS. Furthermore, 21 the applicability of the BWDS and BWM methods approval pr ocess must be sufficiently 22 inclusive to capture all relevant vessels. The development of a BWDS presents a complex 23 challenge because: 24

• Technologies for removing NIS from ballast water are in the early stages of 25 development; 26

• Approved technologies should be compatible with existing vessels as well as future 27 vessel designs; 28

• Development of the BWDS and approval process for alternative BWM methods 29 requires close collaboration among multiple stakeholders (government agencies, 30 scientific community, water treatment experts, shipping i ndustry, etc.). 31



### 1.4 Scope of Analysis 32

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S. Code (USC) 4321] and 33 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ ) “Regulations for Implementing the 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-5 Procedural Provisions of NEPA” [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] establish policies and 1 procedures that ensure environmental info rmation is available to decision makers, 2 regulatory agencies, and the public before fede ral agencies implement certain actions. The 3 USCG implementing policy for NEPA requi rements is specified in “National 4 Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Pr ocedures and Policy for Considering 5 Environmental Impacts” [Commandant Inst ruction M16475.1D] (USCG 2000). NEPA is 6 a public process intended to help public offi cials make decisions that are based on an 7 understanding of environmental co nsequences and to take actions that protect, restore, and 8 enhance the environment. These decisions s hould be made based on scientific analysis, 9 expert agency comments, and public scru tiny of readily available environmental 10 information. 11

The USCG has prepared this Draft Progr ammatic Environmental Impact Statement 12 (DPEIS) to satisfy NEPA requirements associ ated with the development of the BWDS 13 rulemaking for NIS in ballast water. Prelim inary scoping indicated that there might be 14 potential for both beneficial and adverse impacts to the environment as a result of 15 establishing a BWDS. Furthermore, limited sc ientific information on aquatic NIS invasion 16 ecology led to the decision to prepare a comp rehensive DPEIS document – rather than a 17 less comprehensive document such as an E nvironmental Assessment (EA). Overall, a 18 DPEIS improves the ability of the USCG to an alyze the potential environmental impacts of 19 a BWDS. Lastly, the USCG prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 20 because a BWDS would impact vessels ente ring and/or operating in a large geographic 21 area and a wide variety of U.S. ecosystems. Any proposed BWDS would meet the CEQ 22 definition of “a broad Federal action such as the adoption of agency programs or 23 regulations” [40 CFR 1502.4 (b)] , and programmatic environmen tal review processes are 24 typically used for such broad federal actions. 25

This DPEIS identifies and assesses reasona ble alternatives for the proposed action 26 (including the NAA), addresses the consequenc es of a BWDS on the human and natural 27 environments, and presents potential measures to avoid or minimize any adverse effects 28 upon the quality of the human and natural enviro nment. The USCG will use this DPEIS to 29 make an informed decision in relation to a BWDS and to fully understand the national 30 level environmental and socioeconomi c implications of the decision. 31

Implementation of a BWDS to prevent or reduce the introduction of NIS potentially 32 involves two environmental impact analyses: 33

• An evaluation of NIS introductions and associated potential environm ental 34 consequences from a BWDS and an evalua tion of current BWM practices in place; 35 and 36

• The potential for environmental impact s from the use of particular BWD 37 technologies and methods to meet the established standards. 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-6 This DPEIS only addresses the first environmen tal impact analysis because any regulatory 1 action would be technology independent and allo w vessel owners to decide what particular 2 technology or method they deem most appropriat e to comply with the BWDS. As stated 3 above, the objective of a BWDS is to pr event or reduce the introduction of NIS via 4 discharged ballast water, not to promote th e implementation of specific BWT technologies 5 or methods. The appropriate level of e nvironmental review (e.g., subsequent NEPA, 6 Endangered Species Act, and Fi shery Conservation and Manage ment Act reviews) will be 7 developed to analyze the potential envi ronmental impacts associated with the 8 implementation and operation of specific treatment technologies and methods to meet the 9 BWDS. For informational purposes, some pot ential BWT technologies are summarized in 10 Appendix F. 11

The USCG is the lead agency for the BW DS rulemaking. The U.S. Environmental 12 Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic 13 and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 14 Service (APHIS) participated in the DPEI S preparation as cooperating agencies in 15 accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. 16



### 1.5 Related Activities 17

The USCG is currently working on other proj ects related to addressing NIS impacts in 18 U.S. waters. These projects are outside of the scope of establishing a BWDS and, hence, 19 not the focus of this DPEIS. 20

• The Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program. The USCG established this 21 program on January 7, 2004 [69 FR 1082], under which ve ssel owners can apply 22 for acceptance of their vessels into the pr ogram and install and test experimental 23 BWT systems. This program is expected to facilitate the development of these 24 technologies, which would create more options for vessel owners seeking 25 alternatives to BWE. 26

• Ballast Water Management for Vessels Ente ring the Great Lakes That Declare No 27 Ballast Onboard (NOBOB). The USCG published a not ice of policy on August 31, 28 2005 [70 FR 51831] establishing best mana gement practices for NOBOB vessels 29 entering the Great Lakes. The policy reco mmends that, prior to entering the EEZ, 30 NOBOB vessels conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast-laden 31 voyages 200 nautical miles from shore and in water 2000 meters deep whenever 32 possible. If unable to conduct mid-o cean BWE, the USCG recommends that 33 vessels conduct saltwater flus hing of their empty ballast water tanks in an area of 34 200 nautical miles from any s hore, whenever possible. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-7 Introductions of NIS through BWD are a globa l concern. The USCG leads the U.S. 1 government delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IM O), the organization 2 responsible for improving maritime safety a nd preventing pollution from vessels. In 3 September 1995, the IMO identified the NIS th reat as a major issue confronting the 4 international maritime community. To addr ess the issue, in 1997, the IMO adopted 5 voluntary guidelines, “Interna tional Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of 6 Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens from Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment 7 Discharges.” In February 2004, the IMO adopted a convention, “ International Convention 8 for the Control and Management of Ship s’ Ballast Water and Sediments” (BWM 9 Convention), which establishes BWM procedures and includes an international standard 10 for BWD. The USCG coordinated this effort with the EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Department 11 of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Maritime Admini stration (MARAD), the U.S. Department of 12 Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Department of State (DOS). The BWM Convention opened 13 for ratification in February 2004, and under it s terms does not enter into force until one 14 year after ratification by 30 c ountries representing not less than 35 percent of the gross 15 tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. As of October 2007, ten countries have signed 16 the BWM Convention. 17



### 1.6 Public Involvement 18

NEPA requires public involvement in the decisi on making process for federal projects that 19 require a formal environmental review process, such as a DPEIS. In accordance with this 20 requirement, the USCG published a notice of intent on September 26, 2003 [68 FR 21 55559]to prepare a DPEIS for the proposed BWDS rulemaking, which solicited public and 22 agency input into the devel opment of the scope and content of the DPEIS and requested 23 suggestions on the ideal means of notifying and involving the public in the process. 24

The above notice also advised that five public scoping meetings would be held during the 25 public comment period. The scoping meetings were held during late October and early 26 November 2003 in New Orleans, Louisiana; Oakland, California; Cleveland, Ohio; 27 Norfolk, Virginia; and Washington, D.C. Th e purpose of the scoping meetings was to 28 solicit the public’s comments on possible e nvironmental issues associated with the 29 proposed action and alternatives for reducing or preventing the introduction and the spread 30 of NIS in U.S. waters. All written comments on the notice were placed in the Department 31 of Transportation’s electronic Docket Mana gement System (DMS). The DMS makes 32 electronic submission and view ing of comments and other submissions available on the 33 Internet at http://dms.dot.gov/, under doc ket number USCG-2001-10486. All relevant 34 comments received during the comment period of the notice and the public scoping 35 meetings have been considered and those rele vant to the DPEIS have been addressed. 36

After the publication of this DPEIS, the USCG will provide a comment period and public 37 meetings. Any notice of public meetings will be published in the Federal Register . All 38 relevant comments, both written and oral, pr ovided during the comment period and in any 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

1-8 public meeting will be considered in the prep aration of the Final PEIS (FPEIS) and will 1 become part of the administrative docket. 2



### 1.7 Cooperating Agencies’ Involvement 3

Four cooperating agencies have extensivel y worked with the Coast Guard in the 4 development of the DPEIS. They are the E nvironmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 5 Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Animal 6 and Plant Health Inspection Service. Th e Coast Guard held a cooperating agency 7 workshop in May of 2007 in Charleston, South Ca rolina. At this workshop, the agencies 8 further developed and refined the DP EIS and the modeling approach. 9



### 1.8 Expert Panel Involvement 10

An expert panel consisting of scientists (credentials and background can be found in 11 Chapter 6) reviewed and validated portions of the DPEIS and the modeling approach. 12April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-1 

# 2 ALTERNATIVES 1

This chapter describes and compares the altern atives that the USCG evaluated as part of 2 the development process for a BWDS. Furthermore, it discusses the alternatives 3 development process, the alternatives cons idered by the USCG, and those alternatives 4 dismissed from further analysis. 5



### 2.1 Alternatives Development Process 6

The USCG published a notice and request fo r public comments on May 1, 2001, “Potential 7 Approaches to Setting Ballast Water Tr eatment Standards” [66 FR 21807], inviting 8 comments on four conceptual approaches to BW T standards. Furthermore, it posed all of 9 the questions developed in the meetings of the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee of 10 the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Fo rce. The comments submitted revealed a 11 wide range of opinions and indicated the need for further discussion. Therefore, the USCG 12 sponsored three separate expert panel work shops to discuss and make recommendations on 13 the quantitative expression of BWT standards for the prev ention or reduction of the 14 introduction of NIS. Academic and industry pr ofessionals with exper tise in environmental 15 engineering participated in the workshops, and they evaluated the BWT systems and the 16 biology and ecology of organisms car ried in ballast water. 17

Participants of the April 2001 workshop held in Mystic, Connecticut drafted 18 recommendations for short- and long-term st andards that are based on the following three 19 functional groups: 20

• coastal holoplankton (species that spend thei r entire lifecycle in the water column), 21 meroplankton (species that spend a portion of their lifecycle in the water column), 22 and demersals (species living on or near the ocean floor), and their respective life 23 stages; 24

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

• Enterococci and Escherichia coli

. 26

The short-term proposal recommended standards of removal or inactiv ity in ballast water 27 for specific types of organisms in each functional group. The long-term proposal 28 recommended complete removal or inactivity in ballast water of the first two functional 29 groups and their respective life stages and the same level of removal or inactivity for the 30 third functional group. 31

At the May 2001 workshop held in Oakland, CA, participants also proposed short- and 32 long-term standards. The short-term propos al recommended a size threshold whereby no 33April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-2 living organisms larger than that threshold shoul d be discharged in ballast water. It also 1 recommended that ballast water be treated to meet federal criteria for contact recreation. 2 The proposed long-term standard established a goal of zero living organisms discharged. 3

Subsequently, the USCG published an ANP RM, “Standards for Living Organisms in 4 Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters” [67 FR 9632] and a request for 5 comments in March 4, 2002, on the developm ent of a BWT goal and an interim BWT 6 standard. 7

The USCG, DOS, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) co-s ponsored the third 8 workshop held at the NSF offices in February 2003 (Arlington, VA). Unlike the first two 9 meetings, this workshop included a large num ber of international participants. The 10 participants agreed that BWT standards s hould be established to reduce the introduction 11 and establishment of NIS via ballast water. The participants sugge sted a step by step 12 approach for developing BWT standards that would make the concentration targets more 13 stringent over time. This group reviewed a number of altern ative standards under 14 consideration by the international commun ity, and they recommended the following: 15

• BWT standards should be expressed as con centrations of organi sms rather than a 16 required percent reduction of the initial con centration in ballast water. The latter 17 would be difficult to enforce or verify upon discharge without specific knowledge 18 of initial concentrations. Further, pe rcent reduction requirements produce varying 19 actual discharge concentrations, which are not based on either biological (level of 20 protection required to greatly prevent or reduce invasions) or technical (detection 21 limits) grounds. 22

• At a minimum, the initial standard should be set as an allowable concentration of 23 organisms larger than a specified size cr iterion, taking into ac count the expected 24 capabilities of technology. The use of size criteria was recognized as providing a 25 balance between protection and practicability. 26

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

• The allowable concentration of organisms la rger than the size criterion should be 28 set at a limit of detection determined by the specific sampling and enumeration 29 methods chosen. 30

The participants also discussed how micr oorganism s could be addressed by focusing on 31 taxa of concern, such as speci fic pathogens that affect human s and commercially important 32 species. Ideally, the allowable concentrations for microorganisms would be set below the 33 minimum inocula required for infection. Ho wever, there currently is no basis for a 34 scientific, defensible, and enforceable di scharge standard for microorganisms. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-3 In March 2003, the Study Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV) discussed 1 BWT standards during its annual meeting in Va ncouver, British Columbia. At the annual 2 meeting, the participants summarized availa ble information on the concentration of 3 organisms in untreated ballast water at th e time of discharge. The summarization 4 attempted to inform the SGBOSV about the n ecessary level of reduc tion to be achieved by 5 the standard. SGBOSV, recognizing the inherent risk with any disc harge and the current 6 concentrations delivered in unt reated ballast water, recommen ded standards at least three 7 orders of magnitude below the observed median concentrations for zooplankton and an 8 equivalent or higher level of reduction for phytoplankton. 9

In September 2003, the USCG published a notice of intent with a request for comments 10 [68 FR 55559] to develop a BWDS and the sc ope of the DPEIS. Although initial Federal 11 Register publications regarding standards for BW D used the phrase “BWT standards,” 12 with this notice, BWT became BWD because the critical issue has always been the quality 13 of the ballast water actually di scharged from vessels. Ther efore, beginning with this 14 notice, the emphasis is on requirements related to BWD. This change was in line with the 15 development of BWDS at IMO. A discussion of the comments received in response to that 16 notice is in Appendix G. 17

In both the international and domestic efforts, a key issue has been th e quantitative nature 18 of the effluent standard that would apply to BWD. Discussions about organism size and 19 concentration level have raised a number of issues, including: 20

• The size ranges of organisms; 21

• the concentrations of organisms in the intake water and in ballast water at the time 22 of discharge; 23

• the practicability of detec ting and enumerating small organisms present in ballast 24 water in very low concentrations; and 25

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

Based on the information collected during the workshops described a bove, international 27 discussions, and comments receiv ed from the Federal Register notices, the USCG has 28 determined that the BWDS would be expres sed as a concentration of organisms per 29 volume that may not be exceeded in discharged ballast water. The efforts described above 30 have resulted in various BWDS, with the consensus that the BW DS should be expressed as 31 a critical concentration, and that size categories, reflective of the natural size distributions 32 of zooplankton, protists, and bacteria, are helpful in setting cr iteria (Fig. 1-1). 33

34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-4 1

Figure 2-1: Size distribution of the major taxonomic groups of planktonic organism carried 2 in ships’ ballast water. 3



### 2.2 Alternatives Identified for Analysis 4

Based on the workshop discussions, internati onal discussions, and comments received 5 from the Federal Register notices, as well as the input provided through the scoping 6 process, the USCG has selected five alternat ives to be evaluated in this DPEIS. The 7 alternatives include the no acti on alternative (Alternative 1); th ree alternatives that would 8 establish different levels of maximum concen trations for living organisms in discharged 9 ballast water (Alternatives 2- 4); and a requirement for discharged ballast water with no 10 detectable organisms larger than 0.1 micron (Alternative 5). 11

The three concentration-based alternatives , Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would be more 12 stringent than Alternative 1, but less stringent than Alternative 5. They would result in the 13 discharge of no more than a particular numbe r of living organisms greater than a cutoff 14 size in microns per volume of ballast water and a colony forming unit-based standard for 15 indicator microorganisms. These three alte rnatives would establish maximum acceptable 16April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-5 discharge concentrations for va rious types of potential NIS in order to reduce introductions 1 and associated impacts. A lternative 2 is equivalent to the IMO standard, while 2 Alternatives 3 and 4 are more stringent , each by an order of magnitude. 3

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 4

This alternative would not establish a BW DS. Instead the mandatory B WM program 5 established according to the directives in NISA would continue to be applicable to vessels 6 entering U.S. waters. This BWM program requi res all vessels carrying ballast water into 7 U.S. waters after operating outside of the EEZ to do one of the following: conduct a mid8 ocean exchange beyond the EEZ in an area more than 200 nautical miles from any shore; 9 retain ballast water onboard, or use an e nvironmentally sound method approved by the 10 USCG. A vessel is not required to deviate or delay its voyage, nor place itself at risk, to 11 conduct a ballast water exchange. Additio nally, those vessels that do not go beyond 200 12 nautical miles from shore are not required to conduct a ballast water exchange, except 13 when entering the Great Lakes and Hudson River. Finally, few vessels have the ability to 14 retain ballast water onboard and environmenta lly sound methods have not been approved 15 by the USCG. Therefore, mid-ocean exchange is the only viable BWM option. If the 16 USCG did not establish a BWDS, then we w ould have to develop an approval program 17 showing that the BWT technology used by a vessel would be at least as effective as mid18 ocean BWE for that same vessel. 19

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Ballast Water Discharge Co ncentrations (Preferred Alternativ e) 20

Under this alternative, the level of living orga nisms (per volume) that could be discharged 21 under this alternative (by size class) is: 22

• For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 23 10 per cubic meter of ballast water. 24

• For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 25 discharge less than 10 per milliliter (ml) of ballast water. 26

• For bacteria, discharge of indi cator microorganisms such that: 27

o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 28 less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 ml. 29

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

o Intestinal Enterococci occur at a concentration less than 100 cfu per 100 ml. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-6 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 1

Under this a lternative, the level of living orga nisms (per volume) that could be discharged 2 under this alternative (by size class) is: 3

• For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 4 one per cubic meter of ballast water. 5

• For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 6 discharge less than one pe r ml of ballast water. 7

• For bacteria, discharge of indi cator microorganisms such that: 8

o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 9 less than 1 cfu per 100 ml. 10

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

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

2.2.4 Alternative 4: Ballast Water Discharge Concentrations 13

Under this a lternative, the level of living orga nisms (per volume) that could be discharged 14 under this alternative (by size class) is: 15

• For organisms larger than 50 microns in minimum dimension: discharge less than 16 0.1 per cubic meter of ballast water. 17

• For organisms equal to or smaller than 50 microns, and larger than 10 microns: 18 discharge less than 0.1 per ml of ballast water. 19

• For bacteria, discharge of indi cator microorganisms such that: 20

o Toxigenic Vibrio cholera (Serotypes O1 and O139) occur at a concentration 21 less than 1 cfu per 100 ml. 22

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

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

2.2.5 Alternative 5: Essentially Sterilization 25

This alternative calls for the elim ination of all living organi sms larger than 0.1 micron in 26 ballast water. This alterna tive would require the removal or inactivation of all membrane- 27April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

2-7 bound organisms (including bacteria and some vi ruses). If implemen ted, this alternative 1 would be the standard established for ship s that want their BWT technology approved by 2 the USCG. Thus, those ships that had a pproved BWT technologies onboard that meet 3 Alternative 5 would discha rge virtually no living organisms into U.S. waters. 4

2.2.6 Alternatives Initially Considered, But Not Further Analy zed: Percent 5 Reduction Standards 6

The first two workshops and the ANPRM [ 67 FR 9632] explored the use of percent 7 reduction standards in approving BWT tec hnologies. Percent reduction means the 8 percentage of organisms removed from ballast water prior to discharge. However, at the 9 third workshop (discussed in Section 2.1) and during subsequent analyses the USCG 10 concluded that BWDS would be more approp riate if expressed as concentrations of 11 organisms rather than a required percent reduc tion of the initial con centration taken on in 12 ballast water. Percent reduc tion standards would be difficu lt to enforce or verify upon 13 discharge without specific knowledge of initial concentrations of organisms in the ballast 14 water because such data is, at best, very limited. Further, percent reduction standards 15 produce varying actual discharge concentrations, which are not based on either biological 16 (level of protection required to greatly prev ent or reduce invasions) or technical (detection 17 limits) grounds. Thus, percent reduction standa rds would not be further considered. 18April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement2-82.3Comparison of Alternatives12Below is a table comparing all five alternatives with respect to their impacts on the resources analyzed in the DPEIS.3Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives4ResourceAlternative 1Alternative 2(preferredalternative)Alternative 3Alternative 4Alternative 5MarineEcosystemsCurrent impacts wouldcontinue – trophicinteractions1, changingcommunity structures2,harmful algal blooms(HAB), effects onecosystem services3Minor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions,resulting in fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructures, fewerHABModerate reductionin NISintroductions,resulting in fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructures, fewerHABModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions,resulting in fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructures, fewerHABUnquantified.Impacts wouldlikely be greatlyreduced comparedto the otheralternativesEstuarineEcosystemsCurrent impacts wouldcontinue –erosion,turbidity, trophicinteractions, changingcommunity structures,HAB, effects onecosystem servicesMinor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions,resulting in lesserosion, fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewerHAB, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesModerate reductionin NISintroductions,resulting in lesserosion, fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewerHAB, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions,resulting in lesserosion, fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewerHAB, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesUnquantified.Impacts wouldlikely be greatlyreduced comparedto the otheralternativesApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement2-9FreshwaterEcosystemsCurrent impacts wouldcontinue – erosion, trophicinteractions, changingcommunity structures,effects on ecosystemservicesMinor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions, resultingin less erosion, fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewer HAB,lessened negativeimpacts on ecosystemservicesModerate reduction inNIS introductions,resulting in less erosion,fewer negative changesto natural communitystructure, fewer HAB,lessened negativeimpacts on ecosystemservicesModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions, resultingin less erosion, fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewer HAB,lessened negativeimpacts on ecosystemservicesUnquantified. Impactswould likely be greatlyreduced compared to theother alternativesThreatened andEndangeredSpeciesCurrent impacts wouldcontinue, trophicinteractions, changingcommunity structures,HAB, disruption of foodsources, effects onecosystem servicesMinor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions, resultingin fewer negativechanges to naturalcommunity structure,fewer HAB, lessdisruption of foodsources, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesModerate reduction inNIS introductions,resulting in fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewer HAB,less disruption of foodsources, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions, resultingin fewer negativechanges to naturalcommunity structure,fewer HAB, lessdisruption of foodsources, lessenednegative impacts onecosystem servicesUnquantified. Impactswould likely be greatlyreduced compared to theother alternativesEssential FishHabitatCurrent impacts wouldcontinue, trophicinteractions, changingcommunity structures,HAB, degradation ofhabitatMinor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions, resultingin fewer negativechanges to naturalcommunity structure,fewer HAB, lessdegradation of habitatModerate reduction inNIS introductions,resulting in fewernegative changes tonatural communitystructure, fewer HAB,less degradation ofhabitatModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions, resultingin fewer negativechanges to naturalcommunity structure,fewer HAB, lessdegradation of habitatUnquantified. Impactswould likely be greatlyreduced compared to theother alternatives1April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement2-101SocioeconomicsDisruptions of fisheries,fouling of environment,reduction in tourism due tofouling, higher costs fromNIS impacts & responsesto themMinor to moderatereduction in NISintroductions, resultingin less fouling of theenvironment, fewerfishery disruptions, andless revenue lost from adecrease in tourism dueto NIS impacts on theenvironmentModerate reduction inNIS introductions,resulting in less foulingof the environment,fewer fisherydisruptions, and lessrevenue lost from adecrease in tourism dueto NIS impacts on theenvironmentModerate to majorreduction in NISintroductions, resultingin less fouling of theenvironment, fewerfishery disruptions, andless revenue lost from adecrease in tourism dueto NIS impacts on theenvironmentUnquantified. Impactswould likely be greatlyreduced compared to theother alternativesResources listed are from Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Reduction amounts, and therefore environmental impacts, are based on the modeling resultsdescribed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Further descriptions of the environmental impacts are found in Chapter 4,EnvironmentalConsequences. 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 thatare performed by natural systems for which there is human demand and benefit.2April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-1 

# 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1



### 3.1 Background and Overview 2

This chapter describes the United States environmental resources relevant to the analysis of 3 the impacts of the alternatives described in Ch apter 2. The resources that may be affected 4 by the alternatives are describe d in their current condition, including current NIS impacts to 5 those resources. The affected environment in this DPEIS includes the coastal zone of U.S. 6 states and territories extending from the shorel ine outward for 200 nautical miles (EEZ), the 7 Great Lakes, and navigabl e inland waterways. 8

This chapter provides a general discussion of a quatic ecological principl es and a description 9 of the basic functional compone nts and regional variations w ithin marine, estuarine, and 10 freshwater ecosystems of the U.S. Topics include a general description of the biological 11 structure (organisms) and the basic f unctional components (food web and habitat 12 interactions) within the ecosystems. It also describes the economic importance of these 13 ecosystems to the U.S., including their value to recreational and comme rcial fishing, marine 14 commerce, water-dependent infrastructure, subsistence living, coastal tourism, 15 environmental justice, and public health and safety. This chapter presents the current 16 conditions of aquatic ecosystems for the resources analyzed and a discus sion of current NIS 17 impacts to these resources. The impacts of the alternatives, presented in Chapter 4, are 18 based on this description of U.S. aquatic ecosystems. 19

The ability of NIS to alter population, community, and ecosyst em structure and function is 20 well documented (Drake et al. 1989; Elton 1958 ; Mooney and Drake 1986; Vitousek et al. 21 1987). Ecosystem-level changes in water, nutrient, energy cycles, productivity, and 22 biomass directly affect ecological resour ces, and in turn, affect human society. 23 Furthermore, ecosystem-level consequences of NIS have major implications, which affect 24 human economic systems and public health. 25

The U.S. contains an assemblage of aquatic (marine, estuarine, and freshwater) ecosystems 26 spread over diverse geographical regions including the EEZ’s 4,453,068 square miles (Pew 27 2003). This DPEIS focuses on the national implications of the alternatives; therefore, it is 28 useful to identify the regional and functional ch aracteristics of these ecosystems. Aquatic 29 ecosystems are dynamic in nature, consisting of interdependent re lationships among the 30 physical, chemical, and biological components of the system. Analysis of aquatic 31 ecosystems involves consideration of the struct ure and function of these ecosystems as a 32 whole, as well as the ecological value and role s played by specific habitats and organisms. 33 Ecosystem structure and function describe the complex processes that define the ecology of 34 a system , including predator-prey relations hips, grazing, nutrient cycling, and other 35 interactions. In addition, the non-living components of the ecosystem, including the 36 physical and chemical properties of a quatic ecosystems, will be presented. 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-2 All aquatic ecosystems contain complex food webs comprising multiple biological “layers,” 1 or trophic levels. The first trophic level is the foundation of a ll ecosystems. It consists of 2 bacteria, otherwise known as microorganisms, and primary producers (phytoplankton, free3 floating marine plants, and algae) that creat e their own nourishment using sunlight through 4 photosynthesis. The next trophic level comprises primary consumers, such as herbivorous 5 marine animals (copepods that feed directly on plankton in th e water column, detritus, and 6 benthic algae). The third tr ophic level contains secondary consumers, including omnivores 7 such as fish and mollusks, and small he terotrophs such as carnivorous copepods, 8 amphipods, and jellyfish that feed on primary consumers. The highest trophic level is 9 dominated by large, heterotrophic marine animal s such as large fish, sea turtles, and marine 10 mammals. Bacteria and other infaunal microor ganisms (organisms that live within the 11 substrate) act as decomposers, breaking down waste produced by other organisms or 12 feeding on dead plant or animal material. These microorganisms may constitute a numeric 13 majority of the species found in ballast wa ter. (Carlton 1999; Carlton 2001; Galil and 14 Hulsmann 1997; McCarthy and Crowder 2000). 15

United States marine, estuarine, and freshwat er ecosystems are currently affected by many 16 stressors, such as: 17

• Nutrient runoff. Nutrient runoff has a mode rate to severe effect on up to 60 percent 18 of U.S. coastal rivers and bays. This nutrient runoff can trigger harmful algal 19 blooms (HABs) and lead to the degradation or loss of seagrass, kelp beds, and coral 20 reefs that are vital as spawning and nurse ry grounds for fish. Nutrient pollution 21 reportedly causes a dead zone the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico each 22

summer. 23

• Overfishing. Approximately 30 percent of the assessed fish populations are 24 considered to be over-fished or fished unsustainably. 25

• NIS. Over 175 NIS are reportedly establishe d in San Francisco Bay alone. Overall, 26 there have been 374 documented invasive sp ecies in U.S. waters, 150 of which have 27 arrived since 1970 (Pew 2003). 28

• Oil runoff. An average of approximately 11 million gallons (equivalent to the 29 Exxon Valdez oil spill) of oil runs off U.S. st reets into surface waters every eight 30 months. 31

The structure and function of a quatic and coastal ecosystems – a nd their overall health – are 32 adversely affected by in creased stress from human activities, which have altered these 33 systems for a long period of time. However, the scale, intensit y, and rate of human 34 activities and associated impacts have signifi cantly increased in the past century from 35 factors such as population gr owth, higher levels of consumption, and technological 36 advances. These are important factors when considering the cumulative impacts of the 37 alternatives in Chapter 4. For example, human population concentrati on in coastal areas is 38 expected to continue to increase with time, increasing the potential for human impacts. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-3 Human impacts on aquatic and coastal resource s have resulted in d eclines in natural 1 systems and populations as a result of hab itat destruction and resource exploitation, 2 increases in harmful events such as dis ease epidemics and algal blooms, and issues 3 associated with aquatic and coastal pollution. The cumulative effect of these impacts has 4 resulted in changes in aquatic and coastal biodiversity and res ource sustainability. 5

Given the complexity and spatial and temporal va riability of aquatic ecosystems, it is useful 6 to demarcate boundaries when defining base line conditions. A quatic ecosystems are 7 divided into three major categories (marine, estuarine, and freshwater) based on ecological, 8 physical, and geographic characteri stics. It is important to note, however, that critical 9 interactions between terrestrial environments and aquatic ecosystems often exist. This 10 relationship will be presented where relevant. 11



### 3.2 Resources Dismissed From Further Consideration 12

The following resources were dismissed after in itial analysis determined that they would 13 not be affected in a significant manner and, ther efore, will not be considered further in this 14 DPEIS: transportation; coastal barrier systems; archaeological, cultural, and historic 15 resources; and floodplains. The alternatives are not expected to have any measurable 16 effects on routes or frequency of transportation. In referen ce to coastal barrier systems, 17 actions of the USCG are exempt under Secti on 6 of the Coastal Ba rrier Resource Act. 18 Similarly, no measurable effects on land resour ces, including floodplains, are expected. 19



### 3.3 Nonindigenous Species 20

Nonindigenous species have th e potential to disrupt aquatic ecosystems at all food web 21 levels. NIS can adversely impact native biod iversity by causing changes in the relative 22 abundance of native species and individuals that are of ecological and economic 23 importance. Thus, they could have direct and indirect impacts to threatened and 24 endangered marine flora and fauna . Introduced NIS are one of th e main sources of risk to 25 threatened and endangered species, second only to habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen 1998). 26 NIS can change the structure of communities, causing a breakdown in structure and rapid 27 reorganization (Sanders et al. 2003). The FWS considers NIS to be significant contributing 28 factors in determining the “threatened” or “endangered” status of many native species 29 (OTA 1993; Ruiz et al. 1997). Currently, th e FWS and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 30 Service (NMFS) list 150 fish as protected based on their threat ened or endangered status. 31

Invasive species can affect water quality in ma rine, estuarine, and riverine environments. 32 Introduced non-native algal species from ba llast water, recreati onal boating, dredging 33 activities, and shellf ish transfer (e.g., seeding) combin ed with nutrient overloading may 34 increase the intensity and fr equency of algal blooms. An overabundance of algae can 35 degrade water quality upon bacterial decompos ition, which depletes oxygen levels in an 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-4 ecosystem. Oxygen depletion can result in “d ead zones,” murky water, seagrass and coral 1 habitat degradation, and large-scale fi sh kills (Deegan and Buchsbaum 2005). 2



### 3.4 Marine Ecosystems 3

The affected coastal zone of the U.S. (states and territories) consists of marine ecosystems 4 extending 200 nautical miles from the shorelin e. These ecosystems support typical marine 5 biota and are defined by elevated salinity (~35 ppt) (Cowardin et al. 1979). They are 6 exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and include sandy beaches, shallow 7 coastal bays that lack freshwat er inflow from rivers and streams, and exposed rocky coasts 8 that provide little or no shelter from wind a nd waves. A large number of these marine 9 ecosystems have been highly invaded by NIS. 10

The current health of U.S. marine ecosyste ms is considered impaired, with the largest 11 pollution threat to coastal marine life being excess nitrogen loading from agricultural 12 runoff, stormwater, and other sources. Huma n exploitation of the oceans has gone on so 13 long that scientists agree that there is no clear historical baseline by which to measure 14 healthy ecosystems. People measuring the heal th of marine environments against the best 15 that they remember has led to a phenomenon called the “shifting baseline syndrome” (TOC 16 2003). 17

3.4.1 Physical Environment 18

Seawater is defined by a range of environmental properties, su ch as salinity, temperature, 19 and turbidity, which vary from region to region. The seasonal and spatia l variation in water 20 temperature reflects the influence of the lo cal climate, circula tion patterns of ocean 21 currents, latitude, distance from shore, and depth. Turbidity is a measure of suspended 22 solids in the water column and reflects water cl arity. It varies depe nding on depth, distance 23 from the shoreline, and sources of suspended solids. In open ocean waters, which are 24 generally not affected by these factors, tu rbidity is generally much lower. Marine 25 ecosystems have varying substrates, rangi ng from muddy and sandy bottoms to rocky 26 shoreline cliffs. 27

3.4.2 Habitats and Organisms 28

Marine environments can be divided into tw o major realms: benthic (seafloor) and pelagic 29 (overlying water). The littoral (tidal) system, a subdivision of the benthic realm, contains 30 the intertidal zone (high tide to low tide) and subtidal zone (0 to 200 meters deep). 31

In marine ecosystems of the tropics and sout hern temperate areas, coral reefs, mangroves, 32 and seagrass beds play a crucial role in bi odiversity and marine life production. Temperate 33 marine ecosystems include a wide variety of commercially important species, such as 34 shrimp, crabs, lobsters, cod on the East Co ast, and salmon and crab on the West and 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-5 Alaskan coasts. In the arctic regions of Al aska, marine systems include critical plankton 1 populations that form the bi ological foundation for populatio ns of fish and marine 2 mammals. 3

The structure and function of the habitats w ithin marine ecosystems are complex and not 4 always defined by physical boundaries. For ex ample, they can incorporate land-based 5 organisms, such as terrestrial birds that may fl y to the pelagic zone to feed, or terrestrial 6 predators, which may forage at the shorelin e. Complex interactions often occur, both 7 within the marine ecosystem and between ecosystems. 8

Subtidal Benthic Environment 9

Benthic environments contain the organisms living on and within the sediments. Soft 10 bottom sand and mud substrates dominate the continental shelf a nd include unvegetated 11 communities and seagrass beds. Rocky bottoms are either submerged extensions of rocky 12 shores or outcrops of varying size, which provide anchors for organisms. Organisms 13 inhabiting these areas can be clas sified into two major categories: epifauna (organisms that 14 live on or are associated with th e surface of the substrate) and infauna (organisms that live 15 within the substrate). Epifaunal organi sms dominate rocky bottoms, while infaunal 16 organisms dominate soft bottoms. 17

Extensive areas within the subtidal benthic zone in the U.S. lack vegetation. This 18 predominantly unvegetated environment cons ists of four major taxonomic groups of 19 various infaunal and epifaunal organisms: polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, and 20 mollusks. Although this region lacks vegeta tion, diatoms (phytoplankton), detritus from 21 nearby seagrasses and algae beds, and nutri ent runoff from land all provide food. 22 Carnivorous bottom fish such as rays and fl atfish, as well as se a turtles and marine 23 mammals, feed upon benthi c invertebrates. 24

Subtidal rocky surfaces are not as abundant as soft bottom substrates, but they are common 25 in some regions of the U.S., such as the No rtheast and Pacific Northwest. These hard 26 substrates in the subtidal zone are generall y densely covered with low-growing plants and 27 stationary suspension-feeding animals. Organi sms in this habitat can be divided into two 28 major groups: colonial encrusting sp ecies or single individuals th at settle together to form 29 large clumps of species. Often these commun ities are protected in some regions by large 30 kelp. 31

There are two major types of aquatic plant co mmunities that inhabit the subtidal benthic 32 environment of marine ecosystems: seagrass be ds and kelp forests. Because of their 33 extensive areas and high densit ies, seagrass beds have high productivity and provide a large 34 portion of the total prim ary production of inshor e waters. The beds are habitats for large 35 numbers of organisms, including burrowers and motile animals. Furthermore, birds, fish, 36 sea urchins, and sea turtles use the seagra ss beds to escape predation and to graze. 37 Extensive seagrass beds exist in many U.S. ecosystems, although declines have been 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-6 measured in many areas, generally due to human activities. Kelp forests are mainly found 1 along hard-bottom, rocky shorelines of th e U.S. and consist of large brown algae 2 (Nybakken 1993). These forests are located thro ughout a large part of the cold temperate 3 regions, including the north Atlant ic and Pacific coastlines. Th ey form an extensive habitat 4 composed of several vertical layers, which provi de distinctive niches for a wide variety of 5 marine organisms. 6

The marine invertebrate populati ons of the U.S. are extensive and span a wide variety of 7 taxonomic groups, including macroinvertebrates, mollusks and crustaceans, and also many 8 zooplankton, copepods and amphipods. Thes e organisms can be good indicators of 9 watershed health because they are influenced by the concentration of oxygen, nutrients, 10 toxic chemicals, and habitat quality. 11

Another ecosystem within the subtidal zone is coral reefs. The U.S. has jurisdiction over 12 coral reefs covering an estimated 7,600 square miles in the tropical -subtropical belt around 13 the equator (NOAA 2002). Warm water coral re efs are among the largest living biological 14 systems in the world, and their survival is dependent on key biological and physical factors 15 such as temperature, light, turbidity, and sa linity. Coral reefs provide foraging habitat and 16 shelter to thousands of species of flora and fauna. Additionally, cold-water corals, 17 sometimes referred to as deep-sea corals, may occur as solitary individuals or form both 18 reef-like structures and thickets that provide habitats for numerous species. These corals, 19 such as Lophelia pertusa and Paragorgia arborea , are found in cold oceanic waters 20 worldwide and occur anywhere from near the surface to 1,000 meters in depth, but are most 21 commonly found between 200 and 400 meters (lophelia.org). 22

A variety of coral species have been intr oduced into U.S. waters via BWD and other 23 sources. For example, nonindigenous coral species can harm na tive coral species by 24 colonizing the native species’ habitat; competing with the native species over limited, 25 overlapping resource needs; and ultimately re placing them within the ecosystem. Coral 26 reef degradation has increased as a result of changing clim ate, coastal development, 27 overfishing, disease, and NIS. 28

Intertidal Environment 29

The intertidal zone is the area where the ocean meets the shoreline, between the upper 30 reaches of water at high tide and the lower r eaches of water at low tide. Wave and tidal 31 action contribute to a wide array of environmen tal factors that make the intertidal zone a 32 physically challenging place for its inhabitants and determine the geographic limits of its 33 organism s. The upper intertidal zone, which is exposed to air for much of the day, is 34 typically occupied by few species, whereas th e lower intertidal zone, usually submerged 35 during both high and low tide, is populated by many organisms. The intertidal habitat can 36 be divided into three sub-types: rocky, sa ndy, and muddy shorelines. Muddy shorelines are 37 discussed in Section 3.4 (E stuarine Ecosystems). 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-7 Rocky intertidal shores – common in the nor thern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Alaskan 1 waters, the Pacific Islands waters, and the Caribb ean waters of the U.S. – can be classified 2 according to their flora and fauna. The uppermos t zone, the supralittoral fringe or spray 3 zone, is barely reached by the ocean’s salty spray and only the highest tides and winter 4 storm waves flood this area. This area is a ha bitat for periwinkles, limpets, barnacles, and 5 lichens. The middle part of the intertidal zone, the midlittoral zone, is habitat for 6 periwinkles, limpets, chitons, crabs, barnacles, and mollusks. Below the midlittoral zone is 7 the infralittoral fringe, which extends from the lowest low tide to the upper limit of large 8 kelp. This zone includes sea stars, sea urch ins, small fish, and different types of algae. 9

Sandy shores are a common featur e throughout U.S. coastlines. In this habitat, primary 10 producers are limited to benthic diatoms and fr ee-floating phytoplankton. Because there is 11 little primary production, infaunal and epif aunal animals must rely on food from 12 phytoplankton, organic debris, or other animals. 13

Wetlands are a combination of terrestrial a nd aquatic ecosystems. They are lands where 14 water saturation is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the 15 types of plant and animal communities. Water sources include rivers, lakes, ocean areas, or 16 wet spots. Wetlands provide habitat for a dive rse array of species, including fish, crabs, 17 shellfish, and birds (par ticularly waterfowl and wading birds) . Also, they provide services 18 such as nursery areas, flood mitigation, wate r filtering, and food. The importance of 19 wetlands to fish and wildlife is reflected by the large proportion of threatened and 20 endangered species that require wetland habitats. Some of these species have potential 21 commercial value. In addition, the biologica l diversity of natural resources found in 22 wetlands is critical for research, educa tion, and recreational ac tivities (EPA 2004). 23 Wetlands also have public value for storm abatement, aquifer recharge, water quality 24 improvement, aesthetics, a nd general subsistence. 25

Since the early nineteenth cen tury, extensive introductions of marine invertebrates have 26 occurred within the intertidal zone throughout North America. NIS such as the Asian shore 27 crab, green crab, and the Easter n oyster have been used as models for understanding NIS 28 introduction patterns and successes (Carlt on and Mann 1996; Grosholz and Ruiz 1996; 29 Grosholz et al. 2000; Lohr er and Whitlach 1997). 30

Water Column (Pelagic) Environment 31

The first trophic level of the water column cons ists of thousands of species of bacteria and 32 plankton. The distribution of plankton in U.S. marine waters is highest off the continental 33 shelf and in temperate inshore waters, whic h span both the east and west coastlines. 34 Planktonic organism s are divide d into two primary types: phytoplankton and zooplankton. 35 Phytoplankton are responsible for most of th e photosynthetic activity in the oceans. 36 Zooplankton, the heterotrophic animal component of plankton, include a variety of species 37 that mainly feed on other copepods and phytoplankton. 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-8 Small marine animals feeding directly upon pl ankton in the water co lumn comprise the 1 intermediate links in the marine food web and include free-swimming macroinvertebrates 2 such as jellyfish and small pelagic fish. In tu rn, these small animals provide prey to larger 3 marine animals such as fish, seabirds, sea turt les, and marine mammals. Large marine fish 4 are at the top trophic level of marine food we bs, fulfilling a critical function in marine 5 ecosystems, both ecologically and economically. Ecologically, marine fi sh are vital to the 6 marine food web as upper trophic level carn ivores that prey on smaller fish and 7 invertebrates. Even though seabirds are not part of the water colu mn community, they are 8 upper-trophic carnivores whose diet consists of water column organisms. As part of the 9 terrestrial food web, marine fish serve as prey to upper trophic bi rds such as gulls and terns. 10 There are a large number of seabird species, and they spend the majority of their time living 11 and feeding on the open ocean, coming to land only to breed and feed their young. They 12 are an important structural link in marine ecos ystems because they are physically capable of 13 flying long distances to forage a nd nest and often utilize all ha bitats of marine ecosystems. 14

In ballast water, microorganisms may constitu te a numeric majority of the species found. 15 (Carlton 1999, 2001; Galil and Hulsma nn 1997; McCarthy and Crowder 2000). 16 Phytoplankton, particularly diatoms and dinofla gellates, can be espe cially abundant and 17 may cause the HAB known as “red tides”( Carlton and Geller 1993; Hallegraeff 1993; NRC 18 1996) or produce toxic compounds. Toxins can bioaccumulate in high trophic level marine 19 animals, which can accumulate relatively larg e amounts of the toxin a nd show symptoms of 20 contamination (Bushaw-Newton and Sellner 1999). Despite the inherent variability in, and 21 limited knowledge of HAB and their geographi cal distribution, NIS introduced via BWD 22 and other sources may have contributed to the increase in the frequency, intensity, and 23 duration of HAB events in U.S. waters (Hal legraeff 1993). The adverse effects of HAB on 24 marine mammals can range from cell and tissue damage to organism mortality. 25

Approximately one-half of the world’s marine mammal species are present within the U.S. 26 EEZ. All marine mammals are protected unde r the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 27 (MMPA), and many of them are further prot ected under the Endangered Species Act of 28 1973 (ESA). Twenty-seven marine mammal speci es (or populations) ar e currently listed as 29 depleted under the MMPA, and twenty of these ar e also listed as threatened or endangered 30 under the ESA. NOAA administers the prot ection programs for these species and has 31 designa ted critical habitat for all species that re quire it. Additionally, f our further species or 32 populations of manatees and sea otters that reside in U.S. territory are endangered or 33 threatened, and their management is admini stered by the FWS. One subpopulation of the 34 grey whale was delisted twenty-four years after it was listed as endangered. Additionally, 35 there are 37 species or populat ions of marine mammals prot ected by the MMPA that are not 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-9 listed as depleted (NMFS, n.d.). 1 Similar to fish, marine mammals play a vital role as top1 down consumers. Marine mammals range in their dietary consumption. Some species, 2 such as baleen whales, may feed entirely on plankton and small fish. Other species of 3 marine mammals (i.e., dolphins, toothed whales, and polar bears) can feed on crustaceans, 4 large fish, seals, or birds. 5

Although the majority of marine fish in the U.S. are native to a sp ecific region, the U.S. 6 Geological Survey (USGS) has listed 272 non-native fish species in the U.S., 56 of which 7 are marine (USGS 2006). Although roughly half of these species have been introduced 8 from one region of the U.S. to another, a large portion has been introduced from foreign 9

sources. 10



### 3.5 Estuarine Ecosystems 11

Estuarine ecosystems are habitats where fresh and marine waters mix, for example, where a 12 river or stream meets the ocean. Estuaries’ unique physical and chemical characteristics are 13 influenced by the tides and the mixing of fr esh and seawater. Estuarine ecosystems are 14 located along all coasts. The numerous estuarin e habitats of the U.S. are well distributed 15 throughout the climatic zones and vary in size. This unique environment supports a variety 16 of wildlife and fisheries, which contribute s ubstantially to the economy of the U.S. (EPA 17 2005). 18

Estuaries usually have greater temperature and sa linity variations than marine waters. As a 19 result, estuarine species are characterized by th eir tolerance to broad fluctuations in their 20 physical environment. The influx of freshw ater, sediment, and nutrients from the land 21 mixes with the salty oceanic waters containing additional nutrients to create a highly 22 productive ecosystem. Thus, estuaries play a cr itical role as foraging grounds and nurseries 23 for marine species, including some commercia lly important fish and crustaceans. Common 24 species found in estuaries include algae, mars h grasses, mangrove trees (in the tropics), and 25 a variety of fish, worms, oysters, and crabs. 26

The overall condition of U.S. estuarine eco systems is “fair” (EPA 2005). In 2001, 23 27 percent of the nation’s estuarine areas were considered impa ired for swimming, fishing, or 28 supporting marine species (USCOP 2004). A larg e number of estuarine systems have been 29 highly invaded by NIS. For example, in San Francisco Bay – which has frequently been 30

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 used for modeling of estuarine processes, including NIS invasion rates and effects – over 1 two hundred NIS have been identified, such as the Chinese mitten crab (Cohen and Carlton 2 1995). Additionally, nonindigenous microorgani sms have become established in many 3 estuarine waters. The introduction of nonnativ e pathogens, such as viral hemorrhagic 4 septicemia (VHS), which negatively impact native organisms through parasite or disease 5 transmission, can be particularly dest ructive to the estuarine ecosystem. 6

3.5.1 Physical Environment 7

Estuaries are commonly sem i-enclosed areas, wh ich take the form of bays, shallow lagoons, 8 coastal plain estuaries, coastal plain salt mars hes, and fjords. The salinity profile of a 9 typical estuary varies greatly and depends on tid al cycles, rainfall, dr ainage slopes, soil 10 texture, vegetation, water table depth, fresh water influx, and fossil salt deposits. Because 11 salt water is denser than fresh water, it si nks and flows along the bottom, forming a salt 12 wedge, with the less dense freshwater flowing out along the surface. 13

Water temperatures within estuaries can fluctuate considerably on diurnal and seasonal 14 cycles. Estuaries can heat up or cool down more quickly than larger water bodies because 15 of their relatively large surface area and fairly shallow depth. Furthermore, the freshwater 16 input can also raise or lower th e temperature of an estuary. 17

Suspended sediments, detritus, and plankton influence the turbidity of an estuary. 18 Freshwater inputs often carry hi gh levels of suspended partic les and can stir up the fine 19 estuarine sediments. As the suspended particles in the fresh water meet the salt water, they 20 aggregate and form a zone called the turbid ity maximum. Further from shore, these 21 aggregated particles begin to settle out and form rich sediment. Wind speed, water current, 22 human and wildlife activity, and estuary type play additional roles in turbidity levels. 23

Estuaries receive more nutrient inputs pe r unit surface area than any other type of 24 ecosystem (NRC 1993) because of their semi-rest ricted nature, the continual ebb and flow 25 of tides, and the inflow of sediment from upland sources. 26

3.5.2 Habitats and Organisms 27

As with m arine ecosystems, the ecological stru cture of estuaries can be divided into three 28 subsystems or habitats: subtidal be nthic, intertidal, and pelagic. 29

The physical elements and organisms of these habitats have unique , yet interdependent 30 functions that comprise the overall estuarine eco system. The subtidal benthic habitats are 31 associated with the bottom substrate past the intertidal area and are permanently submerged 32 by tidal water. Subtidal organisms function on or within the floor of the estuary and 33 include many types of sea grasses, seaweed s, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, mollusks, 34 crustaceans, and mussels. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-11 Intertidal habitats in clude the area between high and low tide marks, and their exposure to 1 air varies depending on the tide cycle. Plant sp ecies found within the in tertidal zone of the 2 estuary generally include leafy grasses or red mangrove trees. Animals within the intertidal 3 zone, such as polychaetes, gastropods, and filter feeders, usually forage for food along the 4 bottom. 5

The pelagic habitat encompasses the water co lumn portion of the estuary. The plankton 6 populations of the water column vary with curr ent, salinity, temperatur e, and tides. Fish 7 that utilize the estuaries tend to migr ate into the marsh during high tides. 8

Subtidal Benthic Environment 9

Subtidal benthic organisms func tion on or within the floor of the estuary. This habitat can 10 support a vast array of organisms, all of which play a role in the healthy functioning of the 11 ecosystem. Organisms inhabiting the benthic re gion of an estuary can be classified as 12 infauna, epifauna, or demersal (bottom-dwelling fish that feed on other benthic organisms). 13 Typical estuarine benthic infauna can include protozoa, bacteria, mollusks, worms, and 14 crustaceans, and these types of organisms occ upy several trophic leve ls in the estuarine 15 food web. 16

Diatoms and other species act as primary pr oducers, creating their own nourishment using 17 sunlight. Primary consumers feed on plankton, detritus, and benthic algae, while secondary 18 consumers feed on primary consumers. The ba cteria and other infaunal microorganisms act 19 as decomposers, breaking down the waste produ cts of organisms or feeding on dead plant 20 or animal material. The benthic epifaunal community in a typical estuary consists of 21 oysters, mussels, seagrasses, crabs, sea stars, and snails. Finally, an estuarine demersal 22 community includes organisms that live or feed on the bottom of an estuary. 23

As with the marine ecosystem, there have also been extensive introductions of 24 nonindigenous mollusks in estu arine ecosystems throughout Nort h America since the early 25 19th century. Thirty species have become es tablished on the Pacifi c Coast, eight on the 26 Atlantic Coast and one on the Gulf Coast. Nineteen of the thirty Pacific Coast NIS occur in 27 San Francisco Bay alone (Carlton 1992). There, the Asian clam has reached densities of 28 over 10,000/m 2 at the expense of native biota (Car lton 1992). Invertebrate NIS have had 29 severe ecological impacts in many regions of the U.S. The elevated densities of Asian 30 clams and other introduced invertebrates have become the primary mechanism controlling 31 phytoplankton biomass in portions of the San Francisco Bay. This has impacted native 32 zooplankton, shrimp, and fish populations (C ohen and Carlton 1995). Such breakdowns of 33 established ecosystems can result in alterations of physical pro cesses such as sedimentation 34 rates and nutrient cycling. The physical envi ronment may experience elevated erosion rates 35 due to burrowing by invertebrate NIS (e.g., isopods, crayfish, and crabs) (Cohen and 36 Carlton 1995). 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-12 There is relatively little res earch published on ballast water tr ansport of plant species. 1 However, it is known that floating and detached seaweeds and seagrasses may be entrained 2 in ballast water (NRC 1996). It is well establ ished that the conse quences of nonindigenous 3 aquatic plants have been extens ive. The introduction of NIS can have deleterious effects on 4 native aquatic plants as well as serious impli cations beyond the aquatic ecosystem level. In 5 the San Francisco Bay estuary, over 20 nonindi genous plant species have been identified 6 (Cohen and Carlton 1995). The potential adverse impacts of these species include 7 competitive replacement of native cordgrass; al tered habitat for wetland plants and animals; 8 altered sediment dynamics; and loss of shor ebird foraging habitat (Callaway and Josselyn 9 1992). 10

Intertidal Environment 11

The estuarine intertidal subsystem functions as vital habitat to a number of organisms. 12 These habitats generally range from unvegeta ted cobble, gravel, sand, or mud beds to 13 productive and emergent wetlands. Because species inhabiting the upper portion of an 14 intertidal zone may receive water only through wave splashes and sprays, they must be 15 adapted to long periods of exposure to air. 16

Organisms typically found in upper intertidal zo nes of estuaries include macroalgae, lichen, 17 snails, limpets, crabs, and micr oscopic invertebrates and arth ropods. This section of the 18 intertidal zone serves as a f eeding area for terrestrial organism s as well. Estuaries support a 19 variety of terrestrial mammals (e.g., raccoons and opossums) that forage and prey along the 20 shore. Shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors can live, feed, and repr oduce in estuaries. 21

Muddy shores, a part of the upper intertidal zone, have high concentrations of organic 22 matter and lack significant wave action. They fo rm in estuaries, bays, lagoons, and harbors. 23 These low-slope areas are termed mud flats a nd are unique environments because they have 24 two separate layers where primary production oc curs: the superficial layer where diatoms, 25 algae, and seagrasses carry on photosynthesi s and a deep, oxygen-de pleted layer where 26 bacteria carry on anaerobic respiration. Primary consumers on muddy shores include 27 polychaetes, nematodes, and bivalves. These organisms are primary consumers, but unlike 28 herbivores, they feed on bacteria and organic par ticles, rather than plants. In turn, they are 29 consumed by carnivorous animals including m oon snails, some crabs, fish, and birds. 30

The middle intertidal zone contains an abunda nce of barnacles as well as their primary 31 predator, whelks. A diverse assemblage of seaweed species may found in this area. 32 Mussels, sea stars, and spiny lobs ters thrive in the intertidal zone. The mammals and birds 33 that exploit the upper intertidal area will also search for food in this area at low tid e. 34

A large variety of species inhabit the lower intertidal zone, partially because it is an easier 35 place to live and feed. Kelp, seaweed species, and seagrass beds thrive in this area, 36 providing food and shelter to a variety of lower in tertidal organisms. Sea stars, snails, and 37 worms are a few of the invertebrates that ma y inhabit this zone along with clams, sea 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-13 anemones, sea urchins, and octopuses. Because this region is almost constantly submerged, 1 many types of fish feed here and use seagrass be ds as shelter for their eggs and larvae. The 2 mammals and shore birds that feed along the shore will not generally venture into this 3 deeper zone, although some species of birds will forage for fish underwater. 4

Vegetated areas can be found throughout the upper, middle, and lower regions of the 5 intertidal zone. Aquatic plants serve many critical functions in estuarine ecosystems. 6 Plants act as a food source for numerous species and play crucial roles in nutrient cycling, 7 water clarity, and erosion control. Plant habitats can also function as essential shelter for 8 juveniles or other vulnerable organisms. Nativ e seagrass beds have been adversely affected 9 by NIS through competition and habitat alteration. 10

Many different groups of birds (49 common s horebird species) can be found in U.S. 11 estuaries and other marine coas tal regions. Waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and swans, 12 typically nest on the ground near lakes, rive rs, or estuaries. Although not all waterfowl 13 consume fish, they all depend in some way on marine, freshwater, and estuarine systems for 14 their food. Invertebrates found in shallow water or sediment comprise a majority of the 15 shorebird diet. Invasive species’ impacts on bird health include changes in shorebird 16 foraging habitat and increased compet ition (Callaway and Josselyn 1992). 17

Estuarine intertidal wetlands consist of deepwate r tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands. 18 They are usually semi-enclosed by land, but have partial access to oceanic water either 19 temporally or spatially. Estuarine wetlands ar e very important habitats which can contain 20 vegetation and animals such as cattails, alg ae, seagrasses, mangroves, cypress, clams, 21 mussels, and crayfish (Cowardin et al. 1979). 22

Estuarine wetlands have been invaded and adve rsely affected by animal and plant NIS from 23 ballast water and other sources (EPA 2004). For example, the Chinese mitten crab, 24 potentially introduced via BWD, has affected native invertebrates and the ecological 25 structure of estuarine wetland co mmunities in California. It disrupts fishing operations by 26 competing with and preying on native speci es, damaging native habitats, and reducing 27 biodiversity (Cohen and Carlton 1997). The cu rrent species composition of U.S. estuarine 28 plants includes many NIS that have become wide ly established over time. In the waters of 29 Florida alone, 23 nonindigenous aquatic plant sp ecies have become established (McCann et 30 al. 1996). 31

Water Column (Pelagic) Environment 32

The water column habitat encompasses the areas of the estuary that are distinct from the 33 shoreline and the floor of the estuary. Microorganisms, plankton, inve rtebrates, and fishes 34 inhabit the water column. As primary produc ers, phytoplankton are vital to the estuarine 35 food web structure and are consumed by zoopl ankton as well as higher trophic-level 36 organism s. The abundance and species composition of phytoplankton typically fluctuate 37 seasonally and geographically. These oscillations and the role of phyt oplankton as the base 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-14 of the food web can influence hi gher trophic-level species. When nutrient levels in an 1 estuary are relatively low, diatoms are ty pically the dominant species of planktonic 2 organism. 3

Increased nutrient levels can c ontribute to algal blooms. Alga l blooms are a natural part of 4 the seasonal growth cycle and provide a valu able food source to es tuarine and open ocean 5 environments. However, a nutrient overabunda nce may cause large-scale blooms which 6 will negatively impact the estuarine ecosystem and present health threats to many species. 7 Zooplankton are also an important food source for the larval forms of many fish species, 8 which use the shallow waters in estuaries for nurseries a nd protection. Major estuarine 9 zooplankton species include cope pods, protists, and amphipods. 10

Estuaries serve as important breeding and nursery habitats for pelagic fish and play a vital 11 role in many commercial and recreational fish eries. Approximately 75% of the U.S.’s 12 commercially important fish and shellfish depend on estuaries at some stage in their life 13 cycle (NMFS 2006a). For example, anadromous species such as salmon hatch in upstream 14 areas and migrate to the open ocean as juvenile s. Anadromous species spend a few days to 15 a few months resting, feeding, and physiologi cally adjusting to the salinity changes in 16 estuarine areas between downstream migration and the open ocean. 17

Several marine mammal species, particularly seals and dolphins, can be found in estuaries 18 in the U.S. These mammals often serve as top predators in the food web. Manatees feed on 19 submerged vegetation, helping to regulate the pl ant populations in an estuary. This grazing 20 action may encourage the growth of other aquati c plants and their associated organisms. 21 Harbor seals can typically be found in larg e numbers in New England estuaries, while 22 estuaries on the west coast of the U.S. are ofte n used by seals, sea otters, and sea lions. 23



### 3.6 Freshwater Ecosystems 24

Freshwater ecosystems are located throughout the U.S. They incl ude rivers, streams, lakes, 25 and wetlands. The Great Lakes and the Miss issippi River, along with their associated 26 watersheds, are the two most significant freshwater ecosystems in the U.S. 27

The current health of U.S. freshwater ecosystems can be summarized as follows. The Great 28 Lakes system’s overall condition is fair to poor based on a variety of ecosystem indicators 29 (EPA 2005). States reported that out of those that were asse ssed, only 61% of the river and 30 stream miles, 54% of the lake acres, and 22% of the Great Lakes shoreline miles fully 31 support the water quality standa rds evaluated (EPA 2000). Ev ery Great Lake is under at 32 least one fish consumption advisory (EPA 2005). 33

U.S. lakes provide drinking water for communities and supply water for industry, irrigation, 34 and hydropower. Rivers and la kes also provide a variety of recreational o pportunities and 35 are important components of the freshwat er fishing industry. They function as 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-15 transportation corridors for bot h human activities and natura l processes. Rivers and 1 associated lakes transport nutrients from terre strial systems to coas tal areas, and therefore 2 substantially impact other ecosystems. Rivers , lakes, and streams support a rich and diverse 3 community of species including plankton, rooted and floating aquatic plants, grazing snails, 4 clams, insect larvae, crustaceans, fish, and am phibians. Furthermore, many terrestrial birds, 5 insects, and mammals depend on these local freshwater ecosystems. 6

U.S. freshwater ecosystem species have been affected by NIS introductions, as well as by 7 habitat destruction and other human-mediated f actors. For example, NIS have become a 8 significant component of the food web in th e Great Lakes with 162 NIS identified by 2001 9 (NOAA 2004a). Additionally, in the Mississippi River, over 100 NIS have been identified 10 across at least nine taxonomic groups (USGS 200 4a). North America's rivers and stream 11 species are dying out five times faster than animals living on land and three times faster 12 than marine mammals (American Rivers 2005). This is due in great measure to the threat 13 posed by NIS to such fauna and the ease with wh ich they spread in freshwater ecosystems. 14

3.6.1 Physical Environment 15

Freshwater is defined as ha ving low salt content, usually less than 0.5 ppt. The salinity 16 levels of a freshwater body are influenced by c lim atic (rainfall) and terrestrial (rock and soil 17 weathering) processes. A river’ s currents can cause weathering of its riverbanks, releasing 18 salts and other minerals into the water. Additionally, terrestrial evaporation can leave 19 behind salt which can be washed into a freshwater body duri ng rain events. 20

Water temperatures in lakes or ponds can vary with the seasons. Furthermore, because 21 lakes are relatively still, the water is able to separate into different layers (stratification). In 22 warmer seasons, the surface layer is heated by sunlight, while bottom layers remain cold. 23 Separating these layers is the thermocline, a transition layer which is characterized by its 24 abrupt temperature changes. During the summer months there is very little mixing between 25 the layers, leading to well-defined boundaries be tween warm and cold waters. In the fall, as 26 the surface waters cool, stratif ication breaks down and water ex change between the layers 27 increases, leading to more uniform water temp eratures. During the colder months, surface 28 waters of temperate freshwater bodies typi cally freeze over while bottom waters remain 29 fluid. This temperature stratification is criti cal to the long-term survival of freshwater 30 organisms which retreat to deep er waters during the winter. 31

River or stream temperature can be extremely va riable as well. The river or stream origin 32 (e.g., glacier, wetland, or spring) di ctates its initial temperature. The character of a river or 33 stream shoreline can also cause temperature fluctuations: a shady shoreline will be 34 considerably cooler than a ri ver fully exposed to sunlight. Similarly to lakes and ponds, 35 depth and season can affect overall river temp erature. Finally, the nature of the runoff 36 entering the river from the waters hed can influence temperature. 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-16 Many factors can contribute to the turbidity of a river or lake. Temperature changes can 1 cause turbidity, although this turbidity is transient. Other factors affecting turbidity can 2 include freshwater inflow, watershed runoff, wave action (if the lake is large), human 3 activity, bottom-feeding fish, and suspended partic les. For example, turbidity increases can 4 be caused by plankton, such as algae, particul arly during periods of warmer temperatures, 5 longer daylight, and increased nutrient input. 6

3.6.2 Habitats and Organisms 7

The two freshwater eco systems discussed in this section (lakes and rivers) can be divided 8 into subsystems with unique physical and bi ological characteristics. The subsystems 9 maintain a strong relationship with each othe r and cannot function inde pendently. Lake and 10 river ecosystems do not usually possess physic al boundaries that ex clude or include 11 organisms, nutrients, or other resources. Ma ny organisms are able to move freely between 12 lakes and rivers, and some are able to inha bit estuaries and oceans. The function of a 13 freshwater ecosystem depends on the intercha nge of resources with other ecosystems. 14 However, this interdependence with terrestria l and marine ecosystems makes lakes, rivers, 15 and other freshwater bodie s susceptible to NIS. 16

Lake and Pond Environments 17

Lake, pond, and some freshwater wetland environm ents consist of water systems that are 18 fairly tranquil. Similar to estuarine and marine ecosystems, lakes can be partitioned into 19 distinct biological zones according to their physical structure. The littoral zone of a lake is 20 closest to the shoreline and is the area where sunlight is capable of penetrating the water, 21 allowing aquatic plants to thrive and contri buting to the overall hi gh productivity of the 22 zone. The pelagic or limnetic zone (water co lumn) of a lake lies beyond the littoral zone, in 23 open water where shoreline processes have le ss influence and where sunlight may also 24 reach. The profundal zone lies beneath the level to which sunlight can penetrate and 25 applies only to very deep lake s. Due to the lack of light and the dominance of decay 26 processes, oxygen levels are t oo low for sustaining life othe r than fungi and bacteria. 27 Finally, the benthic zone of a lake includes the species living on or in the bottom layers of 28 sand or mud whose composition and numbers depend on the amount of available organic 29
matter. 30

The benthic organisms (benthos) found in lake s are far more abundant and diverse in the 31 littoral zone than in the profundal zone. Th e profundal zone is usually low in species 32 diversity, consisting primarily of decomposers su ch as bacteria and fungi. The feeding and 33 digesting activities of benthic organisms se rve as important nutrient cycling pathways, 34 providing nitrogen and phosphorus to photosynthe tic organisms. The rates at which the 35 benthos can excrete nutrients also have im plications for lake ecosystems, such as 36 influencing the species com position of algae, macrophytes, and decomposers. Although 37 decomposers can be found in all parts of a la ke, they are the dominant organisms in the 38 deeper zones. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-17 Microorganisms constitute a vital foundation for most aquatic ecosystem food webs. 1 Phytoplankton abundance may be one of the dete rmining factors for the suitability of a 2 habitat to NIS colonization. For example, high densities of plankton are essential for the 3 colonization of zebra mussels in the Great La kes region. In addition, NIS can have adverse 4 impacts on plankton populations by predating native communities at higher rates than those 5 exerted by other native organisms or by sele ctive predation (Naddafi et al. 2007). 6

Lake plants can be grouped as emergent, floating, or submergent. Large plants 7 (macrophytes) are an integral part of a lake ’s ecosystem function. For example, plant 8 leaves and stems can act as substrate for snails or insects, and dra gonflies lay their eggs on 9 the plant stems just below the water line. Th e dense growth of thes e plants also provides 10 shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat for many species. Furthermore, these plants 11 contribute to the diet of some waterbirds and larger mammals. Many of these plant species, 12 such as hydrilla, waterlettuce, alligatorw eed, torpedo grass, and water hyacinth are 13 extremely invasive (McCann et al. 1996). 14

Lacustrine (lake-associated) and palustrine (e.g. ponds, marshes, and bogs) freshwater 15 wetlands are situated in topogr aphic depressions. Organisms inhabiting them may include 16 snails, midges, crayfish, mollusks, clams, alg ae, and many vascular plants. These wetlands 17 often contain vegetation such as alder, willow, spruce, maple, ash, oak, and cypress 18 (Cowardin et al. 1979). 19

Nonindigenous species have established themselv es in lake ecosystems in the U.S. Perhaps 20 the best known example of freshwater invasi on is the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and 21 Mississippi River. This mollusk attaches itself to surfaces in such high densities that it can 22 clog pipes and foul other important structures , such as boat hulls or buoy bases. Zebra 23 mussels also have the capacity to crowd out native mollusk species or interfere with such 24 basic functions as respira tion, reproduction, feeding, gr owth, and movement. Native 25 mollusk communities have been affected by NIS – one estimate is that another 127 26 freshwater mussel species will become extinct in the next 100 years if no conservation 27 efforts are initiated ( Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999, Williams and Neves 2003). Or, native 28 mussel communities could persist and coexist w ith zebra mussels at much lower population 29 densities and/or in poorer hea lth than before zebra mussel in vasion (Strayer and Malcolm, 30 2007). 31

In 2005, a freshwater strain of viral hemorrh agic septicemia (VHS) was discovered in 32 freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subs equently it was found in numerous freshwater 33 species throughout much of the Great Lakes. It has also been found in preserved samples 34 from as far back as 2003. Since 1988 the vi rus, a finfish pathogen, was only known to exist 35 in marine fish off both coasts (USDA 2006). Genetic studies have determined that the 36 strain in the Great Lakes is mo st closely related to the North Atlantic strain (Gagné et al. 37 2007). Ballast water is a plausible vector ; however, there is no way to definitively 38 determine how this pathogen arrived in the Great Lakes. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-18 In lakes, fish generally represent the top of the food web. Many lake fish utilize both the 1 littoral and limnetic zones. The littoral zo ne, with its abundance of macrophytes and other 2 microhabitats, can provide protective nursery ha bitat for the eggs and young of some fish 3 species (e.g., bass, walleye). However, due to the low abundance of plankton in littoral 4 waters, most of these fish will migrate to more open waters of the limnetic zone to feed as 5 adults. Most fish species, like sunfish or perch, spend time in the limnetic zone, feeding 6 primarily on zooplankton. Piscivorous fish – those that feed on other fish – will also 7 congregate in these open waters, preying on the planktivorous species. Other species, such 8 as catfish, prefer foraging for food in the benthic habitats. 9

Fish may not be as numerically abundant in ballast water as othe r phyla (Wonham et al. 10 2001). Most fish introductions have been caused by stocking, release by hobbyists, or 11 accidental release from aquaculture. Once es tablished in a new environment, fish can 12 spread over broad geographic areas. A cl assic example is the Eurasian ruffe 13 ( Gymnocephalus cernuus ), which was introduced via ballast water to the St. Lawrence 14 River in the mid-1980s. Since its introduction, it has spread rapidly through rivers, bays, 15 and lakes in the Great Lakes area. Furtherm ore, the ecological and geographical expansion 16 of the ruffe has injured native fish popul ations (OTA 1993). Other nonindigenous fish, 17 such as the round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ), the common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), 18 the alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ), the white perch ( Morone americana ), and the sea 19 lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) have spread rapidly and caused major environmental and 20 economic problems (Fuller et al. 2006; Mill s et al. 1993; Tomelleri and Eberle 1990). 21

Eurasian watermilfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum ) is a stringy and submerged plant that is 22 highly invasive and aggressively competes with native plant communities, reducing 23 biodiversity. Dense mats of watermilfoil can clog propellers, impa ir swimming, restrict 24 boating and fishing accesses, and affect water qu ality. It has less value as a food source for 25 waterfowl than the native plants it replaces (Aiken et al. 1979). Although fish may initially 26 experience a favorable edge effect, overabundant growth of watermilfoil negates any short27 term benefits that it may provide fish in h ealthy waters, because its high densities cause a 28 lower abundance and diversity of invertebrates that serve as fish food (Keast 1984). The 29 growth and aging of the thick watermilfoil vegetation also degrades water quality and 30 depletes dissolved oxygen levels (E ngel 1995; H onnell et al. 1992). 31

Terrestrial organisms, such as amphibians, birds, and mammals, also utilize lake 32 ecosystems. Amphibians are often found in ab undance in lake environments; salamanders 33 and frogs spend the majority of their breeding seasons in the vicinity of a freshwater body, 34 where their eggs are laid. So me birds hunt for juvenile fish in the shallow littoral zone, 35 while others may pursue fish in the limnetic z one. Other species of birds prefer to feed on 36 insect eggs or larvae attached to macrophytes . Mammals such as bear or mink may hunt for 37 fish in littoral areas and play a vital role in nutrient cy cling through food ingestion and 38 waste excretion. 39

River and Stream Environments 40April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-19 River and stream environments consist of flow ing water systems. Similar to other aquatic 1 ecosystems, rivers can be divided into zones that differ physically a nd biologically. The 2 surface of a river is the top-most zone, consis ting of the area from the air-water interface 3 down a few centimeters into the water. In this zone, gases (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, and 4 carbon dioxide) are exchanged between the wate r and the atmosphere. A river also has a 5 water column zone directly below the surface of the water. The benthic zone of a river is 6 located at the sediment-water in terface, which consists of sedi ment, rocks, other substrates, 7 and organisms. 8

A river system’s benthic community is determined by the material that makes up the bottom 9 of the riverbed and the availability of vari ous microhabitats. Rive rine benthos can range 10 from burrowing macroinvertebrates to organi sms that live on the surface of the benthic 11 environment. These organisms are an importa nt link in the riverine food web, feeding on 12 detritus or plankton found on or in the riverbed and being preyed upon by larger organisms. 13 The decomposition of dead benthic organisms al so adds nutrients back into the benthic 14 environment, which can be exploited by aquatic plants and other animals in the food web. 15

Most large plant species are not capable of thriving in a river ecosystem because strong 16 currents can batter their leaves and stems. However, some species have adapted to the 17 rough environment by attaching themselves to rocks or other substr ates or by evolving 18 more hydrodynamic profiles. Other species gr ow only along the im mediate shoreline, 19 where the current is reduced. Some riverine macrophytes may alter the velocity and flow of 20 the stream, and provide microhabitats fo r many organisms (Dodds and Biggs 2002). 21

Riverine wetlands occur within a river’s channel and have salin ities of less than 0.5 ppt. 22 Organisms may be adapted to the flowing wa ter environment by having a streamlined shape 23 and strong connections to the substrate. Or ganisms in these wetlands may include snails, 24 insects, algae, mollusks, and a wide array of va scular aquatic plants (C owardin et al. 1979). 25

While some fish spend their entire lives in th e riverine environment, others migrate between 26 fresh and saltwater ecosystems. Some speci es (anadromous) will spend the majority of 27 their lives in the ocean, only migrating up a river for sp awning. For example, salmon, 28 sturgeon, and striped bass young spend their juvenile life in the river before migrating to the 29 ocean. Conversely, other species of fish (know n as catadromous), e.g., the American eel, 30 spend most of their lives in freshwater a nd move to the ocean for reproduction. The 31 juvenile catadromous fish will move to freshwater after hatching. 32

Microhabitats in a river play a large role in determ ining where species are found. Some 33 species prefer inhabiting rive r pools and other slower-moving areas of a river while other 34 species thrive in the main channel. Ba in and Knight (1996) found that slow-moving 35 shallow areas of a river tend to possess the highest diversity, as well as densities, of fish. 36 Riverine fish feed on benthic macroinvertebrate s and the juveniles or eggs of other fish. 37 They form one of the highest levels in a rive rine food web, and they are also an important 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-20 recycler of nutrients. In a ddition, the decomposition of fish in the river provides food for 1 lower-level organisms, including benthic macroi nvertebrates and a variet y of decomposers. 2

Like lake environments, riverine envir onments have many physical and biological 3 connections with terrestrial systems. R unoff from upland areas provides a river with 4 copious amounts of nutrients, organic matte r, and sediment. Birds, mammals, and 5 amphibians use the river for a variety of resources, including supplementing their diets by 6 catching fresh fish or by feeding on carcasses. 7

Many NIS have become established in portions of U.S. riverine ecosystems. For example, 8 zebra mussel populations inhabit some rivers , specifically the Mississippi and Missouri 9 Rivers. Furthermore, nonnative fish species such as the common carp now populate the 10 Mississippi River. It is more difficult to manage the spread of riverine NIS than those 11 found in lakes, due to more rapid flow, the inability to cordon off an entire river for 12 treatment, and the close link among rivers and other aquatic ecosystems. 13

More information about all of these organism s and environments can be found in the cited 14 references. 15



### 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 16

Congress enacted the Endange red Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (Public Law 93-205, as 17 amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.) to conserve and protect thre atened and endangered species 18 and their habitats. The definition of “ species ” in the ESA includes any subspecies of fish or 19 wildlife or plants, and any distin ct population segment of any sp ecies or vertebrate fish or 20 wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries 21 Service share responsibility for implementing th e ESA. The FWS is primarily responsible 22 for terrestrial and freshwater species and mi gratory birds, while the NMFS manages those 23 species inhabiting marine environm ents, including anadromous fish. 24

There are currently ~260 marine-, estuarine- , and freshwater-associated species listed as 25 either threatened or endangered under the ES A (see Appendices C and D for lists). Some 26 endangered species could be threatened with ex tinction due to the combined impact of NIS 27 introduction and the existing environmental circ umstances (Ricciardi 2001; Sanders et al. 28 2003; Strayer and Malcolm 2007). Almost 40 native mussel species occur in the 29 Mississippi River, some of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered (FWS 30 2003). The zebra mussel threatens some of these indigenous species of mussel with 31 extinction. Additionally, the quagga mussel, introduced into the Great Lakes in 1989, may 32 impact them or hasten their extinctio n (USGS 2005). Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser 33 brevirostrum ), which are federally endangered, are under many threats, amongst them 34 habitat degradation and dre dging operations, and they may also be threatened by 35 introductions of white sturgeon (NatureServe 2007). NIS have been identified as a 36 contributing factor in the listing as threatened or endangered of over 50% of fish species 37 and 33% of invertebrates, which include s mollusks and crustaceans (OTA 1993). 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-21 

### 3.8 Essential Fish Habitat 1

In 1996, Congress made significant revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 2 Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, P.L. 94-265, as amended; 16 3 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and refi ned the focus of fisheries management by emphasizing the 4 need to protect fish habitat. Section 303 (a)(7) of the Magnuson-St evens Act specifically 5 requires that fishery management plans identify as essential fish habitat (EFH) those areas 6 that are necessary to fish for their basic life functions. EFH is defined as “...those waters 7 and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 8 “Waters” include aquatic area s and their associated physic al, chemical, and biological 9 properties that are used by fish. “Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures 10 underlying the waters, and associated biological communities. “Necessa ry” refers to the 11 habitat required to support a sustainable fish ery and the managed species’ contribution to a 12 healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, fe eding, or growth to maturity” covers a 13 species’ full life cycle. 14

The Magnuson-Stevens Act gives eight regiona l fishery management councils (councils) 15 and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Serv ice (NMFS) Highly Migratory Species 16 Division the authority to manage living mari ne resources within their respective areas 17 (Pacific, North Pacific, West ern Pacific, New England, Mi d-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 18 Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico). Each c ouncil creates management plans for fishery 19 resources in federal waters. The NMFS a nd the eight councils have described and 20 identified EFH for the federally managed spec ies in their respectiv e fishery management 21 plans (NMFS 2006b). NMFS and the councils ha ve also designated habitat areas of 22 particular concern, a subset of EFH. 2 23

Section 305(b)(2)-(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines a process for NMFS and the 24 councils to comment on activities proposed by Fe deral agencies’ actions that may adversely 25 impact areas designated as EFH. Specificall y, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 26 on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely impact EFH. This 27 consultation process is usually integrated into existing environmental review procedures in 28 accordance with, for example, NEPA, ESA, or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, to 29 provide the greatest level of e fficiency. As part of the EFH consultation process, the 30 guidelines require Federal acti on agencies to prepare a written EFH assessment describing 31 the effects of their actions on EFH (50 CFR 600.920(e)(1)). 3 The EFH assessment is 32

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/habita tprotection/pdf/efh/EFH%20Consultation%20Guidance%20v1-1.pdfApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-22 necessary for NMFS to provide the Federal agency with efficient and effective EFH 1 conservation recommendations for any action that would adversely affect EFH. Within 30 2 days of receiving NMFS conservation recommen dations, the acting Federal agencies must 3 provide a detailed written response to NMFS th at includes measures proposed for avoiding, 4 mitigating, or offsetting the impact of a propos ed activity on EFH. If the Federal action 5 agency does not adopt NOAA Fisheries' conser vation recommendations, it must provide an 6 explanation. Fishery Management Councils may also choose to comment on proposed 7 actions that may adversely impact EFH. 8



### 3.9 Socioeconomics 9

3.9.1 Value of U.S. Aquatic and Coastal Resources 10

As discussed above, U.S. waters cover a broa d range of physical a nd biological conditions, 11 from warm, tropical to cold Arctic waters a nd from coastal to oceanic environments that 12 support a wide variety of marine resources and wildlife. The U.S. EEZ is the largest in the 13 world, spanning over 13,000 miles of coastline and containing 3.4 million square nautical 14 miles of ocean—larger than the combined la nd area of all fifty states (USCOP 2004). The 15 living resources that compose aquatic and coastal environments, and the ecological 16 processes that sustain them, form a foundation fo r the quality of human life. They provide 17 food, medicines, and industrial products. In addition, aquatic and coas tal resources provide 18 spiritual and recreational benefits. 19

Aquatic and coastal resources al so provide a wide variety of ecological services, including 20 pollutant absorption, climate regulation, pr evention of coastal and seabed erosion, 21 maintenance of water quality, and storage and re cycling of nutrients, as well as acting as 22 indicators of global, regional and local environmental change. For example, coastal areas 23 provide critical habitats th at serve as spawning grounds, nur series, shelter, and food for 24 finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Coastal resources also provide feeding, 25 breeding, and sheltering habita t for 85% of waterfowl and other migratory birds (EPA 26 2005). Healthy estuaries are a rich source of nutrients and food organisms, and they 27 contribute to the productivity of adjacent coastal waters and often support valuable fisheries 28 as a result. Marshes trap sediments and filter nutrients and chemicals from the water. Coral 29 reefs provide physical structure, food, and pr otection for a great diversity of marine 30 organisms. Furthermore, the coral itself is composed of carbonate, which has been 31 produced by animals and plants in a proce ss that sequesters large quantities of carbon 32 dioxide from the environment. 33

Aquatic and coastal re sources provide considerable value to the U.S. economy. In 2000, 34 ocean-related activities directly contribut ed more than $117 billion to the economy and 35 supported well over two million jobs. By includi ng coastal activities, mo re than $1 trillion, 36 or one-tenth of the nation’s annual gross domes tic product (GDP), is generated within the 37 nearshore zone. Annually, U.S. ports handle more than $700 billion in merchandise, while 38 the cruise industry and its pa ssengers account for another $12 b illion in spending. It is 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-23 estimated that more than thirteen million jobs are connected to maritime trade. Offshore oil 1 and gas operations continue to expand, with annual production valued at between $25 and 2 $40 billion (EPA 2005). In summary, aquatic and coastal resources provide essential 3 economic, environmental, aesthetic, recreati onal, and cultural bene fits to society. 4

3.9.2 Overview of Current Economic Status 5

The estim ated annual economic activity within th e ocean, coastal, estuarine, and freshwater 6 regions of the U.S. contributes to one-thir d of the gross national product (NOAA 1995). 7 Seventy-five percent of the U.S. gross state product (GSP) in 2000 originated from coastal 8 states (states bordering oceans and the Great Lakes), with half of the U.S. economy 9 stemming from coastal watershed counties (C olgan 2003). Coastal watershed counties 10 encompass areas in which major rivers and streams flow through to oceans and the Great 11 Lakes. Near shore areas of the U.S., whic h are generally those ZIP codes nearest the 12 shoreline of the U.S., produce more than 11 percent of U.S. economic output (Colgan 13 2003). 14

The U.S. ocean economy employs 2.3 million pe ople and a GSP of $117 billion. The ocean 15 economy is that portion of economic activity that can be directly relate d to the ocean. The 16 ocean economy is comprised of 1.6 percent of employment, ranging from 17.7 percent of 17 Hawaii’s employment to 0.6 percent of Ohio and Indiana’s employment. Tourism and 18 recreation have provided all of the recent job growth to th e ocean economy of the U.S. 19 within the last decade, while other ocean econom y sectors (living resources, minerals, ship 20 and boat building, and transportation) have declined in employment (Colgan 2003). As a 21 comparison, ocean-related employment was almost 1-1 ⁄

2 times larger than agricultural 22 employment in 2000, and total ocean-related economic output was 2-1 ⁄

2 times larger than 23 that of the farm sector (USCOP 2004). 24

Most international commerce fo r the U.S. is shipped through coastal waters, 99.8 percent 25 by weight and 18.1 percent by value. In 1990, es timated waterborne commerce in the U.S. 26 totaled 850 million metric tons valued at $465 b illion. Foreign trade is an increasingly 27 important element of the U.S. economy, curre ntly accounting for over 20 percent of the 28 GDP (EPA 1994). 29

The commercial fishing industry’s total annual value exceeds $28 billion, with the 30 recreational saltwater fishing industry valu ed at around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. 31 retail trade in ornamental fish worth anothe r $3 billion (USCOP 2004). Over 8 million U.S. 32 saltwater anglers catch an estimated 312 milli on fish annually (Dalton 2000). Over 350,000 33 coastal residents rely on fishing for their liv elihood and over 34 million Americans fish for 34 recreation (FWS 2001). Of the nation's 267 ma jor stocks—representi ng 99 percent of all 35 landings—approximately 20 percent are e ither already overfished, experiencing 36 overfishing, or approaching an overfished c ondition. In addition, a 2003 report noted that 37 there is insufficient information on status of over 30 percent of the major stock and most of 38 the m inor stock, which makes an actual determ ination of their status extremely difficult 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-24 (NMFS 2003b). Although fishery resources have become increasingly stressed, the 1 demand for fishery products has grown. The U. S. is unable to meet the demand for seafood 2 products resulting in a fishery trade defi cit of $7 billion a year (FAS 2005). 3

In addition to valuable resources and commer ce, coastal environments offer some of the 4 most scenic landscapes and appealing climates and have helped to attract approximately 5 153 million residents to coastal counties, making the coastal zone the most urbanized area 6 of the U.S. (Crossett et al. 2004). More than 37 million people and 19 million homes have 7 been added to coastal areas during the last th ree decades, driving up real estate values and 8 requiring ever greater support services. An average of 3,600 people a day are moving to 9 coastal counties, which projects to a 2015 coastal population of 165 million (USCOP 2004). 10 Over half of the U.S. population lives in co astal counties that make up only 17 percent of 11 the contiguous land area. Over the past 30 ye ars, 46 percent of resi dential development and 12 40 percent of commercial and industrial develo pment have occurred in the U.S. coastal 13 zone. From 1999 to 2003, 43 percent of the nati on's total single-family housing permits and 14 51 percent of the nation's total multi-family hous ing units were issued in coastal counties 15 (Crossett et al. 2004). 16

Coastal tourism and recreation— including restaurants, lodging, recreation services, marinas 17 and boat dealers—represents one of the largest and fastest growing categories of spending 18 in the marine sector. In 2000, over 63 million Americans visited beaches (NSRE 2000). 19 While no one statistic exists on coastal recreation’s contri bution to the nation's economy, 20 individual coastal counties and states attribute large amounts of th eir income to water21 oriented activities. For example, Hawaii's coral reefs generate $360 million a year to the 22 local economy (Cesar 2002); Fl orida's Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe 23 counties reported in 2000-2001 that recreational diving, fish ing, and viewing activities 24 contributed $4.4 billion in local sales and almost $2 billion in local income (Johns et al. 25 2003); and California's coastal i ndustries contributed more than $22 billion in GSP in 2002 26 (NOEP 2004). The Great Lakes beach visits are estimated as high as $1.65 billion (US 27 COP 2004). In addition to beach-going income, registered recreational boats in the Great 28 Lakes total around 3.7 million, about one third of the Nation's total (USPC 2002); 29 recreational boating results in over $35 billion in annual eco nomic activity in the eight 30 Great Lake states (GLRC 2005). 31

The continued maintenance of coastal environm ental quality is important for major sectors 32 of the U.S. econom y, including fisheries and tourism. Degradation of environmental 33 quality is evident in many areas of the U. S. coastline. For instance, in 2004, only 21 34 percent of estuarine waters assessed by the EPA were unimpaired (good condition) whereas 35 35 percent were impaired (poor condition) and 44 percent are threatened (fair condition) for 36 aquatic life or human use (NOAA 2004a). Th e degraded environmen tal quality of the 37 coastline, of course, has a direct impact on the industries and activities that rely heavily on 38 the water, such as the commerc ial and sport fishing industries, subsistence fishing, and the 39 tourism and recreation industries. It may also have an impact on the value of water-related 40 infrastructure. 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-25 3.9.3 Economic Overview of Current No nindigenous Species S tatus 1

Bioinvasions of aquatic ecosystems can resu lt in adverse economic impacts on industries 2 that are dependent on those ecosystems. The pur pose of this section is to discuss the costs 3 associated with bioinvasions of aquatic ecosyst ems, and specifically to discuss the overall 4 economic harm attributable to bioinvasions resulting from the introduction of NIS through 5 ballast water. Subsequent sections discuss the costs (economic harm ) associated with (1) 6 water-dependent infrastructure, (2) subsistence, (3) tourism and recreation, (4) water-related 7 subsistence activities, (5) comm ercial fishing, and (6) recrea tional (sport) fishing. These 8 are the primary economic activities in the U. S. identified as being impacted by aquatic 9 bioinvasions. Quantification of some of th e economic impacts, as well as a reliable 10 assessment of public health risk s (and costs) related to bioinv asions of aquatic ecosystems 11 remain problematic. 12

The overarching goal of the USCG’s ballast wate r initiatives is the reduction or prevention 13 of new introductions of NIS into U.S. aquatic ecosystems. It has been argued that the 14 reduction or prevention of new introductions of NIS and the immediate eradication of new 15 colonies of NIS is the most effective and cost-effective method to handle bioinvasions 16 (Mack et al. 2000). Control measures undertaken in response to established colonies of NIS 17 are usually site-specific and se veral methods are usually necessa ry to achieve any degree of 18 success (Benson 2000), resulting in extensive ex penditures. It should be noted, however, 19 that “[t]he optimal management of species intr oductions is a topic of considerable on-going 20 research. A central issue in this resear ch concerns the conditions under which the control— 21 as opposed to prevention or eradication—of a species introduction is optimal” (Solow 22 2005). 23

Overall, it has been estimated that the total economic damages attributable to NIS in the 24 U.S. exceeds $120 billion annually (Pimentel et al. 2000). This estimate is for all NIS, 25 including those impacting huma n health and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Damages 26 and costs of controlling aquatic invaders totals approximately $7.8 billion (Pimentel et al. 27 2005). Studies of the socioeconomic impacts of NIS introductions are difficult to perform 28 (Randall and Gollamudi 2001) and are currently sp arse. Previously derived estimates of the 29 overall economic damages attribut able to all NIS do not exist. 30

The U.S. currently spends hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, annually to 31

m itigate the effects of past bioinvasions. In 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office 32 (GAO; since then renamed the Government A ccountability Office) surveyed ten federal 33 departments to determine national expenditures on NIS activities (both terrestrial and 34 aquatic). This is the most recent publicly available survey of th e activities of these 35 departments with respect to NIS-related expe nditures. Eight agencies on the Invasive 36 Species Council—the Departments of Agricultu re, Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, 37 Treasury, Transportation, and the EPA—as we ll as the Smithsonian Institution and the 38 National Science Foundation, collectively spent $513.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and 39 $631.5 million in FY 2000 for the management and control of NIS (GAO 2000). 40 Prevention of NIS introductions received th e largest percentage of funding—about 51 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-26 percent in FY 1999 and 49 percent in FY 2000 (GAO 2000). The GAO also surveyed 1 seven states—California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York—to 2 determine selected state expenditures on NI S activities. Florida spent the most ($94.5 3 million in 1999 and $127.6 million in 2000) on managing and controlling invasive 4 terrestrial and aqua tic species (GAO 2000). Californi a reported the second highest 5 expenditures ($82.6 million in 1999 and $87.2 million in 2000) (GAO 2000). The GAO’s 6 survey did not address the mitigation expenditures of the 43 states not surveyed or of U.S. 7 territories, local governments, or private industry and individuals. 8

Many efforts are currently being undertaken to control NIS in the U.S. The following are 9 examples of current or proposed control efforts and their associated costs: 10

• FWS has developed a detailed management strategy to control the spread of 11 zebra mussels and other NIS west of th e 100th meridian. The cost of this 12 strategy was proposed at $5 million over 5 years (Mangin 2001). 13

• Control and research costs for Chinese mitten crab management included $1 14 million in federal funds from 2000 to 2001 (Carlton 2001). 15

• Control and monitoring costs for the Mediterranean green seaweed 16 ( Caulerpa taxifolia ) in southern California was $2.33 million in 2000-01 17 (Carlton 2001). 18

• Florida’s Aquatic Plant Management S ection currently manages the control 19 of 11 nonindigenous aquatic plants in Florida’s 1.3 million acres of public 20 waters: hydrilla, water hyacinth, wate r lettuce, aquatic nightshade, giant 21 salvinia, hydrophilia, paragrass, torp edograss, water spinach, West Indian 22 marshgrass, and wild taro (Schardt and Ludlow 2000). The section’s budget 23 was increased from approximately $10 million to $25 million for FY2001. 24

• The sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ), most heavily introduced in the early 25 1950s, was particularly devastating to th e Lake Superior fishery. The impact 26 of the sea lamprey, coupled with inte nsive commercial fishing, reduced Lake 27 Superior’s commercial lake trout harv est from 3.1 million pounds in 1951 to 28 only 380,000 pounds in 1960. The commer cially important whitefish 29 harvest dropped 17 percent a year from 1955 to 1960 (Maybee 2001). The 30 sea lamprey control effort, a mandatory program jointly funded by the U.S. 31 and Canada, currently costs appr oximately $15 million per year (GAO 32 2003). Over $10 million is spent annually on chemical sea lamprey control 33 (Jude et al. 2002). 34

• The cost to control, damage to prop erty values, health costs, and other 35 factors relating to the Eur opean green crab invasion is estim ated at about $44 36 million annually (Corn et al. 1999). 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-27 • Asian clam management is estimated at $1 billion annually (Corn et al. 1 1999). 2

• The round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ) may be harming commercial 3 and sport fisheries in the Great Lakes. To prevent it from moving into the 4 Mississippi River watershed from the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of 5 Engineers constructed an underwater elec tric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary 6 and Ship Canal (Corn et al. 1999). Fe deral funding alone for the project is 7 $1.2 million (Glassner-Shwayder 1999). 8

3.9.4 Water-Dependent Infrastructure 9

Water-dependent infrastructure includes wate r intake pipes, storm sewer drains, docks, 10 piers, canals, dams, navigation locks, and facili ties such as electric power plants, drinking 11 water treatment plants (includi ng power, pipes, pumps, and tr eatment unit processes), water 12 storage facilities (including tanks, pumps, and pumping stations), and water distribution 13 systems (including feeder and transmission mains). Water-dependent infrastructure is 14 affected by unexpected interruptions caused by disruption or contamination by NIS (EPA 15 2001). 16

Invasive invertebrates, such as the zebra mussel, have adve rsely impacted water-dependent 17 infrastructure by fouling intake pipes a nd screens, causing equipment malfunction and 18 overheating, and jamming valves and other m echanisms. These impacts have affected 19 electric power generation stat ions, drinking water treatment pl ants, industrial facilities, and 20 navigation lock and dam structures. Additi onally, invasive water plants have caused 21 problems on rivers and canals. Examples of problems caused by NIS at water-dependent 22 infrastructure in the U.S. include the following: 23

• Reported total zebra mussel-related expens es for 339 facilities, including marinas, 24 recreational facilities, hospitals, college s, impoundments and reservoirs, fish 25 hatcheries and aquaculture facilities, na vigation locks, shipping companies, public 26 agencies, industries, drinking water trea tment facilities, and electric power 27 generation facilities in the Great Lakes region, were over $69 million (with a mean 28 expenditure of $206,000 per facility) from 1989 thr ough 1995. Total annual 29 expenditures at these facilities increased from $234,000 in 1989 to over $17 million 30 in 1995 (O’Neill 1997). 31

• Great Lakes municipalities annua lly spend between $20,000 and $360,000 per 32 municipality on zebra mussel control at drinking water intakes (ANSTF 2003, 33 Glassner-Shwayder 1999). At least 12 nuc lear power plants averaged $825,000 per 34 plant annually on zebra mussel control costs (Glassner-Shw ayder 1999). Large 35 water users in the Great Lakes, including municipalities and industries, spent about 36 $120 million from 1989 to 1994 to combat the spread of zebra mussels (Martin and 37 Moy 2002). 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-28 • Fouling damage from the Asian clam is es timated to be about $1 billion per year 1 (OTA 1993). 2

• In the summer of 1998, local authorities ha d to deal with damage to irrigation 3 facilities caused by as many as 30,000 adult Chinese mitten crabs migrating 4 downstream in the Sacramento River delta (Carlton 2001; Corn et al. 1999). The 5 burrowing of mitten crabs also threatens banks, levees, and dikes protecting 6 agriculture and urba n areas (ANSTF 2005). 7

• The brown mussel ( Perna perna ) has caused biofouling damage along the Western 8 Gulf Coast (Corn et al., 1999). 9

• The green mussel ( Perna viridis ) is established in Tampa Bay and is currently 10 causing biofouling problems at power plant cooling water intakes. 11

• Hydrilla and water hyacinths clog flood contro l and irrigation systems. Hydrilla in 12 drainage canals can greatly reduce flow, re sulting in flooding and damage to canal 13 structures and banks. In ir rigation canals, hydrilla impedes the flow of water and 14 clogs the intakes on irrigation pumps. Hydrill a can also disrupt the flow needed for 15 adequate water-cooling in utility cooling reservoirs. Annual U.S. expenditures to 16 control aquatic weeds (most of them nonindigenous, such as the water hyacinth) are 17 reported to be $113 million (Pimentel et al. 2005). 18

• Invasions of hydrilla and water hyacinth were considered a significant factor in the 19 2001 closing of the Rio Grande due to sedi mentation and the subsequent halting of 20 river discharge into the Gulf of Me xico. Approximately $50,000 was spent on 21 mechanical control of water hyacinth in the Rio Grande in the summer of 2001. 22

3.9.5 Subsistence 23

Subsistence living in the U.S. involves Nativ e American, Alaskan, and Hawaiian tribes, as 24 well as the inhabitan ts of the U.S. territories that include Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 25 Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. 26 The Indigenous Environmental Network (s ee http://www.ienearth.org/) notes that 27 indigenous peoples depend on the fi sh, aquatic plants, and wildlife to a greater extent and in 28 different ways than the general population. Many indigenous peopl es are reliant on a 29 subsistence-based lifestyle. Consumption and use of aquatic resources not only meets basic 30 nutritional and economic needs, but also provides resources fo r cultural, traditional, and 31 religious purposes (Maybee 2001). Examples of subsistence fishing and related activities in 32 the U.S. include the following: 33

• The Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes have th e reserved right to 50 percent of the 34 salmon harvest for subsistence use in the Lower Klamath River (the Yurok harvest 35 85 percent of the salmon). The Yurok Tr ibe, with 4,000 members, is the largest 36 tribe in California. With the coho salm on listed as threatened under the Endangered 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-29 Species Act, and steelhead being consider ed for the listing, the minimal subsistence 1 needs for these tribes are not being met (Gustaitis 1998). 2

• In Washington State, the Makah tribe is dependent on shellfish (mussels, clams, 3 scallops and crabs) and marine mammals (C alifornia sea lions and gray whales) and 4 is exploring shellfish aquaculture (musse ls and scallops) as a source of income 5 (ORHAB 2004). 6

• The use of beluga in Bristol Bay, Alaska, is part of a long subsistence tradition in 7 the region. Currently, beluga whales are hunted in Bristol Bay for a number of 8 purposes, including feeding families, feeding dog teams, and sharing and 9 exchanging of beluga products between fa milies and communities. Research in 10 1993 estimated that about 39 beluga were taken by hunters from nine communities 11 in Bristol Bay (Chythlook and Coiley, 1994). 12

• Of the estimated 43.7 million pounds of w ild foods produced in rural Alaskan 13 communities annually, subsistence fisherie s contribute about 62 percent: 60 percent 14 from finfish and 2 percent from shellfish. On average, subsistence fisheries provide 15 about 230 pounds of food per person per year in rural Alaska. Subsistence harvests 16 represent only about 2 percent of the annua l harvest of wild re sources in Alaska. 17 Commercial fisheries take 97 percent of the wild resource harvest and sport fisheries 18 and hunts take about 1 percent. The estimat ed total subsistence harvest of salmon in 19 Alaska in 2000 (based on annual harv est assessment programs) was 960,791 fish 20 (ADFG 2002a). 21

Some indigenous peoples in the U.S. have or ganized fishery management systems allowing 22 them sizable subsistence and small commercial ca tches. In a number of cases, indigenous 23 peoples living in the U.S. and its territories legally hold subsistence-fishing rights. For 24 instance, some Native American tribes have he ld treaty rights for subsistence fishing and 25 hunting since the early 1800s. Treaty fishing righ ts can pertain to finf ish, shellfish, and in 26 some instances, marine mammals (whales and seal s). In the case of Lake Superior, tribes 27 have gone to court to re-affirm tribal rights to fish. Those rights were retained in the 28 treaties of 1836, 1842, and 1854, when the tribes ceded lands to the U.S. government. The 29 Jondreau and Fox decisions in Michigan and the Gurnoe decision in Wisconsin upheld the 30 reserved right of the tribes to fish both for commercial and subsistence purposes. The tribes 31 regulate treaty harvest in Lake Superior, and tr ibal fisherm en adhere to restricted quotas to 32 provide opportunity for non-Indian fishing, as well (GLIFWC 2004). 33

Fish stocks and water quality ar e linked to the health of an ecosystem and to the activities 34 that occur in the watershed. NIS can impact both fish species and water quality, causing 35 disruptions to local food webs. These disruptions can impact subsistence fishing and, in 36 turn, the livelihoods of people who rely on it, as the following examples illustrate: 37

• In the Great Lakes region, the once abundant Diporeia (a tiny shrimp-like 38 invertebrate living in lake bottom mud) is now non-existent in Lakes Michigan and 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-30 Huron and is rapidly declining in other areas due to the zebra mussel invasion. 1 Diporeia is an essential food for whitefish and other major species and is essentially 2 a key link in the Great Lakes food web. Its decline threatens to produce a sharp 3 decline in related fisheries. This decline affects the fisheries of the Chippewa 4 Indians of the Great Lakes region. (U.S . Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 2001). 5

• In Alaska, salmon is a renewable resource worth millions of dollars to commercial 6 interests, sport fisheries, and native Alaska n subsistence. Many of the great runs of 7 Pacific salmon are now depressed and de pleted due to the introduction of the 8 Atlantic salmon (ADFG 2002a). Although five Pacific salmon species are endemic 9 to this region, salmon farmers have turned to exotic Atlantic salmon because they 10 are easier to culture in net pens. The use of net-pen culturing facilities to raise 11 Atlantic salmon poses a serious threat to wild Pacific salmon. Due to accidental 12 spills or weather-related damage to the rear ing facilities, some Atlantic salmon have 13 escaped into marine waters of the Paci fic Ocean, and have been found in Alaskan 14 waters (Brodeur and Busby 1998). 15

3.9.6 Tourism and Recreation 16

Clean water, healthy aquatic habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable environm ent are 17 fundamental to successful tourism. Similarl y, bountiful living aquatic resources (fish, 18 shellfish, wetlands, and coral reefs) are of critical im portance to many recreational 19 experiences (NOAA 2004b). 20

Tourism-related aquatic activit ies, including recreational fi shing, snorkeling, scuba diving, 21 and other aquatic and beach activ ities involve millions of tourists, provide tens of millions 22 of jobs, and generate tens of billions of dolla rs in business revenues. For instance, coastal 23 tourism is reported by NOAA (2004b) to prov ide 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion 24 annually in goods and services. The U.S. coastl ine is visited by more than 90 percent of all 25 foreign visitors traveling to the U.S. Americans spend at least 10 days a year near a coast, 26 and approximately 180 million people visit U. S. coastlines each year (NOAA 2004b). 27

Coastal states earn 85 percent of all U.S. tour ism revenues largely due to the attraction of 28 their beaches. Studies have shown that beaches are the leading touris t destination in the 29 U.S., followed by national parks and historic sites (NOAA 2004b). For example, Miami 30 Beach, Florida reported more t ourist visits annually (21 million) than were made to any 31 National Park Service property. Miami Beach has more than twice the combined number 32 of tourist visits to Yellowstone (2.6 milli on), the Grand Canyon (4.0 million), and Yosemite 33 (3.3 million) National Parks (Houston 1996). 34

As with tourism-related aqua tic activities, recrea tional activities involving U.S. aquatic 35 resources are very important to the economy. Recreational boating, for instance, generated 36 $30 billion in retail expenditures in 2003, incl uding expenditures for new and used boats, 37 motors and engines, accessories, safety equi pment, fuel, insurance, docking, maintenance, 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-31 repairs, storage, and other expenses (U.S. Ce nsus 2004). The eight Great Lakes states have 1 about 3.7 million registered boats, or about a third of the U.S. total. Six of the Great Lakes 2 states are ranked in the top te n in total number of boat regi strations, with Michigan and 3 Minnesota having the largest numbers of boats registered (NOAA 2004b). 4

The industries supporting tourism and recr eational activities can be rapidly and 5 dramatically impacted by change s in water quality. The introduc tion of NIS has resulted in 6 the disruption of the enjoymen t of recreational activities a nd aesthetic qual ities of the 7 coastal areas, as well as to the local wildlife in many areas. Nonindigenous aquatic plants, 8 such as hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water le ttuce, are altering fish habitats, choking 9 waterways, altering nutrient cycles, and reducing recreationa l use of rivers and lakes 10 (Pimentel et al. 2000). The following examples illustrate some of the problems that NIS 11 can introduce: 12

• The intentionally introduced Philippine seaweed ( Kappaphycus alvarezii and K. 13 striatum ) now covers large areas of the cora l reefs in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, reducing 14 their potential tourist value (Carlton 2001). In addition, the State of Hawaii Aquatic 15 Invasive Species Management Plan estimates that the Kihei coast in Maui could lose 16 close to $20 million in revenue each year as result of algal blooms (ANSTF 2005). 17

• A study of Orange Lake, a recreational fi shing destination designated as a Fish 18 Management Area by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 19 indicated that the economic activity on the lake was almost $11 million annually, 20 but in years when hydrilla cove rs the lake, these benefits are almost entirely lost. 21 Statewide costs for contro lling hydrilla in Florid a in the 1980s totaled 22 approximately $50 million. Today, hydrilla is the most costly aquatic plant to 23 manage, with an annual expenditure of $14.5 million (Pimentel et al. 2005). From 24 1980 to 1993, management of all nonindigenous aquatic plants by state and federal 25 agencies cost approximately $120 million (OTA 1993). 26

3.9.7 Commercial Fishing 27

Recreational and comm ercial fisheries ( both capture and aqua culture) contribute 28 economically and socially to numerous U.S. communities. Some of the commercial 29 fisheries include stocks ofbluefish, cod, haddock, and flounder in the north and mid30 Atlantic; shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico; mackerel, anchovy, and sardine in southern 31 California; rockfish, hake, and sole in the Pacific Northwest; and salmon, pollock, cod, and 32 halibut in Alaska (NMFS 2003a). Seemingly mi nor fluctuations in fish numbers, species 33 composition, and fish health can have widesp read effects on local communities, regional 34 economies, and the ecosystem at-large. Once es tablished in a new environment, fish can 35 easily spread over broad geographic areas. The USGS currently lists 624 nonindigenous 36 fishes in the U.S. (USGS 2006), and approximate ly 35% have been introduced from foreign 37 sources. In states such as Florida and Hawaii, foreign sour ces dominate fish introductions. 38 Of the 30 extinct fishes in the U.S., NIS were a factor in 80% of the extinctions (Fuller et 39 al. 1999). 40April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-32 The domestic commercial fish and shellfish industry, which obtains its catch from many 1 fresh and saltwater sources, including the Colu mbia River, the Great Lakes, the Atlantic 2 and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexic o, contributes $45 billion to the U.S. economy 3 annually (ERS 2004). This contribution reflect s not only direct eff ects—the value of the 4 fish and shellfish harvested—but also indirect effects, which include the processing of the 5 fish and shellfish for market, servicing of the commercial fi shing fleet, and repairing and 6 maintaining commercial fishing gear. St atistical highlights provided by NMFS (2003a) 7 state that U.S. commercial landings (in al l fifty states) for 2002 were 9.4 billion pounds, 8 which were valued at $3.1 b illion dollars. Of the 9.4 billion pounds, 7.2 billion were for 9 food and 2.2 billion were for industrial purposes (bait and animal food). Rebuilding U.S. 10 fisheries has the potential to restore and create tens of thousands of family wage jobs and 11 add at least 1.3 billion dollars to the U.S. economy (POC 2003). 12

Invasions of NIS can disrupt commercial fish eries (both capture- a nd culture-based), as 13 well as recreational fisheries, leading to a dverse impacts on local a nd regional economies. 14 The following examples illustrate some of the problems that the commercial fish and 15 shellfish industry in the U.S. has experienced as a result of the introduction of NIS: 16

• The annual estimated economic cost of th e European green crab to shellfish 17 harvesting in the U.S., including clams and oysters, is about $44 million (Corn et al. 18 1999). 19

• The Eurasian ruffe, a NIS, is estimated to cause between $23.5 million and $141 20 million annually in damages to the yellow pe rch fishery in the Great Lakes. Yellow 21 perch is important to both commercial and recreational fishing in the Great Lakes 22 (Leigh 1998). 23

• In the summer of 2000, millions of Pacific spotted jellyfish ( Phyllorhiza punctata ) 24 were observed for the first time in the north ern Gulf of Mexico along the coasts of 25 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. It was estimated that the jellyfish population 26 had risen to an estimated 6 million in an area covering 58 square miles (150 km 2 ). 27 Shrimp fishery operations in Mobile Ba y were impacted by the jellyfish clogging 28 nets and consuming immense amounts of plankton and shrimp eggs (Graham and 29 Purcell 2001). 30

• Species currently being commercially harves ted from Lake Superior include lake 31 trout, whitefish, herring, chubs (deepwater ci scoes), siscowet (deepwater lake trout) 32 and smelt. Native lake herring once pr ovided an annual commercial harvest of 18 33 million pounds, but the herring declined to near extinction by the mid-1970s. The 34 introduction of smelt, a NIS, along with intense commercial fishing, may have 35 played a key role in the decline of herring. Since 1979, smelt populations have 36 declined significantly and herring have rebounded (MSGP 2004). 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-33 3.9.8 Recreational Fishing 1

As with comm ercial fishing, recreational fishi ng adds tens of billi ons of dollars both 2 directly and indirectly to the U.S. ec onomy. During the 1990s, recreational fishing 3 contributed $69 billion annually to the U.S. economy (Pimentel et al. 2000). For 2002, 4 NMFS (2003a) reports that 378 million fish were caught for recreational purposes in states 5 bordering the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (exclu ding Texas) and 42 million fish were caught 6 on the Pacific Coast (excluding Alaska and Ha waii). Estimates of the value of marine 7 recreational fishing in excess of expenditure s range from $100 to $589 per angler, resulting 8 in an estimate of $140 million per year in recreational fishing values (USCOP 2004). 9

The Great Lakes Fishery Resource Restoration Study (Burkett et al. 1995) determined that 10 the Great Lakes fishing industry is valued at $6.89 billion and supports 75,000 sport 11 fishing-related jobs, as well as 9,000 commercial fishing-related jobs. Both lake trout and 12 salmon support a viable charter and recreationa l fishing fleet contri buting significantly to 13 Minnesota’s economy (MSGP 2004). Charter a nd non-charter recreational fishing on the 14 Minnesotan waters of Lake Superior cont ributed approximately $9.74 million dollars in 15 direct expenditures to the state in 1990. Charter fishing businesses generated between 16 $8.41 million and $11.65 million, while non-charter recreational fishing generated between 17 $4.25 and $5.89 million (Gunderson and Kreag 1991). 18

As with commercial fisheries, invasions of NIS can disrupt recr eational fisheries, leading to 19 adverse impacts on local and regional economie s. The following illustrate some of the 20 problems that recreational fisheries in the U.S. have experienced as a result of the 21 introduction of NIS: 22

• The fishhook flea ( Cercopagis pengoi ), a NIS, is fouling fishing lines for 23 recreational anglers, frequently forcing the anglers to cut off their lines when they 24 cannot reel them in (Glassner-Shwayder 1999). 25

• Peacock bass ( Cichla spp.) were introduced to contro l other nonindigenous fish and 26 also as a game fish in southeast Florid a canals, but the bass is slowly reducing 27 populations of indigenous ba ss and bream (OTA 1993). 28

• The blue tilapia ( Tilapia aurea ), introduced by the Florida Game and Fresh Water 29 Fish Commission as a possible weed-control and sport fish, competes directly with 30 indigenous fishes and is now established in a number of Fl orida counties (OTA 31 1993). 32

• Hydrilla infestations in just two Florid a lakes cau se an estimated $10 million in 33 recreational losses for those lakes annually (Pimentel et al. 2000). Hydrilla can 34 interfere with recreational and commercial vessel navigation, hamper swimming, 35 displace native vegetation, and damage s port fish populations (Corn et al. 1999). 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-34 • The Eurasian ruffe, a NIS, was introduced into Duluth, MN/Superior, WI, Harbor in 1 the early 1980s and spread 150 miles eas tward along the south shore of Lake 2 Superior and was then transported via ball ast water to Lake Huron. It has been 3 blamed for the precipitous decline of nine native fish species and is now more 4 abundant than all other fish species comb ined (Kates 2002). Native fish populations 5 – especially yellow perch, emerald and s pottail shiners, trout perch, and brown 6 bullhead – have declined in locations wh ere ruffe have become established (USGS 7 2004b). The decline in value of sport and commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes 8 due to the ruffe infestation are expe cted to be $119 million (ANSTF 2003). 9

3.9.9 Environmental Justice 10

Executive O rder 12898, Federal Actions to Addr ess Environmental Justice in Minority 11 Populations and Low-Income Populations, direct s federal agencies to identify and address, 12 as appropriate, disproportionately high and a dverse human health or environmental effects 13 of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and lo w-income populations. The 14 Presidential Memorandum that accompanie d the Executive Order recognizes the 15 importance of procedures under NEPA to id entify and address environmental justice 16 concerns. The memorandum states that each federal agency shall analyze the 17 environmental effects, including human healt h, economic and social effects, of federal 18 actions, including effects on minority and low-income communities. 19

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordina tion with Indian Tribal Governments, 20 was established to conduct re gular and meaningful consulta tion and collaboration with 21 tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications; to 22 strengthen the U.S. government-to-government relationships with Native American tribes; 23 and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandate s upon Native American tribes. Policies 24 that have tribal implications refer to re gulations, legislative comments or proposed 25 legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one 26 or more Native American tribes; on the rela tionship between the federal government and 27 Native American tribes; or on the distributi on of power and respons ibilities between the 28 federal government and Native American tribes. 29

The process to identify disproportionate impact s associated with the alternatives and to 30 ensure compliance with this directive involves: 31

• Identification of the poten tially affected population; 32

• characterization of the study area with respect to minorities and low income 33 populations; 34

• determination of the potentially significan t adverse impacts of the proposed action 35 and alternatives; and, 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-35 • evaluation of the potential for dispropor tionately high and adverse impacts on 1 minority and low-income populations. 2

Native American tribes have held treaty right s for fishing and hunting since the early 1800s. 3 Treaty fishing rights pertain to finfish, shellfish, and in some instances, marine mammals 4 (whales and seals) (NOAA 2003). These rights are part of the Native American, Alaskan, 5 and Hawaiian people’s traditional culture, livelihood, and subsistence. Subsistence fishing 6 and hunting is a way of life that includes historical practices and can be a critical cultural 7 component that helps to hold a tribe togeth er. Many tribes have organized fishery 8 management systems allowing them sizable s ubsistence and small co mmercial catches. 9 Fish stocks and water quality ar e linked to the health of an ecosystem and to the activities 10 that occur in the watershed. As discussed th roughout this DPEIS, NIS can impact various 11 commercial and recreational fish species and water quality; and cons equently can impact 12 watershed systems causing disruptions to the food web. The following are two examples of 13 the effect NIS has had on some Native Ameri can fisheries and the subsistence of some 14 tribes: 15

• In the Great Lakes region, the once abundant Diporeia (a small shrimp-like 16 creature) is now non-existent in Lakes Mich igan and Huron, and is rapidly declining 17 in other areas due to zebra mussel invasion. Diporeia is a necessary food source for 18 whitefish and other major species, and is e ssentially a key link in the Great Lakes 19 food web. Its decline threat ens to produce a sharp decline in related fisheries, 20 perhaps resulting in an ecological disaster. This decline affects the fisheries to 21 which the Chippewa Indians of the Great La kes region have rights. The Sault Ste. 22 Marie Tribe of Chippewa I ndians testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian 23 Affairs in support of the Great Lake Ecol ogy Protection Act to ensure that vessels 24 entering the Great Lakes do not discharge ballast water that could introduce or 25 spread NIS, and that ballast water and its associated sediments are treated through 26 the most effective and efficient technologies available, now and in the future (U.S. 27 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 2001). 28

• In Alaska, salmon is a renewable resource worth millions of dollars to commercial 29 interests, sport fisheries, personal use, Native Alaskan subsistence, and fishing 30 economies. Historically, the enormous number of native salmon played an 31 im portant role in defining the entire Pacific Northwest and Alaska’s unique 32 character and economy. Recently, many of th e great runs of Pacific salmon are 33 depressed and depleted to the point of being listed by NMFS as a threatened and 34 endangered species (ADFG 2002b). In th e early 1980s, British Columbia and 35 Washington began the use of net-pen cultu ring facilities to raise salmon. Although 36 five Pacific salmon species are endemic to this region, salmon farmers chose to farm 37 exotic Atlantic salmon because they are ea sier to culture in net pens. Due to 38 accidental spills or weather-related damage to the rearing facilities, some of these 39 fish have escaped into marine waters of the western Pacific Coast and occurrences 40 of Atlantic salmon have been found in commercial fisheries in Alaskan waters 41 (Brodeur and Busby 1998). For example, in 1990, the farming of salmon in Alaska 42April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-36 was banned to protect wild stocks from the danger of disease and pollution, as well 1 as the possibility of escaped farm fish breeding with wild fish (ADFG 2002b). The 2 Atlantic salmon poses a seri ous threat to the wild P acific salmon and the Pacific 3 Coast ecosystem (Brodeur and Busby 1998) . Introductions of non-native species 4 have frequently resulted in unexpected, and often catastrophic, consequences from 5 habitat destruction, disease, parasites, hybridization, reproductive proliferation, 6 predation and competition (ADFG 2002b). 7

3.9.10 Public Health and Shipping Safety 8

While the introduction of bacteria and viruse s through ballast water is a growing concern, 9 potential public health impacts rem ain virtually unexplored by sc ientists (Ruiz et al. 2000b). 10 Concentrations of bacteria and viruses in ballast water have been found at very high 11 levels—up to six to eight times higher than those for other taxonomic groups in ballast 12 water—suggesting that invasions may be relatively common (Carlton and Geller 1993; 13 Drake et al. 2001; Drake et al . 2002; Ruiz et al. 2000b). Fo r example, human pathogen 14 microorganisms are common in coastal waters an d have been found in the ballast water of 15 vessels (Grimes 1991; McCarthy and Kh ambaty 1994; Ruiz et al. 2000b). 16

During the 1997 and 1998 shipping seasons, sample s were taken from th e ballast tanks of 17 28 transoceanic vessels (Knight et al. 1999; Reynolds et al. 1999; Zo et al. 1999). The 18 sampling revealed the presence of a host of microorganisms, many of which are human 19 pathogens, including fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, clostridium, salmonella, E. coli

, 20 Vibrio cholerae , crytosporidium, giardia, and enter oviruses. The presence of these 21 organisms demonstrated the survival of human pathogens during transo ceanic transport of 22 ballast water. It has been shown that certain microbial or ganisms can survive and become 23 successfully established follo wing BWD, thereby becoming v ectors for human exposure. 24

In 1991, during routine monitoring, the U.S. F ood and Drug Administration (FDA) isolated 25 Vibrio cholerae O1 (the bacterium responsible for human cholera) from oysters and oyster26 eating fish in Mobile Bay, Alabama (Drake et al. 2001; Eichold et al. 1993). Shortly after, 27 a study by Ruiz et al. (Ruiz et al. 2000b) examined the presence of bacteria in the ballast 28 water of vessels entering the Chesapeake Bay from foreign ports. This study measured 29 overall bacteria counts and also sp ecifically target ed the bacteria Vibrio cholerae O1 and 30 O139. Vibrio cholerae was found in all of the vessels sampled and both serotypes were 31 detected in 93 percent of the vessels. Ri sks of human exposure from BWD containing 32 Vibrio cholerae are unknown. 33

The global increase in HAB via BWD poses an increased risk to human health. Some algal 34 species contain powerful toxins, which can adve rsely affect fish, birds, and hum ans through 35 the consumption of contaminated fish and shel lfish. Paralytic shellf ish poisoning, diarrheic 36 shellfish poisoning, amnesic sh ellfish poisoning, neurotox ic shellfish poisoning, and 37 ciguatera fish poisoning are a ssociated with natural toxi ns produced by HAB-forming 38 diatoms and dinoflagellates. For instance, ne urotoxic shellfish poisoning was introduced to 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

3-37 New Zealand via ballast water. Human ingesti on of these toxins can result in symptoms 1 ranging from nausea and dizziness to tumors, shor t-term memory loss, muscular paralysis, 2 and even death from respiratory failure (Halle graeff 1993). In U.S. waters, the deaths of 3 one million menhaden in North Carolina’s Pamlico Sound in 1991, 150 endangered Florida 4 manatees in 1996, and 400 California sea lions along the central California coast in 1998 5 have all been attributed to HAB (McKay a nd Mulvaney, 2001). HAB disrupt aquaculture, 6 wild fisheries, and coastal tourism. In the past two decades, their effects have expanded 7 from a few scattered coastal areas to near ly all coastal states (Burke et al. 2000). 8

Additionally, there are safety concerns related to ballast water excha nge. As ballast water 9 is removed from vessels, maneuverability and stability may be compromised. Any 10 reduction in ballast water levels may result in sloshing within the tanks, affecting vessel 11 stability (Hay and Tanis 1998). In addition, m ovement of ballast water within a vessel can 12 impose shear stresses and bending moments, wh ich may compromise structural integrity 13 (Hayes and Hewitt 1999). While complete deba llasting/reballasting is viewed as the more 14 effective method of ballast water exchange, d ilution/flushing methods tend to be safer. 15 This method, however, poses several individual safety concerns, as malfunctions during the 16 dilution process could result in over-pressurization of ballast tanks resulting in weakening 17 or splitting hull welds. To avoid this risk, tank lids or manhole covers may be removed, but 18 this technique may present other safety issu es for the crew and vessel (Hay and Tanis 19 1998). 20

3.9.11 Ballast Water Management 21

Since October 2004, all vessels, U.S. or fore ign, operating in U.S. waters, and bound for 22 U.S. ports or places, m ust submit report s of their BWM practices (33 CFR 151.2041). 23 These vessels, depending on whether they had operated outside the U.S. EEZ, must conduct 24 BWM. BWM through mid-ocean exchange doe s not generally require capital investment 25 in equipment. Costs associated with BWE are primarily due to additi onal fuel costs to run 26 ballast pumps plus maintenance, repair, and labor. For further information, see USCG 27 (2008). 28April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-1 

# 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1



### 4.1 Introduction 2

This chapter describes and compares the potential environmenta l and socioeconomic 3 consequences associated with the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The impacts on the 4 environmental and socioeconomic resources in Chapter 3 are evaluate d in this chapter; 5 however, the structure of this chapter is condensed in order to avoid redundancy. 6 Additionally, it evaluates the cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of a 7 BWDS. 8

The analysis of potential impact s is based on the changes in the concentrations of NIS in 9 BWD after implementing each alternative. This DPEIS does not consider the potential 10 impacts associated with the implementation of BWT technologies and methods to be used 11 by stakeholders to meet the BWDS implemente d, such as chemical residuals, reaction by12 products, thermal pollution, energy use, and dockside impacts. 13

The impacts associated with those met hods may include, but are not limited to, 14 environmental impacts from the treatment t echnologies used and economic impacts to the 15 shipping industry from the costs incurred to implement them. Such impacts would be 16 analyzed as part of supplemental environmenta l reviews as industry de velops technologies 17 that could be used to meet the BWDS. Becau se there would be a separate environmental 18 review process for individual methods, for the pur poses of this DPEIS it is assumed that the 19 implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely benefit or at least have no 20 additional adverse impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources. 21

Based on the previous assumption, the alternativ es considered in this DPEIS differ only in 22 their potential to redu ce the probability of NIS introduction and establishment. Therefore, 23 this chapter is organized by re source topics, with impacts of the alternatives discussed 24 under the resources. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the BWDS defined 25 under each alternative ar e determined by the respective reduction in the number of 26 organisms that are introduced. The reducti on in number of organisms introduced is 27 expected to reduce NIS invasions. Consequent ly, Alternatives 2 through 5 are assumed to 28 provide different levels of benefits (and no additional adverse impacts) by potentially 29 reducing NIS introductions and their associat ed potential adverse environmental and 30 socioeconomic impacts. 31

The first part of this chapter provides a brief summary of the i nvasion process and the 32 current state of scientific knowledge regard ing the prediction of invasion and potential 33 impacts of NIS. Then, a desc ription of the analytical me thodology used for the analysis, 34 along with the analytical result s and their interpretation, is pr esented. Finally, the potential 35 im pacts resulting from the implementation of th e alternatives upon the resources identified 36 in Chapter 3 are discussed. These resources ar e: marine ecosystems, estuarine ecosystems, 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-2 freshwater ecosystems, threatened and enda ngered species, essential fish habitats, and 1 socioeconomic resources. They were selected because they may be directly or indirectly 2 impacted by the implementation of a BWDS, or because direct impacts to these resources 3 could result in secondary im pacts to other resources. 4

Direct effects would likely occur spatially a nd temporally near where vessels discharge 5 ballast water. Indirect effects would probabl y occur spatially and temporally farther from 6 the discharge zone. Also, organisms at bot h higher and lower trophic levels would be 7 impacted by the nonindigenous species’ characte ristics, such as what it consumes, what 8 feeds on it, what it displaces, to xins it may release, etc. 9

For example, direct impacts on organisms in marine, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystems 10 may cause secondary impacts to socioeconom ic resources (e.g., t ourism and recreation, 11 commercial fishing, and infrastructure) by ne gatively affecting th e communities that 12 tourists visit or the quality of the envir onment they want to lo ok at (algae growths, 13 unpleasant odors, lack of divers ity). Marine, estuarine, a nd freshwater resources were 14 analyzed to determine the potential impact that the alternatives could have on the chemical 15 and physical environment and habitats and organisms comprising those ecosystems. 16 Additionally, threatened and enda ngered species and essential fi sh habitats were evaluated, 17 given their ecological and societal value. Last ly, socioeconomic resources were analyzed to 18 determine the potential impacts of the alte rnatives on human and economic systems, 19 including public he alth and safety. 20



### 4.2 Background 21

4.2.1 The Invasion Process 22

When assessing the overall im pacts of NIS in troduced via ballast water, there are seven 23 issues to consider 4 : 24

4 (2) and (3) are different, since (2) represents a categor y 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 ar e 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 sy stem, whereas (5) represents a more transient biota.April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-3 (1) the planktonic life in suspension in the ballast water itself (in ballast tanks and 1 ballasted cargo holds); 2 (2) the fouling organisms that settle on the lower walls of ballast tanks; 3 (3) the fouling organisms that settle on the walls of ballasted cargo holds; 4 (4) the infaunal organisms living in benthic sediment communities in ballast tanks ; 5 (5) the infaunal organisms living in benthic sediments in ballasted cargo holds ; 6 (6) the encysted stages in (4); and 7 (7) the encysted stages in (5). 8

The BWDS prescribed under th e alternatives focus on reducing the organisms classified 9 under category (1) above, but may not fully addr ess those under categorie s (2) through (7). 10 Thus, a BWDS does not address all potential in troductions associated with ballast water. 11 Nonetheless, treatment technologies and met hods used to reduce the concentrations of 12 organisms in ballast water itself (category (1) above) should lead to long-term reductions of 13 organisms in all other categories. Thus, th e overall potential intr oductions of NIS via 14 ballast water systems – and associated impacts – could be larger and more significant than 15 those estimated if only consider ing category (1) organisms. 16

Potential impacts of NIS cover ecological, ec onomic, industrial, societal, political, and 17 many other aspects in the regi on where the successful establishment occurs. However, 18 since the organisms that were introduced or prevented from introduction by reducing 19 category (1) above are unknown, it is very challenging to dete rmine which of these aspects 20 could have had reduced impacts by the implementation of a BWDS. 21

NIS that are able to establis h reproductively viable populations are of particular concern 22 because they are capable of expanding their pop ulation size and spreading to new locations 23 without further human transportation. For the pu rposes of this DPEIS, the analysis focuses 24 on the transport of organisms in ballast water and release into a new location (introduction) 25 and the evaluation of whether these organisms provide the basis for survival and successful 26 population growth (establishm ent). NIS introduction 5 occurs when an organism survives 27 transport by a vector 6 and is released into a ne w environment. Establishment 7 occurs when 28

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 the introduced organism initially thrives. The establishment is successful when the 1 organism is introduced, reproduces, and sp reads in its new environment. 2

Many factors affect the survival, spread, a nd proliferation of introduced organisms, 3 including basic climatic factors, food resources, the natu re of the reproductive biology of an 4 organism, and the presence or absence of competitors, predators, and parasites (Carlton 5 1996). The dispersal of introduced NIS occurs through vectors – the physical means or 6 agent for transporting a species. In broa d terms, introduction of NIS involves five 7 sequential events and establishment involve s two additional events, each having an 8 associated probability of occurrence, listed in the seven items below Impacts occur when 9 an introduced organism alters the ecology, food we b, or fisheries, or otherwise disrupts the 10 natural ecosystem or socioeconomics of an envi ronment or region. If an introduced species 11 establishes a reproductively viab le population, those impacts ma y be amplified. Each of 12 these events is briefly described below, based on information provided by Dr. James T. 13 Carlton (Carlton 2005). The events demonstrat e the overall context of the NIS invasion 14
process. 15

1. Probability of interfacing with transport vector – Organisms in the water column 16 may or may not be immediately adjacent to the vessel at the moment the vessel 17 is in a position to engage the local biota by drawing in ballast water. There is 18 large temporal variability (determined by currents, tides, te mperatures, salinity, 19 stochastic events such as storms, as well as random probability) of the 20 probability of interfacing with the tran sport vector, which can change within 21 minutes to hours (as well as seasonally). This temporal variability determines 22 which organisms are or are not availabl e for transport to a different location. 23

2. Probability of transport vector engaging specific organisms – From the pool of 24 available organisms immediately next to the vessel, only a subset of them are 25 actually taken into the ballast water tank or ballastable cargo hold (see 26 description below). That is, being adjacent to the ship and within the effective 27 zone of a vessel’s ballast water inta ke at the time of ballasting does not 28 necessarily result in uptake. For exampl e, organisms such as some shrimp and 29 fish actively detect a water current (lik e the one created by the uptake of ballast 30 water) and swim away from it. In add ition, other organisms may not be engaged 31 in the water flow as readily as others, even when acting as passive particles (e.g., 32 planktonic organisms), due to their size, shape, or relative density. 33

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 3. Probability of surviving the transport event – A substantial number of factors, 1 such as the uptake process, light, ox ygen, voyage duration, and other variables 2 during transport, interact to determine the probability of a transported 3 organisms’ survival until release. Becau se there are potenti ally thousands of 4 organisms being transported in ballast water, it is particularly difficult to 5 characterize the probabilities, except in very broad terms (i.e., the large 6 variability in terms of the type of or ganisms entrained, as well as the physical 7 conditions in the ballast water, creates both ‘species specific’ and ‘voyage 8 specific’ probabilities). It is important to distinguish between the two different 9 ballast systems (dedicated ballast tank and ballastable cargo hold). It is possible 10 that ballast tanks would not be completely emptied after each voyage, leading to 11 colonies of viable organisms that rema in for a considerable period of time. 12 These organisms could essentially re-s eed the ship with larvae or other 13 propagules and pose a risk for future in troductions even without new ballasting. 14

4. Probability of being released – Not all organisms transported are released from 15 the vector; for example, if not all of the ballast water is released, organisms in a 16 ballast tank may not leave the ballast ta nk. Or the organisms in question could 17 be fouling species that attach themselves to the inside of the tank or embed in 18 the sediment that collects in the ballast tank. Organisms in a ballasted cargo 19 hold are always either fully discharged (since the cargo now replaces 100% of 20 the ballast water) or die in transport (o rganisms that have settled on the cargo 21 hold walls die of exposure, desiccati on, or smothering by the cargo) (Carlton 22 2005). 23

5. Probability of initial survival upon release – Regardless of inoculum size (the 24 number of released individuals of any life stage), most released organisms (and 25 perhaps all released organisms for most discharge events) do not survive after 26 release. In addition, the disc harge process can also result in injury to transported 27 organisms due to physical contact with the ship systems. The scientific 28 community does not have a complete unde rstanding of the reasons for this, 29 although some of the many potential cause s include post-transport physiological 30 weakness, post-transport starvation, physiological mismatch with the new 31 environment once released, predation (c onsumption) at the release site, and 32 competition with the resident biota. A large number of vessels arriving in U.S. 33 coastal waters discharging millions of organisms (e.g., diatoms, copepods, worm 34 larvae), as countless ships have done fo r decades, appear to have resulted in 35 relatively few invasions. This fact is interpreted by the scientific community as 36 the result of failure of initial survival. 37

6. Probability of establishing the first reproducing population – As a general 38 proposition, the probability that an organism reproduces and becomes 39 successfully established is positively related to the numbe r of individual 40 organisms of that species that are introduced. Thus , the number of organisms 41 released via ballast wate r is a potentially important determinant of the 42 probability that an organism establis hes its first reproducing population. The 43April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-6 probability that an inoculum may result in an established population may also be 1 largely dependent on dilution of the inoculum, hydrodynamics of water flow, 2 and local microtopographic features, which affect the distribution of introduced 3 organisms in the new environment. Those factors affect the ability to reproduce 4 by influencing the probability that organi sms of the same species interact with 5 each other. However, there are a number of life stages and reproductive modes 6 which may characterize organisms in balla st water. For example, the presence 7 of ovigerous (egg-bearing) females, bact eria, and spore-releasing organisms can 8 result in elevated reproductive potential of the organism in the receiving waters 9 and is independent of the num ber of organisms released. 10

7. Probability of establishing long-term reproducing populations – The 11 establishment of long-term reproducing populations depends on a wide range of 12 biological and physical variable s. In addition, it is impor tant to note that there is 13 no scientific consensus about the meaning of "long-term" reproducing 14 populations. For example, there are many scientists who, observing a new 15 invader with multiple populations in a specific ecosystem and with multiple 16 generations represented, argue that sampling needs to be conducted some time in 17 the future (5 or 10 years) to verify wh ether the species is still present before 18 concluding that long-term es tablishment has occurred. For the purposes of this 19 DPEIS, it is assumed that when a sp ecies is widespread, with multiple 20 generations in a specific ecosystem, it is established. However, it is important to 21 clarify that established p opulations may go extinct at some time in the future. 22 23 While each event is important, the most critical events in realizing the potential impacts of 24 the NIS are release and estab lishment of a reproductively vi able population. If neither 25 introduction nor long-term establishment of NIS occurs, the invasion is prevented. 26 Additionally, even if initial release occurs, th e impacts of the NIS introduction are reduced 27 if long-term establishment does not occur. Therefore, NIS management is best 28 accomplished by preventing introduction and es tablishment, which translates into 29 minimizing release. Setting a discharge standa rd may reduce release and thus decrease the 30 probability of introduction and establishment. 31

The above summary of the inva sion process illustrates the ma ny subtleties and complexities 32 that lead to the breadth and de pth of variables that need to be considered to analyze the 33 alternatives and their potential implications. It is important to clarify that, while the 34 likelihood that any given individual of a par ticular species might go through all the steps 35 previously described and become successfully es tablished in the long-term is quite low, the 36 likelihood that a vessel will release live orga nisms from ballast water is high, especially 37 given the large volumes of ballast water discharged annually in U.S. ports. The 38 predominance of ballast water as a transport m eans for aquatic NIS is particularly relevant 39 for transoceanic introductions, for which vesse l-mediated transport is virtually the only 40
vector. Consequently, substantially reducing or eliminating the probability of successful 41 introductions associated with this vector by implementing a BWDS should substantially 42 reduce the overall probability of vessel-m ed iated and other vector-mediated successful 43 establishments of NIS (Davis 2005). 44April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-7 4.2.2 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of Nonindigenous Species 1

Biological and physical interactions in aqua tic ecosystem s are highly complex. Aquatic 2 organisms are not static, isolated entities that merely occupy space in the water column or 3 the benthic environment of aquatic ecosyste ms. They interact dynamically with their 4 physical, chemical, and biological environment. In addition, there is limited information 5 about the biology and ecology of the majority of aquatic species. This limitation, together 6 with the variability involved in the transpor tation of aquatic organisms via ballast water, 7 makes it extremely difficult to predict which or ganisms, from a potential pool of thousands 8 of species that are delivered, will become successfully established and will impact the 9 environment. 10

Invasion rates vary considerably with regi on and propagule delivery (vector) history. One 11 of the main factors to be considered is the la rge variability in the densities (concentrations) 12 of organisms transported via ba llast water. Sampling studies show that organism densities 13 in a ballast tank or ballasted cargo hold can range from as little as 1 individual per cubic 14 meter (very low densities) to thousands per cubic meter (very high densities) (Carlton 2001, 15 Cohen 1998). Low densities generally refer to sampling schemes targeting multicellular 16 forms or larger protozoans and single-celled algae. In many cases, however, the bacterial 17 and viral components may exist in greater densities. 18

Furthermore, the potential number of organism s released by a vessel could be considerable 19 depending on the total amount of ballast water discharged. In addi tion, survival varies 20 greatly in transit. However, in general, the longer the voyage, the more organisms die. 21 Exceptions are species that reproduce in situ in the water column, sp ecies that reproduce 22 from the ballast benthic communities and shed larvae into the water column, and organisms 23 that go into a cryptic stage, such as dinoflage llates, which can be dormant in the sediments 24 when stressed. 25

The introduction and establishment of organism s into a new environment is so complex and 26 full of variability and uncertainty that it has b een compared to a game of ecological roulette 27 (Carlton and Geller 1993). The invasion pro cess (and the probability of occurrence) 28 presented in detail above can be summarized and related to the seven events listed earlier in 29 this section, as follows: 30

• An organism may or may not travel on a v ector, such as ballast water - events (1) 31 and (2); 32

• If an organism is entrained, it m ay or may not survive the voyage – event (3); 33

• If the organism survives the voyage, its re lease into a new environment may or may 34 not be successful – event (4); 35

• If the organism is successfully released in to a new environment, it may live or die – 36 event (5); 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-8 • If the organism does not die upon intr oduction, it may still not reproduce – event 1 (6); and 2

• Even if successful at reproducing, a va riety of existing conditions in the new 3 environment may inhibit the organism fr om becoming established – event (7). 4

Therefore, predicting which organisms arrive; their origin; the time of their arrival; and 5 whether they survive, persist, spread, and proliferate is excep tionally challenging. 6 Furthermore, predicting the ecological or econom ic impacts of NIS is even more difficult 7 since cause and effect relations hips would need to be estab lished and well-defined (Carlton 8 2001). It is important to clarif y that the difficulty lies in th e prediction of which organisms 9 will be released, will become established, and wh at the associated impacts may be, even if 10 the likelihood of organisms bei ng released is considerable. 11

An additional complicating factor is that a large number of species have no invasive signal 12 (history of invasion potential) in their native environments. Thus they are not studied by 13 the scientific community to determine thei r potential invasive capacity and impacts if 14 established in a new environment. Some of the main ecological factors that determine the 15 invasive capacity of organisms in a new envi ronment (even when this behavior is not 16 apparent in native populations) include niche availability, lack of predation, resource 17 abundance, and competitive advantage. 18

For example, the shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus is of no particular concern in its 19 native Asia, but has had signifi cant ecological impacts since be ing introduced to the U.S. 20 Atlantic coast in the 1980s. In the 19 year s since its discovery at Cape May, NJ in 1988, it 21 has spread and can now be found in large numbe rs from Maine to the Carolinas. To make 22 matters worse, detailed studies in Japan reveal that this crab is strictly a rocky shore 23 (intertidal) species. However, on the U.S. Atla ntic coast, it has become established in at 24 least five different habitats. Thus, the invasi on potential and impact of this species (and 25 potentially many others) was not predictable from knowledge of its biology and ecology in 26 its native environm ent (Carlton 2005). 27

Predicting the fate of even well-studied popul ations is an extremely difficult, if not 28 impossible, process (Ludwig 1999). The populati ons of concern are di fficult to identify, 29 and there is little predictive knowledge as to wh ich species have invasi on potential. Hence, 30 the problem is even more challenging in the co ntext of assessing the aggregate effect of the 31 alternatives on the rate at whic h NIS are introduced and becom e established in U.S. waters. 32 As a consequence, it is imprac tical to conduct individual analyses for all potential species in 33 all systems. 34

However, ecological principles strongly suggest th at reductions in the number of living 35 organisms initially introduced via ballast wa ter would reduce the probability of successful 36 establishment of NIS and associated impacts. Therefore, to a ddress the programmatic 37 nature of the BWDS, a generic and relatively simple quantitative analytical approach is 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-9 needed to evaluate the potentia l impacts of the alternatives as sociated with their effect on 1 introduction and establishment of NIS. Such an approach has been used for the analysis in 2 this DPEIS and is described in the forthcoming section. 3



### 4.3 Analytical Methods and Results 4

4.3.1 Analytical methods 5

The approach used in this DPEIS relates init ial population size and extinction probability to 6 determ ine the probability of successful establishment of NIS. The main premise of the 7 model is that a decrease in the number of livi ng organisms initially in troduced reduces the 8 probability that a population becomes successfully established. This premise is widely 9 supported in the scientif ic literature (see Appendix A). Th e model, its application, and its 10 scientific complexities and limitations are discussed in detail in Appendix A. This 11 analytical approach is used to assess the eff ectiveness of the alternatives in controlling the 12 introduction and establishment of NIS, and t hus their potential fo r reducing associated 13 ecological, economic, and social impacts of NIS. 14

The BWDS in Altern atives 2 through 5 are intended to decrease the probability of NIS 15 establishment by reducing the number of indi vidual organisms that are introduced via 16 BWD. The alternatives differ in the degree to which they would prevent introduction of 17 individual organisms in differe nt size classes and hence, the degree to which they increase 18 extinction probability of NIS. To compare the alternatives in a quantitative way, it is 19 necessary to have an understanding of the re lationship between the number of individual 20 organisms that are introduced (initial popul ation size) and extinc tion probability. 21

In principle, such an understanding could be obtained through empirical observations. That 22 is, the alternatives could be applied and the results – in terms of the rates of successful 23 organism introduction – could be observed. Unfortunately, data of this kind are not 24 available because of all the poten tial species that would need to be considered. Given the 25 national relevance of the BWDS rulemaking, the USCG decided to use an analytical 26 approach that would assess and compare the potential impacts of the alternatives on a 27 quantitative (albeit relative) basis, in lieu of other approaches. 28

Information availability is more problematic wh en addressing microorganisms. As stated in 29 Chapter 2, there currently is no basis for a scientific, defensible, and enforceable discharge 30 standard for microorganisms. 31

An evaluation of potential approaches that c ould be used to support the analysis for this 32 DPEIS identified Population Viability Analysis (PVA) as the best method to assess the 33 probability of NIS establishment (see Appendix A for a discussion of the merits of PVA 34 and the other approaches considered). PVA is widely accepted in conservation biology 35 (Beissinger and McCullough 2002; Boyce 1992). It has been used as a tool for guiding 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-10 conservation decision-making and has been reco gnized by governmental science advisory 1 boards, professional organizations such as the Ecological Society of America, and non2 governmental organizations such as The Natu re Conservancy (Morris and Doak 2002). In 3 conservation biology, an understanding of th e relationship between population size and 4 extinction probability has been of central importance to evaluate strategies to reduce the 5 likelihood of extinctions. Ther e, the concern is that the initial population size of an 6 endangered species be large enough to ensure a hi gh probability of survival. In the context 7 of this DPEIS, the concern is that the init ial NIS population size be small enough to ensure 8 a high probability of extinction. PVA’s precepts are directly a pplicable to the counterpart 9 of this concept, which is increasing the likeli hood of extinctions; this is the primary aim of 10 BWM. PVA is performed by developing a math ematical model of the dynamics of the 11 population of interest and then using this mode l to predict the effect of varying initial 12 population size on extinction probabi lity and other measures of in terest to conservation. 13

The decrease in introductions of organisms released via BWD is dependent on the complex 14 interplay of a num ber of factors 8 . The quantitative measurement of all these factors is 15 especially difficult for even one species, let alone the thousands bei ng transported daily in 16 ballast water. Thus, a simplifying model was sought to provide insight into the potential 17 relative impacts of the alternatives. 18

The PVA analysis in this DPEIS is based on the diffusion model proposed for the analysis 19 of population viability by Dennis et al. (1991) . The model involves two main parameters, 20 one relating to population growth rate and th e other to population variability around mean 21 growth. In conjunction with an estimate of the proportiona l reduction in initial population 22 size resulting from the alternatives, this model allows for a comparison of the alternatives in 23 terms of their effects on the probability of reduced introductions of organisms. 24

The diffusion model provides an assessment of the relative, proportional effectiveness in 25 increasing extinction probability of a particular BWDS as comp ared to the current options 26 under the No Action Alternative (untreated BW or BWE). We did not perform a 27 comparison in absolute terms because it would be very difficult and the results would be 28 highly uncertain given current scientific knowledge of invasive species ecology (Ludwig 29 1999). Since the No Action Alternative is the baseline, the current levels of successful 30

8 Some of these factors are the types of organisms; th eir reproductive mode; their life stage; their nutritional status; the physical match between source and receiving wa ters; 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 frequenc y of release of a given organism.April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-11 introductions, establishment, and associated impacts are assumed to continue if no BWDS 1 is implemented. 2

Two analyses were performed with this mode l to estimate effects on inoculum size of the 3 alternatives. The method was to determin e by what multiplicative factor the extinction 4 probability of a population (with an inherently positive growth rate) increases when the 5 initial population size discharged via ballast wa ter (from a single vesse l) is reduced by a 6 given multiplicative factor. This factor is then used to calculate the increase in extinction 7 probability for each alternative. The model was us ed first for the simplest case of a single 8 species in one discharge event, to illustrate th e general analytical approach, and then for the 9 more complicated case of a vessel discharging multiple species to better assess the relative 10 differences of the alternatives. 11

Although this approach provides a first order approximation for extinction probability as a 12 function of organism size and numbers, the abundances of organisms are highly variable in 13 time and space, depending on a variety of fact ors. While quantitative information is 14 developed and presented in the forthcoming sect ions, it is very important to emphasize that, 15 given the inherent complexitie s of ecological systems, the NIS invasion process, and the 16 lack of information in the field of invasion bi ology, the results provide valuable yet limited 17 information about the relative effectiveness of the alternatives. After thorough evaluation 18 of alternative approaches, the USCG believes that PVA with a diffusion model is the best 19 methodology to analyze the alterna tives in a meaningful and sc ientifically defensible way. 20

4.3.2 No Action Alternative Effectiveness 21

All of the alternatives could reduce the proba bility of introduction of organism s. The 22 reduced introductions are expected to decr ease establishment of NIS populations. 23 However, it is important to highlight that th is relationship is not necessarily linear since 24 many species can potentially become esta blished with only a single individual. 25

Two measures are commonly used when monito ring and evaluating efficacy of mid-ocean 26 exchange (one option under the NAA): the volume of water that has been replaced in the 27 ballast tanks and the removal of organisms from the ballast water tanks during the exchange 28 process. These measures of mid-ocean ball ast water exchange have been the focus of 29 several studies. The results vary considerably and are depe ndent upon vessel type (design), 30 exchange method, ballasting system configurat ion, exchange location, and method of study. 31 One group of studies suggests that the efficacy of ballast water exch ange is 80-99 percent 32 per event (Dickman and Zhang 1999; Hine s and Ruiz 2000; Rigby and Hallegraeff 1993; 33 Smith et al. 1996; Taylor and Bruce 2000; Zhang and Dickman 1999). Other studies 34 demonstrate that the volumetric efficiency of BWE ranges from 50-90 percent (Battelle 35 2003; USCG 2001; Zhang and Dickman 1999). Recent work by Ruiz et al. (in NOAA 36 2007) has shown that BWE can range from 88% efficacy of BW removal in container ships 37 to between 97% and 99% in tanker ships, container ships, and bulk carriers. 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-12 Locke et al. (1993) found a 67-87 percent exchan ge efficacy in removal of brackish-water1 tolerant organisms from balla st water after mid-ocean exchange. Furthermore, studies 2 using methlylene blue dye in ballast tanks have shown up to a 95 percent efficacy. 3 Specifically, a 75-95 percent (for the phytoplan kton community) efficacy was demonstrated 4 in a test where ballast water was flushe d through tanks for a continuous nine hours 5 (equivalent to three tank volumes) (Wonham et al 1996). Smith et al. (1996) showed a 6 reduction in concentrations of larvae and pla nkton by 50-90 percent in ballast tanks after 7 mid-ocean exchange. Ruiz et al. (NOAA 2007) found that empty-refill BWE removed 8 between 80% and 95% of zooplankton and 74% and 93% of phytoplankton (mean values 9 from multiple samples). Finally, a zero re duction may occur when organisms elude mid10 ocean discharge by occupying ballast tank sediment. 11

Mid-ocean BWE reduces the organism density by a factor of one-tenth (lower bound) to 12 zero (upper bound) (USCG 2003). The density of organisms in ballast water may change 13 during a voyage through reproduction and mortalit y. Generally, densities tend to decline 14 over time, but this is not always the case (USCG 2003). 15

A second NAA option is to retain ballast water onboard while in U.S. waters. For example, 16 newer ship designs have created fresh water ball ast systems where a ship is able to retain 17 ballast water onboard. Because no ballast water is discharged, we expect no effects to any 18 of the threatened, endangered, and proposed sp ecies such as the le atherback sea turtle, 19 Atlantic salmon, white abalone, and shortnose sturgeon or to their habitats including 20 essential fish habitats located in the fr eshwater, estuarine or marine ecosystems. 21

The third option under the NAA is ballast water treatment (BWT). Treatment technologies 22 and methods (see Appendix F) used to reduce the concentrations of organisms in ballast 23 water should lead to long-term reductions of organisms in the other categories listed in 24 section 4.2.1. Thus, all the NAA options woul d likely reduce, but not eliminate, the 25 introductions and the spread of NIS from ballast water discharges. 26

4.3.3 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Effectiveness 27

The results are stated in term s of the mean ra te of successful NIS in troductions, as a range 28 of percentages, compared to the NAA. The mathematical formulation of the model and 29 detailed results are presented in Appendix A. 30

The mean rates of successful introductions re lative to the NAA, predicted for each of the 31 three concentration-based standa rds alternatives, for smaller a nd larger organisms, are: 32

Table 4-1: Single species case: Range of values of f r (mean rate of successful 33 introductions relative to the baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c 34 and f used in the analysis (See Appendix A for details) 35
f r (smaller organisms) f r (larger organisms)April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-13 Alternative [> 10 and ≤ 50 m μ ] [> 50 m μ ]

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 Table 4-2: Multiple species case: Relative ef ficiencies of Alternat ives 2, 3, and 4 for N e 9 = 1, 100 using ‘no management’ and ballast wa ter exchange as baselines, from values 10 in Table 5-8 (See Appendix A for details). 11

1 = e N 100 = e N

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

Figure 4-1: Single species ca se: Effectiveness of Alternat ives 2-4 compared to the NAA 13 (See Appendix A for details) 14April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-14 1

2

Table 4-2: Multiple species case: Effectiven ess of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, compared to 3 the NAA (See Appendix A for details) 4 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 SizeMean Rate of Successful Introductions(Relative to NAA)

Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-15 1

Interpretation of analytical results 2

The values presented in Table 4-1 can thus be interpreted as meaning that the mean rate of 3 successful introductions under: 4

• Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) is expected to be between 92% and 100%, and 5 50% and 100% of the mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for 6 smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 7

• Alternative 3 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 8 mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for smaller and larger 9 organisms, respectively; and 10

• Alternative 4 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 41% and 100% of the 11 mean rate of successful introductions under the NAA, for smaller and larger 12 organisms, respectively. 13

The reduction in the mean rate of successful introduc tions is the complement of the ranges 14 of values presented above. As a result, th e reduction in the mean rate of successful 15 introductions, as compared to the NAA under: 16 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 ThresholdPercent effectiveness over the NAA

Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-16 • Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) is expected to range between no reduction and 1 an 8% reduction, and no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger 2 organisms, respectively; 3

• Alternative 3 is expected to range be tween no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 4 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smalle r and larger organisms, respectively; 5 and 6

• Alternative 4 is expected to range be tween no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 7 no reduction and a 59% reduction for smalle r and larger organisms, respectively. 8

The values in Table 4-2 represent the percent increase in q(m) over the baseline scenarios 9 that each alternative provides. For example, for an N e of 1, Alternative 2 (preferred 10 alternative) is estimated to be 52% more effective than what would be expected for q(m) 11 under the No BW Management baseline scenario. 12

The values in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are not direct ly comparable to each other. They measure 13 two different probabilities and provide a ra nge of outcomes for a particular BWDS. 14 However, most vessels will have initial or ganism densities greater than the organism 15 densities set by the alternatives so that vessels meeting any of the alternatives will achieve a 16 reduction in the densities in most cases. 17

The multiple species scenarios presented here are more ecologically realistic than 18 evaluating a single species scenario. The multip le species results show that the treatment 19 alternatives result in a moderate reduction in the probability of at least one new species 20 becoming established to a complete absence of risk of introduction. The specific reduction 21 depends upon the alternative sele cted and the size class of th e organism considered, but the 22 modeling results for multiple species support th e conclusion that more stringent treatment 23 alternatives will substantiall y reduce the likelihood of ne w ballast water introductions. 24

4.3.4 Alternative 5 Effectiveness 25

Alternative 5 was not modele d with PVA since it is essentially a requirement for 26 sterilization of BW. This alternative would assure that no living organism s larger than 0.1 27

m icron are released via ballast water and woul d therefore prevent any associated impacts. 28

29



### 4.4 Resources Analyzed 30

31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-17 4.4.1 Marine, Estuarine, and Freshwater Ecosystems, Threatened and Endangered 1 Species, and Essent ial Fish Habita t 2

The impacts to marine, estuarine, and freshwat er ecosystems would be similar at this high 3 level of analysis, and hence they were a ddressed as a group. Because threatened and 4 endangered species are part of marine, estuarine, and freshw ater ecosystems, and because 5 essential fish habitat is necessarily part of the environment that has been described, those 6 resources were also addressed in this section. 7

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 8

Because the NAA was used as a baseline, advers e impacts to marine ecosystems, estuarine 9 ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, threaten ed and endangered species, and EFH under this 10 alternative were assumed to continue at current levels of successful in troductions and 11 establishments of NIS. Thus, no change in current and projected levels of adverse impacts 12 caused by NIS is expected under the NAA. Given the large amount of unknown 13 information involved, the expected impact s under the NAA were not quantified. 14

There are many direct and indi rect impacts of invasive spec ies on marine, estuarine, and 15 freshwater resources, as well as on threatened and endangered species and EFH. Williams 16 et al. (2002) found that many we ll-studied food webs in different environments have short 17 trophic connections between multiple species. This indicates that species are tightly 18 connected through trophic interac tions, and any effects (such as increased predation, release 19 of toxic compounds, niche filling, etc.) caused by NIS have the ability to propagate quickly 20 through the entire food web. Additionally, introductions of nonnative species can increase 21 invasivity of historical nonna tive populations that formerly weren’t invasive. This was 22 demonstrated in a study of native mussels, nonna tive clams, and nonnative crabs, where the 23 newly introduced crabs selectively predat ed the native mussels, thereby freeing the 24 nonnative clams (which had been living in the ar ea for at least fifty years without having a 25 population explosion) from competition and facilitating thei r spread in the ecosystem 26 (Grosholz 2005). Such interactions are like ly to occur in many other ecosystems among 27 many different species, but have not yet been observed. The risk of such an occurrence 28 would continue under Alternat ive 1. Finally, ecosystem se rvices such as pollutant 29 absorption, climate regulation, prevention of co astal and seabed erosion, maintenance of 30 water quality, and storage and recycling of nutri ents that are provide d to humans can be 31 compromised by NIS changing the structure a nd function of those ecosystems. 32

Alterna tive 2 (preferred alternative) 33

The impacts (or side effects) associated with the methods used to meet the BWDS defined 34 under each alternative may be analyzed under sepa rate environmental review processes, but 35 are not addressed in this DPEIS. Because only the implementation of the BWDS is being 36 analyzed, no additional adverse impacts are likely to occur under Alte rnatives 2 through 5. 37 In fact, the standard is predicted to provide varying degrees of bene fits (according to the 38April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-18 standard selected) to marine ecosystems, es tuarine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, 1 threatened and endangered species, and EFH. 2

From PVA modeling results, the implementation of Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) 3 could result in a 0% to 50% re duction in the mean introduction rate of NIS with respect to 4 the NAA. It could be between 37% and 78% more effective, in the multiple species 5 analysis, as the options under the NAA. Dir ect positive effects of this are that native 6 species might have fewer resource competitors and predators, and more prey (due to the 7 lack of NIS’ competition for food). Indirect positive effects stem from the reasons cited 8 above: maintaining ecosystem structure and f unction, more resistance to the effects of 9 climate change, and maintenance of ecosystem services. 10

Highly productive habitats such as cora l reefs and mangroves might experience a 11 proportionally larger indirect benefit from reductions in NI S introductions than would less12 productive habitats because they provide food and shelter to so many other species. 13

Alternative 3 14

The implementation of Alternative 3 could re sult in a 0% to 50% reduction of the mean 15 introduction rate of NIS, relative to the NAA. Additionally, it could be between 64% and 16 94% more effective in the multiple species analysis as the options under the NAA. 17 Alternative 3 could be moderate ly more effective for smaller organisms than Alternative 2 18 (preferred alternative). 19

Impacts to marine, estuarine, freshwater, threatened and endange red species, and EFH 20 resources under Alternative 3 are expected to be of a similar nature to those under 21 Alternative 2 (preferred altern ative), only reduced proportionall y. Alternative 3 is expected 22 to be somewhat more environmentall y beneficial than Alternative 2. 23

Alternative 4 24

The implementation of Alternative 4 could re sult in a 0% to 59% reduction of the mean 25 introduction rate of NIS, relative to the NAA. Additionally, it could be between 85% and 26 100% more effective in the multiple species an alysis than the options under the NAA. 27

Impacts to marine, estuarine, freshwater, threatened and endange red species, and EFH 28 resources under Alternative 4 ar e expected to be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3, 29 with proportional reductions in effects stem ming from the reductions in discharged 30 organisms. Alternative 4 is expected to be somewhat more environmentally beneficial than 31 Alternative 3. 32

Alternative 5 33April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-19 Alternative 5 is the only alternative that assu res that no living organisms larger than 0.1 1 micron are released via ballast water and ther efore prevents their associated impacts to 2 these resources. 3

As with Alternatives 2 thr ough 4, impacts under Alte rnative 5 are expect ed to be similar 4 and will occur to the same marine, estuarin e, freshwater, threatened and endangered 5 species, and EFH resources, with proportiona l reductions from the number of discharged 6 organisms. This alternative is expected to be considerably more beneficial than 7 Alternatives 2-4. Despite that this is esse ntially sterilization of ballast water, some 8 organisms will still be released because the standard only applies to organisms greater than 9 0.1 micron in diameter; living organisms smalle r than this would still be released. 10

4.4.2 Socioeconomics 11

Socioeconom ic resources listed in Chapter 3, sections 3.9.4 through 3.9.10, would likely be 12 improved by setting a BWDS. Economic sectors dependent on the health of aquatic and 13 coastal resources would benef it from overall healthier ecosy stems with fewer invasive 14 species. 15

Costs of Alternative Ballas t Water Discharge Standards 16

Costs for ships to comply with Alternatives 2- 5 were investigated hypot hetically in order to 17 determine costs. The cost estimates contai n a very high degree of uncertainty, as Coast 18 Guard-approved ballast water treatmen t systems (BWTS) do not yet exist. 19

The Coast Guard has estimated the costs of achieving the BWDS (Alternative 2) based on 20 the installation and operational costs of the BWTS. We estimated the installation costs 21 based on the number of vessels that will have to install or retrofit ballast water systems each 22 year for each vessel type. We apply this da ta together with the one-time capital and 23 installation costs to develop overall implementation costs. We calculated the operational 24 costs based on maintenance and fuel consump tion costs for different ballast water pump 25 sizes. We converted the operational costs into per cubic meter costs utilizing the pumping 26 rate of the system. More detailed information on the estim ated costs is contained in 27 Appendix H. 28 29

Alternative 1 30

Alternative 1 is the NAA, therefor e the cost would not change. 31

Alternative 2 (prefe rred alternative) 32

Over a 10-year period, the projected total in stallation and operating cost for systems 33 capable of meeting the Altern ative 2 standards is approximately $1.35 billion using the 3 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-20 percent discount rate and $1.18 billion using the 7 percent discount rate. These costs 1 include those associated with new vessels constructed during the 10-year period (USCG 2 2008). There is minimal operating experience w ith BWTS and, consequently, it is difficult 3 to quantify possible future economies of scal e that could bring costs down (USCG 2008). 4 For comparison, Lloyds Register has publishe d estimates for the IMO ballast water 5 standard, which is equivalent to Alternative 2 (preferred alterna tive), with capital costs in a 6 broader range of from $145,000 to $2.3 million per ship subject to the IMO standard 7 (Lloyds Register 2008). 8

Alternative 3 9

Costs associated with the more stringent sta ndards of Alternatives 3 and 4 are even less 10 certain that those for Alternative 2 (preferred alternative). Capital and operational costs will 11 certainly increase. Best estimates at this time are an approximate doubling of capital and 12 operating costs for Alternative 3 when compared to Altern ative 2 (USCG 2008). 13

Alternative 4 14

Costs associated with the more stringent sta ndards of Alternatives 3 and 4 are even less 15 certain that those for Alternative 2 (preferred alternative). Capital and operational costs will 16 certainly increase. Best estimates at th is time are an approximate quadrupling for 17 Alternative 4, when compared to Alternative 2 (USCG 2008). 18

Alternative 5 19

At this time, the most feasible approach fo r achieving the Alternativ e 5 standard is through 20 the elimination of ballast water discharge. For some vessel types, such as large 21 containerships and roll on/roll off vessels, th is may be a practical option. For other vessel 22 types, such as bulk carriers, it is not possible to eliminat e discharge of ballast without 23 considerable reduction in cargo carrying capacity—estimated to be up to 35 percent of the 24 payload (USCG 2008). 25

Benefits of Ballast Wa ter Discharge Standards 26

The benefits of BWDSs are diffi cult to quantify due to the co mplexity of the ecosystems 27 and a lack of knowledge about the specific sp ecies found in each ballast water discharge 28 event. However, evaluation of costs associated with existing invasions allows the cost of 29 discharge standards to be compared to what might be avoided. Because the amount of 30 shipping traffic and the number of incident s of invasions per year are both increasing, 31 historical data provide a lo wer bound for the basis of bene fit evaluation. The primary 32 benef its of Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) have been enumerated in previous sections 33 detailing the environmental co nsequences of NIS invasions. 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-21 The BWDS is likely to redu ce the number of new invasions because the likelihood of 1 establishment decreases with reduced number s of organisms introduced per discharge. 2

The more stringent discharge standards (Alterna tives 3 and 4) would be expected to further 3 strengthen these benefits. Inoculation sizes should decrease in propor tion to the reduction 4 in concentrations. 5

We assessed the functional benefits prior to comparing monetary benefit measures. The 6 primary functional benefits of Alternative 2 are: 7

• A reduction in the concentration of all orga nisms leading to lower numbers of these 8 organisms being introduced per discharge; 9

• The elimination of the exemptions in the BWM regulations leading to the discharge 10 of unmanaged ballast water (e.g., safety c oncerns during exchange, deviation/delay 11 of voyage required to travel to accep table mid-ocean exchange location). 12

We calculated potential benefits of the BW DS by estimating the number of invasions 13 reduced and the range of economic damage a voided. We use information on the invasion 14 rate of invertebrates from shipping reported by Ruiz et al. (2000) to project the number of 15 future shipping invasions per year. To estimat e the potential economic harm that may be 16 caused by these invasions, we assigned a cost per invasion based on the limited available 17 data on the range of costs and damages incurr ed by past invasions. Based on the cumulative 18 impacts of invasions, we have calculated a mid-range estimate of annual costs for all 19 harmful BW-introduced invasions over the 10-year period of 2012 to 2021 at $2.016 20 billion, at a 7% discount rate and assuming no BWM (USCG 2008). 21

The damages avoided (benefits) for Alternativ e 2 range from a minimum of $6 million to a 22 maximum of $553 million, depending on the efficacy of Alternative 2, with a mid-range 23 estimate of $165-$282 million per year at a 7% discount rate (USCG 2008). 24



### 4.5 Cumulative Impacts 25

This section summarizes the cumulative impacts of the NEPA alternativ es analyzed in this 26 DPEIS on the resources of concern. They can occur in both temporal and spatial 27 dimensions. In the case of this analysis, the relevant timeframe includes the implementation 28 and operational phases of the proposed action. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Proposed 29 Action involves a large geographic area, spa nning the EEZ, estuarine, freshwater, and 30 coastal areas of the entire Un ited States and its territories. 31

CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA define cumulative 32 impacts as “the impact on the environment, wh ich results from the incremental impact of 33 the action when added to other past, present, a nd reasonably foreseeable future actions 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-22 regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other 1 actions”, 40 CFR § 1508.7. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 2 collectively significant, actions taki ng place over a period of time. 3

The significance of an action’s cumulative im pacts depends on how they compare with the 4 environmental baseline and relevant resource thresholds (e.g., regulat ory standards) (CEQ 5 1997). The environmental baseline is presente d in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 6 Because this is a Programmatic EIS and environmental resources are not evaluated at a 7 specific, itemized level, resource thresholds are not presented. (S uch a NEPA analysis 8 would be undertaken during the approval proc ess for individual BWT technologies.) 9 Below is a summary of some of the main elements that could result in cumulative impacts 10 to environmental resources. 11

Some NIS introductions would continue with eac h of the alternatives, including sterilization 12 (which only addresses organi sms larger than 0.1 micron). Implementation of the NAA 13 would likely continue the st atus quo of cumulative effect s from current USCG BWM 14 regulations and policies. [69 FR 44952 and 70 FR 51831]. Introductions from those 15 BWDs regulated by the standard would be expected to decrease, by a relative amount 16 depending on the alternative. NIS would al so continue to be introduced by BWD not 17 subject to the standard and from other vectors. A ship as an entity is "biologically dirty", 18 with organisms being associated with several subvectors, including the hull, anchor system, 19 sea chest, internal seawater piping system, and the bilges. Nonetheless, the comparatively 20 large volume of ballast water and its protec tion from open-ocean conditions during transit 21 implies that BWD is likely to be a primary source of NIS associated with shipping. There 22 are also non-ship sources of NIS introducti ons, including livewells in fishing boats, 23 aquariums, and introductions for sport fishing. Impacts of NIS from BWD also have to be 24 considered as additive to NIS that have already become established. 25

With regard to hull fouling, implementation of a BWDS could conceivably result in more 26 NIS introductions from that source because incr eased costs to meet the BWDS could lead to 27 less frequent hull cleaning (Carlton 2005). Howe ver, these externally attached hull fouling 28 organisms are exposed to condi tions during transit much harsher than those experienced by 29 populations present in untreated ballast water, incl uding large fluctuations in temperature 30 and salinity during transoceanic transits. Thus , the fouling organisms could be exposed to 31 conditions similar to or more severe than the effect of open ocean BWE on internal ballast 32 water populations (Davis 2005). The result is that the risk of invasion from hull fouling 33 populations is likely to be lowe r than that for ball ast water populations , but certainly not 34 insignificant and is under current investigation (Ruiz and Carlton 2003, Ruiz et al. in prep). 35 Thus, a holistic m odel would be appropriate to address potential successf ul introductions of 36 NIS from the vessel as a vector , and not just the individual m eans (e.g., ballast water). The 37 reduction or elimination of the introduction pres sure exerted by ballast water is likely to 38 reduce the overall probability of successful establishment of NIS via vessels, but does not 39 guarantee it. 40April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-23 If Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 are chosen as the BWDS, then tec hnologies to treat ballast water 1 may be developed to comply with this stan dard. NEPA analyses may be done for these 2 technologies, which may cause environmental impacts. What these impacts might be is 3 unknown, but it is foreseeable that some tec hnologies may be approved, and thus their 4 environmental impacts would be added to the environmental impacts from implementing 5 the BWDS. 6

Aquatic and coastal re sources are under continuously increasing pressure from human 7 activities, including co astal development, fishing, industr ial processes, agriculture, and 8 resource exploitation. The cumulative effects of these activities have resulted in significant 9 impacts to aquatic and coasta l habitats, biodiversity losses , and a reduction in resource 10 sustainability. Given the large and increas ing impacts of NIS on ecological and economic 11 aquatic and coastal resources, the potential changes to these cumulative effects resulting 12 from implementation of the alternatives can ra nge from negligible to potentially significant 13 when compared to the contributions from all other relevant ac tions (e.g., overfishing, 14 habitat degradation, eutrophicati on, oil pollution, and losses of living marine resources). 15

Reduced oxygen levels caused by excessive nutrie nt loadings within the northern Gulf of 16 Mexico from the Mississippi Rive r drainage basin have been li nked to extensive die-offs of 17 coastal fishes. Furthermore, excessive nutrien t loadings from river basin drainages within 18 the Northeast shelf ecosystem may be the cause of the growing frequency and extent of 19 harmful algal blooms, the emergence of marine mammal and human pathogens, and 20 changes in the gene pool of wild stocks from inadvertent releases of cultured stocks (USGS 21 1999). 22

Habitat alterations have taken plac e in rivers and estuaries, as well as in coastal zones, as a 23 result of urbanization, includi ng alteration of freshwater fl ows, erosion, introduction of 24 toxic chemicals and other contaminants in to the waters, introduction of NIS, and 25 degradation of the aquatic habitats essential to the survival of living aquatic resources. 26 Approximately 50% of the U.S. population lives cl ose to major freshwater systems, such as 27 the Great Lakes, or coastal waters. There ar e numerous demographic trends that suggest 28 these conditions and threats are not likely to change in the im mediate future. Thus, as the 29 nation grows, further growth in coastal zones is expected. Coastal development often alters 30 aquatic and coastal ecosystems and affect s living marine resources (EPA 2005). 31

Shipping has been subject to voluntary and m andatory BWM regulations, such as BWE, 32 depending on vessel size, areas of operation, and other elements. Thus, if the volume of 33 shipping remains at the same level, ballast-med iated invasions are likely to be reduced. 34 However, changes in the volume of shipping a nd in trade routes, as well as changes in 35 ballast water systems and their operation, would either decrease or increase BW discharges, 36 and hence the level of NIS introductions. Thus, a BWDS would be expected to decrease 37 NIS introductions from distinct BW discharg e events, but the total number of introductions 38 could still increase due to in creases in global trade. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-24 On a national level, the cumulative effects of the alternatives on aquatic and coastal 1 resources in the U.S. cannot be accurately estimated given the complexities and limited 2 scientific knowledge describe d earlier. Implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would 3 likely improve, and at least not adversely impact environmental and socioeconomic 4 resources. Additionally, no harmful cumu lative impacts are expected since their 5 implementation would likely resu lt in a reduction of current NI S impacts. In that case, 6 cumulative benefits to aquatic and coastal resources would likely result. 7

Alternative 1, the NAA, is expect ed to result in the highest le vel of detrimental cumulative 8 impacts to the environment since it continue s the current levels of NIS introductions. 9 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are expected to proportionally reduce detrimental cumulative 10 impacts in relation to the stringency of the sta ndard adopted. Alternative 5 is expected to 11 further reduce, though not completely elimin ate, cumulative impacts resulting from NIS 12 introductions because NIS introductions fr om other sources will continue, as will 13 introductions of organisms smaller than 0.1 micron from BWD. 14

Alternative 1 will continue current cumulative eff ects, such as facilitation of one invasive 15 species by another later-arriving invasive species (Ricciardi 2001) . Such interactions have 16 been observed to occur as many as 50 years fr om the time of a first introduction (Grosholz 17 2005). This reassembly of co-evolved food we bs (several species from alien habitats 18 colonizing a new habitat and functioning as they had in their old environment), as well as 19 facilitative interactions between species wi th no co-evolutionary history, can increase the 20 impacts from any introduction of NIS (Ricciar di 2001). Climate change and habitat loss are 21 two other variables that can cont ribute to the cumulative effect s of NIS. Increasing winter 22 water temperatures in the mid and high latitude s (Christensen et al. 2007) can provide more 23 favorable conditions for invasive species to become established. This can be compounded 24 by greater competitive advantage of introduced species compared to native species. 25 Stachowitz et al. (2002) found th at increased winter water te mperatures were correlated 26 with increased recruitment of nonnative sea s quirts and concluded that continued climatic 27 warming could facilitate invasions of species from warmer, or at least less extreme, 28 climates into New England coastal waters. Continued habitat degradation due to pollution 29 and development in coastal areas indicates th at continued introductions of NIS will have 30 cumulative impacts on these ecosystems. Any reduction in the number of new invasions 31 could reduce this cum ulative impact. 32

Alternatives 2 through 5 may continue to have negative cumulative impacts since they will 33 not completely prevent new introductions. Al l the impacts cited above for Alternative 1 34 could continue to occur under Alternatives 2-5. However, according to Ricciardi (2001), 35 any effort to reduce the inva sion rate of NIS can have pos itive cumulative impacts on the 36 existing ecosystem by reducing syne rgistic reactions between NIS. 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

4-25 

### 4.6 Relationship Between Short-Term Us es and Long-Term Productivity 1

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 2 environment and the maintenance and enha ncement of long-term productivity, 40 CFR 3 §1502.16. Special attention should be given to impacts that narro w the range of beneficial 4 uses of the environment in the long-term or pos e a long-term risk to human health or safety. 5 This section evaluates the shor t-term benefits of the proposal compared to the long-term 6 productivity derived from not pursuing the propo sal. Short-term effects to the environment 7 are generally defined as a dire ct consequence of a project in its immediate vicinity. 8

A BWDS is not expected to re quire use of environment resour ces and is expected to have 9 long term benefits for the environment. 10



### 4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievab le Commitment of Resources 11

NEPA requires that environmental analysis incl ude identification of “. . . any irreversible 12 and irretrievable commitments of resources wh ich would be involved in the proposed action 13 should it be implemented.” Irreversible and irre trievable resource commitments are related 14 to the use of nonrenewable resources and the eff ects that the uses of these resources have on 15 future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a 16 specific resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable 17 time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected 18 resource that cannot be restored as result of the action (e.g., di sturbance of wildlife habitat); 19 or is lost as a result of in action (e.g., failure to monitor a nd treat vegetation to prevent 20 infestation by pests). 21

Setting a BWDS is not expected to require use of nonrenewable resources or to cause loss 22 in value of an affected resource. However, the No Action Alternative may well cause loss 23 of habitat or species th at cannot be restored. 24



### 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 25

This section identifies una voidable adverse effects that may occur as a result of 26 implementing the Proposed Action or one of its alternatives. Se tting a BWDS is not 27 expected to have any una voidable adverse effects. 28April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-1 

# 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND 1 

# CONSULTATION 2



### 5.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 3

Threatened and endangered spec ies are protected at the Fede ral level under the Endangered 4 Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (P.L. 93-205, 81 St at. 884, as amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). 5 The purpose of the ESA is to ensure that Fede ral agencies make all attempts to conserve 6 endangered and threatened sp ecies and their habitats. The FWS and the NMFS are the 7 responsible administrative author ities of the ESA. The FWS is primarily responsible for 8 terrestrial and freshwater speci es and migratory birds, while the NMFS generally deals with 9 anadramous fish and species that inhabit mari ne environments. Anadromous fish are fish 10 that spend most of their life in marine environments, but migrate into freshwater rivers to 11
spawn. 12

All Federal agencies must consult with the FWS and NMFS, in accordance with Section 7 13 of the Endangered Species Act, to ensure that their actions are not li kely to jeopardize the 14 continued existence of listed species. The USCG initiated in formal consultation with the 15 FWS and the NMFS in 2004. This included lett ers, phone conversations, and a series of 16 meetings to determine if any endangered or threatened species could be affected by 17 establishing a BWDS. USCG will continue to co nsult with both federal services to ensure 18 that establishing a BWDS will likely benefit, and at least have no additional adverse 19 impacts on threatened, endangered, and propos ed species or designated and proposed 20 critical habitats. 21

5.1.1 Biological Assessment 22

The U.S. Congress enacted the ESA to provi de a m eans to conserve ecosystems and 23 endangered and threatened speci es that depend upon them. Al l Federal agencies must (1) 24 seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and (2) utilize their authorities to 25 further the purposes of the ESA. Section 7( a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to 26 ensure that any action that is authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely 27 to jeopardize the continued existence of any lis ted species or result in the destruction or 28 adverse modification of habitat of such speci es which has been designated as critical 29 habitat. To ensure such actions are not likel y to jeopardize the continued existence of any 30 listed species or result in the de struction or adverse modificati on of critical habitat, these 31 federal agencies must consult with the FWS a nd NMFS, who administer the ESA. The tool 32 used by the Services to analyze impacts to listed species is the Biological Assessment and 33 their decision is documented in a Biological Opinion. 34

Threatened and Endangered Species Determination 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-2 1 The USCG examined the potential effects to threatened, endangered, and proposed species 2 and relevant proposed and designated critical habitat. The USCG concluded that under 3 Alternative 1, impacts to thre atened and endangered specie s via NIS introductions would 4 continue. The USCG has determined that Alte rnatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 analyzed in this DPEIS 5 should provide beneficial effects, and are not likely to adversel y affect, threatened, 6 endangered, and proposed species, an d their critical habitat. Th is is based on the analysis 7 and conclusions presented in Chapter 4 of this document. Any methods or procedures to 8 achieve the BWDS would requir e further future and separate environmental analysis and 9 Section 7 consultations before they are implemented. 10



### 5.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Cons ervation and Management Act 11

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding 12 all actions or Proposed Actions permitted, funde d, or undertaken that may adversely affect 13 EFH. “Adversely affect" refers to the creation of any impact that reduces the quality or 14 quantity of EFH. Federal activities that o ccur outside an EFH but that may, nonetheless, 15 have an impact on EFH waters and substrate mu st also be considered in the consultation 16 process. The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that consultation rega rding EFH should be 17 consolidated, where appropria te, with the interagency consultation, coordination, and 18 environmental review procedures required by other Federal statutes, such as NEPA, the 19 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federa l Water Pollution Control Act, and the ESA. 20 EFH consultation requirements can be sati sfied through concurre nt environmental 21 compliance requirements if the lead agency provides NMFS with timely notification of 22 actions that may adversely affect EFH and if the notification meets requirements for EFH 23
assessments. 24

This DPEIS addressed the potential effects th e Alternatives would have on EFH. The 25 USCG concluded that under Alternative 1, EFH impacts via NIS introductions would 26 continue. The US Coast Guard concluded that Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not adversely 27 affect EFH. However, any methods or pro cedures to implement the BWDS would require 28 further future and separate environmental analysis and a potential EFH consultation. 29



### 5.3 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 30

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM A) of 1972 (16 U.S.C.A. §1451-1465) was 31 passed by Congress to effectively manage the uses and resources of the Nation’s coastal 32 zone. The enactment of the CZMA resulted from a range of C ongressional findings 33 involving the preservation, prot ection, development, restor ation and enhancement of 34 resources of the U.S. coastal zone. The fo llowing are just three of the Congressional 35 findings that directly relate and serve as supporting needs for the proposed rule: 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

5-3 “1) The increasing and competing dema nds upon the lands of our coastal zone 1 occasioned by population growth and economic development, including 2 requirements for industry, commerce, re sidential development, recreation, 3 extractions of mineral resources and fo ssil fuels, transportation and navigation, 4 waste disposal, and harvesti ng of fish, shellfish, and ot her living marine resources, 5 have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient rich areas, 6 permanent and adverse changes to ecologi cal systems, decreasing open space for 7 public use, and shoreline erosion. 8

2) The habitat areas of the coastal zone, and the fish, shellfis h, other living marine 9 resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologi cally fragile and consequently extremely 10 vulnerable to destructio n by man’s alterations. 11

3) New and expanding demands for food, energy, minerals, defense needs, 12 recreation, waste disposal, transportation, and industrial activities in the Great 13 Lakes, territorial sea, and exclusive econom ic zone, and the Outer Continental Shelf 14 are placing stress on these areas and are creat ing the need for resolutions of serious 15 conflicts among important and competing us es and values in coastal and ocean 16 waters.” (CZMA, Section 302) 17

In accordance with the CZMA, each Federal action within or outside the coastal zone that 18 affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a 19 manner that is consistent, to the maximum exte nt practical, with the enforceable policies of 20 the approved state coastal zone management programs. Additionally, each Federal agency 21 carrying out such an activity shall provide a Federal cons istency determination to the 22 relevant State agency and shall undertake the activity, to the maximu m extent practicable, 23 consistent with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal zone management 24 programs (§ 1456, Section 307). 25

The implementation of the Alternatives will re sult in a BWDS, thereby potentially affecting 26 the Nation’s coastal zone. Therefore, in co mpliance with the requi rements of CZMA, the 27 USCG will initiate Federal Consistency Determina tions for 29 States and 5 U.S. Territories 28 (see Appendix E) that require reviewing CZ M plans, and issuing federal consistency 29 determination letters (See Appendix D). Each federal consistency determination letter will 30 explain to each State and U.S. Territories th at the USCG’s action is consistent, to the 31 maximum extent practicable, with the enfo rceable polices of each State’s and U.S. 32 Territories approved CZM plan. 33

34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-1 

# 6 RESOURCES UTILIZED 1



## LIST OF PREPARERS 2

U.S. Coast Guard 3 Bivan Patnaik 4 Environmental Protection Speci alist and Program Manager 5 B.S. Biology, Virginia Co mmonwealth University 6 M.S. Environmental Sciences, Johns Hopkins University 7 8 Greg Kirkbride 9 Environmental Specialist and Project Manager 10 B.S. Economics, U.S. Coast Guard Academy 11 M.B.A Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 12 M.S. Environmental Science and Po licy, Johns Hopkins University 13 14 Rich Everett, Ph.D. 15 Environmental Protection Speci alist, Technical Advisor 16 B.S. Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz 17 Ph. D. Zoology, University of California, Berkley 18 19 Brad McKitrick 20 Economist/Environmental Specialist and Project Manager 21 B.S. General Studies (Economics) 22 M.S. Environmental Policy and Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 23 24 Sage Systems Technologies, LLC 25 Kate O’Dell 26 Environmental Specialist 27 B.S. Environmental Science & Policy and Geography, University of Maryland at College 28 Park 29 M.A. Geography, University of Maryland at College Park 30 31 Diana Combs 32 Environmental Specialist 33 B.A. Political Science, Drew University 34 J.D. Vermont Law School 35 36 Mirabelle Oczkowski 37 Marine Transportation Specialist 38 B.A. International Affairs, George Washington University 39 40 41 42April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-2 Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. 1 Sean Gallagher 2 Marine Transportation Specialist 3 B.A. Political Science, University of Florida 4 J.D. Syracuse University College of Law 5 6 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 7 Andrew Solow, Ph.D. 8 Senior Scientist and Marine Policy Center Director 9 B.S. Economics, Harvard University 10 Ph.D. Geostatistics, Stanford University 11 12 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 13 Paul Valihura, Ph.D. 14 Environmental Scientist and PEA Manager 15 B.S. Industrial Management, Lowell Technological Institute 16 M.S. Environmental Studies, University of Lowell 17 Ph.D. Urban and Environmental Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 18 19 José G. Mantilla 20 Environmental Engineer 21 B.S. Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Universidad Javeriana, Colombia 22 M.S. Environmental Engineering, Mass achusetts Institute of Technology 23 24 EG&G Technical Services 25 Sarah Townsend 26 Senior Environmental Specialist/Planner 27 B.A. Environmental Science, Un iversity of Wollongong, Australia 28April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-3 

## LIST OF REVIEWERS 1

United States Coast Guard 2 Ms. Zante Capuno 3 Environmental Protection Specialist a nd Natural Resources Program Manager 4 B.A. Economics, University of the Philippines 5 M.A. Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines 6 7 Ms. Susan Hathaway 8 Assistant Manager, NEPA Program 9 B.A. Politics and Government 10 Ohio Wesleyan University 11 12 The above reviewers reviewed the DPEIS in November 2007 13 14 Williams College 15 James T. Carlton, Ph.D. 16 Professor of Marine Sciences 17 Director, Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport 18 Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis 19 20 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 21 Cabell Davis, Ph.D. 22 Senior Scientist, Biology Department 23 B.S. Biology, University of Tampa 24 Ph.D. Marine Biology, Boston University 25 26 Smith College 27 David Smith, Ph.D. 28 Associate Professor, Biological Sciences 29 B.A. Biology, University of Virginia 30 M.S. Marine Science, University of South Carolina 31 Ph.D. Zoology, University of Maryland 32 33 Battelle Science and Technology International 34 Carlton Hunt, Ph.D. 35 Research Leader 36 B.A. Chemistry, Doane College 37 M.S. Chemical Oceanography, Un iversity of Connecticut 38 Ph.D. Chemical/Geochemical Oceanography, University of Connecticut 39 40 The above reviewers provided review on the following sections in the Fall of 2005: 41 42

• Section 3.1: Background 43

• Section 3.4: Marine ecosystems 44April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-4 • Section 3.5: Estuarine ecosystems 1

• Section 3.6: Freshwater ecosystems 2

• Section 3.7: Threatened and endangered species 3

• Section 3.8: Essentia l fish habitats 4

• Technical report: envi ronmental methodology, analysis, and results 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-5 

## LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 1



### Environmental Protection Agency 2 John Lishman 3 Office of Water 4 5 Henry Lee 6 Office of Research and Development 7 8 Katherine Bruce 9 Office of Water 10 11 Kathy Hurld 12 Office of Water 13 14 Michael Slimak 15 Office of Research and Development 16 17 

### U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 18 Pat Carter 19 Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation 20 21 Pam Thibodeaux 22 Division of Environmental Quality 23 24 

### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 25 Liz Fairey 26 Office of Habitat Conservation 27 National Marine Fisheries Service 28 29 Dr. Jan Gooch 30 Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research 31 National Ocean Service 32 33 Steve Kokkinakis 34 Office of Program Planning and Integration 35 36 David MacDuffee 37 Office of Habitat Conservation 38 NOAA, U.S. National Mari ne Fisheries Service 39 40 

### Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 41 P. Gary Egrie, DVM 42 National Aquaculture Program 43April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-6 

## REFERENCES 1

ADFG. 2002a. Atlantic Salmon: A White Paper . Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2 Juneau, AK. Web site: 3 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/s pecial/as/docs/as_white2002.pdf. 4

ADFG. 2002b. Alaska Subsistence Fisheries: 2000 Annual Report . Alaska Department of 5 Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. 6

Aiken, S.G., P. R. Newroth, and I. Wile. 1979. “The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 7 Myriophyllum spicatum L.”. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59: 201-215. 8

American Rivers. 2005. Endangered Species. Web site: 9 http://www.americanrivers.org/site/Pag eServer?pagename=AMR_content_2a88. 10

ANSTF. 2005. State of Hawaii Aquatic Invasive Species Ma nagement Plan. Aquatic 11 Nuisance Species Task Force. Web site: 12 http://www.anstaskforce.gov/mgtplans.htm. 13

ANSTF. 2003. “What are Aquatic Nuisance Species and Their Impacts?” Aquatic 14 Nuisance Species Task Force. Wash ington, DC, January 2003. Web site: 15 http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ansimpact.htm. 16

Bain, M. B., and J. G. Knight. 1996. “Classi fying Stream Habitat Using Fish Community 17 Analyses.” In Proceedings of the Second IAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, 18 Ecohydraulics 2000 . M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. 19 Côté, eds. Institute National de la R echerche Scientifique-Eau, Ste-Foy, Quebec, 20 Canada. 21

Battelle Duxbury Operations. 1998. Ballast Water Secondary Treatment Technology 22 Review . Prepared for the Northeast Midwest Institute. Washington, D.C. August 23 1998. 24

Beissinger, S. R. and D. R. McCullough. 2002. Population Viability Analysis . University 25 of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 26

Benson, A. J. 2000. “Documenting Over a Cent ury of Aquatic Introductions in the United 27 States.” In Nonindigenous Freshwater Organism s: Vectors, Biology, and Impacts

. 28 R. Claudi and J. H. Leach, eds. Pp. 1-31. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, FL. 29

Boyce, M. 1992. “Population Viability Analysis”. Annual Review of Ecology and 30 Systematics 23: 481-506. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-7 Brodeur, R. D. and M. Busby 1998. “Occurrence of an Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar in the 1 Bering Sea.” Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin 5(1): 64–66. 2

Burke, L., Y. Kura, K. Kassem, C. Revenga, M. Spalding, and D. McAllister. 2000. Pilot 3 Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Coastal Ecosystems . World Resources 4 Institute, Washington, D.C. 5

Burkett, D. P., D. N. Busch, J. R. McClai n, M. E. Holey, T. R. Busiahn, and M. C. 6 Fabrizio. 1995. Great Lakes Fishery Res ources Restoration Study. Report to 7 Congress. U.S. Department of the Interior , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great 8 Lakes Coordination Office and Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office. Web site: 9 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ashland/glstudy.html. 10

Bushaw-Newton, K. L., and K. G. Selln er. 1999. “Harmful Algal Blooms.” State of the 11 Coast Report . U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 12 Administration, Silver Spring, MD . Web site: http://state-of13 coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/hab_14/hab.html. 14

Callaway, J. C., and M. N. Josselyn. 1992. “The Introduction and Spread of Smooth 15 Cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ) in South San Francisco Bay.” Estuaries 15(2): 16 218–26. 17

Carlton, J. T. 1992. “Introduced Marine and Estuarine Mollusks of North America: An 18 End-of-the 20th-Centu ry Perspective.” Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2): 489– 19 505. 20

Carlton, J.T. 1996. “Marine Bioinvasions: Th e Alteration of Marine Ecosystems by 21 Nonindigenous Species.” Oceanography 9(1): 36–43. 22

Carlton, J.T. 1999. “Quo Vadimus Exotica Ocea nica? Marine Bioinvasion Ecology in the 23 Twenty-First Century.” In Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First National 24 Conference . J. Pederson, ed. Pp. 6–23. Massach usetts Institute of Technology Sea 25 Grant College Program and MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 26

Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in United Stat es Coastal Waters: Environmental 27 Impacts and Management Priorities . Prepared by Williams College and Mystic 28 Seaport for the Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 29

Carlton, J.T. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 30 December 15, 2005. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-8 Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller. 1993. “Eco logical Roulette: The Global Transport of 1 Nonindigenous Marine Organisms.” Science 261: 78–82. 2

Carlton, J. T. and J. Hodder. 1995. “Biogeography of Coastal Marine Organisms: 3 Experimental Studies on a Replica of a Sixteenth Centur y Sailing Vessel.” Marine 4 Biology 121: 721–30. 5

Carlton, J. T. and R. Mann. 1996. “Transfe rs and World-Wide Introductions.” In The 6 Eastern Oyster: Crassostrea virginica. Victor S. Kennedy, Roger I.E. Newell, and 7 Albert F. Eble, eds. Pp. 691–706

. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. 8

CEQ. 1997. “Considering Cumu lative Effects under the Nati onal Environmental Policy 9 Act”. Council on Environmental Quality. January 1997. 10

Cesar, H. 2002. Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program . A joint program of the 11 University of Hawaii and Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. 12 Web site: http://www.hawaii.edu/ssri/hcri. 13

Christensen, J. H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R. K. 14 Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C. G. Menéndez, J. 15 Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Wh etton. 2007: Regional Climate Projections. 16 In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scie nce Basis. Contribution of Working 17 Group I to the Fourth Assessment Repor t of the Intergovernmental Panel on 18 Climate Change Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 19 Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 20 United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 21

Chythlook, M., and P. Coiley. 1994. The Subsistence Use of Beluga Whale in Bristol Bay 22 by Alaska Natives, 1993 . Technical Paper No. 231. Al aska Department of Fish 23 and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau, AK. 24

Cohen, A. N. 1998. Ships’ Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into 25 the San Francisco Estuary. San Franci sco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. 26

Cohen, A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1995. Noni ndigenous Aquatic Species in a United States 27 Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and 28 Delta – Biological Study. Report No. PB96-166525. Final Report to the U.S. 29 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 30

Cohen A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1997. “Transoceanic Transport Mechanisms: The 31 Introduction of the Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis to California.” Pacific 32 Science 51(1): 1–11. 33April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-9 Colgan, C. S. 2003. The Changing Ocean and Coastal Economy of the United States: A 1 Briefing Paper for Conference Participants . Waves of Change: Examining the 2 Role of States in Emerging Ocean Policy, September 3–4, 2003. National 3 Governor’s Association Center fo r Best Practices, Washington, DC. 4

Corn, M. L., E. H. Buck, J. Rawson, and E. Fischer. 1999. Harmful Non-Native Species: 5 Issues for Congress. 6

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 7 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the 8 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 9

Crossett, K., T. J. Culliton, P. Wiley, and T. R. Goodspeed. 2004. Coastal Trends Report 10 Series. Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008 . U.S. 11 Department of Commerce, National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 National Ocean Service, Wash ington, D.C. Web site: 13 http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/progr ams/mb/supp_cstl_population.html. 14

Dalton, Penelope D. “Testimony of Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator For 15 Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheri c Administration, on the Essential Fish 16 Habitat Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 17 Management Act Before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 18 Wildlife and Oceans, Committee On Resources”. March 9, 2000. Web site: 19 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habita tprotection/publication/efh/final%20EFH 20 %20testimony.htm. 21

Davis, C. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 22 December 15, 2005. 23

Deegan, L. A. and R. N. Buchsbaum. 2005. “The effect of habitat loss and degradation on 24 fisheries”. In: The decline of fisheries resource s in New England: Evaluating the 25 impact of overfishing, contami nation, and habitat degradation . R. N. Buchsbaum, 26 W. E. Robinson, and J. Pederson, eds. Pp. 67-96. MIT Sea Grant College 27 Program, Cambridge, MA, MITSG 05-5. 28

Dennis, B., P. L. Munholland, and J. M. Scott. 1991. “Estimation of growth and extinction 29 parameters for endangered species”. Ecological Monographs 61: 115-143. 30

Dickman, M. and F. Zhang. 1999. “Mid-Ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 31 Water. 2: Effects of vessel type in the tr ansport of diatoms and dinoflagellates from 32 Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 33 253-262. 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-10 Dodds, W. K., and B. J. F. Biggs. 2002. “Water Velocity Attenuation by Stream 1 Periphyton and Macrophytes in Relation to Growth Form and Architecture.” 2 Journal of the North Amer ican Benthological Society 21(1): 2–15. Web site: 3 http://www.ksu.edu/doddslab/journalarts/dodds%20and%20biggs%20jnabs%20200 4 2.pdf. 5

Drake, J. A., K. Choi, G. M. Ruiz, and F. C. Dobbs. 2001. “Global Redistribution of 6 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities.” Biological Invasions 3: 193– 7 99. 8

Drake, J A., G. M. Ruiz, B. S. Galil, T. L. Mullady, D. O. Friedmann, and F. C. Dobbs. 9 2002. “Microbial Ecology of Ballast Wate r during a Transoceanic Voyage and the 10 Effects of Open-Ocean Exchange.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 233: 13-20. 11

Drake, J. A., H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. 12 Williamson, eds. 1989. Biological invasions: a global perspective . John Wiley & 13 Sons, New York. 14

Eichold, B. H., J. R. Williamson, C. H. Woer nle, and R. M. McPhearson. 1993. “Isolation 15 of Vibrio cholerae O1 from Oysters – Mobile Bay.” Morbidity and Mortality 16 Weekly Report 42(5): 91–93. 17

Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants . Methuen and Co., 18 Ltd., London. 19

Engel, S. 1995. “Eurasian Watermilfoil as a Fishery Management Tool”. Fisheries 20(3): 20 20-27. 21

EPA. 1994. The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement. 22 EPA, Washington, DC. 23

EPA. 2000. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory . U.S. Environmental Protection 24 Agency. Web site: http://www. epa.gov/305b/2000report/execsum.pdf. 25

EPA. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report . EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research 26 and Development/Office of Water, Wash ington, D.C. September 2001. Web site: 27 http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html. 28

EPA. 2004. America’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water . Washington, 29 D.C. Web site: http://www.epa .gov/owow/wetlands/vital/toc.html. 30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-11 EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Office of 1 Research and Development/Office of Wa ter, Washington, D.C. Web site: 2 http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/index.html. 3

ERS. 2004. Infrastructure and Rural Development Policy , Economic Research 4 Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web site: 5 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Infras tructure/InfrastructureWater.htm 6

FAS. 2005. “U.S. Seafood Imports Continue to Soar.” International Trade Report July 8, 7 2005. U.S. Department of Agricultu re, Foreign Agriculture Service. 8 http://www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/Fish9 Circular/Market_News/I ATR_Seafood_Imports.pdf 10

Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into 11 Inland Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 12 27. U.S. Geological Service, Biological Resources Division, Gainesville, FL. 13

Fuller, P., E. Maynard, and D. Raikow. 2006. Morone americana . USGS Nonindigenous 14 Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. 15 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet .asp?speciesID=777. Revision Date: 16 August 11, 2005. 17

FWS. 2001. 2001 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

. 18 FHW/01-NAT. U.S. Department of the In terior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 19 and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Web site: 20 http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fhw01-us.pdf. 21

FWS. 2003. “Chicago Summit Generates Possible Solutions to Exchange of Harmful 22 Invasive Species in Midwestern Waterway s”. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 Web site: www.fws.gov/midwest/chicago/summit.pdf 24

Gagné, N., A-M. MacKinnon, L. Boston, B. Souter, M. Cook-Versloot, S. Griffiths, and G. 25 Olivier. 2007. “Isolation of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from 26 mummichog, stickleback, striped bass a nd brown trout in eastern Canada.” Journal 27 of Fish Diseases . 30: 213-223. 28

Galil, B. S., and N. Hulsmann. 1997. “Protist Transport via Ballast Water – Biological 29 Classification of Ballast Tanks by Food Web Interactions.” European Journal of 30 Protistology 33: 244–53. 31

GAO. 2000. “Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, 32 Nonnative Species”. U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO/RCED-00- 33 219. GAO, Washington, D.C. 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-12 GAO. 2003. “Great Lakes: An Overall Stra tegy and Indicators fo r Measuring Progress 1 Are Needed to Better Achieve Restor ation Goals”. U.S. Government 2 Accountability Office. GAO-03-515, April 2003. 3

Glassner-Shwayder, K. 1999. “Great Lakes Nonindigenous Invasive Species.” Briefing 4 paper presented at the Great Lakes N onindigenous Invasive Species Workshop, 5 Chicago, IL, October 20–21. 6

GLIFWC. 2004. Lake Superior Indian Fishery . Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 7 Commission, Odanah, WI. 8

GLRC. 2005. A Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes . Draft Action Plan. 9 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of Na tional Significance. U.S. Environmental 10 Protection Agency Great Lakes National Pr ogram Office, Chicago, IL. Web site: 11 http://www.glrc.us/. 12

Graham, W. M., and J. E. Purcell. 2001. “I ntroduction: Social, Economic, and Ecological 13 Issues Involving Jellyfish Blooms. In Jellyfish Blooms: Ecological and Societal 14 Importance, Proceedings of the Inter national Conference on Jellyfish Blooms , J. E. 15 Purcell, W. M. Graham, and H. J. Dum ont, eds. Dordrecht and Boston, Kluwer 16 Academic. 17

Grimes, D. J. 1991. “Ecology of Estuarine Ba cteria Capable of Ca using Human Disease: 18 A Review.” Estuaries 14(4): 345–60. 19

Grozholz, E.D. 2005. “Recent biological inva sion may hasten invasional meltdown by 20 accelerating historical introductions.” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102 (4): 1088-1091. 21

Grosholz, E. D., and G. M. Ruiz 1996. “Pre dicting the Impact of Introduced Marine 22 Species: Lessons form the Multiple I nvasions of the European Green Crab 23 Carcinus maenas .” Biological Conservation 78: 59–66. 24

Grosholz, E. D., G. M. Ruiz, C. A. Dean, K. A. Shirley, J. L. Maron, and P. G. Connors. 25 2000. “The Impacts of a Nonindigenous Ma rine Predator in a California Bay.” 26 Ecology 81(5): 1206–24. 27

Gunderson, J., and G. Kreag. 1991. Estimated Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing 28 on Minnesota Waters of Lake Superior . NSGD# MINNU-G-91-007. Minnesota 29 Sea Grant Program, Duluth, MN. 30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-13 Gustaitis, R. 1998. “Mending the Klamath Watershed.” California Coast and Ocean

. 1 Web site: 2 http://www.ceres.ca.gov/coastalconser vancy/coast&ocean/autumn98/a02.htm. 3

Hallegraeff, G. M. 1993. “A Review of Harm ful Algal Blooms and Their Apparent Global 4 Increase.” Phycologia 32(2): 79–99. 5

Hay, C. H., and D. Tanis. 1998. “Mid-Ocean Ballast Water Exchange: Procedures, 6 Effectiveness, and Verification for BAL9701. Examination of Efficiency of Ballast 7 Water Exchange Practices and Degree of Ship Compliance with NZ Ballast-Water 8 Mandatory Controls and Voluntary Gu idelines”. Cawthron Report No. 468. 9 Prepared by Cawthron Institute and Batte lle for the New Zealand Ministry of 10 Fisheries. 11

Hayes, K. R., and C. L. Hewitt. 1999. “Qua ntitative Biological Risk Assessment of the 12 Ballast Water Vector: An Australian Approach.” In Marine Bioinvasions: 13 Proceedings of the First National Conference . J. Pederson, ed. Pp. 370–86. MIT 14 Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA. 15

Hines, A. H. and G. M. Ruiz. 2000. Biological Invasions of Cold-Water Coastal 16 Ecosystems: Ballast-Mediated Introducti ons in Port Valdez/Prince William Sound, 17 Alaska . Final Project Report. Report to Regi onal Citizens' Advi sory Council of 18 Prince William Sound. 19

Honnell, D., J. D. Madsen, and R. M. Smart. 1992. “Effects of aquatic plants on water 20 quality in pond ecosystems”. Proceedi ngs: 26th Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant 21 Control Research Program. Report A- 92-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 22 Waterways Experiment St ation, Vicksburg, MS. 23

Houston, J.R. 1996. “International Tourism and U.S. Beaches”. Shore and Beach: 24 Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association 64(2): 3-4. 25

Johns, G. M., V. R. Leeworthy, F. W. Bell, and M. A. Bonn. 2003. “Socioeconomic Study 26 of Reefs in Southeast Florida”. Haze n and Sawyer, Final Report for Broward, 27 Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties as Revised on April 18, 2003. 28 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and National Oceanic and 29 Atmospheric Administration. Web site: 30 http://www.marineeconomics.noaa.gov/pubs/welcome.html. 31

Jude, D., E. Stoermer, and T. Johengen. 2002. “Non-Indigenous Species”. In: The Great 32 Lakes: Ecology, Interactions, Impacts, and Future Research Directions. University 33 of Michigan Great Lakes Sy mposium: Our Challenging Future. A Review of the 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-14 State of Great Lakes Research. Michigan SeaGrant. Web site: 1 www.miseagrant.org/symposium. 2

Kates, W. 2002. “Ecology, Economy Feel Imp act as Species Invade Great Lakes.” Great 3 Lakes Article . Great Lakes Environmental Di rectory, Duluth, MN. Web site: 4 http://greatlakesdirectory.org/zartic les/060702_exotic_species.htm. 5

Keast, A. 1984. “The Introduced Aquatic Macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum , as Habitat 6 for Fish and Their MacroinvertebratePprey”. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 7 1289-1303. 8

Knight, I. T., C. S. Wells, B. Wiggins, H. Russel, K. A. Reynolds, and A. Huq. 1999. 9 “Detection and Enumeration of Fecal Indica tors and Pathogens in the Ballast Water 10 of Transoceanic Cargo Vessels Entering the Great Lakes.” Abstract Q-71 in 11 Proceedings of the General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology

. 12 American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 13

Leigh, P. 1998. “Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes 14 Fishery.” Journal of Great Lakes Resources 24(2): 351–60. 15

Locke, A. D., M. Reid, H. C. Van Leeuwe n, W. G. Sprules, and J. T. Carlton. 1993. 16 “Ballast Water Exchange as a Means of Controlling Dispersal of Freshwater 17 Organisms by Ships”. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science . 50: 2086-93. 18

Lloyds Register. 2007. Ballast Water Treatmen t Technology, Current Status. June 2007. 19

Lohrer, A. M., and R. B. Whitlach. (1997). “E cological studies on the recently introduced 20 Japanese Shore Crab ( Hemigrapsus sanguineus ), in Eastern Long Island Sound.” 21 Proceedings of the 2 nd Northeast Conference on N onindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 22 Species. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication CTSG-97-02, 49-60. 23

Lophelia.org. Accessed June 10, 2007. http://www.lophelia.org/ 24

Ludwig, D. 1999. “Is It Meaningful to Estimate a Probability of Extinction?” Ecology 80 25 (1): 298-310. 26

Mack, R. N., D. S. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsda le, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 27 2000. “Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and 28 Control.” Ecological Applications 10(3): 689–710. 29

Mangin, S. 2001. “The 100th Meridian Initiativ e: A Strategic Approach to Prevent the 30 Westward Spread of Zebra Mussels a nd Other Aquatic Nuisance Species.” 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-15 Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1 Service. February 2001. 2

Martin, R., and P. Moy. 2002. “Prevention and Control of Exotic Aquatic Species.” Lake 3 Line 22(1):17–19. 4

Maybee, M. 2001. “Indigenous Peoples Update.” Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat News 5 9(6). http://glhabitat.org/news/glnews171.html. 6

McCann, J. A., L. N. Arkin, and J. D. Williams. 1996. Nonindigenous Aquatic and 7 Selected Terrestrial Species of Florida: Status, Pathway and Time of Introduction, 8 Present Distribution, and Si gnificant Ecological and Economic Effects. Published 9 on the Internet, March 1996, by the Univers ity of Florida, Center for Aquatic 10 Plants, Gainesville. Web site: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/mctitle.html. 11

McCarthy, H. P., and L. B. Crowder. 2000. “An Overlooked Scale of Global Transport: 12 Phytoplankton Species Richne ss in Ballast Water.” Biological Invasions 2: 321–2. 13

McCarthy, S. A., and F. M. Khambaty. 1994. “International Dissemination of Epidemic 14 Vibrio Cholerae by Cargo Ship Ballast and Other Nonpotable Waters.” Applied 15 and Environmental Microbiology 60: 2597-601. 16

McKay, B., and K. Mulvaney. 2001. “A Review of Marine Major Ecological Disturbances 17 (MMEDs).” Endangered Species UPDATE 18(1):14–24. 14 Jan. 2003. 18

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, C. L. Secor. 1993. “Exotic Species in the Great 19 Lakes: A History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions”. Journal of 20 Great Lakes Research 19(1): 1-54. 21

Mooney, H. A. and J. A. Drake. 1986. Ecology of Biological Inva sions of North America 22 and Hawaii . Springer-Verlag, New York. 23

Morris, W. and D. Doak. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice 24 of Population Viability Analysis. Sina uer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 25

MSGP. 2004. “Superior Pursuit: Facts about the Greatest Great Lake”. Minnesota Sea 26 Grant Program, Duluth, MN. Web site: 27 http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/tourism/pursuit.html. 28

Naddafi, R., K. Pettersson, and P. Eklöv. 2007. “The Effect of Seasonal Variation in 29 Selective Feeding by Zebra Mussels ( Dreissena polymorpha ) on phytoplankton 30 community composition.” Freshwater Biology . 52: 823-842. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-16 NatureServe. Explorer. http ://www.natureserve.org/explorer 1

NMFS. No date. “Marine Mammals.” h ttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. 2 Accessed 11 July 11, 2007. 3

NMFS. 2003a. Statistical Highlights: Fisherie s of the United States, 2003. U.S. 4 Department of Commerce, NOAA. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries 5 Statistics and Economics Di vision, Silver Spring, MD. 6

NMFS. 2003b. Sustaining and Rebuilding. NMFS 2003 Re port to Congress. The Status of 7 United States Fisheries . U.S. Department of Comme rce, NOAA. National Marine 8 Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. Web site: 9 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffish eries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.pdf. 10

NMFS. 2006a. National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, 11 Fisheries and Economics. Web site: 12 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconectio 13 ns/num5.htm. Accessed: March 16. 2006. 14

NMFS. 2006b. National Marine Fisheries Servi ce. Habitat Protection Division. Essential 15 Fish Habitat (EFH). Web site: 16 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatp rotection/efh/index.htm. Accessed: 17 March 16, 2006. 18

NOAA. 1995. Setting a New Course for United Stat es Coastal Ocean Science. Phase I: 19 Inventory of Federal Programs . U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 20 and Atmospheric Admini stration, Washington, DC. 21

NOAA. 2002. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 22 Associated States: 2002 . U.S. Department of Co mmerce, National Oceanic and 23 Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal 24 Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 25

NOAA. 2003. National Marine Sanctuaries . Web site: http://san ctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/. 26

NOAA. 2004a. GLERL Nonindigenous Species Research Program . U.S. Department of 27 Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration. Great Lakes 28 Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), Ann Arbor, MI. Web site: 29 http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/nsmain.html. 30

NOAA. 2004b. International Year of the Oce an Fact Sheets: Coastal Tourism . U.S. 31 Department of Commerce. National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-17 National Ocean Service/National Sea Gran t Program, Silver Spring, MD. Web 1 site: http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/ facts/tourism.htm. 2

NOAA. 2007. Current State of Understanding About the Effectiveness of Ballast Water 3 Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) 4 Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and 5 Analysis of Existing Information. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142. 6 Ruiz, G.M. and Reid, D.F., eds. 7

NOEP. 2004. California: 1999–2000 State Summary of Coastal and Ocean Social and 8 Economic Trends . National Ocean Economic Program , California State University 9 at Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA. Web site: 10 http://noep.csumb.edu/Download/statesum/CalSummary.pdf. 11

NRC. 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas . National Research Council. 12 National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 13

NRC. 1996. Stemming the Tide – Controlli ng Introductions of N onindigenous Species by 14 Ships’ Ballast Water. National Research Council. National Academy Press, 15 Washington, DC. 16

NSRE. 2000. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000: Project 17 Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 and 2010. U.S. Department of 18 Commerce, NOAA. National Survey on Recr eation and the Environment. Silver 19 Spring, MD. Web site: 20 http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NS RE/projection_exec_sum.pdf. 21

Nybakken, J. W. 1993. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. Harper Collins, New 22 York. 23

O'Neill, C. R., Jr. 1997. Economic Impact of Zebra Mussels – Results of the 1995 24 National Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse Study. New York Sea Grant 25 Institute. 26

ORHAB. 2004. HAB Impacts on Washington Coast . Olympic Region Harmful Algal 27 Blooms. Web site: http://www .orhab.org/impacts/index.html. 28

OTA. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. U.S. Congress Office 29 of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC. 30

Pew. 2003. “America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. A Report to 31 the Nation: Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy”. Pew Oceans 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-18 Commission. May 2003. Web site: 1 http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_o ceans_final_report_summary.pdf. 2

Pimentel, D. L., R. Z. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. “Environmental and 3 Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States”. BioScience 4 50(1): 53-65. 5

Randall, A. and H. Gollamudi. 2001. “Dea ling with the Analyt ical Challenges of 6 Valuation: Aquatic Nuisance Species Control”. In: Revealing the Value of 7 Protecting the Great Lakes . Northeast Midwest Instit ute and National Oceanic and 8 Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, pp.157-166. 9

Reynolds, K. A., I. T. Knight, C. S. Wells, I. L. Pepper, and C. P. Gerba. 1999. “Detection 10 of Human Pathogenic Protozoa and Viruse s in Ballast Water Using Conventional 11 and Molecular Methods.” Abstract Q- 318. General Meeting of the American 12 Society for Microbiology, Chicago, IL. 13

Ricciardi, A. 2001. “Facilitative Interactions Among Aquatic Invaders: Is an ‘Invasional 14 Meltdown’ Occurring in the Great Lakes?” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513- 15 2525. 16

Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. “Extinction Rates of North American 17 Freshwater Fauna.” Conservation Biology 13(5):1220–2. 18

Rigby, G. R. and G. M. Hallegraeff. 1993. “S hipping Ballast Water Trials on the Bulk 19 Carrier M.V. Iron Whyalla”

. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Ballast 20 Water Research Series. Australian Govern ment Publishing Service. Report No. 2. 21 Canberra. 22

Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton. 2003. “Invasion Vectors: A Conceptual Framework for 23 Management”. In: Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies , G. M. 24 Ruiz and J. T. Carlton, eds. Pp. 459-504. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 25

Ruiz, G.M., P. W. Fofonoff, J. T. Car lton, M. J.Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000a. 26 “Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America: Apparent Patterns, 27 Processes, and Biases.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics . 31: 481-531. 28

Ruiz, G. M., T. K. Rawlings, F. C. Dobbs, L. A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R. R. 29 Colwell. 2000b. “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships.” Nature 408: 49– 30 50. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-19 Ruiz, G. M., J. T. Carlton, E. Grosholz, and A. Hines. 1997. “Global Invasions of Marine 1 and Estuarine Habitats by Nonindige nous Species: Mechanisms, Extent, and 2 Consequences.” American Zoologist 37: 621–32. 3

Ruiz, G. M., A. W. Miller, R. A. Everett, a nd B. P. Steves. In prep. “Hull Fouling as a 4 Vector for Marine Invasions: A Biogeographical Analysis of Ship Arrival Patterns 5 in the United States”. 6

Sanders, N. J., N. J. Gotelli, N. E. Heller, and D. M. Gordon. 2003. “Community 7 Disassembly by an Invasive Species”. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 100 (5): 2474-2477. 8

Schardt, J. and J. Ludlow. 2000. “Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in 9 Florida Public Waters”. Aquatics 22(1): 9-13. 10

Smith, L. D., M. J. Wonham, L. D. McCann, D. M. Reid, G. R. Ruiz, and J. T. Carlton. 11 1996. Shipping Study II: Biological Invasions by Nonindigenous Species in United 12 States Waters: Quantifying the Role of Ballast Water and Sediments, Parts I and II

. 13 Final Report of National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project 14 R/ES-6 to Department of Transportati on, United States Coast Guard. Report No. 15 CG-D-02-97. Government Accession No. AD-A321543. 16

Solow, A. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 17 December 15, 2005. 18

Stachowitz, J., J. Terwin, R. Whitlach, and R. Osman. 2002. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99 19 (24):15497-15500. 20

Strayer, D. L. and H. M. Malcolm. 2007. “Effects of Zebra Mussels ( Dreissena 21 polymorpha ) on Native Bivalves: The Beginning of th e End or the End of the Beginning?” 22 J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc ., 26(1): 111-122. 23

Taylor, M. D. and E. J. Bruce. 2000. “Mid -Ocean Ballast Water Exchange: Shipboard 24 Trials of Methods for Verifying Efficien cy”. Prepared by Cawthron Institute and 25 Battelle for the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Cawthron Report No. 524. 26

TOC. 2003. “The Shifting Baseline Syndrome”. The Ocean Conservancy. Web site: 27 http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/Doc Server/fsShiftingBaselines.pdf?docID=2 28 10. 29

Tomelleri, J.R., and Eberle, M.E. 1990. Fishes of the Central United States . University 30 Press of Kansas. 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-20 US Census Bureau. 2005. Statistical Ab stract of the Unite d States: 2004-2005. 1 Washington, DC. 2

USCG. 2000. “National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Regulations and Policy 3 for Considering Environmental Impacts.” U.S. Coast Guard. COMDTINST 4 M16475.1D. U.S. Department of Tr ansportation, USCG, Washington, DC. 5 November 29, 2000. 6

USCG. 2001. “Report to Congress on the Volunt ary National Guidelines for Ballast Water 7 Management”. USCG, Washington D.C. 8

USCG. 2003. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water Management 9 Program for United States Waters. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 10 Washington, DC. 11

USCG. 2008. Standards for Livi ng Organisms in Ship’s Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. 12 Waters: Final Draft Regulatory Analysis for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.U.S. 13 Department of Homeland S ecurity, USCG, Washington, DC. 14

USCOP. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century . Final Report. U.S. Commission 15 on Ocean Policy. Washington, DC . 2004. ISBN#0–9759462–0–X. Web site: 16 http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report 17 .pdf. 18

USDA. 2006. “Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia : Emerging Disease Notice.” July 2006. 19 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs /ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseas enotice_files/vhsgreatlak 20 es.htm. 21

USGS. 1999. “Status and Trends of the Natio n’s Biological Resources ”. U.S. Geological 22 Survey. Web site: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/index.htm. 23

USGS. 2004a. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species . U.S. Geological Service. Web site: 24 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. 25

USGS. 2004b. Eurasian Ruffe . U.S. Geological Service. Upper Midwest Environmental 26 Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI. Web site: 27 http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/eurasian_ruffe.html. 28

USGS. 2005. “Nonindigenous Species Informati on Bulletin. Asian Shore Crab, Japanese 29 Shore Crab, Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan) (Arthropoda: 30 Grapsidae)”. U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, FISC, Aquatic Resource 31 Studies, Gainesville, FL. Web site: 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-21 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Speci es/Asian_shore_crab /asian_shore_crab 1 .html. 2

USGS. 2006. Nonindigenous Species Database. U.S. Geological Service. Web site: 3 http://nas.er.usgs.gov. 4

USPC. 2002. Great Lakes Strategy 2002 – A Plan for the New Millennium . U.S. Policy 5 Committee for the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Washington, D.C. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/. 7

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 2001. Oversight Hearing to Receive Testimony 8 on the Goals and Priorities of the Member Tribes of the Midwest Alliance of 9 Sovereign Tribes/Intertribal Bison Coopera tive for the 107th Congress. Testimony 10 of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippe wa Indians Concerning Natural Resource 11 Issues. June 19, 2001. 12

Vitousek, P. M., L. R. Walker, L. D. Whit eaker, D. Mueller-Dombois, and P. A. Matson. 13 1987. “Biological Invasion by Myrica faya Alters Ecosystem Development in 14 Hawaii.” Science : 238: 802-804. 15

Wilcove, D. S., and L. Y. Chen. 1998. “M anagement Costs for Endangered Species

. ” 16 Conservation Biology 12(6): 1405–7. 17

Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 2003. “Fre shwater mussels: a neglected and declining 18 aquatic resource”. Web site: http:/ /biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/f076.htm - 15629 19

Williams, R. J., E .L. Berlow, J. A. Dunne, A- L. Barabási, and N. D. Martinez. 2002. 20 “Two degrees of Separation in Complex Food Webs”. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99(20): 21 12913-12916. 22

Wonham, M .J., W. C. Walton, A. M. Frese, and G. M. Ruiz. 1996. “Transoceanic 23 Transport of Ballast Water: Biological and Physical Dynamics of Ballasted 24 Communities and the Effectiveness of Mid-Ocean Exchange”. Technical Report. 25 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Foundation and the Compton Foundation. (p. 42). 26

Wonham, M. J., W. C. Walton, G. M. Ruiz, A. M. Frese, and B. S. Galil. 2001. “Going to 27 the Source: Role of the Invasion Pathway in Determining Potential Invaders.” 28 Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 1–12. 29

Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. “Mid-Ocean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 30 Water. 1: Seasonal Factors Affecting the Transport of Harmful Diatoms and 31 Dinoflagellates”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 243-25. 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

6-22 Zo, Y., C. Grimm, M. Matte, G. Matte, I. T. Knight, A. Huq, and R. R. Colwell. 1999. 1 “Detection and Enumeration of Pathoge nic Bacteria in Ballast Water of 2 Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resistance to Common 3 Antibiotics.” Abstract Q-317. General Meeting of the American Society for 4 Microbiology, Chicago, IL. 5April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-1 

## APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL 1 

## METHODOLOGY, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-2 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2

LIST OF TABLES 3 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 4

2.0 A QUATIC NIS INVASION PROCESS 7 5

2.1 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of NIS 10 6

3.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC 7

NIS IMPACTS 13 8

3.1 Evaluation Criteria 13 9

3.2 Analytical Methodol ogies Initially Considered 14 10

4.0 RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 21 11

4.1 Rationale for Selection of Population Viability Analysis 12

as the Preferred Analytical Methodology 21 13

4.2 Description of Populat ion Viability Analysis and 14

Application to the Analysis of the NEPA Alternatives 23 15

4.3 Discussion and Limitations of Population Viability 16

Analysis 26 17

5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 28 18

5.1 Single Species Scenario 28 19

5.2 Multiple Species Scenario 34 20

5.3 Conclusions 40 21

6.0 REFERENCES 42 22

7.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 45 23

24April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-3 

### LIST OF TABLES 1

Table 5-1: Values of f

(factor m easuring the reduction in the initial popula tion size of NIS) 2 for each size class of organisms. .................................................................................... 31 3

Table 5-2: Extinction probabilities ( P e ) for selected values of c (biological parameter) and 4 density of organisms. ..................................................................................................... 33 5

Table 5-3: Range of values of f

e ( extinction probability factor f e = f -c ) for Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 4, for the values of c (Table 5-2) and f (Table 5-1) used in the analysis of 7 alternatives. ................................................................................................................. ... 33 8

Table 5-4: Range of values of f

r (mean rate of successful introductions relative to the 9 baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c and f used in the analysis ..... 34 10

Table 5-5: Estimated percentage of ships that would be affected by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 11

com pared to the baseline Alternatives 1A ( no action) and 1B (bal last water exchange). 12

.............................................................................................................................. .......... 38 13

Table 5-6: Estimated quartiles, mean, and stan dard deviation of the tota l initial number of 14 organisms released (N 0 (m)) in a single ballast water discharge for the Alternative 15 management options. Values for Alternatives 1A (“no action”), 1B (ballast exchange), 16 and 2 (the IMO standard) from Minton et al., 2005. ...................................................... 39 17

Table 5-7: Ordered relative abundances of 12 species under the geom etric model (12). j π = 18 the relative proportion of the total ab undance comprised by each species. ................... 40 19

Table 5-8: The probability q(m) that at leas t one species is su ccessfully introduced for each 20 ballast water management option assuming the median value of ) ( 0 mN from Table 5- 21 6, the relative abundances in Table 5-7, and for N e = 1, 100 and c = 0.000008, 0.00008. 22

.............................................................................................................................. .......... 41 23

Table 5-9: Relative efficiencies of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for N e = 1, 100 using ‘no 24 management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines, from values in Table 5-8. ....... 42 25

26

27April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-4 

## 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

This report was prepared to provide the te chnical foundation for the Draft Programmatic 2 Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) develo ped in support of the United States Coast 3 Guard (USCG) Ballast Water Di scharge Standard (BWDS) rulemaking. The USCG is the 4 lead Federal agency in preventing the intr oduction and spread of nonindigenous species 5 (NIS) via shipping activi ties in U.S. waters. As such, th e USCG is proposing to establish a 6 BWDS that is effective in preventing or reducing the introduction a nd spread of NIS via 7 discharged ballast water. A major pathway for the introduction of NIS is ballast water 8 discharged from vessels entering U.S. waters after operating in forei gn waters. In cases 9 where they invade native ecosystems, NIS can alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and 10 biodiversity, impact commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, 11 result in potential risks to human health, a nd generally cause detrimental economic impacts 12 (USCG 2003). 13

To satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance requirements in 14 relation to the proposed BWDS rulemaking for NIS in ships’ ballast water, the USCG is in 15 the process of preparing a DPEIS. The USCG will use the DPEIS to make an informed 16 decision in relation to the BWDS rulema king and to fully understand the national 17 implications of the decision. The DPEIS pres ents the alternatives developed by the USCG 18 as part of the BWDS rulemaking process and addresses their potential consequences on the 19 natural and human environments. The alternatives considered in this DPEIS relate to the 20 development of a national program to aid in th e prevention and reduction of the introduction 21 of NIS from BWD into U.S. waters. The pur pose of the DPEIS is to identify the potential 22 environmental impacts from the concentrations of living organisms remaining in discharged 23 ballast water that meet the BWDS prescribed und er each alternative. Therefore, the analysis 24 of potential impacts is based on the changes in th e concentrations of organisms in BWD. 25

The implementation of a BWDS for preventing or reducing the introduc tion of aquatic NIS 26 involves two levels of environmental impact c onsideration: (1) an evaluation of aquatic NIS 27 introduction and associated potential conse quences; and (2) the potential environmental 28 impacts from the particular management method s used to meet the established standard. 29 This Technical Report only addr esses the first level of environmental imp act consideration. 30 It does not consider the poten tial impacts associated with the implementation of BWT 31 technologies and methods to meet the BWDS implemented (including chemical residuals, 32 reaction by-products, thermal po llution, energy use, and dockside impacts). Thus, the NEPA 33 alte rnatives considered in this DPEIS di ffer only in their respective reduction in the 34 concentration of individual organisms introduced. 35

The technical report will assess feasible an alytical methodologies fo r the evaluation of the 36 potential consequences to the natural and hum an environments of th e NEPA alternatives 37 analyzed in the DPEIS and recommend a pref erred approach for performing the analysis, 38 and describe the results and conclusions of the analysis. As explained in detail below, the 39 high degree of complexity of aquatic ecosystems, the limited knowledge of the ecological 40 interactions taking place in them , and the large variability in volved in the transport of 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-5 aquatic organisms via ballast water, make it extremely difficult to predict which NIS are 1 introduced, which may become established, and especially, which may have adverse effects 2 on the ecosystems they invade. Thus, a scien tifically valid approach (e.g., evidence of 3 historical applications and validation) that uses the best available sc ience and data (within 4 reasonable resource constraints) and allows for the evaluation and comparison of the 5 potential consequences of the NEPA alternatives presented in the DPEIS is needed, in order 6 to provide a useful tool for the USCG in the decision-making process. This technical report 7 provides the technical support for the USCG to select a valid and defensible analytical 8 approach and analyzes the impacts of th e BWDS rulemaking on the natural and human 9 environments. 10

The Volpe Center and Dr. Andrew Solow, Seni or Scientist and Dire ctor of the Marine 11 Policy Center at the Woods Hole Oceanogr aphic Institution de veloped the proposed 12 environmental analysis methodology. Dr. Solow is an expert in the fiel ds of environmental 13 statistics, ecological modeling, and statistical ecology. A scie ntist review team, composed 14 of Dr. James Carlton, Director of the Mari time Studies Program of Williams College and 15 Mystic Seaport and Professor of Marine Sciences at Williams College; Dr. David Smith, 16 Associate Professor of Biological Sciences at Smith College; and Dr. Cabell Davis, Senior 17 Scientist of the Biology Department at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, reviewed 18 this work. All of these sc ientists are internationally recognized for their significant 19 contributions to the fields of marine bioinvasions, ballast wa ter transport of NIS, and the 20 dynamics of plankton assemblages. The comme nts provided by the scientist review team 21 were addressed and incorporated, and a re vised environmental analysis methodology was 22 developed and provided to the USCG and the co operating agencies for review and comment. 23 The agency comments were incorporated, and the proposed environmental analysis 24 methodology was presented to the USCG. 25

The Volpe Center and Dr. Solow developed th e analysis, results, a nd conclusions of the 26 selected methodology, including the implementation of the model selected for the analysis. 27 This work constitutes the main components of this technical report, which was also 28 evaluated by the scientist re view team, the USCG, and coope rating agencies. In addition, 29 Dr. Carlton Hunt, Senior Sc ientist at Battelle Science and Technology International, 30 reviewed the methodology, analysis, results, and conclusions. Dr. Hunt has extensive 31 experience in marine resources and NEPA compliance. A ll r elevant and practicable 32 comments from the reviewers were addressed an d incorporated, with the aim of enhancing 33 the work and its presentation. This comprehe nsive approach allowed the USCG to develop 34 a scientifically defensible methodology to support the analysis of the NE PA alternatives in 35 the DPEIS. 36

Section 2 of this technical re port provides an overview of th e aquatic NIS invasion process 37 and a review of the current stat e of scientific knowledge rega rding the prediction of aquatic 38 NIS invasions and its associated impacts. This background informa tion provides important 39 context for evaluating the analy tical methodologies considered. The next section presents a 40 summary of the criteria and process used to evaluate the different methodological 41 approaches considered, the approaches evaluate d, and descriptions of their conceptual and 42April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-6 practical advantages and limitations. The potenti al applicability of the approaches to the 1 analysis of the NEPA altern atives is highlighted. 2

Based on the evaluation of the approaches considered, Sectio n 4 of the technical report 3 describes the analytical methodology recommen ded for use in support of the analysis 4 presented in the DPEIS. This includes a descri ption of the rationale fo r the selection of the 5 recommended methodology, and the way in which it allows analysis an d differentiation of 6 the levels of potential impacts under the NE PA alternatives. The description of the 7 recommended analytical methodol ogy includes a summary of th e theoretical approach and 8 general assumptions, the data used, and the ma in advantages and limitations. Then, in 9 Section 5 the technical report presents the resu lts obtained from the analysis, which are the 10 basis for the interpretation and conclusions pr esented in the Environmental Consequences 11 Chapter of the DPEIS. Finally, Section 6 pres ents the references used for preparing the 12 document and the scientific li terature researched for eval uating alternative methodological 13 approaches, selecting the recommended approach, and performing the analysis. 14

15

16April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-7 

## 2.0 AQUATIC NIS INVASION PROCESS 1

This section provides a brief summary of th e scientific understandi ng of the aquatic NIS 2 invasion process. It highli ghts the factors and events re lated to the introduction and 3 successful establishment of aquatic NIS transpor ted by a vector (e.g., ballast water). For the 4 purposes of the DPEIS, the analysis focuses on the transport of individual organisms in 5 ballast water and release into a new location (introduction), and the evaluation of whether 6 these individuals provide the basis for successful population growth and survival 7 (establishment). 8

NIS introduction occurs when a species survives transport by a vector and is released into a 9 new environment. Establishment occurs when the introduced species reproduces and 10 spreads in its new environment. Thus, in simp le terms, it is assumed that NIS are introduced 11 when individual organisms are transported in ballast water and released into a new, non12 native, location, whereas estab lishment occurs when introduced NIS establish a viable 13 population. Impacts occur when an introduced species establishes a population that alters 14 the ecology, food web, or fisheries, or ot herwise disrupts the natural ecosystem or 15 socioeconomics of an environment or region. 16

Many factors affect the survival, spread, and proliferation of introduced species, including 17 basic climatic factors and food resources, the na ture of the reproductive biology of a species, 18 and the presence or absence of competitors, predators, a nd parasites (Carlton 1996). The 19 dispersal of introduced NIS occurs through vectors 9 – the physical means or agent for 20 transporting a species. In broad terms, the su ccessful estab lishment of NIS involves seven 21 sequential events, each having an associated pr obability of occurrence : (1) interface of 22 species with transport vector; (2) vector take- up (engaging) of specific species; (3) survival 23 of the transport even t; (4) release from v ector; (5) initial surv ival upon release; (6) 24 establishment of first repr oducing population; and (7) es tablishment of long-term 25 reproducing populations. 26

Each of these events is briefly described be low, in a summary largely drawn from Carlton 27 (1985). Some of these events may not be dir ectly relevant to the discussion of potential 28 impacts of BWDSs in this DPEIS, but they help in presenting the overall context of the NIS 29 invasion process: 30

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 impor tant 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. Probability of interfacing with transport vector – species in the water column may or 1 may not be immediately adjacent to the ve ssel at the moment the vessel is in a 2 position to engage the local biota by drawing in ballast water. There is large 3 temporal and spatial variability (determined by currents, tides, temperatures, salinity, 4 stochastic events such as storms, as well as random probability) of the probability of 5 interfacing with the tr ansport vector, which can change within minutes to hours (as 6 well as seasonally and annually ). This temporal and sp atial variability of the 7 probability of interface determines which sp ecies are or are not in the available 8 species pool for transport to a different location. 9

2. Probability of transport vect or engaging specific species – only a subset of the pool 10 of available species immediately next to the vessel are actually take n into the vessel. 11 That is, being adjacent to the ship and with in the effective zone of a vessel’s ballast 12 water intake at the time of ballasting does not necessarily result in uptake. For 13 example, species such as some shrimp and fish actively detect a water current (like 14 the one created by the uptake of ballast water) and swim away from it. In addition, 15 other species may not be engaged in the wate r flow as readily as others, even when 16 acting as passive particles (e .g., planktonic organisms), due to their size, shape, or 17 relative density. 18

3. Probability of surviving the transport event – a substantial number of factors interact 19 to determine the probability of a transported species surviv ing before being released. 20 For example, the uptake pro cess (including injury due to physical contact with the 21 ship and its systems), light, temperatur e, salinity, oxygen, food, voyage duration, and 22 other variables during transport all play an important role. Given the fact that there 23 are thousands of species being transported in ballast water, it is particularly difficult 24 to characterize the probabilities, except in very broad term s (i.e., the large variability 25 in terms of the type of organisms entraine d as well as the physical conditions in the 26 ballast water, creates both ‘s pecies specific’ and ‘voyage specific’ probabilities). 27

4. Probability of being released – not all spec ies tra nsported are released; for example, 28 organisms in a ballast tank may not leave th e ballast tank, if not all of the water is 29 discharged, or if the organisms in question are fouling species that attach themselves 30 to the inside of the tank or imbed in the sediment that collects in the ballast tank. 31 Organisms in a ballasted cargo hold are alwa ys either fully discharged (since the 32 cargo now replaces 100% of the ballast water) or die in transport (organisms that 33 have settled on the cargo hold walls die of exposure, desiccation, or smothering by 34 the cargo) (Carlton 2005). It is important to distinguish between these two different 35 ballast systems (ballast tank and ballastab le cargo hold) because of the long-term 36 potential of ballast water in ballast tanks to not result in complete release after each 37 voyage, which can then lead to colonies of living organisms in ballast tanks that 38 remain there for a considerable period of time. These organisms could essentially re39 seed the ship with larvae or other propagul es, and pose a risk fo r future introductions 40 even without new ballasting. 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-9 5. Probability of initial survival upon release – regardless of inoculum size (the number 1 of released individuals of any life stage) , most released species (and perhaps all 2 released species for most discharge events) do not survive after re lease. In addition, 3 the discharge process can also result in injury to tr ansported organisms due to 4 physical contact with the ship systems. The scientific community does not have a 5 complete understanding of the reasons for this, although some of the many potential 6 causes include post-transpor t physiological w eakness, post-transport starvation, 7 physiological mismatch with the new environment once released, predation 8 (consumption) at the release site, and compe tition with the resident biota. Over the 9 decades, numerous vessels arriving in U.S. coastal waters have discharged millions 10 of organisms (e.g., diatoms, copepods, worm larvae), which have appear to result in 11 relatively few invasions. This fact is interpreted by the scientific community as the 12 result of failure of initial survival. Howe ver, there is no certainty in this, as many 13 other factors could be coming into play, including: many of the organisms could 14 have survived but not reproduced, and th erefore failed to establish permanent 15 populations; invasions could simply be overlooked for abundant, but poorly studied 16 organisms and as such not recognized as invaders (seriously skewing our 17 appreciation of the extent of invasions) ; or some established species that are 18 considered rare may have population levels so low that they are below our ability to 19 detect them without targeted searches. 20

6. Probability of establishing the firs t reproducing population – as a general 21 proposition, the probability that a species reproduces and becomes successfully 22 established is positively related to the number of individual organisms that are 23 introduced. Thus, the number of organism s of a particular species released via 24 ballast water is a potentially important determinant of the probability that a 25 population establishes its first reproducing population. However, it is important to 26 highlight that the probability that an i noculum may result in an established 27 population may also be largely dependent on dilution of the inoculum, 28 hydrodynamics of water flow, and local micr otopographic features, which affect the 29 distribution of introduced organisms in the new environment. Those factors affect 30 the ability to reproduce by influencing the probability that organisms of the same 31 species interact with each other. Howeve r, there are a number of life stages and 32 sexual and asexual reproductive modes whic h may characterize organisms in BW. 33 For example, the presence of ovigerous fem ales, bacteria, and spore-releasing 34 organisms can result in elevated reproductive potential of the species in the receiving 35 waters and is independent of th e number of organisms released. 36

7. Probability of establishing long-term reproducing populations – the establishment of 37 long-term reproducing populations is depende nt on a wide range of biological and 38 physical variables. In addition, it is impor tant to note that there is no scientific 39 consensus about the meaning of "long-term " reproducing populations. For example, 40 there are many scientists who, observing a ne w invader with multiple populations in 41 a specific ecosystem and with multiple generations represented, argue that sampling 42 needs to be conducted some time in the future (5 or 10 years) to verify whether the 43 species is still present before concluding th at long-term establishment has occurred. 44April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-10 For the purposes of this DPEIS, it is assume d that when a species is widespread, with 1 multiple generations in a specific ecosystem, it is established. However, it is 2 important to clarify that established reproducing populati ons may go extinct at some 3 time in the future. 4

While each event is important and must be real ized for invasion success, the most critical 5 event for prevention of invasions is release. If the numbers released are sufficiently low that 6 establishment does not occur the invasion is prevented. 7



### 2.1 Predicting Invasion and Potential Impacts of NIS 8

Biological and physical interactions in aqua tic ecosystems are highly complex. Aquatic 9 organisms are not static, isolated entities that merely occupy space in the water column or 10 the benthic environment of aquatic ecosyste ms; they interact dynamically with their 11 physical, chemical, and biological environment as components of an ecosystem. In addition, 12 there is very limited information about the biol ogy and ecology of the majority of aquatic 13 species. The BWDS rulemaking is national in na ture and thus applicable to widely diverse 14 aquatic ecosystems throughout the U.S., thus incr easing the relevance of the limitations of 15 our knowledge for analyzing the alternatives in the DPEIS. These limitations, together with 16 the variability involved in the transport of a quatic organisms via ballast water, makes it 17 extremely difficult to predict which NIS from a potential pool of thousands of species are 18 likely to be delivered, which NIS are likely to become successfully established, and which 19 NIS are likely to significantly affect the invaded ecosystems. 20

The introduction and establishment of species in to a new environment is so complex and full 21 of variability and uncertainty, th at it has been called “a game of ecological roulette” (Carlton 22 and Geller 1993). The complexities associat ed with – and the limited knowledge of – the 23 invasion process make predicting which organi sms arrive, their orig in, the time of their 24 arrival, and whether they survive, persist, spread, and proliferate, an exceptionally 25 challenging problem. 26

Invasion rates vary dramatically with region an d propagule delivery (vector) history. One of 27 the main factors to be considered in the cu rrent context is the la rge variability in the 28 densities of organisms transpor ted via ballast water. Sampli ng studies show that organism 29 densities in ballast water can ra nge from very low (as little as 1 individual per cubic meter) 30 to very high (thousands per cubic mete r) (Carlton 2001, Cohen 1998). Low observed 31 densities are generally associated with sampling schemes targeting multicellular forms or 32 larger protists. In many cases, however, the bacterial and viral components may exist in 33 higher concentrations. Furthermore, the poten tial number of organisms released by a given 34 vessel could be considerable depending on the total amount of BW discharged. In addition, 35 survival varies greatly in transits. However, in general, the longe r the voyage, the more 36 organisms die. Exceptions are species that repr oduce in situ in the water column or that 37 reproduce from the ballast benthic communities and shed larvae into the water column, and 38 organisms that go into a resist ant or dormant stage such as dinoflagellates cysts that can 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-11 persist in the sediments when stressful c onditions are intolerable for vegetative or 1 reproductive stages. 2

The extinction threshold (or conversely, the minimum number of organisms necessary for 3 successful establishment) is unknown for most species under most conditions. For many 4 organisms, the initial population sizes requi red for successful establishment upon release 5 may be much lower than generally predicte d. In theory, even a single organism, if 6 monoecious, hermaphroditic, or parthenogenic, could establish a successful population. 7 Many species that have such cycles have been found to be capable of successful 8 establishment (Sakai et al. 2001) because they only need one individual to invade a new 9 environment (Davis 2005). Thus, it is very difficult to determine whether a very small 10 initial population size or a very large one led to su ccessful establishment of a particular NIS. 11

Understanding this would require detailed knowledge of the precise life stage of the specific 12 species in question that would be released, in what numbers, into what ecosystem, and with 13 what hydrodynamic 10 conditions at the moment of release. Unfortunately, (most of the time, 14 for most species, for most release events, at most places), only limited information is 15 available, thus limiting the possibility of providing a more definitive assessment of the 16 probability of invasion (Carlton 2005). It foll ows from the discussion above (e.g., in theory 17 even a single organism of a particular species can lead to successful establishment) that it is 18 impossible to accurately predic t whether individuals of unknown species in a given vessel 19 on a given voyage will become successfully established when released in a new 20 environment, or go extinct. 21

An additional complicating factor is that a large number of species are not studied to 22 determine their potential invasive capacity in a new environment. Some of the main 23 ecological factors that determine the invasive capacity of organisms in a new environment 24 include niche availability, lack of pr edation, resource abundance, and competitive 25 advantage. 26

For example, the shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus is of no particular concern in its native 27 Asia, but it became a highly invasive species (with significant ecological impacts) when 28

10 In invasive species ecology, the "lagoonal hypothesis" ar gues 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 rel ease the individuals become so dispersed that the organisms do not locate each other to reproduce (not applicable to asexually reproducing speci es) 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 introduced to the U.S. Atlantic coast in the 1980s. In the 19 years since its discovery at 1 Cape May, NJ in 1988, it has spread and can now be found in large numbers from Maine to 2 the Carolinas. Further, detailed studies in Japan reveal that this crab is strictly a rocky shore 3 (intertidal) species in its nativ e range. However, on the U.S. Atlantic coast, it has become 4 established in no fewer than five different habi tats (USGS 2006). This was not a predictable 5 outcome; thus, the invasion potential and imp act of this species (and potentially many 6 others) was not predictable from knowledge of its biol ogy and ecology in its native 7 environment (Carlton 2005). 8

The context provided above sets the broader stage of the inva sion process, and summarizes 9 the variables that need to be considered to analyze the alternativ es and their potential 10 implications. It is important to clarify that, while (in general) the li kelihood that any given 11 individual of a particular species might go th rough all the steps prev iously described and 12 become successfully established in the long-te rm is quite low, the likelihood that a vessel 13 will release live organisms from ballast water is high. 14

Current scientific knowledge make s predicting the fate of even a single population for even 15 well studied organisms a very challenging probl em. Indeed, Ludwig (1999) has argued that 16 it is essentially impossible. The problem is even more challenging in the context of 17 assessing the aggregate effect of the BWDSs (specified under th e alternatives) on the rate at 18 which NIS are introduced and become established in U.S. waters. This is because the 19 populations of concern are diffi cult to identify and not we ll-studied. Predicting the 20 ecological or economic impacts of NIS that su ccessfully become established is even more 21 challenging because cause and effect relationshi ps would need to be established and well22 defined (Carlton 2001) and the cu rrent poorly resolved state of scientific knowledge makes 23 the latter very difficult. It is important to clarify that the difficulty lies in the prediction of 24 which species will become established and the nature and extent of their subsequent 25 impacts, even if the likelihood of orga nisms being released is considerable. 26

Management measures aimed at reducing the numb er of organisms released are implicitly or 27 explicitly aimed at reducing the probability that a population will become established or, 28 equivalently, increasing the probability that the relatively small initial population will 29 become extinct after introduction. Thus, the BW DSs prescribed under the alternatives differ 30 in the degree to which they reduce the num ber of organisms that are introduced via 31 discharged ballast water. The number of indi vidual organisms introduced will be referred to 32 as the initial population size. Even when transport and release occur, ballast water 33

m anagement efforts that reduce the number of organisms released (suc h as the alternatives 34 analyzed in the PEIS) can help to prevent successful establishment. As a general 35 proposition, the probability that a population will become extinct is inversely related to the 36 initial population size of the species of interest. 37

NIS become successfully established when indi vidual organisms are transported in ballast 38 water and released into a new location in suffi cient number to establis h a population. If the 39 number of released organisms is small, then they may simply die out before a population can 40 become established. Small populations are more likely to go extinct than larger ones as a 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-13 result of inbreeding depression 11 , genetic drift 12 , and demographic stochasticity (related to 1 the threat of chance birth or d eath events) (Boyce 1992). Therefor e, the alternatives differ in 2 the degree to which they increase extincti on probability, or put another way, reduce the 3 probability of establishment of NIS, by reducing the initial population size of NIS 4 introduced via ballast water. 5

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 act s in concert with natural selection to change the characteristics of species over time. It is a stochastic e ffect 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 

## 3.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR TH E ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC 1 

## NIS IMPACTS 2

This section provides the context for selec ting an appropriate an alytical methodology for 3 evaluating and comparing the NEPA alternatives. This sectio n begins with a discussion 4 about the science of predicting a NIS invasion and its associated impacts. This discussion 5 highlights the complexities associated with ev aluating the alternatives and thus provides the 6 necessary background for developing criteria for assessing the rela tive merits of the 7 analytical methods considered. Additionall y, the discussion provide s general information 8 regarding accepted (and validat ed) methodologies used in th e scientific community to 9 analyze the potential environmental impacts of aquatic NIS. The different approaches 10 considered are briefly described, highlighting their theoretical differences, advantages, and 11 limitations. The potential applicability of the different approaches to the analysis of the 12 environmental impacts of the NEPA a lternatives is also summarized. 13



### 3.1 Evaluation Criteria 14

This section describes the genera l requirements for analytical appr oaches that can be used to 15 assess the effectiveness of the BWDSs prescribed under the alte rnatives in controlling the 16 introduction and establishment of NIS. This s ection presents a summary of the main criteria 17 developed for evaluating the analytical methods considered and recommending an approach 18 to be used to understand th e potential ecological and soci oeconomic impacts of the 19 alternatives. In doing so, this section focuses on the practical implications of the alternatives 20 and the analysis needed to evaluate and compare them. 21

Based on the requirements of NEPA, the analys is of the potential ecological consequences 22 of the alternatives and thus the preparation of the Environm ental Consequences section of 23 the DPEIS must be based on a methodology that: (1 ) is scientifically valid (e.g., evidence of 24 historical applications and validation); (2) uses the best available science and data; and (3) 25 can be implemented within reasonable agen cy resource constraints. The analytical 26 methodologies shall allow the evaluation and co mparison of the potential consequences of 27 the NEPA alternatives presented in the DPEIS, in order to provide a useful tool for the 28 USCG in the decision-making process. 29

The main goal of the analysis needed to eval uate and compare the potential impacts of the 30 alternatives is to address the question: what is the likely effect on sp ecies establishment of 31 reducing the initial number of individuals introdu ced in ballast water discharge? There are 32 three basic approaches to address this question: (1) expert judgment; (2) empirical analysis 33 involving either experimental data or historical data; and (3) modeling of population 34 dynamics. 35

36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-15 1



### 3.2 Analytical Methodologies Initially Considered 2

This section summarizes the main analytical ap proaches that could pot entially be used for 3 the analysis and comparison of the impacts of the NEPA alternatives. The analytical 4 methodologies considered were selected base d on their potential applicability for the 5 analysis of the potential environmental imp acts of aquatic NIS under the BWDSs prescribed 6 in the alternatives. 7

Expert Judgment 8

The scientific community is only beginning to understand the dynamics of introduced 9 populations and their potential eco logical and economic impacts. In the absence of well 10 defined empirically validated relationships, qualitative conclusions with respect to the 11 effectiveness of the alternatives could be developed, based on e xpert judgment from 12 scientists with extensive resear ch experience in the field of a quatic invasive species ecology. 13 Although such judgments have undeniable valu e, an approach based on expert judgment 14 would violate the first two criteria under NE PA for the analysis of potential ecological 15 consequences. Expert judgme nt would not be scientifically valid as demonstrated by 16 evidence of historical applica tions and validation and would not be based on the use of the 17 best available science because current scientif ic knowledge allows for the development of a 18 more objective, analytical approach. Furthe rmore, given the severity of ecological and 19 economic impacts due to NIS, the USCG decided that it would be preferable to develop and 20 implement an analytical approach that w ould allow evaluation and comparison of the 21 potential impacts of the alte rnatives on a quantitative basis, in order to provide more 22 objective information to the decision-maker. 23

Empirical Analysis 24

To compare the alternatives in a quantitative way, it is necessary to have an understanding 25 of the relationship between the number of indivi dual organisms that ar e introduced (initial 26 population size) and extinction pr obability. In principle, su ch an understanding could be 27 assessed through empirical observations. That is, through designed experiments in which 28 the initial numbers of introduced individuals are varied (to re present the implementation of 29 the alternatives) and the rate of successful species introductions and establishments are 30 observed and measured. However, such de signed experiments would be unethical and 31 probably illegal due to the potenti al for adverse and irreversible impacts. Thus, these kinds 32 of data are not readily available, especially in light of all the potential species that would 33 need to be considered. Importantly, the analys is of data arising from such an experiment 34 would be exceedingly difficult, because ascertaining the fate of even a single species in an 35 aquatic environment would be extremely challenging. 36

Historical Analysis 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-16 This approach focuses on the projection of fu ture ecological conditions based on historical 1 information. This post-hoc approach require s accurate identification of the types of 2 organisms that have been introduced in the pa st, and, importantly, by which vectors. One of 3 the main problems with this approach is that most of the data available from the scientific 4 literature addresses only the last stage in th e invasion process. For example, records are 5 usually only available for established l ong-term reproducing popul ations, and not for 6 organisms that were introduced but failed to es tablish successfully. In addition, the use of 7 historical analysis may not be well suited to the analysis of th e potential implications of the 8 different alternatives under c onsideration because intentional introductions ha ve rarely, if 9 ever, involved the broad suites of organisms typi cally carried in ballast water. For the most 10 part, intentional introduc tions of aquatic organisms have involved commercially important 11 species using handling procedures designed to maximize survivorship during transport and 12 physiological condition upon introdu ction, such as fish stocki ng. Furthermore, although 13 “natural” experiments exist, they have not b een adequately controlled or monitored, making 14 them very difficult to interpret. Thus, becau se historical analysis does not adequately 15 address the central question for the analysis and comparison of the a lternatives, it was not 16 considered further. 17

Life-history analysis 18

Life-history analysis focuses on analyzi ng the changes undergone by organisms throughout 19 their life cycle and the interactive effects of these changes on the dynamics of populations. 20 A growing body of recent literature supports th e contention that statistically significant 21 relationships exist between life history characte ristics and the potential for invasiveness. 22 Thus, life-history studies can be valuable for examining the introduction of invasive species 23 and identifying critical life history stages dur ing which management measures and strategies 24 (i.e., BWDS) will be most effective. In addi tion, life-history theory can also be used to 25 develop predictions of species likely to beco me serious pests once successfully established 26 (Sakai et al. 2001). 27

However, such generalizations usually fall short when studying the invasion potential of 28 particular species. Studies s uggest that features specific to the taxonomic group and to the 29 habitat being invaded are also important in determining inva sion success. Thus, the best 30 approach for investigating traits of invaders might be one in wh ich species are classified into 31 functional groups with anticipated sim ilar tr aits and where the focus is narrowed to 32 particular habitat type s (Sakai et al. 2001). 33

Many organisms have received little or no study in their native environments, thus limiting 34 the predictive ability of life-history analys is for diverse assemblages of plankton. In 35 addition, the very large number of potential speci es that would need to be considered and the 36 diversity of receiving ecosyste ms that would need to be analyzed make this analytical 37 approach far too unwieldy given the many diff erent possibilities that would need to be 38 modeled. Life-history analysis is better suited for predic ting the invasion potential and 39 associated impacts of specific species of intere st rather than for evaluating the effect of 40 alternatives on large suites of species under highly variable circumstances. Thus, since life- 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-17 history analysis does not adequately address the central question for the analysis and 1 comparison of the alternatives, it was not considered further. 2

Demographic Analysis 3

Demographic analysis can be used to examin e the establishment and impacts of invasive 4 species. Coupled with information about th e genetics, evolution, and interactions of 5 invasive species and native species in invade d communities, demographic analysis may lead 6 to predictions of the relative susceptibility of ecosystems to invasion by particular species, 7 predictions of potential impacts re sulting from successful estab lishment of invasive species, 8 better methods for removal of key species, a nd predictions of the subsequent effects of 9 removal (Sakai et al. 2001). 10

In general, detailed information of dem ographic processes (e.g., growth, reproduction, 11 dispersal, competition, species interactions ) is essential for analyzing the population 12 dynamics (and hence the potential for successful establishment and associated impacts) of 13 invasive species. However, as is the case with life-history analysis, demographic analysis is 14 better suited for predicting the invasion potential and associated impacts of specific species 15 of interest for which extensive information is av ailable. Thus, since demographic analysis is 16 not well suited for analyzing the potential implications of the alternatives, it was not 17 considered further. 18

Invasion spread analysis 19

Invasion spread analysis can be used to an alyze the spread of invasive species once 20 successfully established. Several basic features of invasions , such as initial lags in 21 population growth, rate of geogra phic spread, and features of geographic spread have been 22 addressed using a variety of population modeling approach es (Sakai et al. 2001). 23 Predictions of the rate and dire ction of spread of invasive sp ecies that have already become 24 established are critical to eval uating the potential impacts of NI S. There is a strong body of 25 scientific literature on the f actors influencing broad-scale sp read, such as long-distance 26 dispersal, spatial and tempor al heterogeneity, and Allee e ffects. In addition, range 27 expansion models have been applied directly to resource management questions, such as 28 which aquatic ecosystems are most likely to be invaded by a NIS of interest. Finally, non29 spatial, stage-structured models can also lead to valuable insights into the population biology 30 of invasive species and have been used to estimate the potential effectiveness of control 31 strategies that target spec ific life history stages. 32

Invasion sp read analysis is focu sed on describing in a quantita tive way the spatial spread of 33 populations as an invasion progres ses. There are spatial and te mporal variations in factors 34 affecting spread, as well as large uncertainties in the density of organisms. Thus, even 35 though classical invasion models are often successful in predicti ng spread rates, they give no 36 indication of the spatial patterns arising from spatial correlations between individuals, as 37 well as regarding the possibly patchy structur e of the invasion “wave” (Lewis and Pacala 38 2000). Thus, their predictive abil ity with regards to initial NIS establishment is limited. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-18 Spatially explicit models, such as gravity mode ls, allow dispersal to occur in heterogeneous 1 environments over both short and long distances , and thus provide predictions of occurrence 2 and spatial distribution of invasive species, hence overcoming the limitation of traditional 3 invasion spread models (MacIsaac et al. 2004). 4

However, as is the case with life-history anal ysis and demographic analysis, invasion spread 5 analysis is better suited for predicting the sp read potential of specifi c species of interest, 6 rather than the potential for initial establishm ent. Thus, because invasion spread analysis 7 does not address the relationship between inocul ation size and probabilit y of establishment, 8 it is not well suited for analyzing the potential im plications of the alternatives and to develop 9 national level conclusions in support of the DPEIS, it was not c onsidered further. 10

Ecological niche modeling 11

Ecological niche modeling is focused on predic ting the potential geograp hic course of an 12 invasion based on the ecological niche characteri stics of a species in its native geographic 13 distributional area. This appro ach is based on the premise that ecological niches constitute 14 long-term stable constraints on the potential ge ographic distributions of species. The main 15 goal of the approach is to produce a hypothesis about which ecological f eatures are within a 16 species’ niche and which are not. Therefore, this approach applies to almost any species for 17 which a natural range is known, not merely we ll-studied species. The ecological niche 18 model can then be projected onto an area of in terest to identify ge ographic regions that 19 present ecological conditions in side and outside of the speci es’ niche, thus producing a 20 hypothesis of a potential geographic distribution for the species. The information on the 21 potential spatial distribu tion of the species of interest ca n then be used to evaluate the 22 potential impacts associated with the invasion process (Townsend 2003). 23

As is the case with life-history analysis, de mographic analysis, and invasion spread analysis, 24 ecological niche modeling is better suited for predicting the spread potential of specific 25 species of interest. In additi on, as discussed above, we have little or no knowledge about the 26 actual invasive abilities of most organisms, thus limiting the predictive ability of this 27 approach, which is based on the assumption that organisms can only invade when the 28 conditions in the new environment match those in their native environment. Because 29 ecological niche modeling does not address the relationship between inoculation size and 30 probability of establishment, and it is not well suited for analyzing the potential implications 31 of the alternatives and to de velop national level conclusions in support of the DPEIS, it was 32 not considered further. 33

Statistical and probabilistic analysis 34

Stochastic population growth is of significant practical im portance for predicting the fates of 35 introduced and endangered populatio ns. Stochastic analysis is a key element for evaluating 36 temporal changes in populations. Temporal changes in gene frequency and population size 37 are stochastic because events such as bi rth and death processes, predator-prey and 38 competition interactions, reproduction, and surviv al cannot be predicted at the individual 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-19 level but must be evaluated at the populati on level (Engen et al. 1998). In addition, the 1 physical and biological environments of popula tions also change in often unpredictable 2 ways, introducing additional st ochasticity in ecological sy stems, which needs to be 3 considered in order to understand the nature of population fluctuations. Thus, stochastic 4 properties of population fluctuations are an im portant factor to cons ider when evaluating 5 management measures like the ones dictated by the BWDS considered in the DPEIS. 6

It has been proposed that stochastic mode ls of population growth provide a reasonable 7 method for conducting risk analysis for biologic al invasions. However, one of the main 8 shortcomings of most stochastic models is that they are based on an assumption of no 9 density dependence within populatio ns. In addition, despite the widespread use of stochastic 10 models for predicting future population growth, model predictions are only beginning to be 11 validated with observational and experimental da ta. Furthermore, most studies have focused 12 on the accuracy of quantitative estimates of exti nction probability in natural populations and 13 do not control for factors like environmental variation (Dra ke and Lodge 2004). Results 14 from experiments in which environmental va riation was manipulated along with initial 15 population size and carrying capacity suggest th at environmental variation can have an 16 effect on population persistence time. The theory of population growth in variable 17 environments predicts that increasing variati on in environmental variables will increase the 18 probability of extinction and decrease the av erage time to extinction (Lande and Orzack 19 1988; Drake and Lodge 2004). In addition, some studies suggest that environmental 20 variation will lead to a decrease in the probabi lity of establishment and an increase in the 21 time to establishment. 22

The application of this anal ytical approach would require extensive knowledge of the 23 organisms present in ballast water and compar ison of that data with the organisms that 24 actually become established. However, data on what organisms are present in ballast water 25 is very limited and localized. In addition, data on what organisms actually become 26 established as a consequence of ballast water mediated introductions is also very limited 27 because most of the research focuses on particular species with potential for actual or 28 perceived impacts. Thus, because this approach is not well suited for analyzing the potential 29 implications of the a lternatives and to develop national level conclusions in support of the 30 DPEIS, it was not considered further. 31

Population dynamics simulation models 32

A comprehensive understanding of the stru cture (species composition and relative 33 abundance) and function (energy flow and nut rient cycling) of aquatic ecosystem s is 34 necessary to understand the poten tial effects of environmental fluctuations and stressors 35 such as the introduction and successful establishm ent of NIS. The structure, function, and 36 dynamics of aquatic ecosystems can only be understood by considering biological processes 37 at the level of individual popula tions acting in concert with pr ocesses over the domain of the 38 entire community (Mann 1988). Local processe s at the species level permanently change 39 macroscopic properties of the system, which then impose new constraints on the species 40April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-20 themselves (Mann 1988). Thus, a holistic appr oach is necessary for the derivation of 1 ecological patterns at the ecosystem level (Gaedke 1995). 2

However, the complexity of aquatic ecosy stems does not allow th e consideration of 3 ecosystem dynamics in its entirety, forcing one to abstract from the particular situation 4 under study. Therefore, ecosystem dynamics s hould be studied from as many angles as 5 possible. This task is facilitated by the us e of conceptual and mathematical models. 6 Models, as simplified descriptions of the real world, portray distinct features of the natural 7 systems they are designed to represent. Hence, mathematical models of population 8 dynamics aid in the understanding of the dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Models are 9 designed to either reproduce obs erved biological, physical, and chemical patterns or predict 10 the effects of natural or anthropogenic envi ronmental fluctuations on the temporal and 11 spatial dynamics of the structure and f unction of the ecosystems they describe. 12

Based on consultation with experts in the fi eld of aquatic invasive species ecology and 13 plankton ecology, the USCG decided that the focus of the analysis should be on developing 14 a quantitative approach based on ecological princi ples that allows the alternatives to be 15 evaluated in a relative manner. A mode l of population dynamics provides such an 16 alternative approach. However, given the complexities associated with predicting the 17 introduction and successful establishment of NIS and the unavailability of detailed 18 information on the biology and ecolo gy of most species carried in ballast water, it is evident 19 that a generic and simple approach that requires relatively little data is needed to analyze the 20 alternatives. This eliminates from further consideration complex modeling approaches that 21 require extensive data for validation of the re sults, as well as species-specific approaches. 22 This includes most structured and non-structured m odeling approaches. 23

Dynamic simulation models allow the unique pos sibility of studying the dynamic nature and 24 spatiotemporal organization of aquatic ecosystem s. In addition, they represent a coherent 25 way to investigate direct and indirect cause-effect relations hips of a large number of 26 dynamic interacting processes (G aedke 1995). However, they require extensive data and 27 can have a high degree of complexity, which makes them inapplicable for the purposes of 28 the analysis of the alternativ es in the DPEIS. In additi on, many of the available studies 29 model the distribution of a single species, pred icting its absence or pr esence, the abundance 30 of a single species, or the total number of non-native species distributed across an area, 31 which even though valuable for other purposes, do not aid in the analysis of the NEPA 32 alternatives. Thus, this appro ach was not considered further. 33

Ecological principles and em piri cal evidence strongly suggest that reductions in the number 34 of living organisms initially introduced via ballas t water reduce the probab ility of successful 35 establishment of NIS. Therefore, a generic and relatively simple quantitative analytical 36 approach is needed to evaluate the potential im pacts of the alternatives associated with their 37 effect on introduction and (thereby) establishm ent of NIS. The quantitative relationship 38 between population size and extin ction has been the subject of considerable attention in 39 conservation biology, for example, in the literature on Minimum Viable Population (MVP) 40 size (e.g., Soulé 1987). 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-21 In the context of conservation, the concern is that the population size of an endangered 1 species be large enough to ensure a high probability of persistence . In the context of 2 preventing biological invasions, the concern is that the in itial size of an introduced 3 population be small enough to ensure a high probability of extinction

. 4

With the exception of initial population size, all of these factors depend greatly on very 5 unpredictable circumstances that wi ll vary from discharge to disc harge. Given the fact that 6 the alternatives establish (by definition) the initial population size of introduced NIS (albeit 7 not species-specific), an appro ach that relates ini tial population size to the probability of 8 successful establishment will provide the best means to evaluate the potential impacts of the 9 alternatives. 10April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-22 

## 4.0 RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 1

This section describes in deta il the recommended analytical methodology for the analysis of 2 the potential environmental impact s of the NEPA alternatives in support of the DPEIS. The 3 discussion covers the rationale for the selection of the recommended methodology and the 4 details of the methodological a pproach selected, including a summary of the theoretical 5 approach and general assumptions, the data us ed, and its main advantages and limitations. 6 Finally, this section highlights the way in which the recommended approach allows for the 7 analysis of differential rela tive probabilities of establ ishment under the five NEPA 8 alternatives, and thus provides a useful tool for the USCG in the decision-making process. 9



### Rationale for Selection of Populati on Viability Analysis as the Preferred 10 

### Analytical Methodology 11

Understanding the relationship between populati on size and extinction probability has been 12 of central importance in conser vation biology, where the goal is t ypically to decrease, rather 13 than increase, the extinction probability. The ma in approach to addressing this question is 14 called Population Viability Analys is (PVA). PVA refers to th e use of quantitative methods 15 to predict the likely fu ture status of a population or coll ection of populations of conservation 16 (or extinction) concern. PVA is performed by developing a mathematical model of the 17 dynamics of the population of interest and using this model to predict the effect of varying 18 the initial population size (or ot her factors) on extinction probab ility and other variables of 19 interest in conservation (Boyce 1992). PVA is typically used to assess the conservation 20 status of a particular population and therefore typically involves the development of a model 21 of the dynamics of each population of interest separately. 22

PVA is well suited to analyze the relative probab ilities of extinction (the complement of the 23 probability of ‘successful’ establishment) of nonindigenous species introduced to aquatic 24 ecosystems in U.S. waters via ballast water. In principle, the approach is similar to the one 25 used for conservation biology applications, bu t with different goals . Theoretical and 26 practical applications of PVA to the analysis of the establishment of nonindigenous species 27 in new environments have also been developed (Drake and Lodge, 2004). 28

The use of PVA for analyzing and comparing the NEPA alternatives is recommended for 29 four main reasons. Fi rst, PVA formalizes in quantitative terms the perspective strongly 30 suggested by ecological principl es and empirical evid ence: that reductions in the number of 31 living organisms introduced reduces the probabi lity of successful establishment of NIS. 32 This is a relationship that holds true for most taxa, except under highly unusual 33 circumstances (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Simberloff, 1989; Carlton, 1996; Williamson, 34 1996; Kolar and Lodge, 2001). Second, PVA (as recommended here for use in support of 35 the analysis for the DPEIS) focuses on the analysis of extinction and acknowledges (in 36 principle and through the analytical results) that except when th e risk of extinction is 1.0, an 37 introduction is possible. In other words, unles s the BWDS results in complete sterilization 38 of ballast water, there is a risk of NIS introduction. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-23 Third, unlike many of the other models, PVA is a ppropriate for BWD in th at it is not used to 1 predict which species are more likely to establish, their rates of spr ead after release, or how 2 life-history stages might affect the outcom e. Lastly, existing empirical data supply 3 information for the model’s parameters and t hus allow the decision makers to use PVA to 4 aid in their analysis. Specif ically, taxonomic and numerical data on organisms in untreated 5 BW are available and can be compar ed to the concentrations expected under the alternatives. 6

PVA directly addresses the problem at hand, and data are available to implement the 7 approach. Thus, the PVA approach meets the three main criteria set forth in Section 3 8 because there is evidence of historical applications (Dra ke, 2004; Dennis et al., 1991), 9 validation and assessment (see sc ientific publications evaluati ng the performance of PVA in 10 the PVA literature review section in Chapter 7), it uses the best available science and data, 11 and it is resource effective and practical to impl ement within reasonable agency constraints. 12 PVA is widely accepted as the approach of choice in conservation biology (Boyce 1992; 13 Beissinger and McCullough 2002), a nd its value as a tool for guiding conservation decision14 making has been recognized by the National Re search Council, the Ecological Society of 15 America, and The Nature Conservancy (Morris and Doak 2002). 16

A central issue in undertaking this kind of anal ysis is the choice of the population model, 17 with emphasis on the level of detailed data need ed for the analysis, a nd the practicability of 18 implementation based on data limitations and other constraints. The model recommended 19 for use in the analysis of th e NEPA alternatives is called a diffusion model. Although the 20 diffusion model has a long histor y in population biology, it was first proposed by Dennis et 21 al. (1991) as a routine tool fo r assessing the dynamics and extin ction properties of a single 22 population. 23

The limitations of PVA have been widely st udied. Among the challenges most extensively 24 discussed in the litera ture are the difficulty of estimati ng population parameters when data 25 are limited, the difficulty in identifying sources of stochasticity, and the large confidence 26 intervals around probability es timates. A more fundamental challenge to PVA is that 27 biological populations change through time according to processes like density dependence 28 that are extremely difficult to capture by most population viability m odels. The lack of 29 density dependence in diffusion models has stimulated interest in developing more 30 sophisticated, nonlinear models to estim ate density-dependent population parameters for use 31 in PVA (Sabo et al. 2004). However, a larger number of parameters results in much larger 32 data needs. As mentioned before, data on organisms introduced via ballast water and the 33 proportion of species introductions th at are successful is sparse at best. In addition, even if 34 data were available, density -dependent parameter estimation is much more numerically 35 intensive than the simple model required to es timate parameters using the diffusion model. 36 Finally, the lack of density dependence is not a particularly relevant problem for populations 37 introduced at relatively low in itial abundances, as are the ones of interest in the current 38 problem. 39

The diffusion model is recommended for the an alysis because, in addition to meeting the 40 three criteria described in Sec tion 3, it has the following adva ntages. The diffusion model is 41April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-24 a mainstay of PVA and is widely supported in th e scientific literature (Dennis et al. 1991). 1 The diffusion model has been shown to provide a good approximation to the dynamics of a 2 population – such as a population of organism s immediately upon introdu ction – that is well 3 below carrying capacity where density dependenc e is expected to be weak (Saether and 4 Engen 2002). Lande and Orzack (1988) showed th eoretically that this model provides a 5 reasonable approximation of the dynamics of a p opulation well below its carrying capacity. 6 The model is relatively simple, involving only tw o parameters, and as explained before, for 7 practical reasons it is not feas ible to develop a complicated model for each combination of 8 taxon and environment; particularly given th e paucity of population data for species 9 introduced into new environments. Lastly, the diffusion model provides a generic (not 10 species-specific) model that, in conjunction wi th other information, is used to provide a 11 general assessment and evaluati on of the alternatives. A non- technical description of the 12 diffusion model and its results is gi ven in Morris and Doak (2002). 13

Given the current state of knowledge in the fi eld of aquatic invasive species ecology, and 14 after thorough evaluation of alternative approaches, this re port recommends that PVA with a 15 diffusion model is the best methodology to anal yze the alternatives in a meaningful and 16 scientifically defensible way considering th e information available. The PVA approach 17 meets the criteria set forth in Section 3 and provides valuab le information regarding the 18 relative changes in the probability of successful establishment of NIS under the alternatives 19 considered in the DPEIS. 20



### Description of Population Viability Analysis and Application to the Analysis of 21 

### the NEPA Alternatives 22

This section describes the recommended analy tical approach for assessing the effect of 23 reducing initial population size on the extinction probability of an introduced species. To be 24 useful in assessing and comparing the effectivene ss of the alternatives, the approach must be 25 relatively simple and generic. The approach outlined here is base d on the diffusion model 26 proposed for population viability analysis by De nnis et al. (1991), which is arguably the 27 simplest mathematical model relating init ial population size and extinction probability. 28

Let N ( t ) be the size of a population at time t and let X ( t

) = log N ( t ). A simple model of the 29 dynamics of this population is: 30

)( )( tdWdttdX σ μ += (1) 31

where μ is the instantaneous growth rate, σ 2 ( 0 > σ ) is the instantaneous variance of the 32 population of interest in the diffusion model, and dW ( t

) is a normal random variable with 33 mean 0 and variance 1. Under this model, N ( t ) follows geometric Brownian motion with 34 drift. The expected pop ulation size at time t is: 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-25 ) 2 exp()0())(( 2 tt NtNE σ μ + = (2) 1

Extinction results for the diffusion model are as follows. Define a lower threshold

e n at 2 which the population can be t hought of as extinct and let

e e nx log = . The probability that a 3 population with initial size N(0) will ever attain size

e n (extinction threshold – the 4 population size below which the population is viewed as extinct) is given by: 5

0 1 0)/2exp(

≤ > −=
μ μσμ

d p e (3) 6

where ) /)0(log()0(

e e nNxXd =−= . Under this model, a popul ation with negative drift 7 parameter μ is certain to go extinct regardless of the initial population size. The initial 8 population size does, however, influence the distribution of the time T to extinction. For 9 example, the expected value of T is: 10

μ /)( dTE −= (4) 11

so that reducing d by reducing X (0) will reduce the expected tim e to extinction. It is 12 assumed that

e NN > )0 ( . Provided the growth rate μ is positive, the probability in (3) can 13
be rewritten as: 14

c

ee NNp ))0(/( = (5) 15

where the population parameter 2 /2

σμ = c

. For a population with positive growth 16 parameter, the extinction probability

e p is less than 1 and depends on the initial population 17
size N (0) through d . The control parameter is the initial population size N (0). Consider the 18 effect on

e p of reducing the initial population size by a factor f (by which the density of 19 organisms is reduced under each alternative, with 1 )0(/ ≤ ≤ fNN

e . The upper bound of 20 this condition merely reflects that f is a fractional proportion. The lower bound eliminates 21 from consideration cases in which the initial population size is reduced below the extinction 22 threshold. When this occurs, the population is, by definition, extinct upon introduction. It is 23 straightforward to show that the resulting extinction probability is: 24

e c

e pffp

− = )( (6) 25April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-26 That is, reducing the initial population size by a factor of f

increases the extinction 1 probability by the factor f e , which measures the effect on ex tinction probability of reducing 2 initial population size by a factor f : 3

c

e ff

− = (7) 4

For specified values of

e n and the volume of BWD, these results can be used to assess the 5 proportion of the baseline mean rate of successful introduction achieved under the 6 regulatory alternatives. Th is factor is given by: 7

e e

r p fp f

− −

= 1 )(1 (8) 8

The alternative ballast water discharge standa rds compared in the NEPA assessment can be 9 expressed in terms of the proportion of organi sms in different size classes that will be 10 prevented from being introduced. Thus, the re lationships presented above can be used to 11 provide an assessment of the relative effectiveness in increas ing extinction probability by 12 taxonomic group of a particular ballast wa ter discharge standard. Here, relative 13 effectiveness is measured by the proportional increase in extinction pr obability over the ‘no 14 management’ option (No Action Alternative). The analytical approach proposed can be 15 used to compare the alternatives in relati ve terms (e.g., Alternative 5 results in no 16 introduction of nonindigenous species via ballast water, and Altern atives 2, 3, and 4 increase 17 extinction probability by different factors when compared to the No Action Alternative), but 18 not in absolute terms. 19

The objective of the analysis is to determin e by what multiplicative factor the extinction 20 probability of a population (with an inherently positive growth rate) increases when the 21 initial population size discharged via ballast wa ter (from a single vesse l) is reduced by a 22 given multiplicative factor. This multiplicative f actor is determined by the concentrations of 23 organisms allowed under the different alterna tives. The effect of increasing extinction 24 probability (through the implementation of a BWDS) is the reduction in the expected 25 number of successful introductions th rough ballast water discharge. 26

The goal of such a relative assessm ent is to estimate the factor (

e f ) by which the probability 27 of extinction ( P e ) increases in response to a decrease in the initial population size, as defined 28 in equation (7). To do so, it is necessary to have estimates of the population parameters μ 29 and σ and the factor f, by which the initial population size is reduced due to a ballast water 30 management option. Information about the si ze distribution of indi viduals in different 31 species groups (e.g., larval fish, macrozooplankt on, microzooplankton, etc.) can be used to 32 give a rough estimate of the factor f by which the introduced p opulation would be reduced 33 by alternative management measures, partic ularly if the management measures are 34 predicated on size thresholds. The value of f

is equal to the ratio of the density of organisms 35 that can be discharged under the particular management option to the density under the ‘no 36April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-27 management’ option. Estimates of the latter value for representative taxa or taxonomic 1 groups are available in the literature. Note th at, when management options are expressed in 2 terms of allowable density of organisms above a particular size (e.g., 50 microns), the factor 3 f for a particular taxonomic group will depend on the proportion of individuals in the group 4 above that size. Thus, f will equal 1 in the case where all individuals are below this size. 5

To use these results to provide an assessment of the absolute effectiveness of a particular 6 alternative, it is necessary to assess the extinction probability

e p under the ‘no management’ 7 option (No Action Alternative). To do so requires an estimate of the quantity d (see 8 equation 3 and explanation) involving both the initial popul ation size under the No Action 9 Alternative and the th reshold population size

e n . Estimates of the former can be based on 10 estimates of the density of organisms and th e volume of ballast water discharged (which 11 varies with vessel and type). A different approach to assessi ng absolute effectiveness would 12 be to estimate the current rate of introductions per unit of ballast water discharged. 13 Multiplying this quantity by the estimate of

e f would provide an estimate of the number of 14 introductions per unit of balla st water discharged under the specified management option 15 and multiplying this result by the projected tota l ballast water discharged would provide an 16 estimate of the overall number of future intr oductions under this option. As noted, however, 17 it is difficult to estimate the current rate of introductions. 18



### Discussion and Limitations of Population Viability Analysis 19

The approach outlined above involves using a generic model of population dynamics to 20 estimate in a simple way the relative eff ect of a proportional reduction in the initial 21 population size on the extinction pr obability of an introduced ta xon or taxonomic group. As 22 shown, this model involves two parameters: one related to the population growth rate and 23 the other to population variability around mean grow th. In addition, to estimate the effect of 24 a given BWDS on the proportional reduction in th e initial population size of a particular 25 taxon or taxonomic group require s knowledge of the density of organisms in untreated 26 ballast water (or ballast water that has under gone mid-ocean exchange). Knowledge of the 27 size distribution of the taxon or group in ball ast water would be useful; however, based on 28 the status of current sc ientific knowledge, this issue has not been taken up to any degree in 29 the current analysis. 30

Although this approach provides a first order approximation for extinction probability as a 31 function of organism size, the abundances of organisms are highly variable in time and 32 space, depending on a variety of factors, in cluding the source populations, the receiving 33 ecosystem characteristics, and the likelihood of NIS competent to invade. While 34 quantitative information is developed and presen ted in the forthcoming section, it is very 35 important to highlight that, gi ven the inherent complexities of ecological systems and the 36 invasion process and the lack of information in the field of aquatic i nvasive species ecology, 37 the results provide limited, yet valuable, information about how the relative effectiveness of 38 the alternatives are likely to compare. 39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-28 The recommended approach has a number of limit ations, which are important to highlight to 1 provide the appropriate context fo r interpreting the results. Fi rst, the diffusion model, as 2 with any model, is at best an approximation to the dynamics of a real population. Second, 3 there are not good estimates of the nece ssary population parameter values ( μ , the 4 instantaneous growth rate, and σ 2 , the instantaneous variance of the population growth rate) 5 available in the literatu re as these parameters vary with environmental and other conditions 6 and are extremely difficult to estimate for na tural populations. As a result, considerable 7 uncertainty attaches to the estimate of the extin ction probability factor and the mean rate of 8 successful introductions relative to the baseline (No Action Alternative). Indeed, in the 9 context of assessing the viability of a single population, these difficulties in specifying and 10 fitting a population model have led some to que stion the value of PVA (e.g., Ludwig 1999). 11 To a degree, these concerns are allayed in th e present context where interest centers not on 12 estimating the actual rates of establishment, but instead on the relative differences in the 13 probabilities of establishment resulting from the management options, which enables 14 comparison of the NEPA alternatives. 15

16April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-29 

## 5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 1

The alternatives under consider ation have the effect of in creasing the probability of 2 extinction of NIS by limiting the initial numbe r of organisms that are introduced via 3 discharged ballast water. NIS may become established when introduced via BWD in 4 sufficient initial number to avoid extinction ; this assumption is consistent with ecological 5 theory that holds that the viab ility of a population is related to its initial size. However, it 6 is important to highlight that this relations hip is not necessarily linear since many species 7 can potentially become establishe d with only a single individual. 8

Below, the diffusion-based model is used first for the simplest case of a single species in 9 one discharge event to illustrate the general analytical approach, and then for the more 10 complicated case of a vessel discharging multiple species to better assess the relative 11 differences of the alternatives. 12



### 5.1 Single Species Scenario 13

For the purpose of presenting the summary of the results obtained, th e four variables of 14 interest are: 15

f Measures the reduction in th e initial population size of NIS as 16 a result of the implementa tion of the BWDS prescribed 17 under each of the alternatives 18

2 /2

σμ = c Is a biological parameter, where μ is the instantaneous growth 19
rate and 2 σ is the instantaneous variance of the population of 20 interest in the diffusion model 21

f e Measures the effect on extin ction probability of reducing 22 initial population size by the factor f 23

f r Measures the proportion of the mean rate of successful 24 introductions achieved under the NEPA alternatives relative to that 25 under the No Action Alternative. 26

In order to quantify the factors f e and f

r to assess a particular ballast water management 27 measure (alternative standard) aimed at reduci ng initial population size, it is necessary to 28 determine the factor f by which the measure reduces initial population size. The 29 following alternatives expressed in terms of the allowable density of organisms by size in 30 discharged ballast water are considered in the DPEIS: 31April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-30 • Alternative 1: No Action Alternative – no BWDS is implemented (BWE is the 1 preferred option if vessel s can conduct it). 2

• Alternative 2 : 3

o less than 10 organisms per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μ m in 4 minimum dimension 5

o less than 10 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μ m 6 in minimum dimension 7

• Alternative 3: 8

o less than 1 organism per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μ m in 9 minimum dimension 10

o less than 1 organism per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μ m in 11 minimum dimension 12

• Alternative 4: 13

o less than 0.1 organisms per cubic meter for organisms larger than 50 μ m in 14 minimum dimension 15

o less than 0.1 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 μ m 16 in minimum dimension 17

• Alternative 5: Essentially requires complete sterilization (of orga nisms larger than 18 0.1 μ m) 19

To determine the reduction in initial population size ( f

) of NIS resulting from 20 implementation of the applicable BWDSs for each alternative, it is necessary to have an 21 estimate of the density of organisms in unman aged ballast water. This density varies 22 considerably from taxon to taxon and vessel to vessel based on the geographic origin of 23 the BW, as well as on a seasonal basis. Th e literature reviewed (e.g., Cohen 1998 and 24 Minton et al 2005) suggests that a reasonable range of densities is 10 2 -10 4 organisms per 25 cubic meter for larger organisms (larger than 50 μ m) and 10 -4 -10 2 organisms per milliliter 26 for smaller organisms (between 10 μ m and 50 μ m) for unmanaged ballast water. The 27 results reported by Cohen (1998) summarizing densities of organisms in ballast water 28 cover a wide range of taxonomic groups including zooplankton and phytoplankton. 29

Under the No Action Alternative, the exis ting ballast water management regulatory 30 regime will continue. Under this regulati on (33 CFR 151) vessels are required to conduct 31 mid-ocean ballast water exchange, retain ballast on board, or use an alternative 32 management practice approved by the Coast Gu ard. Approved alternatives are not yet 33 available for use, and indeed, one of the purposes of establishing the ballast water 34 discharge standard is to provi de a performance metric for th e approval of such systems. 35April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-31 Due to the lack of approved alternatives, vessels needing to discharge foreign ballast 1 water in a U.S. port must first conduct ball ast water exchange. With the exception of 2 vessels bound for the Great Lakes, exchange must be conducted by vessels only if it can 3 be performed safely and at le ast 200 nautical miles from the nearest land. To make the 4 situation even more complicated, even when vessels are able to conduct ballast water 5 exchange, the actual efficacy of the pract ice in reducing the concentration of 6 nonindigenous coastal organisms can be quite va riable. This variabil ity is a consequence 7 of the complex set of variables that affect the degree to which the exchange process 8 actually results in the replacement of water, and an even more complex set of biological 9 variables, including morphology an d behavior that result in or ganisms not being affected 10 by exchange as if they were particles of water. 11

Thus, under the current regulatory regime, whic h would continue in the case of the No 12 Action Alternative, a range of reductions is achieved by vessels that meet the legal 13 requirements of the regulations, from no re duction for vessels that can not conduct 14 exchange safely to over 90% reduction by ve ssels with relatively simple ballast tank 15 designs that conduct empty-refill exchange. Ho wever, due to the difficulty in estimating 16 the real average reduction in propagule numbers that results from these extremely 17 variable circumstances, for the purposes of th is initial analysis, ballast water exchange 18 will be considered to be the baseline altern ative. Mid-ocean BWE reduces the density of 19 organisms by an order 10 -1 -10 0 (USCG 2003). The upper bound on this range 20 corresponds to no reduction in density of organisms. 21

Using these ranges of values for the concen tration of organisms in unmanaged ballast 22 water and the reductions achieved by BWE, the corresponding de nsity ranges are 10 1 -10 4 23 organisms per cubic meter for la rger organisms (larger than 50 μ m) and 10 -5 -10 2 24 organisms per milliliter for smaller organisms (larger than 10 μ m and smaller than or 25 equal to 50 μ m) in exchanged ballast water. It was conservatively assumed that the 26 density of organisms under each alternativ e would be the maximum allowed. The 27 corresponding ranges of values of f

(the factor by which a management measure reduces 28 the concentration of discharged organisms) for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are presented in 29 Table 5-1 for the two size classes of organi sms under consideration. Values for the No 30 Action Alternative and Alternative 5 are not presented since they represent the baseline 31 and sterilization, respectively. Note that, in the case of smaller organisms, the lower 32 bound of the mean density range is already be low the regulatory lim it (in which case, the 33 regulatory limit set by the BWDSs would have no effect). Most vessels will have initial 34 organism densities greater than the organism densities set by the alternatives so that 35 vessels meeting any of the alternatives will achieve a reduction in the densities in most 36

cases. 37

38

39April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-32 Table 5-1: Values of f (factor measuring the reduction in the initial population size 1 of NIS) for each size class of organisms. 2

Alternative f (smaller organisms) [> 10 and ≤ 50 m μ ] f (larger organisms) > 50 m μ

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

To estimate f e , the effect on extinctio n probability of reducing in itial population size by 4 the factor f , estimates of the biological parameter c are needed. However, c varies 5 considerably from taxonomic group to taxonomic group and from one set of 6 environmental conditions to another, maki ng it inherently difficult to quantify. 7 Moreover, the value of c for the same taxon can be considerably different for different 8 environmental conditions in the receiving waters. Where c has been estimated, it has 9 usually been done for well studied populations of relatively large organisms over time 10 spans encompassing many generations. The litera ture attests to a wide variety of taxa 11 contained at high populat ion densities in the ballast wa ter of individual vessels and 12 concludes that an introdu ced population has only a small probability of becoming 13 established. For example, after surveying the literature, the USCG (2003) estimated a 14 range on the order of 0.0001 to 0.01 for th e probability of establishment. The 15 corresponding range for extinction probability ( P e ) is 0.9999 to 0.99. Thus, it is likely 16 that a large majority of introduced populations exhibit negative growth so that c is less 17 than 0. For these populations , extinction is certain. This implies that the extinction 18 probability for a population with c greater than 0 must be considerably lower than the 19 range cited above. 20

The analysis presented here assumes a range of values of c of 0.001 to 0.1. To illustrate 21 the relationship between c in this range and extinction probability, consider the situation 22 of a BWD of 10,000 cubic meters. Taking the extin ction threshold n e (i.e., the population 23 size below which the population is viewed as extinct) as 1, the extinction probabilities, 24 defined as c

ee NNp ))0(/ = for selected values of c and initial density ( N(0) ) of organisms 25
are shown in Table 5-2. 26

27

28

29

30

31

32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-33 Table 5-2: Extinction probabilities ( P e ) for selected values of c (biological 1 parameter) and density of organisms. 2 Initial Density, N(0) (organisms per cubic meter)

c 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 6 10 8

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

(Note: To convert organisms per millimeter to organisms per cubic meter, multiply by 3 10 6 .) 4 Particularly for small values of c , the relative insensitivity of extinction probability to the 5 density of organisms – and therefore, because discharge volume is fixed, to initial 6 population numbers – is notable. 7

The ranges for f and c given above can be combined to determine the ranges for the 8 multiplicative factor f e by which the baseline extinction probability P e would be increased 9 for large and small organisms under th e alternatives. The values for f e are shown in Table 10 5-3. 11

Table 5-3: Range of values of f e ( extinction probability factor f e = f -c ) for Alternatives 12 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c (Table 5-2) and f (Table 5-1) used in the analysis of 13 alternatives. 14

[> 10 and ≤ 50 m μ ] [> 50 m μ ]

Alternative c f f e (smaller organisms) f f e (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

Note: The lower bound of the ranges of f e corresponds to the comb ination of the largest 15 value of f under the option with the smallest value of c , while the upper bound 16 corresponds to the combination of the smallest value of f with the largest value of c

. 17 As seen from the results above, the extinction probability of organism s discharged in BW 18 increases as the factor measuring the reduc tion in the initial po pulation size of NIS 19April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-34 decreases. For instance, fo r Alternative 2, a population of smaller organisms with c of 1 0.1, reducing the popula tion size by a factor ( f

) of 0.1 results in a reduction factor ( f

e ) for 2 the probability of extinction of 1.0. Thus, as expected, the extinction probability is higher 3 the more stringent the BWDS. 4

These results can be used to assess the factor f r representing the proportion of the mean 5 rate of successful introducti ons achieved under the alternativ es relative to that under the 6 No Action Alternative. Assuming, as above , an extinction thres hold of 1 and a BWD 7 volume of 10,000 cubic meters , the range of values of f

r for smaller and larger organisms 8 for the NEPA alternatives are presented in Table 5-4. 9

For illustrative purposes, the value of f

r of 0.41 estimated in Table 5-4 for larger 10 organisms under alternative 4 can be interpreted as meani ng that the mean rate of 11 successful introductions under alte rnative 4 is expect ed to be 41% of that under the No 12 Action Alternative. Thus, the smaller the value of f

r , the larger the reduction in the rate 13 of successful introductions. Likewise, a value of f

r of 1.0 can be interpreted as meaning 14 that there is no expected reduc tion in the rate of successful introductions relative to the 15 No Action Alternative. Most vessels will have organism densities greater than the 16 organism densities set by the alternatives so that vessels meeting a ny of the alternatives 17 will achieve a reduction in the densities in most cases. 18

Table 5-4: Range of values of f r (mean rate of successful introductions relative to the 19 baseline) for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for the values of c and f used in the analysis 20
f r (smaller organisms) f r (larger organisms)

Alternative [> 10 and ≤ m μ ] [> 50 m μ ]

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

The values presented in Table 5-4 can thus be interpreted as meaning that the mean rate 22 of successful introductions under: 23

• Alternative 2 is expected to be between 92% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 24 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 25 and larger organisms, respectively; 26

• Alternative 3 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 50% and 100% of the 27 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 28 and larger organisms, respectively; and 29April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-35 • Alternative 4 is expected to be between 67% and 100%, and 41% and 100% of the 1 mean rate of successful introductions under the No Action Alternative, for smaller 2 and larger organisms, respectively. 3

The reduction in the mean rate of successful in troductions is the complement of the 4 ranges of values presented above. As a re sult, the reduction in the mean rate of 5 successful introductions, as compared to the No Action Alternative under: 6

• Alternative 2 is expected to range betw een no reduction and an 8% reduction, and 7 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively; 8

• Alternative 3 is expected to range betw een no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 9 no reduction and a 50% reduction for smalle r and larger organisms, respectively; 10 and 11

• Alternative 4 is expected to range betw een no reduction and a 33% reduction, and 12 no reduction and a 59% reduction for smaller and larger organisms, respectively. 13

For this illustration for the single species case, the effect on the mean introduction rate of 14 smaller organisms ranges between no reduc tion and a minor reduction (8%) in moving 15 from the No Action Alternative to Alterna tive 2; between no addi tional reduction and a 16 moderate additional reduction (the reduction in the mean introduction rate increases from 17 8% to 33%) in moving from Alternative 2 to Alternative 3; and between no additional 18 reduction and a negligible additional reducti on (the reduction in the mean introduction 19 rate remains at 33%) in movi ng from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4. For larger 20 organisms, the effect on the mean introducti on rate ranges between no reduction and a 21 significant reduction (50%) in moving from the No Action Alternative to Alternative 2; 22 between no additional reduction and a negligible additional reduction (the reduction in 23 the mean introduction rate remains at 50%) in moving from Alternat ive 2 to Alternative 24 3; and between no additional reduction and a mi nor additional reduction (the reduction in 25 the mean introduction rate increases from 50% to 59%) in moving from Alternative 3 to 26 Alternative 4. 27



### Multiple Species Scenario 28

The goal of this analysis is to assess the im pact of alternative ballast water management 29 options on the probability that a single ballast water discharge containing multiple species 30 in different concentrations will result in at least one successful introduction. The 31 alternative BWM options considered here are generally the same as above for the single 32 species scenario, except that he re we consider the two altern atives that are possible under 33 the “no action” alternative, in which the curr ent regulatory regime continues. Under that 34 regime, vessels are required to conduct exchan ge if it is safe to do so and their route 35 permits. Thus, two management end-points ar e possible under the no action alternative – 36 no management and mid-ocean ballast wate r exchange. These are identified as 37April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-36 Alternatives 1A and 1B , respectively, in the following analysis. As above, Alternative 5 1 in the NEPA assessment is not considered here as that altern ative represents the 2 sterilization of ballast water, resulting in the absence of organisms greater than 0.1 μ m. 3

Alternative 1A. No BW management 4

Alternative 1B. Ballast water exchange 5

Alternative 2. < 10 individuals m -3 6

Alternative 3. < 1 individual m -3 7

Alternative 4. < 0.1 individuals m -3 8

For convenience, it is useful to begin by sket ching the calculation re quired to address the 9 scenario involving the discharge of multiple species. In general, the calculations 10 performed above for a single species will need to be performed and summed for multiple 11 species. As above, it will be necessary to ma ke several assumptions, both to simplify the 12 problem to a manageable level and to acco mmodate the lack of data on some key 13 parameters. Let ) ( mp

j be the probability that species j is not successfully introduced in 14 a single ballast water discharge unde r alternative management option m (hereafter 15 referred to as alternative m). Assuming that, other things being equal, results for 16 different species are independent, the probability under alternative m of at least one 17 successful introduction is given by: 18



## ∏

= −= n

j j mp mq

1 )(1) ( (9) 19

where n is the number of species contained in the discharge that are not already 20 successfully established in the receiving waters . These species will be referred to here as 21 ‘new’. 22

The alternative m (the discharge standard under consid eration) determines the allowable 23 total concentration ρ (m) of individual organisms in the di scharge. The probability that 24 the species is not successfully introduced ( )( mp

j ) depends on the absolute number 25 )( mN

oj of individuals of species j contained in the discharge. This number is 26 (approximately) given by the product: 27

j oj dmmN π ρ × ×= )() ( (10) 28

where d is the volume of discharge and j π is the relative a bundance of species j in the 29
ballast water. 30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-37 The number ) ( mN

oj is the size of the initial inoculum of species j . Under the population 1 model considered here, the probability of species j not being introduced in a single 2 discharge ( )( mp

j ) is related to the initial size of the inoculum of species j ( )( mN

oj ) 3 according to: 4

j c oje j mNNmp ))(/()( = (11) 5

where

e N is the extinction threshold (which is a ssumed to be the same for all species) 6
and j c is the population pa rameter for species j . The expression in (11) assumes that the 7 extinction threshold is below the initial inoculum size (i.e., ) ( mNN

oje

< )

. Otherwise, 8 species j is extinct upon arrival. 9

In order to perform the calculation outlined a bove, it is necessary to have information 10 about: 11

• The total concentration ) ( m ρ of organisms in ballas t water under the various 12 alternatives (including the baseline a lternatives of ‘no BW management’ and 13 ‘ballast water exchange’; 14

• The volume of ballast water discharge; 15

• The number and relative abundance of new species contained in the discharge; 16 and 17

• The population parameter c j for each of these new species. 18

Minton et al. (2005) analyzed the relative di fferences in the total number of organisms 19 discharged ( ρ (m) ) between “no management”, balla st water exchange, and the IMO 20 ballast water discharge standa rd (Alternative 2) for orga nisms of size greater than 80 μm. 21 According to Minton, et al. (2005), ballast water exchange reduces this concentration by 22 a factor of 0.1 (i.e., a 90% reduction). The estimated proportion of ships that would be 23 affected by Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 based on data cited by Minton et al

. and provided 24 by G. Ruiz are reported in Table 5-5 for th e ‘no management’ baseline and the ballast 25 water exchange baseline. 26

27

28

29April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-38 Table 5-5: Estimated percentage of ships that would be affected by Alternatives 2, 3, 1 and 4 compared to the baseline Alternatives 1A (no action) and 1B (ballast water 2 exchange). 3

‘No Management’ Ballast Water Exchange

Alternative 2 95.5 82.5

Alternative 3 99.7 95.5

Alternative 4 99.7 99.7

4 The values for Alternative 2 are slightly diffe rent from those provide d in Minton, et al. 5 (2005) of 96.2% for ‘no management’ and 82.8% for ballast water exchange. Thus, if 6 the baseline for comparison were to be all vessels conducting exchange, then if 7 Alternative 2 (the IMO standard) were im plemented, 82.5% of vessels would have 8 discharges with lower concentrations of or ganisms than that resulting from exchange; 9 95.5% would have discharges with lower concentrations if Alternative 3 were 10 implemented; and 99.7% would have discharges with lower concentrations if Alternative 11 4 were implemented. 12

Minton et al. (2005) combined concentration data with data on ballast water discharge 13 volume to provide the quartiles, mean, and st andard deviation for estimates of the total 14 number ) ( mN

o of organisms in a single ballast water discharge event for the ‘no 15 management ’, ballast water exchange, and IMO con centration standard ( < 10 individuals 16

m 3 , equivalent to Alterna tive 2 here) options. 17

Without access to the data on individual ball ast water discharges, it is not possible to 18 calculate the corresponding quanti ties for Alternatives 3 and 4

. However, a reasonable 19 approximation can be based on the following ar gument. If no baseline concentrations 20 were < 10 individuals m -3 , then a conservative assumption is that all concentrations under 21 Alternative 2 would be reduced to the < 10 individuals m -3 standard. Under this 22 assumption, the quartiles, mean, and standard deviation of ) ( mN

o under Alternatives 3 23
and 4 are equal to 10% and 1%, respectively, of the corr esponding quantities under 24 Alternative 2. Although the assumption that all baseline concentrations exceed the 25 standard of 10 individuals m -3 is not correct, Table 5-5 indicates that the great majority 26 do, particularly for the ‘no management’ ba seline . The quartiles, mean, and standard 27 deviation of the distribution of the to tal number of organisms discharged ( ) ( mN

o ) under 28 the alternative management options are reported in Table 5-6. The values for the first 29 three Alternatives are taken from Table 1 of Minton, et al. (2005), while the values for 30 Alternatives 3 and 4 are based on the a pproximation that all concentrations under 31 Alternative 2 are equal to the standard of 10 individuals m -3

. 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-39 Table 5-6: Estimated quartile s, mean, and standard devi ation of the total initial 1 number of organisms released (N 0 (m)) in a single ballast water discharge for the 2 Alternative management option s. Values for Alternativ es 1A (“no action”), 1B 3 (ballast exchange), and 2 (the IMO standard) from Minton et al., 2005. 4

Alternative 1 s t Quartile Median 3 r d 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 Available information regard ing the number of ‘new’ species (i.e., non-indigenous 6 species that have not yet been successfully introduced) and their relative abundances in 7 the ballast water of a single vessel is limited a nd fragmentary. Figure 6(b) of Smith, et al. 8 (1999) indicates an averag e of around 12 large (> 80 μ m) taxa in unexchanged ballast 9 water. This is an underestimate of the numbe r of species as indivi duals were typically 10 not identified to the sp ecies level. Moreover, the proporti on of these taxa that are ‘new’ – 11 which will vary with th e location of discharge – is either unknown or unreported. Smith, 12 et al. (1999) reported that the relative abundances of taxa in unexchanged ballast water 13 tend to be uneven, with the dominant taxon comp rising 50% or more of the total. For the 14 purposes of this analysis, the exact number of species used in the analysis is not critical. 15

To proceed, following the findi ngs of Smith et al. (1999) , it will be assumed that the 16 ballast water of a single vessel contains 12 ‘n ew’ species, that the most abundant species 17 comprises 50% of the total abundance, and th at the ordered relative abundances follow 18 the geometric model: 19

j j 5.0

= π (12) 20

for j = 1, 2, ..., 12. The relative abundances und er this model are given in Table 5-7. 21April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-40 Table 5-7: Ordered relative abundances of 12 species under the geometric model 1 (12). j π = the relative proportion of the total abundance comprised by each species. 2

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

Because the sum of these terms is 0.9998 rath er than 1.0, this provides only a rough 4 approximation of relative abundances. Ho wever, the discrepancy has no effect on 5 subsequent calculations. 6

To complete the calculations, it is necessary to specify values of the population parameter 7

c . No direct information about c – which will vary betw een species and discharge 8 locations – appears to be available for the types of organisms and circumstances 9 considered here. However, a reasonable range for c can be based on the following 10 calibration. It is widely rec ognized that the probability of successful intr oduction from a 11 single ballast water discharge is very small. If this were not the case, then the very large 12 annual number of discharges w ould have resulted in far high er numbers of introductions. 13 Suppose that the extinction threshold

e N is set at 1 individual. If we assume that the 14 probability that the median ‘no management’ discharge of a total of 6 1085.1 × individuals 15 (Table 5-6) distributed across 12 species with relative abundances as given in Table 5-7 16 results in no introductions is equal to 0.999 then c = 0.000008, and if we assume the 17 probability is an order of magnitude less, or 0.99, then c = 0.00008. This calculation, 18 which assumes the same value of c for all species in a discharge and also assumes that 19 any species with an initial inoculum <

e N has probability 0 of successful introduction, is 20 relatively insensitive to

e N . For example, if

e N is set at 100, the corresponding values of 21

c are 0.000015 and 0.00015. 22

In Table 5-8, the estimated probability ) ( mq (the probability under management option m 23 of at least one successful introduction as define d in (9) is reported for the median of the 24 initial numbers ) ( mN

o given in Table 5-6 for each management option, assuming that a 25 ballast water discharge contains 12 species with relative abun dances given in Table 5-7, 26 for extinction thresholds of 1 and 100 and values of c of 0.000008 and 0.00008 for all 27 species. 28 j π j πApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-41 Table 5-8: The probability q(m) that at le ast one species is successfully introduced 1 for each ballast water management opti on assuming the median value of )( 0 mN 2 from Table 5-6, the relative abundances in Table 5-7, and for N e = 1, 100 and c = 3 0.000008, 0.00008. 4

N e c m q(m) N e 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

e N and a fixed alternative 6 management option, the probability q ( m ) reported in Table 5-8 increases essentially 7 linearly with the population parameter c . For this reason, for fixed

e N , the relative 8 efficiency of a particular altern ative – defined as the ratio of q ( m ) for that alternative to 9 the corresponding value for a specified ba seline alternative – does not depend on c

. 10 Increasing N e results in a decreasing probability of establishment because small 11 populations of species are introduced in numbers below the value of N e . In Table 5-9, the 12 relative efficiencies of Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are reported for 1 = e N and 100 using 13 both ‘no management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines. 14April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-42 Table 5-9: Relative efficiencies of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for N e = 1, 100 using ‘no 1 management’ and ballast water exchange as baselines, from values in Table 5-8. 2

1 = e N 100 = e N

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 The values in the table represent the percent increase in q(m) over the baseline scenarios 4 that each alternative provides. For example, for an N e of 1, Alternative 2 is estimated to 5 be 52% more effective than what would be expected for q(m) under the No BWM 6 baseline scenario. 7



### 5.3 Conclusions 8

As expected from ecological principles, the re sults of the PVA model show that the more 9 stringent the standard is, (and thus the greater the reduction in initial population size) the 10 greater the increase in extinction probability , and thus the greater the resulting reduction 11 in the mean rate of successful introduc tions. In summary, the PVA diffusion model 12 provides estimates of the relative decrease in the mean rate of successful introductions 13 under the alternatives. The multiple speci es scenarios presented here are more 14 ecologically realistic than evaluating a singl e species scenario. The multiple species 15 results show that the treatment alternativ es result in a moderate reduction in the 16 probability of at least one new species beco ming established to a complete absence of 17 risk of introduction. The specific reduction depends upon the alternative selected and the 18 size class of the organism considered, but the modeling results for multiple species 19 support the conclusion that more stringent treat ment alternatives will substantially reduce 20 the likelihood of new balla st water introductions. 21

In comparison to larger organisms, very litt le information is available about introductions 22 of nonindigenous microbial taxa through BWD. For example, although microbes 23 generally are known to occur at high densities in ballast water, the species composition is 24 unknown and it is therefore not possible to qua ntify the potential for introductions of 25 microbial NIS (Drake et al. 2001). It is possi ble to say, on first pr inciples, that reducing 26 the number of individual microbes introduced in to a new environment is likely to reduce 27 the probability of establishment. This conc lusion is supported by the analyses above in 28April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-43 which N e =1 because microbial organisms are often capable of rapid asexual population 1 growth from a single cell. Thus, the same general conclusions derived for smaller and 2 larger organisms above also apply for microbes. 3

4April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-44 

## 6.0 REFERENCES 1

Beissinger, S.R. and McCullough, D.R. 2002. Population Viability Analysis . University 2 of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 3

Boyce, M. 1992. “Populati on Viability Analysis”. Annual Review of Ecology and 4 Systematics 23: 481-506. 5

Carlton, J.T. 1985. “Transoceanic and In teroceanic 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. 1996. “Marine Bioinvasions: The Alteration of Marine Ecosystems by 9 Nonindigenous Species”. Oceanography 9(1):36–43. 10

Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced Species in United States Coastal Waters: Environmental 11 Impacts and Management Priorities. Pe w Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia. 12

Carlton, J.T. 2005. Personal communication wi th José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 13 December 15, 2005. 14

Carlton, J.T. and Geller, J.B. 1993. “Eco logical Roule tte: The Global Transport of 15 Nonindigenous Mari ne Organisms”. Science , 261(5117): 78-82. 16

Cohen, A.N. 1998. Ships’ Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into 17 the San Francisco Estuary. San Franci sco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. 18

Davis, C. 2005. Personal communication with José G. Mantilla by electronic mail. 19 December 15, 2005. 20

Dennis, B. 2002. “Allee Effects in Stochastic Populations”. Oikos 96: 389-401. 21

Dennis, B., Munholland, P.L., and Scott, J.M. 1991. “Estimation of Growth and 22 Extinction Parameters for Endangered Species”. Ecological Monographs 61: 115-143. 23

Drake, J.M. 2004. “Allee effects and the risk of biological invasions”. Risk Analysis 24: 24 795-802. 25

Drake, J.M. and Lodge, D.M. 2004. “Effect s of Environmental Variation on Extinction 26 and Establishment”. Ecology Letters 7: 26-30. 27April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-45 Drake, L.A., Choi, K.H., Ruiz, G.M., and D obbs, F.C. 2001. “Globa l Redistribution of 1 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities”. Biological Invasions 3(2): 193-199. 2

Engen, S., Bakke, O., and Islam, A. 1998. “Demographic and Environmental 3 Stochasticity – Concepts and Definitions”. Biometrics 54: 840-846. 4

Gaedke, U. 1995. “A Comparison of the W hole-Community and Ecosystem Approaches 5 (Biomass Size Distributions, Food Web Analys is, Network Analysis, Simulation Models) 6 to Study the Structure, Function, and Regulation of Pelagic Food Webs”. Journal of 7 Plankton Research 17(6):1273–1305. 8

Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. 2001. “Progress in Invasion Biology: Pr edicting Invaders”. 9 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16( 4): 199-204. 10

Lande, R. and Orzack, S.H. 1988. “Extinction Dynamics of Age-Structured Populations 11 in a Fluctuating Environment”. Proceedings of the Nati onal Academy of Sciences 12 85(19): 7418–7421. 13

Lewis, M.A. and Pacala, S. 2000. “Modeli ng and Analysis of Stochastic Invasion 14 Processes”. Journal of Mathematical Biology 41: 387–429. 15

Liebhold, A. and Bascompte, J. 2003. “The Allee Effect, Stochastic Dynamics, and the 16 Eradication of Alien Species”. Ecology Letters 6: 133-140. 17

Ludwig, D. 1999. “Is It M eaningful to Estimate a Pr obability of Extinction?” Ecology 18 80(1): 298-310. 19

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography

. 20 Princeton, Princeton University Press. 21

MacIsaac, H.J., Borbely, J.V.M., Muirhead, J.R., and Graniro, P.A. 2004. “Backcasting 22 and Forecasting Biological Inva sions of Inland Lakes”. Ecological Applications 14(3): 23 73–783. 24

Mann, K. H. 1988. “Towards Predictive Mode ls for Coastal Marine Ecosystems”. In 25 Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology , L. R. Pomeroy and J. J. Alberts, eds. Springer, New 26 York, N.Y., pp. 291–316. 27

Minton, M.S., Verling, E., Miller, A.W., and Ruiz, G. M. 2005. “Reducing Propagule 28 Supply and Coastal Invasions Via Ships: Effects of Emer ging Strategies”. Front. Ecol. 29 Environ . 3(6): 304-308. 30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-46 Morris, W. and Doak, D. 2002. Quantitativ e Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice 1 of Population Viability Analysis. Sina uer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 2

Sabo, J.L., Holmes, E.E., and Kareiva, P. 2004. “Efficacy of Simple Viability Models in 3 Ecological Risk Assessment: Does Density Dependence Matter?” Ecology 85(2): 328- 4 341. 5

Saether, B. and Engen, S. 2002. “Incl uding Uncertainties in Population Viability 6 Analysis Using Population Pr ediction Intervals”. In: Population Viability Analysis . S. 7 Beissinger and D. McCullough, eds. Ch icago University Press, Chicago. 8

Sakai A.K., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A., 9 Baughman, S., Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ells trand, N.C., McCauley, D.E., O' Neil, P., 10 Parker, I.M., Thompson, J.N., and Weller, S.G. 2001. “The Population Biology of 11 Invasive Species”. Annual Review of Ecol ogy and Systematics 32 (1): 305-332. 12

Simberloff, D. S., 1989. “Which Insect Introductions Succeed and Which Fail?” In: 13 Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective . J. A. Drake, H. A. M ooney, F. di Castri, R. 14 H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson, eds., SCOPE 37, pp. 61-75. 15 New York, John Wiley & Sons. 16

Smith, D.L.; Wonham, M.J.; McCann, L.D. 199 9. “Invasion Pressure to a Ballast17 Flooded Estuary and an Assessmen t of Inoculant Survival”. Biol. Inv . 1: 67-87. 18

Soulé, M. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation . Cambridge University Press, 19 Cambridge. 20

Townsend, A. 2003. “Predicting the Geogr aphy of Species’ Invasions Via Ecological 21 Niche Modeling”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4): 419-433. 22

USCG. 2003. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water Management 23 Program for United States Waters. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 24 Washington, D.C. 25

USGS, 2006. “Nonindigenous Species Informati on Bulletin: Asian S hore Crab, Japanese 26 Shore Crab, Pacific Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan) (Arthropoda: Grapsidae)” 27 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Asian_shore_ crab/asian_shore_crab.html 28

Williamson, M. 1996. Biological Invasions . London, Chapman & Hall. 29

30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-47 

## 7.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Population Viability Analysis: 2

Brook, B.W., Cannon, J.R., Lacy, R.C., and Mirande, R. 1999. “A Comparison of the 3 Population Viability Analysis Packages GAPPS, INMAT, RAMAS and VORTEX for the 4 Whooping Crane ( Grus Americana )”. Animal Conservation 2: 23-31. Cambridge 5 University Press. 6

Brook, B.W., O’Grady, J.J., Chapman, A. P., Burgman, M.A., Arcakaya, H.R., and 7 Frankham, R. 2000. “Predictive Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis in 8 Conservation Biology”. Nature 404: 385-387. 9

McCarthy, M.A., Possingham, H.P., Day, J. R., and Tyre, A.J. 2001. “Testing the 10 Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis”. Conservation Biology 15: 1030

. 11

Morris, W., Doak, D., Groom, M., Kare iva, P., and Fieberg, L. 1999. A Practical 12 Handbook for Population Viability Analysis . The Nature Conservancy. 13 http://www.training.fws.gov

. 14

Reed, J.M., Mills, L.S, Dunning, J.B., Menges, E.S., McKelvey, K.S., Frye, R., 15 Beissinger, S.R., Anstett, M- C., and Miller, P. 2002. “E merging Issues in Population 16 Viability Analysis”. Conservation Biology 16(1): 7-19. 17

Staples, D.F., Taper, M.L., and Dennis, B. 2004. “Estimating Population Trend and 18 Process Variation for PVA in the Presence of Sampling Error”. Ecology 85(4): 923-929. 19

20

21April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-48 NIS Invasion Prediction and Impact Analysis: 1

Cushing, J.M., Constantino, R.F., Dennis, B ., Desharnais, R.A., and Henson, S.M. 1998. 2 “Nonlinear Population Dynamics: M odels, Experiments and Data”. Journal of 3 Theoretical Biology 194: 1-9. 4

Dennis, B., Desharnais, R.A., Cushing, J.M ., and Constantino, R. F. 1995. “ Nonlinear 5 Demographic Dynamics: Mathematical Mode ls, Statistical Met hods, and Biological 6 Experiments”. Ecological Monographs 65(3): 261-281. 7

Drake, J.M., Lodge, D.M., and Lewis, M. 2005. “Theory and Preliminary Analysis of 8 Species Invasions from Ballast Water: Cont rolling Discharge Volume and Location”. 9 American Midland Naturalist 154: 459-470. 10

Gerber, L.R. and Hilborn, R. 2001. “ Catastrophic Events a nd Recovery from Low 11 Densities in Populations of Otariids: Implications fo r Risk of Extinction”. Mammal 12 Review 31(2): 131–150. 13

Hulme, P.E. 2003. “Biological Invasions: Winning the Science Battles but Losing the 14 Conservation War?” Oryx 37(2): 178-193. 15

Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. 2001. “Progress in Invasion Biology: Pr edicting Invaders”. 16 Trends in Ecology and Evolution . 16(4): 199-204. 17

Landis, W.G. 2004. “Ecological Risk Asse ssment: Conceptual Model Formulation for 18 Nonindigenous Species”. Risk Analysis 24(4): 847-858. 19

Lodge, D.M. 2003. “Predicting the Iden tity, Spread, and Impact of Future 20 Nonindigenous Species in th e Great Lakes”. Great Lake s Fishery Commission. 2003 21 Project Completion Report. 22

Ludwig, D. 1996. “Uncertain ty and the Assessment of Extinction Prob abilities”. 23 Ecological Applications 6(4): 1067-1076. 24

MacIsaac, H.J., Grigorovich, I.A., and Ri cciardi, A. 2002. “Reassessment of Species 25 Invasions Concepts: the Great Lakes Basin as a Model”. Biological Invasions 3: 405- 26 416. 27

MacIsaac, H.J., Robbins, T.C., and Lewis, M.A. “Modeling Ships’ Ballast Water as 28 Invasion Threats to the Great Lakes”. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 29 Sciences 59: 1245-1256. 30April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-49 Neubert, M.G., and Caswell, H. 2000. “D emography and Dispersal: Calculation and 1 Sensitivity Analysis of Invasion Speed for Structured Populations”. Ecology 81:1613– 2 1628. 3

Neubert, M.G., and Parker, I.M. 2004. “P rojecting Rates of Spread for Invasive 4 Species”. Risk Analysis 24(4): 817-831. 5

Stacey, P.B. and Taper, M.L. 19902. “Envir onmental Variation and the Persistence of 6 Small Populations”. Ecological Applications 2(1): 18-29. 7

8

9April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-50 Organisms in Ballast Water: 1

Bailey, S.A., Duggan, I.C., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Jenkins, P.T., and MacIsaac, H.J. 2003. 2 “Viability of Invertebrate Di apausing Eggs Collected from Residual Ballast Sediment”. 3 Limnology and Oceanography 48(4): 1701-1710. 4

Carlton, J.T. 1985. “Transoceanic and In teroceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine 5 Organisms: The Biology of Ballast Water”. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual 6 Review 23: 313–371. 7

Carlton, J.T., 1992. “Introduced Marine and Estuarine Mollusks of North America: An 8 End-of-the-20th-Century Perspective”. Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2): 489-505. 9

Carlton, J.T., Reid, D.M., and vanLeeuwen , H. 1995. “Shipping Study: The Role of 10 Shipping in the Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organism in the Coastal Waters 11 of the United States (other th an the Great Lakes) and an An alysis of Control Options”. 12 National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6, U.S. Coast 13 Guard Rept. No. CG-D-11-95, Contract/Gra nt No. DTCG-91-F-HMR337-1. April 1995 14 Final Rept. by Maritime Studies Program, Willia ms College, Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT, 15 to U.S. Coast Guard, Groton, CT, and U.S. Department of Trans portation, Washington, 16 D.C. 17

Carlton J.T. 1996. “Pattern, Process, a nd Prediction in Marine Invasion Ecology”. 18 Biological Conservation 78(1): 97-106. 19

Chu, K.H., Tam, P.F., Fung, C.H., and Chen, Q.C. 1997. “A Biological Survey of Ballast 20 Water in Container Ship s Entering Hong Kong”. Hydrobiologia 352: 201-206. 21

Dickman, M. and Zhang, F. 1999. “Mid-oce an Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 22 Water. 2: effects of vessel type in the transport of diatoms and dinoflagellates from 23 Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 253– 24 262 25

Drake, L.A., Choi, K.H., Ruiz, G.M., and D obbs, F.C. 2001. “Globa l Redistribution of 26 Bacterioplankton and Virioplankton Communities”. Biological Invasions 3(2): 193-199. 27

Hallegraeff, G.M. and Bolch, C.J. 1991. “T ransport of Toxic Di noflagellate Cysts Via 28 Ships' Ballast Water”. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22(1): 27–30. 29

Hallegraeff, G.M., Bolch, C.J., Bryan, J, a nd Koerbin, B. 1990. “Microalgal Spores in 30 Ship's Ballast Water: A Danger to Aquaculture.” pp. 475-480 in Toxic M arine 31 Phytoplankton , E. Granéli, B. Sundström, L. Endler and D. M. Anderson (eds.). Elsevier, 32 New York 33April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-51 Joachimsthal, E.L., Ivanov, V., Tay, J.H., and Tay, S.T. 2003. “Flow Cytometry and 1 Conventional Enumeration of Microorganisms in Ships' Ballast Water and Marine 2 Samples”. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46(3):308-13. 3

Kelly, J.M. 1993. “Ballast Water and Sedime nts as Mechanisms for Unwanted Species 4 Introductions into Washington State”. Journal of Shellfish Research . 12(2): 405-410. 5

McCarthy, H.P. and Crowder, L. 2000. “An Overlooked Scale of Global Transport: 6 Phytoplankton Richness in Ships’ Ballast Water”. Biological Invasions 2: 321-322. 7

McCarthy, S.A. and Khambaty, F.M. 1994. “International Dissemination of Epidemic 8 Vibrio cholerae by Cargo Ship Ballast and Other Nonpotable Waters”. Applied 9 Environmental Microbiology 60(7): 2597–2601. 10

Rigby G.R., Steverson I.G., Bolch C.J., and Hallegraeff G.M. 1993. “The Transfer and 11 Treatment of Shipping Ballast Waters to Reduce the Dispersal of Toxic Marine 12 Dinoflagellates”. Pp. 169-176 in: Toxic Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea , Smayda, T.J. 13 and Shimizu, Y. (eds.). Elsevi er Science Publishers, New York. 14

Rigby G.R. and Hallegraeff G.M. 1996. “Ballast Water Controls to Minimize the 15 Translocation and Establishment of Toxic Marine Phytoplankton – What Progress Have 16 We Made and Where Are We Going?” Pp. 201-204 in: Harmful and Toxic Algal 17 Blooms, Yasumoto, T., Oshima, Y., and Fukuyo, Y. (eds.). Intergovernmental 18 Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 19

Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., and 20 Colwell, R.R. 2000. “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships”. Nature 408(6808): 21 49-50. 22

Smith, L.D., Wonham, M.J., McCann, L.D., Re id, D.M., Carlton, J.T., and Ruiz, G.M. 23 1995. “Shipping Study II: Bi ological Invasions of Nonindi genous Species in United 24 States waters: Quantifying the Role of Ballast Water and Sediments Parts I and II”. U.S. 25 Coast Guard Rept. No. CG-D-02-97, Contract /Grant No. DTCG-91-F-HMR337-1. July 26 1996 Final Rept. by Maritime Studies Program, Williams College, Mystic Seaport, 27 Mystic, CT, and Smithsonian Environmental Re search Center, Edgewater, MD, to U.S. 28 Coast Guard, Groton, CT, and U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 29

Smith, L.D., Wonham, M.J., McCann, L.D., Ruiz , G.M., Hines, A.H., and Carlton, J.T. 30 1999. “Invasion Pressure to a Ballast-Floode d Estuary and an Assessment of Inoculant 31 Survival”. Biological Invasions 1: 67-87. 32

Subba Rao, D.V., Sprules, W .G., Locke, A., and Carlton, J.T. 1994. “Exotic 33 Phytoplankton From Ships' Ballast Waters: Risk of Potential Spread to Mariculture Sites 34April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-52 on Canada's East Coast”. Cana dian Data Report of Fisherie s and Aquatic Sciences 937, 1 51 pp. 2

Sutherland, T.F., Levings, C.D., Elliott, C.C ., and Hesse, W.W. 2001. “The Effect of a 3 Ballast Water Treatment System on the Survivor ship of Natural Populations of Marine”. 4 Marine Ecology Progress Series 210:139-148. 5

Williams, R.J., Griffiths, F.B., Van der Wa l, E.J., and Kelly, J. 1988. “Cargo vessel 6 ballast water as a vector for the transp ort of non-indigenous marine species”. Estuarine, 7 Coastal and Shelf Science 26: 409–420. 8

Wonham, M.J. and Carlton, J.T. 2005. “Trends in marine biologica l invasions at local 9 and regional scales: the Northeast Pacific Ocean as a model system”. Biological 10 Invasions 7: 369-392. 11

Yoshida, M., Fukuyo, Y., Murase, T., and Ikeg ami, T. 1996. “On-board Observations of 12 Phytoplankton Viability in Ships' Ballast Ta nks Under Critical Light and Temperature 13 Conditions”. Pp. 205–208 in Harmful and Toxic Algal Blooms , Yasumoto, T., Oshima, 14 Y., and Fukuyo, Y. (eds.). Intergovernment al Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 15

Zhang, F. and Dickman, M. 1999. “Mid-O cean Exchange of Container Vessel Ballast 16 Water. 1: seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and 17 dinoflagellates”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176: 243–251 18

19April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-53 Population Growth Rates and Variability: 1

Alpine, A. and Cloern, J. 1988. “Phytopl ankton Growth Rates in a Light-limited 2 Environment, San Francisco Bay”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 44: 167-173. 3

Cadee, G.C. and Hegeman, J. 2002. “Phytopl ankton in the Marsdiep at the End of the 4 20th Century; 30 Years Mon itoring Biomass, Primary Pr oduction, and Phaeocystis 5 Blooms”. Journal of Sea Research 48(2): 97-110. 6

Carlson, C.A., Ducklow, H.W. 1996. “Growth of Bacterioplankt on and Consumption of 7 Dissolved Organic Carbon in the Sargasso Sea”. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 10: 69-85. 8

Clark, R.A., Frid, C. L. J. and Batten, S. 2001. “A Critical Comparison of Two Long9 term Zooplankton Time Series from the Central-west North Sea”. Journal of Plankton 10 Research 23(1): 27-39. 11

DuRand, M.D., Olson, R.J., and Chishol m, S.W. 2001. “Phytoplankton Population 12 Dynamics at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-s eries station in the Sargasso Sea”. Deep-Sea 13 Research II (48): 1983-2003. 14

Edvarsen, A., Zhou, M., Tande, K.S., a nd Zhu, Y. 2002. “Zooplankton Population 15 Dynamics: Measuring in situ Growth and Mo rtality Rates Using an Optical Plankton 16 Counter”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 227: 205-219. 17

Gallego, A., Heath, M.R., Basford, D.J., a nd Mackenzie, B.R. 1999. “Variability in 18 Growth Rates of Larval Haddock in the Northern North Sea”. Fisheries Oceanography 19 8(2): 77-92. 20

Goericke, R, 1998. “Response of Phyt oplankton Community Structure and Taxon21 Specific Growth Rates to Seasonally Varying Physical Forcing in the Sargasso Sea off 22 Bermuda”. Limnology and Oceanography 43(5): 921-935. 23

Goericke, R. and Welschmeyer, N.A. 1998. “Response of Sargasso Sea Phytoplankton 24 Biomass, Growth Rates and Primary Pr oduction to Seasonally Varying Physical 25 Forcing”. Journal of Plankton Research 20: 2233-2249. 26

Hall, R.I. and Norman, D.Y. 1997. “Compa ring Annual Population Growth Estimates of 27 the Exotic Invader Bythotrephes Using Sediment and Plankton Records”. Limnology and 28 Oceanography 42(1): 112-120. 29

Hopcroft, R.R., Roff, J.C., Webber, M.K., and Witt, J.D.S. 1998. “Zooplankton Growth 30 Rates: The Influence of Size and Resour ces in Tropical Mari ne Copepodites”. Ma rine 31 Biology 132(1): 67-77. 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-54 Imai, K., Nojiri, Y., Tsurushi ma, N., and Saino, T. 2002. “Time Series of Seasonal 1 Variation of Primary Productiv ity at station KNOT (44°N, 155°E) in the sub-arctic 2 western North Pacific”. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 3 49(24): 5395-5408. 4

Kirchman, D., Ducklow, H., and Mitchell, R. 1982. “Estimates of Bacterial Growth from 5 Changes in Uptake Rates and Biomass”. Applied Environmental Microbiology 44: 1296- 6 1307. 7

Landry, M.R., Haas, L.W., and Fagerness, V. L. 1984. “Dynamics of Microbial Plankton 8 Communities: Experiments in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii”. Marine Ecology Progress Series 9 16: 127-133. 10

Liang, D. and Uye, S. 1996. “Population Dynamics and Production of the Planktonic 11 Copepods in a Eutrophic Inlet of the Inland Sea of Japan. II. Acartia omorii”. Marine 12 Biology (Historical Archiv e) 125(1):109-117. 13

Malone, T.C., Pike, S.E., and Conley, D.J. 1993. “Transient Variat ions in Phytoplankton 14 Productivity at the JGOFS Bermuda time series station”. Deep Sea Research (Part I, 15 Oceanographic Research Papers) 40(5): 903-924. 16

Marty, J.C. and Chiaverini , J. 2002. “Seasonal and In terannual Variations in 17 Phytoplankton Production at DYFAMED time-seri es station, northwe stern Mediterranean 18 Sea”. Deep Sea Research Part II: T opical Studies in Oceanography 49(11): 2017-2030. 19

Nelson, D.M., Brzezinski, M.A. 1997. “D iatom Growth and Productivity in an 20 Oligotrophic Midocean Gyre: a 3-yr record from the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda”. 21 Limnology and Oceanography 42: 473-486. 22

Ohman, M.D. and Hirche, H.J. 2001. “Den sity-Dependent Mortality in an Oceanic 23 Copepod Population”. Nature 412: 638-641. 24

Roman, M.R., Dam, H.G., Gauzens, A.L., and Napp, J.M. 1993. “Zooplankton Biomass 25 and Grazing at the JGOFS Sarga sso Sea time series station”. Deep Sea Research (Part I, 26 Oceanographic Research Papers) 40(5): 883-901. 27

Shiah, F.K. and Ducklow, H.W. 1995. “M ultiscale Variability in Bacterioplankton 28 Abundance, Production, and Speci fic Growth Rate in a Temperate Salt-Marsh Tidal 29 Creek”. Limnology and Oceanography 40(1): 55-66. 30

Tang, E.P.Y. 1995. “The Allom etry of Algal Growth Rates”. Journal of Plankton 31 Research 17(6): 1325-1335. 32April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

A-55 Worden, A.Z., Nolan, J.K., and Palenik, B. 2004. “Assessing the Dynamics and Ecology 1 of Marine Picophytoplankton: The Importa nce of the Eukaryotic Component”. 2 Limnology and Oceanography 49(1): 168-179. 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

B-1 

## APPENDIX B: FISH AND WILD LIFE 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 DesignatedApril 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 tanasiApril 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 mydasApril 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 alaiApril 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 DesignatedApril 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 magazinensisApril 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 decorataApril 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 taitianumApril 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 obliquataApril 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 Pocket book 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 perobliquaApril 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 lyoniiApril 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 aquatilisApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-1 

## APPENDIX C: NATIONAL M ARINE 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 DesignatedApril 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 Ca lifornia 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 cervicornisApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

C-3 MARINE MAMMALS / SEA TURTLES

Sea Lion, Steller East of 144 0 Long (Eastern US) Threatened Eumetopias jubatus Designated

Sea Lion, Steller West of 144 0 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 Br eeding Population Endangered Chelonia myda s

Turtle, green sea Florida Bree ding Populations Endangered Chelonia mydasApril 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 carettaApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

D-1 

## APPENDIX D: SAMPLE OF FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION LETTERApril 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 WisconsinApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-1 

## APPENDIX F: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

The following represents types of ballast wate r treatment technologies that may be used

by vessels to achieve the ballast water standard s: This information is not meant to be detailed or all-inclusive.



### SEPARATION PROCESSES

Filtration

Filtration is intended to physically remove orga nisms (via mesh strainers or media filter) from ballast water at their place of origin, l eaving ballast water that can either be treated further by other means or that no longer contai ns 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 disc harged from a ship. Studies have shown that based on the most practical filter size most zooplankt on and some phytoplankton and dinoflagellates can be removed, but not bact eria 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 ta pering helical path. This centrifugal force separates organisms and se diment from ballast water. However, conventional cyclonic separato rs are limited to separating so lids with a specific gravity significantly greater than water. Many types of organi sms (e.g., bacteria, pathogens, and most zooplankton and phytoplan kton) would therefore not be separated from the ballast water. In some instances cyclonic separato rs 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 my riad of marine organisms and viruses found in ballast water.



### BIOCIDES

Physical

Ultraviolet RadiationApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

F-2 Ultraviolet (UV) radiat ion is generated by an electric ar c struck through an inert carrier gas located within a sealed glass tube. H eat 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 speci al 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 trig gers photochemical reactions of cellular nucleic acids in microorganisms. When a mi croorganism 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 shor t-lived microorganisms (e.g., viruses, and bacteria), this means that a sufficiently dosed community of mi croorganisms would be killed during or soon after treatment. Studi es have shown UV has detrimental effects on certain zooplankton, phytoplankt on, bacteria, and viruses. (Northeast Midwest Institute and Glosten-Herbert an d 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 a pproaches have been proposed, from heating water in the ballast water ta nks to using sequential arrays of heat exchangers, to heat and then cool water exte rnal to the tanks duri ng 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 protei ns and/or increasing metabolism beyond sustainable levels. Death by metabolism shut down generally occurs quicker and at lower temperatures for more complex organisms. Thermal treatment effectiveness is a function of species’ tolerances, temper ature, rate of temperature change, and exposure period. Research has shown thermal treatment to be e ffective against, some invertebrate larvae, phytoplankton, dinoflagellate cysts and larger orga nisms 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 system s use transducers to convert electrical energy into vibratory energy of a specific amplit ude and frequency. When this energy is passed through ballast water, microscopic gas bubbles quickly form, expand, and implode. In the area immediately su rrounding the bubbles, th ere are extreme temperatures and pressures, which increase ch emical reactivity, polymer degradation, and free-radical production. Expos ure of aquatic microorganism to ultrasonic treatment results in cellular disruption a nd 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 ultrasoni c treatment are not likely to experience genetic mutation. Trad itional methods of u ltrasonic 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. NRCApril 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 ta nk or water intakes and pipe s. The energy from this treatment produces chemical reactions and inte nse 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. Th e biological and chemical e ffects of magnetic systems are not well understood, but it is t hought that the organic and in organic components of living organisms in the water are a ltered 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 lo w-frequency electromagnetic waves by water that was pumped through an extremely low fr equency electromagnetic wave generator. Results showed that the electromagnetic waves affected their ability to develop a shell, causing them to die within 40 days. Furtherm ore, 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 intr oducing an inert gas such as nitrogen or by binding the oxygen to a chemical additive (sulfur dioxide or sodium sulfite). Since most potential inva sive 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 anaerobi c bacteria, and cyst and spore stages, including dinoflagellates cysts. Therefore, it would provide only a partial solution to effectively killing all orga nisms in ballast water. An added benefit of deoxygenating ballast water with nitrogen is the reducti on 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 membra nes through oxidization. Oxidization is where a molecule that is elec tron 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 disi nfectant for ballast water. The most common chlorine chemicals that can be used for ba llast water treatment are compounds such as sodium hypochlorite (liquid) or liquified chlorine gas. Sodium hypochlorite generated by a hypochlorite generator or liquifi ed chlorine gas can be piped to the ballast tanks and be allowed to freely mix with the ballast water. As an oxidizing bioc ide it kills plankton, zooplankton, and other microorganism s 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 tr out 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 devi ce 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. Oxidizati on 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 z ooplankton, 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 interf ere with corrosion protection, and be reduced by iron if used for shipboard treatment.

Non-oxidizing Biocides

Non-oxidizing biocides include a large i nventory of compounds commonly used in industry (e.g., glutaraldehyde-bas ed chemicals) for treating th e growth of organisms in cooling tower water and other areas wher e large amounts of bi ological growth or sediment accumulation occur. Non-oxidizing bi ocides 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: SUMM ARY 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 issu e. We considered all public comments. Some commenters raised issues or points that have been incorporated into the DPEIS. All relevant comments are summarized belo w and grouped into spec ific 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 establis hed 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 acti on 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 c onsist of concentration-ba sed discharge standards specifying maximum discharge concentra tions for living organisms for vessels discharging ballast water in U.S. waters, with the level of living i ndividuals (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 in to 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 sp ecific 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 twoApril 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 enforcem ent; and the discharge of ballast water with organisms greater than 50 to 75 microns should be prohibited.

• Two commenters said the size distin ction 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 th at the concentrations for the BWDS under these alternatives should be ba sed 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 Gu ard apply risk-based or science-based information to the structure of these a lternatives and cross-link the BWDS with technology to determine what is achievable.

• Two commenters support a risk-based appr oach to define the BWDS, with one of those specifying its application to findi ng an acceptable organism concentration.

• One commenter did not support these alte rnatives because current ecological science lacks the predictive certainty requi red to identify what is the minimal size or number of organisms that can be safe ly discharged wit hout the threat of establishment.

• Another commenter stated that many na tive 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 sp ecies have a potential for introduction into new environments. It is hard to pr edict which species will take off, so an organism-blind approach will treat all organisms as bogeys.

• Two commenters stated that a precise de finition 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 environmen tal issues, specifically, by-products or treatment products.

The Coast Guard considered these comments when developing the DPEIS.

• Eight commenters recommended adopti ng 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 propa gule pressure, the number of species, and the abunda nce of organisms introduced.April 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-3 • One commenter stated that under some scen arios, 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 balla st water discharge standards.



### Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is a standard requiring discharge of no detectable organisms larger than 0.1 micron, and removal or inact ivation of all membrane-bound organisms (including bacteria), an d most viruses.

• One commenter noted that Alternative 1 propos es that water be treated until sterile. This approach may compromise the integrity of the BWM program due to its all-or-nothing approach. Domestic drin king water usually cont ains trace levels of toxic and noxious elements and substan ces, but water quality regulations define what concentrations are acceptable. Many native and non-native species may assume an invasive role if envir onmental 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 difficult y envisioning a program designed to “prevent” the introduction of NIS in U.S. waters ba sed on what is known about the many ways species may be introduced and the current limitations of treatment processes. The commenter suggested that “re ducing” the risk of introduction is a more feasible approach in implementing such a prog ram because various organizations are developing and assessing trea tment options, and have fa vored 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 zooplan kton, phytoplankton, and microbes.

• One commenter said that if nationwide cons istency is necessary or desirable, then the technology-based standard must be su fficiently 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 wate r should be treate d to drinking water standards; therefore, th ey 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 balla st 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 a pproach 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 sta ndard that looks at a risk assessment approach to find a risk-based acceptable organism concentration.

• Ten commenters stated that while the alternatives s uggested by the Coast Guard in the Notice of intent (68 FR 55559) ar e 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 c onsidered in a treatment pr ogram are the organisms and volume of water treated.

• Two commenters stated that a perspectiv e 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 st andard 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 whet her alternative treatment te chnologies are as effective as ballast water exchange, the Coast Gu ard should focus on setting effective; environmentally sound treatment standard s for ballast water discharge more generally.

• Fifteen commenters stated that the BWDS must use the best available technology that is economically feasible, and spec ifically 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 balla st 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 re sting cysts is fundamental to setting a scientifically defensible si ze-exclusion standard. Additionally, one of the commenters stated that dinoflagell ate 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 b acteria have been discovered. The commenter further stated that chemical treatments that kill bacteria are environmentally unfriendly, not practical for shippi ng, 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 addre ss whether it should be included in the standard instead of creating a standard independent of a vector that includes all organisms within a de termined 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. A llee effects occur in all sexually reproducing species, but this is not true of most micr oorganisms, cladocera, and oligochaetes.

• Three commenters noted that an alyses 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 bacter ia and their subsequent re lease into receiving ports.

• Eleven commenters stated that the scope of the DPEIS should include an emphasis on public health, water contamina tion, 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 s hould assess whether sp ecies that pose a high risk of future invasion should be de signated as a type of indicator species that needs greater attention than other sp ecies (e.g., a more stringent standard, a more specific test method, and/or incr eased 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 ofApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

G-6 indicator species, the DPEIS should consid er 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 indicat ors to measure the level of pollutants being discharged into the water. Yet, another commenter sa id that the discussion in Alternative 2 should addr ess indicator species for both salt and fresh water.

• Two other commenters stated that the DPEIS should incl ude 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 relations hip 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. Th ese species are ubiquitous and may be found in high concentrations in he avily impacted coastal waters.

• One commenter preferred that human pat hogen indicator species be eliminated since they are found ever ywhere 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 pr eventing 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 dr afting 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 drin king water from a regulatory perspective. Also, two commenters think a BWT standard is more readily enforceable, given the present state of technology. It woul d 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 sta ndard to level the playing field and elaborated that a strong Fe deral standard would preven t 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 he alth of their waterway s, states need to have the opportunity to pr ovide input into the proc ess 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 balla st 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 internationa l 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 balla st 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 entir e range of salinity encountered in U.S. waters, or, alternatively, whether separa te 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 co mmunities (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 exem pting species on a por t-by-port basis. Another commenter asked the Coast Gu ard 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 balla st 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 a ppropriate 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 Gr eat 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 environmen tal and socioeconomic effects. Three commenters said that the DPEIS should evaluate the possi bility of requiring ocean-going vessels bound for the Great Lake s 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 balla st water discharge standards.

Comments on Exemptions— No Ballast Onboard (NOBOB) Vessels

• Two commenters explained that NOBOB ve ssels 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 sta ndards 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 - th e 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 balla st water discharge standards.

Development Schedule [Adaptive Standard]

• One commenter wanted to expedite the DP EIS 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 qui ckly 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 dr afting any subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on ballast water discharge standards.

Biological Environment

• Two commenters stated that any BWDS mu st be based on biological effectiveness.

• One commenter said that the Coast Gu ard should focus on aquatic invasive species and their threat in order to find practical me thodologies 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 environmen tal 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 ri sk, 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 organi c species, such as planktonic species, bacteria, viruses, and all aquatic specie s of plants, animals, and invertebrates.

• One commenter thought that consideration of life stage information should be included in the evaluation a nd development of the BWDS.

• Two commenters said that regardless of the approach used to select a BWDS, it must accord with thr ee criteria: (1) the approach mu st be based on current theory in invasion biology, which i ndicates that spatial spread and/or nonlinearities in population dynamics create thresholds in th e probability of establishment; (2) the approach will account for differences am ong species; and (3) the approach must apply to a range of species.

• One commenter brought up the long-t erm effect of dead bio-matter accumulations. Another commenter wanted the Coast Guard to consider the effect of any introductions of contaminants and contam inant processing within the ecosystem.

• Two commenters expressed c oncern 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 clos ed aquatic systems and their boundaries should be very carefully defined.

• Two commenters recommended using a com puter 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 dr afting 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 imp act 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 ecot ourism, and four commenter s 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 Di scharged in the U.S. water rule (USCG 2008).

Under Executive Order 12866, th e United States Coast Guard (USCG) is required to conduct an analysis of the costs, benefits, a nd other impacts for a si gnificant rulemaking. We expect this rulemaking to be economi cally significant (i.e., the rulemaking would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more).

This preliminary Regulatory Analysis (R A) provides supporting documentation for the regulatory evaluation in the pr eamble 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 at tempt to replicate precisely the regulatory language of the proposed rule in this RA. The regulator y text, not the text of this RA, would be legally binding.

The unintentional introduction of nonindigenous species (NIS ) into the wa ters of the United States via the discharge of vessels’ ball ast water continues to pose a serious risk to coastal facilities and global biodiversity. Cu rrent U.S. regulations require ballast water discharge (BWD) to reduce introductions of NIS. Currently, the primary method for controlling ballast water discharg ed 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 ma ny vessels conduct ball ast water exchange because of safety issues a nd/or voyage constraints.

The U.S. is proposing a rule to establish a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) for the allowable concentrations of living organi sms discharged via ballast water into U.S. waters. While it has been adopt ed by the International Mari time 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 ev entually be ratified . This rulemaking is consistent with the IMO proposed BWDS under the Internationa l Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments (also known as Ballast Water Management (BWM) Conve ntion) of February 2004.

This document provides a summ ary of the evaluation of the economic impacts associated with the implementation of standards limiti ng 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 bene fits of implementing the proposed IMO standard ( Alternative 2 ). We considered the following five alte rnative 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 establ ish a BWDS but would continue the existing BWM program. Currently, the mandatory BWM program, established in 2004, directs vessels to conduct mid-ocean exchange, re tain 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 maximu m discharge concentrations for viable organisms. Each of these alternatives is stat ed in terms of two or ganism size classes and the number of viable organisms per volume disc harged 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 alternativ e and analyzed in depth in this RA.

Table H-1 shows the concentrations of or ganisms allowed under each alternative.

Table H-1 Allowable concentration of organism s 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 m 3 <10 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <250 cfu per 100 ml <100 cfu per 100 ml Alternative 3 <1 per m 3 <1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 100 ml <33 cfu per 100 ml Alternative 4 <0.1 per m 3 <0.1 per ml <1 cfu per 100 ml <126 cfu per 100 ml <33 cfu per 100 ml

Alternative 5: Essentially SterilizationApril 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. waters 1 equipped with ballast tanks, including vessels bound fo r offshore ports or places. Th ese vessels are required to install and operate USCG approved ballast water management systems (BWMS) before discharging ballast water into U.S. wate rs. Additionally, whethe r or not the vessel traveled 200 nautical miles offshore is not a factor in determining applicability. This means that some vessels that opera ted exclusively in the coastwise trade (within the EEZ), and were previously exempt from havi ng to perform BWE, w ould now be required to meet the BWDS.

The primary source of data used in this analys is 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 characteristic s, arrivals, casualties, and inspections. The NBIC database is maintained by the Smiths onian 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 ve ssels 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 BW DS. 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

Hand y <50
, 000 DWT 22 1
, 050 1
, 072

Panamax 50
, 000-80
, 000 DWT 11 509 520

Ca p esize >80

, 000 DWT 6 46 52 Tank Ships

Hand y <35
, 000 DWT 6 116 122

Hand y max-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

Feede r <500 TEU 27 39 66

Feedermax 500-1000 TEU 10 51 61

Hand y 1000-2000 TEU 10 126 136

Sub p anamax 2000-3000 TEU 38 172 210

Panamax >3000 TEU b 29 174 203

Post p anamax >3000 TEU c 21 272 293

Other vessels

Passen g er shi p All sizes 166 129 295

Gas carrie r All sizes 6 118 124

Chemical carrie r All sizes 23 513 536

RORO All sizes 66 321 387

Combination vessel All sizes 170 22 192

General car g o All sizes 1

, 166 258 1
, 424

Fishin g 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. Fo r the purposes of this RA, we consider the bottom-line costs of this rulemaking to i nvolve U.S. vessels only. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the development of treatmen t technology will involve the world fleet, not only the U.S. fleet alone. Also, for the pur pose of this rulemaking, we do consider all vessels operating in U.S. waters when devel oping the average per ve ssel installation and operating unit costs since the U.S. fleet is re latively small and not representative of all vessel types.

Costs of Alternative Ballast Water Discharge Standards

The IMO BWM Convention has spurred deve lopment of alternat ive ballast water management systems (BWMS) that will enab le vessels to meet the IMO discharge standard (Alternative 2). Various technologies are being evalua ted 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. Th e increased operational costs relate, in part, to the use of chemicals or ot her agents in the BWMS and are also due to the treatment of certain discharges not requir ed under current regulations. Cost estimates contain a degree of uncertainty because th ese emerging technologies are in their formative stages. The BWMS on ships is a new process for which there is minimal operating practical experience. Any disc ussion of the treatment technologies, effectiveness, costs, and opera ting issues is provisional.

Approximately 4,758 BWMS installations for the U.S. vessels w ould 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 ac cording to the phasein schedule proposed by the ru le (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 ope rational 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 tota l cost of the BWMS during the installation period will increase substantially due to th e 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 wi th IMO Convention (Alternative 2) BWD Standard ($Mil)

Year Installation Costs Treated Ballast Water

( m 3 ) 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 m illion 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 approximatel y $1.18 billion using the 7 percent discount rate and $1.35 billion using the 3 percent discount rate. Ou r 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) ar e more speculative. Ca pital 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 sterilizati on) is through the elimination of ba llast water discharge. For some vessel types, such as large cont ainerships 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 signifi cant reduction in cargo carrying cap acity - up to 35 percent of the payload.

We compared the costs of implementing A lternative 2 for BWDS (the alternative proposed in the NPRM) to shipping revenue s and consumer retail prices for goodsApril 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 th an 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 cost s 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, cont ribute to the loss of marine biodiversity and have associat ed 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 NI S range in the billions of dollars annually. Evaluation of these impacts was difficult be cause 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 ar e the two main vectors by which NIS are introduced into the marine environment asso ciated with shipping. The proposed BWDS will not address hull fouling. The relative imp act 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 qua ntify 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 wa ter. However, evaluation of costs associated with previous invasions (described above) al lows a comparison of the cost of discharge standards versus the potential costs avoided. Because th e amount of shipping traffic andApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

H-8 the number of incidents of inva sions per year are both increasi ng, historical data provide a lower bound for the basis of benefit evaluation.

We evaluated the functional be nefits prior to comparing m onetary 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 tr avel to acceptable mid-ocean exchange location).

This overall strategy should reduce the numbe r of new invasions because the likelihood of establishment decreases with reduced num bers 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 ba sed on the historical re lationships of fish and plant invasions compared to invertebrate invasions. We then adjust the projected invasions to account for the frac tion of invasions that are attr ibutable to ba llast water and the fraction of invasions that cause severe economic damage . The resulting projection of the number of ballast water invasions that wi ll cause harm is displayed in Table H-5.

Table H-5 Estimated Numb er of Ballast Water Inva sions 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 th at may be caused by these invasions, we assign a cost per invasion based on the limite d available data on th e 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 hi gh 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 su mmarized in Table H-6.

Table H-6: Range of Annual Co sts 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 c ontrol 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 invasi on. 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 harmfu l ballast water-introduced i nvasions over the 10 year period of 2012 to 2021 at $2.016 billion at a 7 percen t 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 Imp act Statement (USCG 2008) estimates the reduction in the mean rate of successful introduc tions of various altern ative standards. In comparison with the existing practice of ballast water exchange, Alternative 2 is between 37 percent and 63 percent effective in preventi ng 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 st ages of implementati on. For these reasons we conservatively assume that no invasions will be avoided be fore the end of this period (2012-2016), which may lead to an u nderestimate of potential benefits.

The resulting damages avoided for Alternat ive 2 range from a minimum of $6 million and the maximum is $553 million with a mi d-range estimate of $165-$282 million per year at a 7 percent discount rate 2 (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 indi vidual 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 litera ture 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 Co st), 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-poi nt 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

High Mid Low

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Benefits Alt 2 Low Effectiveness

Benefits Alt 2 High Effectiveness A verage Annualized Costs

The cumulative economic damages avoided would equal cumulative costs incurred by 2019 for Alternative 2 assuming a higher reduct ion rate of 63 percent and in 2021 for Alternative 2 assuming a low reduction in in vasion 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 CostsApril 2008 USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standards Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact StatementH-1APPENDIX I: TIMELINE OF BALLASTWATER REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES1990Ballast Water TerminologyBallast water management (BWM) and ballast water exchange (BWE)are terms used as part of the USCG-established program of mandatoryrequirements (established 1993 and1994) andvoluntary guidelines (established 2001). The USCG established acceptable BWM methods, including BWE, holding water onboard, discharging ballast water at an approved reception facility, or usingan 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.Ballast water treatment (BWT)is discussed in the May 1, 2001, Notice of Request for PublicComments which published four conceptual approaches to BWT standards and on approaches forassessing the effectiveness of BWT relative to BWE.Ballast water discharge (BWD)standard emerges in the September 26, 2003, Notice of Intentthat states that, “Although the initial Federal Register publications were phrased in terms of BWTstandards, the critical issue has always been the quality of the ballast water actually discharged from the vessels. Therefore,beginning with this notice the emphasis will be on requirements related toballast water discharges” [68 FR 55560]. Thus the termBWDSemerged.2001 [May 1] Approaches toSetting BallastWater TreatmentStandards,Notice of Request forPublic Comments:Published fourconceptual approaches to ballastwater treatment (BWT) standardsand on approaches for assessing theeffectiveness of BWT relative toBWE.2003 [September 26], Standards forLiving Organisms in Ship’s BallastWater Discharged in U.S. Waters,Notice of Intent:Although previousregulation publications were phrased interms of BWT standards, this noticebegan to emphasize requirementsrelated to ballast water discharge(BWD); this change in wordingfocused on the critical issue of thequality of the ballast water actuallydischarged from the vessels. Thus thetermBWDSemerged.1993 [April 8] BallastWater Management forVessels Entering theGreat Lakes:Establishedmandatory ballast watermanagement (BWM)procedures for vesselsenteringthe Great Lakes.2004 [July 28] Mandatory BallastWater Management for U.S.Waters, Final Rule:Establishedmandatory BWM. Vesselsoperating outside the U.S. EEZmust conduct an approved BWMpractice. Vessels must develop andmaintain a BWM plan. BWM plansand practices should work tominimize the movement of NIS.1996 [October 26]National InvasiveSpecies Act:Congressreauthorized andamended direction toUSCG to prevent theintroduction of NIS viaballast water.1990 [November 29]Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Preventionand Control Act:Congress directed USCGto prevent the introductionof nonindigenous species(NIS) via ballast waterprior to ships entering theGreat Lakes.2002 [March 4] Standards for Living Organisms inShip’s BallastWater Discharged in U.S. Waters,Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Requestfor Comments:Published the development of a BWTstandard and requested publiccomments to help define aBWT goal and standard. USCG asked commenters to helpdetermine alternativeBWM methods that areenvironmentally sound and as effective as open ocean BWEin preventing and controllingnonindigenous aquaticspecies.2004 [June 14] Penalties forNonsubmission of BallastWater Management Reports,Final Rule:Establishedpenalty provisions andwidened reporting andrecordkeeping provisions forvessels.1994 [December 30]Ballast WaterManagement forVessels Entering theHudson River:Established mandatoryBWM procedures forvessels entering theHudson River.2001[November 21]Implementation of the NationalInvasive Species Act of 1996,Final Rule (voluntary) Title 33CFR Part 151:USCG finalizedthe interim rule of 1999establishing a program ofmandatory reportingrequirements and voluntarymanagementguidelines.1999 [November 17] Implementation of theNational Invasive Species Act of 1996,Interim Rule, Title 33 CFR Part 151:USCGestablished a program of mandatory reportingrequirements and voluntary managementguidelines. USCG established acceptableBWM methods, including ballast waterexchange (BWE), holding water onboard,discharging ballast water at an approvedreception facility, or using an alternativeUSCG-approved BWM method. BWM ismandated for vessels entering the Great Lakesand the Hudson River but is voluntary for therest of U.S. waters.2005 [August 31] Ballast WaterManagement for Vessels Enteringthe Great Lakes That Declare NoBallast Onboard (NOBOB), Noticeof PolicyEstablished bestmanagement practices for NOBOBvessels. The policy recommendsthat, prior to entering the EEZ,NOBOB vessels conduct mid-oceanBWE during ballast-laden voyages,200 nautical miles from shore and inwater 2000 meters deep wheneverpossible. If unable to conduct midocean BWE, the USCG recommendsthat vessels conduct saltwaterflushing of their empty ballast watertanks in an area of 200 nauticalmiles from any shore, wheneverpossible.Current